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.

View Poll Results: What is your opinion of the VC/A&S Split?
I am mostly satisfied 24 61.54%
I am mostly dissatisfied 6 15.38%
I really don't notice much difference 9 23.08%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-15-07, 08:48 PM   #1
Roody
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
What do you think of the VC/A&S Split?

A short time back, this VC subforum was split off from the main Advocacy & Safety subforum. Now that some time has passed, what do you think of the split? Has it increased or decreased the utility and pleasure you get from Bikeforums?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-07, 09:25 PM   #2
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It has made the A&S main forum readable once again.
It's like a honey pot.
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-07, 09:51 PM   #3
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Given the whini... complai... noise, I mean, from people who haven't realised VC is the only way to go it was a good idea to split the forum.
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-07, 10:09 PM   #4
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"the only way to go" remember mark,

you can ride vehicularily in a bike lane.
vehicular cyclists can lobby for bike infrastructure including bike lanes in their communities , dude.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-07, 10:33 PM   #5
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 11,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Notice how, many use the sub-forum to just take pot shots at those that support VC? Note the "I am a VC advocate & I am OK" and "Freaks of the VC Label" threads.

Notice how much of the discussion in the VC sub-forum is really about bike lanes? There is even a "Bike lane advocates only:" thread in the VC sub-forum.

Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.

Last edited by CB HI; 07-15-07 at 10:58 PM.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-07, 11:08 PM   #6
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
yes, the vc ideologue party line against bike infrastructure is the problem, cbhi. you are correct.

remember, vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure.

Last edited by Bekologist; 07-15-07 at 11:15 PM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-07, 11:26 PM   #7
Roody
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
yes, the vc ideologue party line against bike infrastructure is the problem, cbhi. you are correct.

remember, vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure
.
As the OP, I feel that right now YOU are the problem. You've made no attempt to respond to the topic of this thread. No matter what the real topic is, every post you've written in the last month is a mindless rehash of "vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure". Over and over and over and over....

I remember when I thought your posts were some of the best on BF, even though I often disagreed with your POV. Now I don't even know if I agree or disagree, since I usually can't understand what you're bringing to the discussion.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-07, 11:51 PM   #8
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i think the real problem is the vc idealogues denial, roody.

and what you are complaining about is my ardent vc POV, what I have been bringing to this subforum- reality based acceptance of bike infrastructure as something vehicular cyclists can use and embrace, dude.

is this subforum a good thing? well, if it weren't for a certain 'vc' idealogue mucking up advocacy and safety with incessant, overbearing prattle about inadverdant drift and powerweaves, there'd have been no reason for this subforum.

Last edited by Bekologist; 07-16-07 at 12:08 AM.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 12:09 AM   #9
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roody
As the OP, I feel that right now YOU are the problem. You've made no attempt to respond to the topic of this thread. No matter what the real topic is, every post you've written in the last month is a mindless rehash of "vehicular cyclists can ride in a bike lane; vehicular riders can advocate for bike infrastructure". Over and over and over and over....

I remember when I thought your posts were some of the best on BF, even though I often disagreed with your POV. Now I don't even know if I agree or disagree, since I usually can't understand what you're bringing to the discussion.
+1
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 12:20 AM   #10
Roody
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekologist
i think the real problem is the vc idealogues denial, roody.

and what you are complaining about is my ardent vc POV, what I have been bringing to this subforum- reality based acceptance of bike infrastructure as something vehicular cyclists can use and embrace, dude.

is this subforum a good thing? well, if it weren't for a certain 'vc' idealogue mucking up advocacy and safety with incessant, overbearing prattle about inadverdant drift and powerweaves, there'd have been no reason for this subforum.
Cool, now I know your opinion of the reasons for the split. If you want to, you could speak to the question of what you think the effects have been. For example, have you noticed less "overbearing prattle" or whatever?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 01:25 AM   #11
KrisPistofferson
Immoderator
 
KrisPistofferson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: POS Tennessee
Bikes: Gary Fisher Simple City 8, Litespeed Obed
Posts: 7,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It has driven Head to start posting in PnR, where I usually post, but other than that, I think it has made A&S much more palatable. The new forum is sort of like a "bike lane" for people who can't post without getting bogged down in purely theoretical la-la land instead of just getting out there and riding their bike on the asphalt.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikeforums
Your rights end where another poster's feelings begin.
KrisPistofferson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 03:16 AM   #12
Daily Commute
Ride the Road
 
Daily Commute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
Posts: 4,059
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's mostly kept the anti-VC group from getting the vapors everytime someone posts a VC idea in A&S, so I think it's a good thing.
Daily Commute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 04:16 AM   #13
JRA
Senior Member
 
JRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Louis
Bikes:
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the split has been great. It keeps most of the pointless ideological arguments out of the main A&S forum. Those who want to engage in petty bickering have the subforum where they can get on their soapboxes and/or bash each other's political views without giving too many un-initiated A&S readers heartburn.

If VC-ism were just about the riding techniques and style that have become known as 'vehicular cycling' (and are widely accepted), then there would be little disagreement, and no need for a sub-forum.

But VC-ism isn't just about riding techniques and style (in fact, it's hardly about that at all)-- VC-ism is most fundamentally about politics and ideology -- ideology based on a combination of faith and sophistry (not on science as VC-ists so often claim) and founded on the writings and absurd psychological and social theories of a charismatic and messianic 'founder of the faith.' If VC-ism doesn't derseve its own subforum, I can't imagine what would.

It's virtually impossible to discuss VC (or, for that matter, even put the letters 'VC' in a thread title) without starting an ideological and political debate. Hence the need for a subforum.

Last edited by JRA; 07-16-07 at 04:24 AM.
JRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 08:51 AM   #14
AlmostTrick
Yabba-Dabba-Doo!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bedrock, IL
Bikes: 1968 Schwinn Orange Krate, 5 speed stick shift
Posts: 4,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
The split has been more successful than I expected. I doubted it would help at first, but now that it's been a while I'd say it has made the forum better. There are a handful of posters that just love to debate the same VC/BL subjects endlessly. Now these people have their own sandbox to play in. While I find both forums interesting, I definitely spend more time in the main A&S forum, as it is often more relevant to my riding experiences.
AlmostTrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 09:12 AM   #15
Roody
Sophomoric Member
Thread Starter
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Bikes:
Posts: 23,532
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
I don't think the split makes much difference.

The quality of the threads is still uneven, ranging from good to horrible for no discernible reason. Too many people on both sides of the argument still resort to name-calling and mindless repetition, and there's still too little effort to find common ground or advance past irreconcilable differences. There is still a lot of wit and intelligence in some posts, and passionate arguments are still sometimes entertaining (and sometimes even enlightening).

However, my impression is that the volume of posts is down, especially from casual members, and especially on the A & S side. Have others noticed this too?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 09:39 AM   #16
patc
Dubito ergo sum.
 
patc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB HI
Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by
relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.
Interesting that you identify it as a THING (VC) versus a group of people ("bike lane advocates") and not as a people-vs-people issue.
patc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 09:45 AM   #17
patc
Dubito ergo sum.
 
patc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Bikes: Bessie.
Posts: 1,735
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I felt the split was a poor choice, and I feel it has worked poorly. In effect this means anything which may or may not be VC-related gets posted to the new sub-forum, so we have a very arbitrary devision by topic. However it was pretty much indicated that the VC sub-forum was meant as a free-for-all, a place for the inevitable flame wars, so a division by behaviour. I'm not sure what was accomplished - I don't think the quality of the forum(s) has improved any, or that people are any better behaved.

The bottom-line, to me: this is still not a welcoming or productive place to hold a discussion, and still not somewhere I feel I could post a question (e.g. comment on this situation/street design) and have any hope of a productive discussion. Bloody entertaining sometimes, though.
patc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 10:03 AM   #18
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 think generally it's been a good thing. keeps the bickering mostly confined. but it still is not a good place for noobs or others to get information, because any answers will inevitibly start an argument among the warring factions.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 10:05 AM   #19
markhr
POWERCRANK addict
 
markhr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Acton, West London, UK
Bikes:
Posts: 3,783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daily Commute
It's mostly kept the anti-VC group from getting the vapors everytime someone posts a VC idea in A&S, so I think it's a good thing.
+1
__________________
shameless POWERCRANK plug
Recommended reading for all cyclists - Cyclecraft - Effective Cycling
Condor Cycles - quite possibly the best bike shop in London
Don't run red lights, wear a helmet, use hand signals, get some cycle lights(front and rear) and, FFS, don't run red lights!
markhr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 07:09 PM   #20
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRA

But VC-ism isn't just about riding techniques and style (in fact, it's hardly about that at all)-- VC-ism is most fundamentally about politics and ideology -- ideology based on a combination of faith and sophistry (not on science as VC-ists so often claim) and founded on the writings and absurd psychological and social theories of a charismatic and messianic 'founder of the faith.' If VC-ism doesn't derseve its own subforum, I can't imagine what would.

It's virtually impossible to discuss VC (or, for that matter, even put the letters 'VC' in a thread title) without starting an ideological and political debate. Hence the need for a subforum.
It is certainly correct that the discussion is based on differences in social and psychological theories, rather than on technical aspects of safe and effective cycling.

The puzzling aspect of the discussion is that so many of those who believe, at least for themselves, that cyclists should ride according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (vehicular cycling) fail to advocate learning that skill and governmental policy based on it, and instead strongly advocate the bikeway system that is contrary to vehicular cycling and is based on the popular superstition that bikeways make cycling safe and the skill of vehicular cycling unnecessary. Furthermore, it is equally puzzling that these bicycle advocates, as they call themselves, are largely motivated by opposition to motoring, while simultaneously advocating the bikeway system that motorists invented to make motoring more convenient.

The most reasonable hypothesis concerning these puzzles is that of the motorist-created cyclist-inferiority superstition. While the bicycle advocates call these hypotheses absurd, they have been unable to produce a more persuasive hypothesis that explains the facts.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-07, 07:42 PM   #21
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
psycho babble masquerading as bicycle advocacy. where's a bucket?
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-07, 03:13 AM   #22
Cyclaholic
CRIKEY!!!!!!!
 
Cyclaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bikes: several
Posts: 4,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 70 Post(s)
The VC/BL/Cycling infrastructure 'debates' on these forums are meaningless in the real world but they're a morbidly interesting bit of entertainment, like slowing down to look at a car wreck.

I like the split, I know exactly where to find the car wrecks and the subsequent punchups between the drivers.
__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world - the ones that can count in base 2, the ones that can't count in base 2, and the ones that didn't expect this to be in base 3.
Cyclaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-07, 05:44 AM   #23
Brian
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Between the mountains and the lake.
Bikes: 8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
Posts: 16,683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CB HI
Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.
Actually, it was the bickering any time VC was mentioned.
Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-07, 08:31 AM   #24
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester
It is certainly correct that the discussion is based on differences in social and psychological theories, rather than on technical aspects of safe and effective cycling.

The puzzling aspect of the discussion is that so many of those who believe, at least for themselves, that cyclists should ride according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (vehicular cycling) fail to advocate learning that skill and governmental policy based on it, and instead strongly advocate the bikeway system that is contrary to vehicular cycling and is based on the popular superstition that bikeways make cycling safe and the skill of vehicular cycling unnecessary. Furthermore, it is equally puzzling that these bicycle advocates, as they call themselves, are largely motivated by opposition to motoring, while simultaneously advocating the bikeway system that motorists invented to make motoring more convenient.

The most reasonable hypothesis concerning these puzzles is that of the motorist-created cyclist-inferiority superstition. While the bicycle advocates call these hypotheses absurd, they have been unable to produce a more persuasive hypothesis that explains the facts.
If we were to take an inventory of the current national conditions we would have something like:

Education: It is horrible and is producing far too many wrong way and sidewalk cyclists. There is minimal national effective effort to correct the errors, to date this is the best I have seen for elementary kids: http://www.activelivingresources.org/links4.php (You heard this first from a non VC purist.)

Engineering: While still not ideal it is scoring better for cyclists’ safety and welfare then general education. Complete Streets, The National Center for Biking and Walking and many, many more organizations are delivering the message that car centric designs at the cost of biking and walking are very bad. Politicians, engineers are all starting to get the message that bikes belong. An effective message is being delivered without a mention of the cyclists’ inferiority superstition and generally there is little evidence that (solely) bike lanes are diluting that message. (Note: there are some areas that are overly installing bike lanes at any cost even poorly implement ones and that IMHO is really not good and should be fought. Best designs promote best acceptance of cyclists.)

Being anti-bike lane or being anti anything has never been a very effective way to promote a cause. Being pro something is the most effective way. The LCI program is horribly ineffective, the lack of good systematic attack on the poor cycling instructions received in elementary schools and received by this nation’s car drivers is what should be in the forefront of the VC purists not cyclists inferiority superstition.

Bicycle advocates basically can only grab nationally recognized campaigns and push them locally. It is not our fault that you have failed to produce anything of substance with your cyclists’ inferiority superstition and anti-bike lane rants. I strongly suggest that you, not us that have failed to properly identify the problem as well as an effective solution. (Note: That logically you may have identified the problem but without an effective solution it is worthless and if you are trying to solve a problem that is not really the problem that too is worthless.)
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-07, 11:08 AM   #25
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 11,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
Actually, it was the bickering any time VC was mentioned.
Seems the same happens every time bike lane is mentioned, and why so much bike lane talk in the VC forum? Why are bike lane only threads allowed in the VC forum?

And of course you don't fan the flames, do you Brian?
Helmet Head, this one's for you.
CB HI 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 09:11 PM.