Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
Terryc wrote:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink.
Or did you have a more cohersive form of education in mind?

You ever tried to force a horse to drink?

All you have to do is lead it to water. It will drink.

Theo

Terryc wrote:

The bottom line is that you are just another arselicker who isn't
prepared to stand up. Every time somone post something critical of
critical mass, Zeebee jumps right in there with them.

So she is prepared to stand up.

Theo

PeteSig wrote:
"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

Hmmm, corking. Well if it is so illegal surely the police would be
prosecuting? But of course that still does not make it OK for
motorists to try to crash through, and that's the thing the police
have to deal with. Now which law-breaking is more dangerous???

Because police turn a blind eye doesn't make it legal. A motorist 'crashing'
through a cork is breaking the law how?

But of course you know why the corking. And there is a case that it
could be readily argued in court that with a large group ride, in
busy urban streets, it may be safer for the cyclists (the vulnerable
road users after all) to cork so the group stays together, in a
formation that ensures greater safety for them.

But I thought you claimed to be 'part of the traffic'?

Theo

TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote

They were fantasising about it when they saw the ad that sold them the
vehicle.

I don't believe that.

Because of where I choose to live, 55 kms from the Perth CBD, the
_daily_ bus is not an option and the nearest train station is 40 kms
away. It would let me off 1.5 kms from work.

If getting to work was of importance then, I would suggest that was
your own damn fault

Sure my choice. Also my choice to use private motorised transport for the
trip.

A 1.5km walk, eh?

I don't have a problem with that Tim. What I have a problem with is the time
taken to get to work by means other than private transport.

Theo

When something threatens to slow them down, they get just as annoyed
as 4 wheelers.

Yes, on the occasions I've been slowed down while cycling I've been
extremely annoyed, but it's only ever been because some stupid moron
in a motor vehicle has almost cut me off and pushed me out of the lane
or almost merged into me 'cause he/she didn't bother looking over his/
her shoulder before changing lane. I'm absolutely amazed at the number
of people who are driving on the road who would've absolutely failed
their driving test if they were forced to take one now!

Oh and don't get me started on the number of idiots who yell out their
windows "Get off the road"... erm... perhaps they should re-read the
RTA driver's manual and think about re-taking the L-plate computer
test...

Oh and the drivers who over-take you only to stop in front and turn on
their hazard lights or to try and reverse park!

But I wonder if these idiots do the same to other people in motor
vehicles?

But yes, getting back on the topic, I'm not really annoyed when cars
slow me down 'cause this doesn't happen very often. I think as
cyclists we're quite privileged to be legally able to cycle down the
left side of stationary traffic in order to go to the front of any set
of lights. So yeah, when there's stationary traffic, I just exert my
right to go to the front

TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote

I've never been on a CM ride either. I've seen it on TV, heard
reports from news commentators, and read letters to the editors. My
major experience of CM has been in this group and from that I have
formed pretty much the same opinion as Zebee.

Oh come on Theo. I'm pretty sure Zebee is actually forming her
opinion on something a little more concrete than that.

Reports and opinions from people on this group who have been to CM rides are
not concrete or valid?

Is this the channel 9 news, or their current affair program? Who's
the John Laws equivalent in WA who you listen to?

Sorry, I rarely watch the free to air commercial news. We do have a John
Laws equivalent in Perth, Howard Sattler I think, never listen to him
either.

An letters to the editor? ****ed off people writing letters to the
editor -- ****ed off because of something they read from another
letter to the editor, what they saw on the TV news, or heard some
shock jock talk about?

I think letters to the editor are the most interesting part of the
newspaper, after the comics of course.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:
Because of where I choose to live, 55 kms from the Perth CBD, the
_daily_ bus is not an option and the nearest train station is 40 kms
away. It would let me off 1.5 kms from work.

Wow! Public transport around your area absolutely sucks! There are no
buses around your area?

I would've have personally moved there. How do your family members get
around? What do you do if you've got the car in to get serviced?

Sorry I'm just amazed... I've never lived anywhere that hasn't been
close to public transport...

Theo asked:
Reports and opinions from people on this group who have been to CM rides are
not concrete or valid?

My answer to that would be that everyone's opinion is valid but a
single person's opinion of a Critical Mass ride, regardless of whether
they've been on the ride, is definitely not representative of the
whole group of CM riders. Different people go on Critical Mass rides
for different purposes and so it's impossible to say something like
for example "people go to critical mass to bring about awareness to
climate change" or something like that. Everyone comes to critical
mass for their own purposes and to try and push different outcomes. So
reports and opinions of CM rides even if they've gone on one is varied
and different and is valid and concrete, but it is only representative
of that individual's thoughts and opinions, rather than the be-all-and-
end-all of why the group rides and the experiences experienced by
everyone else on the ride.

On 2007-12-02, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
PeteSig wrote:
"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

Hmmm, corking. Well if it is so illegal surely the police would be
prosecuting? But of course that still does not make it OK for
motorists to try to crash through, and that's the thing the police
have to deal with. Now which law-breaking is more dangerous???

Because police turn a blind eye doesn't make it legal. A motorist 'crashing'
through a cork is breaking the law how?

Er, actually, in Melbourne, most intersections of most corkings are
composed of one of 2 civilians and one or two police on pushies and/or
motorbike. Given that police have the right to direct traffic in all
sorts of occasions, including protecting the safety of protesters, and
they seem to be doing just that, here, one would suggest it is
probably condoned fully by the police.

The motorist would be ignoring police instruction, contrary to the
law. Doing so, they get dealt with accordingly by the police, who
usually issue some kind of ticket. What kind of ticket they issue, I
am not privvy to.

But of course you know why the corking. And there is a case that it
could be readily argued in court that with a large group ride, in
busy urban streets, it may be safer for the cyclists (the vulnerable
road users after all) to cork so the group stays together, in a
formation that ensures greater safety for them.

But I thought you claimed to be 'part of the traffic'?

I don't even know whether it wasn't the idea of police in the first
place. Given how we attempt to let trams through, but the police end
up stopping them, I would suggest police came up with the idea of
corking just so the group wouldn't be broken up creating potentially
more problems.

--
TimC
He was the best of Tims, he was the worst of Tims.
-- Teh [tieoe] on RHOD

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:52:50 +0900
Theo Bekkers wrote:
TimC wrote:
An letters to the editor? ****ed off people writing letters to the
editor -- ****ed off because of something they read from another
letter to the editor, what they saw on the TV news, or heard some
shock jock talk about?

I think letters to the editor are the most interesting part of the
newspaper, after the comics of course.


besides - if the point is "effect on opinions" then all effects have
to be counted.

IT doesn't matter where the information that generates those opinions
comes from. If the action is making those opinions happen, the action
has a problem. The actors can either ignore he problem or counter it.

As far as I can tell, they are ignoring it. With a side helping of
invective.

Zebee