[Vision2020] Critical Mass: Kind & Gentle Activism: Thoreau LivesOn?

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Ted,

For an intelligent person, you have a tendency towards willful blindness I 
find amazing.  Since I think I'm the only one whose posts could have come 
close to your mis-statement about Critical Mass critics, I'm going to 
address it.  You said,

'Some of the responses to the discussion of Critical Mass as a means to 
promote biking seemed to imply that those who rode with this group were 
intent on goading drivers of Hummers, Lincoln Navigators, and Ford F-350s 
into a rage, begging them to run us down.'

For Christ's sake (or Oden's or whoever's sake) Ted, that's neither what I 
have said nor implied.  I have never said that this was either the intent or 
the goal of Critical Mass.  I am saying that is the result or effect of this 
action, no matter how benign the intent of the riders.  And it may not have 
the effect on all drivers, but you're running the risk of having that one 
angry person squash the bejesus (or bejoden or bejwhoever) out of you.

Now I'm not going to ride in this fashion to make your point.  I will drive 
or walk or ride to the jail to meet that driver, if I get appointed (yes, 
Tony, now I'm pointing out that I'm a friggin' attorney, and obviously the 
most fancy-panted friggin' attorney, for why else would I be a public 
defender meeting clients in the friggin' jail?) to represent him or her 
after they've added you or some other bike rider to the asphalt.  Perhaps 
they'll luck out and only get charged with a misdemeanor.  Or maybe a jury 
will say, 'Hey, I'd run them over too,' and acquit.

I don't think a bike rider doing 25 mph when that is the posted speed should 
be in the lane of travel any more than I think a driver doing the posted 
speed should keep driving rather than pull over when traffic piles up behind 
him or her.  I know those actions are legal.  I just think it leads to bad 
results, such as people doing something really stupid in order to get past 
that person.

I know they shouldn't.  I know it doesn't necessarily get them anywhere much 
faster than everyone else.  But guess what:  They're going to do it anyway.  
Over the last few years I've either prosecuted or defended people who've 
done something really dumb, something they shouldn't have done.  You cannot 
force someone else to do the safe or right thing.  Prosecutors and public 
defenders have job security because of this.

I'm not saying the folks involved in Critical Mass aren't making an 
important point.  I'm not saying they're trying to piss people off.  I am 
saying that depending on the rationality and good will of the possibly angry 
person driving the heavy, powerful vehicle ( and even my old Subaru is 
powerful in comparison to my bicycle) is not the bet I want to make if I 
decide to ride in the middle of the lane.  I think this method of persuasion 
can lead to bad results.  When I'm driving too slow for the speeder behind 
me, I give (usually) him every opportunity to pass me when it's safe; why?  
Because I want him to pass me safely, not cause a wreck by doing it at the 
wrong moment.

I favor promoting driver tolerance for bike riders.  I certainly never 
called the bike rider an idiot, though another poster might dishonestly make 
this claim about me.  Or should I say disingenuously?  I'm not sure how you 
intend to stuff that straw into me in order to make this argument, Ted; I 
favor neither the foie gras method or the other alternative.

(Having used the verboten words, let me take this opportunity, before I get 
over the three post limit, or to stay close, in case I've already done that, 
to say I like Francis and look forward to eating lunch at West of Paris 
soon.)

I think everyone should share the road or the sidewalk or the bike path.  
You don't own it, whether you're driving, walking, running or whatever.  
Share it.  Do that and we can all get where we want to go, no matter what 
our method.

Sunil