Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.
View Poll Results: Are you a VC advocate? (see OP for definitions, select ALL that apply)
Yes, I'm a VC advocate.
46.67%
Yes, I advocate BVC, but not AVC.
6.67%
Yes, I advocate AVC; BVC is not enough.
36.67%
Yes, I advocate Strict VC.
3.33%
No, I don't advocate VC of any kind.
10.00%
Other (please answer in a post)
20.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Are you a VC advocate?

Old 03-28-07, 07:12 PM
  #51  
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,190

Bikes: Old Giant Rincon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
Over the last couple of days I have actually found myself able to start understanding Helmet Head, and the funny thing is, when I look back at things that he and I have disagreed over in the past, I can see myself and him actually arguing the same side, only in different ways. It's all in the wording I guess. But last night I finally truely understood why he dislikes the idea of people preferring a shoulder/bikelane. Do I agree with him? Well, in some circumstance yes.
Oddly, once I got over all of the "oh great, what turd is he going to polish today" idea, he started making some good points... it's just the package he wraps it up in that I find confusing and alarming.
lol, I couldn't agree more about HH. Every post he participates in seems to break down into an argument about the argument itself instead of the original point, and then he tells everyone else that they have a comprehension problem . Not intended as an insult to you HH. It is merely an observation that you must have made yourself by now.

I have yet to decide if he is pulling all our legs and if so what side he is even on?

**EDIT: Honestly, I have considered in the past that HH is actually a really clever pro-facilities advocate posting here to encite hatred towards Forester, VC and it's anti-facilities political movement.

Last edited by deputyjones; 03-28-07 at 07:34 PM.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 08:06 PM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
The other Inane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 67

Bikes: Fixed Gear and Cannondaler R4000

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I thought about this poll for a while and cannot give an answer yet. My main problem is there is no perspective to the question.

Advocacy of a topic usually implies a goal or an end result. The main two goals in this forum seem to be either politics or safety but in reality it could really be anything. If I knew what this definition of VC was trying to achieve I might be able to contribute something to the discussion in the way of pro's and con's.

HH my question is, what is the goal of this definition of VC? What is it trying to achieve?

Last edited by The other Inane; 03-28-07 at 09:43 PM.
The other Inane is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 05:35 PM
  #53  
Striving for Fredness
 
deputyjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 1,190

Bikes: Old Giant Rincon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
Excellent point PJ, and BTW your pragmatic, common sense style are appreciated here and in other threads .

Although I appreciate your attempt to define VC to a certain extent HH, I find this poll inadequate to describe those that may be proponents of VC along with the appropriate use of facilities. I think with these options you are pigeon-holing and, in fact, alienating those who might otherwise actually be advocates of VC. Many, if not most, in this forum do ride VC and would advocate this method to others where they deemed it appropriate. Those same people also use facilities where appropriate, like myself and as you have previously stated you do as well (actually you said you had no problem with the use of sidewalks or facilities where appropriate which assumes you use them, where appropriate).

You have also stated before that VC is a subset of what has been previously defined on this forum as AC. So, where does VC fit in these definitions in relation to AC? Since you mention no facilities in the definitions, one can only assume you are specifing directions in BVC and AVC to act in accordance to strict VC. That leaves strict VC as the only thing you are asking if people advocate.
No response in his own thread? Not suprised. It seems HH has been running out on answering the big questions.
deputyjones is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 05:48 PM
  #54  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
Excellent point PJ, and BTW your pragmatic, common sense style are appreciated here and in other threads .

Although I appreciate your attempt to define VC to a certain extent HH, I find this poll inadequate to describe those that may be proponents of VC along with the appropriate use of facilities. I think with these options you are pigeon-holing and, in fact, alienating those who might otherwise actually be advocates of VC. Many, if not most, in this forum do ride VC and would advocate this method to others where they deemed it appropriate. Those same people also use facilities where appropriate, like myself and as you have previously stated you do as well (actually you said you had no problem with the use of sidewalks or facilities where appropriate which assumes you use them, where appropriate).

You have also stated before that VC is a subset of what has been previously defined on this forum as AC. So, where does VC fit in these definitions in relation to AC? Since you mention no facilities in the definitions, one can only assume you are specifing directions in BVC and AVC to act in accordance to strict VC. That leaves strict VC as the only thing you are asking if people advocate.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand much of what you're saying here, nor what you're asking.

For example, you say: "You have also stated before that VC is a subset of what has been previously defined on this forum as AC." (true)

Then you ask: "where does VC fit in these definitions in relation to AC?" The answer is still: VC is a subset of AC.

I don't understand this at all: "Since you mention no facilities in the definitions, one can only assume you are specifing directions in BVC and AVC to act in accordance to strict VC."

How am I "specifying directions in BVC and AVC"? I've defined "strict VC" to be distinctly separate from BVC and AVC.

As far as facilities go, I'm not sure why it would be significant if I didn't refer to them, but it's moot since I did, under AVC:
  • Recognizing when and where bike lanes are okay to use, and when they should be avoided.
By the way, I've expanded on these definitions (a work in progress) in the "Some VC definitions" thread.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 05:50 PM
  #55  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
No response in his own thread? Not suprised. It seems HH has been running out on answering the big questions.
If you (or anyone else) is not getting a response from me, please pm me with a link to the post with your question.

Thanks.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 05:54 PM
  #56  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
Yes, you do have the right to create terms, but I was referring to your redefining of a term, the term "VC" has already been defined and spelled out clearly by John Forester.
Where has John Forester clearly defined and spelled out what "VC" (or vehicular cycling) means?

As for clarifying what you mean by using existing terms, that is where my last comment to you comes from. You are using your interpetation of what the phrase coiner meant.
In personal correspondences with John Forester some years ago, I clarified that my understanding of the meaning was consistent with that of the "phrase coiner". I am going beyond that now, and when I'm done, I will ask him to review that too.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 06:00 PM
  #57  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
Aha!, the post by deputyjones finally made it click in my mind what I was trying to say, and in a clear enough tone to be understood. so here goes my best and making my point, and a small one it is, clear.
You are asking here if people are advocating VC. So someone who sees the title, comes in, makes their vote, and makes their comments. Sure they see your definition, but they do not expect it to differ from what they have previously learned when regarding VC.
For instance. I clicked on the sub form, saw the post asking if I advocate VC. In my mind I sequence thru the following:
* What is vc?
* Oh yeah, it's that thing that John Forester pushes and teaches.
* Do I agree with him?
* Well let's see, here is what I have learned from him.
* ...... .......... ... ..... ..... .
So then I enter the poll, I see you defining VC. well, since I already know what it is, after all, the father of it already told me, I decide not to read your post because, well, because I don't expect you to redefine it. After all, why should you have?
I make my vote.
Then I post a comment and begin reading some bickering and wot not. Some of it makes sense, some of it is like "woah, wtf is bvc? something about my blood alcahol level? oh well, nevermind", and I go on with life.

So what do we end up with? A poll with baseless votes and alot of bickering in the thread because you decided to exercise your right to redefine a term (which I do dispute your right to redifine an existing term) instead of explaining from the get go that what you are asking is if people agree to advocating YOUR INTERPETATION of an existing technique.

Please, is that more clear? It's the best I can do... sorry.
The only way this would matter is if the definition in the OP of "VC" differed substantively from that intended by John Forester, the "coin phraser". Do you believe it does (I don't - particularly the revised stuff in the OP of the "some VC definitions" thread, a work in progress)? If so, how?
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 06:03 PM
  #58  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The other Inane
I thought about this poll for a while and cannot give an answer yet. My main problem is there is no perspective to the question.

Advocacy of a topic usually implies a goal or an end result. The main two goals in this forum seem to be either politics or safety but in reality it could really be anything. If I knew what this definition of VC was trying to achieve I might be able to contribute something to the discussion in the way of pro's and con's.

HH my question is, what is the goal of this definition of VC? What is it trying to achieve?
I'm not going to update/revise the OP of this thread since it's a poll where people have already voted. But if you want clarification of what I meant, please see the OP of the "Some VC definitions" thread, and see if your questions are answered there. If not, let me know, especially since that is a work in progress and I would appreciate any and all input there.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 06:20 PM
  #59  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by deputyjones
No response in his own thread? Not suprised. It seems HH has been running out on answering the big questions.
Now see what you went and did? I was enjoying a nice nap too.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 08:09 PM
  #60  
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The only way this would matter is if the definition in the OP of "VC" differed substantively from that intended by John Forester, the "coin phraser". Do you believe it does (I don't - particularly the revised stuff in the OP of the "some VC definitions" thread, a work in progress)? If so, how?
Looks like I misworded. Instead of saying "for instance" which means that "this is what happened with me", I should have said something else that meant "someone could have done it like this". Sorry for that, I was just happy that finally I felt I was able to convey what I meant.
As for me, personally. I have not read his book so I can not answer wether or not I think your definition differs from his. But if it doesn't, a simple link to his work where it outlined HIs interpetation of VC would have done more than suffice, but been more clear. A great example of this is the "defensive driving" poll you started. Though it reads like a blurb from legal contract, it is actually quite well and clear. which made it easy for me (and possibly others in the future) to make a meaningful response that was not only well thought out, but came from the heart. I'm sure you would agree with me there.
pj7 is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 09:21 PM
  #61  
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
other:

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

(Wha?)
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 02:07 AM
  #62  
Banned.
Thread Starter
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pj7
I have not read [Forester's] book so I can not answer wether or not I think your definition differs from his. But if it doesn't, a simple link to his work where it outlined HIs interpetation of VC would have done more than suffice, but been more clear.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a clean definition of the meaning of "vehicular cycling" in any of his books, beyond "bicycling in accordance to the rules of the road", and I'm not even sure that's in the book.
What you can do is "reverse engineer" a definition, based on what he writes. That's essentially what I'm trying to do.

If there already was a clean/thorough definition to which I could refer, then I wouldn't see a need to develop one. I think the Wikipedia article is pretty good, but it's limited to that which has been published elsewhere. It's not the place for defining anything new. I think there are useful terms and concepts which are used informally, but they're not hammered out yet. That's what I'm trying to do in the "some VC definitions" thread.
Helmet Head is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 07:35 AM
  #63  
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Posts: 4,618

Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a clean definition of the meaning of "vehicular cycling" in any of his books, beyond "bicycling in accordance to the rules of the road", and I'm not even sure that's in the book.
What you can do is "reverse engineer" a definition, based on what he writes. That's essentially what I'm trying to do.

If there already was a clean/thorough definition to which I could refer, then I wouldn't see a need to develop one. I think the Wikipedia article is pretty good, but it's limited to that which has been published elsewhere. It's not the place for defining anything new. I think there are useful terms and concepts which are used informally, but they're not hammered out yet. That's what I'm trying to do in the "some VC definitions" thread.

Do we really need new definitions or flavors of "Vehicular Cycling"? Do we need new definitions of "Defensive Driving"? These things aren't rocket science, HH...and the existing definitions are perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of folks.


For those who may be interested, the Wikipedia entry is more comprehensive, cogent, and relevant than HH's ramblings and wanderings on the subject. And, even though it is a fairly lengthy entry with references and a bibliography, it's much more succinct than the long-winded Head.
SSP is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 07:59 AM
  #64  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,951

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Where has John Forester clearly defined and spelled out what "VC" (or vehicular cycling) means?
Beats me! Lack of any clear definition or metrics for VC (Cycling or Cyclists) is what I've been pointing out for years. Especially when Forester and Associates claims that those cyclists who are Vehicular Cyclists have a 400% better safety record than those who are not Vehicular Cyclists. Forester and Associates fail to provide any definition or metrics for the mysterious population of Vehicular Cyclist who practice the vaguely defined technique of Vehicular Cycling.

And the Forester and Associates response is always: more repetition of the same mantra with liberal doses of ad hominem arguments.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.