critical manners

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000

scotty72 said:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Do they claim to be traffic? Did when I last looked but that may have
changed.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000

scotty72 said:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Do they claim to be traffic? Did when I last looked but that may have
changed.

Zebee

More specious people...

Did I say that?

Perhaps you'd love it if we disobeyed police directions then you'd have a whole new thing to bleat about.

Scotty

Repeat the following
"Four wheels good... two wheel bad..."
"All vehilces are created equal... but some vehicles are more equal than others..."

Resound said:

Quoted message said:

Running red at 8-10 km/h (barely causes a scratch)

to the duco of the vehicle that hits you at 50-60kph. It does put a nasty
gouge in the psyche of the poor sod who had the temerity to just drive
through a green light though. And diverts emergency services. Not to mention
adding fuel to the "cyclists are [censored] who run red lights" argument.
Personally I'm sick of being made to look like a prat by association. I
recall Euan saying something about being abused for the cyclist that
trundled through a red light while he waited like an adult. Committing
serial petty dumbarsery like some hormone addled 14 year old just
perpetuates the notion that bike are toys, not a serious mode of transport.

I don't think it matters how well you ride there will still be people
who will prejudge your behaviour. The other night a cyclist rode through
a red light in front of me while I was driving a bus. Several passengers
said I should have just run her over because she wasn't wearing a
helmet. In fact she was wearing a helmet but had no lights on her bike.
They have a mental image of a bad cyclist and they projected that on her
regardless of reality. It's like the people who view all black people as
theives or lazy or dangerous. There was no CM when I was a lad, but
cyclists copped more flack then than now.

P

scotty72 said:

Plodder said:

Do CM riders ride through red lights?
Corking prevents cars entering (and splitting) the group from cross

streets.

Yes, it does involve the back half of the group running a red.

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police.

Usually? Does it happen if the police are not there? I've read that
they attend the established CMs in major cities, but what happened on
the first few? What happens on the first CM in a new city? Are the
police invited? (If so, who invites them? The claim is that it's not
"organised" by anybody.)

Quoted message said:

So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.
The theory is that it would be far more disruptive to have the mass
split then try to reform. The last thing the cops would want is for the
mass to split into several mini masses that would be impossible to
supervise.

It seems to me that the corking was going on anyway, and the police now
support it so they can manage the group.

Quoted message said:

It is much better for everyone of the mass stays together
and passes through the light together rather than taking several cycles
to get through.

Much better for everyone? Not for the other traffic being delayed. Not
for the police - if the riders obeyed the rules there'd be no need for
them to be there at all!

On the contrary, wouldn't several smaller groups blend in with the
traffic flow much better? Oh, but there's no organisation, so maybe the
people at the back don't know the route.

Is the route explained before the ride (standard practice on every group
ride I've been on), or is it a big game of "follow the leader"?
Perhaps keeping the group together is a matter of convenience for CM
riders, allowing them to claim to have a "non-organised" ride and not
lose anyone.

Disclaimer: I've never seen a CM ride, and there isn't one to see where
I live. Most of what I know about it is what I've read on CM Sydney's
website <http://www.bikesarefun.org/>.

--
John
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one
instruction. By induction, every program can be reduced to one instruction
which doesn't work.

scotty72 said:

Theo Bekkers said:

scotty72 said:

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> Peter wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> Get the cyclists
>> through the intersections as quickly as possible. I reckon if you
>> had 200 riders waiting on the side of the road for the next 300
>> held back by a red light, there would be just as much outrage as
>> happens now.

Quoted message said:

> Where were you when people were complaining about the Hell Ride
> running lights?

Quoted message said:

Do you want to concentrate on the letter of the law or safety?
There is a slight difference in speeds between the Hell Ride and CM.
About 35 km/h I suspect.

So it's OK to run red lights slowly?

Quoted message said:

Why is it that you go around speciously putting words into others
mouths? In fact, you don't even have the guts to do that, instead you
can only come up with snide, specious questions that reflect only upon
your grubbiness.

Oh dearie me, I think I've upset scotty.

Quoted message said:

I did not say, imply or think that it is ok to run red lights slowly.
I was repling to Zebee's direct comparision of Hell Riders and
Critical Mass. To THE LETTER OF THE LAW (as I wrote - if you could be
bothered to read) it is wrong. From a safety aspect - as the post to
which Zebbe was referring - a pack travelling at 50 km/h is far more
dangerous (lethal) than CM who av about 8 km/h (annoying - bruises at
worst) when someone gets hit.

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but not at 50
km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red lights
slowly but not OK?

Theo

scotty72 wrote

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

scotty72 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ZebeeDo you want to concentrate on the letter of the law or safety?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is a slight difference in speeds between the Hell Ride and CM.
About 35 km/h I suspect.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What has that got to do with running red lights?

Quoted message said:

A lot
Think of the consequences.
1) Running red = naughty = fine etc.
Vs
2) Causing a crash by:-
Running light at 50-60km/h (potentially fatal)
or
Running red at 8-10 km/h (barely causes a scratch)

You just don't get it, do you?

Theo

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000

scotty72 said:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

From the Macquarie:
"Traffic -n 1. the coming and going of persons, vehicles, ships, etc. eg.
heavy traffic in a street.
2. the persons, vehicles, etc. going along such a way."

So clearly, yes CM is part of the traffic when they pass. No special rules,
just a means of moving along a street.

As far as viability is concerned there is no lack of viability in riding a
bike in the typical 6pm Friday traffic jam. CM is very relevant and viable.
We all do it individually, some respecting traffic lights less well than
others (personally I'm a stickler for following traffic lights), but in CM
we see the advantages of large numbers of riders to gain greater road space.
Anyone who rides with groups (eg. touring club, race training group) knows
full well how even a small group gets greater respect and room on the road.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

On 2007-04-18, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Plodder said:

Am I understanding this correctly? "...riders 'cork' the intersection
to
stop cars entering until all riders are through." Does this apply
once the
light has turned red? Or is corking a method of preventing drivers
who have
a green light from proceeding? Do CM riders ride through red lights?
Corking prevents cars entering (and splitting) the group from cross

streets.

Yes, it does involve the back half of the group running a red.

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

The theory is that it would be far more disruptive to have the mass
split then try to reform. The last thing the cops would want is for the
mass to split into several mini masses that would be impossible to
supervise. It is much better for everyone of the mass stays together
and passes through the light together rather than taking several cycles
to get through.

Note that while mass members take part in corking (typically two bikes
per intersecting road), if there isn't a masser corking when a
copper-on-bike arrives, the copper-on-bike will cork instead.

Ie, it is done under specific police instruction and action.

--
TimC
Error: Fuzzy Pointer Exception

"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

scotty72 said:

Theo Bekkers said:

scotty72 wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> Peter wrote:

SNIPPAGE

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I did not say, imply or think that it is ok to run red lights slowly.
I was repling to Zebee's direct comparision of Hell Riders and
Critical Mass. To THE LETTER OF THE LAW (as I wrote - if you could be
bothered to read) it is wrong. From a safety aspect - as the post to
which Zebbe was referring - a pack travelling at 50 km/h is far more
dangerous (lethal) than CM who av about 8 km/h (annoying - bruises at
worst) when someone gets hit.

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but not at
50 km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red lights
slowly but not OK?

Theo

I often envy people their ability to reduce the world to black/white, but I
also pity them for all the greys they miss. Absolutes suck...

It seems to me that running a red at 8kph is SAFER than at 50kph; not
necessarily SAFE. Sometimes it's completely safe to run a red light.
Sometimes it's not safe to go through a green light. It may not be legal
(I'm assuming you've used "OK" to indicate "legal" above) but it can be
safe. Similarly, just going through a green light can be unsafe if someone
has decided to run the red from the other direction. It can be legal to run
a red light (think about emergency services) if certain procedures are used.
Red and green lights are, at best, indications of relative safety - if you
take them as absolute there's a problem. As with most situations, "it
depends" applies.

Personally, I sometimes feel like a knob waiting at a red light when there's
no traffic visible on the road I'm crossing and comply simply to avoid the
fine I might get from a camera or hidden cop. That applies whether I'm on my
bike or driving. Nevertheless, I comply. Other times, when I'm on my bike or
walking, red lights are less restrictive - sometimes I'll go through. If
there's traffic even a km away, or if I don't have a clear view for a safe
distance I'll wait. I don't take safety risks, but I do take legal risks. I
don't take either when driving - I always check around before driving from
or through a green light and always stop at the red regardless of
knobfeelingness.

Yes - I do regard my bike sometimes as a halfway house between driving and
walking. There is a different set of risks and behaviours associated with
different activities, so I'm comfortable assessing those risks and behaving
according to the assessment.

When I examine situations more critically it seems that most risks are legal
(fines, etc) rather than safety risks. I must admit to being much more
comfortable driving, walking and riding in places like Italy, where road
rules, traffic lights, etc are treated as suggestions rather than
hard-and-fast. There's a high degree of social negotiation for shared road
space that makes me feel safer (because others are used to that negotiation
and have the skills to suit) than I feel in Australia. Here I get a strong
message of "Don't think. Don't move out of your bubble. Do as you're told.
When it goes wrong it'll be someone else's fault, so don't worry." Geez, I
thought I left that behind when I was five years old!

So... Yes, I think it can be quite safe to run a red at 5kph. It's less safe
to do so at 50kph. That doesn't mean it IS safe at all times, but it CAN be.
Similarly, at 50kph it isn't ALWAYS unsafe, but it's generally LESS safe
(all else being equaly - more or less). Yes, it's vague and ambiguous -
welcome to a vague and ambiguous world, despite all our attempts to impose
rigid structures...

Cheers,

me

"scotty72" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

SNIP

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

FrankI hope you do rock up, then you'll be commenting from an informed

position of being there - not from the peanut gallery.

Cheers
Scotty

--
scotty72

Yep, Scotty, I will rock up. I dislike forming an opinion from hearsay...
thanks for the info Byron...

m

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000

scotty72 said:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Do they claim to be traffic? Did when I last looked but that may have
changed.

Zebee

That's the bit that confused me too. If, as a cyclist, I'm confused, what
impact does it have on non-cyclist drivers? It seems to me that a protest
message (if that's what it is) should be clear...

me

"scotty72" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000

scotty72 said:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision)

of

Quoted message said:

the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a

police

Quoted message said:

instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Do they claim to be traffic? Did when I last looked but that may have
changed.

ZebeeMore specious people...

Did I say that?

Perhaps you'd love it if we disobeyed police directions then you'd have
a whole new thing to bleat about.

Scotty

Repeat the following
"Four wheels good... two wheel bad..."
"All vehilces are created equal... but some vehicles are more equal
than others..."

--
scotty72

And there's me thinking that vehicles are vehicles. I didn't realise that,
as a cyclist, I'm unequal (superior/inferior??) to other vehicles. As I
driver am I supposed to consider myself differently than when I'm a cyclist?

I guess the bit that gets me is the attempt to define by differences rather
than work from the assumption of similarity (which is where parity starts).

SCOTTY: Let's hook up for a coffee after the CM. I'm very interested in your
take. I'll be riding a polished GT Zaskar MTB... email me on frank dot
palermo at bigpond dot com if an apres ride coffee suits...

Cheers,

Frank

Zebee Johnstone said:

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Do they claim to be traffic? Did when I last looked but that may have
changed.

Zebee

There's a movie online that shows how CM has evolved to be a lot of
different things to different people. Worth a look
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=189314458200750949

P

PeteSig said:

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

From the Macquarie:
"Traffic -n 1. the coming and going of persons, vehicles, ships, etc.
eg. heavy traffic in a street.
2. the persons, vehicles, etc. going along such a way."

So clearly, yes CM is part of the traffic when they pass. No special
rules, just a means of moving along a street.

With a police escort and corking? Hmm, your dictionary interpretation would
make the Mardi Gras Parade 'traffic'.

Quoted message said:

As far as viability is concerned there is no lack of viability in
riding a bike in the typical 6pm Friday traffic jam. CM is very
relevant and viable. We all do it individually, some respecting
traffic lights less well than others (personally I'm a stickler for
following traffic lights), but in CM we see the advantages of large
numbers of riders to gain greater road space. Anyone who rides with
groups (eg. touring club, race training group) knows full well how
even a small group gets greater respect and room on the road.

I think you mean the Gypsy Jokers.

Theo

Plodder said:

"Theo Bekkers" wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but
not at 50 km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to
run red lights slowly but not OK?

Quoted message said:

I often envy people their ability to reduce the world to black/white,
but I also pity them for all the greys they miss. Absolutes suck...

Lights are like that though, red or green. Try telling the judge the light
was grey. :-)

Quoted message said:

It can be legal to run a red light (think about emergency
services) if certain procedures are used.

You don't drive an emergency vehicle then. Red lights and speeding are
mostly OK if you have the lights and sirens on. Been there, done that, but
very rarely. (There's no point in killing some-one on the way to save a
building or a life). However, should there be an accident, the emergency
vehicle driver can be held liable. e.g. if you run your firetruck through a
red that is OK if it is safe to do so. If you hit someone, then it patently
wasn't safe, and it definitely is not OK. You are in trouble. You will very
likely be charged. And the paperwork is murder! (No, I haven't run over
anybody yet).

Quoted message said:

So... Yes, I think it can be quite safe to run a red at 5kph. It's
less safe to do so at 50kph. That doesn't mean it IS safe at all
times, but it CAN be. Similarly, at 50kph it isn't ALWAYS unsafe, but
it's generally LESS safe (all else being equaly - more or less). Yes,
it's vague and ambiguous - welcome to a vague and ambiguous world,
despite all our attempts to impose rigid structures...

Ah, have you considered that at 5 km/h you will spend 10 times the time in
the intersection than you will at 50? :-)

Theo

Plodder said:

"scotty72"

Quoted message said:

Repeat the following
"Four wheels good... two wheel bad..."
"All vehilces are created equal... but some vehicles are more equal
than others..."

--
scotty72

And there's me thinking that vehicles are vehicles. I didn't realise that,
as a cyclist, I'm unequal (superior/inferior??) to other vehicles. As I
driver am I supposed to consider myself differently than when I'm a cyclist?

I guess the bit that gets me is the attempt to define by differences rather
than work from the assumption of similarity (which is where parity starts).

Frank

Ummm...

That was meant as satire... hence the quote from Orwell's satirical classic "Animal Farm'

I guess (to quote from his other classic) that one went down your memory hole... 🙂

Scotty

quote='Theo Bekkers'scotty72 said:

Theo Bekkers said:

scotty72 said:

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> Peter wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> Get the cyclists
>> through the intersections as quickly as possible. I reckon if you
>> had 200 riders waiting on the side of the road for the next 300
>> held back by a red light, there would be just as much outrage as
>> happens now.

Quoted message said:

> Where were you when people were complaining about the Hell Ride
> running lights?

Quoted message said:

Do you want to concentrate on the letter of the law or safety?
There is a slight difference in speeds between the Hell Ride and CM.
About 35 km/h I suspect.

So it's OK to run red lights slowly?

Quoted message said:

Why is it that you go around speciously putting words into others
mouths? In fact, you don't even have the guts to do that, instead you
can only come up with snide, specious questions that reflect only upon
your grubbiness.

Oh dearie me, I think I've upset scotty.

Quoted message said:

I did not say, imply or think that it is ok to run red lights slowly.
I was repling to Zebee's direct comparision of Hell Riders and
Critical Mass. To THE LETTER OF THE LAW (as I wrote - if you could be
bothered to read) it is wrong. From a safety aspect - as the post to
which Zebbe was referring - a pack travelling at 50 km/h is far more
dangerous (lethal) than CM who av about 8 km/h (annoying - bruises at
worst) when someone gets hit.

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but not at 50
km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red lights
slowly but not OK?

Theo[/QUOTE]I'm a sucker for punishment

You're being disingenuous.

I didn't say it was safe - I said it was less dangerous.

It's just like sex. Wearing a condom doesn't make you bullet proof. It is not safe - it is just less risky.

None are so blind as those who choose not to see...

Scotty

scotty72 said:

Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red
lights slowly but not OK?

Quoted message said:

I'm a sucker for punishment

You're being disingenuous.

I didn't say it was safe - I said it was less dangerous.

How? At 200 km/h you will spend a lot less time in the intersection. :-)

Quoted message said:

None are so blind as those who choose not to see...

Surely it is safer to run red lights with your eyes closed. Safety is why
people have sex in the dark.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

scotty72 said:

None are so blind as those who choose not to see...

Surely it is safer to run red lights with your eyes closed. Safety is why
people have sex in the dark.

*walks up*
*inspects the line*
*inspects the hook*
*inspects the bait on the hook*
*debates whether or not to take the bait*

No, no, no, it's not about safety, it's so you can't see the ugly face
of whomever it is that's in bed with you ...

(I can get away with saying that because I'm single at the moment. :-)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

"Theo Bekkers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Plodder said:

"Theo Bekkers" wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but
not at 50 km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to
run red lights slowly but not OK?

Quoted message said:

I often envy people their ability to reduce the world to black/white,
but I also pity them for all the greys they miss. Absolutes suck...

Lights are like that though, red or green. Try telling the judge the light
was grey. :-)

Quoted message said:

It can be legal to run a red light (think about emergency
services) if certain procedures are used.

You don't drive an emergency vehicle then. Red lights and speeding are
mostly OK if you have the lights and sirens on. Been there, done that, but
very rarely. (There's no point in killing some-one on the way to save a
building or a life). However, should there be an accident, the emergency
vehicle driver can be held liable. e.g. if you run your firetruck through
a red that is OK if it is safe to do so. If you hit someone, then it
patently wasn't safe, and it definitely is not OK. You are in trouble. You
will very likely be charged. And the paperwork is murder! (No, I haven't
run over anybody yet).

Quoted message said:

So... Yes, I think it can be quite safe to run a red at 5kph. It's
less safe to do so at 50kph. That doesn't mean it IS safe at all
times, but it CAN be. Similarly, at 50kph it isn't ALWAYS unsafe, but
it's generally LESS safe (all else being equaly - more or less). Yes,
it's vague and ambiguous - welcome to a vague and ambiguous world,
despite all our attempts to impose rigid structures...

Ah, have you considered that at 5 km/h you will spend 10 times the time in
the intersection than you will at 50? :-)

Theo

Since when are lights only red or green? Someone removed the amber when I
wasn't looking? :-P I wouldn't try to tell the judge the lights were grey -
that's silly. As silly as claiming an absolute "running a red light is
dangerous". If I was before a judge for running a red (assuming I did so
safely) it would be the consequence of a leagl risk, not a safety risk. I
could safely run the red (in certain limited circumstances) and still be
behaving illegally. I could safely and legally run the red (in even more
limited circumstances) when driving an emergency vehicle (I've driven
ambulances, so I'm aware of the procedure).

And 10 times he time in the intersection with nothing else around is just as
safe as 10 times less time :-P

me