Blue Order

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.

Blue Order

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.

tehdely

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.

Daily Commute

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.

San Rensho 

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.

maddyfish

^^^^ 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.

Sandwarrior

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

tallard

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.

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...

Blue Order

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.

filtersweep

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.

tallard

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!!!!!

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!

syn0n

+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.

Blue Order

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:

No, 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:

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:

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.

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.”

BCgoFHS

Yes, but that keeps population scared, so government can do some interesting stuff.

Blue Order

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.

LittleBigMan

Did anyone get that?

Daily Commute

You miss one key part of the definition--willingly accepting the penalty:

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

tallard

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 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...

tallard

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...

Daily Commute

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.

trackhub

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

Too bad there's so few of them.

tallard

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.

Daily Commute

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.

Blue Order

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?

Blue Order

+1