View Poll Results: Are you a VC advocate? (see OP for definitions, select ALL that apply)
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll
Are you a VC advocate?
#51
Striving for Fredness
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.
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.
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.
#52
Senior Member
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?
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.
#53
Striving for Fredness
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.
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.
#54
Banned.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
#55
Banned.
Thread Starter
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.
Thanks.
#56
Banned.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
#57
Banned.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
#58
Banned.
Thread Starter
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?
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?
#59
Infamous Member
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.
__________________
"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
"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
#60
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?
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.
#62
Banned.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
#63
Software for Cyclists
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.
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.
#64
Been Around Awhile
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?
And the Forester and Associates response is always: more repetition of the same mantra with liberal doses of ad hominem arguments.