Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

[Baka Dasai]

On 6 Dec 2007 10:20:54 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:43:38 -0000
> Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 6 Dec 2007 07:19:17 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
>>
>>> For example, I'd say that more than one bike overtaking and taking a
>>> long time about it - also known as riding beside for a deal of time -
>>> is not safe or legal.
>>
>> Motorists overtake like this all the time. What's different about it
>> when cyclists do it?
>
> On a single lane road?

No, I was thinking of a dual-lane road. The motorist has cyclists in
front, behind, and in the next lane.
--
What was I thinking?

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-05, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:00:54 +0900
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Baka Dasai wrote:
>>
>>> The red light cuts the mass in half. A car (or cars) enter from a
>>> side street. The light turns green for the mass, and the second half
>>> of the mass catches up to the first half, with a car (or cars) now
>>> stuck in between. Those car drivers caught in the middle panic/get
>>> frustrated and start running over people.
>>
>> When I've been in a car and stuck in traffic, I don't panic, and I don't run
>> over people. Is that what you do in a car?
>>
>
> I suppose if bicycles are behaving unpredictably or sitting in blind
> spots a car trying to change lanes or move on might find that very
> difficult.

Blindspots. Yes. In front of them.

That must be the ticket, yes. It's all become clear to me now.

> I somehow doubt that a *normal* reaction to bicycles behaving well is
> to hit them.

Hah. Normal reaction.

So funny.

There is a bias here, isn't there? Someone who forces themselves into
a mass is going to behave "normally" when they can't get back out of
the mass?

--
TimC
You must realize that the computer has it in for you. The irrefutable
proof of this is that the computer always does what you tell it to do.

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-06, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:36:10 -0000
> Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Bicycle riders are legally allowed to overtake stationary cars on
>> the left. They're legally allowed to overtake moving cars on the
>> right. If the car in question is travelling slowly because of the
>> slow-moving mass in front of it, it's very easy (and legal) for the
>> riders behind the car to overtake the car on the right (when moving)
>> and on the left (when stationary). None of that is particularly
>> dangerous, except that there's a small proportion of car drivers who
>> get incensed by it, and then do dangerous things in "retaliation".
>
> They are allowed to *overtake*.
>
> They may not overtake if it is not safe to do so.
> They may not overtake if there is not enough room to keep a safe
> distance.
> They may not overtake if there is not enough time and room for them to
> return safely to their lane far enough away that they do not obstruct
> the vehicle being overtaken.

Keeping in mind it would be illegal for the vehicle being overtaken to
accelerate whilst being overtaken. So if they deliberately close up a
gap "aggressively" then it ain't the cyclist being stupid.

> They must keep a safe distance from the bike they are following.
>
> I would be interested in numbers of times that when riders have been
> obeying the above that there has been retaliation.

Try attending a mass, and see, Zebee.

--
TimC
Press any key to continue, any other key to abort
-- thrillbert's code

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-06, John Tserkezis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Brendo wrote:
>
> I've only caught this mid-thread, so am not aware of the details, but:
>
>> OK, lets assume that this scenario happens. You have two distinct
>> groups of riders, who decide to join and surround a car travelling on
>> the same road (there's no other way a car can get caught in the
>> middle). It's a single lane road. You're saying that it is legal for a
>> group of bikes to ride alongside a car on a road? I can't drive two
>> cars side by side, so why do you assume you can ride a bicycle beside
>> a car?
>
> This should have a "depends" attached, because I don't know what the exact
> laws are on riding/driving in one lane, because I've seen it vary from state
> to state.
> That said, a car and bike alongside each other is not legal (in NSW at
> least), and I would hazzard a guess that it's stupid, and no-one would want to
> do it either.
>
>> Should a bike overpassing a car be done only when it's safe, or
>> is that another rule that groups of bicycles don't need to adhere to?
>
> Again, there's a depends here and it's a little more complex too. Here in
> NSW, it's illegal to travel between cars (lane split), but it's not policed.
> That doesn't make it legal, just one of those things that people do.

Is it? Could you point out the regulations of NSW please.

--
TimC
No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great
programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage
cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their
operating system. -- Bill Gates

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:39:07 -0000
Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No, I was thinking of a dual-lane road. The motorist has cyclists in
> front, behind, and in the next lane.

I can't see how a motorist could get confused with cyclists in
different lanes. As long as they are keeping a safe distance.

It is certainly possible there are ratbags. As it is bleedin' obvious
there are 4 wheeled ratbags there must be 2 wheeled ones.

However... few cyclists will admit there are 2 wheeled ratbags, so any
ratbaggery is always a 4 wheeler's fault. Anyone in a CM who finds
problems with a car is always innocent and whiter than white.
Always...

Zebee

 

[Baka Dasai]

On 6 Dec 2007 11:00:49 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:39:07 -0000
> Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> No, I was thinking of a dual-lane road. The motorist has cyclists in
>> front, behind, and in the next lane.
>
> I can't see how a motorist could get confused with cyclists in
> different lanes. As long as they are keeping a safe distance.
>
> It is certainly possible there are ratbags.

And that's what this is all about - a minority of ratbags who get
incensed and subsequently violent when their car gets caught within the
mass. That's the rationale for corking as I see it, and corking is the
only significant law-breaking in CM, and it's law-breaking supported by
police, and occasionally performed by police.

> As it is bleedin' obvious
> there are 4 wheeled ratbags there must be 2 wheeled ones.
>
> However... few cyclists will admit there are 2 wheeled ratbags,

Nah, ratbags are everywhere, even astride bicyles. One big difference
though is how much more dangerous a car-driving ratbag is than a
bike-riding ratbag.
--
What was I thinking?

 

[Aeek]

On 6 Dec 2007 11:00:49 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

>I can't see how a motorist could get confused with cyclists in
>different lanes. As long as they are keeping a safe distance.

Why not? Enough get confused by cyclists riding 2 abreast, legally
moving up on the left, not turning left at an intersection when they
want to, riding on the road, being fast downhill or even on the flat.

I suspect your 'bent tricks them into thinking.

>However... few cyclists will admit there are 2 wheeled ratbags

****. There are lots. Young males on hormones account for a lot.
With any luck they'll learn. Better with 20 kgs than 2 tonnes.

 

[G-S]

TimC wrote:
> On 2007-12-06, G-S (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> TimC wrote:
>>> Um. A mass doesn't have zero length?
>>>
>> A mass will have zero length at the speed of light... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
>>
>> G-S
>>
>> [1] if you could accelerate a mass to the speed of light
>>
>> [2] which would take infinite energy
>>
>> [3] which is lots more energy than my legs produce
>>
>> [4] or even fitt buggers legs!
>
> Unless the mass is of zero value.
>
I wouldn't call CM of zero value... just low value ;-)

>> [5] there is no 5th footnote (as few animals have 5 feet).
>
> What about notes? My cats currently have 6 postit notes on them.
>
Doesn't that make it hard to find the notes when you need them? [1]


G-S


[1] This by the by is also why I no longer play piano...

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:21:56 -0000
Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
> And that's what this is all about - a minority of ratbags who get
> incensed and subsequently violent when their car gets caught within the
> mass. That's the rationale for corking as I see it, and corking is the
> only significant law-breaking in CM, and it's law-breaking supported by
> police, and occasionally performed by police.

Is it supported because of 4 wheeled ratbags or because of 2 wheeled
ratbags? Do the cops allow it because they agree there are 4 wheeled
ratbags or because they know that otherwise riders will do it anyway,
or do silly things, and because riders can't be easily called to
account it is better to manage them this way?

I also dispute that corking is because there is a huge chance of
problems with aggro drivers getting caught between 2 masses of law
abiding, careful, riders....

>> However... few cyclists will admit there are 2 wheeled ratbags,
>
> Nah, ratbags are everywhere, even astride bicyles. One big difference
> though is how much more dangerous a car-driving ratbag is than a
> bike-riding ratbag.

IT is one difference, but then bike riding ratbags tend to rely on car
drivers to behave well.

As someone who doesn't identify as "cyclist" any more than as
"pedestrian" or "motorcyclist" or "eater of apples", I have no problem
in noting that there is a really strong sense of entitlement amongst
the cycling activist community that casts all others as unworthy, and
a strong feeling of "I can so I will" amongst many riders of bicycles
which they would condemn in anyone else.

That there's a difference in kerb weight is undeniable. That there's
no difference in ethics is also undeniable....

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> Unless the mass is of zero value.

Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> When I've been in a car and stuck in traffic, I don't panic, and I
>> don't run over people. Is that what you do in a car?

> You regularly get stuck in traffic composed of bikes, or your mercedes
> is so big that it can squash the average family sedan?

No, we don't have CM in Perth, and no, I don't drive a Mercedes. In fact, I
haven't driven a car this week.

Theo

 

[Tomasso]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> TimC wrote:
>
>> Unless the mass is of zero value.
>
> Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

Close, but no cigar.

It's about the value of hot air.

T.

 

[scotty72]

A motorist must bear much more responsibility on the roads because his/her mistakes have far more consequence than a cyclists.

Motorists break the law pretty well every time they drive. Every time someone sets us a radar gun outside a school zone (eg. newspaper, local P&C group) they invariably note about 90% of drivers speed. Motorists come up with all sorts of "it wasn't my fault" / "the devil made me do it" excuses. "I didn't know the time", "the huge signs and painted yellow boxes on the road were too subtle". Try this, stand at an intersection for a while and see the vast majority of drivers also stop over the line. See how many don't quite stop at the stop sign. See how many accellerate through the yellow light.

When I'm riding on a multi-lane road where I take the left lane, MOST cars squeeze past without fully changing lanes (illegal).

There is probably little difference in the rates of bad behaviour between cyclists and motorists (incl motorbikes). What is different - is the consequences of the behaviour. A motorist is very likely to kill someone whereas a cyclist is likely to injury him/her self and annoy others. I'd rather be annoyed by someone than killed.

Yes, all raod users should learn to respect and behave. However, where bad behaviour leads to death - that needs to be prioritised over that which only annoys.

SCotty

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:21:56 -0000
Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
> And that's what this is all about - a minority of ratbags who get
> incensed and subsequently violent when their car gets caught within the
> mass. That's the rationale for corking as I see it, and corking is the
> only significant law-breaking in CM, and it's law-breaking supported by
> police, and occasionally performed by police.

Is it supported because of 4 wheeled ratbags or because of 2 wheeled
ratbags? Do the cops allow it because they agree there are 4 wheeled
ratbags or because they know that otherwise riders will do it anyway,
or do silly things, and because riders can't be easily called to
account it is better to manage them this way?

I also dispute that corking is because there is a huge chance of
problems with aggro drivers getting caught between 2 masses of law
abiding, careful, riders....

>> However... few cyclists will admit there are 2 wheeled ratbags,
>
> Nah, ratbags are everywhere, even astride bicyles. One big difference
> though is how much more dangerous a car-driving ratbag is than a
> bike-riding ratbag.

IT is one difference, but then bike riding ratbags tend to rely on car
drivers to behave well.

As someone who doesn't identify as "cyclist" any more than as
"pedestrian" or "motorcyclist" or "eater of apples", I have no problem
in noting that there is a really strong sense of entitlement amongst
the cycling activist community that casts all others as unworthy, and
a strong feeling of "I can so I will" amongst many riders of bicycles
which they would condemn in anyone else.

That there's a difference in kerb weight is undeniable. That there's
no difference in ethics is also undeniable....

Zebee

 

[Brendo]

>
> And that's what this is all about - a minority of ratbags who get
> incensed and subsequently violent when their car gets caught within the
> mass. That's the rationale for corking as I see it, and corking is the
> only significant law-breaking in CM, and it's law-breaking supported by
> police, and occasionally performed by police.
>

And how do you get caught in the mass?? By the two masses moving
together in a dangerous fashion. That's what it's all about. If they
didn't move together, then there would be no problem, and no reason
for corking. Police support it because it's the lesser of two evile.
Rider will do it anyway, so maybe this way we can make it safer. Like
giving syringes to heroin addicts. ( in a roundabout way)

Brendan

 

[Resound]

"TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2007-12-05, Brendo (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> On Dec 5, 4:29 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:28:03 -0800 (PST)
>>>
>>> Brendo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > If the group has stopped at an intersection due to red lights, why
>>> > would the car get inside the mass? This can only happen two ways
>>>
>>> Presumably turning into the road the mass is on.
>>
>> Sure, but the argument he gave was that this was a reason for corking.
>> You can't turn 'into' the mass unless the mass is still crossing the
>> intersection. And you wouldn't turn unless the lights were green.
>> Generally, car's follow traffic light rules. So if you drive onto the
>> road when the light turns green, why would there be the mass on it
>> unless they were running the red?
>
> Um. A mass doesn't have zero length?
>
> When it gets split at the lights, you get cars coming in from the
> intersection, that will be sandwiched between two half masses. If
> there are sufficiently few vehicles sandwiched, then there are
> problems as the mass comes back together as they naturally would tend
> to do particularly if there's only one lane of car and the bikes are
> able to overtake.
>
> I'm afraid I'm not understanding where either you or Zebee are coming
> from...
>

Why is it a problem for the remainder of the mass to overtake the car or
cars involved? I overtake cars in the city daily. Mind you, I actually am
traffic at that point.

 

[Aeek]

I acheived

 

[Aeek]

I acheived Critical Mass last night. Normally, riding out to the crit
at Stromlo ACT via Cotter Road there is one ******** who has to
overtake with more space in the lane to their right than to the left.
With 3 others riding entirely independantly to the Crit, this did not
happen!