critical manners

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000
scotty72 wrote:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Do they claim to be traffic? Did when I last looked but that may have
changed.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000
scotty72 wrote:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision)
of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a
police
instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Do they claim to be traffic? Did when I last looked but that may have
changed.

ZebeeMore specious people...

Did I say that?

Perhaps you'd love it if we disobeyed police directions then you'd have
a whole new thing to bleat about.

Scotty

Repeat the following
"Four wheels good... two wheel bad..."
"All vehilces are created equal... but some vehicles are more equal
than others..."


--
scotty72

Resound wrote:

Running red at 8-10 km/h (barely causes a scratch)
to the duco of the vehicle that hits you at 50-60kph. It does put a nasty
gouge in the psyche of the poor sod who had the temerity to just drive
through a green light though. And diverts emergency services. Not to mention
adding fuel to the "cyclists are dickheads who run red lights" argument.
Personally I'm sick of being made to look like a prat by association. I
recall Euan saying something about being abused for the cyclist that
trundled through a red light while he waited like an adult. Committing
serial petty dumbarsery like some hormone addled 14 year old just
perpetuates the notion that bike are toys, not a serious mode of transport.

I don't think it matters how well you ride there will still be people
who will prejudge your behaviour. The other night a cyclist rode through
a red light in front of me while I was driving a bus. Several passengers
said I should have just run her over because she wasn't wearing a
helmet. In fact she was wearing a helmet but had no lights on her bike.
They have a mental image of a bad cyclist and they projected that on her
regardless of reality. It's like the people who view all black people as
theives or lazy or dangerous. There was no CM when I was a lad, but
cyclists copped more flack then than now.

P

On 2007-04-18, scotty72 wrote:

Plodder Wrote:
Do CM riders ride through red lights?
Corking prevents cars entering (and splitting) the group from cross
streets.

Yes, it does involve the back half of the group running a red.

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police.

Usually? Does it happen if the police are not there? I've read that
they attend the established CMs in major cities, but what happened on
the first few? What happens on the first CM in a new city? Are the
police invited? (If so, who invites them? The claim is that it's not
"organised" by anybody.)


So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.
The theory is that it would be far more disruptive to have the mass
split then try to reform. The last thing the cops would want is for the
mass to split into several mini masses that would be impossible to
supervise.

It seems to me that the corking was going on anyway, and the police now
support it so they can manage the group.


It is much better for everyone of the mass stays together
and passes through the light together rather than taking several cycles
to get through.

Much better for everyone? Not for the other traffic being delayed. Not
for the police - if the riders obeyed the rules there'd be no need for
them to be there at all!

On the contrary, wouldn't several smaller groups blend in with the
traffic flow much better? Oh, but there's no organisation, so maybe the
people at the back don't know the route.

Is the route explained before the ride (standard practice on every group
ride I've been on), or is it a big game of "follow the leader"?
Perhaps keeping the group together is a matter of convenience for CM
riders, allowing them to claim to have a "non-organised" ride and not
lose anyone.

Disclaimer: I've never seen a CM ride, and there isn't one to see where
I live. Most of what I know about it is what I've read on CM Sydney's
website http://www.bikesarefun.org/.

--
John
Every program has at least one bug and can be shortened by at least one
instruction. By induction, every program can be reduced to one instruction
which doesn't work.

scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
Peter wrote:

Get the cyclists
through the intersections as quickly as possible. I reckon if you
had 200 riders waiting on the side of the road for the next 300
held back by a red light, there would be just as much outrage as
happens now.

Where were you when people were complaining about the Hell Ride
running lights?

Do you want to concentrate on the letter of the law or safety?
There is a slight difference in speeds between the Hell Ride and CM.
About 35 km/h I suspect.

So it's OK to run red lights slowly?

Why is it that you go around speciously putting words into others
mouths? In fact, you don't even have the guts to do that, instead you
can only come up with snide, specious questions that reflect only upon
your grubbiness.

Oh dearie me, I think I've upset scotty.

I did not say, imply or think that it is ok to run red lights slowly.
I was repling to Zebee's direct comparision of Hell Riders and
Critical Mass. To THE LETTER OF THE LAW (as I wrote - if you could be
bothered to read) it is wrong. From a safety aspect - as the post to
which Zebbe was referring - a pack travelling at 50 km/h is far more
dangerous (lethal) than CM who av about 8 km/h (annoying - bruises at
worst) when someone gets hit.

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but not at 50
km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red lights
slowly but not OK?

Theo

scotty72 wrote
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:

ZebeeDo you want to concentrate on the letter of the law or safety?

There is a slight difference in speeds between the Hell Ride and CM.
About 35 km/h I suspect.

What has that got to do with running red lights?

A lot
Think of the consequences.
1) Running red = naughty = fine etc.
Vs
2) Causing a crash by:-
Running light at 50-60km/h (potentially fatal)
or
Running red at 8-10 km/h (barely causes a scratch)

You just don't get it, do you?

Theo

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote:

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:30 +1000
scotty72 wrote:

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

So they aren't traffic then.

They are a special group with special rules. Nothing to do with
showing bicycles as a viable form of transport.

From the Macquarie:
"Traffic -n 1. the coming and going of persons, vehicles, ships, etc. eg.
heavy traffic in a street.
2. the persons, vehicles, etc. going along such a way."

So clearly, yes CM is part of the traffic when they pass. No special rules,
just a means of moving along a street.

As far as viability is concerned there is no lack of viability in riding a
bike in the typical 6pm Friday traffic jam. CM is very relevant and viable.
We all do it individually, some respecting traffic lights less well than
others (personally I'm a stickler for following traffic lights), but in CM
we see the advantages of large numbers of riders to gain greater road space.
Anyone who rides with groups (eg. touring club, race training group) knows
full well how even a small group gets greater respect and room on the road.

--
Cheers
Peter

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

On 2007-04-18, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Plodder Wrote:

Am I understanding this correctly? "...riders 'cork' the intersection
to
stop cars entering until all riders are through." Does this apply
once the
light has turned red? Or is corking a method of preventing drivers
who have
a green light from proceeding? Do CM riders ride through red lights?
Corking prevents cars entering (and splitting) the group from cross
streets.

Yes, it does involve the back half of the group running a red.

However, this usually occurs under the direction (and supervision) of
the police. So, if you don't run the red, you'll be disobeying a police
instruction.

The theory is that it would be far more disruptive to have the mass
split then try to reform. The last thing the cops would want is for the
mass to split into several mini masses that would be impossible to
supervise. It is much better for everyone of the mass stays together
and passes through the light together rather than taking several cycles
to get through.

Note that while mass members take part in corking (typically two bikes
per intersecting road), if there isn't a masser corking when a
copper-on-bike arrives, the copper-on-bike will cork instead.


Ie, it is done under specific police instruction and action.

--
TimC
Error: Fuzzy Pointer Exception

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
scotty72 wrote:
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
Peter wrote:


SNIPPAGE

I did not say, imply or think that it is ok to run red lights slowly.
I was repling to Zebee's direct comparision of Hell Riders and
Critical Mass. To THE LETTER OF THE LAW (as I wrote - if you could be
bothered to read) it is wrong. From a safety aspect - as the post to
which Zebbe was referring - a pack travelling at 50 km/h is far more
dangerous (lethal) than CM who av about 8 km/h (annoying - bruises at
worst) when someone gets hit.

So you do think it's quite safe to run a red light at 8 km/h, but not at
50 km/h? You've lost me there. Are you saying it is safe to run red lights
slowly but not OK?

Theo

I often envy people their ability to reduce the world to black/white, but I
also pity them for all the greys they miss. Absolutes suck...

It seems to me that running a red at 8kph is SAFER than at 50kph; not
necessarily SAFE. Sometimes it's completely safe to run a red light.
Sometimes it's not safe to go through a green light. It may not be legal
(I'm assuming you've used "OK" to indicate "legal" above) but it can be
safe. Similarly, just going through a green light can be unsafe if someone
has decided to run the red from the other direction. It can be legal to run
a red light (think about emergency services) if certain procedures are used.
Red and green lights are, at best, indications of relative safety - if you
take them as absolute there's a problem. As with most situations, "it
depends" applies.

Personally, I sometimes feel like a knob waiting at a red light when there's
no traffic visible on the road I'm crossing and comply simply to avoid the
fine I might get from a camera or hidden cop. That applies whether I'm on my
bike or driving. Nevertheless, I comply. Other times, when I'm on my bike or
walking, red lights are less restrictive - sometimes I'll go through. If
there's traffic even a km away, or if I don't have a clear view for a safe
distance I'll wait. I don't take safety risks, but I do take legal risks. I
don't take either when driving - I always check around before driving from
or through a green light and always stop at the red regardless of
knobfeelingness.

Yes - I do regard my bike sometimes as a halfway house between driving and
walking. There is a different set of risks and behaviours associated with
different activities, so I'm comfortable assessing those risks and behaving
according to the assessment.

When I examine situations more critically it seems that most risks are legal
(fines, etc) rather than safety risks. I must admit to being much more
comfortable driving, walking and riding in places like Italy, where road
rules, traffic lights, etc are treated as suggestions rather than
hard-and-fast. There's a high degree of social negotiation for shared road
space that makes me feel safer (because others are used to that negotiation
and have the skills to suit) than I feel in Australia. Here I get a strong
message of "Don't think. Don't move out of your bubble. Do as you're told.
When it goes wrong it'll be someone else's fault, so don't worry." Geez, I
thought I left that behind when I was five years old!

So... Yes, I think it can be quite safe to run a red at 5kph. It's less safe
to do so at 50kph. That doesn't mean it IS safe at all times, but it CAN be.
Similarly, at 50kph it isn't ALWAYS unsafe, but it's generally LESS safe
(all else being equaly - more or less). Yes, it's vague and ambiguous -
welcome to a vague and ambiguous world, despite all our attempts to impose
rigid structures...

Cheers,

me

"scotty72" wrote in message
...


SNIP

FrankI hope you do rock up, then you'll be commenting from an informed
position of being there - not from the peanut gallery.

Cheers
Scotty


--
scotty72

Yep, Scotty, I will rock up. I dislike forming an opinion from hearsay...
thanks for the info Byron...

m