Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

Terryc

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I won't take part *because* of the results. WHich I couldn't change
> but would only reinforce.

So you have never attempted and never will attemp a meaningful
relationship with any one ? Same logic.

>
>
>
>>Some have extreme views and are very self-opinionated. Aren't we all at aone
>>time or another? A lot of the errant behaviour actually gets weeded out by
>>the more moderate approach of the long-term riders.
>
>
> really? Then how come those who see it don't see that?

Because they don't want to.

PeteSig

"Terryc" wrote:
> Harry 'Snapper' Organ wrote:
>> I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
>> with its acts of mass stupidity.
>
> Nope,crititcal mass is simply doing what is legal. It is constable plod
> that insists on turning it into a three ring circus every month.

Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
very supportive. They work to make sure the ride proceeds smoothly, but
spend more time sorting out misguided motorists who seem to think their
'urgent meeting' gives them a right to run down cyclists. Very few cyclists
are so out of line that they need prosecuting.

Neil Bitchell does far more to make it a three ring circus.

--
Cheers
Peter

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

TimC

On 2007-12-01, PeteSig (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> "Terryc" wrote:
>> Harry 'Snapper' Organ wrote:
>>> I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
>>> with its acts of mass stupidity.
>>
>> Nope,crititcal mass is simply doing what is legal. It is constable plod
>> that insists on turning it into a three ring circus every month.
>
> Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
> very supportive. They work to make sure the ride proceeds smoothly, but
> spend more time sorting out misguided motorists who seem to think their
> 'urgent meeting' gives them a right to run down cyclists.

I had lunch at a cafe just then, sitting outside under the verandah
watching the intersection of Burwood and Glenferrie. Lots of
seriously dodgy driving. One old but very important looking guy,
obviously in a bit of a hurry, was a little annoyed that someone had
stopped in front of him in the left turning lane for the quite clearly
red light, as a car coming the other way was completing their right
hand manevour into the same road. So his horn went off for a first
time. The car in front, a little spooked by the frustrated guy
behind, hurried on along behind the guy completing his turn from the
opposite direction, getting a little close for comfort. The red has
now been like this for about 4 seconds. Guy behind now rushes through
to start his turn, and does some dodgy maneuvering to avoid the cars
now travelling directly for him.

Incidentally, at that intersection, I saw something scary about every
100 cars. Lets say that someone who does something that scary, once
every tenth intersection they pass through, should never have been
allowed behind the wheel of a training vehicle. That means one in
every 10 cars are driven by a driver who should not be allowed to
drive because they are going to create a dangerous situation every
10th intersection they pass through. That, or one in every 100
drivers creates a dangerous hazard *every* intersection they pass
through, but in practice, I tend to see an individual driver do
something stupid once, then don't repeat that again for a while, so I
suspect it's more people being stupid less often.

> Very few cyclists
> are so out of line that they need prosecuting.

Annoyingly though, the police stop passage of trams behind us when we
have all explicitly stopped in the left lane frantically waving them
through. The tram passengers have more right than us to pass through
the city unimpeded, because the density of people inside a tram (140,
apparently) is higher than the density of a pack of cyclists (1000 of
us stretch about a km in 1.5 lanes on Brunswick/Johnson St), and we
readily recognise that!

--
TimC
TELESCOPE, n.
A device having a relation to the eye similar to that of the
telephone to the ear, enabling distant objects to plague us with a
multitude of needless details. Luckily it is unprovided with a bell
summoning us to the sacrifice.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

G-S

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:44:50 +1100
> G-S <geoff@castbus.com.au> wrote:
>> Hmmm... *googles*
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> I have _never_ heard it used that way, but the dictionary supports you.
>
> Interesting.... It seems to be the major use now, eclipsing the
> original, and even eclipsing the more modern Christian version.

I live in a country town though... and language use tends to lag a
couple of decades behind the big cities

> (where the original was a very specific Christian version the current
> Christian version I think encompasses a wider variety of Christian.)
>> At least I know why the OP called them 'fundamentalists' now though
>
> There's an interesting piece from Encounter about Fundamentalism and
> Terrorism which explores how some Fundamentalist types can end up
> seeing terrorism as a viable tool.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/...006/1799384.htm
>

*bookmarks for later when he's got time*

G-S

Ray

In article <M654j.19056$CN4.9037@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
petesig@bigpond.com says...
>
> "Terryc" wrote:
> > Harry 'Snapper' Organ wrote:
> >> I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
> >> with its acts of mass stupidity.
> >
> > Nope,crititcal mass is simply doing what is legal. It is constable plod
> > that insists on turning it into a three ring circus every month.
>
> Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
> very supportive. They work to make sure the ride proceeds smoothly, but
> spend more time sorting out misguided motorists who seem to think their
> 'urgent meeting' gives them a right to run down cyclists. Very few cyclists
> are so out of line that they need prosecuting.
>
> Neil Bitchell does far more to make it a three ring circus.
>
>

I'm sorry, but the bile squad sounds like a load of shit!!!! ;-) ;-)

Aeek

On 1 Dec 2007 02:24:20 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote:

>But then just watch cyclists who are angry if someone says they should
>stop at red lights, or not ride on the footpath.
>
>I think it's really funny how cycle activists pretend cyclists don't get
>angry if they are held up. Of course they do. But as breaking the
>law is easy and consequences are few they seldom get held up. SO they
>can keep pretending.

Same as motorcycle activists really, doesn't help so gloss over it.

Then there are the illegalities we do lobby about - riding across
pedestrian crossings for cyclists, using cycle lanes/shoulder for
motorcyclists - both at an appropriately reduced speed and deferring
to other users.

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:55:50 +1100
Terryc <newsthreespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I won't take part *because* of the results. WHich I couldn't change
>> but would only reinforce.
>
> So you have never attempted and never will attemp a meaningful
> relationship with any one ? Same logic.

Eh?

You attempt relationships to change people? To even change lots of
people?

Ok... logic eh?

>> really? Then how come those who see it don't see that?
>
> Because they don't want to.

Heh.

"It is the world that's wrong! It is! It is!"

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:47:51 +1100
Aeek <aeeeeeek@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2007 02:24:20 GMT, Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>But then just watch cyclists who are angry if someone says they should
>>stop at red lights, or not ride on the footpath.
>>
>>I think it's really funny how cycle activists pretend cyclists don't get
>>angry if they are held up. Of course they do. But as breaking the
>>law is easy and consequences are few they seldom get held up. SO they
>>can keep pretending.
>
> Same as motorcycle activists really, doesn't help so gloss over it.

Sure. THe reason that two wheelers can feel so superior about their
lack of gridlock is because they can do stuff because they are
physically narrow.

When something threatens to slow them down, they get just as annoyed
as 4 wheelers.

Pretending that only 4 wheelers suffer from that is silly.


Zebee

Resound

This is going to be one fat troll...

Aeek

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:15:58 +1100, "Resound" <sacredchao@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>This is going to be one fat troll...

Lochac Trolls are much more dangerous than the original trolls.

cfsmtb

Floggin' a dead 'orse.

Fig A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

Fig B (ad infinitum):
http://groups.google.com.au/groups/...&start=0&hl=en&

Terryc

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:55:50 +1100
> Terryc <newsthreespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I won't take part *because* of the results. WHich I couldn't change
>>>but would only reinforce.
>>
>>So you have never attempted and never will attemp a meaningful
>>relationship with any one ? Same logic.
>
>
> Eh?
>
> You attempt relationships to change people? To even change lots of
> people?

>>Because they don't want to.

Lol, thanks for the clear example of exactly what I was saying.

But because you are a bigoted idiot I will spell it out.

You do not take part in Critical Mass because simply riding,on the road
together with other bicyclists, which is a legal activity, might offend
some motorist. (But it is okay for motorist to drive on the road
together. Funny logic.).

If you applied your logic to relationships, then you'd never have a
relationship in case it didn't work out and someone was offended.

The bottom line is that you are just another arselicker who isn't
prepared to stand up. Every time somone post something critical of
critical mass, Zeebee jumps right in there with them.

ritcho

The personal attack is borne of frustration when the argument isn't going well...

fwiw, I haven't participated in a cm ride, though I note that I get more abuse from motorists after one has just taken place than before it. The cm crowd like to think they are helping - I'm not sure I can handle more of this kind of help. There are plenty of other bicycle advocacy groups out there if you want to make a difference, otherwise just make a statement by being out there on the roads and set a good example.

As for whether cm folks are fundamentalist plonkers, I don't think so, but I can tell them that they aren't helping relations between road users. Other advocacy groups do.

Ritch

Terryc

ritcho wrote:

> fwiw, I haven't participated in a cm ride, though I note that I get
> more abuse from motorists after one has just taken place than before it.

But is cm responsible for this, or the radio shock jocks & wanker
journalists?

> The cm crowd like to think they are helping - I'm not sure I can handle
> more of this kind of help.

But is CM to blame?
Or constable plod with their derogatory press releases?


> There are plenty of other bicycle advocacy
> groups out there if you want to make a difference,

Sadly, very few of these groups have made any difference ver the decades

> As for whether cm folks are fundamentalist plonkers, I don't think so,

That just tells you who are the arse lickers who are not prepared to
stand up.


> Other advocacy groups do.

I gave up holding my breath on this over thrity years ago, CM came about
because other groups are not effective. Many other groups have just
turned bicycle riding into a circus that performs off the road or has
been hijaccked for their income.