Helmet Head

pj7, I don't doubt your sincerity, but either one of us, or both of us, seems to be in a frame of mind such that we're talking past each other. I'll try one more time.

I already answered this in in #8.

No, I did not (which makes moot your point about the equivalency in meaning between "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate", which I don't deny).

I've only been using the term "strict VC" for a day or two, and I have not used the term "zealot" during that period. At no time did I equate those meanings in any way shape or form.

But I will add what I mean by "VC zealot" to the VC definitions OP to clarify this further. (hint: it does not mean support/advocate of "strict VC").


I have said "hey, it's illegal to ride on the wrong side of the road" to wrong-side riding cyclists in the past.

VC is not the same as obeying the letter of the law. It's both less, and more. See the VC definitions thread.
For example, it's legal for a cyclist to go straight from the right side of a straight-or-right lane. But it's contrary to destination positioning as specified for motorcyclists in their special training, and for students of VC in their special training.

Referring to what is meant by VC as "legal cycling" just doesn't cut it.


No.

Probably a piddly amount for teaching courses which will not even come close to paying for my time in terms of minimum wage. Probably won't even cover my expenses. Sometimes I fantasize about writing a book, but judging from Robert Hurst and John Forester, I don't think that would make me any significant money either. Trust me, it's not about the money, if that's what you think!

joejack951

In my opinion, they do not. There are negative connotations to the word "zealot" (especially on these forums where the term is often bandied about) whereas the word "zealous" has more positive connotations.

joejack951

The label causes so much flame throwing because so many people use it without a reasonable understanding of what it means. They just ASSume a meaning and convince themselves that they know exactly what everyone else means when they use the term (or try to redefine it in a way that doesn't agree with anything previously written about the term). Most of these people have never even read the books that go into detail about what it means to be a vehicular cyclist.

[edit] I don't mean to imply that one must read a book to know what vehicular cycling means. The confusion arises from people creating their own meaning of the term that is not consistent with it's true definition and convincing others to accept their meaning. This makes it very difficult if not impossible for someone originally exposed to a bad definition of vehicular cycling to understand the true definition, as has been proved by these forums. [edit]

The label, as used by those who understand the term, is just a convenient way of referring to something without having to spell it all out every time. The label, as used by those who don't understand the term, is used to refer to any cycling practice that they disagree with (that's a generalization but pretty accurate IMO).

Helmet Head

In the hopes that we can all come to terms in the VC subforum, these are from the OP of the "some VC definitions" thread:


Strict VC is strict adherence to VC while riding a bicycle. It means never riding on sidewalks, never doing a 2-step left turn, never taking a short cut through a parking lot, never mountain biking, never rolling a stop (a.k.a California Stop), never riding on bike paths, etc. There are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC, though some VC contrarians have been known to mischaracterize VC advocates as such.

A Zealous VC advocate is someone who advocates Vehicular Cycling with eagerness and ardent interest. Given the absence of actual advocates of Strict VC, the term zealous VC advocate rarely if ever is used to refer to an actual advocate of Strict VC, though certain VC contrarians have been known to try to use this term to imply that certain VC advocates are advocates of Strict VC.

pj7

Are you making these definitions up yourself?
Isn't a zealot someone who is zealous? If it is, then how can a zealous VC advocate not be a VC zealot? Unless of course the term "zealous vc advocate" just means "zealous advocate" and VC is just thrown in there for the hell of it.

Boy, I wish I could make my own definitions up for things and then use those definitions to prove my point of view on things, holding those definitions to be self evident.
nice, thanks

joejack951

Which post are you responding to?

pj7

Post #29 from HH, nothing you said. Most everything you have written I have been able to understand and it mostly pertains to my thread here. And likewise, I can see myself in agreeance to a point with your posts.
I'm sitting here and watching my thread of why we need this VC title turn into a definition thread of "VC Zealot" and the like. I'm still waiting for the bike lane debate to take it over.

Helmet Head

What part of "which makes moot your point about the equivalency in meaning between "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate", which I don't deny" (from #26) did you not understand?

"I don't deny" means I basiucally agree. I agree that "VC Zealot" and "Zealous VC advocate" essentially mean the same thing. So what?

Please reread #26.

Helmet Head

By the way, yes, I'm making up the definitions by myself. But I'm trying to make them as reasonable as possible, and I'm asking for input/comments if anyone thinks there is a problem with how I'm defining these terms. As I said in #29, I'm doing all this in the hopes that we can all come to terms in the VC subforum.

All I can do is be clear about what I mean when I use these terms. As to why they are necessary, look at the definitions themselves. As with any term, we'd rather write the term then have to spell out the whole meaning every time.

There is always a tradeoff when using specific "odd" terms between using terms that no one understands and being specific in meaning. So I'm trying to improve the situation by making the meaning of these terms clear.

pj7

So what?

1.) You called yourself a Zealous VC Advocate in your name tag for the longest of time, which has only recently been changed.
2.) You agree that a "Zealous VC Advocate" and a "VC Zealot" are the same thing.
3.) You stated that VC Zealots advocate for "Strict VC"
4.) You said that "there are no known adherents or proponents of Strict VC" and that you "don't know of any of those"

I asked if you "Did that mean that YOU were advocating STRICT VC?"
You said "No, I have never been an advocate of STRICT VC, and never will be."

(gee, I seem to be nit picking parts of posts, wonder who else does that to prove their point)

Then you continue to post various definitions of terms, definitions that you seem to be pulling out of your butt.
You try to tell me what I am meaning when I make a statement (as if I don't know and you can read my inner thoughts or something)
Then this thread gets derailed to some sort of "Strict VC" crap.

Then I give up on my seriousness of it because you seem to be performing the text book example of "controlling the conversaion".

I was just pointing out the fact.

Helmet Head

Sigh. #3 above in your list as false, as I noted in #26. Please read #26.

Here's the relevant piece to this:

#3 being false makes your point baseless, since your whole point rests on the assumption that #3 is true. I have no idea where you got that, by the way. Do you?

sbhikes

pj7, it's best not to ask HH for the answer. He won't be able to tell you.

Why does this VC label exist? For the self-promotion of its adherents and nothing more. It's an identity politics thing, a label you can apply to yourself to feel better and more important that everyone else. You can use the label to judge others as being worthy. You can brag about your VC prowess. You can blame accidents on those who aren't VC enough. That sort of thing.

The rest of the world goes about their lives using vehicular cycling principles where they make sense, like pulling the right tool for the job out of a big toolbox of cycling skills. We who do this are the lesser beings, the Adaptive Cyclists.

genec

I assume that motorists don't bother looking with any intent at the 1 and a 1/2 pages regarding cyclists as those motorists have about 78 pages that they feel are more important to them.

The fact is that more emphasis should be placed, in driving classes, on shareing the road with all other users of the road.

deputyjones

+1 to SB and PJ here. IMHO, The way that cycling is done by most of us is in the form of a craft. For one to be a skilled, experienced craftsman he might need to read the books, listen to the lectures, study from others and practice, but eventually he must begin his craft on his own. If he is a really good craftsman he can eventually take the knowledge he has gleaned in his studies and experience and set apart from the teachers and their "paradigms". He has in essence filled his toolbox and has enough experience to know how to use those tools to most effectively till his trade in his environment. He no longer needs to follow someone elses "paradigm".

Those that choose to continue exclusively following someone elses ideas either don't have the experience or courage needed to begin their craft on their own. To those that would: this is not intended as an insult, and please don't anyone take it as such.

Bekologist

well said, deputy jones.

I would like to be more blunt:

Since there are NO "strict VC" and everyone rides adaptively, the term VC is a snappy, loaded catchphrase.

VC are for autocentric road design that hinder the popularization of the bicycle as transportation in this country. VC only ride VC when it is conveinent to them; they use bike facilities and bike lanes, and all the same chestbeat their opposition to bike specific infrastructure.

VC only ride VC when it conveinences them, there are NO strict VC, as a VC definer has been defining. All cyclists are adaptive cyclists.

Helmet Head

Brian just asked in another thread if any regulars don't understand the positions of others. Do you, DJ, qualify as a regular? I think so. Yet somehow you seem to have the impression that, apparently, VC is about "following someone else's 'paradigm'". Is driving a car according to the vrotr "following someone else's 'paradigm'"? Just whose is it, then? Forester's? Hardly. All Forester did was put a concept in writing and give it a name, a concept that was already utilized by many cyclists (but much moreso in Europe, particularly Britain, than in the States - which is why he felt the need to put it in writing). The same practices based on the same vehicular paradigm are captured by John Franklin in his book, Cyclecraft. You can also find it in John Allen's StreetSmarts (which is free online), and even in the critical-of-Forester summary by Jeffrey Hiles in his online paper, Listening to Bikelanes. Heck, the Wikipedia definition of vehicular cycling is yet another example, and so is the (in progress) op of the definitions thread in this forum. All present practices based on the same vehicular paradigm in unique/personal styles.

Every vehicular cyclist I know, whether in person (at least half a dozen) or on the internet (dozens) has obviously crafted his or her own personal style (just like everyone I know has his own driving style). Not one of them follows anyone else's style. The ones I know in person, and have ridden with, also all comprise the most confident, skilled and experienced traffic cyclists that I have ever met.

As far as "paradigms" used to ride on the roads, the only well-defined ones I know of are "vehicular" and "pedestrian". Do you know of any others? Where are they defined?

deputyjones

I really don't understand your positions HH, but I also don't believe that that is a result my lack of trying or intellect. Ever since I have been on this board you have attempted to espouse your views in these strange quasi-cloak and dagger methods using rigged polls and questions that are related generally to VC without providing what your views are or the reason behind the question to begin with. These always break down into meaningless arguments about you and your methods because people see through them. Not once can I remember you actually attemping to make a valid case for VC without these methods, or even, horror of all horrors, actually presenting what your views are and then asking people honestly, sincerely, from a standpoint of understanding and betterment of cycling advocacy what their opinion is. Heck, I even gots the mods to sticky a post where everyone could explain how they ride so that newcomers could see different examples of how people tackle different environments, but I see no post from you there explaining your position.

If I do not understand your position you have only yourself to blame as I would actually like to hear what it is without being treated like a child or having them presented to me in some dishonest fashion. Of the people on this board I honestly believe that I am one of the ones that would love to hear what you have to say the most because I believe that you believe that what you are doing is helping to save people lives and cycling. That goes a long way in my book, but dishonesty and a lack of respect for others goes a long way the other way.

I also believe strongly that the constant VC arguments and the creation of this sub-forum are not due to VC itself, but almost entirely (at least indirectly) to you and the methods you have used advocate it here. It is, IMHO, actually quite sad that you have done exactly the opposite of what you set out to do.

I challenge you HH. I challenge you to respectfully, sincerely present your views without pretension, dishonesty or pedantic lecturing so that others might understand them. Not because I don't think you can or because I think the AC crowd will win the argument, but because I would honestly like to hear what they are.

If VC = VROTR, nothing more or less then why is the wikipedia entry 9 pages long?

**EDIT: And, if this is the case what are we even arguing about and what are you advocating for here? Everyone here is admittedly VC already.






I was using the word paradigm based on this general definition:

chipcom 

Vehicular cycling came from someone's need to name, categorize and brand the techniques and principles that people had been already using for years when riding a bicycle on the street...and to make some scratch. It's just plain that simple, no matter how hard its apostles try to argue otherwise.

Use it where it works for you, don't worry about it where it doesn't and leave this place, fast, never looking back, if you want to retain your sanity.

sbhikes

Well then. I guess we've solved this little riddle. Sounds like we all know what VC is.

deputyjones

Hmmm, no response. Too bad. Maybe he is not interested in true advocacy?

georgiaboy

You rock!!!

Helmet Head

I've done this many times, many different ways. My latest effort is the OP of the "Some VC definitions" thread, which is in progress. I hope you provide some comments there, if you haven't already (I can't remember if you have). You don't need to read the whole thread, just the OP, and the last few posts. The rest is just input provided, most of which I believe I have incorporated.

No time for the rest. Just saw this post for the first time. Gotta go!

LittleBigMan

I wonder if anyone has asked the question, "Why is there so much outdated stuff those books? Why do people still read them?"

The other Inane

Well it certainly isn't about getting new people into cycling Lucky I started commuting in traffic before I ever came to A&S otherwise I might of been scared off.

I was tentative enough about trying it for the first time without the reading some of the scare mongering that goes on here. Strangely enough I ended up cycling using quite a few of the VC techniques anyway but I am very much an AC.

I fully agree with what deputyjones said above. I would like to be able see discussion on techniques for handling traffic and genuine exchange of ideas, without the VC/non-VC dogma.