Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks - Page 4

06-29-2003, 04:14 PM

>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@texastwr.utaust in.edu__________

06-29-2003, 04:27 PM

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" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> Reply-To: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> 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.

06-29-2003, 04:55 PM

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" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> > 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.
>

06-29-2003, 05:00 PM

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:45:04 -0400, "Eric S. Sande" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
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

06-29-2003, 05:23 PM

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" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>> 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>

06-29-2003, 05:34 PM

> 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

06-29-2003, 05:45 PM

>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@texastwr.utaust in.edu__________

06-29-2003, 06:01 PM

"Eric S. Sande" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in news:3EFF80C8.C9DAA475
@erols.com:

>>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

06-29-2003, 06:15 PM

"Rico X. Partay" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].netcom.com> wrote in message
news:zutLa.732$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].pas.earthlin k.net...
> 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....
>
>

06-29-2003, 06:37 PM

(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" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:bdnnhe$e7$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].org...
>
> "Just a Cyclist" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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.
>
>