iamtim

Hey, folks. I opened this thread on the Singlespeed/Fixed Gear forum, but it was recommended I ask here as well. With that in mind, please read https://www.bikeforums.net/singlespeed-fixed-gear/207808-what-point-critical-mass.html and let me know your thoughts.

nm+

To piss of drivers.
Really, it civil disobedence (sort of, technically, CD requires laws be broken, CM does not intend to break laws, though some particpants do, whether on accedent or on purpose). Also, a lot of people think its fun.
I'm still not convinced its an effective way of going about thing: civil disobedence only really works if thiers a decent sized sympathetic group somewhere. Also, CD has only really wokred in human rights type issues, I'm not sure this can rally non-cyclists at all -- while rights for blacks in South Africa can get some sympathy from whites abroad, not to many people are going to sympathise with riders slowiung down the commute. In some ways its like a gay pride parade in a rather liberal city, rather than being seen as mocking stereotypes, it really just hardens the homophobe's hate of gays.
That said, I don't have any good ideas on how to improve cyclists rights on a large scale.

trackhub

In Boston, the CM rides take place on the last Friday evening of each month. After having watched a few of them, (while maintaining a discrete distance) and observed some of the antics of the participants, I have decided that CM is not about cycling advocacy. It's about something else.

Eli_Damon

The way I see it, Critical Mass is about two things.

(1) It is a demonstration to enemies of transportational cycling (as opposed to sport cycling) that bicycles belong on the road and a demonstration to allies of transportational cycling that they are not alone.

(2) It is a fun, social event which strengthens the sense of community among cyclists.

CommuterRun

The few cyclists I have spoken to face-to-face on the subject agree with my stance, that CM is the antithesis of effective cycling advocacy.

Because it panders to the Mob Mentality of giving individuals a false feeling of power while seemingly protected by anonymousity.

Mos6502

Critical mass does not have some sort of national shared point to get across. Everywhere it is, it goes along in a different way from anywhere else it is. In some places people are riding to make people aware of such and such, in other places people want to irritate and annoy people, in some places it is done purely for fun.
I suppose you'd have to find somebody from your area who participates in it and ask them what it's about. Otherwise it's like asking a large group of different people what the point of religion is.

jhota

why it's to give me a reason to kill people i don't like, of course.

unkchunk

I don't have any CM here. But from what I learned from some friends and relatives on the west coast who are in to it, it's something for car drivers to do so as to absolve their guilt for driving cars. They can ride their bikes one or two days a year and... they feel better about themselves. I know they don't ride their bikes much the rest of the year. So I guess it's a good thing that CM gets some to ride at least one day.

noisebeam

CD involves breaking the law you want changed - for example a specific law that one finds discrimatory. Not just breaking laws to piss off others.

Al

SamHouston

Not so, CD can take an indirect form & still be quite appropriate. Sit-ins, for example are/were used to protest a variety of practices people found unjust, but the only law broken in a sit-in relates to trespass.

oilfreeandhappy

I think that it's effective for a large group of cyclists to get together to demonstrate against cars. From a driver's perspective, I think it does more than piss them off. Obviously, the impact can't be measured very well. I sincerely think that some people search for alternatives when they see a group of people with such a commitment. But then I'm probably more anti-car than most on this forum.

I would certainly bet that the auto and oil industries don't like Critical Mass. With this in mind, I'm on their side.

cyclezealot

I do not find it a positive goal to intentionally piss off drivers for no cause. But, if like anti cycling laws are proposed or some anti cycling action is taken by , lets says radio dj's or say some prosecutor ignores a cyclists death ; its time for action. Then some kind of critical Mass event should occur. Does not have to be unlawful!
I say here in Europe, Critical Mass has been achieved because cyclists are so common. That makes a huge difference. With numbers motorists know they HAVE to tolerate us. Wish that would occur in the US.

slagjumper

I think that most of the CM in Pittburgh do it for the fun of it. Most motorists dont care. Last week a CM spectator who was observing from his CMU frat boy dwelling, yelled, "What a way to make a viewpoint". He must have started drinking early. I am not so sure that around here there is any point.

Sure the world would be better with more bike only roads in the cities.
Sure big oil sucks.
Sure we are a nation of fat arsed, game boy players with dropping sperm counts and growing impotentcy problems.
Sure petro chemicals are so 1950s.

But from what I've seen it is more about having fun riding with like-minded people.

-=-=-=

Also it does build community among divergent groups. That community *could* be focused on more specific goals and actions later.

Eli_Damon

If you REALLY want to make a point, try this: https://worldnakedbikeride.org/

noisebeam

Your right.

Roody

I think that CM should stop the practice of corking, since it's illegal. Instead, they should stop at each red light, and those riders who have already passed the light should slow to wait for those who are stopped. This would be the legal thing to do, and it would also slow down auto traffic much more, resulting in a more effective demonstration.

BTW, Bikes don't cause traffic jams. Too many cars cause them. Demonstrating this fact is one point of CM.

Old_Fart

Some interesting comments and perspective here, to be sure.

In some posts the perspective is us vs. them, or cars vs. bikes. There has been expressed the opinion that traffic laws were written for cars. The discussion of civil disobedience is interesting.

RE: Cars vs. Bikes; This I find interesting because, as I see it, the end result desired by bikers is that the two groups share the roads with equal access, safety, and rights. One of the big problems in achieving this is that in most areas, bicycles are already legally entitled to equal access to the roads. The problem is in public awareness, acceptance, tolerance, and legal enforcement. For the most part, I don't have a problem with existing laws, I have a problem with not being allowed to excercise existing legal rights to use the roads without being put into dangerous situations by others acting illegally and dangerously.

Traffic laws: Interestingly enough, when traffic laws were originally written at the advent of the automobile age, they were written to promote equal access by all road using groups. They were actually written to protect the rights of non-motorized vehicles like bikes and horses, or horse-drawn vehicles. (see this thread in the Cascade Bicycle Club forums: https://www.cascade.org/Community/for...&threadid=4871)
Understanding, compiance, and enforcement of the traffic laws needs to be adjusted, not as much the laws themselves. There are so many laws on the books in any given area that there is no way in hell all of them can be known to those enforcing them, much less by the general public. We don't need new laws so much as understanding and compliance with existing laws. I'm staying clear of the whole running lights/stop signs thing.

Civil disobedience: As stated above, we already have the legal right to use the roads. The problem is that we are not being allowed to excercise these rights. Civil disobedience here comes in the form of pushing back against those who push us the rest of the time. Critical Mass, as I see it, is a tool to show those who are not always aware that bikes are out there every day in significant numbers and we're not going away any time soon. We already have the right to be on the roads and we are willing to push it a bit beyond to remind the general public. We don't need to excercise CD to use the roads. We use CD to push back a bit and show a small taste of the repression and harrasment we see every day trying to use the roads.

ken cummings

Watch for double meanings. To me the point of critical mass is when enough fissile material gets close enough together. Doesn't always mean Bang. But if you happen to see a blue flash, RUN.

cyclezealot

My advocacy plan for the US. Reach critical mass where there are so many cyclists on the road, motorists won't think it an abhoration. It will take gas priced over $5 a gallon to bring bring this on , I believe.

noisebeam

I agree, this would be DCM vs. the current CCM. (distributed vs. concentrated)

I believe having more law abiding and predictable cyclist on the streets for transportational purposes would do far more for advocacy than a parade of cyclists for [fill in your definition of what CM is] purposes.

(this said I acknoledge that historically CM has helped, but I sense its time has passed for beneficial advocacy)

Al

marcm

^--- I second everything Al said (and third what cyclezealot said).

marcm

In fact, it might be fun to promote "Distributed Critical Mass" in much the same way that "Critical Mass" has been promoted. Flyers, leaflets, websites, word-of-mouth. Rather than "every month, last Friday @ [time], meet at [location]", it would be "every day, whenever, wherever". Both efforts are/would be firstly an idea, and secondly an event -- no two the same. And, everywhere that they happen, both had/will have to start from nothing (or very little).

Furthermore, to save paper, materials, and time, existing Critical Mass flyers could be modified or amended for this purpose. Existing email lists, websites, etc. could also be used, where practical and appropriate.

noisebeam

I was thinking about this too. Another way could even begin as a single location, with riders being sent of on small 2-3 person sub groups to ride parrallel streets and/or loops and then end up and an end point - that way there could be some community connections made too - after all this is a big part of CM, the social aspect.
Al

marcm

That's a good idea! I may even suggest this next month at my local CM. Some people like the "mob" aspect of CM, but in my view, the more roads covered (and the more motorists who see cyclists sharing the road legally and responsibly), the better.

Plus, for those CMers who derive pleasure from pissing off motorists, what better way than to have motorists encounter not just one bunch of cyclists ("Stupid ****ers...at least they're all behind me now"), but many? ("They're everywhere...I just can't seem to get away from them!") And for those places where law-enforcement is harrassing/obstructing CM rides, or where CM is so large that corking is seen as necessary, spreading out in smaller groups would be a great way to avoid problems.

In fact I wonder if anti-war rallies or other protests could take a lesson from this. Put one or a few people with a sign at every street corner, rather than gathering everyone in the same place. The media may ignore you anyway, and not everyone watches TV, but if drivers see people in not just one place but all over, you don't need to rely on the corporate media to be seen/heard.

bragi

I can't say anything about CM events elsewhere, but the recent one here in Seattle, during which "corking" was applied and a couple of cyclists arrested, was appallingly counter-productive. Irritating a lot of people who are trying to make a living just makes all cyclists, whether they took part in the event or not, look like a bunch of immature losers who don't have anything better to do than to mess up traffic, and makes it less likely that the people (e.g., city government) who are in a position to promote bicycle use will be inclined to do so. The net effect is to make the environment MORE hostile to bikes. The people who organize such events should be severely beaten with U-locks, and forced to move to Houston. (My apologies to those of you who live in Houston.)