nobody needs a car, the issue here is that people set the goal of their life to make money and move to the suburbs because they feel safer around white people, this makes biking less convenient, but my parents live in a huge suburb and I still ride my bike around there, cars don't know what to think of it, because they don't see bikes on those roads, but it is by no means required, and as far as a job, I just turned down a job from a company that would've payed for my last year of college, but i would've had to buy a car, so don't say "a neccessity in todays infrestructure", say "some people think they need cars because they'd rather be fat and lazy in the suburbs", as I said before, I move out of the way for ambulances and firetrucks, I have more respect for busses than cars, and I would never step foot in a taxi. There's a much bigger issue here than people are bringing up. 40,000 people dying from car accidents, and huge holes in the ozone layer combined with pollution, and then people are acting like they don't understand how so many people are getting cancer, not to mention asthma, so tell me car drivers are human as much as you want, but I don't have respect for people who are willing to hurt other people just for their convenience, becuase I know you can do just about anything on a bicycle, because i've seen it done, bikes with kids seats, bikes with trailers, and kids riding bikes across the entire continent, how is a car a necessity when it's possible to ride a bike across the country?? no one needs a car, they just want them. and, I do all my food shopping by bike, maybe a rare occasion i'll take the bus, but still no car
Again, I would like someone to calmly and ratioanlly explain to me just what enlightened committee gets to decide who "needs" a car and for what purposes cars are "needed" and when they are not "needed." We can all agree that teh soccer mom driving the SUV 2 blocks to the supermarket doe snot NEED to do it--And we can all agree that someone who owns a landscaping business probably NEEDS a truck to haul lumber. But what of the millions of people who fall in between? Who decides? I know an aweful lot of salesmen who simpyl could nto function without personal transportation. Often, business people need to get to an unexpected client meeting. Married couples who work in different cities often live at a midway point and both drive into work. How is a family with 4 kids and 2 working parents suppossed to get them all to school/daycare on a bike when its 20 degrees out and snowing? I agree that many many people drive to places where they could bike. But its not as simple as you are making it out to be. And i also take issue with your comment about people moving to the burbs to be around white people. My parents moved out of the city to get away from the crime and high proeprty taxes. They have nonwhite neighbors on either side of them who they spend a great deal of time with (1 family which recently moved from the city). Unless you want to set up some enlightened committee of our betters to arbitrarily decides who NEEDS a car and when, the solution is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Yes, we should all work to decrese the amoutn of vehciles on the road. But if you want people to move back to the city, calling them names and berating them isnt the way to do it. Once you make the cities, safe, clean and affordable with good schools and reasonable taxes, people might start moving back into them. Its nice you have all these ideals, but perhaps you should take a course in economics during your last year in school.
Also, so long as you have freewill and choice, theere will always be people who abuse it. The solution is to convince them to change their behavior, not to take away their ability to make choices.
skanking biker
05-26-05, 02:13 PM
I don't have a problem with construction vehicles or moving trucks, or even semi's for that matter, but buying a car solely based on convenience of transportation is not needed, and i'm being nice in giving that one to you, because no one is forced to go into landscaping, that again is the choice people make.
So peopel shouldnt go into their profession of choice because it might involve driving? How on earth will all the aprtments get built and all the rotting inner city homes get refurbished without landsacpers or contractors. What will these people do for a living?
noisebeam
05-26-05, 02:19 PM
Its nice you have all these ideals, but .... .
Not just take econ course, but spend some time living and making a living in different parts of the world.
Also, so long as you have freewill and choice, theere will always be people who abuse it. The solution is to convince them to change their behavior, not to take away their ability to make choices.
Right. Getting people to change behavior is not a fight, it takes education, letting people learn about their options, the consequences/implications of their choices. Even more basic is getting people to even want to learn/think in the first place. Many people don't even think about the consequences, not because they are wholly unthinking selfish people, but because people often only have so many things to consider in their lives.
Al
skanking biker
05-26-05, 02:21 PM
Not just take econ course, but spend some time living and making a living in different parts of the world.
Right. Getting people to change behavior is not a fight, it takes education, letting people learn about their options, the consequences/implications of their choices. Even more basic is getting people to even want to learn/think in the first place. Many people don't even think about the consequences, not because they are wholly unthinking selfish people, but because people often only have so many things to consider in their lives.
Al
Hell must have frozen over--someone actually agreed with me on this forum :)
mpop
05-26-05, 02:26 PM
Hell must have frozen over--someone actually agreed with me on this forum :)
Well I like what you posted and agree with it also, and take a look here.http://www.cybersalt.org/cleanlaugh/images/03/signhell.htm
so you were right hell did freeze
dwightonabike
05-26-05, 02:55 PM
I again state CM'S activities have done NOTHING at all to improve bike riding in this area. Nothing they have been doing for 20 years has brought about any improvements or changes.
Have there been any improvements for cyclists in your area in the past 20 years? If there have, I would challenge you to prove that the issue awareness generated by CMs did not help the cause. For every angry driver that a CM creates, who know how many people sympathetic to cyclists are made aware of the issue by media coverage?
powertoold
05-26-05, 02:58 PM
Yup, someone posted an article from SFGate talking about how Critical Mass is helping to shape San Francisco into a more cycle-friendly environment.
dwightonabike
05-26-05, 03:02 PM
dwightonabike, I would argue that the media coverage of CM is bad, I could see a politician running and have on his platform to get ride of bikers, and use CM as an example of the harm that bikers can do, and by doing CM you could only help to get policy passed that is against bikers. I don't think any one is every going to say, they people are annoying me, I think I will vote to help them, no people will vote against those that annoy them as CM's main goal seams to be.
Maybe you will accept arrest, but when I see people talk about critical mass, they talk about how their 1st amendment right are violated when they get arrested for breaking the law, oh no they are not trying to deny you your rights, if you were doing sidewalk protesting (I have done this on other issues) the police will not arrest you, in fact I was at one (on a different political issue, a very hot button one at that), that the police came out to, because they got over 60 calls complaining against us but they did not arrest a single one of us, I was listing to them on my scanner, and they had some very mean things to say about us, and that they wish they could arrest us, but (line from the radio) "these people disgust us, but unfortunately they have the first amendment right to do it" notice the police did not like us doing that sidewalk (with out obstructing pedestrian traffic) but they did not harass us, nor did they arrest a single person.
The point is not to get the drivers you anger to vote for bike facilities. The point is publicity. The only bad publicity is no publicity. Look what happened to Paris Hilton's popularity after the release of the sex tape.
"they" are not trying to deny our rights when they make arrests at CMs. It isn't our right to break the traffic laws to make a point. It is our duty to do what we can to make our issue known. People only take notice when something is thrown in their face. If you stand on the sidewalk with signs, half the people won't see you, half of the remainder will think you're advertising, and the remainder will laugh or honk, then go about their day, quickly forgetting. How many sidewalk protests generate continued national media coverage and multiple, long, forum threads?
Roughstuff
05-26-05, 03:15 PM
I always watch discussions about CM for a long time before I finally jump in. The simplest explanation of this is that I agree, to some extent, with bits and pieces of every letter posted. Rather than pick and choose in an endless series of letters and responses, i figured i'd wait a while and see how this thread turned out.
To me the glaring weakness with CM is evident in their motto: we aren't blocking traffic. We are traffic. . No, you are not.
As a cyclist with more than 200,000 miles under my belt since the early 1970s, my attitude has always been the same. I am a cyclist extended the privilege of using the roadway provided that use doesn't unduly interefere with the primary USES and USERS of the nations roads. And that means cars and trucks. Busses too, in some cases. Get over it if you don't like it. Get UNDER them if you get in their way, and don't waste time looking for sympathy from me. Where I ride there are decent shoulders, and those shoulders have always been set aside for my exclusive use on the roadway. Other vehicles enter the shoulder rarely, briefly, carefully and in unusual circumstances. I return the favor. Don't give me sob stories about how your urban/suburban ghetto streets don't have shoulders. Thats just another argument that life in the city sucks---and that was your choixe, not mine. If you decide to 'solve' this problem by going out where vehicles with signals, brake lights, and restraint mechanisms outweigh you 40-1, again...thats your choice. Live with it, and probably die with it.
A second glaring weakness of CMs methods. Exactly how the 'problem' of rude drivers and traffic jams, is going to be alleviated by introducing rude cyclists to the highway, escapes me. They act like buttholes and then complain when people treat them accordingly.
The same CM'ers who carp constantly about cars, trucks and busses are hopelessly dependent upon them for their food, fiber, and other possessions. I am sure they want these items delivered to them, to borrow a phrase, with all deliberate speed. Last time ***I*** looked my local shop had their bikes, parts, tools and clothing delivered by trucks. I am sure if their parts were weeks late because they were held up behind CM rides from one coast to the other, CM'ers would be the first and foremost to complain.
The only meaningful commercial use I have read about using bicycles in urban areas is delivery boys; and if there was ever a group that as swiftly generated a reputation for rudeness and carelessness toward pedestrians, I'd sure like to know it. What a pity, too: because it is clear now that cops and some emergency personnel can scoot to the scene of an accident on a bike faster than emergency vehicles can, and I hate to see their valiant efforts dragged down by some two wheeled (usually illegal immigrant) morons.
roughstuff
scarry
05-26-05, 03:28 PM
There has been a CM here in Seattle for almost 20 years. None of what CM has done in this town has had ANY positive impact on bicycle rights. However the organizations that are filled with riders who meekly ride by the rules have got us more rights.
CM by admission has no leadership therefore no ability to go to public meetings, council meetings, or bike advocacy rallies. This is were changes have been happening. You get more done working with people than you do pissing them off.
Maybe true about Seattle, but different story here is SF.
Shahum is equally at home poring over dull traffic studies -- the Bicycle Coalition's office seems to have these lying on every available surface -- or networking and rallying the faithful. In her nearly seven years with the organization (the last two and a half as director), Shahum has built an easy rapport with the City's bikers. (The organization was founded in the 1970s but was moribund for a decade until 1991, when it was revived by the Critical Mass generation of activists.)
Roughstuff
05-26-05, 03:36 PM
So people shouldnt go into their profession of choice because it might involve driving? How on earth will all the aprtments get built and all the rotting inner city homes get refurbished without landscpers or contractors. What will these people do for a living?
Skank...you don't understand the CM mentat. It is only permissible to use a car, bus, or truck in a time, place, and for a purpose which CM approves. I am reminded of the ads Lance Armstrong starred in during his early TDF years, showing a sportcar screaming down a Colorado mountain road at some outrageous speed. Driving like that kills alotmore cyclists every year than testicular cancer ever will. Its why to this day I don't wear a livestrong bracelet. Hypocrisy is rampant throughout the cycling community; CM is just the tip of the iceberg.
roughstuff
noisebeam
05-26-05, 03:36 PM
I... I agree, to some extent, with bits and pieces of every letter posted. ...
And I agree and disagree with bits and pieces of your post.
To me the glaring weakness with CM is evident in their motto: we aren't blocking traffic. We are traffic. . No, you are not.
Right, CM tend to be a parade, a demonstration, an event.
... I am a cyclist extended the privilege of using the roadway provided that use doesn't unduly interefere with the primary USES and USERS of the nations roads. And that means cars and trucks. Busses too, in some cases. Get over it if you don't like it. Get UNDER them if you get in their way, and don't waste time looking for sympathy from me.
Cyclist have right to the road. It is a privilege and as such should be respected. I disagree as to primary vs. not. The road is shared. If you legally prevent a vehicle from proceeding at speed (i.e. using in normal vehicular manner) , that vehicle has the responsibility to not hit you, just as they should not hit a bus which is slowing for a stop.
Where I ride there are decent shoulders, and those shoulders have always been set aside for my exclusive use on the roadway. Other vehicles enter the shoulder rarely, briefly, carefully and in unusual circumstances. I return the favor. Don't give me sob stories about how your urban/suburban ghetto streets don't have shoulders. Thats just another argument that life in the city sucks---and that was your choixe, not mine.
Here I strongly disagree. Shoulders are have not been set aside for bicycles nor any other vehicle. Rights to the road means full rights to use the road according to the local law, which generally is as far to the right as practible, but this may mean full use of the lane depending on situation. This is not the shouldler. It is not just urban areas that have no shoulder, many rural roads do not either (at least here in AZ).
If you decide to 'solve' this problem by going out where vehicles with signals, brake lights, and restraint mechanisms outweigh you 40-1, again...thats your choice. Live with it, and probably die with it.
There is no where to ride in AZ, other than a few bike paths and canals where you are not sharing with vehicles. Cycling on roads is a safe activity and can be even safer thur use of road/traffic negotiation technique and skill. I don't ride on these streets to solve any problem, but for transportation and sometimes recreation.
A second glaring weakness of CMs methods. Exactly how the 'problem' of rude drivers and traffic jams, is going to be alleviated by introducing rude cyclists to the highway, escapes me. They act like buttholes and then complain when people treat them accordingly.
Totally agree. It is counter productive. The biggerst problem faced by cyclists is not infrastructure or traffic, but driver behavior and attitude toward & understanding of cyclists.
The same CM'ers who carp constantly about cars, trucks and busses are hopelessly dependent upon them for their food, fiber, and other possessions.
Excellent point.
The only meaningful commercial use I have read about using bicycles in urban areas is delivery boys; and if there was ever a group that as swiftly generated a reputation for rudeness and carelessness toward pedestrians, I'd sure like to know it. What a pity, too: because it is clear now that cops and some emergency personnel can scoot to the scene of an accident on a bike faster than emergency vehicles can, and I hate to see their valiant efforts dragged down by some two wheeled (usually illegal immigrant) morons.
Not sure exactly your point, but yes, some cyclists whether recreational, commercial, racing, commuting or parading do re-enforce negative stereotypes, (of which you seem to have some of your own)
Al
recursive
05-26-05, 03:53 PM
Skank...you don't understand the CM mentat. It is only permissible to use a car, bus, or truck in a time, place, and for a purpose which CM approves. I am reminded of the ads Lance Armstrong starred in during his early TDF years, showing a sportcar screaming down a Colorado mountain road at some outrageous speed. Driving like that kills alotmore cyclists every year than testicular cancer ever will. Its why to this day I don't wear a livestrong bracelet. Hypocrisy is rampant throughout the cycling community; CM is just the tip of the iceberg.
roughstuff
Are you saying that instead of fighting cancer, livestrong should use it's funds to educate drivers to not drive too fast? I don't get it. Where's the hypocrisy?
randya
05-26-05, 03:54 PM
Yup, someone posted an article from SFGate talking about how Critical Mass is helping to shape San Francisco into a more cycle-friendly environment.
Every city with a vibrant and active Critical Mass ride is better in almost every way for cyclists than those without.
brokenrobot
05-26-05, 03:58 PM
Maybe you will accept arrest, but when I see people talk about critical mass, they talk about how their 1st amendment right are violated when they get arrested for breaking the law, oh no they are not trying to deny you your rights, if you were doing sidewalk protesting (I have done this on other issues) the police will not arrest you, in fact I was at one (on a different political issue, a very hot button one at that), that the police came out to, because they got over 60 calls complaining against us but they did not arrest a single one of us, I was listing to them on my scanner, and they had some very mean things to say about us, and that they wish they could arrest us, but (line from the radio) "these people disgust us, but unfortunately they have the first amendment right to do it" notice the police did not like us doing that sidewalk (with out obstructing pedestrian traffic) but they did not harass us, nor did they arrest a single person.
Actually, not true at all. In New York - the city where CM arrests are occurring - over 1,500 people got arrested as pedestrians while engaged in legal protest activities, mostly on the sidewalks, in August 2004; 256 cyclists were arrested during the same time period. The fact that you were not arrested in Pittsburgh is totally irrelevant.
When one is arrested for engaging in protected political speech or for engaging in protected assembly, it's a violation of the 1st Amendment, whether you're on foot or on bicycle. End of story. Disagree? Go back and read the 1st Amendment again. Still disagree? Go find somebody to explain it to you. If you or your reader can find an "except for cyclists" clause ANYWHERE in the Constitution or its amendments, I'll eat whatever hat you wish me to eat. I'll even pay postage on that hat.
On a less topical note, I'd like to encourage you to research the proper use of commas; doing so might enable you to write significantly more-readable posts. I'm enjoying this debate, but I do sometimes find it difficult to parse your meaning.
Roughstuff
05-26-05, 03:58 PM
Are you saying that instead of fighting cancer, livestrong should use it's funds to educate drivers to not drive to fast? I don't get it. Where's the hypocrisy?
Well, I suppose thats one alternative. But my point was actually fuzzier than that. I am just pointing out that cyclists, in their own time and in their own ways, often engage in behavior that places other cyclists at risk.
roughstuff
brokenrobot
05-26-05, 04:00 PM
Skank...you don't understand the CM mentat.
roughstuff
Not true; he understands it perfectly, but he's also a troll looking for opportunities to spew Rand-isms.
Roughstuff
05-26-05, 04:14 PM
Not true; he understands it perfectly, but he's also a troll looking for opportunities to spew Rand-isms.
You mean Ayn Rand? or do ya mean, "Randya"-isms. :)
roughstuff
skanking biker
05-26-05, 04:56 PM
Excuse me, I am trying to have a rational discussion with members on this forum
Simply because i happen to share some of Rand's objectiveist viewpoints does not mean all my posts "spew randisms" any more than all the CM posts spew Chomskyisms.
I don;t recall calling anyone names on this thread, so i would appreciate if you would dispense with the ad hominem attacks and if you disagree with me please state your reasons.
I think this thread is very productive and is helping each side to undertsand where the other is coming from.
Name calling is no substitute for rational discourse
skanking biker
05-26-05, 04:57 PM
How can i be a "troll" when i share many of your same goals--i simply disagree with the means
skanking biker
05-26-05, 05:02 PM
As i see it, almost everyoen here shares the same 3 goals
1. increase the number of people bicycling
2. reduce the use of automobiles
3. educate drivers that cyclists have rights to the road and should be respected.
So please tell me why you find it necessary to call people names and enagage in personal attacks. This is the problem I see with CM. Rather than trying to find common ground and work together to create solutions, they give a big F! U! to anyone who doesn't agree with them. Tell me how that is going to get you anywhere.
ngateguy
05-26-05, 05:12 PM
Have there been any improvements for cyclists in your area in the past 20 years? If there have, I would challenge you to prove that the issue awareness generated by CMs did not help the cause. For every angry driver that a CM creates, who know how many people sympathetic to cyclists are made aware of the issue by media coverage?
Yes there have been many improvements. Bike racks on all buses, more bike lanes, bike paths that enable riders to cross Lake Washington etc etc. The only media coverage we get from Cm is the disruption they cause during friday rush hour traffic.
The improvements have been largely due to the work of the Washington Bicycle Coalition and Cascade Bicycle Club.
scarry
05-26-05, 05:28 PM
Check out pictures of the Santa Monica Critical Mass here.
These sure don't look like rampaging anarchists to me.
I don't really understand the reasoning for running red lights and disobeying traffic laws either. The reason to go a Critical Mass is to survive one, without getting arrested for exercising free speech rights, so you can go to the next one.
Yes, bikes are traffic. So, we should act like traffic, no matter how large the pack is.
randya
05-26-05, 06:02 PM
I don't really understand the reasoning for running red lights and disobeying traffic laws either. The reason to go a Critical Mass is to survive one, without getting arrested for exercising free speech rights, so you can go to the next one.
Yes, bikes are traffic. So, we should act like traffic, no matter how large the pack is.
In both Portland and NYC, it makes no difference, the police are giving out tickets to CM participants even when the ride is fully law-abiding; in NYC this is being done in violation of court orders. Despite this, the rides continue every month in the face of this blatant discrimination. When the police state sees fit to behave this way, all they do is strengthen the resolve of CM participants, and weaken their own position.
supcom
05-26-05, 09:32 PM
When one is arrested for engaging in protected political speech or for engaging in protected assembly, it's a violation of the 1st Amendment, whether you're on foot or on bicycle. End of story. Disagree? Go back and read the 1st Amendment again. Still disagree? Go find somebody to explain it to you. If you or your reader can find an "except for cyclists" clause ANYWHERE in the Constitution or its amendments, I'll eat whatever hat you wish me to eat. I'll even pay postage on that hat.
On a less topical note, I'd like to encourage you to research the proper use of commas; doing so might enable you to write significantly more-readable posts. I'm enjoying this debate, but I do sometimes find it difficult to parse your meaning.
I'd like to encourage you to read up a bit on the issue of parade permits and free speech. The Supreme Court long ago resolved that cities may implement a permit system for parades and protests so long as the permit system does not discriminate against any particular group or message. You may not agree with the Supreme Court, but barring a constitutional amendment or constitutional convention to the contrary, this is the way that it is. Still disagree? Go find sombody to explain it to you.
The real legal issue with NYC CM is not one of free speech. Just about everyone agrees that a CM ride is a symbolic expression of free speech (whatever the message, or messages, may be) and as such, is protected by the constitution. The issue is whether CM falls within the definition of a protest march or parade and subject to the parade permit requirements that are permitted by constitutional law. I suspect that so long as CM engages in traffic obstruction and widespread violation of traffic laws, it will ultimately be determined to be subject to parade laws.
skanking biker
05-26-05, 09:38 PM
This is correct. the Supreme COurt (which interprets the Constitution) has explicitly held that Cities and municipalities are allowed to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the right of assembly under their general police powers, so long as such regulations are applied in a viewpoint nuetral manner. Thus, requiring a large group of cyclists blocking traffic to obtain a parade permit is perfectly legal so long as the same would be required of a large "walking" protest down the city street.
Now the methods they use to enforce the permit requirement are another issue altogther.....and from what i have heard, probably NOT legal.
nycm'er
05-27-05, 12:46 AM
This is correct. the Supreme COurt (which interprets the Constitution) has explicitly held that Cities and municipalities are allowed to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the right of assembly under their general police powers, so long as such regulations are applied in a viewpoint nuetral manner. Thus, requiring a large group of cyclists blocking traffic to obtain a parade permit is perfectly legal so long as the same would be required of a large "walking" protest down the city street.
Now the methods they use to enforce the permit requirement are another issue altogther.....and from what i have heard, probably NOT legal.
This is exactly the fight in NYC. If you take one of the main points of CM, the "organized coincidence" bit, you are not really an assembly, just as rush hour isn't. Before you nay-sayers jump to the reply button, I don't think that rush hour and CM are exactly the same, yet. But there is little spacial difference between 1000 bikes and 100 cars moving 10mph on a Friday night in NYC. In the past four years I rode, the cops waved the ride through the lights, that is not breaking the law.
Also as a CM rider, I have become more involved with the bike advocacy issues in NYC, I go to community board meetings etc. Had I not found the community of the NYC CM riders, I probably wouldn't.
We are traffic Rough, we are vehicles, we must follow vehicle code and are not allowed on sidewalks. The original plan of NYC streets were laid out for wagon carts and pavement was put in because the League of American Wheelman campaigned for it. Thats the original use for roads.
I haven't heard anyone here complain about being fined or arrested for breaking the law while riding. In Feb I rode one block, waited for the light, and with five others was arrested, for Disorderly conduct and Parading without a permit. Neither of those charges have anything to do with riding one block and obeying traffic law. People here are maimed and killed by cars weekly, and tickets are not issued, some how there seems to be an imbalance in the way the law is interpreted.
Roughstuff
05-27-05, 08:12 AM
.
We are traffic Rough, we are vehicles, we must follow vehicle code and are not allowed on sidewalks. The original plan of NYC streets were laid out for wagon carts and pavement was put in because the League of American Wheelman campaigned for it. Thats the original use for roads.
I understand your points and agree with their spirit, but not the letter. First, I don't care what the original use of roads was, any more than I care what the original use of corn cobs was. We have moved on to bigger and better things! :)
In the case of roads, this means motorized transportation of goods and people. No one has ever suggested that bicycles could have anything but a very narrow and specialized role to play in this overall critical need. Thus to me, as both a cyclist and a car driver, a bicycle is definitely a secondary vehicle on the road, and we should behave accordingly, as I suggested in my earlier letter.
roughstuff
mpop
05-27-05, 09:01 AM
When one is arrested for engaging in protected political speech or for engaging in protected assembly, it's a violation of the 1st Amendment, whether you're on foot or on bicycle. End of story. Disagree? Go back and read the 1st Amendment again. Still disagree? Go find somebody to explain it to you. If you or your reader can find an "except for cyclists" clause ANYWHERE in the Constitution or its amendments, I'll eat whatever hat you wish me to eat. I'll even pay postage on that hat.
It is only a violation of the 1st amendment right if you are not breaking the law, if you are breaking the law (running red lights, cutting off cars) you are breaking the law and they have the right to arrest you, the right to free speech does not supersede the laws. Also free speech does not mean you can say what ever you want when ever you want, aka, shouting fire (or bomb) in a crowed public venue.
I am not saying there is an except for cyclists clause I am saying there is a rule of law, and if cyclists break the rule of law, they can be arrested even if they are protesting. Protest all you want, and don't break the law, then they legally can not arrest you, and if they do, then you have a constitutional case.
If I was to burn down a building in a form of a protest, does the 1st amendment protect me, no some one that does that deserves jail time.
scarry
05-27-05, 10:28 AM
It is only a violation of the 1st amendment right if you are not breaking the law, if you are breaking the law (running red lights, cutting off cars) you are breaking the law and they have the right to arrest you, the right to free speech does not supersede the laws. Also free speech does not mean you can say what ever you want when ever you want, aka, shouting fire (or bomb) in a crowed public venue.
I am not saying there is an except for cyclists clause I am saying there is a rule of law, and if cyclists break the rule of law, they can be arrested even if they are protesting. Protest all you want, and don't break the law, then they legally can not arrest you, and if they do, then you have a constitutional case.
If I was to burn down a building in a form of a protest, does the 1st amendment protect me, no some one that does that deserves jail time.
Motorists are not arrested for running a red light, certainly not for cutting off a cyclist or pedestrian, even killing one. At the most they are issued a ticket.
mpop
05-27-05, 10:44 AM
Motorists are not arrested for running a red light, certainly not for cutting off a cyclist or pedestrian, even killing one. At the most they are issued a ticket.
And they should be ticket for running reds and killing peds and cyclists (well here they should server the appropriate jail term, if it is truly their fault), just because a law is not enforced (wrongly) does not give others the "right" to disobey it.
Maybe the best course is to see if it is possible to get people, cyclists, peds, and motorists to pressure your city to enforce the laws, not all drivers run reds, I know many drivers that wish the cops would ticket though that run red lights, and assume the "Pittsburgh Left"
There are other laws the cops do not enforce here in Pittsburgh that make it a pain for drivers too, like the J-walking laws. Just try to drive between the William Penn Union (at Pitt) and the Cathedral of Learning (at Pitt) at the top and bottom of the hour, the students don't even pay any mind to the "Don't Walk" lights, and if you are unlucky enough to have to drive, or bike that road at those times during the day during the fall and spring semesters, just sit back you will be there for about 10 minutes and not move at all since it is just ridicules, not a signal student observes the law, all of them peds too.
When on the road respect is a 3 way street, you have peds, bikers and motor vehicles.
I am not defending motorists that break the law, I agree they should get ticked and/or jail. I am just speaking against those on bikes that do not obey the law.
scarry
05-27-05, 11:42 AM
And they should be ticket for running reds and killing peds and cyclists (well here they should server the appropriate jail term, if it is truly their fault), just because a law is not enforced (wrongly) does not give others the "right" to disobey it.
Maybe the best course is to see if it is possible to get people, cyclists, peds, and motorists to pressure your city to enforce the laws, not all drivers run reds, I know many drivers that wish the cops would ticket though that run red lights, and assume the "Pittsburgh Left"
There are other laws the cops do not enforce here in Pittsburgh that make it a pain for drivers too, like the J-walking laws. Just try to drive between the William Penn Union (at Pitt) and the Cathedral of Learning (at Pitt) at the top and bottom of the hour, the students don't even pay any mind to the "Don't Walk" lights, and if you are unlucky enough to have to drive, or bike that road at those times during the day during the fall and spring semesters, just sit back you will be there for about 10 minutes and not move at all since it is just ridicules, not a signal student observes the law, all of them peds too.
When on the road respect is a 3 way street, you have peds, bikers and motor vehicles.
I am not defending motorists that break the law, I agree they should get ticked and/or jail. I am just speaking against those on bikes that do not obey the law.
Well as NY,CMr said, he was arrested while obeying the law, stopped at a light.
mpop
05-27-05, 12:01 PM
Well as NY,CMr said, he was arrested while obeying the law, stopped at a light.
He says he was obeying the law (I am not attacking him here, I just want to say that for every issue there are at lest 2 sides, I have no reason to disbelieve what he has said, but for the sake of pure argument I will continue with this for now), but the question came up are they considered a parade, and if so did they have a permit? If the answer to the 1st is yes and the second is no, then he did break the law. Is it a parade I don't think so and he was wrongly arrest I would say. But I am not just talking about him I am talking about CM in general. And most CM's I have read about do break the law, run red lights, cut off cars, etc.
Also, I hope that NY,CMr fights that arrest and wins, I wish him the best of luck, you should not be arrested for following the law.
We can debate for eternity if CM needs a permit or not, I would say if CM rides within the law, then no they do not need a permit, but if they do not want to have to stop at lights, etc then they need a permit, but I doubt any sane city would issue a permit for CM during rush hour, but I could be wrong here.
scarry
05-27-05, 12:26 PM
We can debate for eternity if CM needs a permit or not, I would say if CM rides within the law, then no they do not need a permit, but if they do not want to have to stop at lights, etc then they need a permit, but I doubt any sane city would issue a permit for CM during rush hour, but I could be wrong here.
Well I will not be debating for eternity, for I will be riding in San Fransisco CM in about 8 hours.
Before the ride I plan on having a nice tall brew and a crab sandwich.
As far as getting a permit, I spit on a permit. Who would get the permit? There is no organization that makes the ride happen.
And as far as blowing red lights, both the city and riders learned that allowing the ride to continue unbroken makes the evening smoother for everyone, including motorists, by keeping the ride moving.
This was not the case in Sept. of 2002 when close to 10,000 cyclists showed up for the 10th anniversary.
At that ride there was a band on a float pulled by bikes and it was indeed major mayhem for motorists.
randya
05-27-05, 01:04 PM
...both the city and riders learned that allowing the ride to continue unbroken makes the evening smoother for everyone, including motorists, by keeping the ride moving.
This is so obvious, I don't know why it's so difficult for the authorities or other cyclists to understand. Requiring Critical Mass to "ride to rule" creates way more unnecessary havoc, confusion and traffic disruption than allowing the ride to 'cork' and stay together, which allows the ride to move at a faster pace and clear any given area much faster. "Ride to rule" only slows and separates the ride, frustrating everyone, cyclists, police and motorists included.
recursive
05-27-05, 01:30 PM
"Ride to rule" only slows and separates the ride, frustrating everyone, cyclists, police and motorists included.
But hey, if your goal is to frustrate everyone, you should be glad about that.
randya
05-27-05, 02:20 PM
But hey, if your goal is to frustrate everyone, you should be glad about that.
I never said that I was interested in frustrating anyone, most of all it's the cops that seem to have this attitude.
Have you ever even been on a Critical Mass ride, or are you just pontificating from your armchair?
recursive
05-27-05, 02:33 PM
I never said that I was interested in frustrating anyone, most of all it's the cops that seem to have this attitude.
Have you ever even been on a Critical Mass ride, or are you just pontificating from your armchair?
Both. I have been on precisely one. It seems likely though, that CMs are different in different areas.
Anyway, sorry about that last comment if you were offended.
randya
05-27-05, 03:09 PM
Anyway, sorry about that last comment if you were offended.
Thanks; but don't worry, I've been around here for a couple years of Critical Mass debates, and I don't offend that easily. :)
Roody
05-27-05, 05:56 PM
[. . .] Unless you want to set up some enlightened committee of our betters to arbitrarily decides who NEEDS a car and when, the solution is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Yes, we should all work to decrese the amoutn of vehciles on the road. But if you want people to move back to the city, calling them names and berating them isnt the way to do it. Once you make the cities, safe, clean and affordable with good schools and reasonable taxes, people might start moving back into them. Its nice you have all these ideals, but perhaps you should take a course in economics during your last year in school.
Also, so long as you have freewill and choice, theere will always be people who abuse it. The solution is to convince them to change their behavior, not to take away their ability to make choices.
Committees were set up during World War II to decide who got to drive--they called it gasoline rationing and tire rationing. I wasn't around, but I hear it worked pretty good. We're in a war now--a war for oil--so maybe rationing will soon be ready for a reprise.
And you've got the other part about suburban flight about as backwards as it can be. It's really amazing just how backwards you do have it! The cities are in bad shape precisely because the people with money (i.e., the white people) moved out. And the reason they moved out is because automobiles allowed people to live further apart from each other and further from their dirty workplaces (which happened to be in the city). And the cities won't improve until people with money move back in. And people with money won't move back in as long as they are able to drive cars long distances.
I do agree totally with your last sentence: "The solution is to convice them [motorists] to change their behavior, not to take away their ability to make choices." Well said, skankbiker. And isn't that exactly what CM is trying to do? You made the point for the other side! Thank you.
TrekDen
05-27-05, 07:16 PM
I for one, can't believe that this discussion is still going on! It's a mood point, some agree, some don't. Talk about a filabuster conversation.
skanking biker
05-27-05, 09:59 PM
the cities won't improve until people with money move back in. And people with money won't move back in as long as they are able to drive cars long distances..
implies you think people with should have their cars taken away thus depriving them of the choice to drive. So not--i did not make your point. Its seems most CM people want to violently otherthrow the system and leave people with only one choice rather than work within the system to effect change.
oh--and the C'ommittes" during WWII were the worst affront to what this country was founded upon--our economy became no different than Germany's.
You know what---here's a concession--I will give up my automobile and submit to living in a mostly car-free society or even a pre WWI society were most people lived in the city, if the government level of regulation, taxation and involement in every aspect of my life goes back down to the way it was pre-WWII
mpop
05-28-05, 12:36 AM
skanking biker, where can I sign up for that, smaller goverment, I love that idea.
Also I want to make the following note, I decided, since we have been debating CM, and today (well yesterday) was the day for CM, I went figuring 2 things, give them a full second chance. And maybe record it to review in a hopefully more subjected mind set.
Well with in the first 30 seconds I hit a bumb that turned it from record mode to play mode, and I did not know this till the end :-(. But here is what I saw today, I will try to be as object as I can be. As for running lights, I did see some of that, but not as many that I remember from last year on my first trip, there was still a few red light running ( only remember 3 reds that were run) remember many reds that were stopped at. I did see the that on 2 lane roads they did take up 2 lanes, but with that many people but there were alot of people.
Now for some subject thoughts, I was happy to see them stopping at the red lights, I did not like them taking up more then 1 lane. one person did (looked like to me) poruposly block a truck, not cool I think. I will admit I did have fun at it.
brokenrobot
05-28-05, 07:39 AM
You know what---here's a concession--I will give up my automobile and submit to living in a mostly car-free society or even a pre WWI society were most people lived in the city, if the government level of regulation, taxation and involement in every aspect of my life goes back down to the way it was pre-WWII
Yes, we'd all be MUCH better off without social security, clean-air, safe foods, drug testing, and racial equality. Plus, just think of all the sweatshop jobs that could help us end unemployment!
:rolleyes:
iwantphuong
05-28-05, 08:25 AM
moved on to bigger and better things! :) In the case of roads, this means motorized transportation of goods and people. No one has ever suggested that bicycles could have anything but a very narrow and specialized role to play in this overall critical need. Thus to me, as both a cyclist and car driver, a bicycle is definitely a secondary vehicle on the road
roughstuff
I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly disagree with your idea of roads and transportation. I'm not sure what the road rules are like in your area, but in Sydney bicycles are vehicles. End of story. Cyclists have as much of a right to use the road as any other vehicle - motorised or not. It's attitudes like yours from "bigger and better" (not) motorised vehicles that force cyclists into the gutter and expose us to abuse because you think that "a bicycle is definitely a secondary vehicle on the road". It's so disheartening to hear a fellow cyclist utter such words...
A few of the earlier comments made stated that critical mass frightens the drivers of vehicles rather than trying to persuade them to join them. Sydney critical mass does not do this. We get plenty of support from motorised vehicles with only the odd jerk who is too impatient to wait in traffic during peak hour and blames cyclists for holding him/her up (when it is really the usual friday-night traffic). Car-drivers and pedestrians alike see the critical mass crew are made up of cyclists of varying backgrounds and cycling capabilities and they also see that it is a safe ride.
The pace is slow so as to accomodate less-experienced cyclists, cyclists carrying children, and other younger and older cyclists - we do not set out to intentionally hold up traffic any longer than it needs to be.
iwantphuong
05-28-05, 08:34 AM
Its seems most CM people want to violently otherthrow the system and leave people with only one choice rather than work within the system to effect change.
Violent? I've neven been violent to any car-drivers when on critical mass... but I have seen car-drivers being violent to cyclists (and not just during cm)! Don't know about the cm ride near you, Sydney CM has never gone around confiscating cars and giving them bicycles instead. We do give people options. We support public transport by keeping bus lanes clear. We support pedestrians by giving way to them at crossings. We support sustainable transport. We are just there to demonstrate to people they have the option of using the bicycle as a means of transport and we are there to prove that it can be safe, fast, efficient and fun!
Roughstuff
05-28-05, 05:34 PM
I'm sorry, but I completely and utterly disagree with your idea of roads and transportation... I'm not sure what the road rules are like in your area, but in Sydney bicycles are vehicles. ...
Good. If you are gonna disagree, it is best to completely and utterly do so. :)
I don't care what the law says. The law can say a bicycle is two humped camel, and it doesn't make it so. You aren't addressing my point. My point was not about 'size' or 'power' that motorized vehicles have...it is the fact that these vehicles are on the roads generating the trillions of dollars of wealth we see in capitalist economies. In areas where bicycles are the 'dominant' mode of transportation---rural China and North Korea come to mind---you have third world basket cases stuck with 16th century economies.
Bicycles have a limited, very limited role to play in the overall transportation network.
Please suggest a major way they can contribute, ok? 12 months a year, in all weather, in a great variety of locations.
roughstuff
supcom
05-28-05, 05:34 PM
You know what---here's a concession--I will give up my automobile and submit to living in a mostly car-free society or even a pre WWI society were most people lived in the city, if the government level of regulation, taxation and involement in every aspect of my life goes back down to the way it was pre-WWII
Prior to WWII, most Americans lived in rural areas not cities.
nycm'er
05-28-05, 05:43 PM
To clarify, I did as I said, I and a friend took the NYPD at their word, "Break no laws don't get arrested" and decided to courteous mass. I asked a community affairs cop what the deal was and he said that riding in a procession was illegal, a loaded question on my part, because I knew the answer to my follow up: "How many bikes make a procession?" The number is in legal dispute and he could not tell me: he didn't know the number. Moments later I was arrested a block away. Because of this I helped form a group to financially support arrested riders in their court cases. www.bicycledefensefund.org
Violently overthrow the system? Thanks Skank, I will only dignify that by pointing out the Police Chief said much the same thing when he called NYC CM'ers Terrorists. In a town that has actually suffered a terrorist attack no less.
Lastly I would like to point out that roughstuff lives in a world that is his own, and that if he and his fellow neocon... (whats the word, I know they aren't human...) could have it their way, I think he too would be pretty sad.