Re: Harbour Bridge Ride - Critical Mass



B

Big Bear

Guest
Duncan wrote:

> This (http://tinyurl.com/y379xk) is precisely why CM isn't necessarily
> a good thing.


So you think CM should be doing blow jobs instead?

Idiots like you are why we do not have decent facilities/places for
cycling. We have tried decades of asking politely, attending meetings,
etc, etc, etc. CM just brings cyclists together to do what they are
already legally entitled to do. Of course, the sheep believe the wind up
by divisive, fat arsed journalists. Perhaps when you child has breathing
difficulties and suffers brain damage from car smog, you might see the
light.
 
D

Duncan

Guest
Big Bear wrote:
> Duncan wrote:
>
> > This (http://tinyurl.com/y379xk) is precisely why CM isn't necessarily
> > a good thing.

>
> So you think CM should be doing blow jobs instead?
>
> Idiots like you are why we do not have decent facilities/places for
> cycling. We have tried decades of asking politely, attending meetings,
> etc, etc, etc.


I don't want "facilities". I want to be able to ride safely where I
already do, legally, on the road. I don't want to be attacked by
enraged motorists because some CM dickheads ****** them off last week.

> CM just brings cyclists together to do what they are
> already legally entitled to do


Block a major arterial road during peak times that they are not legally
allowed to ride on, except during a "protest"?

> Of course, the sheep believe the wind up
> by divisive, fat arsed journalists. Perhaps when you child has breathing
> difficulties and suffers brain damage from car smog, you might see the
> light.


You're making alot of assumptions there.
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Duncan said:
> Of course, the sheep believe the wind up
> by divisive, fat arsed journalists. Perhaps when you child has breathing
> difficulties and suffers brain damage from car smog, you might see the
> light.[/color]

You're making alot of assumptions there.

Then read this News Limited article, Big Bear is right on the money. A incompetent, lazy article that doesn't further *either side* of the discussion.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20818783-5007146,00.html
 
D

Duncan

Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Duncan Wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, the sheep believe the wind up
> > > by divisive, fat arsed journalists. Perhaps when you child has

> > breathing
> > > difficulties and suffers brain damage from car smog, you might see

> > the
> > > light.

> >
> > You're making alot of assumptions there.

>
> Then read this News Limited article, Big Bear is right on the money. A
> incompetent, lazy article that doesn't further *either side* of the
> discussion.
>
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20818783-5007146,00.html[/color]

ermmm... I think you'll find that's the article I first linked to..
 

asterope

New Member
Jun 6, 2006
384
2
0
cfsmtb said:
Not exactly Pulitzer Prize standard stuff, is it?
im in two minds about the whole situation... whilst reclaiming the streets for cyclists is a good thing and should be done to encourage tolerance between fellow road users, doing so at peak hour on a very busy throughfare (regardless of police escort) isnt exactly inspiring. Were i hampered from getting home on my bike by a sea of CM cyclists during peak hour, i would at first be indifferent, then i would probably get sh*tty... the people in cars obviously feel the same way. I agree there should be far less single occupant car trips happening any day and at any time, but holding up a bridge full of cranky fsckers in cars isnt going to make them want to clean up their pushie and ride it to work or take the bus and leave the car at home... its going to make them want to do cruel and dangerous things to cyclists in general because of the "slow and annoying" stigma that they have now had attached to them.

what i really dont like about the opinion piece (apart from the lot of it and the cowardly name calling) is the part about how CM riders have no consideration for those "people who have been working hard all week and want to get home".
im flipping this lady a big virtual bird for that comment, I bet a considerable chunk of the CM riders had also been working very hard that week and were also looking forward to getting home. It seems this womans idea of cyclists is that they are poor, unemployed or unable to drive and thats why they ride bikes... i think someone removed the part of her brain that contained the common-sense region and replaced it with a bitchy stereotyping bit when she was born...
 
D

Duncan

Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Duncan Wrote:
> >
> >
> > ermmm... I think you'll find that's the article I first linked to..

>
> Not exactly Pulitzer Prize standard stuff, is it?


no, its popularist wind-up.. but that's not the point.

My issue with CM is that they get out there and **** people off...
deliberately. All that does is prompt articles like that linked, and
create a more hostile road environment for cyclists who just want to
get out there and get somewhere in traffic.
 
B

Big Bear

Guest
Duncan wrote:

> I don't want "facilities". I want to be able to ride safely where I
> already do, legally, on the road. I don't want to be attacked by
> enraged motorists because some CM dickheads ****** them off last week.


Think about it; idiots who get enraged about CM would also get enraged
about you riding on "their" roads.
>
>
>>CM just brings cyclists together to do what they are
>>already legally entitled to do

>
>
> Block a major arterial road during peak times that they are not legally
> allowed to ride on, except during a "protest"?


Talk to the police. They are the ones who insist on that move.


>
> You're making alot of assumptions there.


Pot, kettle, black. Get on your bike and take part in a CM, then post
your suggestions for improvements to their list.
>
 
B

Big Bear

Guest
Duncan wrote:

> My issue with CM is that they get out there and **** people off...
> deliberately. All that does is prompt articles like that linked, and
> create a more hostile road environment for cyclists who just want to
> get out there and get somewhere in traffic.


lol, children, the hostile road environment was there before CM.
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 10:17:49 +1100
Big Bear <[email protected]> wrote:
> Idiots like you are why we do not have decent facilities/places for
> cycling. We have tried decades of asking politely, attending meetings,


So, prove that CM has actually achieved anything. Beyond making life
difficult for people doing the work of course.

Say a statement from someone in the RTA, or an MP, or the police, or
anyone at all who isn't CM? Anyone at all who provides the things you
say haven't been provided and wouldn't be except for CM?

I'm not asking for much I'd have thought. YOu can prove your
statement can't you? You do have the evidence to even try to convince
me?

As it happens, the current non-CM advocates in NSW are doing a good
job, I've heard "damn they are hard bargainers" from more than one
source.

But then as you obviously don't know how these things work....

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 24 Nov 2006 15:39:44 -0800
Duncan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Big Bear wrote:
> I don't want "facilities". I want to be able to ride safely where I
> already do, legally, on the road. I don't want to be attacked by
> enraged motorists because some CM dickheads ****** them off last week.


I dunno that's a fair accusation to level against motorists.

In that I doubt they'd deliberately attack.

I am not even sure there'd be an unconscious bias. Be interesting to
see if there was a way to determine if there was, no idea how that
could be done.

I don't think it does anything the other way though, as big lumps with
a police escort aren't really "the traffic".

Every commuter who rides on the roads is the traffic and the more of
those there are just riding politely and well the more drivers get
used to dealing with bikes.

Big lumps that happen now and then are 'special event' and annoying.
A driver who sees 20 well behaved cyclists every day will end up being
more attuned to cyclists and their needs (and see bikes as viable)
than one who sees a hundred or two once a month in a big lump making
life difficult, and imitating a special event rather than daily
traffic.

Certainly when I talk to non-riders, the first thing they say is "red
light runners". Few mention CM, but the few who have are consistently
contemptuous.

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:37:40 +1100
asterope <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> that week and were also looking forward to getting home. It seems this
> womans idea of cyclists is that they are poor, unemployed or unable to
> drive and thats why they ride bikes... i think someone removed the part
> of her brain that contained the common-sense region and replaced it with
> a bitchy stereotyping bit when she was born...


And how does the author know that they aren't students and unemployed?

Sure, it is a stereotype. What does CM do to dispel that?

It looks like a special event, and there were people wrapped in tinsel
and wearing costumes. That's not a bunch of legit commuters. That's
a bunch of hippie weirdos.

If you want people to change their minds, then you have to work from
where they are, not from somewhere else. If they think normal commuters
look like X, then look like X, but on bicycles.

If the people who do CM really want cyclists to be seen as normal
traffic they have to behave as it.

Clothing from lycra to suits, gear from backpacks to briefcases, and
riding solo or in small groups, coping if split by lights or traffic,
expecting no special treatment, obeying rules and being normal traffic.
They do that at least once a week, every week.

The only way to show bikes are viable transport used by all kinds of
people is for them to visibly *be* viable transport used by all kinds
of people. Day in, day out.


Zebee
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Zebee Johnstone said:
As it happens, the current non-CM advocates in NSW are doing a good
job, I've heard "damn they are hard bargainers" from more than one
source.

But then as you obviously don't know how these things work....

Intriguing, as I know how low in the priorities cycling actually are with the current NSW government. Carl Scully and Michael Costa combined have done a lovely job of ignoring cycling right out the governments priorities. Don't think Critical Mass had literally anything to do with that longterm situation.

BTW - Who are these "non CM advocates"? Do some reading about what CM may actually be, the rides are literally a disparate group of cyclists with no real agenda that getting together for a few hours a month. You're made a big assumption, lumping together CM, which apparently has no organisation, with BNSW, Bike North, Bike Sydney, MassBUG, Bike East etc. For advocacy, observe the next national ALGA meeting and the 2007 NSW election, you might actually learn something "how these things work".

Now a few questions, why is it apparently acceptable for journalists, ie: Andrew Carswell initial article and then Anita Quigley's opinion piece, to twist subject content out of all context, publish a individuals phone number, incite or suggest violence and harm to a road user group, all because put simply, they don't neccessarily agree with a supposed groups aims or methods? The issue of actually liking CM isn't the issue, it's how the media think it is *acceptable* to comment upon a news event.

My usual answer to people who don't care much for CM is this: if the relevant cycling organisations such as BNSW, BV etc, actually did their roles properly, then there wouldn't be any reason for Critical Mass to exist.
 
P

persia

Guest
Zebee wrote:

<snip>So, prove that CM has actually achieved anything. Beyond making
life
difficult for people doing the work of course.</snip>

Right on, Zebee. CM has achieved absolutely nothing positive. It has
many negative achievements, on the other hand. You are right on the
money about the need to normalise cycling and the fact that the "hippy"
appearance and behavior of CM works against this.

cfsmtb wrote:

<snip>if the relevant cycling organisations such as BNSW, BV etc,
actually did their roles properly, then then wouldn't be any reason for
Critical Mass to exist.</snip>

There *is* no reason for CM to exist.

BV has achieved an enormous amount - this is patently obvious.

CM has achieved *nothing* positive for cycling.

CM is the Taliban of cycling: conservative, intolerant of criticism,
absolutely convinced of the rightness of their approach, despite all
evidence to the contrary. Conservative? Yes: despite appearances, doing
the same thing for 11 years, while evidence of the negative outcomes of
the activity mounts, is conservative behavior. CM is activism lite -
easy, warm inner glow, monthly taste of being naughty.

What really sh*ts me about CM is the waste of resources. While some
involved, including cfsmtb, do lots of good advocacy work (and perhaps
moderate the group to some extent), it seems to me that other
participants get much more excited and put far more effort into the
whole adolescent performance than they do into serious cycling work.

I would suggest that CM should be ignored. Excepting the times that
they cause major confrontation when riding on bridges and in tunnels,
they are only a minor irritant. I'd prefer the whole thing got wound
up, but since this is unlikely, let's just get on with real cycling
work.

Persia
 
B

Big Bear

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> If you want people to change their minds, then you have to work from
> where they are, not from somewhere else. If they think normal commuters
> look like X, then look like X, but on bicycles.


Fat, smoking, talking on a mobile phone, ear phones, eating, drinking,
etc, etc, etc
Naah, not prepared to compromise my principles that much.

Complete waste of time.
>
> If the people who do CM really want cyclists to be seen as normal
> traffic they have to behave as it.


lol, so it is really about people not having to be corporate clones,
that is what you are really objecting too.
 
B

Big Bear

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In that I doubt they'd deliberately attack.


Obviously you don't get out much. Keep ridding, it will happen.

> Certainly when I talk to non-riders, the first thing they say is "red
> light runners". Few mention CM, but the few who have are consistently
> contemptuous.


lol, do they actually ride a bicycle, or just have one hanging on the
wall in the garage?
 
B

Big Bear

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 10:17:49 +1100
> Big Bear <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Idiots like you are why we do not have decent facilities/places for
>>cycling. We have tried decades of asking politely, attending meetings,

>
>
> So, prove that CM has actually achieved anything.


Easy, look at what BNSW achieved before CM (nothing) and the bits they
have achieved since.
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:28:11 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>> As it happens, the current non-CM advocates in NSW are doing a good
>> job, I've heard "damn they are hard bargainers" from more than one
>> source.
>>
>> But then as you obviously don't know how these things work....

>
> Intriguing, as I know how low in the priorities cycling actually are
> with the current NSW government. Carl Scully and Michael Costa combined
> have done a lovely job of ignoring cycling right out the governments
> priorities. Don't think Critical Mass had literally anything to do with
> that longterm situation.


Hard to know, I think it's unlikely they've had much effect on
government either way.

Scully and Costa are ignoring everything, don't think cycling's been
singled out.

On the other hand, there's been more done for them in the last few
years than previously mostly via councils which is where a lot of
motorcycls safety gains have been too.

Again, that's the hard work of the advocates rather than CM.


>
> BTW - Who are these "non CM advocates"? Do some reading about what 'CM
> may actually be' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass), the
> rides are literally a disparate group of cyclists with no real agenda
> that getting together for a few hours a month. You're made a big


There's rather a lot of howling about how wonderful it is whenever it
is mentioned.


> assumption, lumping together CM, which apparently has no organisation,
> with BNSW, Bike North, Bike Sydney, MassBUG, Bike East etc. For


Who did that? Wasn't me. IN fact I was quite clearly separating them
I thought, but obviously not clearly enough.


> advocacy, observe the next national ALGA meeting and the 2007 NSW
> election, you might actually learn something "how these things work".


What, do that as well as my motorcycle advocacy? "these things" was
about advocacy in general rather than NSW cycle politics in specific.

As in a bunch of people bignoting once a month isn't what is doing the
work.

> Now a few questions, why is it apparently acceptable for journalists,
> ie: Andrew Carswell initial article and then Anita Quigley's opinion
> piece, to twist subject content out of all context, publish a
> individuals phone number, incite or suggest violence and harm to a road
> user group, all because put simply, they don't neccessarily agree with a
> supposed groups aims or methods? The issue of actually liking CM isn't
> the issue, it's how the media think it is *acceptable* to comment upon
> a news event.


I didn't say it was acceptable. It is, however, very good tabloid
journalism. Which is about selling advertising space to those who
sell to a known demographic.

They aren't in the business of "news" or "fairness" or even journalism
really.

Why are there so many over the top columnists about? Because they
generate controversy, they generate sales of advertising.
>
> My usual answer to people who don't care much for CM is this: if the
> relevant cycling organisations such as BNSW, BV etc, actually did their
> roles properly, then then wouldn't be any reason for Critical Mass to
> exist.


Really? That implies that CM is doing the job they are not. Please
explain cleary how that is so, what actual achievements they have
gained, with checkable details.

Explain also what they are currently achieving, again with details.


Zebee
 
B

Big Bear

Guest
cfsmtb wrote:

> My usual answer to people who don't care much for CM is this: if the
> relevant cycling organisations such as BNSW, BV etc, actually did their
> roles properly, then then wouldn't be any reason for Critical Mass to
> exist.


Ditto.

BNSW has been doing exactly what the sheep advocate for over 20 years
and what we have is some paint on foot paths and one passible bicycle
path of some size. Meanwhile, the police heirachy have become corrupt
and inept.
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
persia said:
CM is the Taliban of cycling: conservative, intolerant of criticism,
absolutely convinced of the rightness of their approach, despite all
evidence to the contrary.

What a bizarre remark, care to expand upon that on next Wednesday evening? If CM is such a waste of time, why do you even bother to socialise with numerous Melbourne bicycle folk, who have, shock, horror, been to a CM or two, or even post your remarks to the CM-Melb yahoogroup for the last 3-4 years? Pot. Kettle. Black.

One good aspect about CM in Melbourne context that it has brough together a whole diverse group of cyclists who paths would of *never* socialised with each other. Roadies, BUG's, commuters, recreational riders, tourers etc etc etc. BV aren't remotely interested in bringing stakeholders together, unless there's money in it.

If CM has no reason to exist, then please explain to us the reason of this puzzling paradox for the last 11 years? Why did a estimated 600 cyclists ride through Melbourne last evening?