Critical Mass Mob Attacks Van

[wheel]

Did anyone bother to get the cyclists' version of the story, or is that asking too much?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

Bicycle advocates, however, said today that Ferrando did more than tap the bicyclist, and that the incident occurred toward the end of the ride, when there were dozens -- not thousands -- of bicyclists in the area, as Ferrando claims. Bicycle Coalition executive director Leah Shahum said witnesses told her that Ferrando "recklessly accelerated" into a crowd and hit the bicyclist so hard the bike was lodged under her vehicle.

[wheel]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003651406_webbikeplan04m.html

[genec]

Yes-you are raging against the machine every time you ride without even knowing it.:D

Oh I know it.

The thing is I thought "the machine" lost back during the first gas wars... I just "knew" that cars had a limited life span. I just didn't realize how long that limited span was.

[gcl8a]

Did anyone bother to get the cyclists' version of the story, or is that asking too much?

"When the alleged bicycle victim was approached, however, he said he wasn't hurt. He also refused to give his name or any other information.

Then, after a few swear words, the alleged victim took off on his bike while the rest of the crowd continued to yell at both the cops and the van."

Apparently it's asking too much, since the most important cyclists, the supposed victim, didn't want to stick around to talk about it. I wonder why?

[infernobutterfl]

Setting aside your classless reference to the holocaust---how you can insert and equate a dark chapter in human history with a CM ride is both over-exagerration and vulgar---propgaganda is propaganda and the article was propaganda. It's representation of the cyclists side was curt, perfunctory and hardly positive or fair. .
funny... so.. if a motorist hits a cyclist, you would not accuse the motorists of careless driving? would you wait to see if the cyclist was not one of those ninja cyclist? which side would you immediately take? the side of the injuried, the side of the victim and not the aggressor (I am talking about immediate response, knowing that you dont have much information)

No... its not a representation of the entire cyclist culture... where did you read any mention of the culture? It stated, and I do believe it, that the mob (a lot of people in one area is considered a mob) of cyclist, all of whom were doing a free lance, unorganized massive law breaking "event", attacked a van which had kids in it. Again, the report did include the side of the cyclist. The cyclist that was "hit" left the scene without bothering to stay back to give details. Here is what we see: broken windows, and the "injuried" cyclist is M.I.A. When considering evidence, a missing victim or victim that wont testify, isnt evidence my friend. Its called lying and fleeing. Dude, its pretty clear that what the cyclist (not.. not CM) did was wrong... just admit it. haha.

I like to bike, and would love to see cyclist be more respected. If there are other CM events that were not as violently disruptive, that is a good thing, and i hope those continue. But what happened here was pretty clear.

[bragi]

Local bicycle advocacy groups (such as Cascade Bicycle Club in my area) should make a point of distancing themselves from CM, and individual riders should avoid their events like the plague. Their behavior has been childish, and in this last case criminal, and, because of the very poor image they project, they make it difficult, if not dangerous, for the vast majority of responsible cyclists. I don't want the next pickup driver who passes me to assume I'm cut from the same cloth as those morons who terrorized an innocent family. If you want motorists to respect bicyclists, the bicyclists need to be respectful as well, dammit...

[Blue Jays]

Hi bragi-

You're absolutely correct with your comment. Critical Mass is just a gathering spot for anarchists looking to cause trouble. Bicycles are an afterthought for them.

~ Blue Jays ~

[wethepeople]

Is Kelowna the only town that has nice, fun CM rides that don't piss people off?

[Tapeworm21]

I was all about defending this family a couple of hours ago, until I saw their picture. Now, I want to bash my bike through the rear window of their car.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/05/ba_criticalmass.jpg

[Blue Jays]

Wow, that's rough.

[dobber]

I was all about defending this family a couple of hours ago, until I saw their picture. Now, I want to bash my bike through the rear window of their car.

Because they've now offended you in some way?

[CB HI]

Tapeworm21,
Yea, those 11 year old girls really look vicious. Your not from LA, where only the pretty people count, are you? Or maybe it is because they go to the Nativity School!:rolleyes:

[CB HI]

Some of you guys will defend CM no matter what some of the jerks do during it. If you supporters don't get this BS cleaned up, then the rep is only going to continue to get worse.

Honolulu CM stopped riding for awhile because some of these jerks started showing up. They think they have cleared out the jerks and are going to try and start riding again. SF CM should do the same.

[catatonic]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

Bicycle advocates, however, said today that Ferrando did more than tap the bicyclist, and that the incident occurred toward the end of the ride, when there were dozens -- not thousands -- of bicyclists in the area, as Ferrando claims. Bicycle Coalition executive director Leah Shahum said witnesses told her that Ferrando "recklessly accelerated" into a crowd and hit the bicyclist so hard the bike was lodged under her vehicle.


So that's justification for their actions? They should have blockaded the vehicl until police arrived to deal with the supposed "vehicular assault" instead of group-assaulting her vehicle.

When I see things like this, I lose any sympathy for CM, which is no longer an advocacy event (and thus has no reason to be here, other than as a "do not do this" example), but instead as a way where people can annoy those around them as much as possible.....they are NOT traffic, they are an obstruction...I, the cyclist who abides by traffic laws AM TRAFFIC.

Really, there is a part of me that wishes there was a "registration" system mandatory for CM, just for the purpose of traffic code enforcement....they see someone running a red, take a photo...the ticket will be in the mail....equal rights, equal responsibilities....you ran a red, pay the same fine a car does.

Yeah, it would kill the "spirit" of CM, but that spirit was dead a looooooong time ago.

[dobber]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

Bicycle advocates, however, said today that Ferrando did more than tap the bicyclist, and that the incident occurred toward the end of the ride, when there were dozens -- not thousands -- of bicyclists in the area, as Ferrando claims. Bicycle Coalition executive director Leah Shahum said witnesses told her that Ferrando "recklessly accelerated" into a crowd and hit the bicyclist so hard the bike was lodged under her vehicle.


Curious, how did a bicycle which was hit so hard as to be lodged under the vehicle manage to sustain no damage (in the cyclists words, supposedly) and be ridden away by the supposed victim?

Leah Shahum doesn't earn herself much credibility with hearsay testimony, she just winds up looking like another CM tool.

Face it, CM no longer represents the face of the ordinary cyclist. It's run a muck because there is no leadership. Without leadership there is no accountability.

[EnigManiac]

funny... so.. if a motorist hits a cyclist, you would not accuse the motorists of careless driving? would you wait to see if the cyclist was not one of those ninja cyclist? which side would you immediately take? the side of the injuried, the side of the victim and not the aggressor (I am talking about immediate response, knowing that you dont have much information)

No... its not a representation of the entire cyclist culture... where did you read any mention of the culture? It stated, and I do believe it, that the mob (a lot of people in one area is considered a mob) of cyclist, all of whom were doing a free lance, unorganized massive law breaking "event", attacked a van which had kids in it. Again, the report did include the side of the cyclist. The cyclist that was "hit" left the scene without bothering to stay back to give details. Here is what we see: broken windows, and the "injuried" cyclist is M.I.A. When considering evidence, a missing victim or victim that wont testify, isnt evidence my friend. Its called lying and fleeing. Dude, its pretty clear that what the cyclist (not.. not CM) did was wrong... just admit it. haha.

I like to bike, and would love to see cyclist be more respected. If there are other CM events that were not as violently disruptive, that is a good thing, and i hope those continue. But what happened here was pretty clear.

As a journalist myself and a full-time year-round cyclist, allow me to deconstruct the article and demonstrate how the article could have been presented with both a cyclist-favoured slant and in an objective, unbiased manner. We'll start with that second paragraph you loosely allude to:

Things took a turn for the worse at about 9 p.m., when the family was leaving Japantown -- just as the party of about 3,000 bikers was winding down its monthly red-lights-be-damned ride through the city.

Here, the reporter---after establishing that a nice, idealic rosy-cheeked visiting family were out to celebrate a childs' birthday after taking in the blooming cherry-blossoms. Awww, how sweet and innocent---paints the 3,000 CM participants as hooligans and anarchists (red-lights-be-damned), injecting his/her own personal disdaining impression of CM participants and, perhaps, cyclists in general.

Perhaps the article, omitting the prejudicial remarks by the 'victims' and police whose quotes were selected to influence the bias, could have been presented this way, maintaining the facts, as presented, but reversing the adversarial roles:

A family of five were involved in an altercation with a group of cyclists participating in a peaceful rolling bicycle-rights demonstration, designed to raise awareness of the dangers cyclists face from the threat of inconsiderate and careless motorists every day, after their vehicle struck one of the cyclists.

Failing to observe the cyclists need to remain together as they slowly proceeded through an intersection, as they do on the last Friday of each month, the vehicle may have tried to continue through an intersection while it was not safe to do so, police said. Susan Ferrando, the driver of the vehicle, suggested she thought she had somehow become entangled in a bicycle race in spite of the fact that few, if any, of the estimated 3,000 demonstrators were dressed in racing gear, aboard racing type bikes and were riding ata slow, leisurely pace.

The cyclist was unhurt and did not require medical attention, leaving without pressing charges of hit and run after voicing his objections and when it was clear the police were not going to cite the driver for illegally entering an intersection and endangering the cyclists. It is illegal, under California traffic laws to enter an intersection, even with a green light, when the intersection is occupied by any other vehicle. According to The California Driver Handbook: Laws and Rules of the Road, 'A green light means “GO” but first give the right of way to any vehicle, bicyclist, or pedestrian in the intersection.'

A number of cyclists who had witnessed the incident confronted the driver who, apparently, attempted to continue through the cyclist-crowded intersection and a verbal exchange ensued. The situation escalated and the van was struck by a bicycle damaging the rear window.

Police are investigating the incident which caused $5,300 damage to the vehicle, but no injuries to any of the parties involved and charges may be forthcoming.

My example is not as blatantly prejudicial as the original article, but it does represent the cyclists as victims defending themselves against a motorist who may have been trying to force their way through the demonstration.

News reporters are supposed to be objective and unbiased in their reporting and the story could have been written something like this to achieve that aim:

A family of five became involved in an altercation with a number of cyclists participating in a rolling-demonstration known as Critical Mass after it was alleged the van the family was travelling in bumped one of the riders.

Police said no-one was hurt in the incident, but the van suffered approximately $5,300 damage when the rear window was damaged by one of the cyclists who objected when the driver of the van, Susan Ferrando, reportedly attempted to continue through the large group of cyclists.

Police are investigating the matter, but declined to confirm whether charges are pending.

Now, it appears that the article is, perhaps, written by a columnist and greater literary license is afforded columnists who regularly inject their own personal opinion in their submissions. Columnists usually define themselves within the body of their work and their writing cannot always be accepted at face-value as a result as they proudly proclaim their political leanings, unfounded opinions and predispositions without shame or the need to justify their remarks. The columns are, generally, not accepted as accurate news reports, as a result, but as 'opinion' pieces.

If the allegations are true, I am just as appalled as everyone else at the conduct of 'some' of the cyclists involved, but also at the actions of the driver, the police and the columnist/reporter.

And to answer your questions: I do not take sides until I know the facts. I try not to make assumptions or form opinions with only some information. If I am truly interested in knowing what happened, I investigate and find out what the 'real' story is. I don't decide innocent or guilt based upon an article, especially when I recognize that the article is written in an obviously prejudicial style. That alone immediately makes me suspect the authenticity of the fact.

I don't know what you're referring to regarding 'cycling culture.' I did not mention 'cycling culture' in any of my replies, so perhaps that was intended for someone else.

The report afforded a sentence or two to the cyclists 'side.' It did not attempt to give equal consideration of their 'story' in any way shape or form, so you can dismiss that contention.

And, as I have said, I do not need to 'admit' anything. I have stated that if the cyclist who threw his bike did indeed throw his bike and damage the window, he is wrong and should be held accountable. The 'lying' cyclist, as you refer to him, who did not give his name and, instead, left the scene was not necessarily the cyclist who famaged the rear window. It also cannot be inferred he either 'lied' or 'fled.' You---nor I---simply don't know why he left. Perhaps he was lying about being bumped. Perhaps he couldn't be bothered pursuing a minor 'tap' and perhaps he was deciding to give the driver a break and not press charges. We don't know and we can't assume. After all, we all know what assume makes.

[KrisPistofferson]

Is Kelowna the only town that has nice, fun CM rides that don't piss people off?Maybe it's the only town where people don't recklessly accelerate into people exercising their constitutional rights, then whine like babies when those people retaliate.

[genec]

Nicely written EnigManiac. It has a bit of a cyclist slant to it, but it is certainly more centerist than the original article, which as you point out was clearly "flavored" to discredit cyclists.

Your citing of CA law was especially important to show that the actions of the motorist were less than "innocent."

Gee, is it possible she was "barging" into the crowd of cyclists trying to push them out of the way? "Thought it was a race..." Indeed!

[Bikepacker67]

Is Kelowna the only town that has nice, fun CM rides that don't piss people off?

Kelowna has CM rides?
Hmmm, I'm in Penticton, and I've never heard of it.

[ibikedc]

So it seems we still don't have any firsthand account from the cyclist who was supposedly struck by the van?
Nor any firsthand account from anyone who was there?
This is surprising to me; this is a group that's usually so quick to defend itself with hilarious incoherent rants about aggressive motorists and other Tools of the Man.

It makes me wonder- do they know they effed up big-time here?

[EnigManiac]

Nicely written EnigManiac. It has a bit of a cyclist slant to it, but it is certainly more centerist than the original article, which as you point out was clearly "flavored" to discredit cyclists.

Your citing of CA law was especially important to show that the actions of the motorist were less than "innocent."

Gee, is it possible she was "barging" into the crowd of cyclists trying to push them out of the way? "Thought it was a race..." Indeed!

Thanks for the compliment, genec. The first bolded example was intended to be from a pro-cyclist perspective while the second bolded example was, as i perceive it anyway, without leanings either way.

There were some glossed-over insinuations in the original article I found curious. 'Crossed paths with a bike race' struck me as particularly poignant. If the driver 'crossed paths' it would seem she was attempting go through the group of cyclists and, therefore, clearly presented a danger and threat to the cyclists while in the commiting an illegal act. How anyone could confuse a slow, 3,000 member ride on every kind of bicycle imaginable with a bike race anyway is...well...frankly unbelievable and lacking in credibility. No matter if she had come up from behind the group or was overtaken by the group (which is doubtful) or cutting through them, the prudent, safe and legal thing to do would be to stop when it was clear that it would be unsafe to proceed. I think it's more likely---although I have no evidence to support the supposition---that she became frustrated at being delayed by the long group and attempted to force her way through an intersection.

[genec]

Thanks for the compliment, genec. The first bolded example was intended to be from a pro-cyclist perspective while the second bolded example was, as i perceive it anyway, without leanings either way.

There were some glossed-over insinuations in the original article I found curious. 'Crossed paths with a bike race' struck me as particularly poignant. If the driver 'crossed paths' it would seem she was attempting go through the group of cyclists and, therefore, clearly presented a danger and threat to the cyclists while in the commiting an illegal act. How anyone could confuse a slow, 3,000 member ride on every kind of bicycle imaginable with a bike race anyway is...well...frankly unbelievable and lacking in credibility. No matter if she had come up from behind the group or was overtaken by the group (which is doubtful) or cutting through them, the prudent, safe and legal thing to do would be to stop when it was clear that it would be unsafe to proceed. I think it's more likely---although I have no evidence to support the supposition---that she became frustrated at being delayed by the long group and attempted to force her way through an intersection.


I tend to agree that this is most likely the scenario for the motorist... however, the cyclists were indeed clearly out of line in their reaction. At most they should have blocked the motorist until police arrived.

At this point they have given plenty of ammunition to anti cycling motorists... and no doubt the reaction will not be pretty.

[rando]

I can't believe nobody got this on their cell-phone moviecam or whatever.

[ConstantRider]

Some further context for this story: the first article was a Matier & Ross column. Matier & Ross are two SF Chronicle staffers. While they have a column, they are not pundits -- their shtick is that they are old-school, hard-nosed reporters breaking hot copy. They write in a sensationalist, muckraking, tabloidy style, but while they may season their dispatches with more color and attitude than a typical enterprise reporter, their mandate is most definitely reporting.

If you read through their initial report, though, you can pretty much see they overlook a lot of questions and probably didn't do much reporting at all. As has already been mentioned, they didn't include any CM participant perspectives in the piece, nor do they say if they actually tried to contact any of them. It's also not even clear if they interviewed the driver/victim, or if they are just quoting her account from a police report.

The incident happened on Friday; the Matier & Ross piece was published on the following Wednesday, or five days later. There was no coverage of this ride prior to their story. I couldn't even find anything of note in blogs about it before their story. Apparently, the overall ride must have gone pretty smoothly. But here's how Matier & Ross characterized the specific incident in their piece:

"Things took a turn for the worse at about 9 p.m., when the family was leaving Japantown -- just as the party of about 3,000 bikers was winding down its monthly red-lights-be-damned ride through the city. Suddenly, Ferrando said, her car was surrounded by hundreds of cyclists."

They don't explain how they came up with a figure of 3000 for this particular ride, and they make it sound like all 3000 are in the near vicinty of the driver when "hundreds" of them start to attack.

Meanwhile, here's a subsequent article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGF7P12RN23.DTL) that presents a much different picture: "Kate McCarthy had been riding in that group, which she said was breaking off from the 20 or 30 bicyclists who made up a bulk of the dissipating mass."

Kate McCarthy is an employee of the SF Bike Coalition, so read into that what you will.

But obviously, there is a huge divergence as to the size of the crowd -- one account talks of 3000 cyclists in total and "hundreds" participating in this incident. Another suggests the main group at the time of the incident was a few dozen, and that those involved in the incident were a smaller portion of that. I would like to hear from the police officers who arrived at the scene what their estimates of the crowd size was, did they call in back-up, etc.?

If there had been hundreds of cyclists surrounding a family in a minivan, I doubt the story would've sat for four days. But voila -- Matier & Ross say it is so -- and now that is the version of the story that has gone out around the world, CM is evil and out of control, etc.

If you read the more recent story, however, it sounds like something much different happened. It suggests that the streets were mostly empty of cyclists and cars, and that the driver initiated the incident by knocking a bicyclist off his bike and then speeding off. Then, cyclists caught up to the van and began striking/damaging it.

The driver claims she didn't hit anyone and that the assault was unprovoked. However, even with the trouble-making anarchist rep of CM, I find that pretty hard to believe. Instead, the incident as described in the second article sounds pretty much like motorist/cyclist confrontations that get reported routinely on BikeForums -- a motorist buzzes/hits/harasses a cyclist, speeds off, and a cyclist strikes back. This time, however, it wasn't a lone commuter, but a group of cyclists who also happened to be part of a bigger event.

For more CM participant perspective, here's a local TV report (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6556644913687801720) interviewing McCarthy and another CM participant, Shirley Johnson.

One interesting aspect of the follow-up story is that McCarthy says she called 911 to report the incident as a hit-and-run. In addition, Ferrando (the driver) says she called 911 to report the cyclists' attacking her car. Therefore, there should be an audio record of the timing of the event. If McCarthy's call exists and precedes Ferrando's, then it suggests her account of the event is likely true (driver committed a hit-and-run) and that Ferrando is lying when she claims she didn't strike any cyclists.

[lima_bean]

Im confused as to why people are so angry at CM for the actions of one cyclist who through his bike through a window.

That makes as much sense as being angry at all drivers because of one who forces their way through a bikegroup and hits one of them and then refuses to stop.

As far as I can tell the "group of cyclists" were attempting to get the car to stop after an accident, and only one seems to have actually attacked the car?

[mrpsmr]

"My only beef is with the sh!tty, Rush Limbaugh-style tactics of mr.mensa, both in his OP and title, as well as some of the unfounded speculation being engaged in based on a pre-concieved notion of activists in general."

Mr. Pistoff-erson:

The article that was included in my original post was the only news article available at the time of my post. Matier and Ross are local journalists who ordinarily cover politics and local government issues, with the goal of exposing misconduct and irony. They occasionally also report on other events that include an ironic twist. This story seems right up their alley, since the original "stated purpose" of critical mass was to expose to the media and the public the needs and concerns of bicyclists in San Francisco in a non-violent way. The idea, was to show how many bicyclists actually ride their bikes in The City.

Even you should agree that the last critical mass ride was not in conformity with those goals.

Several posters have included references to a follow up story which apperaed in this morning's SF Chronicle. Unidentified individuals have now stated that the driver of the minivan accellerated "wrecklessly" in a crowd of bicyclists, stricking a bicyclist and throwing him from his bicycle. Another news story says the bicycle which was struck was lodged under the van. None of the individuals who made these statements identified themselves. Most importantly however, the rider who was struck stated to the police that he was not injured and rode off on the very bicycle which was lodged under the van! (We should all find out what type of bicycle that was since they seem to be very durable).

So now both sides have had an opportunity to present their side of the story to the media. The result is that there are serious credbility issues with the stories given by the critical mass participants. There is also a credibility question on the part of the driver, since she says she never struck a bicyclist, and if any contact was made, it was caused by the bicyclist striking her vehicle. (That's buried in one of the stories somewhere). Incidentally, none of the critical mass participants stated that the bicycle rider who was struck was injured.

So what we are left with is a group of people who felt another individual harmed one of their group, and without apparently verifying this premiss, took it upon themselves to attack this offending individual to the point of smashing her rear window with a bicycle and beating on her car. I don't see how you can justify this behavior or how this behavior places bicyclists in a positive light. Particularly when so many other, more reasonable actions were readlily available to the critical mass participants.

What the public is going to take away from this incident is that bicyclists, especially when riding in groups, are a bunch of hooligans.

While your reference to me as Mr. Mensa is flattering, your allusion that I am a follower or fan of Rush Limbaugh is not. Perhaps in the future you could just refer to me as the OP, or even use my name, Michael. I do sign all my posts:)

[EnigManiac]

For all the folks that jumped all over the CM participants, condemning them, berating and belittling them, etc. and for 'buying' the original sensational article, I hope you see now that there are three sides to every story: one side, the other side and the truth. You ripped into mostly peaceful, law-abiding innocents who likely share many of the same values and beliefs you do based on a prejudicial piece of journalistic fluff.

It seems, as some of us suspected, that the driver was not so innocent in the event, that the 'tap' may have been more than a tap and that the motorist may well have violated a few traffic laws. It also seems that the article as originally printed was clearly misleading, biased and omitting more than a few facts.

As I contended earlier, we cannot judge until we know the facts and I'll reserve my opinion on both the CM participants involved in the fracas and the motorist, never mind the police who may have been negligent in their duty.

[deputyjones]

For all the folks that jumped all over the CM participants, condemning them, berating and belittling them, etc. and for 'buying' the original sensational article, I hope you see now that there are three sides to every story: one side, the other side and the truth. You ripped into mostly peaceful, law-abiding innocents who likely share many of the same values and beliefs you do based on a prejudicial piece of journalistic fluff.

It seems, as some of us suspected, that the driver was not so innocent in the event, that the 'tap' may have been more than a tap and that the motorist may well have violated a few traffic laws. It also seems that the article as originally printed was clearly misleading, biased and omitting more than a few facts.

As I contended earlier, we cannot judge until we know the facts and I'll reserve my opinion on both the CM participants involved in the fracas and the motorist, never mind the police who may have been negligent in their duty.

Nice turnaround and "creative writing". So now it is the fault of the police that a mostly law-abiding cyclist smashed out that ladies window. How about the kids in the back seat? What blame would you like to divert to them?

[kalliergo]

Nice turnaround and "creative writing". So now it is the fault of the police that a mostly law-abiding cyclist smashed out that ladies window. How about the kids in the back seat? What blame would you like to divert to them?

You really ought be more careful and try harder for accuracy, DJ. Nobody blamed the police for any cyclist's action (and I suspect that you knew that when you posted the above).

[deputyjones]

You really ought be more careful and try harder for accuracy, DJ. Nobody blamed the police for any cyclist's action (and I suspect that you knew that when you posted the above).

You misinterpret my interpretation. Enigmaniac said:

As I contended earlier, we cannot judge until we know the facts and I'll reserve my opinion on both the CM participants involved in the fracas and the motorist, never mind the police who may have been negligent in their duty.

So, we cannot judge until we know the facts EXCEPT for the actions of the police. Of course they were wrong, that's a given. :rolleyes:

This post also misses the point that someone smashed this ladies window out. Instead of diverting blame to the victim how about we divert it to the criminal who terrorized her and destroyed her property?

[bendor]

Parts were quoted from this Kate McCarthy individual, but here is some more from a more neutral news article. I believe a few of the cyclists certainly over-reacted, there is no excuse to break someone's window. However, if the driver did hit someone and sped off, then we can at least see the anger that prompted this. They should both be charged (the driver and the cyclist breaking the window). It's just a little fishy she is claiming the cyclist ran into her car on purpose?? eh?? Why would anyone risk damaging their bike and themselves by running into a 2ton van?

http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2007/04/04/n/HeadlineNews/C_R_I_T_I_C_A_L_-_M_A_S_S/resources_bcn_html

[Gig em cyclist]

I find it strange that the victim's bike was hit so hard that it was lodged under the van (another version cited) but the rider was not injured and the bike not damaged. The guy spoke to the police and did not wish to press charges and opted instead to yell a few obscenities a he rode away on his crushed bike....right. C'mon something isn't right here and you know it. Defend the cyclist whatever the circumstance, facts be damed.

As a cyclist, I believe that too many drivers ignore our rights to the road but in this incident the fact that the rider hit by the van could ride off on a bike that was under a the van, had an opportunity to speak with police and press charges but chose not to and to still be angry enough to yell obscenities does not make the driver appear to be at fault. I can tell you that if someone throws their bike through a window of my car while my daughter is in the back seat, I will be going to jail after I beat the crap out of them. I am not a violent person and I have not started a fight in my life but when you endanger my child you can be sure I'll finish one.

[/QUOTE](Sorry to get too cerebral on your right wing circlejerk, guys. Next time y'all murder an abortion doctor[or whatever you guys consider "activism",] I'll be sure to post a completely one-sided thread to, y'know, balance things out.)[/QUOTE]

As to your above quote, I am certain that I am probably one of maybe a few pro-life cyclists in this forum, maybe the only one, I can tell you that neither I nor any other pro-lifer I know would ever consider murdering an abortion doctor who has mudered maybe thousands of babies. That being said I bet the odds are around 1 murdered doctor for every 2,000,000 murdered babies. I'm sure that you feel comfortable enough to say this without anyone pausing to give it a second thought since most people in this forum agree with you, but I'm not going to let you have a pass. Once again you make statements in which the facts do not bear you out. You are obtuse, check that, just plain ignorant, spreading propaganda that carries absolutely no weight in fact.

I've said my piece now everyone can pile on:D

[ConstantRider]

As a cyclist, I believe that too many drivers ignore our rights to the road but in this incident the fact that the rider hit by the van could ride off on a bike that was under a the van, had an opportunity to speak with police and press charges but chose not to and to still be angry enough to yell obscenities does not make the driver appear to be at fault.

So no harm, no foul? This seems to be a common theme among responses to the incident -- because the cyclist suffered no visible injuries or immediately noticable damage to his bike, it doesn't matter that the driver may have purposefully driven into him, failed to stop after hitting him, etc.?

It's still not clear exactly what happened, but I find it surprising that so many peole seem to think that whatever did happen, it couldn't have been that big a deal if the bicyclist wasn't injured or did not want to press charges.

I once witnessed an incident in Golden Gate Park where the passenger in a minivan deliberately flung her door open to door a cyclist as the minivan passed, because the minivan was upset that the cyclist was taking up too much of the lane. The cyclist fell to the ground and the minivan took off rapidly. I was on my bike about 30 yards behind the cyclist who was hit and tried to catch the minivan to get the license plate number. I never got close enough, but after giving chase for a mile or so I turned around to look for the other cyclist. He was back on his bike, said he wasn't hurt, his bike was okay, etc.

None of that changed the fact that what the minivan did was extremely aggressive, obviously criminal, and could have had much more dire results.

The reports of the CM incident have yet to make it clear exactly what happened, but if the driver did strike a bicyclist, and then did not stop, she should be held accountable for her actions too, just as whoever smashed her windshield should be as well. That the cyclist may not have been injured by her actions doesn't rationalize her hitting a bicyclist and not stopping, if that's indeed what happened.

[Burrito Eater]

Fine, I'll speak. I live in Berkeley. It IS garbage. What now?

What are you talking about?

From Detroit, no. But I have lieved here for the better part of the last 7 or 8 years and have never heard of them happening here. Why would that be funny to you?

Just because Detroit is known for two things: horrible football and the tendency of its citizens to riot every time the wind changes. :D

And yes, they SEEM to be garbage to me. Just like at first reading you SEEM to be a stuck up prick.

Lighten up Francis, its the internet. :rolleyes:

But these rides no longer serve a useful purpose, unless that purpose is to break laws and cause problems.
Tell me sir, what GOOD do they serve for the community as a whole and not just for one persons desire to be disrespectful??

Like I wrote in my original post my wife and I participated in a CM ride last week that was nothing like the SF ride. We are probably the furtherest people away from the "trust fund, anarchist, rabble-rouser" stereotype that has been bandied around this thread. Earlier in this post I portrayed all of Detroit's citizens as riot loving hooligans, which obviously they are not. Just like everyone that participates in CM is the same, or there for the same reasons. Again- There are A-holes everywhere.

[Gig em cyclist]

So no harm, no foul? This seems to be a common theme among responses to the incident -- because the cyclist suffered no visible injuries or immediately noticable damage to his bike, it doesn't matter that the driver may have purposefully driven into him, failed to stop after hitting him, etc.?

It's still not clear exactly what happened, but I find it surprising that so many peole seem to think that whatever did happen, it couldn't have been that big a deal if the bicyclist wasn't injured or did not want to press charges.

I once witnessed an incident in Golden Gate Park where the passenger in a minivan deliberately flung her door open to door a cyclist as the minivan passed, because the minivan was upset that the cyclist was taking up too much of the lane. The cyclist fell to the ground and the minivan took off rapidly. I was on my bike about 30 yards behind the cyclist who was hit and tried to catch the minivan to get the license plate number. I never got close enough, but after giving chase for a mile or so I turned around to look for the other cyclist. He was back on his bike, said he wasn't hurt, his bike was okay, etc.

None of that changed the fact that what the minivan did was extremely aggressive, obviously criminal, and could have had much more dire results.

The reports of the CM incident have yet to make it clear exactly what happened, but if the driver did strike a bicyclist, and then did not stop, she should be held accountable for her actions too, just as whoever smashed her windshield should be as well. That the cyclist may not have been injured by her actions doesn't rationalize her hitting a bicyclist and not stopping, if that's indeed what happened.

Failed to stop? The story says that the police were there, with the driver and with the cyclist. How can you imply that the driver did not stop when she was there when the police arrived. If the cyclist was hit, why didn't the driver get ticketed. The cyclist was there to present his side of the story to police and yet chose not to. The cyclist also probably had more witnesses to verify his story if what he was saying was true and yet he still refused to tell his side or even provide his name. C'mon we're all cyclists here, wouldn't you, at a minimum, press for a citation if you were hit by a car and had witnesses to back you up? I didn't say no harm no foul, I'm saying no case because the facts are against the cyclist.

[bendor]

News interviews of some folks involved... i think the cyclists are certainly spicing up their side, but it's a bit telling that Ferrando herself has admitted to swerving through the cyclists. It's all a bit fishy, and the news/she is definitely playing the emotional card of having kids in the car.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6556644913687801720

[catatonic]

So....these innocents surrounded and then assaulted the vehicle...and are still "innocents"?

Doesn't matter what happened since there were people in that car that could have been hurt or worse....don't try to blame the assault on the driver.....yes the driver may have been a jerk...but does the passengers of a car driven by a jerk deserve to be endangered by 3rd parties?

I'm pretty amazed at the one-sidedness of these things.....a cyclist taking out a side-view mirror with a u-lock as they are being actively ran off the road is one thing (he was directly involved in the vehicular incident)....but a gang of people throwing their bikes at a car full of terrified people is a whole other bag of beans (witnesses playing vigilante).

All I can say, those cyclists involved in the car smashing should NEVER be considered advocates....they are the reason we as cyclists have such a hard time getting any acutal progress done in the form of making cities more bike-friendly.

[banerjek]

I can't believe nobody got this on their cell-phone moviecam or whatever.
Dumb luck that.....


If the cyclist was hit, why didn't the driver get ticketed. The cyclist was there to present his side of the story to police and yet chose not to. The cyclist also probably had more witnesses to verify his story if what he was saying was true and yet he still refused to tell his side or even provide his name.

Dumb luck again.....

One thing I'm curious about is what signs (if any) indicated the CM event? The reason I ask is that I've been at many recreational rides where it was clear that bystanders and motorists thought it was a race despite the fact that we're going slow, using every kind of equipment imaginable, and are obviously at different levels of fitness. At first this confused me, but then I found that signs warning motorists of a bicycle race had been posted.

Even if that isn't the case, the thought is not as crazy as it sounds. Ever watched or participated in a marathon? Those can have huge numbers of slow moving people crowded together.

[ConstantRider]

Failed to stop? The story says that the police were there, with the driver and with the cyclist. How can you imply that the driver did not stop when she was there when the police arrived.

Here is a portion of a subsequent news story (http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2007/04/04/n/HeadlineNews/C_R_I_T_I_C_A_L_-_M_A_S_S/resources_bcn_html):

"That's when the stories diverge. McCarthy said the minivan zoomed past her, knocked one of the bicyclists in her group off his bike and then sped off. Some of the bikers then raced ahead to catch up with the van and stopped it.

McCarthy said she called 911 right away because of the hit-and-run. While they waited for the police, however, several more bicyclists peddled up to the scene, at Post and Buchanan streets, and they got violent, McCarthy said."


So, yes, according to this version, the driver initially failed to stop.

As I've already posted, McCarthy says she made a 911 call to report the incident as a hit-and-run. If there's a transcript of that call, and if it was made prior to Ferrando making her 911 call, then I'd suggest there's a good possibility that Ferrando did in fact hit a cyclist and fail to stop.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Over the course of a year, many, many threads are dedicated
to car assaults and dangerous situations they place us in, many
of these threads go on for pages or weeks even, but its funny how
many car haters jump ship to the pro-car side to just bash CM'ers.
Ironic.

[Bklyn]

Over the course of a year, many, many threads are dedicated
to car assaults and dangerous situations they place us in, many
of these threads go on for pages or weeks even, but its funny how
many car haters jump ship to the pro-car side to just bash CM'ers.
Ironic.

Yeah, really. Why is that?

A question to all those against CM because it is failing to embody its message of "bike safety": Where on earth did you come up with that one?

[banerjek]

Over the course of a year, many, many threads are dedicated
to car assaults and dangerous situations they place us in, many
of these threads go on for pages or weeks even, but its funny how
many car haters jump ship to the pro-car side to just bash CM'ers.
Ironic.
I now recognize my hypocrisy. I used to think that my issue was with people who assault or threaten the safety of others. Now I realize this is all a car vs. bike thing and I should always support anything said by someone claiming to be a cyclist regardless of how sensible the position they take actually is.....

[KrisPistofferson]

I really can't think of any group of people that organize marches or rides that I would feel safe recklessly driving a car into. The Hell's Angels, a Gay Pride March, a Pro Choice/Right to Life march, an anti-war demonstration, a Klan rally, etcetera. Even though I would love to drive a car into some of these people, I'd probably be surprised if I got off with just a broken window after recklessly wading into a group of people with a minivan.

Of course, she thought it was a bike race, and we all know that in that context it's okay to drive a minivan into a group of people.

[Gig em cyclist]

Here is a portion of a subsequent news story (http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2007/04/04/n/HeadlineNews/C_R_I_T_I_C_A_L_-_M_A_S_S/resources_bcn_html):




So, yes, according to this version, the driver initially failed to stop.

As I've already posted, McCarthy says she made a 911 call to report the incident as a hit-and-run. If there's a transcript of that call, and if it was made prior to Ferrando making her 911 call, then I'd suggest there's a good possibility that Ferrando did in fact hit a cyclist and fail to stop.

Okay, I had not read this and I'll concede the failing to stop issue because there is doubt, but does it justify throwing a bike through a window? The kids in the back were clearly innocent of any wrongdoing.

I wonder if the guy that threw the bike used his own bike.
Hey Bob, Can I borrow your bike for a sec....Thanks:D

[Bklyn]

I now recognize my hypocrisy. I used to think that my issue was with people who assault or threaten the safety of others. Now I realize this is all a car vs. bike thing and I should always support anything said by someone claiming to be a cyclist regardless of how sensible the position they take actually is.....

I think £em's point is not that we should all be pro-bike at all costs, but rather that in the stunning absence of information, many were quick to condemn CM, despite the logic of it all.

And yes, what jackass tries to smack a car with his own bike? (I can't imagine for a second that whoever threw it actually imagined that it would go through the glass!)

And finally, how the hell do you pronounce £em? "Lem"? "Pound 'em"?

[Gig em cyclist]

Over the course of a year, many, many threads are dedicated
to car assaults and dangerous situations they place us in, many
of these threads go on for pages or weeks even, but its funny how
many car haters jump ship to the pro-car side to just bash CM'ers.
Ironic.

I'm not bashing CM'ers, actually I don't know any. Is there a middle of nowhere chapter?
I just think the response of throwing a bike through a windows with kids in the car is over the top and would tick me off big time. Thats what I'm most upset about.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I think £em's point is not that we should all be pro-bike at all costs, but rather that in the stunning absence of information, many were quick to condemn CM, despite the logic of it all.

And yes, what jackass tries to smack a car with his own bike? (I can't imagine for a second that whoever threw it actually imagined that it would go through the glass!)

And finally, how the hell do you pronounce £em? "Lem"? "Pound 'em"?

It is 'Lem'..
And I knew you would understand what I was trying to say.
Cars assault us in varying degrees, sometimes daily depending where you
ride. The stuff people put up here and get pages of reaction from I believe
to be real, legitimate stuff. If we are bicyclists we are the 'weak' ones and we
suffer accordingly. That is just the nature of our chosen method of transportion.
With no further info, it seems to me over the course of this thread, that people
have forgotten that much more often than not the car IS REALLY guilty of
some type of assault on us. Statisticly speaking, the car is going to be the
offender. With no information from the cyclists involved, it is assumed that this
is the one car that is the anomoly and cyclists attack it almost unprovoked.
From a commonsense point of view It seems that people are spraining limbs
trying to jump the anti-CM bandwagon despite the almost ridiculously one-sided
tone of the article. Of course I would never support violence in any capacity,
but if it is OK to plow bicycling 'hippies' and 'anarchists' down in your car to
protect your loved ones why isnt it OK to , as a cyclist, beat on runaway van
to protect yours ??

[Bikepacker67]

Over the course of a year, many, many threads are dedicated
to car assaults and dangerous situations they place us in, many
of these threads go on for pages or weeks even, but its funny how
many car haters jump ship to the pro-car side to just bash CM'ers.
Ironic.


No one is jumping ship, £em.

We give the same treatment to wrong-way cyclists, light-runners and sidewalkers.
Basically, when you flout the law (whether you're a cyclist or motorist) you put everyone at risk.

Plus a large segment of CM seems to be a bunch of wannabe hippies with a militant streak.
They aren't doing me any favors as a "fellow cyclist".

[mrpsmr]

Anyone know if 911 transcripts are a public record in California? It would be interesting to see who made what call at what time, as has been suggested by another poster.
Michael

[EnigManiac]

Sorry, vigilante CMers that attack a van aren't "peaceful, law-abiding" innocents nor do they share the same values and beliefs that I do, no matter how much you try to spin it.

p.s. How can you possibly know that the original article omitted a few facts? Are you a mind reader? You know that the journalists had the facts in hand yet chose to not publish them?

First, since you are one of the many selective readers here who only read and see what they want to see and not what was written, I said 'mostly peaceful, law-abiding innocents'---way to miss the qualifying word. If there were 3,000 cyclists than mostly applies and even if there were a few hundred, mostly still applies because only a few cyclists were involved in the incident, apparently, according to the original story and the subsequent accounts.

Yes, I can determine that the journalist(s) omitted facts because it is clear that they did by the questions that everyone has over the incident: How did the van cross paths with the bikers? Not stated and, therefore an omitted fact---a rather important one. Who called the police? One of the CM-ers, as has been learned afterward, or the motorist? What verbal exchange took place? Did the driver offer her insurance and license information after 'tapping' the cyclist? I mean, she admitted she did, right? How had was this 'tap?' Did this 'tap' knock the cyclist over? Did the driver receive a citation for 'inching forward,' a clear violation of the rules of the road? It is a reporters job to know the facts and publish them. Since there are important questions that could have been answered by the people involved yet remain unanswered---or unstated (as they might have conflicted with the sentimental sugar the columnist was smearing)---it is reasonable to ascertainthat the journalist(s)/columnist(s) either did not seek all the facts or chose not to report some.

And relax with the immature 'vigilante' remarks. I've already stated that I don't condone violence or even necessarily agree with the methods of CM, so I am not on 'their' side or anyone elses. Any person in that situation who committed an offence should be held accountable. I've said so three times now. Comments like yours only reflect poorly on you, not me.