Critical Mass Mob Attacks Van

[-=£em in Pa=-]

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".

+1
disregarding CM, this stuff is sad because it illustrates that one of the biggest obsticles
to overcome is ourselves.

[EnigManiac]

You misinterpret my interpretation. Enigmaniac said:



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?

Another of the selective readers who misses the qualifying word---on purpose or by accident. I did not say the police were responsible for anything. I said the police may have been negligent.

If the motorist broke any traffic violations, the police MAY have been negligent in not citing her. If the CM-ers committed any infraction, including willfull damage to private property and no-one was arrested, they MAY have been negligent. And if there were really 3,000 demonstrators, they MAY have been negligent in not providing closer support, knowing that dangerous conditions will exist with that many demonstrators.

[tomcryar]

Seeing as how there is more information coming out, I would say they did not have all they needed to to write a "fact" based article, but that doesn't mean they "omitted" anything.

[genec]

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?

Folks are angry at the CM cyclists because they escalated the situation with violence. They could have held the high ground and reported this as an issue of violence against cyclists which might have helped show the world why CM is what it is... but no, there was "revenge" involved and that took it to a different level. It took the "innocence" off of the cyclists' side and made them just as cruel as anyone else.

[Bklyn]

There was plenty of information in the initial story. Cyclist uninjured, bike undamaged, not interested in filing charges.

Given that information, and knowing the history of the SF CM, it's quite sensible to condemn the m*****holes that did $5300 worth of damage to a van full of kids returning from a birthday party.

Not a real skeptical reader, I gather. It didn't bother you that the author gave no named sources from one-half of the conflict? And now that the story is turning out to be exactly the sort of tabloidy, cynical trash that many of the more perceptive readers knew it to be from the very first graph, you're still sticking to your story? The fact that it appears, after actual newsgathering has taken place, that the driver accelerated through the cyclists — that doesn't cause you to revisit your first impression?

[CB HI]

And then in the middle of it, you have the mayor:

http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2007/04/the_invisible_r.html

Is he trying to bite the microphone or what?

[Bklyn]

Why did you keep referring to "the car," instead of referring to the person driving it and the people inside?

Why didn't you refer to "the cyclists" as "bicycles?"

Now that's what I'm talking about! Excellent point! I love the contextual-studies aspect of these debates.
But . . . you already know the answer to your question, Grasshopper, do you not?

[wethepeople]

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

Yup, 5:00 last Friday down by the sales (Corner of abbot and Bernard), usually about 10 people show up.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=65208113&MyToken=2119b3a8-4290-4f21-af1d-a40aeccc835c

http://a984.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/7/l_bbbc465e5ac6c1360ede8777e01d4fd7.jpg

[banerjek]

Why did you keep referring to "the car," instead of referring to the person driving it and the people inside?

Probably for the same reason the driver referred to a "race" -- lack of awareness of what was really going on.

[EnigManiac]

That is an amazing bit of "logic." Wow.

Despite that unsuccessful bit of mental gymnastics, the fact remains that you cannot possibly know if they omitted anything, since you do not know the scope of the information that they had when the wrote their report.



How is using "vigilante" in any way immature? It's an accurate description of their assault on the van full of kids. Really, get off your high horse already.

You were calling ME a vigilante in your reply, not the CM-ers. Nice try. Resorting to silly name-calling is juvenile. This is a discussion among mature adults who are all avid cyclists, yet you prefer to be make this personal. Chill. It's only an internet discussion.

And as for the kids in the van. Who knows if the CM-ers even saw them. Vans usually have heavily tinted windows in the back. It is possible the CM-ers never even noticed the kids.

[Alekhine]

I have no opinion whatsoever on this event and don't really care what happened, so forgive the following comment my fellow argubots and carry on - it's all so much Rashomon to me. But I do just want to say what an awesome journalistic photo that is.

"Ok, clutch the younger one in close to protect her and everybody be sure to look traumatized when I begin the count. Could you move over just a bit to your left so I can get the windshield in there please? Ok, beautiful. 3...2...1...say cheese!"

[Bikepacker67]

so forgive the following comment my fellow argubots....

Bwhahahah... that's funny.
Although I think of myself as more of a bickerborg than an argubot.

[kalliergo]

"Ok, clutch the younger one in close to protect her and everybody be sure to look traumatized..."

Traumatized? I think I'd go with "surly."

And I don't mean QBP's manufacturing subsidiary.

[genec]

Judge the amount of tinting for yourself

Well based on what I can see in that photo and the angles... I can see through the open back, through the left side widows from the inside to the outside, and I can see shading compared to the outside. But I cannot see through the windows on the right side from the outside, through those windows and the windshield. So it would appear to me that from the inside, one can see clearly to the outside, but from the outside, depending on the glare, one may not be able to see the inside. I can also tell that there is shading on the side windows as there is a difference in tone to the objects I see beyond the van.

That is my personal judgement.

But while the van may have tinted windows, and the driver may have "barged" ahead, I still do not feel that the CM'ers should have taken "revenge" on the van and the people inside. It did nothing for their cause, and damaged cycling's image overall.

On the other hand, I feel, based on my experience with other motorists, that this motorist could have quite easily have avoided this situation by simply waiting for all traffic to clear and not trying to treat cyclists as something other than legal drivers of vehicles.

[Alekhine]

Traumatized? I think I'd go with "surly."

And I don't mean QBP's manufacturing subsidiary.


I'll meet you halfway with "upset," but it ruins my punchline a good bit. :p

The older daughter has a kinda/sorta halfway between Mona Lisa semismile and no-nonsense Nancy stance going on though, so maybe you're right.

[ConstantRider]

Many people have said that because the cyclist who was allegedly hit by the driver did not want to press charges, the driver must not have been at fault. However, I have yet to read a media account that actually quotes the allegedly hit cyclist.

For example, the Matier & Ross column that broke the story summarizes this aspect of it like this:

"The cyclists were loudly demanding that Ferrando be arrested for hit and run. According to police, Ferrando had allegedly tapped one of the cyclists' tires. 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."

In other words, the Matier & Ross contention that the cyclist did not want to press charges comes from a police report, not the cyclist himself.

Here is an excerpt from an account that appears on the blog (http://lipmagazine.org/ccarlsson/archives/2007/04/gossips_hit_a_n.html#more) of one of the founders of SF's CM:


"She says the typical aggressive push through the crowd by the driver was all over and done with AND THEN, after she drove a block farther, she hit a cyclist and that's when the crowd went crazy and the lousy p'lice got involved. She heard the cop tell the injured cyclist that the only way they'd even take a report is if the guy was taking a ride in an ambulance."


Meanwhile, this excerpt comes from a comment someone left on the blog:


It occurred at 9:00 pm, in dark, after Critical Mass broke up, with a group of cyclists heading to the West end.

- It occurred in the Western Addition on Post St., and was not related to an intersection

- Approximately 30 cyclists were involved (not the 3,000 stated in the article), the woman hit one while passing a couple dozen, and his bike was thrown under the van, and run over.

- The cyclist was hurt, but refused an ambulance

- She didn’t stop, so 5 cyclists blocked her way from driving away.

- Kate McCarthy, from the SFBC, made the 911 call, tapped on the woman’s side window, showed here the call, and asked her to wait for the police.

- The police arrived, and immediately began threatening the cyclists, who were keeping her there for hit-and-run.

- Whoever broke her back window took off. This appears to be the only egregious act by the cyclists

- The Sergeant in charge accused Kate of drunkenness and told her to leave when she explained that she had made the call and was completely sober. He refused to take her statement on the incident.

- The Sergeant also refused the injured cyclist’s request for a police report, saying he could only do so if the cyclist requested an ambulance. When it was pointed out that this was in contravention of the law, he still refused to fill in a police report.


Obviously, the allegedly hit cyclist could help his case at this point by coming forward and publicizing his version of the incident, and it seems reasonable to believe that a bicycle run over by a minivan would have some kind of damages that could be pointed to -- but once again, it seems hardly definitive that the account of the incident that the Chronicle has published is an accurate one.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Now that's what I'm talking about! Excellent point! I love the contextual-studies aspect of these debates.
But . . . you already know the answer to your question, Grasshopper, do you not?

Not to worry.
Ponderous, meaningless, petty semantical baiting only works on the regulars.

[Keith99]

- Whoever broke her back window took off. This appears to be the only egregious act by the cyclists


Well one rather substantial thing that any reporter could cross check. Other reports have the damage in the 6K range, that is a lot more than a broken window.

So far the only (more or less) verifiable thing is a broken window. We have the picture of that. I do wonder how you can run over a bike and have no damage.

[Brian Ratliff]

Hold the phone.

If this lady hit a cyclist, that changes the picture quite a bit. Stopping her and calling police would have been the right thing to do, but attacking her was definitely uncalled for, and not very wise. If she did hit someone, attacking her car made her look like a victim.

Did anyone bring up yet that passively "stopping" or "blocking" a car with a lady in it who has already run down one cyclist might not really work?... I'd be a bit frightened to stand in front of a car with a loudmouthed, pissed off woman at the wheel and a husband who feels obligated to protect his wife and kids regardless of circumstance. Perhaps they were not counting on the police to help with this one or to arrive in time and decided that the act of running down a cyclist shouldn't go completely unpunished.

Most likely I can see is that 1) motorist pushes through group of 20-30 cyclists, hits one in the process. 2) driver doesn't stop. 3) fellow cyclists catch up to motorist and take their actions; probably got a bit overly exuberent in the process.

About the guy who's bike was run over/lodged under vehicule/"tapped"; injuries are relative - something that would send one person to the ER has another person limping home for a visit with Mr. Rubbing Alcohol and Ms. Ice Bag. Similarly, damage to a bike is relative. If it's your only transportation and a beater bike at that, perhaps a bent wheel or frame isn't something that you stop for after a pretty scary altercation with a hit and run motorist. If it's a fixed gear, then the either wheel can be pretty bent and the bike can still be rideable.

And for not sticking around to press charges on the hit and run; well, I was in a car accident once where my bike was damaged - I didn't know what to do... or who to call; whether I should call 911 and get the whole lights and siren action going, if I should let it slide, or what. My first instinct was to let it slide, my bike wasn't too damaged (so I thought; I ended up having to replace the frame) and neither was my body, and go back home. Only after I limped home with my disabled bike did I think of calling the police and filing a useless report (oh, damage was only to $300 worth of property?) and finding that having only a name and what turned out to be a cell phone number was not enough to file a claim on the driver (this is what the police told me to do, unfortunately you need a name and address to serve a lawsuit).

Kudos on those folks who reserve judgement until we hear more. Shame on those folks who use this as a platform to bash CM in general without getting the whole story - I know, you don't need all the facts, as this is just a soapbox to profess your opinion about CM - still shameful though. We complain about motorists judging all cyclists based on the light running behavior of a few, yet those very people are awful quick to jump on the "disband CM" bandwagon after a one sided news report about the behavior of a handful of people. Aren't we being just a tad enabling to the "get all cyclists off the street" crowd here?

[Dchiefransom]

Well one rather substantial thing that any reporter could cross check. Other reports have the damage in the 6K range, that is a lot more than a broken window.

So far the only (more or less) verifiable thing is a broken window. We have the picture of that. I do wonder how you can run over a bike and have no damage.

Maybe she wouldn't come to a full stop until the cyclists started beating on her van. There are posts on local advocacy sites that sound more in line with what Constantrider has in that post. The woman kept going and wasn't going to stop.
Some of the bikes I've seen people riding in S.F. look like they've already been run over by a car.
At 9:00 PM, nobody would be able to be seen inside the back of the van. As to her saying "There's children in here", maybe she should have thought about that before she commited a misdemeanor hit and run and allowed her children to witness that, although nobody should have broken any windows. Yes, it's a misdemeanor, as my son found out when he hit a parked car and stupidly didn't leave a note. Hit and run that causes an injury is classified as a felony.

[ConstantRider]

Well one rather substantial thing that any reporter could cross check. Other reports have the damage in the 6K range, that is a lot more than a broken window.

Good point. I would also like to see photos/descriptions of the other damages to the minivan.

[Swampy1970]

I've been racing bikes since 1986 and I have to say that I've never met a bunch of cyclist that do more harm to the cause of cycling than the Critical Mass folks. Sitting in your car through a dozen cycles (pun intended) of red light/green light whilst several thousand retards on wheels just flout the law and shout abuse at motorists who are forced to wait paints a nice picture doesn't it.

I've been sitting at a junction just listening to the radio and had water bottles thrown at the windshield. Needless to say he didn't take me up on my offer to settle his greivences via some not so "Queensbury rules"

Oh how I don't miss those late evenings stuck in SF.....

.... and people wonder why some motorists are agressive towards cyclists? I'm sure that torrent of verbal abuse and the "keyed" car goes some way towards that.

[ConstantRider]

If you were hit by a car and the police responded, would you press charges?

At least one CM participant account, cited above, says the person that was hit did ask for a police report. It may be that the person who asserts this is lying, but at the same time, the SFPD has its own long well-documented history of not always telling the truth.

Also, for what it's worth, I contacted one of the Chronicle staffers who wrote today's front page piece on the incident (i.e., not the Matier & Ross piece that started the whole thing). I asked him some questions about what kind of reporting they did for the piece.

Here is part of his response: "We didn't have the time to check out the veracity of either side's
story - only what they told police. I think it's basically a he said-she said situation. But we won't know until our police reporter gets a look at the incident report today. Incidentally, the case is not yet closed."

[ConstantRider]

"People were voicing concern that [Ferrando] should be arrested because of this alleged accident. [The bicyclist] said he wasn’t injured and that he wants no police action,” San Francisco police Sgt. Steve Mannina said. “With no injuries, we wouldn’t do a traffic-collision investigation anyway.”

I wonder what the police at the scene stood to gain by lying (allegedly of course) in this kind of situation?

I don't believe Sgt. Mannina was at the scene. He is a department spokesperson who works in Public Affairs.

Do you think the police in general are CM supporters? I have never ridden in a CM, so don't know how the police respond to it. My guess, however, is that they are not fans of it, and would be more disposed to believe a driver's account rather than a cyclist's account.

As I've mentioned earlier, I think getting hold of the transcripts of the 911 calls could be very helpful in establishing the veracity of the two widely divergent accounts.

[Michigander]

This story is the perfect example of everyone who drives should drive a 1 ton pickup. They don't block traffic right? I say hold them to their word.

[ConstantRider]

Assuming for the sake of argument that the cops on the scene did lie, what do you think that they would gain by lying?

Assume that what the person quoted on the blog says is true. Namely:

The Sergeant also refused the injured cyclist’s request for a police report, saying he could only do so if the cyclist requested an ambulance. When it was pointed out that this was in contravention of the law, he still refused to fill in a police report.

For whatever reason, the person doesn't want an ambulance. He's shaken up, bruised, etc., but there are no bones sticking out of him and he can still pedal, so he doesn't want to deal with the hassle/expense/paperwork of going to a hospital in an ambulance, so he refuses the ambulance.

Because he refuses the ambulance, the police officer interprets this as meaning the victim is not hurt, so that's what he writes on his report. He also concludes that because the victim is unwilling to comply with the conditions for filing a report -- i.e., going to the hospital -- the victim doesn't really want to file a report. And that's how he ends up writing the victim was uninjured and did not want to file a report. I wouldn't characterize that as lying so much as as bureaucratic expediency.

One obvious thing to check is if it's really true that a police report cannot be filed if there are no injuries, or injuries that are not serious enough to warrant an ambulance.

Another question, of course, is to ask why the police did not appear to do much to identify who broke the woman's window, or arrest any of the people who were still there threatening/harassing her.

[Dchiefransom]

Hmmm, I guess as long as no fajitas are involved, then the S.F. police wouldn't have any reason to lie.

[brokenrobot]

That's exactly why I asked about the motives of the police at the scene, rather than Mannina.


I'm sure that CM could be frustrating to some police, but making the jump from being frustrated/not fans to lying on a police report regarding an alleged traffic accident seems a bit wacky to me.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the cops on the scene did lie, what do you think that they would gain by lying?

How many times have you been hit? How many times have you successfully gotten the police to take a report afterward? At least in my experience, it's VERY VERY difficult to get a police report taken; I'm 0 for 3, and I know several other people with similar experiences. I wish I understood why; if I did, it would be a lot easier to get the problem fixed. My bet is that it's a combination of factors: a dislike for paperwork; a suspicion on the part of the responding officers that the cyclist is an "anarchist", a punk, a poor person, or some other kind of undesirable unworthy of the protection of the law; a belief that traffic enforcement in general is a less worthy pursuit than crimefighting, patrolling; etc.

Note also that in many areas, in order for there to be a police report filed, there must be either property damage above a certain dollar level or serious injury (i.e. an ambulance ride). If San Fransisco has similar rules, it's quite possible that the damage to the bike didn't meet the dollar amount - and in that case, the cyclist hit would have to take an ambulance ride before the police would take a report. Ambulances are expensive - I'm pretty sure a lot of people would "decline" to pursue a report before ponying up several thousand dollars for the privilege, especially if injuries weren't severe and especially if the rider was uninsured.

[ConstantRider]

Whoops, the answer to my own question is in Mannina's quote: "With no injuries, we wouldn’t do a traffic-collision investigation anyway.”

So it seems that the account laid out by the blogger does have a potential basis in truth. If you are injured, but not injured bad enough to go to the hospital, it may mean you can't file a police report....

[-=£em in Pa=-]

To digress for a moment......
How is CM any different than 'real' cyclists on LBS training rides
who will not yield ROW as a line of cars builds behind them ?
When a car does try to squeeze by as inevitably will happen,
why is the stuff they yell and the fender slaps OK, when they
('real' cyclists) do it, but not CM'ers ?

[ConstantRider]

I'm still trying to figure out why a cop would lie on a mundane traffic accident report. What does he gain? Would he really risk his career to avoid a bit of paperwork?

If you have super strong convictions that police officers have no biases or don't carry the biases they do have into their work, some guy on the Internet is probably not going to change your opinion.

If you think it's good enough that a major newspaper "reports" a story by summarizing a police report and doing minimal investigation of its own, some guy on the Internet is probably not going to change your opinion.

I'm not taking the CM participants' version at face value, nor am I taking the SFPD's/Chronicle's version at face value either. Ultimately, I would just like to see a more thorough investigation of this incident. Newspapers aren't just stenographers for police department spokespeople; they're supposed to report.

[Bklyn]

Pete.
In the two weeks that you have been a member, you have posted nearly three hundred times. So you can string a sentence together, obviously. It's also clear that you're passionate about your opinions, but at this point in this thread, you're no longer arguing toward a single, broad point, but you're taking swipes at every BF member you imagine is on the other side. But we're not on different sides; the arguments reflect various perspectives and biases, but it's not like Yankees and Red Sox fans: we're allowed to find common ground. Nobody thinks the jackass that broke the minivan's window is cool or righteous or even justified. Feel free to criticize anyone who doesn't see Critical Mass for the fraud you know it to be. But the point-by-point "dismantling" of any post that seems to argue against your thesis — which is what again? — just makes you look like a thin-skinned tool.

[dobber]

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.....

Christ, you're only getting around to figuring that out?

[Bklyn]

Wrong, I have been a member since 2003.


If you say so.

[banerjek]

Christ, you're only getting around to figuring that out?
Yeah, I can be a little slow sometimes. However, I think I may have an idea that could solve this whole CM dispute.

All that needs to happen is for people to quit using the CM name. After all, it's not an organization and doesn't exist, so why call it anything? I've been at so many cycling events with hundreds or even thousands of participants over the years that I can't even count them. And although there have been isolated incidents with harassment, severe injuries, and even deaths at these events, I have never witnessed any of the mayhem that seems to dog CM in certain areas. Nor have I sensed hostility from other cyclists or even the public at large to these events even though they sometimes really disrupt traffic patterns.

Obviously, it's the CM name that's causing the negative attention so if the participants didn't say call themselves CM (or maybe something along the lines of the San Francisco Independent Cyclists' Association), they might get treated like other cyclists and the most serious problems would disappear overnight.....

[ConstantRider]

Again, what do you imagine they would gain? What's their motive?

As I've already stated, the blog account describes quite well the scenario wherein a police officer could end up writing that the alleged victim was not injured and did not want to press charges, even if the victim said he did want to press charges. The officer's "motive" is that he is not disposed toward helping CM participants because he believes that they are annoying punks who are asking for trouble, and deserve it when they get hit by a driver that they haven't sufficiently yielded to. And if they haven't been injured enough to warrant a hospital trip, then he's not going to go out of his way to help them out.

I'm far from convinced that this is what happened -- but since at least one person who claims to be a witness is saying this is what happened, I'm not totally ruling it out either.

Also, just for the record, let's say it happened just like the police said. Someone was hit by the driver, and that someone exclaimed that he was not injured and did not want to file the report.

In my opinion, that doesn't somehow change the scenario that she may have in fact hit a cyclist and then drove off before being stopped by other cyclists. That's the primary thing I would like to know.

She says (http://www.ktvu.com/news/11523256/detail.html) she didn't hit any cyclists.


Ferrando said that she never hit anybody and that when her van was surrounded, one bicyclist purposely drove into the right panel of her minivan as if to provoke her.


The police report suggests she may have "inadvertently tapped" a wheel. The cyclists say something much different. I think there's not enough info yet to definitively say what happened. It may be that there never is. I think the Chronicle and other media outlets should continue to investigate.

[Alekhine]

Pete. In the two weeks that you have been a member, you have posted nearly three hundred times.

Holy Christ, that has to be an all-time record for any board. I've been here three years and have just over double that number.

[pj7]

Hardly. All it takes it to get involved in a few Helmet Head (my bet for the all-time record holder)threads...

Yeah this is sooo true. I do so love watching the two of you go back and forth.
Speaking of The Head, I haven't seen him on here in well over a week. Wonder where he is.

[UmneyDurak]

As always the truth is somewhere in between.

[EnigManiac]

I would suggest that you read what I wrote again.

"Sorry, vigilante CMers that attack a van..."

Unless you were one of the SF CMers that attacked the van, I wasn't calling you a vigilante.

Get it?


Judge the amount of tinting for yourself:

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

Fair enough. If I misreead your statement, I stand corrected.

As for the van, well, I can't see through the side window. It seems to be pretty tinted to me. The far one doesn't, mind you. As for the rear window...well...it looks pretty clear...now. But who knows what was seen by the combatants?

[Alekhine]

Hardly. All it takes it to get involved in a few Helmet Head (my bet for the all-time record holder)threads...

Gotcha. I'm not an A&S regular (and don't plan on being!), so I only vaguely know who Helmet Head is.

[derath]

Fair enough. If I misreead your statement, I stand corrected.

As for the van, well, I can't see through the side window. It seems to be pretty tinted to me. The far one doesn't, mind you. As for the rear window...well...it looks pretty clear...now. But who knows what was seen by the combatants?


And the amount of tinting shows what? If you can't see who's inside it is ok to vandalize and damage the van?

I am personally amazed that there is anyone defending the destruction of personal property.

-D

[Agent Cooper]

So, if the windows were so tinted the CM people couldn't see the kids, well, that's completely understandable. They were only just trying to maybe hurt some adults. So THAT'S okay? ...:rolleyes:

For those trying to make some distinction that some bad CMers are ruining it for the rest of the "Good ones", save it. The entire movement does nothing but enrage motorists and poison the attitude of every driver they come in contact with permanently against cycling. And they do this even when they aren't engaged in this kind of fiasco.

Believe me, some sick road raging motorist is going to remember this incident next time he sees a lone bicyclist on the road in the SF area. And that poor cyclist who probably has nothing to do with critical mass is going to pay the price for their "advocacy."

If CM didn't exist, none of this would have happened in the first place.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

^^^ And you are a 'good' cyclist ??

[bbattle]

Right - it only takes a couple of cyclists getting tickets for red-light-running to change behavior; no need for making arrests for such an offense.

If the cyclist claims to have no ID, then write down the make, model and serial number of the bike frame in addition to the description of the cyclist.

If the cyclist has no id, then he'll get arrested till he can provide the id.

[Bklyn]

So, if the windows were so tinted the CM people couldn't see the kids, well, that's completely understandable. They were only just trying to maybe hurt some adults. So THAT'S okay?
If CM didn't exist, none of this would have happened in the first place.

Please forgive me, Coop, for singling you out, but this thread is maddeningly unproductive, and your post happens to illustrate this perfectly. Do you really believe that anyone suggested that because the rider didn't see kids, it was fine to smash the van's window? (I can only hope your post was ironic. I'm sure it was. Have some pie.)
This thread — indeed, this entire forum — is full of willful misinterpretation, half-truths and just bat**** anti-logic. (Not to mention longtime, thin-skinned, logorrheaic shadow members who float from personality to personality as needs — or moderators — dictate.)
There is a real debate here, and it's a cultural one. I entered this discussion because I was struck with the vehement one-sidedness of the original post. Why is Critical Mass such a lightning rod? Why is it that some cyclists are so quick to suspect the worst of CM?
But we're not actually debating anything here. It seems many people have a guilty party and are willing to accept any supposition that points to that guilt and dismiss any those that doesn't. This isn't a forum for debate. It's like being on jury duty with a bunch of precocious teenagers who've traded in their Dungeons & Dragons for Ayn Rand. For those so afflicted, I wish you a speedy recovery from adolescence.

[genec]

And the amount of tinting shows what? If you can't see who's inside it is ok to vandalize and damage the van?

I am personally amazed that there is anyone defending the destruction of personal property.

-D

No, it is not OK to damage the van. Period. Again, the CMers should have taken the upper hand and done no more than block the van and await police.

But regarding seeing inside the van, the sympathy garnered in the OP "news piece" is based on "a woman and her young kids" "trapped" by "the swarming cyclists" "using their bikes as weapons;'' (notice how they only mention the father once.) Bottom line is there is a lot of hyperbole in the "news" story based on who is in the van, when in fact it is likely that no one could see that there was a man and woman, and 5 kids inside, based on the story. Interesting that the photo only shows a woman and 2 kids, thus continuing the sympathetic pitch.

What happened was wrong, it clearly tainted the image of cyclists, and the paper or at least the "reporters" are doing everything to endorse that poor image... in the long run doing nothing for CM and the image of cyclists anywhere.

Can't you just hear the watercooler conversation now: "yeah that mob of cyclists beat up that woman... can you believe it." "Oh man I see mobs of bikers like that all the time... " "Yeah, well I drive a Hummer, and there is no way... "

Next the radio shock jocks will start in... sigh. :rolleyes:

[ibikedc]

There is a real debate here, and it's a cultural one. I entered this discussion because I was struck with the vehement one-sidedness of the original post. Why is Critical Mass such a lightning rod? Why is it that some cyclists are so quick to suspect the worst of CM?
But we're not actually debating anything here. It seems many people have a guilty party and are willing to accept any supposition that points to that guilt and dismiss any those that doesn't. This isn't a forum for debate. It's like being on jury duty with a bunch of precocious teenagers who've traded in their Dungeons & Dragons for Ayn Rand. For those so afflicted, I wish you a speedy recovery from adolescence.

These are good points; we're getting pretty bogged down in semantics here.
I think if we look at it with as objective a lens as we can, we'll see that a) we don't have nearly enough hard evidence, just a bunch of conjecture and a couple of facts, and b) from what seems clear, everybody screwed up here. The panicked driver and the enraged, mobthinking cyclists both are to blame for their actions.

What does remain, for me, is that this is a situation that an unsuspecting driver was thrown into. The CM riders, in contrast, know what they're doing and where, and they had to know that they were going to freak this driver out as they rode around her.

I'm not going to rehash all of the same arguments against CM that have been made over and over again.
But this incident highlights what many see as CM's problem. So I'll ask, as I have before, for a clear and focused answer to this question:

In what ways, specifically, do CM rides advance the cause of cyclists' rights?
And how, specifically, do the riders achieve this goal?

[-=£em in Pa=-]

In all of this ridiculousness and CM bashing has anyone thought
of the mental process(?) one might invoke to drive a van INTO
a group of 3000 cyclists ?
"Ok...heres human wall of 1000's of cyclists...Ill just
gently butt in and be on my way"
:rolleyes:

[-=£em in Pa=-]

In what ways, specifically, do CM rides advance the cause of cyclists' rights?
And how, specifically, do the riders achieve this goal?

You either get it or you dont. To me, militant roadies do waaay more damage
to cycling than any CM ever will. At least CMs are publisized and easily
avoidable. The militant club riding roadies who are omnipresent in the warmer
months, and who will not yield ROW and yell at and slap cars as they go by
do more to hurt us than anyone else. I posed a question a few pages ago as
to why this boorish behaviour by 'good', 'real' cyclists is acceptable but when
done by 'hippie', 'anarchist' troublemaking CMer's it is not, and no one answered it.
I can say the same cliche stuff about the militiant clubbies as you can about CMers.
"Every time a car has to wait behind a group of non-yielding club riders, a harmless
commuter is going to suffer, later"