Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-14-07, 08:28 AM   #51
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I love the word "zealocy".
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 08:39 AM   #52
pj7
On Sabbatical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I love the word "plethora".
It just rolls off the tongue so...
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 09:41 AM   #53
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
This is a serious question.
I have been thinking some lately about the whole "VC" thing. I'm not talking about riding vehicularly, which people have been doing for ages, but rather the "whole" of the serman that is preached by VC zealots about attitude and all the other stuff that causes the flame wars.
For me; I had never heard of "VC" until I started coming in here. And after reading the posts by the zealous VC advocates and seeing how condecending they come off in their posts to others I made up my mind right then and there that "VC" is something that I do not want a part of and that I disliked John Forester before I ever read a thing he wrote. It was this forum (A&S) and a select few people that turned me off "VC" before I ever had a chance to see what it was all about. And since I am human (stubborn and set in my ways) I find it hard if not impossible to change that opinion, an opinion that, it would seem, was not made by me but instead forced upon me by the condecending nature of the advocates.

Is there anyone else in here who this applies to as well, in any form? Has anyone else had their opinion of "VC" molded by the asenine arguments and posts that happen in this forum?
If Newton, Darwin and Einstein seemed condescending to you, would you disagree with the ideas that they stood for?
If Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot seemed nice and friendly, would you agree with their ideals?

What does whether or not someone is "condescending" have to do with whether or not what they are talking about is something that you may or may not want to have something to do with?

How about considering the content of what someone says, rather than how they say it, or whether they insult your or not, to determine whether you agree or not?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 09:50 AM   #54
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If Newton, Darwin and Einstein seemed condescending to you, would you disagree with the ideas that they stood for?
If Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot seemed nice and friendly, would you agree with their ideals?
Anyone can't find the definition of "zealocy?" See above - over the top "VC advocate" zealocy in action. The fellow actually takes his ideology that seriously.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:04 AM   #55
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Newton.... Darwin.... Einstein... Helmet head....

one of these things is not like the others...
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:07 AM   #56
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtsmile
What I dont understand about this whole debate is why anyone really cares anyway.
Why I care:
  1. In the U.S. there are 700-800 cyclists deaths per year, countless times as many serious injuries, the vast majority of which I believe are primarily caused by cyclist behavior, or could have been prevented by changes in cyclist behavior alone. I find that VC addresses this issue better than anything else.
  2. I believe the biggest factor (by far) that prevents more people from cycling more, and which could be significantly affected by cycling advocacy, is the believe that it is inherently dangerous to bicycle in traffic with motor vehicles, regardless of how you behave: that all cyclists are "sitting ducks" out there, no matter what they do. VC, and only VC, addresses this issue.
  3. The sentiment that cyclists should never causes drivers delay, and, if they do, they should not be on the road, seems to be festering and subtly growing, and could explode exponentionally within a few short years at any time. Advocacy for segregated facilities adds fule to this fire; VC is the only flame retardant.
That's why I care.

Quote:
Who really cares if someone is in a bike lane or in the middle of a lane? Both can be ridden safely if the person riding is paying attention. There are situations where the bike lane is safer, and there are situations where taking the lane is safer. I like my bike lanes. The ones near where I live are about 2 m wide and give me a spot away from traffic that often moves at 100kmph. Before they fixed the road, the road was hamburger, and "taking the lane" was not a wise move (due in large part to a lot of blind summits). However, in our downtown, I own the right lane and stay out of the door zone. Why is it that some here would flay me alive for liking the bike lanes when it makes sense to and others would burn me at the stake for taking a lane when it makes sense to? Never understood that one.

It is the dogmatic adherance to one form of riding as being superior to another that I honestly do not understand. It is as nonsensical as insisting that people who commute are not serious cyclists and that if you are in spandex you are a poser. Both are bigotted views, and quite frankly, annoying and rude.

What I appreciate and have learned from this forum is how easy it is to be assertive and communicate what I need to do to remain safe to motorists. Since I got better at that, I have had almost zero issues with other road users. Thanks for that, it is appreciated.

We are all individuals here, and all ride bikes. That, and an ability to speak something resembling English, are what most of us have in common with each other. Some of us like bike paths, some like bike lanes, some ride VC, some ride to work, some mtn bike, some road race, and some do all of those depending on where they are and on what bike they are on.

I am not suggesting we have a group hug, but perhaps keeping the debate civil would not hurt. Then maybe, people will feel able to ask questions and not get jumped on.
You seem to make the common mistake of conflating VC with not riding in bike lanes.

Common misconceptions about vehicular cycling

...
"VC means not riding in bicycle lanes"

Another misconception about VC -- that riding in a bicycle lane is contrary to the principles of VC -- probably stems from a misunderstanding of John Forester's teachings about bicycle lanes. Forester has written that Effective Cycling does not train a cyclist to avoid riding in a bicycle lane, but rather to choose their lateral position as if the bicycle lane stripe is not there. Cyclists who end up in a bicycle lane should be extra cautious with regard to people who look for vehicles only in the traffic lanes, the road debris that tends to accumulate there, and avoiding crossing the solid stripe without first yielding to other traffic.
Also, while many VC advocates oppose bike lanes, what they actually oppose is the bike lane stripe, not the space demarcated by the stripe. Nor do they oppose riding in that space (whether it is demarcated or not) when safe, reasonable and appropriate to do so for the current factors and conditions. The opposition to the stripe is based on the widespread perception that the demarcated "bike lane" space is where cyclists "should" ride regardless of current factors and conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicul...cycle_lanes.22

Last edited by Helmet Head; 05-14-07 at 10:12 AM.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:15 AM   #57
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
Newton.... Darwin.... Einstein... Helmet head....

one of these things is not like the others...
As if that's what I was implying.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:20 AM   #58
rando
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Bikes:
Posts: 2,967
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
As if that's what I was implying.
As if! you had to know I couldn't let that one go by.
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:34 AM   #59
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rando
As if! you had to know I couldn't let that one go by.
Yes. Twist, twist, twist my meaning => dodge, dodge, dodge. Whatever it takes, as long as you don't have to address what I actually meant.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:37 AM   #60
pj7
On Sabbatical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If Newton, Darwin and Einstein seemed condescending to you, would you disagree with the ideas that they stood for?
Ummm, are you serious here? What these guys were trying to teach is nothing like what you guys are preaching. And two of the three were able to back up their information with solid facts. The other had enough peer reviewed scientific evidence to support his theories.
Please sir, do not even try to put yourself in the same category as these three gentlemen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
If Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot seemed nice and friendly, would you agree with their ideals?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why do you VC guys keep bringing up Nazis in your discussions?
And if I am not mistake Adolf Hitler was a very nice and meaningful person when he first began his message. And if I were a German in the 1930s I, like the millions of others, might have agreed with his message.
But then again, this statement is just as obtuse as your first statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What does whether or not someone is "condescending" have to do with whether or not what they are talking about is something that you may or may not want to have something to do with?
You are the prime example of what I was talking about. I did not want to come outright and say it but I will.
Helmet Head, it is you and the way you talk down on people that has turned me off of VC and has put me in a contemptious state of mind towards John Forester. And trust me pal, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
And the speaker has more to do with the delivery of a message than the actual message itself. In all your studies I can not believe you have not figured this out. We are a race of humans with emotions, not a group of robots programmed with nothing but logistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
How about considering the content of what someone says, rather than how they say it, or whether they insult your or not, to determine whether you agree or not?
If you have to resort to insults and belittlement in order to get your message across to me, I don't care if the message is about my impeding death, I don't want to hear it.
You have alot to learn about people it seems, maybe you should get off the computer and off your soap box and spend some time out in public interacting with people face to face. Maybe then you can learn some people skills to use on here because they are definately lacking.

This place has been so quiet and meaningful for the last few days... I wonder why that is.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:41 AM   #61
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
You are correct in assuming that I have not noticed that society nor government is against vehicular cycling, in fact I am sitting here under the impression that they are more on the pro side than the con. Sure, people yell "get off the road" and other sweet sentiments to us, but that does not necessarily mean that they are against vehicular cycling.
...
Yet you replied to this thread:

Pulled by a police officer during my commute - "impeding traffic"

From the OP of that thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsjustb
[The officer] told me to find another route (I told him I can't, since this the route to where I live) and to write letters to the state legislature and DOT. He even offered to sign the letters. He further said that he was giving me a verbal warning this time; if I continued to take the lane, he'd cite me for impeding traffic. To which I responded, "There's a left lane. Why can't drivers pass me there?"

"This road isn't meant for bicycles," he said,
Do you think that particular cop is out of the mainstream?

VC advocacy is about addressing this type of blatant anti-VC thinking out there. Are you with us, or not?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:47 AM   #62
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
VC advocacy is for puffing yourself up to feel important. You don't give two craps about normal, everyday cyclists...let alone occassional rec cyclists. You want to advocate for cycling...drop all the VC zealot BS and someone might take you seriously. You're riding for your brand, not for cycling or cyclists.
__________________
"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   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:58 AM   #63
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
What does whether or not someone is "condescending" have to do with whether or not what they are talking about is something that you may or may not want to have something to do with?
You are the prime example of what I was talking about. I did not want to come outright and say it but I will.
Helmet Head, it is you and the way you talk down on people that has turned me off of VC and has put me in a contemptious state of mind towards John Forester. And trust me pal, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
And the speaker has more to do with the delivery of a message than the actual message itself. In all your studies I can not believe you have not figured this out. We are a race of humans with emotions, not a group of robots programmed with nothing but logistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
How about considering the content of what someone says, rather than how they say it, or whether they insult your or not, to determine whether you agree or not?
If you have to resort to insults and belittlement in order to get your message across to me, I don't care if the message is about my impeding death, I don't want to hear it.
You have alot to learn about people it seems, maybe you should get off the computer and off your soap box and spend some time out in public interacting with people face to face. Maybe then you can learn some people skills to use on here because they are definately lacking.

This place has been so quiet and meaningful for the last few days... I wonder why that is.
Pj7, whether it's email, IM or forums, it's very difficult to communicate certain ideas in informal internet discussions. In particular, what's very difficult is to discuss controversial topics. It's difficult because you can't see the other person in real-time, and, so, you don't know who the other person is interpreting what you're saying as you're saying it. In fact, you have no idea. It's very easy to misinterpret what others say, and very easy to be offended. I've been doing email since the early 1980s (using command-line Mail on a VAX 11/780 running Berkeley Unix 4.1a ). Somewhere along the way I learned how easy it is to misinterpret "attitude" in emails, and to needlessly take offense, and learned to ignore "attitude", and focus on the content of what was being said. Today, almost all of our communications at work are done by email, and debates get very heated, but everyone knows not to take anything personally and to focus on content. Here's it seems 90% of what we talk about is about "how" we talk to each other, rather than addressing the "what".

I don't have to resort to insults and belittlement in order to get my message across to you or anyone else. It's just that it may come across that way when we talk about issues of which we disagree.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 10:59 AM   #64
dewaday
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: upper devonian
Bikes:
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
VC advocacy is about addressing this type of blatant anti-VC thinking out there. Are you with us, or not?
"You're either with us, or agin us."
Where have I heard this before.....
dewaday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 11:00 AM   #65
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
VC advocacy is for puffing yourself up to feel important. You don't give two craps about normal, everyday cyclists...let alone occassional rec cyclists. You want to advocate for cycling...drop all the VC zealot BS and someone might take you seriously. You're riding for your brand, not for cycling or cyclists.
This is pure and utter nonsense.

Is it insulting or condescending for me to say that? Is it insulting and condescending for Chipcom to demean VC and those of us who promote it the way that he does?

If you see my words as insulting and condescending, but not his, could it be due to a bias?
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 11:01 AM   #66
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewaday
"You're either with us, or agin us."
Where have I heard this before.....
Not from me.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 11:02 AM   #67
pj7
On Sabbatical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Yet you replied to this thread:
Pulled by a police officer during my commute - "impeding traffic"
Do you think that particular cop is out of the mainstream?

VC advocacy is about addressing this type of blatant anti-VC thinking out there. Are you with us, or not?
OK, I am not letting you turn my thread which is obviously about "how the condecending nature of Vcist posts has turned people off of it" into another one of your you just don't get it or either you are with us or against us threads. If this is what you are trying to do then get out!
This thread is about the natural human response to being belittled and how that response causes us to act the way we do towards things.

Now to answer your question.
No, I do not think this cop is out of the main stream. Like I said before, cops do not know all the laws and it is asenine to think that they should memorize them. What kind of loser has the time and inclination to sit and remember every damned law?
And if VC is about educating police officers, then alot of good it is doing by you ccoming in here and telling us we are stupid and don't get it! Really, how do you think that telling me I am an uneducated, illiterate, turd is going to help a police officer remember that bikes are allowed to use the road! It doesn't. It seems you just come in here to get your power trip fix, like a junkie, you are addicted to it.

If you can't address the discussion in here, start your own thread.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 11:04 AM   #68
pj7
On Sabbatical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Pj7, whether it's email, IM or forums, it's very difficult to communicate certain ideas in informal internet discussions. In particular, what's very difficult is to discuss controversial topics. It's difficult because you can't see the other person in real-time, and, so, you don't know who the other person is interpreting what you're saying as you're saying it. In fact, you have no idea. It's very easy to misinterpret what others say, and very easy to be offended. I've been doing email since the early 1980s (using command-line Mail on a VAX 11/780 running Berkeley Unix 4.1a ). Somewhere along the way I learned how easy it is to misinterpret "attitude" in emails, and to needlessly take offense, and learned to ignore "attitude", and focus on the content of what was being said. Today, almost all of our communications at work are done by email, and debates get very heated, but everyone knows not to take anything personally and to focus on content. Here's it seems 90% of what we talk about is about "how" we talk to each other, rather than addressing the "what".

I don't have to resort to insults and belittlement in order to get my message across to you or anyone else. It's just that it may come across that way when we talk about issues of which we disagree.
Oh, I see.
So calling me illiterate, saying I can not understand english, insulting my IQ, and telling me I just don't get it is your way of telling me you love me!
I got it now!
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 11:45 AM   #69
pj7
On Sabbatical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Why I care:
  • In the U.S. there are 700-800 cyclists deaths per year, countless times as many serious injuries, the vast majority of which I believe are primarily caused by cyclist behavior, or could have been prevented by changes in cyclist behavior alone. I find that VC addresses this issue better than anything else.
  • I believe the biggest factor (by far) that prevents more people from cycling more, and which could be significantly affected by cycling advocacy, is the believe that it is inherently dangerous to bicycle in traffic with motor vehicles, regardless of how you behave: that all cyclists are "sitting ducks" out there, no matter what they do. VC, and only VC, addresses this issue.
  • The sentiment that cyclists should never causes drivers delay, and, if they do, they should not be on the road, seems to be festering and subtly growing, and could explode exponentionally within a few short years at any time. Advocacy for segregated facilities adds fule to this fire; VC is the only flame retardant.
I hate doing this to my own thread but I feel I must adress these claims.

[*]In the U.S. there are 700-800 cyclists deaths per year, countless times as many serious injuries, the vast majority of which I believe are primarily caused by cyclist behavior, or could have been prevented by changes in cyclist behavior alone. I find that VC addresses this issue better than anything else.

The facts here should be studdied and not just used to back a cause.
You said yourself that you believe a majority of these are caused by cyclist behavior but you have no proof, only evidence that is twisted to support your own belief. It is said that any idea can be proven by the use of statistics no matter what that idea is. I'm sure that if I tried I could gain enough statistics to show that hemroids are caused by strawberries. That doesn't mean I'm right. It only means that I show the statistics to support this. of the ~800 deaths per year do we have the information to show that it really is the behavior of the cyclists that caused it? Of course if we all live by the idea that everyone involved in an accident is at fault then I'm sure we could come up with that conclusion. But the fact is we don't have evidence. How many of the 800 were children in crosswalks walking their bikes? How many were adults in crosswalks walking their bikes? How many were directly related to an undiagnosed medical condition? How many happened while riding off the roads and doing stunts? As far as I know 799 of the 800 involved people trying to jump The Grand Canyon on a bicycle and VC really doesn't apply there.


[*]I believe the biggest factor (by far) that prevents more people from cycling more, and which could be significantly affected by cycling advocacy, is the believe that it is inherently dangerous to bicycle in traffic with motor vehicles, regardless of how you behave: that all cyclists are "sitting ducks" out there, no matter what they do. VC, and only VC, addresses this issue.

Once again, this is just your belief. And the fact is, being in traffic period IS dangerous. Wether you are in a car, on a bus, on a bike, or walking. Just the act of being directly associated with such fast moving and enormously weighted traffic is dangerous in and of itself.
And ", and only VC, addresses this issue" is a very self centered statement. VC is NOT the only thing that adresses it. I have read plenty of documentation that talks about how to ride in traffic and how to be comfortable and none of them refer to anything called "VC". I have been riding in traffic since the beginning of my cycling life and I am not a "VC" follower.
And if what you are trying to do is get more people on bikes, then why are you only talking to people who are already on bikes? I have never seen you mention any other advocacy that you do to support getting others on bikes. I only see you in here, and guess what... we already are riding them.

[*] The sentiment that cyclists should never causes drivers delay, and, if they do, they should not be on the road, seems to be festering and subtly growing, and could explode exponentionally within a few short years at any time. Advocacy for segregated facilities adds fule to this fire; VC is the only flame retardant.

More of the same above, self centered. It's a "I'm the only one who can help the ignorant masses" attitude and frankly, I and plenty of others are sick of it.
Who said cyclists should not cause motorists any delays? Of course it is the curteous thing to do when you move out of the way for a bit to let a line of traffic pass but I have never heard nor felt that cyclists should never cause delays and I have been driving for much longer than I have been cycling.
And here I see you using the statement Advocacy for segregated facilities adds fule to this fire; VC is the only flame retardant. So if advocacy for segregated facilities adds fuel to a fire the VC is trying to extenguish then how come VCists will use those same facilities? Oh that's right, you use them but ignore the stripe!
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 11:49 AM   #70
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
OK, I am not letting you turn my thread which is obviously about "how the condecending nature of Vcist posts has turned people off of it" into another one of your you just don't get it or either you are with us or against us threads. If this is what you are trying to do then get out!
This thread is about the natural human response to being belittled and how that response causes us to act the way we do towards things.

Now to answer your question.
No, I do not think this cop is out of the main stream. Like I said before, cops do not know all the laws and it is asenine to think that they should memorize them. What kind of loser has the time and inclination to sit and remember every damned law?
And if VC is about educating police officers, then alot of good it is doing by you ccoming in here and telling us we are stupid and don't get it! Really, how do you think that telling me I am an uneducated, illiterate, turd is going to help a police officer remember that bikes are allowed to use the road! It doesn't. It seems you just come in here to get your power trip fix, like a junkie, you are addicted to it.

If you can't address the discussion in here, start your own thread.
Do you think it is required to "sit and remember every damned law" in order to understand that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles?

Do you agree that an officer believes that certain surface streets are designed for cars, and cyclists should not ride there, is against vehicular cycling?

I was talking to someone who recently moved to CA about cycling. I mentioned the legal requirement to ride in bike lanes, and she asked if that meant we weren't allowed to ride on roads without bike lanes. This was a question that just naturally popped in her mind. I don't believe she is out of the mainstream either. It's a logical assumption. And it's similar to what the cop in the other thread seemed to be thinking: if there is no obvious/separate place for cyclists, they shouldn't be there. Do you see how someone who thinks this way is against vehicular cycling?

With the prevalence of these ideas in the mainstream, I don't understand how you could have "not noticed that society nor government is against vehicular cycling".
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 11:58 AM   #71
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj7
I hate doing this to my own thread but I feel I must adress these claims.

[*]In the U.S. there are 700-800 cyclists deaths per year, countless times as many serious injuries, the vast majority of which I believe are primarily caused by cyclist behavior, or could have been prevented by changes in cyclist behavior alone. I find that VC addresses this issue better than anything else.

The facts here should be studdied and not just used to back a cause.
Indeed. But the context in which my statement was made was in answer to the question of why anyone would care. That's why I care: because I believe the vast majority of bike-car crashes could be avoided by cyclist behavior alone. That's a fact (about something that I believe). The topic of why I believe that is separate.

Quote:
So if advocacy for segregated facilities adds fuel to a fire the VC is trying to extenguish then how come VCists will use those same facilities? Oh that's right, you use them but ignore the stripe!
Riding in roadway space that is appropriate and reasonable for the current situation that happens to be demarcated as a bike lane is not advocacy for segregated facilities.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 12:00 PM   #72
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Is it insulting or condescending for me to say that? Is it insulting and condescending for Chipcom to demean VC and those of us who promote it the way that he does?

It could be from your viewpoint, but then again, I find it well deserved.
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 12:02 PM   #73
pj7
On Sabbatical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Do you think it is required to "sit and remember every damned law" in order to understand that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles?

Do you agree that an officer believes that certain surface streets are designed for cars, and cyclists should not ride there, is against vehicular cycling?

I was talking to someone who recently moved to CA about cycling. I mentioned the legal requirement to ride in bike lanes, and she asked if that meant we weren't allowed to ride on roads without bike lanes. This was a question that just naturally popped in her mind. I don't believe she is out of the mainstream either. It's a logical assumption. And it's similar to what the cop in the other thread seemed to be thinking: if there is no obvious/separate place for cyclists, they shouldn't be there. Do you see how someone who thinks this way is against vehicular cycling?

With the prevalence of these ideas in the mainstream, I don't understand how you could have "not noticed that society nor government is against vehicular cycling".
You just can't get over your cause enough to see what this thread is about can you?
It's not about the police, it's not about bike lanes, it's not about the person you talked to recently! It is about the human response to being belittled and how that is ruining anything that VC stands for. Bluntly, this thread is about how you (you Helmet Head) have single handedly turned VC from someting that could have possibly been the greatest thing for cycling into a bathroom joke! And still you can't comment on the topic of this thread or any other discussion that has taken place unless of course that discussion was spurred by you and one of your comments in the first place.

Even your first post did nothing but ask a question that was already answered in the OP and bring Nazism into the discussion (for whatever reason, it happens often though).

And you know what, roads are designed for cars. Cyclists are just allowed to use them. Who do you think the first user thought about when a new road comes into place is? It sure aint the equestrians or pedestrians! It's the motorists.

And your last statement is another exemplification of what this thread is about. It sure seems like one of those "I'm too intelligent to understand you on your level".
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 12:28 PM   #74
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
VC advocacy is for puffing yourself up to feel important. You don't give two craps about normal, everyday cyclists...let alone occassional rec cyclists. You want to advocate for cycling...drop all the VC zealot BS and someone might take you seriously. You're riding for your brand, not for cycling or cyclists.
Ok, Chip, you didn't want my joke. (You're the one wearing the big hair! )

Seriously, though, "VC advocacy" is what, exactly? I see it take varying forms and degrees, and areas of emphasis. Saying that everyone who engages in "VC advocacy" is puffing themselves up to feel important is an unsubstantiated statement, and misleading.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-07, 12:58 PM   #75
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The point has been repeatedly made that a great part of this discussion concerns emotions, implying that careful treatment of the emotions of one's opposite discussant is more likely to be persuasive than is ignoring those emotions. Unfortunately, when this has been done, the antagonism has increased rather than decreased.

It needs to be recognized that one side of this discussion regarding the proper way to cycle in traffic is based on facts and reason, while the other side is being argued from emotions without the support of relevant facts but using irrelevant facts in a pretense of reason. It is just plain unfortunate, although expectable, that those persons whose arguments are based on emotions without facts find that their arguments are described, accurately, as unreasonable, illogical, and even just plain illiterate. That is the necessary fate of such arguments, and those who advance them are made unhappy because the assault is on their feelings rather than on their facts. There it is.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08 AM.