Can somebody fill me in on Critical Mass?

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:32:23 -0600, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (J.
Bruce Fields) wrote:

>
>It's just a parade.

It's a monthly reminder that cyclists, roller bladers and skate boarders too own the public space
through which they arrogantly or inattentively pilot their stinking lethal SOV everyday.
--
zk

 

[Sam Huffman]

[email protected] (Paul Southworth) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >27 Jan 2003 11:46:25 -0800, <[email protected]>, Sam Huffman
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>However now when I drive, every time I see a biker I wonder if he was one of the guys who felt
> >>it necessary to create a spectacle, and feel that twinge of irritation all over again.
> >
> >You're sick. Get help.
>
> I wouldn't call it "sick" but I agree it is a kind of broken thinking that makes people boil when
> they have to wait for a stranger.

Now hang on; unfortunately Mr. Katz has twisted what I posted to match his agenda.

I have no objection to giving cyclists plenty of space and passing safely. That's what I expect of
drivers when I'm on my bike (and it's what happens 99% of the time).

The problem with CM is that their _entire goal_ is to disrupt traffic. Despite the candy coating
they give it "asserting road rights, etc..", it is no different than if 200 goofballs in clown
costumes jumped in the middle of the freeway cycling lane and juggled bowling pins for 20 minutes.

Do they have the right to do it? I don't know or care. They're nothing more than the "grown-up"
version of the teenagers who wear t-shirts saying "F*ck Sh*t C*nt" to "assert their 1st amendment
rights". Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should. And I have every
right to get irritated at this gratuitous display.

If a cyclist or group of cyclists rides in a mature and responsible fashion, I think you'll find
very few drivers who have an issue with them.

> But hey, there is just no guarantee that you get to go as fast as you want and never wait for
> anyone - it is the same kind of thinking that makes people charge pedestrians who are late getting
> off the cross-walk - being willing to threaten someone's life to obtain pole position.

Again, we're not talking about endangering anyone's life, merely being irritated. I've no problem
with giving an old lady plenty of time to cross the road. However as both a driver and a cyclist I
get annoyed when someone starts crossing the road against traffic, and doesn't even bother to hurry.
That's discourteous, and dangerous to _everyone_ involved.

> The sad thing is, this attitude is by no means restricted to people in cars - I see this type of
> behavior exhibited by cyclists every day on the closed roads in a nearby park that has twisty
> descents and cyclists who go zooming through families on foot with loose dogs and baby strollers
> spread across the road.

Exactly! I witnessed a bicycle accident last summer in which two cyclists both ran a 4-way stop and
collided. No one was seriously hurt, though one of them had to walk his bike home. I would wager
that a much larger percentage of cyclists ignore basic safety rules than do drivers. I'd rather the
cycling public start out by solving this problem rather than perpetuating the stereotype by
disrupting others who are acting in a legal and responsible manner.

Sam

 

[Matt]

Paul Southworth <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:W9iZ9.30745$A%[email protected]... <SNIP>
> The thing that is hard to teach (to the whole world) is how to just use the brakes and slow down
> without getting all hot and bothered. If it was a back-hoe blocking the road at 10mph most decent
> drivers would at least avoid expressing their irritation - waiting is inevitable so just deal with
> it - a cyclist should be thought of the same way.
<SNIP>
>
> --Paul

*A* cyclist, yes. But a mass of slow-moving cyclists who refuse to take to the right lane, instead
choosing to willfully impede the flow of lawful traffic, is another animal altogether.

 

[Sam Huffman]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> writes:

> 27 Jan 2003 11:46:25 -0800, <[email protected]>, Sam Huffman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >However now when I drive, every time I see a biker I wonder if he was one of the guys who felt it
> >necessary to create a spectacle, and feel that twinge of irritation all over again.
>
> You're sick. Get help.

Whoa. Flashback to rec.skiing.alpine. I'm a mild person. You might be more concerned about the
majority of the population who are more high-strung than I. If I'm irritated, I guarantee you
that a lot of other people are outright mad. You conveniently clipped the portion of my post
where I explained that I am irritated in part because I feel that CM's actions make me less safe
when I am riding.

> >It is fair to blame drivers who drive unsafely, but those who knowingly provoke unsafe driving
> >just to make a statement are also to blame.
>
> This is ripe: "knowingly provoke unsafe driving". Settle down. See your doctor.

See above.

> >> The mass doesn't block emergency vehicles
> >
> >I'm curious; Why the double standard?
>
> Humanitarian concerns and social responsibility are not precluded by having an activist's mindset.
> I could argue that they're actually prerequisite for cultivating that mindset.

So vehicles that burn fossil fuels, pollute the air, and promote global instability are OK with you,
so long as they fit your narrow definition of what is socially acceptable.

It would be a pity if one of the cars blocked by your protest did have somewhere to get to urgently,
and didn't have a siren to indicate it.

> Also, in Vancouver, we've fairly good rapport with city hall so we take care to not jeopardise
> that relationship. The police found that their hard-line approach caused more problems than it
> solved. So, they tolerate us as long as we don't threaten the public's safety.

It's fortunate for Vancouver that, by your own admission, your CM events are fairly small scale.
However also by your own admission, a successful CM event (i.e. one that draws more people) will
inherently become an inconvenience. The CM rally I ran into in Portland delayed traffic by more than
20 minutes. By any definition that's an inconvenience, and an unnecessary one.

Sam

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 27 Jan 2003 07:42:17 -0800,
> <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Luigi de Guzman) wrote:
>
> >I'd be interested to know how many CMers ride those bikes every day of the week, or every other
> >day of the week, and not just on the last Friday of every month.
> >
> >-Luigi
>
> Participate. I think you'll find the majority of them are daily utility and commuter cyclists.
> They are here.

I would, but...

My "local" as I reckon it is the DC one--which in polite diplomatic terms is the Washington Area
Bicyclists' Association's "Solidarity ride". Unfortunately, when I'm 'home' i'm too far in the
'burbs to get down into town to go...

As to the Central London CM, I haven't gone--have got a class that conflicts with it, but we'll see
about this month..

-Luigi

 

[Bluto]

Sam Huffman <[email protected]> wrote:

> However now when I drive, every time I see a biker I wonder if he was one of the guys who felt it
> necessary to create a spectacle, and feel that twinge of irritation all over again.

Give up your car and your sociopathy may subside.

Chalo Colina

 

[Zoot Katz]

27 Jan 2003 13:36:09 -0800, <[email protected]>, Sam Huffman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You conveniently clipped the portion of my post where I explained that I am irritated in part
>because I feel that CM's actions make me less safe when I am riding.

I trust that there are fewer free-range sociopaths than you imagine. That's why I suggested YOU
get help if you're experiencing this subdued rage whenever you see a cyclist. Let it go. It's
making you sick.

>> >> The mass doesn't block emergency vehicles
>> >
>> >I'm curious; Why the double standard?
>>
>> Humanitarian concerns and social responsibility are not precluded by having an activist's
>> mindset. I could argue that they're actually prerequisite for cultivating that mindset.
>
>So vehicles that burn fossil fuels, pollute the air, and promote global instability are OK with
>you, so long as they fit your narrow definition of what is socially acceptable.
>
Not at all what I'm saying and you know it.

Emergency vehicles are necessary. One more fluffly lump driving a mere 2 miles in their stinking
fossil burner is not.

>It would be a pity if one of the cars blocked by your protest did have somewhere to get to
>urgently, and didn't have a siren to indicate it.

They all think their trip is the most urgent. Knowing our litigious society, somebody would have
sued the police for allowing this anarchy if it had caused them any real harm. I've not yet heard of
this happening. Have you? (Cite references)

>The CM rally I ran into in Portland delayed traffic by more than 20 minutes. By any definition
>that's an inconvenience, and an unnecessary one.

The fact is that you were more inconvenienced by the other cars blocking you from choosing an
different route around the bicycles. That's the nature of automobiles. You could have continued your
journey on foot or a bicycle with little or no difficulty.

I'm sure that there are other times driving when you've arrived twenty minutes later than your ETA
while there was nary a cyclist in sight. Have you never been caught by an event letting out? It
often takes longer than twenty minutes just getting out of the parking lot.

There are days when whole sections of the city where non-local cars are prohibited simply because
they can't move during those events. That's when the bicycle mounted police and emergency medical
services are used to assure public safety.

It certainly wasn't bicycles causing traffic problems in San Diego, Oakland and Tampa last night.

Whine on. It's makes you look sillier.
--
zk

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tom
Kunich) writes:

> Bicycles ARE traffic. When they are in mass on a road they slow up traffic whether or not they
> wish to. And it is the drivers who want to race to the next stop light that are the problem in SF
> and not the critical massers.

That same problem might exist elsewhere, too.

Among the many things CM can be considered to be, perhaps it can be thought of as a sort of mirror,
gently (and a little mockingly) reflecting the bi-daily, rush hour rat-run. No wonder some drivers
don't like what they see in CM: they see themselves. They should count themselves lucky that massers
aren't driving cars instead of just riding bikes. The car "Critical Mass" is big enough already.

I notice how nobody ever gets up in arms about cars holding up the progress of bikes or pedestrians.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD

remove NO_SPAM. from address to reply

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Make Way For The Iron Sausage, Kevan
\"Elder G\" Smith <[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>On 27 Jan 2003 14:49:28 -0800, Sam Huffman <[email protected]> from Intel
>Corporation wrote:
>
>>The problem with CM is that their _entire goal_ is to disrupt traffic.
>
>They ARE traffic.

That's what I keep hearing. But vehicles in traffic don't normally clump together in huge groups and
refuse to let anyone else in. Vehicles in traffic also mostly yield right-of-way in the usual manner
at four-way stops and other intersections.

There is another common behavior pattern that Critical Mass riders fit much better: people in
funeral processions and parades and such keep together and go through intersections as a unit.

They're a parade. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But I can't see calling them
"traffic".

---Bruce F.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Paul Southworth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:W9iZ9.30745$A%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >27 Jan 2003 11:46:25 -0800, <[email protected]>, Sam Huffman
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>However now when I drive, every time I see a biker I wonder if he was
one
> >>of the guys who felt it necessary to create a spectacle, and feel that twinge of irritation all
> >>over again.
> >
> >You're sick. Get help.
>
> I wouldn't call it "sick" but I agree it is a kind of broken thinking that makes people boil when
> they have to wait for a stranger. But hey, there is just no guarantee that you get to go as fast
> as you want and never wait for anyone - it is the same kind of thinking that makes people charge
> pedestrians who are late getting off the cross-walk - being willing to threaten someone's life to
> obtain pole position.
>
> The sad thing is, this attitude is by no means restricted to people in cars - I see this type of
> behavior exhibited by cyclists every day on the closed roads in a nearby park that has twisty
> descents and cyclists who go zooming through families on foot with loose dogs and baby strollers
> spread across the road. It's all the same thing. I have roughly zero sympathy for anyone who acts
> this way using any vehicle. When I see cyclists do it I think "you are acting just like a driver".
>
> The thing that is hard to teach (to the whole world) is how to just use the brakes and slow down
> without getting all hot and bothered. If it was a back-hoe blocking the road at 10mph most decent
> drivers would at least avoid expressing their irritation - waiting is inevitable so just deal with
> it - a cyclist should be thought of the same way.
>
> If I can't give a pedestrian an auto-lane worth of elbow room then I go 10mph or slower. For one
> thing, the guy's dog or kid is going to come bursting out of the bushes on the side of the road as
> soon as I get near. And pededstrians just don't feel comfortable when a high-speed cyclist comes
> by with a yard or two of room - I know I don't when I'm on foot - there are few people I trust
> that well and plenty of examples of cycling ineptitude.

Ya gots to give, and demand, respect.

Robin Hubert

 

[Make Way For Th]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:57:22 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) from fieldses.org wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Make Way For The Iron Sausage, Kevan
>\"Elder G\" Smith <[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>>On 27 Jan 2003 14:49:28 -0800, Sam Huffman <[email protected]> from Intel
>>Corporation wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with CM is that their _entire goal_ is to disrupt traffic.
>>
>>They ARE traffic.
>
>That's what I keep hearing. But vehicles in traffic don't normally clump together in huge groups
>and refuse to let anyone else in.

Ever been stuck in a traffic jam trying to get on an interstate?

>Vehicles in traffic also mostly yield right-of-way in the usual manner at four-way stops and other
>intersections.

I don't think most drivers understand right of way.
--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Tibet cuts the ancient and effective
white trash
12:28:05 AM 28 January 2003

 

[Make Way For Th]

On 27 Jan 2003 14:49:28 -0800, Sam Huffman <[email protected]> from Intel
Corporation wrote:

>The problem with CM is that their _entire goal_ is to disrupt traffic.

They ARE traffic.

--
http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Catsup and Mustard all over the place! It's
the Human Hamburger!
10:12:04 PM 27 January 2003

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:32:23 -0600, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (J.
> Bruce Fields) wrote:
>
> >
> >It's just a parade.
>
> It's a monthly reminder that cyclists, roller bladers and skate boarders too own the public space
> through which they arrogantly or inattentively pilot their stinking lethal SOV everyday.

I agree ... 'cept for, maybe, the skaters.

Robin Hubert

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>As to the latter question, it is because those cyclists' brains are owned by the same interests
>that own most motorists' brains.
>
>There were slaves who opposed the struggle for Emancipation too, oddly enough.
>
>Chalo Colina
>
I think you have this backwards.

Cyclists need no Emancipation, cyclists are the ones who have been emancipated, motorists are the
oppressed and in need of liberation from the stress and frustration of driving.

Instead of playing the same aggressive games that motorists play, we need to demonstate the beauty
and pleasure of cycling.

Cyclists are not a repressed minority, rather we are a priviliged minority and need to act
accordingly.

So rather than adding to the stress and turmoil of the traffic community, give them a helping hand,
ride in a courteous and friendly way and set a good example.

Thinking that cyclists need Emancipation requires the assumption that cyclists are in someway second
class members of the traffic community. If that is one's attitude, first one needs to personally
liberate oneself from such attitudes.

And then as a group riding alone or however we ride, we can be messengers of a different and more
tranquil way of living.

Jon Isaacs

 

[Sparhawk]

On 27 Jan 2003 02:33:25 -0800, [email protected] (Bluto) wrote:

>"NYRides" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry. I guess I haven't paid much attention to this "Critical Mass" thing. Can you tell me what
>> it is and why so many cyclists are against it?
>
>As to the latter question, it is because those cyclists' brains are owned by the same interests
>that own most motorists' brains.
>
>There were slaves who opposed the struggle for Emancipation too, oddly enough.
>
>Chalo Colina

So many real cyclists are against it because it does not represent them or their views.

Most are fanantical crackpots (kooks) that are followers of whatever dumbass issue happens to pop
into their tiny heads.

Sparhawk

 

[Sparhawk]

On 28 Jan 2003 14:28:39 GMT, [email protected] (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

>
>
>>As to the latter question, it is because those cyclists' brains are owned by the same interests
>>that own most motorists' brains.
>>
>>There were slaves who opposed the struggle for Emancipation too, oddly enough.
>>
>>Chalo Colina
>>
>I think you have this backwards.
>
>Cyclists need no Emancipation, cyclists are the ones who have been emancipated, motorists are the
>oppressed and in need of liberation from the stress and frustration of driving.
>
>Instead of playing the same aggressive games that motorists play, we need to demonstate the beauty
>and pleasure of cycling.
>
>Cyclists are not a repressed minority, rather we are a priviliged minority and need to act
>accordingly.
>
>So rather than adding to the stress and turmoil of the traffic community, give them a helping hand,
>ride in a courteous and friendly way and set a good example.
>
>Thinking that cyclists need Emancipation requires the assumption that cyclists are in someway
>second class members of the traffic community. If that is one's attitude, first one needs to
>personally liberate oneself from such attitudes.
>
>And then as a group riding alone or however we ride, we can be messengers of a different and more
>tranquil way of living.

Jeez what have you been smokin' Jon, I got to get me some of dat!

Sparhawk
>
>Jon Isaacs

 

[Mark Jones]

"Bluto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I mean, don't 100 cyclists have 100 times as much right to the road as a single cyclist? Or the
> same right to the road as 100 solo car drivers? I don't see cyclists granted proportional
> rights-of-way when they gather in groups.
No, because the 100 bicycle riders will be an isolated group of 100, so it is obvious that it is an
organized event. The same can not be said for the cars.

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Make Way For The Iron Sausage, Kevan
\"Elder G\" Smith <[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 22:57:22 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) from fieldses.org wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Make Way For The Iron Sausage, Kevan
>>\"Elder G\" Smith
><[email protected]/\/\> wrote:
>>>On 27 Jan 2003 14:49:28 -0800, Sam Huffman <[email protected]> from Intel
>>>Corporation wrote:
>>>
>>>>The problem with CM is that their _entire goal_ is to disrupt traffic.
>>>
>>>They ARE traffic.
>>
>>That's what I keep hearing. But vehicles in traffic don't normally clump together in huge groups
>>and refuse to let anyone else in.
>
>Ever been stuck in a traffic jam trying to get on an interstate?

Yes. I've spent been in stop-and-go traffic on the Capitol Beltway around D.C., for example. People
are rarely as good as they could be, but, nonetheless, slow progress is made both in the regular
traffic lanes and in the on-ramps. For the most part, people still merge, even when they're doing it
at a snail's pace.

Similarly, at 4-way stops, even the lines waiting to get through are backed up to the preceding
intersections, people still take turns; maybe not in exactly the right order, but you never see a
big group of vehicles from one street suddenly insist on the right of way. (In fact, I don't think
I've ever seen two go through in a row when there were other people waiting.)

With the exception of the occasional parade or procession--which I wouldn't describe as
"traffic"--I've never seen a group of hundreds of cars all taking the right of way as necessary to
stay together without letting in a single outsider. That's not the way traffic works; not even
highly aggressive or congested traffic.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with a parade of bicycles through city streets. But I can't
see calling such a parade traffic.

--Bruce F.

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:48:48 -0600, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (J.
>Bruce Fields) wrote:
>
>>With the exception of the occasional parade or procession--which I wouldn't describe as
>>"traffic"--I've never seen a group of hundreds of cars all taking the right of way as necessary to
>>stay together without letting in a single outsider. That's not the way traffic works; not even
>>highly aggressive or congested traffic.
>
>The name Critical Mass comes from Ted White's bike-umentary "Return of the Scorcher" wherein
>intersection crossing etiquette in China's big cities is discussed as a matter of Critical Mass
>"The cross traffic waits until it achieves critical mass and then pushes through, leaving the
>original stream of traffic to stop and build until it reaches its push-through point."

Yes, I'm aware of the source of that term, but the behavior it describes is not something I've ever
personally witnessed; have you? Do you want to?

From what little I've heard, the traffic patterns in China's big cities don't seem like good models
to follow (except for the high proportion of bicyclists!). If the intent of Critical Mass is to
advocate this sort of of might-makes-right mass behavior, then I'm against it. I don't think that's
really anyone's intent, though.

--Bruce F.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:48:48 -0600, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (J.
Bruce Fields) wrote:

>With the exception of the occasional parade or procession--which I wouldn't describe as
>"traffic"--I've never seen a group of hundreds of cars all taking the right of way as necessary to
>stay together without letting in a single outsider. That's not the way traffic works; not even
>highly aggressive or congested traffic.

The name Critical Mass comes from Ted White's bike-umentary "Return of the Scorcher" wherein
intersection crossing etiquette in China's big cities is discussed as a matter of Critical Mass "The
cross traffic waits until it achieves critical mass and then pushes through, leaving the original
stream of traffic to stop and build until it reaches its push-through point."
--
zk