Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I did two of these Critical
I did two of these Critical Mass rides here in Boston two years ago. They were crazy. I get the whole message of promoting how cars need to share the road, but doing it when there are 200+ cyclists who disobey traffic rules during rush hour is not the way to do it.
I can remember one instance where we were riding near Fenway Park during a game. A cop told us we had to stop so that pedestrians could cross the street. A few of us did stop, but the rest of the pack ended up flying by him. When it came to traffic, a couple of cyclists would block the roads so the group could go through a red light.
While there is no excuse for the cop to pull someone off of their bike, there needs to be better regulations for this kind of ride. It makes cyclists come off as obnoxious.
When the whole point is to gain attention
So, I'll just throw out the standard Critical Mass defense for you.
By blocking intersections and keeping the group together, they are not only making a statement (which clearly needs to be heard in this city as cars continue to mow down 2-wheelers), but providing more safety for all of the riders by keeping a single group and also ultimately reducing the traffic clog that would happen with multiple little groups of bikers at every intersection instead of a single parade/progression. Their actions are *helping* the situation even if one or two missed light cycles for cross-traffic don't feel that way. Every one of those people on bikes could have been someone in a car on their own and making that evening's traffic all the worse.
statement
By blocking people on foot from crossing the street, the only statement being made is that Critical Mass doesn't give a shit about pedestrians.
Sure
I think it's a weak defense. It simply proves to me that these folks are even more arrogant the SUV drivers who also drive as if the traffic law don't/shouldn't apply to them.
More arrogant? Less deadly.
I'm not sure it's any more arrogant. You also probably get upset at funeral processions too, though. I mean, how dare that family think their dead guy is more important than traffic laws. It's not like he has to get in the ground before he smells or infects someone these days, amirite? What...the guy at the back of the procession doesn't also have a GPS? He's not gonna get lost on the way to the graveyard.
If Critical Mass is the only traffic jam you have to incur all month, consider yourself lucky. Also, the arrogant SUV driver will likely kill a bicyclist by ignoring traffic laws. It's not exactly a reciprocal relationship.
Preaching only to the converted.
It's at least as arrogant.
Funeral processions are not breaking the law, as far as I know. Critical Mass most certainly is.
What positive change is being effected by these rides? You need to persuade people that don't ride bikes that cyclists deserve better (lanes, respect, whatever). These rides do not help their cause one single, itty, bitty bit. And I'm someone who's pretty sympathetic to the difficulty of riding a bike around Boston/Cambridge. If it's pissing me off (someone who I think support these same goals), imagine the reaction of someone who doesn't really give two s**ts one way or the other?
And I'm not stuck in traffic jams due to these folks; I'm usually being nearly flattened in a crosswalk when I try to walk home, because these guys won't obey traffic signals.
These rides do as much to improve traffic for cyclists has people protesting with giant puppets did to end the Iraq war. It's the same problem in both cases: you're only preaching to the converted.
The difference is that there
The difference is that there are laws that prevent people from breaking into a funeral procession. Having had that occur to me while we were the first car after the hearse and limo, it really pissed us off on a horrible day.
There is no reason why bikes think that they should be able to block traffic. Cars are not allowed to and bikes are required to follow the laws that cars do.
nope
I've been bike only for nigh on a decade, commute every day in all weather, and wrote a semi-thesis in grad school tracing the history of both automobiles and bicycles within american roadways, and I firmly believe that Critical Mass, while successful in its time, has outlived its usefulness and is a great detriment to urban cyclists.
It is the "green movement"'s equivalent of Glenn Beck. It's loud and noticeable and [at least on the surface] certain of its own convictions but in the end only serves to preach to the converted and infuriate and redouble the opinions of the opposition. I hate Glenn Beck, and I hate Critical Mass. In fact in the past I've gone out of my way to walk my bicycle perpendicular to CM movement in crosswalks that I have the "walk" signal, and I encourage all other cyclists and pedestrians to do the same.
Hee
Sounds like there's the making of a Anti-Critical Mass. Off-bike cyclists/pedestrians ready and waiting at crosswalks for the mob to come through.
I feel the opposite
I feel like having quite a few groups of 15 - 30 bikers riding around different parts of the city obeying all traffic signals would send a much better message than the current critical mass format. You might be able to miss 1 biker, and cannot possibly miss 200, but if drivers see small groups following the laws and respecting other road users (pedestrians, bikers, scooter-ers, and drivers), then the "bikers think they're better than everyone else and flaunt traffic laws while demanding equal road rights" mentality might be challenged. All critical mass does is annoy people and make bike riders look worse.
I've been on one critical mass (and disliked the attitude of many of the riders and blatant disregard for traffic signals and pedestrians) and would never go on another one. I know that critical mass is supposed to be a leaderless mob that just flows through the city to force drivers to recognize bikes, and while this format might have served it's purpose in years past, a new approach is needed.
The Boston Bikes (I think) rides they organize from various suburbs and lead into the city on occasion are much safer and effective ways to remind drivers that bikers use the roads too.
Agree with smaller groups following traffic laws
I agree with smaller groups obeying traffic laws would be more impactful than a the current large CM group disregarding traffic laws and disrupting traffic. It is pretty arrogant to compare CM riders with a funeral procession. I'm a bike commuter. I ride to work on most days.
Critical Mass gives responsible bikers a bad name with their corking and other antics.
Now, that being said, if it all went down like is described with the Cambridge cop then that is horrible.
How is the rider? Was Yoni hurt?
I've always thought Critical
I've always thought Critical Mass would be way more effective if they followed the letter of the law to a T...and rode during Monday morning rush hour. The law requires cyclists queue up behind cars...one Monday morning of the traffic chaos that would cause would lead to quicker action than 300 people breaking the law on a Friday evening.
So...you want to protest the
So...you want to protest the lack of rider safety...by violating the laws riders have to obey...which were put in place for their safety.
Help me out here, I'm not seeing how this works.
Just curious, Kaz
Have you ever taken part in a Critical Mass ride? Not just seen one, read about it, or heard about it, but been on a bicycle and gone on one?
MassBike
Cyclist are supposed to obey all the rules of the road, period.
"Same road; same rules."
Stop at stoplights, pedestrains have the right of way, etc.
It's just that simple. As one who relies on my bike for transportation around the Boston and its surrounding cities and burroughs (what exactly DO we call JP, rozzy, Allston/Brighton etc?), I understand the goal of these bike rides, but sadly, I don't think they're working. Perception is 9/10th of the law, they say, and if cyclists are perceived as being arrogant and there is negativity as a consequence, then something needs to be re-thought and re-tooled.
Come up with a new way of doing this that results in good feelings and positivity, while still making the points that need to be made.
War, What Is It Good For? Blowing up SUVs.
You would have a war fought with poetry and roses.
Enough of that hippy trippy crap.
Here's my counter proposal. All bike messengers in the city are issued assault rifles and hand grenades and given free reign to use them at their whim.
That is the only way you will make a bike "friendly" climate. You're not going to charm some fat ass bike hater into respecting you. Fear however is a very good motivator.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.c
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/61-bicy...
If we can go there with
If we can go there with mocking stereotypes of white people regarding bikes, can we go there about black people regarding bikes? No?
Disappointing
I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed with the cop (who has a history of making the news for being overly rough on people he wants to arrest)...or with UHub for letting this bike-AND-dirty-cop thread, about Critical Mass no less, go an hour without 150+ posts yet.
what history of being overly
what history of being overly rough?
From Boston Critical Mass mailinglist
Iranian pundit claims police brutality in Cambridge from Wicked Local.
Did you read the actual
Did you read the actual story? Where does it say that he was roughed up by the same cop that is alleged to have attacked the bicyclist?
Did you read the entire actual story?
It's fairly long, but towards the end, it does give the name of the police officer.
I understand that he is
I understand that he is saying that the wagon ride he took was an act of brutality and caused him injury. What I don't see is that Officer Pina is the one that abused him. It was stated on this site that he had history of being rough and that is not stated in the story. No where. Kind of lazy and damaging to make that sort of allegation against some one when it is not warranted. I see no response here from Kaz, so I'm assuming he knows he was wrong.
"I'm assuming he knows he was wrong."
I'm assuming you're new around here.
Pesky job
Sorry, oh-so-brave anon, but some of us have things to do that preclude us from answering haters 24/7.
Afrasiabi said he had problems with 2 officers on the night of his arrest: the one who made the initial arrest, and the one driving the vehicle whose driving caused him a concussion.
Earlier in the article he described being manhandled by the officer arresting him too. He said his treatment was due to racism. They're his statements about the two officers he wants suspended, not mine.
Incorrect, Kaz. His complaint
Incorrect, Kaz. His complaint of the Officer whom you earlier libeled is that he shouldn't have locked him up, though he concedes that he did have a warrant for his arrest. The physical abuse claim is in regards to his transport in the transport vehicle some time after his encounter with Pina. Tell me where he said Pina was rough with him.
You might as well point out...
...that the officer hasn't been convicted of anything, yet Kaz writes about it as if he has been convicted of multiple offenses. No, no, there's no use in bringing up logic, or fairness, to this guy.
On the bright side: As bad as things are with the mainstream media today, at least Kaz isn't part of it, praise Jesus.
Kaz, still waiting for a
Kaz, still waiting for a response. You can admit you were wrong on your knee jerk comments about the Officer, or not not comment and pretend you stopped reading these postings.
Where does it say that in the
Where does it say that in the story?
If we could somehow work a
If we could somehow work a bus driver talking on his cell phone or people taking pictures of buildings into this story, then we could have the best UHub commentary ever.
Way to serious a town this Bostontown.
200 people biking as a group apparently is an offense against the gods. Are they destroying the social fabric of Boston? Are they they a terror ensemble attacking the foundation of Boston culture by daring to ride as a group?
Where is the sense of humor? 200 people riding as a group are not destroying lives.
The Cambridge cop on the other hand could have killed a person if he actually did hit the bicyclist. That deserves to be taken seriously (what's the problem with Cambridge cops lately?)
But if its necessary to whale on users of the road for misbehavior let's attack pedestrians who cross in the middle of the street while yammering on their cell phones or zoning out on MP3 players.
While 10 - 15 proper attired, clean cut bicyclists wearing ties and skirts wandering through the city might communicate a better message of "Look how polite we are" there is a kind of enjoyment and excitement that comes exists only in being part of a larger group that is doing something as dangerous as....BIKING!
While on the topic of biking groups whatever happened to the nudist biking group? It was always a pleasure to see a large group of bikers wearing nothing but helmets and shoes.
You can't even use a leaf blower in this town.
what do you expect?
Hey, if you want to be civilly disobedient fine, but don't complain or think you can get off when the law is actually enforced. That is the whole point of doing something like this and making a statement in the first place isn't it? For gods sake, just have everyone in the group chip in 50 cents and you could probably pay all the fines for a whole year of civilly disobedient rides.
If the cop tackled the guy the cop should be discplined, but the biker from this story should be cited as well for the original offense either way (if he did in fact do anything.
He wants a beer with the President
You see, Obama was cycling on the Vineyard ...
200 Cyclists
If they stuck together in large packs, stopped at all lights, used the travel lane legally ... now that would really annoy the usual car traffic jam, even though it would take far less space per person and likely not ACTUALLY slow anybody down.
That's why I don't get the Critical Mass practice of corking intersections and blowing all the lights, at least not in Boston. Around here, it would be far more effective and visible a demonstration to just stop at every.damn.light in large packs - like any other traffic jam - never mind that most roads make 10mph at best without the bikes "in the way".
Right, because how on earth
Right, because how on earth could 200 people ritually pissing off already-volatile drivers during friday rush hours in summer possibly destroy a life?
In the current transportation "ecosystem" my life is on the line everyday as I encounter drivers who think that I have no business being on the road and are violently upset if I my presence makes them have to step on their brake, and Critical Mass does nothing but nourish that system.
Critical Mass has not evolved in 20 years, it is a dinosaur and it needs to adapt to the 2010 realities of urban cycling and work towards improving it, not just persisting in some bullheaded way as conceived by Puck and his idiot friends back in 1990
Lack of resposbility
So, a police officer directing someone to stop their vehicle is ignored and its the officer who is in the wrong? The crybaby entitlement of Critical Mass would be funny if they weren't so gung-ho about endangering people's safety by breaking the law en masse. Bike safety is a serious issue, but one utterly disrespected by demonstrations that just show cyclists to be reckless law-breakers with a total lack of personal responsibility to share the road safely themselves. The cyclist deserves his ticket. As do several hundred of his buddies that got away.
BStfu
The dude that was tackled was in the bike lane, and approaching the traffic light. It's not known if he was going to run it or not, as he was tackled by the cop. Did you read anything beyond the headline?
Can you read?
The officer requested him to stop his vehicle. When that happens, YOU STOP YOUR VEHICLE. End of discussion. THAT is what he is ticketed for. "Operating to Endanger" is what is used by cops when someone ignores an officer's request to pull over. The cyclist in question DID do something wrong and admits it himself. He just doesn't think he should be responsible because he's special or something.
Not necessarily
A cop has little or no right to stop you from legally operating where you are supposed to. He certainly has no right to grab you and throw you to the ground - just as he has no right to ram your vehicle with a cruiser.
The idiot MDC cops used to harass cyclists legally operating on the Longfellow Bridge all the time, despite several court orders telling them that they couldn't ban bikes. I would just cross in what is now a bike lane and totally ignore any Captain Bullhorns who tried to force me onto the narrow sidewalk. I have similarly ignored police officers who have tried to stop me from riding at night (with full lights and reflector vest) because "you're not supposed to be riding at night". Coming home from late night lab work that needed attention, the last thing I need is some cop stalling me for 20 minutes and asking me creepy questions about my personal life.
Similarly, if on the Vineyard, one community tries to keep bikes off a certain street and I ignore them should I need to take that street to get to a business on that street because 1) they don't have home rule petitions in place to exempt them from the state laws and 2) they damn well know it.
See also, constitution, United States.
I usually ignore swirly's
I usually ignore swirly's whole I'm better than you and fight the power filled posts, but I just cannot ignore this one. She managed to work in how she ignores the evil cops and that she is doing such important lab work and doesn't have time to answer all those personal questions. That was awesome!
Its still breaking the law
Traffic cops ask drivers to stop all the time when they are operating legally. This was a mob action to break traffic laws and its hardly unreasonable that the police would need to stop traffic to get the situation under control. The officer's actions were reasonable.
What's more, for issues of public safety, the time to dispute the validity of an officer's request to pull over is AFTER you've pulled over. So it does not matter if the cyclist didn't think he deserved to be pulled over. Failing to pull over IS a crime in its a own right irregardless. State law requires those operating motor vehicles to pull over when directed to do so by a police officer whether that officer is in a vehicle or on foot. The cyclist in question admits he failed to do as he was legally required. His ticket is valid.
Homework Assignment for BStu
Some citations from the MGL please: show us where this law is - start with the state website.
Also show where and how it specifically applies to cyclists and pedestrians and not just drivers of motor vehicles. And, yes, there are differences - a cop CANNOT require you to show a license or passport or any form of ID if you are walking or riding a bike, but can require you to show a license if you are driving. Cambridge already got its arse sued off over that trick.
Police do NOT have blanket authority to stop and detain. Courts have consistently held that cyclists are more like pedestrians than drivers with regard to requirements for ID, detention, etc.
Seriously?
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm
and
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-25.htm
Which part?
I see "police" mentioned in several places, but only with respect to road closings and juvenile operators.
Nowhere do I see "cops get to stop you for whatever fucking reason, including lewd late-night shakedowns "for your own safety" or restricing access to roadways in direct disobedience of state laws".
As for your second reference ...
It is pretty specific in the first line there, sweetie.
Try again.
Try reading them
I supplied you the statutes. They aren't hard to read or to understand. It is a crime to refuse or neglect to stop when requested to do so by a police officer while operating a vehicle in a public way. The appropriateness of said stop does not relieve you from that legal responsibility. That you are still playing dumb about this after being given the statutes you demanded is frankly insulting.
MOTOR vehicle
You seem to ignore that there IS A DIFFERENCE. This difference has been adjudicated.
And Codified
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90d-1.htm
“Motor vehicles” or “Vehicles”, all vehicles constructed and designed for propulsion by power other than muscular power including such vehicles when pulled or towed by another motor vehicle, except railroad and railway cars, vehicles operated by the system known as trolley motor or trackless trolley under chapter one hundred and sixty-three or section ten of chapter five hundred and forty-four of the acts of nineteen hundred and forty-seven, vehicles running only upon rails or tracks, vehicles used for other purposes than the transportation of property and incapable of being driven at a speed exceeding twelve miles per hour and which are used exclusively for the building, repair and maintenance of highways or designed especially for use elsewhere than on the travelled part of ways, wheelchairs owned and operated by invalids and vehicles which are operated or guided by a person on foot. The definition of “Motor vehicles” shall not include motorized bicycles. In doubtful cases, the registrar may determine whether or not any particular vehicle is a motor vehicle as herein defined. If he determines that it should be so classified, he may require that it be registered under this chapter, but such determination shall not be admissible as evidence in any action at law arising out of the use or operation of such vehicle previous to such determination.
I I think some case law is called for
Not dueling general laws.
Do you have a link
or know the name of the case?
Two statutes
Did you notice where I posted two statutes? One made persons operating bikes subject to all traffic laws while on a public way. The other is the applicable traffic law.
Homework assignment? Wow,
Homework assignment? Wow, very pompous, even for you. Can you show us how the courts have consistently held that bikes are more like pedestrians as it pertains to detention and ID's?
Can you read?
Where in 85-11b does it say anything about stopping on request?
It doesn't.
Where in 90-25 does it mention bicycles?
It specifically says motor vehicles which does not include bicycles.
Basically, as far as stopping for an officer goes, bicycles are basically pedestrians.
Scooters, on the other hand ...
They fit under the definition in 90-25.
It doesn't matter that Kaz uses his scooter like I use my bike - is all in the "motorized" and in licensing and registration, not the use of the vehicle.
This isn't difficult
85-11b makes cyclists subject to ALL traffic laws and regulations while operating a public way except specific exceptions listed therein. Which as you point out, don't make an exception for stopping on request.
90-25 spells out the traffic law for stopping upon request of a police office.
"Every person operating a bicycle upon a way... shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth."
Don't be dense
11b says bicyclists must obey all traffic laws. 90-25 says "people while operating motor vehicles". Thus, it's not an applicable traffic law for a bike. On a bike you can refuse to stop and still obey a law that says "while operating a motor vehicle you must stop". Thus, 11b's integrity is still whole. You obeyed 90-25 since it didn't apply to you.
You know why?
Because 90-1 has all of the definitions. One of them is "motor vehicle". Go read it. Powered by muscle is exactly NOT a motor vehicle.
QED.
Could This Be What You're After?
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11c.htm
Section 11C. A police officer who observes a traffic law violation committed by a bicyclist may request the offender to state his true name and address.
One Problem
If there is no observed violation, then there is no right to stop someone (unless the cop is stopping the cars in their lanes, too, such as a traffic cop would).
You're arguing with yourself
You've now opted to take a position in opposition with your own fanciful reading of the law. By your tortured and self-serving interpretation, cyclists have utterly no obligation to follow directions by traffic cops. You say that have no responsibilities to traffic cops whatsoever. Because all of the statutes spelling out said responsibilities refer to operation of motor vehicles. THAT is that statute that says you must respond when an officer says stop. If that doesn't exist, then cyclists can break the law with impunity.
But you obviously understand that is an absurd interpretation because you just contradicted yourself to allow that officers can justifiably stop someone. But it doesn't work both ways. YOU don't get to decide of a stop is lawful. That's why we have judges. A judge can decide a stop was unlawful no matter what vehicle is being operated. That does not change the obligation to obey a request from a police officer. That request can be declared invalid, but that has utterly no impact on the responsibility to comply.
You can't have it both ways. Cyclists can't be required to stop only when its right to stop. They either never have to stop and can break the law without risk of sanction, something obviously not intended when the legislature carved out specific rules for sanctioning cyclists, or they have to comply with a request to stop.
The suggestion that cyclists are governed by no one while operating in public ways is so outrageous, even you don't really believe it.
Bike Laws are like drinking in public laws.
Cambridge has their own bylaws regarding bikes, and officers can cite those offenders using a city bylaw citation. Other cities and towns have similar regulations regarding bike laws.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/40-21d.htm
It is just like drinking in public. There is no state law which says you cannot drink in public. Basically the state gives towns the right to regulate drinking in public laws, and biking laws.
Supposedly in Jan of 2011 there is some new legislation which gives police officers the authority to cite bicyclists under chapter 90, basically treating bikes like cars.
Also, here is one case law that towns and cities have gone by which basically tells police officers to act within reason when arresting those who violate these town bylaws. It also spells out that officers do have the right to arrest those who violate town bylaws whose penalty is only a fine.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1390940....
One Quibble
Cities and towns have to file a home rule petition to enact laws that conflict with state laws. Thus cities and towns can't just decide to "ban bikes on this road and that road and some other road" in conflict with the "any non-limited access road" law and have that stand because they think they are special. The MDC was also smacked for this in court for trying to ban cyclists from the Longfellow Bridge. State law is state law and cities and towns must either follow state law or get a specified exemption for cause.
Cambridge has filed its home rule petitions for variances from state law, because they know that lawyers ride bikes too.
They call them "Express State Highways" too though.
Kind of a loose definition in the MA state CMRs.
Bicycles are also defined as "vehicles" in the CMR statues as well so legally a bike may be treated as a vehicle on one of these roads.
I'm not sure if the Longfellow Bridge is classified as this (probably isn't if the court ruled against the police). There has to be signs as well.
But I read it as if there are no signs on local roads, bikes have to be allowed on them.
Look at page 13 of this:
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/cmr/cmrt...
People just need to act civil towards each other.
If an officer asks you to stop, then stop, even if you believe you are doing nothing wrong. If someone ignores you when you are trying to do your job, please refrain from knocking them off their bike. And if angry drivers act rude or endanger your life, try not to provoke more anger. It’s not even really about the laws, because I break them all the time when I’m riding, but I’m also civil and try to stay out of people’s way if my safety isn’t at risk. It’s really that simple.
The police side of the story
The Globe talks to the police, who say the officer did nothing wrong during the corking incident.