Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks

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

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/r...01writeup.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

"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/r...01writeup.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

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/r...01writeup.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

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

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

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.

"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

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

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