Google sponsored links
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
[
6]
7
8
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.
In NYC, an ambulance ride is absolutely a requirement. Not in print anywhere I've been able to find it, but in practice. I have no experience with SFO, so it may not be the case there.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
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.
I have my suspicions that a certain bird who's new around here - and particularly offensive - might be a "friend" of some more-familiar poster. Might not be HH... but then again, who knows?
I dunno, they look like good christian white trash to me...
Maybe it's just the beady eyes, but I suspect the family tree might not have an excess of branches...
I have mixed feelings about this incident as reported on the blog and in the paper. On one hand, my gut wants motorists to fear that every cyclist might go medieval on their car if the driver passes to closely or cuts the cyclist off. I think that could help keep the drivers a little farther away from us.
On the other hand, cyclists generally lose most physical confrontations between car drivers and cyclists. Further, vigilante cycling can lead to arrest for the vigilante and more restrictive laws for the rest of us. And finally, escalating a conflict is usually the stupid thing to do.
...and since no one is "responsible" for CM the lucky owner of the van gets to deal with the trauma laid onto their children and the cost of the insurance deductible and the eventual rise in their annual insurance rates. Those CM riders taught her! Now she's surely going to advocate cycling! :rolleyes:
As a parent with a scared child and no idea what this mob would do to her or me I'd have no problem mashing the gas to get out of the situation to save my kid. If cyclists got in the way then tough cookies! My daughter is more important to me than a crazy mob. I'd feel sorry for them later on but at that moment my only thought is my child's safety. Maybe I'd think differently if I wsn't a parent but I am and that's what I feel.
Furthermore, if the rider that was hit was not hurt, nor was his bike damaged then there was no reason for an attack. It seems to me that there was a lot of miscommunication on the part of the mob. A guy gets accidentally tapped, someone else sees it as well and says to his buddy, hey that van hit that rider... then the guy next to him overhears and tells his buddy that the van ran over a rider... then the next person that overhears tells his buddy that the van blantantly ran over that bicyclist... and so on... so it stirs anger amongst the crowd and one guy decides to pound the van, and the next guy follows and so on until it's mass hysteria... I bet that's how it started!
All become responsible. Using the RICO statutes, ALL members of the corrupt organization become jointly and severably liable. The family should find an enterprising attorney who should be able to get some portion of the CM mob served and collect the damages for the attack and pursue significant punative damages.
Why is it a lightning rod for law-abiding cyclists? Read this (http://www.scorcher.org/cmhistory/howto.html):
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 [I]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.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But, a motorist only has a right of way to proceed through a green light when the intersection is clear of all other traffic, according to California Highway Regulations (I included the text from the California Drivers' Manual in an earlier reply). Ask yourself this: if the intersection was blocked by a tractor trailer with an extra long trailer, would she have insisted on going through the intersection---assuming, of course, that that is what actually happened---because it was a green light? No. But because it was just some cyclists blocking her path and she has the bigger, heavier and faster vehicle, she decided to exercise her perceived right. The police should have cited her for that---if, of course, that is what she did and we don't really know for certain that she did---as well as striking a vehicle if she had done that as well. Perhaps a charge of reckless endangerment might have been appropriate as well---if she did enter the intersection illegally---for putting the children and cyclists at risk.
Don't get me wrong, the over-reacting violent cyclist(s) should also have been charged. But, if the motorist shared any responsibility, she should be accountable for it.
If the motorist entered the intersection whether it was occupied (legally or not), she was in the wrong AND sahe unnecessarily and knowingly put the children in a dangerous situation.
...and since no one is "responsible" for CM the lucky owner of the van gets to deal with the trauma laid onto their children and the cost of the insurance deductible and the eventual rise in their annual insurance rates. Those CM riders taught her! Now she's surely going to advocate cycling! :rolleyes:
As a parent with a scared child and no idea what this mob would do to her or me I'd have no problem mashing the gas to get out of the situation to save my kid. If cyclists got in the way then tough cookies! My daughter is more important to me than a crazy mob. I'd feel sorry for them later on but at that moment my only thought is my child's safety. Maybe I'd think differently if I wsn't a parent but I am and that's what I feel.
Furthermore, if the rider that was hit was not hurt, nor was his bike damaged then there was no reason for an attack. It seems to me that there was a lot of miscommunication on the part of the mob. A guy gets accidentally tapped, someone else sees it as well and says to his buddy, hey that van hit that rider... then the guy next to him overhears and tells his buddy that the van ran over a rider... then the next person that overhears tells his buddy that the van blantantly ran over that bicyclist... and so on... so it stirs anger amongst the crowd and one guy decides to pound the van, and the next guy follows and so on until it's mass hysteria... I bet that's how it started!
Setting aside your assumptions that the innocent driver 'tapped' the cyclist (a tap or a hit are the same things in the eyes of the law), there is reason to believe the driver came into contact with the cyclist as a result of her own actions: either entering the intersection while it was occupied (illegal under rules of the road for California even if she had a green light), her actions endangered the children. If she did enter the intersection and she did make contact with the cyclist and still tried to proceed through afterward---as was originally reported---then she provoked the situation and unnecessarily put the children in danger.
Setting aside your assumptions that the innocent driver 'tapped' the cyclist (a tap or a hit are the same things in the eyes of the law), there is reason to believe the driver came into contact with the cyclist as a result of her own actions: either entering the intersection while it was occupied (illegal under rules of the road for California even if she had a green light), her actions endangered the children. If she did enter the intersection and she did make contact with the cyclist and still tried to proceed through afterward---as was originally reported---then she provoked the situation and unnecessarily put the children in danger.
When all else fails, blame the victim.
All become responsible. Using the RICO statutes, ALL members of the corrupt organization become jointly and severably liable. The family should find an enterprising attorney who should be able to get some portion of the CM mob served and collect the damages for the attack and pursue significant punative damages.
Of course, she might then be sued for ramming the cyclist. Neither side comes out of this looking good. It appears that the motorist ran into the cyclist and then tried to flee. It would have been perfectly honorable for the cyclists to merely make sure she didn't flee, but by breaking her window, the cyclists descended to her level.
When all else fails, blame the victim.
That's the problem, the driver started out by making a vicitm out of the cyclist she rammed. So it would be fair to say the you and the driver are blaming the victim.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But, a motorist only has a right of way to proceed through a green light when the intersection is clear of all other traffic, according to California Highway Regulations (I included the text from the California Drivers' Manual in an earlier reply). Ask yourself this: if the intersection was blocked by a tractor trailer with an extra long trailer, would she have insisted on going through the intersection---assuming, of course, that that is what actually happened---because it was a green light? No. But because it was just some cyclists blocking her path and she has the bigger, heavier and faster vehicle, she decided to exercise her perceived right. The police should have cited her for that---if, of course, that is what she did and we don't really know for certain that she did---as well as striking a vehicle if she had done that as well. Perhaps a charge of reckless endangerment might have been appropriate as well---if she did enter the intersection illegally---for putting the children and cyclists at risk.
Don't get me wrong, the over-reacting violent cyclist(s) should also have been charged. But, if the motorist shared any responsibility, she should be accountable for it.
If the motorist entered the intersection whether it was occupied (legally or not), she was in the wrong AND sahe unnecessarily and knowingly put the children in a dangerous situation.
The difference here is that the cyclists claim that she made it onto the street okay, but about a block later when she tried to go around some other riders is when the cyclist was hit. A lot of people around here have a habit of not completely changing lanes before they pass a vehicle, but coming very close to the left rear corner of the one they are passing AS they change lanes. Many times a day while driving I expect to get my left rear taillight taken out like this.
I'd still like to see a news organization pull the copies of the 911 calls under the Freedom of Information Act.
When all else fails, blame the victim.
Prove she was a victim.
Easy statement to say when you don't know if she was a victim or the instigator.
Prove she was a victim.
Easy statement to say when you don't know if she was a victim or the instigator.
There was a large hole where the rear window of her van was?
There's infinitely more physical proof of her being the victim than there is of any unknown, unamed, bicyclist being the victim.
We have a damaged van that belongs to an actual, identified individual.
And on the other hand we have? uh? What? Second hand accounts, speculation and conjecture?
There was a large hole where the rear window of her van was?
There's infinitely more physical proof of her being the victim than there is of any unknown, unamed, bicyclist being the victim.
We have a damaged van that belongs to an actual, identified individual.
And on the other hand we have? uh? What? Second hand accounts, speculation and conjecture?
Of course she was the instigator.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/08/BAG0SP504J1.DTL
Another run-in with Critical Mass
Shattered window of family car wasn't only encounter -- limo had harrowing clash, too
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Matier & Ross
Matier and Ross page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make of it as you will, but there was another ugly confrontation during the last Critical Mass ride in San Francisco, not just the one involving a Redwood City family celebrating a birthday in Japantown.
Motorists and bike riders alike have been up in arms since our yarn Wednesday about bicyclists shattering the back window of a car that had unwittingly found itself in the middle of a pedaling Critical Mass pack. Motorists were outraged over the conduct of the cyclists; the riders insist they got a bum rap for a driver they thought should have been arrested for hit-and-run.
Whatever the case, this type of scrape isn't exactly unheard of.
It turns out that a couple of hours before the Japantown incident, about 7 p.m. March 30, a limousine driver had a run-in with a Critical Mass cyclist down in the Tenderloin.
The result: one dented limo hood, one limo tire slashed and one Critical Mass rider getting booked for felony malicious mischief.
Limo driver Dennis Webb, 46, told us it all started when he was driving a group of four young women to a club South of Market and a female bicyclist blocked his limo on Hyde Street, near McAllister. Webb said he leaned out the window and asked the cyclist to move. Instead, according to the police report, the cyclist got off her bike, unwrapped a lollypop and started licking it.
Webb said he got out of his car to talk to her when another male rider also pulled in front of his limo.
After briefly exchanging words with the man, Webb said he grabbed the male cyclist's bike and tried to pull it out of the way. He then got back into his limo in hopes of going around the riders.
Before he could move, however, Webb said another cyclist -- who he later identified to police as 31-year-old Gabriel Nugent -- smacked into the front driver's side of his car, then punched the hood with a u-shape bicycle lock, denting it.
Cyclist Nugent, however, told officers that he only hit the car with his lock after Webb had gunned his engine.
No one disputes that after the limo was struck, driver Webb grabbed Nugent's bike, apparently to keep the cyclist from leaving until the cops could be summoned.
In the meantime, according to officers we interviewed, other cyclists surrounded the limo driver and one knocked his cell phone to the ground.
Eileen Shields, a San Francisco Health Department spokeswoman who was participating in the ride along with other members of the department, told us she passed by just as things were getting ugly.
Shields said the driver was trying to elude about eight cyclists who had surrounded him and who were chanting, "He tried to run him over, he tried to run him over ...''
Next there was a loud pop -- as someone slashed the limo's tire.
According to Sgt. Gavin McEachern, who was among the officers who arrived at the scene, an unidentified bicyclist reached into the front seat of Webb's limo and stole his keys from the ignition, then rode off. Webb was stranded, and his limo blocked traffic in the street for two hours before it could finally be towed.
After interviewing everyone involved and a number of witnesses, police took the bike lock into evidence and arrested Nugent on charges of felony malicious mischief and impeding traffic. A spokesperson for the district attorney said Nugent was later released on $20,100 bail and is scheduled to appear in court May 11 on a reduced misdemeanor charge. Nugent did not return phone calls Friday seeking comment.
"It saddened me to watch this, and a lot of people stopped (to observe),'' the Health Department's Shields said. "A lot felt what was happening to the driver was terrible.''
Shields said it had started out as a beautiful evening, and she and friends were excited about participating in the ride, which drew anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 riders to Justin Herman Plaza at the start.
"Everyone was in a great mood,'' she said.
But while many people waved to the riders as they crossed through downtown, Shields said there was a noticeable tension in the air when the cyclists pedaled past Union Square, where a number of motorists stuck in traffic began honking their horns.
"That just invites guys with attitudes to pound on the cars,'' she said. "It really saddens me that this element is part of Critical Mass.''
Webb, who has been driving for 30 years, said he had never even heard of the group until his run-in. "But I tell people about them now,'' he said.
Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told us she was unaware of the episode, but said, "We don't condone violence on our streets anytime, whether during a Critical Mass ride or anytime."
She added, "Most people know that 99 percent of bicyclists and drivers do the right thing, and there's always 1 percent who cause problems for all of us.''
There was a large hole where the rear window of her van was?
There's infinitely more physical proof of her being the victim than there is of any unknown, unamed, bicyclist being the victim.
We have a damaged van that belongs to an actual, identified individual.
And on the other hand we have? uh? What? Second hand accounts, speculation and conjecture?
How do you know she didn't ram the cyclist first? The hole in her windshield only shows that there was one idiot cyclist around. It does nothing to disprove the allegation that she tried to get away with a hit-and-run on a cyclist.
The worst thing about the cycist violence (which may have been retaliatory in both cases) is that it lets drivers off the hook for more serious crime. And yes, I think it's a more serious crime to ram a cyclist and to trie to run away than to damage property. Both are crimes, but ramming cyclists puts lives at risk.
Both sides need to calm down. Motorists need to try to avoid CM rallies, which are the same time each month. Motorists also need to not honk or try to force their way through the cyclists. Cyclists need to be reasonable about letting motorists through. And if a motorist does hit a cyclist, cyclists need to stay peaceful until the police arrive. Better yet, get the license number, let the driver get away, and file a police report later.
Of course, she might then be sued for ramming the cyclist. Neither side comes out of this looking good. It appears that the motorist ran into the cyclist and then tried to flee. It would have been perfectly honorable for the cyclists to merely make sure she didn't flee, but by breaking her window, the cyclists descended to her level.
That's the problem, the driver started out by making a vicitm out of the cyclist she rammed. So it would be fair to say the you and the driver are blaming the victim.
A hypo a Tort professor would when making up an exam. :beer: :roflmao:
How do you know she didn't ram the cyclist first?
I don't know. But I do know that there is absolutely no proof other than second hand accounts in favor of it.
It doesn't matter if she did instigate or not. We don't live in a 3 stooges, laurel and hardy society. When somebody messes up something of yours you don't go over to them and mess up something of theirs even more. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for anybody that was there to have done this - or to have let others do it. NONE.
Also it's absolutely inane to say motorists have to make way for critical mass. They don't. A person in a car has just as much right to use the road when they want, where they want as any cyclist, whether there be one cyclist or a 1000.
People in cars never stop in front of me when I ride my bike and tell me I can't ride here right now, because there's 1000 cars trying to use the road right now. That's downright ridiculous.
I don't know. But I do know that there is absolutely no proof other than second hand accounts in favor of it.
It doesn't matter if she did instigate or not. We don't live in a 3 stooges, laurel and hardy society. When somebody messes up something of yours you don't go over to them and mess up something of theirs even more. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for anybody that was there to have done this - or to have let others do it. NONE.
Also it's absolutely inane to say motorists have to make way for critical mass. They don't. A person in a car has just as much right to use the road when they want, where they want as any cyclist, whether there be one cyclist or a 1000.
People in cars never stop in front of me when I ride my bike and tell me I can't ride here right now, because there's 1000 cars trying to use the road right now. That's downright ridiculous.
Smashing the window makes the motorist a victim of violence, agreed. I haven't disputed that. But, what provoked the cyclists is in question. Did the motorist do more than 'tap' the cyclist? Did the motorist, in fact, strike the cyclist? Did the motorist enter the intersection while cyclists occupied the intersection whether the motorist had a green light or not? If the motorist remained still and waited until it was clear and safe to go, there should not have been a situation. However, the media accounts have stated that she inched forward while surrounded by cyclists and that, my friend, is illegal.
And, by the way, it is not inane to suggest a motorist cannot go when they want. A motorist has the privelege of using the road when it is safe and appropriate to do so and a green light does not mean it is safe to go. A motorist is NOT entitled to exercise their 'right' to go when the intersection is occupied, as stated in the California Drivers' Handbook. A vehicle may only proceed through an intersection when it is safe to do so. If she entered the intersection while it was being corked, the motorist has violated the law. Sorry, if you don't like it, but that is the law almost everywhere, not just California. I get delayed by cars blocking intersections regularly. In essence, they are telling me I can't use the road because...well, they're on it at the moment and I just have to wait or find a detour around the blockage.
What is ridiculous, is the suggestion that the motorist has the right to ram her way through, as you suggest, regardless of the carnage that she might cause. How does that make any sense to you?
So you believe positively, that if 1000 motorists decided that they were going to have the automotive equivalent of critical mass, that they should be able to block all other vehicles, while they run red lights?
Sounds pretty asinine to me.
edit:
And further, that while it is illegal for a vehicle to pull into the intersection while another vehicle is occupying it (which I won't debate) ~ but that it's perfectly ok in your opinion for vehicles to run that red light and occupy the intersection illegally in the first place?
Where's the logic in that?
So you believe positively, that if 1000 motorists decided that they were going to have the automotive equivalent of critical mass, that they should be able to block all other vehicles, while they run red lights?
Sounds pretty asinine to me.
edit:
And further, that while it is illegal for a vehicle to pull into the intersection while another vehicle is occupying it (which I won't debate) ~ but that it's perfectly ok in your opinion for vehicles to run that red light and occupy the intersection illegally in the first place?
Where's the logic in that?
It's not whether I agree with or believe positively that is of any consequence. The law states positively that one vehicle cannot proceed if another vehicle---bike, car, truck, whatever---is in its' path. If there is an unreasonable liklihood that others will be endangered by proceeding, the law says remain still. Common sense really.
Cars, whether organized or independant, block intersections all the time and, yes, that too is illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that the crossing traffic is forbidden to proceed through the intersection whether the occupiers of the lane are there legally or not. Just because they are commiting an illegal act, that doesn't justify you commiting an illegal act in turn.
I don't know where you got that I approve of amber or red light runners blocking intersections. I have posted a number of times in this thread that it happens, but I don't like it nor do I approve. But if I am in semi and my light turns green but there is a car half-blocking my lane I don't crush his car simply because it's my turn to go and he's in the way. The law says I must wait and proceed when it's safe to go. Might not be fair, but those are the rules.
I'm really surprised this isn't known by everyone here. Most of us are licensed drivers, after all, and we should know the rules of the road.
Just because they are commiting an illegal act, that doesn't justify you commiting an illegal act in turn.
Exactly my point. So it makes absolutely no difference who may have "instigated" (although there is still NO proof that the driver did instigate anything) there was absolutely no reason anybody should have attacked their vehicle, whether they had "instigated" anything or not.
As a cyclist of some 20 years, I really wish that those retards who spoil the fun for everyone else (aka the militant bunch within the CM rides) go find some other way to vent their angst. Don't pi$$ off a few dozen motorists on a Friday evening only to leave then oh-so-full of hate the next time they see a cyclist out on the streets.....
... why should I have to be on the receiving end of a "oh.... another f$%king cyclist" incident?
If there was a fund/charity to where you could donate to the Police in SF such that they could afford to just round up these "Friday Night Fu#ktards" by the bus load and stick them in the slammer, I'd probably donate a whole bundle of cash to SFPD's finest.
If all the CM riders were like that I'd take pleasure in throwing thousands of thumb tacks/pins out into the bunch of riders on a Friday night.... but they aren't - thankfully.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If... and that's still at question.. that lady did hit a cyclist (and it really couldn't have been all that hard as a 3000lb van only needs to be moving a 2 mph to trash a back wheel) then that still does not warrant someone throwing a bike through the back window.
I don't know. But I do know that there is absolutely no proof other than second hand accounts in favor of it.
It doesn't matter if she did instigate or not. We don't live in a 3 stooges, laurel and hardy society. When somebody messes up something of yours you don't go over to them and mess up something of theirs even more. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for anybody that was there to have done this - or to have let others do it. NONE.
Also it's absolutely inane to say motorists have to make way for critical mass. They don't. A person in a car has just as much right to use the road when they want, where they want as any cyclist, whether there be one cyclist or a 1000.
People in cars never stop in front of me when I ride my bike and tell me I can't ride here right now, because there's 1000 cars trying to use the road right now. That's downright ridiculous.
I've repeatedly said it was wrong for cyclists to break her window. But it was less bad than her ramming a cyclist. There are multiple reports of the ramming. Yes, we don't have a broken window as evidence, but so what? I haven't seen anyplace where the driver has denied it. Have you?
As to stopping for the cyclists, as others pointed out, even if you are illegally in an intersection, other traffic is not allowed to ram you. Motorists caught up in CM have two choices, wait patiently or try to plow through aggressively. Motorists would be wise to wait paitently.
Make of it as you will, but there was another ugly confrontation during the last Critical Mass ride in San Francisco, not just the one involving a Redwood City family celebrating a birthday in Japantown.
Opps.............
There are many large cycling events that wreak far more havoc on traffic, yet somehow they consistently generate overwhelmingly positive press and are viewed mostly favorably in the cycling community as are the organizations that sponsor them.
Take the STP for example. Up to 9,000 riders go through Seattle and Portland -- both cities have fairly hopeless traffic situations even under normal circumstances. You don't hear too many people saying what idiots members of the Cascade Bicycle Club are, or how they shouldn't put on large events that block traffic.
Can't imagine why no one else seems to have the problems that dog CM events. Coincidence undoubtedly.....
BTW, if arrangements are made in advance, you can often block intersections to keep everyone together if you feel unsafe riding in the street like a normal cyclist. You can even keep the cars from harassing you. Just get a parade permit.
Take the STP for example. Up to 9,000 riders go through Seattle and Portland -- both cities have fairly hopeless traffic situations even under normal circumstances. You don't hear too many people saying what idiots members of the Cascade Bicycle Club are, or how they shouldn't put on large events that block traffic.
If you've ever talked to cyclists that rode the STP you would know that each year there are multiple incidents of motorist harassement on the STP. Furthermore, the STP takes place largely in rural west-southwest Washington; it is not an urban ride, so your analogy is pretty weak.
I have to ask: is the article a true depiction of what CM is really all about? Is there balanced reporting? Do the uneventful CM rides attract journalists, or just ones in which a crime is committed?
As a cyclist of some 20 years, I really wish that those retards who spoil the fun for everyone else (aka the militant bunch within the CM rides) go find some other way to vent their angst. Don't pi$$ off a few dozen motorists on a Friday evening only to leave then oh-so-full of hate the next time they see a cyclist out on the streets.....
... why should I have to be on the receiving end of a "oh.... another f$%king cyclist" incident?
If there was a fund/charity to where you could donate to the Police in SF such that they could afford to just round up these "Friday Night Fu#ktards" by the bus load and stick them in the slammer, I'd probably donate a whole bundle of cash to SFPD's finest.
If all the CM riders were like that I'd take pleasure in throwing thousands of thumb tacks/pins out into the bunch of riders on a Friday night.... but they aren't - thankfully.
Two wrongs don't make a right. If... and that's still at question.. that lady did hit a cyclist (and it really couldn't have been all that hard as a 3000lb van only needs to be moving a 2 mph to trash a back wheel) then that still does not warrant someone throwing a bike through the back window.
What i dont understand is.. If you equate one *****hole bicyclist throwing a bike through a window with ALL of CM, why dont you equate one *****hole driver who rams a cyclist with ALL SF autodrivers and call for the police to round all of them up?
There are many large cycling events that wreak far more havoc on traffic, yet somehow they consistently generate overwhelmingly positive press and are viewed mostly favorably in the cycling community as are the organizations that sponsor them.
Take the STP for example. Up to 9,000 riders go through Seattle and Portland -- both cities have fairly hopeless traffic situations even under normal circumstances. You don't hear too many people saying what idiots members of the Cascade Bicycle Club are, or how they shouldn't put on large events that block traffic.
Can't imagine why no one else seems to have the problems that dog CM events. Coincidence undoubtedly.....
BTW, if arrangements are made in advance, you can often block intersections to keep everyone together if you feel unsafe riding in the street like a normal cyclist. You can even keep the cars from harassing you. Just get a parade permit.
Yes... that is the point.
the CM in SF had No permit and hence was illegal to begin with. The entire group broke a dozen of laws (running lights, attacking van and limo, etc). The reason why they broke the law is questionable at best since it was an un-authorized event and the evidents that they claim against driver, van and limo, had no clear proof, only he said, she said stuff.
If other CM were more peacefull, then it would be great for the cycling community. However, this one incident has now gotten press/media attention and will only harm the cycling community's image. Its ok to defend the CM participant else where that does the event peacefully. However, defending the CM participant in SF go against the idea of safety and peaceful co-existant between motorist and cyclist.
if however, one must dominate. we all know for sure it will be the motorist. so, lets try the peaceful co-existant method.
As an occasional Critical Mass participant and San Francisco resident here's my two cents...
My girlfriend and I avoided that critical mass to go on our own ride down to Ocean Beach through Golden Gate Park, around Lake Merced and back home to the Panhandle. On one hand I was a little disappointed that we didn't attend because I heard later that they finally started changing up the route, on the other we got in a nice ride.
The reason we didn't go is because we were tired of standing around gridlocked on our bikes while a handful of people who dare to call themselves cyclists yell inane chants like "Bomb hills not countries," taunting motorists idling their cars.
The first few times we attended Critical Mass it was a lot of fun - being able to fly down the small hill approaching the Embracadero coming out of the Broadway Tunnel among hundreds of other cyclists gave me a big rush. This is the kind of thing that you can't do at any other time than the last Friday night of every month. It's an exaggerated version of the same carefree feeling you get leisurely spinning through Golden Gate Park on Sundays (when you aren't trying to avoid swerving kids).
So when I heard about this ridiculous debacle I thought something along the lines of "this is exactly why I got turned off of Critical Mass." It was fun when I thought it was about creating a safe time for cyclists to take back the city for one night and spread a cooperative message that bikes belong too, but the more time I spend at Critical Mass the more I feel the antagonism seeping out from both sides, cyclists and motorists. That's precisely the problem with Critical Mass - it's horribly polarized. I hesitate to head downtown on my bike on the last Friday night anymore just because of what I can expect from motorists. I've witnessed morons in SUVs throwing and breaking beer bottles in bike lanes before Critical Masses have started. I've been harrassed, taunted, and nearly purposely hit by big jackasses in trucks who think it's cool to get back at cyclists every fourth Friday. These guys are the kinds of people who are doing what many motorists are thinking, and I can conjure up a picture of what it would look like if thousands of cyclists looking to pick a fight saw this happen, instead of just me.
It's hopelessly idealistic to imagine Critical Mass continuing without rampant antagonism from both ends, but I sure had a whole lot more fun riding my bike before I knew things like this happened.
I'd just like to point out, regardless of any facts, that the initial article was written in a very biased and hackneyed style. Even before you finish reading the title you know what the verdict is going to be (and that there even IS a verdict!)...
If you've ever talked to cyclists that rode the STP you would know that each year there are multiple incidents of motorist harassement on the STP. Furthermore, the STP takes place largely in rural west-southwest Washington; it is not an urban ride, so your analogy is pretty weak.
The STP is a ride that I do every year, so I'm familiar with it. There are isolated incidents of motorist harassment and I have experienced it myself, but it's really tame, particularly if you consider how many people are involved and how it affects traffic.
The STP starts at UW, and ends downtown Portland -- i.e. it basically goes all the way from the edge of each city to the middle. The distance between the cities will have thousands of cyclists strung out mostly on 2 lane roads which pass through a number of towns. The small towns get totally clogged by the cycle traffic. Are you trying to suggest CM events put more distance in urban areas?
The STP is as easy as it gets from a cycling perspective. If you have a problem with how you're treated on that, get a big wheel and stay on the sidewalk.
I'd just like to point out, regardless of any facts, that the initial article was written in a very biased and hackneyed style. Even before you finish reading the title you know what the verdict is going to be (and that there even IS a verdict!)...
So now no matter what the facts are the article is biased? It is just possible that it is an accurate reflection of what happened and in fact even lets the cyclists off lightly.
Oh wait anyhting that depicts any cyclist in a bad light must be biased. I forgot, foolish me.
So now no matter what the facts are the article is biased? It is just possible that it is an accurate reflection of what happened and in fact even lets the cyclists off lightly.
Oh wait anyhting that depicts any cyclist in a bad light must be biased. I forgot, foolish me.
They went to Japantown, where they enjoyed shopping and taking in the blooming cherry blossoms.
Confusion, however, quickly turned to terror, she said, when the swarming cyclists began wildly circling around and then running into the sides of her Toyota van.
The article is quite obviously puts the driver in the position of the victim, downplaying her own irresponsible and erratic behaviour and ignorance. Of course it's biased, it's my job and yours to determine the merit of the facts alone and how they support the argument that the article makes. The tone, demeanor, and content of the article makes it a very questionable source of information.
So now no matter what the facts are the article is biased? It is just possible that it is an accurate reflection of what happened and in fact even lets the cyclists off lightly.
Oh wait anyhting that depicts any cyclist in a bad light must be biased. I forgot, foolish me.
I think you missed my point. It could have been about buying a box of stale cookies, its still written like some bad made for TV movie. It just uses very biased wording and rhetoric.
"It was supposed to be a birthday night out for the kids in San Francisco, but instead turned into a Critical Mass horror show" Honestly, its like a trailer for a bad movie. You should be able to recognize this kind of journalism for what it is, whether you agree with it or not. Its all emotion... Compare this with how the BBC would write about this incident. It would be half the length and not include any of the useless information about this woman and her family, which is really irrelevant and only serves to stir emotions.
I think you missed my point. It could have been about buying a box of stale cookies, its still written like some bad made for TV movie. It just uses very biased wording and rhetoric.
"It was supposed to be a birthday night out for the kids in San Francisco, but instead turned into a Critical Mass horror show" Honestly, its like a trailer for a bad movie. You should be able to recognize this kind of journalism for what it is, whether you agree with it or not. Its all emotion... Compare this with how the BBC would write about this incident. It would be half the length and not include any of the useless information about this woman and her family, which is really irrelevant and only serves to stir emotions.
Just the facts? Sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy. Though honeslty I do agree it is rather poorly written.
well, here is my edited version of the story. Its still no good, but a far sight better than the original. Is that 'riiight' really a part of the article? Damn civic journalism. anyways:
The Critical Mass bike rides, in which thousands of cyclists ride through the city, have been a fixture on the last Friday night of the month since the early 1990s. However, Police, cyclists, drivers and bystanders were surprised by tonight's incident.
Susan Ferrando, her husband and their five children had come to San Francisco from Redwood City. At approximately 9 p.m. she encountered 3,000 cyclists participating in the Critical Mass ride. Ferrando said her car was suddenly surrounded by hundreds of cyclists.
Ferrando says she became confused, and quickly became terrified, when the group of cyclists reportedly surrounded her vehicle and came into contact with the sides of her Toyota van.
Ferrando says she was in a panicked state, and that she started moving her vehicle forwards slowly until coming to a stop at Post and Gough streets, where she was surrounded by cyclists.
Ferrando was prevented from moving forwards as a cyclist was positioned in front of her van. Cyclists then reportedly began pounding on the windshield, side window and side panel with their hands.
"It seemed like they were using their bikes as weapons,'' Ferrando said. One of the cyclists then threw his bike, claims Ferrando, shattering the rear window of her van.
During this time Ferrando was repeatedly screaming, "There are children in this car!"
Ferrando then called the police and soon the squad of motorcycle police who were assigned to the ride arrived at the scene.
The cyclists were reportedly demanding that Ferrando be arrested for a hit and run violation.
According to police, Ferrando had allegedly collided with a cyclist.
When the alleged bicycle victim was approached, he claimed he was uninjured and declined to provide his name or other information. The alleged victim then reportedly swore at someone and left the scene on his bicycle. The remaining crowd then continued to yell at both the police and Ferrando's van.
Sgt. Ed Callejas, the lead officer on the scene and a veteran of Critical Mass rides since their inception said he'd never seen anything like it before.
"I've seen the bikes swarm cars, and scratch them as they go by. I've seen guys get out of their cars and start fighting with the bikers, but if you had seen the faces on those little girls in tears,'' Callejas said. "All I could do was apologize for what they had been through."
The sergeant suggested that Ferrando write a letter to the mayor.
Estimated damage to the car: $5,300.
The city tries to ignore the unplanned Critical Mass rides, but there are always police on hand to monitor the gatherings, even though any kind of traffic planning is impossible because no route is announced. Critical Mass has no organized leadership so no one person can be held accountable for the group's actions.
In 1997, then-Mayor Willie Brown tried to control the rides. The result had been described as anarchy and mass arrests.
Since then, the rides have shrunk in size. The city's generally hands-off attitude leaves police confused.
"We sit there and they just go right through the red lights,'' Sgt. Callejas said. "What else can we do? Arrest one rider while 500 keep going?
"The only way to control this is through a massive effort by police and the Sheriff's Department,'' he said.
As for reaction from City Hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom said such acts of violence -- if true -- "only serve to undermine the worthwhile message of Critical Mass, which is to raise the awareness of bike transportation issues."
The mayor also said that -- if the charges are grounded -- he expected the attackers to be "punished to the greatest extent of the law."
Just look how the article emphasizes the "woman and her children" part of the story... the fact that her husband was in the vehicle is only mentioned once and then quickly forgotten... why? To emphasize the "helplessness" of the poor isolated woman and children.
Just look how the article emphasizes the "woman and her children" part of the story... the fact that her husband was in the vehicle is only mentioned once and then quickly forgotten... why? To emphasize the "helplessness" of the poor isolated woman and children.
I guess the writers figure that women are basically children. I hadn't noticed how sexist the article was.
An interesting way of doing it. I'd point out that this is just as biased as the original piece, but honeslty a lot more subtle. There is a legit side to focusing on the perspective of the people in the van. Often what a writer tries to do is place the reader in the same position as someone who was involved.
I think you may have gone a bit too far in the other direction. The focus is now CM. If I were a reporter doing that I'd use both incidents that happened in one CM. That would be rather d@mning.
How many people would object to a lead in whose tone was exactly the same as the one in the original article. but from the other side? (Think cyclist going on ride that ends in crash..)
But overall I'd say your article is a better than the original, though you may well be using information not available at the time. My one suggestion would be to move the opening paragraph down to below her confusion and then not mention CM by name until then. Capturing a bit of her surprise is a legitimate part of writing. With CM the opener that is gone.
The closing sentence is rubbish for when the original was written as the biker who had broken the window left and was not known.
well, here is my edited version of the story. Its still no good, but a far sight better than the original. Is that 'riiight' really a part of the article? Damn civic journalism. anyways:
The Critical Mass bike rides, in which thousands of cyclists ride through the city, have been a fixture on the last Friday night of the month since the early 1990s. However, Police, cyclists, drivers and bystanders were surprised by tonight's incident.
Susan Ferrando, her husband and their five children had come to San Francisco from Redwood City. At approximately 9 p.m. she encountered 3,000 cyclists participating in the Critical Mass ride. Ferrando said her car was suddenly surrounded by hundreds of cyclists.
Ferrando says she became confused, and quickly became terrified, when the group of cyclists reportedly surrounded her vehicle and came into contact with the sides of her Toyota van.
Ferrando says she was in a panicked state, and that she started moving her vehicle forwards slowly until coming to a stop at Post and Gough streets, where she was surrounded by cyclists.
Ferrando was prevented from moving forwards as a cyclist was positioned in front of her van. Cyclists then reportedly began pounding on the windshield, side window and side panel with their hands.
"It seemed like they were using their bikes as weapons,'' Ferrando said. One of the cyclists then threw his bike, claims Ferrando, shattering the rear window of her van.
During this time Ferrando was repeatedly screaming, "There are children in this car!"
Ferrando then called the police and soon the squad of motorcycle police who were assigned to the ride arrived at the scene.
The cyclists were reportedly demanding that Ferrando be arrested for a hit and run violation.
According to police, Ferrando had allegedly collided with a cyclist.
When the alleged bicycle victim was approached, he claimed he was uninjured and declined to provide his name or other information. The alleged victim then reportedly swore at someone and left the scene on his bicycle. The remaining crowd then continued to yell at both the police and Ferrando's van.
Sgt. Ed Callejas, the lead officer on the scene and a veteran of Critical Mass rides since their inception said he'd never seen anything like it before.
"I've seen the bikes swarm cars, and scratch them as they go by. I've seen guys get out of their cars and start fighting with the bikers, but if you had seen the faces on those little girls in tears,'' Callejas said. "All I could do was apologize for what they had been through."
The sergeant suggested that Ferrando write a letter to the mayor.
Estimated damage to the car: $5,300.
The city tries to ignore the unplanned Critical Mass rides, but there are always police on hand to monitor the gatherings, even though any kind of traffic planning is impossible because no route is announced. Critical Mass has no organized leadership so no one person can be held accountable for the group's actions.
In 1997, then-Mayor Willie Brown tried to control the rides. The result had been described as anarchy and mass arrests.
Since then, the rides have shrunk in size. The city's generally hands-off attitude leaves police confused.
"We sit there and they just go right through the red lights,'' Sgt. Callejas said. "What else can we do? Arrest one rider while 500 keep going?
"The only way to control this is through a massive effort by police and the Sheriff's Department,'' he said.
As for reaction from City Hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom said such acts of violence -- if true -- "only serve to undermine the worthwhile message of Critical Mass, which is to raise the awareness of bike transportation issues."
The mayor also said that -- if the charges are grounded -- he expected the attackers to be "punished to the greatest extent of the law."
I have to ask: is the article a true depiction of what CM is really all about? Is there balanced reporting? Do the uneventful CM rides attract journalists, or just ones in which a crime is committed?
When thousands of people get together like that, there's going to be some kind of problem. Other big rides in urban areas get permits and have police help with the route.
There is a backlash starting in the bicycle community here. They are advertising for a Critical Manners ride this Friday in San Francisco. We'll see if it is invaded by riders that don't want to follow the proposed rules. They will ride single file, wear helmets, and stop for stop signs and traffic lights.
From the posts I keep seeing, people are confusing what the cyclists say happened. The driver did not supposedly strike a cyclist while getting onto a street at an intersection, she got onto the street okay, then the accident supposedly happened a block later, while they were traveling the same direction.
From the posts I keep seeing, people are confusing what the cyclists say happened. The driver did not supposedly strike a cyclist while getting onto a street at an intersection, she got onto the street okay, then the accident supposedly happened a block later, while they were traveling the same direction.
Really, what's the difference?
Really, what's the difference?
Arguing over whether or not she could proceed while cyclists were blocking an intersection in front of her, bullying her way through, versus what the cyclists say was a bad driving maneuver that resulted in an accident.
I still find it ironic that Critical Mass is mentioned in the part of the forums for Advocacy and Saftey.... That's kinda like lumping chalk in with the cheese or pouring oil in water. From the rides that I've seen I've yet to see anything safe or worthy of prompting cycling in any way shape or form....
I still find it ironic that Critical Mass is mentioned in the part of the forums for Advocacy and Saftey.... That's kinda like lumping chalk in with the cheese or pouring oil in water. From the rides that I've seen I've yet to see anything safe or worthy of prompting cycling in any way shape or form....
This applies in your case, too (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4207097&postcount=100)
What i dont understand is.. If you equate one *****hole bicyclist throwing a bike through a window with ALL of CM, why dont you equate one *****hole driver who rams a cyclist with ALL SF autodrivers and call for the police to round all of them up?
... as quoted by someone who's probably never witnessed a CM ride.
I was regulary "stuck" in SF on the Fridays that the rides took place trying to get home and you'd patiently wait for 20 minutes until all the riders finished breaking the law by just flying through all the red lights. On top of that a large number of riders would make comments that really aren't "socially acceptable" if you get my drift plus a few choice gestures - I'm sure that if I addressed your parents or children along the lines of "stop using oil and excercise you fat f$%k" you may not be best pleased. Well, I'm neither fat nor does my little two seater beltch as much polutants into the atmosphere as half of the 1960's VW camper vans used as transportation by said riders. Anyway, the biscuit comes when the odd water bottle comes flying your way....
What gives?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I though the idea of such rides was to increase awareness of cycling and promote its virtues. If pissing off all and sundry and acting like the poor stepchildren to the Hells Angels (well more like the spoiled brat of a child that's been told no by mommy, version) then I guess they're doing a great job.
Oh, I get it, you're just trolling, never mind then!
San Francisco is a lost cause--for drivers. That city, and I mean the city proper, not the county or region, is so geographically constrained that it ran out of room for more cars about 1950. Mayor Newsom should grow some balls and propose a limit to the number of motor vehicles allowed in the city.
San Francisco drivers deserve whatever they get.
When thousands of people get together like that, there's going to be some kind of problem. Other big rides in urban areas get permits and have police help with the route.
There is a backlash starting in the bicycle community here. They are advertising for a Critical Manners ride this Friday in San Francisco. We'll see if it is invaded by riders that don't want to follow the proposed rules. They will ride single file, wear helmets, and stop for stop signs and traffic lights.
From the posts I keep seeing, people are confusing what the cyclists say happened. The driver did not supposedly strike a cyclist while getting onto a street at an intersection, she got onto the street okay, then the accident supposedly happened a block later, while they were traveling the same direction.
Can you post more information about this ride? Or a link to information about this ride. I might just ride along.
Thanks.
Michael
Can you post more information about this ride? Or a link to information about this ride. I might just ride along.
Thanks.
Michael
Critical Manners
Fri., Apr. 13 | 5:30pm meet, 6:00pm start, Northeast corner of Larkin & Grove*
Critical Manners: a revolutionary act of courtesy. Come put the nice back in the bike world with critical manners! A helmet-wearing, bell-ringing, blinkie-sportin' good time for you and all your bike friends. Practice synchronized signaling, single file riding, stopping at stop signs and NOT blowing red lights. Critical Manners will brake for pedestrians, trolleys, and even the occasional SUV. If you've ridden in Critical Mass, you know about the "testosterone brigade". Maybe it's time you rode with Critical Manners. We take obedience of the law ridiculously seriously. http://groups.google.com/group/critical-manners-ride-sf
Could be fun, I don't imagine more than a couple dozen people, but I could be wrong.
But doing things right is never fun, or popular!
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.