Critical Mass - Fundamentalist Plonkers?

Harry 'Snapper' Organ said:

I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Well done!

Whether one agrees with their actions or not... (and I don't particularly).

Why on Earth are you calling them Fundamentalists? [1]

G-S

[1] Or do you mean fundamentally (note no capital F).

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:11:04 +1100

G-S said:

Harry 'Snapper' Organ said:

I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Well done!

Whether one agrees with their actions or not... (and I don't particularly).

Why on Earth are you calling them Fundamentalists? [1]

Umm... cos they have taken a couple of simple ideas and made them the
core and totality of their religion, and refuse to see there can be
any other interpretation? And they think anyone who disagrees in any
way is evil and unclean and has nasty motives?

"Fundamentalism" was orginally ( I thought late 1800s but I saw
recently 1920s) a label applied to people who agreed with a set of
pamphlets/books/statements called "The Fundamentals of Christianity"
which sought to strip away accretions and bring the religion back to a
more pure state by getting together in one place the basics as they
understood it.

Over time it's come to mean anyone who has a literalist and rigid
interpretation of a book or creed and who refuses to see there's any
other way to think or do, and further considers people who do
interpret things differently as not just misguided but actively evil.

See also anti-triathlete types...

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

Umm... cos they have taken a couple of simple ideas and made them the
core and totality of their religion, and refuse to see there can be
any other interpretation? And they think anyone who disagrees in any
way is evil and unclean and has nasty motives?

Have you actually taken part in any Critical Mass rides?

Because a fleeting glimpse from the roadside, or worse still, on the TV or
via Laws/Jones/Mitchell's rantings is not a valid way to judge the
behaviours and motivations of the diverse cyclists that take part in a
Critical Mass.

Some have extreme views and are very self-opinionated. Aren't we all at aone
time or another? A lot of the errant behaviour actually gets weeded out by
the more moderate approach of the long-term riders.

Lots of the cyclists on Critical Mass just want to be able to go ride their
bikes, to work, shops and for fun, without being run off the road by
motorists, with a greater level of respect and in a more supportive, less
threatening environment. Don't you want that?

Many Critical Mass riders also own and use a car at certain times too!

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

"PeteSig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Umm... cos they have taken a couple of simple ideas and made them the
core and totality of their religion, and refuse to see there can be
any other interpretation? And they think anyone who disagrees in any
way is evil and unclean and has nasty motives?

Have you actually taken part in any Critical Mass rides?

Because a fleeting glimpse from the roadside, or worse still, on the TV or
via Laws/Jones/Mitchell's rantings is not a valid way to judge the
behaviours and motivations of the diverse cyclists that take part in a
Critical Mass.

Some have extreme views and are very self-opinionated. Aren't we all at

aone

Quoted message said:

time or another? A lot of the errant behaviour actually gets weeded out by
the more moderate approach of the long-term riders.

Lots of the cyclists on Critical Mass just want to be able to go ride

their

Quoted message said:

bikes, to work, shops and for fun, without being run off the road by
motorists, with a greater level of respect and in a more supportive, less
threatening environment. Don't you want that?

Many Critical Mass riders also own and use a car at certain times too!

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

All I see is angry motorists and how that actually helps the cause and
changes their views I don't know.

We as a whole are much better off just thanking drivers that do the right
thing etc when out on the road and trying that way. Anyone that lets me go
by, stops for me etc always gets a smile and thank you gesture.

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:11:04 +1100

G-S said:

Harry 'Snapper' Organ said:

I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Well done!

Whether one agrees with their actions or not... (and I don't particularly).

Why on Earth are you calling them Fundamentalists? [1]

Over time it's come to mean anyone who has a literalist and rigid
interpretation of a book or creed and who refuses to see there's any
other way to think or do <snip>

Hmmm... *googles*

Interesting.

I have _never_ heard it used that way, but the dictionary supports you.

At least I know why the OP called them 'fundamentalists' now though 🙂

G-S

"Vintage" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

...
All I see is angry motorists and how that actually helps the cause and
changes their views I don't know.

All I see is angry motorists too, but that has nothing to do with Critical Mass.

It's because they are stuck in gridlock, while fantasising about a solo, unimpeded jaunt through the wilderness - as it looks in 4wd
ads all the time.

T.

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:49:49 GMT

PeteSig said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Umm... cos they have taken a couple of simple ideas and made them the
core and totality of their religion, and refuse to see there can be
any other interpretation? And they think anyone who disagrees in any
way is evil and unclean and has nasty motives?

Have you actually taken part in any Critical Mass rides?

Quoted message said:

Because a fleeting glimpse from the roadside, or worse still, on the TV or
via Laws/Jones/Mitchell's rantings is not a valid way to judge the
behaviours and motivations of the diverse cyclists that take part in a
Critical Mass.

So they say. And yet what is the outcome? What good does it do?

I won't take part *because* of the results. WHich I couldn't change
but would only reinforce.

Quoted message said:

Some have extreme views and are very self-opinionated. Aren't we all at aone
time or another? A lot of the errant behaviour actually gets weeded out by
the more moderate approach of the long-term riders.

really? Then how come those who see it don't see that? What do the
moderates do, how can they change what the image is?

(and isn't it interesting that when there's trouble CM say "no one is
in control" but then people say there is control.... Peer pressure is
also known as the madness of crowds...)

Quoted message said:

Lots of the cyclists on Critical Mass just want to be able to go ride their
bikes, to work, shops and for fun, without being run off the road by
motorists, with a greater level of respect and in a more supportive, less
threatening environment. Don't you want that?

Oddly enough, I find the way to do that is ride. Every day. Not in
one big angry lump that only reinforces the idea that bikes are
dangerous singly and also that riders are selfish [censored].

Instead I ride sensibly on the road to work. And you know... I don't
get run off the road. I get about as many incidents as I get when
driving a car or riding a motorcycle.

But you know when I talk to people about CM do I get "oh, I should be
more careful of bicycles"? Like hell I do.

Instead I get told cyclists are immature selfish [censored] who get all
this money spent on them and then clog up the roads.

If CM is about "ride their bikes [...] with a greater level of respect
in a more supportive less threatening environment" then it's failing.

because it doesn't generate respect. It is respectless and gets what
it gives.

You ask anyone who *isn't* a cyclist about CM. If they know it,
they'll dis it, if they don't and you tell them what happens, they'll
dis it. So, this helps how?

Now, Critical Manners,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/MNGB6P8R1U1.DTL
they would be much better at generating the attitude you say CM wishes
to generate.

But it doesn't give the riders that feeling of power, and so wouldn't
get much support I expect.

Tell you what.... when Critical Mass runs a ride to the rules of
Critical Manners I'll join in. Cos it will be just like any of the
daily rides where I interact respectfully to other road users and they
return respect to me. It will make motorists re think when they see
this big bunch obeying rules, not caring about being split up,
smiling, and generating respect.

I do my bit for cyclists on the road every day I ride on the road.
every time I do the shopping, every time I go to work, every time I
say "thank you" to the people on the cycle path and wave to drivers
who give way, and move over when I can to let cars by me. I hope I
undo some of the damage CM does.

Quoted message said:

Many Critical Mass riders also own and use a car at certain times too!

So? I haven't owned a car for 20 years. It isn't relevant. It isn't
about car vs bike. It is about respect and sensible road use. CM has
neither.

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:58:49 +1100

Tomasso said:

"Vintage" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

...
All I see is angry motorists and how that actually helps the cause and
changes their views I don't know.

All I see is angry motorists too, but that has nothing to do with Critical Mass.

It's because they are stuck in gridlock, while fantasising about a solo, unimpeded jaunt through the wilderness - as it looks in 4wd
ads all the time.

You must have a weird way of looking at people. And ride at odd
times.

I see plenty of motorists who aren't stuck in gridlock. Sure, some
are, sometimes.

But then just watch cyclists who are angry if someone says they should
stop at red lights, or not ride on the footpath.

I think it's really funny how cycle activists pretend cyclists don't get
angry if they are held up. Of course they do. But as breaking the
law is easy and consequences are few they seldom get held up. SO they
can keep pretending.

Zebee

Vintage said:

All I see is angry motorists and how that actually helps the cause and
changes their views I don't know.

Just to confirm your level of experience, how many Critical Mass rides have
you been on? (As an actual participant)

Because, having been on a few in Melbourne, my experience is that the
numbers of motorists expressing support for CM is actually quite high, at
least as many as those who honk the horn agressively.

Quoted message said:

We as a whole are much better off just thanking drivers that do the right
thing etc when out on the road and trying that way. Anyone that lets me
go
by, stops for me etc always gets a smile and thank you gesture.

Hey, great. This is actually what Critical Mass riders do while on the ride.
Revolutionary, huh?

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:44:50 +1100

G-S said:

Hmmm... *googles*

Interesting.

I have _never_ heard it used that way, but the dictionary supports you.

Interesting.... It seems to be the major use now, eclipsing the
original, and even eclipsing the more modern Christian version.
(where the original was a very specific Christian version the current
Christian version I think encompasses a wider variety of Christian.)

Quoted message said:

At least I know why the OP called them 'fundamentalists' now though 🙂

There's an interesting piece from Encounter about Fundamentalism and
Terrorism which explores how some Fundamentalist types can end up
seeing terrorism as a viable tool.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2006/1799384.htm

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:49:49 GMT

PeteSig said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Umm... cos they have taken a couple of simple ideas and made them the
core and totality of their religion, and refuse to see there can be
any other interpretation? And they think anyone who disagrees in any
way is evil and unclean and has nasty motives?

Have you actually taken part in any Critical Mass rides?

I won't take part *because* of the results. WHich I couldn't change
but would only reinforce.

Uhuh. So we judge the attitudes of the people involved, without experiencing
their actions nor talking to them to see where they are coming from. Not
much more sophisicated then Alan Jones' comments on those 'lebanese yoof 'at
Cronulla really.

Try to go on a Critical Mass ride, Zebee, at least once, and talk to the
cyclists involved. You may be surprised that they're not too different to
you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some have extreme views and are very self-opinionated. Aren't we all at
aone
time or another? A lot of the errant behaviour actually gets weeded out
by
the more moderate approach of the long-term riders.

really? Then how come those who see it don't see that? What do the
moderates do, how can they change what the image is?

People who get unjustifiably aggro with motorist get a good talking to.

Quoted message said:

(and isn't it interesting that when there's trouble CM say "no one is
in control" but then people say there is control.... Peer pressure is
also known as the madness of crowds...)

Peer pressure is what controls society *all* the time. Our legal system is
just a codified form of peer pressure.

Quoted message said:

Instead I ride sensibly on the road to work. And you know... I don't
get run off the road. I get about as many incidents as I get when
driving a car or riding a motorcycle.

As I do too. But then I ride in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. I gather the
northern suburbs are a bit different. Far more testosterone-laden boys in
their 'fully sick' hotted Commodores

Quoted message said:

But you know when I talk to people about CM do I get "oh, I should be
more careful of bicycles"? Like hell I do.

Instead I get told cyclists are immature selfish [censored] who get all
this money spent on them and then clog up the roads.

This attitude will pervade, regardless of Critical Mass. CM is actually more
of a wake up to many drivers. Especially those who try to crash through the
ride, and get a stern reminder of their road responsibilities by the Police.

Quoted message said:

You ask anyone who *isn't* a cyclist about CM. If they know it,
they'll dis it, if they don't and you tell them what happens, they'll
dis it. So, this helps how?

See above. Motorists bad-mouthed me as soon as I began commuting. Pre-CM,
1975, and first-off it was my own father. Grrrr!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many Critical Mass riders also own and use a car at certain times too!

So? I haven't owned a car for 20 years. It isn't relevant.

Fairly relevant when some people paint CM riders as extreme, fundamentalist
nutcases.

Fundamentalist? Me?? Suburban home, wife, two kids, cat, two cars (I know!!)
nine bikes in running condition :0 Don't think I'm an extremist nut who
won't listen to another viewpoint.

We all come from diverse Aussie backgrounds, but share a passion for
cycling. Does not make someone a 'fundamentalist'.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Vintage said:

All I see is angry motorists and how that actually helps the cause and
changes their views I don't know.

Giving into bullies never solves anythings.

Quoted message said:

We as a whole are much better off just thanking drivers that do the right
thing etc when out on the road and trying that way.

Yep, that has work very well for the last 30+ years.Just look at all
those bicycle riders murdered by car drivers. They are all lining up to
agree with you.

Harry 'Snapper' Organ said:

I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Nope,crititcal mass is simply doing what is legal. It is constable plod
that insists on turning it into a three ring circus every month.

On 2007-12-01, PeteSig (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Vintage said:

All I see is angry motorists and how that actually helps the cause and
changes their views I don't know.

Just to confirm your level of experience, how many Critical Mass rides have
you been on? (As an actual participant)

Because, having been on a few in Melbourne, my experience is that the
numbers of motorists expressing support for CM is actually quite high, at
least as many as those who honk the horn agressively.

Far higher was my experience.

I may be remembering incorrectly, but the horns were rather
infrequent. And maybe one angry young man in a mercedes, per ride.
The smiling drivers and passengers were everywhere.

I'm wondering if that is because for most people, they didn't actually
feel they were being delayed at all. We're out of there and their
memories in 10 minutes, tops. The gridlock is no different to what it
was yesterday, last week, or last month. One striking example of this
was near MCG one day, where the cars were stationary at a clogged
intersection, all ways. We saw from a distance that they were not
moving for 20 minutes -- not a single car. We just moved through the
intersection on the green, and were out of there, leaving the
clogginess behind.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We as a whole are much better off just thanking drivers that do the right
thing etc when out on the road and trying that way. Anyone that lets me
go
by, stops for me etc always gets a smile and thank you gesture.

Hey, great. This is actually what Critical Mass riders do while on the ride.
Revolutionary, huh?

Lots of cheering and smiliness 🙂 Plenty of sacasticness too, but
plenty of genuine friendliness to counteract that.

Haven't been on a Sydney CM though.

--
TimC
The stereotypical Islay is like chewing on a well-preserved rowing
boat, spiced up with seaweed, whereas the 20yo Laddie is more like
relishing a gourmet meal in said rowing boat. -- Ingvar in ASR

Zebee Johnstone said:

I won't take part *because* of the results. WHich I couldn't change
but would only reinforce.

So you have never attempted and never will attemp a meaningful
relationship with any one ? Same logic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some have extreme views and are very self-opinionated. Aren't we all at aone
time or another? A lot of the errant behaviour actually gets weeded out by
the more moderate approach of the long-term riders.

really? Then how come those who see it don't see that?

Because they don't want to.

Terryc said:

Harry 'Snapper' Organ said:

I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Nope,crititcal mass is simply doing what is legal. It is constable plod
that insists on turning it into a three ring circus every month.

Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
very supportive. They work to make sure the ride proceeds smoothly, but
spend more time sorting out misguided motorists who seem to think their
'urgent meeting' gives them a right to run down cyclists. Very few cyclists
are so out of line that they need prosecuting.

Neil [censored] does far more to make it a three ring circus.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

On 2007-12-01, PeteSig (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Terryc said:

Harry 'Snapper' Organ said:

I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Nope,crititcal mass is simply doing what is legal. It is constable plod
that insists on turning it into a three ring circus every month.

Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
very supportive. They work to make sure the ride proceeds smoothly, but
spend more time sorting out misguided motorists who seem to think their
'urgent meeting' gives them a right to run down cyclists.

I had lunch at a cafe just then, sitting outside under the verandah
watching the intersection of Burwood and Glenferrie. Lots of
seriously dodgy driving. One old but very important looking guy,
obviously in a bit of a hurry, was a little annoyed that someone had
stopped in front of him in the left turning lane for the quite clearly
red light, as a car coming the other way was completing their right
hand manevour into the same road. So his horn went off for a first
time. The car in front, a little spooked by the frustrated guy
behind, hurried on along behind the guy completing his turn from the
opposite direction, getting a little close for comfort. The red has
now been like this for about 4 seconds. Guy behind now rushes through
to start his turn, and does some dodgy maneuvering to avoid the cars
now travelling directly for him.

Incidentally, at that intersection, I saw something scary about every
100 cars. Lets say that someone who does something that scary, once
every tenth intersection they pass through, should never have been
allowed behind the wheel of a training vehicle. That means one in
every 10 cars are driven by a driver who should not be allowed to
drive because they are going to create a dangerous situation every
10th intersection they pass through. That, or one in every 100
drivers creates a dangerous hazard *every* intersection they pass
through, but in practice, I tend to see an individual driver do
something stupid once, then don't repeat that again for a while, so I
suspect it's more people being stupid less often.

Quoted message said:

Very few cyclists
are so out of line that they need prosecuting.

Annoyingly though, the police stop passage of trams behind us when we
have all explicitly stopped in the left lane frantically waving them
through. The tram passengers have more right than us to pass through
the city unimpeded, because the density of people inside a tram (140,
apparently) is higher than the density of a pack of cyclists (1000 of
us stretch about a km in 1.5 lanes on Brunswick/Johnson St), and we
readily recognise that!

--
TimC
TELESCOPE, n.
A device having a relation to the eye similar to that of the
telephone to the ear, enabling distant objects to plague us with a
multitude of needless details. Luckily it is unprovided with a bell
summoning us to the sacrifice.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:44:50 +1100

G-S said:

Hmmm... *googles*

Interesting.

I have _never_ heard it used that way, but the dictionary supports you.

Interesting.... It seems to be the major use now, eclipsing the
original, and even eclipsing the more modern Christian version.

I live in a country town though... and language use tends to lag a
couple of decades behind the big cities 🙂

Quoted message said:

(where the original was a very specific Christian version the current
Christian version I think encompasses a wider variety of Christian.)

Quoted message said:

At least I know why the OP called them 'fundamentalists' now though 🙂

There's an interesting piece from Encounter about Fundamentalism and
Terrorism which explores how some Fundamentalist types can end up
seeing terrorism as a viable tool.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2006/1799384.htm

*bookmarks for later when he's got time*

G-S

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Terryc said:

Harry 'Snapper' Organ said:

I see that Critical Mass continues to set the image of cycling back
with its acts of mass stupidity.

Nope,crititcal mass is simply doing what is legal. It is constable plod
that insists on turning it into a three ring circus every month.

Actually in Melbourne the Police bile squad and motorbikes are generally
very supportive. They work to make sure the ride proceeds smoothly, but
spend more time sorting out misguided motorists who seem to think their
'urgent meeting' gives them a right to run down cyclists. Very few cyclists
are so out of line that they need prosecuting.

Neil [censored] does far more to make it a three ring circus.

I'm sorry, but the bile squad sounds like a load of [censored]!!!! ;-) ;-)