Advocacy & Safety - When Bikes Rule The Road, Motorists Fume

When Bikes Rule The Road, Motorists Fume (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-criticalmass12aug12,0,927044,full.story?coll=la-home-center)

Critical Mass has taken over city streets at random for almost 15 years. Supporters say it's harmless fun. Detractors say the rides have spun out of control.
By John M. Glionna
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 12, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO -- The sea of bicyclists surges up this city's Financial District, a boisterous mass of freewheeling humanity, 1,500 riders strong. Pedaling six abreast, they send pedestrians scurrying as rush-hour traffic hits the brakes.

A cable car slows, engulfed by riders who whoop and holler or chat on cellphones. A traffic light goes red, green and red again. Still the bikes keep coming.

As a bystander high-fives passing cyclists, one car in a line of idling motorists lets loose with a long, blaring, impatient horn blast. A tourist snaps a photograph and asks: "Are you protesting global warming?"

"No," one rider shouts back, "we're taking over the streets!"

Some call it a bicycle insurrection against the thoughtless motorists who hog city streets. Others say it's about nothing more than fun.

On the last Friday of each month, the cyclists of Critical Mass embark on an unrehearsed crosstown jaunt that -- for a few hours -- transforms the urban landscape.

When Critical Mass hits the streets, bikes rule. Sometimes with sharp elbows, riders brush aside the cars, trucks and buses that stand in their way. And often, tempers flare.

Bicyclists and drivers get into fights, cyclists slam their locks onto car hoods and police make arrests amid pointed turf battles. A decade ago, former Mayor Willie Brown declared war on the marauding cyclists, whose exploits he dismissed as "the ultimate arrogance."

But Critical Mass stubbornly survived, and even flourished.

Started here in 1992 by a handful of idealists, the free-form events have spread to every continent but Antarctica and to 300 cities worldwide, including Los Angeles.

Next month, the ride celebrates its 15th year. But it still has no leaders, no route plans, no spokespeople.

"How the rides unfold is always a mystery," said Chris Carlsson, a ride co-founder and editor of a book, "Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration."

"They're predictable yet unknowable. People keep coming back to see what will happen."

Critical Mass riders, who refer to themselves as "massers," insist that they're not tying up traffic -- they are the traffic, albeit a two-wheeled variety. Their aim is to force cars to share the road and leave enough room for bike lanes, so cyclists won't have to fear injury and death.

"For 29 days a month, cars call the shots. It's Auto Mass," said Kate McCarthy, a member of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. "But for a few hours of one day, we turn the tables. We take the streets back."

The rides develop their own loopy anarchy. One thing is certain: Cyclists gather at 6 p.m. at the foot of Market Street. After that, anything goes. False starts are common as would-be leaders try to lure the group in one direction. No one knows where the ride will go or when, exactly, riders will depart.

There's even a Critical Mass lexicon, with words such as "xerocracy," to describe the way riders record ideas about proposed routes and photocopy them for distribution at the event. A motorist who pushes into a group of cyclists is a "homicidal maniac driver." Aggressive, overly confrontational massers are a "testosterone brigade."

Anger at arrogance
Many criticize the cyclists' holier-than-thou arrogance.

"There's an incredible self-righteousness, like the traffic laws obviously aren't made for them," said blogger Rob Anderson, who has written about the massers. "We're all trapped in our tin cans, while they ride unfettered. They run people out of crosswalks, yelling, 'Get out of our way! We're not burning fossil fuels!' "

Though his predecessor feuded with Critical Mass riders, Mayor Gavin Newsom has extended an olive branch of sorts. Last year, he named the head of the bicycle coalition (which claims independence from Critical Mass but advertises the rides on its website) as a commissioner overseeing the city's powerful Municipal Transportation Agency.

Meanwhile, in the 15 years since Critical Mass began, the number of San Francisco bike commuters has doubled to more than 2% of the population. Bike activists have successfully lobbied for more cycling lanes, bicycle racks on buses and a weekend ban on cars in popular Golden Gate Park. The city charter even guarantees that "bicycling shall be promoted" in any drafting plans for traffic flow and public safety.

"Critical Mass energized the bicycle movement here," said former Berkeley cyclist David Cohen. "It lent a sort of spiritual energy, the idea that we could gather en masse. There were no leaders. We were all leaders."

That's one point of view.

Four years after leaving office, Brown still steams at the mention of Critical Mass. "They're bad for the city," he said. "They disrupt honest people trying to get home from work. That's their whole point."

The riders swarm up Van Ness Avenue looking like Grateful Dead groupies on wheels. The scent of marijuana is in the air as a woman with orange dreadlocks pedals a bike with a milk crate for a basket. A man in a fedora croons rap lyrics, blasted from a strapped-on boombox. One man rides a tricycle shaped like a silver fish with twinkling mesh scales.

There are pricey bikes and Wal-Mart specials. A rider calls to friends on his kazoo. Another rings his 1950s-style bicycle bell like an excited 8-year-old.

Suddenly, a woman wheels a stroller into a crosswalk as the bikes surround her. "Stop!" she shrieks. "I'm with a baby!"

Nearby, a driver noses his vehicle into an intersection, causing bicycles to veer to avoid him. Immediately, massers known as "corkers" position their bicycles in front of the car.

Only after the pack is gone do the bikers call out, with a tinge of sarcasm: "Thanks for waiting!"

A taxi driver trying to make a left turn against the pack sees a police cruiser shadowing the cyclists: "Officer," he says, "how can I make a left turn here?"

The cop shrugs.

On the first ride in 1992, a few dozen cyclists rode up Market Street handing out fliers before hitting a bar for beers. They were bike commuters tired of motorists yelling, "Grow up! Get a car!" recalled Carlsson. "They treated you like a kid riding your toy, like you didn't belong in the road."

Founders called the stunt "Commute Clot." The name didn't stick. But the idea did. People flocked to the event.

"San Francisco has a reputation as a contrarian place," said Carlsson, 50, a desktop publisher. "People have a different idea how to make life richer and more artistic and profoundly more emotional than the capitalist world wants for us. Critical Mass seized that spirit."

More rides, new cities
The rides were replicated elsewhere, as were the confrontations.

In New York, arrests of bicyclists are common. In Santa Monica, one cyclist was arrested in June, prompting a meeting between police and ride organizers. But those incidents are rare, said Monica Howe, outreach manager for the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition.

"You can't really take over the streets when you only have a posse of 50 people," Howe said. "We don't have the history of run-ins. We can't get away with it."

In the summer of 1997, Brown issued a crackdown on the San Francisco rides, ordering bikes seized and rogue riders punished. That July, 5,000 massers jammed city streets, with more than 100 riders arrested. None was charged.

New strategy on cyclists
In time, tempers cooled as police developed a less aggressive strategy. Nowadays, about 40 officers monitor the rides on bikes and in squads cars.

"It's not practical to think 40 officers can ticket every rider who breaks the law," said department spokesman Sgt. Steve Mannina. "Our goal is to preserve public safety and prevent property damage."

"TUNnel! TUNnel! TUNnel!"

The snakelike line of cyclists roars into a Chinatown tunnel. Riders shriek as they enter, their echoes deafening.

So far, there have been no dust-ups. But some riders test the limits: One sneaks up behind a bus to yank the electric cable from a power line overhead, laughing as he rides on.

A cyclist blows kisses to glum-faced bus passengers. Another yells "It's OK to smile!"

Some passengers do.

Detractors point to the March 30 ride as just one example of Critical Mass spinning out of control.

Riders clashed with motorists in two incidents. Limo driver Dennis Webb says the melee started after a female cyclist blocked his path.

When Webb got out of his car to confront the cyclists, one dented the limo's hood with a U-shaped bicycle lock. Another slashed his tire. Someone else grabbed his car keys and rode off. The hood-denter was charged in the incident.

"Some of these people try to provoke motorists," said Webb, 46. "When you start that, you're looking for trouble. It's only natural you're not going to let them get away with that."

Another altercation came later in the ride, as cyclists made their way through Japantown.

Susan Ferrando, who was driving with her two kids in the car, said a throng of riders attacked her. Others said a frustrated Ferrando plowed into the cyclists, struck one and tried to drive on. Riders surrounded her until police arrived.

No charges were filed. But Ferrando said she remains in shock. "It's been traumatic," she said, her voice breaking. "I've got a child standing here saying, 'No, Mommy. I don't want to talk about it.' This isn't over for us."

In a play off Critical Mass, a new cycling event recently was launched here. Its few riders make a point to observe traffic laws and stay out of fights.

They call it Critical Manners.

By 8:30 p.m., two hours after it started, the Friday night ride is thinning out. As the pack eases through the crowded Mission District, motorists become more daring, challenging stragglers at the end of the bike line.

Carlsson rides alone amid the holdouts, using drumsticks to bang a pair of cymbals on his handlebars. As always, he's elated, even a bit baffled, by the success of the event he helped create 15 years ago.

"Every once in a while, I'll see someone who was there for the first ride," he said.

"We'll make eye contact and smile, as if to say, 'Can you believe it? That it's gotten this big?' "

Stay tuned for another episode of culture wars, A&S style! :D


My favorite quote from the article:


Many criticize the cyclists' holier-than-thou arrogance.


"There's an incredible self-righteousness, like the traffic laws obviously aren't made for them," said blogger Rob Anderson, who has written about the massers. "We're all trapped in our tin cans, while they ride unfettered. They run people out of crosswalks, yelling, 'Get out of our way! We're not burning fossil fuels!' "Envy disguised as anger!

My favorite (probable mis-)quote was this:


Critical Mass riders, who refer to themselves as "massers," insist that they're not tying up traffic -- they are the traffic, albeit a two-wheeled variety. Their aim is to force cars to share the road and leave enough room for bike lanes, so cyclists won't have to fear injury and death.

They rolled out a bit of CM's history for the anniversary, the rest was just inflamatory rhetoric with a dose of misinformation thrown in. I guess small cudos to teh respurter if he actually went on the ride.

IMO the OP is just trying to start a flame war...

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:)

:D

:lol:

What fine upstanding citizens these CM anarchists are.... real cycling advocates. Someone is going to be seriously injured in one of these altercations.

What fine upstanding citizens these CM anarchists are.... real cycling advocates. Someone is going to be seriously injured in one of these altercations.
exactly the response the article was designed to solicit. congratulations, you win first prize!

Stay tuned for another episode of culture wars, A&S style! :D


My favorite quote from the article:


Many criticize the cyclists' holier-than-thou arrogance.


"There's an incredible self-righteousness, like the traffic laws obviously aren't made for them," said blogger Rob Anderson, who has written about the massers. "We're all trapped in our tin cans, while they ride unfettered. They run people out of crosswalks, yelling, 'Get out of our way! We're not burning fossil fuels!' "Envy disguised as anger!

Rob Anderson (http://district5diary.blogspot.com) is the man responsible for the lawsuit which has forced an environmental review of San Francisco's Bicycle Master Plan, delaying it for years.

Stay tuned for another episode of culture wars, A&S style! :D


My favorite quote from the article:


Many criticize the cyclists' holier-than-thou arrogance.


"There's an incredible self-righteousness, like the traffic laws obviously aren't made for them," said blogger Rob Anderson, who has written about the massers. "We're all trapped in our tin cans, while they ride unfettered. They run people out of crosswalks, yelling, 'Get out of our way! We're not burning fossil fuels!' "Envy disguised as anger!

I don't think it is envy that infuriates the drivers; it is just plain frustration pure and simple. The Critical Mass participants do ride with arrogance and with complete disregard for traffic laws and zero respect for others on the road.

The Critical Mass participants and many people on this forum act as if they are some kind of environmental warrior by riding a bicycle. The fact is that most of them AND most of the people on Bikeforums.com use automobiles often. The times they bicycle or go to a critical mass is like going to a masquerade party - suddenly becoming a champion of the bicycling way of life, but climbing right back into their automobiles after the party is over.

Haven’t you ever been in a hurry to get somewhere and halfway there you get stuck waiting for a parade you did not know about? There you sit frustrated and anxious while miles of clowns parade in front of you. You can’t go forwards, backwards, or sideways. That is what it must feel like for drivers suddenly stuck in a Critical Mass parade of clowns on bicycles.

Critical Mass is like traffic vandalism. It is a bunch of hooligans causing trouble mostly for the express purpose of making trouble.

Much divorced from the original goal of trying to get recognition for bicyclists’ rights on the road, Critical Mass does nothing to promote positive bicycling awareness today.

Critical Mass = domestic terrorism and should be responded to as such. It (CM) is not helping the cycling community one bit with their antics.

+1 to mike and bushman. Do the parents of these CMassers know where their children are and what they are doing?

What fine upstanding citizens these CM anarchists are.... real cycling advocates. Someone is going to be seriously injured in one of these altercations.

And what of the people who try to drive a car through these groups? Legal or not, a big group of people doesn't deserve to be run down by a car. After 15 years, it's pretty clear that the last Friday of the month, you're not going to get anywhere downtown. Yet, knowing this, it seems drivers still go out for the wait, get impatient, then ***** when a group of cyclists doesn't appreciate aggressive actions against them and responds in kind. I'm not advocating it at all, and I'm not going to even act as if the CM group is harmless and innocent, but I don't see any difference between a car trying to push through CM and a car trying to plow through Team Discovery on a training ride.

I don't think it is envy that infuriates the drivers; it is just plain frustration pure and simple. The Critical Mass participants do ride with arrogance and with complete disregard for traffic laws and zero respect for others on the road.

The Critical Mass participants and many people on this forum act as if they are some kind of environmental warrior by riding a bicycle. The fact is that most of them AND most of the people on Bikeforums.com use automobiles often. The times they bicycle or go to a critical mass is like going to a masquerade party - suddenly becoming a champion of the bicycling way of life, but climbing right back into their automobiles after the party is over.

Haven’t you ever been in a hurry to get somewhere and halfway there you get stuck waiting for a parade you did not know about? There you sit frustrated and anxious while miles of clowns parade in front of you. You can’t go forwards, backwards, or sideways. That is what it must feel like for drivers suddenly stuck in a Critical Mass parade of clowns on bicycles.

Critical Mass is like traffic vandalism. It is a bunch of hooligans causing trouble mostly for the express purpose of making trouble.

Much divorced from the original goal of trying to get recognition for bicyclists’ rights on the road, Critical Mass does nothing to promote positive bicycling awareness today.

The difference is, this parade has been going on for 15 years at the same time. Even as I tourist, I would know better. I'm not advocating the ride, though I do support the "Critical Manners" initiative, but it's 15 years strong, and it's not going away any time soon. I'm sorry, but if it were me stuck in traffic, I'd wait it out.

Critical Mass = domestic terrorism and should be responded to as such.

I think it's important to distinguish non-violent civil disobedience from terrorism.

Civil disobedience warrants enforcement of the laws broken. Terrorism warrants massive response by the government and an effective strategy to neutralize those responsible.

The government of a "free" country will do some ugly things to combat terrorism. But if they do the same things to combat civil disobedience, it's not a free country anymore.

Rob Anderson (http://district5diary.blogspot.com) is the man responsible for the lawsuit which has forced an environmental review of San Francisco's Bicycle Master Plan, delaying it for years.
Judging by the amount of comments on Rob's blog, not too many people are paying that much attention to him.

I think it's important to distinguish non-violent civil disobedience from terrorism.
.

Violence appears to be common with CM

Another blow against cyclists thanks critical mass riders keep up the bad work and soon bikes will be forced off the roads by law.

sqqoodri


well said.

The perpostrous idea that infuriating those around you in an effort to try to get handouts from them makes absolutely no logical or rational sense whatsoever. CM is made up of a bunch of anti-establishment yaks who would die of boredom if they didn't have something to rebel against. :rolleyes:

I think it's important to distinguish non-violent civil disobedience from terrorism.

Civil disobedience warrants enforcement of the laws broken. Terrorism warrants massive response by the government and an effective strategy to neutralize those responsible.

The government of a "free" country will do some ugly things to combat terrorism. But if they do the same things to combat civil disobedience, it's not a free country anymore.

Does civil disobedience warrant enforcement of unfair laws? Recall the voting rights protests before women were given the vote, recall the protests of workers (and the working conditions) before unions were allowed, recall the civil rights protests of the 60's.

Does civil disobedience warrant enforcement of unfair laws? Recall the voting rights protests before women were given the vote, recall the protests of workers (and the working conditions) before unions were allowed, recall the civil rights protests of the 60's.

I believe that is the whole point isn't it? By requiring the establishment to enforce unfair laws publicly one gains both the moral and PR high ground.

Violence appears to be common with CM

I think it's clear that's a side effect, and not the intent, much like fighting in the stands at sporting events.

I don't like the way Critical Mass is deliberately dis-organized by its organizers to avoid taking responsibility and its participants deliberately violate traffic laws while claiming to be traffic, but I don't think it should be mischaracterized as having violent intentions.

I believe that is the whole point isn't it? By requiring the establishment to enforce unfair laws publicly one gains both the moral and PR high ground.

Right; this creates public pressure to change the law.

But enforcement should be done appropriately. In the case of Critical Mass, ticket the cyclists running red lights after warning them that they will be ticketed. Anything heavier-handed for a red light violation that doesn't create a great deal of danger for others is inappropriate.

Personally, I don't support allowing cyclists to run red lights; I think that law is fair. As for taking up the entire road, I think that using multiple lanes is appropriate if there is enough bicycle traffic, but in other cases there's no need to use more than a single lane. Most of the problem with the police regarding Critical Mass is that they don't enforce the traffic laws properly, and instead get all bent out of shape trying to control when and by what mode the public travels.

If the Critical Mass participants want to run red lights, they should get a parade permit. If they don't want to get a parade permit, they should obey the traffic signals that multiplex roadway access with other users, or risk ticketing.

I think the word "terrorist" is bandied about too readily these days, by the government, and by ordinary people. The danger is if it's applied too loosely, then at some point, everybody is a "terrorist," and the word loses all meaning. I think it's important to reclaim that word from government propagandists. A terrorist isn't somebody who breaks the law because they have no regard for the law, and it certainly isn't somebody who breaks the law in civil disobedience.

I think civil disobedience is an important response to social injustice where there is no possibility of redress through the political process. The civil rights movement is perhaps the best example we have in this country. I remember what happened when Bull Connor set the dogs loose on civil rights marchers-- white people across the country stood up and said "enough"! I saw it myself, even though I was young, because my parents took me to a march in support of the civil rights marchers.

Now consider what the outcome would have been had civil rights protesters surrounded a car load of children returning from a party and broken the windows out of the car. Would the country still have rallied in support of civil rights, and said no to segregation? I seriously doubt it. The marchers stood up to injustice; they boycotted the buses, they marched, they were nonviolent. They did not go out of their way to alienate anybody who wasn't a civil rights marcher. And when the police over-reacted with fire hoses and attack dogs, in defense of injustice, the country was shocked into action and the Jim Crow laws were finally defeated.

The traffic laws are in no way similar to the Jim Crow laws, and interfering with people trying to get home from work is not an act of civil disobedience. "It's a temper tantrum on wheels," to quote one Critical Mass defender. It harms cycling for the sake of gratifying the chip-on-their-shoulders temper tantrum. It's anti-cycling advocacy.

But enforcement should be done appropriately. In the case of Critical Mass, ticket the cyclists running red lights after warning them that they will be ticketed. Anything heavier-handed for a red light violation that doesn't create a great deal of danger for others is inappropriate.

Personally, I don't support allowing cyclists to run red lights; I think that law is fair. As for taking up the entire road, I think that using multiple lanes is appropriate if there is enough bicycle traffic, but in other cases there's no need to use more than a single lane. Most of the problem with the police regarding Critical Mass is that they don't enforce the traffic laws properly, and instead get all bent out of shape trying to control when and by what mode the public travels.

If the Critical Mass participants want to run red lights, they should get a parade permit. If they don't want to get a parade permit, they should obey the traffic signals that multiplex roadway access with other users, or risk ticketing.I agree, for the most part.

I think that Critical Mass should obey the traffic laws-- after all, Critical Mass claims to be an action to demonstrate that "bikes are a part of traffic too." If the participants break the laws, they should be ticketed, although I don't think it's any more necessary to warn them that they will be ticketed than it is to warn motorists before ticketing them. If Critical Mass wants to run red lights, they should get a parade permit. Otherwise, obey the laws, or get ticketed. Same goes for the motorists along the route.

I also think that there should be a zero-tolerance policy for violence and inciting to violence. Critical Mass participants who attempt to disturb the peace or incite violence should be arrested and prosecuted. Motorists who react to Critical Mass by harming or attempting to harm Critical Mass participants should also be arrested and prosecuted.

The traffic laws are in no way similar to the Jim Crow laws, and interfering with people trying to get home from work is not an act of civil disobedience. "It's a temper tantrum on wheels," to quote one Critical Mass defender. It harms cycling for the sake of gratifying the chip-on-their-shoulders temper tantrum. It's anti-cycling advocacy.

I think that "civil disobedience" applies to those whose motives and methods we find disagreeable just as much as for those causes we think justified (especially in 20:20 hindsight).

From the perspective of a developer or logger, a person who chains herself to a tree on their property is blocking them from earning the money to put food on the table. But it's non-violent civil disobedience with a pretty cut-and-dry legal penalty.

The trouble with civil disobedience is that it is often designed to create social conflicts that under certain unintended conditions can become violent (for example, when a non-participant reacts) and then things get out of hand.

I also think that there should be a zero-tolerance policy for violence and inciting to violence. Critical Mass participants who attempt to disturb the peace or incite violence should be arrested and prosecuted.

I dislike the ambiguity of the "disturbing the peace" charge. Simply being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" can result in hostility from an unjustly prejudiced majority. I think we want to be careful about allowing the government to apply a "disturbing the peace" charge to the exercise of first amendment rights by a minority party. I think it's possible to use greater specificity to define unlawful public behavior while protecting these rights.

I think that "civil disobedience" applies to those whose motives and methods we find disagreeable just as much as for those causes we think justified (especially in 20:20 hindsight).

From the perspective of a developer or logger, a person who chains herself to a tree on their property is blocking them from earning the money to put food on the table. But it's non-violent civil disobedience with a pretty cut-and-dry legal penalty.I agree. But a fundamental part of Gandhian civil disobedience has always been the willingness to be arrested in order to spotlight the injustice of the law being upheld.

In the case of Critical Mass, where's the injustice? That bikes are required to obey the traffic laws? Or is it something more fundamental than that-- for example, what may often be a de facto second-class status for cyclists?

Let's say it's the latter. I fail to see how running red lights reinforces the notion that cyclists should not be relegated to second-class status. If anything, it only reinforces the notion that bikes are not "real" vehicles, and therefore shouldn't be on the road with "real" vehicles.

I also fail to see how deliberately antagonizing people who are only trying to get home from work creates any sort of societal-wide movement in support of cyclists' rights. If anything, I would argue that it only increases sentiment to get cyclists off the road-- if not through the law, then through physical force when the law isn't looking.

I dislike the ambiguity of the "disturbing the peace" charge. Simply being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" can result in hostility from an unjustly prejudiced majority. I think we want to be careful about allowing the government to apply a "disturbing the peace" charge to the exercise of first amendment rights by a minority party. I think it's possible to use greater specificity to define unlawful public behavior while protecting these rights.I agree. I was using the term in a general sense, because I didn't want to research appropriate laws, and they will vary by state anyway. But generally, if somebody is attempting to incite violence, there are laws that can and should be applied.

Judging by the amount of comments on Rob's blog, not too many people are paying that much attention to him.

Which is at it should be, since he's an attention-seeking troll. He just acts out in the legal system instead of on a forum. Unfortunately, judges tend to agree with him.

I think it's important to distinguish non-violent civil disobedience from terrorism.

Civil disobedience warrants enforcement of the laws broken. Terrorism warrants massive response by the government and an effective strategy to neutralize those responsible.

The government of a "free" country will do some ugly things to combat terrorism. But if they do the same things to combat civil disobedience, it's not a free country anymore.

People who engage in civil disobedience should expect to be arrested. That's the point. Both MLK and Ghandi defined civil disobedience as intentionally breaking the law and willingly accepting the penalty.

We can debate about CM all we want, but if they want to follow in the tradition of the great non-violent civil disobedience movements, the riders must willingly accept the legal penalties for their actions.

Edit: I see Blue Order has already made this point.

Why can't CM just obey traffic rules? If they stop for lights, and otherwise respect everyone's right of way, then no one can accuse them of any wrongdoing. Take up the whole road, ride at their own pace, no problem, but just show everyone wht they are, vehicles that have the right to ride on the same roads as cars.

Then, when cars try to run them over and yell obscenities, they will be the victims and cars will be the bullies in the eyes of the public.

^^^^ If the point of CM was to advance bike rights they'd do that, but that is not the point, thepoint is for them to get out into public and makes horses backsides out of themselves. These are people who are to weak in the world to make any impression by themselves, the only way they can affect anything is to get out in public and act stupid.

Does civil disobedience warrant enforcement of unfair laws?

I am curious, but just what laws do the CM riders say are unfair? Which laws are they protesting?

...In the case of Critical Mass, where's the injustice? That bikes are required to obey the traffic laws? Or is it something more fundamental than that-- for example, what may often be a de facto second-class status for cyclists?

The injustice is trough cyclists fear mongering attitude, more and more cities are putting up "no cycling" signs, and "no cycling here", and "no cycling there" and "no bicycles allowed". When mandatory cyclists, the minority of us who don't own cars but use cycles as their primary vehicle don't stand up for preservation and furthering of rights (not segregation legislation), RIGHTS END UP DISAPPEARING, you gotta fight for your rights.


I also fail to see how deliberately antagonizing people who are only trying to get home from work creates any sort of societal-wide movement in support of cyclists' rights.

If they aren't breaking the law then it isn't civil disobedience is it? And why bother break the law if it isn't going to antagonize a few of the powers that be...

The injustice is trough cyclists fear mongering attitude, more and more cities are putting up "no cycling" signs, and "no cycling here", and "no cycling there" and "no bicycles allowed". When mandatory cyclists, the minority of us who don't own cars but use cycles as their primary vehicle don't stand up for preservation and furthering of rights (not segregation legislation), RIGHTS END UP DISAPPEARING, you gotta fight for your rights.I agree that we need to exercise our rights to the road, and defend them in the courthouse and the statehouse.

Riding in violation of reasonable laws for the express purpose of annoying other people on the road is none of the above.


If they aren't breaking the law then it isn't civil disobedience is it? And why bother break the law if it isn't going to antagonize a few of the powers that be...So they're breaking the red light law because it's unjust... Uh-huh.

Sorry- I have witnessed enough CMs to have formulated this opinion well before the article appeared. There is no cycling advocacy within CM. You are deluded if you think otherwise.


exactly the response the article was designed to solicit. congratulations, you win first prize!

I agree that we need to exercise our rights to the road, and defend them in the courthouse and the statehouse.

Riding in violation of reasonable laws for the express purpose of annoying other people on the road is none of the above.
So they're breaking the red light law because it's unjust... Uh-huh.

Listen, nowhere in the rulebook of civil disobedience does it say that the laws you're fighting against are the ones that need to be disobeyed. If you're fighting to save whales you're not going to go out and hunt them more to break the law, duh. Civil disobedience, BY DEFINITION is breaking ANY law with the purpose of bringing attention to a plight. You should try it someday!

Mind you don't try it in Canada, because Canada's government is so Big Brother here that we have lost the right to assemble without a permit, how a bout that, merely assembling is illegal in Canada! Assembling without a permit in Canada will get you maced!!!!! :D

And believe me, that's no fun. So you'd better demonstrate for your rights now, while you still have the right to even express yourself in public, for free. DO IT!

I don't think it is envy that infuriates the drivers; it is just plain frustration pure and simple...

Haven’t you ever been in a hurry to get somewhere and halfway there you get stuck waiting for a parade you did not know about? There you sit frustrated and anxious while miles of clowns parade in front of you. You can’t go forwards, backwards, or sideways. That is what it must feel like for drivers suddenly stuck in a Critical Mass parade of clowns on bicycles.

Critical Mass is like traffic vandalism. It is a bunch of hooligans causing trouble mostly for the express purpose of making trouble.

Much divorced from the original goal of trying to get recognition for bicyclists’ rights on the road, Critical Mass does nothing to promote positive bicycling awareness today.
+1. This is exactly how I feel. All they seem to be doing is being stupid *******s because they can get away with it due to their numbers. They say that 29 days a month it's "auto mass", but the difference is that the vast majority of motorists are simply trying to get from A to B, and they're not breaking traffic laws while doing it. I haven't seen a group of motorists box-in a bicycle either.

I know for a fact I'd be agrrivated if a large parade of hooting, hostile morons blocked traffic and ignored the right of way. Not all drivers are terrorists; I'm very courteous to pedestrians and cyclists when I drive. It basically seems like a giant f-you to people who are just trying to get where they're going.

I don't think I'd even participate in a critical mass ride regardless of whether they obeyed the most basic traffic laws because of all of the inane yelling and whatnot. Critical manners, on the other hand, I would do. When I drive, I don't run red lights. I respect other people's right of way, I signal my intent, and I pay attention to the road. I do the same as a cyclist, and I really don't want people to see CMers and assume that responsible cyclists are going to act like that.

I drive and cycle every day, for the record. I'm not trying to defend bad motorists, but rather I'm not going to defend cycling badly as revenge.

Listen, nowhere in the rulebook of civil disobedience does it say that the laws you're fighting against are the ones that need to be disobeyed. If you're fighting to save whales you're not going to go out and hunt them more to break the law, duh. Civil disobedience, BY DEFINITION is breaking ANY law with the purpose of bringing attention to a plight. You should try it someday!And you should try to avoid assuming you know anything at all about a total stranger.

By definition, civil disobedience means breaking an unjust law. For example, if the law says that people of color must ride at the back of the bus, the law is protested by riding at the front of the bus. The injustice of the law is brought into focus by the willful disobedience of the unjust law, and by the willingness to face arrest for refusing to comply with the unjust law.

It can also mean breaking another law in protest of an unjust situation. For example, if you're protesting abortion, you might block the entrance to an abortion clinic, or if you're protesting the war, you might block the entrance to a military facility. In those cases, you're not protesting against the trespass laws, you’re protesting against the activity itself. The injustice of the activity is brought into focus by the willful disobedience of a lawful order to disperse, and by the willingness to face arrest for refusing to disperse.

Now, let’s compare those to your analogies. First, this one:


If you're fighting to save whales you're not going to go out and hunt them more to break the law, duhNo, you’re going to interfere with the hunt, either by blockade, or by placing yourself between the whales and the whalers. And neither of those is civil disobedience, they’re direct action.

Now this one:


Civil disobedience, BY DEFINITION is breaking ANY law with the purpose of bringing attention to a plight.Oh, really? So civil disobedience, by definition, is the breaking of any law? So if you want to stop the hunting of whales, you can engage in civil disobedience against whaling by robbing a bank, selling heroin, or distributing child pornography, as long as your intent is to bring attention to whaling? Interesting analysis there.

And third:


The injustice is trough cyclists fear mongering attitude, more and more cities are putting up "no cycling" signs, and "no cycling here", and "no cycling there" and "no bicycles allowed".So let’s run with this one. In a city where cycling is prohibited in certain areas, it’s civil disobedience to ride in areas where cycling isn’t prohibited? Why not just be less circumspect about it and ride in violation of the “no cycling here” law? Isn’t the point, after all, to bring attention to the unjust law? And isn’t Civil Disobedience, by definition, the willingness to face arrest—with no resistance save for going limp—in order to highlight the injustice? So in the case of a city that unjustly prohibits cycling, the civil disobedience response would be to ride in defiance of that prohibition, with the intent of being arrested in order to shine a light on that injustice.

And conversely, running red lights and taunting motorists wouldn’t be “civil disobedience.” Not even close.

Now what about those towns that have not unjustly prohibited cycling? Critical Mass rides in those towns too. Civil disobedience? And if so, against what?

The fact that Critical Mass does NOT engage in civil disobedience makes any ex post facto attempts to paint critical mass as a civil disobedience movement laughable on its face.


And why bother break the law if it isn't going to antagonize a few of the powers that be...You are conflating the innocent motorists caught up in your silly temper tantrums on wheels masquerading as a social justice movement with “the powers that be.”

I think the word "terrorist" is bandied about too readily these days, by the government, and by ordinary people.
Yes, but that keeps population scared, so government can do some interesting stuff.

Yes, but that keeps population scared, so government can do some interesting stuff.Yep, it's the new black.

I've been researching the history of federal wolf eradication efforts; in the 1920s and 1930s, wolves were compared to "gangsters" and "bolsheviks." In the 1940s, wolves were "nazis." In the oughties, they're compared to "terrorists."

The word "terrorist" is just the latest scare tactic, and unfortunately, it's losing its meaning.

...more and more cities are putting up "no cycling" signs, and "no cycling here", and "no cycling there" and "no bicycles allowed". When mandatory cyclists, the minority of us who don't own cars but use cycles as their primary vehicle don't stand up for preservation and furthering of rights (not segregation legislation), RIGHTS END UP DISAPPEARING, you gotta fight for your rights.
Did anyone get that?

. . . Civil disobedience, BY DEFINITION is breaking ANY law with the purpose of bringing attention to a plight. . . .
You miss one key part of the definition (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/civil.htm)--willingly accepting the penalty:


The second principle of civil disobedience follows from the first: you should plead guilty to any violation of the law. As Gandhi explains: “I am here to . . . submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.” Gandhi instructed his disciples to take the penance of their oppressors upon themselves. Gandhi’s tactics were a form of moral and political ju jitzu. Some of Gandhi’s judges felt as if they were the ones charged and convicted. Thoreau said that his one night in jail made the state look foolish. We have now arrived at the third principle of civil disobedience: you should attempt to convert your opponent by demonstrating the justice of your cause. Active nonviolence does not seek, as Gandhi says, “to defeat or humiliate your opponents, but to win their friendship and understanding.”

To learn more, Google, <<"civil disobedience" "three principles">>.

By definition, civil disobedience means breaking an unjust law.

This from the very first paragraph on defining civil disobedience:

Essay originally appeared in Christopher B. Gray (ed.), Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia, Garland Pub. Co, 1999, II.110-113. Copyright © 1999, Peter Suber.


Civil Disobedience
Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College

"Civil disobedience is a form of protest in which protesters deliberately violate a law. Classically, they violate the law they are protesting, such as segregation or draft laws, but sometimes they violate other laws which they find unobjectionable, such as trespass or traffic laws."

Now unless you're a philosophy professor specializing in redefining civil disobedience thinking, your own personal definition of civil disobedience doesn't really weigh much does it...

You miss one key part of the definition (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/civil.htm)--willingly accepting the penalty:

Absolutely no argument on principal there :) But I was not addressing all CM behaviors, only the point of is it a valid act of civil disobedience to disobey traffic lights?

I have never participated in San Francisco's CM, so I therefore have not witnessed any claimed "violent" behavior from a small number of CMers. However, other than the fact that "anger" is an inappropriate Civil disobedience behavior in general, to push the argument to the extreme, the non-violent response indicated by philosophy is directed at the arresting officers and not necessarily meant for responding to violent bystanders.

If I myself were in the San Francisco's CM and was in the act of civil disobedience and peacefully/purposefully cycling through a red light and a SUV struck me and continued pushing into the crowd, I am not certain the philosophy commands us to turn the other cheek. I'm pretty certain that during Rosa Parks days, accepting arrest was endured peacefully if the cops didn't get violent first, but when KKK members got violent with blacks, I'd say blacks gave it back. That did not invalidate their entire civil disobedience movement.

Anyway, just my thought on it...

. . . I'm pretty certain that during Rosa Parks days, accepting arrest was endured peacefully if the cops didn't get violent first, but when KKK members got violent with blacks, I'd say blacks gave it back. That did not invalidate their entire civil disobedience movement.
. . .
Wrong. Part of civil disobedience training was how to be arrested by violent cops. The MLK civil rights movement was well disciplined and non-violent.

If CM'ers rode down a no-cyclist-allowed street, made their statement, and took their tickets, I'd say more power to them. But when they run red lights, swarm cars on roads where we're already allowed to be, and then whine when they get tickets, I have no patience for them.

Plus, if you asked anyone at an MLK rally what the goal was, you'd get the same answer. They knew what they wanted. Try that at a CM rally, and you'll get a thousand different answers. CM stands for everything and nothing at the same time.

Anything more on that elderly couple in the van, that was attacked by a group of critical mass riders some months back?


In a play off Critical Mass, a new cycling event recently was launched here. Its few riders make a point to observe traffic laws and stay out of fights. Too bad there's so few of them.

Wrong. Part of civil disobedience training was how to be arrested by violent cops. The MLK civil rights movement was well disciplined and non-violent.

I already stated I have no quarrel with you on your "second" philosophical point of taking the responsibility for one's actions and accepting the ticketing... Where I disagree is when NON police attack you, or back then when they were attacked by racists and KKK. When a KKK is beating you to the pulp or when a CIVILIAN vehicle strikes you then you defend, dying is not part of the bargain.

The traditional civil disobedience (MLK, Ghandi, Thoreau) requires non-violence even in the face of non-governmental violence. And yes, for civil rights marchers, dying was sometimes part of the bargain.

Before you embarass yourself even more, go to the library and check out "Eyes on the Prize." See what a real civil rights movement does.

And finally, segregation based on race is evil. Segregating bicyclists off to the edge of the road is bad policy. Let's keep a sense of proportion here.

This from the very first paragraph on defining civil disobedience:

Essay originally appeared in Christopher B. Gray (ed.), Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia, Garland Pub. Co, 1999, II.110-113. Copyright © 1999, Peter Suber.


Civil Disobedience
Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College

"Civil disobedience is a form of protest in which protesters deliberately violate a law. Classically, they violate the law they are protesting, such as segregation or draft laws, but sometimes they violate other laws which they find unobjectionable, such as trespass or traffic laws."

Now unless you're a philosophy professor specializing in redefining civil disobedience thinking, your own personal definition of civil disobedience doesn't really weigh much does it...So do they sell child porn to protest for more attention to cyclists needs? Or was your proffered definition off by more than a tad?

Wrong. Part of civil disobedience training was how to be arrested by violent cops. The MLK civil rights movement was well disciplined and non-violent.

If CM'ers rode down a no-cyclist-allowed street, made their statement, and took their tickets, I'd say more power to them. But when they run red lights, swarm cars on roads where we're already allowed to be, and then whine when they get tickets, I have no patience for them.

Plus, if you asked anyone at an MLK rally what the goal was, you'd get the same answer. They knew what they wanted. Try that at a CM rally, and you'll get a thousand different answers. CM stands for everything and nothing at the same time.+1