Advocacy & Safety - Question about Critical Mass

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-WWIII totally agree with you (as I said in the post that you did not finish reading).People are allowed and should be allowed to decide on the form of transportation they choose to use. Motorists do need to allow us to make our own choice and they need to let us use the road whenever and wherever we choose. Also, all people are entitled to know that they do have a choice. Someone has to tell and show motorists that bicycles are a viable and pleasant alternative to autos in many circumstances. As a cyclist, do you think there is something wrong with us teaching motorists more about bicycle transportation?

Someone has to tell and show motorists that bicycles are a viable and pleasant alternative to autos in many circumstances. As a cyclist, do you think there is something wrong with us teaching motorists more about bicycle transportation?


Amen. Been doing it for 30+ years. Showing motorists that cars have limitations and bicycling is a realistic alternative in many cases, and showing cyclists that bikes have limitations and motorized vehicles are a realistic alternative in many cases. The Chinese (see my letter above) are discovering the latter, as all developed economies did decades ago.


roughstuff

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.

roughstuffI suggest that you spend some time reading the Commuting subforum here. You will discover that in each city, large to small, there are hundreds of cyclists who commute to work all year round. You might also look at the streets of your own city. Those funny looking cyclists on the clunky bikes that you see riding every day in the morning and evening rush hours? Those are cycling commuters. I hope you check it out and decide to join us someday. If you like cycling, commuting is a great way to bring it into your daily life even more. You can save a lot of money, meet some great fellow cyclists, and have more time to exercize every day. You couldn't tell it from this thread, but most bike commuters do own cars, but choose to use them less--each person for her or his own reasons. So look into it, and be sure to post if you have any questions on how to get started.

Please suggest a major way they can contribute, ok? 12 months a year, in all weather, in a great variety of locations. roughstuff

Hey! You answered your own question!

I suggest that you spend some time reading the Commuting subforum here. .... and

Hey! You answered your own question!

Yes in some ways I have, or more precisely, suggested where people should look if they are researching this type of question. Being a country guy--any more than two traffic lights and one main street confuses me--I do alot of recreational riding, and ride to a local store if I just want to have a latte or grab a few items. (went to the store yesterday at the tail end of a 55 mile loop).

That being said, it does very little to disprove my point: bicycles have a limited role to play in the overall transportation network. "A few hundred" people on bikes in a city that probably has thousands, maybe millions, of residents sounds pretty limited to me. Nor have you shown any other role bikes can play in the 'tranportation matrix' other than short commuting runs. Can they transport the vast quantities of goods we need? No. Thats my most cyclists also have cars. At the margin we can encourage people to cycle, walk, take local mass transit (although busses are yucky), carpool, etc. The impact is limited...perhaps even that word is too generous, I'd have to say miniscule.

roughstuff

In China there are nearly half a billion (with a "B") cyclists. Does that seem insignificant to you?

TA estimates 112,000 daily cyclists in NYC. Insignificant?

In China there are nearly half a billion (with a "B") cyclists. Does that seem insignificant to you?


I already addressed that issue. As I pointed out, the antedeluvian transportation systems in China are the primary reason why it remains, especially in the rural areas, a third world country: 125th in the world in per capita GDP, and that is seriously biased by the cities (which is where the cars are).


Please don't reply with figures showing its dynamic economic growth, because this is in industries such as autos (amazing how attractive cars can be) and heavy industry, as well as... drum roll please... construction of roads, bridges and highways.

Oh...and bike paths! I forgot. :)

roughstuff

TA estimates 112,000 daily cyclists in NYC. Insignificant?

Two points: first...cyclists, or commuters by bicycle? Second, taking 8 million people as a guestimate of the population of NYC proper, that turns out to be a whopping 1.4%. As I have said...the bicycle has a role to play in the transportation matrix, but a small one. I'll bet the percentage who walk to work is higher.

roughstuff

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.

Yes, capitalism. Aren't we all so selfish these days?

Vehicles generating trillions of dollars of wealth... Oh and you forgot the trillions of dead iraqis to fuel the things, and trillions of particles of nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide gases into the atmosphere and trillions of traffic congestion problems, noise problems, road tolls... just to name a few.

Japan. Bicyclists everywhere. The only difference in the system over there (compared with the current system in Sydney) is that bicycles get registered and get a sticker with an identification number. The public transport system over there is fantastic and people feel there is no need for ownership of a car. Most people prefer to cycle when taking short trips and it's attitudes like that we should take onboard.

Please suggest a major way they can contribute, ok? 12 months a year, in all weather, in a great variety of locations.

What's wrong with cycling? The weather in Australia allows for cycling all-year 'round. The major way cycling can contribute is through the integrated network with the public transport system. Not only is cycling benificial in this world of the growing obesity epidemic, it is also a simple, accessible solution to current traffic congestion problems, can aid in reduction of green-house gases and pollution in cities.

Now I'm not saying that bicycles are suited to every single person in every single location. What I'm saying is that for the vast majority of road users, they have no need to be inside a big hunk of metal when they have the option of cycling. Everyone needs to all play their part in helping reduce pollution levels or major changes in the earth's climate will occur within 10 years' time.

Now why don't you suggest a major way motor-vehicles can contribute to reduction in pollution, as well as a solution to congestion and obesity?

As I have said...the bicycle has a role to play in the transportation matrix, but a small one. I'll bet the percentage who walk to work is higher

Why do you think there are more people walking to work than cycling? Perhaps it's because they're opting to use public transport because they're fully aware that the roads are congested and dangerous for cycling (because there are so many inconsiderate and stupid drivers out there). Because they live in a walkable distance from work. Because society has conditioned them to believe that "proper" and "wealthy" or "well-off" people don't cycle - they own shiny new cars and many of them at that!

The problem here is that of society and how people view bicyclists - that they are unimportant and second-rate citizens.

It's only a matter of time before petrol prices soar sky-high and major oil shortages will occur. Then real solutions to the transportation matrix will arise.

Violently overthrow the system? I will only dignify that by pointing out the Police Chief said much the same thing when he called NYC CM'ers Terrorists.
I will add to this that the only violence I have ever seen on any Critical Mass ride, and I've been on plenty, was always initiated by the cops, or very occasionally, by a motorist. If you want to politicize it, Critical Mass is best characterized as non-violent civil disobedience and freedom of speech and assembly. End of story.

Is Roughstuff saying that since cyclists are a minority, they deserve no rights or what?

Is Roughstuff saying that since cyclists are a minority, they deserve no rights or what?

<<attention span: ON>>
You can put whatever word into another persons mouth that you want, and set up all the straw men you want just to knock them down. I said, a bicycle is a secondary vehicle on the roadway, that they have a limited role to play in the transportation matrix, and thats it.

<<attention span: OFF>>


roughstuff

I thought I would finally add this letter. Back in the energy crisis days of the late 1970s and early 80s, when a federal law was passed making the national speed limit 55 mph, as you might imagine it was not very popular. (Wan't effective either...requiring steel belted radials would have save more gas...but i digress.)

Well, the state police in West Virginia decided...ok...55, eh? YA like 55? YA LOVE 55? DO YA REALLY LOVE 55?

You better really love it, because what they did from time to time on the West Virginia interstates was put two police cars, in the 'driving lane' and the 'passing lane' , and they drove from one end of the state to the other! Talk about the sort-of equivalent action as CM! Of course the goals were different; but the principle was eerily similar. Did anyone experience this first hand?

This came to me last night as a friend and I drove the Mass Pike last night. I hate the way this guy drives; 80 mph in the left lane all the way from the Berkshires to Sturbridge and south to Providence; so were alot of other people. Maybe 20% were in the regular right lane.

I like the ride on my bike much better on my bike: it takes two days, but its fun to arrive at one destination or the other.


roughstuff

"I said, a bicycle is a secondary vehicle on the roadway, that they have a limited role to play in the transportation matrix, and thats it."

Oh, isn't that all ready obvious? What's all the fuss about?

I thought I would finally add this letter. Back in the energy crisis days of the late 1970s and early 80s, when a federal law was passed making the national speed limit 55 mph, as you might imagine it was not very popular. (Wan't effective either...requiring steel belted radials would have save more gas...but i digress.)

Well, the state police in West Virginia decided...ok...55, eh? YA like 55? YA LOVE 55? DO YA REALLY LOVE 55?

You better really love it, because what they did from time to time on the West Virginia interstates was put two police cars, in the 'driving lane' and the 'passing lane' , and they drove from one end of the state to the other! Talk about the sort-of equivalent action as CM! Of course the goals were different; but the principle was eerily similar. Did anyone experience this first hand?

This came to me last night as a friend and I drove the Mass Pike last night. I hate the way this guy drives; 80 mph in the left lane all the way from the Berkshires to Sturbridge and south to Providence; so were alot of other people. Maybe 20% were in the regular right lane.

I like the ride on my bike much better on my bike: it takes two days, but its fun to arrive at one destination or the other.


roughstuff

The California Highway Patrol did the same thing on weekends between LA and Las Vegas. After about a month they quit because of the huge traffic backup they created.

The California Highway Patrol did the same thing on weekends between LA and Las Vegas. After about a month they quit because of the huge traffic backup they created.


Yes....I I always thought that, while it was the better part of valor to admit defeat and go about their other business, it was the worse part of policy to so cave in. After all....speed limits have valid purposes above and beyond gas mileage for being enforced. Who knows maybe they will rear their ugly head again. ;)

roughstuff

I thought I would add this from today's Briefing.com, about Europe. You know Europe, the place where we all go ga-ga because the use buses and trains and trams and, um, um, um, bicycles to get around.... :).

Of course Briefing.com's point is this eurosclerosis is due to excess regulation; thats exactly the point. Only heavy regulation forces European workers into the inflexible and expensive transport network which chokes their economies.



Briefing.com's Big Picture column this morning takes a look at European economic conditions. The data are not encouraging.

European economies are falling behind. Per capita GDP in the US is 57% higher than in the European Union of 25 members. The highest output per capita of the major countries, the United Kingdom, trails the US by 33%.

And Europe is falling further behind each year. Growth in 2004 in the Euro 25 was 2.4%, compared to 4.4% in the US, 2.8% in Canada, and 2.7% in Japan. European growth trailed the US and Canada in each of 2002 and 2003 as well. Euro growth for 2005 is forecast at just 1.2%, compared to 3.6% for the US.

roughstuff

CM in SF,CA was wonderfull friday night. Got there early on BART, had a few beers with my bro.
The ride was the usual. Large group, 500~1000 riders, stretching as fas as you could see.
Didn't see any police violence or any other trouble. The mass took a detour around the back of the baseball park where a game was soon to get started. Said hi to Kash who mans the valet bike parking at the ball park. Saw Chris Carlsson riding, one of the founding members of CM,
http://www.talkfastrideslow.org/faq/faq.html.
Bailed out early in order to get a good night sleep preparing for my 120 mile tour on saturday.

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." .

Need = Necessary
from dictionary.com

Absolutely essential. See Synonyms at indispensable.
Needed to achieve a certain result or effect; requisite: the necessary tools.

Unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; inevitable: the necessary results of overindulgence.
Logically inevitable.
Required by obligation, compulsion, or convention: made the necessary apologies.

Air, food, water, dreaming (sleeping) are necessary. Cars and unfortunatly bikes are not necessary. If someone wants to say that a car is needed to haul seven hundred pounds of unnecessary deoderent well that might be true.

I drive a car but I have been duped. It is hard to fight an enemy with outposts in your head.

I drive a car but I have been duped. It is hard to fight an enemy with outposts in your head.

This should help.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

So what's with backing off of critical mass? Could it be that the hegemonic order has realized that they where only hurting themselves?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/nyregion/28bike.html

.

I'm not worried about angering car drivers, because soon they will be begging us to buy our old un-used bikes. We will be asked to help them.

That is idealistic crazy talk! My father used to tell me that if I did not feel that way when I was young; I did not have a heart, but if I had not become more realistic by the time I was older, I had no brain!!!!

I wholeheartedly agree with mpop. Sure, we need to stick together, and hundreds of cyclists obeying the law would certainly raise awareness. However, hundreds of cyclists with a chip on their shoulders riding slowly and blocking traffic to avenge multiple slights done to them by motorists will do nothing but cause more agression toward us when we are not in critical mass. The goal here is to create a lasting and mutual respect that will not leave us dependent upon cycling in large numbers in order to be safe.

That is idealistic crazy talk! My father used to tell me that if I did not feel that way when I was young; I did not have a heart, but if I had not become more realistic by the time I was older, I had no brain!!!!

I wholeheartedly agree with mpop. Sure, we need to stick together, and hundreds of cyclists obeying the law would certainly raise awareness. However, hundreds of cyclists with a chip on their shoulders riding slowly and blocking traffic to avenge multiple slights done to them by motorists will do nothing but cause more agression toward us when we are not in critical mass. The goal here is to create a lasting and mutual respect that will not leave us dependent upon cycling in large numbers in order to be safe.

Critical mass has been going on EVERY MONTH in San Fransisco for 13 years. It has NOT caused more aggression by motorists against bicycles. This agument has been used again and again over the years.
Critical Mass IS NOT going away. If you feel strongly about how Critical mass participants behave at the event, go to the one in your town, bring your possie, and sway the other riders to behave like you want.
If you want to make it a courtious mass, then just bring enough friends to make it the majoity of the riders and behave like you want.

Whats in a name?

The organization is called Critical Mass. That begs the question "of what." Initially, i thought CM was a group dedicated to securing a "critical mass" of ordinary people to cycle for everyday transportation and, as a result of that "critical mass" begin to effect policy change in our transportation system. This, i totally agree with.

However, in my experience, my knowledge from reading the posts and IMHO, this is truly NOT the goal of CM or at least some CMers who post here. By not being sensitive to whether you are aggravating oridnary motorists, you are not furthering your goal of getting ordinary people out of cars and onto bikes.

All this talk about stopping purposefully in the middle of traffic and shaking your bikes and flaunting traffic laws directly cuts against what i thought was the goal of convincing people that cyclists have rights to and "share the road." Rather, it futhers the stereotypes that people who use bikes as a primary means of trnasportation and attend CM are just another whinny protest group tryign to "stick it to the man" as another poster stated. Around here I have seen numerous bike path signs defaced with anarchy symbols with "critical mass" written over them.

again, i ask m how exactly does this behavior encourage ordinary joes driving to work to get out of their cars and off their bikes?

Yes, the organization has been around for a number of years....But of what exactly are you are critical mass? It seems that to many here it is a critical mass of politcal protesters, lawbreakers and radicals.

I don;t see why you cant be a critical "considerate" mass of cyclists trying to raise awareness and shine a "positive" light on cycling as an alternate means of transport. Certainly you are raising awareness of yoru organization, but by yoru behavior, i contineu to contend that you are not portraying cyclists in a positive light.

I would very much like to be part of an advocacy group that wants to raise cycling awareness, get more peopel on their biokes, educate motorists to share the road, and effect policy change. However, i want to do so in a legal, nondisruptive manner. If you are trying to raise yoruselves to the same level as motorists on the road, then it is no excuse for your behavior that some motorists break the law. By allowing yourselves to this lowest common denominitor, you hurt your cause. as a minorty seekign equal rights ont he road, you need to behave better that the lowest of the low of motorists--you need to respect the laws and ensure all in the group do so-.

I would love to join your rides---however, so long as you enageg in behavior that gets you arrested and disrupts people's lives and angers most motorists, i shall respectfully decline.

However, i do reiterate that i share the goal of getting more peopel on their bikes, reducing the dependency of cars, raising cyclign awareness and getting motorists to share the road. --I just think you guys are going about it all wrong

--I just think you guys are going about it all wrong
This basically sums up my feelings as well.

I see it this way: If one is trying to change a specific law then I can see where disruption and even civil disobedence can play a part, but this also requires a very specific goal statement as to what specific law needs changing. However if cyclists are trying to generate public support, be viewed as acceptable transport, to generally pursuade and encourage, then I think that this should be done in a constructive and only positive manner. (I say 'only' since I realize that many folks who do CM do it in a fully positive/constructive way, but it is the few disruptive ones who set the lasting image)

Al

This basically sums up my feelings as well.

I see it this way: If one is trying to change a specific law then I can see where disruption and even civil disobedence can play a part, but this also requires a very specific goal statement as to what specific law needs changing. However if cyclists are trying to generate public support, be viewed as acceptable transport, to generally pursuade and encourage, then I think that this should be done in a constructive and only positive manner. (I say 'only' since I realize that many folks who do CM do it in a fully positive/constructive way, but it is the few disruptive ones who set the lasting image)

Al

ditto

Skank - You keep focusing on the supposed problem of Critical Mass aggravating motorists.

Please tell me, exactly where are all these aggravated motorists, other than in the minds of the talking heads on the TV news, perhaps? :rolleyes:

Based on personal observation from participating in numerous Critical Mass rides, most motorists are pretty much either accepting or indifferent, a fair number honk and wave in support, and the percentage of irate motorists is no greater than the percentage of angry motorists in general. Most motorists don't even know what Critical Mass is, and their chances of actually encountering a Critical Mass ride are actually pretty small. Critical Mass takes place for two hours a month, during off-peak hours. That leaves another 718 hours per month when the only people motorists have to blame for gridlock and traffic congestion are themselves and other motorists.

Either (1) get your ass down to a Critical Mass ride so you have some actual first-hand experience, (2) provide some hard verifiable statistics from an unbiased source showing how bad Critical Mass is for cycling, or how it negatively affects motorist attitude towards cyclists, or (3) get off your soapbox.

:)

I like my soapbox--it keeps me clean.

I feel no need to cite statistics---your atittudes here and description of your behavior suffice.

I dont need a survey to tell me 1 +1 = 2.

and



Yes in some ways I have, or more precisely, suggested where people should look if they are researching this type of question. Being a country guy--any more than two traffic lights and one main street confuses me--I do alot of recreational riding, and ride to a local store if I just want to have a latte or grab a few items. (went to the store yesterday at the tail end of a 55 mile loop).

That being said, it does very little to disprove my point: bicycles have a limited role to play in the overall transportation network. "A few hundred" people on bikes in a city that probably has thousands, maybe millions, of residents sounds pretty limited to me. Nor have you shown any other role bikes can play in the 'tranportation matrix' other than short commuting runs. Can they transport the vast quantities of goods we need? No. Thats my most cyclists also have cars. At the margin we can encourage people to cycle, walk, take local mass transit (although busses are yucky), carpool, etc. The impact is limited...perhaps even that word is too generous, I'd have to say miniscule.

roughstuffIf a few hundred people can do it, they show the millions of others that it can be done.

Also, yes, bicycles have moved vast quantities of goods. In fact, in the late 1960s they moved enough goods to contribute significantly to the defeat of the most technologically advanced military power of the time. Do you know who this was?

I feel no need to cite statistics---your atittudes here and description of your behavior suffice.

I dont need a survey to tell me 1 +1 = 2.

:rolleyes: Decidedly unconvincing.

What attitude? I have used my posts in this thread simply to explain and defend my understanding of Critical Mass to its detractors, all of whom seem to have no personal experience with the ride, and no desire to learn; and I have avoided the personal attacks that are so common when divisive issues are discussed on these forums.

What behavior? The ride in Portland has been totally legal for months now, as the cops preferred form of harassment lately has been to force Critical Mass to "ride to rule". Before that, police riots and police brutality were the typical official government responses to a harmless and non-violent bicycle ride.

Finally - and this is the point you seem to be missing entirely - Critical Mass is not about annoying motorists, it is about empowering bicyclists.

BTW - Your little mathematical equation proves absolutely nothing.

:)

Ahh yes--in the world of big brother 1 + 1 = 4


future's hopes are based on the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4

Ahh yes--in the world of big brother 1 + 1 = 4


future's hopes are based on the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4

Now you've done it. You have given away official state secrets!

i know i have subverted the subversives

:rolleyes: Decidedly unconvincing.

What attitude? I have used my posts in this thread simply to explain and defend my understanding of Critical Mass to its detractors, all of whom seem to have no personal experience with the ride, and no desire to learn; and I have avoided the personal attacks that are so common when divisive issues are discussed on these forums.

What behavior? The ride in Portland has been totally legal for months now, as the cops preferred form of harassment lately has been to force Critical Mass to "ride to rule". Before that, police riots and police brutality were the typical official government responses to a harmless and non-violent bicycle ride.

Finally - and this is the point you seem to be missing entirely - Critical Mass is not about annoying motorists, it is about empowering bicyclists.

BTW - Your little mathematical equation proves absolutely nothing.

:)

I think you are trying to explain all this to someone with a cognitive disorder.

Big brother indeed. :rolleyes:

i know i have subverted the subversives
Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back... :rolleyes:

I like my soapbox--it keeps me clean.

I feel no need to cite statistics---your atittudes here and description of your behavior suffice.

I dont need a survey to tell me 1 +1 = 2.

And you apparently don't need one to tell you 4+8=2, either. Or that blue + strange = alligator. Stating an assertion does not make it so; you may not feel the need to provide evidence, but without evidence your arguments don't stand up - especially in the face of all available evidence that contradicts your assertions.

brokenrobot, chould you provide such evidence aka a study that CM has helped or articals from real news sources (I do not accept wikipedia nor intermedia nor blogs) that have said that CM is a good thing.

Is that the job of any news report? to say something is a good thing? Maybe in the world of Fox and opinion as "News". Skank, you have never been on a ride? I have never been to Madison, but I have read a little about it, wanna hear what I think? I don't understand you naysayers, especially those who have not ridden a CM. But I came closer to understanding some that may not get NYC CM, I realized, just after I was nearly clipped while taking the lane to a RED light, that there are about 20 to 30 thousand "Professional" drivers in NYC. people who drive and therefor own the streets, whose road rage is a living, driving and flaunting laws means money to them. I find this is a type of aggression all unto itself.
I have asked these questions several time on BF and no one answers them:
1. What do we owe these motorists who threaten our lives on roads which belong to us as well as them?
2. What do you all propose we do to win over these motorists so they respect us, with out showing our strength? With out showing our numbers? How do we do this?

Lastly I don't think bikes flaunt the law on rides as much as they do everyday, certainly not as often as the cars that are held at bay. A three minute delay once a month is a three minute delay, and if you watch how motorists treat each other, that isn't that bad.

1. What do we owe these motorists who threaten our lives on roads which belong to us as well as them?

I am not saying we owe them anything, but we can turn the other cheak, we can be the "better" person by not responding in kind

2. What do you all propose we do to win over these motorists so they respect us, with out showing our strength? With out showing our numbers? How do we do this?

I am not saying don't bike in groups, just obey the laws when we do. I LOVE group biking, and I have put toghter a few group biking with friends of mine from my church.

Lastly I don't think bikes flaunt the law on rides as much as they do everyday, certainly not as often as the cars that are held at bay. A three minute delay once a month is a three minute delay, and if you watch how motorists treat each other, that isn't that bad.
Yes some bikers do flaunt the laws everyday, that does not make it right. And I would not call the delays that CM causes only 3 minutes long.

So, you answered none of my questions. I have found turning the other cheek, gets you slapped on that cheek too. How do we win over these people who don't think we belong on the roads? (I am not saying critical mass can or will do it, but I know people who have ridden in CM and now ride for transportation)
Ticket me for flaunting the law, ticket cars for ignoring the law with exponenttially greater speeds and weights. I agree not all CM rides, cause 3 minute delays. How long are they in your town? How long is too long considering nearly every driver I see will screw themselves and others to get a carlength ahead, and when that doesn't work often causing delays in excess of 3 minutes?

I would however, like (parts) of your cheek turning, law abiding, non delaying ride. But I am not sure of it's persuasive power. It seems like a big 'So what'.

I think CM would be more successful if each rider had some kind of sign that talks about bikers' rights and people's incorrect beliefs about cyclists. For example, signs that say "Streets are for everyone.", "Freeways are for cars.", "Try biking to work.", "Stop wasting gas.", "Aggressive driving gets you nowhere.", "Insurance is for cars, bikes don't do damage.", "Biking is safer than it seems.", and "Share the Road.". This way, at least some kind of message is given to the cars that are being pissed off.

I really believe that there is no other way to convey our message to society other than CM, unless we had a couple million dollars to run an ad campaigns. Therefore, we have to be an inconvenience to cars on the busiest streets. 1000 people riding on the country side will be as useful as putting up a "Share the Road" sign on a busy street. Even if the news covers this rural ride, people wouldn't pay attention to it.

Even if we had a 1000 bikers riding the side of a busy street, people would just think its some kind of tour, and it wouldn't work out anyway because cars will try to sneak by and it would be dangerous. Also, at red lights, you can't expect 1000 people to line up; they have to be bunched up. CMers might as well ride in a big pack because that is the most effective and safe method.

I think the problem is that most drivers don't know cyclists' rights and have misconceptions about them. When I was reading my driver handbook and doing my permit test, bicyclists' rights were never brought up. I never knew that cyclists could take a lane or that cyclists can use left turn lanes. I think this is also the reason why I have NEVER seen a cyclist (I live in a city with a million people), other than me, using a left turn lane or using a full lane. Drivers don't know cyclists' rights, and cyclists' never learn their rights.

The purpose of CM is to make a clear message to everyone, drivers and cyclists alike.

You can't convey a message without provoking some kind of emotion in others.

This is why some people love CM, and some absolutely hate it.

Martin Luther King didn't lead the Civil Rights movement by pleasing the white people in segregated environments, and just because the white people didn't want blacks in their schools doesn't mean blacks don't deserve to be there.

The fact is, you can't have civil disobedience by being obedient.

I see your point but if those are the tactics you choose to adopt, then dont complain when you get arrested.

Skanking, I think that one person is complaining because there is no reason for him to be arrested.

The trouble with these threads is that everyone keeps altering their premises.

1. Civil disobediance= law breaking (although it might be morally justified--it still involves violating the civil laws)

2. You stated that civil disobediance was the most effective way to get CM's mesage across

3. Law enforcement authorities are charged wiht enforcing the laws and punishign those that break the laws.

If 1 , 2, and 3, then logically those who enagge in civil disobediance should expect to sometimes be arrested.

If a particular person is not violating the laws, then that is another story

---but my comments were directed at the premises set forth in your previous post.

Ok, so back to my Civil Rights movement connection. The blacks deserved to be arrested because they were breaking the law.

legally yes, morally no


you cant pick and choose which laws you obey becaus eyou think some are wrong--

While they may indeed be wrong and you may well be ethically or morally compelled to disobey them, you cant expect to disobey them and not be arrested. By agreeing to enageg in civil disobediance you must logically accept the possibiluity of arrest as a natural consequence

Yes, you are right. However, I think the cops were really stretching it when they were arresting people purely because they were in a "procession".