Critical Mass ride in Buffalo ends in arrests, 9 face felony counts

FOG

I am for cyclists' rights, and incidentally for the right to keep and bear arms. I feel that actions like the Critical Masss rides make about as much sense as the NRA asking everyone to bring a shotgun to downtown DC (not an actual event, just a hypothetical) to drive home the RKBA argument. Neither seems designed to accomplish the purpose intended. On the other hand, Hunters for the Hungry, a program to provide meat to the less fortunate, is much better designed to win adherents. Similarly, we should emphasize the benefits of our cycling to the motorists. We should go to planning meetings with pictures showing how a bicycle takes up much less highway sapace than a car. The alternative is for each of us to be in a car, making the other motorists' traveled way more crowded. Critical Mass does not answer the motorist's question- what's in it for me? We would do better to rely on motorists' self-interest rather than their altruism, we will have much more leverage.

MichaelW

Making Amerika safe for patriotic drivers.

FOG

Originally posted by MichaelW
Making Amerika safe for patriotic drivers.
This appears oversimplistic and insulting. There is nothing wrong with driving or patriotism, and the use of the spelling Amerika appears to be an attempt to link us with organizations with which most of us disagree. If it weren't for the US, you actually would be spelling America with a k because you would be speaking German.

Sailguy

The police are there to keep people safe. If they are making orders it is to keep everyone participating in the event, Critical Mass or otherwise, safe. Disregard for those orders puts everyone in danger, and therefore the police must take action. Are the police to sit by and bark orders and just throw up their hands when nobody listens to those order? No. They need to use force.

My belief after reading this story is that the cyclists were in the wrong. Using methods that disrupt traffic and day-to-day activities to get your message across is selfish and wrong. There are other, far more effective ways. The end goal of cycle advocacy is to have better systems for bicycle transit and increased motorist awareness of cyclists. Motorists will never go away, and no amount of hijacking the streets will make that happen.

The police need to do their jobs. There are not many police officers in any given city, so their job is very difficult. It is important for everyone to work with officers to keep demonstrations trouble-free. For every officer dealing with a disorderly group, there is one less officer able to possibly prevent a serious crime such as rape and/or murder.

Make your points, demonstrate, but do so orderly, and in a manner that allows people to respect your cause. I do not want people to try to run me off the road because of some disrespectful CM ride.

Pete Clark

Originally posted by FOG
...we should emphasize the benefits of our cycling to the motorists. We should go to planning meetings with pictures showing how a bicycle takes up much less highway sapace than a car. The alternative is for each of us to be in a car, making the other motorists' traveled way more crowded. Critical Mass does not answer the motorist's question- what's in it for me? We would do better to rely on motorists' self-interest rather than their altruism, we will have much more leverage.
This makes a lot of sense to me.

McGuillicuddy

Originally posted by FOG
This appears oversimplistic and insulting. There is nothing wrong with driving or patriotism, and the use of the spelling Amerika appears to be an attempt to link us with organizations with which most of us disagree. If it weren't for the US, you actually would be spelling America with a k because you would be speaking German.

Oh please. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

And, strictly speaking, Germany missed it's opportunity to invade England when air superiority could not be established over British skies (see Battle of Britain). Operation Sea Lion was aborted long before the US was dragged into the the war.

McGuillicuddy

Originally posted by bac
This guy ate 3 cycllists and a carbon Trek with Ultegra:

Hehe :D.

I doubt it; you can't get that big on carbon fibre :). Had to be a steel-framed bike.

Pete Clark

Originally posted by FOG
If it weren't for the US, you actually would be spelling America with a k because you would be speaking German.
A bit off-topic, but since you brought it up--

America should actually be offering thanks to the U.K. for standing up to Hitler almost singlehandedly for two years.

Of course, this is inaccurate. Russia stood up to him at the cost of millions of lives, but it would be un-pc to mention that, especially since Stalin made an evil pact with Hitler to plunder eastern Europe. But the common people of Russia paid heavily for Hitler's insanity.

bac

Originally posted by Sailguy
My belief after reading this story is that the cyclists were in the wrong. Using methods that disrupt traffic and day-to-day activities to get your message across is selfish and wrong.

Perhaps, but look @ the publicity/awareness it raised. I certainly wouldn't have known about this event if it weren't for these bikers and their interaction with the police.

One can support the most noble and worthy cause around, but if nobody is listening ... well, what's the point? Sometimes a radical approach is really the only effective means of spreading the word.

Max

I think any community, including cyclists, should have its holiday.

CM is such a holiday. It reminds me the famous 1MAY in Chicago. Perhaps, in 100 years 5JUN will be celebrated as the day when the cyclists stood up for their rights.

I think we should suport our fellow cyclists.

This is the official website of Buffalo:

http://www.ci.buffalo.ny.us

There are plenty of e-mail addresses there. Including mayor's:

amasiello@city-buffalo.com

and council president's:

jpitts@city-buffalo.com

I wrote the e-mail to these officials, where I tried to explain them the CM's noble motives and asked to drop the felony charges.

Pete Clark

Originally posted by Repp5
Critical Mass...

Is this the way to get our voice heard? You be the judge.

Click here for THE STORY (http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030605/1004324.asp)
My strategy is to show motorists that as a cyclist, I can blend with traffic and cooperate with them just as I do when driving a car. Once they see we can get along smoothly, we work together and all flows nicely. Most importantly, this makes my daily commute safer and more pleasureable.

Critical Mass seems to work exactly the opposite. Yet, public demonstration has its place. Is this the way to get cyclists' voice heard? Some people think so. The squeaky wheel gets the grease (or maybe it gets thrown in jail...)

CM is a public demonstration, not a bike ride. I think that when motorists see my cycling behavior day after day, they judge me by my own behavior, not that of CM.

JRA

Critical Mass is conter-productive and, unless they change their confrontational tactics, I don't think any cyclist should support them. It's anarchy. The inmates are running the asylum.

That's what happens when you have an orgainzation that's not an orgainzation. It works for a while but eventually the radicals define the group. That's what will happen to CM.

Rich Clark

Originally posted by FOG
There is nothing wrong with driving or patriotism,

There is a lot wrong with the way automobile ownership has become a religion in the United States, and the "right to drive" it's first article of faith.

There's a lot wrong with the way we defend an activity that kills so many people on a daily basis and contributes so much to the dterioration of our planet.

Dodge has a TV advertising campaign in progress from which this text is taken verbatim:

"Do you want power? 'Get-out-of-my-way-or-I'll-kick-your-butt' power?"

And in our culture, advertising like this is found unobjectionable, even amusing.

Critical Mass's tactics may not be effective, and may even create hostility toward the cause of enstablishing cycling as a legitimate and desirable mode of non-polluting, safe transportation. But let's not kid ourselves that there's a more effective alternative. This is an issue that Americans don't want to hear about, and will respond to with the same hostility that people always feel when their faith is challenged.

RichC

moabrider47

Is this the way to get our voice heard? You be the judge.

Absolutely not. I see this kind of event as about as counter-productive towards the cause that these people claim to stand for as it gets.

CM is such a holiay. It reminds me the famous 1MAY in Chicago. Perhaps, in 100 years 5JUN will be celebrated as the day when the cyclists stood up for their rights.
And from a different poster:
Perhaps, but look @ the publicity/awareness it raised. I certainly wouldn't have known about this event if it weren't for these bikers and their interaction with the police.

The first claim is ridiculous. The majority of these cyclists were not standing up for their rights. If, in their own minds, they were, than they need to get in touch with reality in a serious way. Blockading streets (which other cyclists on the road at the time admit to seeing) is not a way to "blend in" with traffic and raise public awareness of cycling's place on the road. Not to defend the actions of certain irresponsible motorists, but this event gave them yet another reason to be impatient with cyclists. Getting held up from getting somewhere because of a large group of cyclists blocking the road or running lights will only have a negative effect on a motorist's way of thinking regarding cyclists. This was a group of cyclists that not only reinforced the ideas but gave more basis to the complaints of motorists that cyclists block the road and break traffic rules. A large group of riders riding in single file lines and obeying traffic regulations while being polite to motorists and other pedestrians would have had a much more positive effect.

As for the second quote.....
The saying that "any publicity is good publicity" does not hold true here. Imagine yourself as a non-cyclist. After you have finished reading this article, do you have a positive or negative view of cyclists and their rights to their portion of the road? I certainly wouldn't.

This demonstration did nothing productive for a cycling cause that I can think of. While there may have been a few cyclists in the group that had truly meant to improve cycling's reputation, their efforts were destroyed by the acts of members of the group who seemed as though they just wanted to cause trouble. The initial response by the first pair of officers was warranted. From the information gathered by reading the article, the cyclists had been and were in the act of obstructing traffic. When the entire group of cyclists stopped and came back to where the officers were standing with the first two subjects, the officers made the smart decision of calling for more units to respond to the scene. Whether the officers had any reason to fear for their safety at the time or not, they were faced by a large crowd of people who obviously did not agree with their actions. There is no way to tell if the witness accounts (most of which came from cyclists involved in the incident) are biased or not. The overall event, along with stories of other CM rides, seems to be working against the very beliefs that these people claim to stand for. Get a smaller group of riders together and make it your mission to say hello to pedestrians and be models of safe and courtious cyclists. You might not make the paper, but you will have a much more positive effect on the people that you come in contact with. This type of ride might even work - it would simply take better organization, a group of people who really beleive in a cycling-based cause, and an adherance to laws on the part of the cyclists involved. There is obviously a problem with the way that most motorists treat cyclists on the road. Something should be done to draw attention to cyclists' rights. This just isn't the way to do it.
That's my opinion.

-Moab

Edited at 6:53 for grammar.

Mike in KS

i dont think it did much good from what ive read.

now Rich what wrong with a little kick butt power? testosterone drives alot of things even in the biking world how many times have i read about bikers getting a thrill from blowing past others.
I love my old IH Travelall its not as powerfull as some 4x4s out there but its got enough to pull all that metal, our camping gear, my wife, kids, and my self across some places id never try to take a bike. now the bikes might be inside waiting for smoother, more solid ground. ill never give up my binder ill ride my bike so i can afford to drive my polluting, non-safe transportationn where i want. ya know why because i CAN. its not outlawed. and you know what your cars are the end of everything religion inspires those who worship the motorized gods to do? Run the rest of us over......

Now if someone dosent want to own a vehicle, and they can get away with if im glad for them. thats thier right to do want they want, and ill support them, but i wont if they get the attitude that because i drive a ( is it really a suv? i think its to old to fit in that catagory)suv that im to stupid for my own good and they must verbally beat me into the right path. guess what ill scrimp and save to keep going offroading. im most likely going to hell. and im problably doing many other things i shouldnt but as long as its legal i dont forsee any major harm to anyone, i enjoy it. ill do as i please thank you

mechBgon

Originally posted by Pete Clark
My strategy is to show motorists that as a cyclist, I can blend with traffic and cooperate with them just as I do when driving a car. Once they see we can get along smoothly, we work together and all flows nicely. Most importantly, this makes my daily commute safer and more pleasureable.

Critical Mass seems to work exactly the opposite. Yet, public demonstration has its place. Is this the way to get cyclists' voice heard? Some people think so. The squeaky wheel gets the grease (or maybe it gets thrown in jail...)

CM is a public demonstration, not a bike ride. I think that when motorists see my cycling behavior day after day, they judge me by my own behavior, not that of CM. ^ Precisely what he said. If the cycling community wants to begin gaining respect and legitimacy, it begins with the fulfillment of one's duties as a legitimate road user. Be visible, be predictable, be legal, be thoughtful.

That's not to say one must be meek :)

SamDaBikinMan

This is not the way to get attention that is conducive to the promotion of cyclists rights.

This only makes drivers more irratable.

We could have pink jerseys printed up with a yelow hand on the back giving everyone the finger and it would be less annoying.

Chris L

Originally posted by mechBgon
^ Precisely what he said. If the cycling community wants to begin gaining respect and legitimacy, it begins with the fulfillment of one's duties as a legitimate road user. Be visible, be predictable, be legal, be thoughtful.

That's not to say one must be meek :)

There is a lot of middle-ground between being meek and the circus that calls itself Critical Mass. The fact is, these sort of controntational tactics are totally pointless. It's not going to achieve cyclists' aims because it doesn't actually present any aims. The only message it sends out is that cyclists hold up traffic and that the bicycle is a toy that doesn't belong on the road. Is this the message we want? Remember that any government that felt like it could ban cyclists from any road they wanted to with a single penstroke.

As others have already said, it's far more effective to simply use the bicycle as transport and show people it's benefits. Showcase the fact that it's faster in traffic than cars, that it's cheaper, that it makes one healthier, that it's safer. Only with this message will people ever seriously consider cycling as an option.

ngateguy

I have to agree with most of the sentiment here about critical mass and how un productive it is however when I read the article in the paper I have to question whether the police didn't get a bit over zealous and turn a bad thing worse. It mentions a woman being arrested who was not part of the ride because she tried to stop the police beating someone. The police should not have come into that situation ready for a fight they should of come in a little less confrontational there are similarities between that and what happened here in Seattle during the WTO a couple of years ago and what went on was not covered by the media the police went overboard they showed un edit videos on the Seattle official cable channel and it was disgusting the way the police got carried away. Some how I don't think that ride needed to turn into a riot and it was the police who took it to that level. Again I am NOT a supporter of the Critical MAss movement and I do think they do more harm than goos I just think that some serious investigation is needed on how the police did their job. We ar not a country that should accept this kind of police violence. Yes the Police do need to do their job, but it just seems they are going to far over the line they are beginning to remind me of a para military force instead of law enforcement.

Max

In Germany the government took the course on including bicycle into non-alternative transportation.

It is the work of Joschka Fischer, Green Party leader. There are 9% per cent of German voters behind him.

This is what CM about.

If we want crumb, we will get crumb. But German cyclists set the target high, and they are getting it.

Repp5, please, keep us informed of what happens to the arrested cyclists. If the felony charges are pressed, we may try to mount more serious support campaign.

FOG

Originally posted by Rich Clark
There is a lot wrong with the way automobile ownership has become a religion in the United States, and the "right to drive" it's first article of faith.

In a lot of ways these things are wll too often "articles of faith" and not subject to openmindedness. Openmindedness is a two-way street, however. You have to examine the details of the arguments for and against your points, including those presented by those in opposition to your points, if you wish to be openminded, and in my opinion being openminded is a prerequisite to asking those who oppose you to be openminded. CM rides do not overwhelm me with an aura of openmindedness.

There's a lot wrong with the way we defend an activity that kills so many people on a daily basis and contributes so much to the dterioration of our planet.

The automobile has brought both costs and benefits. Before the automobile we were not free to move around as we are now, and lnad pries would be much higher ifland were less accessible. today we drive five or more times as much as we did in the 60's and with less risk and pollution. We do have more congestion, but that may be more due to enivronmentalists' favorite restrictions on new highway and lane construction than to the downsides of automobile transportation. Remeber you need to be able to see the other side of the discussion if you want to ask someone else to change his or her mind.

Dodge has a TV advertising campaign in progress from which this text is taken verbatim:

"Do you want power? 'Get-out-of-my-way-or-I'll-kick-your-butt' power?"

And in our culture, advertising like this is found unobjectionable, even amusing.
I didn't buy a Dodge this year, and certainly would not have been more encouraged to buy one based on that ad. However, if you look through the various threads you will see a bicycle ad which shows a king-size bicycle running over a car. It appears that such humor is not limited to Dodge, or powered vehicles.

Critical Mass's tactics may not be effective, and may even create hostility toward the cause of enstablishing cycling as a legitimate and desirable mode of non-polluting, safe transportation. But let's not kid ourselves that there's a more effective alternative. This is an issue that Americans don't want to hear about, and will respond to with the same hostility that people always feel when their faith is challenged.
RichC
In my observations mainstream transportation is an article of faith with a small community, the hard core roadbuilders, whereas bicycling, rail transportation, general aviation and motorcycling are far more likely to be articles of faith among their adherents. Further, if it is an article of faith, you need to give someone a reason to convert, not a reason to hunt down the heretics.

FOG

Originally posted by Max
It is the work of Joschka Fischer, Green Party leader. There are 9% per cent of German voters behind him.

This is what CM about.

Imposing the will of 9% on everyone else?

Repp5

Originally posted by Max
Repp5, please, keep us informed of what happens to the arrested cyclists. If the felony charges are pressed, we may try to mount more serious support campaign.

I heard the District Attorney on the radio this morning. His view is pragmatic- on one side you have the cops who believe they behaved in a proper fashion in the face of a "biker riot", and on the other side you have the bikers, who believed thay were oppressed by "the man", and if anyone was starting a riot it was the police. The D.A.'s view is that both sides are likely exaggerating the issue and that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The case goes to pretrial today. I'll keep you posted...

Repp5

Originally posted by bac
This guy ate 3 cycllists and a carbon Trek with Ultegra:

This is easily the funniest thing I have seen on this forum! I get a laugh every time I see this.

It's made better by the fact that the store thay are in front of is a pizza/Buffalo wing shop that constantlky has cops in there grubbing for free food.

Pete Clark

One thing you have to admit about Critical Mass, whether you like it or not: CM motivates people to get involved and get noticed.

Many argue that CM is too uncontrolled. Why not harness that same energy and coordinate it to achieve more strategic goals?
Why not organize rides that demonstrate courtesy and efficient bicycle travel by large groups of diverse riders throughout the city, with the cooperation of the police? Maybe it would generate the kind of public support that parades do, if it were more of a fun activity, rather than a confrontational one.

Max

Originally posted by FOG
Imposing the will of 9% on everyone else?

9% votes is more than 9% of "everyone else". It is 9% of eligible voters, who came and actually voted.

If the mighty German government finances the research and building of bicycle paths inside and outside the cities, the result would be quite different from those homemade adopted trails.

I pay about 40% tax from my income and how much from this money goes on cycling infrastructure? Nothing, nichts, nichego.

Instead the bulk my money goes on building roads for cars and subsidies for gas.

By the way, CM rarely holds traffic more than 5 minutes anywhere.

Repp5,

Thanks for the update. Please, keep us informed.

FOG

Originally posted by Max
I pay about 40% tax from my income and how much from this money goes on cycling infrastructure? Nothing, nichts, nichego.

Instead the bulk my money goes on building roads for cars and subsidies for gas.
In general roads are supported through user fees, that is tax on fuel and tires, and very little of the roadbuilding is subsidized through income taxes.

Max

Originally posted by Pete Clark
One thing you have to admit about Critical Mass, whether you like it or not: CM motivates people to get involved and get noticed.

Many argue that CM is too uncontrolled. Why not harness that same energy and coordinate it to achieve more strategic goals?
Why not organize rides that demonstrate courtesy and efficient bicycle travel by large groups of diverse riders throughout the city, with the cooperation of the police? Maybe it would generate the kind of public support that parades do, if it were more of a fun activity, rather than a confrontational one.

The problem is that CM does not have defined leaders. It is the only way to build a viable opposition group nowadays.

The formal leaders can be coerced, threatened, bribed, etc. It is not so easy to do with a large group, which rules itself by the extensive horizontal communication via e-mail, forums, etc.

It is the proven fact that the so called "flat management" is more natural and effective, than "hierarchy management".

As far as I understand, the CM group behaved itself well in Buffalo. CM ideologists claim the the CM ride is the "super vehicle", and that is why it shall not split itself on the red light, but shall move through as any vehicle does. It makes sense to me.

ngateguy

Originally posted by Pete Clark
One thing you have to admit about Critical Mass, whether you like it or not: CM motivates people to get involved and get noticed.

Many argue that CM is too uncontrolled. Why not harness that same energy and coordinate it to achieve more strategic goals?
Why not organize rides that demonstrate courtesy and efficient bicycle travel by large groups of diverse riders throughout the city, with the cooperation of the police? Maybe it would generate the kind of public support that parades do, if it were more of a fun activity, rather than a confrontational one.

Pete has made a very valuable point here, why don't we organize an effort counter to the CM movement that shows how bikes can ride safely and properly with the support of the local officials (they are beginning to catch on to the fact that there is federal money out there for bike lanes and what not) It seems like these days everybody has to be so confrontational that nothing is getting accomplished. If we can organize a sane demonstration with all the proper permits and police cooperation maybe people will start to notice that the majority of us are not hot head radicals looking to disrupt the flow just because they have nothing better to do. The Civil rights movement of the 50' and 60's did not accomplish what they did by riots but by no violent protests.

oscaregg

Rich Clark, you've brought up a reason why I think CM rides are actually very much a thing of American culture--our culture at times and in many ways admires rebellion. What is more rebelious than occupying what is perceived as automobile space with a non-motorized vehicle? CM is as American as NASCAR or cheap hamburgers!

Max

Well. Were these cyclists right or wrong can be discussed.

It still seems to me that we should support them. The men face felony charges. They are the men and women, whom you nod "Hello!" on your ride.

Next time someone of us violates one of those numerous traffic rules, written for cars, and gets gaged, beaten, and arrested. A fashion spreads quickly.

Were they right or wrong does not matter now. We can argue about the CM again and again. The question now is - shall we lend them our moral support in form of e-mails to Buffalo officials and newspapers?

JRA

Does anyone besides me find it highly ironic that CM does not have leaders, yet it appears to have a policy of not stopping for red lights? Yes, sports fans, the orgainization that's not an organization has a policy.
Originally posted by Max
The problem is that CM does not have defined leaders. It is the only way to build a viable opposition group nowadays.Oh, so now CM is an opposition group? And some people were foolish enough to think CM was a cycling advocacy group.

Of course, you're right, CM is an opposition group. It's opposed to traffic laws and vehicular cycling, two things many cyclists favor.
CM ideologists claim the the CM ride is the "super vehicle", and that is why it shall not split itself on the red light, but shall move through as any vehicle does.Wait. You say CM has no defined leaders but it has ideologists? And these ideologists have determined that CM rides should not stop at red lights? If these ideologists set CM policy, aren't they leaders?
It makes sense to me. I think "the CM ride is the "super vehicle" is one of the stupidest rationalizations for not obeying the law I've ever seen.

By not obeying traffic laws, CM stands in opposition vehicular cycling and to the many cyclist who favor it. CM is a step backwards.

Max

Originally posted by JRA

Oh, so now CM is an opposition group? And some people were foolish enough to think CM was a cycling advocacy group.

I participated in other social groups at one time or another which opposed the prevailing society attitudes. But I am not the CM rider. You can find good reading material about the CM here:

http://www.critical-mass.org/

I read some articles on this website and they make sense to me.

For me the absence of defined leaders is understandable. It does not mean that there should be no informal leaders.

By the way, the so called traffic laws were written mainly for motorized vehicles. But there is a slight difference between the bicycle and the heavy iron box on wheels with the fossil fuel engine. The bicycle does not kill. So following those "traffic laws" is not always safe, nor advisable for a cyclist.

Guest

I'm not too thrilled with Critical Mass- I'm not down with their tactics, so there's not a ton of sympathy there, although it does look as thought the police badly overreacted to the situation. I never believe the police- they are usually overreacting to any situation they feel like they can't handle.

I feel sorriest for the woman who stopped her car because she saw the cop beating the cyclist and got arrested. What the crap is that about?

Chris L

Originally posted by Pete Clark
Many argue that CM is too uncontrolled. Why not harness that same energy and coordinate it to achieve more strategic goals?
Why not organize rides that demonstrate courtesy and efficient bicycle travel by large groups of diverse riders throughout the city, with the cooperation of the police? Maybe it would generate the kind of public support that parades do, if it were more of a fun activity, rather than a confrontational one.

I genuninely belive the vast majority of CM riders (if not all of them) wouldn't bother with a fun ride or anything else. I've seen the CM in Brisbane (we don't have one here on the Gold Coast, and may that ever remain the case) and I'd be very surprised if too many of them even rode to the start of CM - never mind riding to work every day of the year.

chewa

Originally posted by Max
By the way, the so called traffic laws were written mainly for motorized vehicles. But there is a slight difference between the bicycle and the heavy iron box on wheels with the fossil fuel engine. The bicycle does not kill. So following those "traffic laws" is not always safe, nor advisable for a cyclist.

Max, I think this is a bit simplistic. The traffic laws are for everybody, motorised, non motorised, horses carts and pedestrians.

If you want to step out in front of me (80 kilo's) while I'm on my bike doing 25 mph I would think that you will find out bikes do and can kill.

Following traffic laws is occasionally more risky than not, but only because motorists don't always allow for bikes and put bikes in difficult situations.

Breaking traffioc laws is always more risky, be it jumping a light, crossing a ped crossing etc.

I love bikes and think we should assert our right to use roads. i don't agree with compulsory cycle path usage to get round the fact that some drivers are crap at driving, but we have to work within the remit of the law.

Brian Ratliff

For all you thinking that having a bunch of riders in a mass is unreasonable, consider this:

When cars are dealing with a couple cyclists at a time, it is natural to have the cyclists stay off to one side. This way the car can get by quickly. Now consider a group of 100 cyclists on the same street, at the same time. Now I pose a question:

Is it safer for the cyclists to deal with cars which are passing blocks and blocks of cyclists, riding 2 abreast; or is it safer to ride in a group as a "super vehicle" which will prevent any car from passing unsafely?

We are accustomed to regarding cyclists as being the minority of vehicles on the road. We have a system of dealing with that. At the center of the system is the premise that we stay off to one side to let traffic pass. What happens when, in a city block, cyclists are the majority of road users? Are we still relegated to a minority status? What if having motor vehicles pass blocks and blocks of cyclists will put the cyclists' lives at risk? Would it make sense for them to band together to make an unpassable unit? Would that not be the same as a bus traveling through town?

For all you opposed to CM, what if it were the case that 100s of cyclists got out of bed in the morning and started traveling on the same road to work, at the same time, with no affiliation to each other? Car commuters do this every day. They clog the roads and impede the progress of other commuters, car or bike. It is called traffic. Part of what CM is trying to argue, is that bicycles and cyclists are not just something that can always be assumed to be minorities on the road. They are demonstrating that cyclists can BE traffic, and not just something to direct traffic around.

If cycling gets to be popular some day, we will have to deal with this problem. Our laws are designed with the premise the cyclists are the minority. That there are only a couple cyclists on any stretch of road at a time. That we are the exception to normal traffic. If we get what we want, more or most able bodied people cycling, then these laws will have to be changed. Some will argue that they have to be changed BEFORE we can get to where we want to be.

BR

JRA

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
Is it safer for the cyclists to deal with cars which are passing blocks and blocks of cyclists, riding 2 abreast; or is it safer to ride in a group as a "super vehicle" which will prevent any car from passing unsafely? It is safe for cyclists to ride two abreast in the right hand lane, as per the law, which is a resonable law. Running red lights is illegal.
Our laws are designed with the premise the cyclists are the minority.The roads are designed on that premise. The traffic laws are for everyone, including cyclists.
What if having motor vehicles pass blocks and blocks of cyclists will put the cyclists' lives at risk?And what if it doesn't? The fear-mongerers would have cyclists believe that being passed by a car is dangerous. It's not true. I get passed by cars all the time. I'm sorry that CMers have bought in to the lie.

Maybe what's really needed is for CMers to learn how to ride with traffic, rather than buying in to the fear, and feeling that the only way they are safe is if they're the only traffic on the road.
Would it make sense for them to band together to make an unpassable unit?If it's a four-lane road, no. They're just being a-holes, which I think is part of what CM is about. CM is also about being a "victim", which is a thing people seem to enjoy being. And CM is partly about having a cause, being part of a group.
Would that not be the same as a bus traveling through town?A bus takes up one lane and stops at red lights. If that's what CM riders do, it's the same.

BUT (and this is the problem), that's not what CM does. So it's not the same.
Part of what CM is trying to argue, is that bicycles and cyclists are not just something that can always be assumed to be minorities on the road. They are demonstrating that cyclists can BE traffic,...If cyclists want to BE traffic, all they have to do is do it. It doesn't take a group. It only takes 1 rider and one bicycle.

What CM is proving is that cyclists can be just as obnoxious as motorists, if not more so. Most motorists don't intentionally tie up traffic. CM does. CM rides run counter to what cycling advocates have favored for years- vehicular cycling.

If CM wants to prove cyclists can be traffic, CM should show that cyclists can be responsible traffic, and not just a bunch of jerks tying up traffic.

CM sends a negative message and is counter-productive.

My hope would be that CM would change, and become something that responsible cyclists could support. To do that, CM would need to become an actual organization, rather that the anti-organization it now is.

Brian Ratliff

JRA, I think you misinterpret much of what I said.

Passing cyclists: It is reasonable to ask a moterist to move over in a two lane road for one or two cyclists. It is unreasonable to ask a motorist to pass 100 cyclists in a continuous line. When I am driving, I feel the discomfort that motorists feel when they have to clear themselves to change lanes or make room for a cyclist. I cannot imagine having to pass a mile long line of cyclists by moving over half a lane. I can imagine someone getting really frustrated and moving into a line of cyclists in a way what can put them in danger.

Road intent: The road is just a strip of asphalt. It is the laws of the road which make traffic what it is. It is the laws of the road which assume that cyclists will always by a minority of the traffic. Some will say that we will always remain a minority until the laws are changed to recognize the possibility that we will not always be a minority.

I agree, having them stop at stop lights would be ideal, but I have heard more than one account that cyclists are threatened by angry drivers (even if there are no radical elements in the ride) if their group is broken up. If you think about it, having cyclists cork traffic lights can make the group go by faster and hold up traffic for less time. From what I have heard, this is more of a practical response with the ride rather than an ideological one. This can probably be fixed.

The point of CM is not that a small population of cyclists on the road can be traffic. All of us on this board know that it is possible for one or two cyclists to be integrated into traffic. The goal of CM is to make the point that there will not always be a small population of cyclists on the road, and drivers and the law will have to learn to deal with it. At its heart, CM is still a group of various cyclists, maybe with no relation or relevance to each other, who show up at the same place at the same time to take a ride. The varying response of the police, one time supporting the ride, another time arresting people, shows that traffic law really does not have an answer to a large group of cyclists on the road.

The traffic laws, as they now stand, only support the notion of a few cyclists mixed in with 10's or 100's of cars. They fail to provide an answer if there are 10's or 100's of cyclists and just a few cars. Changing this notion, this assumption of few cyclists and lots of cars, is what CM is about. That the movement has been hijacked by extremists is our problem, not theirs. That there are so few regular bike commuters who are willing to have the vision to look beyond surviving their Friday afternoon commute is really the problem, not an inherent flaw in the CM concept.

BR

Max

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
Changing this notion, this assumption of few cyclists and lots of cars, is what CM is about.

God amighty. Amen.

Many people do not use bicycle for commuting because of fear of cars. I think for them the CM is the rare opportunity to cycle across their city.

I heard that many CM riders mention that they always impressed how quickly one can move in the city by bike, when cars do not interfere.

I noticed it myself. When I cycle in the city very early in the morning, when there are no cars, the city becomes as if 3 times smaller.

JRA

Originally posted by Max
Many people do not use bicycle for commuting because of fear of cars.Whose fault is that?
I think for them the CM is the rare opportunity to cycle across their city.CM is a great opportunity to get together in a group and blame your fears on someone else rather than facing them.
I heard that many CM riders mention that they always impressed how quickly one can move in the city by bike, when cars do not interfere.
Breaking the law and not stopping at red lights probably helps, too.

KevinG

Originally posted by JRA

Breaking the law and not stopping at red lights probably helps, too.

Oh yea like its just CM riders that do that. Come on.

JRA

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
Road intent: The road is just a strip of asphalt. It is the laws of the road which make traffic what it is.No it's society that makes traffic what it is. The roads are designed for cars. The width of lanes is for cars. Turn lanes and intersections are for cars, and so are traffic lights, especially the actuated ones that I have a hard time tripping with an aluminum bike.
It is the laws of the road which assume that cyclists will always by a minority of the traffic.Aw poppycock! I haven't read the laws of every state, but I've read the Missouri laws, and cyclists are given all the rights of other motorists. The driver's manual has some good instructions for motorist faced with cyclists.
The goal of CM is to make the point that there will not always be a small population of cyclists on the road, and drivers and the law will have to learn to deal with it.The goal of CM seems to be to take over the roads, flaunt current laws and make complete a-holes of themselves, and force the law to deal with them being a-holes. Then, when the law does deal with that, CM can whine that they are the "victims" some of them evidently want to be.

CM is wrong, and it's protests are misdirected. What needs to change is not the laws, but society. Sure, it's a lot easier to complain about laws rather than society, and the target is a lot easier to define. In fact, it's too easy.

There are basic flaws in the concept of CM. The lack of leaders means there is no clear articulation of what CMs goals are, just vague complaints about current laws, complaints which don't mean much, especially since many of the current laws regarding cyclists already say what cyclists would like them to say.
That the movement has been hijacked by extremists is our problem, not theirs.I certainly agree with that. The lack of structure of CM allows it to be easily taken over and defined by extremists.

Brian Ratliff

Some would say that it is society that makes the laws what they are. I know the rules say that cyclists have all the rights of a car, but they also say we must stay off to one side on only travel a maximum of 2 abreast. As I have said before, I would be ansy as a driver having to pass a mile long line of cyclists. I can imagine that some driver may do something stupid when confronted by a large group of cyclists.

The lanes of the road are just painted strips in many cases (surface roads, that is). They get repainted every couple years, and many times the number and or width of lanes change to reflect the newest in traffic engineering and the realities of cars.

If you don't believe that our traffic laws assume a minority of cyclists, then take a group of 20 of your friends and ride through a city grid with narrow streets in a group. The laws in many state that cyclists should be as far right as practical. Will that law contend with a mile long, unbroken line of cyclists on a narrow road? Or will the police break the line up or arrest people for holding a parade. Oh wait, except for the running of traffic lights (which most CM rides don't get cited by the police for anyway), this is what CM is.

You also talk about changing society, not the laws. Society relies on the law (and inforcement of the law) to tell them what is appropriate behaviour. On the other hand, society's attitudes towards certain behaviours make the laws. It is a cycle. One cannot influence one and not affect the other. Advocacy in the traditional sense works to change society's view of bicyclists. CM works on trying to change the laws directly. One side effect of traditional advocacy, is that we tend to get pushed off the road as a solution to the problem. One side effect of CM is that people get irritated at our behaviour.

You are right, one of the things that CM does is flaunt the laws that are in the rule book now. They will tell you that directly if you asked. They don't think the rules as they are now are worth following. They don't thing the laws work. Having no formal leaders is a trend starting from its roots. CM is not an organization in the way the BTA is. There is some organization, but it is mostly for safety purposes. They sometimes have a route to follow, sometimes not. That CM seems to be defined by extremists is simply because us "normal" people don't pick up the job. There is no articulation to CM. It is all about demonstration. If you look at it, it is more pure a demonstration than those people who mill around a capital with a slogan on a sign. CM demonstrates the messiness that surround the whole issue of bicycles and traffic law.

I know that many here on this board are accomplished vehicular cyclists. We have learned to ride with cars; we have learned to blend in with traffic. But not everybody can do what we do. Some people lack the abilities to ride in traffic. I was lucky, I learned to deal with cars on a rural highway, where cars come in doses. Because of where I grew up, I could work into riding with traffic. I did not have to deal with rush hour traffic on my first day commuting. Not all people are so lucky. If they step outside their neighborhood, they step into traffic that would have scared me sh*tless five years ago. Until the laws are on the side of cyclists enabling them to group together, to ride fully integrated into the traffic system, most people will never learn to bike commute. Right now, a cyclist has to rely much to much on his or her reflexes to avoid accidents. Encounters of a dangerous nature should not be an every day occurence. CM is working to demonstrate that the laws in the book right now are not in cyclists favor. The laws allow dangerous encounters because the relegate cyclists to isolation by the side of the road. A large group of cyclists is a threat to the traffic system because the traffic system does not know how to deal with them. This is what CM is trying to change.

ngateguy

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
[B] CM is working to demonstrate that the laws in the book right now are not in cyclists favor. B]

How by just blatantly breaking the law. That is not how you change the law, if it were that easy marijuana would of been legalized 30 years ago. You need to change the way the law makers and enforcers think, for that you need an organized lobbying effort . Just getting together and doing what ever you want in the streets once a month does not constitute any kind of demonstration, other than you think you are above the law. As one of the "seasoned" commuters you talk about I see nothing wrong with the bicycle laws in most jurisdictions, it is the enforcement of the laws when it involves car/bike situations. This is where the minority factor comes in. When it comes to vehicles on the street we are the minority and a lot of times are treated as such. So if you really want to help to change the way society looks at us you must obey the law and make an example that bikes can be responsible when they are in the streets. Did you know that there is a Bike caucus in the US congress? Have you written your elected officials asking for more bike accesses? Have you voted for bike friendly candidates in your local elections? All of those are the way to work toward giving us an EQUAL share of the road. All CM proves to be is a bunch of people that just want to protest and cause upheaval with no direct impact on their cause. Reminds me of PETA and Earth First they have no care for the movements the represent(harm) they just care about getting on the news.

Chris L

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
I know that many here on this board are accomplished vehicular cyclists. We have learned to ride with cars; we have learned to blend in with traffic. But not everybody can do what we do. Some people lack the abilities to ride in traffic.

You're an intelligent man, Brian. However, you make the mistake many other intelligent people make - assuming that everybody else is stupid. Learning to blend in with traffic isn't really all that difficult if you are already skilled at handling the bike in the first place. It's just a matter of learning to anticipate what others are likely to do. It's also a matter of adjusting to the environment you are in, something for which the skill level generally doesn't change that much.

The fact is, we all started lacking the ability to ride in the traffic we now deal with. I learned to ride in a very small town too, but I didn't learn to ride in traffic there. I learned to ride in traffic where I confronted traffic (Gold Coast, Brisbane, Melbourne etc), not in Werris Creek. I'd say the same would be true of yourself. Michaelangelo (SP?) didn't learn to draw by playing "join the dots".

We should also be wary of confusing what the law says to what actually happens. With very few exceptions, the laws around here give cyclists the same rights to the roads as everyone else, and the same obligations. To be honest, many of the situations cyclists fear occur when drivers flout those laws. This is a key factor. For CM to moan about how these laws "favour cars" and whatever else is complete codswallop.

As far as CM trying to change this or anything else - I've never doubted their intentions. I just think their choice of action is a very poor way to go about achieving them. They need to think more clearly about the outcomes rather than merely the intentions.

chewa

I quite often ride on charity rides, populated by hundreds of cyclists, many of whom have rarely ridden. These are on Scottish roads (narrower than in the US) and our laws allow 2 abreast except where it would cause a hold up.

V few problems with that many cyclists. i think of it as analogous to the driver of a slow moving heavy good vehicle. if he sees traffic buiild up, he pulls over to clear it. If bikes hold up, split the group.

I agree with cycle advocacy (my theory is make it easier to cycle, get more 2 wheelers on the road and it will be safer as drivers will be more used to theM) but think CM for all it's good intentions can have a negative effect.

i don't want to be part of a minority pressure group. i don't want some form of cycling affirmative action.

I want to be treated like any other vehicle.