Can somebody fill me in on Critical Mass?

[Jon Isaacs]

>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.

I hope no one thinks anyone, motorists, truckers, pedestians, motorcyclists or cyclists are without
sin. Certainly motorists operate their vehicles irresponsibly at times. I recently called the SD
police and asked that the send some officers down to the Gilman Dr.-Interstate 5 intersection where
cars and even school busses are making illegal right turns across the bicycle lane. The lady took
the information and I go a call from an officer who told me they knew of the problem and put
officers there to write citiations when possible. A few days later I got a call telling me that they
indeed had been down there and written out a goodly number of "cites."

But, since we are cyclists, I believe we, as members of a cycling newsgroup, need to shine the light
in our own house and look at our own sins rather than pointing fingers at motorists and other
members of the traffic community.

Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

 

[Tom Keats]

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

> But, since we are cyclists, I believe we, as members of a cycling newsgroup, need to shine the
> light in our own house and look at our own sins rather than pointing fingers at motorists and
> other members of the traffic community.

Perhaps. OTOH since we are traffic, perhaps it is fair for us to objectively comment on the
behaviours of the rest of the traffic. Or _all_ traffic (including cyclists), for that matter.

cheers, Tom

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

 

[Hunrobe]

>[email protected] (Tom Keats)

wrote:
>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) ;-)

No one doubts that drivers acting selfishly and disobeying traffic laws cause problems. My point was
that bad acts by some don't excuse bad acts by others.

As for 'intent' defining the act- perhaps the C-M rides in your town don't intentionally block
traffic. That is not always the case here. Peruse some of the photo links posted earlier in this
thread by Chicago C-Mers and explain how the "cyclists" were trying to "considerately choreograph
traffic" when they:

laid their bikes down blocking *all* traffic at a major intersection while they stood around
congratulating themselves for striking a blow for freedom,

or when they decided, "Hey, let's take a ride on the expressway on a Friday during the evening
rush hour.",

or when they decided, "Darn, it's hot. I better ride naked today."

Regards, Bob Hunt

 

[Peter Cole]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Jon Isaacs) writes:
>
> > But, since we are cyclists, I believe we, as members of a cycling
newsgroup,
> > need to shine the light in our own house and look at our own sins rather
than
> > pointing fingers at motorists and other members of the traffic community.
>
> Perhaps. OTOH since we are traffic, perhaps it is fair for us to objectively comment on the
> behaviours of the rest of the traffic. Or _all_ traffic (including cyclists), for that matter.

I agree very much with this. When I ride, I find that I notice many more dangerous (and rude)
behaviors on the part of motorists than cyclists. The need to hold motorists to higher standards is
reflected (sensibly) in the law, we are not equal in status, walking and cycling are rights, driving
is a privilege. Motorists kill and maim cyclists and pedestrians, not the other way around. I think
people in sunbelt cities, which have seen the majority of their development since the rise of the
auto culture, have very different attitudes toward traffic than those of us in older communities.
When I'm biking, I consider cars to be heavily regulated, and hazardous, guests on my roads. Some
people just don't get that.

I have heard that in some places there exist laws that to preserve the status of private ways, the
owners must periodically close access, to prevent de facto conversion to a public way. I don't know
if such stories are true, but CM always has struck me as much the same sort of demonstration, that
is, a deliberate testing of the rights of free travel and the erosion of same to the convenience of
motorized traffic. While I have never participated in a CM ride, I think they provide a valuable
service to all of us in periodically reasserting our historic rights. This is a more important issue
than transit time from A to B.

 

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy, you know?
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 13:32:35 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Simple, really - bikes travel at a different speed, and a car stuck in the middle of a line of
>bikes has something of the unexploded bomb about it - you never know when he might decide that
>there is *just* enough room to squeeze past.
>

OK, but that doesn't explain why this is particularly a problem when there's more than one
bicyclist. You could just as well say the same thing in the case of a single cyclist: "bikes
travel at a different speed, and a car stuck behind a bike has something of the unexploded bomb
about it -- ....".

--Bruce F.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

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

>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.

Simple, really - bikes travel at a different speed, and a car stuck in the middle of a line of bikes
has something of the unexploded bomb about it - you never know when he might decide that there is
*just* enough room to squeeze past.

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 Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:24:52 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:

>>Simple, really - bikes travel at a different speed, and a car stuck in the middle of a line of
>>bikes has something of the unexploded bomb about it - you never know when he might decide that
>>there is *just* enough room to squeeze past.

>OK, but that doesn't explain why this is particularly a problem when there's more than one
>bicyclist. You could just as well say the same thing in the case of a single cyclist

I can see what you're saying, but it feels different. A block of four or five riders takes much
longer to pass, for example, so if he starts an ill-judged passing manoeuvre he has a greater chance
of not making
it. And it's harder for an individual rider to get out of the way by braking, because there's
someone not far behind - and the car can't put a spurt on and move back in if there's another
bike in the way. It makes for an uneasy few minutes' riding.

Speaking as a daily cyclist I much prefer riding with other bikes

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.

 

[Robin Hubert]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:24:52 -0600, [email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) wrote:
>
> >>Simple, really - bikes travel at a different speed, and a car stuck in the middle of a line of
> >>bikes has something of the unexploded bomb about it - you never know when he might decide that
> >>there is *just* enough room to squeeze past.
>
> >OK, but that doesn't explain why this is particularly a problem when there's more than one
> >bicyclist. You could just as well say the same thing in the case of a single cyclist
>
> I can see what you're saying, but it feels different. A block of four or five riders takes much
> longer to pass, for example, so if he starts an ill-judged passing manoeuvre he has a greater
> chance of not making
> it.

Define "much longer".

>And it's harder for an individual rider to get out of the way by braking, because there's someone
>not far behind - and the car can't put a spurt on and move back in if there's another bike in the
>way. It makes for an uneasy few minutes' riding.
>
> Speaking as a daily cyclist I much prefer riding with other bikes
>

Robin Hubert

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:40:34 GMT, "Robin Hubert" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I can see what you're saying, but it feels different. A block of four or five riders takes much
>> longer to pass, for example, so if he starts an ill-judged passing manoeuvre he has a greater
>> chance of not making
>> it.

>Define "much longer".

er - four or five times longer :-/

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.

 

[atriggs]

I cycle to work daily in Central London, and find myself at the mercy of half-asleep drivers who have little regard for other road users. Critical Mass gives me the opportunity to enjoy my city and its roads with a reduced vulnerablility, and spend time with a bunch of cool, semi-like-minded people.

Yes, there are a few CMers who take it too far and undoubtedly do set out to cause friction with motorists, but the majority are simply exercising our right to use the roads.

It's great fun, a fantastic atmosphere, and most people - drivers included - play along. No-one is particularly inconvenienced, and the kind of people who are going to be highly irritated by a brief delay to their journey would probably find something else to twist their goat anyway.

 

[dwj444]

It seems clear that there are a variety of opinions regarding the actions of CM in the US and abroad. Those who have pointed out paralells between CM philosophies and the beliefs and theories of other revolutionary thinkers and groups (Marx, Lenin, etc. etc.) are not wrong to do so. There are also interesting paralells with the civil rights movement in the United States.

Public debate surrounding the civil rights movement and its demonstrations featured many of the same issues and questions raised in this forum. Many within the civil rights movement debated these same questions about negative public perception as a result of civil disobedience. There were a number of respected, influential leaders in the black community itself who advocated a more staid, conciliatory approach to winning rights for blacks in the US, eschewing the confrontations at lunch counters and eventually in the streets of the south.

Public confrontations with civil rights demonstrators thrust police, local, and eventually federal government into an international spotlight that forced the US and the world to reconsider generations of racist discrimination and abuse. While it is clear across the forty some years since those protests ended that their gains have not yet brought the lasting equality and peaceable relations sought by their leaders, those efforts stand as testament to the hope, faith, and dedication of a generation of Americans to the very ideal that their country was based on: freedom.

Although it may strike some as a stretch, many of those cyclists involved in CM see their work as similarly motivated. CM is not an organization; it is a movement. There is no centralized authority, no formal structure to the group. Riders come from a variety of different backgrounds and their views on the meaning of CM and its rides are as different as they are. CM members' beliefs fall along along the sociopolitical spectrum -- from teachers, doctors, and lawyers who commute daily, to couriers who make their living on their bikes, to environmental and community activists who have staked out a claim on the very thing that defines CM: community.

CM is not about aggravating drivers, although some drivers can and will become agitated by CM riders. CM is not even about civil disobedience. In fact, there is nothing disobedient about exercising the right to use the road. CM is a community-based movement to reclaim the use of our neighborhood streets and public spaces in a socially-mixed, racially-integrated, economically diverse push to promote safe, environmentally-friendly, sustainable transportation. CM simply put is about re-claiming the purpose of roads: the connection of people to one another.

Cyclists who see CM as damaging the interests of the cyclist at large in our cities and on our roads should come out to a CM ride. The invitation is not hostile; it certainly shouldn't be read as a "come and be converted" statement. Rather, come and make a contribution -- change the direction, encourage the behaviors or actions that you see as beneficial, and if you feel strongly then speak up about the things that CM riders have done or are doing that you feel hurt our interests. That is the nature of a movement -- CM relies most basically on those who form its namesake -- the critical mass.

-- D.

 

[Tim Cain]

"A Critical Mass gathering is an urban equivalent of a DDOS attack on a networked computer."

Discuss.

Tim.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 28/08/03

 

[Bill Davidson]

Tim Cain wrote:
> "A Critical Mass gathering is an urban equivalent of a DDOS attack on a networked computer."

A DDOS attack makes the target computer and often the network connection that leads to it unusable.

During CM the roads are still usable.

I don't see an equivalence.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

 

[B. Sanders]

"dwj444" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> It seems clear that there are a variety of opinions regarding the actions of CM in the US and
> abroad. Those who have pointed out paralells between CM philosophies and the beliefs and theories
> of other revolutionary thinkers and groups (Marx, Lenin, etc. etc.) are not wrong to do so. There
> are also interesting paralells with the civil rights movement in the United States.
>
> Public debate surrounding the civil rights movement and its demonstrations featured many of the
> same issues and questions raised in this forum. Many within the civil rights movement debated
> these same questions about negative public perception as a result of civil disobedience. There
> were a number of respected, influential leaders in the black community itself who advocated a more
> staid, conciliatory approach to winning rights for blacks in the US, eschewing the confrontations
> at lunch counters and eventually in the streets of the south.
>
> Public confrontations with civil rights demonstrators thrust police, local, and eventually federal
> government into an international spotlight that forced the US and the world to reconsider
> generations of racist discrimination and abuse. While it is clear across the forty some years
> since those protests ended that their gains have not yet brought the lasting equality and
> peaceable relations sought by their leaders, those efforts stand as testament to the hope, faith,
> and dedication of a generation of Americans to the very ideal that their country was based on:
> freedom.
>
> Although it may strike some as a stretch, many of those cyclists involved in CM see their work as
> similarly motivated. CM is not an organization; it is a movement. There is no centralized
> authority, no formal structure to the group. Riders come from a variety of different backgrounds
> and their views on the meaning of CM and its rides are as different as they are. CM members'
> beliefs fall along along the sociopolitical spectrum -- from teachers, doctors, and lawyers who
> commute daily, to couriers who make their living on their bikes, to environmental and community
> activists who have staked out a claim on the very thing that defines CM: community.
>
> CM is not about aggravating drivers, although some drivers can and will become agitated by CM
> riders. CM is not even about civil disobedience. In fact, there is nothing disobedient about
> exercising the right to use the road. CM is a community-based movement to reclaim the use of our
> neighborhood streets and public spaces in a socially-mixed, racially-integrated, economically
> diverse push to promote safe, environmentally-friendly, sustainable transportation. CM simply put
> is about re-claiming the purpose of roads: the connection of people to one another.
>
> Cyclists who see CM as damaging the interests of the cyclist at large in our cities and on our
> roads should come out to a CM ride. The invitation is not hostile; it certainly shouldn't be read
> as a "come and be converted" statement. Rather, come and make a contribution -- change the
> direction, encourage the behaviors or actions that you see as beneficial, and if you feel strongly
> then speak up about the things that CM riders have done or are doing that you feel hurt our
> interests. That is the nature of a movement -- CM relies most basically on those who form its
> namesake -- the critical mass.
>
> -- D.

Thank you for this thoughtful essay. It is the most compelling pro-CM argument that I've ever read.

However, it does raise some questions:

Black Americans in the 1950's were a small minority of the population whose rights were restricted
in violation of the US Constitution. Cyclists' rights are not being restricted in violation of the
Constitution: They can, and do, share the road with cars. Many/most US states and cities recognize
cyclists as legitimate road users, and provide designated safe lanes and/or routes for cyclists.
How, then, can you even begin to compare Critical Mass to the Civil Rights Movement?

The Civil Rights Movement began without centralized authority or formal organization; but out of it
emerged charismatic and inspiring leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, whose brilliant and
emotionally-charged speeches reached across the divide between races of people and stirred popular
sentiment in favor of equal civil rights for all races. Again, how does Critical Mass compare? Is
there a charismatic leader, or focal point, for the movement that can stir up popular approval and
bridge the gap between cyclists and automobile drivers? How will Critical Mass win favorable press
coverage if they lack popular approval?

I look forward to your comments.

-=B=-

 

[Jym Dyer]

>> Those who have pointed out paralells between CM philosophies and the beliefs and theories of
>> other revolutionary thinkers and groups (Marx, Lenin, etc. etc.) are not wrong to do so.

=v= While I agree that CM is revolutionary (beyond the two revolving wheels per rider, that is), I
know of no social theory in which CM is even remotely like Marx and Lenin. Though etc. etc.
certainly apply. :^)

> How, then, can you even begin to compare Critical Mass to the Civil Rights Movement?

=v= It's certainly easy enough to find ways that the two don't compare, as you've done. They are not
by any means an exact match. There are parallels, though.

=v= Bicyclists -- and, more generally, those who don't use cars for transportation -- are
treated as second-class citizens in the U.S. Our rights to the road is a nominal legal status,
but rarely enforced as it should be. One legal case in Illinois actually ended with the ruling
that roads are not intended to accommodate bicyclists, meaning that it's okay for road hazards
to injure and kill us.

=v= It's pretty much okay for motorists to do so, too. Our deaths are blithely written off as
usually our own fault, with few attempts at forensic investigation to determine what actually took
place. Our killers are often never charged with anything.

=v= The media used to publish death threats against "uppity" minorities, and somtimes the editors or
radio announcers would chime in. Today this is wisely considered inappropriate, yet we're seeing no
shortage of death threats against bicyclists!

=v= You mention certain bike amenities, but these are ample proof that the "separate but
equal" approach is anything but. (Which does parallel the reversal of a notorious racial
segregation ruling.)

=v= CM is like the Civil Rights Movement in another respect: We're just simply exercising our rights
to use the road, just like everyone else. And sometimes getting beaten by the cops and attacked by
the authorities for it. <_Jym_