Report from another London Critical Mass participant.

[Doug[_10_]]

Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.

"...Once beyond the safety of the South Bank you find yourself on
roads which have had their ownership seized by the sinister Cult of
the Car. So powerful is this cult that the membership is utterly
convinced, despite all the evidence that it is reasonable to sit in
giant polluting snakes of mechanized metal along the arteries that
traverse our giant human beehives. They have suspended rational
thought to the point that they cannot see the obvious truth that cars
and cities don’t go. Like square pegs and round holes, metal and
microwaves and turds in swimming pools..."

"...Car drivers naturally assume that they always have priority over
cyclists. So when drivers have to wait as a giant swarm of happy
riders surges by in front of their over-engineered wheelchairs they
literally start having a nervous breakdown. They froth at the mouth,
throw their rattle out of their motorized prams, bang their neo-
luddite skulls against the steering wheel and curse the unjust laws
that prevent them from teaching us once and for all that cars are
mightier by driving through us in a glorious eruption of fossil-power.

They scream out of their windows that they are trying to get somewhere
and how dare we be so inconsiderate as to hold them up. They might
think we would care but they are speaking to the wrong audience… big
time..."

More with pics
http://ecohustler.co.uk/2010/07/06/a-critical-mass-of-dissent-on-wheels/

-- .
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>
> "...Once beyond the safety of the South Bank you find yourself on
> roads which have had their ownership seized by the sinister Cult of
> the Car. So powerful is this cult that the membership is utterly
> convinced, despite all the evidence that it is reasonable to sit in
> giant polluting snakes of mechanized metal along the arteries that
> traverse our giant human beehives. They have suspended rational
> thought to the point that they cannot see the obvious truth that cars
> and cities don’t go. Like square pegs and round holes, metal and
> microwaves and turds in swimming pools..."

now there is a good description for the average critical messer:
'a turd in a swimming pool' like it, thanks!

[Doug[_10_]]

On 7 July, 07:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
> > some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>
> > "...Once beyond the safety of the South Bank you find yourself on
> > roads which have had their ownership seized by the sinister Cult of
> > the Car. So powerful is this cult that the membership is utterly
> > convinced, despite all the evidence that it is reasonable to sit in
> > giant polluting snakes of mechanized metal along the arteries that
> > traverse our giant human beehives. They have suspended rational
> > thought to the point that they cannot see the obvious truth that cars
> > and cities don’t go. Like square pegs and round holes, metal and
> > microwaves and turds in swimming pools..."
>
> now there is a good description for the average critical messer:
> 'a turd in a swimming pool' *like it, thanks!
>
I think you will find he was referring to motorists not CMers.

-- .
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

[bugbear]

Doug wrote:
> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>

Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
is entitled to their own view.

BugBear

[Derek C]

On Jul 7, 9:11*am, bugbear > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
> > some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>
> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
> is entitled to their own view.
>

Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone else
who is trying to carry out their lawful activities on the London
roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these law
breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug will
probably bleat on about some stupid House of Lords ruling now!

[Derek C]

On Jul 7, 9:11*am, bugbear > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
> > some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>
> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
> is entitled to their own view.
>
> * *BugBear

Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone else
who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the London
roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these law
breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug will
probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid House of
Lords ruling now!

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, bugbear > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
>>> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>>
>> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
>> is entitled to their own view.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone else
> who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the London
> roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these law
> breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug will
> probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid House of
> Lords ruling now!

Sounds about right. It also sounds a bit like glider pilots.

Isn't the season upon us where every wannabe part time pilot takes to the
skies to **** everyone else off?

Lots of thermal acivity out there.

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...
> Derek C wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, bugbear > wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
>>>> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>>>
>>> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
>>> is entitled to their own view.
>>>
>>> BugBear
>>
>> Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone else
>> who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the London
>> roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these law
>> breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug will
>> probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid House of
>> Lords ruling now!
>
> Sounds about right. It also sounds a bit like glider pilots.
>
> Isn't the season upon us where every wannabe part time pilot takes to the
> skies to **** everyone else off?
>
> Lots of thermal acivity out there.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would glider pilots ****
people off?

[David[_11_]]

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
> I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would glider pilots
> **** people off?

Indeed, the only one I know of, I find quite amusing in his lack of
knowledge.

D

[mileburner]

Mr. Benn wrote:
> "mileburner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, bugbear >
>>> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
>>>>> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>>>>
>>>> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
>>>> is entitled to their own view.
>>>>
>>>> BugBear
>>>
>>> Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone
>>> else who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the
>>> London roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these
>>> law breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug
>>> will probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid
>>> House of Lords ruling now!
>>
>> Sounds about right. It also sounds a bit like glider pilots.
>>
>> Isn't the season upon us where every wannabe part time pilot takes
>> to the skies to **** everyone else off?
>>
>> Lots of thermal acivity out there.
>
> I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would glider
> pilots **** people off?

Bit like critical mass really... Why would a bunch of cyclists **** people
off? The similarities are remarkable.

[JNugent[_7_]]

mileburner wrote:
> Mr. Benn wrote:
>> "mileburner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, bugbear >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
>>>>>> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>>>>> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
>>>>> is entitled to their own view.
>>>>>
>>>>> BugBear
>>>> Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone
>>>> else who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the
>>>> London roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these
>>>> law breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug
>>>> will probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid
>>>> House of Lords ruling now!
>>> Sounds about right. It also sounds a bit like glider pilots.
>>>
>>> Isn't the season upon us where every wannabe part time pilot takes
>>> to the skies to **** everyone else off?
>>>
>>> Lots of thermal acivity out there.
>> I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would glider
>> pilots **** people off?
>
> Bit like critical mass really... Why would a bunch of cyclists **** people
> off?

By deliberately blocking the road?

> The similarities are remarkable.

Of course they are. Gliders are forever obstructing the roads in Central
London, aren't they?
>
>

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Benn wrote:
>> "mileburner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, bugbear >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
>>>>>> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
>>>>> is entitled to their own view.
>>>>>
>>>>> BugBear
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone
>>>> else who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the
>>>> London roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these
>>>> law breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug
>>>> will probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid
>>>> House of Lords ruling now!
>>>
>>> Sounds about right. It also sounds a bit like glider pilots.
>>>
>>> Isn't the season upon us where every wannabe part time pilot takes
>>> to the skies to **** everyone else off?
>>>
>>> Lots of thermal acivity out there.
>>
>> I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would glider
>> pilots **** people off?
>
> Bit like critical mass really... Why would a bunch of cyclists **** people
> off? The similarities are remarkable.

No they are not similar at all. The CM cyclists are opposed to motorised
transport and successfully try to disrupt motorised transport once a month
in London and elsewhere. I'm not aware that glider pilots are opposed to
powered aircraft in the skies and deliberately try to disrupt air traffic.

[Alex Potter]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:33:34 +0100, Mr. Benn wrote:

> I'm not aware that glider pilots are opposed to powered aircraft in the
> skies and deliberately try to disrupt air traffic.

On the contrary. We are trained to lookout for and avoid them, and there
is also the little matter of airspace restrictions, which are strictly
enforced, with severe penalties for transgessors.

--
Alex

[David[_11_]]

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
> The CM cyclists are opposed to motorised transport and successfully try to
> disrupt motorised transport once a month in London and elsewhere.

No they are not! I would imagine the vast majority of CM cyclist use
motorised transport on a regular basis. The majority may well be making a
stand on the massive over conjestion of motorised vehicles with our cities,
but that's another matter entirely.

Even the Mad Do*g is not against motorised transport as he owns a motorised
vehicle and also uses public transport.

Being a regular visitor to London, I know that in the vast majority of cases
cheaper and quicker to use public transport.

D

[JNugent[_7_]]

David wrote:
> "Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The CM cyclists are opposed to motorised transport and successfully try to
>> disrupt motorised transport once a month in London and elsewhere.
>
> No they are not! I would imagine the vast majority of CM cyclist use
> motorised transport on a regular basis. The majority may well be making a
> stand on the massive over conjestion of motorised vehicles with our cities,
> but that's another matter entirely.
>
> Even the Mad Do*g is not against motorised transport as he owns a motorised
> vehicle and also uses public transport.
>
> Being a regular visitor to London, I know that in the vast majority of cases
> cheaper and quicker to use public transport.

It's only cheaper because of artifice.

"Congestion" Tax, punitive and oppressive parking charges, over-zealous
prohibitions of parking even in spots where parking would not cause
appreciable obstruction and road-space theft by TaL and it predecessors. etc.

OTOH, there is enforced subsidy of public transport by people who have no use
for it (were it not so, there'd be no "need" for subsidy anyway).

The highway authority and public transport should not be run by the same
people. The highway authority should have a clear duty to facilitate, rather
than to oppose and prevent, travel on the highways.

[Bagpuss]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:18:29 +0100, mileburner wrote:

> Mr. Benn wrote:
>> "mileburner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, bugbear > wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
>>>>>> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant is
>>>>> entitled to their own view.
>>>>>
>>>>> BugBear
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone
>>>> else who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the
>>>> London roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these
>>>> law breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug
>>>> will probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid
>>>> House of Lords ruling now!
>>>
>>> Sounds about right. It also sounds a bit like glider pilots.
>>>
>>> Isn't the season upon us where every wannabe part time pilot takes to
>>> the skies to **** everyone else off?
>>>
>>> Lots of thermal acivity out there.
>>
>> I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would glider pilots
>> **** people off?
>
> Bit like critical mass really... Why would a bunch of cyclists ****
> people off? The similarities are remarkable.

Not really are they?

However, I'm sure that if you put thousands of the ****ers in the skies
around Thiefrow, people would get rightly peeved.

--

Miaow!

Bagpuss, Old fat furry catpuss.

[David[_11_]]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> It's only cheaper because of artifice.
>
> "Congestion" Tax, punitive and oppressive parking charges, over-zealous
> prohibitions of parking even in spots where parking would not cause
> appreciable obstruction and road-space theft by TaL and it predecessors.
> etc.
>

More parking, as you full well know would meen more cars on the roads in the
cities.

> OTOH, there is enforced subsidy of public transport by people who have no
> use for it (were it not so, there'd be no "need" for subsidy anyway).
>
> The highway authority and public transport should not be run by the same
> people. The highway authority should have a clear duty to facilitate,
> rather than to oppose and prevent, travel on the highways.

Why not have all authorities run by completely seperate operators with no
interest in any others? Why not privatise all authorites and make those
that use them the only ones to pay for them?
You want your children to go to school? Well pay up. You want hospital
treatment? Well pay up.
We could carry on the Thatchers regime until everything that has been built
up over the last two hundred years has gone and **** the unenployed or less
well off!

Enough irrepairable damage has been done by the right wing in the last 30
years.

D

[mileburner]

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
> "mileburner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mr. Benn wrote:
>>> "mileburner" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 7, 9:11 am, bugbear >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Please note: this is a personal opinion which is perhaps shared by
>>>>>>> some others but is NOT the SOLE purpose for Critical Mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Critical does not have a defined purpose. Every participant
>>>>>> is entitled to their own view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BugBear
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the SOLE purpose of Critical Mass just to **** off everyone
>>>>> else who are trying to carry out their lawful activities on the
>>>>> London roads. This is difficult enough as it is, without all these
>>>>> law breaking ******* on bikes getting in the way. Oh yes, and Doug
>>>>> will probably bleat on about deliberate rammings and some stupid
>>>>> House of Lords ruling now!
>>>>
>>>> Sounds about right. It also sounds a bit like glider pilots.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the season upon us where every wannabe part time pilot takes
>>>> to the skies to **** everyone else off?
>>>>
>>>> Lots of thermal acivity out there.
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you're talking about. Why would glider
>>> pilots **** people off?
>>
>> Bit like critical mass really... Why would a bunch of cyclists ****
>> people off? The similarities are remarkable.
>
> No they are not similar at all. The CM cyclists are opposed to motorised
> transport and successfully try to disrupt motorised transport once a month
> in London and elsewhere. I'm not aware that glider pilots are opposed to
> powered aircraft in the skies and deliberately try to disrupt air traffic.

I grant you that, that the intention of glider pilots is probably lacking.
They do it out of sheer stupidity :-(

[mileburner]

"Bagpuss" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:18:29 +0100, mileburner wrote:
>
>>
>> Bit like critical mass really... Why would a bunch of cyclists ****
>> people off? The similarities are remarkable.
>
> Not really are they?
>
> However, I'm sure that if you put thousands of the ****ers in the skies
> around Thiefrow, people would get rightly peeved.

They gather at little launching sites all over the country especially at
this time of year. While I don't really have a problem with Critical Mass,
neither do I have a problem with gliders, it just strikes me as rather
ironic that someone who claims to be a glider pilot complains about CM and
wants to be taken seriously concerning safety matters. Ironic, sorry, I
meant absurd.

[JNugent[_7_]]

David wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:

>> It's only cheaper because of artifice.
>> "Congestion" Tax, punitive and oppressive parking charges, over-zealous
>> prohibitions of parking even in spots where parking would not cause
>> appreciable obstruction and road-space theft by TaL and it predecessors.
>> etc.

> More parking, as you full well know would meen more cars on the roads in the
> cities.

So what?

>> OTOH, there is enforced subsidy of public transport by people who have no
>> use for it (were it not so, there'd be no "need" for subsidy anyway).

>> The highway authority and public transport should not be run by the same
>> people. The highway authority should have a clear duty to facilitate,
>> rather than to oppose and prevent, travel on the highways.

> Why not have all authorities run by completely seperate operators with no
> interest in any others?

Does Liverpool City Council have an "interest" in what goes on in Brighton?

Perhaps the answer to that one ("No, of course not") tells you why Liverpool
can't control what goes on in Brighton.

> Why not privatise all authorites and make those
> that use them the only ones to pay for them?

There's more in that than you might realise.

> You want your children to go to school? Well pay up.

I do. Don't you? Perhaps you don't.

> You want hospital treatment? Well pay up.

I do. Don't you? Perhaps you don't.

> We could carry on the Thatchers regime until everything that has been built
> up over the last two hundred years has gone and **** the unenployed or less
> well off!

What has TaL's stranglehold on London's traffic got to do with the unemployed
or "less well off" (other than making travel even more expensive for them, I
mean)?

BTW: You missed a trick there: one of the more usual formulations these days
is to refer to favoured interest groups with lots of lovely votes as "the
most vulnerable in our society".

> Enough irrepairable damage has been done by the right wing in the last 30
> years.

Are you rational?

Would you allow (or even perhaps encourage) the NHS to have control of the
provision of private medicine? Or an association representing private
medicine to control the provision of NHS operations?

If not, why not?

Think about it...

And why is it OK for a public transport operator to have absolute and totally
self-interested control over the roads - a level of control which allows it
to have complete say over which parts of the road - if any - other transport
providers - including self-providers - may use?

Again... think about it...

And if you can, try to think about the welfare of people who aren't you, or
aren't people like you.