Critical

Here's an item from NY:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.

Jobst Brandt

On Dec 17, 7:53*pm, wrote:
Here's an item from NY:

*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.

Jobst Brandt

Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.

"Ron Wallenfang" wrote in message
...

Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.

Oooh, there's a question which has never been asked before. Wait - isn't
there some archival system for usenet where you can check such things out?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:03:13 -0800 (PST), Ron Wallenfang
wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:53*pm, wrote:
Here's an item from NY:

*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.

Jobst Brandt

Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.

Your comments remind me of stuff we hear sometimes when cyclists are
hit by drivers: "Well, it's too bad that person got hit. But so many
cyclists run red lights. I'm not blaming that specific cyclist, but
really cyclists ought to behave better..."

On Dec 17, 6:03 pm, Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, wrote:

Here's an item from NY:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.

Jobst Brandt

Police over-reactions cannot be condoned...

Sounds like the most serious charges have to do with falsifying
official reports in an effort to fabricate a justification for the
"over-reaction" (the frame-up cover-up)

I saw that video before, and while it notably did not show what the
bicyclist must obviously have done to **** off that cop so badly (I'm
thinking maybe flipped him off and/or maybe weaved around as if to
possibly veer toward him), by the time the bike got close the rider
was clearly not trying to hit the cop, and the cop's actions were
outrageous.

... but what do you say about
Critical Mass?

Well, I think it might be kind of an over-reaction, if you will, and
probably a bastion of some ad-hoc anarchists, but the way things are
out there it could require some dramatic action to even get people
thinking about sharing the road.

IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than good.

People probably said the same thing about Civil Rights demonstrations,
and you may be right - at least among some people and in the short
term. I guess Critical Mass can be kind of belligerent, but it seems
like so many people really don't think bikes belong on the roads at
all, and if this gets them to consider the matter, one way or another,
and they begin to learn the law instead of just carrying their
ignorant notions around to the detriment of cyclists everywhere,
well...

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:03:13 -0800 (PST), Ron Wallenfang
wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:53*pm, wrote:
Here's an item from NY:

*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.

Jobst Brandt

Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
Critical Mass? IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than
good.

Your comments remind me of stuff we hear sometimes when cyclists are
hit by drivers: "Well, it's too bad that person got hit. But so many
cyclists run red lights. I'm not blaming that specific cyclist, but
really cyclists ought to behave better..."

Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience. Generally
speaking, however, it's most effective when the purpose of the civil
disobedience is clearly promulgated so that onlookers get the point.
For many bystanders, Critical Mass is just a form of hooliganism and
does not communicate the desired message. As a result of this, Critical
Mass is basically an incompetent form of civil disobedience and probably
is not providing a net benefit for cyclists.

On Dec 17, 7:17*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
*John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:





On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:03:13 -0800 (PST), Ron Wallenfang
wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:53*pm, wrote:
Here's an item from NY:

*http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

You may have seen this elsewhere.

Jobst Brandt

Police over-reactions cannot be condoned, but what do you say about
Critical Mass? *IMHO, it does bike riders at large more harm than
good.

Your comments remind me of stuff we hear sometimes when cyclists are
hit by drivers: "Well, it's too bad that person got hit. But so many
cyclists run red lights. I'm not blaming that specific cyclist, but
really cyclists ought to behave better..."

Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience. *Generally
speaking, however, it's most effective when the purpose of the civil
disobedience is clearly promulgated so that onlookers get the point. *
For many bystanders, Critical Mass is just a form of hooliganism and
does not communicate the desired message. *As a result of this, Critical
Mass is basically an incompetent form of civil disobedience and probably
is not providing a net benefit for cyclists.- Hide quoted text -

Even hooligans have rights, regrettably. -- Anton Scalia.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:17:58 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience.

Not always true. Lots or most of Critical Mass participants in my
city break no laws at all, though they disobey police orders to not
ride on the street. The courts have routinely said the police don't
have the power to give such order and have tossed tickets and arrests
based on them.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:11:42 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:17:58 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Well, Critical Mass is a form of civil disobedience.

Not always true. Lots or most of Critical Mass participants in my
city break no laws at all, though they disobey police orders to not
ride on the street. The courts have routinely said the police don't
have the power to give such order and have tossed tickets and arrests
based on them.

One other thing -- that's some Manhattan Critical Masses. Supposedly
in Brooklyn Critical Mass typically doesn't have any police or
government action against it at all - it's just a bunch of people
riding bikes in the streets legally. Doesn't get as much news
coverage...

Hi,

Dan O wrote:
Well, I think it might be kind of an over-reaction, if you will, and
probably a bastion of some ad-hoc anarchists, but the way things are
out there it could require some dramatic action to even get people
thinking about sharing the road.

Well, I don't really know about the U.S. but living in an overcrowded
country in Middle Europe, I see basically the same thing all the time:
When I go by bike, I get "mobbed" by car drivers in the worst possible
way: they overtake on my left when I signal to turn left, they use their
horns at me in the middle of an empty street, I've even had a few
drivers pulling into my way while overtaking me and a bus driver trying
to push me out of the road... When I talk to people some say "no bikes
on the street but only on the sidewalk" or similar and when I tell them
I simply cannot use the bike path on the sidewalk because of any one
reason, they tell me I have to do this, anyway...

Government responds with a change in traffic laws - they remove any
trace of minimum requirements for bike lanes from the law. The result is
ever more cars on the road, ever more roads built and car drivers
getting actually more aggressive all the time. But not only cars, also
the number of bike riders and public transport users increased over the
last few years noticeably. What do the authorities do? They talk about
"environmental protection" and build more roads. The public transport
has been improved marginally, but is having serious trouble with
overcrowding and too much use... Actually, try to buy a train ticket for
yourself and your bike - that is almost plain impossible by now.

In my opinion, traffic rules have been good as they are right now back
in the 1950's to th 1970's - but with today's overcrowding and with
*many* people driving cars that don't even speak the local language,
they are too complicated and unusable - even the traffic police and
judges don't know all the rules. For cars I suggest the following:

inside towns 20km/h max speed (~12mph)
outside towns 40km/h max speed (~25mph)
on speed-ways 60km/h max speed (~40mph)
with the cars limited to 70km/h by technical means
Sure, a strict enforcement...

First of all, distances are not too great here, second this would
eliminate many rules and tons of signs and third safety would increase
greatly by the reduced top speeds. And - people would have an incentive
to go by bike: it's faster ;-)

As for anything else, I do not think that even a change in legislation
that would make it mandatory for bicyclists to use the roads would have
any effect whatsoever (riding the sidewalk is forbidden here in absence
of special traffic signs, still everyone does it). Nobody really knows
the laws or cares for them - so I think the laws should be changed that
they are simple and easy-to-understand...

So lets have a few days of holidays and hope for a accident-free 2009 ;-)

Ciao...