Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

On Dec 5, 7:34 am, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
I'm not even sure what defines a Gen X or Y. I'm a pre-boomer, a war baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

Roughly early 60's to 1980. Characterised by technical skill and
apathy.
That would include me, although the truly stereotypical Gen-X would be
a little
younger than myself. 60's children tend to be a bit more technophobic.

Interestingly there are no baby boomers in my family. My mother
was born in 1940 and I was born in 1967, neatly skipping the
entire boomer generation.

In article ,
"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

Good. I can't understand how a child would consent to be driven to school if
they can have te freedom a bike gives them

Because there's now more traffic on the road, it's insane to allow young
kids to ride on inner city roads by themselves these days.
--

On Dec 5, 8:12 am, Artoi wrote:
Good. I can't understand how a child would consent to be driven to school if
they can have te freedom a bike gives them

Because there's now more traffic on the road, it's insane to allow young
kids to ride on inner city roads by themselves these days.

Inner city isn't exactly the main demographic for schoolkids. Most
kids live in the suburbs, and the traffic in my suburb now doesn't
look any worse than the traffic in my suburb when I was a kid.

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:12:46 GMT
Artoi wrote:
In article ,
"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

Good. I can't understand how a child would consent to be driven to school if
they can have te freedom a bike gives them

Because there's now more traffic on the road, it's insane to allow young
kids to ride on inner city roads by themselves these days.

Inner city?

I live in a older suburb, heaps of roads without many cars on them.
Friend of mine's son lives in the Blue Mountains, he and many of his
friends ride bikes to school.

Zebee

On 2007-12-04, Baka Dasai (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On 4 Dec 2007 09:14:59 GMT, Zebee Johnstone said (and I quote):
leave sufficient room when following?

You mean for other CM participants? No.

Course, if we left 3 seconds and/or 2 metres, and stayed strictly to 2
vehicles per lane, imagine how long we could stretch out

Might frustrate the motorists though.

--
TimC
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
-- Marvin Minsky

And, as mentioned plenty of times in this thread, CM appears to be a
police endorsed event *with police officers doing the corking*. At
least in Melbourne, anyway.

Which I can accept, but is it 'police endorsed' or is it the lesser of
two evils?



Ah, beancounters

Ahh, Astronomers

The beancounters at Swinburne seem to think that infrastructure is
important, but having the people to run that infrastructure get put in
the "too hard" basket. Or that getting a grant adds to the net assets
of the university, but spending that grant can't be done
because... ah, fuggit, I'll never understand beancounters. Don't get
me started on a rant about how they seem to think it is better for
your income if you spend more money on **** during the year so you can
claim a small portion of it back as a tax refund.

Your arguements all make sense to me. One of the problems with 'bean
counters' (and I must admint, I've never been lucky enough to actually
count beans) is that they explain their side of the arguements in
'bean counter' language. It's like getting an IT nerd to explain why
an internet connection won't work. We understand the reasons why, and
from our chair they make sense. Often your non-bean counter arguements
make as much sense to us as our bean-counter arguements do to you
guys. But the 'spend money on what you really don't need because it
will save you $250 in tax' is a bit silly. Don't spend money on
things you don't need, unless it's bike related


Isn't it clear? You gauge the success of CM in the same way that
Harry Barber gauges the success of BV. "Times are improving, and it's
*we* who are doing it!!!1!one!". You can't gauge the success or
otherwise easily. It's a bit like pure science -- do your thing,
which will be absolutely useless most of the time (ha! astronomy!
although perhaps one could argue that we pushed the camcorder industry
along), but when your thing is actually found to be important
(transistors), it's a big payoff for society.
But does pure science often encroach on the rights of other people? To
me (beancounter and all) it appears CM is a 'My wants are more
important than your's'. Sure, cyclists are disadvantaged everyday by
people who think their rights in a car are more important than the
cyclists rights, and maybe this is a way of getting back. I just don't
take that view. I'd rather 'try' to do the right thing, in the hope
that the example rubs off. I'm not saying it does all the time, there
is an element of the public which will be knobs whatever you do. But I
can't see how ****ing off those who might be influenced by our good
behaviour is beneficial.

But that's just opinion, you can argue opinion all day and get
nowhere


--
TimC
However, my preamp still has a meat-driven knob. -- A. de Boer in ASR

Brendan

A group of cyclists is simply a
collection of vehicles (not one singular vehicle), all using the road.

Some disagree, saying that a mass is a single entity, and that therefore once
it has entered an intersection it must continue through the intersection even
if the light turns red.

So does that apply to all vehicle? If there's a 1km line of cars at an
intersection, can they all drive through the lights because they are a
'single entity'? Of course not. Why are bicycles excluded? You want to
be recognised as legitimate road users, yet you exclude yourself from
common road rules? Why is the need of a cycllist to stay with the
group more important than the need of a motorist to go when the light
is green to get where he/she is going? If you are sharing the same
road, play by the same rules.


Does everyone have their own point to prove?

Pretty much.

How do you then gauge it's success?

You can't.

I'm an accountant, so I
guess I think in measureable objectives, and this doesn't seem to have
one. To me, what's the point?

To live in a world, however briefly, where there are no measurable objectives?

Or to live in a world where rules don't apply? You want freedom,
tough. Use of the road assumes comes with responsibilites. And no road
user should be beyond that.

--
What was I thinking?

Brendan

Baka Dasai wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:54:28 -0800 (PST), Brendo said (and I quote):

So does that apply to all vehicle? If there's a 1km line of cars at
an intersection, can they all drive through the lights because they
are a 'single entity'? Of course not. Why are bicycles excluded?

It's not that bicycles are excluded, it's that bicycles travelling
together as a group are excluded. I guess the idea is that the mass
is like a hive mind.

Not able to think individually? :-)

You want to
be recognised as legitimate road users, yet you exclude yourself from
common road rules? Why is the need of a cycllist to stay with the
group more important than the need of a motorist to go when the light
is green to get where he/she is going?

I think it's mostly a safety issue, born of past experience when
corking wasn't done. What happened under those conditions was that
cars would get inside the mass, and the drivers would get
frustrated/confused/disoriented and start nudging/running over
cyclists. Corking is a pragmatic flexing of the road rules in order
to prevent a much greater damage - vehicular assault.

Huh? What were you thinking when you wrote that?

Theo

On Dec 5, 12:21 pm, Baka Dasai wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:54:28 -0800 (PST), Brendo said (and I quote):

Baka Dasai said:

Some disagree, saying that a mass is a single entity, and that therefore once
it has entered an intersection it must continue through the intersection even
if the light turns red.

So does that apply to all vehicle? If there's a 1km line of cars at an
intersection, can they all drive through the lights because they are a
'single entity'? Of course not. Why are bicycles excluded?

It's not that bicycles are excluded, it's that bicycles travelling
together as a group are excluded. I guess the idea is that the mass is
like a hive mind.

So cars can do the same? As long as they're in a group? Each rider has
a brain that functions independantly of the others, and can make their
own choices.


You want to
be recognised as legitimate road users, yet you exclude yourself from
common road rules? Why is the need of a cycllist to stay with the
group more important than the need of a motorist to go when the light
is green to get where he/she is going?

I think it's mostly a safety issue, born of past experience when corking
wasn't done. What happened under those conditions was that cars would
get inside the mass, and the drivers would get
frustrated/confused/disoriented and start nudging/running over cyclists.
Corking is a pragmatic flexing of the road rules in order to prevent a
much greater damage - vehicular assault.

If the group has stopped at an intersection due to red lights, why
would the car get inside the mass? This can only happen two ways
1) The driver moved into the group from behind (don't ssy anything
dirty), which would happen whether corked or not
2) The driver moved into the group of riders who were running the red
light and impeding his rightful progress

Corking won't stop the first, and the second shouldn't occur unless
some of the individuals riding in that group didn't follow the road
rules.

Brendan

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:28:03 -0800 (PST)
Brendo wrote:

If the group has stopped at an intersection due to red lights, why
would the car get inside the mass? This can only happen two ways

Presumably turning into the road the mass is on.

It won't be a problem id the mass is riding vehicularly and the ones
behind aren't trying to get past it except where safe and legal.

Sure, it might upset the riders who want to be with their mates, but
bike riders don't get upset when they can't get past cars do they?
ONly car drivers get upset when they can't get past bikes?

Zebee