Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:26:14 GMT
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-12-02, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Tell me, what would change your mind that it's about people being led
>> by the nose by shockjocks?
>
> How else did they know a CM was on? A Current Affair? Today Tonight?

So, tell me, what would change your mind?

>>
>> Like I say, your proof is?
>
> The best BV seem to be able to come up with is copenhagen style lanes
> were bicycles are relegated to a second class position on the road
> (where for example, a cyclist can't cross the road to get into a shop
> on the opposite side, without going past it to the next intersection),
> because educating drivers was thrown into the too hard basket. Oh,
> and wonderful bike lanes in the car-door lane in the rest of the CBD.

And CM has come up with?

I can certainly believe that BV is as incompetent as the MRA. That
doesn't mean CM is effective in anything but making cyclists feel good
about being in a big group.

Which is the same reason why whenever there's talk about motorcycle
activism there's a huge cry for "protest ride" and no one willign to
do real work.


> To me, CM is a bit like reclaim the streets and indeed any other
> protest. A periodic protest that probably doesn't achieve a thing.

Except make people feel good.
> For just occasionally, I can go onto the road, not have the road
> clogged by miserable selfish gits spewing out choking gasses, and

So, ride elsewhere. It isn't the only method is it!



> enjoy it. At any other time of the month, an innocent stroll from
> Richmond to Hawthorn involves holding a hankerchief to the nose to
> filter out the worst of the particulates. I resent that. There's a
> bubble of slightly cleaner air that surrounds any CM in the city, and
> that makes life happier for me temporarily. If I slightly inconvience
> a few hundred car drivers who spend the rest of the month greatly
> inconviencing me (and making me sick), then so be it.

heh. I bet that you couldn't find a measuring instrument to agree
with you. (See also placebo effect)

I have said it is about making cyclists feel good because they are in
a group and that makes them feel more powerful and in control.

Makes a lot of sense. Doesn't, however, mean there's any other value
in it. Certainly not the "make things generally better for cyclists"
which is what I'm after proof of.

After all, I have a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that it makes it
worse.

As I say, if a lot of riders rode as traffic, obeying road rules and
taking the road as they are legally entitled to do, without police
escort, without corking, and clearly controlling any ratbags, I think
that would do a lot of good. IT is not, as I understand it, a
description of CM.

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:25:23 +1100
Terryc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>>
>> What they saw was not "traffic" but "bikes breaking the law"
>
> Well, I hope you educated them as to the law (but I am not holding my
> breath)

Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

What did you think they saw?

>
>> and then
>> "bikes getting special treatment, why should they get that?"
>
> Ask Constable Plod?

What would they say? Something like "if we didn't, they'd block
intersections"?

>
> You might also like to educate yourself as to what Critical Mass is and
> does.


I've tried. But the only *consistent* information is assertions about
"everyone hates us but we are really good" "we make change happen".

As soon as I ask for details it degenerates into name calling and more
assertions.


>
>>>Sadly, very few of these groups have made any difference ver the decades
>>
>> And your proof of this is?
>
> Well, we are having this "conversation" and they were around for a good
> decade before CM in this country.

And so there has been no change at all in cycling over that decade?
None?

You definitely surprise me.

>
>
>> I'm willing to be convinced,
>
> lol, I doubt it. The information is there is you were.

So far I have seen a lot of assertions, I have seen no proof.

YOu make the claim, you provide the evidence. For example, show me
the legislation dates about cycling, and show me how CM has changed
this if at all.

After all, I'd think that would be something CM would have at their
collective fingertips no? It being a very common claim.

Zebee

 

[PeteSig]

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

> Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
> saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

Hmmm, corking. Well if it is so illegal surely the police would be
prosecuting? But of course that still does not make it OK for motorists to
try to crash through, and that's the thing the police have to deal with. Now
which law-breaking is more dangerous???

But of course you know why the corking. And there is a case that it could be
readily argued in court that with a large group ride, in busy urban streets,
it may be safer for the cyclists (the vulnerable road users after all) to
cork so the group stays together, in a formation that ensures greater safety
for them.

As for two abreast, it is legal. Two riders side by side, per lane! On an
average city street that's pretty much what happens on CM, two in the left
lane, two in the right lane, and maybe one or two overtaking. Of couse when
the ride is stopped for traffic lights (yes, CM rides DO stop for traffic
lights, if you went on one you'd know that) the group may bunch up a bit
more.

Ah, the value of some experiential education, Zebee!

--
Cheers
Peter

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

 

[stu]

"PeteSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" wrote:
>
> > Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
> > saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.
>
> Hmmm, corking. Well if it is so illegal surely the police would be
> prosecuting? But of course that still does not make it OK for motorists to
> try to crash through, and that's the thing the police have to deal with.
Now
> which law-breaking is more dangerous???
>
> But of course you know why the corking. And there is a case that it could
be
> readily argued in court that with a large group ride, in busy urban
streets,
> it may be safer for the cyclists (the vulnerable road users after all) to
> cork so the group stays together, in a formation that ensures greater
safety
> for them.
>
> As for two abreast, it is legal. Two riders side by side, per lane! On an
> average city street that's pretty much what happens on CM, two in the left
> lane, two in the right lane, and maybe one or two overtaking. Of couse
when
> the ride is stopped for traffic lights (yes, CM rides DO stop for traffic
> lights, if you went on one you'd know that) the group may bunch up a bit
> more.
>
This is nothing like the CM I witnessed in Melbourne a few years back,
unless there is some safety reason that I'm unaware of for riding round and
round roundabouts or riding in circles and figure 8's along the road.

 

[scotty72]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:11:04 +1100
G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
> Harry 'Snapper' Organ wrote:
>> I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
>> with its acts of mass stupidity.
>>
>> Well done!
>>
>
> Whether one agrees with their actions or not... (and I don't particularly).
>
> Why on Earth are you calling them Fundamentalists? [1]
>

Umm... cos they have taken a couple of simple ideas and made them the
core and totality of their religion, and refuse to see there can be
any other interpretation? And they think anyone who disagrees in any
way is evil and unclean and has nasty motives?

"Fundamentalism" was orginally ( I thought late 1800s but I saw
recently 1920s) a label applied to people who agreed with a set of
pamphlets/books/statements called "The Fundamentals of Christianity"
which sought to strip away accretions and bring the religion back to a
more pure state by getting together in one place the basics as they
understood it.

Over time it's come to mean anyone who has a literalist and rigid
interpretation of a book or creed and who refuses to see there's any
other way to think or do, and further considers people who do
interpret things differently as not just misguided but actively evil.

See also anti-triathlete types...

Zebee

An astonishing level of 'eyes wide shut[edness]'.

1) You've never been to a CM ride
2) From your position of blindness you've managed to adopt a theory of ignorance.

To say 'they' are a buch of fundamentalists truly displays you lack of thought.

I stopped going for the exact opposite reason.

I went as I thought it should be about getting bikes 'normalised' on the road. That should have been our one guiding (fundamental) prinicipal. I got fed up as it (as many causes do) got hijacked by a range of left-looney groups wanting to free tibet, stop the Iraq war, kill George Bush, free David Hicks and save the whales. Perhaps worthy causes but, not what I was there for. Hence, their lack of fundamentalism drove me away.

Another thing was the fact that there were too many in the group who were relucant to block traffic for too long. Too many diversions from what I thought were the principles.

As for your Laws/Mitchell/Hadley/Jones like labelling that panders to the masses... Get a brain and stop parroting the parrots.

Scotty

 

[PeteSig]

"stu" wrote:
>
> "PeteSig" wrote:

>> As for two abreast, it is legal. Two riders side by side, per lane! On an
>> average city street that's pretty much what happens on CM, two in the
>> left
>> lane, two in the right lane, and maybe one or two overtaking. Of couse
> when
>> the ride is stopped for traffic lights (yes, CM rides DO stop for traffic
>> lights, if you went on one you'd know that) the group may bunch up a bit
>> more.
>>
> This is nothing like the CM I witnessed in Melbourne a few years back,
> unless there is some safety reason that I'm unaware of for riding round
> and
> round roundabouts or riding in circles and figure 8's along the road.

Yes, a couple of times on each ride there is a bit of a stunt - a bike lift,
or riding round the roundabout for a minute or two. A bit of a demonstration
of the bike's utility? And the roundabout riding is perfectly legal by the
way.

But most of the time the riding is more like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/2078842097/in/set-72157603347951594/

All legally allowed, two-abreast per lane.

And on the rides I've been on I've never seen the group doing figure 8's
along the road. Maybe one or two will do a U'ey for photos or to check on
the group, but never will this inconvenience any motorists, and it doesn't
bother the CM riders.

A few people on this forum need to get real about CM. It doesn't make any
significant difference to traffic congestion on a Friday evening (the police
can confirm this), it causes no-one any harm, it is not a safety hazard, and
there is rarely any legal infraction by riders that police think is serious
enough to warrant prosecution. Think about every motorist - thinkof speeding
5kmh over; think of overtaking cyclists crossing double lines; think of all
those fail to give-ways; think of all the overtaking with less than 0.4
metre clearance. Where is the law-breaking more serious? Are these incidents
seriously enforced? In the bigger picture, how much harm does CM really do?
My view is that anything that wakes motorists up to the presence of cyclists
on the road is a great thing. CM is part of this.
--
Cheers
Peter

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

 

[Resound]

"Terryc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> (I note that working with the RTA on motorcycle awareness over the
>> last 5 years has cut car into motorcycle accidents by well over 30%...
>
> Cheese & chalk.
>
How so?

 

[PeteSig]

"PeteSig" wrote:
>
> But most of the time the riding is more like this:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/2078842097/in/set-72157603347951594/
>
> All legally allowed, two-abreast per lane.

And hey, look at all these 'radical fundamentalist' types!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/2079631626/in/set-72157603347951594/

Riding up Punt Rd, where the traffic is always stationary. And virtually all
riding two-abreast (per lane)

"Road Rules Victoria
Rule 151 (2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a marked
lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked lane, unless subrule
(3) applies to the rider.

(3) The rider of a motorbike or bicycle may ride alongside more than 1 other
rider if the rider is -
(a) overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under regulation 403 of the Road Safety (Road
Rules) Regulations 1999"

Pretty clear that this sort of riding as agroup may annoy some motorists,
but is actually quite legal. Some motorists are annoyed simply because they
have to change lanes to overtake a single cyclist.

CM is about stressing the need for a road-culture shift.

--
Cheers
Peter

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

 

[G-S]

Terryc wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is that I don't believe that '****** off/chip on the
>> shoulder people' represent my views very well most of the time.
>
> That is a perfect description of all those motorist that think that the
> road is only for them.
>
Red herring.
>
> Couldn't be further from the truth about CM.

I was referring to the chip on *your* shoulder (that's not intended as
an insult, just an observation about your debating style).

>> You see I happen to believe that the way to change behaviour and views
>> is by education and not intimidation.
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink.
> Or did you have a more cohersive form of education in mind?

There are many examples where education campaigns have had positive
effects upon the behavior of large groups of people, there are very few
examples where protests or street gatherings have had any effect (other
than to make the people feel like they are doing something).

I'm not so much anti street protest as pro ideas that work [1]


G-S

[1] Like education campaigns. As for 'more coercive' action, no. There
is a certain percentage of the population who are intransigent and whom
nothing will help. But they won't be effected by street protests either.

 

[G-S]

TimC wrote:
> In an atmosphere of
> being completely ignored, are you surprised that some cyclists would
> prefer to do things a different way?

It's natural that people would get frustrated with the slow rate of
change, but the truth is "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".


G-S

 

[scotty72]

> For just occasionally, I can go onto the road, not have the road
> clogged by miserable selfish gits spewing out choking gasses, and

So, ride elsewhere. It isn't the only method is it!

Zebee

Hmmm. Should you ever be hit by a truck because HE did something wrong, we shall have enscribe upon your headstone...

"Here lieth Zebee, who should have ridden elsewhere..."

Scotty

Sometimes we think them fools then, they go ahead and confirm our suspicions...

 

[Tomasso]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> ...
> The info I have from people who are working with the RTA on motorcycle
> issues is that the confrontational attitudes from some of the bicycle
> advocates (and I don't know what org they are from) has been really
> helping the motorcyclists as the more aggro the cyclists get, the more
> the RTA talks to the motorcyclists....

You need to get out more, and understand what the RTA really does. It's
a big, defective organisation which builds road and pretends that it makes
traffic flow...

The thru-traffic between construction firms and RTA flunkies is more impressive
than the cross-city tunnel. There are no brownie points in the RTA for doing
anything for cyclists, and (sorry to disillusion you Zeb) motorcycles are in
the same bucket!!!

Tomasso.

 

[Tomasso]

"Tomasso" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> ...
>> The info I have from people who are working with the RTA on motorcycle
>> issues is that the confrontational attitudes from some of the bicycle
>> advocates (and I don't know what org they are from) has been really
>> helping the motorcyclists as the more aggro the cyclists get, the more
>> the RTA talks to the motorcyclists....
>
> You need to get out more, and understand what the RTA really does. It's
> a big, defective organisation which builds road and pretends that it makes
> traffic flow...
>
> The thru-traffic between construction firms and RTA flunkies is more impressive
> than the cross-city tunnel. There are no brownie points in the RTA for doing
> anything for cyclists, and (sorry to disillusion you Zeb) motorcycles are in
> the same bucket!!!
>
> Tomasso.

If you want to understand the RTA, talk to State Rail, or State Transit (buses+), or
ANY local government. DO NOT TRUST anyone in the RTA to achieve anything
useful for cyclists. Those with the will to do this, find white ants as large as rhinos.

One day, someone will write a book about NSW ministers who have worked in
this kind of portfolio. The alternative title will be something like "moral abjection".
The postscript will be "where are they now".

Tomasso.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

PeteSig wrote:

> Many Critical Mass riders also own and use a car at certain times too!

What? Infidels! Stone them!

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tomasso wrote:

> All I see is angry motorists too, but that has nothing to do with
> Critical Mass.
> It's because they are stuck in gridlock, while fantasising about a
> solo, unimpeded jaunt through the wilderness - as it looks in 4wd ads
> all the time.

They're not fantasising about 4WDing in the wilderness any more than the
average commuter cyclist is fantasising they are in the Tour de F. They just
want to get home and are angry that the infrastructure that would allow them
to do that, that they think their taxes should provide, doesn't exist.

Because of where I choose to live, 55 kms from the Perth CBD, the _daily_
bus is not an option and the nearest train station is 40 kms away. It would
let me off 1.5 kms from work.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tomasso wrote:

> There used to be zero cars on Oz and quite a lot of bikes, then even more
> bikes and a few cars, and
> even in the early 1960s, an awful lot of bikes and not many cars.

Umm, I take it you weren't there and you're just making this up. I was
riding to work in the early sixties mate, and I can assure you the
percentage of bicycles to cars is higher now. There were damn-all bikes on
the road.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-02, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Tomasso wrote:
>
>> All I see is angry motorists too, but that has nothing to do with
>> Critical Mass.
>> It's because they are stuck in gridlock, while fantasising about a
>> solo, unimpeded jaunt through the wilderness - as it looks in 4wd ads
>> all the time.
>
> They're not fantasising about 4WDing in the wilderness any more than the
> average commuter cyclist is fantasising they are in the Tour de F. They just
> want to get home and are angry that the infrastructure that would allow them
> to do that, that they think their taxes should provide, doesn't exist.

They were fantasising about it when they saw the ad that sold them the
vehicle.

> Because of where I choose to live, 55 kms from the Perth CBD, the _daily_
> bus is not an option and the nearest train station is 40 kms away. It would
> let me off 1.5 kms from work.

If getting to work was of importance then, I would suggest that was
your own damn fault

A 1.5km walk, eh?

I live 30km from work, but I ensured that before taking the job, work
provided a bus. Makes me go home on time too (ace! Nothing at all
like being a student), although there are a few pool cars.

--
TimC
> cat ~/.signature
Passing cosmic ray (core dumped)

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

>> "Fundamentalism" was orginally ( I thought late 1800s but I saw
>> recently 1920s) a label applied to people who agreed with a set of
>> pamphlets/books/statements called "The Fundamentals of Christianity"
>> which sought to strip away accretions and bring the religion back to
>> a more pure state by getting together in one place the basics as they
>> understood it.
>>
>> Over time it's come to mean anyone who has a literalist and rigid
>> interpretation of a book or creed and who refuses to see there's any
>> other way to think or do, and further considers people who do
>> interpret things differently as not just misguided but actively evil.

> An astonishing level of 'eyes wide shut[edness]'.
>
> 1) You've never been to a CM ride
> 2) From your position of blindness you've managed to adopt a theory of
> ignorance.

I've never been on a CM ride either. I've seen it on TV, heard reports from
news commentators, and read letters to the editors. My major experience of
CM has been in this group and from that I have formed pretty much the same
opinion as Zebee.

> To say 'they' are a buch of fundamentalists truly displays you lack of
> thought.

> I stopped going for the exact opposite reason.

> Another thing was the fact that there were too many in the group who
> were relucant to block traffic for too long. Too many diversions from
> what I thought were the principles.

God, that was funny Scotty. For a second there I thought you were being
serious, but now I see you were giving us an excellent example of what a
fundamentalist would say.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-02, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>> An astonishing level of 'eyes wide shut[edness]'.
>>
>> 1) You've never been to a CM ride
>> 2) From your position of blindness you've managed to adopt a theory of
>> ignorance.
>
> I've never been on a CM ride either. I've seen it on TV, heard reports from
> news commentators, and read letters to the editors. My major experience of
> CM has been in this group and from that I have formed pretty much the same
> opinion as Zebee.

Oh come on Theo. I'm pretty sure Zebee is actually forming her
opinion on something a little more concrete than that.

Is this the channel 9 news, or their current affair program? Who's
the John Laws equivalent in WA who you listen to?

An letters to the editor? ****** off people writing letters to the
editor -- ****** off because of something they read from another
letter to the editor, what they saw on the TV news, or heard some
shock jock talk about?

--
TimC
"Legacy (adj): an uncomplimentary computer-industry epithet that
means 'it works'." -- Anthony DeBoer in ASR

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Terryc wrote:

>> You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink.
>> Or did you have a more cohersive form of education in mind?

> You ever tried to force a horse to drink?

All you have to do is lead it to water. It will drink.

Theo