joaocampos

There were 200 cyclists.
There were 15 wounded. No loss of life.
The driver fled. The driver abandoned the car without plates - Golf Wolkswagen Black. The driver sought advice of counsel. The driver introduced himself to the police affidavit. The lawyer advised the driver who was talking in a panic and felt threatened. In Brazil he would only be arrested if caught in time of the incident (striking) but since it did not, he will not be arrested. Can be retained, but either will respond in freedom ... or during the inductive Christmas signed by President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) that allows all prisoners are set free to see their families at Christmas and they never return to prison ... "Welcome to Brazil"

Gege-Bubu

This video made me really sad.

However, the Critical Mass did not show a good example of "SHARE the road" concept.

GregLast

Son, these people are the cause. If it weren't for people getting out in the streets and getting dirty on the issues that that get swept under the rug, you wouldn't have a cause to care about. You'd just be another dude on a bike that may or may not get spat on and yelled at for choosing to ride a bike. Be the change? That garbage only ever worked in fairy tales. You have to make someone think that you might have a point if you want to see any change. Does this mean being aggressive or confrontational? Sometimes it does. Stop hiding behind the guise of a radical bicyclist, seeking change and living the dream. People that choose to argue legality and mutual respect are wasting everyones time.

The driver of this vehicle created his own frustration and took it too far. A bunch of activists riding bikes in the street didn't lead him to that reaction.

BarracksSi

Pfffft.... :rofl: (in case there's a "rofl" smiley)

beebe

I'm having difficulty deciding whether you're trolling me or not. I hope you are for your sake.

CB HI

GregLast

What's the consequence if I'm not? You'll laugh at me on the internet? I'm not sorry that my opinion differs from yours.

At this point in the game, we aren't talking about advocacy or safety. I think we can all agree that riding in mass is generally pretty safe and Critical Mass isn't about advocacy. We are talking about activism, blind activism albeit, but activism none-the-less. Different set of rules.

cudak888 

Looks as if the Brazilian legal system is going to take this seriously, but it required that the defendant stick his foot in his mouth :

https://outside-blog.away.com/blog/20...s-charged.html

-Kurt

dougmc

No, I don't think we can all agree on that.

Participating in CM rides presents a different sort of danger than riding by yourself -- you're probably less likely to be hit by a car, but far more likely to be hit by a drunken cyclist. You're probably less likely to get mugged for your wallet, but probably more likely to find yourself in the middle (even inadvertently) of an altercation between cyclists, motorists and police. Is it safe? That probably depends on your definition of safety, how you ride, how the rest of the ride rides and the general area -- there's lots of factors. But yes, I'd agree that it's generally safe -- at least compared to some more dangerous activities. Is it safe compared to riding by yourself or with other group rides? That depends on lots of factors.

As for advocacy and activism, you seem to be providing labels to tell people why they ride. But the reality is -- if there's 100 riders, the may be riding for 100 different reasons (or more -- no need for each person to only have one reason). You may think it's not advocacy, but some riders may think it is. You may think it's blind activism, but some riders may think it's not blind at all. And many riders are just doing it because it's fun (and no, while some may be out to cause trouble, it's likely that most are not.)

It's also not clear which rules you're referring to. I'm not aware of advocacy or activism really having rules at all -- at best there may be some general guidelines, and people likely don't even agree on those.

Forknroad

Did you just make that up?

wearyourtruth

i can't say that i'm surprised by this thread, though i will say i am saddened by the response it has receive in a cycling forum.

if this man had pulled his car over, taken a loaded rifle out of the back seat, and proceeded to open fire on the group of cyclists, causing fatalities, i doubt so many of you people would be in here *****ing about the negative effects of critical mass. the fact of the matter is that IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY ****ING DIFFERENCE how obnoxious the riders are being. he exerted DEADLY VIOLENCE on a crowd of non-violent people and got ****ING LUCKY that no one was killed.

this subtle "they brought it on themselves" tone makes me sick. might as well tell me that the flirty girl on the dance floor with the short skirt was "asking to get *****."

GregLast

Wow. You really stretched my last post for every small thing you could take out of context or nit-pick to death. Impressive? I'll start from the bottom up.

When I allude to there being a "different set of rules", I'm not talking about a handbook out there somewhere to be followed. I'm talking about the unspoken behavior that is associated with each collective action. To be a good advocate of something, I believe you must be a role model, being the change, as it were. Follow the rules of the road, be positive in your daily interactions involving you and your bicycle, communicate outward to other what they can expect of cyclists. Activism is another beast. Activism sometimes takes being brash and unwavering, requires solidarity where advocacy does not, and is meant to intentionally provoke a reaction. I'm trying to label anyone, but if you are riding Critical Mass under the assumption that you are riding for cycling advocacy, you might be in the wrong ride my friend. Everyone who rides CM, I'm sure, has a different reason for doing so, but advocacy is sure to be one of the lower common denominators.

Thanks to you for at least agreeing (eventually) that riding in mass (read "en masse" not "in Critical Mass") is generally safer than riding alone.

I refer to Critical Mass being blind activism because there are many reasons for people to ride the event. Environment, sustainability, lifestyle, fun, awareness, all great things to be riding for, but if you were to interview one person and write an article about Critical Mass and the finer points of what the ride is for, you would miss the mark every time. It's blind because it can't see what direction it's headed in collectively.

Just a side note. I'm enjoying this conversation. I'm not angry, just opinionated as many of us are. I like discussion. I don't see anything invalid about your opinions. I hope that courtesy is extended.

dmac49

Some folks just need to get outside more.

BarracksSi

I think it's because there's no "face" to put on CM. There's no leader.

CMers point to the efforts of Dr. King and Ghandi (unjustifiably so, IMO, but that's a tangent), but who's in charge of CM? Like you said, if you were to interview one person about it, you wouldn't get the full message.

I went off on some kid here on BF who wanted to do a big interstate CM ride to coincide with President Obama's inauguration. One point I tried to make clear was, if you're going to do this, image control is everything. You want the best image possible to put on TV, and even more so, you don't want some jackassery from the riders to get recorded on a cell phone camera and uploaded to YouTube before the ride is halfway finished.

The lack of organization that CM seems to love is exactly what keeps it from having a coherent message. Nobody seems to say, "Go talk to Bob Smith over there -- he's the leader of this movement."

But maybe CM purposely refuses to be taken seriously. If so, it's not going to help itself. If it hasn't happened by now, I don't think it'll ever happen.

dougmc

No. I've been on quite a few CM rides, and a lot of the riders are not familiar with riding in a group and more than a few have been drinking or are drinking along the ride.

On these rides, I recall exactly one incident where a car struck a rider (more than a simple bump anyways) -- and it even made the news, as the guy pulled out a gun. Yet I've seen at least a dozen riders crash into curbs, parked cars, each other. I've had brakeless fixie riders almost hit me from behind. I've had people try to trackstand and fail and fall into me.

I've heard a lot of people say how they feel so safe in the mass -- but I don't see it. I think the danger has just changed. But then again, I think the odds of getting hit by a car are very small to begin with if you're riding in a safe manner. Once you start doing dangerous stuff, the odds of trouble go way up. And in a ride like Critical Mass, things change. (At least the Austin version, other cities are likely different. I went on the Anchorage, AK ride last year once, and that seemed very tame and safe.)

Forknroad

Maybe where you are but it's not been my experience. I've been on several CM events in Vancouver, BC and have seen very little alcohol during the rides. Can't say it doesn't happen at all because I've seen it a couple of times - however, no one was acting goofy, so who really cares? The fact that the police here ride bikes along with the CMers probably makes a bit of difference here but from what I've seen there's not really a lot of hooligan's in the rides in Vancouver. The age group runs the gamut from very, very young to seniors. It's pretty cool and there's very little trouble that I've come across.


The danger is part of the fun! Ya gots to live man.

btw: I don't see CM as a protest so much as a celebration of the bicycle.

Forknroad

Further to my last post - in watching the Brazilian video I didn't notice any alcohol at all.

All I saw was a peaceful looking group of cyclists behaving and enjoying themselves on bicycles (enjoying themselves until the incident, of course).

beebe

It's not that your opinion differs from mine, it's that you wrote a thoughtless and partially incoherent reply which was not persuasive in the least, and in many places outright wrong. Here we go:


Random House dictionary defines activism as “the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.” I propose that if we can determine the goal of Critical Mass, we can then determine if it is effective at achieving those goals. In doing such I shall hopefully prove to you that it is a completely impotent activity who is by far outclassed by the actions of activists who acted under the doctrine of “be the change.”

First, let us define the mission of Critical Mass. Mind you, the structureless nature of Critical Mass makes this no easy feat. One rider was cited in the San Franciso Chronicle saying of the event, “"I just go because it's fun, like when about 100 of us all drove through the Moscone Center.” Surely “because it's fun” isn't the goal though, because if it were, Critical Mass would not be a form of activism. Let us instead instead ask chicagocriticalmass.org. They say, “The Mass itself has no political agenda, though, no more than the people of any other community do. Critical Mass is open to all, and it welcomes all riders to join in a celebration of riding bicycles. Why? Because bikes are fun!” Ask critical-mass.info and you'll hear. “Critical Mass is a monthly bicycle ride to celebrate cycling and to assert cyclists' right to the road.”

If it is a celebration and let's-have-fun-on-bikes event, it is most assuredly not activism. The only thing that comes close to activism is asserting bicyclists rights. These rights are already accounted for in US law, and are in fact, not rights, but responsibilities. All users of public infrastructure are responsible for using that infrastructure in a legal and safe manner, and sharing that infrastructure with other travelers.

So does Critical Mass even accomplish the goal of asserting those rights? The Brazilian driver did not seem to respect the cyclists rights any more because of the event. Neither do the many people who dislike the ride, such as the many people on bikeforums who dislike the event, criticalmasssucks.com, or people like this blogger. I would even argue that there is no asserting of rights going on. Being a jerk to other drivers, ignoring traffic laws, and striking pedestrians is not an action of assertion, it is just being a jerk. Neither is going on a big bike ride that impedes traffic because “bikes are fun!”

If their methods aren't working, what should they be doing instead to get drivers to respect cyclist rights? Maybe they could follow the examples of people who have already created positive change in their communities and the world. For instance, Mohandas Ghandi, a lawyer in India during its occupation by the British Raj. Ghandi set the example for Indian citizens to engage in non-violent protest against the British occupation. He is quoted as saying, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” It is by setting the example for other Indian citizens for how to peacefully and civilly protest, that he helped set India on its path to independence with a minimal amount of bloodshed. He did not accomplish his goals through unnecessary confrontation and escalation. He is but a single example among many.

So Critical Mass fails not only to have a goal to accomplish, but they fail to accomplish the goal many people think they have. They do all of this by often acting confrontationally and hindering traffic. I think of myself neither as a radical or an activists myself, but I hope that by following the examples of history, I can do my small part to persuade drivers to share the road and respect me by doing the same to them in return. By doing so I may not affect a large change, but I can guarantee that I will not anger someone to the point that they intentionally strike me with their vehicle.



I hope that I have adequately responded to your previous, apparently non-trolling post. If I have missed any points, it was because I couldn't understand what the points were in your failure to maintain coherence.

beebe

+1

BarracksSi

Exactly. It's taking "rebel without a cause" to a mob level.

If you ask some well-researched CMers, "Where in the law does it say you can ride in the street?", they'll probably have a printout of the exact statute that says they can use the street. Cool, right? Nope, because it's way too easy to stump them by saying, "Ok, so your job is done, you can go home now and celebrate."

If they persist on staging these rides, then it becomes obvious that they have no point.

Commodus

It's good for people to see a world that doesn't have the car as the dominant lifeform, even for a few minutes. The silliness that often occurs on the rides is regrettable, but it's human nature. Any protest of any kind sees similar things going on.

It's a truly tiny mind that can not separate the actions of a few radicals from the image.

And let's not pretend they have no point. If they weren't necessary, there would be no such thing as bicycle activism, and no such forum.

dougmc

Well, it may be obvious to you, but they still go ride. You've pointed out the flaw in their logic, and they did not explode (as robots often do under such circumstances, at least in the movies.)

That suggests that either 1) humans don't usually explode when their logical flaws are exposed, or 2) you did not actually point out a (or the) flaw in their logic (it was a strawman), or 3) they ride for more than one reason. The reality is probably all three.

In a similar vein, you should go up to a NRA member, and ask where they get the right to bear arms. If they answer "The Second Amendment", respond with "Ok, so your job is done, you can go home now (put your guns away) and celebrate." I imagine it'll work just as well there.

Or go up to a black pride march, ask them if the law gives black people the same rights as white people. You get the idea ...

BarracksSi

There's a reason why they call TV the "idiot box". The well-reasoned, peaceful activists don't get nearly the airtime that the loonies do.

beebe

There is such a thing as bicycle advocacy (perhaps even activism) outside of Critical Mass. They do not, however, attempt to 'assert rights' by their complete non-assertive jerk-baggery, nor do these rights usually need to be asserted by a mob. Real, positive advocacy comes from groups who raise money for bike trails (like my local group called the Greenway) or like the organizations supported by Planet Bike, who do things like planning out streets that are safer for cycling. I fail to see how Critical Mass is accomplishing anything even remotely resembling this kind of positive change, because they 1: don't have a real goal, and 2: allow participants to be jerks. Critical Mass is not a forum. Forums have exchanges of ideas and rhetoric. Critical Mass is just a mob of people going, "WOOOOOO BIIIIIIKES!!!!"

B. Carfree

Ugh. I can't believe I'm going to defend the CMers. They do have a goal, or at least the early ones did. (I'm not sure many of the folks who attend could articulate it anymore.) The goal was to force the motorists to slow down to safe speeds and pay attention so that we could exercise our right to the roadway without constant fear of becoming bloody messes. Thus the takeover of the roadway and the attention-getting antics.

I have heard/read many well put together analyses of the role Malcolm X played in MLK's success. Put simply, white America realized that they could deal with the reasonable uppity negro, or with the scarier one who implied a violent change. Many people believe that MLK could not have succeeded without Malcolm as a counterweight. Similarly, those of us who have been behaving ourselves and being the change we have wanted to see for oh-so-many decades finally started to have success AFTER CM became a running feature across the nation. I don't think that is a coincidence.