Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

[Theo Bekkers]

beerwolf wrote:
> Dorfus wrote:
>
>> Maybe you could get lots of cars together and block traffic in the
>> city. There's a novel idea!

> Compare road users with people connecting to a website. I don't
> see much difference, morality-wise, between CM and a denial
> of service attack.

That's an interesting comparison and, I believe, spot on.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> OK, I'll play. I understand a 'cork' to be where cyclists block cross
>> traffic who have a green light. Tell me what law a motorist breaks
>> when
>> ignoring such a block. If a police officer does the same thing, I
>> understand
>> that to be directing traffic, not a 'cork'.
>>
>> Your move Scotty. Please quote traffic code for reference to my
>> misunderstanding.

> If you deliberately run down any person with a motor vehicle, then I
> think you're looking at a manslaughter charge (if it results in death,
> as it likely would). I doubt that 'his corking was pissing me off"
> would be a reasonable defense.
>
> Is this basic law of society not applicable in WA? Is WA really that
> cut off from reality?

OK, I was thinking of pushing into the intersection rather than running over
the corkee. Though the temptation would be there.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terryc wrote:
> Tomasso wrote:

>> There's a very impressive one in the Powerhouse Museum. Second one to
>> circumnavigate Australia (via the coast, not in the water). I can't
>> recall the year, but it was something like 1895 or 1898.

> Jim Fitzpatrick lists four circum navigations for the years 1899-1900.
> He also lists twelve crossings 1896-1899 from various points.
>
> Theo would probably also be upset to learn that the first Australian
> motor car touring guides were actually produced by Pearson on a
> bicycle. Pearson actually ran a clothing shop to sell clothing, etc
> to people who wanted to tour in their motor vehicles. most early cars
> were actually open design {.

Why would that upset me? Did something give you the impression that I'm
anti-cyclist or something. RAC patrolmen in the UK and in WA were originally
cycle mounted before changing to motorcycle and sidecar.

Early cars were open design? Wow! If my dad had not restored 6 vintage cars,
he's 93 and trying to sell his 1926 model T, I might never have known that.
Or if I'd lived with my eyes shut.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

"PeteSig" <[email protected]> wrote
>"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

>> OK, I'll play. I understand a 'cork' to be where cyclists block cross
>> traffic who have a green light. Tell me what law a motorist breaks when
> > ignoring such a block.

> You're serious? You would just plough on regardless of life or limb?

Of course not.

Why on earth did you post that in rich text?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tomasso wrote:
> "Terryc wrote

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle
>> "The safety bicycle is a type of bicycle that became very popular
>> beginning in the late 1880s. The first safety, using a diamond frame,
>> was invented by John Kemp Starley in 1885. "Safeties" are
>> characterized by having two wheels of identical - or nearly
>> identical - size, and a chain-driven rear wheel."

Bloody wiki!
According to Archie Sharp
"The rear-driving safety was invented by Mr H J Lawson in 1879, but it was a
few years before it qas in great demand. Teh 'Rover' safety made by Mrssrs
Starley and Sutton in 1885, was the first rear-driving bicycle that attained
popular favour" "The Humber diamond frame was more and more generally
adopted by 1890". The pneumatic tyre was invented by Dunlop in 1890 and was
instantly accepted. "Now there is hardly a cycle made , with any other than
pneumatic tyres". (Now being 1896, the time of publication of Archie's
book).

If you see a copy of this book "Bicycles and Tricycles. An elementary
treatise on their design and construction" by Archibald Sharp, pick it up.
It's fascinating reading. Towards the end of the 'ordinary' they had geared
hubs, ofset hubs, and chain drive to the front hub.

>> So when were cars "invented"?
>> Considering the early cars used bicycle technology.

As in what technology? Spoked wheels were not exactly new. Chains had been
in use for some time. Solid tyres were not new.

Theo

 

[Baka Dasai]

On 3 Dec 2007 06:22:52 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
>
> However so far another tick in the "It's about cyclists feeling good"
> box.

Yep, I think that's a large (and valid) part of it.

> ...the ones who ride in it get a charge from being in
> a group that makes them feel powerful...

Yep, that's true.

> The same kind of feeling that lads in gangs get I believe (or
> motorcyclists in larger groups get too, human condition and all).

There's a bit of a difference in that lads alone are not discriminated against,
and lads in gangs are often threatening. Cyclists alone ARE discriminated
against, and cyclists in a "gang" are NOT threatening.

> I wonder if there are reasonable people who go to CM rides who wince
> when they see the kind of "debating" pro-CM posters are prone to?

I go on the occasional CM ride, and I wince at the occasional pro-CM poster. I
also wince at some of the anti-CM posters who seem to not understand one of the
central characteristics of CM - that it makes the long-term change you want to
have happen exist right now, at least for an hour or so. That gives the
participants a buzz, and helps keep a vision of a bike-dominated rather than
car-dominated city alive.

I think CM genuinely promotes that vision, even to many of the car drivers who
encounter it once a month. As CM participants know, the general reaction from
people on the streets is supportive, and even many car drivers smile, wave, and
honk in support.
--
What was I thinking?

 

[Baka Dasai]

On 3 Dec 2007 19:08:44 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):

> ...if someone
> ran a monthly "ride like you are supposed to" ride I'd be in it.

That's CM, except for one thing - the corking when a light changes from green
to red. The rationale for corking is that without it the mass gets broken up
into smaller groups, and cars get caught between those groups, and the drivers
of those cars tend to get angry and start running over cyclists.

I'm not 100% convinced by that explanation, especially as the corking issue is
the only thing that really undermines CM's legal legitimacy (despite the police
supporting corking).

(I guess I forgot about "bike lifts", but they're a bit naff.)
--
What was I thinking?

 

[Baka Dasai]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:08:50 GMT, beerwolf said (and I quote):
>
> Maybe the Volkswagen club could organise a rally at peak hour
> on the last Friday each month. That would be about as justifiable
> as CM, and as popular with the public.
>
> Compare road users with people connecting to a website. I don't
> see much difference, morality-wise, between CM and a denial
> of service attack.

CM's aim is not to "deny service" to car drivers. Instead it attempts to
show that the roads can be used in a different, better way. It's saying "look,
we have this great road infrastructure, and we're going to demonstrate a better
way of using it."

That "better way" means different things to different CM participants. To some
it might be about bicycles as the answer to global warming, or the answer to
peak oil, or the answer to obesity, or the answer to air pollution, or the
answer to alienating suburban sprawl. At a more radical level, some
participants focus on the idea of roads as areas for "play" or creative
expression rather than as strictly utilitarian transport infrastructure.
Basically, CM means whatever each participant wants it to mean.

I think CM is pretty interesting, and I've thought so since the days before I
rode a bike and when my only knowledge of it was from being held up by it while
driving a car.
--
What was I thinking?

 

[Baka Dasai]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:21:40 +1100, Terryc said (and I quote):
>
> lol, dream on. Motorised vehicles have nothing in common with
> unmotorised vehicles.

Motorbikes and bicycles share a very important thing in common with respect to
cars - they are much narrower, and take up much less road space, therefore
alleviating road congestion.

They also fall down more easily, making their riders similarly vulnerable to
inattentive road users.

Perhaps you don't think those things are important, but they seem important to
me.
--
What was I thinking?

 

[Baka Dasai]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:10:35 -0800 (PST), Brendo said (and I quote):
>
> Sorry to jump in late, but corking, on the face of it, sounds like
> it's breaking the road rules.

Yes, on the face of it, it is. However the police in Sydney support corking
intersections at CM, presumably to ensure the safety of the participants from
frustrated motorists who would otherwise find themselves surrounded by cyclists.

> A group of cyclists is simply a
> collection of vehicles (not one singular vehicle), all using the road.

Some disagree, saying that a mass is a single entity, and that therefore once
it has entered an intersection it must continue through the intersection even
if the light turns red.

> What's the point of Critical Mass?

It is undefined.

> Does everyone have their own point to prove?

Pretty much.

> How do you then gauge it's success?

You can't.

> I'm an accountant, so I
> guess I think in measureable objectives, and this doesn't seem to have
> one. To me, what's the point?

To live in a world, however briefly, where there are no measurable objectives?

--
What was I thinking?

 

[Tomasso]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Terryc wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>
>>> Well he's learnt that a debate requires answering questions, so far
>>> you're still ducking and weaving (trouble is you're doing it like a
>>> boxer who's just taken a heavy blow to the head area
>>
>> lol, your's and other's fantasy is showing. Nothing has landed on me
>> as nothing has been relevant. If any of you actually knew anything
>> about what you are talking about, it certainly doesn't show in your
>> questions. I think it goes by the name of "strawman".
>
> Terry, I'm getting the impression that you're about 15. How old are you
> really? Are you still in school, or do you have a job?

Hint. He's younger than me, but just.

Much hairier though, and my bike(s) is (are) probably much lighter than his.

Tomasso.

 

[beerwolf]

Ray wrote:
....snip
>> Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
>> very supportive.

... snip

> I'm sorry, but the bile squad sounds like a load of ****!!!! ;-) ;-)

This thread has produced a fair bit of bile. Maybe the bile squad could
drop by and mop up. I note that the OP, who started it all, has not posted
again. He must be chuckling into his beer )

--
beerwolf

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:37:04 -0000
Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's CM, except for one thing - the corking when a light changes from green
> to red. The rationale for corking is that without it the mass gets broken up
> into smaller groups, and cars get caught between those groups, and the drivers
> of those cars tend to get angry and start running over cyclists.
>
> I'm not 100% convinced by that explanation, especially as the corking issue is
> the only thing that really undermines CM's legal legitimacy (despite the police
> supporting corking).

I am also unconvinced because what do they say if you say "blocking
traffic"? They say "but it's gridlock anyway".

Do CM ride only 2 abreast? Do they signal all turns? leave
sufficient room when following?


Zebee

 

[brucef]

On Dec 4, 3:29 pm, Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also wince at some of the anti-CM posters who seem to not understand one of the
> central characteristics of CM - that it makes the long-term change you want to
> have happen exist right now, at least for an hour or so. That gives the
> participants a buzz, and helps keep a vision of a bike-dominated rather than
> car-dominated city alive.

I think this is the first intelligent defense of CM that I have read
in this thread.

 

[G-S]

Baka Dasai wrote:
>
> To live in a world, however briefly, where there are no measurable objectives?
>
>

Now that's the most effective argument I've heard so far to convince me
not to go on a CM ride [1]


G-S

[1] I admit that probably wasn't you intention.

 

[G-S]

Baka Dasai wrote:
> I
> also wince at some of the anti-CM posters who seem to not understand one of the
> central characteristics of CM - that it makes the long-term change you want to
> have happen exist right now, at least for an hour or so. That gives the
> participants a buzz, and helps keep a vision of a bike-dominated rather than
> car-dominated city alive.
>

Now that's actually a reason for CM that is understandable (to me at
least) and it's definitely a valid viewpoint.

Sometimes it isn't what's happening that influences peoples opinions,
but how (and how well) that information is presented.

*wanders outside to find a spanner to use to fit the new bike pump under
the water cage*


G-S

 

[G-S]

brucef wrote:
> On Dec 4, 3:29 pm, Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I also wince at some of the anti-CM posters who seem to not understand one of the
>> central characteristics of CM - that it makes the long-term change you want to
>> have happen exist right now, at least for an hour or so. That gives the
>> participants a buzz, and helps keep a vision of a bike-dominated rather than
>> car-dominated city alive.
>
> I think this is the first intelligent defense of CM that I have read
> in this thread.

It's a pleasant change too... like a breath of fresh air


G-S

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-03, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Terryc wrote:
>> Rather than all those tutt tutters who think people sholdn't "rock the
>> boat" and should "work through the system".
>>
> Rocking the boat is fine, as long as the benefit outweighs the cost.
> The benefit of CM is making existing riders who attend feel good, the
> cost is annoying motorists. That isn't a good cost/benefit situation.

_A_ benefit is the feel good factor. Another benefit is enabling
those who do go on later to become useful activists to meet.

--
TimC
This plane is not equipped with vertices.

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-03, Brendo (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Sorry to jump in late, but corking, on the face of it, sounds like
> it's breaking the road rules. A group of cyclists is simply a
> collection of vehicles (not one singular vehicle), all using the road.
> Common sense would say that these vehicles would be subject to the
> laws of the road. Outside the boundaries of special police endorsed
> events, you should stick to the road rules.

And, as mentioned plenty of times in this thread, CM appears to be a
police endorsed event *with police officers doing the corking*. At
least in Melbourne, anyway.

> What's the point of Critical Mass? Does everyone have their own point
> to prove? How do you then gauge it's success? I'm an accountant, so I
> guess I think in measureable objectives, and this doesn't seem to have
> one. To me, what's the point? If you get what you're looking for, then
> great, but I think that's a bit like looking at the trees instead of
> the forest.

Ah, beancounters

The beancounters at Swinburne seem to think that infrastructure is
important, but having the people to run that infrastructure get put in
the "too hard" basket. Or that getting a grant adds to the net assets
of the university, but spending that grant can't be done
because... ah, fuggit, I'll never understand beancounters. Don't get
me started on a rant about how they seem to think it is better for
your income if you spend more money on **** during the year so you can
claim a small portion of it back as a tax refund.

Isn't it clear? You gauge the success of CM in the same way that
Harry Barber gauges the success of BV. "Times are improving, and it's
*we* who are doing it!!!1!one!". You can't gauge the success or
otherwise easily. It's a bit like pure science -- do your thing,
which will be absolutely useless most of the time (ha! astronomy!
although perhaps one could argue that we pushed the camcorder industry
along), but when your thing is actually found to be important
(transistors), it's a big payoff for society. We can argue whether CM
will find the transistor powered bike another day

Perhaps we can use the mantra they use in the media that goes
something along the lines: "Everyone hates us, so we must be doing
something right"

--
TimC
However, my preamp still has a meat-driven knob. -- A. de Boer in ASR

 

[TimC]

On 2007-12-04, Baka Dasai (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:10:35 -0800 (PST), Brendo said (and I quote):
>> I'm an accountant, so I
>> guess I think in measureable objectives, and this doesn't seem to have
>> one. To me, what's the point?
>
> To live in a world, however briefly, where there are no measurable objectives?
>

But how do you increase the efficiency of it!!11!1elvene!

--
TimC
I hate mornings. I know they hate me back, too. -- Joel Gluth