To all cyclists who supported the Critical Mass ride through the =
Melbourne domain tunnel, thanks a lot. As a competative cyclist I have =
had to put up with increase abuse while training today because of your =
stupidity last night. Unfortunately many motorist think we are one in =
the same and have been giving more abuse today than we normally recieve =
just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I dont think so!=20
Why don't you look at the constructive lead taken by Bicycle Victoria, =
who promote safe road use for all users. They lobbying Local and State =
governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They also promote =
rides that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, which in =
turn educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle =
commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.
You riders want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get =
over it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted =
radicals get, is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us. =
This will just make it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from =
riding and undo all the good BV and simular groups have achieved.
SH
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To all cyclists who supported the =
Critical Mass=20
ride through the Melbourne domain tunnel, <STRONG>thanks a lot</STRONG>. =
As a=20
competative cyclist I have had to put up with increase abuse while =
training=20
today because of your stupidity last night. Unfortunately many motorist =
think we=20
are one in the same and have been giving more abuse today than we =
normally=20
recieve just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I dont think so!=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why don't you look at the constructive =
lead taken=20
by Bicycle Victoria, who promote safe road use for all users. They =
lobbying=20
Local and State governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They =
also=20
promote rides that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, =
which in=20
turn educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle =
commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You riders want a society with out =
cars, its not=20
going to happen, get over it. What will happen with the publicity that =
you short=20
sighted radicals get, is there will be a wider devide between =
motorist=20
and us. This will just make it more dangerous to ride, discourage =
people=20
from riding and undo all the good BV and simular groups have=20
achieved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>SH</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
Well said and when will they ever learn?
"SH" <roadie@no-spam> wrote in message =
news:3efd44af$1_1@no-spam
To all cyclists who supported the Critical Mass ride through the =
Melbourne domain tunnel, thanks a lot. As a competative cyclist I have =
had to put up with increase abuse while training today because of your =
stupidity last night. Unfortunately many motorist think we are one in =
the same and have been giving more abuse today than we normally recieve =
just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I dont think so!=20
Why don't you look at the constructive lead taken by Bicycle Victoria, =
who promote safe road use for all users. They lobbying Local and State =
governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They also promote =
rides that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, which in =
turn educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle =
commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.
You riders want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get =
over it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted =
radicals get, is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us. =
This will just make it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from =
riding and undo all the good BV and simular groups have achieved.
SH
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Well said and when will they ever=20
learn?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"SH" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:roadie@no-spam">roadie@no-spam</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:3efd44af$1_1@no-spam">news:3efd44af$1_1@no-spam
imus.com.au</A>...</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To all cyclists who supported the =
Critical Mass=20
ride through the Melbourne domain tunnel, <STRONG>thanks a =
lot</STRONG>. As a=20
competative cyclist I have had to put up with increase abuse while =
training=20
today because of your stupidity last night. Unfortunately many =
motorist think=20
we are one in the same and have been giving more abuse today than we =
normally=20
recieve just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I dont think =
so!=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why don't you look at the =
constructive lead taken=20
by Bicycle Victoria, who promote safe road use for all users. =
They=20
lobbying Local and State governments in the provision of cycle safe =
roads.=20
They also promote rides that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the =
sport,=20
which in turn educates a large group of the population on the benifits =
of=20
bicycle commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You riders want a society with out =
cars, its not=20
going to happen, get over it. What will happen with the publicity that =
you=20
short sighted radicals get, is there will be a wider devide =
between=20
motorist and us. This will just make it more dangerous to ride,=20
discourage people from riding and undo all the good BV and =
simular groups=20
have achieved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>SH</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>To all cyclists who supported the Critical Mass ride through the
>Melbourne domain tunnel, thanks a lot. As a competative cyclist I
>have had to put up with increase abuse while training today because
>of your stupidity last night. Unfortunately many motorist think we
>are one in the same and have been giving more abuse today than we
>normally recieve just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I
>dont think so!
For a start, you might want to get your facts straight. It was the BURNLEY
Tunnel, not the Domain Tunnel. And any increase in abuse which you
(allegedly) received can be put squarely on the shoulders of the apoplectic
radio jocks who spent hours (literally) talking about how the world was
going to end because people couldn't drive through their precious tunnel.
For the record, here's some press clippings from AFTER the event which
reflect the reality of the situation:
Herald Sun
"Police said the protest caused only a minor disruption and they were happy
with the conduct of the protesters"
The Age
"VicRoads traffic controllers said the event did not seem to have caused
congestion in other parts of the city"
"After police drove through the closed tunnel at 6.30pm, the first five
cyclists entered from Power Street at 6.35pm. The rest entered from Kings
Way two minutes later. The tunnel was reopened at 7.15pm."
So, far from the projected chaos on the roads, the resulting effect on
traffic caused barely a ripple, according to the authorities. And the tunnel
was closed for a total of 45 minutes -- far from the 2 hours which the radio
jocks were screaming about.
>Why don't you look at the constructive lead taken by Bicycle Victoria,
>who promote safe road use for all users. They lobbying Local and State
>governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They also promote rides
>that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, which in turn
>educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle
>commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.
Among the 20 or so Critical Mass riders that I am friendly with, we are
involved in the following bicycle advocacy projects. Personally, I spend
time working on almost every item on this list:
* forming and running successful Bicycle User Groups (BUGs) to promote
cycling and lobby for better cycling facilities
* lobbying government & authorities at all levels, in conjunction with BV
* producing educative and informational cycling newsletters and publications
* sitting on local government cycling advisory committees
* working with local government & BV to create Bike Plans for council areas
* lobbying local council directly for bike lanes (many CM riders have been
involved in a campaign to get lanes on Chapel St, which finally looks like
it may happen)
* maintaining cycling email lists & websites
* writing articles for local newspapers and "BV News"
* planning for a "Melbourne Bike Week" next summer
* working on mode-shift programs which encourage people to consider cycling
rather than driving
* planning & hosting social rides open to the general public
(and this is not even mentioning work by CM'ers in the areas of public
transport & environmental advocacy)
The vast bulk of this work is unpaid & voluntary, and involves a huge
commitment of personal time from many diverse individuals. It would amount
to hundreds of hours spent on cycling advocacy each month -- and that's only
speaking for the 20 people that I know personally. I can't even begin to
speak for the other 430 riders who were at CM last night.
You are WAY off the mark when you paint us as outlaws. We work within the
system 99% of the time, and often we work hand-in-hand with Bicycle
Victoria. If you don't believe me, then ring up BV and ask them. And you
moigyt be interested to know that although BV does not endorse Critical Mass
(nor would we ever ask it to) there are many individuals who work for BV who
ride in CM.
We are not just activists, we are also advocates. Yet once a month when we
put on our party hats at CM, people like you get up on your high horse and
slag us off for being cowboys. Well, let me ask you, SH, what have you done
lately to promote cycling or improve cycling facilities?
>You riders want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get
>over it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted
>radicals get, is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us.
>This will just make it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from
>riding and undo all the good BV and simular groups have achieved.
I think YOU should get over it. Car use is an environmental, health,
resource use, land use and pollution issue. It's time people realised that
our current addiction to cars is completely unsustainable. And if it takes
CM to do it, then fine.
CM is global, and we're not going away. Come along to a CM ride some time
(last Friday of the month, 5.30pm, State Library) and experience the joy of
it all. You might even like it!
Christopher Jordan wrote:
> Very obvious- it will never be a car-free utopia almost anywhere in
> the world.
It will happen when industry and farming need more petro than we can pump.
But I don't think it will be utopia if we aren't prepared for it.
Mitch.
Critical Mass is a protest, just like any other, and it has every right to
exist. Rather than marching on foot with placards, this march takes place
on two man-powered wheels. Its purpose is not to create a car-less utopia.
Those who participate in it for that reason are idealists, and must have
some clue that what they're hoping for will never ever happen. Critical
Mass's real purpose is to show to the community that road cyclists are here,
and that they have every right to be here, in a manner that the general
public and local government cannot ignore.
Many drivers and municipalities treat cyclists like a nuisance, rather than
like the healthy alternative form of transport that they are. While
cyclists may have the same rights to the road, streets are rarely designed
with cyclists in mind, and drivers do their best to let cyclists know they
are not welcome. Critical Mass is just another avenue to let people know
there is a problem. If just a small portion of the people who participate
in Critical Mass use it as just another avenue for getting their message
out, and continue to lobby their government for more bike lanes and safe
road programs in the meantime, then I say all power to them.
I'm sure the civil rights protests of the past were viewed as a nuisance to
some for their time as well.
"SH" <roadie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efd44af$1_1@no-spam
You riders want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get over
it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted radicals get,
is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us. This will just make
it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from riding and undo all the
good BV and simular groups have achieved.
"DedCat" <deadcat@no-spam> wrote in message
news:hBkLa.8544$x4o.3075@no-spam
> Critical Mass is a protest, just like any other, and it has every right to
> exist.
Yes it does.......but when it stomps on others rights......it has no place
here or anywhere. CM is a bunch of losers who don't have any good thing to
say in the first place, let along distroying what us good cyclist have left.
Thanks but NO THanks for you so called support.......
Rather than marching on foot with placards, this march takes place
> on two man-powered wheels. Its purpose is not to create a car-less utopia
You're not doing that........your making it only harder for the legit
cyclist to survive.
who participate in it for that reason are idealists, and must have
> some clue that what they're hoping for will never ever happen.
They have no clue but disruption of the human race......plus 99% don't even
know what a bike is!
Critical
> Mass's real purpose is to show to the community that road cyclists are
here,
> and that they have every right to be here, in a manner that the general
> public and local government cannot ignore.
They are not road cyclist......the are rogues and disruptors........that
all.
ike the healthy alternative form of transport that they are. While
> cyclists may have the same rights to the road, streets are rarely designed
> with cyclists in mind, and drivers do their best to let cyclists know they
> are not welcome. Critical Mass is just another avenue to let people know
> there is a problem.
The problem is CM itself.........we don't need your help.......you cause
100% more harm then good
If just a small portion of the people who participate
> in Critical Mass use it as just another avenue for getting their message
> out, and continue to lobby their government for more bike lanes and safe
> road programs in the meantime, then I say all power to them.
Yes we need more bike lanes, etc.......but CM way of protest will NEVER get
the proper attention and will bring more resistance the help........I have
experienced it.........NO thanks to you.
>
> I'm sure the civil rights protests of the past were viewed as a nuisance
to
> some for their time as well.
Yes they were............and did they get what they wanted...........no!
Not with your help...........
s want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get over
> it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted radicals
get,
> is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us. This will just
make
> it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from riding and undo all the
> good BV and simular groups have achieved.
>
>
Critical Mass n. 1. Yet another excuse for irresponsible behavior.
scottjl@no-spam (ScottJL) wrote:
>Critical Mass n. 1. Yet another excuse for irresponsible behavior.
n 2. A collective noun for a "bunch of cunts".
"Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vfs09s4jq3kiae@no-spam
> Yes it does.......but when it stomps on others rights......it has no place
> here or anywhere. CM is a bunch of losers who don't have any good thing to
...
>> They are not road cyclist......the are rogues and disruptors........that
> all.
...
> Yes we need more bike lanes, etc.......but CM way of protest will NEVER
get
> the proper attention and will bring more resistance the help........I have
> experienced it.........NO thanks to you.
...
> Yes they were............and did they get what they wanted...........no!
> Not with your help...........
You've made four erroneous assumptions here.
One is that all participants in a critical mass protest are hooligans.
Watch one one day and you'll see that while a good number of them are bike
couriers (who should know a thing or two about street riding as they are on
the road in the downtown core all day long), they are not all ruffians.
Two is the ignorant assumption number two is that your way is the only
way... the inherit arrogance in that statement is glaring. The are other
cyclists in this world, and they all have much as much right to their
opinion as you.
Three, that I am a ruffian and an active participant in critical mass
protests. I am not. The city I live in is well equipped for bicycles, and
while I still think things can be better, they are not so deficient that I
have felt the need to participate in a protest.
And lastly, you seem to have the bizarre idea that protests should be hidden
away so that people will not be inconvenienced with the message that is
trying to be conveyed. I wonder how far black rights, gay rights, or
anti-war movements would have gotten if people went so out of their way as
to not interrupt in the slightest the daily routine of the average schmoe
such as yourself.
"SH" <roadie@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3efd44af$1_1@no-spam>...
> To all cyclists who supported the Critical Mass ride
Critical Mass is nothing more then civil vandelism disguised as a
protest/event. Other road users think that cyclists are a nuisence,
and critical mass does nothing but justify that opinion.
If you want to change the way things are, take off your hemp cycling
jersy, turn down the phish cd and WORK to make it better.
"DedCat" <deadcat@no-spam> wrote in message
news:cMrLa.12012$x4o.7948@no-spam
> "Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vfs09s4jq3kiae@no-spam
> > Yes it does.......but when it stomps on others rights......it has no
place
> > here or anywhere. CM is a bunch of losers who don't have any good thing
to
> ...
> >> They are not road cyclist......the are rogues and
disruptors........that
> > all.
> ...
> > Yes we need more bike lanes, etc.......but CM way of protest will NEVER
> get
> > the proper attention and will bring more resistance the help........I
have
> > experienced it.........NO thanks to you.
> ...
> > Yes they were............and did they get what they wanted...........no!
> > Not with your help...........
>
> You've made four erroneous assumptions here.
>
> One is that all participants in a critical mass protest are hooligans.
> Watch one one day and you'll see that while a good number of them are bike
> couriers (who should know a thing or two about street riding as they are
on
> the road in the downtown core all day long), they are not all ruffians.
>
> Two is the ignorant assumption number two is that your way is the only
> way... the inherit arrogance in that statement is glaring.
Never said my or the highway...........but there way is NO way!
The are other
> cyclists in this world, and they all have much as much right to their
> opinion as you.
and that is your opinion.........right........one's opinion, just like mine
>
> Three, that I am a ruffian and an active participant in critical mass
> protests. I am not.
Then you should police your critical mass.........the few as you
say........ruin it all for the good!
The city I live in is well equipped for bicycles, and
> while I still think things can be better, they are not so deficient that I
> have felt the need to participate in a protest.
Protest or social disorder? there is a difference.
>
> And lastly, you seem to have the bizarre idea that protests should be
hidden
> away so that people will not be inconvenienced with the message that is
> trying to be conveyed.
Yes...to get your rights.........you should stomp on others rights to get
your point across........ I think not!
I wonder how far black rights, gay rights, or
> anti-war movements would have gotten if people went so out of their way as
> to not interrupt in the slightest the daily routine of the average schmoe
> such as yourself.
I know........wrote enough tickets for the MC in Sac.
>
>
"DedCat" <deadcat@no-spam> wrote in message news:hBkLa.8544
> Critical Mass is a protest, just like any other, and it has every right to
> exist. Rather than marching on foot with placards, this march takes place
There is no doubt that critical mass participants have a right to protest.
However, there is a big difference between protesting and disrupting.
Protesting gets the word out that there is a group of people who are opposed
to someone else's opinion or the way something is being done. Disrupting is
making the normal order impossible because the "protestors" are blocking
access.
> out, and continue to lobby their government for more bike lanes and safe
> road programs in the meantime, then I say all power to them.
Lobby all you want. Have petition drives. Put up signs. Have cycling
programs for kids. Get the transportation people to add more questions about
bicycles on driver's exams. Work on stricter penalties for injuring or
killing a cyclist with a car. Do all of these things, but please, don't jam
up the roads in "protest." It does nothing to promote our rights to the
road. But it certainly makes people mad.
Personally, I don't want critical mass to be a reflection of me. They do not
represent me. But their actions reflect on cyclists as a whole.
-Buck
"RattRigg" <chuckzuhlke@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bf151c88.0306281855.4e43462a@no-spam
> Critical Mass is nothing more then civil
> [vandalism] disguised as a protest/event.
If this be civil vandalism, let us make the most of it.
> Other road users think that cyclists are
> a [nuisance], and critical mass does
> nothing but justify that opinion.
Don't know about Oz, but here in California the only
significant problems seem to occur when some politician (da mayor
in SF, and some Asian SF supervisor whose name escapes me, Michael
something) decides to try to get some ink by insisting the cops
crack down, so they do, people get pushed around, feathers get
ruffled, tempers rise. Either that or the cops are just bored, so
they decide on their own to push people around.
> If you want to change the way things
> are, take off your hemp cycling [jersey],
> turn down the phish cd and WORK to
> make it better.
Dude, more hemp and more Phish would make everything works
lots better.
Ride on,
Rico
Sackamenna (where it was only 101 degrees (38C) today, a break
from yesterday's 105 (40.5C))
Buck wrote:
> ...there is a big difference between
> protesting and disrupting.
Often there is not.
> Lobby all you want. Have petition drives.
> Put up signs. Have cycling programs for
> kids. Get the transportation people to
> add more questions about bicycles on
> driver's exams. Work on stricter penalties
> for injuring or killing a cyclist with a
> car. Do all of these things, but please,
> don't jam up the roads in "protest."
Protest doesn't need quotes around it. It is just that.
> It does nothing to promote our rights to the
> road. But it certainly makes people mad.
In other words, do whatever you want, just don't do anything
that might actually get people's attention.
> Personally, I don't want critical mass to
> be a reflection of me. They do not
> represent me. But their actions reflect on
> cyclists as a whole.
Tough problem. Either they're just criminals who should be
busted, or their gripes are legitimate, in which case you'd want
to lend them a hand. Let us know which way you decide to go.
"Rico X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote in message news:wotLa.723
> Dude, more hemp and more Phish would make everything works
> lots better.
>
Nonsense, you riff-raff are the reason elite roadies like me
are not appreciated over here like we should be.
And you types wonder why guys like me yell at you and throw
things like our Silca mini pumps at you when you get in our
way when we are out training.
The trouble with your C.M. stuff is the motorist you tick off
will see a top level cyclist like me later and only think of the
damn hippie loser he saw in town, it won't register on him that
I'm riding a pro bike with CX-7 Look pedals and hollow pin
chain and wearing my team kit.
If you want to cycle without obsessing about auto traffic then
stay out of places bikes have no business being in, like the
business areas, retail areas, urban areas, etc. You can put the
bike on the roof rack and drive out to the good training roads.
Use the car for getting to work and shopping, cycling is only
about training and competing.
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <chipomarc@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vUtLa.315308$ro6.7713501@no-spam
> Nonsense, you riff-raff are the
> reason elite roadies like me
> are not appreciated over here like
> we should be.
Fab! Long time no read. How are the new meds working out?
"Rico X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote in message news:B0uLa.797>
> Fab! Long time no read. How are the new meds working out?
>
>
Good, really.
Only concern is my directeur sportif Giuseppe Martinelli
has me using probenicid as the masking agent, and we all
know that probenicid didn't do the trick for Stefano Garzelli
last year.
"DedCat" <deadcat@no-spam> wrote in message
news:hBkLa.8544$x4o.3075@no-spam
> Critical Mass is a protest, just like any other, and it has every right to
> exist. Rather than marching on foot with placards, this march takes place
> on two man-powered wheels.
I always thought that protests were designed to generate understanding and
support, guess what guys and gals, you have failed. When even fellow cyclist
turn against you and your cause doesnt this give you an idea that your on
the wrong track. Education and publicity of the benifits of alterntive
transport has to be the answer but critical mass take the easy terror tactic
of disruption and mayham that set yourself aside from the rest of the
community.
> Critical Mass's real purpose is to show to the community that road
cyclists are here,
My point exactly, through disruptions like Friday nights, motorist know we
are here but 'tar us with the same brush' and believe we are just like the
circus freeks who disrupted their drive home.
> Many drivers and municipalities treat cyclists like a nuisance, rather
than
> like the healthy alternative form of transport that they are.
Sure but fueling their ingnorace with this sought of behaviour is not the
answer, as I mentioned in the original post, groups like Bicycle
Victoria(http://www.bv.com.au/) do so much more for this cause through
education. Most municipalities in Australia employ specific trafic engineers
to work toward building better roads for shared modes of transport. This
move has in no way been swayed by the Critical Mass tactics, it has been
brought on by mature lobbying by concerned bicycle user groups.
> From: "SH" <roadie@no-spam>
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:31:16 +1000
> Subject: Re: Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
>
>
<snip>
> Sure but fueling their ingnorace with this sought of behaviour is not the
> answer, as I mentioned in the original post, groups like Bicycle
> Victoria(http://www.bv.com.au/) do so much more for this cause through
> education. Most municipalities in Australia employ specific trafic engineers
> to work toward building better roads for shared modes of transport. This
> move has in no way been swayed by the Critical Mass tactics, it has been
> brought on by mature lobbying by concerned bicycle user groups.
SH, I notice that you completely ignored my original reply to your post.
I'll re-post for your benefit. Perhaps you'd care to read it this time:
>To all cyclists who supported the Critical Mass ride through the
>Melbourne domain tunnel, thanks a lot. As a competative cyclist I
>have had to put up with increase abuse while training today because
>of your stupidity last night. Unfortunately many motorist think we
>are one in the same and have been giving more abuse today than we
>normally recieve just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I
>dont think so!
For a start, you might want to get your facts straight. It was the BURNLEY
Tunnel, not the Domain Tunnel. And any increase in abuse which you
(allegedly) received can be put squarely on the shoulders of the apoplectic
radio jocks who spent hours (literally) talking about how the world was
going to end because people couldn't drive through their precious tunnel.
For the record, here's some press clippings from AFTER the event which
reflect the reality of the situation:
Herald Sun
"Police said the protest caused only a minor disruption and they were happy
with the conduct of the protesters"
The Age
"VicRoads traffic controllers said the event did not seem to have caused
congestion in other parts of the city"
"After police drove through the closed tunnel at 6.30pm, the first five
cyclists entered from Power Street at 6.35pm. The rest entered from Kings
Way two minutes later. The tunnel was reopened at 7.15pm."
So, far from the projected chaos on the roads, the resulting effect on
traffic caused barely a ripple, according to the authorities. And the tunnel
was closed for a total of 45 minutes -- far from the 2 hours which the radio
jocks were screaming about.
>Why don't you look at the constructive lead taken by Bicycle Victoria,
>who promote safe road use for all users. They lobbying Local and State
>governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They also promote rides
>that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, which in turn
>educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle
>commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.
Among the 20 or so Critical Mass riders that I am friendly with, we are
involved in the following bicycle advocacy projects. Personally, I spend
time working on almost every item on this list:
* forming and running successful Bicycle User Groups (BUGs) to promote
cycling and lobby for better cycling facilities
* lobbying government & authorities at all levels, in conjunction with BV
* producing educative and informational cycling newsletters and publications
* sitting on local government cycling advisory committees
* working with local government & BV to create Bike Plans for council areas
* lobbying local council directly for bike lanes (many CM riders have been
involved in a campaign to get lanes on Chapel St, which finally looks like
it may happen)
* maintaining cycling email lists & websites
* writing articles for local newspapers and "BV News"
* planning for a "Melbourne Bike Week" next summer
* working on mode-shift programs which encourage people to consider cycling
rather than driving
* planning & hosting social rides open to the general public
(and this is not even mentioning work by CM'ers in the areas of public
transport & environmental advocacy)
The vast bulk of this work is unpaid & voluntary, and involves a huge
commitment of personal time from many diverse individuals. It would amount
to hundreds of hours spent on cycling advocacy each month -- and that's only
speaking for the 20 people that I know personally. I can't even begin to
speak for the other 430 riders who were at CM last night.
You are WAY off the mark when you paint us as outlaws. We work within the
system 99% of the time, and often we work hand-in-hand with Bicycle
Victoria. If you don't believe me, then ring up BV and ask them. And you
might be interested to know that although BV does not endorse Critical Mass
(nor would we ever ask it to) there are many individuals who work for BV who
ride in CM.
We are not just activists, we are also advocates. Yet once a month when we
put on our party hats at CM, people like you get up on your high horse and
slag us off for being cowboys. Well, let me ask you, SH, what have you done
lately to promote cycling or improve cycling facilities?
>You riders want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get
>over it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted
>radicals get, is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us.
>This will just make it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from
>riding and undo all the good BV and simular groups have achieved.
I think YOU should get over it. Car use is an environmental, health,
resource use, land use and pollution issue. It's time people realised that
our current addiction to cars is completely unsustainable. And if it takes
CM to do it, then fine.
CM is global, and we're not going away. Come along to a CM ride some time
(last Friday of the month, 5.30pm, State Library) and experience the joy of
it all. You might even like it!
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:31:16 +1000, "SH" <roadie@no-spam> wrote:
>> Critical Mass is a protest, just like any other, and it has every right to
>> exist. Rather than marching on foot with placards, this march takes place
>> on two man-powered wheels.
>I always thought that protests were designed to generate understanding and
>support,
Since when? Protests are there to show politicians what the
alternative to doing nothing (or doing whatever they're doing) is..
PC
"Rico X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote in message
news:zutLa.732
> Buck wrote:
> > car. Do all of these things, but please,
> > don't jam up the roads in "protest."
>
> Protest doesn't need quotes around it. It is just that.
A protest makes a point without completely distrupting something else. When
critical mass gets involved, they cause big disruptions and only call it a
protest, thus the need for quotes. More often than not, they are out there
to act like dang fools. It's all the circus-wannabees that need a place and
time to show off their wares.
> > It does nothing to promote our rights to the
> > road. But it certainly makes people mad.
>
> In other words, do whatever you want, just don't do anything
> that might actually get people's attention.
I find it hard to believe that you cannot distinguish between "getting
peoples' attention" and disrupting peoples lives to the point of making them
angry. Perhaps you think al Queda was just "getting peoples' attention" when
they took down the twin towers. An extreme example, perhaps, but maybe now
you get the point?
> > Personally, I don't want critical mass to
> > be a reflection of me. They do not
> > represent me. But their actions reflect on
> > cyclists as a whole.
>
> Tough problem. Either they're just criminals who should be
> busted, or their gripes are legitimate, in which case you'd want
> to lend them a hand. Let us know which way you decide to go.
Once again you have difficulty seeing the line that you shouldn't cross.
People with legitimate gripes shouldn't engage in criminal behavior to make
their point. People who engage in criminal behavior don't represent my
values, thus they cannot accurately represent me.
I make my point by being a cyclist that flows with traffic. I provide input
to planners who are working on better biking facilities. I teach kids how to
ride, how to maintain, and how to use properly work with traffic. These are
all ways that I am making a difference. Not one of them causes a traffic
jam.
-Buck
"Buck" wrote...
> A protest makes a point without completely
> [disrupting] something else.
That's your definition. If the people of India, just to pick
one example, used your definition they'd still be British
subjects.
> Perhaps you think al Queda was just "getting
> peoples' attention" when they took down the
> twin towers. An extreme example, perhaps, but
> maybe now you get the point?
Not "just," but they did get people's attention rather well,
didn't they? And from their point of view it furthered their
cause dramatically. I'll bet the leaders understood pretty well
what the various factions around the globe would think. Maybe now
you get the point?
> Once again you have difficulty seeing the line
> that you shouldn't cross.
Should, shouldn't, could, couldn't. It would be nice if the
world were so black and white and simple. Some people see the
line quite clearly and make a conscious choice to cross it, fully
aware of the consequences. Welcome to the muddy world of law,
politics, and civil disobedience.
> People with legitimate gripes shouldn't
> engage in criminal behavior to make their
> point. People who engage in criminal
> behavior don't represent my values, thus
> they cannot accurately represent me.
So no law could ever be wrong, could never be violated on
principle?
> These are all ways that I am making a difference.
Good for you. Critical Mass, as much as you hate it, makes a
difference, too. Whether that difference is for the better in the
long run is quite debatable, imo. Again, I don't know about Oz,
but here in California the anger at the riders has been rather
confined in time space, while the consciousness raised appears to
be rather widespread.
"Rico X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote in message
news:hKDLa.989
> Critical Mass, as much as you hate it, makes a
> difference, too. Whether that difference is for the better in the
> long run is quite debatable, imo. Again, I don't know about Oz,
> but here in California the anger at the riders has been rather
> confined in time space, while the consciousness raised appears to
> be rather widespread.
I'm glad to see that you finally admit that CM could be doing more harm than
good. I would love to know where you get your data about the time and space
constraints of the anger against cyclists after a CM event and how
widespread the consciousness about cycling really is. Have you found a
survey or are you relying upon personal experience?
-Buck
Critical Mazz has spoken.
Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:57:21 -0700, <vfs09s4jq3kiae@no-spam>,
"Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> wrote:
>They are not road cyclist......the are rogues and disruptors........that
>all.
They're also potential votes for bicycle friendly politicians. The
smarter mayors of some major cities recognise this by participating in
those cities' Critical Mass rides. They know we aren't going away and
in fact, our numbers are growing as more people realise they do have
the power to transform urban space from the stinking filthy killing
ground that it becomes when automobiles are predominate.
If what you said were true it couldn't explain how, in just over 10
years, the movement has spread across the western world without any
funding from the usual suspects or any organisation beyond informal
discussions among individuals who, everyday, ride their bikes to their
real-world destinations on the roads paved with their tax dollars.
It's largely only the self-righteous redneck yokel factions in their
pathetic jerkwater jurisdictions that are still resisting.
--
zk
> Our city has a pretty good system of bike lanes (always room for
>improvement), and we're about to spend $4 million on the 5.7 mile
>Lance Armstrong Bikeway.
What a waste of money.
I guess that pretty much kills our possible relationship as reasonable
people.
You are going to have to come to terms with the fact that bicycles
are vehicles and that bicycle operators are equal under the law with
other vehicle operators.
If you have a problem with that then you are going to have to apply
elsewhere.
As far as I am concerned Critical Mass represents a threat to the
cycling community, in that it further serves to marginalise us and
characterise us as kooks and wastrels.
Cyclists, by and large, are solid tax paying citizens who don't
want dissent but who do want equal treatment under the law.
We don't want no fargin bike paths, we want a free road and the
same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle operator.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@no-spam
"Rico X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote in message
news:RcJLa.1344
> > Buck wrote:
> >> Have you found a survey or are you
> >> relying upon personal experience?
>
> A survey? Would that settle the issue for you? My use of
> words like "rather" and "seems" were a clue -- I formed my
> opinions by following the issue for years. There's no "data" that
> can prove anything one way or the other. It's a big gray area. I
> was just trying to indicate that it's not all as cut and dried as
> you and some people think. Forgive me for trying to expand the
> discussion. By all means let's stick to being upset and stating
> arbitrary, absolute rules that apply to everyone and every
> situation.
That's right, it's not all cut and dried and no, I never suggested it was.
I'd love to see a survey to settle the issue once and for all, but for now I
have to rely upon my own observations as well. As a CM supporter, you
obviously have your blinders on if you think that their methods are being
received in a positive way. In fact, I spent some time this morning
searching for a positive comment about CM outside of the CM network of
supporters. I found none. I did, however, find several editorial comments
from newspapers that did not cast CM in a positive light.
> It's very much about safety when some moron gets so angry
> because he's delay for a few minutes that he tries to kill people.
I'm certain that the CM riders were innocently riding along. Oh wait, here's
the perspective of the Honda driver:
Bikes vs. Cars: The Never-Ending Story
by Krissy Morrow
Editor:
I just wanted to correct some inaccuracies in the article about the Critical
Mass/Jeep incident ["Statesman Falls Off Its Bike," Oct. 5]. I was the
driver of the car that got hit. Now, I dislike aggressive drivers as much as
the rest of us, but I also know the law. Much as I would love to forcibly
stop someone after they cut me off and beat the crap out of them, guess
what? I don't have the right to.
Yes, when the cyclists stopped traffic on Congress when the cyclists
illegally ran a red light, Mike Henderson probably should have just sat on
his horn like the rest of the drivers and just tolerated the delay. But he
didn't. He went around the traffic and stopped at the next intersection. Too
aggressive? Maybe. But we as Austin drivers all know how many aggressive
offenses we witness a day that go unpunished. If a police officer doesn't
witness it, basically it didn't happen.
Henderson then came to the next intersection and stopped at the traffic
light -- which is where all this mess begins. The cyclists, apparently quite
like Gomer Pyle, decided they had the authority to make a citizen's arrest
for Henderson's aggressive driving. Now, even if they did actually believe
that they had the authority to detain Henderson, I ask you, did any single
person in the group actually make a call or seek out police so that the
proper authorities could intervene? I'll answer this one for you -- no.
Absolutely not. There is no record of a report of an aggressive driver at
First and Congress, and even if there were a call -- the cyclists absolutely
still did not have the authority to detain Henderson. By the way, the
cyclists also harassed the passenger. "Accomplice to the crime" -- is that
his charge, Gomer?
When the light turned green, Henderson asked the cyclists to please leave
him alone because he was going forward. He then inched forward cautiously.
When the cyclists still did not heed his warning, he proceeded. Contrary to
the Chronicle's report, there were at most two cyclists still in Henderson's
path when he went forward. After Henderson landed, the cyclists proceeded to
slash his tires (note, this means they were armed with knives) because they
decided he was a flight risk and then they keyed his car and spit into it
(because as well all know, keying a car and spitting into it greatly
increases the chances that it won't move).
And you know, if I were Henderson, I would have done exactly the same thing
and sped off. I would have felt as threatened as he did and feel the need to
remove myself from the situation. "Fight or flight" -- it's human instinct.
And Henderson didn't want a fight -- would you take on 20 angry, armed
cyclists?
To Critical Mass, if you want to promote your cause, taking a day every
month to break the law in groups is not the way. If you're just a bunch of
cyclists who decide to get back at all the drivers who cut you off all
month, then call yourselves that. You're promoting a cause. You're just a
pain in the ass.
And to the Chronicle: You criticize the Statesman for only getting half of
the story. I guess I must have missed the part in your article where you
managed to get the other half of the story (the non-cyclist perspective) --
both my and Henderson's contact information are on the police report. I
object to the Statesman version as well, but on the grounds that it is
biased toward Critical Mass. Henderson did not get "frustrated by the delay"
and speed off. He had a green light and the right to proceed, but the
cyclists would not allow him to do so. I guess the only agreement we can all
come to here is that the Statesman can't ever seem to get the story right.
Krissy Morrow
And here's another example of CM riders exhibiting exemplary behavior:
"A group of bicyclists formed a circle around the officers, yelling and
spitting at them, and then a man grabbed an officer´s radio and ran. Two
officers chased and tackled the man, handcuffed him and took him to the
police station. "
I could spend all day quoting articles that demonstrate how CM participants
are less than peaceful protestors. This is why I don't want them
representing me.
-Buck
Rico X. Partay wrote:
> A survey? Would that settle the issue for you? My use of
> words like "rather" and "seems" were a clue -- I formed my
> opinions by following the issue for years. There's no "data" that
> can prove anything one way or the other. It's a big gray area. I
> was just trying to indicate that it's not all as cut and dried as
> you and some people think. Forgive me for trying to expand the
> discussion. By all means let's stick to being upset and stating
> arbitrary, absolute rules that apply to everyone and every
> situation.
Your opinions are fine, but ipse dixit.
>>Austin American-Statesman 29 Sept 01
>>The protest turned into a melee when
>>Mike Henderson, frustrated by the
>>delay, drove his Jeep Wrangler into
>>the intersection. He narrowly missed
>>several bicyclists but hit the front
>>end of Krissy Morrow's Honda Civic.
>>"I was probably in the wrong," said
>>Henderson, who acknowledged driving
>>into the crowd of bicyclists.
>>Henderson, who said he was beaten by
>>four bicyclists, was charged with
>>reckless driving, said Austin police
>>spokesman Paul Flanigan.
>
> It should have been attempted murder.
For the four CM terrorists who assaulted the guy in the Jeep?
>>It's not about safety when you tie
>>up traffic and beat drivers.
>
> It's very much about safety when some moron gets so angry
> because he's delay for a few minutes that he tries to kill people.
He had right of way.
>>Some of those drivers have bad impressions
>>of cyclists based upon experiences with
>>Critical Mass.
>
> Some cyclists have bad impressions of drivers based on a
> lifetime of cycling.
You don't have to tell me about bad drivers. As I said, I commute by
bike -- rain or shine. I've had stuff thrown at me (including an
unopened soda can that missed my head by a couple inches), swerved at,
cussed out, you name it. I even encountered one jerk who actually got
out of his vehicle and tried to start a fight.
It's bad regardless who's breaking the law. The difference in the case I
showed above is the people from CM got together specifically to break
the law. The guy in the Jeep just wanted to go home.
Im sorry David, didnt ingnore you, just didnt have time to reply. heres my
reply.
> SH, I notice that you completely ignored my original reply to your post.
> I'll re-post for your benefit. Perhaps you'd care to read it this time:
>
> For a start, you might want to get your facts straight. It was the BURNLEY
> Tunnel, not the Domain Tunnel.
You were right it was the Burnley Tunnel.
> And any increase in abuse which you
> (allegedly) received can be put squarely on the shoulders of the
apoplectic
> radio jocks who spent hours (literally) talking about how the world was
> going to end because people couldn't drive through their precious tunnel.
Didnt critical mass provide press releases conveying what the group were
going to do and wasn't the organisations aim to disrupt peak hour traffic
through one of the main east exits from the city. Surely the RADIO JOCKS
comments and reaction was what was expected by the Critical Mass. The abuse
that followed is surely a result of the organisations actions.
> For the record, here's some press clippings from AFTER the event which
> reflect the reality of the situation:
>
>
> Herald Sun
> "Police said the protest caused only a minor disruption and they were
happy
> with the conduct of the protesters"
Yeah because because the "radio jocks" had encouraged tunnel users to use
alternative exits. In regard to their conduct sure police were happy there
was no injuries or damage to public property
>
> The Age
> "VicRoads traffic controllers said the event did not seem to have caused
> congestion in other parts of the city"
Sure our roads infrastructure handled this sought of traffic before the
tunnels were built. But your missing the point. Critical Mass's aim was to
inconvienience drivers, who yes were fired up by the media, who were fueled
by the CM press releases. Who then took it out on us.
> "After police drove through the closed tunnel at 6.30pm, the first five
> cyclists entered from Power Street at 6.35pm. The rest entered from Kings
> Way two minutes later. The tunnel was reopened at 7.15pm."
>
>
> So, far from the projected chaos on the roads, the resulting effect on
> traffic caused barely a ripple, according to the authorities. And the
tunnel
> was closed for a total of 45 minutes -- far from the 2 hours which the
radio
> jocks were screaming about.
OK but there were only 430 riders riding 3 km. If the CM numbers that have
been experienced in other parts of the had riden through the tunnel, traffic
could have been held up for 2 hours
>
>
>
> >Why don't you look at the constructive lead taken by Bicycle Victoria,
> >who promote safe road use for all users. They lobbying Local and State
> >governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They also promote rides
> >that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, which in turn
> >educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle
> >commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.
>
>
> Among the 20 or so Critical Mass riders that I am friendly with, we are
> involved in the following bicycle advocacy projects. Personally, I spend
> time working on almost every item on this list:
>
> * forming and running successful Bicycle User Groups (BUGs) to promote
> cycling and lobby for better cycling facilities
> * lobbying government & authorities at all levels, in conjunction with BV
> * producing educative and informational cycling newsletters and
publications
> * sitting on local government cycling advisory committees
> * working with local government & BV to create Bike Plans for council
areas
> * lobbying local council directly for bike lanes (many CM riders have been
> involved in a campaign to get lanes on Chapel St, which finally looks like
> it may happen)
> * maintaining cycling email lists & websites
> * writing articles for local newspapers and "BV News"
> * planning for a "Melbourne Bike Week" next summer
> * working on mode-shift programs which encourage people to consider
cycling
> rather than driving
> * planning & hosting social rides open to the general public
> (and this is not even mentioning work by CM'ers in the areas of public
> transport & environmental advocacy)
>
> The vast bulk of this work is unpaid & voluntary, and involves a huge
> commitment of personal time from many diverse individuals. It would amount
> to hundreds of hours spent on cycling advocacy each month -- and that's
only
> speaking for the 20 people that I know personally. I can't even begin to
> speak for the other 430 riders who were at CM last night.
>
> You are WAY off the mark when you paint us as outlaws. We work within the
> system 99% of the time, and often we work hand-in-hand with Bicycle
> Victoria. If you don't believe me, then ring up BV and ask them. And you
> might be interested to know that although BV does not endorse Critical
Mass
> (nor would we ever ask it to) there are many individuals who work for BV
who
> ride in CM.
This is fantastic and I applaude you for your commitment to these worth
while causes but why resort to the 1% of caos.
>
> We are not just activists, we are also advocates. Yet once a month when we
> put on our party hats at CM, people like you get up on your high horse and
> slag us off for being cowboys. Well, let me ask you, SH, what have you
done
> lately to promote cycling or improve cycling facilities?
I have worked in sport and recreation planning and promotion for over 15
years. Sure I got paid for what I did but yes I have been involved in
developing programs for the development of cyclists and the sport of
cycling. My work in local government saw me work closely with BV and
Cyclesport Victoria. This wasnt a hobby it was my carreer.
Keep us all safe
SH
Eric S. Sande wrote:
>>Our city has a pretty good system of bike lanes (always room for
>>improvement), and we're about to spend $4 million on the 5.7 mile
>>Lance Armstrong Bikeway.
>
> What a waste of money.
I almost agree since it's only going to be five blocks from a hike and
bike trail that serves the same purpose. The only problem with the
existing trail is all the mud when we actually have wet weather and when
the river overflows and washes out the trail.
That said, we lack a paved east-west route that doesn't have very heavy
(i.e., dangerous) traffic, particularly crossing I-35. Austin's portion
of I-35 is the deadliest stretch of that highway, which extends from
Duluth, Minnesota, near the Canadian border, and runs south all the way
to Mexico. The unsafe crossing problem needed a serious solution. Using
the right of way from the abandoned rail line makes the most sense for
the long term since the city owns the land already.
> I guess that pretty much kills our possible relationship as reasonable
> people.
I don't think so. It has wide support here (and that's among the general
population).
> You are going to have to come to terms with the fact that bicycles
> are vehicles and that bicycle operators are equal under the law with
> other vehicle operators.
What makes you think I've yet to come to terms with that?
> If you have a problem with that then you are going to have to apply
> elsewhere.
Whatever, lol.
> As far as I am concerned Critical Mass represents a threat to the
> cycling community, in that it further serves to marginalise us and
> characterise us as kooks and wastrels.
Agreed, one-hundred percent. If you have a problem with what I wrote
earlier, perhaps you should re-read what I wrote: "This project wouldn't
have received the support it has if it had been left up to Critical Mass
or others whose lawlessness masquerades as 'activism.'" In other words,
the path is being built in spite of their efforts.
> Cyclists, by and large, are solid tax paying citizens who don't
> want dissent but who do want equal treatment under the law.
I never wrote contrary to that.
> We don't want no fargin bike paths, we want a free road and the
> same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle operator.
I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
city don't, either. Not even the CM traffic terrorists.
Buck wrote:
>> It's very much about safety when some moron gets so angry
>>because he's delay for a few minutes that he tries to kill people.
>
> I'm certain that the CM riders were innocently riding along. Oh wait, here's
> the perspective of the Honda driver:
<snip of letter to the editor>
Thanks for posting that letter. She wasn't the only driver that day who
was ticked off and appalled by the CM traffic terrorists. She only got
caught in the middle of it because the guy ran into her.
> And here's another example of CM riders exhibiting exemplary behavior:
> "A group of bicyclists formed a circle around the officers, yelling and
> spitting at them, and then a man grabbed an officer´s radio and ran. Two
> officers chased and tackled the man, handcuffed him and took him to the
> police station. "
>
> I could spend all day quoting articles that demonstrate how CM participants
> are less than peaceful protestors. This is why I don't want them
> representing me.
I think Automator's reply about namecalling shows how peaceful their
biggest supporters are. Wishing harm upon others probably won't win him
a Nobel Peace Prize, but I suspect he's not exactly in the running anyway.
>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
>through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
>city don't, either.
This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
in law.
Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@no-spam
How I love you Forresterites. I'm in Australia & even I laugh at your
simplistic notion that everything would be better if bikes were classified
as vehicles.
Well, guess what? In every state of Aust, bikes do have the status of
vehicles. And it doesn't make an ounce of difference to the number of
catcalls & "get off the roads" that we get.
Of course, bikes should be allowed on the road. But that one fact is not
something to build such a zealous cult around. Why do you guys bother?
> From: "Eric S. Sande" <esande@no-spam>
> Reply-To: esande@no-spam
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:14:00 -0400
> Subject: Re: Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks
>
>> I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
>> through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
>> city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
Dont put out press releases??? What sought of protest organisation are you,
you are relying on the police and Vicroads to promote your ride?
"David Sutton" <david@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB25C264.62A4%david@no-spam
> > Didnt critical mass provide press releases conveying what the group were
> > going to do and wasn't the organisations aim to disrupt peak hour
traffic
> > through one of the main east exits from the city. Surely the RADIO JOCKS
> > comments and reaction was what was expected by the Critical Mass. The
abuse
> > that followed is surely a result of the organisations actions.
>
> The only press releases put out were from the Police & CityLink. Critical
> Mass NEVER puts out press releases. Not this time nor any time in the
past.
> Where did you get this info from?
>
>
> >> The Age
> >> "VicRoads traffic controllers said the event did not seem to have
caused
> >> congestion in other parts of the city"
> > Sure our roads infrastructure handled this sought of traffic before the
> > tunnels were built. But your missing the point. Critical Mass's aim was
to
> > inconvienience drivers, who yes were fired up by the media, who were
fueled
> > by the CM press releases. Who then took it out on us.
>
> The aim was to demonstrate in favour of sustainable transport, and to show
> how much fun bikes can be. And there were no press releases (see above).
>
>
> >> "After police drove through the closed tunnel at 6.30pm, the first five
> >> cyclists entered from Power Street at 6.35pm. The rest entered from
Kings
> >> Way two minutes later. The tunnel was reopened at 7.15pm."
> >>
> >>
> >> So, far from the projected chaos on the roads, the resulting effect on
> >> traffic caused barely a ripple, according to the authorities. And the
> > tunnel
> >> was closed for a total of 45 minutes -- far from the 2 hours which the
> > radio
> >> jocks were screaming about.
> > OK but there were only 430 riders riding 3 km. If the CM numbers that
have
> > been experienced in other parts of the had riden through the tunnel,
traffic
> > could have been held up for 2 hours
>
> The largest ever CM ride in Melbourne was about 770 riders, so it would
have
> been silly to expect that there would be thousands flooding out of the
> woodwork last Friday (especially on a cold & maybe rainy night). So the
ride
> was never going to require more than 45mins of tunnel closure.
>
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:45:04 -0400, "Eric S. Sande" <esande@no-spam>
wrote:
>>Of course, bikes should be allowed on the road. But that one fact is
>>not something to build such a zealous cult around. Why do you guys
>>bother?
>
>Your problem, mate, is that you all ready surrendered.
>
>It is still an issue in America.
All that equal status really provides is a bit of protection and the
occasional proscecution (after the fact)..
A motorcycle instructor of mine once told me "it's not much use that
you're the one in the right, if you're the one in the ambulance"
That said, I do actually support integration, and I also support bike
lanes, provided they're used properly.. That means they should be
used to give cyclists a safe hill climb lane here and there and a few
other situations where appropriate, but they shouldn't be treated as
car door zone lanes and installed wherever the local council or state
authority wants to calm traffic..
As far as other cyclists are concerned, they can fight their own
battles, bike paths for occasional users, wider footpaths, convex
driveway mirrors and bike rights on footpaths for parents groups, rail
trails for weekend riders etc.. Critical Mass is a road ride by
nature, so I don't see how it can possibly be seen as a demand for
bike paths..
PC
Melbourne, Australia
We don't put out press releases because (as you saw on Friday talkback
radio) the main mentions we get in the corporate media reports are slagging
us off. Nor do we rely on asnyone to do our work for us. We promote our
rides through email lists, websites, independent media, thousands of
leaflets on bikes & in bike shops, hundreds of posters in bike shops & on
bike paths, BUGs, bike clubs, student media, student groups, environment
groups, word of mouth... etc. You know, grass-roots ways of networking
rather than faxing off press releases which will either get ignored or
lampooned.
> Dont put out press releases??? What sought of protest organisation are you,
> you are relying on the police and Vicroads to promote your ride?
>
>
> "David Sutton" <david@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BB25C264.62A4%david@no-spam
>>> Didnt critical mass provide press releases conveying what the group were
>>> going to do and wasn't the organisations aim to disrupt peak hour
> traffic
>>> through one of the main east exits from the city. Surely the RADIO JOCKS
>>> comments and reaction was what was expected by the Critical Mass. The
> abuse
>>> that followed is surely a result of the organisations actions.
>>
>> The only press releases put out were from the Police & CityLink. Critical
>> Mass NEVER puts out press releases. Not this time nor any time in the
> past.
>> Where did you get this info from?
<snip>
> has me using probenicid as the masking agent, and we all
> know that probenicid didn't do the trick for Stefano Garzelli
> last year.
Try the green Crayons instead...
sj
>All that equal status really provides is a bit of protection and the
>occasional proscecution (after the fact)..
In truth the Forester approach is a proven method that works well in
the context of American traffic, we haven't got anything that's better.
That is why we push it. If there is an Australian method that is
better we would love to hear of it.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@no-spam
"Eric S. Sande" <esande@no-spam> wrote in news:3EFF80C8.C9DAA475
@no-spam
>>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
>>through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
>>city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
>
Wow. Great job here, generalizing things into "trails are evil". There
is a difference between "ghettoizing" bicyclists and moving bicyclists
away from dangerous traffic.
So, in your "equal status" ideal world, are bicycles riding on the
interstate system, next to 70+ MPH traffic? Or do you expect the cars to
slow down to 15-20 MPH to match the speed of bicycles? More than just
bicycles are restricted from the interstates, as a matter of safety for
everyone.
The point of trails isn't to marginalize cyclists. It's to allow the
people who aren't comfortable riding in the traffic to avoid it. You
claim that bicycle rights is a black/white issue, where on one side
bicycles are just like all other vehicles but on the other they're
nothing. You say there is no middle ground. I say you're wrong.
There's a wide variety of vehicles on the road, each with their own
restrictions and permissions.
Yes, bicycles belong on the roadway. But one of the advantages of
bicycles that that they are not _restricted_ to the roadway. They can go
places that motor vehicles can't because of their smaller size, lighter
weight, and greater maneuverability. They can use rail trails that are
far too narrow for motor traffic to use safely. They can manage
sidewalks among pedestrian traffic. Take away these and other
advantages, restrict them solely to roadways, and you end up with much
fewer riders (people who don't want to ride in traffic) and much less
safe roadways (people who shouldn't be riding in traffic are).
Bicycles should have a different status than cars, just as cars have a
different status than heavy trucks or motorcycles or scooters or
dirtbikes or ATVs or whatever. Each has their place, and trying to cram
everything into a single category on a single road is going to ruin all
of them. But not before people who shouldn't die do.
-Bill Hamilton
"Rico X. Partay" <EricR@no-spam> wrote in message
news:zutLa.732$_c1.342@no-spam
> Buck wrote:
>
> > ...there is a big difference between
> > protesting and disrupting.
>
> Often there is not.
>
> > Lobby all you want. Have petition drives.
> > Put up signs. Have cycling programs for
> > kids. Get the transportation people to
> > add more questions about bicycles on
> > driver's exams. Work on stricter penalties
> > for injuring or killing a cyclist with a
> > car. Do all of these things, but please,
> > don't jam up the roads in "protest."
>
> Protest doesn't need quotes around it. It is just that.
>
> > It does nothing to promote our rights to the
> > road. But it certainly makes people mad.
>
> In other words, do whatever you want, just don't do anything
> that might actually get people's attention.
>
> > Personally, I don't want critical mass to
> > be a reflection of me. They do not
> > represent me. But their actions reflect on
> > cyclists as a whole.
>
> Tough problem. Either they're just criminals who should be
> busted, or their gripes are legitimate, in which case you'd want
> to lend them a hand. Let us know which way you decide to go.
My vote goes to CM as just criminals.......... I hate the back lash I get on
my bike because of CM....
>
>
(top post)
Note the groups this person is posting to (including rec.bicycles). Trying
to start a flame war
perhaps?
--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Where's the Weapons of Mass Destruction, Mr Bush
"Automator" <weezer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdnnhe$e7$1@no-spam
>
> "Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> wrote:
> > > Critical Mass is a protest, just like any other, and it has every
right
> to
> > > exist.
> > Yes it does.......but when it stomps on others rights......it has no
place
> > here or anywhere
>
> So ... what "rights" are cyclists stomping on? Drivers have no rights.
> That's why they pay licensing and registration fees, why traffic movement
is
> heavily regulated, why you can't drive until a given age, why your license
> can be taken away at any time. CM riders are not stomping on any rights.
> They are infringing on privelege. You saying CM is taking away rights is
> like say public school kids are stomping on the rights of private school
> brats. (Since public schools take away money and land and prestige that
> COULD go to the private school.)
>
> Get it straight what is a right and what is a privledge.
>
>
>You say there is no middle ground. I say you're wrong.
I say you're full of it if you don't appreciate how the white man
is taking over our land, Sitting Bull.
I say that this is a war we can't win but we have to fight anyway.
I say we shouldn't surrender an inch of road or a piece of contact
patch without a fight.
I say we are being marginalized in the name of an auto society
and we need to wake up and smell the coffee.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@no-spam
SH wrote:
> To all cyclists who supported the Critical Mass ride through the
> Melbourne domain tunnel, *thanks a lot*. As a competative cyclist I have
> had to put up with increase abuse while training today because of your
> stupidity last night. Unfortunately many motorist think we are one in
> the same and have been giving more abuse today than we normally recieve
> just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I dont think so!
I was riding home from work on Friday night, 20km, and after a whole day
of moral outgrage in the media I noticed nothing different in motorists
attitudes to me. I was:
* Spat and screamed at by bogans in a Barina
* Squeeezed off the road by someone who resented me passing them three
times, so passed me and then ran their wheels into the kerb in front of me.
* Narrowly missed by a falcodore that shot through a giveway sign in my
path, motorist with phone against the ear.
* Terrorised by an RACV truck driver zig-zagging his way up Chapel St, I
thought at first he was deliberately trying to ram me into parked cars
-- no, he was reading the melways on the seat next to him.
* Blockaded by cars droving up the bike lane on Church st
* Blocked out by cars parked in the forward bike box at traffic lights
Yep, Friday evening, motorists were as well behaved as normal.
Went out for 30km ride on Saturday, not much difference, a couple of
stray dogs ran into my path, a couple of cars doing 80-90 along Yarra
Blvd in the 50 zone.
Didn't seem to be any difference in the attitude of the caring sharing
motorists.
> Why don't you look at the constructive lead taken by Bicycle Victoria,
> who promote safe road use for all users. They lobbying Local and State
Ha ha ha ha ha....
Oops.
How about "BV who promote cutesy lines of white paint where it won't
inconvenience motorists, foster the attitude that you need special lines
on the road to ride a bike there, and do sweet FA about the major
problem faced by cyclists -- the attitudes of Australia's motorists"
> governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They also promote
> rides that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, which in
> turn educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle
> commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.
They also promote the attitude that the only safe way to ride a bike is
when you're in a group of 4,000, with months of planning, a police
escort, and a healthy entrance fee to BV.
> You riders want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get
> over it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted
> radicals get, is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us.
> This will just make it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from
> riding and undo all the good BV and simular groups have achieved.
> SH
Adrian
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Tritschler mailto:Adrian.Tritschler@no-spam
Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E, Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
---------------------------------------------------------------
cyclist101 <nut@no-spam> wrote:
> It's not about safety when you tie up traffic and beat drivers.
I think you drew the wrong conclusions from that incident. Wouldn't
you lay a beating on a jerk in a Jeep who ran over one of your
companions, then tried to trash your bike? Heck, I would have busted
the guy up a hundred times worse that what he actually got. I would
hope to permanently debilitate a moron who pulled that kind of stunt.
Here is a link to a site with actual video of the jerk in question
running over a cyclist, attempting to vandalize some more bikes, and
getting punched-- once-- for his trouble. Have a look for yourself
and assess whether this vehicular assault was necessary in light of
the fact that the driver was being delayed by traffic.
http://BicycleAustin.info/cm/index.html
Chalo Colina
"Eric S. Sande" <esande@no-spam> wrote:
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
To hell with that. I'm not going to mix it up with 60+mph traffic if
I can avoid it. I may yet die on my bike, but hopefully not flattened
from behind by some cell-phoning degenerate in an SUV.
Bicycle rights-of-way cost a tiny fraction of what motor traffic lanes
do, and can be squeezed into narrower corridors like utility
easements. With untold billions being spent on restricted-access
freeways, elevated interchanges, etc., I think it's only right that
cyclists get some cycle-only infrastructure for their tax dollars.
And I think it's only right that cyclists be able to travel
_somewhere_ without sucking motorbreath and being subjected to the
noise and constant peril of cars.
Chalo Colina
"Eric S. Sande" wrote:
> >I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
> >through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
> >city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
>
> --
>
> _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
> ------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
> __________306.350.357.38>>cwhitman@no-spam
Agreed. You write well.
Bernie
I guess my first description of Jakko as "a pedestrian with an excess
of testosterone" was pretty well spot on.
The only thng I missed out on was the term "moronic"
John L.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:38:51 GMT, jarkko@no-spam (Jarkko Altonen)
wrote:
>scottjl@no-spam (ScottJL) wrote:
>
>>Critical Mass n. 1. Yet another excuse for irresponsible behavior.
>
>n 2. A collective noun for a "bunch of cunts".
Bill Hamilton wrote:
> "Eric S. Sande" <esande@no-spam> wrote in news:3EFF80C8.C9DAA475
> @no-spam
>
> >>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
> >>through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
> >>city don't, either.
> >
> > This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> > facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> > it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> > in law.
> >
> > Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> > bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
> >
> > I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> > to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
> >
>
> Wow. Great job here, generalizing things into "trails are evil". There
> is a difference between "ghettoizing" bicyclists and moving bicyclists
> away from dangerous traffic.
>
> So, in your "equal status" ideal world, are bicycles riding on the
> interstate system, next to 70+ MPH traffic? Or do you expect the cars to
> slow down to 15-20 MPH to match the speed of bicycles? More than just
> bicycles are restricted from the interstates, as a matter of safety for
> everyone.
>
> The point of trails isn't to marginalize cyclists. It's to allow the
> people who aren't comfortable riding in the traffic to avoid it. You
> claim that bicycle rights is a black/white issue, where on one side
> bicycles are just like all other vehicles but on the other they're
> nothing. You say there is no middle ground. I say you're wrong.
> There's a wide variety of vehicles on the road, each with their own
> restrictions and permissions.
>
> Yes, bicycles belong on the roadway. But one of the advantages of
> bicycles that that they are not _restricted_ to the roadway. They can go
> places that motor vehicles can't because of their smaller size, lighter
> weight, and greater maneuverability. They can use rail trails that are
> far too narrow for motor traffic to use safely. They can manage
> sidewalks among pedestrian traffic. Take away these and other
> advantages, restrict them solely to roadways, and you end up with much
> fewer riders (people who don't want to ride in traffic) and much less
> safe roadways (people who shouldn't be riding in traffic are).
>
> Bicycles should have a different status than cars, just as cars have a
> different status than heavy trucks or motorcycles or scooters or
> dirtbikes or ATVs or whatever. Each has their place, and trying to cram
> everything into a single category on a single road is going to ruin all
> of them. But not before people who shouldn't die do.
>
> -Bill Hamilton
You make good points. But note, bicycles do have a different status from
cars. Cars and their drivers must be licenced. After all they are driving
lethal devices on the public roadways. Bicycles do not have to be licenced
because A) they were there first B) they are not lethal (dig up the stats)
Also, just by good luck and convenience, you can ride down footpaths, and all
kinds of neat places with impunity and as long as you are attentive and
caring about the pedestrians around you, you'll be fine. When you get to
your destination, you won't pay to park either.
Best regards, Bernie
Eric S. Sande must be edykated coz e writed:
>> I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
>> through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
>> city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
>
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
>
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
Have a look at the Netherlands, mile of great bike lanes, well maintained,
and laws which give bicycles credence on the road as well.
We need exclusive facilities as well as positive legislation.
Cycling does not damage the environment, it lessen the burden of healthcare,
reduces congestion etc....
Ian
Eric S. Sande wrote:
>>I've no problem with the agencies involved funding separate bike paths
>>through the most traffic addled parts of the city. Most people in my
>>city don't, either.
>
> This is our basic disagreement. I'm totally against separate
> facilities, and I'll fight to the death against them. As I see
> it bicycles belong on the road and deserve equal status as vehicles
> in law.
Fight to the death? Geez.
> Any push to construct bicycle specific facilities is to ghettoize
> bicyclists and render us a subclass with regard to the roads.
Okay, so I guess the Velodrome is a bad idea as well? How about our hike
and bike trails?
The Lance Armstrong Bikeway is ONE separate pathway for bicycles. By
providing a safe crossing of I-35 for bicycles, it does something which
isn't feasible on other roads because of the amount of traffic along I-35.
> I can't accept that as a matter of public policy and I won't subscribe
> to it as a matter of local policy no matter what.
That's what's great about living in a democratic society. You can hold
your peculiar opinion(s) without having to "fight to the death."
Chalo wrote:
>>It's not about safety when you tie up traffic and beat drivers.
>
> I think you drew the wrong conclusions from that incident. Wouldn't
> you lay a beating on a jerk in a Jeep who ran over one of your
> companions, then tried to trash your bike? Heck, I would have busted
> the guy up a hundred times worse that what he actually got. I would
> hope to permanently debilitate a moron who pulled that kind of stunt.
>
> Here is a link to a site with actual video of the jerk in question
> running over a cyclist, attempting to vandalize some more bikes, and
> getting punched-- once-- for his trouble. Have a look for yourself
> and assess whether this vehicular assault was necessary in light of
> the fact that the driver was being delayed by traffic.
>
> http://BicycleAustin.info/cm/index.html
I don't need to see the "actual video" (the four parts of which are now
404 not found) to know what happened because I was right there. The
videos showed only a little more than 3.5 minutes of what happened. Go
read the note from Krissy Morrow to find out what transpired in the time
before, during, and after which the edited videos fail to document.
"Jarkko Altonen" wrote
> Yes of course I'm a pedestrian - and so is 99% of the population.
>
> I am also a cyclist and do about 140km/week.
>
> And I'm even a motorist.
>
> Doesn't really fit your little compartmentalised world does it?
No, no, no, no, you have to pick a box and stay in it.
Theo
"Bill Hamilton" <seeker@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Xns93AA4C1F31050seekeratphoenyxdotne@no-spam
> I don't see how trails and bike paths are marginalizing bicycles.
Ever ridden n the roads in Canberra? Or do a search on accident data for
Stevenage UK the great bike path city. Most hazardous place to cycle in the
country.
> They're giving cyclists alternatives to riding on the high-speed highways
> that are just plain too dangerous for anyone without years of cycling
> experience. Or, do you really want children puttering along next to the
> fast cars and trucks?
Roads that have cyclists regularly riding on them (regular streets, not main
freeways and highways) teach drivers to be alert and aware of cyclists. Eg.
Amsterdam, and most European cities.
Cheers
Peter
cyclist101 wrote:
> > http://BicycleAustin.info/cm/index.html
>
> I don't need to see the "actual video" (the four parts of which are now
> 404 not found) to know what happened because I was right there. The
> videos showed only a little more than 3.5 minutes of what happened. Go
> read the note from Krissy Morrow to find out what transpired in the time
> before, during, and after which the edited videos fail to document.
Ezra Teter, quoted in the article you reposted, was my housemate at
the time, and his tale of the vehicular attack came off quite
differently than hers (which seems to breeze over the assault with a
deadly weapon part).
Of course, she's a tool and reflexively sided with the tool who mowed
down the cyclists. She probably felt impatient at having to wait for
others too but had just enough impulse control to refrain from making
an attempt on their lives.
Your take on this motorist attack seems like that of a tool too.
Chalo Colina
Chalo wrote:
<snip>
> Your take on this motorist attack seems like that of a tool too.
Ad hominem, but that's the best shot you can take.
"Tom Keats" <tomk2003@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lksqdb.rd5.ln@no-spam
> In article <vg1qo95489unf7@no-spam>,
> "Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> writes:
> >
> > So blocking a street so I can't walk across it is not stomping on my
> > rights?? Pure BS
>
> So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
> minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
> run around with their hair on fire about it?
Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
cross the street! It is a right!
Because they are not only blocking the crosswalk........the street and
others rights...... because they think they are promoting something for a
bicycle...... Wrong.. when I ride I still get the back lash of there
MC.........they do nothing to promote cycling or better thinks for all bike
riders....
They are civil disobedient........and are nothing but disruptors of peace.
>
> --
> -- Powered by FreeBSD
> Above address is just a spam midden.
> I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Just a Cyclist wrote:
> "Tom Keats" <tomk2003@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:lksqdb.rd5.ln@no-spam
> > In article <vg1qo95489unf7@no-spam>,
> > "Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> writes:
> > >
> > > So blocking a street so I can't walk across it is not stomping on my
> > > rights?? Pure BS
> >
> > So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
> > minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
> > run around with their hair on fire about it?
>
> Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
> cross the street! It is a right!
>
> Because they are not only blocking the crosswalk........the street and
> others rights...... because they think they are promoting something for a
> bicycle...... Wrong.. when I ride I still get the back lash of there
> MC.........they do nothing to promote cycling or better thinks for all bike
> riders....
> They are civil disobedient........and are nothing but disruptors of peace.
> >
> > --
> > -- Powered by FreeBSD
> > Above address is just a spam midden.
> > I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Oh come now. Has anyone ever given you a hard time because CM rides once in a
while? I ride my bike every day of the year <nearly> and CM does rides in
Vancouver, which is right next door to me. No one has ever given me any grief
at all because of the behaviour of CM.
How has it been for you? And where are you, by the by?
Bernie
In article <vg20njp66ojn6e@no-spam>,
"Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> writes:
>> So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
>> minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
>> run around with their hair on fire about it?
>
> Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
> cross the street! It is a right!
Yeah, the way folks kow-tow to the Almighty Automobile truly sux the
big one. Every left-turn bay that adds width to intersections,
and every right-on-red rule, violates pedestrians' rights to cross
the street in a safe and timely manner.
Pedestrians really get the short & dirty end of the stick;
cars get sucked-up to, way more than they deserve.
Critical Mass is, at least in part, an human-powered uprising
against this unjust imbalance. And where unjust imbalances
occur, uprisings are inevitable. Y'don't like it? Boo hoo.
Critical Mass isn't just about vehicles, including bikes --
it's about /people/.
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Congratulations, so am I, & about 90% of Australia'a population.
Is that the same compartmentalised mentality that classifies all
members of a particular movement that you personally don't agree with,
as "A bunch of cunts".
Love that Macho Man mentality, now I understand the nickname Jerko.
John L.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:26:06 GMT, jarkko@no-spam (Jarkko Altonen)
wrote:
>Yes of course I'm a pedestrian - and so is 99% of the population.
>
>I am also a cyclist and do about 140km/week.
>
>And I'm even a motorist.
>
>Doesn't really fit your little compartmentalised world does it?
>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:41:39 -0700, "Just a Cyclist"
<popo@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Tom Keats" <tomk2003@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:lksqdb.rd5.ln@no-spam
>> In article <vg1qo95489unf7@no-spam>,
>> "Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> writes:
>> >
>> > So blocking a street so I can't walk across it is not stomping on my
>> > rights?? Pure BS
>>
>> So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
>> minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
>> run around with their hair on fire about it?
>
>Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
>cross the street! It is a right!
Oh really? I was under the impression that as public roads, the right
you have to acces that public road is a legislated privilege not a
RIGHT. You do not have a RIGHT to walk across a road anymore than you
have the RIGHT to enter my front door. I will afford you the privilege
but not the right, likewise with yourself crossing a road; a PUBLIC
road.
Now, if you are talking about a private road you own, then privilege
changes to right.
In article <vfh2gvs9qjff45938t1mu91m7bumf4bj4p@no-spam>,
Mayhem <mayhem@no-spam> writes:
> Oh really? I was under the impression that as public roads, the right
> you have to acces that public road is a legislated privilege not a
> RIGHT. You do not have a RIGHT to walk across a road anymore than you
> have the RIGHT to enter my front door.
Public streets & roads are a Commons, and as such are free to
Everyone's use. That's how they're "public". Put another way,
it's not the access per se to them that is regulated, it is the
vehicles upon them. Your front door is not a Commons. Your
impression is wrong.
And cyclists have a right to use public roads, except under
express restriction or prohibition.
cheers, & IANAL,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Mayhem <mayhem@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vfh2gvs9qjff45938t1mu91m7bumf4bj4p@no-spam>...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:41:39 -0700, "Just a Cyclist"
> <popo@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Keats" <tomk2003@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:lksqdb.rd5.ln@no-spam
> >> In article <vg1qo95489unf7@no-spam>,
> >> "Just a Cyclist" <popo@no-spam> writes:
> >> >
> >> > So blocking a street so I can't walk across it is not stomping on my
> >> > rights?? Pure BS
> >>
> >> So how come cars get away with it all the time, but a few
> >> minutes per month of bikes doing it, and some ppl gotta
> >> run around with their hair on fire about it?
> >
> >Good we are changing the subject........yes they are violating my right to
> >cross the street! It is a right!
>
> Oh really? I was under the impression that as public roads, the right
> you have to acces that public road is a legislated privilege not a
> RIGHT.
What part of "right of way" do you not understand? Leagally, a Public
Road is either a "public way" (the public has the right to use it, and
the government the responsibility to maintian it) or a "right of way"
(the public has the right to use it, but is not required to maintain
it). The public includes pedestrians, bicycles, horses, oxen,
horse-drawn carriages, farm equipment, tractors, mopeds...
I think you are confusing this with "private right-of-way" where a
specific agreement, history of usage, or ruling gives a specific
individual or group a right to use specific land for passage. a
private right-of-way is _not_ a public road or public way.
> You do not have a RIGHT to walk across a road anymore than you
> have the RIGHT to enter my front door. I will afford you the privilege
> but not the right, likewise with yourself crossing a road; a PUBLIC
> road.
What country are you in? Were you aware that in the United States,
the pedestrian sidewalk is part of the highway?
Public right-of-way rules have been in existence for centuries, long
before the advent of the automobile. No priviledge had to be granted
to use the roads, and no one could tell you you could not use the
roads...not even the courts. (That sounds to me like a right, not a
priviledge.)
When automobiles started appearing, it was quickly recognized that
they posed a much greater hazard to other road users. I may be
mistaken, but I believe it was Henry Ford himself who was involved in
the first major automobile accident. After that, he began advocating
licensure of motor vehcile operators. Doing so recognized that motor
vehicle operators do not have a _right_ to operate on the roads. The
license was a form of priviledge granted to an individual to operate a
motor vehicle on the road. It granted restricted "rights" but because
it could be revoked it was still legally a priveledge. IIRC, Henery
Ford was granted the first license to operate motor vehicles in the
US.
At no point (before or since) has the public's right to use the roads
been repealed, revoked, or even significantly altered. These
road-use-by-right users include pedestrians, bicycles, horses (and
other beasts of burden), horse-drawn carriages, tractors and other
farm equipment, and mopeds, among others.
There are some very limited exceptions, and they must be posted. They
are almost always "limited access divided highways" (and in some
places, even limited access divided highways allow bicycles). The
next time you enter one with your car, note the sign. It says
something like "Pedestrians, bicycles, horses, horse-drawn carriages,
tractors and other farm equipment, and mopeds prohibited". Why the
sign? Because everyone (the legislature, the courts, law enforcement
officers, and the public) assume that you have the right to use the
road unless otherwise posted. The _right_ to use the road, not
priveledge.
Austin
"Ted" <testing@no-spam> wrote:
> Ok, the next time you are laying in your yard near death, have one of your
> CM buddies bike you to the hospital. No need to suck up to an auto. Also
> make sure the paramedics do not suck up to an auto by driving to your house.
> They can also bike or walk there.
Why would he be in such a state unless he'd been maimed by a car driver?
Chalo
In article <efda1256.0307012041.186c9116@no-spam>,
Robert.Tyrrell@no-spam (SouthBayBent) writes:
> "Ted" <testing@no-spam> wrote in message news:<F5fMa.1427$fi1.434098210@no-spam>...
>> Ok, the next time you are laying in your yard near death, have one of your
>> CM buddies bike you to the hospital. No need to suck up to an auto. Also
>> make sure the paramedics do not suck up to an auto by driving to your house.
>> They can also bike or walk there.
>
> No one is saying "eliminate ALL moror vehicles." I recommend you seek
> balance. Balance in your use of polluting and greener technologies.
> Try balancing your selfish indignation with reasoned argument, your
> need to attempt clever posts with reading and comprehending the
> thread.
Sounds good to me.
> speaking of balancing I'm still trying to reconcile driving my gas
> guzzling and paid for SUV and commuting on my Lightning Phantom.
Let your own conscience be your guide. It'll know what to do,
regardless of what anyone else says.
> Who
> should I suck up to?
Nobody.
> The damn autos or the CM bas**rds?
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Well, several members of "Critical Mass" were arrested in Grand Rapids,
Michigan last week for blocking downtown traffic for some time. They give
cycling a bad name and put us in the same camp as the "Earth Liberation
Front", just not quite as destructive.
"David Sutton" <david@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB23D12F.597F%david@no-spam
> >To all cyclists who supported the Critical Mass ride through the
> >Melbourne domain tunnel, thanks a lot. As a competative cyclist I
> >have had to put up with increase abuse while training today because
> >of your stupidity last night. Unfortunately many motorist think we
> >are one in the same and have been giving more abuse today than we
> >normally recieve just for sharing the road. Just a coincidence, I
> >dont think so!
>
>
> For a start, you might want to get your facts straight. It was the BURNLEY
> Tunnel, not the Domain Tunnel. And any increase in abuse which you
> (allegedly) received can be put squarely on the shoulders of the
apoplectic
> radio jocks who spent hours (literally) talking about how the world was
> going to end because people couldn't drive through their precious tunnel.
> For the record, here's some press clippings from AFTER the event which
> reflect the reality of the situation:
>
>
> Herald Sun
> "Police said the protest caused only a minor disruption and they were
happy
> with the conduct of the protesters"
>
> The Age
> "VicRoads traffic controllers said the event did not seem to have caused
> congestion in other parts of the city"
> "After police drove through the closed tunnel at 6.30pm, the first five
> cyclists entered from Power Street at 6.35pm. The rest entered from Kings
> Way two minutes later. The tunnel was reopened at 7.15pm."
>
>
> So, far from the projected chaos on the roads, the resulting effect on
> traffic caused barely a ripple, according to the authorities. And the
tunnel
> was closed for a total of 45 minutes -- far from the 2 hours which the
radio
> jocks were screaming about.
>
>
>
> >Why don't you look at the constructive lead taken by Bicycle Victoria,
> >who promote safe road use for all users. They lobbying Local and State
> >governments in the provision of cycle safe roads. They also promote rides
> >that introduce thousands of non cyclist to the sport, which in turn
> >educates a large group of the population on the benifits of bicycle
> >commuting and hence reduces the use of cars.
>
>
> Among the 20 or so Critical Mass riders that I am friendly with, we are
> involved in the following bicycle advocacy projects. Personally, I spend
> time working on almost every item on this list:
>
> * forming and running successful Bicycle User Groups (BUGs) to promote
> cycling and lobby for better cycling facilities
> * lobbying government & authorities at all levels, in conjunction with BV
> * producing educative and informational cycling newsletters and
publications
> * sitting on local government cycling advisory committees
> * working with local government & BV to create Bike Plans for council
areas
> * lobbying local council directly for bike lanes (many CM riders have been
> involved in a campaign to get lanes on Chapel St, which finally looks like
> it may happen)
> * maintaining cycling email lists & websites
> * writing articles for local newspapers and "BV News"
> * planning for a "Melbourne Bike Week" next summer
> * working on mode-shift programs which encourage people to consider
cycling
> rather than driving
> * planning & hosting social rides open to the general public
> (and this is not even mentioning work by CM'ers in the areas of public
> transport & environmental advocacy)
>
> The vast bulk of this work is unpaid & voluntary, and involves a huge
> commitment of personal time from many diverse individuals. It would amount
> to hundreds of hours spent on cycling advocacy each month -- and that's
only
> speaking for the 20 people that I know personally. I can't even begin to
> speak for the other 430 riders who were at CM last night.
>
> You are WAY off the mark when you paint us as outlaws. We work within the
> system 99% of the time, and often we work hand-in-hand with Bicycle
> Victoria. If you don't believe me, then ring up BV and ask them. And you
> moigyt be interested to know that although BV does not endorse Critical
Mass
> (nor would we ever ask it to) there are many individuals who work for BV
who
> ride in CM.
>
> We are not just activists, we are also advocates. Yet once a month when we
> put on our party hats at CM, people like you get up on your high horse and
> slag us off for being cowboys. Well, let me ask you, SH, what have you
done
> lately to promote cycling or improve cycling facilities?
>
>
>
> >You riders want a society with out cars, its not going to happen, get
> >over it. What will happen with the publicity that you short sighted
> >radicals get, is there will be a wider devide between motorist and us.
> >This will just make it more dangerous to ride, discourage people from
> >riding and undo all the good BV and simular groups have achieved.
>
>
> I think YOU should get over it. Car use is an environmental, health,
> resource use, land use and pollution issue. It's time people realised that
> our current addiction to cars is completely unsustainable. And if it takes
> CM to do it, then fine.
>
> CM is global, and we're not going away. Come along to a CM ride some time
> (last Friday of the month, 5.30pm, State Library) and experience the joy
of
> it all. You might even like it!
>
> Well, several members of "Critical Mass" were arrested in
> Grand Rapids, Michigan last week for blocking downtown traffic
> for some time. They give cycling a bad name and put us in the
> same camp as the "Earth Liberation Front", just not quite as
> destructive.
=v= How, exactly, do you justify this bizarre comparison?
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Followups trimmed to only the relevant newsgroups.