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