slagjumper

So you agree that CM is potentially an act of civil disobedience? I question ALF/PETA since they destroy property and do other violent things. Yes though just because your civilly disobedient, does not require that you are correct. There are Christian anarchist groups who also are civilly disobedient. Since Conservative Christian groups affect change with out breaking the law, I do not see them as civilly disobedient. Mostly they act in lock step with the hegemonic order.

By car lots, I meant car dealerships, and the point would be that there are alternatives to car use. I do not see it as confrontational, since most of us have to use cars, but rather informative. A small, don't forget about cycling message. Also if it were not for bike commuters, large cities would have 10 - 20 thousand more cars on local roads. Cycling actually improves traffic conditions for the motoring public. Also since bike commuting removes some demand for gas, we are responsible for keeping prices down by as much a cent, in larger cities that adds up. Motorists should love cyclists.

Gordiep

For the foregoing ^^^^.

I admire your thought and equanimity in the above postings, but I fundamentally disagree with CM specifically for its demonstrative nature. No person will ever be able to convince me that I-- or any other person-- has a "right" to ride a bicycle. I think that the Civil Disobedience angle of CM is grotesque, and dishonors the struggles of legitimately oppressed groups...such as African Americans, women, Indian nationals, indigenous South African etc etc etc.

You asked about the Boston Tea Party-- I personally feel that its importance in the revolutionary history of the US is minor, but even so, equating CM with a demonstration against oppressive colonial rule is...well, pretty idiotic, and absurdly self-important.

There is no conspiracy to keep people from riding bikes; the police do not routinely harass cyclists; cyclists are not denied their democratic franchise, or disbarred from employment; cyclists are not the subject of concerted media opprobrium. Cycling is a civic issue, that's it. If CM gets people riding bikes, yayy for it, but I don't see that as some implicit virtue. The same "right" that a cyclist has guaranteeing him the chance to ride a bike guarantees another the chance to drive a car.

Roughstuff

Your comments make sense, but you are giving CM far too much credit for intellectual thought and historical perspective.

CM is just the extremist tail end of the fossil-fuel guilt trip crowd. To them, a car is anathema because it strikes at the heart of what they feel is far more preferable---a sodden, dispirited mass of commuters suffering interminably on ovecrowded buses, trains and taxis, at the mercy of mass transit public employee unions.

A fossil fuel vehicle that goes where you want it to go, when you want it to go there, is just too libertarian for their liking.

You can tell how childish CMers are when they fully credit CM with 'introducing people to cycling' but always suggest that its brutish actions against cops and other commuters are committed by ' a few radicals who happen to tag along.'

roughstuff

slagjumper

Agreed. Public road use is a privilege that is controlled by the state. This goes for cars and bikes. Unlike bearing arms, there is no right to bike or drive, (or to a free education). Any permission to use the roads is controlled wholly by the state and enfroced by the police.

You are confusing civil rights and civil disobedience. As you know many groups with civil rights issues have used civil disobedience as a way of calling attention to their plight, often with great success. I do not see bicycling as a civil rights issue at this point. But if you where prohibited from using the road, (HH and MUP use arguments), there might be an issue. Some civil disobedience examples might be blocking someone’s free passage on a public right of way, breaking into a nuke plant to put up a banner, setting fire to a development, and smoking pot at a NORMAL event. No one has a right to be civilly disobedient. You can be busted and you can alienate people from you cause. This seems to be your best point against CM. And all you have is a possible, undemonstrated connection between CM and loss of political support for cycling.

Could be that you support what you see as good “civil liberties” use of civil disobedience, but not bad. Larry Flint be dammed. Pot heads, who cares? Anti war protesters, bad, abortion clinic protests good. As even Bush states, “every one is entitled to their opinions”.

Conspiracy or not, it makes no difference. Virtuous or not does not matter. All that is needed is for enough people to feel like they are not getting what they want.

But here are two examples of disenfranchisement shades of gray—
A town has a giant college student population who regularly uses bikes to get around, however they are not considered residents of the city and so cannot vote on a bike issue.

Cyclists under the age of 18 are disenfranchised by definition and so have no legitimate political voice about any subject as far as city elected officials are concerned.

Any group that feels it is being treated unfairly can go exercise their First Amendment Rights of Free speech.

To review--

1) The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference.

2) Assembly
The First Amendment says that people have the right to gather in public to march, protest, demonstrate, carry signs and otherwise express their views in a nonviolent way. It also means people can join and associate with groups and organizations without interference.

I am no lawyer, but CM seems to be an assembly of sorts. They are "marching" on their bikes. In so far as they violate traffic control signs and signals, or other road rules they are putting themselves in jeopardy of arrest. They, like motorists may be arrested for breaking the law, they are not given a free pass, except by the police who do not arrest them.

So if a "young hero", punk or a "plant" does something violent or illegal, it is up to law enforcement to do something about it. No arrest then that is law enforcements' issue. Law enforcement is paid to enforce the law. That is it. CM participants seem aware of this threat to me and like the civil rights groups take on the risk of punishment gladly for the "cause".

3) Petition
The First Amendment says that people have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or that they feel strongly about. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation.

I do not see CM participating in this at all. Mostly it is the traditional mainstream advocacy groups. But in this case what is to stop a traditional bike advocacy group from going to a CM and soliciting signatures? Many CM participants would sign.

I think that the best, traditional advocacy group position is to be as inclusive as possible. Why split what little power into pro and anti helmet factions? Into anti MUP and pro MUP? In the end this divisiveness will result in a net loss for the mainstream advocacy groups. It is important to note that CM is not criticizing the mainstream advocacy groups. People who favor bike-positive laws and financial allocations need as much citizen support as possible. Do any traditional bike advocacy groups have any stated, negative or positive statements about CM? I bet mostly not—because they would lose support.

Gordiep

Well, I'm getting a little worn down on this debate, but I'll respond to two niggling points.

Firstly, I'm not confusing Civil Rights with Civil disobedience...I was giving examples of rights movements that practiced Civil Disobedience as a means of protest. In juxtaposition to this is CM, which is largely comprised of middle-class, privileged caucasians. Civil Disobedience is a powerful tool, and I don't think that CM, or any cyclist movement has the right to use it. I don't know what you mean by "good liberties," but I do think that some issues are more important than others. ie-- Stopping the state-sanctioned abuse of African-americans, vs. legalizing weed or painting more bike lanes. If you want to equivocate and argue that they are all the same colors of different shades, well...that's your prerogative, I suppose, but it's sophistry.

Secondly, your "free speech" argument is mistaken. I would bet everything I have that the majority of CM participants don't give a crap about cycling legislation or their 'right' to assemble, and are more interested in meeting people and causing trouble. This aside, the moment that CM advocates breaking the law, it has violated its responsibility under the civic pact. 'Nonviolent' doesn't just mean abstention from destroying property and acting up, but adherence to the laws of the region the demonstration is held in. Convening with intent to purposefully break city law is criminal activity, and not a guaranteed right.

I agree that divisiveness in the 'community' can be damaging, but we need to realize that many cyclists don't think of themselves as part of a community. We're all zealots, else we wouldn't be spending time on this board. Our number is dwarfed by the others who just like to ride their bikes, and don't really put a lot of thought into the situation. To me, CM is the worst example of this actual division-- a few hardcore enthusiasts who collect a great number of generally disinterested followers. The ethic is inherently chaotic, and trouble usually follows. I just don't see the point.

EDIT-- hope I don't seem to cranky, I've had a long, brutal day.