Andy Dreisch

JRA, I'd agree with your assessment that CM is a hypocritical organization ("Share the Road" yet tying up traffic, etc.) if I could buy for one moment that bikers' rights actually was its defining goal.

But I think it goes beyond this. For instance, Alexey seems to honestly think that roads are for bikers because, well, they used to be, I guess. Never mind that cyclists account for %0.0000000000001 ( ) of the current day transportation requirements. nathank is pissed at the mayor because, well, he had the nerve to crack down on -- what? -- bikers' rights? No. The right to protest. And the protests all boil down to what, according to nathank? The fact that there are "too many" cars on the road.

Now, let's say for a moment that every single motorist drove impeccably well, in a biker-friendly manner. In this la-la land scenario, motorists all wave, drive perfectly, are 100% attentive. Further, assume there's some form of biker-friendly controls in play, whether it's bike lanes or whatever. In short, let's pretend we've achieved bikers' rights nirvana.

What would CM do then? Simple: they'd still take to the streets. Why? Because to CMers, complete nirvana has not been achieved.

You see, removal of the dreaded motorized vehicle is the organizing principle of CM -- not bikers' rights. To CMers, only a completely pedestrian city will do, free of demonic internal-combustion-engine-driven vehicles. CM may (may) have begun as a bikers' advocacy organization but, like many organizations do, has morphed into something far different from its original principles. They use "bikers' rights" as a smokescreen.

Don't believe me? Let's take a look at some quotes taken from various CM organization Web sites.

CM organization literature is full of such drivel. But the actions of CM suddenly make sense when viewed through this ultra-radical prism. In contrast, the actions of CM will never make sense to those who truly advocate bikers' rights and bikers' rights alone.

So, CMers, what will satisfy you? Could it be that only the complete (or veritable) removal of motorized vehicles, a "green city", is your organizing principle?

For you casual CM participants, you might want to ask yourself what your goals the goals of the CM organization are in alignment. It's very possible that your efforts will be better spent associating with true bicycle advocacy groups.

Andy Dreisch

No, there aren't.

Alexey

I have read on htp://www.critical-mass.org that rarely CM holds traffic more than 5 minutes. Besides they let mass transit vehicles through.

Besides, they give drivers reading materials to read and their point of view is that it is not a problem for a driver to wait for some minutes, as cars are designed to stay in traffic jams anyway.

Like any society cyclists have the right to have their own holidays. It seems the CM is a nice holiday, is not it?

I do not see what is wrong with CM?

Is it a problem to wait for 5 minutes? What else are the crimes of CMers?

If someone rides naked - it is not problem to me. I can take it.

For me much worse is a driver, who exceeds the speed limit, and who can hit a human and kill by this. This is where the real crime brooding.

Andy Dreisch

On (A) ... It's nice of CM to let (let?!!) mass transit vehicles pass. Where in the city charter does it say that stopping other traffic is permissible? One also wonders how a bus can escape the long lines of traffic CMers cause. Also, by "letting" mass transit vehicles pass reinforces my recent post: it's automobiles that CMers are against; that CM is not for bikers' rights.
On (B) ...This statement does not warrant a response.
On (C) ... This statement .. forget it.
On (D) ... That's fine, that's your opinion. You therefore accept illegal activities as a form of expression.
On (E) ... CM has no right whatsoever to make anyone wait a nanosecond. Apparently, you hold little value in other peoples' time. This is a very arrogant attitude, but somehow perfectly in line with the whole arrogant notion that is CM. And go ask nathank about CM lawlessness ... he acknowledged this just a few posts ago.
On (F) ... Again, you condone illegal activities, as it is illegal to traipse (sp?) about naked. And what does this have to do with bikers' rights again?
On (G) ... I wonder what percentage of cyclist injuries or deaths are caused by illegal driving activities? You seem to suggest it's 100%. I think it's far lower, that most incidences result from tragic inattentiveness and, yes, even stupid bikers. But I think we agree that just one is horrific. Nevertheless, we don't live in a perfect world and there will be instances of this.

Alexey

Henry Thoreau once wrote that sometimes one has to violate a law of society to follow a higher law, and which will benefit this society in the long run. Unfortunately I can not find the exact quotation. I would be grateful if someone points me to the exact words.

Andy, here is another example of "lawless" activity. It is connected with the excessive driving issue, as it is connected with the final price of gas.

We need your help!

Thank you to the more than 6000 people who have already written to the International Maritime Organization.

Please visit:

https://act.greenpeace.org/1038578628

for many ways in which you can support our activists.

Here's the full news release:

Tallinn, Estonia, 29 November 2002.

Greenpeace activists today blocked the oil tanker Byzantio in the port of Tallinn, Estonia, preventing it from leaving with its cargo of 50,000 tonnes of oil. The Byzantio is chartered by the same company that contracted the ill-fated oil tanker Prestige that sank off the north-western coast of Spain earlier this month.

Greenpeace activists are chained to the mooring lines of the ship and inflatable boats are displaying banners with the word "Hazard!" stamped across them.

"The world has been able to see the unimaginable amount of damage to the environment that oil tankers such as this cause to the environment. It would be direct governmental negligence to allow one more hazardous ship to leave port," said Pernilla Svenberg of Greenpeace. "The Prestige catastrophe is clear proof of the threat ships like the Byzantio are for the environment. With the experience of the Prestige behind us, European governments must ban these ships from our seas. We can-t afford to wait 13 more years."

According to UN shipping regulations, single hulled oil tankers are still allowed to sail on all of the world-s oceans until 2015 when a total ban on these ships goes into effect.

The Maltese flagged Byzantio was set to sail across the Baltic and the North Seas following the same route as the Prestige on its way to Singapore. Recently, the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, one of the world-s leading port inspection authorities, placed Malta on safety "black list" for its failure to fulfil basic safety measures.

European ministers responsible for transportation, energy and telecommunications are scheduled to meet in Brussels on December 6 and maritime safety and environmental issues are expected to be high on the agenda. Denmark, the current seat of the EU Presidency, is expected to present several initiatives to tackle the issue of dangerous shipments. "This is a chance for European governments to stop these hazardous shipments," concluded Svenberg. "They shouldn-t waste it."

VISIT THE CYBERCENTRE

Please don't forget to visit the Greenpeace Cyberactivist Community at:
https://act.greenpeace.org

Andy Dreisch

So, based on your post, eliminating "excessive driving" is the primary motivation behind CM. Bikers' rights are secondary at best.

Thanks for the support.

For you CM supporters who actually believe bikers' rights would be improved by pissing off motorists, perhaps you learned a little in this thread. Maybe by understanding the true motivations of the CM organization you'll find other ways to spend your energy on your true motiviation: bikers' rights. CM has apparently led you astray.

For you die-hard CM supporters, at least you can come and say what you're really after instead of cloaking your motiivations behind a smokescreen of "bikers' rights".

cyclezealot

Vicious cycle... Good to see your threads.. The more I ride the more I become a proponent of cyclists rights.. Also, my reaction to driving is the other influence, turing me sour to the behaviour of motorists. They are nuts/suicidal- besides one of them hit me this year, very slowly and the other almost hit me at a very high rate of speed passing illegally (while on the bike.)
Yes, either freeway traffic is stopped or traveling way above the liimit..That is my observation while driving.. The worst, the way they weave in and out of traffic causing you to dodge their erratic behaviour. If the freeway is stopped due to a traffic accident you can count that this was the cause.. Seems to me, I see the expressway shut down almost daily from traffic accidents.. I especially notice this, when I cycle over the freeways.. Gives me a good feeling, to think I had an alternative to this madness...

Alexey

This is the point - propaganda of bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation.

I read that usually all Critical Massers notice how quickly they can ride from point A to point B in a city, when there is no motorized traffic interfering.

But, Andy, I am not a CMer (to my shame). I would say I am a mini-CMer.

I guess the CM is only one of the form of the broad social movement, which I foresee in the nearest future.

Excessive driving is making the cities unliveable, it puts people's health at the direct risk.

There is the social myth, mystique, behind excessive driving. Driving is made to look cool, especially for young people. But in fact it isolates people.

By my modest opinion, CM brings people together. It is especially important for young people, who often suffer from the isolation. CM generates its own "mystique" - that cycling is cool. I guess it is the reason behind global success of CM.

There are other forms of dealing with excessive driving. For example, I participated recently in the implementation of bank-client software, which makes redundant daily drives from the office to the bank. It removed from the streets 1 - 2 daily car trips 15 km each.

nathank

Andy, that's not quite what i said in either case:
i never said i was pissed at the mayor or even that the mayor did anything wrong. as i said, before, (i was kind of generalizing as i was talking about Portland and San Francisco and generalizing beyond that) it would be nice if the mayor would reacted a little more cycle-friendly, but i never said the actions were wrong or that i was pissed - i was merely trying to describe the whole process that occurs and why CMers come out looking so "lawless".

as to the 2nd comment. again that's not quite what i said: i think i have explained it sufficiently, but again: i think reducing autos is an indirect goal of CM and maybe something that most of them also think is a good thing (myself included, i think fewer autos and fewer miles driven IS a good thing, but i'm not forcing anyone out of his car) as it reduces pollution and has other good effects, but the overriding goal is to improve the cycling experience, encourage more people to cycle and help encourage a safer environment for cycling.

anyway, unless something new comes up, i think i pretty much expressed my views on CM, so i probably won't comment much in the future...

phoenyix

Here's a good one for yoou, I was one time approached in a parking lot, after I drove my van in there still with a bike rack on the rear. He tried telling me that it is illegal to have a bike rack on the rear of a vehicle, because they stick out too far. And may pierce his Radiator. Sheesh , I responded if it would happen to pierce your Radiator then you are way too close. Talk about someone really wanting to tailgate.