Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks

Bernie

"Eric S. Sande" wrote:

> >I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
> >through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
> >city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
>
> --
>
> _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
> ------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
> __________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@texastwr.utaustin.edu__________

Agreed. You write well.
Bernie

John L

I guess my first description of Jakko as "a pedestrian with an excess
of testosterone" was pretty well spot on.

The only thng I missed out on was the term "moronic"

John L.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:38:51 GMT, jarkko@nospam.com (Jarkko Altonen)
wrote:

>scottjl@earthlink.net (ScottJL) wrote:
>
>>Critical Mass n. 1. Yet another excuse for irresponsible behavior.
>
>n 2. A collective noun for a "bunch of cunts".

Bernie

Bill Hamilton wrote:

> "Eric S. Sande" <esande@erols.com> wrote in news:3EFF80C8.C9DAA475
> @erols.com:
>
> >>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
> >>through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
> >>city don't, either.
> >
> > This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> > facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> > it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> > in law.
> >
> > Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> > bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
> >
> > I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> > to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
> >
>
> Wow. Great job here, generalizing things into "trails are evil". There
> is a difference between "ghettoizing" bicyclists and moving bicyclists
> away from dangerous traffic.
>
> So, in your "equal status" ideal world, are bicycles riding on the
> interstate system, next to 70+ MPH traffic? Or do you expect the cars to
> slow down to 15-20 MPH to match the speed of bicycles? More than just
> bicycles are restricted from the interstates, as a matter of safety for
> everyone.
>
> The point of trails isn't to marginalize cyclists. It's to allow the
> people who aren't comfortable riding in the traffic to avoid it. You
> claim that bicycle rights is a black/white issue, where on one side
> bicycles are just like all other vehicles but on the other they're
> nothing. You say there is no middle ground. I say you're wrong.
> There's a wide variety of vehicles on the road, each with their own
> restrictions and permissions.
>
> Yes, bicycles belong on the roadway. But one of the advantages of
> bicycles that that they are not _restricted_ to the roadway. They can go
> places that motor vehicles can't because of their smaller size, lighter
> weight, and greater maneuverability. They can use rail trails that are
> far too narrow for motor traffic to use safely. They can manage
> sidewalks among pedestrian traffic. Take away these and other
> advantages, restrict them solely to roadways, and you end up with much
> fewer riders (people who don't want to ride in traffic) and much less
> safe roadways (people who shouldn't be riding in traffic are).
>
> Bicycles should have a different status than cars, just as cars have a
> different status than heavy trucks or motorcycles or scooters or
> dirtbikes or ATVs or whatever. Each has their place, and trying to cram
> everything into a single category on a single road is going to ruin all
> of them. But not before people who shouldn't die do.
>
> -Bill Hamilton

You make good points. But note, bicycles do have a different status from
cars. Cars and their drivers must be licenced. After all they are driving
lethal devices on the public roadways. Bicycles do not have to be licenced
because A) they were there first B) they are not lethal (dig up the stats)

Also, just by good luck and convenience, you can ride down footpaths, and all
kinds of neat places with impunity and as long as you are attentive and
caring about the pedestrians around you, you'll be fine. When you get to
your destination, you won't pay to park either.
Best regards, Bernie

Ian

Eric S. Sande must be edykated coz e writed:

>> I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
>> through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
>> city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.

Have a look at the Netherlands, mile of great bike lanes, well maintained,
and laws which give bicycles credence on the road as well.
We need exclusive facilities as well as positive legislation.
Cycling does not damage the environment, it lessen the burden of healthcare,
reduces congestion etc....

Ian

cyclist101

Eric S. Sande wrote:
>>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
>>through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
>>city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.

Fight to the death? Geez.

> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.

Okay, so I guess the Velodrome is a bad idea as well? How about our hike
and bike trails?

The Lance Armstrong Bikeway is ONE separate pathway for bicycles. By
providing a safe crossing of I-35 for bicycles, it does something which
isn't feasible on other roads because of the amount of traffic along I-35.

> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.

That's what's great about living in a democratic society. You can hold
your peculiar opinion(s) without having to "fight to the death."

cyclist101

Chalo wrote:
>>It's not about safety when you tie up traffic and beat drivers.
>
> I think you drew the wrong conclusions from that incident. Wouldn't
> you lay a beating on a jerk in a Jeep who ran over one of your
> companions, then tried to trash your bike? Heck, I would have busted
> the guy up a hundred times worse that what he actually got. I would
> hope to permanently debilitate a moron who pulled that kind of stunt.
>
> Here is a link to a site with actual video of the jerk in question
> running over a cyclist, attempting to vandalize some more bikes, and
> getting punched-- once-- for his trouble. Have a look for yourself
> and assess whether this vehicular assault was necessary in light of
> the fact that the driver was being delayed by traffic.
>
> http://BicycleAustin.info/cm/index.html

I don't need to see the "actual video" (the four parts of which are now
404 not found) to know what happened because I was right there. The
videos showed only a little more than 3.5 minutes of what happened. Go
read the note from Krissy Morrow to find out what transpired in the time
before, during, and after which the edited videos fail to document.

Theo Bekkers

"Jarkko Altonen" wrote

> Yes of course I'm a pedestrian - and so is 99% of the population.
>
> I am also a cyclist and do about 140km/week.
>
> And I'm even a motorist.
>
> Doesn't really fit your little compartmentalised world does it?

No, no, no, no, you have to pick a box and stay in it.

Theo

Peter Signorini

"Bill Hamilton" <seeker@nosphoenyx.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93AA4C1F31050seekeratphoenyxdotne@68.12.19.6...

> I don't see how trails and bike paths are marginalizing bicycles.

Ever ridden n the roads in Canberra? Or do a search on accident data for
Stevenage UK the great bike path city. Most hazardous place to cycle in the
country.

> They're giving cyclists alternatives to riding on the high-speed highways
> that are just plain too dangerous for anyone without years of cycling
> experience. Or, do you really want children puttering along next to the
> fast cars and trucks?

Roads that have cyclists regularly riding on them (regular streets, not main
freeways and highways) teach drivers to be alert and aware of cyclists. Eg.
Amsterdam, and most European cities.

Cheers
Peter

Chalo

cyclist101 wrote:

> > http://BicycleAustin.info/cm/index.html
>
> I don't need to see the "actual video" (the four parts of which are now
> 404 not found) to know what happened because I was right there. The
> videos showed only a little more than 3.5 minutes of what happened. Go
> read the note from Krissy Morrow to find out what transpired in the time
> before, during, and after which the edited videos fail to document.

Ezra Teter, quoted in the article you reposted, was my housemate at
the time, and his tale of the vehicular attack came off quite
differently than hers (which seems to breeze over the assault with a
deadly weapon part).

Of course, she's a tool and reflexively sided with the tool who mowed
down the cyclists. She probably felt impatient at having to wait for
others too but had just enough impulse control to refrain from making
an attempt on their lives.

Your take on this motorist attack seems like that of a tool too.

Chalo Colina

cyclist101

Chalo wrote:
<snip>
> Your take on this motorist attack seems like that of a tool too.

Ad hominem, but that's the best shot you can take.

Just a Cyclist

"Tom Keats" <tomk2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lksqdb.rd5.ln@bud.garden.local...
> In article <vg1qo95489unf7@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Just a Cyclist" <popo@copwatch.com> writes:
> >
> > So blocking a street so I can't walk across it is not stomping on my
> > rights?? Pure BS
>
> So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
> minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
> run around with their hair on fire about it?

Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
cross the street! It is a right!

Because they are not only blocking the crosswalk........the street and
others rights...... because they think they are promoting something for a
bicycle...... Wrong.. when I ride I still get the back lash of there
MC.........they do nothing to promote cycling or better thinks for all bike
riders....
They are civil disobedient........and are nothing but disruptors of peace.
>
> --
> -- Powered by FreeBSD
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Bernie

Just a Cyclist wrote:

> "Tom Keats" <tomk2003@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lksqdb.rd5.ln@bud.garden.local...
> > In article <vg1qo95489unf7@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Just a Cyclist" <popo@copwatch.com> writes:
> > >
> > > So blocking a street so I can't walk across it is not stomping on my
> > > rights?? Pure BS
> >
> > So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
> > minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
> > run around with their hair on fire about it?
>
> Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
> cross the street! It is a right!
>
> Because they are not only blocking the crosswalk........the street and
> others rights...... because they think they are promoting something for a
> bicycle...... Wrong.. when I ride I still get the back lash of there
> MC.........they do nothing to promote cycling or better thinks for all bike
> riders....
> They are civil disobedient........and are nothing but disruptors of peace.
> >
> > --
> > -- Powered by FreeBSD
> > Above address is just a spam midden.
> > I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Oh come now. Has anyone ever given you a hard time because CM rides once in a
while? I ride my bike every day of the year <nearly> and CM does rides in
Vancouver, which is right next door to me. No one has ever given me any grief
at all because of the behaviour of CM.
How has it been for you? And where are you, by the by?
Bernie

Tom Keats

In article <vg20njp66ojn6e@corp.supernews.com>,
"Just a Cyclist" <popo@copwatch.com> writes:

>> So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
>> minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
>> run around with their hair on fire about it?
>
> Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
> cross the street! It is a right!

Yeah, the way folks kow-tow to the Almighty Automobile truly sux the
big one. Every left-turn bay that adds width to intersections,
and every right-on-red rule, violates pedestrians' rights to cross
the street in a safe and timely manner.

Pedestrians really get the short & dirty end of the stick;
cars get sucked-up to, way more than they deserve.

Critical Mass is, at least in part, an human-powered uprising
against this unjust imbalance. And where unjust imbalances
occur, uprisings are inevitable. Y'don't like it? Boo hoo.
Critical Mass isn't just about vehicles, including bikes --
it's about /people/.


--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

John L

Congratulations, so am I, & about 90% of Australia'a population.

Is that the same compartmentalised mentality that classifies all
members of a particular movement that you personally don't agree with,
as "A bunch of cunts".

Love that Macho Man mentality, now I understand the nickname Jerko.

John L.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:26:06 GMT, jarkko@nospam.com (Jarkko Altonen)
wrote:

>Yes of course I'm a pedestrian - and so is 99% of the population.
>
>I am also a cyclist and do about 140km/week.
>
>And I'm even a motorist.
>
>Doesn't really fit your little compartmentalised world does it?
>