Archives

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008074874_webcriticalmass26m.html
Seattle Critical Mass riders' behavior contributed to an escalation of a confrontation which ultimately led to the driver being put in the hospital and his car so damaged that it had to be towed away. I've seen videos online of these Critical Mass bicycle rides and I'm surprised none of them have been killed yet. First off, they blatantly disregard all traffic laws regarding riding bicycles on the roads. They fly through red light intersections and block all traffic to allow the riders to continue without stopping. They block the entire road way and challenge drivers to hit them while behaving in an agressive manner as their cohorts video tape the confrontation with their cell phones to use online to show how evil drivers are. I think they'd get a lot less bad press and a lot less confrontations with drivers if they actually obeyed traffic laws like stopping at red lights and stop signs and staying to the right and within the right hand lane among other traffic laws depending on city/state. The police share part of the blame for not putting a stop to their illegal behavior on the road right from the start and now it's grown to mob or gang type mentality with many riders carrying knives or other types of blades. I have no problem with bike riders on the road as long as they obey the rules of the road instead of intentionally being A-holes and acting like they own the entire road.

Critical Mass gives cyclists a bad name- just makes drivers hate us more.

I use to ride my bicycle in town and I was one to go to extreme lengths to be safe and obey the laws. At busy intersections I would get off my bike and use the lighted crosswalk. I did this because if someone comes at me in a vehicle I can jump out of the way. Can't jump out of the way when on the bike. At intersections that aren't busy I would obey the traffic lights and signs and ride across when safe and legal to do so. I'd also stay to the right to make it easier for cars to pass. If riding at night I had both headlights and taillights mounted on the bike to make it easier for drivers to see me. I also didn't swing back and forth across the entire width of the road to prevent cars from passing me. Bicycles are legal on the road but that also means they have to obey local and state traffic laws.

Hi Dave:

___Wow! I cannot believe bicyclists acted in that fashion although I can see the Subie driver doing it. On a daily commute like ride they (the bicyclists) most certainly would not have but in a pack, the story tells the tale. This incident reminds me of the group of college students that drove 55 mph in all lanes and held up miles of traffic as seen on YouTube last year IIRC. We have the right to the right hand lanes between the speed limits of course but pulling a stunt like that even if it was legal was not the proper course of action.

___In the case of Critical Mass, someone got hurt and it sounds as if the local riders in the group were out looking for a confrontation rather than enjoying the ride in the Seattle area?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Agreed. I did some net search and found that true commuter cyclist hate Critical Mass because it reflects a negative point of view from drivers onto regular cyclist. It puts the impression that cyclist are inconsiderate and always disobey the traffic laws. Sort of like how AAA makes hypermilers out to be dangerous drafters. I don't doubt some people do that to save gas but they've been doing that for decades and they don't call themselves hypermilers. Critical Mass has gotten so out of hand in San Francisco that someone there started a splinter or opposite group I think is called critical manners in which they ride as a group and obey all traffic laws. The police monitored them up to a point and left when it was apparent they weren't out to cause trouble the way Critical Mass was. In fact, people waved and gave them friendly honks by way of thanks. That's the way to educate people on the fun and enviromentally friendly method of transportation known as cycling.

On the other side of the fence, Hewlett-Packard is very active in a local charity ride. The MS150. Well for the months leading up to it the HP team will train in groups of about 20. On one day a guy on a cell phone took a Freeway exit at breakneck speed plowed right through the entire group. Many broken bones and I believe two fatalities.

Whether or not they had a right to ride on Texas roads can be debated. But they are still dead. I'm of the belief that a cyclist has right of way. I'm sure that there are a55holes that abuse this (such as the group in the article), but in general I'll pull in behind them with the emergency flashers as opposed to trying to force them off "my" road.

11011011

I think critical mass is a good concept, but large groups of people with a "cause" can be a very dangerous and stupid thing.

Hopefully if the group continues they will be smart enough to add some law enforement into the pack either through actuall officers riding in the group and/or video cameras where the group can be shown to help prosecute problem riders. If the group is part of the problem, they need to be part of the cure.

The police share part of the blame for not putting a stop to their illegal behavior on the road right from the start and now it's grown to mob or gang type mentality with many riders carrying knives or other types of blades.

I've heard of motorcycle gangs, now we have to be aware of bycycle gangs. What is this world coming to.

I'm of the belief that a cyclist has right of way.

If you are suggesting a cyclist always has right of way no matter what...then I'd disagree, but thats probably the very attitiude of the riders involved in this matter. However, there is an underlying concept that you can never intentionally cause an accident no matter what the laws are, so if a person "forces their right of way" to the point of actually causing an accident they can be held responsible for the accident, even if the other person was breaking law at the time. Can I assume that is what you were refering to?

Can I assume that is what you were refering to?Well kinda. I agree that a cyclist is ill-advice to lay spread eagle in the middle of the freeway to prove that traffic must yield to them. On the other hand the Texas Drivers Handbook (Drivers Legal Code) is quite clear that on all roadways, cyclist ALWAYS have the right of way in all cases. It may be suicidal to exercise that law, but it is on the books.

11011011

The bike riding community is a bit splintered now.There are a fair number of vocal riders that OPPOSE bike lanes because they think they are dangerous and lead car drivers to think that bike riders don't belong on regular streets.

I LOVE BIKE LANES. We have very few bike lanes in the New Orleans area and bike riding is high risk. I visit Flagstaff AZ couple of times per year,and it has lots of bike lanes. It is really a pleasure to ride in a bike lane.

There are also fair number of bike riders who are arrogant fools of the "RIGHT,YEAH DEAD RIGHT VARIETY" who encourage other riders to "take" the whole lane. Many car drivers are means spirited AHs who are rushing to work, or heading home for a beer. They will strafe a bike rider just for fun or because they are pissed.

Yeah , bikes have a right to be on the road, but common sense and curtesy dictate that they defer to 4000 lbs of steel ,and they should really try to not slow down car drivers (just as we hypermilers stay right and don't intentionally impede faster cars).

The W coast seems to breed or feature this type of arrogant "dead right" fool. Why?

I'm not implying that W coast folks are "bad" just that they seem to have more of the critical mass types than anywhere else. They are a small minority of course- almost always youngish(under 40 yo) males.

Charlie

If bicyclists want to be treated as traffic, then they should follow all traffic laws. Blowing red lights, behaving aggressively, and blocking traffic casts all of us in a bad light. :mad: On the flipside, if a cyclist IS following traffic laws, using their dedicated lanes when available, staying visible/predictable when they are not, then traffic should be able to coexist peacefully. Is it so hard? :rolleyes:

As a bicyclist in this community (not connected to Critical Mass), I see that various local media outlets are presenting sharply differing viewpoints about who is at fault. It seems to depend on which participants they interviewed first.

As best I can tell, there were hotheads on both sides. And it doesn't help that the one police crackdown against CM a few years was by some hotheaded plainclothes county transit officers, not by the regular city officers who had established a relationship with CM riders.

With the biased spin machines running, it will take some time to sort through this one.

As a bicyclist in this community (not connected to Critical Mass), I see that various local media outlets are presenting sharply differing viewpoints about who is at fault. It seems to depend on which participants they interviewed first.

As best I can tell, there were hotheads on both sides.

As a counterpoint, here is a cop assaulting a CM rider out of the blue.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/29/dcl.cop.decks.cyclist.cnn

See Critical Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass) in Wikiapedia - not to be confused with Critical A55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Ass) :eek:

Not the best vehicle for cyclists advocasy

As a bicyclist in this community (not connected to Critical Mass), I see that various local media outlets are presenting sharply differing viewpoints about who is at fault. It seems to depend on which participants they interviewed first.

As best I can tell, there were hotheads on both sides. And it doesn't help that the one police crackdown against CM a few years was by some hotheaded plainclothes county transit officers, not by the regular city officers who had established a relationship with CM riders.

With the biased spin machines running, it will take some time to sort through this one.I'll take the benefit of the doubt and wish you a hardy CleanMPG Welcome.

I've been the victum of Hypermiling Press hack-jobs, so I welcome your side of the story.

Please join in our Subaru community to get some great tips as well.

11011011

Dan writes:
I'll take the benefit of the doubt and wish you a hardy CleanMPG Welcome.

I've been the victum of Hypermiling Press hack-jobs, so I welcome your side of the story.

Please join in our Subaru community to get some great tips as well.
-------------
Thanks for the welcome. Please forgive this off-topic reply while I explore for the appropriate forums.

I found CleanMPG last month, while ordering a ScanGauge to replicate at home the dashboard info found on a rented Prius (an unexpected free upgrade). I didn't notice the Group Buy until the next day, but by not waiting for a group to fill, my full-price unit arrived just barely in time for a long road trip, saving more than enough gas to recoup the price difference.

My 1986 Honda easily exceeded its EPA Hiway rating from the first tank, and still normally gets 110%-120% on summer gas, though it rarely matches the actual EPA dyno test of its era (128% of window sticker highway rating), and never at sea level.

The 1997 Subaru has been a disappointment at the gas pump, reaching that EPA sticker only with difficulty, with what I thought was the same driving style. Before ScanGauge and CleanMPG, it produced excellent mileage only once -- two tanks in and above Yellowstone, under 45mph and above 6000 feet. Since ScanGauge over 1700 miles, it has done even better, 119% of EPA highway. That translates to 140% of original EPA Combined, or 153% of restated-2008-style EPA Combined. Now it is almost competitive with the old Honda.

Obligatory bicycle comment -- I've been a part-time bike commuter for six years, with pedaling frequency (including recreation) nearly doubling as a result of Katrina-induced gas price increases. Annual household car miles have fallen about 20% since that storm. ScanGauge and more tips from this site appear to be knocking another 15-20% off our fuel usage. No cars have been changed, though both bikes are now worn out enough to justify replacements.

We should combine this thread with one about driving too slowly. Bikes mostly fit into that catagory, at least compared to cars.

Charlie, you made the point you don't like bike lanes because it makes drivers feel like bikes don't belong on roads. However, where there are bike lanes, they don't belong on roads. And I'd much rather see all bikes baned from roads, because every road has a bike lane, however until then we have to share. The rules already exist, they are already ignored, and they are rarely enforced....like most other laws. I just don't see what can be done to help either side on this issue. Bike lanes help, but they are few and far between, and most cities aren't going to install them. How would you install them in major cities where biking is an excelent way to commute (except for trafic), but where building are too close together to have sidewalks, and two lanes of traffic?

Sorry I'm rambling a bit here...just sort of thinking on paper

One reason cyclists ride outside of the bike lane when a bike lane is present is because often the bike lane is filled with broken glass, car parts, screws, nails, hangars and other things that will give them a flat. I hadn't had a flat in a couple thousand miles of country roads, and on my _first_ commute through town, flatted. If the bike lane is hazardous, cyclists aren't going to stay in it.

The investigation continues. Most stories are weighing against the cyclists, but here are two current items looking the other way:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/372948_criticalmass31.html
http://www.komonews.com/news/26123849.html

Two cyclists arrested, no charges yet. I think this was another "mutual combat" situation, where both sides were on poor behavior but it took both to create the crime. If so, charges ought to include the driver and three or more cyclists, with an unarrested (but identified) cyclist getting the most serious charge for the assault that hospitalized the driver.

I've read some of the blogs, It sounds like the cycleists that got the brunt of the vehicle attack were not the same 1s instigating the driver. Plenty of them were complaining about drunken knuckleheads corking traffic going in opposite directions that didn't need to be corked. Honestly part of the job of the corkers should be to help cars get on their way if they're going in opposite or perpedicular ways, but these guys are selfish. I hope they seriously modify that monthly event, if not cancel it all together. It is obvious that it is not well planned or organized, which doesn't work when you have over 100 people participating.

Phoebeisis, I'm 100% with you on the bike lane issue. LOVE them. I think the anti-bike lane contingent is a small (but VERY vocal) minority. Wouldn't surprise me if some of their studies are funded by the enemies of cycling, who are many (AAA, oil industry, road construction companies, etc.)

If there is a higher rate of "dead fools" here on the west coast, it's only because we have more bikers than other cities. IIRC 4 of the top 5 bike commuting cities (Portland, Seattle, Sacramento and San Francisco) are on the west coast. Having grown up in Minneapolis (the other top-5 city, believe it or not) and as a regular visitor there, I don't see much difference.

In the Seattle incident, I wouldn't be surprised if the cyclists are in the wrong. We had a similar (but milder) incident here recently where an altercation was assumed to be the fault of the driver, when in fact the physical hostilities were initiated by the (drunken) cyclist. Studies have found car-bike conflicts to be about 50% caused by the driver and 50% by the cyclist. Goes to show no one's got a monopoly on virtue. But I think we cyclists as a group tend to assume a conflict is the driver's fault because we've been treated as second class roadway users (by juries, cops, insurance companies, courts and fellow drivers) for so long.

The anti-bike bias in the system is much less than it used to be, and I think it's important for riders to recognize that we're just as capable of making mistakes. Unfortunately our roadways have devolved into total defensiveness where NO ONE is EVER wiling to admit that they've made a mistake.

As for Critical Mass, I've never been interested. I agree with the concept of congregating to bring attention to our presence on the road -- but not if it's going to be unlawful. There are plenty of organized event rides, whose purpose is to get out and enjoy riding rather than get in everyone else's face, that I can (and do) participate in for that purpose. I think Critical Mass is extremely counterproductive and I would love for it to go away. If it ever served a purpose, it long ago stopped serving it.

Since this thread has generated some familiar sentiments calling cyclists' right to the road into question -- making it conditional on following all traffic laws -- I need to make the following points:

FIRST, I agree cyclists should obey the laws!
Failure of some members of a class to obey certain laws shouldn't disqualify the entire class from the right to the road -- something that has been codified into most states' laws for 35 years. Basically someone else's behavior is being used to deny my longstanding right here.
Almost all drivers -- ahem, hypermilers included! -- break laws on a regular basis and I don't hear everyone else's right to the road being called into question.
Running stop signs and red lights at 10 mph on a 200 pound bike/rider is a BAD thing BUT it is simply NOT morally equivalent to doing it at 40 mph in a 3000 pound car. Both are equally bad in the eyes of the law but looking beyond the strictly legal angle there's no question which is a greater threat to public safety.
Preemptively, I'd better swat down the inevitable "roads were built for cars" or "were built by gas taxes for cars" arguments to deny cyclists' right to the road. The first paved highways in this country were built for bicycles (seriously) during the 1890s bicycle boom, and a very large share of road work is paid out of the general fund which comes from taxes that we all pay. Furthermore, about 95% of regular cyclists also own cars and are paying gas and registration taxes already. And anyway regardless of the intent when they were built, roads need to accomodate the needs of ALL current users, including bikes, trucks, transit, emergency vehicles, ordinary cars and pedestrians. Heck, the 110 year old streets in my neighborhood were built for horses, so one could use the "built for" argument to deny cars the right to the street here.
Finally, I wish more drivers would realize that bicycling benefits THEM even if they never do it. It takes cars off the road. On days I don't ride to work, I drive. SOLO. And in traffic I cause more delay to my fellow road users by driving my car than I do by riding my bike.
Again, most cyclists are also drivers. That means the average cyclist is highly qualified to speak on bike vs car matters because we can see both sides. Those who take an anti-bike stance would have a lot more credibility in these discussions if they'd actually ridden their bike to work at least ONCE in the past 12 months.


Finally, a comment about media coverage. Car-bike conflict has gotten a lot of coverage locally here lately, but frankly it's nothing new and I find that relations between cars and cyclists are better than ever. Cycling has increased fourfold here in the past decade, yet the number of incidents has held steady -- which means the incidence of conflicts, injuries and deaths has is one-quarter of what it used to be.

I ride 3-4 times per week and over 2000 miles per year, yet it's been years since I've had a serious conflict with a motorist. In fact, I dare say it's been years since I've even been honked at. 99.9% of drivers I encounter are courteous. The idea that there's some escalating war between bikers and drivers is total and utter BS. I'm on the "front lines" (as it were) almost every day and ought to know.

IMO the media are doing what they sometimes seem to do best: blowing things out of proportion.

And I'd much rather see all bikes baned from roads, because every road has a bike lane, however until then we have to share.I would argue that the sharing needs to continue regardless of any future developments, because "Separate but equal" simply doesn't work. Bikers need to get to the same places that drivers do, and separation inevitably means there are places where bike-legal routes simply don't go. If your community doesn't have bike lanes because it passed on the federal ISTEA dollars, I can guarantee they're not going to go around building separated bike facilities.

One reason separated bike facilities don't work is that they still have to cross perpendicular roadways at regular intervals. It's far better (and more cost effective) for bikes to be on the right side of the road and proceeding through on the same green as motor vehicle traffic. Otherwise you have to have separate crossings and intersections, OR you have the traditional bike-path situation where cyclists are forced to stop at every crossing (or, heaven forbid, driveway). That's one of the strongest disincentives to cycling that I can think of.

Also, contrary to popular belief separated bike paths parallel to roads are actually far more dangerous than riding on the roadway. They're great for families puttering around with kids at 5-8 mph, but for real transportation at higher speeds they're flat-out dangerous. These paths have high rates of conflict with non-cycling path users and with people entering or leaving the roadway via driveways, who invariably fail to look for potential conflict because they're focused on the roadway. Statistically, riding on bike paths (and sidewalks) is several times more dangerous than riding along the side of a road without a bike lane, let alone one with a bike lane. Sharing is what works.

I wish more non-cyclists would see the benefits of a bike-friendly transportation system, and stop seeing bikes (or other non-car users such as trucks, transit and pedestrians) simply as impediments to their forward progress. Bikes takes cars off the road, reducing congestion. Not to mention cutting fuel usage, which we should all be in favor of these days.

I'm thrilled to say that as bike density on the roads has skyrocketed around here in the last 10-15 years, people on both sides have gotten better at sharing. OF course a good network of bike lanes helps. I've long assumed that since even small towns here in Oregon grabbed the ISTEA money and put bike lanes in 6-8 years ago, small towns elsewhere have done the same. Sorry that's not the case.

I'm a regular bike commuter (my car hasn't moved for 3 months), I like bike lanes, and dislike critical mass. I obey traffic laws. WriConsult said it pretty well, but I have a few comments to add.

One of the most vocal critics of bike lanes, bike paths, etc. is Forrester, the founder of Effective Cycling classes. He is definitely not anti-cycling. He makes some really good points, but I still like bike lanes.

Total bike accidents remaining fairly constant as number of cyclists increase (or at least accidents/ mile biked going way down) is not unusual. This effect was noted many years ago. Forrester notes that number of cyclists matters much more than bike facilities (bike lanes and paths).

I rarely have to control a normal traffic lane because we have a good network of bike lanes here. However, if there isn't a bike lane in good repair or wide enough shoulder, controlling the lane is the safest thing to do. Most people think that they will be run over if they get out in the lane, and the near misses they get while hugging the curb reinforce their fear. It is a lot like doing the speed limit in the right lane amid fast truck traffic. Most people argue that they would be run over, but every one of the top hypermilers here will tell you it doesn't happen. Getting honked at or the finger is likely, but getting hit isn't. Just as in hypermiling, let the traffic pass any time you can do it safely.

............

I rarely have to control a normal traffic lane because we have a good network of bike lanes here. ...... Getting honked at or the finger is likely, but getting hit isn't. Just as in hypermiling, let the traffic pass any time you can do it safely.


To see the inspiration for a bicyclist to control the whole lane, think about all the cars you see with dinged/broken side mirrors from trying to squeeze through tight spots. It only takes one car brushing a sleeve with its mirror to convince a bicyclist that they don't want anybody passing them in the same lane. A full on hit at highway speeds has this result (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/08/09/news/local/doc489cde764d22f515004346.txt?sPos=2).

I'm not a participant/supporter of Critical Mass rides, but they are really motivated by a reasonable question: Why are so many motorists unwilling to share the road? I think a lot of hypermilers ask the same question.

A month after Seattle's violent Critical Mass incident, prosecutors have still not decided on charges. Another monthly ride is expected to go tomorrow night, with more police presence than normal. Other biking advocates are questioning whether the CM rides still have a purpose. (disclosure: I am a member of, and frequent volunteer for, the other biking group mentioned in this article.)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/376936_criticalmass29.html

I rarely have to control a normal traffic lane because we have a good network of bike lanes here. However, if there isn't a bike lane in good repair or wide enough shoulder, controlling the lane is the safest thing to do.

Bike123-

By some coincedence, I ran into an example of how NOT to ride in traffic today.

Guy riding down a fairly wide and somewhat busy 2 lane road ~3' out into the lane. I swing Way out and get around him as I'm nearing the stop sign ~1/4 mile away.

So far so good. After I stop, this putz keeps cruising fat, dumb, and happy Through the blind spot my car creates, through the 4 way stop, and ignoring the oncoming traffic that had priority and had to slam on the brakes.
:mad::mad::mad:

Some people shouldn't be on the roadways.

I did some research on critical mass last year. You can find a lot of their videos on youtube. Most of the altercations go both ways. But unless CM has changed their policy they still do not hold a legal event. For my motorcycle club if we want to hold a ride we have to get a permit and give a map of the route to the local police. With that permit and map the cops will monitor our ride but we do have to do the corking ourselves. We still have people in cars who will try run over our corkers but once the cops step and tell them it's a charity ride it's legal, they either stop their rudeness or they get to take a ride in a police car.

CM does not provide the local police with a map of their event, from what I remember they claim it's hard to cordinate it when there is that many people. The is bull, on my motorcycle runs we are able to cordinate over 100 people it's called follow the leader and also have designated people in the pack to help anyone who falls behind. From some of the videos I have seen since the event is not legal then they are illegally blocking traffic and they should be arrested for it but again there are too many people in the CM event and not enough cops to make the arrest. I know one of the last reports I saw on CM the local cops gave in a bit and now just ask for a date of the event and they monitor it.

One of the videos I saw showed one of the bikers purposely stopping in front of cars daring them to hit them and another getting rude with a car driver because the driver was asking questions and the driver was not being rude. The driver was asking what the event was for and it was a genuine non-combatent question.

It may vary from place to place, but Critical Mass is a legal event here. It's a bunch of people riding their bikes on the street, which is not against the law. There are some participants who do something unlawful such as run a red light, but that does not make the entire event illegal.

... CM does not provide the local police with a map of their event, from what I remember they claim it's hard to cordinate it when there is that many people. The is bull, on my motorcycle runs we are able to cordinate over 100 people ...

The Seattle CM folks don't claim that it is hard to coordinate -- they intentionally have no planned route. Direction is selected at the whim of someone in front, on the spur of the moment.

After the violent event, the next monthly ride had something like 40 police officers pedaling or driving with CM. It didn't get out of hand. Like numerous local happenings that don't follow the letter of the law, as long as it is dominated by the regulars, both civilians and police who know each other, things tend to stay controlled. But when outside agitators or outside police reinforcements come in, the risk of minor things snowballing into major incidents escalates sharply.

I haven't heard any news about subsequent rides. Other cycling groups have openly questioned whether CM is still relevant to local bicycle advocacy.