I have never taken part in a critical mass cycling event but I have read a great deal about these events recently and have paid particular attention to those in London and other UK cities. I have read web pages about the London events and I have watched, several times over, some of the video clips of more recent events.
Apparently these events are not organised, not regulated or marshalled in any way and have no clear objective other than (I read somewhere) “to celebrate cycling and claim back the roads from motor traffic” or words to that effect, which is all so much puerile tosh.
To quote from the webpage of the Central London Critical Mass:
“Who are we and what are our aims?
“We are not sure, opinions seem to differ. There are probably as many aims of CM as there are participants. Each individual comes there with his or her own idea of what it’s about, and the sum of this makes up the Mass. We have no organisers and no planned routes.”
It reminds me of the preacher at the lunatic asylum who started his sermon to the inmates by posing the question “Why are we all here?” To which a voice from the back of the room piped up with the reply “Because we are not all there!”
Perhaps I have got it wrong but I assume that the majority of those who participate in these events imagine that they are somehow promoting the cause of cycling. No doubt I share their aspirations. Even so, I deplore their participation in these events.
You have only to look at videos of London events of recent years to see that they cause obstruction, delay and annoyance to other road users, which is hardly an intelligent way to win (as the current jargon has it) the hearts and minds of the wider public. Substantial numbers of cyclists among those taking part give the clearest possible impression of being a totally indisciplined and unruly rabble and there are numerous instances of illegal cycling behaviour. It all reinforces the already too widespread view of cyclists as having no respect for other road users, for the rules of the road or for anything else other than their own selfish agenda.
I have no doubt at all that there are many genuine, respectable and sincere cyclists on these rides who behave as well as can be expected given the scale and nature of the events – but as in any large gathering you will also find the usual suspects, the great unwashed disaffected and miscellaneous anarchists, few of whom have any real commitment to whatever cause is supposedly being promoted but they are there anyway “for a laugh” or to cause trouble if they can. What they certainly do, like it or not, is undermine the reputation of ALL those taking part and of the cause itself.
A good ride in the company of other cyclists is a fine thing. So why not celebrate the best of cycling rather than demonstrate it in such an unfavourable light? Why not have a proper organising group with leaders and marshalls and predetermined routes, and official support, where participants can demonstrate how cycling, even in large numbers, can be carried out in accordance with the rules of the road and accomodated with due consideration for other road users in our cities and towns? This has got to come anyway as more and more people get on their bikes. Wouldn’t it be a marvellous way for cyclists to show that we are ready for it even if the infrastructure leaves rather a lot to be desired and that we are willing and able to ride in an orderly and considerate fashion? Wouldn’t that give a much more positive impression of cycling, and the potential for more cycling, not only to other road users and casual bystanders at the time but also through the media coverage to the population at large? Wouldn’t this make a much more beneficial contribution to the debate at national and local government level about making better provision for cycling?
If cyclists who currently participate in critical mass events cannot rise to this challenge then I suggest that critical mass in the UK should be abandoned – for it amounts to nothing more than an inconsiderate self-indulgence on the part of participants which offers nothing positive to the cause of cycling.
I totally agree with everything you said here. CM seems to attract people who like to flout authority for its own sake. They’re starting to sound like a bunch of rebels without a clue. I make a point of stopping and waiting for cars to turn at intersections, regardless of which of us may have the right-of-way, especially when I see these birdbrains on their cell phones and only half paying attention anyway. Hopefully some of them will remember the cyclist who waited. Maybe I should retitle my blog to “Cyclist-in-Waiting”.
I’m definitely with you on this one, both you and Digital Dame, I think this is a case of looking for a cause, and taking a form of revolutionary (excuse the pun) action, a symptom of what is a general condition amongst a large portion of the population, a loss of direction, a search for a need, looking for some focus. For the cyclists involved in CM, it obviously isn’t enough that they have found a wonderful activity, that provides an outlet for their energy, vigour, as well as providing fantastic health benefits, but why the need to ram it down the throats of the rest of the population, with this revolutionary and selfish action?
I think my vote makes it 3. I have never participated in a Critical Mass Event either. Somewhere the intent is getting diluted by the varying agendas.
I made a couple of posts about Critical Mass earlier this week: http://www.cyclemania.ca/2008/07/cycling-new-york-city-critical-mass-ride-update/
My intent was to highlight the bad behavior of the New York City Police.
My research on the topic got me to thinking about the positive sides. The problem, however, is that there is no one agenda (IE promote cycling to the masses). So it is the strongest common agenda that wins out.
Good post.
L
Make that 4. To me CM seems merely brainless and disruptive.
Digital Dame, Welsh Cyclist, Les and Nick, thanks for taking the trouble to comment. I wasn’t sure whether anyone would agree with me (or bother to comment if they did agree) so it is good to know that I am not a lone voice here.
Les, I have read your CM posts and thank you for them. My remarks are addressed specifically to the UK activities because I don’t feel qualified to comment about CM overseas.
why bikes shouldn’t have to follow the rules of the road:
http://ecohustler.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/why-bikes-shouldn%e2%80%99t-have-to-follow-the-rules-of-the-road/
Ecohustler, thanks for your comment. I have read your post and see nothing in it that gives me reason to change what I have written here about Critical Mass.
In fact I would say that I agree with much of what you have written but I am not clear about what you actually want. Are you saying that
1/ There should be no rules for cyclists.
2/ That the rules should stay but cyclists should have discretion to ignore them?
In my opinion 1/ would be ridiculous and 2/ is pretty much how things are. The rules could do with some updating but it is a waste of time updating rules of which too many cyclists are ignorant in the first place.
As regards breaking the rules, it seems to me that a bit of anticipation and common sense should enable most dangerous situations to be avoided. If and when an unavoidable circumstance occurs I think it unlikely that any court would punish a cyclist who broke a rule in order to escape from imminent danger (as opposed to consistent rule breaking as a matter of habit). Do you know of any such cases?
Pingback: Obama's Perestroika is working so far - Miami Beach 411