Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:04:06 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
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.

So going on a ride would provide no useful information about reasons?
Would it provide any about outcomes?

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:31:34 +0900
Theo Bekkers wrote:
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.


Or kick over the water bucket. Or chew the fence rail. Or tread on
your foot with a look on its face of either supreme unconcern or else
a badly disguised look of glee.

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 22:35:42 GMT
TimC wrote:
On 2007-12-02, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
They're not fantasising about 4WDing in the wilderness any more than the
average commuter cyclist is fantasising they are in the Tour de F. They just
want to get home and are angry that the infrastructure that would allow them
to do that, that they think their taxes should provide, doesn't exist.

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

Mind reading and all?

Of the 4WD drive owners I know, most bought it either for towing or
for "safety" in traffic. None for offroad work.

All riders with MTBs (incl kmart specials) are fantasising about
Downhill racing, all bods in lycra shorts about being in the TdF?

God much be good to know so much about what other people think.

Of course it's bad when people stereotype cyclists, but not when
cyclists stereotype others.

Tell me, do cyclists who also drive cars turn into fantasising morons
too? Or does the possession of the nappy shorts innoculate them?

How many people who drove a car to work today also ride a bicycle?

(Oh I forgot - not real cyclists. Never mind.)

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:30:31 +0900
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Tomasso wrote:

There used to be zero cars on Oz and quite a lot of bikes, then even more
bikes and a few cars, and
even in the early 1960s, an awful lot of bikes and not many cars.

Umm, I take it you weren't there and you're just making this up. I was
riding to work in the early sixties mate, and I can assure you the
percentage of bicycles to cars is higher now. There were damn-all bikes on
the road.

When I was riding bicycles in Perth in the 70s the only people on
bicycles were kids.

Judging by postwar photos, if you couldn't afford a car you rode a
motorcycle.

Judging by 1960s photos everyone could afford a car.

Pre-war ones show mostly messenger boys on bicycles and lots of people
walking or taking public transport.

Zebee

wrote:
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?

One each way, each day. I don't like cities much but I work in one. I grew
up in a country town where public transport consisted of 1 (one) taxi.

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?

There's just the two of us now, two cars, one motorcycle, four bicycles.
Arrange for service near work, have it done during working hours. I thought
that's what most people do.

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

You've never tasted clean air? It's addictive.

Theo

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
wrote:

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.

So going on a ride would provide no useful information about reasons?
Would it provide any about outcomes?

That's the trouble with you Zeb, you want outcomes when most people just
want a protest ride.

Theo
How did you find the foot?

TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote

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.

No worries, so you're a parade, a show, nothing to do with traffic.

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.

OK understood.

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.

History on here suggests the corking was initially done by the cyclists.
That's illegal. When the police do it, it's not illegal and it's not
corking. It's directing traffic. It's to get rid of you quicker.

Theo

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
Theo wrote

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

Or kick over the water bucket. Or chew the fence rail. Or tread on
your foot with a look on its face of either supreme unconcern or else
a badly disguised look of glee.

I only had civilised horses. My father-in-law had trotters.

Theo

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

Of the 4WD drive owners I know, most bought it either for towing or
for "safety" in traffic. None for offroad work.

I have the use of one for offroad work. Isuzu 650, 7 speed, six wheels, blue
and red flashing lights, and 12 tonne.

Tell me, do cyclists who also drive cars turn into fantasising morons
too? Or does the possession of the nappy shorts innoculate them?

What do you mean 'turn into'? :-)

How many people who drove a car to work today also ride a bicycle?

(Oh I forgot - not real cyclists. Never mind.)

Theo

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Tomasso wrote:

There used to be zero cars on Oz and quite a lot of bikes, then
even more bikes and a few cars, and
even in the early 1960s, an awful lot of bikes and not many cars.

Umm, I take it you weren't there and you're just making this up. I
was riding to work in the early sixties mate, and I can assure you
the percentage of bicycles to cars is higher now. There were
damn-all bikes on the road.

When I was riding bicycles in Perth in the 70s the only people on
bicycles were kids.

In the 70s there were damn all motorbikes too.

Judging by postwar photos, if you couldn't afford a car you rode a
motorcycle.

Judging by 1960s photos everyone could afford a car.

Pre-war ones show mostly messenger boys on bicycles and lots of people
walking or taking public transport.

I have a feeling our friend Tomasso is fantasising a little.

Theo