Critical mass rides..Good or Bad thing?

spen666

Crapaud wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

....

Does it work? Apparently, it's great strength is that it is leaderless and can be about anything you want: enviromentalism, anti-capitalism, a nice wee bike ride around town (at walking pace) ...anything. So, no, IMO it doesn't work. It hasn't any clear message and no way to diseminate one if it had. A part of the problem is that these people are not fundamentally pro-cycling. They fail to realise that their own politics / philosophy / dogma etc. is the main reason that they're there; it's not about cycling, the bike is only a part of what they see as the solution to whatever it is that they're protesting / promoting.

you seem to be assuming WRONGLY that everyone on CM has some form of message to get across. It works great for me as I get a chance to meet up with friends and have a pootle round London.

My aim when attending CM is to go for a pootle round London with friends.

Therefore it does work for me.

I assumed nothing. Re-read my post. The fact is that a large proportion of participants have another agenda of which cycling is only a part. If it was about cycling, fine, but there's too much political baggage involved for me.

So, explain then how you claim it doesn't work when the aim of myself and those I go with is to have a ride together. We go, ride together and go home. It most certainly does work for us

The only way you can say it doesn't work is if you are assigning to myself and those of us who ride with me, a different purpose than the one we have. If so, you are making assumptions that are wrong

spen666

The aim of many, if not most people on CM is not to promote cycling, but is for different reasons. Many different reasons, no common purpose

It is wrong to assume it has a single aim or it is about promoting cycling for the majority

Crapaud

spen666 wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

....

Does it work? Apparently, it's great strength is that it is leaderless and can be about anything you want: enviromentalism, anti-capitalism, a nice wee bike ride around town (at walking pace) ...anything. So, no, IMO it doesn't work. It hasn't any clear message and no way to diseminate one if it had. A part of the problem is that these people are not fundamentally pro-cycling. They fail to realise that their own politics / philosophy / dogma etc. is the main reason that they're there; it's not about cycling, the bike is only a part of what they see as the solution to whatever it is that they're protesting / promoting.

you seem to be assuming WRONGLY that everyone on CM has some form of message to get across. It works great for me as I get a chance to meet up with friends and have a pootle round London. Ergo, it doesn't work.

My aim when attending CM is to go for a pootle round London with friends.

Therefore it does work for me.

I assumed nothing. Re-read my post. The fact is that a large proportion of participants have another agenda of which cycling is only a part. If it was about cycling, fine, but there's too much political baggage involved for me.

So, explain then how you claim it doesn't work when the aim of myself and those I go with is to have a ride together. We go, ride together and go home. It most certainly does work for us

The only way you can say it doesn't work is if you are assigning to myself and those of us who ride with me, a different purpose than the one we have. If so, you are making assumptions that are wrong

For someone who only goes to CM too pootle around and meet friends you seem to get pretty defensive whenever it's mentioned. CM's an activist bandwagon. Is there something you're not telling us, Spen?

If CM worked you'd be able to point us in the direction of some improvement to the cyclists lot that is directly attributable to CM. I've been following it for years and I know of nothing.

Crapaud

spen666 wrote:

The aim of many, if not most people on CM is not to promote cycling, but is for different reasons. Many different reasons, no common purpose

It is wrong to assume it has a single aim or it is about promoting cycling for the majority

So, it's not about cycling then? Bikes are just coincidental?

spen666

Crapaud wrote:

For someone who only goes to CM too pootle around and meet friends you seem to get pretty defensive whenever it's mentioned. CM's an activist bandwagon. Is there something you're not telling us, Spen?

I'm not defending or promoting CM. I am simply pointing out the falacy that is behind your posts.
You keep telling me what CM is there for. You are assigning reasons to my attending CM that are simply not correct at all.

The only thing I am telling you is that CM is different things for different people and to say it works or not is assuming it has a common purpose - it doesn't.

If CM worked you'd be able to point us in the direction of some improvement to the cyclists lot that is directly attributable to CM. I've been following it for years and I know of nothing.

Well you clearly know little about CM and the reasons for people attending.

I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread that: -
a) CM is different things for different people
b) It has no common purpose
c) It works for me as I get to meet friends and have a pootle round London
d) CM for me and for the majority is not about improvements to cyclists.
e) Improvements to cyclists? Well lets see, in London we have more cycle lanes, cycle paths, cycle parking, Boris's bikes etc, increased awareness of cycling. Hmm Lets ignore these and claim there are no improvements to cycling . Were these caused by or contributed to by CM? Who knows, I can't prove it weas, you can't prove it wasn't

It is possible to ride your bike for no reason other than riding for pleasure

pneumatic

spen666 wrote:

and motoring is the same or are you saying motorists have more rights than cyclists to use the roads

Sighs patiently:

We all (see below :roll: ) have a responsibility to use the roads considerately. Wilfully blocking the highway for our own ends (however pleasingly diverse they may be) does not show much respect for other road users.

gets on with life

spen666

pneumatic wrote:

spen666 wrote:

and motoring is the same or are you saying motorists have more rights than cyclists to use the roads

Sighs patiently:

We all have a responsibility to use the roads considerately. Wilfully blocking the highway for our own ends (however pleasingly diverse they may be) does not show much respect for other road users.

gets on with life

you mean those motorists who twice EVERY DAY, not once a month cause congestion by WILFULLY driving their cars on already congested roads.

When you start berating motorists for daring to exercise their right to use the roads, then you may have a point re cyclists. However it is a RIGHT to use the highway. Not a right to use the highway when motorists are not using it.

Cyclists have every bit of right to use the roads when they want to.

PS where does the WILFULLY BLOCKING bit come from. Riding a bike is using the highway as it is intended, it is not wilfully blocking the road asny more than the motorists at rush hour are wuilfully blocking the road.

This seems to be the crux of it, you are equating a mass of cyclists as wilfully blocking the road when they ride, but are applying different standards to motorists when they do the same.

Thus my earlier point about cyclists being accorded less rights on the road is born out by your attitude to this issue.

bompington

spen666 wrote:

PS where does the WILFULLY BLOCKING bit come from. Riding a bike is using the highway as it is intended, it is not wilfully blocking the road asny more than the motorists at rush hour are wuilfully blocking the road.

This seems to be the crux of it, you are equating a mass of cyclists as wilfully blocking the road when they ride, but are applying different standards to motorists when they do the same.

Thus my earlier point about cyclists being accorded less rights on the road is born out by your attitude to this issue.

The real crux of it is that you either don't know what the word "wilfully" means, or are choosing to ignore it.

Just because an action is lawful (riding your bike on the road*) does not mean that it has no negative consequences. If you are aware of these negative consequences (traffic jams, irate motorists, worse attitudes towards cyclists) and persist in your actions, that is what "wilfully" means. Claiming that those negative consequences are not your fault, by using specious logic, is a helpful illustration of what "juvenile" means too.

I certainly cannot prove that all CM participants take to the road in order to block the traffic, but frankly I find it a bit hard to believe that it doesn't form at least a part of the motivation for all - is anyone unaware of the consequences? And if aware of these consequences, they must presumably be in favour of them?

*Of course , as we keep hearing, CM rides are perfectly legal, so I presume they're all complying with highway code requirements like never cycling more than 2 abreast?

verylonglegs

Ah the modern day curse, all concerned about rights rather than responsibilities. 'nuff said.

spen666

bompington wrote:

spen666 wrote:

PS where does the WILFULLY BLOCKING bit come from. Riding a bike is using the highway as it is intended, it is not wilfully blocking the road asny more than the motorists at rush hour are wuilfully blocking the road.

This seems to be the crux of it, you are equating a mass of cyclists as wilfully blocking the road when they ride, but are applying different standards to motorists when they do the same.

Thus my earlier point about cyclists being accorded less rights on the road is born out by your attitude to this issue.

The real crux of it is that you either don't know what the word "wilfully" means, or are choosing to ignore it.

Just because an action is lawful (riding your bike on the road*) does not mean that it has no negative consequences.

Who has made that suggestion?

It is legal to use the road at any time. At rush hour, the consequences of that right being exerted is congestion. Or are you ignoring this and only objecting to non motorists using the road?

If you are aware of these negative consequences (traffic jams, irate motorists, worse attitudes towards cyclists) and persist in your actions, that is what "wilfully" means.

Erm no it is not

Claiming that those negative consequences are not your fault, by using specious logic, is a helpful illustration of what "juvenile" means too.

I certainly cannot prove that all CM participants take to the road in order to block the traffic, but frankly I find it a bit hard to believe that it doesn't form at least a part of the motivation for all - is anyone unaware of the consequences? And if aware of these consequences, they must presumably be in favour of them?

Once again, you ignore the fact that my purpose and those I ride with is nothing to do with blocking the traffic. You make up without any evidence these so called "purposes" that are not backed by fact. There is little point debating with you when you invent motives, despite the evidence before you

*Of course , as we keep hearing, CM rides are perfectly legal, so I presume they're all complying with highway code requirements like never cycling more than 2 abreast?

Riding 2 abreast is not a legal requirement at all

If you think it is, lets see the legislation that states it is.

PS a clue for you, the Highway Code is not legislation, nor is it the law

shouldbeinbed

spen666 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

IMHO, they mostly serve to confirm the negative stereotypes of us that anti-cyclists find deeply comforting.

Sitting in your 4x4, with the engine running, you can look out at the blocked street in front of you and say:

"Look at all those f...ing hippy scrounging noisy low-life lefty Guardian-reading scruffs with nothing better to do than obstruct decent hard-working, tax-paying Daily Mail reading families from going about their legitimate business."

Critical Mass is to mutual respect among road users, what Ian Paisley is to ecumenical understanding.

[/rant]

+145,000 not my cup of tea at all and I've argued with Spen over them on here. deliberately provocative timing and route dressed up as a convivial social ride.


If you want motorists to think of you and the rest of us as unhelpful scum, you go for it

not in my name though eh.

The cyclists are being no more provocative than the motorists with their use of the road


It is funny how the attitude of motorists having more right to use the road seems to pervade even a cycling website. No one criticises the motorists for causing congestion with their CHOICE to use their vehicles

It won't work this time, I'm not rising to your bait of deciding for me what I'm saying without me actually ever saying anything of the sort.

cars drive nose to tail single file, do critical massers?

deptfordmarmoset

I'm in the ''share the road'' camp. I have a right to be there, motors have a right to be there. Ok, there's an imbalance and a number of drivers think that roads are there exclusively for drivers' use. So my way is to try and be visible, courteous and communicative to other road users as a way of negotiating my place on the road. At all times. For me, that's the way of redressing the imbalance. But it's definitely not the kind of confrontational '''screw you'' kind of CM riding - it's the opposite.

I'm also a ''share the forum'' kind of person so I'm often at a loss in this kind of argument. But that's another issue...I avoid confrontation unless it's necessary - then I'm tenacious.

shouldbeinbed

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I'm in the ''share the road'' camp. I have a right to be there, motors have a right to be there. Ok, there's an imbalance and a number of drivers think that roads are there exclusively for drivers' use. So my way is to try and be visible, courteous and communicative to other road users as a way of negotiating my place on the road. At all times. For me, that's the way of redressing the imbalance. But it's definitely not the kind of confrontational '''screw you'' kind of CM riding - it's the opposite.

I'm also a ''share the forum'' kind of person so I'm often at a loss in this kind of argument. But that's another issue...I avoid confrontation unless it's necessary - then I'm tenacious.

stood up applauding - fantastic post.

spen666

shouldbeinbed wrote:

spen666 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

IMHO, they mostly serve to confirm the negative stereotypes of us that anti-cyclists find deeply comforting.

Sitting in your 4x4, with the engine running, you can look out at the blocked street in front of you and say:

"Look at all those f...ing hippy scrounging noisy low-life lefty Guardian-reading scruffs with nothing better to do than obstruct decent hard-working, tax-paying Daily Mail reading families from going about their legitimate business."

Critical Mass is to mutual respect among road users, what Ian Paisley is to ecumenical understanding.

[/rant]

+145,000 not my cup of tea at all and I've argued with Spen over them on here. deliberately provocative timing and route dressed up as a convivial social ride.


If you want motorists to think of you and the rest of us as unhelpful scum, you go for it

not in my name though eh.

The cyclists are being no more provocative than the motorists with their use of the road


It is funny how the attitude of motorists having more right to use the road seems to pervade even a cycling website. No one criticises the motorists for causing congestion with their CHOICE to use their vehicles

It won't work this time, I'm not rising to your bait of deciding for me what I'm saying without me actually ever saying anything of the sort.

cars drive nose to tail single file, do critical massers?

Cars drive nose to tail blocking the whole width of the lane.

BTW Cyclists are allowed to ride more than single file - so its a bit of a non point. Taking your point though, every club run would be banned, as would people riding with their friends etc.

Strange you won't answer any of the points I raise saying you wont rise to them, then raise accusations at CM

shouldbeinbed

spen666 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

spen666 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

IMHO, they mostly serve to confirm the negative stereotypes of us that anti-cyclists find deeply comforting.

Sitting in your 4x4, with the engine running, you can look out at the blocked street in front of you and say:

"Look at all those f...ing hippy scrounging noisy low-life lefty Guardian-reading scruffs with nothing better to do than obstruct decent hard-working, tax-paying Daily Mail reading families from going about their legitimate business."

Critical Mass is to mutual respect among road users, what Ian Paisley is to ecumenical understanding.

[/rant]

+145,000 not my cup of tea at all and I've argued with Spen over them on here. deliberately provocative timing and route dressed up as a convivial social ride.


If you want motorists to think of you and the rest of us as unhelpful scum, you go for it

not in my name though eh.

The cyclists are being no more provocative than the motorists with their use of the road


It is funny how the attitude of motorists having more right to use the road seems to pervade even a cycling website. No one criticises the motorists for causing congestion with their CHOICE to use their vehicles

It won't work this time, I'm not rising to your bait of deciding for me what I'm saying without me actually ever saying anything of the sort.

cars drive nose to tail single file, do critical massers?

Cars drive nose to tail blocking the whole width of the lane.

BTW Cyclists are allowed to ride more than single file - so its a bit of a non point. Taking your point though, every club run would be banned, as would people riding with their friends etc.

Strange you won't answer any of the points I raise saying you wont rise to them, then raise accusations at CM

I refer you to the Newcastle CM thread in Campaign, we did this to death there, you may want to bore us both to death on the same ground again, I don't. feel free to cut and paste my posts there and make whatever magic made up conclusions you want without me.

Fair point on the club runs: but isn't it maximum 2 abreast legally and from what I've seen of the club runners and the CM's club runners are far more disciplined and other road user friendly/tolerant than CM's are. Also club runs tend not to deliberately ride through busy town centres at rush hour, when whether we like it or not there are lots of cars about and in that context cyclists en-masse with no commuting or other purpose other than to get in the way and pootle round are frankly a pain in the ar$e. do you think the drivers are there for the same purpose as CM or maybe they're just getting from A to B in their chosen mode of transport or making bulk deliveries to retail premises that are not possible on bikes ? there is a difference in why theres lots of cars there regularly to why theres lots of bikes there intermittently - if it was such an issue to bikes then CM'ers wouldn have to be invited in and be making a special journey once a month to look like theres a problem. Even if you won't accept or admit to it.

We're all equal as far as I'm concerned, before you trot the tired old cliche out again. All just trying to get somewhere on a shared system that could be better. CM is one of the least productive methods of engineering the change we could all do with.

social ride, meeting friends, yaddy yaddy, yeah you and how many other CM'ers? and why not Sunday morning or out to the countryside when its quieter out ther and your lungs will love you more for it.

spen666

shouldbeinbed wrote:

...

I refer you to the Newcastle CM thread in Campaign, we did this to death there, you may want to bore us both to death on the same ground again, I don't. feel free to cut and paste my posts there and make whatever magic made up conclusions you want without me.

Fair point on the club runs: but isn't it maximum 2 abreast legally

no absolutely not. There is no legal limit asto how many can ride abreast. The Highway code makes that clear in its guidance.

and from what I've seen of the club runners and the CM's club runners are far more disciplined and other road user friendly/tolerant than CM's are. Also club runs tend not to deliberately ride through busy town centres at rush hour, when whether we like it or not there are lots of cars about and in that context cyclists en-masse with no commuting or other purpose other than to get in the way and pootle round are frankly a pain in the ar$e.

So hmmm lets look at what you have posted here as it backs up what I have been saying earlier regarding the perceived lower rights of cyclists compared to motorists.

The roads in the cities and towns are not solely for commuting. Whether car drivers like it or not, cyclists have every right to use those roads.

You could say that the motorists could use public transport in towns and cities and therefore they are being selfish in blocking the roads, especially using them at busy times causing congestion.

You wouldn't say that, and I would not expect you to. The position though is the same with cyclists. They can use the roads when they like for reasons other than commuting.

I for one love to ride round the various sites in ~London, for no reason other than to see them. AM I wrong to want to explore and see what is out there?

do you think the drivers are there for the same purpose as CM or maybe they're just getting from A to B in their chosen mode of transport or making bulk deliveries to retail premises that are not possible on bikes ? there is a difference in why theres lots of cars there regularly to why theres lots of bikes there intermittently - if it was such an issue to bikes then CM'ers wouldn have to be invited in and be making a special journey once a month to look like theres a problem. Even if you won't accept or admit to it.

As I have stated above. The right to use the road is no more for commuting than for leisure, time trialling or any other lawful use

We're all equal as far as I'm concerned, before you trot the tired old cliche out again. All just trying to get somewhere on a shared system that could be better. CM is one of the least productive methods of engineering the change we could all do with.

Again you come out with the cliche that CM is trying to achieve change. For many, it is not. It is for fun, for pleasure. It is the safest way to ride round the sites in London.

All trying to get on, except if you dare try to use the road other than as a commuter it seems from your explanation.

social ride, meeting friends, yaddy yaddy, yeah you and how many other CM'ers? and why not Sunday morning or out to the countryside when its quieter out ther and your lungs will love you more for it.

Why should it be Sunday morning? Why can I not choose when to ride my bike like I can when I am in my motor car. Why a Friday night? Well probably because we are all in London or whatever city at work that day. It is more practical to have a ride when we are together.

It is as stupid a question as asking why motorists drive into cities on a morning and out on an evening on a monday to friday.

Ahhh yes, that's right, all are equal except some are more equal than others

jc4lab

The one I saw in New york was a Halloween one..Noisy in Fancy dress ..Expect there will be special Halloween one here.My view on it is now and again the odd mass ride althgough a nuisance is tolerable..Lets face it the current labour conference in Manc was even more so.on traffic flows.

spen666

jc4lab wrote:

The one I saw in New york was a Halloween one..Noisy in Fancy dress ..Expect there will be special Halloween one here.My view on it is now and again the odd mass ride althgough a nuisance is tolerable..Lets face it the current labour conference in Manc was even more so.on traffic flows.

+1

electric_blue

spen666 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

IMHO, they mostly serve to confirm the negative stereotypes of us that anti-cyclists find deeply comforting.

Sitting in your 4x4, with the engine running, you can look out at the blocked street in front of you and say:

"Look at all those f...ing hippy scrounging noisy low-life lefty Guardian-reading scruffs with nothing better to do than obstruct decent hard-working, tax-paying Daily Mail reading families from going about their legitimate business."

Critical Mass is to mutual respect among road users, what Ian Paisley is to ecumenical understanding.

[/rant]

+145,000 not my cup of tea at all and I've argued with Spen over them on here. deliberately provocative timing and route dressed up as a convivial social ride.


If you want motorists to think of you and the rest of us as unhelpful scum, you go for it

not in my name though eh.

The cyclists are being no more provocative than the motorists with their use of the road


It is funny how the attitude of motorists having more right to use the road seems to pervade even a cycling website. No one criticises the motorists for causing congestion with their CHOICE to use their vehicles

I've never seen motorists get out on a busy junction, en masse, and lift their vehicles above their heads while whooping.

Smokin Joe

CM have a legal right to do what they are doing.

It's just that they are an embarrassing bunch of knobs for doing it.

spen666

electric_blue wrote:

...

I've never seen motorists get out on a busy junction, en masse, and lift their vehicles above their heads while whooping.

I agree that such behaviour by a small number of people is unacceptable, illegal and gets cyclists a bad name.

It is however no more a reason to ban CM or prevent CMs taking place than the aggressive behaviour of some motorists is a reason to ban all motor traffic.

electric_blue

spen666 wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

...

I've never seen motorists get out on a busy junction, en masse, and lift their vehicles above their heads while whooping.

I agree that such behaviour by a small number of people is unacceptable, illegal and gets cyclists a bad name.

It is however no more a reason to ban CM or prevent CMs taking place than the aggressive behaviour of some motorists is a reason to ban all motor traffic.

I didn;t say I wanted to ban it - I don;t think you could - it's perfectly legal. However, I have seen that there is active obstruction of the highway by participants, and I'm not so sure it's a minority.

shouldbeinbed

you sly dog you got me monologuing again

spen666 wrote:

Ahhh yes, that's right, all are equal except some are more equal than others

This repetitive piece of bullsh*t is really beginning to p*ss me off though - please point out where I actually say that or stop it.

spen666

Well please explain why you repeatedly bleat on about CM being inconsiderate for using the roads in cities but don't bleat on about motoriists being inconsiderate for doing the same thing.

The only conclusion is that you seem to (wrongly in law) believe that somehow motorists have more rights to use the roads and cyclists shouldn't get in their way.


Interesting you take my quote of out context and have deleted all reference to ewhen it was posted or what it replied to.

You posted yesterday at 0925 and I responded to that post with a post of which this was one line of a reply. Which makes it clear what I was responding to.

you may remeber your post, it was the one where you showed ignorance of the law by suggesting it was illegal to ride more than two abreast on a road

CM may be inconsiderate, but it is no more inconsiderate than motorists who block the streets twice a day.

Skeltron

I've been going on the Manchester one for about 2 years now. Recent ones have been quite badly 'organised' and there just wasn't a very good vibe. I'm thinking of not bothering any more. Think for a while I've just been going for the sake of going and the fun has gone from it now.