Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks

Jym Dyer

wrote:

v= When they say, "I didn't see you," they are admitting to
their own incompetence, negligence andn fault. Unfortunately,
our society is set up to accept that as an all-purpose excuse.

=v= Which is part of the reason we need Critical Mass.

You've ridden thousands of miles so I presume you have fallen when there were
no motor vehicles around. Using your reasoning- "the circumstances don't
matter, merely the result does"- those falls obviously were evidence of your
incompetence and negligence so you are a danger to yourself and others, hence
you should not be allowed to ride.
If non-cyclists actually read this NG you, ZK, and your fellow absolutists
would do nothing but harm to the promotion of cycling. Luckily for us, few if
any non-cyclists read your broad brush condemnations of all motorists as
incompetent and negligent or Zoot's hateful namecalling.
BTW, exactly *how* does C-M influence our society's members to accept
individual responsibility for their actions? It seems to me that the underlying
principle of "the mass" is diametrically opposed to acting as individuals,
including the acceptance of individual responsibility, i.e., "We can ride
anyway we want because there are so many of us it would be more disruptive of
traffic to stop us and enforce civil behavior than to simply allow us to
disrupt traffic as we will.". That's not one bit different than a motorist
saying, "I'm breaking the traffic laws but so is everyone else so I should get
away with it." Are you willing to accept every motorist's flaunting of the
standards we set for proper operation of a motor vehicle? If not, then you
should either acknowledge that some C-Mers deserve tickets and even arrest or
simply admit the inherent hypocrisy.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

(Tom Keats)

wrote:

Furthermore,
in the first post of this thread that appears in my newsreader's
rec.bicycles.misc listing (where Al Simon replies to and quotes
Dave Sutton,) Dave had given a number of press clippings which
indicate this particular CM ride in question was actually
sanctioned and overseen by the local police and other civic
authorities. The gist of the press clippings is: nothing
bad happened.

That's undoubtedly true. The question that remains however is, "Have C-M rides
had any *positive* impact on the public's perception of cyclists and cycling in
general?". Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
they do good, IMO they have not.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article ,
(Hunrobe) writes:

That's undoubtedly true. The question that remains however is, "Have C-M rides
had any *positive* impact on the public's perception of cyclists and cycling in
general?".

I can't speak for the rest of the world, because I haven't
been there yet. But I think C-M /has/ had a positive effect
here in Vancouver, where care is taken not to impinge on busier
traffic nodes. Of all the messages C-M conveys, alienating
messages such as "f you" are antithetical to what is desired.
I suppose C-M gives ammunition to the anti-cyclists (not that
they need any.) But I think vehement anti-cyclists are a small
minority; to the majority of people C-M is probably at worst
regarded with mild bemusement as only a bunch of flakes and
kooks, and transportational cycling is a decidedly uninteresting
non-issue. But every once in awhile I heartwarmingly hear of
somebody or other finally seeing the light.

Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
they do good, IMO they have not.

There has been violent and anti-social mob behaviour around
sporting events and rock concerts, too, but I don't regard
all hockey fans as a bunch of riotous boors.

I've been doing utility rides to & from my local supermarket
for a number of years, and for most of that time I've been
pretty well the only customer doing that. But lately I'm
noticing an increasing number of others doing so, too. Maybe
Critical Mass has something to do with it. Pretty soon I'll
be able to persuade the Buy Low to finally install some
bicycle racks.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article ,
Zoot Katz writes:

Thursday I've got an appointment with a claims adjuster.
Big deal

Today's Thursday. So, what's the upshot? I hope the
word is good, and also that you're healing well. And that
the velocidal maniac has been tracked down.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On 08 Jul 2004 22:23:40 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:



That's undoubtedly true. The question that remains however is, "Have C-M rides
had any *positive* impact on the public's perception of cyclists and cycling in
general?". Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
they do good, IMO they have not.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Maybe look at it in a larger context. Critical Mass in San Francisco
had a major run-in with the police a few years ago, thanks to some
posturing by the mayor. The events are easily researched and that
isn't my concern.

A positive (to me) result of this period was that the San Francisco
Bicycle Coalition appeared to be a sane, sensible, centrist group in
comparison to Critical Mass. They were given attention and a voice
that I doubt they would have achieved if CM didn't force the issue. In
the years since, there has been a continued attention and development
of the role of bicyclists in the city's transportation.

(I know, for many people the SFBC getting the voice that it has is not
a positive thing, bike lanes are disasters, etc.)

I see this improvement in the last few years as being a direct result
of Critical Mass. Like I said, look at in a larger context- CM makes
little things like having the police take accident reports from
bicyclists rather than blow them off seem reasonable. Sometimes you
need the extremes to make the center get off its ass.

In article ,
Dan Daniel writes:

A positive (to me) result of this period was that the San Francisco
Bicycle Coalition appeared to be a sane, sensible, centrist group in
comparison to Critical Mass. They were given attention and a voice
that I doubt they would have achieved if CM didn't force the issue.

Heh.
The ol' 'good guy/bad guy' routine :-)

Not really. I'm just being facetious.

But I do think the Critical Mass movement has matured
in many ways since those earlier days. And it has
become more of a known quantity to the authorities.
I think both of these factors serve to inhibit the
possibilities of fractious confrontations erupting,
nowadays.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

(Tom Keats)

wrote:

I can't speak for the rest of the world, because I haven't
been there yet. But I think C-M /has/ had a positive effect
here in Vancouver, where care is taken not to impinge on busier
traffic nodes. Of all the messages C-M conveys, alienating
messages such as "f you" are antithetical to what is desired.
I suppose C-M gives ammunition to the anti-cyclists (not that
they need any.) But I think vehement anti-cyclists are a small
minority; to the majority of people C-M is probably at worst
regarded with mild bemusement as only a bunch of flakes and
kooks, and transportational cycling is a decidedly uninteresting
non-issue. But every once in awhile I heartwarmingly hear of
somebody or other finally seeing the light.

Since people tend to remember bad things more often and longer than
they do good, IMO they have not.

There has been violent and anti-social mob behaviour around
sporting events and rock concerts, too, but I don't regard
all hockey fans as a bunch of riotous boors.

I've been doing utility rides to & from my local supermarket
for a number of years, and for most of that time I've been
pretty well the only customer doing that. But lately I'm
noticing an increasing number of others doing so, too. Maybe
Critical Mass has something to do with it. Pretty soon I'll
be able to persuade the Buy Low to finally install some
bicycle racks.

Overall, I'd agree that most of your observations apply here in Chicago as
well.

Of all the messages C-M conveys, alienating
messages such as "f you" are antithetical to what is desired.

Agreed.

I suppose C-M gives ammunition to the anti-cyclists (not that
they need any.)

Agreed.

But I think vehement anti-cyclists are a small
minority; to the majority of people C-M is probably at worst
regarded with mild bemusement as only a bunch of flakes and
kooks, and transportational cycling is a decidedly uninteresting
non-issue.

And agreed. So it seems that the only good things to be said are that:

1) C-M rides are enjoyable and
2) *maybe* C-M has had an unproveable and unquantifiable positive effect on an
unknown number of people.

unless of course being marginalized as a bunch of flakes and kooks qualifies as
a good thing.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article ,
(Hunrobe) writes in part:

And agreed. So it seems that the only good things to be said are that:

1) C-M rides are enjoyable and
2) *maybe* C-M has had an unproveable and unquantifiable positive effect on an
unknown number of people.

At any rate, Critical Mass isn't nearly as bad as some make it
out to be, nor as bad as the impression some people have of it.

unless of course being marginalized as a bunch of flakes and kooks qualifies as
a good thing.

Cyclists are already marginalized in a number of ways, nonetheleast
in urban transportation planning. So I don't think there's much
of consequence to lose, and as Dan Daniel suggests, some things to
gain -- even as byproducts.


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 09:00:06 -0700, (Tom Keats) wrote:

In article ,
(Hunrobe) writes in part:

And agreed. So it seems that the only good things to be said are that:

1) C-M rides are enjoyable and
2) *maybe* C-M has had an unproveable and unquantifiable positive effect on an
unknown number of people.

At any rate, Critical Mass isn't nearly as bad as some make it
out to be, nor as bad as the impression some people have of it.

unless of course being marginalized as a bunch of flakes and kooks qualifies as
a good thing.

Cyclists are already marginalized in a number of ways, nonetheleast
in urban transportation planning. So I don't think there's much
of consequence to lose, and as Dan Daniel suggests, some things to
gain -- even as byproducts.


cheers,
Tom

At the risk of being obvious, it would seem to me that due to such CM rides
just knowing that there are "x" numbers of fairly serious bikers in any
particular area/city/town would:
a) make the motorists realize, 'hey, they're here to stay and I had no idea
there were so many.' Subliminally at least it makes an impression;
hopefully positive, but at least that it's no longer a truck of bad boys or
soccer moms in hummers against a lone cyclist anymore. (duh)
b) it gives a sense of community and solidarity to the bikers, many of whom
might have felt 'it's just little ole me against the world'.

Even in a relatively major jogging center in these parts as C'ville, you
see a couple of joggers here and there, but you go to a local 10K and there
are hundreds! Same with bikers. I typically see a homey on a beach cruiser
or a couple of kids riding in the 'hood. Only rarely do I see a biker in
helmet, riding seriously, and I've never seen a peloton of any kind - but I
know they're out there. Point is the average person has no idea how popular
biking is in any area. (It might even get a convert or two, heh, you know
guys thinking about getting the ole 10speed down and getting back into it)

OK, dumb/redundant comment, and maybe 2 cents worth. ;-D

-B

Badger_South

wrote:

At the risk of being obvious, it would seem to me that due to such CM rides
just knowing that there are "x" numbers of fairly serious bikers in any
particular area/city/town would:
a) make the motorists realize, 'hey, they're here to stay and I had no idea
there were so many.' Subliminally at least it makes an impression;
hopefully positive, but at least that it's no longer a truck of bad boys or
soccer moms in hummers against a lone cyclist anymore. (duh)
b) it gives a sense of community and solidarity to the bikers, many of whom
might have felt 'it's just little ole me against the world'.

Even in a relatively major jogging center in these parts as C'ville, you
see a couple of joggers here and there, but you go to a local 10K and there
are hundreds! Same with bikers. I typically see a homey on a beach cruiser
or a couple of kids riding in the 'hood. Only rarely do I see a biker in
helmet, riding seriously, and I've never seen a peloton of any kind - but I
know they're out there. Point is the average person has no idea how popular
biking is in any area. (It might even get a convert or two, heh, you know
guys thinking about getting the ole 10speed down and getting back into it)

OK, dumb/redundant comment, and maybe 2 cents worth. ;-D

-B

That's an awful lot of words to say, "Maybe it helps." ;-) You say maybe. I say
maybe not because exactly how many converts will be won by those that even Tom
described as being viewed as "only a bunch of flakes and kooks"?
Please note that Tom didn't describe C-M that way. He merely pointed out that
they are viewed that way by the majority. Mustn't we rely on that majority for
new "converts"?
BTW, there's a large group ride scheduled in Chicago this very weekend. It's
named the L.A.T.E. Ride (for "Long After Twilight Ends"). That ride will draw
in excess of 15,000 riders. As always, C-M will be there. One year they had
almost 100 riders present. That's 100 out of 15,000+ so if "knowing that there
are X numbers of fairly serious bikers" around is the measure of persuasion,
C-M is irrelevant at best.

Regards,
Bob Hunt