When will you stop complaining and trying to dictate the protocal for everyone else posting?
Private 1: Now that Sarge is dead we will have to split up his duties, I’ll tell you what to do and you tell me what a dumb idea that is.
Private 2: That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Private 1: See how good it is working already!
- Red vs Blue. (from memory)

I am not "mostly satisfied" with the split. I'm completely satisfied with it, though.

Best thing to happen to BF since Foo.

Other potential new forums, where we can segregate unpopular or controversial discussions.

Helmets
Sidewalk Cycling
Running Stoplights


:rolleyes:

Well I'm just an outsider looking in here so I don't want to frumple any feathers, but until 48 hours ago, I had never heard the term VC! I am of a French speaking background, that could account for it, but I've lived in Anglo communities for the past 10 yrs so... Anyway, I find I have finally found similar ways of thinking to my own. And it's no surprise I find this among Americans instead of Canadians. A majority of Canadians are very much content with having government over regulate everything and draw neat little lines on pavement to make them feel more secure. As a majority of Canadians are sooooo above reproach as to have no desire to protect privacy, and you'll often hear: "I have nothing to hide". So myself I feel (as an outsider) that it was wrong to relegate VC to a separate entity as I feel that VC is an integral part of A&S in N.America. As far as I can tell BLs advocacy success is just as deadly to VC as combo private/public school and health care services are to universality of these services. 40 yrs ago, helmets were for "fruities", through the years, government has taken over and reduced freedom and liberty, increased costs and red tape, and all backed by the the flimsiest of evidence. In many cities in Canada, the same is happening to BLs, it is more and more common to confine cyclists to those lanes and one very often can reads signs such as:

"cyclists must dismount to cross" on regular streets, or, at large intersections
"cyclists must dismount and use crosswalk".

Many BLs across Canada are mandatory, and a majority of them are two way, so as the inside cycle lane is going face to face against motor traffic. Basically, in Canada, the rights, no let me correct that, the FREEDOMS of cyclists are being encroached upon day by day, until soon, cyclists will be relegated to recreational parks, just as here VCers have been relegated to the sideline. It's all the same mentality really. To me, VC is an expression of freedom and equality of rights, BLs are an expression of entrapment and segregation, and they CANNOT coexist peacefully or successfully. The other problem with BLs is they are like weeds, they start spreading and once that's started it's out of control. The difference between Euopeans and N.Americans is that they value their freedoms more than we do. Maybe because they have more history to rely upon?

BL advocacy bases it's ideology on the Netherlands, it needs to be understand that N.America should NEVER try to be like the Netherlands. We are very different. I wonder if the vote percentage as it is now, very much in favor of segregation, also reflects cyclists desire for BLs? If it is this is the case across the US, then I guess the whole issue of VC is moot. We have lost, and all cyclists have lost... very sad indeed.

So myself I feel (as an outsider) that it was wrong to relegate VC to a separate entity as I feel that VC is an integral part of A&S in N.America.

It is, which is why it's an A&S subforum. The problem was that certain members turned every A&S thread into a VC debate, and it went downhill from there. So now, we can have A&S discussions without VC, wihch means much less bickering.

In many cities in Canada, the same is happening to BLs, it is more and more common to confine cyclists to those lanes

Can you please tell me what cities in Canada have enacted mandatory bike-lane by-laws in recent years?

and one very often can reads signs such as:

"cyclists must dismount to cross" on regular streets, or, at large intersections
"cyclists must dismount and use crosswalk".

Under most or all provincial traffic codes, a bike is a vehicle. It is illegal to operate a vehicle across a crosswalk. The signs you mention are sometimes used where pathways cross roads at crosswalks to promote legal behavior. If you know of a location where such a sign exists for a bike lane (not pathway), please tell me where.

Many BLs across Canada are mandatory, and a majority of them are two way, so as the inside cycle lane is going face to face against motor traffic. Basically, in Canada, the rights, no let me correct that, the FREEDOMS of cyclists are being encroached upon day by day, until soon,

You think a majority of bike lanes are two-way? Really? Can you back that up with data? I think Quebec is the only province with a mandatory bike-lane law (April-November only IIRC). To be blunt, I think you're full of it.

When will you stop complaining and trying to dictate the protocal for everyone else posting?

I'm not following you here. Are you saying I should post your OPs for you?

To be blunt, I think you're full of it.

Yes dear, well that's a common line from Ontarions, sadly I must now place you on my ignore list as obviously people like you are unable to handle being civilized in arguments. I must say I'm impressed I've never had to take this action so young in a forum. Proves my point about folks like you though and I guess it shows why decent folks in the forum chose to segregate VC, ... goodbye from Florida

Yes dear, well that's a common line from Ontarions, sadly I must now place you on my ignore list as obviously people like you are unable to handle being civilized in arguments. I must say I'm impressed I've never had to take this action so young in a forum. Proves my point about folks like you though and I guess it shows why decent folks in the forum chose to segregate VC, ... goodbye from Florida

You really are full of "it", as well as yourself, ain't ya, Jack? Brand new and already assuming you are one of the "decent folks" and demanding that your WAG's and exaggerations be accepted as truths by one and all. And boasting about ignoring folks (AKA "people like you") who are so indecent as to be skeptical of your obvious B.S.

Add me to your growing list.

I had to look and see if this thread was in the VC subforum already...

I had to look and see if this thread was in the VC subforum already...

You bet. And please post a hardy welcome to the new VCist anti bike lane know-it-all!

BL advocacy bases it's ideology on the Netherlands, it needs to be understand that N.America should NEVER try to be like the Netherlands. We are very different. I wonder if the vote percentage as it is now, very much in favor of segregation, also reflects cyclists desire for BLs? If it is this is the case across the US, then I guess the whole issue of VC is moot. We have lost, and all cyclists have lost... very sad indeed.

man, you ARE full of "it". ignore me, too.

tallard- he sounds like a HH masquerade! (always quick to use the 'ignore'...)

You bet. And please post a hardy welcome to the new VCist anti bike lane know-it-all!
So how many VC purist do we have now 4-5? Man the numbers are just growing but seriously somebody had to fill the vacuum that HH left.

I think 5 if you count forester.

Yes dear, well that's a common line from Ontarions, sadly I must now place you on my ignore list as obviously people like you are unable to handle being civilized in arguments. I must say I'm impressed I've never had to take this action so young in a forum. Proves my point about folks like you though and I guess it shows why decent folks in the forum chose to segregate VC, ... goodbye from Florida

I guess that must be easier than backing-up incorrect statements.

I think they split VC off because it tends to dominate all other discussions in Advocacy and Safety.

Probably a good thing, from both sides of the discussion.

Where did HH go?

Where did HH go?

A secret undisclosed location.

But fear not, he is still at the same old routine - issuing anti bike lane communiques on another (Non BF) list where today he is busy chastising the executive director of the League of American Bicyclists for not believing in the bicyclist inferiority complex and the evil influence of bike lanes.

Where did HH go?
I suspect he went to his Evil Lair to plot a Motorist Takeover.

A secret undisclosed location.

But fear not, he is still at the same old routine - issuing anti bike lane communiques on another (Non BF) list where today he is busy chastising the executive director of the League of American Bicyclists for not believing in the bicyclist inferiority complex and the evil influence of bike lanes.
How to win friends and influence important people; first call them psychotic and superstitious, yup, that ought to work. And the only way to prove you are not superstitious is to prove you are superstitious about the evil “influence” of a white stripe, that is after all logical reasoning.

Poor Andy.

I think 5 if you count forester.
We may be back down to 4 if HH has left for new feeding grounds.

Where did HH go?
Who cares as long as he's gone. :D

A secret undisclosed location.
Let me guess-- a remote camp high in the Himalayan Mountains of Nepal.


But fear not, he is still at the same old routine - issuing anti bike lane communiques on another (Non BF) list where today he is busy chastising the executive director of the League of American Bicyclists for not believing in the bicyclist inferiority complex and the evil influence of bike lanes.Well, as long as HH is promoting some crackpot theory with no scientific basis, then all is right with the world.

John Forester's 'proof' of 'The Existence of the Cyclist-Inferiority Phobia' should be required reading for all who think Forester has a clue.

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/cycinf.htm

What a hoot!

Several people I've given that link to (including some non-cyclists with some knowledge of psychology) have told me they've gotten a good laugh out of it.

Then I give them the link JF's description of his infamous self test. :D That's truly one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Yea, JF's and HH's theories should be taken seriously.

ROTFLMAO

So we won't be entertained by HH anymore. Just berated and curmudgeoned to death by John Forester. Yippee. In one way the VC/A&S split worked and in another way it didn't.

Anyone who thinks VC is no longer in discussed or promoted in A&S hasn't been reading A&S. The difference is that every thread no longer degenerates into the same-old sniping as in the past. If you want an example of the sniping, look at this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=321796) on kids riding to school. Or take a look at page two or three of many of the subforum threads, and notice how many include nearly identical posts, regardless of the initial thread topic.

As Brian said (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4055412&postcount=77) in the thread announcing the subforum, VC discussion is allowed in the main A&S section as long as it stays civil:
If the mods want to move every such discussion to the VC forum, that's fine with me, but I suspect they will only do that if a thread degenerates into a standard set of bickering. Maybe the threat of having a thread moved will keep both sides more civil. If that happens, then the VC subforum will be serving a good purpose.That's pretty much it. I was accused of calling all VC threads rubbish earlier. You can have a VC discussion in the VC forum, but if a regular A&S thread turns into a completely off-topic VC debate, that's where it's going. . . .

To my fellow VC'ers, don't argue with the mods about this section. But feel free to discuss VC ideas in the main A&S (for example questioning the value of a striped lane or an MUP or suggest that a cyclist use the full lane). Just don't take the anti-VC bait and let the discussions degenerate into the same arguments and name calling that we have all read 1000 times. If an A&S conversation starts to go that way, start a thread here in the VC section, link to it from the A&S thread, and move the conversation here.

As to HH, he appears to be taking a vacation to watch and discuss the TdF.

Edited several times for content before anyone posted a response.

Well like I said, the term VC was entirely new to me until I found this forum, it just happens to apparently reflect the way myself and many of my cycling friends through the years have behaved on our 2 wheels.

So who are these 5 hardcore VCers as you say other than myself I guess? And whereabouts do they live? And why do so many of you harbor so much rage against them? It's mind boggling to see so many adults vent so much anger and personal grudges instead of actually discussing the subject at hand.

I had to look and see if this thread was in the VC subforum already...

Well I certainly see the point you were making earlier to me, there's obviously been a lot of anger around here :fight:
Frankly that's not really my style, I prefer debating over bickering any day.

So we won't be entertained by HH anymore. Just berated and curmudgeoned to death by John Forester. Yippee. In one way the VC/A&S split worked and in another way it didn't.
You are saying the "split will work" if it eliminates those who disagree with you from any further discussion. Not exactly the spirit of open debate.

I see the split as a means of isolating a never-ending argument so that other discussions can continue uninterrupted.

I prefer your writings when they are of this sort:

http://dianesoini.com/?p=237

I am also a bird lover (and yes, she is demanding!)

I see the split as a means of isolating a never-ending argument so that other discussions can continue uninterrupted.

Exactly. You've summed that up quite nicely.

You are saying the "split will work" if it eliminates those who disagree with you from any further discussion. Not exactly the spirit of open debate.

I see the split as a means of isolating a never-ending argument so that other discussions can continue uninterrupted.

That's what I mean as well. HH couldn't contain himself, but he was more entertaining. Now all we are left with is the old curmudgeon. The split drove HH away and all we are left with is the second string.

As I pointed out here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4901320&postcount=75), HH seems to be taking some time off from arguing VC to enjoy the watching and arguing about the TdF. Others (on both sides) might be wise to do the same thing.

I guess I'd recommend you start some threads that redirect the discussion in the direction you desire. When I start a thread in this forum, I view it as a thread that is to be discussed within the paradigm of vehicular cycling. But the topic is of my own that I want to discuss. If there are aspects of vehicular cycling that you wish to discuss, please, by all means, provide an OP for us. You can even specify that bike lanes are not involved. Or you can specify that we start the discussion from the point of view that bike lanes are not to be considered.

So, please, start some threads for us.

FWIW, the problem with the VC advocates were that the discussion always gravitated towards VC advocacy even when the OP didn't wish it. It was about respecting the OP's that people started, and it was about a group of people who wished to discuss and debate aspects of VC and a separate group of people who wanted to discuss more general advocacy and safety topics. The split was good and has, for the large part, has worked as designed, IMHO.

It makes more sense if you see that there are differences of opinions between vehicular cyclists between all sorts of topics, bike lanes included. I do not see anti-bike lane advocacy as a limus test for being a bonified vehicular cyclist. I don't see why this forum should assume this either.

I forgot to respond to this post until so forgive my lateness. My complaint was not about a thread with the words "bike lane" in it being in the subforum. You continue to believe that bike lanes as they exist today are generally vehicular (whereas I believe that it's quite rare that a bike lane is vehicular) so to you, it's a VC thread and that's fine. My complaint is about intentionally inflammatory threads or "junk" threads that some have posted in this subforum. Maybe it's just that this subforum is in it's infant stages and everyone still needs to let out all of their pent up frustration from before the great divide.

^^^
Just don't respond and post threads of your own, and the thread will sink quickly, if it is, in fact, a "junk" thread. If it garners responses and doesn't sink, then I think, by definition, it is not a junk thread. It might be inflammatory, but then again, most threads posted here are, it's just a question of who it inflames.

I'm just trying to say: stop being so judgemental about what people want to talk about and what opinions they espouse. If the conversation isn't going the way you want, if there are too many threads about bike lanes for your taste, then just start a new thread on a topic of your own choosing. I know, it is hard to remain non-judgemental about people who are retorically attacking your ideas. But remember that while they are attacking your ideas (and yes, sometimes your character) you are also attacking theirs (and yes, sometimes their characters). On an open forum like this, what goes around, comes around, and sometimes in a double dose.

Just treat this forum like a horror movie. Yes, some of the opinions are off the wall, and sometimes people cling to ideas which are wrong (in your opinion, of course) like pit bulls. But ultimately, just like in the most scary part of the horror film when you just have to remind yourself that you are safe in a chair in a movie theatre, you have to remind yourself here that this forum is for the free exchange of ideas only and is not representative of the real world. Take what can be taken from this forum; puruse the variety of opinion here like at a used bookstore, take what you judge to be good and leave the bad.

And, FWIW, don't treat the "great divide" as some sort of moral indicator of anything. It was done purely for practical reasons, as there were a handful of us who got into some pretty involved arguments which left others out, and because of the volume of our debate, other, less focused threads got completely washed out. Think of it from the point of view of a person who is interested in discussing, say, the general process of communicating an idea to the government. At post 13, one of us would say something that would ignite the "VC debate" or the "bike lane debate" and 50 pages later, the thread is miles from where the OP started, the originator of the thread has long abandoned it, hasn't gotten much of an answer for his question and hasn't recieved much from the resulting conversation. That is what was happening before. I actually talked face to face with one of the moderators, and it was getting so bad that they were considering shutting A&S down completely, either temporarily or for good, or even moving it into the P&R section of the forums.

If you look at the main A&S section, and also the VC subforum, you can see that they have taken on distinct characters. The basic arguments which were consuming the old, pre-split, A&S forum are still on-going in the sub-forum, which attracts people like you and me, but another culture, one which was previously drowned by the "great debators" has resurfaced in the main A&S forum. I don't see the title of the forum as a big deal. It's called the Vehicular Cycling sub-forum, but it really is a forum for those who like to debate the topics surrounding vehicular cycling. Those who wish to talk about everything else talk in the A&S main forum. You can see that while our threads tend to be 10's to 100's of pages long, the threads in the main A&S forum tend to be in the 5-10 page area. Right there you can see that the A&S forum and the VC sub-forum have taken on different characters.

So, in summary: if you see a "junk" thread or a trolling thread, just ignore it. Flamers can only talk amongst themselves for so long before they give up the troll; and if the thread outlives the first page of posts, then perhaps, just perhaps, it was ligit after all. And if you cannot bring yourself to ignore an intentional troll, then I can't take sympathy on you.

And finally, you will not get past a difference of opinions on bike forums. There are too many differences in opinions, and the moderators are not charged here, as they are on chainguard, with enforcing an initial point of view. And there is no "winning" here. Just endless chatter. If you feel you have to post to "hold your ground" so to speak, I suggest you reevaluate that urge. Just post what you want to say, respond to what you want to respond to, and that's all that anyone can expect.

Whoa, you'd think that I've been spouting off about this for a while now, when all I did was second someone else's opinion. Do you see me ranting and raving in the non-VC related threads in the subforum? I may have posted once or twice (honestly can't remember if I did or not) that a thread might be better off in the A&S forum but you seem to be making my comment out to be a lot worse than it really was. My "great divide" comment was me being sarcastic. I should have tagged it as such.

Looking back at CB HI's complaint, there may be less of a common ground between us than I originally thought which might have lead to some of the confusion between you and I in these posts. :o

If you're done, I'm done :)