Can somebody fill me in on Critical Mass?

[schikerbiker]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> 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.

or you might get arrested and have your bike taken away. It's happened on MANY critical mass rides.
Don't lie and say it doesn't happen either.

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

many things wrong have turned into a world wide phenomenon , just because something grows doesn't
mean it is good. Critical Mass however is far from that, if you ask the average person what Critical
Mass is, nearly none of them would know.

 

[schikerbiker]

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

but a search for anarchy alone reveals only 1,000,000 hits a search of fun hits 10s of millions....

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:24:42 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:

>>=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.

That's because they're still riding like cagers - haven't you noticed that two or three cars always
follow through on the red?

>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.

Have you read Effective Cycling? Negotiation is one of the most powerful tools in the cyclist's bag
for dealing with traffic situations.

>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.

Ah, but imagine if they were all riding bicycles - would there be a traffic jam at all?

>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.

Not too surprised. On club rides we do our best to make sure we don't get cars stuck int he middle
of the group - cars and bikes have such different dynamics that it's not very comfortable to have a
car in the middle of a large group of cyclists. Didn't one of the camera vehicles on the TdF kill
someone recently?

>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.

My take on that has always been as follows: bikes are traffic. Car drivers need to understand that,
and to maintain appropriate awareness. Critical Mass is not a normal bike ride, it's waving the
bikes in front of the cagers and saying "See these? These are traffic too!" - clearly others will
have a different interpretation, but that's always been my view.

But cagers puzzle me.

Ask any driver what causes most danger and delay on their journey. They tried that over here
recently and the answers came back "cyclists, buses and pedestrians." They are stuck, nose to tail,
in fume-filled cars, burning expensive petrol while they wait for thousands of other cars to filter
through streets which were designed for a fraction of the traffic levels they experience daily - but
the constant stop-go is not what holds them up, oh no. It's the one cyclist who goes sailing past
them and bypasses the entire jam. It's the pedestrian (translation: someone who's parked the car)
who crosses the road and holds them up long enough for another car to squeeze into the queue ahead
of them. It's the bus which is carrying forty cars' worth of passengers in two cars' worth of road.
Never the cars. Then, at the weekends, when all the buses, bikes, peds, taxis and lorries are still
there but the commuters are safely back in their suburbs, miraculously *there is no traffic jam!*

Funny old world, isn't it?

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.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 02:17:44 GMT, <[email protected]> wrote:

>> =v= A search for "Critical Mass" + "anarchy" has 27,000 hits: A search for "Critical Mass" +
>> "fun" has 76,800:

>but a search for anarchy alone reveals only 1,000,000 hits a search of fun hits 10s of millions....

Of course - all the anarchists are too busy out on Critical Mass rides to post on Usenet.

Personally I like CM rides - it's better than the daily Critical Mass held by cagers in my town
anyway. They haven't got the bumper stickers together yet (probably stuck in a jam on the way to the
shop) but I think it'll say "We Are Congestion."

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.

 

[Robert J. Matte]

"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
>
> 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?

We used the critical mass technique during last month's ride in Chicago. We were on a sidestreet and
came up to a wide 4 or 6-lane arterial we needed to turn left on. We had a stop sign. The arterial
was uncontrolled. Cagers were whizzing by left and right at 45-55 mph. A gap in both directions
wouldn't last long enough to allow more than a few intrepid riders through at a time, woefully
inadequate and dangerous for our 100+ group.

We all collected at the stop sign, and when a little gap opened on the left we began pushing
through. The oncoming cagers slowed and stopped, and taking advantage of a similar gap on the right,
we completed our turn.

It's not something I ordinarily do when riding by myself, but a large group feels responsible for
shepherding its weakest members across safely-- people pulling trailers, riding older heavier single
speeds and choppers, people with disabilities, casual riders, etc. If there are no gaps large enough
to allow everyone through safely, we create on.

-Bob Matter
-----------
"The automobile has not merely taken over the street, it has dissolved the living tissue of the
city. Its appetite for space is absolutely insatiable; moving and parked, it devours urban land,
leaving the buildings as mere islands of habitable space in a sea of dangerous and ugly traffic."
--James Marston Fitch, NY Times 5/1/60

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:24:42 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:
>>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.
>
>Not too surprised. On club rides we do our best to make sure we don't get cars stuck int he middle
>of the group - cars and bikes have such different dynamics that it's not very comfortable to have a
>car in the middle of a large group of cyclists. Didn't one of the camera vehicles on the TdF kill
>someone recently?

OK, anecdotes aside, could you explain why you think a few cars in the midst of a lot of bicycles
is unsafe? I don't generally do group rides, so I don't have any feeling for the kinds of dynamics
you refer to.

As a regular bike commuter, you're aware that the reverse situation--a single bike surrounded by a
lot of cars--works at least adequately well. What's the difference?

>>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.
>
>My take on that has always been as follows: bikes are traffic. Car drivers need to understand that,
>and to maintain appropriate awareness. Critical Mass is not a normal bike ride, it's waving the
>bikes in front of the cagers and saying "See these? These are traffic too!" - clearly others will
>have a different interpretation, but that's always been my view.

Getting across that point--that bikes are traffic--is definitely worthwhile. Couldn't that be done
more effectively if the bikes in question were actually behaving more like regular traffic? No-one
is suprised to find that a large group of cyclists can ride together on a road in a big parade. But,
sadly, they *are* suprised to find that individual cyclists can ride as regular traffic on a road,
because most people seem to assume that ordinary traffic maneuvers--negotiating lane changes,
passing other vehicles, etc.--just can't be done safely on a bike. So I'd argue that a demonstration
that involved bicyclists acting like ordinary traffic would have an educational value that the
traditional Critical Mass ride doesn't.

--b.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:24:42 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:
>
> >>=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.
>
> That's because they're still riding like cagers - haven't you noticed that two or three cars
> always follow through on the red?
>
> >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.
>
> Have you read Effective Cycling? Negotiation is one of the most powerful tools in the cyclist's
> bag for dealing with traffic situations.
>
> >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.
>
> Ah, but imagine if they were all riding bicycles - would there be a traffic jam at all?

You bet there would. Have you ever been on an organized charity ride or invitational? Talk
about chaos.

>
> >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.
>
> Not too surprised. On club rides we do our best to make sure we don't get cars stuck int he middle
> of the group - cars and bikes have such different dynamics that it's not very comfortable to have
> a car in the middle of a large group of cyclists. Didn't one of the camera vehicles on the TdF
> kill someone recently?
>
> >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.
>
> My take on that has always been as follows: bikes are traffic. Car drivers need to understand
> that, and to maintain appropriate awareness. Critical Mass is not a normal bike ride, it's waving
> the bikes in front of the cagers and saying "See these? These are traffic too!" - clearly others
> will have a different interpretation, but that's always been my view.
>
> But cagers puzzle me.
>
> Ask any driver what causes most danger and delay on their journey. They tried that over here
> recently and the answers came back "cyclists, buses and pedestrians." They are stuck, nose to
> tail, in fume-filled cars, burning expensive petrol while they wait for thousands of other cars to
> filter through streets which were designed for a fraction of the traffic levels they experience
> daily - but the constant stop-go is not what holds them up, oh no. It's the one cyclist who goes
> sailing past them and bypasses the entire jam. It's the pedestrian (translation: someone who's
> parked the car) who crosses the road and holds them up long enough for another car to squeeze into
> the queue ahead of them. It's the bus which is carrying forty cars' worth of passengers in two
> cars' worth of road. Never the cars. Then, at the weekends, when all the buses, bikes, peds, taxis
> and lorries are still there but the commuters are safely back in their suburbs, miraculously
> *there is no traffic jam!*
>
> Funny old world, isn't it?

I love the average idiot cager who thinks you're in the way as you drive reasonably, the guy who has
to zoom-zoom-zoom from one queu to the next. I often repeatedly greet them as I catch up (as if
they're going to get it). Most often, as these idiots stop and go I, by virtue of thinking ahead,
often don't have to stop and the serial lighted cross-sections of suburbia, having arrived just as
the queu starts moving. Hurry up and wait! It's a way of life.

Robin Hubert

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 16:24:42 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>That's because they're still riding like cagers - haven't you noticed that two or three cars always
>follow through on the red?

Maybe not "always", but yes, I've seen it. The difference is a question of degree--I sometimes see
cars continue through the light a second or two after they should, while with CM riders the time can
be many times that, depending on the length of the ride.

>Have you read Effective Cycling?

Yes.

>Negotiation is one of the most powerful tools in the cyclist's bag for dealing with traffic
>situations.

Of course.

>Ah, but imagine if they were all riding bicycles - would there be a traffic jam at all?

I don't know. It could happen. If we put them all on bicycles, the effective capacity of the road
would increase, temporarily decreasing congestion. But then that makes that particular stretch of
road more attractive, so people use it more. If it's a useful route, then it's likely traffic will
rise again to the point where there's some congestion. In fact, I'd argue that if there's never any
congestion, then you've probably paved over too much land.

The point being that bicyclists, even in a world of 100% bicycles, still need to know how to
negotiate the occasional traffic jam. The total elimination of all congestion is not a
reasonable goal.

>Ask any driver what causes most danger and delay on their journey. They tried that over here
>recently and the answers came back "cyclists, buses and pedestrians." They are stuck, nose to
>tail, in fume-filled cars, burning expensive petrol while they wait for thousands of other cars to
>filter through streets which were designed for a fraction of the traffic levels they experience
>daily - but the constant stop-go is not what holds them up, oh no. It's the one cyclist who goes
>sailing past them and bypasses the entire jam. It's the pedestrian (translation: someone who's
>parked the car) who crosses the road and holds them up long enough for another car to squeeze into
>the queue ahead of them. It's the bus which is carrying forty cars' worth of passengers in two
>cars' worth of road. Never the cars. Then, at the weekends, when all the buses, bikes, peds, taxis
>and lorries are still there but the commuters are safely back in their suburbs, miraculously
>*there is no traffic jam!*

Now, wait a minute. In every city I've ever lived in, the bus schedules are significantly reduced on
weekends, because buses mostly carry commuters. Similarly, those bikes and peds are probably mostly
commuters, and the taxis and lorries are probably thicker on the ground during business hours. Or
maybe they aren't--you tell me. But in any case, they do bear *some* responsibility.

Bus, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic is more efficient, you're preaching to the converted there. But
the fundamental cause of rush hour congestion is that a whole bunch of people want to get to the
same place at the same time. Shift everyone to more efficient transport and they'll make more trips
on more direct routes at closer to the time they want to--with the effect that traffic may well rise
to the point where there's still some congestion.

--Bruce F.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 09 Feb 2003 02:16:09 GMT, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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.
>
>or you might get arrested and have your bike taken away. It's happened on MANY critical mass rides.
>Don't lie and say it doesn't happen either.

Honestly, it hasn't happened to me and I've not seen it on a Vancouver ride. You can continue
berating Critical Mass, with which you have no direct experience, at the cost of your own
credibility. Until you've participated, even as an observer, in a CM ride, you're just
blowing smoke.
--
zk

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Robert J. Matter
<[email protected]> wrote:
>We used the critical mass technique during last month's ride in Chicago. We were on a sidestreet
>and came up to a wide 4 or 6-lane arterial we needed to turn left on. We had a stop sign. The
>arterial was uncontrolled. Cagers were whizzing by left and right at 45-55 mph. A gap in both
>directions wouldn't last long enough to allow more than a few intrepid riders through at a time,
>woefully inadequate and dangerous for our 100+ group.
>
>We all collected at the stop sign, and when a little gap opened on the left we began pushing
>through. The oncoming cagers slowed and stopped, and taking advantage of a similar gap on the
>right, we completed our turn.

OK, I can understand that. If such a street lacks conveniently-spaced places for slower-moving peds
and cyclists to cross in time, then it's a problem to be fixed, even if civil disobedience is
required....

Is that typical for critical mass rides, though? Seems like I see a rides "corking" intersections
that'd be perfectly easy to get across in the usual way--it'd just slow the mass down a little, and
break it up into smaller groups, at least temporarily.

---b.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:32:35 -0600, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (J.
Bruce Fields) wrote:

>So I'd argue that a demonstration that involved bicyclists acting like ordinary traffic would have
>an educational value that the traditional Critical Mass ride doesn't.

Cyclists do that everyday as individuals and cagers still claim, "I didn't see you" when they pull
their typical stupid driver stunts. They're only excited by the yahoo cyclists they see.The same as
I'm only excited by yahoo drivers. It's fair to assume both are in the minority.

I don't have to register them if they aren't a threat.

Because any car can pose a serious physical threat to cyclist if they collide, I'd say cyclists tend
to pay closer attention to where they're going and so might register more idiot drivers than one
would from inside a cage where the threats are diminished by an isolating cocoon.
--
zk

 

[Robert J. Matte]

"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Robert J. Matter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >We used the critical mass technique during last month's ride in Chicago. We were on a sidestreet
> >and came up to a wide 4 or 6-lane arterial we needed to turn left on. We had a stop sign. The
> >arterial was uncontrolled. Cagers were whizzing by left and right at 45-55 mph. A gap in both
> >directions wouldn't last long enough to allow more than a few intrepid riders through at a time,
> >woefully inadequate and dangerous for our 100+ group.
> >
> >We all collected at the stop sign, and when a little gap opened on the left we began pushing
> >through. The oncoming cagers slowed and stopped, and taking advantage of a similar gap on the
> >right, we completed our turn.
>
> OK, I can understand that. If such a street lacks conveniently-spaced places for slower-moving
> peds and cyclists to cross in time, then it's a problem to be fixed, even if civil disobedience is
> required....
>
> Is that typical for critical mass rides, though? Seems like I see a rides "corking" intersections
> that'd be perfectly easy to get across in the usual way--it'd just slow the mass down a little,
> and break it up into smaller groups, at least temporarily.

No, I'd say that isn't too typical.

The main reason we cork is to keep the mass together. We don't want to be strung out thinly for
blocks in small groups. People would start getting lost if there was a quick succession of turns and
cagers would start encroaching in the open space, which besides endangering the riders, would thin
us out further.

We stop at red lights. We sometimes even wait through a green cycle to "mass up" (let everyone catch
up back into one tight group). Then we proceed, but we keep proceeding even if the light changes
red. Much like a parade, funeral, or a civil rights march. Sometimes the police even cork for us.
The fastest most efficient way to get traffic back to normal gridlock is to let us pass through in
one big group.

-Bob Matter
-----------
Annual Chicago Auto Show Ride & Protest Sat. Feb. 15 - Noon - Daley Plaza - Free
http://www.bikewinter.org

 

[Robert J. Matte]

"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
>
> Getting across that point--that bikes are traffic--is definitely worthwhile. Couldn't that be done
> more effectively if the bikes in question were actually behaving more like regular traffic?

The Mass is also about confronting auto dependency. We are not on a public relations mission to win
cagers' approval and support. We are out there to demonstrate to them that cars bad, bikes good,
and that they could be riding a bike too. We have fat people riding. Skinny people riding. People
in suits. People in dresses. People riding naked. Professionals. Laborers. People with big hair.
People with no hair. Young people. Old people. People on $2,000 racing bikes. People on $5 thrift
store bikes. Everything. We are demonstrating that there are no barriers to riding a bike that
can't be broken.

-Bob Matter
-----------
"Americans average five car trips a day and spend more time behind the wheel than they do eating
meals or with their kids. The average American's time in the car amounts to nearly nine hours a
week. That's nearly 450 hours a year, or the equivalent of eleven 40-hour workweeks. The United
States accounts for less than 5 percent of the world's population but consumes roughly 45 percent of
the world's gasoline. The number of U.S. families with three or more vehicles grew from 3 million in
1969 to 19 million in 1995 - a six-fold increase, at the same time that the number of people per
household declined." --The Charlotte Observer

 

[Luigi De Guzman]

"Robert J. Matter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
> >
> > Getting across that point--that bikes are traffic--is definitely worthwhile. Couldn't that be
> > done more effectively if the bikes in question were actually behaving more like regular traffic?
>
> The Mass is also about confronting auto dependency. We are not on a public relations mission to
> win cagers' approval and support.

Nor, indeed, it seems, to insert such insignificant things as linebreaks in your usenet traffic...

-Luigi I'm massive enough at 108 kg, thanks.

 

[Robert J. Matte]

Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
> "Robert J. Matter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > The Mass is also about confronting auto dependency. We are not on a public relations mission to
> > win cagers' approval and support.
>
> Nor, indeed, it seems, to insert such insignificant things as linebreaks in your usenet traffic...

Netscape Edit Preferences Mail & Newsgroups Messages Message Wrapping Wrap incoming, plain text
messages to window width

--Bob Matter, patiently answering the same questions about electronic communications for 16 years

 

[Dennis P. Harri]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:21:36 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Robert J. Matter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The Mass is also about confronting auto dependency. We are not on a public relations mission to
> win cagers' approval and support. We are out there to demonstrate to them that cars bad, bikes
> good, and that they could be riding a bike too.

right on!

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) writes:
> 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."

I frequently see occasions where lines of car traffic are backed-up for several city blocks behind a
red traffic light, or accident scene. Often, it can just take one idiot trying to hang an illegal
left to cause such a traffic back-up.

Such lineups often impinge fully across light-controlled intersections (and their crosswalks)[*],
blocking the progress of the cross traffic, including pedestrians.

At least the corking done in CM rides is done to keep the bikes /moving/, and to let them clear
intersections so the cross traffic can then move unimpeded.

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

Well, at least it's /moving/ traffic.

We also allow rights-on-red here; it's not uncommon for lines of right-turning cars to engage in
phase-theft of pedestrians' "walk" lights. Granted, pedestrians aren't the same sort of traffic, but
it demonstrates the same "screw you" attitude exhibited by so many drivers.

cheers, Tom

[*] One prominent local example of this, with which I'm sure Zoot is also familiar, is Oak St & 70th
Ave, where traffic gets backed-up from the traffic lights further up Oak St.

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

 

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:31:15 -0800, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tom
Keats) wrote:

>[*] One prominent local example of this, with which I'm sure Zoot is also familiar, is Oak St &
>70th Ave, where traffic gets backed-up from the traffic lights further up Oak St.

Yep, I usually cross Oak at 67th during rushes and they do it there too but it's the illegal turns
onto southbound Oak that cause more problems.

There's always fresh busted car **** littering those intersections.
--
zk

 

[Hunrobe]

> [email protected] (Tom Keats)

wrote in part:

>I frequently see occasions where lines of car traffic are backed-up for several city blocks behind
>a red traffic light, or accident scene. Often, it can just take one idiot trying to hang an illegal
>left to cause such a traffic back-up.
>
>Such lineups often impinge fully across light-controlled intersections (and their crosswalks)[*],
>blocking the progress of the cross traffic, including pedestrians.
>
>At least the corking done in CM rides is done to keep the bikes /moving/, and to let them clear
>intersections so the cross traffic can then move unimpeded.

----snip----

>We also allow rights-on-red here; it's not uncommon for lines of right-turning cars to engage in
>phase-theft of pedestrians' "walk" lights. Granted, pedestrians aren't the same sort of traffic,
>but it demonstrates the same "screw you" attitude exhibited by so many drivers.

So we should all adopt that same "screw you" attitude? Sorry, but since all of your examples of
traffic jams have the same root cause- people not following simple rules- I fail to see how that is
a justification for breaking those rules. Saying, "At least the corking done in CM rides is done to
keep the bikes /moving/, and to let them clear intersections so the cross traffic can then move
unimpeded." isn't a justification, it's an excuse. Your argument for "corking" reminds me of two of
my mother's favorite sayings when I was a kid and said, "But [insert name] does lots worse stuff!" -

"Two wrongs don't make a right" and "If [insert name] jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you
jump off too?"

I'm also reminded of an axiom that used to be very popular in traffic enforcement circles-

"Excuses are like [rectums]. Everybody has one."

Regards, Bob Hunt

 

[Tom Keats]

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

> So we should all adopt that same "screw you" attitude?

Emphatically, no; in fact, quite the opposite. I don't believe in fighting fire with fire. I believe
in fighting fire with water (speaking figuratively, of course; ABC extinguishers notwithstanding).

> Sorry, but since all of your examples of traffic jams have the same root cause- people not
> following simple rules- I fail to see how that is a justification for breaking those rules.
> Saying, "At least the corking done in CM rides is done to keep the bikes /moving/, and to let
> them clear intersections so the cross traffic can then move unimpeded." isn't a justification,
> it's an excuse.

My intent, and main point, was to speak to the apparent presumption that drivers are without sin wrt
blocking traffic. And contrasting their motivations to those in CM corking -- thoughtless, selfish
chaos vs. some attempt at considerate traffic-choreography. You and others are certainly free to
believe that type of consideration is misguided. I've just seen some much worse, and more antisocial
behaviours in drivers, resulting in far greater distress to the rest of the traffic than CM rides
ever inflict. But that's not to smear /all/ drivers, nor to complain about the traffic in general.
Neither is it to make excuses for corking. I'm just making a comparison, and trying to show that
cars can and do frequently block traffic, too -- in worse ways than corking.

If as much energy went into preventing car-caused traffic back-ups as goes into discussions about
Critical Mass, maybe people could get home for dinner 20 minutes earlier (19 minutes earlier if they
get corked on the way) ;-)

cheers, Tom

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