Re: Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:57:21 -0700, >,
"Just a Cyclist" > wrote:

>They are not road cyclist......the are rogues and disruptors........that
>all.

They're also potential votes for bicycle friendly politicians. The
smarter mayors of some major cities recognise this by participating in
those cities' Critical Mass rides. They know we aren't going away and
in fact, our numbers are growing as more people realise they do have
the power to transform urban space from the stinking filthy killing
ground that it becomes when automobiles are predominate.

If what you said were true it couldn't explain how, in just over 10
years, the movement has spread across the western world without any
funding from the usual suspects or any organisation beyond informal
discussions among individuals who, everyday, ride their bikes to their
real-world destinations on the roads paved with their tax dollars.

It's largely only the self-righteous redneck yokel factions in their
pathetic jerkwater jurisdictions that are still resisting.
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

>"Robert J. Matter"

wrote in part:

>Of course we don't expect it to gain legitimacy amongst the status quo car
>culture (and car culture's cycling bootlickers) any more than the founding
>fathers gained legitimacy with the Crown or the underground railroad gained
>legitimacy with slaveholders. This is a revolution. A revolution is not a
>bed of roses. A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and
>the past.

---snip---

>I don't think inconveniencing a few fat white little-dick
>suburban republicans making a fashion statement in their single occupancy
>behemoth SUVs does any harm to cycling. It's good character building for
>cagers to experience the consequences of their decision to drive and endanger
>the rest of society with their machines and pollution.
>
>-Bob Matter

I've tried to address you civilly but first you call me a lazy ass and now
imply that I'm a bootlicker so you've lost the right to civility. You are an
idiot. Worse yet, you are a delusional idiot. All those positive things in
Chicago that you claim C-M was/is responsible for, from bike racks and bike
valet parking to the Bikes On CTA programs were accomplished, not because of
some lame C-M rides but because Mayor Daley likes cycling. Anyone with more
than two functioning brain cells that has any familiarity with Chicago politics
can vouch for that.
You may think you are manning the revolutionary barricades in a life and death
struggle. Luckily for you, there is no life and death struggle. If there were,
you'd be a greasy spot on the road courtesy of some evil SUV driver. That would
be a tragedy for you but it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to cycling
in the Chicago area because someone just like you would jump up to replace you.
That's one sure thing about fools. There's a virtually unlimited supply of
them.

Bob Hunt

[R15757]

Eric Sande wrote:

<< As a responsible cyclist I can't expect anything more than equal
treatment under law, and as a human being I won't tolerate anything less. >>

All considered, cyclists get better treatment under the law than motorists do.
And then there are the extra-legal unwritten rules that benefit cyclists:
rolling through four-way stops and traffic lights in the presence of other
vehicles, or weaving through traffic jams, etc. Be careful what you wish for.
You could ruin it for everybody. Equal treatment under the law would suck.

Robert

[Zoot Katz]

09 Jul 2003 04:19:24 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Zoot Katz
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>In the overall scheme, CM has little, if any, impact. It's not as bad
>>as others and the media make out.
>>
>>There's too few drivers who are actually affected by the rides. The
>>impact CM has on rush hour is negligible. It's blown out of proportion
>>by the media and the participants own egos. It generates bad news only
>>when the police are involved. Usually it's ignored as a non-event.
>
>Isn't this pretty much what I said back in message #
"?
>Damn, we agree! <g>
>
yep. And I responded by asking how the different disruptions were
objectively quantified and compared.

I also suggested, without correction, that the focus of the media was
different regarding the demonstrations.

Without objectively derived results, the media's spin is the only "big
picture" some shmoo stuck in traffic is going to get. They could
easily ascribe responsibility to the demonstrations for every other
delay as well. Repeat it enough times and we believe it.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

07 Jul 2003 21:17:26 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Self powered people are all welcomed to join the rolling party that
>>then becomes a product of, and an implement for further, social
>>change. A political party pays lip service to social change while its
>>real interest lies in maintaing the status quo.
>>--
>>zk
>
>In order to be an "implement for further social change" C-M will first have to
>effect some initial social change, something that they have failed to do to
>date. I don't have any real animus toward C-M. They just seem to me to be
>totally ineffectual in improving conditions for cyclists.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

In ten years the movement spread xerocracy worldwide without an
advertising budget, embargo or bombing campaign.
That's different.

For the participants, who are largely cyclists, (~800 in Vancouver's
last mass) the conditions improve dramatically for about two hours
every month.

We make it so because there's enough of us that we can.

A society that tolerates daily traffic jams and gridlock, are never
going to be revolutionaries.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 09 Jul 2003 01:53:57 -0700, >,
Bernie > wrote:

>
>
>Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
>
>> "Bernie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > All they expressed to me were youthful good feeling and high spirits.
>>
>> You haven't met bitter old Zoot then, he is however high on
>> spirits and other drugs most of the time.
>
>I don't know if he's high on anything else, but I suspect "bitter old Zoot"
>is sweetened by those same youthful spirits!
>

Chivas is only 12 years old.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:17:54 -0400, >,
"Eric S. Sande" > wrote:

>Only that it lowered expectations of how cyclists should behave in
>traffic.

What was **** head's problem today when I stopped at the sign because
he was approaching the intersection and didn't have a stop sign.

He balked, he stopped, he stared and then got snotty when I told him
to move.

Do you really believe it's because of CM?
--
zk

[Eric S. Sande]

>What was **** head's problem today when I stopped at the sign because
>he was approaching the intersection and didn't have a stop sign.

How do I know, do you think I'm a psychologist?

>He balked, he stopped, he stared and then got snotty when I told him
>to move.

Well, he probably had road conflict. He thought he was doing you
a favor to allow you to pass but wasn't properly socialized to believe
you had the same inherent rights he did.

He didn't see you as an equal, in other words.

>Do you really believe it's because of CM?

I believe it's because of poor socialization and bad societal training
exacerbated by a car centric society.

--
--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:

>What was **** head's problem today when I stopped at the sign because
>he was approaching the intersection and didn't have a stop sign.
>
>He balked, he stopped, he stared and then got snotty when I told him
>to move.
>
>Do you really believe it's because of CM?

What makes you think that it would have been at all different if you had been
driving a car instead of riding a bike? I don't know of anyone that blames C-M
rides for every instance of bad behavior on the roadway. The only inconsiderate
and illegal things I blame C-M for are those that occur during those rides.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:12:40 -0400, >,
"Eric S. Sande" > wrote:

>He didn't see you as an equal, in other words.
>
>>Do you really believe it's because of CM?
>
>I believe it's because of poor socialization and bad societal training
>exacerbated by a car centric society.

Driver mentality is poison to socialisation while the nature of cars
and their required infrastructure physically discourages it.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:58:18 GMT,
>,
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:

>
>This has nothing to do with CM. He stopped because he thought he was doing
>you a favor.

How 'bout the guy who sped up to pass me four car-lengths before a
4-way stop. Then he cut to the right. I figure he's going to turn.
He's braking and I am too because I'm right behind him now. Okay, he's
stopping, I'm dribbling along. Clear sight lines. No approaching
traffic anywhere. Okay, he's still stopped and watching me in the
mirror. I'm on him and doing a track stand. His backup lights come on.
I dab. I'm looking right at the guy in his mirror and figuring out how
I'm gonna ditch the bike and climb onto his trunk lid. He puts it into
drive and proceeds normally.

WTF was that?

I'm still trying to nail down examples to support this popular
backlash myth before I'll even stick my neck out attributing it to any
particular groups or other individual cyclists.
--
zk

[Buck]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...

> How 'bout the guy who sped up to pass me four car-lengths before a
> 4-way stop. Then he cut to the right. I figure he's going to turn.
> He's braking and I am too because I'm right behind him now. Okay, he's
> stopping, I'm dribbling along. Clear sight lines. No approaching
> traffic anywhere. Okay, he's still stopped and watching me in the
> mirror. I'm on him and doing a track stand. His backup lights come on.
> I dab. I'm looking right at the guy in his mirror and figuring out how
> I'm gonna ditch the bike and climb onto his trunk lid. He puts it into
> drive and proceeds normally.
>
> WTF was that?
>
> I'm still trying to nail down examples to support this popular
> backlash myth before I'll even stick my neck out attributing it to any
> particular groups or other individual cyclists.

What you just described sounds like the kind of backlash a crazy person
might use to get back at a CM rider. Perhaps he recognized you from your
last traffic jam....

-Buck

[Bernie]

Buck wrote:

> "Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > How 'bout the guy who sped up to pass me four car-lengths before a
> > 4-way stop. Then he cut to the right. I figure he's going to turn.
> > He's braking and I am too because I'm right behind him now. Okay, he's
> > stopping, I'm dribbling along. Clear sight lines. No approaching
> > traffic anywhere. Okay, he's still stopped and watching me in the
> > mirror. I'm on him and doing a track stand. His backup lights come on.
> > I dab. I'm looking right at the guy in his mirror and figuring out how
> > I'm gonna ditch the bike and climb onto his trunk lid. He puts it into
> > drive and proceeds normally.
> >
> > WTF was that?
> >
> > I'm still trying to nail down examples to support this popular
> > backlash myth before I'll even stick my neck out attributing it to any
> > particular groups or other individual cyclists.
>
> What you just described sounds like the kind of backlash a crazy person
> might use to get back at a CM rider. Perhaps he recognized you from your
> last traffic jam....
>
> -Buck

He couldna recognized him thru his dino suit!

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:36:21 GMT,
>,
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:

>>
>> I'm still trying to nail down examples to support this popular
>> backlash myth before I'll even stick my neck out attributing it to any
>> particular groups or other individual cyclists.
>
>What you just described sounds like the kind of backlash a crazy person
>might use to get back at a CM rider. Perhaps he recognized you from your
>last traffic jam....

Oh goodie, I'm glad it's that simply, though imaginatively, resolved.

But why are you so ready to excuse the jerk by pleading his sanity or
painting him as some righteous avenger? And tell me how exactly is a
"CM rider" is supposed to look?
--
zk

[Eric S. Sande]

>And tell me how exactly is a "CM rider" is supposed to look?

Stylish, man, stylish.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:16:58 -0400, >,
"Eric S. Sande" > wrote:

>>And tell me how exactly is a "CM rider" is supposed to look?
>
>Stylish, man, stylish.

Yeah, that was probably the problem. I might have looked too much like
a cop in my yellow jacket, black mutt, socks and shorts.

Or he may have been reacting to the "CARS SUCK" sticker.
In that case, all the stop sign running cyclists, regardless of how
they're dressed for whatever disease ride or racing fantasy they're
'training' for, are exonerated.

I just dismissed him as some wannabe traffic-vigilante type by
dramatically expectorating on the road in his general direction.
--
zk

[Eric S. Sande]

>I just dismissed him as some wannabe traffic-vigilante type by
>dramatically expectorating on the road in his general direction.

Well, that's as may be, but you understand that I'm always trying
to raise your consciousness in the universal road use direction.

I just can't believe there's an urban road cyclist out there who
believes CM is a good thing.

I think you hate cars too much, think of them as road furniture.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Eric S. Sande" > writes:

> I just can't believe there's an urban road cyclist out there who
> believes CM is a good thing.

There's no such thing as bad publicity ;-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Buck]

"Baka Dasai" > wrote in message
> This is termed "corking", and is done to ensure the mass doesn't get
> broken up. If this offends your sense of vehicular cycling, think
> of the mass as a single vehicle that requires a longer-than-usual
> traffic light cycle to get through an intersection.

Call it what you want, but it is illegal and shows the world how CMers think
theat the laws don't apply to them. If you want to do this kind of thing,
then do it legally - go get a parade permit and have the intersections
blocked with barricades. Oh yeah, I bet you can't get a parade permit for
rush hour on a Friday. Perhaps there is a reason for that, no?

The CMers are a bunch of hypocrites. They want to show that they are part of
traffic, yet they block traffic. They want to call it a rolling party until
the law gets involved and then they become "protestors." They flaunt their
ability to break the laws then whine when there are repercussions. They
claim they are making a difference, yet can't comprehend that there might be
a backlash against what they do. Which is it? They lay claim to any positive
feeback yet deny all negative feedback.

These folks need to decide who they are, what they stand for, how far they
are really willing to go to make their point, and then take responsibility
for their actions, whether the results are good or bad.

-Buck

[Buck]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm still trying to nail down examples to support this popular
> >> backlash myth before I'll even stick my neck out attributing it to any
> >> particular groups or other individual cyclists.
> >
> >What you just described sounds like the kind of backlash a crazy person
> >might use to get back at a CM rider. Perhaps he recognized you from your
> >last traffic jam....
>
> Oh goodie, I'm glad it's that simply, though imaginatively, resolved.
>
> But why are you so ready to excuse the jerk by pleading his sanity or
> painting him as some righteous avenger? And tell me how exactly is a
> "CM rider" is supposed to look?

Well, you got what you were looking for, didn't you? Let's quote you again,
"I'm still trying to nail down examples to support this popular backlash
myth...." If you weren't fishing for someone to respond that this is a
backlash against CM, then what were you doing?

Who excused him for anything? Your point of view is once again coloring what
you read. You gave an example of bad behavior. It was in the context of a
discussion about negative repercussions from CM. You even suggested that
this might be an example which supports the backlash "myth." So when someone
finally tells you that it could be, you put on your suit of indignation and
say that by confirming your suspicions we are 1) excusing his actions, 2)
suggesting that his actions are an act of riteousness, 3) pigenholing all CM
riders into some sort of recognizable "look."

So, you had an encounter with a moron in a truck. As you present the story,
you did nothing wrong and I believe you. Something had to motivate his
actions. You are a participant in CM and you have a recognizable bicycle.
You have stated before that you go out of your way to make sure people see
the most recognizable element, a "cars suck" sticker mounted prominently on
the fender. The moron had ample opportunity to observe said sticker as he
passed you. Thus the conclusion that perhaps he did recognize YOU from
something YOU did. Or he could just be a moron in a truck who thinks it's
fun to harrass cyclists.

If you talk to the folks that work in an emergency room, they will tell you
that things just get crazier during the full moon. Perhaps the case load is
different, but statistically, they are no more busy during the full moon
than other days of the month. As cyclists we interact with autos on a daily
basis. Perhaps there is no proof that CM causes a backlash (and it would be
difficult to prove anyway), but it has been observed, as has been posted
here several times, that traffic reacts differently (and not in a positive
way) after a CM ride.

-Buck

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article btec.net>,
Baka Dasai > wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:26:51 GMT, Buck said (and I quote):
>> "Baka Dasai" > wrote in message
>>> This is termed "corking", and is done to ensure the mass doesn't get
>>> broken up. If this offends your sense of vehicular cycling, think
>>> of the mass as a single vehicle that requires a longer-than-usual
>>> traffic light cycle to get through an intersection.
>>
>> Call it what you want, but it is illegal and shows the world how CMers think
>> theat the laws don't apply to them.
>
>It's not necessarily illegal.
>
>In my home town of Sydney, Australia, velocops accompany the mass, and
>fully approve of the corking.

I think it's important to make some distinctions here: "legal" is not
the same thing as "law enforcement thinks it's legal", which is not the
same thing as "law enforcement is willing to go along with it."

>In fact, the velocops get a bit tetchy if the corking isn't being done
>properly as they are very concerned to ensure that cars don't enter the
>mass. They see it as simply a safety issue - corking makes the mass
>safe.

I'd be curious to see any hard evidence on the safety issue. Cyclists
who do ride daily as a "critical mass of one", surrounded mostly by
motor vehicles, and who seem to mostly do OK, may find it hard to
believe that car-bike mixtures really raise such a huge safety problems.

There are also obvious safety disadvantages to being in a big crowd of
densely packed probably not terribly disciplined cyclists. Probably
it's not a big deal. On balance, perhaps the mass is a little safer
without cars mixed in; I really have no idea. Which is why I'd be
interested in evidence either way.

But it seems unlikely that the difference in safety, whatever it may be,
is really that huge. And I'm a little worried that bike cops who are
"very concerned to ensure that cars don't enter the mass" may also
discourage the reverse situation--single bicyclists commuting with
mainly motor vehicle traffic.

--Bruce Fields

[Hunrobe]

>Baka Dasai

wrote:

>Hunrobe said (and I quote):
>> OTOH if you are one of the C-Mers that does idiotic things like
>> intentionally blocking intersections with *stationary* bikes
>
>This is termed "corking", and is done to ensure the mass doesn't get
>broken up. If this offends your sense of vehicular cycling, think
>of the mass as a single vehicle that requires a longer-than-usual
>traffic light cycle to get through an intersection.

Corking is a direct contradiction of the statement, "We are traffic". Are
cyclists only "traffic" when we are in a large group? That's what corking would
seem to imply.
But I wasn't referring to corking. I was referring to a description of a
particular incident that the poster I was replying to had posted in the summer
of 2002. In that instance a C-M ride had simply stopped in a major
intersection. The riders had then dismounted and spent close to 30 minutes
mingling and talking in the roadway. If that isn't a statement of, "To hell
with anyone trying to get through this intersection. There are enough of us
here that we can do whatever we like. Might makes right." I don't know what is.


Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:47:45 GMT,
>,
"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:

> Perhaps there is no proof that CM causes a backlash (and it would be
>difficult to prove anyway),

Then why continue spewing it? Without proof, it's a myth. It's your
movie. Fantasyland material you created to shift the blame for
drivers' ****ty attitudes.

>but it has been observed, as has been posted
>here several times, that traffic reacts differently (and not in a positive
>way) after a CM ride.

And I'm saying that's bulldadda. A figment of overactive imaginations
on the part of persons who, without having any direct experience,
decided CM is a bad thing because it doesn't conveniently fit into
their world view.

I gave putznutz a plausible out by suggesting he may have been
reacting to a sticker or just a random self-righteous asswipe on a
mission instead of suggesting, without any proof, that his behaviour
was excusable because he may have at some time past been delayed by a
CM ride in which I may have participated.

Why couldn't his stupidity have been a reaction to some roadies
blatant disregard for traffic laws when they're out training? Or maybe
his panties get wadded over curb-jumping BMX riders. To zealously lay
blame for the caged jerks reactions directly at the feet of CM seems
to be your mission. And you seem to think it's okay to do because 'CM
riders' have an identifiable look you apparently don't like.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

12 Jul 2003 16:16:38 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

> I was referring to a description of a
>particular incident that the poster I was replying to had posted in the summer
>of 2002. In that instance a C-M ride had simply stopped in a major
>intersection. The riders had then dismounted and spent close to 30 minutes
>mingling and talking in the roadway. If that isn't a statement of, "To hell
>with anyone trying to get through this intersection. There are enough of us
>here that we can do whatever we like. Might makes right." I don't know what is.
>
How about instead of CM riders you see them as people saying, "We've
had it with your cars dominating public space at the peril of our
lives".
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

> Zoot Katz

wrote:

>How about instead of CM riders you see them as people saying, "We've
>had it with your cars dominating public space at the peril of our
>lives".

The "public space" you are referring to is a roadway. Roadways exist to
facilitate getting from Point A to Point B. If one wants to block the public
right of way to hold a block party, street festival, parade, or protest then
they should apply for a permit. If they don't do that and instead just say, "We
can deny the rest of the public the right of freedom of movement because we are
special." then I don't care what they call themselves. I call them knotheads.
The inconsiderate jerks that doublepark next to each other and block the entire
street while they talk are knotheads. The pedestrians that stroll across the
road against a "do not walk" light are knotheads. People that lay their bikes
down in the middle of a major intersection so they can spend a half an hour
congratulating one another for successfully ****ing off the other road users
trying to get through that intersection are also knotheads.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Buck]

Zoot Katz > wrote in message >...
> Sat, 12 Jul 2003 12:47:45 GMT,
> >,
> "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps there is no proof that CM causes a backlash (and it would be
> >difficult to prove anyway),
>
> Then why continue spewing it? Without proof, it's a myth. It's your
> movie. Fantasyland material you created to shift the blame for
> drivers' ****ty attitudes.

It's simple. I don't like CM tactics. Period. If you claim that I have
no proof of the harm CM does, then neither can you make any claims
about the effectiveness of the rides. You can't have it both ways,
Zoot.

>
> >but it has been observed, as has been posted
> >here several times, that traffic reacts differently (and not in a positive
> >way) after a CM ride.
>
> And I'm saying that's bulldadda. A figment of overactive imaginations
> on the part of persons who, without having any direct experience,
> decided CM is a bad thing because it doesn't conveniently fit into
> their world view.

Perhaps you are so accustomed to getting accosted that you cannot tell
the difference the day after a CM ride. I wonder about someone who has
so many stories about how bad drivers are. I have been hit by a car
ONCE, yet I can only think of one time that someone has purposely
accosted me on my bike and only three other really stupid moves by
drivers that put me at risk. But the one attack came the day after a
CM ride. I maintain the position that CM rides cannot do any good
because of the tactics they use, nothing more.


> I gave putznutz a plausible out by suggesting he may have been
> reacting to a sticker or just a random self-righteous asswipe on a
> mission instead of suggesting, without any proof, that his behaviour
> was excusable because he may have at some time past been delayed by a
> CM ride in which I may have participated.

Have you forgotten how to read? Perhaps your anger has elevated your
blood pressure to the point where you cannot comprehend what you are
reading. Let me put this into caps so you don't miss it: NOBODY HAS
SAID THAT ANY OF THE BEHAVIORS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED ARE EXCUSABLE!!!!!
Sheesh. Why is it that any time someone opposes your point of view,
they are immediately viewed by you as supporting assault with an
automobile? The question at hand is WHY he did it, not whether or not
it was an appropriate behavior.

> Why couldn't his stupidity have been a reaction to some roadies
> blatant disregard for traffic laws when they're out training? Or maybe
> his panties get wadded over curb-jumping BMX riders. To zealously lay
> blame for the caged jerks reactions directly at the feet of CM seems
> to be your mission. And you seem to think it's okay to do because 'CM
> riders' have an identifiable look you apparently don't like.

For all anyone knows, he has a deep-seated fear of cyclists and feels
the need to intimidate them every chance he gets. My mission here is
to point out that the tactics CM uses are objectionable to a large
number of drivers as well as other cyclists. I do not suggest that
every objectionable driver action is a direct result of CM actions.
But I do realize that CM is more likely to get a bad reaction than a
good one. Which rider is most likely to set off a moron like you
describe? The rider that gathers with hundreds of others to cause a
traffic jam, or the one that he passes without incident?

Now as for why you are focused on the "look" of a CM cyclist, I cannot
say. I have pointed out that many put on costumes for the ride. Do you
deny this? In fact, I only mentioned the way CMers dress in two posts,
one over two years ago. Are you afraid that everyone has you
stereotyped somehow? From what I have seen and read, there is no
identifiable look to a CM rider. Well, other than the guy riding in a
dinosaur costume.

Part of my point is that there is no way to determine who was at the
last CM unless the driver recognizes the person or the bike. That's
why I said maybe he recognized YOU. Any backlash that occurs from a CM
ride will be aimed at any and all cyclists. In fact, it will likely be
the lone cyclist on an otherwise empty road so there aren't any
witnesses....

I suppose I wish that all CMers were required to wear a big flashing
CM banner all the time so that the blame for the traffic jam would be
placed on the right people. Are you starting to understand why I don't
appreciate CM tactics? They reflect on ME although I have nothing to
do with them!

-Buck

[Zoot Katz]

12 Jul 2003 17:33:14 -0700,
>,
(Buck) wrote:

>Have you forgotten how to read? Perhaps your anger has elevated your
>blood pressure to the point where you cannot comprehend what you are
>reading. Let me put this into caps so you don't miss it: NOBODY HAS
>SAID THAT ANY OF THE BEHAVIORS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED ARE EXCUSABLE!!!!!
>Sheesh. Why is it that any time someone opposes your point of view,
>they are immediately viewed by you as supporting assault with an
>automobile?

You said asswipe's actions could be the those of a crazy person.

Well, here we don't even let crazy people stand trial. They're excused
because they're crazy. That's why I said you were excusing his
behaviour by pleading his sanity.

You also are propounding that I, as an individual, was targeted
because I was recognised and remembered from some past event and so
now fukwad's actions become somehow justifiable.

Why can't you accept the guy was just a random idiot?

The day after any CM ride is always Saturday. You've said nothing to
convince me this supposed backlash exists anywhere outside your
imagination. You're projecting your own inability to come to terms
with CM onto others. You're using CM to excuse the assholes' behaviour
by shifting blame for their attitudes.

I'm not angry.
I'm laughing at the preposterous notion of your backlash boogey man.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

12 Jul 2003 21:14:26 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>
>>How about instead of CM riders you see them as people saying, "We've
>>had it with your cars dominating public space at the peril of our
>>lives".
>
>The "public space" you are referring to is a roadway. Roadways exist to
>facilitate getting from Point A to Point B. If one wants to block the public
>right of way to hold a block party, street festival, parade, or protest then
>they should apply for a permit. If they don't do that and instead just say, "We
>can deny the rest of the public the right of freedom of movement because we are
>special." then I don't care what they call themselves. I call them knotheads.

Any of the supposedly blocked road users could have exchanged their
mode of transport for one that is self-propelled and continued their
journey to Point B.

Nobody was infringing on that "right".

Their own mass prevented them from detouring.
Yep, knotheads everywhere.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:14:32 -0700,
>,
Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>
>If anyone has any proposals, suggestions, etc. for a meeting, toss them
>to me.

I won a gift certificate to donate to the occasion.
The first $100 worth of bike fuel at Subeez Cafe (891 Homer) is on me.

Pre or post race?
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:

>Any of the supposedly blocked road users could have exchanged their
>mode of transport for one that is self-propelled and continued their
>journey to Point B.
>
>Nobody was infringing on that "right".
>
>Their own mass prevented them from detouring.
>Yep, knotheads everywhere.

Hmmm. Let's change the situation just slightly. You are riding along on a 4
lane surface street when you come upon an intersection that is totally blocked.
Numerous car drivers have parked their vehicles haphazardly in that
intersection and are standing around talking. There's no crash involved and no
discernible reason why they are parked there. You intend to thread your way
through the mess but as soon you are spotted approaching the intersection the
owners of the parked cars stand in front of you blocking your way. Short of a
physical confrontation you can not proceed. Your choices are to:
1- wait until those blocking the intersection decide to leave or
2- to detour around them or
3- abandon your bicycle and proceed as a pedestrian.

Has your right to use the roadway been denied by those blocking it?
Are the blockers spontaneous free-spirited individuals who decided that
intersection was the perfect place to hold a conversation or are they simply
knotheads?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:

>My right to mobility, and that's all I have, hasn't been denied. I can
>go around them or pick up my bike and maybe go through them. Neither
>of which can be done with automobiles that then create their own
>traffic jam. There are public roads where various types of traffic,
>including pedestrians, are restricted though the destination is not
>prohibited and there remains other routes available.
>
>My point was that any drivers abandoning their vehicles could have
>proceeded in a self-propelled manner. AFAICT, their right to basic
>mobility wasn't being denied.
>
>Their automobiles' domination of the space was temporarily denied by
>their fellow citizens. Their privilege to drive on those public roads
>was being challenged hoping that they re-think their options.


I want to make sure that I understand you on this. Are you really saying that
you find no reason to fault those blocking your route in the hypothetical
situation I described? That you would abandon your bicycle there on the street
and continue to your destination as a pedestrian? Are you really the same Zoot
who has never had a problem with confronting rude or careless drivers in the
past? You've really mellowed! <g>
All kidding aside, I think that you know that you wouldn't be quite so
tolerant. It seems to me that you are simply trying to excuse unacceptable
behavior because you recognize the parallels between what I hypothesized and
what occurs on some C-M rides.
The hypothetical scenario was actually just a minor rewrite of what occurred on
the April 2001 Chicago C-M ride as reported at

www.chicagocriticalmass.org

Look in the rides section under "The Hold-up Ride". All I did was substitute
parked cars for stationary bikes and accept Bob Matter's time estimate instead
of using the 15 minute estimate given by the report's author.
C-M can continue to claim that those types of incidents are protests in a good
cause (actually they will continue to talk out of *both* sides of their mouth
on that subject- "It was a bona fide protest" versus "It was just a rolling
street party"- but that's another discussion) but I've yet to meet anyone that
can explain how such infantile behavior does anything to help the non-cycling
public get out of cars and on bikes. That is the professed goal of C-M, right?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Robert J. Matter]

Hunrobe wrote:
>
> The hypothetical scenario was actually just a minor rewrite of what occurred on
> the April 2001 Chicago C-M ride as reported at
>
> www.chicagocriticalmass.org
>
> Look in the rides section under "The Hold-up Ride". All I did was substitute
> parked cars for stationary bikes and accept Bob Matter's time estimate instead
> of using the 15 minute estimate given by the report's author.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. What 15 minute time estimate in what write up? Not here http://www.chicagocriticalmass.org/ridereports/april01writeup.html. And what is this "Bob Matter's time estimate" you are talking about?

> C-M can continue to claim that those types of incidents are protests in a good
> cause (actually they will continue to talk out of *both* sides of their mouth
> on that subject- "It was a bona fide protest" versus "It was just a rolling
> street party"- but that's another discussion)

It's not a protest OR a party, it's a protest AND a party.

> but I've yet to meet anyone that
> can explain how such infantile behavior does anything to help the non-cycling
> public get out of cars and on bikes. That is the professed goal of C-M, right?

Getting people to make wiser transportation choices than driving is one of many goals of CM. We would love it if they rode bikes, but we are also happy if they walk, take public transportation, rollerblade, etc.

The rides accomplish this by showing people that they can ride bikes to work or wherever and that people of all ages, sizes, races, religions, and classes can do it and they don't have to be athletes, wear spandex, or have an expensive bike. We also show them that biking is fun amongst other things, like building community. I often say to cagers and passersby during CM rides that "This is what a carfree world looks like; people talking to people face-to-face, not isolated in cars."

-Bob Matter
-----------
"Car culture is a lousy substitute for the real thing."
--Zoot Katz

[Hunrobe]

>"Robert J. Matter"

wrote in part:

>Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. What 15 minute time estimate in what write up? Not
>here http://www.chicagocriticalmass.org/ridereports/april01writeup.html. And
>what is this "Bob Matter's time estimate" you are talking about?

---snip----

Take another look at Chicago C-M's homepage at www.chicagocriticalmass.org.
Click on "The Rides".
Click on 2001.
Scroll down to April- "The Chicago Holdup Ride--- aka The Bike Shop Ride".
Notice the second bullet point there, right after "More photos and writeup by
Matt Kamenicki", the one boasting of the "15 minute liberation". Or was that
headline just more C-M hyperbole?
As for the "30 minute Bob Matter time estimate", as I recall that was the time
estimate you gave in a post around the time of the lunacy on the Ike. If my
memory is faulty I'll retract that part of my post.

>Getting people to make wiser transportation choices than driving is one of
>many goals of CM. We would love it if they rode bikes, but we are also happy
>if they walk, take public transportation, rollerblade, etc.
>
>The rides accomplish this by showing people that they can ride bikes to work
>or wherever and that people of all ages, sizes, races, religions, and classes
>can do it and they don't have to be athletes, wear spandex, or have an
>expensive bike. We also show them that biking is fun amongst other things,
>like building community. I often say to cagers and passersby during CM rides
>that "This is what a carfree world looks like; people talking to people
>face-to-face, not isolated in cars."

This may well be what some C-M riders *intend* to accomplish. You and I simply
disagree on how effectively C-M rides accomplish that goal. You think it works.
I don't believe that it does.
I asked this question before but I still haven't gotten an answer from any C-M
supporter so I'll repeat it. Why can't C-M rides achieve their goals of raising
public awareness of cyclists as legitimate road users, encouraging alternative
methods of transportation, etc. without reverting to a "Might makes right. We
have the numbers that allow us to ride however and wherever we damn well
please." philosophy?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Robert J. Matter]

Hunrobe wrote:
>
> >"Robert J. Matter"
>
> wrote in part:
>
> >Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. What 15 minute time estimate in what write up? Not
> >here http://www.chicagocriticalmass.org/ridereports/april01writeup.html. And
> >what is this "Bob Matter's time estimate" you are talking about?
>
> ---snip----
>
> Take another look at Chicago C-M's homepage at www.chicagocriticalmass.org.
> Click on "The Rides".
> Click on 2001.
> Scroll down to April- "The Chicago Holdup Ride--- aka The Bike Shop Ride".
> Notice the second bullet point there, right after "More photos and writeup by
> Matt Kamenicki", the one boasting of the "15 minute liberation". Or was that
> headline just more C-M hyperbole?

Oh, that. I was there but I can't remember how long we were there exactly. 15 minutes seems a bit long, but it was a huge ride. I can't remember for sure but a cop may have come through there, parked his car in the intersection, and arrested someone, further adding to the delay. There's three stoplight cycles there too, Milwaukee, North, and Damen. Local residents and merchants are always happy to see us go by and calm that horrible intersection. And if you want to see delays, ride south on Milwaukee from that intersection some Friday or Saturday night around midnight or 1:00 a.m. and check out the solid line of double parked cars in front of all the night clubs.

> As for the "30 minute Bob Matter time estimate", as I recall that was the time
> estimate you gave in a post around the time of the lunacy on the Ike. If my
> memory is faulty I'll retract that part of my post.

I doubt I said any such thing. I took pictures of us entering and exiting I-290 that ride and they show us getting on at 19:22 and getting off at 19:27 for a grand total of 5 minutes. See

http://pages.prodigy.net/rjmatter/gallery/JUN29_07.gif
http://pages.prodigy.net/rjmatter/gallery/JUN29_16.gif

> >Getting people to make wiser transportation choices than driving is one of
> >many goals of CM. We would love it if they rode bikes, but we are also happy
> >if they walk, take public transportation, rollerblade, etc.
> >
> >The rides accomplish this by showing people that they can ride bikes to work
> >or wherever and that people of all ages, sizes, races, religions, and classes
> >can do it and they don't have to be athletes, wear spandex, or have an
> >expensive bike. We also show them that biking is fun amongst other things,
> >like building community. I often say to cagers and passersby during CM rides
> >that "This is what a carfree world looks like; people talking to people
> >face-to-face, not isolated in cars."
>
> This may well be what some C-M riders *intend* to accomplish. You and I simply
> disagree on how effectively C-M rides accomplish that goal. You think it works.
> I don't believe that it does.

The rides certainly are effective in getting the message out. How and when that message is acted upon is another matter, but the message is getting out, and any movement has to start with the message. We are trying to reverse decades of brainwashing by the auto companies and decades of auto dependent urban planning. Two solid CMers and now very good friends of mine learned about CM and the anti-car movement when they went to the Chicago Auto Show and saw CM anti-auto show protesters in front of McCormick Place and got flyers.

> I asked this question before but I still haven't gotten an answer from any C-M
> supporter so I'll repeat it. Why can't C-M rides achieve their goals of raising
> public awareness of cyclists as legitimate road users, encouraging alternative
> methods of transportation, etc. without reverting to a "Might makes right. We
> have the numbers that allow us to ride however and wherever we damn well
> please." philosophy?

Because CM is not about integrating with and accepting car culture. CM is about challenging car culture.

I suggest you read _Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration_ and watch these videos to get a better perspective of CM:

Return of the Scorcher
We Are Traffic
Bike Like U Mean It

-Bob Matter
-----------
"Antiwar activism nicely morphs off of the basic Critical Mass
message, which is that if a bicycle were everyone's main mode of
transportation, we would have less pollution, healthier bodies,
friendlier communities, safer streets, and independence from
foreign sources of oil." --Steven T. Jones, SF Bay Guardian

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article >,
Robert J. Matter > wrote:
>Hunrobe wrote:
>> I asked this question before but I still haven't gotten an answer from any C-M
>> supporter so I'll repeat it. Why can't C-M rides achieve their goals of raising
>> public awareness of cyclists as legitimate road users, encouraging alternative
>> methods of transportation, etc. without reverting to a "Might makes right. We
>> have the numbers that allow us to ride however and wherever we damn well
>> please." philosophy?
>
>Because CM is not about integrating with and accepting car culture. CM is about challenging car culture.

That's kind of a nonsequitor; I think Mr. Hunt's question was an
interesting one; could you answer it?

>I suggest you read _Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration_ and watch these videos to get a better perspective of CM:
>
> Return of the Scorcher
> We Are Traffic
> Bike Like U Mean It

I've read that book, though I haven't had the chance to see those movies.
I think critical mass is interesting, but I still don't know whether to
think it's a good idea. Part of the problem I have is that the people
who write about it seem more interested in waxing eloquent than making
clear arguments.

--Bruce Fields

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:06:44 -0700,
>,
Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

>To meet, I recommend that we try to rendezvous at the sharp end of the
>racecourse, on Water St., just across from the VIP area:
>
>http://www.tourdegastown.com/images/course2003.gif
>
>We'll try to meet before and after the races there, and anyone who
>misses that meeting can see us at Subeez at, say, 9:15? 9:30?

Great, that sounds easy enough.

Now all we've got to do is brow beat these non-commital types into
compliance.
--
zk

[J. Bruce Fields]

In article >,
Robert J. Matter > wrote:
>"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Because CM is not about integrating with and accepting car culture.
>CM is about challenging car culture.
>>
>> That's kind of a nonsequitor; I think Mr. Hunt's question was an
>> interesting one; could you answer it?
>
>What part of "CM is not about integrating with and accepting car
>culture" don't you understand?

What I don't understand is how it answers Mr. Hunt's original question:

>> Why can't C-M rides achieve their goals of raising public awareness
>> of cyclists as legitimate road users, encouraging alternative methods
>> of transportation, etc. without reverting to a "Might makes right.
>> We have the numbers that allow us to ride however and wherever we
>> damn well please." philosophy?

Robert J. Matter again:
>You could try riding in CM to experience it instead of depending on
>others' interpretations too!

I have, though in a small town with a critical mass that may not be
particularly representative of critical masses elsewhere. The people
involved in it are great people and enthusiastic about what they do.
But I still don't really understand the point of it.

--Bruce F.

[Hunrobe]

>"Robert J. Matter"

wrote in answer to:


>Why can't C-M rides achieve their goals of raising
>> public awareness of cyclists as legitimate road users, encouraging
>alternative
>> methods of transportation, etc. without reverting to a "Might makes right.
>We
>> have the numbers that allow us to ride however and wherever we damn well
>> please." philosophy?
>
>Because CM is not about integrating with and accepting car culture. CM is
>about challenging car culture.
>
>I suggest you read _Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration_ and watch
>these videos to get a better perspective of CM:
>
> Return of the Scorcher
> We Are Traffic
> Bike Like U Mean It
>
>-Bob Matter


In other words, there really *is* no reason that the same message can't be
delivered without the silliness, selfishness, and outright stupidity attendant
to many of the C-M rides I've known. Thanks but no thanks then. I'll continue
to ride in a legal sane manner and to think poorly of those that act as if
might makes right.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

18 Jul 2003 17:33:59 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>Thanks but no thanks then. I'll continue
>to ride in a legal sane manner and to think poorly of those that act as if
>might makes right.

I thought that was the basis for US foreign policy.

It's precisely why I so detest drivers who more frequently than
cyclists display that exact behavioural characteristic. They're scum.
They're using their ****wagons as weapons for intimidating other road
users. The whole marketing of ever larger SUVs bears this out and
advertising glorifies it in order to flog more units.

Car culture is our society's most debilitating sickness.
--
zk

[Jacques Moser]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 15:19:25 +0000, Robert Haston wrote:


>
> Besides, how do you demonstrate nicely for bicycling? Ride around the
> Mega Mall parking lot after it closes so you don't inconvenience anyone?
>

You demonstrate nicely just by being many cyclists riding normally on the
road, I guess. But for many, this doesn't seem so easy to understand.

I have taken part enthusiastically to our first local CM, but month after
month the same scenario repeats itself and it starts ****ing me off.
The first time we blocked a roundabout by circling during 5 minutes was
fun. I mean, we had to do it, it was too tempting. But last time I went
they were still doing exactly the same thing, and kept half-riding through
town at about 6-8 km/h.

This is not what I expect from a CM. A CM should show that cyclists belong
to the road and are a normal component of the traffic. But riding at a
ridiculously low speed, on the contrary, shows every motorist that
bicycles are not serious vehicles.

To all car drivers who also are potential cyclists, the CM should suggest
"hey, what if I did like these guys and took the bike to come to work
tomorrow morning !". What it actually does is making cyclists look like
extremists and idiots, with which no reasonable people will want to
associate.

Jacques

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:51:53 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:

> It
>results in more ill-will towards me, and gives motorists justification
>for their abuses.

Perhaps you can explain how this acclaimed increase of "ill-will"
manifests itself. How do you differentiate it from the normal level of
"ill-will" these caged scum demonstrate toward other road users?
--
zk

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 16:03:01 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:51:53 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:
>
>> It
>>results in more ill-will towards me, and gives motorists justification
>>for their abuses.
>
>Perhaps you can explain how this acclaimed increase of "ill-will"
>manifests itself. How do you differentiate it from the normal level of
>"ill-will" these caged scum demonstrate toward other road users?


Provocative CM riders project a negative image of us cyclists to
non-cyclists. Does it matter to us cyclists individually? no, not
really. We get crap from motorists all the time; big deal.

Does it win us any support? ah, well now THERE'S a question.

-Luigi

[Hunrobe]

>Luigi de Guzman

wrote:

>Provocative CM riders project a negative image of us cyclists to
>non-cyclists. Does it matter to us cyclists individually? no, not
>really. We get crap from motorists all the time; big deal.
>
>Does it win us any support? ah, well now THERE'S a question.
>

You put it very well, Luigi. Just as in every other protest, demonstration,
what have you there are some C-Mers that participate solely to thumb their
collective noses at "The Man". For them, provoking anger is what its all about
because it validates them in their own eyes. Those of us that were around in
the '60s and early '70s remember their type well. The usual appellation used to
describe them was "dilletante".

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:14:52 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:

>Does it win us any support? ah, well now THERE'S a question.

What sort of support and from whom?
We live in a car centric culture and car centric economy.
We don't count.

I just got slammed by a dozed out scud jockey (the bike's ride able
but I ache) Right now I'm even less than my normally well disposed
self toward our societies' blind acceptance of driver's blatant
stupidity and flagrant deadly impunity.
--
zk

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:03:03 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:14:52 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:
>
>>Does it win us any support? ah, well now THERE'S a question.
>
>What sort of support and from whom?

I want motorists to respect me. I want people to get out of their
cars and think that, hey, cycling may not be such a bad idea after
all.

That's support. And I'm not going to get it by being an asshole to
them, thereby giving them carte blanche to continue justifying their
aggression towards non-automotive traffic.
>
>I just got slammed by a dozed out scud jockey (the bike's ride able
>but I ache) Right now I'm even less than my normally well disposed
>self toward our societies' blind acceptance of driver's blatant
>stupidity and flagrant deadly impunity.

Ouch. How did they get you?

When something similar happend to me in London, I was so dazed, my
mind fell back to what it thought were priorities:

1) get my road rash patched up. Luckily, I was nudged right in front
of a hospital.
2) Get my bike going agian. No biggie here--straightened the bars,
retightened the stem (lucky I was carrying the appropriate allen key
in m bag)
3) Get to the library to return the books I'd borrowed. (The original
reason for the trip)

In hindsight, I should have insisted on the police arriving and filing
an accident report. I seem to remember a bunch of passers-by asking
if I wanted to do that, but I was dizzy and buzzing on adrenaline, and
wasn't thinking right.

-Luigi

[David Reuteler]

Luigi de Guzman > wrote:
> In hindsight, I should have insisted on the police arriving and filing
> an accident report. I seem to remember a bunch of passers-by asking
> if I wanted to do that, but I was dizzy and buzzing on adrenaline, and
> wasn't thinking right.

yep. call the police. if someone goes all road-ragey on you call the cops
as well .. at the very least it'll make ya feel better.
--
david reuteler

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:23:10 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:03:03 -0700, Zoot Katz >
>wrote:
>
>>Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:14:52 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:
>>
>>>Does it win us any support? ah, well now THERE'S a question.
>>
>>What sort of support and from whom?
>
>I want motorists to respect me. I want people to get out of their
>cars and think that, hey, cycling may not be such a bad idea after
>all.
>
>That's support. And I'm not going to get it by being an asshole to
>them, thereby giving them carte blanche to continue justifying their
>aggression towards non-automotive traffic.
>>
Even the so-called cyclists posting here find ready made excuses for
not riding. I doubt you'll get many stunned lumps out of their cans
just by smiling and being Mr. Niceguy.
Drivers like making excuses for their aggression towards other
motorised traffic. We're the bottom of the pecking order.

As cyclists we're always going to be marginalised because we're
surrounded by a society that worships its stinking cars.

Vancouver's CM prides itself on being non-confrontational and fun
oriented. We just take back our streets for a couple of hours causing
less delay than the daily traffic jams they create for themselves.

If they can't deal with that then fukem. They deserve no respect from
me

>>I just got slammed by a dozed out scud jockey (the bike's ride able
>>but I ache) Right now I'm even less than my normally well disposed
>>self toward our societies' blind acceptance of driver's blatant
>>stupidity and flagrant deadly impunity.
>
>Ouch. How did they get you?
>
One that Eric's seen up close.
Nailed flat-footed in broad daylight by a backing van.
I can report that my recommendation to him at that time didn't work
quite well enough in this instance. The driver was oblivious to my
presence and backing at a determinedly rapid rate.

This one stopped at the sign. Heavy cross traffic had a green light.
His wheels were pointed straight ahead but I guessed he was turning
right and moved toward the left tire rut as he put on his right
signal. I was dabbed about 6 feet behind his van's back windows when
he put it into reverse, looked past me and started accelerating. I
screamed and back kicked about 2 bike lengths when he hit the front
wheel and knocked me down. The POS stopped rolling just before
crushing the rear wheel as I was desperately crabbing away.

Scumlump, to his credit and no little risk to his life, got out and
asked if I was okay, I said "NO". He asked if I wanted an ambulance.
"NO". He asked if my bike was okay and I said "NO, I don't know". That
was a mere formality fulfilling his legal obligations. Then he starts
with "Where'd you come from? I didn't see you. You shouldn't have been
there". His deserved response from me was a steady stream of insults
tying to incite the puke so I could choke him to death in self
defence. When I said, "I ought to sue your stupid ass" is when the
fukwit started claiming I ran into him!
Now that made me angry.

Long story short, cross-traffic stopped so he got back in his truck
and drove off. I phoned the police with the plate number and vehicle
description. Now I guess I'll have to wait and see if there's any
investigation. Nobody's even shown any interest taking a statement.
(Should I blame that demonstration of "respect" on CM?)

Thursday I've got an appointment with a claims adjuster.
Big deal
Ripped the mud flap off the front mudguard and feels like a tweaked
fork. Soaked and smashed some groceries in the pannier.

Took a piece of meat out of my ankle and I'm typing left handed.
My right wrist hurts from the knuckles to the elbow.
It keeps swelling and throbbing so I guess I'm going to have to go see
the croaker.

>When something similar happend to me in London, I was so dazed, my
>mind fell back to what it thought were priorities:
>
> 1) get my road rash patched up. Luckily, I was nudged right in front
>of a hospital.
>2) Get my bike going agian. No biggie here--straightened the bars,
>retightened the stem (lucky I was carrying the appropriate allen key
>in m bag)
>3) Get to the library to return the books I'd borrowed. (The original
>reason for the trip)
>
>In hindsight, I should have insisted on the police arriving and filing
>an accident report. I seem to remember a bunch of passers-by asking
>if I wanted to do that, but I was dizzy and buzzing on adrenaline, and
>wasn't thinking right.
>
The main thing on my mind was killing the big stupid ******* who'd
just run me down with his truck. The pain didn't even start until
after the adrenaline wore off.

--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

06 Jul 2004 20:32:36 GMT,
>, David Reuteler
> wrote:

>yep. call the police. if someone goes all road-ragey on you call the cops
>as well .. at the very least it'll make ya feel better.

I told the asswipe to call a cop but he decided to leave instead.
--
zk

[David Reuteler]

Zoot Katz > wrote:
> 06 Jul 2004 20:32:36 GMT,
> >, David Reuteler
> > wrote:
>
>>yep. call the police. if someone goes all road-ragey on you call the cops
>>as well .. at the very least it'll make ya feel better.
>
> I told the asswipe to call a cop but he decided to leave instead.

put your u-bolt through his window, he'll call the cops.
--
david reuteler

[Jym Dyer]

> Then he starts with "Where'd you come from? I didn't see you.
> You shouldn't have been there".

=v= When they say, "I didn't see you," they are admitting to
their own incompetence, negligence andn fault. Unfortunately,
our society is set up to accept that as an all-purpose excuse.

=v= Which is part of the reason we need Critical Mass.
<_Jym_>

http://www.critical-mass.org/

[Hunrobe]

>Jym Dyer

wrote:

>v= When they say, "I didn't see you," they are admitting to
>their own incompetence, negligence andn fault. Unfortunately,
>our society is set up to accept that as an all-purpose excuse.
>
>=v= Which is part of the reason we need Critical Mass.

You've ridden thousands of miles so I presume you have fallen when there were
no motor vehicles around. Using your reasoning- "the circumstances don't
matter, merely the result does"- those falls obviously were evidence of your
incompetence and negligence so you are a danger to yourself and others, hence
you should not be allowed to ride.
If non-cyclists actually read this NG you, ZK, and your fellow absolutists
would do nothing but harm to the promotion of cycling. Luckily for us, few if
any non-cyclists read your broad brush condemnations of all motorists as
incompetent and negligent or Zoot's hateful namecalling.
BTW, exactly *how* does C-M influence our society's members to accept
individual responsibility for their actions? It seems to me that the underlying
principle of "the mass" is diametrically opposed to acting as individuals,
including the acceptance of individual responsibility, i.e., "We can ride
anyway we want because there are so many of us it would be more disruptive of
traffic to stop us and enforce civil behavior than to simply allow us to
disrupt traffic as we will.". That's not one bit different than a motorist
saying, "I'm breaking the traffic laws but so is everyone else so I should get
away with it." Are you willing to accept every motorist's flaunting of the
standards we set for proper operation of a motor vehicle? If not, then you
should either acknowledge that some C-Mers deserve tickets and even arrest or
simply admit the inherent hypocrisy.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

(Tom Keats)

wrote:

>Furthermore,
>in the first post of this thread that appears in my newsreader's
>rec.bicycles.misc listing (where Al Simon replies to and quotes
>Dave Sutton,) Dave had given a number of press clippings which
>indicate this particular CM ride in question was actually
>sanctioned and overseen by the local police and other civic
>authorities. The gist of the press clippings is: nothing
>bad happened.

That's undoubtedly true. The question that remains however is, "Have C-M rides
had any *positive* impact on the public's perception of cyclists and cycling in
general?". Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
they do good, IMO they have not.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Hunrobe) writes:

> That's undoubtedly true. The question that remains however is, "Have C-M rides
> had any *positive* impact on the public's perception of cyclists and cycling in
> general?".

I can't speak for the rest of the world, because I haven't
been there yet. But I think C-M /has/ had a positive effect
here in Vancouver, where care is taken not to impinge on busier
traffic nodes. Of all the messages C-M conveys, alienating
messages such as "f you" are antithetical to what is desired.
I suppose C-M gives ammunition to the anti-cyclists (not that
they need any.) But I think vehement anti-cyclists are a small
minority; to the majority of people C-M is probably at worst
regarded with mild bemusement as only a bunch of flakes and
kooks, and transportational cycling is a decidedly uninteresting
non-issue. But every once in awhile I heartwarmingly hear of
somebody or other finally seeing the light.

> Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
> they do good, IMO they have not.

There has been violent and anti-social mob behaviour around
sporting events and rock concerts, too, but I don't regard
all hockey fans as a bunch of riotous boors.

I've been doing utility rides to & from my local supermarket
for a number of years, and for most of that time I've been
pretty well the only customer doing that. But lately I'm
noticing an increasing number of others doing so, too. Maybe
Critical Mass has something to do with it. Pretty soon I'll
be able to persuade the Buy Low to finally install some
bicycle racks.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:

> Thursday I've got an appointment with a claims adjuster.
> Big deal

Today's Thursday. So, what's the upshot? I hope the
word is good, and also that you're healing well. And that
the velocidal maniac has been tracked down.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Dan Daniel]

On 08 Jul 2004 22:23:40 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:


>
>That's undoubtedly true. The question that remains however is, "Have C-M rides
>had any *positive* impact on the public's perception of cyclists and cycling in
>general?". Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
>they do good, IMO they have not.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

Maybe look at it in a larger context. Critical Mass in San Francisco
had a major run-in with the police a few years ago, thanks to some
posturing by the mayor. The events are easily researched and that
isn't my concern.

A positive (to me) result of this period was that the San Francisco
Bicycle Coalition appeared to be a sane, sensible, centrist group in
comparison to Critical Mass. They were given attention and a voice
that I doubt they would have achieved if CM didn't force the issue. In
the years since, there has been a continued attention and development
of the role of bicyclists in the city's transportation.

(I know, for many people the SFBC getting the voice that it has is not
a positive thing, bike lanes are disasters, etc.)

I see this improvement in the last few years as being a direct result
of Critical Mass. Like I said, look at in a larger context- CM makes
little things like having the police take accident reports from
bicyclists rather than blow them off seem reasonable. Sometimes you
need the extremes to make the center get off its ass.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Dan Daniel > writes:

> A positive (to me) result of this period was that the San Francisco
> Bicycle Coalition appeared to be a sane, sensible, centrist group in
> comparison to Critical Mass. They were given attention and a voice
> that I doubt they would have achieved if CM didn't force the issue.

Heh.
The ol' 'good guy/bad guy' routine :-)

Not really. I'm just being facetious.

But I do think the Critical Mass movement has matured
in many ways since those earlier days. And it has
become more of a known quantity to the authorities.
I think both of these factors serve to inhibit the
possibilities of fractious confrontations erupting,
nowadays.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Hunrobe]

(Tom Keats)

wrote:

>I can't speak for the rest of the world, because I haven't
>been there yet. But I think C-M /has/ had a positive effect
>here in Vancouver, where care is taken not to impinge on busier
>traffic nodes. Of all the messages C-M conveys, alienating
>messages such as "f you" are antithetical to what is desired.
>I suppose C-M gives ammunition to the anti-cyclists (not that
>they need any.) But I think vehement anti-cyclists are a small
>minority; to the majority of people C-M is probably at worst
>regarded with mild bemusement as only a bunch of flakes and
>kooks, and transportational cycling is a decidedly uninteresting
>non-issue. But every once in awhile I heartwarmingly hear of
>somebody or other finally seeing the light.
>
>> Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
>> they do good, IMO they have not.
>
>There has been violent and anti-social mob behaviour around
>sporting events and rock concerts, too, but I don't regard
>all hockey fans as a bunch of riotous boors.
>
>I've been doing utility rides to & from my local supermarket
>for a number of years, and for most of that time I've been
>pretty well the only customer doing that. But lately I'm
>noticing an increasing number of others doing so, too. Maybe
>Critical Mass has something to do with it. Pretty soon I'll
>be able to persuade the Buy Low to finally install some
>bicycle racks.

Overall, I'd agree that most of your observations apply here in Chicago as
well.

>Of all the messages C-M conveys, alienating
>messages such as "f you" are antithetical to what is desired.

Agreed.

>I suppose C-M gives ammunition to the anti-cyclists (not that
>they need any.)

Agreed.

> But I think vehement anti-cyclists are a small
>minority; to the majority of people C-M is probably at worst
>regarded with mild bemusement as only a bunch of flakes and
>kooks, and transportational cycling is a decidedly uninteresting
>non-issue.

And agreed. So it seems that the only good things to be said are that:

1) C-M rides are enjoyable and
2) *maybe* C-M has had an unproveable and unquantifiable positive effect on an
unknown number of people.

unless of course being marginalized as a bunch of flakes and kooks qualifies as
a good thing.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Hunrobe) writes in part:

> And agreed. So it seems that the only good things to be said are that:
>
> 1) C-M rides are enjoyable and
> 2) *maybe* C-M has had an unproveable and unquantifiable positive effect on an
> unknown number of people.

At any rate, Critical Mass isn't nearly as bad as some make it
out to be, nor as bad as the impression some people have of it.

> unless of course being marginalized as a bunch of flakes and kooks qualifies as
> a good thing.

Cyclists are already marginalized in a number of ways, nonetheleast
in urban transportation planning. So I don't think there's much
of consequence to lose, and as Dan Daniel suggests, some things to
gain -- even as byproducts.


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Badger_South]

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:00:06 -0700, (Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article >,
> (Hunrobe) writes in part:
>
>> And agreed. So it seems that the only good things to be said are that:
>>
>> 1) C-M rides are enjoyable and
>> 2) *maybe* C-M has had an unproveable and unquantifiable positive effect on an
>> unknown number of people.
>
>At any rate, Critical Mass isn't nearly as bad as some make it
>out to be, nor as bad as the impression some people have of it.
>
>> unless of course being marginalized as a bunch of flakes and kooks qualifies as
>> a good thing.
>
>Cyclists are already marginalized in a number of ways, nonetheleast
>in urban transportation planning. So I don't think there's much
>of consequence to lose, and as Dan Daniel suggests, some things to
>gain -- even as byproducts.
>
>
>cheers,
> Tom

At the risk of being obvious, it would seem to me that due to such CM rides
just knowing that there are "x" numbers of fairly serious bikers in any
particular area/city/town would:
a) make the motorists realize, 'hey, they're here to stay and I had no idea
there were so many.' Subliminally at least it makes an impression;
hopefully positive, but at least that it's no longer a truck of bad boys or
soccer moms in hummers against a lone cyclist anymore. (duh)
b) it gives a sense of community and solidarity to the bikers, many of whom
might have felt 'it's just little ole me against the world'.

Even in a relatively major jogging center in these parts as C'ville, you
see a couple of joggers here and there, but you go to a local 10K and there
are hundreds! Same with bikers. I typically see a homey on a beach cruiser
or a couple of kids riding in the 'hood. Only rarely do I see a biker in
helmet, riding seriously, and I've never seen a peloton of any kind - but I
know they're out there. Point is the average person has no idea how popular
biking is in any area. (It might even get a convert or two, heh, you know
guys thinking about getting the ole 10speed down and getting back into it)

OK, dumb/redundant comment, and maybe 2 cents worth. ;-D

-B

[Hunrobe]

>Badger_South

wrote:

>At the risk of being obvious, it would seem to me that due to such CM rides
>just knowing that there are "x" numbers of fairly serious bikers in any
>particular area/city/town would:
>a) make the motorists realize, 'hey, they're here to stay and I had no idea
>there were so many.' Subliminally at least it makes an impression;
>hopefully positive, but at least that it's no longer a truck of bad boys or
>soccer moms in hummers against a lone cyclist anymore. (duh)
>b) it gives a sense of community and solidarity to the bikers, many of whom
>might have felt 'it's just little ole me against the world'.
>
>Even in a relatively major jogging center in these parts as C'ville, you
>see a couple of joggers here and there, but you go to a local 10K and there
>are hundreds! Same with bikers. I typically see a homey on a beach cruiser
>or a couple of kids riding in the 'hood. Only rarely do I see a biker in
>helmet, riding seriously, and I've never seen a peloton of any kind - but I
>know they're out there. Point is the average person has no idea how popular
>biking is in any area. (It might even get a convert or two, heh, you know
>guys thinking about getting the ole 10speed down and getting back into it)
>
>OK, dumb/redundant comment, and maybe 2 cents worth. ;-D
>
>-B

That's an awful lot of words to say, "Maybe it helps." ;-) You say maybe. I say
maybe not because exactly how many converts will be won by those that even Tom
described as being viewed as "only a bunch of flakes and kooks"?
Please note that Tom didn't describe C-M that way. He merely pointed out that
they are viewed that way by the majority. Mustn't we rely on that majority for
new "converts"?
BTW, there's a large group ride scheduled in Chicago this very weekend. It's
named the L.A.T.E. Ride (for "Long After Twilight Ends"). That ride will draw
in excess of 15,000 riders. As always, C-M will be there. One year they had
almost 100 riders present. That's 100 out of 15,000+ so if "knowing that there
are X numbers of fairly serious bikers" around is the measure of persuasion,
C-M is irrelevant at best.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:29:46 -0700, >,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article >,
> Zoot Katz > writes:
>
>> Thursday I've got an appointment with a claims adjuster.
>> Big deal
>
>Today's Thursday. So, what's the upshot? I hope the
>word is good, and also that you're healing well. And that
>the velocidal maniac has been tracked down.
>
At the ICBC office I locked my bike to a sign post ignoring the cast
concrete slots provided for bike parking. The receptionist recommended
I park the bike in their "bike rack". I told her that thing wasn't a
bike rack, it's a wheel bender and we agreed that my bike was staying
where it was.

Upshot is the medical expenses are covered for sure.
Croaker took notes and X-Rays.

Liability hasn't been determined. If he doesn't admit to backing-up
then I'll need a to find a witless to prove liability.

Save receipts for repairs under $200. Need authorisation for repairs
greater than that amount. Itchy-bitchy was most interested in
establishing my level and sources of income and medical history
involving previous injuries to that hand.

The police aren't interested. There is no property damage over some
set amount, like if my luxury scud had suffered a broken grille,
lights and paint scratches. There was no serious physical injury and
Goonus stopped so it's apparently no crime to run down people you
don't see as long as you stop to ask if they're okay afterward. It
seems to not matter what they answer.

Healing, yes. Nothing broken. I was able to shave today but still
can't open jars or doors. I did manage to get the front wheel axle
loosened so I could fiddle with it to see if it was just knocked wonky
in the fork ends but it still pulls to the left a tad. I'll have to
get somebody at OCB! to put the forks back in shape. A couple tire
patches and a new rivet got the mudflap back on. The whole deal's
going to cost me less than twenty bucks including the spilt creamo.
I've managed to adapt and perform most job related tasks thourghout.

Since there's no way they'll license me to smack the idiot a few times
with a two-by-four, there will be no satisfaction in it for me.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

07 Jul 2004 16:51:36 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>Zoot's hateful namecalling.

At least I've never called anyone a "dilletante".
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

10 Jul 2004 03:34:22 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

> As always, C-M will be there. One year they had
>almost 100 riders present. That's 100 out of 15,000+

Did you check their ID?
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

(Tom Keats)

wrote in part:

>At any rate, Critical Mass isn't nearly as bad as some make it
>out to be, nor as bad as the impression some people have of it.

We agree yet again, Tom. Scary, huh? :-)
My real beef with C-M isn't that I think they are horrible, evil, nasty people.
My beef is the too frequent claims on one hand that they are a serious advocacy
group on one hand while simultaneously crowing that C-M is all just one big
rolling party on the other. If they'd ever make up their mind *which* they are
I might even support them.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Badger_South]

On 10 Jul 2004 03:34:22 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

>
>That's an awful lot of words to say, "Maybe it helps." ;-) You say maybe. I say
>maybe not because exactly how many converts will be won by those that even Tom
>described as being viewed as "only a bunch of flakes and kooks"?
>Please note that Tom didn't describe C-M that way. He merely pointed out that
>they are viewed that way by the majority. Mustn't we rely on that majority for
>new "converts"?
>BTW, there's a large group ride scheduled in Chicago this very weekend. It's
>named the L.A.T.E. Ride (for "Long After Twilight Ends"). That ride will draw
>in excess of 15,000 riders. As always, C-M will be there. One year they had
>almost 100 riders present. That's 100 out of 15,000+ so if "knowing that there
>are X numbers of fairly serious bikers" around is the measure of persuasion,
>C-M is irrelevant at best.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

Yeah, I think I totally missed the C-M political component, and really was
thinking in terms of 'large group rides'.

Point taken. The 'misbehavior aspect' is definitely wrong, and if that's
C-M's agenda, then thanks for the heads up.

-B

[Badger_South]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 20:34:44 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>
>Healing, yes. Nothing broken. I was able to shave today but still
>can't open jars or doors. I did manage to get the front wheel axle
>loosened so I could fiddle with it to see if it was just knocked wonky
>in the fork ends but it still pulls to the left a tad. I'll have to
>get somebody at OCB! to put the forks back in shape. A couple tire
>patches and a new rivet got the mudflap back on. The whole deal's
>going to cost me less than twenty bucks including the spilt creamo.
>I've managed to adapt and perform most job related tasks thourghout.
>
>Since there's no way they'll license me to smack the idiot a few times
>with a two-by-four, there will be no satisfaction in it for me.
>--
>zk

Sorry to hear this has happened to you. Would it make any sense to go to a
'personal injury lawyer' and have them be your front man? You might be
surprised how much more 'oomph' you'd have in that case.

Yeah, I know, why let the lawyers make money. I'm just very upset for you
and you are not being treated right.

Hope things work out, sincerely, man.

Best,

-B

[Dan Daniel]

On 10 Jul 2004 03:45:53 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

(Tom Keats)
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>At any rate, Critical Mass isn't nearly as bad as some make it
>>out to be, nor as bad as the impression some people have of it.
>
>We agree yet again, Tom. Scary, huh? :-)
>My real beef with C-M isn't that I think they are horrible, evil, nasty people.
>My beef is the too frequent claims on one hand that they are a serious advocacy
>group on one hand while simultaneously crowing that C-M is all just one big
>rolling party on the other. If they'd ever make up their mind *which* they are
>I might even support them.
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

Heh heh.... See, you seem to think that Critical Mass is some sort of
group with a shared agenda and objectives. It's a common mistake, and
understandable, but it is a mistake nonetheless.

Critical Mass is an event. Once the ride is over, Critical Mass ceases
to exist until the next ride.

Now there are lots of people who take part in CM who will be happy to
explain what they think it is about, but they do not speak for any
coherent group.

So as to whether CM is a serious advocacy group *or* a big rolling
party, maybe it's both and many other things? Be careful who you
listen to. Sometimes it's closest to the anthropologist's informant- a
marginal person within the group who needs to go outside to find any
status.

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 10 Jul 2004 00:32:26 -0400,
>, Badger_South
> wrote:

> I'm just very upset for you
>and you are not being treated right.

Standard Operational Procedure #1.

Get used to it.
--
zk

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 23:49:00 -0700, Dan Daniel
> wrote:

>
>Critical Mass is an event. Once the ride is over, Critical Mass ceases
>to exist until the next ride.

....making it difficult, if not impossible, for even its own members,
however loosely-defined, to police themselves, eh?

-Luigi
still sentimental over Democratic Centralism

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:
>(Hunrobe) wrote:
>
>> As always, C-M will be there. One year they had
>>almost 100 riders present. That's 100 out of 15,000+
>
>Did you check their ID?
>--
>zk

No need to, Zoot. They (C-M) always go all out for this and the other truly
large rides in the area. Even if their use of megaphones and their parade float
trailer didn't identify them as C-M they'd be easy to pick out since they are
always the very last group to complete the ride. I'm not sure if they plan it
that way for maximum exposure or they simply can't manage to keep pace while
hauling all their junk. Besides, I attend those rides to *ride* not to ID the
mostly harmless pseudo-rebels.
BTW, the largest Chicago C-M ride I have ever seen consisted of about 250
riders. 250 riders is an impressive sight but here in the greater Chicago area
250 people is a microscopically small group and that of course was exactly my
point.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Badger_South

wrote in part:

>The 'misbehavior aspect' is definitely wrong, and if that's
>C-M's agenda, then thanks for the heads up.

The "misbehavior aspect" isn't on the agenda of *most* C-M participants, just
enough to tar every participant with the same brush. Unfair and inacurate? Yes,
but a very predictable and human response.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Dan Daniel

wrote in part:

>Critical Mass is an event. Once the ride is over, Critical Mass ceases
>to exist until the next ride.

Pffft! That's a self-serving and far too convenient statement designed by those
in the group that have an agenda to allow them to avoid standing up *alone* and
stating what they believe. It's so much easier to figuratively throw rocks from
the back of a crowd than to stand up for what you think is right all by
yourself.

>So as to whether CM is a serious advocacy group *or* a big rolling
>party, maybe it's both and many other things?

Using your reasoning- "It's made up of people with different opinions and
attitudes and exists only for as long as the event itself exists."- then every
political campaign structure can also be described in the same way. Does that
make political campaign staffs any less homogenous?

>Sometimes it's closest to the anthropologist's informant- a
>marginal person within the group who needs to go outside to find any
>status.

How does one qualify as "marginal person within a group" when according to you
the group doesn't really exist as a discrete entity except during the ride? Are
the marginal ones just slower than the other riders? <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Dan Daniel]

On 10 Jul 2004 20:22:00 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Dan Daniel
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>Critical Mass is an event. Once the ride is over, Critical Mass ceases
>>to exist until the next ride.
>
>Pffft! That's a self-serving and far too convenient statement designed by those
>in the group that have an agenda to allow them to avoid standing up *alone* and
>stating what they believe. It's so much easier to figuratively throw rocks from
>the back of a crowd than to stand up for what you think is right all by
>yourself.
>

Actually it's just the opposite of what you say. It means that anyone
who stands up and speaks speaks *alone,* speaks for themselves, not
for the group as a whole.

>>So as to whether CM is a serious advocacy group *or* a big rolling
>>party, maybe it's both and many other things?
>
>Using your reasoning- "It's made up of people with different opinions and
>attitudes and exists only for as long as the event itself exists."- then every
>political campaign structure can also be described in the same way. Does that
>make political campaign staffs any less homogenous?
>

Uh, political campaign staff are employed by some legally recognized
entity. I don't know what the status is of a campaign, but I am sure
that they have some legal business structure, keep records for various
government agencies, etc. When a political campaign wants to hold a
rally, they go get a permit. And a permit can be issued because there
is some legal entity recognized by the police as responsible. When
someone speaks for the campaign, they are articulating positions
developed and recognized by the formal decision-making process of the
campaign staff, which has legal standing.

So how is this similar to Critical Mass again?

>>Sometimes it's closest to the anthropologist's informant- a
>>marginal person within the group who needs to go outside to find any
>>status.
>
>How does one qualify as "marginal person within a group" when according to you
>the group doesn't really exist as a discrete entity except during the ride? Are
>the marginal ones just slower than the other riders? <g>
>
>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

A group of people gather, and someone wants them to do, let's say,
'A.' He has flyers, pamphlets, speeches all ready. And yet his
proposals are ignored and the ride goes on a different route, behaves
in a different manner than he proposed. But when a news camera shows
up, he presents himself as speaking for CM, say. The point being, when
you hear someone speak 'for' CM, they aren't. They are speaking for
themselves.

[Bob Hunt]

Zoot Katz > wrote in message >...
> 07 Jul 2004 16:51:36 GMT,
> >,
> (Hunrobe) wrote:
>
> >Zoot's hateful namecalling.
>
> At least I've never called anyone a "dilletante".

So instead of answering the question posed, "Does C-M actually achieve
anything positive for cycling?" or even just defending your hateful
namecalling you choose to criticize a spelling error. I guess that
leads to three logical conclusions:
1) You either don't believe C-M has any positive effect on cycling or
you simply can't explain that effect or give any examples of it.
2) You think it is acceptable to stereotype groups and apply less than
flattering names to all of it's members.
3) I should use a spellcheck program.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Dan Daniel]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 11:51:00 -0400, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 23:49:00 -0700, Dan Daniel
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Critical Mass is an event. Once the ride is over, Critical Mass ceases
>>to exist until the next ride.
>
>...making it difficult, if not impossible, for even its own members,
>however loosely-defined, to police themselves, eh?
>
>-Luigi
>still sentimental over Democratic Centralism
>

Well, during the rides, people will sure let you know if you have just
run them over! Is that the kind of self-policing you are looking for?
:)

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:

> Upshot is the medical expenses are covered for sure.

Well, that's a good start, at least.

> Croaker took notes and X-Rays.
>
> Liability hasn't been determined. If he doesn't admit to backing-up
> then I'll need a to find a witless to prove liability.

I recall a few years ago some scam ring got caught backing
their cars up into cars behind them, and then claiming they
were run into. They got caught only because they were too
consistent, and previous records looked too similar. It seems
as far as ICBC is concerned, in anything that remotely looks
like a rear-ender, the person behind is automatically liable;
case closed.

....

> Healing, yes. Nothing broken.

Thank goodness for that.

> I was able to shave today but still
> can't open jars or doors. I did manage to get the front wheel axle
> loosened so I could fiddle with it to see if it was just knocked wonky
> in the fork ends but it still pulls to the left a tad. I'll have to
> get somebody at OCB! to put the forks back in shape. A couple tire
> patches and a new rivet got the mudflap back on. The whole deal's
> going to cost me less than twenty bucks including the spilt creamo.
> I've managed to adapt and perform most job related tasks thourghout.
>
> Since there's no way they'll license me to smack the idiot a few times
> with a two-by-four, there will be no satisfaction in it for me.

It's tempting to believe this was more a matter of malice than
ignorance (or dimwittedness) on the driver's part. Unless he
honestly believes a right turn signal means "I'm backing up."
Pffft. And cyclists get accused of unpredictability. But I
think he'll get his come-uppance in some poetic justice way,
sooner or later. Especially if he drives like that all the time.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Claire Petersky]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...

> Took a piece of meat out of my ankle and I'm typing left handed.
> My right wrist hurts from the knuckles to the elbow.
> It keeps swelling and throbbing so I guess I'm going to have to go see
> the croaker.

Sorry to hear of your injuries. I generally don't read CM threads, so I
guess I'm late in my sympathies, here.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Hunrobe]

>Dan Daniel

wrote in part:

>>How does one qualify as "marginal person within a group" when according to
>you
>>the group doesn't really exist as a discrete entity except during the ride?
>Are
>>the marginal ones just slower than the other riders? <g>
>>


>A group of people gather, and someone wants them to do, let's say,
>'A.' He has flyers, pamphlets, speeches all ready. And yet his
>proposals are ignored and the ride goes on a different route, behaves
>in a different manner than he proposed. But when a news camera shows
>up, he presents himself as speaking for CM, say. The point being, when
>you hear someone speak 'for' CM, they aren't. They are speaking for
>themselves.

This sounds suspiciously like you are saying that *all* C-Mers are "marginal"
members of the group. An interesting concept... not at all related to any known
theory of group dynamics, human or otherwise... but interesting.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Hunrobe) writes:
(Tom Keats)
>
> wrote in part:
>
>>At any rate, Critical Mass isn't nearly as bad as some make it
>>out to be, nor as bad as the impression some people have of it.
>
> We agree yet again, Tom. Scary, huh? :-)
> My real beef with C-M isn't that I think they are horrible, evil, nasty people.
> My beef is the too frequent claims on one hand that they are a serious advocacy
> group on one hand while simultaneously crowing that C-M is all just one big
> rolling party on the other. If they'd ever make up their mind *which* they are
> I might even support them.

Well, I've never actually actively participated in a Critical Mass
ride, I've just observed them from the sidelines. Abiding by traffic
law /is/ an issue to me. For one thing, riding two or more abreast on
the roadway is unlawful here. And while I'm somewhat gregarious, I
prefer herds where I know enough people in them to be able to readily
spot them in the throng, so I tend to shy away from such all-&-sundry
gatherings.

I've mentally wrestled with all the spirit of the law vs letter of
the law rationalizations, but that's all they ultimately boil down
to for me -- rationalizations. For example, one of our bridges has
an extra wide turnoff (Burrard Bridge, northbound onto Pacific Ave.)
It's only supposed to be single lane, but since it's so wide, drivers
use it as a double lane (two abreast), and they get regularly away
with it. It has become accepted behaviour. But I guess just because
something is de facto-ly accepted, doen't necessarily make it right.
A lot of pedestrians and cyclists have been clobbered by cars at the
Burrard/Pacific intersection.

So, I'm a torn & somewhat anguished fence-sitter. I support Critical
Mass enough to enjoy any pro-cycling benefits it may provide, but not
enough to discard or suspend my own self-inflicted ideas about civil
behaviour in traffic.

If I actively participate in Critical Mass, I'd be an hypocrite
for not living up to my own lights. If I don't participate, I'm
an hypocrite for just giving it lip-service support.

Ironically, if a public urban downtown ride was held where every
rider followed the letter of the law to a T, that could really
bugger things up for the drivers, and really **** them off.
But that's not the goal. If it was, that's what Critical Mass
would do. Au contraire, CM takes pains to attenuate their
impact on the traffic environment.

And advocacy doesn't necessarily have to be deadpan, un-fun-ly
serious. That's just for Bicycle Advisory Committees ;-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:46:37 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

>
>
>If I actively participate in Critical Mass, I'd be an hypocrite
>for not living up to my own lights. If I don't participate, I'm
>an hypocrite for just giving it lip-service support.

Proably true of most of us.

-Luigi

[Hunrobe]

(Tom Keats)

wrote:

>Well, I've never actually actively participated in a Critical Mass
>ride, I've just observed them from the sidelines. Abiding by traffic
>law /is/ an issue to me. For one thing, riding two or more abreast on
>the roadway is unlawful here. And while I'm somewhat gregarious, I
>prefer herds where I know enough people in them to be able to readily
>spot them in the throng, so I tend to shy away from such all-&-sundry
>gatherings.
>
>I've mentally wrestled with all the spirit of the law vs letter of
>the law rationalizations, but that's all they ultimately boil down
>to for me -- rationalizations. For example, one of our bridges has
>an extra wide turnoff (Burrard Bridge, northbound onto Pacific Ave.)
>It's only supposed to be single lane, but since it's so wide, drivers
>use it as a double lane (two abreast), and they get regularly away
>with it. It has become accepted behaviour. But I guess just because
>something is de facto-ly accepted, doen't necessarily make it right.
>A lot of pedestrians and cyclists have been clobbered by cars at the
>Burrard/Pacific intersection.
>
>So, I'm a torn & somewhat anguished fence-sitter. I support Critical
>Mass enough to enjoy any pro-cycling benefits it may provide, but not
>enough to discard or suspend my own self-inflicted ideas about civil
>behaviour in traffic.

That's a very thoughtful and well-reasoned position. Unfortunately, when the
more rabid C-Mers read it they are unlikely to read past your first sentence.
Their loss.

>If I actively participate in Critical Mass, I'd be an hypocrite
>for not living up to my own lights. If I don't participate, I'm
>an hypocrite for just giving it lip-service support.
>
>Ironically, if a public urban downtown ride was held where every
>rider followed the letter of the law to a T, that could really
>bugger things up for the drivers, and really **** them off.

Many things *could* bugger up traffic but I have to disagree with you that many
individual riders each following the traffic rules is one of them. Note the
difference between "large group ride" and "many individual riders". I've ridden
and driven in downtown Chicago on countless occasions and even in that crowded
environment there are only four things that are guaranteed to bugger up
traffic-
1) a crash,
2) construction,
3) people disregarding the rules, and
4) events like parades.
C-M quite often acts like a parade. The one saving grace is that they seldom
form a very *big* parade but I don't think they want to boast too much about
their relatively low numbers. <g>

>But that's not the goal. If it was, that's what Critical Mass
>would do. Au contraire, CM takes pains to attenuate their
>impact on the traffic environment.

On this point and in this area, we most definitely do *not* agree. I have
witnessed at least parts of numerous C-M rides and talked to various
participants. I have yet to see any evidence of any *intentional* efforts being
made by the regular participants to accommodate other road users. Those actions
that are most often pointed to as "accommodations" usually result from a
rational fear of getting squashed under the wheels of a motor vehicle. More
often than not, if the motor vehicle traffic *can* stop in time to avoid any
squashing the ride disregards the rules and proceeds regardless of who has the
legal right of way. IOW, they most often act exactly like those drivers they
complain about most bitterly.

>And advocacy doesn't necessarily have to be deadpan, un-fun-ly
>serious. That's just for Bicycle Advisory Committees ;-)

I never meant to say it had to be. I just think C-M should stop claiming to be
a grassroots advocacy movement and 'fess up to just being a loose coalition
dedicated to using bikes as a platform to thumb their nose at "The Man". I've
never seen it but am willing to grant the possibility that maybe occasionally
their rides do have a positive impact. All I ask for is evidence of that
impact.
It is flawed but the best analogy I can come up with for C-Ms intent is Jackie
Robinson's breaking of the color barrier in professional baseball. His
secondary goal in entering MLB was to break that barrier but his primary goal
was simply to play baseball and get paid to do so. C-Mers have a variety of
secondary goals- stop the Iraqi occupation, seal off the Alaskan wilderness
from development, defeat Bush in the next election, etc- but their *primary*
goal and the one the others are quite often sacrificed to is simply to enjoy
being bullies on bikes. Since I despise bullies of any type, I can't support
them.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:41:36 GMT, <jZeIc.34953$WX.15611@attbi_s51>,
"Claire Petersky" > wrote:

>"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Took a piece of meat out of my ankle and I'm typing left handed.
>> My right wrist hurts from the knuckles to the elbow.
>> It keeps swelling and throbbing so I guess I'm going to have to go see
>> the croaker.
>
>Sorry to hear of your injuries. I generally don't read CM threads, so I
>guess I'm late in my sympathies, here.

Thanks for that.

I'd say, from what I've seen, that CM threads are like CM rides in
that they tend to meander aimlessly. People spin their wheels and
arrive right back where they started. As long as some people don't get
it there will always be another one.

The insurance adjuster boggled at the other scars on my shins and the
fact that cycle polo has been played for over a century and she'd
never heard of it. I had to remind her some of the scars were from
riding wet aluminium ladders.

While discussing drivers' documented general lack of awareness I
related the anecdotal, "I thought somebody threw a bicycle at my car
so I kept going". She laughed. I shuddered.

When I told her how he changed his position claiming I'd hit him, she
said that was "smart of him". I reminded her it was also dishonest.

"Were you wearing a helmet?"
"Since 1976 and never used it."

The whole interview was like that.

When she said I'd been lucky, I added that I was also practised and
prepared for just such a maneuver and that I'd previously been
required to use it to a lesser extent in similar circumstances. We
went outside and I demonstrated the move so she could understand how
far I'd had to travel before he hit me and finally stopped.

After eight days there's still limited motion and some pain in the
wrist and weakness in that hand. Scabs and bruises are gettin' itchy.
Prolonged (20 minutes) keyboarding hurts. Can't play polo yet.
I've not lost any days from work or off the bike.
Total out-of-pocket expense has been $19.96.

Thinking of ways I could reduce its chances of happening in future:
An air horn is less ambiguous than somebody screaming "HEY!"
A white mutt with white reflective tape presents a solid surface in
daylight instead of a broken colour surface like the black one.
Always wear dayglo fluorescent hot pink. Everywhere. Always. Forever.
--
zk

[Badger_South]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:36:04 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>
>Thinking of ways I could reduce its chances of happening in future:
>An air horn is less ambiguous than somebody screaming "HEY!"
>A white mutt with white reflective tape presents a solid surface in
>daylight instead of a broken colour surface like the black one.
>Always wear dayglo fluorescent hot pink. Everywhere. Always. Forever.
>--
>zk

How about one of those survival hammer tools that have a pointed end
that you use to break a window in an accident? Maybe one could be
fitted on a ring over the glove. Just rotate it around after use? ;-P

A little tap on the back window of the SUV might cause him to stop
backing up, and you could say 'dude, you hit me in the head; but it
appears I'm ok!'. <eg>

BTW, those things break rather explosively, so beware of getting any
on you or your tire path. Use only in emergencies, not for 'fun',
heh-heh.

-B

[Claire Petersky]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...

> And advocacy doesn't necessarily have to be deadpan, un-fun-ly
> serious. That's just for Bicycle Advisory Committees ;-)

That reminds me -- the City of Bellevue's Ped/Bike Advisory Group meeting is
next Wednesday at 7:00 PM.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
PBCAG Chair

[Jym Dyer]

> If I actively participate in Critical Mass, I'd be an
> hypocrite for not living up to my own lights. If I
> don't participate, I'm an hypocrite for just giving it
> lip-service support.

=v= Do you participate in traffic? Traffic is, after all,
an event where widespread lawbreaking occurs. It is far
more destructive and deadly than any bike ride could be.

=v= Critical Mass, with all its human flaws, is a much
better implementation of traffic.
<_Jym_>

[Mike Latondresse]

Zoot Katz > wrote in
:

> After eight days there's still limited motion and some pain in the
> wrist and weakness in that hand. Scabs and bruises are gettin'
> itchy. Prolonged (20 minutes) keyboarding hurts. Can't play polo
> yet. I've not lost any days from work or off the bike.
> Total out-of-pocket expense has been $19.96.
>
Zoot, Zoot, get real, you have misplaced the decimal 2 places to the
left....remember ICBC can afford it.

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:22:31 GMT,
>, Mike Latondresse
> wrote:

>Zoot, Zoot, get real, you have misplaced the decimal 2 places to the
>left....remember ICBC can afford it.

They've not yet determined responsibility.

I guessing that _if_ he admits having backed up, they'll assign
fifty-fifty responsibility to neatly close the claim.

IOW, "bend over". Now, get out.
--
zk

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:48:45 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:22:31 GMT,
>, Mike Latondresse
> wrote:
>
>>Zoot, Zoot, get real, you have misplaced the decimal 2 places to the
>>left....remember ICBC can afford it.
>
>They've not yet determined responsibility.
>
>I guessing that _if_ he admits having backed up, they'll assign
>fifty-fifty responsibility to neatly close the claim.

Can't you contest this?

Any good cycling lawyers in your area?

-Luigi

>
>IOW, "bend over". Now, get out.

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 15 Jul 2004 20:52:12 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:

>>I guessing that _if_ he admits having backed up, they'll assign
>>fifty-fifty responsibility to neatly close the claim.
>
>Can't you contest this?
>
>Any good cycling lawyers in your area?
>
Sure but they'd need a case. I'd still need a witness or two.

And then what? If he really believes I rode into him, he wasn't
defrauding ICBC. They won't care if it didn't cost them anything.

It costs something like $150 now to file in Small Claims Court and sue
him for my twenty bucks.

To level the playing field, I'd wear a blindfold before whacking him
with the two-by-four. That's what I want.
Stupidity should be painful to its practitioners.
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:

>They've not yet determined responsibility.
>
>I guessing that _if_ he admits having backed up, they'll assign
>fifty-fifty responsibility to neatly close the claim.
>
>IOW, "bend over". Now, get out.
>--
>zk

I'm disappointed in you, Zoot, because this very much sounds as if you *are*
going to just "bend over".
Insurance adjusters do not "determine responsibility", they merely offer their
own biased estimate. You're under no obligation to accept what they offer. If
it- the offer- doesn't seem fair to you, reject it and counter with an offer
of your own.
Best of luck to you on both your complete physical and economic recoveries.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Jym Dyer

wrote in part:

>Do you participate in traffic? Traffic is, after all,
>an event where widespread lawbreaking occurs. It is far
>more destructive and deadly than any bike ride could be.

Didn't you get the flyer, Jym? We ARE traffic.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Sorry but I simply couldn't resist.)

[Zoot Katz]

16 Jul 2004 03:19:36 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>>Zoot Katz
>
>wrote:
>
>>They've not yet determined responsibility.
>>
>>I guessing that _if_ he admits having backed up, they'll assign
>>fifty-fifty responsibility to neatly close the claim.
>>
>>IOW, "bend over". Now, get out.
>>--
>>zk
>
>I'm disappointed in you, Zoot, because this very much sounds as if you *are*
>going to just "bend over".
>Insurance adjusters do not "determine responsibility", they merely offer their
>own biased estimate. You're under no obligation to accept what they offer. If
>it- the offer- doesn't seem fair to you, reject it and counter with an offer
>of your own.

Without a witness it's simply my word against his.

The hand written list given me by the adjuster enumerates the things
they will do. Verbatim:
1. ask other party to report claim.
2. order medical records.
3. decide responsibility - ASAP (30 days)
4. settle (dependant on liability)

To challenge their decision I would need a witness.

>Best of luck to you on both your complete physical and economic recoveries.
>
Thanks for that, I'll need it. What I still don't understand is how
financial restitution ($19.96) is supposed to be compensation.

The only good that can come of this is that pus sack will perhaps pay
more attention where he's launching his scud. Hopefully he's a safer
driver now.
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Jym Dyer > writes:
>> If I actively participate in Critical Mass, I'd be an
>> hypocrite for not living up to my own lights. If I
>> don't participate, I'm an hypocrite for just giving it
>> lip-service support.
>
> =v= Do you participate in traffic?

Yes, actually. And I think 'participate' is a good word for it.

> Traffic is, after all,
> an event where widespread lawbreaking occurs.

I assume when you say 'traffic', you mean motor vehicle traffic.

I've done some lawbreaking, myself. But while I'm certainly
no letter-of-the-law saint putting a foot down at every stop
line or signalling every turn, I do endeavour to keep my own
transgressions limited. That's just my own, self-applied
approach, without any officiousness directed at anyone else.
My focus isn't so much on law as on /order/, in terms of
co-existing and cooperating with the all other people in the
traffic. So I personally feel sort of incompatible with the
Critical Mass approach. That's not a criticism directed
toward anyone or anything. I'm not /com/plaining; I'm just
/ex/plaining.

> It is far
> more destructive and deadly than any bike ride could be.

> =v= Critical Mass, with all its human flaws,

I have no criticisms toward Critical Mass. In fact I like
that it exists, and I see no more human flaws in it than
in any other form of, or forum for, expression. But my own
conscience would give me a kick in the ass if I rode through
a red light, and I can't get the damn thing to shuddup.

> is a much
> better implementation of traffic.

I figure the best implementation of traffic is that which
allows people to get to work or the shops, or deliver/receive
goods or services as fairly, undestructfully and safely as
possible. Of course, some things have to be changed and some
awareness has to be raised in order for that to happen.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Zoot Katz]

16 Jul 2004 03:19:36 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>Insurance adjusters do not "determine responsibility", they merely offer their
>own biased estimate. You're under no obligation to accept what they offer. If
>it- the offer- doesn't seem fair to you, reject it and counter with an offer
>of your own.

Update:
Adjuster just called.

As expected, the scumbag lied. He denies having backed up.
File closed - unless there's further medical expenses. Those would be
covered.

And here I thought I was already as cynical and bitter as a person
could get.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:45:50 -0700, >,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

>But my own
>conscience would give me a kick in the ass if I rode through
>a red light, and I can't get the damn thing to shuddup.

The June CM ride was so large that the cops were corking major
intersections. When one of them directs you through a red-light you
risk an ass-kicking if you don't go!

I think it's possible to stop at every light and still keep up with
the mass if it's large enough. It might be something worth trying.
--
zk

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:10:45 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>I think it's possible to stop at every light and still keep up with
>the mass if it's large enough. It might be something worth trying.

h'mm...hey isn't that suspiciously like...traffic?

:D

-Luigi

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote:

>Update:
>Adjuster just called.
>
>As expected, the scumbag lied. He denies having backed up.
>File closed - unless there's further medical expenses. Those would be
>covered.
>
>And here I thought I was already as cynical and bitter as a person
>could get.
>--
>zk

Maybe insurance companies function differently in Canada. Here in the US no
insurance file gets closed until either the settlement has been *accepted* or a
court issues a ruling and appeals are over. In the US you could simply refuse
the settlement. True, that would leave you about $20 out of pocket but it would
be worth $20 to me to know that the driver that ran into me would have problems
renewing his insurance in the future. (Insurance companies are very leery of
writing policies on people that have unsettled claims.)
I'm confused about something. Is the adjuster in question a quasi-public
official empowered to make "final" decisions? That's a serious question. I know
Canada's government directly controls health insurance. Do they also directly
control accident insurance? If so, I can see how that could be a problem. If
not I'd say your options, while limited, are not yet exhausted. Best of luck to
you.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:51:21 -0400,
>, Luigi de Guzman
> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:10:45 -0700, Zoot Katz >
>wrote:
>
>>I think it's possible to stop at every light and still keep up with
>>the mass if it's large enough. It might be something worth trying.
>
>h'mm...hey isn't that suspiciously like...traffic?
>
>:D
>
It is traffic.

The front of the mass always stops at red-lights. So if the mass is
large enough you could sit through a whole light sequence and rejoin
the mass further back. Ride ahead within the mass until the next
red-light, stop watch the bikes go by and start again on the green.
Repeat. . . People readily make enough room to allow passing.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

17 Jul 2004 04:03:08 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:
\snip

>I'm confused about something. Is the adjuster in question a quasi-public
>official empowered to make "final" decisions? That's a serious question. I know
>Canada's government directly controls health insurance. Do they also directly
>control accident insurance? If so, I can see how that could be a problem. If
>not I'd say your options, while limited, are not yet exhausted. Best of luck to
>you.

There's one auto insurance company in BC everybody must use.
http://www.icbc.com/Inside_ICBC/corpinfo.html

The adjuster said he stated that he was stopped at the sign for 30
seconds when I rode into him.

I asked - my insurance rate won't go up even though it appears I was
liable on the record. There's no points on my drivers license. I said
that I wasn't satisfied with the decision. I've not received the
decision in writing so it might not yet be 'final'.

I'd like to see the body of his statement. I'd like to know that the
same adjuster conducted his interview and that it was in person.

I know where to find at least one witness. The shopkeeper who didn't
see him hit me but could state where the bike was laying while I did
the pepper dance. (If she's so inclined. I think the guy was in her
shop. They're both Russians. She's said she doesn't know him.) There's
another guy I sometimes see around and asked, "did you see what
happened". He shook his head. He was standing on the sidewalk when the
van drove away. Another one that had been sitting in a parked car
through the whole thing fled as soon as I cleared the bike out of the
road. I chased them to the corner where they too turned south. They
were also in a hurry.

My best hope, if the witnesses will come foward and their statements
are considered, is that ICBC might be more interested in pursuing the
guy for making a false statement than they are for running down a
cyclist. But, if the claim hasn't cost them anything thus far then I
doubt they'll risk anything to change that.

Best case scenario might then end up deciding 50-50 fault.
Even so it will be represented in the data as a bicyclist being at
fault in a situation when that was definitely not the case.

Without severe sanctions this scumbag can boast to his buddies that
it's okay to run down bicyclists, just tell ICBC they rode into you.
--
zk

[Jym Dyer]

> I assume when you say 'traffic', you mean motor vehicle
> traffic.

=v= I mean traffic, which these days means motor vehicles,
bicycles, skaters (in some locales), etc. And when I say
Critical Mass is a better implementation of traffic, I'm
referring to the happy fact that there more bicycles than
cars in that event.

> [M]y own conscience would give me a kick in the ass if I
> rode through a red light, and I can't get the damn thing
> to shuddup.

=v= Critical Mass does not require anyone to ride through
a red light. As with other forms of traffic, individuals
do what they think is best.
<_Jym_>

[Hunrobe]

>Zoot Katz

wrote in part:


>There's one auto insurance company in BC everybody must use.
>http://www.icbc.com/Inside_ICBC/corpinfo.html

Man, that stinks! I still think though that simply refusing the offered
settlement may cause the adjuster to look at the circumstances again. Refusing
the settlement is really simple too- just don't cash the check. From an
accounting standpoint, I don't see how the adjuster can simply close his file
until the check clears so not cashing the check could cause him a little
aggravation. Maybe that aggravation would be sufficient to motivate him to take
another look.
Disclaimer- All of the above is based solely on my personal and professional
experience in dealing with insurance companies here in the US so it may not be
readily applicable to the BC system.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Mike Latondresse]

(Hunrobe) wrote in
:

>>Zoot Katz
>
> wrote in part:
>
>
>>There's one auto insurance company in BC everybody must use.
>>http://www.icbc.com/Inside_ICBC/corpinfo.html
>
> Man, that stinks!

Well that's an opinion, however ICBC is not the only insurance
company. It is the insurance company that you must buy your PL/PD
insurance from to get your licence, and that way there are no
uninsured clowns on the road in BC, but you can buy your collision,
theft, comprehensive, etc from anyone you want.

[Zoot Katz]

17 Jul 2004 17:17:52 GMT,
>,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

>>There's one auto insurance company in BC everybody must use.
>>http://www.icbc.com/Inside_ICBC/corpinfo.html
>
>Man, that stinks! I still think though that simply refusing the offered
>settlement may cause the adjuster to look at the circumstances again. Refusing
>the settlement is really simple too- just don't cash the check. From an
>accounting standpoint, I don't see how the adjuster can simply close his file
>until the check clears so not cashing the check could cause him a little
>aggravation. Maybe that aggravation would be sufficient to motivate him to take
>another look.

There is no check to not cash. At this point the "accident" is my
fault. There is an appeals process about which I'll surely learn more
than I really care to know.

I've read that people with uncompensated injuries recover more
quickly. I'm not in this for any gain. I simply don't want word
getting out that it's okay to mow down cyclists and then for it to be
erroneously recorded as having been their fault.

This incident has me doubting the validity of any accident statistics
citing cyclists at fault.
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

>Mike Latondresse

wrote:

>Well that's an opinion, however ICBC is not the only insurance
>company. It is the insurance company that you must buy your PL/PD
>insurance from to get your licence, and that way there are no
>uninsured clowns on the road in BC, but you can buy your collision,
>theft, comprehensive, etc from anyone you want.

Maybe it works but maybe instead of having X number of uninsured licensed
motorists on the road, BC has X number of uninsured _un_licensed motorists. The
law of unintended consequence is universal. <g>
My comment anyway was mainly in the context of Zoot's predicament. Disputes are
harder to settle when options are limited.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

> >Mike Latondresse
>
> wrote:
>
> >Well that's an opinion, however ICBC is not the only insurance
> >company. It is the insurance company that you must buy your PL/PD
> >insurance from to get your licence, and that way there are no
> >uninsured clowns on the road in BC, but you can buy your collision,
> >theft, comprehensive, etc from anyone you want.
>
> Maybe it works but maybe instead of having X number of uninsured licensed
> motorists on the road, BC has X number of uninsured _un_licensed motorists.
> The
> law of unintended consequence is universal. <g>
> My comment anyway was mainly in the context of Zoot's predicament. Disputes
> are
> harder to settle when options are limited.

Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything
(plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the
agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of
insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses).

So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs.


--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Ryan Cousineau > writes:

> Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything
> (plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the
> agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of
> insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses).
>
> So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs.

I've met people who've obtained tags (decals) by snipping them
off other people's license plates with a pair of tin shears.
I consider it another example of the desperate lengths to which
addicts will go.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:43:18 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>There is no check to not cash. At this point the "accident" is my
>fault. There is an appeals process about which I'll surely learn more
>than I really care to know.
>
>I've read that people with uncompensated injuries recover more
>quickly. I'm not in this for any gain. I simply don't want word
>getting out that it's okay to mow down cyclists and then for it to be
>erroneously recorded as having been their fault.
>
>This incident has me doubting the validity of any accident statistics
>citing cyclists at fault.

Keep us posted, Zoot. If it comes to a letter-writing campaign, our
pens are at your service.

-Luigi

[Hunrobe]

>Ryan Cousineau

wrote:

>Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything
>(plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the
>agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of
>insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses).
>
>So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs.

This of course is based on the assumption that all the motor vehicles in BC are
driven only by the vehicle's registered owner. ICBC must not have the same
level of faith in the system that you do because their website specifies that
the policies they sell include "uninsured/underinsured" coverage so maybe the
above assumption is mistaken?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Mike Latondresse]

(Hunrobe) wrote in
:

>>Ryan Cousineau
>
> wrote:
>
>>Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything
>>(plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go
>>(the agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all
>>kinds of insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular
>>businesses).
>>
>>So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs.
>
> This of course is based on the assumption that all the motor
> vehicles in BC are driven only by the vehicle's registered owner.
> ICBC must not have the same level of faith in the system that you
> do because their website specifies that the policies they sell
> include "uninsured/underinsured" coverage so maybe the above
> assumption is mistaken?
>
No that is to protect the locals against the underinsured/uninsured
US tourists (and other out of provence visitors) that have no such
restrictions.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
(Hunrobe) wrote:

> >Ryan Cousineau
>
> wrote:
>
> >Surprisingly, I don't think so. Partly because you get everything
> >(plates, tags, and insurance) from an insurance agent in one go (the
> >agents are private contractors for ICBC; they usually do all kinds of
> >insurance, with Autoplan being one of the regular businesses).
> >
> >So, no insurance, no tags. No tags=rapid detection by local LEOs.
>
> This of course is based on the assumption that all the motor vehicles in BC
> are
> driven only by the vehicle's registered owner. ICBC must not have the same
> level of faith in the system that you do because their website specifies that
> the policies they sell include "uninsured/underinsured" coverage so maybe the
> above assumption is mistaken?

In general, ICBC insurance covers any driver with a valid license. The
exception would be that the "primary operator" must be properly
specified.

Underinsured Motorist Protection (UMP) has several useful purposes, but
here's a few major examples of when it comes into play:

-if your car is in a hit-and-run, UMP allows you to file an insurable
claim

-if your car gets hit by a non-insured entity (say, er, a
cyclist...maybe a bad example in this thread...) then you can claim
against UMP if they can't pay.

-if an out-of-province driver hits you, they may not have proper
coverage.

-if the driver who hits you is DUI, by law their insurance is invalid,
and they are directly responsible for the costs. Again, UMP protects you.

-And yes, there are drivers who manage to drive on the roads uninsured,
whether by being drunk, rolling on expired tags, or as Tom suggested,
stealing tags from another car, but not only does UMP protect the
not-at-fault motorist in these cases, my impression is that these cases
are quite rare, partly because of the unified tags/insurance system.

Not an advocate of public car insurance, but I understand the advantages,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:52:36 -0700,
>, Ryan Cousineau
> wrote:

>-if your car gets hit by a non-insured entity (say, er, a
>cyclist...maybe a bad example in this thread...) then you can claim
>against UMP if they can't pay.

In my case the cycling entity holds a valid drivers license so
therefore is insured. Say, for instance, if the lying **** thinks he
can claim for damage (none) to his stinking scud.

Monday I spoke with four people who recalled the incident but couldn't
remember where the bike was laying.

None of them wanted to be contaced by ICBC!

I'm still holding out hope of bumping into the guy with the gold chain
again soon. He might have the nads to state what he saw even though he
didn't see the collision occur.
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

Geez, guys! I wasn't arguing against mandatory insurance laws. My point was
simply that no law is a guarantee of behavior. It sounds like BC has plugged
many of the most common loopholes with their unified registration/insurance
system. I simply don't like the idea of a quasi-governmental entity being the
only game in town. Without significant oversight there's too much opportunity
for abuse of authority and graft.

Regards,
Bob Hunt