It’s true that CM is “against the law,” if by law you mean, the one upheld by the police and courts. I regret to inform you however, that many laws of the City of SF, the State of CA, the and USA, are directly opposed to A) the laws of my conscience, and B) the laws of reality (ever heard of corporate law?). I’m sorry that CM doesn’t follow “the law” that you respect so very much. The laws that I respect so very much tell me that cars, obeying the laws of traffic or not, are against the law.

Best,
Gabe

Why is it worse than being attacked by wolves to be cited for ignoring the rules of the road? People in the back are ticketed because it’s the safest group to ticket. I would hope you would agree with me that our system of laws does not include the ability to override the law when you believe you know better. Given that “I don’t like it” isn’t a valid legal defense, what right do you have to break traffic laws?

You are right that the toothless ticketing experience you’ve described is a waste of your time and taxpayer money — if you’re breaking traffic laws, especially willfully and habitually, the courts should absolutely obligate you to pay the full amount of the ticket. I don’t want my tax dollars going to pay for police officers who enforce laws just to have those who violate them not be forced to help recoup those costs. And incidentally, if you are repeatedly breaking traffic laws, you can’t claim that you don’t condone their being broken; THAT would be trying to have it both ways.

All you’ve put forward is that, in your opinion, it’s somehow better to ignore the law. When you say it’s the “best way to do it,” for whom do you mean? As I’ve discussed exhaustively above, clearly you don’t mean it’s better for oncoming or cross traffic.

You should read the really great article that long-time CM advocate Jym Dyer posted from the 1997 ride, in which he describes how amazing it was to be involved in a CM where everyone strictly obeyed the traffic laws. As I’ve quoted above, Jym thought that obeying the traffic laws brought CM to the next level, and that it was an excellent step in the evolution of the event. He’s not alone in this: Dave Snyder, founder of the SF Bicycle Coalition, expressed similar sentiments in an interview around the same time, promoting and even predicting the rise of “mini-Masses.”

I’m certainly not angry, as you suggest; as a San Francisco cyclist myself, however, it is somewhat frustrating to me that an event many cite as being about establishing respect for cyclists is actually the number one source of ire against cyclists from others (drivers, certainly, but also transit riders and pedestrians).

I have gotten ticketed during CM (generally the cops pick off the slowest riders in the very back of the ride, like wolves going after the weakest members of the species, only nastier).

The ticket was thrown out almost as soon as I walked in the door of the courthouse.

A minor waste of my time & taxpayers’ money, if you ask me.

We do have 1st Amendment rights in this country — protected speech, and Freedom of Assembly. CM falls under both of these categories. It would be a bitch to stop it at this point.

I don’t feel responsible for other cyclists’ bad behavior any more than every single motorist out there feels responsible for all the many people behind the wheel who act like total assholes towards cyclists — of which there are many, just in case you haven’t noticed. I don’t condone it in either case, by any means — but i do want to point out that of the two, an asshole cyclist can do a LOT less potential damage than an asshole motorist.

But in terms of CM “obeying traffic laws”, it creates a lot more chaos than when we don’t. Just like drivers who get mad at bicyclists for not stopping at stop signs AND get mad at us for getting out in front of them & slowing them down. You can’t have it both ways.

We’ve tried all kindsa things, and this is by far the best way to do it. I wish the aggro people would chill more, but if they don’t, I can’t do anything directly to change that. And if the SAFPD wants to ticket individual cyclists for petty, minor infractions — well, that’s been business as usual for a long time, and it hasn’t added up to much more than a mosquito bite for the folks who’ve been targeted. i say take that righteous anger & turn it towards all the many, egregious, life-threatening motorist violations that are going on 24/7 out there. That would be a much more socially-productive cause for you to get involved in.

Again, repeatedly you talk about obeying traffic laws, and only point out one difficulty your mini-mass had, when you were waiting respectfully for a pedestrian who was still in the street as opposing traffic got a green light. You even talk about leaving Market Street specifically so as not to block public transit traffic.

In the document you’ve just shared with us, describing the CM in which you and other riders obeyed the laws, you conclude by describing the ride that night this way: “This is it, this is definitely the next level. We don’t need an escort and we don’t need corking.” This sounds like a wonderful evolution of Critical Mass, and clearly you enjoyed it. It sounds like other riders did as well. It’s a shame it didn’t stick around.

My “elaborate hypothesis” is that CM riders do precisely the same thing that you say brought the ride to “definitely the next level” where you “don’t need corking”: respect others, and obey the law. So, now that you are unequivocally on the record as believing that obeying traffic laws and respecting others is very clearly in the benefit of not only others on the road but those involved in CM as well, I ask again:

Will you join me in condemning those who disrespect others on the road and break the traffic laws, and in so doing prevent CM from reaching “the next level” that you speak of?

Or have you changed your mind since writing your glowingly positive account of CM 8/1997?

The article does say that when cyclists “rode to rule,” traffic was worse. For cross traffic, that’s absolutely impossible. There’s no way that cyclists obeying traffic lights made traffic worse for those trying to cross at right angles; currently, they must wait 10-15 minutes before being allowed to pass. There’s no way that traffic would be made worse for oncoming traffic that’s forced to a complete stop by cyclists bicycling on the wrong side of the road (less common than the cyclists running red lights, but it does occur).

What you suggest sounds perfectly logical to me, but according to the article, when they tried that it had the perverse effect of making the traffic tie-ups worse. Apparently the police came around to the view (sometimes?) that it was better to just let CM flow (and block streets and run red lights while doing so).

You speak of Critical Mass “having (and enjoying) our rightful place in the streets as traffic, and [operating] exactly like traffic.” These are tenets with which I completely agree. Cyclists not only should feel safe and respected as part of traffic, but as they are engaging in a space-efficient, healthy, environmentally friendly transportation option, should increase in number and mode share on San Francisco’s streets.

If Critical Mass is not a registered event — which I agree it need not be — then those participating do not have special privileges to ignore traffic laws. Recognizing as you do that cyclists “[operate] exactly like traffic,” will you join me in condemning the violations of the traffic laws routinely practiced at every intersection, at every Critical Mass?

You state that, like car drivers, participants in Critical Mass are individuals making choices, rather than an amalgamated mass. I agree, and so does every level of government. This is why we have laws that directly affect individual drivers: when drivers are caught violating speed limits, driving drunk, or violating any of the range of other driving rules and regulations, they are punished as individual drivers and ticketed, or in more severe cases, prosecuted and convicted in court.

As you and I agree that participants in Critical Mass are individuals making individual choices just like car drivers, do you agree with me that those individuals who choose to break the law by intentionally impeding traffic should be individually ticketed for their illegal behavior?

Such illegal, traffic-blocking behavior is not only unfair to the drivers whom you malign, but also is unfair and even dangerous to pedestrians and even other cyclists not participating who wish simply to cross the street at a right angle to CM. This is thus not simply an issue of respect to others sharing the road; traffic laws are in place to ensure that everyone who uses our transportation system is as safe as possible.

If you wish as I do for cyclists to be respected as part of traffic, do you agree with me that respecting others on the road is fundamental to earning mutual respect? If you are worried, as I am, about safety on our streets, do you agree with me that respecting rights of way and obeying basic traffic laws is critical to ensuring safety on our streets?

Or is there some reason you have not yet mentioned why a group that aspires to “[operate] exactly like traffic” should be also given license to flagrantly ignore the rules of the road that we all are expected to adhere to? None of these questions is rhetorical; I look forward to your explanation.

Critical Mass is about having (and enjoying) our rightful place in the streets as traffic, and it operates exactly like traffic. You complain about “the culture of CM” not stopping the wrongdoers, but that’s no different from “the culture of traffic.” When motorists are out there messing things up (with an annual death toll of 40,000 and costs in the billions), we duly regard them as individual human beings. It’s idiotic to regard CM in any other way.

Here are some facts to consider when discussing Critical Mass: During the 18 years of its existence, the number of cyclists in the city has increased dramatically. The SFBC, which in 1992 had only a handful of members and met in the back of a Chinese restaurant, has seen it’s numbers balloon as well, along with it’s growing political clout. The infrastructure is light years beyond where it was — bike parking, bike lanes, etc. And motorists are far more conscious of the presence of bicyclists, and our right to the road. We have seen big progress in less than 2 decades, with plenty more work to be done.

So, if Critical Mass is bad for biking issues, it certainly hasn’t prevented enormous progress. Would there have been even greater progress if Critical Mass had never existed? I don’t think so — but it’s impossible to say without rewinding history and doing it over.

Meanwhile, while those confrontation-prone anarchistic participants mentioned are not the majority of the group by any means, but the culture of CM does nothing to stop these individuals. Cyclists who do engage in confrontation are cheered on or at best ignored. They’re almost never, ever dissuaded from such behavior by other participating cyclists.

If Critical Mass participants are not willing to regulate themselves, then the police need to step in and regulate them just as the police must regulate any unruly group. That Critical Mass started with good intentions, that bicycles are truly amazing machines, that participants are having a good time does not negate this very basic tenet of order in our shared urban environment.

The SFBC has further disavowed Critical Mass, dropping it from their event calender some months ago. I feel that if there were a crackdown, the SFBC would not stand up for cyclists. I sure hope I’m wrong.

I don’t think the change many of us signed up for is represented in narrow bike lanes on busy streets. The only time I feel really safe is when riding the last Friday of the month.

I say let’s have a defiant celebration all the way.

This is the traffic jam that Willie Brown’s limo was caught in. The next morning, Doug and other radio listeners were hearing us being blamed for it.

I’m not one of those people who finds critical mass productive or particularly useful, but it’s glaringly obvious that using aggressive police tactics in an attempt to stop it would only make it stronger and needlessly put folk into harm’s way.

In the last few weeks it has appeared that Gascon is playing to the Nevius/Chron crowd. Hopefully he’ll soon learn that he’s the police chief of the city of San Francisco, not the police chief of Walnut Creek.