Google sponsored links
We have little of these extremists in my municipality and after trying to change things at city hall (and not getting very far) being polite and reasonable, I think I can understand in the scope of things, a place for radicals.
If city hall people, in dealing with the critical mass people pushing the envelope, get upset, my reasonable arguments look better to city hall people.
Do these peole help the mainstream, reasonable requests of ordinary advocates, working within the system, progress our goals (because they are not as extreme) or do they hurt us?
:confused:
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Critical mass does more harm than good as far as I'm concerned. It's all well and good to say "but we have to do something", but the fact is that doing something ineffective is just as useless as doing nothing. I'm yet to see any benefit come from this at all. It's definitely not going to win the support of people who don't want cyclists on the roads at all. However, it might just upset the people who are on our side.
My major criticism of critical mass is that the message they send out is never received as it is intended. All people who see a critical mass protest think of is the protest itself. None of the real issues affecting cyclists even get any coverage at all. Hence, it really doesn't achieve anything.
Mass riders may be annoying now, but in 10, 20, 50 years I believe they'll be revered as pioneers in social change. I don't say this with any irony at all--considering the harm done to people and their living spaces by excess automobile use, considering the genuine danger that CM riders put themselves in I believe them to be bigger cycing heroes than Eddy Merckx or Lance Armstrong, and moral heroes equal to Rosa Parks and Gandhi.
Rosa Parks didn't stand in the middle of town blocking traffic for an hour. She did what she felt was her right, to sit where she wanted in the bus. That's why we should continue to do what we feel is our right, ride on the roads.
If someone could mention one positive effect that critical mass has towards the goal of educating people about bicycles on the road then I'd love to hear it.
I'm an engineer by training. My step-father (also an engineer) once said to me, "an engineer is someone who can do for a dollar what any fool can do for a hundred." Aside from the economic implications, I took this to mean that engineers should strive for some sort of elegance when balancing the advantages and disadvantages. The greatest engineering feats are those with little to no disadvantages. In my eyes, the bicycle is a marvel of engineering elegance. Cycling is one of the most elegant forms of transportation available. What Critical Mass does is to introduce a high degree of social disadvantage thereby tainting the elegance that is cycling. There are so many better ways to achieve the supposed goals of what Critical Mass says they're trying to accomplish while still maintaining a high degree of elegance. Watching Critical Mass is like watching someone use a kitchen knife as a screwdriver. Sooner or later they're gonna slip and cut themselves or worse gut someone around them.
Originally posted by oscaregg
Mass riders may be annoying now, but in 10, 20, 50 years I believe they'll be revered as pioneers in social change. I don't say this with any irony at all--considering the harm done to people and their living spaces by excess automobile use, considering the genuine danger that CM riders put themselves in I believe them to be bigger cycing heroes than Eddy Merckx or Lance Armstrong, and moral heroes equal to Rosa Parks and Gandhi.
I doubt it somehow. The biggest delusion that CM riders have is that their action is somehow going to stop excessive auto use. It's not. All it does is make one of the alternatives to auto use look less desirable. I'm sorry, but people aren't going to start riding bikes if they think they are going to be clashing with the police or holding up traffic.
Yes, I know the media coverage of it is biased, but this media coverage is what people see. It isn't going to make people dump the car and take up cycling, so why bother?
moral heroes equal to ........... Gandhi.
Oh, man, what a load of hooey! You want to raise the rabble-rousing antics of a bunch of antiestablismentarians out to annoy motorists to that of a man protesting the enslavement and oppresion of his country? How many of these obstructionist cyclists do you really think would be willing to forfeit their lives for their beliefs??
I sympathise with what they are trying to achieve, but feel the method of doing so backfires a lot.
To promote cycling we need effective marketing which appeals to peoples sensibilities.
We need to stress the health, environmental and social benefits of cycling.
CM just wind up other road users and passers by.
Even in Edinburgh, we at present have an advertising campaign on busses it shows an rider on a bike with an xray substituted for a leg, with plates and pins and says "If you hit a bicycle, your car's is not the only body to be damaged"
I initially thought this was a great idea as it reminds motorists of how vulnerable we are. But hey, it will put people off cycling because it reminds us of how vulnerable we are. two edged sword.
i think CM is a great thing that is misrepresented by the media and the establishment. the majority of the Massers i have known were not out to piss people off or to cause problems, but to express their right to peacefully ride a bicycle and the right to do so in safely and while respecting public space and the environment... (as opposed to in an overweight car spewing toxins everywhere, taking up space with parking and endangering pedestrians and the community as a whole)
it is unfortunate that there are a few bad apples who occaisonally do some things they maybe shouldn't, and of course the media highlights these rather the the common actions---> sensationalism sells, not "boring" peacful demonstrations...
i have ridden in CM in quite a few cities and found it worthwhile.
as to whether it has a larger affect on cycling as a whole... i'm not so sure. one of my complaints while participating in CM was that the message was very weakly portrayed to motorists and the public. i made and printed out signs to wear and handouts to give to people along the way...
i think in some cities that are a little more less on the conservative like Portland and San Francisco, CM has had a positive influence on cycling... but in very cycling unfriendly places (i'll use Florida as a generic example b/c of the highest bike fatality rate) the message is probably never heard or understood so one could argue that it makes things worse (but the conditions and support for cycling in these places is usually already pretty bad so how much do you really loose?)
if more people would embrace CM and it's goals, i think the world would be a much nicer and safer place... just imagine cycling being an integral part of transportation in the US with equal planning and forethought for cycling...
but until i will cycle where i can (note Germany is substantially better than the US in cycling approval/respect/planning/recognition as well as number of cyclists - the US has lots of recreational riders but comparatively few commuters or utlility riders)
I guess my bottom line feeling is, I think real power comes from numbers and I don't know if Critical Mass increases the numbers of people riding bikes. I could even think they may decrease numbers of people biking.
The more people cycle, the more others will consider the needs of cyclists, like in Bejiing or Amsterdam.
Ive been on a few CM rides , they were quite small, maybe 50-80 riders, and very laid back. No-one tried to halt the traffic or shout slogans. It wasnt a demonstration, simply a bunch of riders upholding their right to ride on the road.
>>>>>It wasnt a demonstration, simply a bunch of riders upholding their right to ride on the road.<<<<
Bingo.....
That's all what it is. The numbers turn out large when a cyclist is killed and it should be that way. CM has given media coverage to cyclists killed on the streets that wouldn't have received anything. They can get out of hand sometimes but I'm glad there are people out there risking their lives in these rides for the betterment of all cyclists.
Any other form of marketing is going to cost a lot of money which means it won't get done. CM is cheap and effective.
About 4 or 5 years ago, there was a local CM ride. It seems that every unsatisfied radical in town went out and bought the cheapest bikes from the local thrift stores. Most were beat up old huffys and sears bikes.
Anyway, the protest consisted of about 25-30 people riding, oh, 10 abreast down the busiest boulevard in town, blocking both lanes, and riding at about 2 mph. This was done at precisely 5pm every friday, for about 1 month.
You can't tell me that such a protest had anything to do with either:
a) furthering the use of bikes as a transportation method, or
b) reducing environmental stress.
No, I'm sorry-all they want to do is throw a temper tantrum. With cameras rolling...
Originally posted by Dahon.Steve
I'm glad there are people out there risking their lives in these rides for the betterment of all cyclists.
Cycling is not meant to be combat. There is nothing good about people risking their lives for cycling. Cycling safe and cycling legally does more to better cyclists than anything else. Crowding the streets illegally is not the right way to get things accomplished. Do these CM events register and get support from the municipalities?
Originally posted by nathank
i think CM is a great thing that is misrepresented by the media and the establishment.
Yes it is misrepresented, but as I said before, we have to learn to live with media bias because it's everywhere. The fact is, this media coverage is what people are going to see. It's not going to encourage anyone to dump the car and start riding to work. If anything, it's only going to put off people who were previously thinking about it.
We have to get past this idea that you're going to get anyone out of their cars by giving them the 'public space' or 'environment' message. 99% of people (a conservative estimate) are far too selfish to even care. The real reason people don't ride is that they simply do not want to. The only way to get more people riding is to make it more desirable to do so, and this won't happen with a public perception of cyclists always fighting with drivers and police. We need a less confrontational message.
Originally posted by nathank
(as opposed to in an overweight car spewing toxins everywhere, taking up space with parking and endangering pedestrians and the community as a whole)
As far as I'm concerned, the old "but cars cause traffic problems" is no justification whatsoever for this sort of action. Martin Bryant shot and killed 36 people in April 1996 - does that make it OK for me, too?
Originally posted by nathank
and of course the media highlights these rather the the common actions---> sensationalism sells, not "boring" peacful demonstrations...
Yes, and that isn't going to change. To put is simply, confrontation is always going to be the message portrayed by CM.
Originally posted by nathank
as to whether it has a larger affect on cycling as a whole... i'm not so sure. one of my complaints while participating in CM was that the message was very weakly portrayed to motorists and the public.
Read the points above about media coverage. This will always be the case with this sort of action. I'm sorry, but handouts are never going to leave an impression in people's mind while they see the confrontational side on the news.
Originally posted by nathank
but in very cycling unfriendly places (i'll use Florida as a generic example b/c of the highest bike fatality rate) the message is probably never heard or understood so one could argue that it makes things worse (but the conditions and support for cycling in these places is usually already pretty bad so how much do you really loose?)
There is actually a hell of a lot you can really lose. Remember, it takes just one pen stroke to ban cyclists from as many roads as governments feel like. No, it hasn't been done widely yet because it isn't a major political issue, but how many more news stories about cyclists "holding up traffic" or "clashing with police" will it really need?
Originally posted by nathank
if more people would embrace CM and it's goals, i think the world would be a much nicer and safer place... just imagine cycling being an integral part of transportation in the US with equal planning and forethought for cycling...
As I said before, CM isn't going to make this happen. The real reason most people don't ride is that they simply don't want to. Personally, I believe there are much bigger factors than road conditions that need to be dealt with if this is to change. If anything, CM makes these factors worse.
Originally posted by Dahon.Steve
CM has given media coverage to cyclists killed on the streets that wouldn't have received anything.
I disagree. Two cyclists killed on the Gold Coast (where we have no CM at all) received plenty of media coverage. If anything, it was more media coverage than I, for one, would have liked. Now we have a perception of cycling as being 'dangerous' and having a high fatality rate, when this simply isn't the case. Personally, I think we would have been better off without the media coverage.
Originally posted by D*Alex
This was done at precisely 5pm every friday, for about 1 month.
ouch... well at least they were consistant :p
i support them, but wonder if it's doing more harm then good?
Hey Chewa-
I like that ad campaign you talked about. Is there any way you can get me information on who is running that campaign or who came up with that ad? I'd love to propose some ads similar to that in Chicago just in time for the summer.....
Koffee
Originally posted by nathank
i think CM is a great thing that is misrepresented by the media and the establishment.I'm afraid that the media has accurately represented the goals of some CMers.
the majority of the Massers i have known were not out to piss people off or to cause problems, CM has allowed itself to be defined by the radical element within it. It is a sign of a poorly run organization. Like a long list of protest orgainzations that have fallen by the wayside for that very reason, CM doesn't have the backbone to repudiate the radicals.
As it is, despite the good intentions of many within it, CM does more harm than good.
it is unfortunate that there are a few bad apples... A few bad apples is all it takes if the organization can't control them. CM evidently can't.
I'm not against Critical Mass rides. This country (U.S.) is supposed to be all about free speech and free demonstration.
Nevertheless, I believe I make the most effective statement about the effectiveness of bicycle transportation is made by living it out every day (or some days, anyway.)
In the final analysis, the public probably views the everyday, year-round commuting cyclist as the clearest indication that cycling is for transportation and that cyclists belong on the road as equals.
Now, if Critical Mass riders jammed the roads everyday on their way to work, the grocery store, etc....
Originally posted by gonesh9
i support them, but wonder if it's doing more harm then good?
This is the exact problem right here. Too many people support CM with the old "it's our right" or "we must do something about all the problems caused by cars" without first analysing whether it actually does us any good at all. I'm yet to see any evidence that it does.
Originally posted by JRA
I'm afraid that the media has accurately represented the goals of some CMers.
CM has allowed itself to be defined by the radical element within it. It is a sign of a poorly run organization. Like a long list of protest orgainzations that have fallen by the wayside for that very reason, CM doesn't have the backbone to repudiate the radicals.
As it is, despite the good intentions of many within it, CM does more harm than good.
A few bad apples is all it takes if the organization can't control them. CM evidently can't.
By looking at CM as an organization, you lose the point. CM is apparently run by nobody besides a few volunteers to let people know about the ride. There are no formal leaders and there is no formal organization. All there is, is a ride on the last Friday of the month, or round about that time depending on the city.
I have never been to a CM ride, but I have heard of them and have been curious. The very fact that many people have heard of them and/or seen them is evidence that something that they do works. They are like the bad car lot commercials that everybody hates. When advertising, all you want is their attention :D.
Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
By looking at CM as an organization, you lose the point. CM is apparently run by nobody besides a few volunteers to let people know about the ride. There are no formal leaders and there is no formal organization.
As I've said in other threads, this is exactly the problem. With some organisation, maybe they could actually get their message out as intended, rather than the message that people actually recieve.
Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
They are like the bad car lot commercials that everybody hates. When advertising, all you want is their attention :D.
That depends what sort of 'attention' you want.
CM is living an old Hollywood axiom--all publicity is good publicity!
My opinion of critial mass is somewhat coloured by my one experience with them. Believe it or not, we actually had a ride here in Richmond several years ago. I happened to be downtown running errands at the time (on my bike, BTW). It consisted of maybe fifty college students riding a variety of beaters and yelling. One of the CM riders wound up getting hit by a car-- I rode by the accident scene on my way home. The ride did not impress me. It seemed rather purposeless, more disruptive than anything else.
This is much like my experineces with "outward bound", where I helped haul an injured participant (I was not part of the program, just hiking thru) off a mountain in Maine while the rest of the participants sat around doing nothing. Not positive, though I don't doubt there are positive aspects to each. It's likely I've seen both at their worst.
I agree with those who say that the best way to promote cycling is to show the bike as an everyday machine, capable of things like shopping or commuting, and in fact superior to the car in an urban environment. Too many see the bike as a "toy" of some sort, or a hobby, and not a practical device of beauty and function. I don't see how CM addresses this issue at all, but you're welcome to fill me in.
Havent bothered to read the rest of this thread, but critical mass is f---ing stupid. I remmeber one time me and some buddies were in SF, and those idiots came and blocked a whole damn intersection. We had to sit their for an hour while they carried on about how cars are evil and all this kind of s--t. News flash, I commute 80 miles a day round trip to school, having to cross a toll bridge in the process, and even if I was down to ride my bike all that distance, I couldnt because you cant ride on a freeway
Same thing with the idiots who decided to ride across the bay bridge ... the people who participate in this s--t really need to get a damn hobby, or move out to the cuts where this isnt an issue. You wanna live in an urban city / populated area? Then please ... shut the h ell up.
Edit: sorry about the earlier language use ... a mod told me this isnt ok, anyways, yea. I still stand by my opinion on this
:beer:
you cant ride on a freeway
Actually, you can in California......
Originally posted by D*Alex
Actually, you can in California......
I dunno where you heard that but at almost EVERY onramp, there is a big sign that says no pedestrians, bikes, motorscooters, etc are allowed on the freeway.
Actually, you can in California......
You can't
If you could, you'd be nuts, then dead.
Steve
Originally posted by SBeach
You can't
I forget what the laws were regarding freeway riding in California. I'm actually surprised they have any useful roadsigns at all on the freeways there. Remember that we're talking about a state that chose to REMOVE mile markers from their expressways.
At anyrate, I know it's perfectly legal to ride on the expressway (with noted exceptions) in many states. Other states strictly prohibit it. WA has a list of exceptions (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/PAandI/Bike-Ped/BikeRestrict.htm) on their website that details where bicycles are not permitted.
I am not in the US and even when I was I didn't hear much about Critical Mass. Like all such organizations, perhaps their approach grates on a lot of people. My only word in their defense would be to say: very often, you have to be a pain-in-the-ass to get some attention and real political reform.
I still think the best agenda for cyclists would be to advocate wider shoulders on all roadways.
roughstuff
Originally posted by Koffee Brown
Hey Chewa-
I like that ad campaign you talked about. Is there any way you can get me information on who is running that campaign or who came up with that ad? I'd love to propose some ads similar to that in Chicago just in time for the summer.....
Koffee
As I said Koffee, initially I thought they were great, but I now wonder if they reinforce the idea of cycling being unsafe. I'll have to get behind a bus and see who promotes it.
I remember suggestions for promoting motorcycling with adverts such as.
" My wife loves me having a motorbike. The time I spend travelling is cut so I have an extra 30 mins to spend in bed with her"..
Think that would work for cycling?
Hey, how about that giant, deadly Critical Mass that Prez Bush wants to start tomorrow? I hope that one bit of fallout from this folly is the US experiencing 25 years of $5/gallon gasoline.
I hope that one bit of fallout from this folly is the US experiencing 25 years of $5/gallon gasoline.
while it would probably be good for cycling and transportation in general, i don't think it's gonna happen like that. i think 85%, pretty soon after the war the US will return to $1/gal gas and the massive overconsumption will continue --- as the Middle East will be more stable and oil supplies for cheap massive consumption will be secured for the "Western World"
P.S. i think if it did happen it would be bad for the US economy in the short term, but a positive in the long term as America would be forced to ambrace something other than cheap gasoline as the primary energy source and the US would be forced to be creative and solve the energy problem of the future and stay the world leader with the newest greatest technology...
there was a great article i think on Wired a few weeks back, although i just looked at couldn't find it, about how the President Bush should make a national push for Hydrogen Fuel Cells like Kennedy did for the Space Program with massive injection of money and a national goal of cheap fuel-cell power in one decade. interesting proposal that would be a better use of funds than for more military spending or tax cuts...
Originally posted by oscaregg
Hey, how about that giant, deadly Critical Mass that Prez Bush wants to start tomorrow? I hope that one bit of fallout from this folly is the US experiencing 25 years of $5/gallon gasoline.
Dealing with the spirit of your quote instead of the text, I agree with you. Why on earth people don't realize that conservation, in and of itself is a virtue, is beyond me.
In practical terms I am amazed more people do no walk, cycle, or use public transit. Here in London, why ANYONE owns a car blows me away. What a beautiful way to ride to work, on the upper level of a double decker bus. And the people are great, too! Or I walk around on my days off. To me you don't need gas at $5 a gallon to do this, ya need to change people's values and tastes: and that takes a long time. But look at how unpopular and gauche smoking has become.
roughstuff
Originally posted by Roughstuff
To me you don't need gas at $5 a gallon to do this, ya need to change people's values and tastes: and that takes a long time. But look at how unpopular and gauche smoking has become.
Agreed. I for one don't think that the automobile is evil. I drive and own them too. However, I've noticed that society (at least in my section of the world) has adopted this notion beyond that by which automobiles are accepted but instead elevated to mandatory status.
Originally posted by oscaregg
Hey, how about that giant, deadly Critical Mass that Prez Bush wants to start tomorrow? I hope that one bit of fallout from this folly is the US experiencing 25 years of $5/gallon gasoline.
I really don't think higher fuel prices is really going to help cycling all that much. I can hear all the people now saying "what about the 1970's in the US?". Well, the fact is, the world has changed since then. I honestly believe most people would rather sell their own children into slavery than not have fuel in their cars.
Think about it... Already many people can't send their children to college or whatever because of the cost of acquiring their car in the first place. Many are unable to live in the neighbourhood that's close to work, schools, shops etc because of the cost of putting fuel in their car (never mind that with the reduced fuel bills from being close to everything, they probably could afford to live in that neighbourhood if they wanted to).
It's all down to marketing hype convincing people that they are somehow 'better' if they own a car (preferably more than one). Think about the way driving is hyped compared to the way cycling is hyped - and i'm not talking purely in terms of advertising budgets.
We have cycling advocates talking about the 'dangers of cycling', we have CM sending out the image of confrontation with authority. We have bike shops/manufacturers saying you either have to be an ultra spanky athlete or 'really extreme dude' (depending on which bike they're trying to sell) in order to ride. I think we have far bigger (and closer) issues to confront than fuel prices. To put it simply, we don't need higher fuel prices or fights with authority, we need to sell cycling better.
Originally posted by Chris L
I honestly believe most people would rather sell their own children into slavery than not have fuel in their cars.
Many are unable to live in the neighbourhood that's close to work, schools, shops etc because of the cost of putting fuel in their car (never mind that with the reduced fuel bills from being close to everything, they probably could afford to live in that neighbourhood if they wanted to).
To put it simply, we don't need higher fuel prices or fights with authority, we need to sell cycling better.
:beer:
Well put.
I have a habit of asking how much money they could have saved (in auto costs over the course of their working life, coupled with higher re-sell value of the house closer to work) if they lived closer to work and didn't need the car (even owning only one car!)
We have to show everyone can cycle if they really want to be healthy (priceless in itself) and spend money on other things besides autos.
Well I was listening to the radio this morning, and there are some people in San Francisco who are going to attempt to disrupt the flow of business as usual. People are going to be sitting in streets, driving their cars slow and even stopping.
They are even trying to get cyclists in on it, and with the type of people who have participated in san francisco critical mass in the past, there will probably be people on bicycles brought into the equation.
An interesting part of this is that most of the money to fund these protests are brought in through world communism groups and other means. Many of the protesters do not know this however.
Anyways, just wanted to post this up, and hopefully my reply didnt offend anyone this time :rolleyes: or violate the guidelines :rolleyes:
Here is a news article I found on this
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1188041
And a link to this being discussed on kron's forum
http://forums.kron4.com/?board=k4news;action=display;num=1048147002
Oh, good. The m*******s are at it again, I see......
Originally posted by Melt
An interesting part of this is that most of the money to fund these protests are brought in through world communism groups and other means. Many of the protesters do not know this however.
That's the first time I've ever heard that mentioned. Do you have a source for this?
Not that I would care where the money came from if I were actually getting involved in a protest. How much 'funding' does a protest require anyway? I thought people just turned up.
ChrisL,
Well, an outfit called "International ANSWER" is but one of the groups helping organize some of these protests and, yes, it is affiliated with the World Workers' Party. I'd hesitate to call it "World Communism", tho'.
SteveE
i've had mixed feelings about this issue--
the main idea is bike power, as an alternative to driving, which is great. i usually don't like it when a group pisses off another group to get their point accross, though. just seems sort of counter-productive. from what i've seen, however, critical massers in portland have been excellent role models for benevolent transportation issues. today was a great example, when thousands of people in support of peace were marching through the streets of portland. cars at intersections were forced to wait more than 1/2 hour as we passed. then, from over a bridge, the c.m. riders slowly rode through... we all parted the way for them to pass, and everyone started clapping and rooting for the riders. they were celebrities today... i'm sure they made an impact on more than a few peace marchers, who might consider riding their bikes more and their cars less....
Originally posted by gonesh9
i've had mixed feelings about this issue--
the main idea is bike power, as an alternative to driving, which is great. i usually don't like it when a group pisses off another group to get their point accross, though. just seems sort of counter-productive.
I thought the idea of CM was to let the people who are asking for reasonable change look like the responsible advocates they are, and not like the mob that CM is.
I think CM are envelope pushers, pushing at the boundries of acceptance. The policy makers compromise somewhat behind what CM demands but still ahead of what was originally asked for by responsible advocates.
Originally posted by Melt
They are even trying to get cyclists in on it, and with the type of people who have participated in san francisco critical mass in the past, there will probably be people on bicycles brought into the equation.
Well they finally did get the bikes in on it, saw this on the news tonight. I cant currently find the link to the article, but I did however find an article about how much these protests are costing the city of san francisco
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=1194677
The main thing about this is most of the protestors arent even from around here. While processing detainees, police noticed that some are from as far north as Washington, as far south as Mexico, and as far east as Conneticuit. Why these hippies all chose san fransico as their staging ground still remains a mystery.
Just a couple of quick points here:
1. These were anti-war protestors, not CMers. There is a considerable difference.
2. It's funny how the article failed to mention how much the war was going to cost the US (the last thing I'll say about it here, there are plenty of war-related threads in the Political Discussions forum).
Originally posted by Chris L
1. These were anti-war protestors, not CMers. There is a considerable difference.
Well the news was reporting it as if they were CMers, but you know how biased the news media in the US can be sometimes :beer:
What makes no sense is that pro-war folks drive BIG motor vehicles while antiwar ones ride bikes! YOu'd think that opponents of US policy would want to drive the biggest rigs they could to keep the petrodollars flowing to Hussein and co.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.