Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:26:14 GMT
TimC wrote:
On 2007-12-02, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Tell me, what would change your mind that it's about people being led
by the nose by shockjocks?

How else did they know a CM was on? A Current Affair? Today Tonight?

So, tell me, what would change your mind?


Like I say, your proof is?

The best BV seem to be able to come up with is copenhagen style lanes
were bicycles are relegated to a second class position on the road
(where for example, a cyclist can't cross the road to get into a shop
on the opposite side, without going past it to the next intersection),
because educating drivers was thrown into the too hard basket. Oh,
and wonderful bike lanes in the car-door lane in the rest of the CBD.

And CM has come up with?

I can certainly believe that BV is as incompetent as the MRA. That
doesn't mean CM is effective in anything but making cyclists feel good
about being in a big group.

Which is the same reason why whenever there's talk about motorcycle
activism there's a huge cry for "protest ride" and no one willign to
do real work.


To me, CM is a bit like reclaim the streets and indeed any other
protest. A periodic protest that probably doesn't achieve a thing.

Except make people feel good.
For just occasionally, I can go onto the road, not have the road
clogged by miserable selfish gits spewing out choking gasses, and

So, ride elsewhere. It isn't the only method is it!



enjoy it. At any other time of the month, an innocent stroll from
Richmond to Hawthorn involves holding a hankerchief to the nose to
filter out the worst of the particulates. I resent that. There's a
bubble of slightly cleaner air that surrounds any CM in the city, and
that makes life happier for me temporarily. If I slightly inconvience
a few hundred car drivers who spend the rest of the month greatly
inconviencing me (and making me sick), then so be it.

heh. I bet that you couldn't find a measuring instrument to agree
with you. (See also placebo effect)

I have said it is about making cyclists feel good because they are in
a group and that makes them feel more powerful and in control.

Makes a lot of sense. Doesn't, however, mean there's any other value
in it. Certainly not the "make things generally better for cyclists"
which is what I'm after proof of.

After all, I have a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that it makes it
worse.

As I say, if a lot of riders rode as traffic, obeying road rules and
taking the road as they are legally entitled to do, without police
escort, without corking, and clearly controlling any ratbags, I think
that would do a lot of good. IT is not, as I understand it, a
description of CM.

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:25:23 +1100
Terryc wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:


What they saw was not "traffic" but "bikes breaking the law"

Well, I hope you educated them as to the law (but I am not holding my
breath)

Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

What did you think they saw?


and then
"bikes getting special treatment, why should they get that?"

Ask Constable Plod?

What would they say? Something like "if we didn't, they'd block
intersections"?


You might also like to educate yourself as to what Critical Mass is and
does.


I've tried. But the only *consistent* information is assertions about
"everyone hates us but we are really good" "we make change happen".

As soon as I ask for details it degenerates into name calling and more
assertions.



Sadly, very few of these groups have made any difference ver the decades

And your proof of this is?

Well, we are having this "conversation" and they were around for a good
decade before CM in this country.

And so there has been no change at all in cycling over that decade?
None?

You definitely surprise me.



I'm willing to be convinced,

lol, I doubt it. The information is there is you were.

So far I have seen a lot of assertions, I have seen no proof.

YOu make the claim, you provide the evidence. For example, show me
the legislation dates about cycling, and show me how CM has changed
this if at all.

After all, I'd think that would be something CM would have at their
collective fingertips no? It being a very common claim.

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

Hmmm, corking. Well if it is so illegal surely the police would be
prosecuting? But of course that still does not make it OK for motorists to
try to crash through, and that's the thing the police have to deal with. Now
which law-breaking is more dangerous???

But of course you know why the corking. And there is a case that it could be
readily argued in court that with a large group ride, in busy urban streets,
it may be safer for the cyclists (the vulnerable road users after all) to
cork so the group stays together, in a formation that ensures greater safety
for them.

As for two abreast, it is legal. Two riders side by side, per lane! On an
average city street that's pretty much what happens on CM, two in the left
lane, two in the right lane, and maybe one or two overtaking. Of couse when
the ride is stopped for traffic lights (yes, CM rides DO stop for traffic
lights, if you went on one you'd know that) the group may bunch up a bit
more.

Ah, the value of some experiential education, Zebee!

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

"PeteSig" wrote in message
...

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

Well the ones who saw "corking" knew that was illegal. The ones who
saw people riding more than 2 abreast did too.

Hmmm, corking. Well if it is so illegal surely the police would be
prosecuting? But of course that still does not make it OK for motorists to
try to crash through, and that's the thing the police have to deal with.
Now
which law-breaking is more dangerous???

But of course you know why the corking. And there is a case that it could
be
readily argued in court that with a large group ride, in busy urban
streets,
it may be safer for the cyclists (the vulnerable road users after all) to
cork so the group stays together, in a formation that ensures greater
safety
for them.

As for two abreast, it is legal. Two riders side by side, per lane! On an
average city street that's pretty much what happens on CM, two in the left
lane, two in the right lane, and maybe one or two overtaking. Of couse
when
the ride is stopped for traffic lights (yes, CM rides DO stop for traffic
lights, if you went on one you'd know that) the group may bunch up a bit
more.

This is nothing like the CM I witnessed in Melbourne a few years back,
unless there is some safety reason that I'm unaware of for riding round and
round roundabouts or riding in circles and figure 8's along the road.

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:11:04 +1100
G-S wrote:
Harry 'Snapper' Organ wrote:
I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Well done!


Whether one agrees with their actions or not... (and I don't
particularly).

Why on Earth are you calling them Fundamentalists? [1]


Umm... cos they have taken a couple of simple ideas and made them the
core and totality of their religion, and refuse to see there can be
any other interpretation? And they think anyone who disagrees in any
way is evil and unclean and has nasty motives?

"Fundamentalism" was orginally ( I thought late 1800s but I saw
recently 1920s) a label applied to people who agreed with a set of
pamphlets/books/statements called "The Fundamentals of Christianity"
which sought to strip away accretions and bring the religion back to a
more pure state by getting together in one place the basics as they
understood it.

Over time it's come to mean anyone who has a literalist and rigid
interpretation of a book or creed and who refuses to see there's any
other way to think or do, and further considers people who do
interpret things differently as not just misguided but actively evil.

See also anti-triathlete types...

ZebeeAn astonishing level of 'eyes wide shut[edness]'.

1) You've never been to a CM ride
2) From your position of blindness you've managed to adopt a theory of
ignorance.

To say 'they' are a buch of fundamentalists truly displays you lack of
thought.

I stopped going for the exact opposite reason.

I went as I thought it should be about getting bikes 'normalised' on
the road. That should have been our one guiding (fundamental)
prinicipal. I got fed up as it (as many causes do) got hijacked by a
range of left-looney groups wanting to free tibet, stop the Iraq war,
kill George Bush, free David Hicks and save the whales. Perhaps worthy
causes but, not what I was there for. Hence, their lack of
fundamentalism drove me away.

Another thing was the fact that there were too many in the group who
were relucant to block traffic for too long. Too many diversions from
what I thought were the principles.

As for your Laws/Mitchell/Hadley/Jones like labelling that panders to
the masses... Get a brain and stop parroting the parrots.

Scotty


--
scotty72

"stu" wrote:

"PeteSig" wrote:

As for two abreast, it is legal. Two riders side by side, per lane! On an
average city street that's pretty much what happens on CM, two in the
left
lane, two in the right lane, and maybe one or two overtaking. Of couse
when
the ride is stopped for traffic lights (yes, CM rides DO stop for traffic
lights, if you went on one you'd know that) the group may bunch up a bit
more.

This is nothing like the CM I witnessed in Melbourne a few years back,
unless there is some safety reason that I'm unaware of for riding round
and
round roundabouts or riding in circles and figure 8's along the road.

Yes, a couple of times on each ride there is a bit of a stunt - a bike lift,
or riding round the roundabout for a minute or two. A bit of a demonstration
of the bike's utility? And the roundabout riding is perfectly legal by the
way.

But most of the time the riding is more like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/...7603347951594/

All legally allowed, two-abreast per lane.

And on the rides I've been on I've never seen the group doing figure 8's
along the road. Maybe one or two will do a U'ey for photos or to check on
the group, but never will this inconvenience any motorists, and it doesn't
bother the CM riders.

A few people on this forum need to get real about CM. It doesn't make any
significant difference to traffic congestion on a Friday evening (the police
can confirm this), it causes no-one any harm, it is not a safety hazard, and
there is rarely any legal infraction by riders that police think is serious
enough to warrant prosecution. Think about every motorist - thinkof speeding
5kmh over; think of overtaking cyclists crossing double lines; think of all
those fail to give-ways; think of all the overtaking with less than 0.4
metre clearance. Where is the law-breaking more serious? Are these incidents
seriously enforced? In the bigger picture, how much harm does CM really do?
My view is that anything that wakes motorists up to the presence of cyclists
on the road is a great thing. CM is part of this.
--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

(I note that working with the RTA on motorcycle awareness over the
last 5 years has cut car into motorcycle accidents by well over 30%...

Cheese & chalk.

How so?

"PeteSig" wrote:

But most of the time the riding is more like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/...7603347951594/

All legally allowed, two-abreast per lane.

And hey, look at all these 'radical fundamentalist' types!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/...7603347951594/

Riding up Punt Rd, where the traffic is always stationary. And virtually all
riding two-abreast (per lane)

"Road Rules Victoria
Rule 151 (2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a marked
lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked lane, unless subrule
(3) applies to the rider.

(3) The rider of a motorbike or bicycle may ride alongside more than 1 other
rider if the rider is -
(a) overtaking the other riders; or
(b) permitted to do so under regulation 403 of the Road Safety (Road
Rules) Regulations 1999"

Pretty clear that this sort of riding as agroup may annoy some motorists,
but is actually quite legal. Some motorists are annoyed simply because they
have to change lanes to overtake a single cyclist.

CM is about stressing the need for a road-culture shift.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Terryc wrote:
G-S wrote:

The bottom line is that I don't believe that '****ed off/chip on the
shoulder people' represent my views very well most of the time.

That is a perfect description of all those motorist that think that the
road is only for them.

Red herring.

Couldn't be further from the truth about CM.

I was referring to the chip on *your* shoulder (that's not intended as
an insult, just an observation about your debating style).

You see I happen to believe that the way to change behaviour and views
is by education and not intimidation.

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?

There are many examples where education campaigns have had positive
effects upon the behavior of large groups of people, there are very few
examples where protests or street gatherings have had any effect (other
than to make the people feel like they are doing something).

I'm not so much anti street protest as pro ideas that work [1]


G-S

[1] Like education campaigns. As for 'more coercive' action, no. There
is a certain percentage of the population who are intransigent and whom
nothing will help. But they won't be effected by street protests either.

TimC wrote:
In an atmosphere of
being completely ignored, are you surprised that some cyclists would
prefer to do things a different way?

It's natural that people would get frustrated with the slow rate of
change, but the truth is "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar".


G-S