[BCM] reconsider routes to prevent public safety threat

Mon Sep 3 08:28:21 EDT 2007

I'd tend to agree, but at the same time I'd also tend to point out that on
the first point about the planners, the vast majority of those responsible
for the original plans are turning mouldy in a graveyard somewhere and
railing against them is not particularly effective.  If you actually want
something changed on that front, engage the current system.  And engage it
on several fronts to ensure that you get the right peg in the hole to make
it happen. (It just never seems to be the peg you hope it is.)

De-escalation is not necessarily a good thing.  It isn't necessarily a bad
thing.  Neither is escalation for escalation's sake.  But escalation and
de-escalation for the sake of blind entrenchment is rarely effective, apart
from making people feel increasingly righteous.  And that sort of blind
righteousness is rarely effective.  Particularly when fighting other
people's blind righteousness on the other side of the issue.  I'd still say
as a general rule that if you're fighting the same battle over and over and
over and over, and you haven't moved forward or back and the other side
hasn't moved forward or back, then it is time to come up with a different
battle tactic.  Because fighting the same one in the same way obviously
isn't getting you anywhere.

On 02/09/07, T B <pfadfa at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anne,
>
> First, thanks for jumping in.  You bring up some important things to
> consider.  But I would like to respond with two points:
>
> 1) The degree to which both motorists and cyclists are responsible for
> traffic problems pales in comparison to the responsibility of planners.
> They ultimately have the blood on their hands for many if not the vast
> majority of cycling deaths.
>
> 2) De-escalation is not necessarily a good thing.  Escalation itself is
> merely the friction caused by pulling or pushing at the status quo.  It
> follows that situations can de-escalate either toward or away from the
> status quo.
>
>
> >From: "Anne Wolfe" <goannego at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: Boston Critical Mass <list at bostoncriticalmass.org>
> >To: "Boston Critical Mass" <list at bostoncriticalmass.org>
> >Subject: Re: [*BCM*] reconsider routes to prevent public safety threat
> >Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:07:43 -0400
> >
> >It is the eternal circle - very which came first, chicken or the egg? Do
> >the
> >cyclists who piss off motorists do more harm or good by doing so?
> >
> >There's two separate issues here, neither of which will ever be resolved
> by
> >the Mass due to its very nature of no leadership.  One is the safety
> issue
> >-
> >the motorists create the gridlock by being bigger but on the other hand
> >they
> >may well have been flowing safely on this occasion until the Mass caused
> >the
> >gridlock.  The other is the "how to change behaviour" issue - the
> majority
> >of most Massers (though by no means all) feel that by demonstrating with
> >their bikes that cycling is a number of things (fun, eco-friendly,
> >eco-efficient, social) then motorists will see the light and come join
> >them.  The motorists, who are then gridlocked in the situation they are
> >already in see the cyclists as the problem as they were moving in their
> >plan
> >until the cyclists came along.
> >
> >The reason why it doesn't get resolved is simple - no one, and by that I
> >mean Massers and motorists alike, wants to take any responsibility.  The
> >massers say it isn't their fault as if the motorists would just see sense
> >and take bikes, there wouldn't be a problem as the cars are in the way,
> >being obnoxious and causing problems far beyond what they're trying to
> >achieve.  The motorists say it isn't their fault as the cyclists are in
> the
> >way, being obnoxious and causing problems far beyond what they're trying
> to
> >acheive.  But since neither side is responsible (according to them) not
> >only
> >does nothing change, but the sides become more entrenched and more
> >antagonistic towards each other since the other side is perceived as
> being
> >unreasonable.   And the longer and more entrenched it happens, then the
> >more
> >unreasonable the other side has to be by definition.  It is no longer
> >enough
> >to be right, the other side has to be wrong.  And so the status quo is
> >maintained.
> >
> >And that's why the Mass has its place, but I feel that ultimately it
> won't
> >acheive what many people involved claim they want it to acheive (and
> don't
> >forget, ultimately the Mass has no purpose by definition.)
> >
> >So figure out what you can do with that.
> >
> >
> >On 02/09/07, Eric Mearns <ericmearns at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen,
> > > Your issue is with automobiles and motorists.  Without them, gridlock
> > > is impossible.
> > > I realize this sounds simplistic, but so is taking non-motorists to
> > > task because you saw a traffic jam.
> > > I don't think anybody wants an ambulance or a firetruck to be delayed.
> > > All the more reason to ride a bike instead of taking up an absurd
> > > amount of space by driving a car.
> > > Also, the mission of the Mass is not to piss of as many people as
> > > possible.  If it were, we be so far away from achieving the mission
> > > that most of the ridership would have already left to join the
> > > Westboro Baptist Church.  Riding bicycles doesn't really piss off
> > > anybody except for the occasional cab driver.
> > > Anyway, you should ride with us next month, you'd like it.  And I also
> > > think you should ditch that car of yours, it's holding you back, man.
> > > Motorist Karen seems kind of like an uptight middle school librarian
> > > with little regard for youthful exuberance, whereas Bicyclist Karen
> > > seems more like a laid back older sister who has cool Fleetwood Mac
> > > posters in her room and buys beer for her underage siblings.  I want
> > > to party with Bicyclist Karen, not Motorist Karen!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/1/07, Karen Martakos <kmartakos at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi, guys -
> > > >
> > > > While I'm not a Crititcal Mass participant, I am an
> > > > avid cyclist in the greater Boston area. I do
> > > > understand the need for more bike-friendly roadways
> > > > around here. I am, however, also a motorist. So, I see
> > > > things from both sides. Any mature person with an
> > > > ounce of common sense should understand that
> > > > activities that generate more hard feelings against
> > > > cyclists from the average citzen are not going to help
> > > > our efforts.
> > > >
> > > > During your most recent ride ( August 31), you rode
> > > > down Tremont St. through the South End. I  know
> > > > because I was walking through the neighborhood at the
> > > > time. What you may or may not realize is that by
> > > > blocking this portion of Tremont St, you caused a
> > > > gridlock that spread 6 blocks away, onto other major
> > > > roadways in the area. See, most streets in that
> > > > neighborhood are one-way, all eventually leading to
> > > > Tremont St. If a long section of Tremont is
> > > > obstructed, it causes severe backup onto Shawmut Ave.
> > > > & East Berkeley.
> > > >
> > > > Why should you care about this? Because, while
> > > > Critical Mass claims that they will make way for
> > > > emergency vehicles, how could you possibly know about
> > > > an emergency vehicle that is stuck 4 blocks away in
> > > > the gridlock that you created? Drawing attention to
> > > > cycling issues by riding en mass through the city is
> > > > one thing; completely locking in an entire
> > > > neighborhood is something entirely different.
> > > >
> > > > These activities only serve to generate further
> > > > hostility towards cyclists. This is the primary reason
> > > > why I do not participate in your rides. While I do
> > > > follow any efforts to improve conditions for
> > > > alternative transportation, I don't believe that your
> > > > methods are effective.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps if you consider your routes more carefully, to
> > > > prevent the type of public safety threat that you
> > > > caused in the South End last Friday, you'd have more
> > > > support.
> > > >
> > > > There is no progress without dilalogue. There is no
> > > > dilague when your mission is solely to piss off as
> > > > many people as possible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> >____________________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with
> >Yahoo!
> > > FareChase.
> > > > http://farechase.yahoo.com/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> > > > list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> > > > http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> > > > To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> > > list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> > > http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> > > To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Anne Wolfe, LL.M.
> >Mobile: ( 07805) 456901
> >Keep calm and carry on.  - WWII UK Government Slogan
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> >list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> >http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> >To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Test your celebrity IQ. Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes!
>
> http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>

-- 
Anne Wolfe, LL.M.
Mobile: ( 07805) 456901
Keep calm and carry on.  - WWII UK Government Slogan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20070903/7c28d732/attachment-0001.htm 