Reflections on Critical Mass
The recent problem with the Critical Mass ride points to some deeper problems with our "love affair" with the car. First and foremost would be the bias shown by the police and mainstream journalism. Initial reports described a driver terrified by an unprovoked attack that broke his windows, causing him to flee and "accidentally" hit some cyclists.
Those of us who have read the interviews, including those with the driver, now know this story was completely false- but there's been no prominent retraction. The police quite obviously are trying to "take down" Critical Mass and using a credulous press as one tool to do so.
This is a big mistake. At the core of Critical Mass is an anarchist (and by "anarchist" I mean "intensely self-disciplined") spirit that revels in revolution. They will love a challenge, and it's hard to scare people who are accustomed to riding bikes in American traffic.
The Cascade Bicycle Club has weighed in with disapprobation for Critical Mass- according to Cascade, drivers should be gently encouraged to tolerate cyclists. One big problem with this theory- the driver of the car was formerly a bicycle commuter.
Any such discussion will include the guy who hates cyclists because they "run red lights- the laws are for everyone" and blah blah blah. But if the talk turned to cameras to ticket drivers who run red lights, the guy is against it, and, wouldn't you know, has studies to prove that strict enforcement causes more accidents.
What we're left to deal with is an institutional bias in favor of cars, and the fact that, behind the wheel, we do things we wouldn't otherwise do, and sometimes profoundly regret. None of this, of course, would matter if the oilfields of Texas were infinite, and the laws of physics suspended so that global warming would not occur.
But in the real world, our "love affair" has turned into an ugly situation in which our mistress, the car, seems likely to ruin our marriage to civilization. Some years ago, possibly before you were born, Jean-Luc Godard took one look at this problem with a film called Weekend. It's not as though we weren't warned.
- serial catowner's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Oh, please, there's little sympathy for this lose-lose incident primarily because there is so much hostility against Critical Mass. If the cyclists weren't so intent on violating traffic laws and causing a traffic mess in order to somehow make their point that drivers should "share" the road and "follow the laws" regarding cyclists, people would probably have more sympathy.
Holding up buses, intimidating pedestrians, and swarming around cars in the street doesn't help one's cause. When they act surprised or "discriminated against" by the media, it just shows their utter lack of judgment.
Ticket the driver, and then the police should SHUT DOWN Critical Mass for the danger that it is.
I land somewhere in the middle. I don't see a reason or right to shut down CM, but I'm not sure it helps much except as a way for bicyclists to vent their frustration.
In one respect, you guys are missing the point. Critical Mass is a phenomena. It was originally formed to protest bad cycling conditions in SF, and it might well disappear if cycling conditions were perfect. But basically, it's a flash mob of people who have nothing left to lose but their chains.
The fact that they were discriminated against by the media is not a matter of judgement by Critical Mass- it's just a simple fact. On Sunday morning both the dailies printed stories that were false and they've taken no responsibility for that.
Heck, if you really wanted to shut down CM the easiest way to do it would be to give them a police motorcycle escort like a funeral procession.
Of course, if you did that, you might find hundreds of new riders willing to ride if the streets were really safe for them. I guess with some street closures coming up soon we'll get another look at this topic.
Street closures? Tell me you're not just toying with me.
How have you established that police and traditional media reports were "completely" false? I think you should--but won't--apologize for that stretch. The early reports were that the car was surrounded by CM riders, some (not all or most) of whom smashed the car's windshield, slashed the car's tires, punched its driver through his open door window and swung a metal bike lock into the driver's head. Please clarify how even one of those reported incidents turned out to be completely or even partially false as you claim.
They are false because the first stories I read on Sunday- in the Times and the P-I- indicated the cyclists had broken the drivers windows before he accelerated and drove through and over a crowd of cyclists. In the P-I this morning the police are still regarding the driver as simply a victim- IOW, if you in your car are hampered by cyclists being in front of you, simply drive over them and claim you "panicked".
The reality of the story, as confirmed even by the driver, is that the driver was chased and his car was disabled after he had run over two people. The driver readily admits to having escalated the situation by gunning his engine, lurching forwards and back on a parking strip, and yelling at the bicyclists.
Nobody in the press- with the possible exception of the Slog- has taken advantage of this "teachable moment" to emphasize that the privilege of driving is accompanied by the responsibility to exercise patience and remain calm in the face of trivial irritations. The police would arrest you for brandishing a gun if you waved a .45 to emphasize that cars should stop for you as you crossed the street, but it's ok, according to the police, for this driver to gun his engine as though he's going to pop his clutch and run over the cyclists (exactly what happened).
That's a pro-car anti-people bias that is simply not right.