But, the Critical Mass folks are rather rude in presuming that their desire to make a point trumps the desires of everyone else on the road (even if everyone else on the road is mean). Besides, there is a certain amount of irony in trying to convince people to share the road by hogging it yourself.
In the summer of 2008, The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) removed three marked crosswalks along Nickerson Street. These crosswalks were removed because they no longer met national guidelines for unsignalized marked crosswalks. When the crosswalks were removed, SDOT made a commitment to the community that we would evaluate other pedestrian improvements along the corridor – including a possible rechannelization or ‘road diet.’
And I honestly don't get the thinking behind the idea that some traffic laws are "optional".
Mass is traditionally held on the last Friday of every month in every city where it is held. It is usually held around rush hour, but there is no set time and there is no set route. The Mass moves as a demonstration of consensual anarchy, where certain individuals who are regulars in the scene can tend to steer the mass in one direction or another. Folks peel off if they want to ride somewhere else. Others might join as the mass intersects with them.
Thus short of opting to leave work late or early it is impossible to plan your commute to purposefully avoid Mass, especially if you aren't a regular cyclist and are just peripherally aware of the phenomenon. You can go for months without it impacting you, and then one Friday, you're in the thick of it.
Eventhough I ride, I goddamn hate it when I cross paths with Mass because, like other commuters I'm just trying to get where I want to go, and they will hold up my intersection as they cross perpendicularly and when I ask them to make way or wait for the red, they give me some crap about not being a joiner.
fwiw, my idea of a bear is that it is a creature that will leave you well enough alone under most circumstances. What you left out in your response to me was the fact that I used an example where individuals performed actions that were specifically provocative. I think that two men who've had some drinks in them in a bar have a non-zero chance of getting into a fight if one of them does something disrespectful to the other (like unprovoked aggressive physical contact). If one of them happens to be gay, that doesn't automatically flip the fight into queerbashing
The Pride equivalent of Critical Mass would be an army of drag queens barhopping through the local sports bars near your stadium of choice and forcibly switching every big screen TV to karaoke for one song before moving on to the next bar, slapping the various ya-doods on the ass on the way out.
Kinda awesome, but probably likely to elicit similar reactions if news emerges that some stragglers from the barhopping got jumped by jocks (as in: seriously terrible that it happened, nothing excuse violence, but WTF, man?) There's sharing nature with bears and then there's poking those bears with a stick and saying, "see! share! share! RESPECT ME ASSHOLE!"
>That violence should never be encouraged or justified or approved, but it's possibility must be acknowledged and weighed against the point that you're trying to make.
I think what most of us (or at least I)1 would point out is that the point that Critical Mass tries to make is generally not worth the resentment that it provokes and by extension not worth the risk of violence that is attached to it.
>You've built up your own little strawman that gay pride marches are just like critical mass gatherings.
>DNye -- inaccurate metaphor. Pride is a permitted demonstration/march that is coordinated with the city and includes logistical support from the police to ensure that traffic is diverted and that the march wraps up in an orderly fashion.
>That's very true
« Older England cricketer Steven Davies has come out in an... | Humans, Version 3.0.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt