Yeah, they got press alright. Bad press. That's not a positive, you know.

And if you believe that randya "speaks much truth," then you'll notice that he called CM "a monthly celebration," not a "freedom march."

Finally, that slogan "bicycling is not a crime" is just plain stupid when directed at this forum. Nobody here is against bicycling; many here are against CM. The slogan misses the point-- kind of like CM.

and those people would never join an environmental group regardless of how watered down their agenda was. so... your point?

the fact still remains: if you push the envelope at one end, the "centre" moves in that direction.

True. In fact, there are many things that I've never done, but which I am nevertheless firmly opposed to. How about you?

Actually, when I'm interested in a news item, I read as many different sources as I can find, so all of my info is based on several sources, although admittedly it is filtered through the media. And unless you witnessed things firsthand, all of your info is filtered through somebody else too.

So what? Bull Connor never did anything personal to me either. He still offended me.

My beliefs have virtually nothing to do with "law 'n' order." They have virtually everything to do with believing that in order for people to be able to live together in a society, it is essential to treat each other with kindness and respect.

That's certainly been the strategy of the Republican Party. But as a onetime Earth Firster!, I saw firsthand what happens when this theory is applied-- when you push the envelope at one end, there's a corresponding push at the other end.

Ya gotta understand that stupid, irrelevant slogans ("we aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic" etc....) are a critical mass trademark. Blocking intersections, traffic, weaving in and out of lanes, striking and intimidating cars, ad nauseum are not cycling. Like i said, I hope critical mass riders get their brains blown out by angry road users, before innocent and respectful cyclists end up sharing the blame.

roughstuff

Okay, I get it now. I thought maybe you had been riding along the road and moved into the crosswalk to cross the road, which would be less safe than just continuing in a straight line. Having a bicycle trail cross a road with a crosswalk is sort of a mixed message from the planners about the place of bikes to the road, but as a user of that trail, what can you do? So I can understand being bothered in that case. But it happens. Maybe the driver could not see well enough from behind the crosswalk.

I don't think it's common for states to have statutes forbidding crosswalk riding; I think they generally leave that up to the municipalities. Of course if the area where you were riding did have one at whatever level, that trail would then be directing cyclists to break the law!

I know the section of the trail Kieth is talking about, since I use the 520 trail quite often to get from Redmond to Bellevue. (This is a trail which parallels a 6 lane divided, limited access highway, so bikes aren't allowed on the roadway). I understand why the planners built things the way they did (crosswalk, as opposed to tunnel under the street.) The crossing roadway is pretty large at all the intersections of the trail, because it's an entrance/exit to SR-520. 2 lanes each direction, plus a turn lane each way, for a total of 6 lanes. It was an expense decision because tunnels would have been too costly.

I'm not a big fan of the crossings, either. I was nearly clipped by a car at the 51st Ave crossing on Sunday. I was at the intersection with 3 other cyclists, and when the crosswalk light gave us ROW, I started across. A driver exiting the highway (ramp to our left) made a no-stop, no-look, right-on-red and had to swerve to keep from hitting me. Silly of me to assume that seeing her far back down the ramp, and me having the ROW, I could avoid becoming street pizza...

Although the crossings can be kinda sketchy, especially during rush hour when 520 is all bunged up, the 520 Trail is a pretty nice accomodation to have for cyclists who don't want to take the alternate surface streets between Redmond and Bellevue. (It actually goes all the way to the floating bridge, with a bus stop at either end so you can hop the bus across the bridge, which currently bans bicycles.)

Maybe safer to walk your bike across as a pedestrian? That gives everyone more reaction time and you slightly more agility. I often do this in that situation, partially for the safety and partially just to keep from reaffirming the existing conflation of cycling and walking among the general public as well as the planning community, which bugs me on principle.

That's how I sometimes handle left turns across busy intersections. If the traffic is really heavy, I get off my bike and walk it across one road, wait on the sidewalk for the light to change, then turn and walk it across the other road. Takes a little longer, but gives me the advantages of being a pedestrian (like using sidewalks and crosswalks, Walk/Don't Walk signs, etc.).

here's the thing: there were two incidents on CM last month, one in Seattle and one in NYC. In the Seattle case, the motorist quickly apologized for overreacting. In the NYC case, the cop was clearly the perp.

Even the ex-LEO on this forum says 'Let Them Ride'.

Yet you have ranted on and on, for pages and pages on multiple threads here, about massho's this and massho's that...rebutting all comers with your tunnel vision.

People who have participated on the rides are going to tell you all kinds of different things about what CM means to them. One thing which is certain to me is that CM is an agent for change, something we desperately need in our society to break the hegemony of the personal motor vehicle, and something which no mainstream bicycle advocacy group is genuinely willing to take on.

Personally, I think you're betting on the wrong side, and time will prove me correct.

When you think one post in one thread containing the term "massho" is "pages and pages on multiple threads," it really says something about who's got skewed vision when it comes to Critical Mass.

you only said it outright in one post, but you meant it in all the others too. not to mention that you routinely disrespect anyone who posts here with actual experience riding on CM.

Do NOT bring up MLK. You have no clue.

I watched one of the national news channels this morning give a report on CM. It was NOT positive press.

Thanks a lot. It's a real ****ing help.

Here's the problem with the myopic point of view of CM riders --

It doesn't matter what they think. It really doesn't.

Why? Well, think about it for a minute. The goal is to raise awareness, right? So when the goal is achieved, the media comes in and does its job, covering CM rides.

Now the word gets out, people all over the country see it, and -- get this -- it's out of your hands. It's up to the general public to decide what they think.

Right now, they -- the people who will complain enough to get CM rides shut down, the ones who now badger common cyclist commuters who are just trying to go about their day -- DON'T LIKE IT.

CM riders have asked for media coverage, and they got it. They have no ****ing right to ***** about the backlash.

Kind of ironic that a CMer would complain about "disrespect."

i have a haunting suspicion critical mass divides the cycling community more than the motoring community- they hate cyclists regardless.

its apparent in these threads here that otherwise rational american bicyclists, with full historical knowledge of the value of rebellion effecting change in this country, can deny what is considered by some of us to be the constitutional right to peaceably assemble, parade permit or not, on public rights of way.

the critical mass effect?

i think its the 'media hysteria' effect coupled with american 'autocentrism' effect clouding our collective judgement.

""

I would totally support Critical Mass--including taking part in it-- if it was respectful of the laws and other users of the road. As long as it is respectful of neither, it doesn't have my support. Slapping a "Freedom of Assembly" label, or a "cyclists rights" label, or a "joyous celebration" label on it doesn't alter the fundamental disagreement I have with Critical Mass.

well then you should be right there on the Portland ride every month, if it's still happening, because since Jan 05 it has been a totally legal celebration of red lights, as enforced by Portland's finest.

[QUOTE=frymaster;7166986]1. the ski lodge in colorado was burned down by the earth liberation front. not eath first! . solid facts win arguments.

2. whether you think the concept of "redefining the centre" is absurd or not, it works, has worked and continues to work. if the sierra club is the only environmental organization there is, they're the extremists. if earth first! tooling around the woods, the sierra club starts to look moderate. now, no one is going to answer yes on a poll to the question: "did you join the sierra club because earth first! are extremists?" but the fact is that folks who are concerned about the environment and consider themselves moderate are actually willing to join the sierra club because they are not the "lunatic fringe"... and the "lunatic fringe" is well defined by pre-existing groups.

3. if you have done any period of time doing any serious activism work on just about any topic you would know that these theories are widely held and there is a long history of data to back it up.[/QUOTE

I stand corrected on point #1; my memory seems to have failed me on this one. Everything else you say here, though, totally defies common sense. Large groups of cyclists riding in an unlawful manner, defying traffic laws, pissing off motorists just to make a point, and occasionally engaging in totally stupid mob behavior, whether or not motorists are the instigators, does not "redefine the center." Rather, this kind of behavior alienates neutral non-cyclists, encourages bike-haters to act out, and ultimately endangers my safety, and the safety of countless responsible cyclists, which I take very personally. It also makes things much more difficult for serious advocacy groups. BTW, I'm not willing to take the word of any serious activists about what works and what doesn't. As far as I can tell, "serious activists" don't have a very good track record.

What is "proactive" about CM? What "advocacy" do they communicate?

Proactive is setting a good example when you ride. Cyclists are not oppressed minorities--- we have the right to the road. Those rights will be limited if they are abused by hooligans. I am waiting for shop rides and club rides to be banned under some sweeping ant-CM legislation--- or for criteriums and road races to be a thing of the past.

I hate CM. It is bad for all of us.

Um, CM has gone out of their way to state they are not an organized "group" per se. That is part of the problem--- they have no centralized leadership, no clear agenda.

What are they advocating? Anyone can ride a bike on the streets as it is. Cyclists already have rights.

If CM keeps it up, bicycling will become a crime. The adage that no press is bad press is false.

One can only hope.
The Shop Rides here are a major source of problems and fodder
for angry bourgeois at town meetings to rightfully rant about
roads being clogged, bikes running stop signs 25 at a time and
open urination. I attend these meetings whenever they are made
public and I can assure you the home vids Ive seen of good,
wholesome and worthy cyclists behavior is beyond deplorable.

Lots of drivers dont like cyclists. period. Riding nicely will
never change that. Personally, I think if the bicycle industry
would pay a few rap personalities to promote cycling it
would turn everything around. Milquetoast America is infatuated
with the contrived MTV gangster kulture so having a few of
Americas coolest and hippest 'stars' profile on bikes would give
it instant respect and street creds. If they made prison life,
misogyny and drug dealing look cool, bicycles would be a piece of cake

I'm having a bit of difficulty reconciling these two statements. If CM has no centralized leadership, no agenda, no formal organization, and is "not trying to 'win anyone over' or convince anyone of anything" other than that bikes exist as an alternative to cars (something that individual cyclists and "weekly roadie club fred rides" also demonstrate), how is CM an "agent for change"?