Advertisement
I am not interested in starting a flame war and I don't say things just to hear myself talk, but I thought i'd give this board some insight regarding what the majority of "cyclists" I know think about the movement that is Critical Mass.
First, I think that all cyclists agree that calling attention to the rights of cyclists is important and that safer streets are what matters in the end. I still fail to understand, however, how Critical Mass has brought any understanding to this problem. Thus far, it has brought nothing but years of bad press and even angrier motorists to roads upon which I ride and train for thousands upon thousands of miles each year.
CM in San Francisco passes right below my window on the last Friday of every month and I cringe when I see a group that is suppose to be supporting "bicycle safety" swerving all over the rode without helmets and occasionally crashing each other in the process. The yelling and the taunts don't help either. It's been my opinion that the majority of the CMers are really there for a good time and could care less about safety. If this is the case then fine, but why not get rid of the false pretenses and just call it for what it is - a fun party and nothing else. If anyone thinks that they are swaying public opinion via CM or that they have brought the "angry motorists" over to their side of the fence then they are sadly mistaken.
I have often thought that CM looked like a lot of fun and have even considered participating in the past, but there's no way (in good conscience) that could ever happen.
I've been racing bikes for years and I know the vast majority of the racing community in the Bay Area and to a man/woman they all think that CM has actually harmed rather then helped their cause. Yes, we're the lycra clad dorks who train 7500 miles each year and can ride like the wind.
Anyway, if you believe that CM has made a positive difference then could you present to me just how this is so? I'd be interested to see if there is an argument out there that could convince me that i'm in the wrong.
First, I think that all cyclists agree that calling attention to the rights of cyclists is important and that safer streets are what matters in the end. I still fail to understand, however, how Critical Mass has brought any understanding to this problem. Thus far, it has brought nothing but years of bad press and even angrier motorists to roads upon which I ride and train for thousands upon thousands of miles each year.
CM in San Francisco passes right below my window on the last Friday of every month and I cringe when I see a group that is suppose to be supporting "bicycle safety" swerving all over the rode without helmets and occasionally crashing each other in the process. The yelling and the taunts don't help either. It's been my opinion that the majority of the CMers are really there for a good time and could care less about safety. If this is the case then fine, but why not get rid of the false pretenses and just call it for what it is - a fun party and nothing else. If anyone thinks that they are swaying public opinion via CM or that they have brought the "angry motorists" over to their side of the fence then they are sadly mistaken.
I have often thought that CM looked like a lot of fun and have even considered participating in the past, but there's no way (in good conscience) that could ever happen.
I've been racing bikes for years and I know the vast majority of the racing community in the Bay Area and to a man/woman they all think that CM has actually harmed rather then helped their cause. Yes, we're the lycra clad dorks who train 7500 miles each year and can ride like the wind.
Anyway, if you believe that CM has made a positive difference then could you present to me just how this is so? I'd be interested to see if there is an argument out there that could convince me that i'm in the wrong.
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Critical Mass is the visual component of the often invisible bicyclist. While the Bicycle Coalition has done a lot of good work in getting bike lanes (and the bike right-of-way under the 101 freeway along Cesar Chavez), it was largely the presence of so many thousands of bicyclists that has made bicyclists visible in the media and to the Powers That Be.
Not only that, but I personally know of a bunch of people who are now riding bikes in their everyday life *because* CM has raised the profile of bicycling.
So, yes, CM has done a lot of good, more good that you could possibly imagine.
Now, as for bad press and angry motorists, the press reporters and photographers are people who drive cars for a living, driving to stories. They certainly don't get their on bicycle. So, they have a built-in bias against cyclists, and are more biased for every time they've been held up in traffic.
Now, as for angry motorists overall, the WHOLE POINT of Critical Mass in the first place was that bicycles don't block traffic; bicycles ARE traffic.
And the concept of "critical mass" came from the safety in numbers situation in China or Japan (I forget) where numbers of cyclists had to gather at intersections in order to ride safely through intersections. They'd wait until a critical mass of cyclists had gathered and then they'd all cross the intersection together.
As for the cyclists who run stop lights and disobey the rules of the road, they should be shot...with a heavy dose of water if nothing else.
Too many times I've nearly hit cyclists who are wearing BLACK at NIGHT and have no lights on their bikes. When I've seen them and managed to catch up with them, say at the next intersection, I've told them (this is usually on Valencia) that I'd nearly hit them because they weren't carrying a light. I've been (1) told to go fuck myself, (2) ignored, or (3) told "It's okay".
Well, it's NOT okay. More than one cyclist has gotten hit -- badly -- because they don't follow the rules of the road.
If anything, THAT is our problem as cyclists.
And what's with this thing of riding so close to cars that many cyclists are ASKING to get doored? There's plenty of room on the left, but I see cyclists hugging the right all the time.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31mass = fun = good. a simple equation.
the catch is that fun is revolutionary.
roads are public space. we are the public.
cars think they run things. we check their egotism.
sure theres some antagonistic assholes, but theres also a bunch of nice folks who make room for busses, ambulances, and moms with kida in the car, and thank the pissy yuppies in beemers for waiting five whole minutes on their way home.
i like mass. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31I've now participated in 15 Critical Masses. First and foremost is my dedication to the following belief: Everytime you drive a car, you are part of the problem.
Along with the above two responses -- and in particular to the notion that bicycles ARE traffic -- I am a strong believer in the notion that we, as a society, must remain completely INclusive and not EXclusive. With this in mind, the streets must remain safe for the smallest and least protected individuals FIRST. Critical Mass represents a backlash to the bizarre and highly inappropriate notion that cars should EVER assume a right-of-way on the streets over any pedestrian, child, skater, person in a wheelchair, bicyclist or motorcyclist. Critical Mass is ONE minor component toward greater awareness of how streets must be shared.
We are a 2 hour extravaganza each month. Two hours. That's peanuts compared to the damage caused by cars for the other 718 hours per month. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31"I've been racing bikes for years and I know the vast majority of the racing community in the Bay Area and to a man/woman they all think that CM has actually harmed rather then helped their cause. Yes, we're the lycra clad dorks who train 7500 miles each year and can ride like the wind."
While I'm elated to see that anyone in the world finds their own passion, as well as others who share a similar passion, I do want to point out what I perceive to be an inherent flaw in the above quoted statement.
There isn't a hierarchy of bicyclists. My reason for riding a bicycle in an urban environment is just as valid as anyone else's. Some may ride for pleasure, some due to the convenience, some for health reasons ... The fact that you are a racer doesn't mean that your "cause" is more significant than anyone else's. A 5-year old who rides her/his bicycle on the sidewalk with training wheels is just as much a part of the greater bicycling community as you are.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Well, just to point out the "flaw" in your logic... where did I ever state that myself (or any other racer) was superior to anyone else, cyclist or otherwise? For some reason you decided to make that assumption. I simply stated my background because their is a general consensus among racers that CM does more harm then good. In other words, I don't know who you are reaching, but you're certainly not reaching the racing crowd with your message.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31The use of "their cause." I found that a bit off-putting, and that's being polite. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Sorry, didn't know that the idea of a "cause" would be so off-puting. Is it not a "cause"?
-
-
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Ok, so where does this logic stop? Do pets also have the right away on city streets? Must they be leashed to enjoy this right of way? Should pedestrians be allowed to walk down the middle of the street whenever they choose? Further, why only 2 hours a month? If it's ok for those 2 hours shouldn't it be ok for cyclists to take the entire lane of the street any time they choose?
Further, would you not agree that the basic design of the street in most cases (minus the MUT of course) is there to fascilitate cars and not bikes? Also, as car tax actually pays for the roads, shouldn't cyclists be taxed as well?
I raise these points not because I believe or don't believe in any of them. They are raised simply because they are legitimate questions in most folks minds - pedestrian, cyclist, motorist or otherwise that most people think are worthy of being addressed.
It is a little ironic that you say "Everytime you drive a car you are part of the problem" and follow up that statement by saying "I am a strong believer in the notion that we, as a society, must remain completely INclusive and not EXclusive."
Didn't you just "exclude" motorists in your previous sentiment? Hmmmmmm. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Motorists who do not provide for the smallest first are the problem.
And, yes, do include animals in my previous roster. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Did you not see the following sentence in that first post I wrote?
"With this in mind, the streets must remain safe for the smallest and least protected individuals FIRST."
That followed the statement about inclusivity and exclusivity.
And, yes, I strongly believe that everytime you drive a car, you are part of the problem. You are. Every single time. Everytime I opt to take a taxi cab, I am contributing to the problem. Everytime I have taken a cab, I have done it strictly as a last resort (carting around something that couldn't be carried on my bicycle) -- and have felt guilt for doing it. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Well, by that standard, aren't you also contributing to the problem everytime you purchase ANYTHING at a store? Afterall, hasn't that inventory been delivered by truck? -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Of course. And, as with the case of recycling, the goal is to minimize the damage as much as possible. I think my response to your statement about buying merchandise which was transported via trucks would be obvious based on my guilt for merely using a taxi cab.
The goal being to realize that everytime we do something that creates more harm, we are accountable. Throwing away items that could be recycled. Using a vehicle instead of walking or riding a bike. Not caring for those most in need.
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31A truck is not a car (unless it's an SUV or a pick-up) -- a delivery truck is a form of mass transportation. Instead of bringing many people to a particular place, the delivery truck very efficiently brings many different goods (freight) or services (documents) to a place, usually where the people are. The problem isn't with the delivery truck, it's how we meet up with it. For example, the few tractor trailers needed to fill a grocery store are not the problem; problem is thousands of shoppers driving their individual cars to the supermarket. While heavy vehicles are disproportinately responsible for road damage, the majority of the costs (roadway capital/operating costs, parking infrastructure, real estate, social impacts, environmental impacts, etc.) associated with vehicles are not related to trucks. We ought to be enshrining the delivery truck up with the bicycle and transit vehicle in the pantheon of efficient, livable transportation. I don't mind paying these delivery costs (complete and full costs) when I buy my groceries at Trader Joe's; I do, however, mind paying for someone else's "free parking" when I ride my bicycle to the store through the automotive nightmare that is SOMA.
-
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31"Motorists"? Every "motorist"? Are you not generalizing and lumping everyone in together?
The fact that you believe that animals should be able to roam free on the highway gives me a little perspective about your "cause".
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31"Further, why only 2 hours a month? If it's ok for those 2 hours shouldn't it be ok for cyclists to take the entire lane of the street any time they choose?" I thought that it was okay to "full use of the lane" in SF under CVC 21202. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Yep, TH, that's my understanding, too. But, I was referring to the complaint we hear all the time about taking over the streets and clogging up traffic. Oddly enough, cars seem to clog up the streets for the remaining hours each month.
There are streets I wouldn't dream of forcing the issue on ... Van Ness -- geez, the # of times I've been forced off Van Ness, especially in that area where there's no bike lane on Polk to use -- the 3 blocks near the Civic Center.
I've taken down license plate #s and reported drivers but the SFPD don't really respond to this sort of thing.
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31CVC = CALIFORNIA Vehicle Code -- it applies throughout the state:
www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop...vc21202.htm
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
08/31Drivers don't pay taxes for the roads -- they pay taxes for the pavement that goes on top of the road. Weighing in at 1 to 3 tons, a car does quite a bit of damage to asphalt. Weighing at less than 200 pounds, my bicycle and I are negilable (sp). It's only fair that drivers should have to pay for their costs. Drivers don't pay for the real cost of the roadway -- the space.
In an urbanized area, the most expensive part of a roadway is space. Let's take San Francisco, where I have the misfortune of spending $850/month on rent. For that $850, I get the use of approximately 500 sf of space within my flat. Immediately outside my expensive flat, you can use 140 sf of space for free in perpetuity (excluding street cleaning days)--if you've got a car stick to into it (the average parking space is about 140 sf: 20' x 7'). While that patch of asphalt doesn't have quite the size of amenities of my flat, it does have more potential: 3 more stories could be stuck above/below it. San Francisco's affordable housing crisis stems largely from a shortage of land, and yet a large percentage of the city has nothing on it but pavement. While it may not be realistic to remove a parking and/or travel lane from each street, redraw the lot lines, and build housing, wouldn't it be at least be plausible to get rid of all street parking and replace it with mobile home spaces (in California, trailers pass for affordable housing). Think of the increase in housing supply--the number of people could be affordably housed. These people needn't use the space for free--they could be paying a fair rent of several hundred dollars month, revenues far in excess of the amortized cost of providing new urban services (water/sewer hook-ups, etc.). And where would these rent payments, in addition to the societal benefits of affordable housing, go?
To us--the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco!
Herein lies my point: the largest cost associated with the roadway is the opportunity cost of the roadway space, the cost of highest valued alternative. As a San Francisco resident, I should have a right to a fair share of the public right-of-way. The problem with the current system is that some people--drivers--get an exclusive, disprotionately large piece of this resourcee and they don't have to pay a thing for it. And not only do I, as bicyclist, have to fight to get my measly piece of the road, I end up paying for their traffic lanes and parking spaces every month in my rent check.
Getting back to the point of the original posting: Critical Mass is about reclaiming public space for intensive public use. During Mass, a dozen cyclists visibly assume a space that is usually inhabited by a single driver. Unlike the pedestrian or pet, our claim to this space is supported by statute. Critical Mass is a rightful assumption of public space and a demonstration of its efficient use and potential. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01"Critical Mass is about reclaiming public space for intensive public use. "
Exactly. And how has that worked for you so far? As far as I can tell, you're still fighting windmills. As far as drivers paying for the "pavement" and not the "road".... fine, semantics be damned. Are you not also discluding EVERYTHING ELSE? How about traffic signs? How about road cleanup? How about planners? How about all other maintenance? This is just a drop in the bucket. It's not all about the cost of pavement. In my perfect world, we wouldn't be dependent on cars and 99% of the free world wouldn't look at the CM scene as a group of misguided quixotics. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world and neither do you and the fact is that CM has been nothing more then a party - a charade that masks as "an opportunity to reclaim space for 2 hours a month." At best it is merely a symbolic gesture that allows like minded individuals to gather for some fun and pisses off almost everyone else in the process. It has done close to nothing, but it has given the "automotive majority" something upon which to frown and cast their stones. In other words, we've given them an easy target. To think otherwise is close to delusional IMO. On this forum it will be me against all so there isn't much of a point to this argument anyway. CM is just a rolling party and nothing more. If you want to act self-important about it then great.... it's possible that it does your heart and moral so much good that it's completely worth it for you as an individual in other respects.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01This thread seems to be wrapping up nicely, but I'd just like to respond to:
"As far as drivers paying for the "pavement" and not the "road".... fine, semantics be damned. Are you not also discluding EVERYTHING ELSE? How about traffic signs? How about road cleanup? How about planners? How about all other maintenance? This is just a drop in the bucket. It's not all about the cost of pavement."
All of these things you mentioned are either directly related to cars -- they are part of the highly artifical engineered system that has developed around the automobile (e.g. traffic control devices) -- or would be required regardless and are already paid for by the public at large (i.e. not drivers). Take street cleaning; a city cleans its streets because storm drains flow in natural bodies of water, which they aren't permitted to pollute under the Clean Water Act. The cleaning would have to happen without or without cars (assuming that all surfaces remained paved), and street cleaning is not funded (I believe--let me know if I wrong) by automotive fees but rather by unspecific General Fund revenues (so we're all paying for it anyway).
As a planner, I can tell you that streets are rarely "planned" anymore -- they are designed by traffic engineers using de-humanizing models, standards, and traffic counts. Machines required a mechanized system. The engineers don't consider (or don't include other people that might consider) how the street will feel from the sidewalk. This is fortunately changing, but slowly...take the new Octavia Boulevard:
www.octaviacentral.org
-
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01Historically, Market Street and other downtown SF streets were designed before the automobile ever came into existence. The streets were designed for horses, buggies, and pedestrians.
It's interesting to watch the 1905 film (from the SF library website) of the streetcar ride down Market from Castro to the Ferry building because it shows what the world was like before cars took over the streets. Peds and cyclists crossed the street wherever convenient, not at corners. The cars had to avoid them. It seems that it was only after the car came into existence that people were forced to cross only at intersections.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01thanks, david, for this historical perspective. i ride mass because i want streets to be more like this today. a lot of people dont ride thier bikes in the city because they are scared to be in traffic, think its not practical or safe, etc. mass is a community that allows bikers of all stripe to come together and support, encourage, and educate each other. to me, this is valid reason enough for it to exist.
cars are a fine and useful technology, and i dont expect them to go away anyime soon. however, i do also recognize the level of destruction they cause on many levels - environmentally, socially, economically, culturally... raymond is right, as things are designed right now, roads are primarily designed for cars. and sidewalks are designed for pedestrians. so, if we can acknowledge human powered wheel assisted transport as a social, environmental, etc. good - where do all these bikes, rollerblades, etc, go? mass asserts our right use bikes as a viable and safe means of transportation, not just recreation.
sure mass pisses some people off, raymond. so do war protestors, so aids activists, hell, in the 50's, so did black folks at lunch counters. my point is not that cyclists suffer anywhere near the oppression that folks in the civil rights movement did, but just that no one ever likes it when you mess with the status quo.
raymond, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to bait people with points that you neither "believe or don't believe in" but that are just "legitimate questions in most folks minds". well, what do you believe? should cyclists be able to have a safe means of using bicycles for transportation in the city, should we have legal protection from harassment, should we have dedicated bike lanes? some of your arguments are just so specious, to say "Ok, so where does this logic stop? Do pets also have the right away on city streets? Must they be leashed to enjoy this right of way?" sound waaaay to much like the same reactionary folks who claim that if you allow people to marry folks of their own gender, next thing you know, we will be marrying man and donkey. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01Andy, that was a very thoughtful take on why CM exists in the first place. Since you asked, I will give you my beliefs. I like the idea of CM in a general sense. I think it's great that there is a forum where bicycles can be recognized as a legitimate form of transportation. I love that people have a place to gather and speak their mind. I don't even remotely mind that that some automobilists are put off that they have to wait a few extra moments to get where they are going. In fact, I prefer that they wait a few moments. I do take exception to the actual practice of CM at times however. I hate the fact that I see people being deliberately rude to others. I can tell you how often I have seen CMers banging on cars with their fists and feet. Or how often they have blocked intersections "just because". This isn't transportation, rather, it's the "I'm going to teach you a lesson" mentality. Taking a Bridge? I think that's absurd. Sure, you might get a blurb in the paper, but what will the reaction to the blurb be? "Yes, we should really just shut down the bridge to all cars and give them over to those thoughtful cyclists." I really don't think that will be the outcome.
CM isn't always about just "messing with the status quo" and you know this to be true. Folks are there to have a good time and have fun every bit as much as they are there to promote what is in general a very worthy cause. I do cringe, however, when I see things like most folks not even bothering to wear a helmet on what they recognize as dangerous streets.
When you say "You seem to have a lot of time on your hands..." that's just really a nasty way of saying "You're wasting your time because you don't agree with me." It's always an insult.
As far as this quote:"sound waaaay to much like the same reactionary folks who claim that if you allow people to marry folks of their own gender, next thing you know, we will be marrying man and donkey."
You know very well if you read all the posts in this thread that I was replying to a very specific individual. The questions are indeed absurd, but no more absurd then his reasoning to which I was reacting.
BTW, I lead group rides in the City of upwards of 75 people on weekends. Things like bike lanes, safe streets, smooth pavement, easy access, etc. are very important to me. It is possible that CM is part of the reason that, in some ways, the City has become slightly more bicycle friendly in the last 10 years. I think the Bicycle Coaltion probably has had the most impact however.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01I think that as a San Franciscan, we are extremely lucky to live in a place where we don't even have to own a car just like many other major metropolitan areas. Would you propose that this is even remotely practical for outlying areas - suburbs and the like?
I would love it if they made San Francisco a car free zone all together, but there is no precendent as far as I can tell and we are certainly not inching in that direction. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01hi raymond -
thanks for your thoughtful response.
"I do take exception to the actual practice of CM at times however. I hate the fact that I see people being deliberately rude to others. I can tell you how often I have seen CMers banging on cars with their fists and feet..."
yes, theres some stupid thoughtless drunk assholes on every ride. raymond, you should come along, and do what i do, help encourage people to be polite, remind them that getting in fights with drivers isnt the point, tell people to stop corking intersections when there is no need to, reming people that just as they wouldnt want drivers beating up their bikes, drivers dont like having thier cars beaten on, etc. critical mass doents have rules or leaders, if you want it to be a certain way, my experience is that if you show up, you can do a lot towards making it that way.
"CM isn't always about just "messing with the status quo" and you know this to be true. Folks are there to have a good time and have fun every bit as much as they are there to promote what is in general a very worthy cause."
why cant / why shouldnt promoting a worthy cause be fun too? to me, mass is basically a 'reclaim the streets' type movement, promoting the idea that public space should be used for the public good, including social interaction and celebration.
"When you say "You seem to have a lot of time on your hands..." that's just really a nasty way of saying "You're wasting your time because you don't agree with me." It's always an insult. "
sorry you feel that way, not intended as such. im just always suspicious of a person's motives when they say 'this isnt necessarily what i beleive' and then take the time to lay out and defend a particular argument that isnt theirs.
"As far as this quote:"sound waaaay to much like the same reactionary folks who claim that if you allow people to marry folks of their own gender, next thing you know, we will be marrying man and donkey." You know very well if you read all the posts in this thread that I was replying to a very specific individual."
yeah, i knew you were responding to trouble. trouble said:
"With this in mind, the streets must remain safe for the smallest and least protected individuals FIRST. Critical Mass represents a backlash to the bizarre and highly inappropriate notion that cars should EVER assume a right-of-way on the streets over any pedestrian, child, skater, person in a wheelchair, bicyclist or motorcyclist. Critical Mass is ONE minor component toward greater awareness of how streets must be shared."
and you replied:
"Ok, so where does this logic stop? Do pets also have the right away on city streets? Must they be leashed to enjoy this right of way?"
trouble didnt mention anything about pets, and you somehow extracted a ridiculous argument from his sensible assertion. just like some folks extract the idea of being able to marry a donkey from the idea of being able to marry your same gendered partner.
that said, raymond, hope youll come out for the next mass. its only as good as the folks who show up. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01Well, like I said, I have my own "mass" to lead. Best of luck to you and yours. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01bring your mass to our mass. strength in numbers.
if not, what about meeting in the same time as c.m. in a different place for your ride, and you can run a critical mass that upholds the standards you would like to see? -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01"On this forum it will be me against all so there isn't much of a point to this argument anyway."
well, not to sound like a 3rd grader, but....
YOU STARTED IT!!! -
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01actually, raymond, im just teasing, and one of the things i love about mass is that is an ever evolving and growing and changing debate.
simply by adding your voice, you have helped to shape and devlop mass, to make it better and stronger.
and if you really care, and want to see these things happen, i really do hope you will come on out and try to put your ideas into action. mass needs more committed and conscientious riders like you.
thanks for your time.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01When I made the original post, my questions weren't rhetorical. I was looking for legitimate reason of which I may not have fully understood or contemplated. Some responses seemed reasonable and IMHO, some did not. It may appear from these posts that I "have a lot of time on my hands", but unfotunately that isn't true... just a slow couple of days at work. -
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01well, i hope you feel listened to and reasoned with, not dismissed and shot down. i certaintly intended all my responses as genuine answers to your questions.
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01Andy, you were very reasonable for sure. We just got a thread going with 30+ posts and the forum was a little dead so it has to be positive right? Good luck.
-
-
-
Re: On Critical Mass
09/01I appreciate the invite. The "mass" I referred to only ever takes place on Saturday mornings and is shop sponsored. In that sense, there is no way they would go for this type of change in venue.
My other "mass" is my team, as i'm also the president of a local racing squad, 60 members strong. However, the same problem exists.... we have 12 sponsors that we represent and can not take the risk of negative publicity. I know this sounds like a copout (and perhaps it is), but it is genuine. We would discipline our own rider if he so much as ran a red light.
The only thing that I would add is that part of the charm of CM is that there is no leader. It's just a bunch of folks who know when and where to get together and have fun and be heard. That charm part is also a detraction though as I would never ride with a group of cyclists who refused to wear helmets for example. If a rider in one of my groups didn't wear a helmet then he/she wouldn't be allowed to ride with us. I have seen too many people go down over the years, some at VERY slow speeds and end up in the ER. I have 3 broken ribs and a whole lot of bruises and road rash this year alone just from 3 bad accidents and a helmet really saved me on one of these occasions.
In any case, although there is some motivation there and I admit that the idea is a little intriguing, i'm going to pass. I can only hope that CM further morphs into something slightly more practical in the coming years and continues to hold true to it's orginal ideals and that's to make riding a bike a safe, viable and affective way to move about the City. I admit that I have some negative connotations in my head when I think of CM, but perhaps they will change.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
