Here’s the thing about the bullying charge (which I heard on KGO the other day as well): I’ve been riding on Critical Mass for over 17 years, and nobody — I mean nobody — of the hundreds of SFCM participants that I know rides on SFCM to bully motorists. We aren’t out to punish or dominate or control anybody. We don’t act that way in our day-to-day lives, we don’t act that way towards friends, family or co-workers, and we don’t act that way towards people with differing views from our own. We are simply people that want respect and safety and a good time when we explore this city that we love on bicycles. If you don’t like our methods, that’s fine. But don’t call us names.

It may be that traffic laws are being violated on SFCM. Are you concerned about traffic laws being violated? Do you think that all traffic laws should be obeyed at all times, and that if people break traffic laws, they are fundamentally indecent, uncaring, dangerous bullies?

If so, I would like to draw your attention to a very common traffic violation that is done with impunity on a regular basis. It is the violation of speed limits. There is not a motorist on the face of this planet, myself and yourself included, that has not broken a speed limit law. All motorists ignore speed limits, with impunity, through the sheer numbers they enjoy, on a regular basis. And the police simply look the other way.

Your view that such scofflaws are dangerous bullies would be well justified, in this case. The number of people who are killed each year by motorists violating speed limits must surely number in the hundreds of thousands. Just think — thousands of people killed through this thoughtless disregard of the law.

So who are the real bullies?

H.

CM participants are bullies. Through sheer force of numbers, they break the law with hoped-for impunity. Jim Dyer writes: “Contempt for our civil rights is not the kind of “leadership” people are looking for from the SFPD.” This unintentionally hypocritical comment begs the question: What about CM’s contempt for the civil rights of everyone who is not participating with CM?

As with most parents, I hope for my children to be free-thinking, compassionate people. I hope they have the courage to speak-up and even act, if necessary, in the face of injustice. But I certainly do not model for them, as halebopp states that he will, the use of the bullies’ tactics. I have, however, shown them that when all else fails, even walking away, it is sometimes necessary to protect yourself from the actions of a bully.

* As a Sales & Service Rep, I drive a car throughout the Bay Area. Using a bicycle just would not work.

In NYC we see how a focused effort by the police to shut the ride down can successfully deter people from coming out and enjoy their space on the streets, but at a steep cost: many thousands of dollars to field dozens of police vehicles and officers a few times a month, to process (often dismissing) minor infractions in traffic court, and criminalize people who are not especially dangerous and simply enjoying their chosen form of transport, and perhaps violating their 1st amendment rights. NYPD could spend the money on consistent enforcement of laws all month long that actually deter all street users from dangerous/reckless behavior.

A wise approach of any police department to this leader-less movement would be to put many, many officers on BICYCLES to help facilitate the safe and peaceful movement of the group. Attempts to shut it down will fail.

Ride safe!

My call-in got cut just as he posed the challenge of licenses for bicyclists. Silly topic at first, but, heck, I think licensing topics could make a good debate, in some ways. Though it’s a distraction from some of the real issues (such as the importance of a right to express dissent against the official structures of society), it’s easy to show what a bad idea licensing bicyclists is.

Licensing is only one component of the concept, charging a fee another, and a third is using that as a funding source for bike infrastructure. And then there’s enforcement. To my thinking, there are a thousand things wrong with the idea. Okay, I haven’t thought of them all yet. But I’ve got these few to offer and would like to hear yours.

Charging would discourage bicycle use, which is the opposite of what’s needed for improved health, less obesity, better air, reduced greenhouse emissions, etc.

Licensing to make us pay (too) like drivers would imply that motorists are paying their share. They don’t. The costs to society of cars are far greater than they pay. Cars are highly subsidized yet destroy the planet. Shouldn’t bikes be subsidized to help get people out of cars? “Piddly” licensing fees wouldn’t even pay for the bureaucracy needed to maintain them, let alone enforce them. Forget about their paying for bike paths, as host Gil suggests.

Enforcement would be a lot of effort when there are more important things to do. Therefore it wouldn’t be fair or evenly enforced and it would be wielded as a weapon by police for arbitrary purposes.

The radio host made it seem like one of the great benefits would be keeping people responsible for their transgressions. This is hilarious, since police don’t even bother with the extreme things car drivers do. (I haven’t heard of ONE ticket for driving while on the phone, after a year of the California law.)

It’s an example of criminalizing the underclass, since many poor people who can’t afford cars use a bike. This is a typical problem with strict law-and-order thinking. The people who get forced into court and jail are the ones at the poorest ranks of society or the people trying to express dissent.

For most of American History, legal scholars and judges considered “open access to dissent” to trump the benefits of “strict law-and-order.” That was true in almost all times other than during the Gilded Age and NOW–both periods when giant monied interests controlled the reigns of power.

Enough.
Joel

http://www.good.is/post/san-francisco-might-shut-down-critical-mass/

who all seem very “concerned” that massers be more law-abiding. Great! Go for it! They’ll see how that turns out…

One thing, though, Hugh – the cops can arrest many more people at once. SFPD has a century of experience in mass arrests, and just because each one leads to a nice settlement with its victims doesn’t stop them from persisting with this tactic.

San Francisco Municipal Code
Police Code, Article 4: Parades
Sec. 366(e) A “parade” is an event, not including an athletic event, in which a group of persons proceed as a collective body for more than one block on any street in the City and County of San Francisco, whether on foot or in any type of vehicle or on an animal or animals, which event obstructs or interferes with the normal flow of vehicular traffic. An “athletic event” is an event in which a group of people collectively engage in a sport or form of physical exercise on any street in the City and County of San Francisco, including but not limited to jogging, bicycling, racewalking, roller skating or running. The following processions are not included in the definitions of a “parade”: (1) processions composed wholly of the military or naval forces of the United States or of the State of California; (2) processions incidental to a wedding or funeral; (3) processions composed of one or more governmental officials or candidates accompanied by security personnel to which such officials or candidates are entitled by virtue of their office or candidacy. Any event taking place entirely on property under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission shall be exempt from this ordinance.

http://search.municode.com/html/14140/level1/A4.html