Talk:Critical Mass (cycling)/Archives/2005

Older comments
If I were about to start a peace group and call it CND perhaps an existing group with that name might object, on legal grounds, therefore asserting its legal rights.

As a founder of Ramsgate Critical Mass (1984) I must ask who thought to use the name of an exising english pressure group, seen on TV, and local press for years, without attempting to contact said groups secretary?

We never objected, nor do now because of the politics of our collective, seeking the expansion of awareness of pollution, etc.

Nevertheless I am prepaired to make legal representations for Ramsgate Critial Mass, IF our group is whitewashed for fear of association with radical activists.

Faedra 11:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) (first secretary Critical Mass uk).


 * I don't think Wikipedia is really the forum for this. Critical Mass, in this context, started in San Francisco.  I believe the name came from a documentary called "Return of the Scorcher" which included footage and discussion of bicycles in China.  Cyclists would mass at one side of the intersection and, when a critical mass was reached, could push through the opposing traffic and get through the intersection.
 * If you would like to add disamiguation, please do. Shermozle 17:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic."
I'd like to see a better analysis of this slogan.

As a man who enjoys both bike riding and car driving, I believe both kinds of riders san and should cooperate. I daresay, however, that CM does not want to cooperated but to supplant, i.e., to eliminatec car traffic completely. In the recent even in Manhattan, I think they wanted to tie up car traffic just to stir up trouble (possible related to next weeks Republican convention).

The meaning of the paradoxical sloagan seems to be:
 * Only bicycle traffic is true traffic. We have the right to block all other kinds of vehicles, especially our arch-nemesis, the automoblile.

If huge groups of cyclists want to galivant around the city once a month and claim extra privileges while going through interesections (like a funeral procession can claim), while that's find and dandy. As long as they don't do it too often and they're reasonable about yielding to ambulances.

They could be public-minded about it and more effectively elicit support for motorists if a few members of each platoon of cyclists would dismount at an intersection and direct traffic until all the bikes had passed by. Take their place at the rear, then at the next intersection, the lead squad takes a turn, and so on.

But this group seems aimed at being deliberately disruptive. They seek conflict and confrontation, not compromise and cooperation. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure Wikipedia is the location for this discussion either. Shermozle 17:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ed. I've personally watched CM riders deliberately plug up major intersections here in San Francisco (trapping streetcars and pedestrians as well as cars) without any pretense of merely trying to let bikes pass through safely. I honestly don't think I could write something well enough and objective enough, but it seems remiss to gloss over the gratuitous mess CM can (often, in my observance) be.  [[User:troymccluresf]

Cleanup&mdash;21 May 2005
I have tried to cleanup this article a bit. I have reorganised paragraphs that have been added by various editors over time to try to make the article flow better as a whole from start to finish rather than being a number of disjointed statements. I also removed references to violence at the SF 29 April 2005 ride and replaced it with a more general statement about hostility (and sometimes violence) between some motorists and riders. JeremyA 19:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there evidence of criticism from the auto industry? 3 June 2005
"Critics, in particular the auto industry, have claimed that this is a deliberate attempt to obstruct traffic, and cause a disruption of normal city functions."

I have never heard of any comment by the auto industry itself on critical mass. Is there any reference to support this claim? If not, it is misleading and suggests a type of influence Critical Mass doesn't actually have.

mikelmaron 11:40, June 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * This wording was added on 19 October 2004 by an anon editor, so there is not much chance of getting the editor to cite his/her source. Going back through the history of this article I think that the wording of the introduction has been better. Maybe we should reinstate one of the older introductions.  JeremyA 16:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I know of no such criticism from the auto industry. It would be more accurate to say that some municipal authorities and police in particular have made this claim.  They have not, however, substantiated it.  Indeed, for a U.S. federal court case last year, a traffic expert created (and handily defended) a model of a Critical Mass which yielded an incremental burden of 7 hundredths of 1 percent to daily traffic in midtown Manhattan. This model assumed an unusually large ride which, unlike the actual ride, somehow stops all cross-traffic from getting through; so the real numbers would be even lower. Given that, I don't think the opening summary paragraph should assert that "Critical Mass does slow city traffic" and that the only counter-argument is a slogan (though it's a good slogan). Jym 19:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Should Wiki attempt to list all the rides?
Since 1998 I've maintained a worldwide directory of Critical Mass rides. I note that this article seems to attempt to repeat that work but lists only a small fraction of the rides. Is there any point in doing so? Would it not serve readers better to refer them to my directory, and to the other directory that exists? What are other editors' feelings on this? Michaelbluejay 08:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The 'Current active rides' list was started by an anon editor back in March of this year. At that time I remember that my initial reaction was to delete it as an unmaintainable list (how do we know whether a particular ride is or is not still active 5 years after it was added to the list?). However, partly because I was still fairly new to wikipedia and not very good at being bold, and partly because I wanted to see my home ride (Chicago) mentioned in the article, I was guilty instead of growing the list. Of course, everyone who visits this page has the same urge that I did to see that the Critical Mass in their town is mentioned on the list, so now it has grown quite long. To a certain extent I would not object to seeing the list go&mdash;the list on your website is very long and I don't see how having a list of that length in this article would benefit the article, but I cannot think of a good way to filter the list. On the other hand I can also think of a few fairly good arguments for keeping it too. Firstly, even though incomplete, it does give the reader a good feel for how widespread Critical Mass has become. Secondly, your argument for deleting it (why have this information here when it is also on another webpage?) could equally apply to a lot of the information on wikipedia&mdash;if we just linked to everything that was on another web page then wikipedia would rapidly become just another web directory. Also, by being here the information is placed under the GFDL, with all of the benefits that that brings&mdash;including that it would make it into any non-online versions of wikipedia that may emerge in the future.


 * Thoughts bouncing around inside my head include adding a header to the list&mdash;something like this list is incomplete, for a full list of rides see http://Critical-Mass.info and http://critical-mass.org. Or maybe we should change the section title to 'Selected rides' and limit it to, say, five rides from any given country. Such a list could be further shortened by only including a particular ride in it if an editor is willing to write a short paragraph giving some history/details of that ride. JeremyA (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I like all of your ideas. Let me add one more: If we keep the list of individual rides, move it to the BOTTOM, so that the directories like Critical-Mass.info and critical-mas.org are listed at the top.

One other thing: I do list some other general CM sites in my directory, and listing those in the Wikipedia article could add value to it. My feeling is, when you can list *all* of something (or at least the best ones), then you should. But when there's no hope of being comprehensive then we shouldn't pretend to be.

I'll let someone else actually pull the plug on the listing of individual rides, or at least move it to the bottom, since it would be a conflict of interest for me to do so as I have a "competing" website on the subject. Thanks for your comments. Michaelbluejay 20:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed this list on the grounds that it is, to a certain extent, unverifiable, and certainly very difficult to maintain. If any one has a good reason to reinstate it, the last version of the list is here.  JeremyA (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list of rides maintained here, perhaps as a separate page (List of Critical Mass Rides maybe?). The reason for this is that being on Wikipedia, anyone is able to update it and keep the list fresh. I noticed that, for example, the Toronto listing on the other linked sites was wrong. I could change that on Wikipedia, but the other sites will remain out of date (I'll go email the owners of those sites now). --Vgedris 15:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The answer is yes, numerous people have expressed interested in creating the list as demonstrated by adding their respective cities. I see no legitimate reason for one or two people to delete this where so many people are interested. Is such a list maintainable? Yes, at least as maintainable as the private list and verified just like any other Wiki: By the people who have knowledge of said subject. In this case the people who ride in those cities. I trust the list will be maintained by Wikipedians who know for a fact a ride no longer exist in such in such city or that one now does were once none did.

Further, there is value in having more then one or two list on the Internet. After all, most attendees would agree the goal is not to keep CM a secret but to grow and share the idea Sharing this information is beneficial to the reader and to CM.

Lastly, perhaps the Wikipedia's list may help verify & update the privately maintained list. (and vice versa)

This is why I restored the list, however in a nod to you two I gave it a separate page, with disclaimers and included links to the privately maintained list. --SAUNDERS 09:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it was me who started the list of rides, thinking that the wiki format would be ideal for keeping the list current & maintained rather than a website maintained by a single person. Having it on a page to itself seems fine to me now that the list has grown good & long.

--Chaikney 13:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Laws governing cyclists are different?
I question the validity of this claim: "However, typical laws governing bicycle road users are different from those governing pedestrians and motorists. In most automobile-centric cities, traffic law heavily favours motor vehicle use, though other users are generally more vulnerable to collision."

Almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists. Yes, there are some laws that apply only to drivers of certain types of vehicles. For example, motorcyclists have laws that apply only to them (mandatory helmets, special licensing, splitting lanes may or may not be legal, etc.). Also, drivers of slow moving vehicles are prohibited from driving on certain highways (typically freeways, bridges and tunnels). And, yes, there are some laws that apply only to cyclists, primarily due to the unique characteristics (narrow and low-power) of a bicycle. But the way the claim is written, if one did not know better, it would seem that cyclists are governed by a completely separate set of laws from other vehicle drivers, and that's very misleading. --Serge 01:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists." -- this claim is meaningless by itself. Traffic law is determined entirely by individual states. Catamorphism 01:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's implied. But I can make it explicit if you want. "In all states, almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists."   That is, in all states cyclists, like all vehicles drivers must keep to the right side of the road (not ride against traffic), obey traffic signals, yield according to the same rules, etc.  Some states have some laws that are arguably unfair to cyclists, and there are several websites that are devoted to identifying and repealing them, but in the overall picture, these are relatively minor exceptions, and the original statement justifying cyclist lawlessness due to laws governing cyclists being different from laws governing motorists is without foundation. --Serge 16:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Questionable statement
Erased the line added by 207.6.246.148 on 05:52, 19 October 2004:

This used deleted a bunch of stuff on the criticisms of CM, then snuck this line in too. An important statement like is misleading without concrete evidence. Either quote someone saying it or show the evidence here... PhilCheese 06:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another picture
Melbourne had its 10th anniversary ride this month and I went. Here's a picture. It would be great if it could be incorporated into this page. Apparently we had a turn-out of 1400 - a new record for Melb (last biggest was only 770!).

I also created a category at commons: commons:Category:Critical Mass. If free images (ie, all not-"fair use") could be uploaded at commons and placed in that category, it would be tops.

--pfctdayelise 13:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms
I have removed the section on criticisms of the mass. These were not sourced, so it is unclear who it is that has made these criticisms, or whether it is just the opinion of the writer. JeremyA 00:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the history diff link to review that removal (which I support). --GrantNeufeld 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's one thing to remove something that's unsourced if you genuinely don't believe it to be true. Those criticisms looked believable...Stevage 02:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The criticisms may be perfectly valid, but criticism only makes sense in an encyclopedia article if it is clear who it is that is making the criticism. JeremyA 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether it makes sense to you to have criticism in an encyclopedia article only if is clear who it is that is making the criticism is irrelevant. What is relevant is if there is such a rule in Wikipedia.  I don't know of such a rule, and have seen countless counter-examples.  Try to find an article about any political or controversial figure, or any ideology, for example, that does not have unsourced criticism.  Good luck.  I might be wrong, but I think you're imposing a standard on this article that is not generally applied elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Unless you can cite consensus for such a standard, or at least cite other examples of criticism removed due to it not being sourced, I will revert the delete.  Fair?  --Serge 05:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a clear standard that says that sources should be cited when there is a dispute as to the accuracy of the content, whether the content is critical or not. See Cite sources. Catamorphism 05:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Cite sources link makes my point. While citing sources is officially required, not doing so hardly justifies removal of the content.  At most, placing a  tag may be warranted, but even that is to be kept to a minimum.  But an actual removal of the content based solely on lack of sourcing does not appear to have any legitimate basis.  --Serge 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * RTFW: "Disputed information should be placed on the article's talk page. Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper, otherwise the information should remain out of the article." (taken directly from Cite sources) Catamorphism 06:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Calm down. A) That guideline does not apply here since the information is not disputed (only the lack of sourcing is at dispute, so far as I can tell).  B) If the information is disputed, then it needs to be placed on this talk page, and it should be disputed (the content, not just the lack of sourcing).  Or am I missing something?  --Serge 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * JeremyA's original comment: "These were not sourced, so it is unclear who it is that has made these criticisms, or whether it is just the opinion of the writer." That sounds like a dispute over the content to me. He's saying that the content may just be one's person opinion. Catamorphism 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But one comment later he said, "The criticisms may be perfectly valid". Not much of a dispute.  Whatever. I've put the comments in a new section below.  --Serge 06:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio
Text comes from the URL. Someone should rewrite this. Stevage 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Main article of critical mass
There is currently a vote going on at Talk:Critical mass (nuclear) regarding whether the main article, critical mass, should be a disambiguation page or about the physical concept of critical mass. Interested parties might want to join in the discussion there. --Yath 19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)