Oct 05 '07 - 780 W - Vote Good + 7 :: Bad - 14 Katherine Kersten: Bike-riding mob owns the streets of Minneapolis
Published October 3, 2007 by StarTribune.com
by Katherine Kersten
Minneapolis--Now we know who's in charge of Minneapolis streets. It's a loosely organized group of serial lawbreakers called Critical Mass. Last Friday, 600 or so took over city thoroughfares, breaking traffic laws with impunity while police stayed in the background.
Every month, Critical Mass cyclists ride through rush hour traffic in cities across the country. Some insist the ride is just a "celebration." Others acknowledge a political agenda: they want to enlighten the rest of us -- greedy capitalists that we are -- about the joys of bike riding so we can join them in saving the planet.
The Mass mob has chosen a strange way to promote its agenda. Critical Mass's philosophy is to infringe on others' rights by disrupting traffic and running red lights.
They block traffic by "corking" -- some riders hold cars at intersections during green lights while the mass passes through a red light. Others stand in the street and wave their bikes defiantly over their heads.
Are you rushing to catch the last few innings of your son's baseball game?
Trying to get to the show you promised your wife for her birthday?
Critical Mass doesn't give a rip. Tough luck for you, Mac, because you're a gas-guzzler and I'm living green.
Why are Minneapolis police condoning this lawbreaking? Because the guys upstairs do. Two City Council members, Cam Gordon and Robert Lilligren, joined the Critical Mass mob on last week's ride. Mayor R.T. Rybak also rode with the mob once several years ago.
In August, after some of the ride's rougher elements provoked a confrontation with police, and 19 people were arrested, Gordon, whose aide was one of those arrested, called foul. The usual hand-wringing and internal investigation in the police department followed. Gordon organized a meeting, where police and Critical Mass representatives discussed what were called mutual expectations.
Police Chief Tim Dolan says he doesn't like expending limited police resources on Critical Mass rides. But support for more hard-nosed enforcement isn't there, he says.
Initially, it's hard to reconcile Critical Mass riders' lofty pro-environment rhetoric with their in-your-face tactics.
But maybe Critical Mass is just the latest permutation of a phenomenon we've seen for decades. Though the ride attracts a variety of participants, they are, by definition, people who choose to break the law and adopt the civil disobedience tactics of the 1960s.
Robert Lichter of the Center for Media and Public Affairs has studied protest movements. He points out that political protest has changed since the '20s and '30s, when those involved were usually poor. (Think Hoovervilles and hungry, jobless people.) Their protest was "instrumental" --aimed at getting the government assistance they needed to stay afloat.
The '60s and '70s brought a sea change. For the middle- and upper-class young people who flooded into the streets, protest became a vehicle for self-assertion -- the "politics of personal expression." (Think Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.) Middle-class kids wore their arrest record as a badge of honor.
In his psychological studies of '60s-style radicals, Lichter discovered two revealing things: They scored high on the power scale, exhibiting a strong need to feel powerful. They also scored high on narcissism -- the need to call attention to themselves, to get public notice.
Not surprisingly, Lichter says, protesters often latched onto high-sounding motives to justify their self-absorbed actions. "You can't take expressions of love for humanity at face value," he explains. "They can serve as cover for aggressive feelings and tendencies." A phenomenon like Critical Mass "allows people to act aggressively, while convincing themselves and some others that it's all for a moral purpose."
If Critical Mass riders just wanted to celebrate bikes, they could refrain from serial law-breaking and ride at a time that doesn't provoke rush-hour drivers. But that won't do. Their antics are more about power -- "I'll make you wait while I ride by" -- and self-dramatization than making the world a better place.
Minneapolis authorities eventually will discover what parents learn when they allow petulant children to break the rules "just to keep the peace." You don't get peace. You just open the door to bigger trouble.
Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com
Would you like to contribute to C.I.C.L.E.? Do you a have bike-related article, news story, event, idea, suggestion, etc...? Check out our submissions page.
This article got me so HYPE! Nothing inspires me like some good old fashioned “spare the rod spoil the child” pouting. I love giving these folks high blood pressure. DOWN WITH PROTEST!!! BRING BACK THE 50’s!!! THESE KIDS TODAY! NARCISSISM!
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - October 07 '07 - 16:47
that woman is very close minded. i wrote her a letter:Katherine,
Critical mass is different things to different people. Some cowardly people get an inflated bravado when the feel like they are protected by a group of cohorts. These people (often not even ardent cyclists) are out looking for trouble, and often are the catalysts of contention between cyclists and motorists.
If you have had a bad experience with critical mass (as it seems by the tone of your article), then I wish you’d come out and state your personal experience. Otherwise, the article reads very biased and close minded. Not all people who ride in critical mass are “serial law-breakers,” who like to “infringe” on other people’s rights. What about cyclists rights? Yes, we have them. Were you aware of that?
I’m disappointed that you focused on the negative aspects of the ride. I don’t condone illegal behavior, but I understand why critical mass does cork. “Corking” or blocking traffic while the group passes through is actually much safer for you, as well as for the cyclists. Police “cork” for all types of events for safety’s sake.
I think the disruption in traffic is minor, considering it is once a month and also takes no more than several minutes for the entire group to pass through an intersection. The rest of the time, bicycles go back to being minorities on the road. Pushed off onto the side, driven into the gutters, nearly killed by motorists who think their right and speed make them the superior user of the road.
To me, the weakest of your claim was that critical mass shouldn’t ride at a time that “provokes rush hour drivers.” As if rush hour motorists were an elevated group in society, while the rest of us untouchables scramble to meet their every whim. If you can’t keep your temper in rush hour, maybe car-commuting isn’t for you. There is public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, and dare I suggest it… bicycle commuting that all provide alternatives to the stresses of the daily car commute.
The truth is, if more people were taking these alternative forms of transportation, then YOUR commute would be better. Critical mass is a way for cyclists to be reminded that there are other people out there, braving the streets to make the planet better, save money, live a less consumptive and healthier lifestyle. These are values that should be praised and admired.
I bicycle commute over 150 miles a week. In that time, I can’t tell you how often my LIFE has been in serious and immediate danger by motorists, not following the rules, driving recklessly/dangerously, or just being plain negligent. We’re not just talking about being held up a few minutes, we are talking about being killed. When you feel like you aren’t respected on the road every day (even though you have a legal right to the road), it is often helpful to ride with others, to feel strong, and to commune with people who understand what you go through.
The tone of your article seems to propitiate the attitude of “us vs. them” on the road – a very dangerous dialetic. We’re sorry that we put you three minutes behind schedule, but then again we’ve never almost killed you.
david p. (Email) (URL) - October 11 '07 - 09:04
Thank you for questioning the motives of Critical Mass. The more I commute in traffic, the more I understand that I’m safest when asserting my rights legally and with good hand signals and eye contact with motorists. Call me square, but it works here in Los Angeles. I shudder to think of all the drivers ready to retaliate after being hassled by Critical Mass. I admit I haven’t participated, but I feel my comments are valid given the number of acquaintances I know who regularly participate and are honest enough to admit how the ride works.I find the commenter “david p.” above dubious at best. He calls the author “biased and closed minded” simply because she’s willing to question the motives of a renegade group. We’re all aware of cyclists’ rights; in fact I carry copies of the vehicle code and DMV handbook in my handlebar bag. But what Critical Mass participants don’t seem to recognize, from what they’ve told me, is that “exercising cyclists’ rights” is not the same as breaking the law. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
jdb - October 16 '07 - 09:53
Dubious at best… I wonder what I am at worst? Ha. JDB – to me, The article went far beyond “simply questioning the motives” of a (as you state it) a “renegade” group. Of course I can’t speak for ALL critical mass participants, but the cyclists I’ve been fortunate to ride with were neither renegades nor “serial law breakers.”I found the tone in her article very condescending. She positions the dynamic between cars and CM riders as these poor little old motorists, on their way to a soccer game, or on their way to a charity auction, donating a kidney, or a world peace convention… when all of a sudden these car-hating anarchists run down and “take over the streets.” It is a completely biased account, and neither enlightening nor insightful. It doesn’t seek to understand the motives of CM riders, but rather addresses it as some cult-phenomenon-mob. On a macro scale, it’s probably how she sees bicycle commuting in general.
If you want a good article on Critical Mass, consider Bicycling Magazine’s treatment of the matter in their October 2007 Issue.
Just because CM doesn’t adhere to every jot and tittle of vehicular cycling (jdb), does not mean it can’t be a healthy part of forming the greater cycling movement.
david p. (Email) (URL) - October 16 '07 - 10:58
The group ride red light debate seems to be age old, and it definitely warrants further discussion. I don’t think that this issue can be easily reduced to an “us vs. them”— motorist vs. bicyclist — or “upstanding citizen” vs. “renegade” type argument. I feel that we need to be careful about making assumptions about who may or may not be in that car, on that bus, or on that bicycle. Not all motorists are “jerks”, and not all bicyclists are “responsible”—or vice-versa.IMHO, the goal should be co-existence, keeping traffic (car, bus, ped., and bike) disruption to a minimum, and this might imply some compromise and flexibility on all sides. But this perspective comes more from the desire to be courteous and safe, rather than law-abiding, and from the desire to demonstrate that bicycles, even large group rides, can co-exist within normal city traffic patterns .
I’ve been on group rides where blowing red lights just seemed like a superfluous and somewhat arrogant act, and I’ve witnessed situations where some corking seemed absolutely appropriate. For example, if the bulk of the ride had already passed through a signalized intersection, and there was only a handful of riders left in the intersection, it made sense to cork for their safety. Should crossing traffic momentarily pause to allow for the safe passage of the riders? Yes!
Otherwise, I think that an effort to co-exist with other road users should be made, which sometimes means sticking to one lane, and stopping at a red lights to help facilitate the flow of crossing traffic at the intersection—including pedestrians.
I have actually been on a Critical Mass ride where a mother had a critically ill infant in her car, and she was making her way to the hospital, and she was desperately pleading with us to allow her to pass. Should we make an effort to accommodate her needs at this time? Some may disagree with me, but considering the apparent urgency of that particular situation, I felt that we should, regardless of her choice in transportation for that particular trip.
Some of the very large group rides can sometimes take 15-20 minutes to clear an intersection. Would it not make sense to wait the few moments for one traffic signal cycle to allow crossing traffic to pass? This would include the movement of motorists with urgent needs (health and work-related), buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians. As long as the ride ahead is following suit, there should be no anxiety about getting dropped, as red lights also provide that opportunity for slower riders to catch up to the rest of the ride. In my experience, most (non-race) rides are not in any particular rush to get anywhere.
As a leader of “organized rides”, I can say that the act of stopping a group ride at red lights does not really seem to impede upon the spirit of the ride. Quite the contrary, it provides a greater opportunity to socialize, and I’ve noticed fewer hostile exchanges between motorists and our riders, and that keeps the ride atmosphere positive and safe. It also doesn’t put our ride participants at risk for traffic violations. Does the ride posses that adrenaline rush that some of the other rides have? Perhaps not, but I don’t necessarily perceive that to be a negative.
Shay (Email) - October 16 '07 - 14:39