Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks - Page 3

06-29-2003, 07:38 AM

"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.

06-29-2003, 08:13 AM

"Rico X. Partay" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].netcom.com> 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

06-29-2003, 11:39 AM

Critical Mazz has spoken.

06-29-2003, 12:56 PM

Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:57:21 -0700, <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
"Just a Cyclist" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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

06-29-2003, 01:40 PM

> 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@texastwr.utaust in.edu__________

06-29-2003, 02:48 PM

"Rico X. Partay" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].netcom.com> 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

06-29-2003, 03:19 PM

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.

06-29-2003, 03:34 PM

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

06-29-2003, 03:39 PM

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.

06-29-2003, 03:53 PM

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.