Critical Mass Mob Attacks Van

[Keith99]

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.



Almost missed the one witness. But isn't the claim that there would have been several witnesses? Isn't the claim that the cyclist was injured and the bike was 'run over'? If so there is physical evidence. Why haven't these come to light?

As to a cop ignoring someone who wanted to press charges, your theory is very dubious. While the cop might think they are troublemakers he would also be aware that they are troublemakers who know how to play the system. If he made a false statement about no one wanting to press charges it would be only a minor inconvienence to someone who really did want to press charges. But it could lead to disipilnary action against him including possible suspension or worse. Not a good gamble.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

(Not to mention longtime, thin-skinned, logorrheaic shadow members who float from personality to personality as needs — or moderators — dictate.)
Thanks. I leaned a new word today - "logorrheaic". Bravo to you.

[Swampy1970]

I see lots of people in their high-horse posting from places thousands of miles away.

Have you good folk ever seen a Critical Mass ride in San Francisco? If you haven't then you really don't have a clue about how 'bad' these rides are. You don't always get a steady stream of cyclist like you do in say, a Tour de France peloton - you'll get a few hundred then a gap of about 20 seconds and then more, so on and so on....

... so when someone from out of town drives their kids into the City for a fun night out, just happens to see a bunch of cyclists go by and then gets a green light to "go" sees a gap and goes for it, you can well expect the bemusement of all in the van when people start throwing bikes through the back window. She was probably as confused with the next group who were supposed to stop at a red light actually didn't.

What ever happened to a quick tap on the window and a comment? If someone nudges infront of you when you're out on a training ride, do you pick up your bike an hurl it at the car? Didn't think so.... but it doesn't suprise me that some on the CM rides take the attitude of. .. "lets go about it in a manner that's more akin to an English soccer hooligan." Being that I'm English and an a long member of The Red Army (loyal Manchester United supporter since 1976) I've see a few "ugly scenes" in my time on match day.

I'm all for pushing forward the notion that bikes can, and should, co-exist on an equal level within traffic congested cities, but the way that most of the people on the Critical Mass rides go about it brings as much love to the cycling community from your average Joe driving his car to work than GW would get by dropping nuclear bombs on Iraq in order to get rid of a few insurgants.

If that guy was injured and his bike run over, how did he manage to ride away? I've only seen one bike frame that's able to take that kind of abuse - a Kirk Magneseum frame - but as you'd expect, the components and wheels where pretzeled.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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 I you can about CMers.
"Evertime a car has to wait behind a group of non-yielding club riders, a harmless
commuter is going to suffer, later"
I previously didn't see your question as to why boorish behavior by 'good', 'real' cyclists is acceptable, but will answer it now. It is NOT acceptable; and I agree with you that boorish roadie behavior especially club group riding is far more often the catalyst for various legislative proposals to do something about bicyclists and their obnoxious behavior on the road.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

^^^ Thank goodness !
I was wondering when you were going to make an appearance !
:beer:

[I-Like-To-Bike]

^^^ Thank goodness !
I was wondering when you were going to make an appearance !
:beer:
I don't normally discuss CM pro or con, since all I know about it is what I read on the Internet; which means I don't know doo-doo about it.

[Bikepacker67]

Why is it that some cyclists are so quick to suspect the worst of CM?

When "corking" and light-running are standard operating procedure, you've lost my respect from the getgo.

You want to have a parade? Get a damn permit.

[ibikedc]

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"

First, I've actually heard that one before- you either 'get it' or you 'don't.'
That's not an answer. In fact, there is nothing that people simply 'get' or 'don't get.' If you'd like us to 'get it,' you're going to have to 'explain it.' Please do so.

And I too agree with you about boorish, militant roadies, though I'll argue that they don't cause as much havoc and far fewer of them actually INTEND to cause havoc, as is often the case in CM rides.

[john bono]

Why is Critical Mass such a lightning rod? Why is it that some cyclists are so quick to suspect the worst of CM?

Why is it a lightning rod for law-abiding cyclists? Read this (http://www.scorcher.org/cmhistory/howto.html):


CORKS

Corks are the diplomats of the ride. Their title comes from their function. Here’s how they work: one or two bicyclists block each lane of oncoming traffic as the ride goes through an intersection, making sure that even if a gap large enough for a car to drive through should develop, cars are stopped where they are. This tactic is especially effective if the cork takes a friendly, non-antagonistic stance with motorists, even holding up signs that say "thanks for waiting" and "honk if you like bikes!" Corks need to protect the rear of the ride, too, from cars turning into it. Of course, no one needs to be officially designated as a cork, and people will largely take on this role of their own initiative.

Red Lights

Should Critical Mass obey the same traffic laws that motorized traffic follows? Yes and no. For the most part, traffic laws were made for cars, as anyone who routinely bicycles through stop signs can attest, and they certainly weren’t written with large groups of bicyclists in mind. So the answer to this question is obvious: Critical Mass should bend or ignore existing traffic laws where the group’s safety and effectiveness will be served, and follow the law where it serves our interests and needs.

Red lights are a perfect example of this principle. When the head of the ride reaches a red light, it only makes sense to stop. This way, a) no one endangers themselves by riding into oncoming traffic, b) we allow motorists the simple courtesy of their right of way, and c) we give ourselves an opportunity to stop, regroup and form a solid Mass. But if, as Critical Mass passes through an intersection, the light changes, it does not make sense to break into two groups, and the ride should just continue through the intersection, shielded from the waiting cars by corks.

...

KNOW THE LAW

The above planning is the skeleton of what the Mass needs in order to be as enjoyable and carefree as it is. However, other issues arise as soon as bicyclists, hundreds of bicyclists, hit the streets. Should Critical Mass obey the same traffic laws that motorized traffic follows? For the most part, traffic laws were made for cars, as anyone who routinely bicycles through stop signs can attest, and they certainly weren’t written with large groups of bicyclists in mind. So the answer to this question is Critical Mass should bend or ignore existing traffic laws where the group’s safety and effectiveness will be served.


We spend every day promoting the idea of bikes as vehicles, asking cars to share the road with bicycles, knowing our rights and responsibilities as road users, and a bunch of CM bozos decide that the law doesn't apply to them.

Now let's apply this hypothetical scenario around what happened in the article:

The woman and her children are waiting at a light. Our lovely CM folks, being more enlightened about stop lights than this repressed soccer mom in her pedestrian minivan, decide to "cork" the light while 3000 of their anarchist and fellow traveler buddies ignore traffic laws. The light cycles once, twice, three times, and the woman decides that a)she has a green light and right of way, and b)a couple of "corker" hippies don't have the right to stop her from going through an intersection she is legally entitled to use.

The rest of the CM gang, who has already decided that traffic laws don't apply to such enlightened folk as themselves, have a couple of close calls with the woman as she crosses the intersection legally(she has the green light, remember?). As beings of enlightened morality compared to some repressed soccer mom, they show their enlightened morality by surrounding her car, pounding on it, and throwing a bicycle through the rear window.

Being the repressed individual she is, and not recognizing the anarchists superior sense of morality, she reverts to her repressed soccer-mom-in-love-with-the-neocon-petroleum-industry-self, and 911s in the pigs/fuzz/man to prevent these individuals and their enlightened morality from engaging in their legitimate right to protest and break windshields.


Finally, take a look at this picture (http://www.scorcher.org/cmhistory/heygetout.html). Does that look like "share the road" to you? Or does it look like something a little more confrontational, and maybe even violent?

[genec]

Actually the best thing CM could do would be to emulate drivers... all leaving their offices at different places in a city and trying to go home at the same time. Cyclists could ride together in small bunches to emulate a car or van moving down the road, but at the same time they should obey all the same traffic laws and signals.

The idea of a "parade" snaking through town at rush hour is exactly the opposite of what other traffic does, and therefore CM is just making a poor example of themselves for no reason. The closest example of a CM like situation is when motorists "cruise" a section of town a'la "low riders" or '50s "American Graffiti" style.

[rando]

+1 ^^^^^

[AlmostTrick]

The rest of the CM gang, who has already decided that traffic laws don't apply to such enlightened folk as themselves, have a couple of close calls with the woman as she crosses the intersection legally(she has the green light, remember?). As beings of enlightened morality compared to some repressed soccer mom, they show their enlightened morality by surrounding her car, pounding on it, and throwing a bicycle through the rear window.

Even though I believe the cyclists are in the wrong, (breaking the law by running red lights) doesn't the law also say that when you get a green light you have to wait for the intersection to clear before proceeding?

[banerjek]

... 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 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"
This is true. However, organizers at event rides normally make it very clear that this behavior is unacceptable. Other cyclists will also make it clear that it is unacceptable both during and afterwards. It still happens of course, but there is an expectation that people will take responsibility for making sure people play nice. At normal cycling events, you don't hear so many people trying to justify acting like jerks.

The bit written by How to make a CRITICAL MASS Lessons and Ideas from the San Francisco Experience is pure garbage. If bikes are traffic, why can't a line of bikes be divided by a stoplight? That's what happens with the rest of traffic -- in fact that is why traffic signals exist. To not behave like traffic makes a mockery of the "We are traffic" slogan. When tractors or other vehicles are used to intentionally muck up streets, it's called a protest. Why we should use a different word just because the form of transport involves bikes is beyond me.

Riding in a mass is poor etiquette anywhere. If CM rides with the logic that the laws were made mostly with cars in mind, why do they whine when drivers say the roads were made for cars? Anyone who thinks our road system is maintained for bikes is delusional. But then again, pretending that CM isn't organized is pretty idiotic. When I'm out riding and see other cyclists, no one pretends to have a connection between them based on a named organization that doesn't exist.

[invisiblehand]

I agree, Slagjumper......
I have a hard time believing all these bikers just turned on the Van unprovoked.
Its hilarious that immediatly the 'real' cyclist proponents and angry, uptites here
who argue, antagonize and provoke each other for pages about such inanitites like
Forrester, 'what is a real stop' or 'what hand signal is legal' are all calling the CM'ers undesirable names without even looking for the otherside of the story, of which there will be one.......


Excerpt from 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.

...

[Keith99]

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"

I have no love for the militant club riders you describe. But I've never seen any.

But as to which damages cycling and is going to generate a backlash I can think of only one way in which CM is less bad.

CM is once a month, club riders are out there all the time. (But then why havn't I ever seen the kind you describe?)

On the other hand I can list many reasons why CM will generate a backlash.

1) Intent. CM goes out with the intent to disrupt. Militant club riders go out without concren for others. Huge difference. It is the difference between someone who bumps me in a crowded mall because they don't care and someone who deliberatly shoves me in that same mall. That intent is visible in actual contact and also when anyone follows up.

2) There are not 3000 or even 200 in club rides. That means the disruption/confrontations are short. So the bikers shout @sshole and slap a fender. The driver will yell back and honk. Over forgotten. With CM a driver is hung up for 5 minutes and that is 5 minutes to stew and decide on action.

3) On the numbers again. Small numbers translate to the problem being viewed as individuals. Bit numbers result in them being viewed as the group/class.

4) CM gets press. Even if renegade club riders have 100 times the number of confrontations the CM gets in hte minds of more drivers because of the press coverage.

[ConstantRider]

Almost missed the one witness. But isn't the claim that there would have been several witnesses? Isn't the claim that the cyclist was injured and the bike was 'run over'? If so there is physical evidence. Why haven't these come to light?

Yes, there were by all accounts multiple people there. In fact, the driver of the minivan initially exclaimed that there were "hundreds" of cyclists swarming her car. In more recent reports, she has apparently revised that number to "at least fifteen."

When I referred to "one witness," I meant that there was at least one account that says the cyclist was injured and did want to press charges. On a blog kept by Chris Carrlson, who is often credited as one of CM's co-founders, I found a post about the incident. In the comments section of that post, Carrlson posts an email that he describes as being "circulated by some bicycle advocates."

In part, the posts reads: "The cyclist was hurt, but refused an ambulance....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."

You can read the full post here (http://lipmagazine.org/ccarlsson/archives/2007/04/gossips_hit_a_n.html#more).

Meanwhile, in a news story (http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/bcn_critical_mass_070405.shtml), Kate McCarthy, a Bike Coalition employee who says she was at the scene of the incident, says this:


McCarthy said she was intimidated by police when she tried to file a hit-and-run report. They told her she couldn't file a claim unless the injured party accepted medical attention. But, she said, bicyclist who was hit wasn't injured; it was his bike that suffered the consequences.


So claims about the victim's injuries have varied -- in all accounts published in media outlets, he has been characterized as having no injuries.

As for the state of his bike, I also believe that if it was run over as described, there would likely be damage. As I said in an earlier post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4181112&postcount=179) in this thread:


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...


As long as the victim remains anonymous, the version of events that the CM participants have described is certainly not a definitive account, or even near a definitive account. But I also believe the driver's account seems fairly dubious too.

As for the police response to CM participant requests to file hit-and-run charges, I will simply say this. Given that so many *cyclists* characterize CM participants as lawless, selfish, arrogant anarchists looking to deliberately antagonize motorists, with a long history of vandalism/provocation, do you really expect police officers to view them sympathetically, and go out of their way to accomodate them when they want to file a hit-and-run report in a situation where at least some of the participants have reacted quite violently/lawlessly themselves?

Ultimately I find it easy to believe, given the reputation of CM participants, that the victim may indeed have declined to press charges (i.e., he's an anarchist who wants to give no info whatsoever to police; he actually has warrants for something himself; he just doesn't want to deal with the hassle, etc.)

I also find it easy to believe that maybe he, or other CM participants, did want to press charges, and that the police officers on the scene didn't exactly go out of their way to help them with that endeavour, and responded as described by McCarthy in the newspaper account cited above.

[EnigManiac]

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

Once again---and I have stated it repeatedly---I am not defending what a few of the CM-ers did. I am just as appalled as anyone and everyone else at the violence. But, a number of people on here are insinuating and outright suggesting that one CM-er threw his bike through the rear window where kids were all seated. No-one in this thread was there, witnessed what happened, understands what the circumstances were or what the real story was, but a number of members here are accusing the biker of knowingly smashing the window and endangering the kids.

I simply suggested he may not have seen any kids whatsoever because the windows were heavily tinted. It certanly appears that the windows were, judging from the photo. Yes, you can see OUT the left side of the van, but a person on the outside would have been unable to see IN, judging by the tint on the right side of the van. It's likely that if he had seen kids he would not have smashed the window. What he did was wrong and he should be charged---no question---I'm merely saying he may not have had any idea there were any passengers and, therefore, was not knowingly endangering kids.

[lima_bean]

I just want to point out the goals behind a lot of CM's law-lessness is not to intimidate cars and act as anarchists but are simply an attempt to make the ride more safe for everyone. Following the law does not mean its the safest option, and they decided to go with safety over following the law.

Not trying to defend them or that decision, just wanted to point out their motivations for this behavior as I often see them miscontrued.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

I just want to point out the goals behind a lot of CM's law-lessness is not to intimidate cars and act as anarchists but are simply an attempt to make the ride more safe for everyone. Following the law does not mean its the safest option, and they decided to go with safety over following the law.

Not trying to defend them or that decision, just wanted to point out their motivations for this behavior as I often see them miscontrued.


It cracks me up how many of the posts here blanketly claim
CM'ers are ALL antagonistic and purposely looking for trouble.
One response to one of my posts even laffably suggests that when
roadies slap car fenders and yell stuff at the drivers its just forgotten
about by both parties because the 'good' cyclist meant no harm like
the evil CMer did.
I know CMers and I know them to be very non-violent. To state all
CMers are violence prone troublemakers is ludicris.

[john bono]

Following the law does not mean its the safest option, and they decided to go with safety over following the law.

Not trying to defend them or that decision, just wanted to point out their motivations for this behavior as I often see them miscontrued.

Explain to me how running a red light at any time is safe.

[lima_bean]

Explain to me how running a red light at any time is safe.
. You can argue about whether they are right or not, or whether it actually IS safe or not, but the fact is the reason they are doing it is because they believe it is safer. Some people agree with them ( I have even seen police cork the roads for bicyclists several times) and many people disagree.

The red light is not "run" such that cyclists enter a busy intersection with moving traffic. Instead a group of cyclists allready moving through a green light when it turns red, continues moving through it until the group is done. If the front of the group encounters a red light, they stop and wait for it to turn green.

The short form of the theory (you can search here for yourself for many in detailed descriptions, and criticisms, Its been discussed on this forum dozens and dozens of time, and I believe there is an explanation on their website ), is that bicycles travelling in a single cohesive group is safer for the cyclists, because it is harder for cars to permeate the group of cyclists creating dangerous situations. It eliminates cars passing one group of cyclists then getting stuck between groups and having to pass again and again. and it makes the cycling group more visible and easier to read/understand if it all travelling as one entity. Furthermore, the theory is that if the group stays together it delays traffic for less time since the slower moving cyling group clears intersections more quickly and is spread out over less area.

[tomcryar]

I just want to point out the goals behind a lot of CM's law-lessness is not to intimidate cars and act as anarchists but are simply an attempt to make the ride more safe for everyone. Following the law does not mean its the safest option, and they decided to go with safety over following the law.

Not trying to defend them or that decision, just wanted to point out their motivations for this behavior as I often see them miscontrued.

That may or may not be true. The only rides that we seem to read about are the ones in which the riders display total disregard for all traffic laws and blatantly antagonize motorists (including slapping, scratching, and otherwise damaging motor vehicles). These are the ones which provide all the backlash that has become all-too-common. The decent rides, which are well organized and planned in advance with help from the community, will never make the rounds of the media because there is no "problem" with it. The "problem", which has been well stated here many times, is that some riders display total ignorance toward everything in their path. Remember the older man who got run over and killed not long ago? It's not a question of is CM relevent anymore, it's a question of how it's presented to the community.

[Swampy1970]

I simply suggested he may not have seen any kids whatsoever because the windows were heavily tinted. It certanly appears that the windows were, judging from the photo. Yes, you can see OUT the left side of the van, but a person on the outside would have been unable to see IN, judging by the tint on the right side of the van. It's likely that if he had seen kids he would not have smashed the window. What he did was wrong and he should be charged---no question---I'm merely saying he may not have had any idea there were any passengers and, therefore, was not knowingly endangering kids.

The light source in that picture is behind and too the right, which is why you can't see through the tint on the near side of the van. What you're effectively seeing is a reflection of the overcast sky.

But using that arguement is a only slightly more valid that me saying "oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realise you and your better half were in the front room watching TV otherwise I wouldn't have lobbed that big rock through your front window..... Sorry ol' chap. Goodbye...."

[Roughstuff]

This was reported in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle. This kind of thing only hurts the image of bicyclists and sets back any progress made in improving the image and acceptance of bicycling by the public.

[I]It was supposed to be a birthday night out for the kids in San Francisco, but instead turned into a Critical Mass horror show -- complete with a pummeled car, a smashed rear window and little children screaming in terror.




What a howl. Critical mazzholes attacking a van being used to carry multiple passengers. So much for their idea of 'mass transit.' Whats next? will they attack busses and trains?

The stereotype of cyclists as anti-fossil fuel luddites just got another big boost.

roughstuff

[Roughstuff]

I just want to point out the goals behind a lot of CM's law-lessness is not to intimidate cars and act as anarchists but are simply an attempt to make the ride more safe for everyone. Following the law does not mean its the safest option, and they decided to go with safety over following the law.

Not trying to defend them or that decision, just wanted to point out their motivations for this behavior as I often see them miscontrued.

Oh boy...here we go again:


I just want to point out the goals behind a lot of cagers law-lessness is not to intimidate bikes and act as anarchists but are simply an attempt to make the ride more safe for everyone. Following the law does not mean its the safest option, and they decided to go with safety over following the law.

Not trying to defend them or that decision, just wanted to point out their motivations for this behavior as I often see them miscontrued.




Safer for everyone...especially themselves.

roughstuff

[Burrito Eater]

Explain to me how running a red light at any time is safe.
Its 3AM in in a small town in North Dakota. Visibility is 5 miles in any direction. You are at a red light. There are no cars. You cross. Jesus people! Its like you never do anything that is against the law? Did all of you pay tax in your home state on tax-free purchases made in other states over the internet? Didn’t think so, so stop with the whiny moralizing already.


It cracks me up how many of the posts here blanketly claim
CM'ers are ALL antagonistic and purposely looking for trouble.
One response to one of my posts even laffably suggests that when
roadies slap car fenders and yell stuff at the drivers its just forgotten
about by both parties because the 'good' cyclist meant no harm like
the evil CMer did.
I know CMers and I know them to be very non-violent. To state all
CMers are violence prone troublemakers is ludicris.

Its a scientific fact that anarchist troublemakers never wear spandex. Thats how motorists know the difference between a roadie just giving a car a love smack and friendly word, and a critical "mazzholes" (brillant BTW ) violently smacking a fender in hopes that it will cause a revolution overthrowing the capitalist order. Each smack of a fender is a smack for the black flag of anarchy, which symbolizes the hate all CM riders have for civilized society-and small children and kittens.

[lima_bean]

Oh boy...here we go again:


I just want to point out the goals behind a lot of cagers law-lessness is not to intimidate bikes and act as anarchists but are simply an attempt to make the ride more safe for everyone. Following the law does not mean its the safest option, and they decided to go with safety over following the law.

Not trying to defend them or that decision, just wanted to point out their motivations for this behavior as I often see them miscontrued.




Safer for everyone...especially themselves.

roughstuff


Ive never heard anyone claim that "cagers" are breaking the laws in order to be safer. Usually the argument is because they want to get there faster and it isnt much "less safe". And often the complaint is that their actions are less safe for bicyclists, not that it inconveniences them. Im not really catching how this is analogous. One can definitely make excuses for cagers as you imply, but not really seeing it done on the basis of safety very commonly.

[AlmostTrick]

I've never heard anyone claim that "cagers" are breaking the laws in order to be safer.

Many motorists will tell you that it's "safer" to keep up with the flow of traffic, even though that means they'd usually have to break the law in order to do so.

[kemmer]

The behavior of blocking intersections and running lights is not unique to anarchist cyclists. Motorcyclists and scooterists do it all the time on group rides. The group is safer and the ride is less disruptive when it isn't broken up over 7 city blocks. Believe me, I've seen the kind of chaos that takes place when 500 Vespa riders are all split up and trying to get the to the same place by making a left turn across 4 lanes of oncoming traffic. It's just more practical and safe to stay in one big group.

[Keith99]

. You can argue about whether they are right or not, or whether it actually IS safe or not, but the fact is the reason they are doing it is because they believe it is safer. Some people agree with them ( I have even seen police cork the roads for bicyclists several times) and many people disagree.



I respectfully disagree. Perhaps they claim they are doing it for safety reasons. I'm much more inclined to think they are doing it just because they want to stay in a group. I know club riders do this in a minor but it is very rare when the last bike is farther back than is often the case for cars. I've never heard a club rider claim it was to be safer, just that they did not want to get dropped and they were close enough that it was not dangerous.

[john bono]

Its 3AM in in a small town in North Dakota. Visibility is 5 miles in any direction. You are at a red light. There are no cars. You cross. Jesus people! Its like you never do anything that is against the law? Did all of you pay tax in your home state on tax-free purchases made in other states over the internet? Didn’t think so, so stop with the whiny moralizing already.


And exactly when in SF does a situation like you describe occur? And, BTW, in most jurisdictions, when a red light malfunctions(like when a bike fails to trip the sensor) you are allowed to treat it like a stop sign. Violating something as basic as a traffic signal can wind up with people dead. I've never heard of anyone dying because I didn't pay sales tax on my last purchase from Nashbar.

[banerjek]

...It's just more practical and safe to stay in one big group....
This implies that riding on the road by yourself or with a few other people who are strung out over some distance is impractical and unsafe.

Definitely not my experience and I've been riding very busy roads for years. However, just as many motorists perceive biking on city streets to be very dangerous, so do cyclists who lack experience or good riding skills.

[rydaddy]

For those that have never seen a SF CM ride first hand: GET A CLUE before you defend these idiots.

[Burrito Eater]

And exactly when in SF does a situation like you describe occur? And, BTW, in most jurisdictions, when a red light malfunctions(like when a bike fails to trip the sensor) you are allowed to treat it like a stop sign. Violating something as basic as a traffic signal can wind up with people dead. I've never heard of anyone dying because I didn't pay sales tax on my last purchase from Nashbar.

Hey buddy you just asked when, not where! And you not paying sales tax=less money for the government=less money to fight the war in Iraq=not supporting the troops=the terrorists winning. Now where is my picture of the eagle crying. Oh- here it is:

http://buysellfind.net/siding/eagle-crying-head-only-185-mirror.JPG


NOW WHO IS THE THREAT? CRITICAL MASS OR YOU!

Is it John? Or should I call you Osama bin Bono?





Just wanted to see what it felt like to be completely irrational like many of the posters on this thread (not John Bono). Ahhhh, now its out of system. What were we talking about again?

[slagjumper]

You never see the skaters doing that window smashing stuff.

CM skates (http://www.londonskaters.com/faq_streetskates_general.htm#whatisamassgroup).
CM skaters in action disrupting traffic (http://www.londonskaters.com/images/streetskates/DSCF1440.jpg).

Better look out, I heard that Mrs. Ferrando is looking for a job (http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~mirvine/scan0003.jpg) with the tour this summer.

[Dchiefransom]

This issue of not getting a police report even though they demanded one appears to be SOP in this area. Get in a traffic accident, call the police, and get asked if there are any injuries. Answering "No', you will then be told to exchange info and come down to the station later and file a report. It's happened to my wife, and a few friends. So I believe people when they say the police refuse to take a report unless the guy gets in the ambulance.
The other problem is the Mayor is telling the SFBC that they need to get the ride under control. Since there is no organizer, then he needs a big wake up call.

[john bono]

Hey buddy you just asked when, not where! And you not paying sales tax=less money for the government=less money to fight the war in Iraq=not supporting the troops=the terrorists winning. Now where is my picture of the eagle crying. Oh- here it is:

{snip}

Just wanted to see what it felt like to be completely irrational like many of the posters on this thread (not John Bono). Ahhhh, now its out of system. What were we talking about again?

LOL. Of course, you realize, that sales taxes don't fund the federal government and military but states and municipalities. So, you see, I'm not taking taking weapons away from our troops in the field. Actually, I'm doing something far worse. Every time I make a purchase from Nashbar, I'm taking money away that could be used to build bicycle lanes across the state of CT, and I'm taking money away that could be used to give gay baby seals bilingual education! So every time I buy a nashbar blinkie, I'm creating another generation of illiterate baby seals! Of course, to make things worse, with the money I save buying buying nashbar blinkies, I buy stock in a mutual fund that buys stock in WalMart AND Haliburton! I'm evil I tell you, EEEEVVVVVILLL!

[randya]

randya, I am intrigued by your response here because I typically find myself agreeing with you on most A & S matters, but do you think these cyclists were justified in some way or that the facts of this incident were misconstrued to the point of dishonesty?

I am always one to give the benefit of the doubt (I'm a union rep :D), but even if we have some compassion for the cause and the people fighting for it we eventually have to sit back and say that they really screwed up regardless of how much we wish they had not. Trust me, I end up doing this a lot.
I got started on BF defending Critical Mass, I participated for two or three years +/- and the only riots I ever saw on the ride were police riots. OTOH, I did see a motorist run over a bicycle (fortunately the rider got out of the way) in clear view of the police, who did absolutely nothing in response. IMO, the motorist in SF must have done something to provoke the cyclists that wasn't reported in the original opinion piece.

[rando]

they hate us for our freedom!

it had to be said.

[randya]

Most of these rides are invaded by students hell bent on finding a cause or a reason to sample anarchy. They could give a fat rart about what the original intention of the entire movement was about. For that matter the world around them beyond their own campus or zip code.
Funny that you use the handle AGGRO, 'cause that's exactly the nomenclature used to describe the anarchist element on Critical Mass. In general, the aggro anarchist element makes up a small percentage of the participants; if you can't make the distinction, well too bad for you then.

[randya]

I have been known to do that, but in this case, no. Exactly, and this thread was obviously meant to bash Critical Mass using most logical fallacies one can think of.

Really? Most people have been posting based on one of two conclusions:
1. Innocent soccer mom is assaulted by barbarian, anarchist hordes of trustafarian CMers.

2.Cager-tool breeder is given her comeuppance for trying to mow down cyclists.

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.

Look, I've done my part on the activism front, and yes, some of them are socialist/anarchist looooons. But I've also been a driver and cyclist for many years, and many soccer moms are road-raging nutjobs just waiting for an excuse, as well.

Based on the quality of journalism in this thread, which of these drastic stereotypes should I rant about? Neither.

Maybe, but make sure you remember your "evil cager" stereotypes, too. Many drivers are good and polite, many cities have CMs that are likewise. The OP was meant to inflame passions towards a certain group of strawmen. It seems a great deal of you are stupid enough to fall for it.



(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.)

:beer:

[randya]

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/05/ba_criticalmass.jpg
I dunno, they look like good christian white trash to me...

[AverageCommuter]

Yup. One of them even has a halo.

Oh wait, that's a hair band.

[randya]

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.
hardly worth discussing with you since your mind is obviously made up and closed

[randya]

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.
+100!

[Mos6502]

I like how so many people here can make broad sweeping statements in favor of or opposing CM - when it's different in every city it takes place in.

I've ridden in a few different cities, some are terrible some are fun. My opinion on the whole though, is that so far as promoting the causes of cycling they are completely useless. I've never ridden in CM in SF, though.
But regardless of what has been said to have supposedly happen - the van undoubtedly was damaged and apparently (obviously) not by its owners, but by people participating in CM.
Who cares who did what? Who cares about birthday parties, or what intent, or what caused what. All that matters is the end result.
People damaged property that wasn't theirs. That's the bottom line.
I got hit by a car once, I didn't get up and throw my bike through the vehicles window! (nor did any other cyclists in the area) That's totally ridiculous. Even if the van had hit anybody, there's no reason anybody in CM would have had the right to smash it up like that.

[randya]

On that basis alone I think that the "blogger's" report is suspect. There is no requirement that a person needs an ambulance trip to qualify as injured in an accident. These same "witnesses" claim that the rider was thrown 3-4 feet by the "impact" that resulted in his bike being run over.

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?
In Portland, you need more than an ambulance ride to qualify for a police report/investigation; you need to be transported via ambulance to a level 1 trauma center, with life-threatening injuries. The cops probably aren't 'risking their careers to avoid a bit of paperwork'; rather, they are following 'official procedures' meant to reduce paperwork.

[0_emissions :=)]

Susan Ferrando, her husband, their two children and three preteens had come to San Francisco from Redwood City to celebrate the birthday of Ferrando's 11-year-old daughter.


All the while, Ferrando was screaming, "There are children in this car! There are children in this car!"


Regardless of whatever else happened, the fact that small children were in the vehicle, terrified out of their wits, irresponsible and just plain stupid. This isn't activism, this is terrorism.
These morons really need to grow up.

[dobber]

I dunno, they look like good christian white trash to me...

then followed by

hardly worth discussing with you since your mind is obviously made up and closed

Gee, who's narrow and close minded?

[Daily Commute]

I got started on BF defending Critical Mass, I participated for two or three years +/- and the only riots I ever saw on the ride were police riots. OTOH, I did see a motorist run over a bicycle (fortunately the rider got out of the way) in clear view of the police, who did absolutely nothing in response. IMO, the motorist in SF must have done something to provoke the cyclists that wasn't reported in the original opinion piece.
I read about this incident somewhere else. (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/warfare_on_the_streets_of_san.html) The cyclists reported that the motorist basically rammed one of them, and then tried to get away:

Bicyclists who witnessed the event countered that Ferrando had accelerated recklessly through a crowd of riders, hitting one and knocking him from his bike, then attempted to flee the scene before riders surrounded the vehicle. They complained that police didn't charge her with a crime.