Can somebody fill me in on Critical Mass?

[reset]

Haven't had any conflicts with motor vehicle drivers, but am fed up with roads designed without any
provision for safe cycling or walking. Perhaps the CM protests should be directed against highway
designers and real estate developers, instead of drivers trying to get to their destination?

 

[Dennis P. Harri]

On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 18:29:38 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected] wrote:

> Perhaps the CM protests should be directed against highway designers and real estate developers,
> instead of drivers trying to get to their destination?

against zoning laws that allow it.

 

[Jym Dyer]

>> Try this... http://criticalmassrides.info/

=v= And/or my own humble effort:

http://www.critical-mass.org/

> The primary tactic is basically to annoy rush-hour car drivers, ...

=v= There is no "the" or even "primary" tactic. The above catalog websites will show that well.

=v= (On the other hand, one could pick out selected sentence fragments from all over the world to
support whatever thesis one wants, as has been done several times in this newsgroup.) <_Jym_

 

[Zoot Katz]

07 Feb 2003 12:18:45 -0800, <[email protected]>, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Try this... http://criticalmassrides.info/
>
>=v= And/or my own humble effort:
>
>http://www.critical-mass.org/
>
>> The primary tactic is basically to annoy rush-hour car drivers, ...
>
>=v= There is no "the" or even "primary" tactic. The above catalog websites will show that well.
>
>=v= one could pick out selected sentence fragments from all over the world to support whatever
>thesis one wants, as has been done several times in this newsgroup.) <_Jym_>

I like Tooker Gomberg's take on the situation. He says we need radical activism so that the
moderates aren't ignored as a fringe element.
--
zk

 

[Jym Dyer]

>> 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.

=v= Yes they do, moreso than CM does, and more dangerously. Especially if there's some sort of fun
event involved, like a ballgame or concert. <_Jym_

 

[Jym Dyer]

> The real issue is this fantasy you harbour that a driver will vent their frustration on you
> because of other cyclists' behaviour.

=v= For some reason we hear this ludicrous fantasy from time to time, but never the
similarly-ludicrous idea that because some motorist acted rudely, frustrations will be vented on a
different motorist. <_Jym_

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>=v= Yes they do, moreso than CM does, and more dangerously. Especially if there's some sort of fun
>event involved, like a ballgame or concert.

I just don't see that, and, like everyone else, I've seen extremely congested traffic. In such
traffic, I still see people merging, taking turns at 4-way stops, etc. Some people aren't as good
as others at letting people in when they should, and a certain amount of assertiveness is required,
but on the whole the system works well enough that reasonably fair (if very slow!) progress is made
by everyone.

The only time I ever see a large identifiable group of cars refusing to let anyone else enter their
ranks at all is when they're taking part in some sort of parade or procession. But I'm not sure I'd
call them "traffic."

So I'm still confused by the "we are traffic" slogan.

--Bruce F.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:37:54 -0800, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:

>I like Tooker Gomberg's take on the situation. He says we need radical activism so that the
>moderates aren't ignored as a fringe element.

An excellent point which I will now shamelessly steal

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[schikerbiker]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> I like Tooker Gomberg's take on the situation. He says we need radical activism so that the
> moderates aren't ignored as a fringe element.

Just like the pro-life movement uses radicals to chain themselves up to doors and such or
environmentalist who live in trees on purpose to prevent them from being cut down. The thing is, a
lot of the critical mass riders don't give a damn about bicyclist advocacy, they are just anarchist
who want to start trouble or hijack the ride to promote their own causes like aids activism, attacks
to GW Bush and such. I've seen this personally in Washington, DC happen and then later found out the
police did a mass arrest of them and piled their bikes up like a 10 feet high junk pile on the
street corner (which was wrong - would they pile up cars like that if they physically could?)
However,a lot of these rides on purpose breaks the law by running red lights under the excuse that
"they want to stick together" and such. Other than liberal meccas like San Francisco, such things
work against bicycling interest. If you do a google search critical + mass + anarchy will also give
you an idea of what is going on with these rides.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:

> 07 Feb 2003 12:18:45 -0800, <[email protected]>, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Try this... http://criticalmassrides.info/
> >
> >=v= And/or my own humble effort:
> >
> >http://www.critical-mass.org/
> >
> >> The primary tactic is basically to annoy rush-hour car drivers, ...
> >
> >=v= There is no "the" or even "primary" tactic. The above catalog websites will show that well.
> >
> >=v= one could pick out selected sentence fragments from all over the world to support whatever
> >thesis one wants, as has been done several times in this newsgroup.) <_Jym_>
>
> I like Tooker Gomberg's take on the situation. He says we need radical activism so that the
> moderates aren't ignored as a fringe element.

Welll... thanks for doing the hard work to make me look normal, Zoot .

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[schikerbiker]

"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> 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.

They also run redlights under the excuse they want to stick together.... Critical Mass does for
bicycling what pro-lifers who chain themselves to abortion clinics do.....

 

[Sam Huffman]

Jym Dyer <[email protected]> writes:

> > The real issue is this fantasy you harbour that a driver will vent their frustration on you
> > because of other cyclists' behaviour.
>
> =v= For some reason we hear this ludicrous fantasy from time to time, but never the
> similarly-ludicrous idea that because some motorist acted rudely, frustrations will be vented on a
> different motorist.

I believe that this is not so much a ludicrous fantasy as documented fact. It's called road-rage,
and is much less intimidating to witness from a car than from a bicycle. Maybe that's why you hear
more about the latter than the former, particularly in a cycling newsgroup.

Sam

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 08 Feb 2003 05:36:52 GMT, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If you do a google search critical + mass + anarchy will also give you an idea of what is going on
> with these rides.

What I found most intriguing about CM was witnessing an evolving organic social organisation for a
temporary rolling community.

You'll be surprised what you find on a Critical Mass ride. It's better if you don't bring any
preconceptions and leave yourself open to the possibility that it might just be fun. You'll then
find good conversation with people whom you, simply as a cyclist, have many common concerns and
shared values.

This latest was the largest ever January CM ride in Vancouver with ~95 people. Four years ago, there
were maybe seven.

If CM is so "wrong" why has it grown exponentially into a world wide phenomenon?
--
zk

 

[Jym Dyer]

> http://www.portlandtribune.com/viewcurr.cgi?id=15558
>
> quote from a mainstream bicyclist group in Portland

=v= The word "mainstream" reveals a bias. There are various ideologies in bicycle advocacy, and the
"Portland Wheelmen" simply hold to a different one than they perceive Critical Mass to.

=v= It is unfortunate that their spokesperson chose to portray CM in the way that they do, because
it's a misportrayal. Mostly what it reveals is how his supposedly "mainstream" ideology serves to
distort his perception. <_Jym_

 

[Jym Dyer]

>> "The cross traffic [of bicycles] 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?

=v= I witnessed it on a Critical Mass ride last night.

> If the intent of Critical Mass is to advocate this sort [of] might-makes-right mass behavior, ...

=v= You either have a strange notion of "might," or the summary didn't get the point across. To
clarify, the cross traffic is *bicyclists*, trying to make their way onto roads full of motorists
who won't slow down. <_Jym_

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:

> This latest was the largest ever January CM ride in Vancouver with ~95 people. Four years ago,
> there were maybe seven.
>
> If CM is so "wrong" why has it grown exponentially into a world wide phenomenon?

Oh Zoot, I wouldn't pursue this line of argument if I were you.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Jym Dyer]

> I just don't see that, and, like everyone else, I've seen extremely congested traffic. In such
> traffic, I still see people merging, taking turns at 4-way stops, etc.

=v= I see that in CM, too. We are traffic.

=v= In extremely congested car traffic, I also see plenty of people cutting others off, jumping
their turns at 4-way stops, running STOP signs and red lights (because "I've waited long enough,
dammit!"). If some parts of CM act similarly, it's because we are traffic.

> Some people aren't as good as others at letting people in when they should, and a certain amount
> of assertiveness is required, but on the whole the system works well enough that reasonably fair
> (if very slow!) progress is made by everyone.

=v= So here you're rationalizing breaking the law, calling it "assertiveness" and arguing for its
necessity. Interesting. <_Jym_

 

[Jym Dyer]

> If you do a google search critical + mass + anarchy will also give you an idea of what is going on
> with these rides.

=v= A search for "Critical Mass" + "anarchy" has 27,000 hits:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Critical+Mass%22+anarchy

A search for "Critical Mass" + "fun" has 76,800:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Critical+Mass%22+anarchy

<_Jym_

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I just don't see that, and, like everyone else, I've seen extremely congested traffic. In such
>> traffic, I still see people merging, taking turns at 4-way stops, etc.
>
>=v= I see that in CM, too. We are traffic.

OK, I've only participated in a few small CM rides in a small town, so feel free to correct me. Here
I never see the CM riders (except me!) yeild right of way at a stop sign or a light, when they could
follow a rider ahead of them.

>> Some people aren't as good as others at letting people in when they should, and a certain amount
>> of assertiveness is required, but on the whole the system works well enough that reasonably fair
>> (if very slow!) progress is made by everyone.
>
>=v= So here you're rationalizing breaking the law, calling it "assertiveness" and arguing for its
>necessity. Interesting.

I'm not sure where you get that from; I don't advocate breaking the law in the name of
"assertiveness". But for example I've had to merge onto freeways in creeping stop-and-go traffic. In
that situation you wait to see if someone in the main traffic lane is going to let them in; but if
it looks like they might, even if they're just leaving a very small space, you creep forward towards
that space slowly and watch for what they'll do next. It's a slow-paced negotiation process in which
you have to be a little assertive.

Again, even in this kind of traffic, and even when some people aren't letting people in when they
should, enough are behaving reasonably that some progress is made by everyone, so traffic from the
two merging lanes is gradually mixed.

By contrast, I don't see CM riders ever let cars into their ranks, even in situations when the cars
would normally be expected to have the right-of-way. In pictures I've seen on the web, I also rarely
(if ever) see cars mixed in with the mass. So I believe this is common practice. Am I incorrect?

A number of reasons are put forward for this practice, some of which I may agree with. But this
practice is not consistent with what I'd normally call "traffic"; thus my confusion about the "we
are traffic" slogan.

--Bruce F.

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Jym Dyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If the intent of Critical Mass is to advocate this sort [of] might-makes-right mass behavior, ...
>
>=v= You either have a strange notion of "might," or the summary didn't get the point across. To
>clarify, the cross traffic is *bicyclists*, trying to make their way onto roads full of motorists
>who won't slow down.

So normally when trying to get across a road the way I do it is to wait for my right of way (which
may mean waiting for a stoplight to change, for example) and then take it. Sometimes this requires a
certain amount of assertiveness (for example to make sure it's clear to everyone at a 4-way stop
that you intend to take the right-of-way when it's your turn), but it's a well-understood process
that (in my experience) works relatively efficiently and fairly.

By contrast, the situation described above is one in which the cyclists never expect to get right of
way on their own, and they therefore wait for enough of a mass to accumulate that they can *force*
their way across. This is a situation in which both the cars (who aren't slowing down when
presumably they should?) and the bicyclists are depending on force instead of the usual conventions
to get themselves from point A to point B.

I assume that most people (including most cyclists, and most critical-mass riders) would rather
participate in traffic that follows establish rules about right-of-way rather than traffic that
depends on the kind of behavior described above.

We agree on this point, right?

--Bruce F.