I saw Critical Mass

Janet wrote:

Because people that don't ride ASSUME That people dressed like
Tour-de-France wannabe's KNOW the CORRECT way for cyclists to ride on
the road.

Really?

When they do stupid things, they make it bad for the rest of us.

How?

READ my post - VISIBILITY is BAD. THERE are CAR-CAR accidents because
whatever is blowing through the red light CANNOT be seen until it's too
late.

I thought the topic was bikes.

The people with the GREEN LIGHT have the RIGHT OF WAY and it's the
RESPONSIBILITY of the people (REGARDLESS of WHAT their vehicle of choice
is) to STOP AT THE RED LIGHT!

Legally, that's usually true -- most of the laws in most jurisdictions
are the same for cars & bikes, pragmatically, the issues are much
different. Bicyclists are generally unlicensed, moving violations
generally have much smaller penalties, and enforcement is generally lax.
The basis for these realities is that cyclists present an almost
negligible risk to other road users.

Riding in congested conditions is unpleasant, the only reason to do it
is that it's an efficient way of getting through gridlock. I ride in
what I consider to be an efficient and pragmatic fashion. I also believe
it to be safe in part because I haven't ever had an accident in decades
and many thousands of miles riding. I really don't care in the slightest
how other people cycle (or how they dress). I have no interest in
preaching or converting, either.

I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.

In the case you presented, if the cyclists' behavior was discourteous
(impeding other traffic), it is not something I would personally do.
While I'm sure that discourteous behavior may cause negative attitudes
towards cyclists, I'm not sure what business that is of mine.

Peter Cole wrote:
snip

..

I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.


Can you give some examples where not conforming to the letter of the law
is acceptable in your opinion please.

On Aug 1, 9:25 am, Richard Jones wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

snip

.



I'm a believer in courtesy (driving and biking), but feel that there
isn't necessarily a 100% overlap between courtesy and legality while
cycling -- I see plenty of legal, yet discourteous behavior, and I
believe it's possible to cycle courteously while not conforming to the
letter of the law.

Can you give some examples where not conforming to the letter of the law
is acceptable in your opinion please.

Oh give it a break. You want examples, I'll give you examples.

Ever not come to a complete stop at a stop sign? It's a hot day,
there's great visibility both directions, and no traffic in either
direction. You might reach 1 or 2 mph, but you don't come to a
complete stop.

Ever ride on a public street below the minimum speed limit?

Do you have a red triangle on the back of your vehicle to signify slow
moving traffic? Heck, the Amish (who object to signs) have them on
the back of their wagons.

Ever talk on your phone on an expressway at 70 mph when there are no
other cars in sight?

Ever order something from out-of-state on the internet and then
actually pay the sales tax on it to your state?

On the other hands, do bikers do things that are dangerous and give
themselves a bad reputation? Sure, at least around there. Riding in
a lane is a big thing. Take a bike going 15 mph down a road and
staying inside a white line. A tractor trailer hauling a modular home
comes up from behind him at 55 mph. Some bicyclist is forcing a 18-
wheeled vehicle hauling 40,000 pounds of a wide load to pull into the
oncoming land to avoid the biker. Really rude and really dangerous.
When I live (which is rural), get on the bike trails and get off of
the roads before you get yourself (or someone else) killed. Traffic
is moving way to fast and trucks are way too big to tangle with.

On 31 Jul 2008 22:22:43 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

BIG ONE writes:

On Aug 1, 3:29 am, Janet wrote:

THERE are CAR-CAR accidents because

cars can be dangerous and the people in them fail to drive them with
sufficient care as to avoid collision.

Calling car crashes 'accidents' is really quite misleading because if
the person in control of the vehicle at the time is clearly not taking
appropriate action as to avoid endangering others ... and this is not
accidental but a deliberately reckless activity - and your choice of
words makes it sound acceptable.

Not really true: whlie many (probably most) accidents are the result
of drivers not leaving sufficient safety margins, the reality is that
any reasonable safety margin you leave can be exceeded, although with
low probability. For a safe driver who ends up in an accident, what
may happen is that a number of things go wrong all at once. While the
driver could handle each easily due to the safety margin, with all of
them at one time, the driver is overwhelmed. If you say a driver
should leave enough of a safety margin to handle mlutiple simultaneous
incidents, the obvious question is "how many?" and for any answer less
than infinity, you still have a nonzero chance of an accident as the
number you give can be exceeded.

BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.

you are mostly correct - if you take the position that there is a
valid justification for driving a car in the first place - I happen
not to be persuaded that such behavior has been justified. But that's
quite another story & not relevant to either critical mass, or any of
the groups crossposted to here.

but even in the example you provide, the stroke/seizure is not an
'accident' do you think the driver (had they survived) would come out
saying "sorry I didn't mean to have a stroke- it was just an
accident" ?
no ... it doesn't seem right somehow does it.

I agree that **** happens & we couldn't (nor may wish to) plan for
everything, and "accidents will happen" but to apply the word
'accident' to every one of the millions of yearly violent incidents
involving car use is just ignoring the problem.


back on topic - when CM run red lights it is often (IME) at the
insistence of the police who herd the mass.
Many cyclists such as myself disapprove of this practice http://stopatred.org/
surely a group is more efficient if every member is free to react
responsibly according to what they see best, while the marshalling of
the police simply makes the mass less efficient and slower as well as
denying liberty to a specific group for no good reason

I think I can hear someone at the back saying 'If this liberty is
good for cyclists why are you denying it for people in control of
cars?'
to which I reply-
Cyclists are not in the same league as car drivers when it comes to
taking care to avoid collisions, cyclists actually (and almost
universally) seek to avoid collisions, while people in control of cars
(who may at other times be cyclists) appear either to actively seek to
collide with objects, or to not take due care to avoid doing so.

"Dane Buson" wrote in message
...

There's a remarkable amount of
consistency that the driver flipped out first and ran people over. Then
the imbeciles on bikes starting attacking the car [1][2]. In an ideal
world they would have got the license plate number and description of
everyone involved and all started calling 911 instead.

I wasn't there, so I can't speak to this directly. But generally, I've been
hearing from other cyclists this summer that SPD will not respond when
victims of crimes are on bikes. The latest example of this is that commuters
have been pelted with rocks as they come out of the I-90 bike tunnel. When
cyclists call 911, the police do not show up. Meanwhile, some kids toss
rocks off of an overpass onto motorists on I-5, and there's an immediate law
enforcement presence and an article in the Seattle Times.

If the cyclists on CM believed that law enforcement would have responded
quickly to the guy running over the people on bikes, would they have been so
quick to engage in vigilante action? It doesn't excuse bad behavior
(particularly, thwacking the guy on the head with a U-lock - damn). But it
makes the bad behavior to my mind, more understandable if not justifiable,
and is information lacking in the mainstream reportage on the incident.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

BIG ONE writes:

On 31 Jul 2008 22:22:43 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

BIG ONE writes:

BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.

you are mostly correct - if you take the position that there is a
valid justification for driving a car in the first place - I happen
not to be persuaded that such behavior has been justified. But that's
quite another story & not relevant to either critical mass, or any of
the groups crossposted to here.

It's relevant to the post I replied to, which made a claim about
accidents in general. If you want to pretend that is off topic, you
should have complained about your own post.

but even in the example you provide, the stroke/seizure is not an
'accident' do you think the driver (had they survived) would come out
saying "sorry I didn't mean to have a stroke- it was just an
accident" ?
no ... it doesn't seem right somehow does it.

Except that what would really be said is that he was sorry that the
accident occurred, just as you might tell someone you were sorry to
learn that his/her house was hit by a tornado.

What's an accident is that the stroke/seizure occurred at a time when
it would result in a car crash.

I agree that **** happens & we couldn't (nor may wish to) plan for
everything, and "accidents will happen" but to apply the word
'accident' to every one of the millions of yearly violent incidents
involving car use is just ignoring the problem.

??? Read what I originally posted, specifically, "whlie many
(probably most) accidents are the result of drivers not leaving
sufficient safety margins, the reality is that any reasonable safety
margin you leave can be exceeded, although with low probability."

How is stating that many or most drivers involved in accdients are not
leaving sufficient safety margins ignoring the problem. Surely you
can't object to the word "accident":

1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.

The word's standard meaning includes the case where people are not
acting with due care but don't expect the outcome.

back on topic - when CM run red lights it is often (IME) at the
insistence of the police who herd the mass.
Many cyclists such as myself disapprove of this practice http://stopatred.org/
surely a group is more efficient if every member is free to react
responsibly according to what they see best, while the marshalling of
the police simply makes the mass less efficient and slower as well as
denying liberty to a specific group for no good reason

State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Jul 27, 3:03*am, Tim McNamara wrote:
Bill Sornson writes:
On Jul 26, 9:58*am, "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

"The revolution will not be televised"

http://www.cbs8.com/flv/video_pop_hd...&cat=undefined

CM is sure a bunch o' twits. *They, like too many others, have
confused being anti-car with being pro-bike. *They are not the same.

Quite right. "too many others" includes the majority of the most
prolific posters on uk.rec.cycling, who claim to be pro-bike because
they're too cowardly to admit to being anti-car. They implicitly
support the likes of Critical Mass by refusing to condemn them (in
fact, many of them are probably fully paid-up members). And
mysteriously, they just happen to support every single anti-motorist
measure...I wonder why?

Good to know that other bicycle newsgroups haven't gone down the pan
in the same way. If I was a keen cycling advocate, I'd be furious
about the car-haters pretending to be cycling advocates and trashing
our reputation. Members of the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups need to be
vigilant to ensure that the anti-motorist/CM crowd don't take over
their groups in the same way as they have urc.

Guy Cuthbertson

In article ,
"nully" writes:

ROR restrictions don't make a lot of sense for cyclists, they're (we're)
much smaller and more agile than MV's. The real right turn threats are
getting "hooked" by a driver that fails to signal or crushed by a truck or
bus. I go when it's safe, and don't when it's not. I don't rely on
MV-oriented restrictions to protect my safety, they won't. I'm also not
going to wait behind a long line of cars. If I'm going to do that, I might
as well drive, too. Motorists ruin the road for cycling, especially at
rush hour. If they were courteous, they'd make a bigger effort to just get
out of the way. On top of that, they're loud, smell bad, and spew tons of
heat -- much ruder than the ugliest spandex outfits.

Or, interpreted:
"I ride a bike so I'll ignore the law and feel sanctimonious while doing
it".

Or, interpreted:

"I drive a car and am thereby entitled.

But I'm subject to numerous restrictions and limitations.

So I demand homage from non-motorized street users, expressed
by their needless putting-up with the same restrictions and
limitations as myself."


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Peter Cole wrote:
Janet wrote:

I too agree. There are some cyclist that just do stupid things to make
all cyclist look bad. There's a group (4-6 people) that ride in a pace
line, dressed like they are in the Tour de France (it's more than just
wearing cycling shorts/shirts for comfort)

Who cares what they wear?...

FABRIZIO MAZZOLENI cares!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

On 01 Aug 2008 13:18:02 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

BIG ONE writes:

On 31 Jul 2008 22:22:43 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

BIG ONE writes:

BTW, the newspapers in the Bay Area had a lot of coverage of an
accident in San Francisco that happened a year or two ago. A driver
crossed over the center line, hit a car making a right turn into a
parking lot, bounced off that and side swiped a number of parked cars,
knocking down some motorcycles, and then something leaked some
gasoline, so the whole mess went up in flames. It turned out that the
cause was a sudden medical emergency - some sort of stroke or seizure
- that more or less instantly resulted in the driver not being able to
control the vehicle. It's not the sort of thing anyone can plan for
when there are no symptoms in advance.

you are mostly correct - if you take the position that there is a
valid justification for driving a car in the first place - I happen
not to be persuaded that such behavior has been justified. But that's
quite another story & not relevant to either critical mass, or any of
the groups crossposted to here.

It's relevant to the post I replied to, which made a claim about
accidents in general. If you want to pretend that is off topic, you
should have complained about your own post.

a bit touchy there Bill, no offence intended. - if you review the
comments I made to which you are replying you will no doubt discover
that I am not in the slightest being critical of your post (indeed I
support your conclusions), merely pointing towards the potential for
this thread to be taken even more off topic, than it was by (I
believe) Janet. You will see that I was informing you of my
convictions, regarding use of cars and stating that discussions of the
justification of use of cars which do not relate to cycling are not
strictly on topic in the majority of groups to which this thread has
been addressed ( I can't imagine what alt.planning.urban is included
for) and are not central as issue for CM as a movement, if at all. I
am sure every person whether they support CM or not has an opinion on
the matter, but here is not the place to discuss it - and so I stated
that I did not wish to do so and would not have been doing so if I had
not felt that some tendency to wander off topic onto the car driving
issues was not approaching.

but even in the example you provide, the stroke/seizure is not an
'accident' do you think the driver (had they survived) would come out
saying "sorry I didn't mean to have a stroke- it was just an
accident" ?
no ... it doesn't seem right somehow does it.

Except that what would really be said is that he was sorry that the
accident occurred, just as you might tell someone you were sorry to
learn that his/her house was hit by a tornado.

What's an accident is that the stroke/seizure occurred at a time when
it would result in a car crash.

arguably this is correct, when the word 'accident' is used to refer to
the unintentional and unavoidable tornado/stroke, and not the
collision itself.

I agree that **** happens & we couldn't (nor may wish to) plan for
everything, and "accidents will happen" but to apply the word
'accident' to every one of the millions of yearly violent incidents
involving car use is just ignoring the problem.

??? Read what I originally posted, specifically, "whlie many
(probably most) accidents are the result of drivers not leaving
sufficient safety margins, the reality is that any reasonable safety
margin you leave can be exceeded, although with low probability."

??? and I agree with the sentiment you had expressed (as I have and
had already posted) but as I have said - and will continue to say- I
disagree with the word 'accident' being used to describe every and any
collision involving a motorized vehicle (planes strangely enough don't
seem to have 'accidents' - they have crashes)


How is stating that many or most drivers involved in accdients are not
leaving sufficient safety margins ignoring the problem. Surely you
can't object to the word "accident":

1. Literally, a befalling; an event that takes place without
one's foresight or expectation; an undesigned, sudden, and
unexpected event; chance; contingency; often, an
undesigned and unforeseen occurrence of an afflictive or
unfortunate character; a casualty; a mishap; as, to die by
an accident.

I agree it could be and has been used in these ways... but why stop
there, it is not always even a noun, but to restrict it so would still
leave a very vague and imprecise word:

OED entry(snipped):

As in many other adopted words, the historical order in which the
senses appear in Eng. does not correspond to their logical
development, a fact still more noticeable in the derivatives.

I. Anything that happens.

1. {dag}a. An occurrence, incident, event. Obs. b. Anything
that happens without foresight or expectation; an unusual event, which
proceeds from some unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known
cause; a casualty, a contingency. the chapter of accidents: the
unforeseen course of events. c. esp. An unfortunate event, a
disaster, a mishap.

d. colloq. An accidental or untimely call of nature.

e. A child conceived or born as a result of an unintended
pregnancy; (an event which leads to) an unplanned pregnancy. Cf.
MISTAKE n. 1d. colloq.

2. abstractly, Chance, fortune. (By accident = Fr. par accident
(14th c.), L. per accidens.)

{dag}3. Med. An occurring symptom; esp. an unfavourable symptom.
Obs.

{dag}4. A casual appearance or effect, a phenomenon. Obs.

5. An irregular feature in a landscape; an undulation.

II. That which is present by chance, and therefore non-essential.

6. a. Logic. A property or quality not essential to our conception
of a substance; an attribute. Applied especially in Scholastic
Theology to the material qualities remaining in the sacramental bread
and wine after transubstantiation; the essence being alleged to be
changed, though the accidents remained the same.

b. Textual Criticism. = ACCIDENTAL B. n. d.

7. Hence, by extension, Any accidental or non-essential
accompaniment, quality, or property; an accessory, a non-essential.

8. Heraldry. An additional point or mark that may be retained or
omitted in a coat of arms.

{dag}9. Grammar. pl. (L. accidentia, Quintil.) The changes to
which words are subject, in accordance with the relations in which
they are used; the expression of the phenomena of gender, number,
case, mood, tense, etc. Obs. replaced by ACCIDENCE.

10. a. attrib. and Comb.

b. accident neurosis, a neurosis caused or precipitated by an
accident; accident-prone a., predisposed or likely to cause or attract
an accident; also absol.; so accident-proneness, such predisposition
or likelihood.

DRAFT ADDITIONS APRIL 2001

accident, n.

* accident and emergency n. chiefly Brit. and N.Z. attrib. of or
relating to a hospital department or ward that deals with patients
requiring urgent assessment and treatment of injuries and acute
illnesses (also absol.); abbreviated A and E; cf. CASUALTY n.
[

* colloq. an accident waiting to happen n. a situation which is
potentially hazardous, esp. one resulting from neglect or
carelessness; someone or something considered liable to cause such a
situation.

The word's standard meaning includes the case where people are not
acting with due care but don't expect the outcome.

yes. But, it is so commonplace a term that when used in relation to
the sort of risk filled activities to which we have been referring it
normalizes the severity of the danger - which I propose is a deceptive
use and certainly on occasions is not in the interest of portraying an
accurate relation of events.

back on topic - when CM run red lights it is often (IME) at the
insistence of the police who herd the mass.
Many cyclists such as myself disapprove of this practice http://stopatred.org/
surely a group is more efficient if every member is free to react
responsibly according to what they see best, while the marshalling of
the police simply makes the mass less efficient and slower as well as
denying liberty to a specific group for no good reason

State law allows the police to override traffic signals to expedite
traffic in particular circumstances (e.g., a large number of people
leaving from an event where the traffic-signal controller hardware
isn't up to the task.) Ignoring a red light at the direction of the
police is both legal and proper.

I am sure most people (cyclists included) would agree with you there.
But as I believe we are posting from separate continents the specifics
of law and liberty are perhaps best avoided.