Advocacy & Safety - A double-take on the double-standard

Whenever I bicycle over an expressway, I notice that the expressway is in one of two conditions. Either it is in a traffic jam, or just about every motorist is breaking the speed limit law. (To paraphrase Andy Dreisch, motorists "are only out for the lawlessness of it.") A motor vehicle breaking the speed limit is a deadly weapon -- 2 tons of steel or more impacting at 70 or 80 miles per hour can be lethal.

If you are driving a car, the surest way to annoy the motorist behind you is to obey the law. If you go at or below the speed limit, the person behind you will get enraged because you are interfering with their ability to break the speed limit law.

While Critical Mass may not be for all cyclists, I find some of the criticisms of Critical Mass on this board to be puzzling. Motor vehicle culture is a culture of lawlessness - constant speed limit violations, constant violations of anti-cell phone laws, lying to police officers to try to get out of tickets, and DUI. So when a critic of CM says that a motorist will learn to hate all cyclists because of Critical Mass' "lawlessness", I'm left to wonder if the corrolary is true: will motorists learn to hate all other motorists because of the lawlessness of motorists? Are motorists' rights being set back by the 50,000 car fatalities per year? Will legislators move to restrict the use of motor vehicles on public roads?

If a motorist gets enraged when he is behind a group of bicycles, there's a good chance that the reason he is enraged is that the bicycles are getting in the way of him breaking the speed limit law.

A single SUV can break far more laws and be far more dangerous than 50 cyclists can. The SUV can break the speed limit law effortlessly whereas it's difficult for the group of cyclists to break the speed limit on many roads. An SUV driver can run down a cyclist off the road and kill them. A cyclist cannot run an SUV driver off the road and kill them.

If I were on an expressway with 800 cars, about 90% would be breaking the speed limit (assuming that there's no traffic jam) and the consequence of this lawless behavior can be to maim or kill people. On the other hand,I've been in Critical mass rides with 800 riders, and I've never seen more than maybe half a dozen riders being unruly. I don't condone their unruliness, but their behavior isn't going to maim or kill anyone.

Good points. Thanks!:D

Motor vehicle culture is a culture of lawlessness - constant speed limit violations, constant violations of anti-cell phone laws, lying to police officers to try to get out of tickets, and DUI.

that is so true... people seem fine to discount or break the laws in a car (speeding, rolling stop-sign, cell phone usage), but when a single cyclist breaks a law it's "that lawless fool!! making us all unsafe!" etc. --- i think double-standard is the right term.

A cyclist cannot run an SUV driver off the road and kill them.

Maybe we need to change the design of bikes - a new species called "killer bikes," so that this actually can happen.

Would bicyclists get more respect?

Would SUV drivers drive more carefully.

Actually, it is not speed that bothers me as a driver of a car - which is where the police seem to put their emphasis - but reckless drivers and especially tailgaters. You can not imagine the number of devices I have invented in my mind to "take care of" a tailgater.

Good points, Vicious Cycle.

In many ways our society has a more or less universal double standard.

Standards as they apply to me - Standards as they apply to everyone else.

This is especially true when trying to place responsibility.

IMO, your points/post are everything thats wrong with CM.

The constant justification that what you do it right becuase someone else is doing something more wrong is immature. It comes across as 'holy-er than thou'.

I agree with the goal of CM, I diagree with the tactics. I especially don't like the press that CM generates, it is very often focused on the wrong thing -- not CMs fault, but the media isn't interested lofty righteous goals and ideals -- they want a sotry and they want to stir up emotions. In this regard CM fuels the fire.

I think your double standard argument is a reach and predicated on shaky logic. I don't consider myself, or others, lawless becuase I drive a car marginally over the speed limit.

Originally posted by edk
I especially don't like the press that CM generates, it is very often focused on the wrong thing

Last December, the Chicago Tribune interviewed Critical Massers to do a positive article on winter cycling, and a local news channel did the same thing. Last January, the Chicago Journal did a positive article on the annual CM ride to the Baby Doll Polka Club. A few months ago, the Chicago Reader did an article describing one masser's efforts to lobby for improved safety on metal grate bridges. There have also been good articles in various newspapers on our annual Chicago conference. Locally, I've seen media coverage give a positive portrayal and can't imagine how any of this could be detrimental to cycling. (And given how heavily automobile advertisers influence the contents of local newspapers and TV stations, I was quite surprised to see all of this cycling-positive coverage.)


Originally posted by edk
The constant justification that what you do it [sic] right becuase [sic] someone else is doing something more wrong is immature. It comes across as 'holy-er [sic] than thou'.

It's not immature to stand up to unfair accusations. The whole blanket statement of "lawlessness" is questionable. In some cities, Critical Mass rides register as a parade or march; in other cities, the parades are more unofficial, on the order of the unofficial car parades that always seem to happen after a particular sports team wins a big game. When I'm on a Critical Mass ride, I'm willing to go along with what a traffic cop or a bicycle cop wants done in order to direct the flow of the parade. How this amounts to "lawlessness" is mysterious to me.

In June, I saw one rider do something particularly stupid and illegal, and he was arrested instantly by the police. The other riders and I were glad to see this rider gone from the ride. So I will grant that there is the occasional "lawless" person who joins in on the ride, but the police know how to deal with such individuals, leaving the rest of us to get back to a pleasant bicycle ride. And I will grant that masses in different cities have different personalities -- the Chicago Critical Mass is a love affair with the city. (Once while visiting the suburbs, I encountered a one-time Critical Mass organized by some local suburban students, and the ride seemed uninspired.) It's possible that I might go to another city and find that I dislike that city's Critical Mass just as strongly as I like my local Critical Mass. But to paint all Critical Masses as bad for cycling is unfair.

Good examples of good rides. the lawless comment was referring to your comment on the general state of the highways and drivers.

BTW, thanks for editing the quotes. I'll be sure and type better next time so you won't waste any more engery having to clean up the quotes...

ed

Motorists and I have little problem with one another. They do their thing and I do mine. (Actually, I do both "things".)

I have yet to encounter a serious situation in over 6 years of serious bike-commuting. Mine is a world of peaceful coexistence. Yet I am aggressive in my riding, assert myself, and take no crap. I ride on terribly bad roads in not-so-grand neighborhoods with the full regiment of genetically awful drivers. Based on what I read on the "Commuting" exchange, I'd say mine is among the top 10% of crappy commutes. If anybody should hate motorists it should be me.

Nevertheless, I frankly do no understand the angst many on this board and particularly the CMers feel towards motorists.

I believe CMers engage in lawlessness as a group. I believe it's part of the "gig" that is CM. I believe CM is intended to incite. Exactly what it incites is where we part company. I think it incites rage in otherwise placid motorists, which I believe endangers me.

CMers think it incites governmental bodies to improve the biker's condition. I don't buy that for a second. I'd like to see concrete, documented proof of the beneficial affect of CM.

I've never participated in a CM, but I'm curious what specific acts comitted by the participating riders are "lawless". Surely not merely riding on the road as a group, as long as traffic laws are obeyed?

Cyclists and motorists could coexist peacefully and safely, if only motorists would obey the laws as they swore to when they applied for their licenses.

I've never known a bicycist to hurt a motorist. But motorists run down cyclists (by the hundreds) pedestrians (by the thousands) and each other (by the tens of thousands) every year.

Yes, there is a "double standard." Doubly hypocritical.

Still, many motorists give me courtesy and a wide berth when passing. I have no complaint with them.

But I don't ignore the evil, dangerous driving of ignorant people.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Motorists and I have little problem with one another. I have yet to encounter a serious situation in over 6 years of serious bike-commuting. Mine is a world of peaceful coexistence. I believe CM is intended to incite. I think it incites rage in otherwise placid motorists, which I believe endangers me.

Call me confused. You say that your life is currently ENDANGERED by enraged motorists (who have apparently been driven over the edge by CM), while you simultaneously claim to have a peaceful, PROBLEM-FREE co-existence with these same motorists? :roflmao:



Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
I believe CMers engage in lawlessness as a group.
Critical Massers shot JFK. The CIA have covered up the truth about all of the bicycles that were in Washington that day. Critical Massers are all illumanitis, the highest order of the secret inner ring of the Freemasons. Critical Mass is responsible for the flouride that's in our drinking water, and the the secret experiments done in connection with this. Critical Mass is also responsible for the spread of Mad Cow's disease as well as the fact that the pop machine just ate your quarter.

Originally posted by ViciousCycle

If a motorist gets enraged when he is behind a group of bicycles, there's a good chance that the reason he is enraged is that the bicycles are getting in the way of him breaking the speed limit law.


I'd say that he is enraged because he can't even do the speed limit, let alone break it.

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
I believe CM is intended to incite. Exactly what it incites is where we part company.

There's a Mass bike pool in my neighborhood that I ride with to get to/from work. I have been part of this pool for a few months now, and I have yet to see any motorists get incited with rage. And I certainly wouldn't call this Mass bike pool lawless, unless riding a bicycle is a crime.

In contrast to Mass, I checked out some local bike clubs and they seemed mainly interested in lycra gods and lycra goddess who could pedal at a gazillion miles per hour. These bike clubs just seemed irrelevant to my life, because I have no need for a lycra pantheon. I took a class from a Masser and learned how to adjust my brakes, derailleurs, etc. I hung around a Masser who's a lawyer and learned a lot about local and state statutes with regards to cycling. The lycra gods all seem to disappear in mid-fall and do not show up for resurrection until spring, whereas I can always find Massers to cycle with, even in the dead of winter.

Every bicycle club that I ever investigated has treated the bicycle like a piece of really expensive exercise equipment. Critical Mass treats the bicycle as transportation. Every bicycle club that I ever investigated seems to be ruled by the testesterone brigade. Critical Mass has commuter cyclists like me, using their bikes to get to work or run errands with. The bike clubs plan rides where you are expected to drive your car to remote starting locations, where Critical Mass plans events such that cyclists can ride to them. (I don't own a car, so the whole business of driving a car an hour or more to a distant location just to begin a bicycle ride is foreign to me.) Perhaps I've just had really rotten luck with bicycle clubs. I can't say that all bicycle clubs are this bad, but I do know that all Critical Masses are not the terrible things that users on this board want to portray them as. Saying that I as a transportatonal cyclist incite motorists to rage is like saying that I as a woman incite men to ****. Geez, when I was in college, netgeeks would feel free to hit on me if I ever used a user handle that remotely suggested a female name. And it appears that on these forums, I and others like me are made to sound like demons just for being CM'ers/transportational cyclists. I'm suddenly reminded of why I've spent so little time online since college........

If a motorist gets enraged when he is behind a group of bicycles, there's a good chance that the reason he is enraged is that the bicycles are getting in the way of him breaking the speed limit law.

So it's ok for a cyclist to impede the flow of traffic (which is against the law) because hey - we have a right to the road to (but obviously the laws of the road don't apply to the cyclist), but not ok for a motorist to drive a few mph over the speed limit. You picked a most excellent title for the thread.


A single SUV can break far more laws and be far more dangerous than 50 cyclists can. The SUV can break the speed limit law effortlessly whereas it's difficult for the group of cyclists to break the speed limit on many roads. An SUV driver can run down a cyclist off the road and kill them. A cyclist cannot run an SUV driver off the road and kill them.

A group of 50 cyclists can break many more laws than a single SUV. Face it if 50 cyclists run through a stop sign that's 50 people breaking the law, the SUV driver did it once. I'll give you the speed limit part, but I've seen plenty of groups of people on bikes using up most of the lane not riding the speed limit which is just as much against the law as going to fast. And yes a cyclist can run a car off the road just as easily as the other way around. Because most people will try and swerve to avoid the said cyclist if they do something stupid, which can lead to the motorist going off the road.

I'm a cyclist just like most everybody here, but a little perspective can shed a bit more light on everything. There are idiotic drivers out there for sure, just as their are idiotic people on bikes, our perspective get's skewed though because even if you ride in a group of 50 people you'll probably get passed by 300+ cars during a morning ride, a few of which will be idiots but that certainly doesn't mean all of them are.

Andrew

So it's ok for a cyclist to impede the flow of traffic (which is against the law)

laws very from state to state for "slow-moving vehicles"...

usually it's something like California's law where they are required to use a designated slow-vehicle lane and/or proivde space for others to pass if more than 6 vehicles are stacked up behind.

other states have no specific rules, and for many the "slow-vechicle" rules are all made with farm equipment in mind with bicycles as an afterthought.

yes, on controlled freeways there is a minimum speed limit, but for most normal roads it may not even be illegal to "impede the flow of traffic" -- again this varies greatly from state to state.

some states do have specific rules that state that groups of bicycle riders must ride single-file. in these states CM is probably breaking this law...

in Oregon cyclists are allowed to ride 2-abreast with some kind of provision that they allow others to pass when they are not able to in a timely fashion -- this means that if they have to wait a minute or so and then pass then that's OK, not that they should be able to pass without ever slowing down... i don't remember exactly, but i think in Oregon there is also some provision that makes it legal for groups of cyclists to take an entire lane or lanes - even if they are travelling well below the speed of "the flow of traffic"

The monthly bike parade ("the Critical Mass ride") is the least important part of Critical Mass to me. If my schedule were to change such that I could never make it to another bike parade I would still remain involved in the local Critical Mass and look for new opportunities. The annual art show is always fun. The workshops and classes are nice to be involved in, albeit time-consuming to coordinate. The Happy Hours are nice, a chance to just kick back and socialize. The CM monthly newsletter, the 2002 CCM mix CD, the annual calendar, and the silly bike stickers are nice. If I were female, I'd probably get involved in Cycling Sisters, a Critical Mass group that has female cyclists helping one another out. And Massers often plan spur-of-the-moment rides to plays, parks, snowball fights, scavenger hunts, etc. that are both law-abiding and a nice way to meet people. I'm not saying that all of this is perfect (the Pedal' Poetry open-mike night, for example, can sometimes produce some pretty bad poetry.) But we hurt no one, break no laws, and have a good time when we do these things.

Ultimately, the name doesn't matter. If I had attributed all of the above things to a bicycle club instead of "Critical Mass" perhaps users would have reacted completely differently. It's funny how people get so hung up on names. Well, of course, I'm guilty of this charge too. I've wasted energy on here defending "Critical Mass", when in fact what I'm actually defending is a loose network of Chicago bicyclists who have a deep passion for bicycles. Whether or not you like the name "Critical Mass" or hate the name "Critical Mass": ENJOY YOUR BIKES!

In Florida there is an "impede the flow of traffic" law on the books, but it's pretty vague. Also the cycling laws are pretty well defined.

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.

pulled from http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=CH0316/Sec2065.HTM

So basically you can't impede traffic on a bike in Florida. You can ride 2 abreast as long as you don't impede traffic. There's nothing about having X amount of cars behind you or anything like that, etc. You have to ride on the very most right of the street, none of this "I can't ride in the designated bike path of the rode cause it's dirty". Now if you can ride the speed limit, then there is no problem, you can ride in the middle of the lane if you want, and there is nothing that can be done to you legally.

Anyways, the point is that to talk about double standards with motorists is fine but to make the rash generalization that motor vehicle culture is a culture of lawlessness is going WAY over the top. Because I see lots of cyclists that break every law they can find as well, rolling through stop signs/red lights, not following the rules of the road, not signaling, etc, etc.

And I don't care what you call it, critical mass or a bike club or whatever you want, to make such a total BS generalization is incredibly unfair to a lot of people, especially considering we all have to fight to beat the stereotypes of ignorant/idiot cyclists we should know better than to be part of the double standard.

Andrew

Originally posted by Pete Clark
...I've never known a bicycist to hurt a motorist. But motorists run down cyclists (by the hundreds) pedestrians (by the thousands) and each other (by the tens of thousands) every year. ...
BREAKING NEWS: Cars are bigger and heavier than bicyclists.

Better to acknowledge this fact of life and deal with it than pretend that we can change this law ... of physics.

Originally posted by Wheeeeee
Call me confused. You say that your life is currently ENDANGERED by enraged motorists (who have apparently been driven over the edge by CM), while you simultaneously claim to have a peaceful, PROBLEM-FREE co-existence with these same motorists? :roflmao:
You are confused.

Why can't both be true: that I have yet to encounter any serious consequences but believe at the same time that motorists think less of me after having read the papers about a mass of cyclists flagrantly violating the law, which I believe does endanger my life?

Do you need a lesson in logic? Is this so hard to understand?

Also, when you quote me, quote me directly. Don't add words, like PROBLEM-FREE. If you care to notice, I never said problem-free, now did I?

Here in DC, there is no "Critical Mass" ride for cyclists, just a "Solidarity Ride" (whatever that is). However, twice a day, cagers take to the streets in a "Critical Mass" of their own, often effectively shutting down all major travel routes for hours at a stretch. It's called "Rush Hour" What a Mass ride does for a region of a few blocks, they do to a 20 mile diameter metro region.

Maybe they should all get "I'm not blocking traffic -- I am traffic!" bumperstickers.

Paul

VC - Those things sound very warm and fuzzy, good stuff. BUT - the traffic stopping rides are the thing that CM is noted for by the mainstream.

I think if you mentioned in Texas or Wash. that you are a member of CM they wouldn't ask you how was the poetry reading last night....

Someone else hit the nail on the head. The motorsits don't become enraged because they can't "break" the speed limit when stuck in a CM 'ride', they get pissed because they can even GO the speed limit.

Anywhere bikers are intentiaonlly annoying motorists is a place I won't be. Any group that makes that a part of thier routine (annually or otherwise) is a group I won't belong to.

ed

Originally posted by Ajay213
but to make the rash generalization that motor vehicle culture is a culture of lawlessness is going WAY over the top.
And I don't care what you call it... to make such a total BS generalization is incredibly unfair to a lot of people


Ajay213, I was parodying another user who called my 'bike club' (whatever) a culture of "lawlessness." If my parody sounded too dead-pan, I apologize. (I've just known too many people (non-cyclists) killed or nearly killed by recklessly speeding drivers. )

I am probably done with logging on here for good. While I have described many things in my local 'bike club' that are legal, safe, fun, beneficial to cycling, and that generate positive local press coverage, I keep getting told that I am endangering Andy Dreisch's life and that apparently things like art shows, happy hours, workshops, and bike stickers are lawless. But I'd much rather help set up the next art show or go to the next happy hour than sit around in cyberspace. Bye.

when riding in heavy traffic you have to strike a balance between submisive & assertive, moving up or down the scale continiously as conditions change. eg. theres a limit to how assertive you can be with a missceant logging truck unless you have a real death wish ! its all a matter of common sense realy & an accute sense of survivial, some days it like competing in an Xtreme sport. :D

Originally posted by Ajay213

A group of 50 cyclists can break many more laws than a single SUV.

The SUV driver can commit vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter, and a whole slew of lesser laws that simply don't apply to a bicycle (emissions law violations, toll scofflawing, handicapped parking violations, not having seatbelts to protesct the passengers, etc.) There are more laws possible for the SUV driver to break, and more laws possible for the SUV driver to break that have serious consequences. A cyclist might break a small number of laws multiple times, but it is simply not possible for a cyclist to break many more laws.

The SOB Explorer who killed my brother was doing 'just a little speeding' when he rammed Keith's motorcycle. On the other hand, if a cyclist gets into an accident through their own fault, the only person who typically gets injured is themselves.

By the way, Andy Dreisch, I have just two comments for you:
(1) If you have an issue with stoplight/stop sign violations, just refer to them as stoplight/stop sign violations, and don't use a vague loaded word like "lawlessness."
(2) If I told my mother that I had a boyfriend that was endangering me and with whom I peacefully co-exist, she would be alarmed and assumed I was in some abusive relationship. You say that it is logical to feel both endangerment and peaceful co-existence with someone simultaneously. That's not logic; it's just contradiction.

It seems impossible for some on this board to actually believe that cyclists can peacefully co-exist with motorists.

I do. Am I the only one? What is it about me that's apparently different in this regard? I have had zero altercations with motorists. Ever.

Have I had near misses? You bet. But nothing close to severe. And this, in the land of the world's absolute worst drivers.

Could it be that I recognize the futility in whining about them? That I understand that I am on their roads? Yes, their roads, because they sure as hell aren't designed with bikers in mind. But that's the way it is. I accept it, work with it, deal with it. I don't whine about it. It's the risk we cyclists accept, especially we bike-commuters.

CM sure as hell isn't going to change that. In my view, it only makes things worse.

Wheeeeee, you say: "On the other hand, if a cyclist gets into an accident through their own fault, the only person who typically gets injured is themselves. ". I absolutely agree. That's the problem when you go up against a several ton vehicle.

The SUV driver can commit vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter, and a whole slew of lesser laws that simply don't apply to a bicycle (emissions law violations, toll scofflawing, handicapped parking violations, not having seatbelts to protesct the passengers, etc.)

So it's not possible in any way to hit somebody with a bicycle and kill them? Well we both know that's not true. Helmet laws are basically the same as seatbelt laws, I can park a bicycle in a handicapped spot just as easily as an SUV. Emissions laws, well the bike is certainly better there but enviromentally a bike can be just as bad depending on the responsibility of the rider.


There are more laws possible for the SUV driver to break, and more laws possible for the SUV driver to break that have serious consequences. A cyclist might break a small number of laws multiple times, but it is simply not possible for a cyclist to break many more laws.

A cyclist can break just as many laws as the motorist or very close to it, and probably in some cases more laws. Why that's not obvious is beyond me.


The SOB Explorer who killed my brother was doing 'just a little speeding' when he rammed Keith's motorcycle. On the other hand, if a cyclist gets into an accident through their own fault, the only person who typically gets injured is themselves.

My condolences on your loss. But if the SUV driver were driving the speed limit, would the results have been the same? Say the accident happened somewhere where the speed limit was higher and the SUV driver wasn't speeding would the results have changed? I agree that something needs to be done about reckless drivers, but it would be a lot better to fix the root of the problem rather than the immediate knee jerk reaction part of the problem. And no matter what you do, accidents will still happen. Anytime a motorvehicle meets a 2-wheeled vehicle there is going to be some level of injury involved.

Andrew

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

BREAKING NEWS: Cars are bigger and heavier than bicyclists.

Car drivers therefore carry a greater moral responsibility.

They are also responsible for the most carnage. Have you checked the facts?

Originally posted by Pete Clark

Car drivers therefore carry a greater moral responsibility.

They are also responsible for the most carnage. Have you checked the facts?
Car drivers, bike drivers, bulldozer drivers, kids driving big wheels ... they all have a moral responsibilty to act safely.

Yes, I'll concede that car drivers cause the most carnage. They are in fact BIGGER!!!

Which is further proof that we cyclists better watch out, take defensive action, accept our lot in life, be good role models, and STOP WHINING !!!

i am sorry that viscious cycle is leaving the site. i feel that it goes against his nature to quit - even in this frustrating medium- and if nothing else, to make his point known.

i personally am skeptical of critical mass, largely because it only enlightens the already enlightened. and if a cyclist gets mad at the commotion, then when i encounter him either later that day....or the next day...or whenever, i don't need that little ***** in his/her subconscious that they were wronged in some way....

some aggresive and some submissive riding (i am describing riding on the road, not my marriage....)

i am sorry that viscious cycle is leaving the site. i feel that it goes against his nature to quit - even in this frustrating medium- and if nothing else, to make his point known.

ViciousCycle,

yeah, i think your insight is really valuable here.

and again, the main problem here is that the MEDIA likes to make a "good" story (meaning sensationalism) so writing about good things that CM does is "boring" while writing about conflicts between Massers and car drivers "sells news".

as i've said before, there are sometimes a few bad apples and this is also true of CM, but all-in-all CMers are a great bunch of people who are speaking out and demonstrating (which is a basic American right!) and putting in a lot of hard work for some of the same things that most of us (baring Andy) would like -- improved and safer conditions for cycling and encouraging more people to ride a bike!

there are many car drivers that don't pay attention, tailgate, drive drunk, or in some way drive very dangerously - some even make statements to the effect that bicycles have no rights to the road and should be run over or intimidated if they do - i said SOME. but here on in the media, it's not being claimed that ALL auto drivers are horrible and lawless and out to get cyclists. don't judge the group by the actions of a small minority. most CMers are not trying to piss off auto drivers and create a more hostile relationship, but merely trying to bring awareness to the fact that there are cyclists out there! it's a grass-roots effort to motivate people to improve the community in which they live by encouraging safe conditions for bicycling and walking - hardly a "horrible, lawless" goal.

and throughout history, the status quo has almost always tried to portray those in favor of change as "radical", "lawless" or whatever negative they can pin on them --- like anti-war or civil rights protesters in the 60s/70s... were they really as "evil" as the media and establishment often portryed them at the time? (yes, there were some extreme cases of bombings and violence, but the overall goal was pacifist protest). and sometimes the negative press actually helps by promoting awareness... but this a complicated thing.

for the auto drivers who want to drive agressively, talk on their cell phones, not have to pay close attention and watch for pedestrians and bicycles nor face consequences for the failure to do so, and in general don't want to be "inconvenienced" by cyclists, the best method is to discredit and marginalize the groups trying to promote cycling like CM (groups for building bike paths are less of a threat b/c it gets cyclists off the road).

what if all of us who are for improving the conditions for cycling got together and somehow increased awareness and accountability? it could do some real good, and this is what CMers are shooting for: creating a community safe for cycling! where the average person does not feel afraid to ride in the street (b/c regardless of whether it's exaggerated or not, most auto drivers believe it too dangerous to ride a bicycle in the street)

There is a right way and a wrong way to further a cause. Trying to further your cause by raising awareness is obviously good. If your method of raising awareness is to hold a huge, un-organized ride through town clogging up traffic (because you aren't following any traffic laws) is a bad way to do it. How much support do you give a cause that causes you problems? Say you are on the fence about bicycle commuting, you'd like to do it, but not quite sure, you like some of the ideals of Critical Mass. Then you see a big group of CM'ers just making a mess of traffic and chaos that ensues. Would you want to be associated with that group? What good comes from one of these mass rides, besides more pissed off motorists?

I've been to a dozen CM websites, you know what I see. I see pictures of a large group of people walking through the street (basically blocking all lanes) holding their bikes over their head (with lots of traffic around them, and the cops trying to get everything organized). I see a big group of people riding across all lanes of traffic holding big banners, and this isn't a ride organized through the city. I see a general lack of respect for all the people they are trying to raise awareness to.

Andrew

Then you see a big group of CM'ers just making a mess of traffic and chaos that ensues. Would you want to be associated with that group? What good comes from one of these mass rides, besides more pissed off motorists?

i agree that there are probably some things that can be done better with CM -- again, it varies greatly from city to city...

but in the rides i have been in, the auto driver response is overwhelmingly good (ok, most of my CM experience is in Portland where cycling is very popular and strongly supported) with drivers honking in support, cheering, whistling or joining in in the singing or cheering or whatever hoopla is going on.

and i have personaly talked with many people (again from Portland) who have said - hey, that's a cool thing. i think i'll try riding my bike b/c those guys look like they're having fun, or something to that effect. after seeing the CM ride go by one evening, 2 auto-oriented co-workers of mine who thought cycling was just for "crazy athletic types like me who ride really fast and wear lycra and what not", decided that they could ride cruisers to work and take it easy - that a "normal" person could ride a bike too.

again, maybe in less cycling friendly places like Florida CM is perceived differently (although these places need CM even more!)

nathank, I think there's agreement between us!!

You suggest that maybe CM can be better handled. I agree that CM has laudable goals and that probably most CMers have no intention of engaging in lawless activities.

Further, I agree that the media takes the lawless aspect and runs with it. (DUH !! :rolleyes: )

Finally, the degree to which CM takes to clogging streets and violating laws and pissing off motorists probably varies by city, I agree. I have the CM in San Francisco as my closest example. I however contend that probably most of the SF CMers actually do intend to engage in lawlessness. But that's my opinion.

For those that misread my contempt for CM's results as a statement that "all is well" with a bike-commuter's lot -- well, that's ridiculous. I am for many of the same things (bike-friendly policies, etc.) that CMers purportedly support. In fact, I believe (though I have no definitive information to support this) that I ride far more often and longer and in more dangerous conditions than virtually all the CM participants, who I believe are cycling "rookies" engaging in the parade-like atmosphere after dusting-off their unused bike for the event.

However, I believe that the best way to enhance our lot is to lead by example, don't lean on cars, don't argue with motorists (you'll lose), be aggressive, predictable ... grown up.

I again fail to see how CM supporters can claim that angering motorists leads to better conditions for cyclists.

But the bottom line is this: I have yet to hear any CM supporter provide evidence of advances brought about by CM.

hey Andy, i'm glad we're finding a little common ground!


In fact, I believe (though I have no definitive information to support this) that I ride far more often and longer and in more dangerous conditions than virtually all the CM participants, who I believe are cycling "rookies" engaging in the parade-like atmosphere after dusting-off their unused bike for the event.

it does sound like you ride a whole lot (as do i - i've logged over 10,000km this year and i sold my car almost 2 years ago), but from my experience many CMers don't even own cars and for most bikes are their main transportation. so how are they rookies? sure, some may only be like 18 but you and i were also "rookies" at 18 at some point! - my first year of college at 18 is when i really "discovered" cycling as i had no car and rode my bike everywhere!

and if some "rookies" do dust off their bikes and get on them and ride, how is that not a good thing? yes, maybe it wuold be good to help in educating new cyclists in how to ride - lights, not riding wrong way, not riding on sidewalk, etc - but i think every person who gets on a bike helps out: 1) more auto drivers who are now aware from personal experience what it's like to ride 2) more bikes on the road to raise our numbers and motorist awareness and 3) fewer cars on the road, so less pollution and fewer autos taking up precious public space (traffic/parking) 4) more awareness in the general population for voting and other public opinion issues

other than "corking" red lights which the police often even blocked lights and encouraged us to do (other times they made sure we didn't), i have never done anything illegal while on a CM ride. i created signs and handed them out for CMers to put on their backs and would frequently stop and talk to motorists or peds as to what we were doing and explaining some of our goals... now i have seen a few incidents of individuals riding the wrong way or harassing cars, but i also a few times witnesses police harassing or arresting CMers or using excessive force for merely riding on the street - neither of these is good, but neither is the norm.

also as there is usually a large number of younger people in the 17-22 age group (there are Massers of all ages), maybe it is more "roudy" as we all know that people in this age often are (i am more "tame" now at 32 than i was at 18 or 22). i personally believe that young people don't take part in politics and community issues as much as they should, so every little bit is a very good thing! our country is currently run by old people who vote (OK, that's another issue and i don't have anything against old people, just that i think it is bad for our country for most decisions to be made with the retirees placed as most important)

Originally posted by nathank
(A)... from my experience many CMers don't even own cars and for most bikes are their main transportation. so how are they rookies?

(B) ... and if some "rookies" do dust off their bikes and get on them and ride, how is that not a good thing?

(C) ... i have never done anything illegal while on a CM ride.

(D) ... i also a few times witnesses police harassing or arresting CMers or using excessive force for merely riding on the street - neither of these is good, but neither is the norm.

(E) ... i personally believe that young people don't take part in politics and community issues as much as they should, ... (OK, that's another issue ...
On (A): So you contend my assertion that most CMers actually do little riding is false. Neither you nor I have data to support as we have both said this so I guess we can agree to disagree.

On (B): Well, this would be a little like pacifists participating in a veteran's parade.

On (C): Glad to hear it, but never suggested you did. The issue is the CM in general, not individual participants.

On (D): So police were arresting people. Could it be that there was the slightest possibility of law breaking that precipitated this, or are you asserting that the arrests were without cause? And if so, why hasn't the City of Portland been sued? (I assume Portland, right?) Especially if the police used "excessive force"? There appears to have been at least some lawlessness. Now, why is this the case? Why is a defining characteristic of CM ... arrests? (Conversely, so far, a defining characteristic of CM is not enhancement of bikers' lots ... because I have yet to hear proof of CM's value in this regard.)

On (E): You're right. This is a far different issue.

originally posted by Andy
On (D): So police were arresting people. Could it be that there was the slightest possibility of law breaking that precipitated this, or are you asserting that the arrests were without cause? And if so, why hasn't the City of Portland been sued? (I assume Portland, right?) Especially if the police used "excessive force"? There appears to have been at least some lawlessness. Now, why is this the case? Why is a defining characteristic of CM ... arrests? (Conversely, so far, a defining characteristic of CM is not enhancement of bikers' lots ... because I have yet to hear proof of CM's value in this regard.)

Andy, well i really do believe in the principle of CM, but i do admit there are some not so perfect things about the implementation...

you're right that the arrests are a problem. as to the arrests... here's what often happens (and has happened in both San Francisco and Portland)...
CM starts up. the media wants their sensationalist story so they find a few people to interview. one was on the way to pick up an important client at the airport and got stuck in a huge traffic jam - and there was CM at the middle! he was late picking up the client and lost the account. then they find a woman whose daughter fell down and cut her head open and she was driving to the hospital and got stuck in traffic - and there was CM in the middle. the point is these people would have been inconvenienced and late because of normal Friday evening traffic, but there is no story if someone complains they spent hours wasting time sitting in normal auto traffic - this is normal and routine and boring - everyone knows that you'll get stuck in traffic at 5pm on Friday evening - but traffic CAUSED by bicylces... now that's a story.

so anyway, this story about how the reason for the really bad traffic was these horrible group of unruly cyclists causing all kinds of mahem and doing illegal things -- it gets published and lots of outraged concerned citizens call and write letters to the mayor. now, the mayor takes pride in his city working efficiently and not drawing negative publicity, plus with a bad image fewer people and businesses will move to or do business in the city there meaning less profit for people and businesses in the city which then means fewer donations for his campaign in a year or so. So the mayor tells the police to shut the crazy cyclists down.

so the police have an "order" to shut down the cyclists. so they show up and try and get the cyclists off the street, so they're looking for anthing they can to stop them or divert them to some place where fewer people will notice - in the end they end up arresting a few people b/c they can't really figure out how to stop these cyclists - and stopping them is their mission. but the media shows up again and this time write about not only the mahem, but also the arrests.

these people who are arrested are released b/c they weren't really arrested for any real reason - as far as i know very few if any CMers have ever been fully prosecuted, but usually just held overnight and then released without charges. in the cases where charges are actually filed they are almost always get dropped in court for various reaons. regardless, the order from the mayor gets stronger. the police react even more severely... it continues and the bad press gets worse.

ultimately the mayor/police decide to try and work with CM. they propose a route that takes them away from most people and will cause the least disturbance. CMers don't go along b/c they want the most publicity and they feel they have the right to demonstrate where they want to and not where they are allowed to by the authorities... there are more conflicts. eventually the police and CM figure out how to peacefully co-exist until a new mayor gets elected or a new stress causes the mayor or police to again escalate their activities...

OK, so why can't CM just work with the authorities and ride when and where they dictate? well, as most of you know, organized rides in the city are usually held Sunday morning when there are almost no cars on the road so few people will be disturbed. for a normal event this is good, but for an event where one of the main goals is VISIBILITY this is bad. also, there are a large number of young people involved and how many young people enjoy waking up early Sunday morning?

there are many different philosophies as to what is effective activism and protest. the problem is that it is very hard to take statstics and measure the effectiveness -- "hmm.. last week we did a ride at 6pm" so how hass the public opinion about cycling changed? who knows! - politics, advertising, this whole realm is speculation and guesswork with subtle effects at play. negative attention can ofen be good. positive attention can be good or can just make something boring...

different people in CM have diffefrent views as to what level of visibility and what lengths are appropriate to achieve visibility and "advertising". i personally don't know what works best, but i do believe the efforts of CMers are genuine and could potentially be very helpful -- and that they are probably much better than doing nothing and staying quite and not speaking up for cycling and trying to improve things. thus, i think CM is a pretty good thing that could maybe be made a little better. but i also see how others could very easily disagree and see CM as causing more problems than it helps.

i also look at it this way: in a city such as San Francisco where horrible traffic delays are a normal and everyday thing, how much worse does it really make it when a few hundred cyclists create a few extra delays ONE DAY A MONTH? they only need to convince a few people to get out of their cars in order to reduce the number of cars on the road EVERY DAY! people who say CM is creating such a huge problem are ignoring the real problem: that there are simply too many cars already on the road every day! in comparision the effect of CM is negligible and the potential benefits are substantial...

Damn, that was funny...


one was on the way to pick up an important client at the airport and got stuck in a huge traffic jam - and there was CM at the middle! he was late picking up the client and lost the account.

Hmmm a business man who just happens to forget that he lives in a city with traffic...and totally forgets that there would be traffic on an afternoon. Right...I'm sure he just totally forgot all that and he would have still been late.


so they show up and try and get the cyclists off the street, so they're looking for anthing they can to stop them or divert them to some place where fewer people will notice - in the end they end up arresting a few people b/c they can't really figure out how to stop these cyclists - and stopping them is their mission. but the media shows up again and this time write about not only the mahem, but also the arrests.

So the police were out there arresting people for no reason at all? The CM people were breaking no laws at all, even the ones arrested? How come we haven't heard about the large almost class-action lawsuit against the city over these illegal arrests? Talk about something the press would eat up.

Oh wait, they are all released with no charges, but how do you know there were no charges? Did they have to pay any fines? Some had to spend the night in jail? And there are no lawsuits about the illegal arrests?


i also look at it this way: in a city such as San Francisco where horrible traffic delays are a normal and everyday thing, how much worse does it really make it when a few hundred cyclists create a few extra delays ONE DAY A MONTH? they only need to convince a few people to get out of their cars in order to reduce the number of cars on the road EVERY DAY! people who say CM is creating such a huge problem are ignoring the real problem: that there are simply too many cars already on the road every day! in comparision the effect of CM is negligible and the potential benefits are substantial...

Ahhh making excuses to convince yourself it's ok for this group to break the law....then ***** and moan that people in cars break the law. The title of this thread is oh so appropriate.

Again, by pissing off the majority of motorists in your example how has it furthered the CM cause?

Andrew

Wow nathank. You must go through at least one keyboard a week!!! It's interesting to get an insider's view on CM.

On your points regarding the media ... Question: If the expected outcome is negative press coverage, why not work to change the expected outcome? And how could the press portray arrests positively in the first place? From the Sept Contra-Costa (SF area) Times (9/02): "Last month in Portland, Ore., things got out of control when 200 bicycle advocates allegedly kicked cars, spat on police, threw rocks and ran red lights as part of a monthly event called 'Critical Mass Rush Hour Bicycle Ride.'" How could this possibly be portrayed as the acts of good citizenry?

On the mayor's actions ... Question: So the mayor is acting solely in his self interest? Could it possibly be that the duly elected mayor is acting on behalf of the citizens? Is it a good thing that fewer people and fewer businesses elect to call Portland home? Is it a bad thing a mayor takes pride in the city? Your reasoning here, I must tell you, totally escapes me.

On the alleged police crackdown and moving CM elsewhere ... Question: So CM is special with respect to approved routes? Why? What makes it special? Parades have parade routes. Protest marches have approved routes. But why not CM? What makes CM special? Also, how can police arrest people arbitrarily ("they weren't really arrested for any real reason")? Where are the lawsuits arising from false arrests? Are you sure of this?

On "there are a large number of young people involved and how many young people enjoy waking up early Sunday morning" ... Question: Well, I guess bikers' rights are not that damned important.

On effectiveness of CM "doing nothing" and "trying to improve things"... Question: The article I quoted above (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/breaking_news/4156845.htm) also relates biking improvements. "What Critical Mass raises in spirit, mainstream groups like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition take to city halls and statehouses." So, it's disingenuous, isn't it, to suggest that without CM there is no effort to try to improve things?

On "there are simply too many cars already on the road every day" ... Question: So CM is intended to reduce the amount of autos? Is this the real reason for CM? I thought it was bikers' rights.

Now it's time for my new keyboard!!

The comments in this thread remind me of the kinds of things said among members of diverse organizations involved in any kind of political movement. Some organizations involve themselves in trying to affect change through the political process: petitions, initiative drives, lobbying legislators. Other organizations prefer to involve themselves in direct action: protest marches, picket lines, blocking gates or other entrances. Members of groups involved in creating change through accepted political processes believe the political process works, but members of groups involved in direct action believe that the political process either does not work or does not work fast enough. These kinds of groups have created controversy in the civil rights movement (NAACP/Black Panthers), the anti-Vietnam War movement (SDS/Eugene McCarthy supporters), the anti-nuke movement (the various direct action alliances--Abalone Alliance, Crawdad Alliance/the PIRGS--MOPIRG in Missouri, for example), environmental conservation movements (Greenpeace/Sierra Club). Members of groups involved in the political process inevitably accuse direct action groups of creating bad publicity while members of direct action groups inevitably accuse political process groups of ineffectiveness, timidity, lack of committment. The fact is that people working to affect change have to have a lot of committment to take up issues for which they have little chance of success, and no publicity is bad publicity. Cycling advocacy organizations all accomplish something. Some do so by organizing through the political process, and some do so by attracting lots of attention to the issue. The public may consider some people in a Critical Mass event to be crazies, but that perception will not sour most people on the issue. Rather, publicity for a Critical Mass ride is more likely to heighten the public's awareness of the need for bicycle friendly environments so that the politicians who, because of the work of the political process groups, ask their constituents about the need for bicycle accomodations will discover that many people want to see change for the better.

(This from someone who has never ridden with Critical Mass but who has blocked the gate of a nuclear power plant)

Originally posted by Prosody
...Rather, publicity for a Critical Mass ride is more likely to heighten the public's awareness of the need for bicycle friendly environments so that the politicians who, because of the work of the political process groups, ask their constituents about the need for bicycle accomodations will discover that many people want to see change for the better.
Prosody, I think everyone here will agree to what you said about how people go about seeking change. This is not a new issue.

I personally am silent on the issue of bikers' rights because I have no particular problem to solve. I am content with riding with traffic. I belong to no organization, CM or otherwise. I've covered this elsewhere so I won't burden this post with it.

Your quoted point above is interesting, but it assumes that CM "softens up" politicians for subsequent (or concurrent) action by political process groups. On the contrary, I think CM actually hardens political positions. Take, for instance, nathan's point about the mayor in his post.

It's possible that politicians, in an effort to be rid of the CM nuisance, will accede to their wishes. But this brings me right back to the question I always pose in regard to CM: what exactly are they after? What will satisfy them? What is the end game with CM? How much is enough? No one seems to know ... after 10 years of oftentimes illegal activities. In fact, there is no organization in which to petition. No mission statement (only organizations have mission statements).

I personally think nathank slipped a little and inadvertantly spilled the beans. He said, in effect, that there are too many cars and that's the problem that needs to be solved. OK, if so, the root of CM is environmental activism. Fine. At least that provides a touchstone.

Maybe I'm wrong, but since CM so clearly (in my view) acts counter to true bikers' interests, it's hard to ascertain their real reason for existence. It's therefore easy for me or anyone else ... motorists included ... to misinterpret the CM goals, whatever they may be. It's possible that CM started as a true bicycle advocacy org but has morphed into something far different. Who can tell?

I'm in search of a definitive statement of what would satisify CM. All I hear is justification of its actions, never justification of its existence.

originally posted by Ajay213
So the police were out there arresting people for no reason at all? The CM people were breaking no laws at all, even the ones arrested? How come we haven't heard about the large almost class-action lawsuit against the city over these illegal arrests? Talk about something the press would eat up.

sometimes yes, sometime no - meaning, yes sometimes individuals do get out of control and other times people really are arrested for no legitimate reason - often listed as "disturbing the peace" or something.

the film "we're not blocking traffic. we are traffic!" made about 5 years ago by a San Francisco filmmaker is a great documentary and includes self-made viedo on CM rides in San Fran, Austin and a few other cities. there are some incidents where police do things they shouldn't (note: i support and respect police greatly).

for anyone who's really interested in CM i do recommend the film as it shows what and why people do it. it's not really about glorifying CM, just trying to get inside it and understand (what a good documentary should do)

originally posted by Prosody
Some organizations involve themselves in trying to affect change through the political process: petitions, initiative drives, lobbying legislators. Other organizations prefer to involve themselves in direct action: protest marches, picket lines, blocking gates or other entrances. Members of groups involved in creating change through accepted political processes believe the political process works, but members of groups involved in direct action believe that the political process either does not work or does not work fast enough

well, that's exactly what i was trying to get at when i mentioned different types of activism, but you did it much better...

i personally am more the type who believes in working within the system, mostly through informing people and "getting the word out", but i really respect the efforts of many of the more radical activists. when i was in the US i was active with the Sierra Club and the BTA (Bicycle Transportation Alliance, a Portland lobby and bike-issues great) going to local city and community meetings and volunteering for various informational activities.

any cyclists in the Portland area should really check into the BTA (http://www.bta4bikes.org/). they do all kinds of things to promote commuting, increase bike parking factilties, provide bicycle education, info on legal issues, bicycling programs for kids (bike to school programs where volunteers lead groups of kids), etc. BTA is an important part of the great cycling climate in Portland with one of the highest level of bike commuters in the US despite not the best weather (9 months of rain)

Wow nathank. You must go through at least one keyboard a week!!! It's interesting to get an insider's view on CM.

Andy, i read you post last night (5:15pm for me, late morning for you) minutes before i left for my ride and then thought about it the whole ride (i lead a weekly wednesday MTB ride but nobody showed it so i rode by myself).

yeah, once i get started i just can't stop. my post count is only like 700-something since March 2002, but i think i have the longest average message length of just about anyone here...

but i've gotta do some work here. i'll try and address your questions later in the day...

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch

Car drivers, bike drivers, bulldozer drivers, kids driving big wheels ... they all have a moral responsibilty to act safely.

Yes, I'll concede that car drivers cause the most carnage. They are in fact BIGGER!!!

Which is further proof that we cyclists better watch out, take defensive action, accept our lot in life, be good role models, and STOP WHINING !!!
Holding lawless motorists accountable for their risky behavior before they kill or cripple innocent people is not whining. It's being a good citizen.

sometimes yes, sometime no - meaning, yes sometimes individuals do get out of control and other times people really are arrested for no legitimate reason - often listed as "disturbing the peace" or something.

So these people doing these illegal activities is furthering whatever goal CM is after?


the film "we're not blocking traffic. we are traffic!" made about 5 years ago by a San Francisco filmmaker is a great documentary and includes self-made viedo on CM rides in San Fran, Austin and a few other cities. there are some incidents where police do things they shouldn't (note: i support and respect police greatly).

for anyone who's really interested in CM i do recommend the film as it shows what and why people do it. it's not really about glorifying CM, just trying to get inside it and understand (what a good documentary should do)

I'm not really an expert on all things CM, but so far from what I've gathered CM'ers usually talk about how there are to many cars on the road and their is to much traffic. And then that relates to how it can make life difficult for the bicycle commuters. So what do the CM'ers do? They go out and basically block traffic down the street, therefore making traffic worse and putting more cars on the road. And then if there are any cycle commuters out trying to get home with the cars, all you've done is made things worse for them.

People in this thread have brought up other activist organizations, but how many of them went to rallies and did what they are rallying against? Did every peace march involve the protesters waging war with those who opposed them? No they didn't, they did sit ins, marches, etc....but for the most part were non-violent events.

Andrew

originally posted by Andy
On your points regarding the media ... Question: If the expected outcome is negative press coverage, why not work to change the expected outcome? And how could the press portray arrests positively in the first place? From the Sept Contra-Costa (SF area) Times (9/02): "Last month in Portland, Ore., things got out of control when 200 bicycle advocates allegedly kicked cars, spat on police, threw rocks and ran red lights as part of a monthly event called 'Critical Mass Rush Hour Bicycle Ride.'" How could this possibly be portrayed as the acts of good citizenry?

only a small minority of CMers actively try for any press - negative or good. most of the time, the media just writes what they find the most interesting which is usually not really writing about CM, but just about the "problems" and outrageuos delays to motorists, etc.

yes, it's probably a wise idea to try and work with the media - so that they can present the true vies of CM and get the message out. i'm sure it's been attempted, but i have no personal info.


originally posted by Andy
On the mayor's actions ... Question: So the mayor is acting solely in his self interest? Could it possibly be that the duly elected mayor is acting on behalf of the citizens? Is it a good thing that fewer people and fewer businesses elect to call Portland home? Is it a bad thing a mayor takes pride in the city? Your reasoning here, I must tell you, totally escapes me.

no, i did not mean it to appear as though i thought the mayor was doing a bad job (sure, it would be nice if he worked with CM and in Portland this is VERY often the case in general). but in response to such biased and "sensationalist" media reports, the mayor does have the responsibliity to do something... and no, although Portland had no shortage of people and businesses moving to Portland (i left in 2000 before the recession), i'm not against that (many in Oregon are), nor do i really see CM as creating a bad climate for business --- the overblown reports by the media, maybe?


originally posted by Andy
On the alleged police crackdown and moving CM elsewhere ... Question: So CM is special with respect to approved routes? Why? What makes it special? Parades have parade routes. Protest marches have approved routes. But why not CM? What makes CM special? Also, how can police arrest people arbitrarily ("they weren't really arrested for any real reason")? Where are the lawsuits arising from false arrests? Are you sure of this?

i think i already addressed this one in another post.


originally posted by Andy
On "there are a large number of young people involved and how many young people enjoy waking up early Sunday morning" ... Question: Well, I guess bikers' rights are not that damned important.

hey, i'm not saying it's necessarily right, but honestly, if it were 9am on Saturday or Sunday morning do you think as many young people would show up as if it were Friday evening? until about age 27 i didn't get out of bed on the weekend until 11am or so unless I HAD TO. i now usually wake up EARLIER on the weekend than the weekday b/c i go cycling or other activities in the mountains, but i remember to some extent what it was like to be 19 years old.


originally posted by Andy
On effectiveness of CM "doing nothing" and "trying to improve things"... Question: The article I quoted above (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/...ews/4156845.htm) also relates biking improvements. "What Critical Mass raises in spirit, mainstream groups like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition take to city halls and statehouses." So, it's disingenuous, isn't it, to suggest that without CM there is no effort to try to improve things?

as i also said in another post, there are various types of activism. i personally was invloved with the BTA and find them VERY EFFECTIVE. but the BTA tends to attract older cyclists, usually above 30 and very few below 25... there are others who don't believe this sort of work is very effective or for whatever reasons they don't feel that it is adequate. for these (mostly young people) i think CM is much better than the general political apathy accompanied by general useless complaining or even unstrcutured destruction or "trouble-making" that so many young people do.


originally posted by Andy
On "there are simply too many cars already on the road every day" ... Question: So CM is intended to reduce the amount of autos? Is this the real reason for CM? I thought it was bikers' rights.

most CMers see a link between the number of cars on the road and the safe environment for cycling. i don't really know anyone who likes traffic or believes we need more cars on the road (except for people who benefit directly financially somehow). why is aiming to reduce the number of cars and reduce traffic a bad thing? i believe that at the core, the important thing to CMers is a safe environment for cycling that allows people to cycle and encourages others to join. now since many are also environmentalists, they would also like to reduce car usage just to reduce pollution and waste. so to answer your question directly: yes, the goal is biker's rights and safe cycling environment, but since the car is the only real threat to this, reducing cars is usually end up being a goal, but improving the factilities and envrinment for cycling is still #1.

===========================================
Andy, it is clear that you would never be directly involved with CM and this is fine. although, i do find it disturbing that you so strongly speak out against them. i must admit, i still find it almost impossible to believe that you are completely happy with the cycling experience in the US as you imply in your posts. the problems to cyclists are great (why else does the average American believe it is too dangerous to cycle on the street?): auto drivers not held accountable when they create an unsafe environmenmt for cyclists or often not prosecuted when they injure or kill cyclists; streets, lanes, bridges, overpasses designed for high speed autos and auto-centric city planning - for example, bicycle in Portland Oregon and then go bicycle in Dallas Texas and tell me there is no difference (i've done both a lot and the difference is IMMENSE); drive-thrus that won't serve you on a bicycle but will in a car or motorcylce (yes, i've experienced it personally quite often), agressive actions by motorists against cyclists (i've had a beer bottle and a BigGulp thrown at me while riding on the shoulder - not even on the roadway so not blocking car at all!). anyway, i'm not claiming CM is responsible for all the improvments or THE answer, but CMers are for things that most cyclists would see as improvements.

Do you really believe that the public's usually incorrect and biased opinion of CM has such a negative affect on cyclists? i believe there are lots of motorists who don't believe bikes should be on the road. while CM may provide them a little ammunition i don't see it radically changing their views. for those who support cycling, i find it unlikely that they would become hostile to cyclists as a group or individuals just b/c of CM. for those Americans who are impartial or apathetic to cyclists: some may improve their awareness and opinion b/c their attention is drawn to the fact that there are cyclists out there while others may look slightly more negatively at cyclists. so again: do you really believe the negative effects of CM are so substantial?

and i guess you're free to do so, but i personally think the negatives are very small, although because of the overblown media bias become maybe relatively small, but in the end the positives for cyclists as a whole are very large.

Originally posted by ViciousCycle
To paraphrase Andy Dreisch, motorists "are only out for the lawlessness of it.

:thumbup: Done.


Originally posted by Wheeeeee
Critical Massers are all illumanitis, the highest order of the secret inner ring of the Freemasons. Critical Mass is responsible for the flouride that's in our drinking water, and the the secret experiments done in connection with this. Critical Mass is also responsible for the spread of Mad Cow's disease as well as the fact that the pop machine just ate your quarter.

:roflmao: Ha-ha-ha... You can write ...


Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
...I understand that I am on their roads? Yes, their roads...

You are in wrong here. The cities, streets, and roads appeared more than 3000 years ago. There have been no cars on streets for millenniums. Streets and roads are not designed for cars. The dropping property value on the streets with intensive motorized traffic proves it.


Originally posted by edk
I don't consider myself ... lawless becuase I drive a car marginally over the speed limit.

I do consider that you break the law and should be punished for breaking speed limit. You should be fined first time, and I hope you will be one day by your local police. The speed limit means that you shall not drive faster than this. If you break it - you are in a shady criminal environment. Maybe you do not understand it yet. But when you finally realize this simple truth, it may be too late.

Some of the arguments posted here are so absurd they amaze me. As a cyclist, Critical Mass is an embarassment to me. They are hypocrites. They have, "Share the Road" literature on their website yet, on their rides, their purpose is to disrupt traffic.

The worst part of Critical Mass is that they allow the radical fringe to define them.

I would like to "Share the road". I don't wan't to take over the road, as Critical Mass seems to want to do. I hope Critical Mass either learns to contol the radical fringe or, if they are unable to do that, I hope Critical Mass shrivels up and dies.

Responsible advocacy groups can take their place.

Critical Mass does NOT speak for me.

Personally, I think the criticism of Critical Mass on this forum is way too mild.

What about another double standard? I am an admirer of CM riders but not a participant. I do, however, ride in the occasional mass invitational ride where up to several thousand middle and upper class folks on expensive road bikes pin numbers on their asses and take up a whole lot more road space than any Critical Mass--it's just usually on rural roads on non-weekdays. Seattle to Portland, Cycle Oregon, any century and any road race with a few years' history have certainly annoyed more drivers than CM--are there age, class, or appearance issues that folks on this forum have with Massers?