spandexwarrior
Here is a brief article on how to deal with an overzealous police force at Critical Mass:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/267628.shtml
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/267628.shtml
Tactics to use during critical mass
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
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
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
late
Some fall accidentally into screwups, some work years to finally acheive a thorough screwup, and some fall quite naturally to screwing up on a massive scale......
Stor Mand
Seems like a nice fellow writing the article. He's just trying to assist others in annoying the general public and waste tax dollars.:rolleyes:
late
That would be the general public that you want to be nice to you? That is not an exercise in political clout; it is an exercise in political self destruction
Stor Mand
Originally posted by late
That would be the general public that you want to be nice to you? That is not an exercise in political clout; it is an exercise in political self destruction
Exactly. My post was sarcasm, hence the :rolleyes: at the end.
That would be the general public that you want to be nice to you? That is not an exercise in political clout; it is an exercise in political self destruction
Exactly. My post was sarcasm, hence the :rolleyes: at the end.
The Rob
Who was it who said (paraphrased) "The primary purpose of a demonstration is to annoy those who are not taking part in the demonstration."?
Chris L
I still say that the best tactic to use during critical mass is to be somewhere else.
1oldRoadie
Originally posted by Chris L
I still say that the best tactic to use during critical mass is to be somewhere else.
AMEN!!
I still say that the best tactic to use during critical mass is to be somewhere else.
AMEN!!
JRA
Originally posted by spandexwarrior
Here is a brief article on how to deal with an overzealous police force at Critical Mass: The real question is: how do you deal with troublemakers in CM like the idiot would-be revolutionary that wrote that article.
It's a good reason for cyclists not to support CM. With friends like that, cycling doesn't need enemies.
Here is a brief article on how to deal with an overzealous police force at Critical Mass: The real question is: how do you deal with troublemakers in CM like the idiot would-be revolutionary that wrote that article.
It's a good reason for cyclists not to support CM. With friends like that, cycling doesn't need enemies.
late
Sorry, Stor, my goof
The Terminator
Here is a viewpoint from a forum that I participate in, these people generally do not cycle. This is in regards to Critical Mass demostrations.
I posted it in another thread, but I don't really think that it got much exposure due to it being at the end of the threads life. I sent the person known as wvmtnbkr an invitation to join bikeforums.
It is the fence sitters that we have hope to get on the cyclists side. The vehement anti-cyclists will never be on our side of the issue. With attitudes that disrupt traffic deliberately and cause problems, the fence sitters will not be on our side either. Best -
http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=007967
I posted it in another thread, but I don't really think that it got much exposure due to it being at the end of the threads life. I sent the person known as wvmtnbkr an invitation to join bikeforums.
It is the fence sitters that we have hope to get on the cyclists side. The vehement anti-cyclists will never be on our side of the issue. With attitudes that disrupt traffic deliberately and cause problems, the fence sitters will not be on our side either. Best -
http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=007967
Stor Mand
Originally posted by late
Sorry, Stor, my goof
Better late then never. :D
Sorry, Stor, my goof
Better late then never. :D
Chris L
Originally posted by The Terminator
It is the fence sitters that we have hope to get on the cyclists side. The vehement anti-cyclists will never be on our side of the issue. With attitudes that disrupt traffic deliberately and cause problems, the fence sitters will not be on our side either.
That's what I think too. The problem isn't with over-zealous police at all. They're just doing their job. The problem is with the action of critical mass in the first place. As was said above, all it does is alienate the people who were actually thinking of supporting us. This is not a good thing.
It is the fence sitters that we have hope to get on the cyclists side. The vehement anti-cyclists will never be on our side of the issue. With attitudes that disrupt traffic deliberately and cause problems, the fence sitters will not be on our side either.
That's what I think too. The problem isn't with over-zealous police at all. They're just doing their job. The problem is with the action of critical mass in the first place. As was said above, all it does is alienate the people who were actually thinking of supporting us. This is not a good thing.
mechBgon
Originally posted by Chris L
I still say that the best tactic to use during critical mass is to be somewhere else. Absolutely!
I still say that the best tactic to use during critical mass is to be somewhere else. Absolutely!
digger
"You attarct more bees with honey than you do with vinegar".
Getting people to believe in your cause does NOT happen by making people angry. All critical massers do is make people angry at cyclists.
Make no wonder I get no respect from some of these motorists when i ride alone.
However, people DO have a right to demostrate...peacefully. This should be supported by the police.
Digger
Getting people to believe in your cause does NOT happen by making people angry. All critical massers do is make people angry at cyclists.
Make no wonder I get no respect from some of these motorists when i ride alone.
However, people DO have a right to demostrate...peacefully. This should be supported by the police.
Digger
Justen
Originally posted by spandexwarrior
Here is a brief article on how to deal with an overzealous police force at Critical Mass:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/267628.shtml
What is the point of these critical mass rides ?
To annoy motorists and cops ?
It sounds like they those participating in CM rides really don't have the average bike commuter's best interests in mind as they are just pis***g off those we have to share the road with. What are these people going to do the next day - they're not going to be too friendly towards those of us cycling on the road.
You won't get people on your side by making them angry, as the digger mentioned.
Perhaps riding en masse but doing so single file and in a responsible manner would bring attention to our existence on the road and need for vigilance on the part of motorists without getting them frustrated ?
Justen
Here is a brief article on how to deal with an overzealous police force at Critical Mass:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/07/267628.shtml
What is the point of these critical mass rides ?
To annoy motorists and cops ?
It sounds like they those participating in CM rides really don't have the average bike commuter's best interests in mind as they are just pis***g off those we have to share the road with. What are these people going to do the next day - they're not going to be too friendly towards those of us cycling on the road.
You won't get people on your side by making them angry, as the digger mentioned.
Perhaps riding en masse but doing so single file and in a responsible manner would bring attention to our existence on the road and need for vigilance on the part of motorists without getting them frustrated ?
Justen
The Rob
Originally posted by Justen
Perhaps riding en masse but doing so single file and in a responsible manner would bring attention to our existence on the road and need for vigilance on the part of motorists without getting them frustrated ?
Justen
There ya go! :beer:
Too dull for many 'protesters' though. I would expect to see participants' numbers dwindle should the responsible riders seek to enforce such a measure.
Perhaps riding en masse but doing so single file and in a responsible manner would bring attention to our existence on the road and need for vigilance on the part of motorists without getting them frustrated ?
Justen
There ya go! :beer:
Too dull for many 'protesters' though. I would expect to see participants' numbers dwindle should the responsible riders seek to enforce such a measure.
Max
Originally posted by Stor Mand
He's just trying to assist others in annoying the general public and waste tax dollars.
Annoying the general public?
Meaning the motorists do not annoy the general public, but doing it a lot of good?
I personally know people, whose property's value dropped sharply due to the daily mass motorized traffic, which developed on the adjacent street. I saw in some cities as people build high fences between the traffic and their home, trying at least somehow to reduce the damage.
In the EU alone 60000 people die per year due to the pollution related illnesses. Children are most vulnerable, because they move more, breath more air and their air intakes are lower and by this closer to the car exhaust pipes.
The motorist, who every night warms his engine under my window at 23:00, annoys me more than all the CM rides in the world. Besides he is doing the actual damage, but not just delays the traffic for 4 - 5 minutes.
The CM riders are not revolutionaries. The motorists have made the successful revolution; more correctly the car-, fuel-, advertising- industries have made the revolution on the expense of the general public. There were no so many cars just some decades ago. The cars overwhelmed the streets and turned the cities in the gigantic garages. The cars as they engineered now are too big, too environment unfriendly, and too dangerous for the cities. This is the message, which the CM riders are trying to convey to us.
It seems to me it is the waste of the tax money to chase the group of the CM cyclists from the street. What wrong does the CM do to the general public? It does degrade the environment, it educates the general public on the alternative modes of transportation, it creates community in the over-individualistic society.
The young people can meet one another on the CM ride. Where else they can do it? In the bar, on the discotheque under influence of some idiotic "extasy"?
He's just trying to assist others in annoying the general public and waste tax dollars.
Annoying the general public?
Meaning the motorists do not annoy the general public, but doing it a lot of good?
I personally know people, whose property's value dropped sharply due to the daily mass motorized traffic, which developed on the adjacent street. I saw in some cities as people build high fences between the traffic and their home, trying at least somehow to reduce the damage.
In the EU alone 60000 people die per year due to the pollution related illnesses. Children are most vulnerable, because they move more, breath more air and their air intakes are lower and by this closer to the car exhaust pipes.
The motorist, who every night warms his engine under my window at 23:00, annoys me more than all the CM rides in the world. Besides he is doing the actual damage, but not just delays the traffic for 4 - 5 minutes.
The CM riders are not revolutionaries. The motorists have made the successful revolution; more correctly the car-, fuel-, advertising- industries have made the revolution on the expense of the general public. There were no so many cars just some decades ago. The cars overwhelmed the streets and turned the cities in the gigantic garages. The cars as they engineered now are too big, too environment unfriendly, and too dangerous for the cities. This is the message, which the CM riders are trying to convey to us.
It seems to me it is the waste of the tax money to chase the group of the CM cyclists from the street. What wrong does the CM do to the general public? It does degrade the environment, it educates the general public on the alternative modes of transportation, it creates community in the over-individualistic society.
The young people can meet one another on the CM ride. Where else they can do it? In the bar, on the discotheque under influence of some idiotic "extasy"?
late
Hmmm,
let's try a simple, common sense test on your argument. What do you think an old judge would say if you tried out that load on him? Think he'd say, 'Gee, son, since you put it that way'...Didn't think so. You are responsible for your behavior.
The other issues are perfectly valid, but the reality is you deal with them
one at a time. Americans are nightmarishly slow to respond to big changes; but
astonishing once set in motion. We will win. Really. But ask yourself another simple, common sense question. Will CM rides bring you closer to the day when Americans finally say it's time to rethink the way we handle transportation and energy issues?
let's try a simple, common sense test on your argument. What do you think an old judge would say if you tried out that load on him? Think he'd say, 'Gee, son, since you put it that way'...Didn't think so. You are responsible for your behavior.
The other issues are perfectly valid, but the reality is you deal with them
one at a time. Americans are nightmarishly slow to respond to big changes; but
astonishing once set in motion. We will win. Really. But ask yourself another simple, common sense question. Will CM rides bring you closer to the day when Americans finally say it's time to rethink the way we handle transportation and energy issues?
Stor Mand
Just as car or truck should pull aside to let others pass if they can't keep up with the traffic flow, so should bicyclists. It's only common sense. Blocking traffic causes problems for emergency vehicles also. They should think of someone other than themselves and their so called "cause".
randya
As the saying on Critical Mass goes: "We are not blocking traffic, we ARE traffic". When 1,000 cyclists are on the road together, THEY are the ones who establish what the 'normal speed of traffic' is at that place and time. Motorists travelling in large groups block traffic all the time--usually it's called 'rush hour'. I've seen Critical Mass rides of 1,000+ riders yield responsibly to emergency vehicles, the same as is required of all road users.
After reading through this thread, I get the impression that most posters here have never participated in a Critical Mass ride, and are simply getting their biased opinions from the News Media, which as we all know, is heavily subsidized (one might say propped up) by the automobile industry, a relationship which heavily influences the media's bias.
Critical Mass is meant to be a celebration of the bicycle and an educational tool for motorists that bikes are vehicles and not just toys, with a valid right to use our public streets, and be safe doing so. Critical Mass is the vanguard of the Cyclist's Rights Movement. Yes, sometimes there is civil disobedience, and yes, motorists sometimes feel that their dominant paradigm is being challenged, but most cyclist-motorist interactions I've seen on Critical Mass rides are civil, and most portrayals of Critial Mass in the media are simply hogwash.
Unfortunately, there are many cyclists who are so used to being second class road users, that cyclists riding in a group and asserting their right to the road in the manner that Critical Mass does, is anathema to them, and they vociferously disavow any association without even beginning to understand what it is they are objecting to.
I suggest getting involved in your local Critical Mass ride, and making use of a variety of web resources to educate yourselves about Critical Mass, before simply dismissing it based on what you've seen or heard in the media.
Just a small sampling of web sites:
http://www.critical-mass.org/
http://criticalmassrides.info/
After reading through this thread, I get the impression that most posters here have never participated in a Critical Mass ride, and are simply getting their biased opinions from the News Media, which as we all know, is heavily subsidized (one might say propped up) by the automobile industry, a relationship which heavily influences the media's bias.
Critical Mass is meant to be a celebration of the bicycle and an educational tool for motorists that bikes are vehicles and not just toys, with a valid right to use our public streets, and be safe doing so. Critical Mass is the vanguard of the Cyclist's Rights Movement. Yes, sometimes there is civil disobedience, and yes, motorists sometimes feel that their dominant paradigm is being challenged, but most cyclist-motorist interactions I've seen on Critical Mass rides are civil, and most portrayals of Critial Mass in the media are simply hogwash.
Unfortunately, there are many cyclists who are so used to being second class road users, that cyclists riding in a group and asserting their right to the road in the manner that Critical Mass does, is anathema to them, and they vociferously disavow any association without even beginning to understand what it is they are objecting to.
I suggest getting involved in your local Critical Mass ride, and making use of a variety of web resources to educate yourselves about Critical Mass, before simply dismissing it based on what you've seen or heard in the media.
Just a small sampling of web sites:
http://www.critical-mass.org/
http://criticalmassrides.info/
late
Hi,
oh, sure. I have years of experience in politics, protest and otherwise. The Vietnam era protests committed political suicide when they started breaking the law. Successful movements learn to control themselves; or they fail. It's pretty much that simple.
oh, sure. I have years of experience in politics, protest and otherwise. The Vietnam era protests committed political suicide when they started breaking the law. Successful movements learn to control themselves; or they fail. It's pretty much that simple.
randya
The lawbreaking that occurs on Portland Critical Mass rides is almost always committed by the police-Police Riots, as it were. When was the last time any motorist you know was beatedn, pepper sprayed, tasered or arrested as a result of a minor traffic infraction? I'm guessing the answer is never, unless you know people of color that were stopped for 'traffic violations' as an excuse to target them as a result of 'police profiling'. The police are as vested in the car culture as the media, and are supposed to be trained to behave professionally and responsibly, and not like fascist brown shirts, in response to Critical Mass.
Stor Mand
Originally posted by randya
As the saying on Critical Mass goes: "We are not blocking traffic, we ARE traffic". When 1,000 cyclists are on the road together, THEY are the ones who establish what the 'normal speed of traffic' is at that place and time. Motorists travelling in large groups block traffic all the time--usually it's called 'rush hour' ...snipping
But like I said, maybe they should yield the right-of-way to those vehicles that travel at a higher rate ... you know, pull to the right enough for the faster vehicles to continue on. Again, it's only common sense and courteous or is courteousy not part of the movement?
As the saying on Critical Mass goes: "We are not blocking traffic, we ARE traffic". When 1,000 cyclists are on the road together, THEY are the ones who establish what the 'normal speed of traffic' is at that place and time. Motorists travelling in large groups block traffic all the time--usually it's called 'rush hour' ...snipping
But like I said, maybe they should yield the right-of-way to those vehicles that travel at a higher rate ... you know, pull to the right enough for the faster vehicles to continue on. Again, it's only common sense and courteous or is courteousy not part of the movement?
late
Randya,
I actually have been in both fascist and communist countries. You are
not helping your supposed cause, you are not being accurate, those things are not important to you. What is important to you is being rebellious. Don't even dream you can bull**** me.
I actually have been in both fascist and communist countries. You are
not helping your supposed cause, you are not being accurate, those things are not important to you. What is important to you is being rebellious. Don't even dream you can bull**** me.
randya
The law in Oregon allows a bicyclist to take the lane in a variety of situations, including, among other instances, 'when traveling at the normal speed of traffic' (ORS 814.430(1)) and 'when reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side' (ORS 814.430(2)(c)).
Being silent on the issue of who decides, my premise (and I'm not a lawyer) is that the bicyclist decides when conditions allow or require him/her to take the lane, and if all vehicles on the road are bicycles, then the bicyclists establish what the normal speed of traffic is at that place and time.
BTW--I don't expect to convince any of you, with one or two posts to this list, that I am right about Critical Mass or cyclists' rights in general; I do, however, expect that you will receive the information I provide with an open mind, and not let your existing prejudices and predilections determine your responses to my posts. If I change one or two minds, than I think I have been successful. If I make the rest of you think again about what you believed or thought was true about Critical Mass, I will also have been successful. If I convince a few people to attend a Critical Mass ride and decide for themselves, based on actual empirical evidence gathered from first-hand experience, rather than from opinions developed based on biased media reports, I will also have been successful.
Being silent on the issue of who decides, my premise (and I'm not a lawyer) is that the bicyclist decides when conditions allow or require him/her to take the lane, and if all vehicles on the road are bicycles, then the bicyclists establish what the normal speed of traffic is at that place and time.
BTW--I don't expect to convince any of you, with one or two posts to this list, that I am right about Critical Mass or cyclists' rights in general; I do, however, expect that you will receive the information I provide with an open mind, and not let your existing prejudices and predilections determine your responses to my posts. If I change one or two minds, than I think I have been successful. If I make the rest of you think again about what you believed or thought was true about Critical Mass, I will also have been successful. If I convince a few people to attend a Critical Mass ride and decide for themselves, based on actual empirical evidence gathered from first-hand experience, rather than from opinions developed based on biased media reports, I will also have been successful.
Stor Mand
Let's say I'm driving my car at 15 mph but the speed limit is 30 or 40 mph. Would it not be the right thing to do and pull to the right to allow enough room for vehicles that can actually go the speed limit enough room to be on their way? Conversely, if I'm on my bike and am having no difficulty staying with the flow (a little drafting maybe ;) ), I most definitely have the right to the lane. It all comes down to common sense and is not necessarily about my right to hold the lane.
Justen
Originally posted by randya
After reading through this thread, I get the impression that most posters here have never participated in a Critical Mass ride, and are simply getting their biased opinions from the News Media,
I have witnessed several CM rides now and I see them acting in a manner that does nothing to further the views that most motorists have of cyclists. In fact, I think some of these Critical Mass rides do nothing but aggravate motorists and deliberately agitate the police.
There are much better ways of drawing the attention of the public to the safety and rights of cyclists. As I said before, I think that you could use a large group to your advantage by demonstrating safe cycling (i.e. single file) as opposed to deliberately breaking laws and blocking traffic.
Don't pretend you are representing the best interests of cyclists. You're just making it worse for us : all those motorists that you aggravate during some of these CM rides take it out on the rest of us on the road. I resent that our safety is at risk as a result.
Justen
After reading through this thread, I get the impression that most posters here have never participated in a Critical Mass ride, and are simply getting their biased opinions from the News Media,
I have witnessed several CM rides now and I see them acting in a manner that does nothing to further the views that most motorists have of cyclists. In fact, I think some of these Critical Mass rides do nothing but aggravate motorists and deliberately agitate the police.
There are much better ways of drawing the attention of the public to the safety and rights of cyclists. As I said before, I think that you could use a large group to your advantage by demonstrating safe cycling (i.e. single file) as opposed to deliberately breaking laws and blocking traffic.
Don't pretend you are representing the best interests of cyclists. You're just making it worse for us : all those motorists that you aggravate during some of these CM rides take it out on the rest of us on the road. I resent that our safety is at risk as a result.
Justen
randya
Quoting late: "I actually have been in both fascist and communist countries. You are not helping your supposed cause, you are not being accurate, those things are not important to you. What is important to you is being rebellious. Don't even dream you can bull**** me."
I don't think you have ever experienced the Portland Police Bureau's overreation to a peaceful Critical Mass ride firsthand, so don't tell me I'm lying about it. Believe it or not, the sad truth is, we are living more and more in a fascist police state in this country these days, courtesy of John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, and scores of local police departments willing to cooperate. If you can't see this, then your eyes are indeed closed very tightly. Peacefully dissenting is not a crime, nor is peacefully demonstrating for cyclists' rights, and yet the Portland Police have responded to such activities with extreme brutality and violence. Lucky for you if it's not happening in your community.
I don't think you have ever experienced the Portland Police Bureau's overreation to a peaceful Critical Mass ride firsthand, so don't tell me I'm lying about it. Believe it or not, the sad truth is, we are living more and more in a fascist police state in this country these days, courtesy of John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, and scores of local police departments willing to cooperate. If you can't see this, then your eyes are indeed closed very tightly. Peacefully dissenting is not a crime, nor is peacefully demonstrating for cyclists' rights, and yet the Portland Police have responded to such activities with extreme brutality and violence. Lucky for you if it's not happening in your community.
Justen
Another example of how Critical Mass riders destroy our position of rights on the road is by pulling stupid stunts like the one in Vancouver today. They stated that they were protesting the Molson Indy which of course has cars in it. That's fine - but...how does riding around in your underwear boost your credibility in arguing for the rights of cyclists on the road ?
Maybe one of the Critical Mass regular riders can explain this ?
Maybe one of the Critical Mass regular riders can explain this ?
Justen
Originally posted by randya
I don't think you have ever experienced the Portland Police Bureau's overreation to a peaceful Critical Mass ride firsthand, so don't tell me I'm lying about it.
Yes..I did read about that. I am not sure of all the facts in that particular case so I am hesitant to comment on it.
However, it seems that some CM rides are rebellious and defiant and are deliberately trying to provoke the police.
I know the police are not always innocent. Some of the local cops, especially the bike cops - can be real jerks. But it doesn't help matters when people in large, organized groups behave like idiots and take over the whole street, blocking traffic and annoying everybody.
Again, how does that help our cause in promoting awareness of cyclist safety and rights ?
I don't think you have ever experienced the Portland Police Bureau's overreation to a peaceful Critical Mass ride firsthand, so don't tell me I'm lying about it.
Yes..I did read about that. I am not sure of all the facts in that particular case so I am hesitant to comment on it.
However, it seems that some CM rides are rebellious and defiant and are deliberately trying to provoke the police.
I know the police are not always innocent. Some of the local cops, especially the bike cops - can be real jerks. But it doesn't help matters when people in large, organized groups behave like idiots and take over the whole street, blocking traffic and annoying everybody.
Again, how does that help our cause in promoting awareness of cyclist safety and rights ?
Stor Mand
I'm still looking for an answer or comment to my post (not that anyone needs to answer ;) ). Is is too sensible to be courteous, as a cyclist, motorcyclist or motorist? I'll drop it in here again ... maybe someone (randya) or someone else will comment.
Originally posted by Stor Mand
Let's say I'm driving my car at 15 mph but the speed limit is 30 or 40 mph. Would it not be the right thing to do and pull to the right to allow enough room for vehicles that can actually go the speed limit enough room to be on their way? Conversely, if I'm on my bike and am having no difficulty staying with the flow (a little drafting maybe ;) ), I most definitely have the right to the lane. It all comes down to common sense and is not necessarily about my right to hold the lane.
(or maybe not) :(
Originally posted by Stor Mand
Let's say I'm driving my car at 15 mph but the speed limit is 30 or 40 mph. Would it not be the right thing to do and pull to the right to allow enough room for vehicles that can actually go the speed limit enough room to be on their way? Conversely, if I'm on my bike and am having no difficulty staying with the flow (a little drafting maybe ;) ), I most definitely have the right to the lane. It all comes down to common sense and is not necessarily about my right to hold the lane.
(or maybe not) :(
randya
Well, I'd look at it this way: perhaps Critical Mass is somewhat unconventional and 'normal' folks can't fully understand or appreciate all of their methods or their agenda. Part of the Critical Mass M.O. is the idea of Bike Fun-everything doesn't always have to be so serious-and we'd all be a lot better off with some fun and laughter in our lives, now wouldn't we?
On a different note, perhaps a look at the bigger pciture is in order.
Bicycle advocates would like to see their avocation become more mainstream and acceptable--fully integrated into the transportation system. This is very hard to do in the face of the overwhelming dominance of our transportation system by cars and light trucks (at least in North America). Whatever advances have been made, are usually made by cycling advocates themselves--transportation bureaucracies may follow the trend, but they usually don't create it.
I think that transportation bureaucracies throughout the US have seriously dropped the ball on bicycle safety issues and cyclists rights. Ask yourself--are they adequately educating motorists to safely share the road with cyclists or not? Are they providing adequate and safe facilities for cyclists or not (multi-use paths, bike lanes, shared lanes, bike parking, access to transit for bicyclists, connectivity of the bicycle infrastructure and safe access to commercial and other destinations)?
Critical Mass is not particularly interested in engaging the transportation bureaucracies in detailed technical discussions, but they are interested in pointing out the flaws in our cars-first transportation system infrastructure and management policies at street level, as it were. What Critical Mass has done is to create an opening for more mainstream bicycle advocacy groups to advance an agenda of reasonable motorist and bicyclist safety education and infrastructure improvements. The best example of this is in San Francisco, which now has one of the best (if not the best) bicyclist/motorist safety education programs, bicycle infrastructure, and bicycle commuting mode splits of a city its size in the nation. Much of this work was accomplished by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, but it would never have been possible without Critical Mass raising the stakes of the debate in the first place.
Love it or hate it, Critical Mass is sure to get cyclists' attention and draw an opinion when it is mentioned. I say, this means Critical Mass is working. Someday, when bicycling has been fully integrated into communities large and small all over North America, and cyclists are no longer considered second-class road users, Critical Mass may become passe, but I think we've got a long way to go to get to that point.
On a different note, perhaps a look at the bigger pciture is in order.
Bicycle advocates would like to see their avocation become more mainstream and acceptable--fully integrated into the transportation system. This is very hard to do in the face of the overwhelming dominance of our transportation system by cars and light trucks (at least in North America). Whatever advances have been made, are usually made by cycling advocates themselves--transportation bureaucracies may follow the trend, but they usually don't create it.
I think that transportation bureaucracies throughout the US have seriously dropped the ball on bicycle safety issues and cyclists rights. Ask yourself--are they adequately educating motorists to safely share the road with cyclists or not? Are they providing adequate and safe facilities for cyclists or not (multi-use paths, bike lanes, shared lanes, bike parking, access to transit for bicyclists, connectivity of the bicycle infrastructure and safe access to commercial and other destinations)?
Critical Mass is not particularly interested in engaging the transportation bureaucracies in detailed technical discussions, but they are interested in pointing out the flaws in our cars-first transportation system infrastructure and management policies at street level, as it were. What Critical Mass has done is to create an opening for more mainstream bicycle advocacy groups to advance an agenda of reasonable motorist and bicyclist safety education and infrastructure improvements. The best example of this is in San Francisco, which now has one of the best (if not the best) bicyclist/motorist safety education programs, bicycle infrastructure, and bicycle commuting mode splits of a city its size in the nation. Much of this work was accomplished by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, but it would never have been possible without Critical Mass raising the stakes of the debate in the first place.
Love it or hate it, Critical Mass is sure to get cyclists' attention and draw an opinion when it is mentioned. I say, this means Critical Mass is working. Someday, when bicycling has been fully integrated into communities large and small all over North America, and cyclists are no longer considered second-class road users, Critical Mass may become passe, but I think we've got a long way to go to get to that point.
Stor Mand
So randya, you have no answer then? I thought it was a pretty basic, simple question. I'm not picking on you in particular but since you seem involved in CM, I was curious to hear from you.
Justen
Originally posted by Stor Mand
So randya, you have no answer then? I thought it was a pretty basic, simple question. I'm not picking on you in particular but since you seem involved in CM, I was curious to hear from you.
I don't think you will get a straight answer from Randya. I don't want to paint all CM rides with the same brush but all the ones I have witnessed or read about from their own sites seem to have little interest in the real issue of safety and are instead bent on continuing to aggravate motorists and being completely inconsiderate towards others on the road.
They also seem to get real joy out of provoking the police. Sure the police sometimes act like jerks but if you're going to get a large crowd of cyclists together and then proceed to violate numerous traffic violations, what do you expect the police to do ? Sit by and watch but do nothing ?
Randya, I would like to hear a striaght, one or two line answer about what the real goal of CM rides is ?
Justen
So randya, you have no answer then? I thought it was a pretty basic, simple question. I'm not picking on you in particular but since you seem involved in CM, I was curious to hear from you.
I don't think you will get a straight answer from Randya. I don't want to paint all CM rides with the same brush but all the ones I have witnessed or read about from their own sites seem to have little interest in the real issue of safety and are instead bent on continuing to aggravate motorists and being completely inconsiderate towards others on the road.
They also seem to get real joy out of provoking the police. Sure the police sometimes act like jerks but if you're going to get a large crowd of cyclists together and then proceed to violate numerous traffic violations, what do you expect the police to do ? Sit by and watch but do nothing ?
Randya, I would like to hear a striaght, one or two line answer about what the real goal of CM rides is ?
Justen
randya
In response to Stor Mond's question, I would say that it depends on the situation.
If you cycling on an arterial street in an urban area, are taking the lane because of a variety of hazards (parked cars, debris, lane too narrow, etc.), and are being followed by motorists, the leading cyclist has right of way no matter how slow they are going. If the road is a multilane road, the cyclist should take a center lane position to discourage following motorists from passing too closely in the same lane and the following motorist should use the left lane to pass. The same principle applies if there is only one lane in each direction, except the following motorist should wait until the oncoming lane is clear and passing is allowed, and use the oncoming lane to pass. If the travel lane is wide enough (>13 to 14'), or if slow moving vehicle turnouts or wide shoulders are present (more likely in rural than urban environment), the cyclist should use them and allow following motorists to pass, provided they are safe for the cyclist (paved, free of hazardous debris, etc.). In no circumstance will I as a cyclist weave in and out of parked cars in order to let a following motorist pass. Traveling predictably in a straight is a basic tenet of Effective Cycling.
http://www.sfbike.org/campaigns/promoting_bicycling/Motorists-STR.pdf
If you cycling on an arterial street in an urban area, are taking the lane because of a variety of hazards (parked cars, debris, lane too narrow, etc.), and are being followed by motorists, the leading cyclist has right of way no matter how slow they are going. If the road is a multilane road, the cyclist should take a center lane position to discourage following motorists from passing too closely in the same lane and the following motorist should use the left lane to pass. The same principle applies if there is only one lane in each direction, except the following motorist should wait until the oncoming lane is clear and passing is allowed, and use the oncoming lane to pass. If the travel lane is wide enough (>13 to 14'), or if slow moving vehicle turnouts or wide shoulders are present (more likely in rural than urban environment), the cyclist should use them and allow following motorists to pass, provided they are safe for the cyclist (paved, free of hazardous debris, etc.). In no circumstance will I as a cyclist weave in and out of parked cars in order to let a following motorist pass. Traveling predictably in a straight is a basic tenet of Effective Cycling.
http://www.sfbike.org/campaigns/promoting_bicycling/Motorists-STR.pdf
Stor Mand
So are you saying that you take the lane even if there is an open shoulder to ride in or do you ride on the shoulder, assuming that it is not littered with debris and cars (I shouldn't even have to say that)?
randya
Justen asked: I would like to hear a straight, one or two line answer about what the real goal of CM rides is ?
Different participants have different beliefs, goals and agendas and I can only speak for myself, but I also believe that mine is widely shared among Critical Mass participants. As such:
Critical Mass is first and foremost a celebration of the bicycle and bicycling in all its forms. Beyond that, Critical Mass is about raising the consciousness and awareness of the general public (and specifically, the motoring public) (1) to bicycling as a valid and viable form on transportation and a legitimate use of the public right of way, and (2) to the fact that cyclists are not second class users of the public right of way and should be able to use the public right of way in the same ways as motorists do without fear of the threat of vehicular violence against themselves when they do so.
Different participants have different beliefs, goals and agendas and I can only speak for myself, but I also believe that mine is widely shared among Critical Mass participants. As such:
Critical Mass is first and foremost a celebration of the bicycle and bicycling in all its forms. Beyond that, Critical Mass is about raising the consciousness and awareness of the general public (and specifically, the motoring public) (1) to bicycling as a valid and viable form on transportation and a legitimate use of the public right of way, and (2) to the fact that cyclists are not second class users of the public right of way and should be able to use the public right of way in the same ways as motorists do without fear of the threat of vehicular violence against themselves when they do so.
The Rob
Originally posted by Stor Mand
I'm still looking for an answer or comment to my post (not that anyone needs to answer ;) ). Is is too sensible to be courteous, as a cyclist, motorcyclist or motorist? I'll drop it in here again ... maybe someone (randya) or someone else will comment.
(or maybe not) :(
You are correct, sir!
The plain and simple fact is that we as participants in traffic should behave as we would have others behave. The Golden Rule applies here as it applies anywhere. I afford courtesy to other motorists regardless of whether I'm walking, riding, or driving. It's frustrating when at times other pedestrians or cyclists or drivers don't afford me the same courtesy, but this does not give me the right to punish the traveling public at large for the transgressions of a few!
Critical Mass seeks to force-feed the public a shift in paradigm. Except in cases of armed revolution (in which, history proves, only the victors prosper, regardless of their promises to the masses), this is almost certainly doomed to failure, particularly among such consumer-conscious and pacified citizenry as we Americans tend to be.
Patience, petition, and civilized public discourse are the safest and ultimately most effective ways to enlighten and persuade.
-Rob
I'm still looking for an answer or comment to my post (not that anyone needs to answer ;) ). Is is too sensible to be courteous, as a cyclist, motorcyclist or motorist? I'll drop it in here again ... maybe someone (randya) or someone else will comment.
(or maybe not) :(
You are correct, sir!
The plain and simple fact is that we as participants in traffic should behave as we would have others behave. The Golden Rule applies here as it applies anywhere. I afford courtesy to other motorists regardless of whether I'm walking, riding, or driving. It's frustrating when at times other pedestrians or cyclists or drivers don't afford me the same courtesy, but this does not give me the right to punish the traveling public at large for the transgressions of a few!
Critical Mass seeks to force-feed the public a shift in paradigm. Except in cases of armed revolution (in which, history proves, only the victors prosper, regardless of their promises to the masses), this is almost certainly doomed to failure, particularly among such consumer-conscious and pacified citizenry as we Americans tend to be.
Patience, petition, and civilized public discourse are the safest and ultimately most effective ways to enlighten and persuade.
-Rob
randya
Stor Mand asked: So are you saying that you take the lane even if there is an open shoulder to ride in or do you ride on the shoulder, assuming that it is not littered with debris and cars (I shouldn't even have to say that)?
I am an urban cyclist. Most of my riding is done in the inner city where shoulders do not exist, only parked cars, gutters and curbs. Arterial street lane widths vary but generally don't exceed 12 feet in most places; lane widths are commonly in the 10' to 11' range, in some cases as narrow as 9.5'. In almost all instances in the environment I ride in, I take the lane and maintain an aggressive lane position in the center or slightly to the left of center in the right lane. Occassionally, I even have the opportunity to pass a slow moving motorist by using the left passing lane.
As you suggest, suburban and rural roads are a different story. I generally avoid these cycling environments, but I agree that the presence of paved shoulders allows for other options. I would probably maintain a lane position on or slightly to the left of the fog line in these instances, moving slightly to the right of the fog line to allow faster vehicles to pass as necessary given adequate shoulder width and condition.
I am an urban cyclist. Most of my riding is done in the inner city where shoulders do not exist, only parked cars, gutters and curbs. Arterial street lane widths vary but generally don't exceed 12 feet in most places; lane widths are commonly in the 10' to 11' range, in some cases as narrow as 9.5'. In almost all instances in the environment I ride in, I take the lane and maintain an aggressive lane position in the center or slightly to the left of center in the right lane. Occassionally, I even have the opportunity to pass a slow moving motorist by using the left passing lane.
As you suggest, suburban and rural roads are a different story. I generally avoid these cycling environments, but I agree that the presence of paved shoulders allows for other options. I would probably maintain a lane position on or slightly to the left of the fog line in these instances, moving slightly to the right of the fog line to allow faster vehicles to pass as necessary given adequate shoulder width and condition.
Chris L
Originally posted by Stor Mand
I'm still looking for an answer or comment to my post (not that anyone needs to answer ;) ). Is is too sensible to be courteous, as a cyclist, motorcyclist or motorist? I'll drop it in here again ... maybe someone (randya) or someone else will comment.
I will oblige. IF you're in a supermarket checkout, and the guy in the queue behind you has fewer items than you do (and is therefore going to get through faster than you), do you always move over and allow him to pass? Somehow I'd be very surprised if the answer to that question is "yes". I could list a heap of other situations where the same question could be asked.
That being the case, why then make an exception for public roadways that would not be made in any other facet of life. If I'm not expected to move over in a supermarket queue or anywhere else, why should I do so on the road?
Now I don't agree with the actions of critical mass, and if there is a suitable shoulder or bike lane provided on the road I will use it. However, if it's a situation that requires taking the lane I will do so with no guilt. I see no reason to inconvenience or endanger myself unnecessarily for the convenience of others in a public place when I wouldn't be expected to do so in any other facet of life.
I'm still looking for an answer or comment to my post (not that anyone needs to answer ;) ). Is is too sensible to be courteous, as a cyclist, motorcyclist or motorist? I'll drop it in here again ... maybe someone (randya) or someone else will comment.
I will oblige. IF you're in a supermarket checkout, and the guy in the queue behind you has fewer items than you do (and is therefore going to get through faster than you), do you always move over and allow him to pass? Somehow I'd be very surprised if the answer to that question is "yes". I could list a heap of other situations where the same question could be asked.
That being the case, why then make an exception for public roadways that would not be made in any other facet of life. If I'm not expected to move over in a supermarket queue or anywhere else, why should I do so on the road?
Now I don't agree with the actions of critical mass, and if there is a suitable shoulder or bike lane provided on the road I will use it. However, if it's a situation that requires taking the lane I will do so with no guilt. I see no reason to inconvenience or endanger myself unnecessarily for the convenience of others in a public place when I wouldn't be expected to do so in any other facet of life.
Justen
Originally posted by randya
JDifferent participants have different beliefs, goals and agendas and I can only speak for myself, but I also believe that mine is widely shared among Critical Mass participants. As such:
Critical Mass is first and foremost a celebration of the bicycle and bicycling in all its forms. Beyond that, Critical Mass is about raising the consciousness and awareness of the general public (and specifically, the motoring public) (1) to bicycling as a valid and viable form on transportation and a legitimate use of the public right of way, and (2) to the fact that cyclists are not second class users of the public right of way and should be able to use the public right of way in the same ways as motorists do without fear of the threat of vehicular violence against themselves when they do so.
Thank you for your answer, Randya,
I think it is always a good idea to raise public awareness around cycling as a valid means of transport. I guess my concern is with the way it is done in some of the CM rides. By blocking traffic, violating the law and provoking the police, how are you promoting public awareness of cyclist safety and rights ?
We will become second class users of the road if we behave in the same way as the motorists that put us all at risk and end up injuring or killing pedestrians or cyclists.
Right ?
Justen
JDifferent participants have different beliefs, goals and agendas and I can only speak for myself, but I also believe that mine is widely shared among Critical Mass participants. As such:
Critical Mass is first and foremost a celebration of the bicycle and bicycling in all its forms. Beyond that, Critical Mass is about raising the consciousness and awareness of the general public (and specifically, the motoring public) (1) to bicycling as a valid and viable form on transportation and a legitimate use of the public right of way, and (2) to the fact that cyclists are not second class users of the public right of way and should be able to use the public right of way in the same ways as motorists do without fear of the threat of vehicular violence against themselves when they do so.
Thank you for your answer, Randya,
I think it is always a good idea to raise public awareness around cycling as a valid means of transport. I guess my concern is with the way it is done in some of the CM rides. By blocking traffic, violating the law and provoking the police, how are you promoting public awareness of cyclist safety and rights ?
We will become second class users of the road if we behave in the same way as the motorists that put us all at risk and end up injuring or killing pedestrians or cyclists.
Right ?
Justen
randya
Justen: I think that you are mistaking cause and effect in several instances.
I generally agree with you and others posting here that civility among and between all road users is beneficial to all road users.
I continue to strongly disagree with what seems to be the prevalent opinion here that Critical Mass is simply a law-breaking joy ride. I also continue to disagree that Critical Mass blocks traffic anymore than the normal everyday rush hour commute, which, last time I checked, is a generally accepted inconvenience, but is not illegal.
The only questionable Critical Mass activity I am aware of is known as 'corking', which is blocking intersections after the front of the ride has passed and the light has changed. Corking is generally done to keep cars from mixing with the ride, which creates a hazardous situation, and to keep the ride together and moving, which allows the ride to clear an intersection faster and thus cause as little traffic disruption as possible. If the front of a ride encounters a yellow or red light, it generally stops and waits for the light to turn green before proceeding.
I disagree that Critical Mass deliberately provokes the police or that Critical Mass has any control over how the police respond to the ride. I have gone on permitted bike parades with hundreds of participants, where police block traffic for the ride. I have gone on very similar Critical Mass rides with well-behaved riders where the same police officers indiscriminately pepper sprayed and arrested participants. I have gone on other CM rides where the police were not present at all, and the ride did a very satisfactory job of policing itself.
Invariably, the police response is unpredictable and when it becomes heavy handed and bordering on a police riot, the police end up causing way more traffic problems than the ride ever does on its own.
When the rides are allowed to police themselves or have a limited bicycle officer accompanyment, positive interactions with motorists are much more prevalent than negative interactions. In these instances most motorists are interested in knowing what we're doing and why, and the message is usually very well recieved. This is what Critical Mass should be about, and not about battling the police in the streets. Our politicians have (or should have) the ability to control the police response to Critical Mass, as at a recent ride in Cleveland (see below). Therefore, I think that a heavy-handed police response actually reflects most poorly on City leadership, rather than on Critical Mass itself.
And let's face it, there are some motorists who think they own the road, and they're going to believe that, and behave rudely towards cyclists asserting their right to the road, regardless of Critical Mass. If you've been riding long enough, you know these types of motorists existed before the first Critical Mass ride ever occured. With more cyclists and cars on the road these days, these motorists are feeling challenged as never before, and are lashing out, and would regardless of Critical Mass.
CLEVELAND OHIO MAYOR'S AIDES JOIN CRITICAL MASS RIDE
According to a July 2nd story in the Cleveland Free Times, "The June Critical Mass bicycle ride downtown was graced with not one but three members of Mayor Jane Campbell's Administration, a welcome show of support for the idea that bicyclists can share the road with cars downtown -- at least after work on a Friday. And for some reason, the whole thing went off happily and without a hitch. Even the weather was nice. Thanks, Jane! "Planning Director Chris Ronayne rode with his wife--acting director of parks and recreation Natalie Ronayne--on a snazzy tandem. Planning commission staffer Marty Cader, no doubt getting in shape for hispedal-powered New York to Cleveland jaunt later this summer, also joined. They were among approximately 45 cyclists, an increase of nearly 50 percent over the previous month's traffic-ticketed crew. "We'd be remiss not to
mention downtown councilman Joe Cimperman, who didn't ride along but did organize a meeting between cyclists and police the day before the ride. Cader attended the meeting and told police he was there to represent the city's interest in having a bike-friendly city..."
Source: <http://www.freetimes.com/issues/1110/chat-bikes.html>
I generally agree with you and others posting here that civility among and between all road users is beneficial to all road users.
I continue to strongly disagree with what seems to be the prevalent opinion here that Critical Mass is simply a law-breaking joy ride. I also continue to disagree that Critical Mass blocks traffic anymore than the normal everyday rush hour commute, which, last time I checked, is a generally accepted inconvenience, but is not illegal.
The only questionable Critical Mass activity I am aware of is known as 'corking', which is blocking intersections after the front of the ride has passed and the light has changed. Corking is generally done to keep cars from mixing with the ride, which creates a hazardous situation, and to keep the ride together and moving, which allows the ride to clear an intersection faster and thus cause as little traffic disruption as possible. If the front of a ride encounters a yellow or red light, it generally stops and waits for the light to turn green before proceeding.
I disagree that Critical Mass deliberately provokes the police or that Critical Mass has any control over how the police respond to the ride. I have gone on permitted bike parades with hundreds of participants, where police block traffic for the ride. I have gone on very similar Critical Mass rides with well-behaved riders where the same police officers indiscriminately pepper sprayed and arrested participants. I have gone on other CM rides where the police were not present at all, and the ride did a very satisfactory job of policing itself.
Invariably, the police response is unpredictable and when it becomes heavy handed and bordering on a police riot, the police end up causing way more traffic problems than the ride ever does on its own.
When the rides are allowed to police themselves or have a limited bicycle officer accompanyment, positive interactions with motorists are much more prevalent than negative interactions. In these instances most motorists are interested in knowing what we're doing and why, and the message is usually very well recieved. This is what Critical Mass should be about, and not about battling the police in the streets. Our politicians have (or should have) the ability to control the police response to Critical Mass, as at a recent ride in Cleveland (see below). Therefore, I think that a heavy-handed police response actually reflects most poorly on City leadership, rather than on Critical Mass itself.
And let's face it, there are some motorists who think they own the road, and they're going to believe that, and behave rudely towards cyclists asserting their right to the road, regardless of Critical Mass. If you've been riding long enough, you know these types of motorists existed before the first Critical Mass ride ever occured. With more cyclists and cars on the road these days, these motorists are feeling challenged as never before, and are lashing out, and would regardless of Critical Mass.
CLEVELAND OHIO MAYOR'S AIDES JOIN CRITICAL MASS RIDE
According to a July 2nd story in the Cleveland Free Times, "The June Critical Mass bicycle ride downtown was graced with not one but three members of Mayor Jane Campbell's Administration, a welcome show of support for the idea that bicyclists can share the road with cars downtown -- at least after work on a Friday. And for some reason, the whole thing went off happily and without a hitch. Even the weather was nice. Thanks, Jane! "Planning Director Chris Ronayne rode with his wife--acting director of parks and recreation Natalie Ronayne--on a snazzy tandem. Planning commission staffer Marty Cader, no doubt getting in shape for hispedal-powered New York to Cleveland jaunt later this summer, also joined. They were among approximately 45 cyclists, an increase of nearly 50 percent over the previous month's traffic-ticketed crew. "We'd be remiss not to
mention downtown councilman Joe Cimperman, who didn't ride along but did organize a meeting between cyclists and police the day before the ride. Cader attended the meeting and told police he was there to represent the city's interest in having a bike-friendly city..."
Source: <http://www.freetimes.com/issues/1110/chat-bikes.html>
late
I was trying to be polite before. If you tried that stunt in a totalitarian country, you'd be dead. Franco's Guardia Civil preferred full machine guns to pistols; get the idea? Anyone with 2 functioning brain cells wouldn't think of trying it in the former USSR. They wouldn't kill you, at least not immediately. What they did would be worse. The rest of what you have to say is also puerile nonsense.
You haven't seen idiots like yourself utterly destroy a political movement; I have and more than once. Time to grow up.
You haven't seen idiots like yourself utterly destroy a political movement; I have and more than once. Time to grow up.
Chris L
Originally posted by randya
And let's face it, there are some motorists who think they own the road, and they're going to believe that, and behave rudely towards cyclists asserting their right to the road, regardless of Critical Mass.
And let's face it, there are many who don't. And let's face it, critical mass is hardly going to maintain their support, is it? Hence it is hardly going to be beneficial to our cause, which is my real beef with critical mass. As far as I'm concerned, motorists can go stew for all I care. However, the publicity generated by CM (yes, I know the media report it in a biased manner, but media bias is what people are going to see regardless) is going to do harm to us.
This is why critical mass is a problem. My opposition to critical mass has nothing to do with drivers whatsoever.
And let's face it, there are some motorists who think they own the road, and they're going to believe that, and behave rudely towards cyclists asserting their right to the road, regardless of Critical Mass.
And let's face it, there are many who don't. And let's face it, critical mass is hardly going to maintain their support, is it? Hence it is hardly going to be beneficial to our cause, which is my real beef with critical mass. As far as I'm concerned, motorists can go stew for all I care. However, the publicity generated by CM (yes, I know the media report it in a biased manner, but media bias is what people are going to see regardless) is going to do harm to us.
This is why critical mass is a problem. My opposition to critical mass has nothing to do with drivers whatsoever.
Stor Mand
What's going to happen when you become "equal" is that you're going to need a license and your "vehicle" is going to require brake lights, directionals, headlight and yearly inspection. Although, now that I think of it, brake-lights probably aren't a bad idea ...
JRA
Quite a load of horse hockey's been posted here in CM's defense. The more I read, the more convinced I am that the best thing for cycling would be if Critical Mass didn't exist.
Most interestingly, Critical Mass is opposed to the current traffic laws. As I cyclist, I applaud the enforcement of traffic laws. It's the traffic laws that give me, as a cyclist, all the rights of other vehicles. I'd like to see the traffic laws enforced, not changed. As long as a major feature of CM rides is violating traffic laws, no responsible cyclist should go on a CM ride.
The whole point of CM is to break the law, "corking" is just that, organized lawbreaking.
It's pretty obvious that Critical Mass is NOT cycling advocacy. CM is not for anything. CM is just against things. They're against evil automobiles; and against the police, and against the so-called fascist state. (:rolleyes: Yea, right. I guess CM is also opposed to famine, and pestilence, although they don't seem to say that. Famine, and pestilence are at least as relevant to cycling advocacy as fascism. That seems to be an oversight by CM.)
CM has little or nothing to do with advocacy.
I wish some of the wacko would-be revolutionaries in CM would find another cause, and stop sabotaging cycling. I'll never support CM in any way as long as it continues it's current policies.
Some people don't appreciate the rights and freedoms they have. I say that as someone who's been involved in protests myself (real protest, with real issues we believed stongly in). I felt the heavy hand of the law, but the 'heavy hand' was never the issue. We didn't make more of it than what it was: people doing their jobs too enthusiastically.
Anyone who thinks the issues of police over-reaction or police brutality have anything to do with cycling advocacy is nuts. Yet that's the line of garbage CM is selling. It's one of the reasons why CM is counter-productive.
Police brutatlity is a legitimate issue. If someone wants to protest police brutality, I think that's wonderful. It's a real problem, but it's no more relevant to cycling advocacy than the fact that people are dying of AIDS in Africa.
We're told that one of the great things about CM is that it raises awareness.Yea, it raises awareness that cyclists can be just as obnoxious, self-centered and idiotic as anybody else. Cycling would be a whole lot better off if CM didn't exist. If CM continues it's current policies, cycling will soon have a lot of enemies.
The best thing that could happen would be if cyclists would stop going to CM rides and find a responsible advocacy organization to support. Cycling needs more friends, not more enemies.
Most interestingly, Critical Mass is opposed to the current traffic laws. As I cyclist, I applaud the enforcement of traffic laws. It's the traffic laws that give me, as a cyclist, all the rights of other vehicles. I'd like to see the traffic laws enforced, not changed. As long as a major feature of CM rides is violating traffic laws, no responsible cyclist should go on a CM ride.
The whole point of CM is to break the law, "corking" is just that, organized lawbreaking.
It's pretty obvious that Critical Mass is NOT cycling advocacy. CM is not for anything. CM is just against things. They're against evil automobiles; and against the police, and against the so-called fascist state. (:rolleyes: Yea, right. I guess CM is also opposed to famine, and pestilence, although they don't seem to say that. Famine, and pestilence are at least as relevant to cycling advocacy as fascism. That seems to be an oversight by CM.)
CM has little or nothing to do with advocacy.
I wish some of the wacko would-be revolutionaries in CM would find another cause, and stop sabotaging cycling. I'll never support CM in any way as long as it continues it's current policies.
Some people don't appreciate the rights and freedoms they have. I say that as someone who's been involved in protests myself (real protest, with real issues we believed stongly in). I felt the heavy hand of the law, but the 'heavy hand' was never the issue. We didn't make more of it than what it was: people doing their jobs too enthusiastically.
Anyone who thinks the issues of police over-reaction or police brutality have anything to do with cycling advocacy is nuts. Yet that's the line of garbage CM is selling. It's one of the reasons why CM is counter-productive.
Police brutatlity is a legitimate issue. If someone wants to protest police brutality, I think that's wonderful. It's a real problem, but it's no more relevant to cycling advocacy than the fact that people are dying of AIDS in Africa.
We're told that one of the great things about CM is that it raises awareness.Yea, it raises awareness that cyclists can be just as obnoxious, self-centered and idiotic as anybody else. Cycling would be a whole lot better off if CM didn't exist. If CM continues it's current policies, cycling will soon have a lot of enemies.
The best thing that could happen would be if cyclists would stop going to CM rides and find a responsible advocacy organization to support. Cycling needs more friends, not more enemies.
Max
Originally posted by late
Anyone with 2 functioning brain cells wouldn't think of trying it in the former USSR. They wouldn't kill you, at least not immediately. What they did would be worse.
Actually there is the CM in the former USSR. I read the report about CM in Moscow. They were about 25 riders. They cycled in the city for a while. Nobody paid any attention to them.
They decided to cycle to the Red Square. The bridge leading to the Red Square was cordoned by troops. There was the training for some parade on the Square. But when the officers saw the group of these cyclists, they thought it was some race, which they were not informed about, and gave them the way in.
In my city of the former USSR there is no full-blown CM. There are too few cyclists left around. But it seems the number is growing, and from time to time sort of a Mini-Mass is ridden on the local multi-purpose trail.
Unfortunately, the only trail worth mentioning is situated along the sea side in the very center of the city, in the park.
Motorists on fancy cars, who can afford to disobey the road signs, try to drive on this trail too. Some of them are pure idiots and drive very fast on this asphalt trail full of joggers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
I guess this trail will turn into the usual road or avenue in a while, because it seems there is nothing, what can stop the triumph of the Motorism.
late, if you think that in the former USSR everybody is afraid and shy, you are in wrong. This land swarms with rebellious people. Take Leon Trotsky, for example. He started the Revolution in 1917 at the large political meeting in Saint Petersburg. The whole hall of thousands of delegates was hushing him first, then shouting at him, still he finshed his speech, which led to the Rebellion against the nobility.
You were taught that this Revolution brought only misery to people of the USSR. But do you know, that the working people and pesants were not allowed into the central part of my city until 1917. If they had business there they had to go on the side of the road instead of the sidewalk, which was reserved only for the "noble" people. Was it not a good reason alone to kick something?
Unfortunately, communism does not work economically. When I read that article about CM, the author mentions the "anticapitalist riders". I am curious to know what the alternative to capitalism the anticapitalist riders have in mind?
I mean if they are anticapitalist, then they should be also for something.
Anyone with 2 functioning brain cells wouldn't think of trying it in the former USSR. They wouldn't kill you, at least not immediately. What they did would be worse.
Actually there is the CM in the former USSR. I read the report about CM in Moscow. They were about 25 riders. They cycled in the city for a while. Nobody paid any attention to them.
They decided to cycle to the Red Square. The bridge leading to the Red Square was cordoned by troops. There was the training for some parade on the Square. But when the officers saw the group of these cyclists, they thought it was some race, which they were not informed about, and gave them the way in.
In my city of the former USSR there is no full-blown CM. There are too few cyclists left around. But it seems the number is growing, and from time to time sort of a Mini-Mass is ridden on the local multi-purpose trail.
Unfortunately, the only trail worth mentioning is situated along the sea side in the very center of the city, in the park.
Motorists on fancy cars, who can afford to disobey the road signs, try to drive on this trail too. Some of them are pure idiots and drive very fast on this asphalt trail full of joggers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
I guess this trail will turn into the usual road or avenue in a while, because it seems there is nothing, what can stop the triumph of the Motorism.
late, if you think that in the former USSR everybody is afraid and shy, you are in wrong. This land swarms with rebellious people. Take Leon Trotsky, for example. He started the Revolution in 1917 at the large political meeting in Saint Petersburg. The whole hall of thousands of delegates was hushing him first, then shouting at him, still he finshed his speech, which led to the Rebellion against the nobility.
You were taught that this Revolution brought only misery to people of the USSR. But do you know, that the working people and pesants were not allowed into the central part of my city until 1917. If they had business there they had to go on the side of the road instead of the sidewalk, which was reserved only for the "noble" people. Was it not a good reason alone to kick something?
Unfortunately, communism does not work economically. When I read that article about CM, the author mentions the "anticapitalist riders". I am curious to know what the alternative to capitalism the anticapitalist riders have in mind?
I mean if they are anticapitalist, then they should be also for something.
nathank
terminator: couldn't check out your link. our firewall blocked it with the reason being:
Hate Speech!
Hate Speech!
nathank
well, maybe i should read through all the posts here first, but after the first 2 pages i have to say i agree with much of what randya has to say.
yes, i have ridden on Portland CM rides -- maybe 3 times in '99 and 2000 and most everyone was very well behaved and 2 times the police acted dangerously and inappropriately --- one time ramming the wheel of a young woman on a bike and knocking her to the ground --- one of the most unsafe acts DELIBERATELY taken by a motorist against a cyclist i have ever witnessed -- and what was she doing? riding on the middle of the right hand lane when the laft-hand land was open for cars to pass (she faioled to move ALL the way to the right, so the police action in the "grave danger" she was presenting to society was to risk her life!)
anyhow, i'll read through more posts, but randya has some good points and seems to admit that CM is not perfect and it creates some problems... but there may be some good to it --- and it's very likely better than doing nothing at all...
P.S. i would ride Portland CM again if i were there. Munich is pretty darn good for cyclists so it's not really necessary.
yes, i have ridden on Portland CM rides -- maybe 3 times in '99 and 2000 and most everyone was very well behaved and 2 times the police acted dangerously and inappropriately --- one time ramming the wheel of a young woman on a bike and knocking her to the ground --- one of the most unsafe acts DELIBERATELY taken by a motorist against a cyclist i have ever witnessed -- and what was she doing? riding on the middle of the right hand lane when the laft-hand land was open for cars to pass (she faioled to move ALL the way to the right, so the police action in the "grave danger" she was presenting to society was to risk her life!)
anyhow, i'll read through more posts, but randya has some good points and seems to admit that CM is not perfect and it creates some problems... but there may be some good to it --- and it's very likely better than doing nothing at all...
P.S. i would ride Portland CM again if i were there. Munich is pretty darn good for cyclists so it's not really necessary.
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.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.