chipcom 

+1 Well said. I believe it is dishonest to use the term vehicular cycling, which is a well respected term use to describe the concept or riding a bicycle according to the rules of the road, to also describe a social-political viewpoint that is both divisive and extremist, which is in effect using the former to give the illusion of credibility to the latter. Kinda like North Korea using the word 'democratic' in it's official name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

chipcom 

Showing respect does not preclude one from being honest about their own beliefs.

chipcom 

Actually I believe our new buddy Kal is responsible for most of the whining to the mods. Before his appearance, A&S had one of the lowest rates of posts being reported to mods. It is a typical tactic of the extremist...if one's ideas are questioned and one cannot answer...seek to silence those asking the questions, under the guise of being abused, disrespected, dishonored, etc.

Give HH credit, despite our disagreement on issues and even clashes of personality, he has never been one to go running to mommy when things are not going his way.

I-Like-To-Bike

I like 'em.

rando

yup

chipcom 

I feel you are discriminating against brunettes.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...5&postcount=25

rando

another Blondie

rando

jeezus chip. I'm awake now! and I need to wash my eyes with bleach.

I-Like-To-Bike

OK, don't want to discriminate. Something for everybody. This one's for you!

Speedo

No, no, no!

Blondies. Mmmmmmmm!

Speedo

Seriously, back to the OP. I don’t go to meetings. I occasionally write my elected representatives. I will answer cycling related questions by interested parties. Does that make me an advocate?

Speedo

genec

I voted AVC. I know the techniques and use them... especially in heavy fast traffic... they work. This is how I commute, and how I tour.

However... I have also been know to sidewalk bike... using the wrong side of the road even. This happens on rare occasions when I have a beer or two and do not feel like mixing it up with traffic in any way. I become a rolling pedestrian. I have no fear of intersections as I wait until there are no vehicles for long long distances before crossing.

I also throw off my VC hat when riding my beach cruiser down at the boardwalk... there survival depends on reacting to whatever situations may arise... from blonds in thongs to roller bladers to barnies from out of town that don't have a clue.

However I don't know if any of this makes me an "advocate."

SSP

Sometimes, when you find that lots of other intelligent folks around you just "don't get it"...the problem is not with those other folks.

It would be very interesting to compare the sum total of your posts, in terms of characters, over a month or so and compare them against the rest of the crew. I'm guessing whoever is in second place is far, far behind you, thanks to your "Wall of Words" posting style. So, you've had ample opportunity to explain (ad nausem) your theories...and yet you persist in thinking that we "don't understand (your) stand".

Is it any wonder that other folks would find those behaviors tiresome?

It's not about the bike...

CTAC

Are you saying that you actually read what HH is posting?

powerhouse

After all my bicycling experiences, I not only advocate vehicular cycling but basic vehicular cycling and advanced vehicular cycling. However, I find plenty of room for relaxing things when on MUPs and mountain biking,

sbhikes

Although I was the only one named, I might offer that perhaps if so many people regularly show they don't understand you, maybe you might consider whether the problem is other people, or YOU.

I wonder if this happens in other aspects of your life as well. My guess is probably yes.

pj7

I'm not going to vote, I never do.
But I have made my stance on this so clear in the past that if I were to make it any more clear, I'd be no longer visable... and I'm a fat man for christs sake!!

pj7

Helmet Head,
With all due respect herer, and I mean that sincerely, what gives you the right to generate your own definition and subsective definitions of a term/paridgm that you neither coined, fathered, nor can be held as a person responsible for the original definition of the neologism itself? And then it seems you are using these definitions that you have created, as a backdrop to support your theories and ideas that, no doubt, you believe whole heartedly in?
Using this line of thinking, could I not create my own definition of "right" and argue each and every one of you that bicycles do not have the right to be on the road in the first place? Using, of course, my own definition as my basis on this argument and continually referring back ot it in order to prove my point(s)?

Can you see where confusion and confrontation are getting its fuel here?
Just my take on things.

Helmet Head

My efforts to correct misstatements about my position reflect the fact that I take responsibility for causing the misunderstandings in the first place.

That said, it would be nice if folks made a more genuine effort to understand and verify that they understand my position before writing about them.

Helmet Head

I have the same right as everyone does to invent terms and specify their meanings, or clarify what I mean when I use existing terms. A few weeks ago Brian Ratliff had his own thread of this type. Terms are just references to definitions. What really matters are the definitions and the contexts in which they are referred.

In terms of the terms and definitions that you provide, you can create any argument you like, of course. But the argument is only as good as the underlying definitions.

For example, I might define the terms X and Y as follows:
X = 2
Y = 3

Just because I gave my own definitions to X and Y, does not mean I can use them anyway I like. For example, I cannot argue that "X + Y = 99". I mean, I can, but it won't be a valid argument given the definitions that I started with. I can, however, argue that "X + Y = 5", and I probably won't get much protest. What matters is the underlying argument, not the terms used to express the argument.

Defining his own terms does not give one an ability to prove things to be true that otherwise could not be proven. It's simply a tool to be able to convey an argument more effectively.

Frankly, no. Personally, I think things would really improve if everyone made a similar effort to be clear about their meaning and intent.

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.

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. And there is no indication that I can see that he had or has the intentions of subsects of this, such as "BVC" or "AVC". Maybe it would be more compelling for you to create original terms for these things instead of piggybacking off of someone elses defined work. I for one would be more compelled to try and understand you better if that were the case.

What brought me to ask you my previous question was the tone I am getting from others responses in this thread, especially the views of JRA and the discussion the two of you held.

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. Instead of making definitions, why not start the whole thing with "this is how I interpet it" rather than "vc defined".
Hopefully that makes sens, some. I can feel what I am thinking and trying to convey here, but for some reasons the proper words are escaping me.

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.

deputyjones

Ha! Funny, I didn't read it that way, but now I can definitely see why you did, and that is exactly the reason HH has been accused in the past of actually being John Forester posting in this forum under the pseudonym of HH.

pj7

thanks for your ataboy earlier, though I don't rightly know what "pragmatic" means exactly, I'm sure it's something good

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.

Does that mean I'll stop arguing him? Oh hell no, he's too good of an advisery to abandon, but I'll try and read thru the delivery of his ideas before shooting them down first. Then I'll let it rip!