Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

Dorfus wrote:
Duncan wrote:

I've always amused myself with the idea of forming an anti-mass.
Imagine how cool a bunch of cyclists blocking critical mass for
their own perceived 'benefit' of the cycling community.
I didn't miss a CM for the first three years, I've been on their
mailing lists and I've been to their 'official' meetings that
weren't supposed to exist. I've never owned a car I commute almost
exclusively by bike. I think Zebee and Theo are pretty much spot on with
their arguments.
CM is nothing more than people indulging themselves at others
expense, including most cyclists.

Maybe you could get lots of cars together and block traffic in the
city. There's a novel idea!

Why should you care? They wouldn't be blocking bicycle traffic, would they?

Cars are not trying to block traffic, are they?

Theo

beerwolf wrote:
Dorfus wrote:

Maybe you could get lots of cars together and block traffic in the
city. There's a novel idea!

Compare road users with people connecting to a website. I don't
see much difference, morality-wise, between CM and a denial
of service attack.

That's an interesting comparison and, I believe, spot on.

Theo

scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

OK, I'll play. I understand a 'cork' to be where cyclists block cross
traffic who have a green light. Tell me what law a motorist breaks
when
ignoring such a block. If a police officer does the same thing, I
understand
that to be directing traffic, not a 'cork'.

Your move Scotty. Please quote traffic code for reference to my
misunderstanding.

If you deliberately run down any person with a motor vehicle, then I
think you're looking at a manslaughter charge (if it results in death,
as it likely would). I doubt that 'his corking was ****ing me off"
would be a reasonable defense.

Is this basic law of society not applicable in WA? Is WA really that
cut off from reality?

OK, I was thinking of pushing into the intersection rather than running over
the corkee. Though the temptation would be there.

Theo

Terryc wrote:
Tomasso wrote:

There's a very impressive one in the Powerhouse Museum. Second one to
circumnavigate Australia (via the coast, not in the water). I can't
recall the year, but it was something like 1895 or 1898.

Jim Fitzpatrick lists four circum navigations for the years 1899-1900.
He also lists twelve crossings 1896-1899 from various points.

Theo would probably also be upset to learn that the first Australian
motor car touring guides were actually produced by Pearson on a
bicycle. Pearson actually ran a clothing shop to sell clothing, etc
to people who wanted to tour in their motor vehicles. most early cars
were actually open design {:-).

Why would that upset me? Did something give you the impression that I'm
anti-cyclist or something. RAC patrolmen in the UK and in WA were originally
cycle mounted before changing to motorcycle and sidecar.

Early cars were open design? Wow! If my dad had not restored 6 vintage cars,
he's 93 and trying to sell his 1926 model T, I might never have known that.
Or if I'd lived with my eyes shut.

Theo

"PeteSig" wrote
"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

OK, I'll play. I understand a 'cork' to be where cyclists block cross
traffic who have a green light. Tell me what law a motorist breaks when
ignoring such a block.

You're serious? You would just plough on regardless of life or limb?

Of course not.

Why on earth did you post that in rich text?

Theo

Tomasso wrote:
"Terryc wrote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle
"The safety bicycle is a type of bicycle that became very popular
beginning in the late 1880s. The first safety, using a diamond frame,
was invented by John Kemp Starley in 1885. "Safeties" are
characterized by having two wheels of identical - or nearly
identical - size, and a chain-driven rear wheel."

Bloody wiki!
According to Archie Sharp
"The rear-driving safety was invented by Mr H J Lawson in 1879, but it was a
few years before it qas in great demand. Teh 'Rover' safety made by Mrssrs
Starley and Sutton in 1885, was the first rear-driving bicycle that attained
popular favour" "The Humber diamond frame was more and more generally
adopted by 1890". The pneumatic tyre was invented by Dunlop in 1890 and was
instantly accepted. "Now there is hardly a cycle made , with any other than
pneumatic tyres". (Now being 1896, the time of publication of Archie's
book).

If you see a copy of this book "Bicycles and Tricycles. An elementary
treatise on their design and construction" by Archibald Sharp, pick it up.
It's fascinating reading. Towards the end of the 'ordinary' they had geared
hubs, ofset hubs, and chain drive to the front hub.

So when were cars "invented"?
Considering the early cars used bicycle technology.

As in what technology? Spoked wheels were not exactly new. Chains had been
in use for some time. Solid tyres were not new.

Theo

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message ...
Terryc wrote:
G-S wrote:

Well he's learnt that a debate requires answering questions, so far
you're still ducking and weaving (trouble is you're doing it like a
boxer who's just taken a heavy blow to the head area

lol, your's and other's fantasy is showing. Nothing has landed on me
as nothing has been relevant. If any of you actually knew anything
about what you are talking about, it certainly doesn't show in your
questions. I think it goes by the name of "strawman".

Terry, I'm getting the impression that you're about 15. How old are you
really? Are you still in school, or do you have a job?

Hint. He's younger than me, but just.

Much hairier though, and my bike(s) is (are) probably much lighter than his.

Tomasso.

Ray wrote:
....snip
Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
very supportive.

... snip

I'm sorry, but the bile squad sounds like a load of ****!!!! ;-) ;-)

This thread has produced a fair bit of bile. Maybe the bile squad could
drop by and mop up. I note that the OP, who started it all, has not posted
again. He must be chuckling into his beer )

--
beerwolf

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:37:04 -0000
Baka Dasai wrote:
That's CM, except for one thing - the corking when a light changes from green
to red. The rationale for corking is that without it the mass gets broken up
into smaller groups, and cars get caught between those groups, and the drivers
of those cars tend to get angry and start running over cyclists.

I'm not 100% convinced by that explanation, especially as the corking issue is
the only thing that really undermines CM's legal legitimacy (despite the police
supporting corking).

I am also unconvinced because what do they say if you say "blocking
traffic"? They say "but it's gridlock anyway".

Do CM ride only 2 abreast? Do they signal all turns? leave
sufficient room when following?


Zebee

On Dec 4, 3:29 pm, Baka Dasai wrote:
I also wince at some of the anti-CM posters who seem to not understand one of the
central characteristics of CM - that it makes the long-term change you want to
have happen exist right now, at least for an hour or so. That gives the
participants a buzz, and helps keep a vision of a bike-dominated rather than
car-dominated city alive.

I think this is the first intelligent defense of CM that I have read
in this thread.