Stopping Traffic

That's the headline, with a full front page colour photo of a
"hold-up" on Burrard Bridge*. It leads an inside article about
Vancouver's Critical Mass. The West Ender is a local rag that focuses
on the neighbourhood probably most effected by the monthly CM rides.

http://web.bcnewsgroup.com/portals-c...=49&id=1005784.

I think it reflects well on the VPD and city hall attitudes toward
recognising the place for Critical Mass in Vancouver history.

Some excerpts:

According to Muriel Honey, manager of the special events office at
the City of Vancouver, the ride is classified as a protest event and,
therefore, is not required to follow city guidelines. "Under the
Canadian Bill of Rights, [Critical Mass has] the right to peaceful
protest, which is what they do," she says.


Cyclists risk a $100 fine if they are caught riding without a helmet,
which became law for people of all ages in B.C. in 1996.

Sgt. Smitas says officers may not always crack down on riders without
helmets, though, because sometimes it causes more difficulty to
enforce at the time than to let it go. Often, not wearing a helmet is
part of the protest," he says. "So, by insisting on enforcement it
could make a very peaceful demonstration more aggressive. They are
taking responsibility for themselves, and everyone has the right to
lawful democratic protest. We support an environment for that."

End excerpts.

This is not to open a discussion about headgear. It's just a comment
about the environment that exists for bicyclists in a city with lots
of voting cyclists.

* Hey, that's Michael's orange Masi fixey!
--
zk

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 01:24:57 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:

This is not to open a discussion about headgear. It's just a comment
about the environment that exists for bicyclists in a city with lots
of voting cyclists.

Indeed.

I'm ambivalent about CM as a movement. I agree absolutely about the
message--bikes are traffic--but I'm less sanguine about the fact that CM
circuses give a bad impression on bicyclists. Negative impressions are
tough to fight.

But I have observed that in certain places, once enough bicyclists have
taken to the road for transportation, they force a change in the local
balance of power. When I lived in England, I observed that bicycles and
bicyclists pretty much ruled Central Cambridge. In London, bicycles got
grudging respect from other road users simply because high density made it
necessary to get along.

Which led me to think: these local balances of power were occasioned by
the combination of several factors. Population densities in England are
much higher than in most of North America; settlements there seem more
compact than they do here. A fair number of English villages/towns/cities
simply aren't built for automotive traffic: narrow, winding streets and
so forth. Also, automotive fuel is just that much more expensive.

The relative bike-friendliness comes from the number of voting bicyclists,
yes--but it's the underlying pattern of settlement that determines the
number of bicyclists in the first place. Nothing persuades like the
pocketbook.

-Luigi