Ben Lovejoy said:
Oh don't be so silly, Ben. You're doing an Andy in Sig. Am I expected to do all your reading and thinking for you? Scrutinise away...
http://clevercycles.com/energy_and_equity/
A Personal Message to Critical Mass.
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Oh don't be so silly, Ben. You're doing an Andy in Sig. Am I expected to do all your reading and thinking for you? Scrutinise away...
http://clevercycles.com/energy_and_equity/
Rhythm Thief said:
No! You keep talking as if it's about what two equal groups of people think of each other. It isn't. It's about the harmful monopolisation and dominance of public space by one mode of transport. I'm sorry, but it goes without saying that a lot of motorists aren't going to "like" it, because it calls on them to think about changing their behaviour. If they don't "like" being held up by critical mass, the solution lies partly in their own hands...
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
I'm strongly resisting the temptation to respond with an ISBN and demand that you read the book ...theclaud said:
Which is heavy on rhetoric and light on mechanism, and totally without evidence. So your much-vaunted (and quoted) argument actually amounts to "some bloke reckons".
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
I think I can recall a 'Get off the road' sometime last year. I'd have to go back about five years to get to a 'You don't pay no road tax'.BentMikey said:
But the point is that bad behaviour by some motorists doesn't make bad behaviour by cyclists either justifiable or, more importantly, desirable. By presenting an image of cyclists as thugs, it makes life more difficult and dangerous for the vast majority of ordinary cyclists who are just trying to get from A to B or enjoy a pleasant ride.
It's the same as cyclists who jump read lights - it creates an impression of cyclists as people who don't respect the rules of the road and thus aren't entitled to have our rights respected in return. The minority spoils it for the majority.
Claudine, meantime, seems to be deliberately missing the point. There is nothing wrong with lots of cyclists enjoying a ride together: we have as much right to the roads as anyone else, of course. The problem is the deliberately aggressive and confrontational approach taken by a small minority of London CM participants who have completely changed the spirit of the ride, both for those of us who used to enjoy it but now stopped going, and for those who are on the receiving end of that aggression.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Ideas are interesting, but it becomes difficult to debate them if the only 'argument' presented is a longer quote making the same claim and a refusal to present any kind of argument about how the claimed effect might work.theclaud said:
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Yes
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
'Motorcentric mindset'. Tell me, how often do I ride a bike compared to how often I drive a car?theclaud said:For which, read, "refusing to be coralled into my motocentric mindset".
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Enjoy. I'll be glad to debate the 16mph mechanism with you once you've explained how you think it works.
Ben Lovejoy said:
It's not a "16mph mechanism" - it is simply the concept of an optimum top speed for transport, and, this being a cycling site, Illich's "speed of a bicycle" seems a reasonable place to start talking about it. You presumably think there is no optimal top speed, and that everything just gets infinitely better as traffic moves infinitely faster? I think that's clearly barmy, and don't see why the onus isn't on you to explain your ideology of infinite speed and progress. Do you accept, for a start, Coruskate's point that faster-moving vehicles make greater demands on space?
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
theclaud said:
Nope. faster-moving vehicles only 'demand' greater space if maintaining a stopping distance is a priority of the operator. Riders on a group social ride don't increase the gap to the bike in front simply because the speed of the group increases. As demonstrated on every FNRttC I've been on.
In normal circumstances what would cause the vehicle in front of you to come to a dead stop such that you would require all your stopping distance to avoid hitting it? Vogon constructor ship materialising in its path? WMV pulling out from a side turning? Mr SMIDSY recognising that my Cinquecento contains a habitual passenger who would rather be cycling?
We weigh up the risk of things going wrong and we compensate accordingly. We don't demand more space; we evaluate the risk to our safety and act on the result (sometimes erroneously). We sacrifice safety for speed. Even on bikes.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Yet it's quite true that fast vehicles take up much more road space than slow ones. Your very point about CM and FNRttC proves just how densely and efficiently bicycles populate road space. Quite unlike cars, which take a lot more space the faster they get, even if it's not the highway code mandated amount.
