Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: What is your opinion of the VC/A&S Split?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am mostly satisfied

    24 61.54%
  • I am mostly dissatisfied

    6 15.38%
  • I really don't notice much difference

    9 23.08%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 84
  1. #1
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,388
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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"

  2. #2
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It has made the A&S main forum readable once again.
    It's like a honey pot.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  3. #3
    POWERCRANK addict markhr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Acton, West London, UK
    Posts
    3,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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!

  4. #4
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  5. #5
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  6. #6
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  7. #7
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,388
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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"

  8. #8
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  9. #9
    POWERCRANK addict markhr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Acton, West London, UK
    Posts
    3,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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!

  10. #10
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,388
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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"

  11. #11
    Immoderator KrisPistofferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    POS Tennessee
    My Bikes
    Gary Fisher Simple City 8, Litespeed Obed
    Posts
    7,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  12. #12
    Ride the Road Daily Commute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    My Bikes
    Surly Cross-Check; hard tail MTB
    Posts
    4,059
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  13. #13
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    Senior Member JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    945
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "It may even be that motoring is more healthful than not motoring; death rates were certainly higher in the pre-motoring age."- John Forester
    "Laws cannot be properly understood as if written in plain English..."- Forester defending obfuscation.
    "Motorist propaganda, continued for sixty years, is what has put cyclists on sidewalks." - Forester, sociologist in his own mind
    "'There are no rules of the road on MUPs.' -John Forester" - Helmet Head quoting 'The Great One'

  14. #14
    Yabba-Dabba-Doo! AlmostTrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bedrock, IL
    My Bikes
    1969 Schwinn Orange Krate, 5 speed stick shift
    Posts
    3,055
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    Have Bike, Will Travel

  15. #15
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,388
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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"

  16. #16
    Dubito ergo sum. patc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    My Bikes
    Bessie.
    Posts
    1,735
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  17. #17
    Dubito ergo sum. patc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, ON, Canada
    My Bikes
    Bessie.
    Posts
    1,735
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  18. #18
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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

  19. #19
    POWERCRANK addict markhr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Acton, West London, UK
    Posts
    3,783
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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!

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(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.

  21. #21
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    psycho babble masquerading as bicycle advocacy. where's a bucket?
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  22. #22
    CRIKEY!!!!!!! Cyclaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    My Bikes
    several
    Posts
    4,193
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  23. #23
    Senior Member Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Between the mountains and the lake.
    My Bikes
    8 bikes - one for each day of the week!
    Posts
    16,745
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  24. #24
    -=Barry=- The Human Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
    Posts
    4,077
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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
    =()>()

  25. #25
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •