Congratulations, you sons of bitches. You blocked an ambulance.
Let me explain something: I am not talking metaphorically. I am not saying what could happen if you continue your little bullshit pity party. I am saying that at approximately 8 p.m. on Friday, June 26, 2009 at the six-corners of Milwaukee, Damen and North, I personally witnessed a siren-blaring ambulance that could not move because of your take-back-the-streets, look-at-my-coolness, hipster pseudo-protest.
Background: Critical Mass. Big bike protest. Once a month. They gather on bikes and block up the streets. Here's the link for their side of the story, but the gist is they break all the rules of the road to get drivers to obey all the rules of the road ... somehow.
And they blocked an ambulance on Friday.
Granted, the ambulance did have the audacity to try to head east on Milwaukee at the same time you cracker-ass Northsiders decided to feel victimized.
There was a person in that ambulance. Most likely a person in pain. And you extended that pain for a self-congratulatory bike ride.
The Critical Massers make a big deal out of the false divide between bikers and drivers (although many of us own and use both responsibly). Bikers are eco-friendly, drivers are not, etc. etc. etc.
Here's another fact for you: Drivers move for ambulances. These drivers you demonize, they step aside for others' pain. You didn't even think about the possibility. You just assumed your desire for the streets was more important than others' need for it.
The Critical Mass Web site proudly declares that "the Mass" has no leadership or organization. They call that community. Sociologists call that "diffusion of responsibility."
Oh, the right to gather is guaranteed in the Constitution? So is free speech, in this case the speech of me encouraging your group to disband and never form again.
If you participate in Critical Mass to get more attention to the rights of bikers, you are a small child who tries to hold his breath until someone treats him like an adult. You are the teenage girl screaming "I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU! WHY DON'T YOU RESPECT ME!!?!" when Mommy won't buy her the bangle earrings.
If you join Critical Mass, you are a bullshit person whose words of protest will fall on deaf ears. You earn respect for cyclists by being respectful cyclists. Cyclists can't whine their way to respect.
Why do I say this? Because I'm a cyclist.
Motorists get skittish about bikes because they don't know what to expect. When I'm in my car and I hit a red light at the same time as a bike, I don't know if that person is going to wait, run the red, hop up on the sidewalk, weave through the cars, move to the turn lane or just rock the wheels on their fixie back and forth until they perceive an opening. All I can reasonably expect is the person won't be wearing a helmet.
When I'm on my bike - wearing my helmet and lights and following the damn rules - I'm dealing with heavy vehicles operated by people completely unsure of what I will do next. Big metal plus nervousness is never a good combo.
As I yelled at one Critical Masser on Friday, "People like you are the reason I'm in danger every time I get on my bike. Get a helmet and learn the God damn rules of the road!"
Unfortunately, my girlfriend then informed me I had just cussed out a former dean at my graduate school, a person who could be very helpful in my job search.
Eh.
Yes, I have participated in the World Naked Bike Ride, which also blocks streets on bikes and, yes, I know a lot of the WNBR participants do Critical Mass events. But the Naked Bike Ride sets out routes. They work with officials to ensure a safe and meaningful protest. And, most importantly, I get to show my pee-pee.
(Brief aside: I didn't write about the Naked Bike Ride this year because this year I got all the way down to the staging area, but then started to feel lonely because everyone was there with their friends and I couldn't get any of my friends to go, so I just went home. I stayed clothed)
But let's put it this way: Here's what the World Naked Bike Ride had to say about the cops after their last ride:
"Boundless sincere gratitude goes to mayor Richard M Daley and to the Chicago Police for their tolerance and tacit facilitation of this ride happening safely. This and other massive local rides tangibly show Chicago's ongoing commitment to being a notably bike-friendly U.S. city."
Here's what Critical Mass had to say:
"Big ups to all those who participated & yes even that portly cop who threatened me several times with imprisonment."
So the WNBR organizers work with, thank and praise the cops and the Critical Mass people call them fat.
Isn't it a messed-up world when the flashers have more class than the clothed people?
In closing, the next Critical Mass event starts at 5:30 p.m. on Friday, July 31. What I want (and I will pursue this through other venues) is for every pedestrian who sees it to stand up and walk in the middle of the bike ride. They're only going five to 10 miles per hour. They'll swerve.
Just stand up and, in large groups, physically block Critical Mass. If anyone gets steamed, tell them it's a pedestrian protest taking back the streets from the tyranny of wheels.
Then just look them in the eyes, smile and say, "Happy Friday."
Print
E-mail
Paul Dailing
Paul Dailing (pictured standing in front of the World's Largest Boot), now has a different haircut. He's also lost a bit of weight since that picture was taken, but not as much as he likes to think. More
Comments
Jeez, I never sleep. That's not saying anything about the day's debate, it's just, man. I'm looking at this and I'm online a lot.
I have seen the same corking and the same raising of bikes and yelling. In fact, not only did I write about it last year (http://www.windycitizen.com/blogs/getting-strange/2008/06/15/all-bike-ri...), I also linked to that article in this one. The link was actually the hypertext in the "pee pee" line. I can understand why you might be reluctant to click on that.
No, I don't think respecting the World Naked Bike Ride hurt my argument. If you read the initial post beyond the "pee pee" joke, you will see that I cite two passages from the respective groups' Chicago Web sites. The World Naked Bike Ride thanks the police for their support, Critical Mass calls a cop "portly." Then I pointed out the irony of the nudist group being the classier one.
The World Naked Bike Ride has organizers and accountability. I believe the exact terms used on the Chicago branch's Web site are "a considerable team of facilitators" and "current good level of organization built through experience." Although I won't deny that the main attraction for me was the ability to be naked in public, that accountability is the difference between a ride I respect and a ride I can't stand. At the end of the day, the World Naked Bike Ride has people who will stand up and say "I did this. I take responsibility."
Critical Mass has a bunch of people who disappear into the dark and excuse everything they did through group dynamics.
A question for you, Gabriel Eli Cohen.
Would you run through red lights, making cars stop for you if you were riding alone? Would you feel it right to stand in the middle of a passing lane, holding your bike in the air and yelling if it were just you?
Ignore the fact that one person doing that alone would be in more danger. Would you think it MORALLY RIGHT to block traffic just because you want to? Not "the Mass" doing it. Gabriel Eli Cohen doing it.
If you wouldn't do it alone, would you do it if you were riding with one other person? Or would it take two more people before you can justify running through red lights, blocking cars and otherwise breaking all the rules you feel cars should obey?
You seem to believe the violation of all traffic rules is morally justifiable if done in a large enough group. I'm just trying to suss out how large that group has to be.
You say it's a Mass and it just goes. Your words. But you are a part of that Mass. And if you wouldn't feel right doing something if you were alone, you shouldn't do it just because a big mob has your back.
So how big does the mob have to be before you're not accountable for your own actions?
Gabriel Eli Cohen, I'm looking forward to your answer. And will someone PLEASE answer my questions from my last post.
Paul for the most part I don't really see much value in your argument. Every emergency vehicle finds parts of traffic that slow them down. The police get our maps and from my understanding inform dispatch of the route. Of course maps do not always win but any emergency vehicle in the area could be told to avoid a specific street. Critical Mass has no leaders, no set goal, even the "official" website is arguably bogus. There seems to be three normative Mass ethics. Meet at the last Friday, vote at the tallest thing around and let emergency vehicles through. These are pretty much the only commonalities between masses all over the world.
1. Why do individual Critical Mass participants not take responsibility for their group's actions?
Because there is no central authority or purpose other than the three norms I stated above. I for one ride in the mass TO BLOCK TRAFFIC as a primary goal. Corking is fun. Well in full disclosure, I no longer cork. I now have a mobile sound system so my self assigned function is now to help keep the mass fun.
2. How do you justify running red lights in groups when you wouldn't do it on your own?
If we do not run red lights and block traffic, cars will hit us. This has happen in the past and it will again in the future. The Corker helps deescalate the pissed off drivers from running into the crowd. There are bad corkers who antagonize cars but for the most part it's all about talking to the lead car and emphasizing that the mass will be over soon.
You should do a story on all the times bikers have been injured because some a-hole ran into the mass.
3. Why not work with officials in planning Critical Mass, like the World Naked Bike Ride, Bike the Drive and street festivals do? Wouldn't a parade permit eliminate all risk of blocking emergency vehicles? Beyond that, why willfully antagonize police, as in my example of the Critical Mass Chicago posting making fun of one cop's weight?
Again. No central authority. We don't need a permit because we don't need to ask for permission. We are a Critical Mass of people doing something we want to do. Don't like it. Deal with it.
4. How is Critical Mass helping bikers?
Keeps us in shape? It's fun? Why is this even relevant?
5. Finally, how is my hypothetical example of pedestrians blocking Critical Mass any different than what you do to motorists?
This has never happened so it's a moot and retarded point. I would suggest you try and organize this sometime and we'll see what happens.
This "debate" is mental. As are most debates that take place online. If there were a video then there could be proof of the ambulance being blocked but there isn't. There are people's opinions of what happened and they differ greatly. Anti-CM'ers are always anti-CM and CM'ers are CM'ers.
And Paul, you should never have bailed on WNBR because you would have seen the same corking that you would on CM, and the same stopping of traffic. Hating one and liking the other cause you can "show your pee pee" (your words) is pretty immature and might hurt your argument. The two rides are very similar. (by the way there are maps for CM as well and the cops are handed them at the beginning of the ride same as WNBR. And if the police wanted they could stay with us the whole way but usually they don't for CM. Even for WNBR there were times when we didn't have them. That's why it's important for the ride to have people on board that can cork and control the ride better BUT there really isn't any one person that's in charge. It's a Mass and it just goes.
Each number corresponds to a double-dashed bullet point in Spenser's last comment.
1. That's exactly the problem. You don't "want" to take responsibility for a clearly illegal event. You want to join it, you don't want to take responsibility for joining it.
And if someone took responsibility to run it properly, it wouldn't BE an illegal event.
2. Congratulations on not being a drunk driver. But that has no bearing on the laws you do break. And MY driving record (I've run a few red lights and have a few speeding tickets from my teens, but I always feel bad about it) also has no effect on the laws YOU break. And these are laws designed to protect public safety.
No one has a perfect road record, but Critical Massers set out to break public safety rules, de jure or de facto. And, yeah, I think that's worse.
3. The fact you didn't invent corking is irrelevant. You do it. You didn't have to invent something you admit is predicated on a logical fallacy in order to perpetuate that fallacy, month after month after month.
4. I get the analogy of Critical Mass riders as small-brained animals with a herd mentality, but my point is stopping at red lights would not be creating holes for cars to "zip through." It would be allowing cars to proceed for the duration of their green light, then your group proceeding. The exact same behavior you demand of drivers.
5. Why would the corkers have to set up a cork at all if the Critical Mass riders stopped at reds? You're telling me that this practice puts the corkers at even greater risk than the rest of the riders. Wouldn't just waiting your turn put no one at risk?
6. I do call it mob rule. Thanks for being the one to use that term first -- I thought it would be too inflammatory.
Or to use your words, "Because a fast moving mass of people 2000 large don't have to ask for much."
Where does a 500-pound gorilla sleep? Wherever it wants.
7. Law does not mean moral right. But public safety -- the concept those laws protect -- does.
And stop talking like we're talking about Jim Crow laws or any other example of legislated tyranny. We're talking about traffic laws here. If you say they're meaningless, that's fine. I'll give you a wide berth on the road, but at least say what you mean: You think laws designed to protect the public safety can be ignored whenever a big mob wants to ignore them.
8. I agree that calling it an assertion of bikers rights is absurd. But a lot of people do. That's their means of justifying something that is at worst dangerous for everyone trying to use the road at best fun for the participants. At least you seem to admit that there's no value to it other than what you personally get out of it.
9. Blocking EVs in an intentional traffic jam, my friend. That's the difference. You create a situation making it much more difficult for bikes and cars to clear a path for emergency vehicles. (Lets not forget that the cars need to make way before the ambulance can even get to a point where the bikers can move over.) And let's also nor forget that not every vehicle with a critical need to get from point A to point B has a flashy light on top.
10. I'm not asking why individual bikers do it. I'm asking what, if any, good comes from it for anyone else. If you can tell me how Critical Mass makes things better for anyone other than the riders, I'll go easier on the ride. This particular question actually was a question. It's not a veiled argument. I want to know what good comes from this because knowing that will help me decide if the good outweighs the bad.
So what, if any, good does this do?
11. So I'm correct. Good.
12. Again, agreement. So don't tell me to just deal with it.
13. You say the mob doesn't absolve you of your responsibility, but earlier you asked who would want to be responsible for a clearly illegal event. So when you say accountability is important to you, are those just words?
14. Whew. That took a long time. No, I wouldn't like to apply for the permit. But then again, I'm not the one participating in this ride.
In short, Spenser, I've enjoyed bits of our debate, but it's time for you to put up or shut up.
You say accountability is very important to you. Getting a permit would give that accountability. So get that permit.
You said permit law is not a moral issue, so I infer you would have nothing morally against getting that permit (or encouraging others to get the permit, working with a coalition to get that permit, etc. etc. etc.).
So get the permit. Put in the time, effort and energy to work with authorities (and no, I don't think handing a few Xeroxes to a few cops who happen to be at the starting line is the same as notifying all public safety authorities of planned road closures).
Until you or someone else actually takes responsibility for this, I can't help but see it as anything other than a bratty and entitled mob action dressed up in pretty words.
Doesn't corking take place when the Critical Massers have the red? How is that helping the cops?
And either way, this practice shows that your earlier statement of "Each individual driver (of a bike) sets out to get to their destination" is flawed. In your next statement, you amend that from "each individual" to "the vast majority." Nice backpedal (pun not intended, but I'm thinking of claiming it was because that worked out sort of nicely).
In your third post, you completely abandon the pretense that Critical Mass is not intended to block traffic. Now you move from claiming the intent is not to block traffic to defending why they do it. You ignore the fact that corking is done to illegally block intersections ("This tactic consists of a few riders blocking traffic from side roads so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without interruption" according to the Critical Mass Wikia). Now it's done "to assist police." We've already had a corker comment on this post. Hey, Paul H. Were you doing it to assist the police or to block traffic?
And what about when everyone stops, lifts their bikes and yells? Since this is such a group effort, I submit that this disproves your theory that the traffic blocking (although prescribed by the groups and sites popularizing Critical Mass and instructing new riders on proper protocol) is just by a few bad eggs. This is everyone. Everyone is blocking traffic. But, to you, that's OK because it's "celebrating."
So in three short posts, your argument has gone from "no one goes to block traffic" to "when we all block traffic, we're celebrating."
You can't change what something is by calling it a different name.
And your last point is completely irrelevant. Even though lifting the bikes "could also be" a way of letting people know about emergency vehicles (although I doubt the plan of stopping, hoisting your means of getting out of the way over your head and yelling would be very effective) it's not. Maybe it could also be, but it isn't. No one claims it is, not even you.
I do have a theory that you're just messing with me. I just can't believe I'm arguing about whether Critical Mass intentionally blocks traffic. It used to be called "Commute Clot," for pity's sake.
I thought I should emphasize the point I made... Don't like it, deal with it.
I need nothing more of you than to say thank you for engaging me in intelligent and ultimately productive debate. Obviously, I disagree with some of your points, but you're right -- we've said everything we can say to each other. And even if we end this with a snipe about me being uptight about traffic regulations, well, I can't argue with that. I am uptight about traffic regulations. Personally, I think more people should be, but that's beyond the point.
"And this discussion has been enlightening enough to make me realize that more should be done to ensure that EVs receive the information on what streets need to be avoided. I am already beginning to work on a plan with some people to consider how to do this. That to ME is taking moral responsibility for the Mass."
That's taking moral responsibility to me too. And I thank you for taking this step when so many others don't. If this discussion led to that in any way, I couldn't be happier.
Paul,
"Having a central authority is just one means of ensuring individual responsibility. Critical Mass seems to eschew any means of individual responsibility."
-- Who would want to be responsible for a clearly illegal activity like Critical Mass? I certainly wouldn't.
"If you run every red and park in front of cars as an individual, you'll get cited. Being part of a group doesn't make it right; it just makes it easier to get away with."
-- No it certainly doesn't make it "right" but I refuse to accept that traffic law should be upheld as an universal ethic. I'm not a legal moralist and do not believe that law reflects "right." In fact I would argue that most of us are legal indeterminists when it is convenient for us. Paul, are you claiming you have never ran a red light? What is the difference between avoiding a citation because you are protected by a large group or when you run a red light when there are no cops around? Both instances are basking in the privilege that there is no method for the state to enforce the law at that moment. What I am trying to say is that you cannot honestly state that a legal statement is right or wrong without making a normative value judgment about what the law should be. If you have ever violated traffic law, without repentance, then your assertion that running a red light is not "right" is hypocritical and can be ignored by any rational thinker. And don't even get me started about he meaninglessness of words like "right" and "wrong."
Also have you ever driven a car while drunk? This is a common violation of the law that people do all the time. I for one can honestly say that I have never driven a car while drunk because I have never driven a car. So I am exempt from this type of hypocrisy.
"You're using some pretty circular logic in defending corking. You set out to block traffic, by your own admission. Then you say that, once out there, you NEED to block traffic because cars will hit you otherwise."
-- No I did not invent corking. If I did then you would be correct about my logical fallacy. I participate in corking because I understand and have seen the necessity for it. It also just happens to be a very fun experience. You get to meet people and generally I manage to convince people that Critical Mass is a good thing.
"And I still don't see why stopping at red lights means cars will hit you."
-- The phenomenon of the mass cam be described very simply with an analog in nature. The mass operates like a school of fish. The larger and more dense the school is the safer every body is. It is exactly when there are holes in the mass that cars will attempt to zip by and endanger bikers.
"Aren't you in more danger entering intersections when you have the red?"
-- If you already have established a cork before the mass gets to the cork the danger is diminished. Those who cork in the front take a very large risk and should and are commended regularly.
"Why don't you need to ask for permission? Why do Bike the Drive, South Side Irish and the Pride Parade have to ask for permission? They're critical masses of people doing something they want to do. Pride has to get permits and you don't? What makes you so special?"
-- Because a fast moving mass of people 2000 large don't have to ask for much. Call it mob rule, call it asserting constitutional right to FREE assembly, or whatever you want the truth is that's just how it goes. Any of those organizations you cited could if they were so inclined also act without permit. This is just how Critical Mass operates. There is no central authority so there is no single person capable of applying for a permit. I guess we could say the the CPD and Daley generously give us a permit every last Friday of the month.
"To clarify, I am specifically asking you what makes it morally right to eschew permitting. I'm not asking if having a mob makes it easier to get away with not getting the proper permits."
-- Again I state my earlier premise; that law does not mean morally "right." If you are a constitutionalists you could say that permit law is "wrong" because it puts limits on the First. But I am not, so I won't.
Essentially to really answer your question you'll have to ask each individual person what their thoughts on this are. I personally feel it's morally permissible to act without a permit so I have no problem with participating in a mass. You would be hard pressed to convince me that the law is "right." I see it the other way around that the law reflects what a powerful majority capable of enforcing law believe is "right." But that's just me and not the mass.
"My question is relevant for two reasons. First, because many participants justify Critical Mass as a protest ride for bikers rights."
-- See my reply to Brian. In short, I don't think you can justify it as an assertion of bikers rights; it's an absurd correlation.
"Secondly, because I submit that Critical Mass does bad things (blocking traffic..."
-- IS blocking traffic a "bad thing?" I would of course agree that blocking an Emergency Vehicle is a bad thing, but I have already contended that Critical Mass does not block EV's anymore than busy traffic. Further more the police already have access to our maps and should be communicating with dispatch our location to avoid slowing down EV's and other critical components of the city. If it can be proven that what I suggest is not happening then perhaps I will take it upon myself to begin working with the police so that it does. That would be a valuable addition to Critical Mass.
"...risking lives, putting bikers in situations where bad corkers are endangering drivers). If the ride isn't doing good things to counter those bad things, I don't believe the ride can be morally justified."
-- Risking lives? If you mean people being transported by EV's then please see my above response. But if you mean the lives of the participants in the Mass please consult John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. I believe as long as the Mass continues to make it a priority that Emergency Vehicles must be allowed through the mass I believe the Harm Principle applies to those who participate in the Mass. It's clear that the people who take the greatest risk are those participants themselves.(*1)
"It's a cost-benefit analysis and I want to see the benefits. So what are they?"
-- It builds a community space for cyclists? I honestly cannot answer why so many people participate and perpetuate the mass other than it's an amazing experience. Try it sometime with an open mind and you could possibly find the answer yourself.
"And if it did happen and you didn't like it, by your own logic you would just have to deal with it, right?"
-- Correct.
"just have to say, I hate your "Don't like it. Deal with it." argument. That can apply to car traffic, to smog, to pollution, to bloggers who try to get Critical Mass participants to stop joining the ride."
-- It can and often does. Only through much struggle can we change those things we do not like in this world. Sometimes we are powerless to effect change other times we are successful. And this is coming from someone who struggles daily to help make what I believe are positive changes in the world.
You can either accept that Critical Mass happens or you can take steps to stop it; like as this article. While I will continue to appose you and every other person attacking Critical Mass.
"The mob doesn't change the morality of your actions or inactions. It just changes your ability to be held accountable by authorities. Your ability to hold yourself accountable is diminished by the mob mentality of "the Mass."
-- I take accountability very seriously. And I do not believe being a member of a mob absolves me of my moral responsibility.
I just don't buy your line that the actions and repercussions of massing are immoral. Violating permit law isn't necessarily immoral; running a red light isn't necessarily immoral and blocking traffic certainly isn't immoral. The only thing we can agree on is that risking the lives of those being transported in Emergency Vehicles is immoral and I don't agree with validity of your statements.
"So at the end of the day, who's accountable?"
-- You? Would you like to apply for a permit this coming July 31st 2009 from 5:30pm to 11:00pm?
(*1) "By the way, normative ethics is a philosophical term relating to creating or evaluating guidelines to ensure the actor, action and results of the action are all moral. Meeting each Friday and voting on the tallest building are more scheduling choices than moral ones."
-- Well... Yeah. I was assuming that the Mass was the actor. But I see what you are saying and you're correct it's not the right way of putting it. I was being sloppy. But these are more than mere scheduling or tactical choices because these three norms are accepted all over the world. There is some debate on this so we could agree that there is a robust and active ethics of Critical Mass with those three values being regularly accepted as the morally "right" choices to make given specific conditions.
Thank you for addressing my questions, Spenser. Although I obviously disagree with a lot of your answers, I want to thank you for offering them.
1) I think our main disagreement relates to the moral repercussions of Critical Mass' lack of central authority. It seems to me like people use that to excuse their own actions. "It wasn't me; it was the Mass." You thankfully admit that the point, or at least your point, is to block traffic (I still can't believe that argument happened). But the fact that thousands of people join a group they KNOW will block traffic and clot up the streets and then claim moral immunity because "the group" was doing it is mob psychology in its basest form.
Having a central authority is just one means of ensuring individual responsibility. Critical Mass seems to eschew any means of individual responsibility. If you run every red and park in front of cars as an individual, you'll get cited. Being part of a group doesn't make it right; it just makes it easier to get away with.
2) You're using some pretty circular logic in defending corking. You set out to block traffic, by your own admission. Then you say that, once out there, you NEED to block traffic because cars will hit you otherwise.
And I still don't see why stopping at red lights means cars will hit you. Aren't you in more danger entering intersections when you have the red?
And as for the bad corkers v. good corkers point, I don't think there should be any corkers.
3) I don't feel you answered this set of questions (why not work with officials, wouldn't a parade permit avoid all this and why antagonize police). Instead you cite the lack of central authority and then state "We don't need a permit because we don't need to ask for permission."
Why don't you need to ask for permission? Why do Bike the Drive, South Side Irish and the Pride Parade have to ask for permission? They're critical masses of people doing something they want to do. Pride has to get permits and you don't? What makes you so special?
To clarify, I am specifically asking you what makes it morally right to eschew permitting. I'm not asking if having a mob makes it easier to get away with not getting the proper permits.
(By the way, normative ethics is a philosophical term relating to creating or evaluating guidelines to ensure the actor, action and results of the action are all moral. Meeting each Friday and voting on the tallest building are more scheduling choices than moral ones.)
4) My question is relevant for two reasons. First, because many participants justify Critical Mass as a protest ride for bikers rights. I want to know how it actually helps bikers. Secondly, because I submit that Critical Mass does bad things (blocking traffic, risking lives, putting bikers in situations where bad corkers are endangering drivers). If the ride isn't doing good things to counter those bad things, I don't believe the ride can be morally justified. It's a cost-benefit analysis and I want to see the benefits. So what are they?
5)A point that never happened is not "moot and retarded." It's "hypothetical." And if it did happen and you didn't like it, by your own logic you would just have to deal with it, right?
I just have to say, I hate your "Don't like it. Deal with it." argument. That can apply to car traffic, to smog, to pollution, to bloggers who try to get Critical Mass participants to stop joining the ride.
The mob doesn't change the morality of your actions or inactions. It just changes your ability to be held accountable by authorities. Your ability to hold yourself accountable is diminished by the mob mentality of "the Mass."
So at the end of the day, who's accountable?
Paul,
"That's exactly the problem. You don't "want" to take responsibility for a clearly illegal event. You want to join it, you don't want to take responsibility for joining it...Until you or someone else actually takes responsibility for this, I can't help but see it as anything other than a bratty and entitled mob action dressed up in pretty words...You say accountability is very important to you. Getting a permit would give that accountability. So get that permit."
-- I am quite engaged in the Critial Mass community and do try my best and improve it. And this discussion has been enlightening enough to make me realize that more should be done to ensure that EVs receive the information on what streets need to be avoided. I am already beginning to work on a plan with some people to consider how to do this. That to ME is taking moral responsibility for the Mass.
Moral responsibility however is not the same as legal responsibility and that seems to be what you are meaning. This would imply some sort of ownership over the Mass. And I can assure you that it is absolutely impossible for any individual to claim ownership of the Mass. It's entirely individually driven with no central authority and any and all attempts to create a centralized Critical Mass planning coalition have failed miserably. The Mass will exist without or without someone trying to organize it.
The only way to stop the Mass is to seriously enforce the law. We see this in NYC but it's a brutal nightmare and hasn't worked yet. Daley is surprisingly smarter than this and has worked with the CPD to create a reasonably well functioning system. Perhaps it requires more communication between map makers and the city but again- I am working on a plan.
"So get the permit. Put in the time, effort and energy to work with authorities..."
-- I think I have established that a permit isn't desirable for the Mass nor would it work. But this quote does bring up an issue I have with your story. The fact that you portray every member of the mass as being hostile towards the police is appalling. Where do you get this information? A single quote from some random person? That's inane.
Ride in a Mass and you will hear people yelling "Thank you Officer!" all the time. The CPD is on average very good with the Mass and most of us appreciate it. Some of us actually work with the authorities. They'll tell us something and we'll try and get the word out to the entire Mass. Your characterization and understanding of the CM/Chicago authority interaction is entirely biased and inaccurate.
"I believe two things: A) The goal of Critical Mass...is to cause traffic jams...everyone there knows a traffic jam is inevitable if they ride. And they ride anyway. That makes them -- and you -- just as culpable."
-- Perhaps I have not driven this point home hard enough. Yes traffic will be blocked by the Mass. That is a given. Anyone who is not aware of this clearly doesn't understand what it is that a Mass does. Blocking traffic is not immoral to ME or apparently anyone who masses. So to be blunt we apparently don't care if we block traffic. The only exception of course is intentionally blocking an emergency vehicles. We do care about that and if you ride in a Mass you'll see this.
I do not feel the burden of guilt when blocking regular traffic. Why? Because it's only traffic. I have read many letters from people who wrote the website angry about their "emergencies" being delayed but none of them were what could be considered real emergencies. We've made a few people late for graduation, miss a date or something else trivial but nothing of importance beyond the personal.
"And let's also nor forget that not every vehicle with a critical need to get from point A to point B has a flashy light on top."
-- Those people who have real emergencies and are not being transported in an emergency vehicle are not receiving any special treatment from other cars in a traffic jam because others cannot tell that a car is experiencing an emergency. And neither can we. So the only way you can convince me or anyone else who masses that we should reconsider our stance on blocking traffic is to provide evidence that someone has had a medical emergency and was negatively impacted by the Mass.
"...and, as you pointed out earlier, the debate on the list serve is how long that ambulance was blocked, not if it was blocked) was an immoral act. Yes, the ambulance eventually got through (some say in a couple seconds, I say it took longer"
-- Actually some dispute the specifics of your account. If you would like I can post them. All but yours claim that the emergency vehicle got through with minimal if not no delay.
"Blocking EVs in an intentional traffic jam, my friend. That's the difference. You create a situation making it much more difficult for bikes and cars to clear a path for emergency vehicles. (Lets not forget that the cars need to make way before the ambulance can even get to a point where the bikers can move over.)...As I said before, it is always unfortunate when an ambulance is stuck in traffic. When that traffic jam was intentional, that block is unconscionable."
-- I can use the same logic game that you are using for Massers on rush hour drivers too you know. I just haven't really wanted to go there because I think the very nature of your argument is bogus. But I believe it's time I turn the question back on to you...
People who drive downtown during rush hour know they will be contributing to the traffic problem but choose to do so anyway. If an emergency vehicle is delayed because of a serious traffic jam shouldn't the driver of an automobile feel the same burden of unconscionable guilt that the Massers are supposed to experience?
And before you say that cars during rush hour traffic obey traffic laws I can assure you that this is not the case. More frequently than once a month do I see the lines of cars on Michigan Ave or State spill over into on coming traffic during a red light jamming up both intersections.
"...what...good does this [the Mass] do?"
For people like you; None. For people like me; A lot. It just depends on the kind of person you are. And then we do have to factor in the added bonus that the Mass pisses off people who are uptight about the law like yourself.
Unless you specifically need something more of me I believe everything that could be said has been said. This has been fun but I have a life to attend to and more Critical Mass maps to work on.
WoW, as I suspected this would go on forever and has. It would seem, Paul, (and you can use my full name as often as you like, hell get a tattoo of it on your rod so you can see it grow when your hard) that your serious issue is "accountability."
Tough. No kiddin, that's it. Your fixation on this is similar to that of toddler going through the terrible two's that won't stop ( I was an early childhood education teacher for several years so I have some experience with that). There are Police along for the ride, and if you were present on the rides you'd know that there presence has grown which I welcome.
And this fixation with accountability is nonsense. People do things that others don't like or are deemed illegal and those people get away with it all the time. Do you go down the street and knock a joint out of a guys hand as he's walkin and smokin (seen it a million times in chicago) or if a guy is walking down the street and drinkin (also illegal), do you step in there?
The idea that some major managing group has to exist is also silly. This group (to me) is about several things but none more important than showing civil disobedience to remind those at the top that the ones at the bottom can organize and are present. In this country it should be heralded (permit this!). Instead non-bikers complain of being delayed in the rush to do whatever. And for cyclists that rail against it I truly think it's just like anything else that's popular, someone else has to scream they hate it. Have fun screamin'.
You know what? I've been too reactive. Although if anyone posts between the time I started writing this and the time I post it, I will deal with their concerns.
But rather than deal with people who claim the event once called "Commute Clot" doesn't intentionally block traffic or people who pop in once to call me a liar and then disappear, I am going to ask for a reasoned response to the following questions:
1. Why do individual Critical Mass participants not take responsibility for their group's actions? How can you join a group you know will block traffic (either through corkers or in the mass bike-lift) and then claim your individual intent was not to block traffic? How can you participate in the process and then remove yourself when it's time to take responsibility for the end results, particularly when the Web site that told you where to go explained exactly what was going to happen?
2. How do you justify running red lights in groups when you wouldn't do it on your own?
3. Why not work with officials in planning Critical Mass, like the World Naked Bike Ride, Bike the Drive and street festivals do? Wouldn't a parade permit eliminate all risk of blocking emergency vehicles? Beyond that, why willfully antagonize police, as in my example of the Critical Mass Chicago posting making fun of one cop's weight?
4. How is Critical Mass helping bikers? I stated my theory in the original post (rule-breaking by bikers sends the message to motorists that bike behavior cannot be predicted, thus endangering my cracker-ass Northside butt). I concede that Critical Mass looks like a lot of fun for the participants. But does it actually help bikers or just inconvenience drivers for a couple hours a month?
5. Finally, how is my hypothetical example of pedestrians blocking Critical Mass any different than what you do to motorists? I have put forth a notion. I have my own personal (angry) goals, but those might not reflect the reasons others might do it. So, isn't this notion a leaderless, unorganized grassroots movement? Hell, I didn't even say a place to gather. It's even less organized than Critical Mass.
I guess a better way to put it is if your bike ride is stopped by a group of pedestrians with goals contrary to yours, are you going to get steamed or are you going to wait patiently and happily like you expect cars to do for you?
If someone does step in your path the moment YOU decided you own the streets, what are you going to see -- an enemy, or a reflection?
qstrian: Answer: I had a free second to mess with a douchebag, and douchebags should always be messed with. ;-)
Thanks, I will. (Have fun screaming, not the tattoo thing. I'm not doing that, but I appreciate the amount of thought you seemed to put into it.)
And I really should let this go, but I can't let you get away with using the term "civil disobedience." You're not exactly Dr. King here. You're fucking with people who want to get home on a Friday night. You're not reversing unjust laws, toppling illegal regimes or reminding the "people at the top" of the power of the masses. You're screwing with commuters and people heading to dates. Then you get mad when people don't like it. Why? For reasons no one seems to be able to define. The Mahatma must be so proud.
The powers that be aren't in those cars. People trying to get home at 5:30 on a Friday are in those cars.
As for the rest, yeah. I do have a fixation on accountability. Why don't you? At least when I'm asked why I do things, I don't get so defensive that I tell people to mutilate their dicks with a rather long name.
I mean, if I do this, can I cut out "Eli"? Not that I'm not happy with what I have, but otherwise there would have to be some kerning.
And no, I don't knock joints out of people's hands or tell people not to drink in public. I organize my thoughts in the most convincing fashion I can muster, type them in a blog and watch the people who think they're shaking the world whinge and cry when someone has the audacity to question them. Don't like it? Tough.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-bike-proposal-pg,0,7126324.ph...
Here ya go ya grumpy bastards. And as for the walking protest, let the folks on the Critical Mass website know and we'll be sure to walk with ya. ;-)
Gabriel: What drew you to this month old posting? Have you considered writing your own web log blog?
Getting Strange? I think this discussion should be posted in a getting old blog. "those damn kids and their bikes" You have valid points and opinions, but i think that a semi organized bike parade is pretty strange. Getting permits that's getting boring. Maybe another topic could be about what insurance to buy. My the subculture that you could find there. Anyway it looks like your post did what you wanted it to... to have a lively discussion about CCM. I'm sorry you feel that way about it. I also think that you should have stuck around for the naked bike ride. I think it would be pretty strange to make a new friend on a naked bike ride, but making friends in general can be tough.
Sorry was to busy "whinging" at your organized thoughts. I think you need to look up your definition of Civil Disobedience. If people don't stand up cause some one else doesn't like it then nothing gets done. I'm sure the Southern Whites loved the African American's and their supporters when they were protesting. And when Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus that bus and I'm sure ones behind it were held up while the cops came and removed her. We should always be more considerate when having a protest so as to actually not be seen by or affect anyone. Good call! You get smarter and smarter.
Wow. You compared yourself to Rosa Parks. I'm actually stunned.
I think it's telling that that's how you think of yourself. Your group has no message, no goal and no purpose other than the ride itself. I thought that was the whole point. You're "protesting" for the hell of it and comparing yourself to the organizers of the Civil Rights Movement?
I'm moving on from that one. That just makes me feel bad for the Critical Massers that you're their voice right now.
And whinge is a word, so don't put that in quotes. Look it up if you don't believe me. It means "to complain fretfully." A synonym is "whine."
Let's move along, buddy. We're not going to come to terms and we're just pissing each other off.
Rosa Parks? Seriously?
This debate will go on forEVER. Insert "arguing on the internet Special Olympics" analogy here. For the record, Paul's article articulates all the reasons why I stopped massing. It started as a noble cause but it's devolved into an exercise in self-entitlement as bad as the one inside each car getting corked.
I've been car free for 12 year, and a commuting cyclist for 6 - and am a tireless advocate for a car free society. The only thing that pisses me off more than a self-entitled clueless SUV drivers running cyclists off the road through indifference is clueless cyclists breaking the traffic laws and pissing off those drivers who will soon be encountering me on the road. CM's kind of confrontation solves nothing.
No one's argument will solve the bikes vs. cars debate. Oil will solve it. It's a nonrewable resource and when it runs out, guess what. Bikes win. So smoke em while you got em, I say. Just don't flick your cigarette out the window in my face.
"Why don't you need to ask for permission? Why do Bike the Drive, South Side Irish and the Pride Parade have to ask for permission? They're critical masses of people doing something they want to do. Pride has to get permits and you don't? What makes you so special?
To clarify, I am specifically asking you what makes it morally right to eschew permitting. I'm not asking if having a mob makes it easier to get away with not getting the proper permits."
Why is it morally right for the formal government to even ask for permits in the first place?
Yes, you can make an argument that this permit-rule is necessary but you can also make an argument that requiring permits for assembly at a public space is a violation of individual rights. Both sides can offer convincing but not conclusive arguments.
Perhaps Britain required a permit for the American's to claim independents. If so, it was ignored.
The only reason the city requires permits, and convinces everybody that the city is correct in posting the requirements, is to avoid action of any kind or sort.
Permits serve only one purpose: to give the city more control, to make the world a dull place to live.
Yep, those dang kids. Except that I first heard of Critical Mass when I was 19 and have never participated. Always found it mean-spirited. Bike riders want to be treated with respect so they disrespect others? Never understood it. Never respected it. Still don't.
But, like you said, this spurred a lively discussion. And no one said that when I found the subculture I had to like it.
It's cool, i can't listen to someone that went to University of Missouri-Columbia or NW.
You lack proper focus anyway. I wasn't saying that Whinging was not a word i was being sarcastic...If i would have said I was "to busy whining" would you have felt better?
There are many reasons for Critical Mass...You missed it though. The point you misunderstood is that there is no leadership...Not, "no point to the ride" It is civil disobedience at it's finest and you are a lil envious that you aren't in it so you have to tear it down...Good for you. ;-) And as for "we're just pissing each other off" I eat that up. ;-)
I was talking about parade permits. You don't have to get a permit to assemble. You do have to get a permit to run reds and block traffic without getting arrested.
Well, a permit or a mob.
A parade permit, if I'm not mistaken, would also let emergency vehicles know to avoid certain roads at certain times. Can we all agree that would be a good result?
I am so tired of people assuming Critical Mass is necessarily a car/bike thing. Brian you may have thought that Critical Mass was a noble cause in the name of one thing or the other but you are an individual with no more right to claim the purpose of the mass than any other. To me Critical Mass is a poor excuse for proving bikes are a superior method of transit. It's inefficient, disruptive and slow. How could this possibly convince anyone that bikes are better than cars?!
Critical Mass is a collection of people who wish to do something with bikes at a traditionally determined spot and time. That's it! Any further definition, goal, cause, reason or rational doesn't apply beyond a handful of people.
You stopped massing because of the reasons stated in Paul's article. I will continue massing for those very same reasons. But who am I? A nobody with a singular opinion with as much authority as a flee.
Well, if you eat that up, then I shouldn't feed you any more.
My final point (and feel free to respond back and disagree; I'll even let you have the last word you're champing at the bit for) is that civil disobedience requires two things: breaking a law that is either unjust in itself or in its application and willingness to accept the penalties for breaking that law.
That's not me talking. That's Dr. King (and the dictionary, but we'll get to that later). I fail to see how traffic lights are unjust. The tyranny of stop-on-red must end, right? Although Thoreau and Ghandi have slightly different interpretations, you're the one who compared yourself to Rosa Parks, so I assume you'll accept the definition used by the Civil Rights Movement.
Or to quote Martin Luther King: "I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
So you also have to accept punishment, not try to weasel out of punishment. This is a key part of Ghandi's and Thoreau's theories as well.
So you haven't shown that traffic laws are unjust or protect an unjust system and you're not willing to accept the penalties of your actions. I submit that Critical Mass does not meet the two main criteria to be civil disobedience.
But that's just Dr. King's definition. We could also look to the dictionary definitions:
Merriam-Webster: "refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government." (You're not trying to force any concessions from the government, so this doesn't fit either.)
Dictionary.com: "the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes." (Again, you're not trying to influence legislation or government policy. There's no point other than the mass itself, remember?)
Encyclopedia.com: "CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE denotes the public, and usually nonviolent, defiance of a law that an individual or group believes unjust, and the willingness to bear the consequences of breaking that law." (No one is saying traffic laws are unjust and no one is willing to bear the consequences, not even criticism.)
Princeton's WordNet: "a group's refusal to obey a law because they believe the law is immoral" (Again, no one in your group is saying traffic laws are immoral.)
So you fail to meet the criteria set by King, Ghandi, Thoreau or even the dictionary. Civil disobedience my ass.
But I still laugh when I remember that old post where you compared yourself to Rosa Parks. Let's not forget how funny that was.
And finally, to quote a great American philosopher, Jeffrey Ross Hyman. You might know him better as Joey Ramone.
"If there's one thing that makes me sick, it's when someone tries to hide behind politics."
Take care, Gabe. The last word is yours. I hope your victimization doesn't hit you on the ass on the way out.
"Just stand up and, in large groups, physically block Critical Mass. If anyone gets steamed, tell them it's a pedestrian protest taking back the streets from the tyranny of wheels.
Then just look them in the eyes, smile and say, "Happy Friday.""
Just tell me when and where, Paul.....WHEN and WHERE. I'm there! Spread the word -- pass out flyers to all the poor souls sitting in their cars for 1/2 hour and you'll have your numbers pretty quickly. Perhaps then the cops will get involved and put an end to this utter nonsense.
That traditionally determined spot and time is downtown during rush hour on a Friday.
To say there is no foreknowledge that doing "something with bikes" there will inevitably clog traffic either means A) You're trying really hard to justify this or B) Critical Mass people don't realize there is a lot of traffic around Daley Plaza at 5:30 Friday nights. And I don't think Critical Mass people are that stupid. So I think this is a feeble effort to deny what you know is true: Critical Mass blocks traffic because a bunch of people feel like blocking traffic.
"I didn't shoot him, officer. I just did something with triggers at a determined time and place I knew he would be there."
The police are informed of the Mass map(s) usually a week in advance and are certainly told which map wins the vote. They have everything they need to inform emergency vehicle dispatchers what streets should be avoided.
Are you seriously correlating the attempt to murder someone with blocking traffic downtown? That's a laughable stretch. See my response to you. Blocking traffic as long as emergency vehicles are allowed through is not immoral.
But are you saying that if you know traffic will be blocked by your actions (and choosing downtown Chicago during Friday rush hour as a meeting spot ensures traffic will be blocked) you don't have to account for your actions? You were the one drawing a distinction between intentionally blocking traffic (what I say massers do) and meeting a predetermined spot and ride bikes. But that spot is downtown during Friday rush hour. You know that starting a bike ride then and there will inevitably cause traffic jams and you do it anyway. I believe two things: A) The goal of Critical Mass (formerly Commute Clot) is to cause traffic jams. B) Even if I bought your contention that only some participants want to cause traffic jams (which I don't), everyone there knows a traffic jam is inevitable if they ride. And they ride anyway. That makes them -- and you -- just as culpable.
Many of the results of blocking traffic are in fact immoral. Personally, I believe breaking laws designed to ensure public safety (cutting in front of cars that have the green light, blocking lanes and disregarding the traffic rules you demand others follow) is immoral and dangerous, not to mention hypocritical. But I sense I won't have a convert in you.
I believe blocking that ambulance I saw (and, as you pointed out earlier, the debate on the list serve is how long that ambulance was blocked, not if it was blocked) was an immoral act. Yes, the ambulance eventually got through (some say in a couple seconds, I say it took longer) but there should have been no block in the first place. You set out to cause a traffic jam (sorry, "take back the streets") and you got a traffic jam. Good job.
Critical Mass creates a mess but takes no accountability for the results -- intended and unintended -- of that mess.
As I said before, it is always unfortunate when an ambulance is stuck in traffic. When that traffic jam was intentional, that block is unconscionable.
Bingo. It's the spitting, drunken, weaving, car-kicking assholes who just want to block traffic that ruined it for me.
It is a car v bike thing. In the sense that I thought being slow, efficient and disruptive was a way to shake people out of their zombielike state while driving. If you can assign no purpose to it, I can my purpose to it.
I joined the mass because that's what I believe and STILL believe. Just because you don't put any meaning on it doesn't mean I couldn't.
But righteous indignation makes me tired. Causing confrontation, screaming at somebody who only knows the cyclist in front of him is breaking the law, and no better, isn't the way to change minds.
So I no longer mass. I ride to work from Chicago to Northbrook 3 times a week, Metra the other two, and obey the traffic laws and get home content, tired, and happy. Usually.
Unless I've happened to have an encounter with a motorist whose only contact with cyclists are with ones who ride like the rules don't apply to them.
Perhaps you *should* assign some purpose to the mass. Then you'll see how the consequences of your actions - as massers or as just one shitty cyclist - affect everyone else.
Take responsibility and lead by example. I do.
Message. Received. quite a rant fellow cyclist, if you truly care about pain, then lets put aside your bullshit call to arms and decide not to send out pedestrians into harms way, as you would not want to be dodging people during your nudist ride, seems to me that you create a false divide yourself, you call us northside crackers, when not all of us are, you claim that we are hipsters, when not all of us are, you also think that you understand why we ride, with all of your first amendment rights, you don't speak for me...
I've been on a few mass rides, I ride in the mass exactly because it has no leadership or rules, I don't necessarily approve nor apologize for actions taken by other Massers, but I am not just a Masshole, I am also a trained EMT, a northside cracker, a motorist, and an Individual, I ride for no cause, no protest, not even to show you my cock, I ride because I like to ride, and the mass provides me with a safe enough environment for that purpose, I don't choose to wear a helmet, my bike has been intentionally hit by a car while I was corking, the driver was looking me in the eye, her daughter started crying in the back seat, and she kept trying to drive forward into the mass, but I don't ride for your pity, I have shared a laugh with cops who follow the Mass on bikes and give out tickets to Massers for drinking, and I have seen the mass let through ambulances, fire engines, cars, cops, pedestrians, and the choice to participate is always mine...
you don't know what you're missing, to me the mass is the safest bike tour of our city, different route each month, the mass will welcome you, even though you called my mother a bitch
Well, I am sorry I called your mom a bitch. But other than that, I think you've proven my point.
You say you ride because you like to ride. So you are doing it, for lack of a better term, for fun. Tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that just make it worse? That ambulance was blocked ... for your fun? You're an EMT. Wouldn't that just tick you off if you were blocked because a group (A) Was blocking a street for fun and (B) decided their fun didn't include getting permits or otherwise notifying hospitals of planned street closures?
If you feel fun is a pejorative term, what you actually said is "because I like to ride." That ambulance was blocked because you like to ride bikes?
I also think you hit the nail on the head with "I don't necessarily approve nor apologize for actions taken by other Massers." Well, that's exactly the problem. Diffusion of responsibility. You're part of that group, but take no responsibility for that group's actions. When the group Paul Holzmayer aligns himself with does bad things, it's not a Paul Holzmayer problem.
I think the most interesting part of your retort is how you use the term "the Mass" only when talking about good things. The Mass lets through ambulances, the Mass is the safest bike tour, the Mass will welcome me. But when you talk about bad things (drinking, unnamed other actions you won't apologize for) you talk about "other Massers." Individuality returns when culpability enters the picture, eh?
Rather than admit you're part of a group that, by its nature, abets reckless and self-indulgent behavior, you simply clear the group dynamics of all blame. Never mind the fact that many would not act like that if they weren't taking part in Critical Mass. Some might. Some people are assholes. But to create an event that de facto encourages assholery among folks not normally assholes? Why would you do that?
And either way, I wasn't talking about drinking or acting rowdy or whatnot. I'm objecting to the Massers' blocking of traffic. I'm objecting to the group's actual goal. The ambulance wasn't some little side mischief a couple drunken bikers got into. On Friday, Critical Mass set out to block traffic. The ambulance was traffic. Congrats, Paul. Your group did what it set out to do.
And the call to arms is on. I love how you're the victim in your corking story, but my hypothetical pedestrians are being sent into harm's way.
LIAR! You are an absolute liar! I attended the past critical mass (June 26) and was there when the ambulance came through the intersection. The street cleared in less than 3 seconds! Faster than any cars I've seen clear the street.
If you want to rant, actually have a valid rant. I know it may be a slow day for you and you feel you need to fulfill your life by bitching about something, but make it something valid.
As a trained EMT participating in the Mass, that makes me proud.
I've heard multiple accounts that the emergency vehicle was let through quickly. This is how it's always happened. I believe you witnessed nothing, and are attempting to make a story using shock instead of actual journalism.
I was at Crocodile at 1540 N. Milwaukee. I was eating dinner with my girlfriend and some of her friends. We went out to watch Critical Mass go by. I saw the ambulance down at the six corners. It was there a few minutes (not seconds) later. It appeared to be trying to make a right turn.
I can produce other witnesses.
Argue my points, argue my perception, but do not call me a liar. Ever.
This is being discussed on the Critical Mass list serve. It seems there are several people who witnessed this incident and are questioning your definition of a minute. They argue that the ambulance cleared at a reasonable pace - possibly faster than most cars would be able to respond.
As someone who has been massing for years and years I can assure you emergency vehicles pass through the mass without much problem. I have seen worse response time on Michigan avenue with buses and taxis than I have ever seen with the mass.
So either you have a terrible sense of time or you are a liar. It's your choice.
First of all, never let the people you're debating set the terms. I don't have to choose between having a terrible sense of time or being a liar. (Although I am glad to hear that my sense of time, rather than my honesty is in question on the list serve).
I think the issue is neither my honesty nor my sense of time (although I stand by both), but a definition of what is a "reasonable" delay. And I'm using your terminology for that. "They argue that the ambulance cleared at a reasonable pace." It sounds to me, and tell me if I'm wrong, people are arguing that if the delay was reasonable, the incident I witnessed was a non-issue.
Yes, cars block ambulances. But cars don't set out to block ambulances. Cars don't set out to block traffic at all. Each individual driver sets out to get to their destination.
Critical Mass set out to block traffic.
And in terms of what is a reasonable delay when a traffic jam was the goal, my answer is no delay is reasonable. An ambulance blocked in traffic is always unfortunate. When the traffic jam was intentional, it's also unconscionable.
You say the list serve is debating how long it took the ambulance to get through. A better debate might be why it was delayed at all.
"Cars don't set out to block traffic at all. Each individual driver sets out to get to their destination."
Individual cars may not INTEND to block traffic but the RESULT quite frequently is blocked traffic. So many individual drivers result in a cumulative traffic jam, impeding other cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.
On a Critical Mass ride "Each individual driver (of a bike) sets out to get to their destination." Just the same as cars, there in no INTENTION to block traffic but that is sometimes the RESULT.
Your logic is seriously flawed.
You claim there is no intention to block traffic? Then what's corking?
"You claim there is no intention to block traffic? Then what's corking?"
The vast majority of cyclists do not intend to block traffic. It's likely that the majority of car drivers don't intend to block traffic. A tiny few may have that intention. You cannot try to exorcise the group for the actions of a few.
I should also mention that on the Chicago Critical Mass Web site's FAQ section under the heading "Are CM rides sanctioned by the Chicago Police Department?" it is stated that Critical Mass prefers corking to police assistance in restraining traffic at intersections.
And what about when everyone lifts up their bikes and yells? How is stopping and lifting a bicycle indicative of your claim that Critical Mass participants are trying to get to their destination? They're stopped.
"...Critical Mass prefers corking to police assistance in restraining traffic at intersections."
Given the very infrequent policing of cars speeding, cars running red lights, cars failing to stop at stop signs, etc. it's obvious the police are fighting crime and not controlling traffic. Corking is assisting the police.
"And what about when everyone lifts up their bikes and yells?"
That's celebrating. It could also be another way for cyclists to notify other cyclists that an emergency vehicle needs room for priority passage.
Post new comment