I am sure the implementation of "critical mass" is widely varied. Particularly when dealing with smaller groups of Riders.

The issue is, Negative instances will have more impression with fewer incidents. Where as it takes a lot of Positive instances to get awareness up.

So in the regard, it's hard to fault Critical Mass with altercations, because most of the riders peacefully ride. Its the few "bikers with bad attitudes" that cause the problems because their actions will produce a bigger foot print so to speak.

In implementation of Critical Mass there is some haziness as to what parts are positive and what parts are negative.

I somewhat like the idea of holding up regular traffic. "cycloning" and "corking" and "Die-ins" For safety purposes it is almost necessary when dealing with large amounts of people. The message can have mixed interpretations, though for me, it's a demonstration of awareness to cyclists, and also by stopping traffic, you are holding them up, perhaps a show that we don't need to get everywhere so fast, and what slowing down can save not only cyclists, but pedestians and other motorists. It's a general lifestyle message.

However, the reality is that many people, particularly the critics who have long reaches in media outlets, will show that blocking traffic is a nusance, and they are causing people to be late, and disrupting city functions, and emergency vehicles. They will give it a negative spin, and because of the few cyclists who acted up in protest to citations or so on, that amplifies the negative feelings around the rides.

It's the question of connotation. And with Critical Mass it's been a negative one, which is unfortunate for that group, as well as all cyclists, because it's clear they have good intentions.

Now, The other issue is, about the blocking traffic again, is that parades and protests, and so on all have permits, and predetermined routes.

Critical mass cannot have this. No city will allow monthy rides of 1000's of riders to ride on permit. And if they did, it would quickly fall under scrutiny and so on.

It's tough to say, I love what critical mass is all about, but I fear that circumstances outside of their control will only bring negativity to riders.

It's not that thousands that do things right and are peaceful, it's the bad apples in the group, and the critics that amplify the negativity.

Which is why, I believe its better to raise awareness through peaceful rides. Ones that don't stop traffic un-necessarily. Ones that stop at stop lights, and stop signs, use proper signaling and generall follow the rules of the road. I'm in a group called Bike Ypsi and every sunday we do rides like these.

About the only time we "bend the rules" is at stop signs, we all go through at once, Which means sometimes we wave cars through, if there is a line of cars significant. And once we have a reasonable gap, or a reasonable wait, we all bike through at once.

There is a group called "Critical Manners" that was created by cyclists to be a Counter to "Critical Mass" not because they don't like the message of having the same rights, or raising awareness to cyclists on the road, but to hopefully act as a heat sink to those negative moments.

It's a tough issue with no "right answer"