You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I like it, keeps out the rain and UV also.
I am not opposed to the current CM paradigm because of the public relations image it may give some motorists about cyclists, current CM behaviors are just rude and impolite. I am more worried about provocative behavior provoking an immediate irrational reckless response (gun play maybe) which is common human psychology. The political point that CM makes is not clear to the people that you want to influence. I think that some of the recent suggestions about a totally "legal" CM ride would be a very efficient and profound political statement to make to the citizens of this city which is: we are here make room for us. Totally legal in the downtown area could realistically involve some two abreast riding when the speed due to congestion are very low. If it spoils the fun great, hardly anyone is having fun traveling on the congested streets of Austin, Texas. Well except for me on my bike but then I am not trying to make a political statement.
Uhhh Eeyore's is a YMCA ? city sanctioned event. Smoking pot in front of cops will get you busted I am sure.
I will reserve the right to disagree with CM advocates at any opportunity, no room for dissension in the bicycle community?
Thanks for the childish rant my man, now tell me how CM is going to fix any of those things that you think should be done. Increased public awareness? Happenings, radical maneuvers, keg parties how freaking exciting I'm getting hard just thinking about it. I do not think that I am too worried about what anybody thinks of me or my bike or my car. You talking about whining is the pot calling the kettle black. Ride your bike it is legal the improved infrastructure may or may not come don't let it stop you either way. Keep your "happening", nobody wants to outlaw it but beware of being busted for braking the law when the cops are around.
There is always a price to pay for being an extreme minority in any culture, the majority generally sees catering to your needs as a waste of money, not my point of view but it is theirs and CM is not going to change it.
We are one social minority with a point to get across if every social group with a beef decided that it would be a good idea to routinely (one Friday) disrupt traffic the results would be beyond maddening. I have heard it stated that CM is a form of civil disobedience, fine, the point of civil disobedience is to get arrested to publicize your cause it is legitimate political ploy but no whining when arrested unless police brutality is involved which it does not appear to be by the video I have seen of last Friday's CM.
If you want the APD to enforce the laws in regard to the operation of automobiles it is hypocritical to not expect them to do the same in regards to bicycle infractions. In the mean time bicyclists have no bitch as far as the laws as written, we have the right to the road in almost all cases, legally. Changing the attitudes of the general population regarding our use of the street and highway will not be legislated just a racism was not legislated out of existence with the civil rights laws.
When will "critical mass" riders learn that there is more to red lights and stop signs than safety, they are a way of politely managing traffic in congested conditions, when you stop traffic from progressing on green you are being nothing but rude and impolite and will attract what rude and impolite behavior routinely attracts a big push back. Critical mass does not send the message that you say you want to send which is that bikes belong on the street and to watch carefully for them and to make room for them to safely operate. Critical mass is just rude and inconsiderate behavior. Now that the police have been dressed down to watch out for cyclists in traffic altercations they will also be targeting you for your misbehavior, that's a cop world baby. Jeez how dumb.
Do you live without AC?
I did that for six years, do not want to do it again.
Morally how far are we supposed to reduce our carbon footprint so that others may over populate their progeny?
When the carbon footprint police come can we claim a larger share of carbon is we have not had more than two children? Will family size be considered as part of the carbon rations that we are allowed?
If the global population reaches ten to twelve billion and there is not even a subsistence living available for most of us is it ok to take more than our alloted share to survive? In fact can we take it just for convenience?
Is comfort at the cost of others morally wrong?
Can the planet not take care of itself with or without human civilization?
Are we trying to be ethical and save the planet / species diversity or are we trying to save human civilization from itself?
These questions used to keep me up at night when I was drinking. I am glad I quit drinking.
Pages: 1
[ Generated in 0.114 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 570.63 KiB (Peak: 764.52 KiB) ]