randya

Since y'all seem to think that Critical Mass is such a bad idea (although I get the impression that you're not really listening to what I have to say and have little first-hand experience, just opinions [and you know what they say about opinions...]); I'd like for whoever cares to, to please answer the following two questions for the good of the order. I've got my own ideas what the issues and the potential answers are, and in case you were wondering, it doesn't involve Critical Mass--I can and do think beyond that, so please focus on the issues and leave Critical Mass out of your answer. Thanks!

1. Why are motorists treated as individuals when it comes to their driving habits, and why is all the rude and inappropriate motoring they do (including routine violation of speed limits, and killing 40,000+ of themselves and their fellow citizens each year in this country with their vehicles) generally considered socially acceptable behavior; whereas, cyclists are typically treated as a class, and the rude and inappropriate behavior of a few cyclists (which typically kills no one and generally only poses a risk to the cyclist him/her self) is then projected onto ALL cyclists, and used as an excuse to discriminate against ALL cyclists??

2. What, in your opinion, is the quickest and/or best way to gain acceptance for bicycles and bicycling as a viable mode of transportation--and by that I mean safe access to and equality with motor vehicles on all public roads (I'll grant the exception of limited access highways), adequate end-of-trip facilities, and societal acceptance by government at all levels, the business community, the media and the general public?

khuon

Motorists are also treated as a class (you just proved it with your statement) and cyclists are also treated as individuals. Remember the saying:

Quickest/best way: Ride your bike in a lawful manner.

If you want to get involved, I would suggest looking at The League of American Bicyclists or some other similar organisation. Some local bike organisations are also excellent. One such in my area is the Cascade Bicycle Club.

Allister

Is it?

Is it? Can't say I've got first hand experience of either of these.

Any generalisation I could make about motorists is most likely going to be equally true of cyclists.

Some sort of world wide cataclysm that renders all motorised transport incapacitated, but leaves everything else unscathed. You think I'm joking? Otherwise I predict that if things don't stay as they are, they're more likely to get much worse for cyclists than better, whatever we do.

Dutchy

Just do what I do, ride my bike and forget about that bull*****. It doesn't matter how much I protest and gesticulate about the ever increasing use of motor vehicles and the problems they cause, NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE!

CHEERS.

Mark

chewa

1. I disagree that they are treated as individuals. Motorists are treated as a group also. The difference is that the group of motorists by purchase of cars, fuel road tax etc ise a major spender in the economy, and a major source of tax revenue, and employment. Cyclists are not seen as such. At present the ecological problems caused by cars (pollution, damage to the physical environment, gridlock) is not seen by the government or the people as outweighing the "benefits" of tax revenue, employment, freedom of travel. That day will surely come. Look at the fuss over the congestion charge in London, but people have grudgingly accepted it.

2. Get more bikes on the road. this makes the road safer (motorists see more bikes so adapt their driving), and would lead to changes in road design to accomodate cyclists. My own view is that the only way forward is a root and branch rethink of transport and road design encompassing increases in public transport standards and availability, punitive taxation of non essential motor use, banning motorists from all town centres (other than essential use), tax breaks to employers for cycle facilities, stiffer laws for enforcement of driving (and cycling) leading to accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, the encouragement (through the use of "bike trains" ) of cycling to school.

I have no grudge against Critical Mass. I consider myself to be a cycling advocate as an assertive commuter, who refuses to be browbeaten or intimidated by some drivers. I will assert my right to use "fast roads" and don't agree that the way to improve safety is to remove cyclists from them.

I think, however, that as the majority of onlookers have no wish to lose their cars or have their "right" (as they see it) to use them restricted, some CM tactics (Running a group through red lights - stopping traffic etc) has a negatve perception and just reinforces the stereotype that all cyclists are vegetarian sandle wearing hippies.

I'm a 42 year old professional, vegetarian, not a hippie,I care about my environment, I don't own any sandals (except my spd ones), and think I'm fairly representative of many cyclists.

We as a family have 2 cars, combined mileage about 10000 per year (not bad considering we live in a village with poor public transport and one small newsagent) and we use bikes and public transport where possible, our small sports car if we are together going out, and our eatate if we need to take the dogs somewhere.

However we are simply balancing out the 2-Range Rover family who put their dog in the boot and drive 500 yards (really!) to the marina, then let the dog out for a walk!, and afterwards drive back.

The best cycling advocacy is to get out and do it. pressurise government, not the car drivers themselves. Doing the latter just stirs up resentment. the balance is tipping our way.

nathank

well, first --- i am part of the minority on this forum who thinks that critical mass is not so bad --- yes, there may be some negative points and there could be some improvements, but i think all and all it is a good thing and i have participated in a few different cities and might again.

as to the first quesiton: i think i pretty much agree with chewa and others --- that motorists are sometimes treated as a group, sometime as inidividuals as are cyclists... and the main difference here is:
a) driving is "accepted" as normal behavior and cycling as a means of REAL transport is not (it should be of coure)
b) drivers and the auto industry represent a huge market. cycling is much smaller and the recreation segment (road racing, touring and mountain biking) is MUCH larger and earns MUCH more money than bike commuting.

actually, the simplicity and economy of cycle commuting is one of the things that makes it difficult to gain popularity in our money-driven economy: yes, it's great and beautiful that cycling is cheap and efficient and has few costs, but leaves little room for companies to make money so no one with big bucks is adverising and pushing for increased bike commuting. you don't need a high-tech bike to bike commute, nor do you need a new one avery 2 years, or a plethora of accessories like car stereo, gas, leather seats, etc... you can also sort of see this in that on the average, the bicycle commuter (the middle-aged professional is actually more common than the homeless guy or DUI --- although there are a lot of college student cyclists) tends to be more educated and more likely to look at things as they are rather than just what society and advertising pushes (ok, that could be a controversial statement, hopefully it sort of makes sense)

as to what to do to improve cycling: that's a good question and a difficult one that i ask myself a lot.
* obviously getting more people to cycle is the best way, but how do we best do that?
* and working through advocacy groups to get the government to listen to cyclists and their needs is also important

--> but is it ever really going to change?
i think - yes and no.
yes, things will change, and the era of excessive private motor vehicle use for everything wil come to an end in my lifetime b/c traffic and parking and infrastructure costs will just not allow it to increase forever and people will evetually be fed up and want alternatives -- change to _something_ else will happen quickly i believe.
* unfortunately most people these days are just too lazy to convert to cycling, so unless the health and fitness crazy REALLY catches on and people do it for their health, cycle commuting will unfortunately stay a fringe activity.

i think some kind of less polluting, smaller infrastructure but still private "vehicle" will supplant the full-size auto some time the next 20-30 years -- maybe combined with some kind of transit/rail system where each person takes his little "pod" onto the system soas not to have to mingle with the "undesirables" and keep his own "luxury and convenience". the auto will probably still be use for rural transport, but not in the cities or in most communities where people live.

hopefully cycling will continue to find a place through all of the laziness of society.

it is a beautiful and efficient mode of transport!

nathank

oh i guess i wasn't quite done...

i think cycling will either:
1) become a "cool" activity that promotes health and wise treatment of the environment ---- MAYBE possible if the health and insurance industry latches on to cycling as a way to save billions of dollars and commits to major advertising --- sadly advertising gets things done in our image-conscious money-driven soceity
2) or continue to become a fringe activity not understood by the "common" man except as a toy: recreational riding on the bike path around the lake --- and more and more road facilities will be constrcuted without cyclists in mind and we will have to really fight for our rights to use the "auto infrastrcuture"

but (especially in the US) the likelihood of bicycle commuting becoming a truly mainstream activity seen as a viable alternative to the auto is unlikely (i mean Americans would choose the motor scooter before the bike, but even that is too "inconvenient" and not "sexy" and "luxurious" enough for the average Joe)

LarryJ

1) People like to categorize and generalize, and if a person has objections to cyclists being on the road, they'll generalize the behavior of inept cyclists to all cyclists. It's really not a lot different from many people's stereotypes of motorists (on one list I'm on an advocate of segregating cyclists from motorists informed me that "motorists are homicidal". An assertion I think is a bit over the top, to put it mildly).

2) Behave as a well trained operator of a vehicle, and insist that other cyclists do the same. Publicize and defend the right of lawful cyclists to use the roads. I understand the appeal of civil disobedience to the supporters of Critical Mass, but in this instance I think the strategy is inept and murky. What's the point? That cyclists are capable of creating chaotic conditions for the residents of a city?

Chris L

This would be because cyclists are a minority group, and unfortunately, we live in a society that likes to throw this sort of crap at any minority group they can. Just ask any Aboriginal Australian or any *****exual from any part of the world and they'll tell you the same thing. This is not something that critical mass is going to change - hence I would ask the question of why bring it up in relation to this?

Simply by promoting cycling better. I've made this point before, cycling advocates for the most part do a particularly poor job of "selling" cycling. Generally we have advocates who talk about the "dangers" of cycling - which is fine in isolation in respect to a particular stretch of road, but will have a negative impact when over used. You're not going to get people taking up cycling in large numbers by constantly whining about motorists "hurting" cyclists, or about cyclists getting a raw deal in some other aspect.

I never hear any cycling advocates mention the good things about cycling. Where are the "Reduce your gas bills" or "Don't get stuck in traffic" campaigns? Nobody ever mentions the advantages of using a bike for transport. Maybe trying a different promotional tool might be a little more effective. I really don't think it could fare any worse than what we do now.

I also agree with the others who say operate your bike in a lawful vehicular manner. In other words, show the world that transporational cycling is possible and practical. This is something that critical mass does not do.

khuon

I think we all agree that promoting more cycling by being out there and riding lawfully is the best way to gain acceptance. And this is why I disagree with the tactics of CM which often result in people being greeting by police in riot gear and the cyclists getting hauled away in large windowless vehicles. Someone looking at this is going to think twice in being associated with or participating in an activity that ends up in a night in jail. Additionally, the amount of respect they'll have for other cyclists deminishes. Hardcore zealots may like CM and believe in the cause all they want but I have a feeling that it doesn't change the perception by much of the real-world population who, like the people of villages facing the other end of a Viking's sword, don't really view CMers as heros who deserve ascension to Valhalla in burning funeral boats upon their deaths. To them Critical Mass is just Critical A$$.

khuon

I remember a long time ago while I was growing up in Chicago that Metra (the suburban rail-lines) ran many a commercial depciting those who drove into the city as, to put it mildly, crazy and complete irresponsible idiots who were always stuck in traffic and late for work. This campaign worked very well and many people used Metra as an alternative to clogging the expressways. Plus it was indeed way faster. I would really like to see those types of ads run about cycling too.

oscaregg

Khuon, one of the bike stores in your city--R&E--used to sell a cheap, t-shirt style jersey with the slogan, "One More Parking Space." Every bike organization in the country ought to steal that one!

khuon

Hmmm... yeah, I've seen someone wearing that t-shirt. I didn't know that it came from R&E.

hayneda

The ultimate act of advocacy is: RIDING YOUR BIKE!!!

The more people that ride, the more people will accept cycling as a viable form of transportation. Particularly when they see cyclists obviously using their bikes for transportation with panniers or what not carrying their stuff to work, or home from the grocery.

As a carfree, full-time bike commuter, I enjoy answering questions from co-workers, neighbors, etc. about my bike commuting. Many had never previously given it a thought (that one could use a bike for transportation). While most will never take up bike commuting, just the fact that they now realize that some do helps to promote acceptance on the roadway.

From time to time, I have people from work that I do not know, seek me out to ask questions about bike commuting or cycling in general. Everyone of our 3,000+ employees seems to know about "that guy that rides to work." That's saying something.

Dave

Roughstuff

I won't answer (1) as many others have. But with respect to number 2: to me, as an avid cyclist and conservationist (not environmentalist), cycling will always remain only a niche form of transportation.

It has some useful, but limited aspects of our overall transportation matrix that it can fill. But with none of the essential safety and signaling features that are typical of other vehicles on the road (turn signals, brake lights, etc), I can't see them ever getting the same treatment on the road. Nor are they good for transporting bulky or multiple items such as groceries, etc. Thus you must have a car unless you are in a city such as Boston or NYC where mass transit is a viable alternative.

To me the key issue is to get people to use their bike (or walk) MORE, and use their cars LESS. That does not require new laws, societal acceptance blah blah blah. It simple requires courtesy, on the part of both cyclists and fellow motorists, without which any kind of transportation is unpleasant.

The only 'societal change' I would make, that i have always advocated on this forum, is for bigger shoulders on ALL roadways.

roughstuff

JRA

I agree totally.
Amen!

To me, this means not supporting any group whose major premise is violating the law (in other words, Critical Mass - can you say "corking"?)
Again, amen. Unfortunately, CM doesn't do this.
I understand it, too. It can be very exciting. It can also be very self-defeating. Been there; done that. If CM continues on it's current path, it will learn. It may take a while, but it will happen.
CM tactics are beyond inept and murky. They're assinine. They amount to cycling shooting itself in the foot.
I agree totally. But Critical Mass is much worse than that. Critical Mass does the opposite. It promotes the LIE that tranportational cycling is not possible under current traffic laws. It's a total crock!

Current traffic laws give cyclists all the rights of other vehicles. CM's opposition to current traffic laws is nothing short of sheer stupidity. Unfortunately, CM may succeed in getting the current laws changed. How much do you want to bet that the changes will be an improvement?
How you coming with that?

No offense, but you devoted an entire paragraph to CM in your question, so I guess it's not too surprising that so many people have mentioned CM in their responses. Nice try, but it was hardly reasonable to expect otherwise, especially since you took a shot at anyone with the timerity to diagree with you on CM:
That's fine. Think whatever you want. But you're wrong. We've been listenening.

Most of the participants in this forum are cyclists for crying out loud (I, myself, have been cycling on a regular basis over 40 years). If we're not convinced, what chance does CM have convincing the general public?

Seriously.

If anyone involed in CM is reading these forums, the comments should be a wake-up call. Clean up your act. Repudiate lawbreaking.

I've said it before; I will say it again:
If CM contiues current tactics, no responsible cyclist should support it.

randya

"But with none of the essential safety and signaling features that are typical of other vehicles on the road (turn signals, brake lights, etc), I can't see them ever getting the same treatment on the road. Nor are they good for transporting bulky or multiple items such as groceries, etc. Thus you must have a car unless you are in a city such as Boston or NYC where mass transit is a viable alternative."

American bicycle manufacturers leave lights off new bikes for liability reasons, and almost exclusively market a recreational product. European bikes come fully equipped for night and rain riding with lights and fenders, plus bells and often baskets. Human Powered Machines in Eugene, Oregon makes bikes for hauling large loads. See https://www.efn.org/~cat/longhaul.htm They routinely demonstrate these bikes by moving a household by bike, which, I suspect is not altogether uncommon in Europe, either. $50.00 + of groceries can easily be carried in a modest set of panniers, I've been doing it for years.

Beyond that, wide shoulders are fine in the suburbs, but they don't exist in dense inner cities with older, fully developed streets and limited right-of-way widths. Taking the lane/ sharing the road with vehicles is the only way to coexist with motorists in these environments.

SamDaBikinMan

Promoting cycling starts with being a responsible cyclist.

Obey the rules.

I also make it a point to give a friendly wave to any motorist who gives me adequate room and passes me cautiously or does some other act of consideration for my benefit.

I resist the urge to yell or wave obscene gestures at the a holes ( this has not always been the case as I have in years past invited a few motorists to stop alongside the road for a can of whip ass).

My actions have evolved over the years and I do try not to impede motorized traffic as much as possible.

hayneda

Often heard excuses for not using a bike for transportation. But arm/hand signals work just fine, although 'car-like' turn and brake lights can be had if you must decorate your bike up like a car. Hauling grocercies is not a problem--panniers will easily bring home a couple of bags and a trailer will haul two weeks worth. If you like, I can supply much better excuses for not biking.

No, the real REASON (vs. merely the excuses) that most people refuse to use a bike for transportation is simply that THEY ARE TOO LAZY. Why do you think the US (and much of the 'modern' world) is facing such an obesity crisis?

On this I agree. Although I'd say that the extension of courtesty from motorists to cyclists as a matter of course, would BE a level of societal acceptance that does not yet exist in the US (although it certainly does in some parts of the world). In other words, in the US, societal change is needed.

Dave

Roughstuff

Hmmmm...not sure about that Dave. The whole problem with hand and arm signals is that they require you to remove your hand from the steering/brake mechanism (in this case the handlebars) JUST AT THE MOMENT you need them the most. Nor, in many cases, can the signal be prolonged; even though it may very well need be.

The other points you make I agree with. It is personal decisions in my case that affect bike use. I tend to walk any distance less than a few miles; and tend to hop in my car or a local bus for stuff longer than that. I use my bike for touring and training.

roughstuff

Chris L

That just isn't true. I use my singalling hand in advance of my turn so that people around me know what's going on, then put it back on the handlebars to actually make the turn. If you wait until you're into the turn to make a signal you'll never get your message across in time. On the other hand, signalling in advance gives you the opportunity to gauge the reactions of others, this is the most crucial element in any traffic situation.

randya

This quote represents your complete misunderstanding of what CM is or stands for. CM is not opposed to traffic laws, it is opposed to (1) traffic laws which favor motorized vehicles over human-powered vehicles, (2) the transportation bureaucracy, which does the same, and (3) motorists that are ignorant of existing traffic laws, which is most states (USA) give cyclists the same rights as motorists on public roads.

khuon

Hmmm... I'd like to see you point these laws out. The laws I currently see treat bicycles and automobiles the same where it makes sense and differently where it makes sense. As a matter of fact, in my state at least, traffic laws regarding bicycles give the cyclists greater flexibility than automobiles. For instance, I can avoid many traffic lights at intersections to an extent by riding a crosswalk (assuming I have the cross signal) and be treated as a pedestrian and then rejoin the traffic lane on the other side and act as a motor vehicle.


I see CM as being anti-*. Anti-car, anti-gov't, anti-authority and to a great extent, antisocial. Being anti makes one reactionary. Change is not often best brought on by being a reactionary but by being proactive. Cycling clubs, organised and recognised legitimate advocacy groups and even gov't agencies are the best places to get involved with in regards to promoting cycling. My state, county and the cities around me all have support cycling initiatives and organisations... even the dept. of transportation. They all put in quite a bit of effort to promote cycling. While this may not be true everywhere, it didn't get that way here overnight. And it didn't get that way through antics the like of those displayed by Critical Mass. The social engineering constant message CM sends to the general public is one likened to that of, "the beatings will continue until morale improves." I don't know about you but in my experience, that type of message does not go well received by the general populace.


And so CM prejudges all motorists on a given road at a certain point in time and feels they have the right to dole out sentencing? I'm sorry, I don't see this as civilised behaviour. It's this disregard for civilisation and society that does more harm than good and something I believe cyclists would be wise to avoid.

randya

DeadBeef: It's really pointless discussing this with you, since you appear to be in total denial about the status of bicycles, bicyclists and bicycling in the heirachy of current US transportation policy, funding, infrastructure, etc.: DEAD LAST. I've personally sat in countless committee meetings for over ten years listening to a steady stream of traffic engineers, politicians, developers, business 'people', etc., etc., give excuses why this or that CAN'T be done for cyclists. Critical Mass says NO MORE and takes the cyclists' rights movement to the streets. Of course the press coverage is bad and the police are harsh--they're vested in the automobile culture that's driving our civilization into the ground. What have you done lately to promote cycling, really, other than ride your bike meekly along in the gutter and cower before the latest model behemoth SUV bearing down on you and forcing you to yield the right-of-way or die??? You should be thanking CM for standing up for your right to bike safely on the public streets of your town, and not criticizing them. Fat chance this message will ever be heard by deaf ears, though.

khuon

I ride assertively and lawfully. For the most part, cycling for me is as safe as can be. I share the road. Sure I've been squeezed before. Sure I've had encounters with rude or stupid drivers. But I do not see how anything CM does will change that. Are we the underdogs when it comes to the transportation pecking order? I think so but we're not the only ones. We're far down the list but not dead last. Do we have a voice? I think we do in some areas more than others. However, I have yet to see that voice be from Critical Mass. Of all of the positives things I've seen happen for the cycling community, none of them can be attributed to CM. CM does not stand up for my rights for cycling safety. I do. And I do it by riding in a lawful consistant manner.