Critical Mass Tunnel Freaks

cyclist101

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.

Eric S. Sande

>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.utaustin.edu__________

David Sutton

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@erols.com>
> Reply-To: esande@erols.com
> 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.

SH

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@sutton.org> wrote in message
news:BB25C264.62A4%david@sutton.org...
> > 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.
>

PC

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:45:04 -0400, "Eric S. Sande" <esande@erols.com>
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

David Sutton

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@sutton.org> wrote in message
> news:BB25C264.62A4%david@sutton.org...
>>> 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>

Seth Jayson

> 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

Eric S. Sande

>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.utaustin.edu__________

Bill Hamilton

"Eric S. Sande" <esande@erols.com> 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

Just a Cyclist

"Rico X. Partay" <EricR@NoSpam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:zutLa.732$_c1.342@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.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....
>
>

Alan Erskine

(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@efn.org> wrote in message
news:bdnnhe$e7$1@news.efn.org...
>
> "Just a Cyclist" <popo@copwatch.com> 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.
>
>

Eric S. Sande

>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@texastwr.utaustin.edu__________

Adrian Tritschler

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@its.monash.edu.au
Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E, Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44
---------------------------------------------------------------

Chalo

cyclist101 <nut@nut.nut> 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