Moronic Cyclist Stupidity!

Sir Ridesalot

Hi there.

I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.

I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
cyclists even had children with them.

What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
injured or killed.
Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
for bicycle lanes. If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
would have at least two lanes each way.

Blocking traffic on the Gardiner Expressway is a really good counter-
productive way to protest. I wonder how many motorists who were held
up by these irresponsible cyclists or read the newspaper about it now
think all cyclists are idiots? Such behaviour is not conducive to
promoting bicycling (and cyclists) as a sane and efficient
transportation alternative.

I find it really hard to believe that any parent would take a child up
onto the Gardiner Expressway either on a bicycle or in a bicycle
trailer whilst *KNOWING THAT TRAFFIC WAS NOT BEING STOPPED BEFORE THAT
ONRAMP!*

As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy. Three of them were
arrested. Pity that. There should have been far more. There would have
been but many of the cyclists threw their bicycles over the fence at
the Dunn and Jameson exit and escaped on foot. Unfortunately the
responsible cyclists are the ones who will be the ones to experience
the rise in driver ire that this protest is liable to have generated.

Witnesses stated that these cyclist were weaving in and out of traffic
and that many cars had to swerve to avoid them. At least one motorist
coming up the Jarvis Street onramp stated that he saw cars nearly plow
into cyclists as the cyclists came off the onramp.

It took nine police cruisers to force the cyclists off the Gardiner
Expessway at the Dunn Avenue/Jameson Street exit.

Damn those moronic bicyclists who behave in such irresponsible
behaviour and/or ride in an irresponsible manner! They are a plague on
bicyclists who do ride in a responsible manner in an attempt to share
the road.

Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist were
members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that explains such
bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they want to tick
off motorists and alienate the public they are sure going about it the
right way.

Peter

limeylew@gmail.com

On Jun 2, 4:42 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
> bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.
>
> I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
> 200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
> Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
> decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
> PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
> Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
> cyclists even had children with them.
>
> What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
> an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
> injured or killed.
> Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
> is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
> for bicycle lanes. If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
> along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
> would have at least two lanes each way.
>
> Blocking traffic on the Gardiner Expressway is a really good counter-
> productive way to protest. I wonder how many motorists who were held
> up by these irresponsible cyclists or read the newspaper about it now
> think all cyclists are idiots? Such behaviour is not conducive to
> promoting bicycling (and cyclists) as a sane and efficient
> transportation alternative.
>
> I find it really hard to believe that any parent would take a child up
> onto the Gardiner Expressway either on a bicycle or in a bicycle
> trailer whilst *KNOWING THAT TRAFFIC WAS NOT BEING STOPPED BEFORE THAT
> ONRAMP!*
>
> As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
> irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy. Three of them were
> arrested. Pity that. There should have been far more. There would have
> been but many of the cyclists threw their bicycles over the fence at
> the Dunn and Jameson exit and escaped on foot. Unfortunately the
> responsible cyclists are the ones who will be the ones to experience
> the rise in driver ire that this protest is liable to have generated.
>
> Witnesses stated that these cyclist were weaving in and out of traffic
> and that many cars had to swerve to avoid them. At least one motorist
> coming up the Jarvis Street onramp stated that he saw cars nearly plow
> into cyclists as the cyclists came off the onramp.
>
> It took nine police cruisers to force the cyclists off the Gardiner
> Expessway at the Dunn Avenue/Jameson Street exit.
>
> Damn those moronic bicyclists who behave in such irresponsible
> behaviour and/or ride in an irresponsible manner! They are a plague on
> bicyclists who do ride in a responsible manner in an attempt to share
> the road.
>
> Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist were
> members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that explains such
> bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they want to tick
> off motorists and alienate the public they are sure going about it the
> right way.
>
> Peter

Here, here.

Lewis.

*****

Pat

>
> Here, here.
>
> Lewis.


Lewis, being a Brit and all, you should know that the correct term is "hear,
hear!"

Bill Sornson

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> Hi there.
>
> I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
> bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.
>
> I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
> 200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
> Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
> decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
> PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
> Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
> cyclists even had children with them.
>
> What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
> an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
> injured or killed.
> Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
> is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
> for bicycle lanes. If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
> along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
> would have at least two lanes each way.
>
> Blocking traffic on the Gardiner Expressway is a really good counter-
> productive way to protest. I wonder how many motorists who were held
> up by these irresponsible cyclists or read the newspaper about it now
> think all cyclists are idiots? Such behaviour is not conducive to
> promoting bicycling (and cyclists) as a sane and efficient
> transportation alternative.
>
> I find it really hard to believe that any parent would take a child up
> onto the Gardiner Expressway either on a bicycle or in a bicycle
> trailer whilst *KNOWING THAT TRAFFIC WAS NOT BEING STOPPED BEFORE THAT
> ONRAMP!*
>
> As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
> irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy. Three of them were
> arrested. Pity that. There should have been far more. There would have
> been but many of the cyclists threw their bicycles over the fence at
> the Dunn and Jameson exit and escaped on foot. Unfortunately the
> responsible cyclists are the ones who will be the ones to experience
> the rise in driver ire that this protest is liable to have generated.
>
> Witnesses stated that these cyclist were weaving in and out of traffic
> and that many cars had to swerve to avoid them. At least one motorist
> coming up the Jarvis Street onramp stated that he saw cars nearly plow
> into cyclists as the cyclists came off the onramp.
>
> It took nine police cruisers to force the cyclists off the Gardiner
> Expessway at the Dunn Avenue/Jameson Street exit.
>
> Damn those moronic bicyclists who behave in such irresponsible
> behaviour and/or ride in an irresponsible manner! They are a plague on
> bicyclists who do ride in a responsible manner in an attempt to share
> the road.
>
> Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist were
> members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that explains such
> bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they want to tick
> off motorists and alienate the public they are sure going about it the
> right way.
>
> Peter

I happened to have a "group breakfast" yesterday with a guy who participated
in a CM ride here last Friday or Saturday night. "600 riders!" he bragged.
When someone asked him what it was about, he said, "because we're angry".
About what? He listed global warming, housing crisis, war, gas
prices...everything under the sun /except/ cyclists' rights. (He only rides
for "cause"-type events, this being the very first.)

What really made him mad? No one would engage him in a political
blatherfest during what was supposed to be a social gathering. I think I
literally saw smoke coming out his ears (wonder if he'll pay the carbon tax
for that!)...

BS (ain't gonna da'ht)

aeiouy

>
> Damn those moronic bicyclists who behave in such irresponsible
> behaviour and/or ride in an irresponsible manner! They are a plague on
> bicyclists who do ride in a responsible manner in an attempt to share
> the road.
>
> Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist were
> members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that explains such
> bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they want to tick
> off motorists and alienate the public they are sure going about it the
> right way.
>
> Peter

http://auditd0rk.files.wordpress.co...aaambulance.jpg

Bill Sornson

DennisTheBald wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:42 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> ...
>> Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist
>> were members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that
>> explains such bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they
>> want to tick off motorists and alienate the public they are sure
>> going about it the right way.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Sure, but how do you distinguish between a CM ride and the regular
> Saturday club ride?

One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and engendering bad
will), while the other is /part/ of traffic and looks to promote
cooperation.

One has a political agenda and the other does not.

One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference if one has eyes and ears.

HTH

Luke

In article
<9e7f5495-8fe7-4ffc-a2d5-691cfc278064@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Hi there.
>
> I am 57 and I am a long time resident of Toronto and am an avid
> bicyclist who commutes 30 kms daily via bicycle.
>
> I saw in the Saturday, May 31, 2008 edition of the Toronto Sun that
> 200 cyclists decided to have a protest demanding bicycle lanes on
> Bloor Street. In their infinite wisdom (full sarcasm mode here) they
> decided to ride their bicycles up the Jarvis Street on-ramp around 7
> PM. Apparently they took over three lanes of the westbound Gardiner
> Expressway - YES! you read that right EXPRESSWAY! Some of these
> cyclists even had children with them.
>
> What on earth were these people thinking? The Gardiner Expressway is
> an elevated road that is usually quite busy. They are lucky no one was
> injured or killed.
> Bicycle lanes on Bloor Street? Are these people serious? Bloor Street
> is a *VERY* busy east to west arterial road that does not have room
> for bicycle lanes. If the city of Toronto were to remove the parking
> along this road it possibly could help traffic flow better because you
> would have at least two lanes each way.
>

<snip>

Calm down Sir ShortsInAKnot. Lest you think I'm an apologist for the
Critical Mass(holes?) my thoughts and those of many others are on
record at the board referenced below. Join in the debate, you'll be
addressing directly some of the participants of last Friday's Tour de
Gardiner.

http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/2234#comment-4113

Yes these people, and many others, are serious about bike lanes on
Bloor St. Why shouldn't they be?

Bloor is a major east/west artery in the heart of the city, it bisects
the U of T campus, it is a commercial and entertainment corridor; and
it links up with the bike lane on the Bloor St Viaduct, a major route
for commuting cyclists: IT IS THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE FOR BIKE LANES.

But don't take my word for it: Over 15 years ago, in 1992, a Route
Selection Study for on-street Bicycle Lanes done for the former City of
Toronto by the firm Marshall Macklin Monaghan concluded that Bloor St.
was THE NUMBER ONE CHOICE.

What other street do you recommend: Dundas, Eglinton, Lawrence,
Sheppard, Yonge, Bayview, Avenue Rd. etc... Or do those streets not
"have enough room" as well? The fact is to motorists roads never have
enough room and any vehicle that intercedes between them and their
destination should be disallowed.

There are NO bike lanes of any significant length on ANY major arteries
in all of Toronto. If you've ridden extensively in the city you'll know
that it's only the major arteries that provide passage over 400 series
highways, ravines and railways -- these are EXACTLY where bike lanes
belong. I suppose you're content to have bicycles relegated to
secondary side streets that do not and cannot take cyclists where they
want to go, where bicycle lanes are often installed because they occupy
room that motorists and everyone else considers of little value.

The continent over, cars have completely co-opted what was once an
inclusive commons and transformed it into a motorized sewer. Great
swaths of our urban spaces have had pedestrians and every vehicle other
than autos designed out of consideration.

Don't begrudge cyclists their intent of inserting themselves back into
consideration on their own streets, of reclaiming from cars a measure
of civility and space that has been so thoroughly ceded.

Thankfully there are cyclists in Toronto that aren't self-defeating in
their outlook, that are ambitious; they envision and are working toward
building a city in which bicycles and bicycle specific infrastructure
are a significant presence on *major* streets. Bicycle lanes on Bloor
is part of their plan.

Jym Dyer

Sorni mischaracterizes Critical Mass yet again:

> One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and
> engendering bad will), while the other is /part/ of traffic
> and looks to promote cooperation.

=v= Bullshit. Critical Mass *is* traffic. Indeed, the title
of the first documentary about CM points that out, duh.

> One has a political agenda and the other does not.

=v= Oh really? What political agenda is that, precisely? My
observation is that there are as many agendas as participants.

> One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.

=v= Again, bullshit. Anyone is welcome at Critical Mass.
That "recruits jerks" exactly as, um, traffic does.
<_Jym_>

Bill Sornson

Jym Dyer wrote:
> Sorni mischaracterizes Critical Mass yet again:
>
>> One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and
>> engendering bad will), while the other is /part/ of traffic
>> and looks to promote cooperation.
>
> =v= Bullshit. Critical Mass *is* traffic. Indeed, the title
> of the first documentary about CM points that out, duh.
>
>> One has a political agenda and the other does not.
>
> =v= Oh really? What political agenda is that, precisely? My
> observation is that there are as many agendas as participants.
>
>> One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.
>
> =v= Again, bullshit. Anyone is welcome at Critical Mass.
> That "recruits jerks" exactly as, um, traffic does.
> <_Jym_>

Another strikingly coherent post, Jym (sic). Smart of you to DELETE the
question to which I replied. (Hint: poster asked how to tell the
difference between a CM group and a club ride. Had nothing to do with any
alleged "documentary".)

HTHBKIW, BS

Werehatrack

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:55:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> may
have said:

>DennisTheBald wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 4:42 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist
>>> were members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that
>>> explains such bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if they
>>> want to tick off motorists and alienate the public they are sure
>>> going about it the right way.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> Sure, but how do you distinguish between a CM ride and the regular
>> Saturday club ride?
>
>One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and engendering bad
>will), while the other is /part/ of traffic and looks to promote
>cooperation.
>
>One has a political agenda and the other does not.
>
>One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.
>
>It's pretty easy to tell the difference if one has eyes and ears.

CM ride groups also vary in their approach; the few CM rides I've been
on have avoided being directly confrontational while still maintaining
a high profile. Much depends upon choice of route, choice of timing,
and (of course) the sanity of the participants. I guess we have a few
more who are just there to ride, rather than to make a statement about
anything but bikes. The police never gave any of us a hassle on the
rides I did, and as far as I could tell, the group didn't give them a
lot of reason to want to do so.

It *is* possible to make a statement without alienating the people
you're trying to persuade...and those who don't get the message are
probably not persuadable anyway. It makes little sense to change
someone from a disinterested spectator into an active opponent, as was
doubtless the case with the Gardiner invasion. (I've driven that
freeway; those idiots would have been hard-pressed to find a dumber
stunt IMO.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Bill Sornson

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:55:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> may
> have said:
>
>> DennisTheBald wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 4:42 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Oh, I noticed in the newspaper article that many of these cyclist
>>>> were members of the Critical Mass Bicycle Ride. Perhaps that
>>>> explains such bizarre behaviour. Well, one thing is certain; if
>>>> they want to tick off motorists and alienate the public they are
>>>> sure going about it the right way.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> Sure, but how do you distinguish between a CM ride and the regular
>>> Saturday club ride?
>>
>> One purposely disrupts traffic (pissing off drivers and engendering
>> bad will), while the other is /part/ of traffic and looks to promote
>> cooperation.
>>
>> One has a political agenda and the other does not.
>>
>> One recruits jerks and the other rejects them.
>>
>> It's pretty easy to tell the difference if one has eyes and ears.
>
> CM ride groups also vary in their approach; the few CM rides I've been
> on have avoided being directly confrontational while still maintaining
> a high profile. Much depends upon choice of route, choice of timing,
> and (of course) the sanity of the participants. I guess we have a few
> more who are just there to ride, rather than to make a statement about
> anything but bikes. The police never gave any of us a hassle on the
> rides I did, and as far as I could tell, the group didn't give them a
> lot of reason to want to do so.
>
> It *is* possible to make a statement without alienating the people
> you're trying to persuade...and those who don't get the message are
> probably not persuadable anyway. It makes little sense to change
> someone from a disinterested spectator into an active opponent, as was
> doubtless the case with the Gardiner invasion. (I've driven that
> freeway; those idiots would have been hard-pressed to find a dumber
> stunt IMO.)

Very well stated. I should have clarified that I was describing or
commenting on the more virulent CM rides. (Also was partly based on the
moron who sat at the breakfast table with me this past Sunday. He's just an
angry guy and joined the weekend CM ride to express his self-rightous moral
outrage, which had NOTHING to do with cycling issues whatsoever. He got
madder and madder when no one wanted to engage him in a political argument
at what was supposed to be a celebratory gathering.)

In general I don't think it's a smart idea to alienate the very people one
is trying to persuade or inform, so if a CM event keeps things on the mellow
side it can only help (IMO).

BS

limeylew@gmail.com

On Jun 2, 6:01*pm, "Pat" <ex...@tmail.com> wrote:
> > Here, here.
>
> > Lewis.
>
> Lewis, being a Brit and all, you should know that the correct term is "hear,
> hear!"

Thanks, Pat, you are correct and I certainly deserve a reprimand for
that.

Kind regards.

Lewis.

*****

Dennis P. Harris

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT) in rec.bicycles.misc, Sir
Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> As far as I am concerned all 200 of these cyclists demonstrated
> irresponsible, negligence and pure idiocy.

as far as i'm concerned it's none of your business, and you are
just an anti-bike busybody.

PLONK.

Dennis P. Harris

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:19:40 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, Luke
<lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote:

> Bloor is a major east/west artery in the heart of the city, it bisects
> the U of T campus, it is a commercial and entertainment corridor; and
> it links up with the bike lane on the Bloor St Viaduct, a major route
> for commuting cyclists: IT IS THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE FOR BIKE LANES.

bike are traffic. they don't need to be stuck in a cycling
ghetto on the edge of the street where they can be doored and
squeezed against the curb by bus and truck drivers.

bike lanes are useless. a wider outside lane with room for
cyclists is actually useful.