New Haven Independent

Posted by: jackie | October 14, 2008 12:28 PM

ok, fine. but it seems to me we are talking about two different strands of argument/concern/civic discussion. one is the bike riding thing. another is police brutality. fine. (by fine, i mean, it's clearly a legitimate thing to talk, get angry, and protest about).

but shouldn't we follow egon's advice not to cross the streams because "that would be bad." in this case, bad = counterproductive to the bike movement?

i mean, "watch out! cops on the loose!"? huh? what does that have to do with the bike angle? i'm not for giving law enforcement a carte blance by any means on brutality. but i don't see what one movement has to do with the other in substantive terms.

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 14, 2008 1:16 PM

They don't have much to do with each other at all. This second monthly critical mass ride seems to have formed directly in response to the longer-standing one, which has recently been enjoying a beneficial relationship with the New Haven police. Officers on bicycles have been accompanying the ride, corking intersections to allow it to proceed smoothly and safely. Their presence sends a powerful message to other road users: namely, that cyclists belong on the street.

Some people are uncomfortable with that cooperation, and that's their right. In terms of the 'bike angle,' having more people riding, safely and courteously, is a good thing.

Posted by: cyclista | October 14, 2008 1:39 PM

It's unfortunate that some in the cycling community can't come together to recognize the amazing progress that's been made by many dedicated advocates in New Haven--progress which benefits us all. This alternative critical mass seems divisive, unproductive and its objectives are unclear.

Posted by: mabelann | October 14, 2008 2:04 PM

When are these groups going to understand police have a job to do....and they can't do it with there hands tied by the city...if police could do there job without the mayor's interferance we wouldn't have so much crime...pick on the wrong ethnic grouppolice are profiling.....the police involved in this case is being investagated let it be,,,

Posted by: jackie | October 14, 2008 2:31 PM

>>In terms of the 'bike angle,' having more people riding, safely and courteously, is a good thing.

I'm in strong agreement--didn't mean to suggest otherwise!

Oh, and I just noticed in the bottom photo, "Maintain Peace Not Order." Nice sentiment, but good luck trying to get to "A" without "B" in practical terms.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | October 14, 2008 3:14 PM

More bicyle ridiculousness.

BAN BIKES FROM THE STREETS DOWNTOWN DURING RUSH HOUR!

Posted by: Anonyme | October 14, 2008 3:17 PM

This is great. An "alt" scene springing from an "alt" scene. Which one will the males wearing girls pants be riding in?

Stupid hipsters.

This is going to be like Shia vs. Sunni pretty soon. Which Critical Mass is the "real" Critical Mass?

And, naturally, the "controversy" of it all only justifies it more.

Just a hard-core splinter group staying true to the roots of it after the larger group sold out. Yo. And remember, the Viet-Cong were able to make some pretty nice bombs out of bikes for when the inevitable violent radical sees fit to attach himself to one of these congregations.

He'll be a freedom fighter like Ayers.

Posted by: Jonas | October 14, 2008 4:08 PM

First, I have a feeling this new ride is more about not wanting police to escort Critical Mass than about police brutality. While that's a very real concern, I don't think anybody would have started a bike ride (especially bearing the original name) to speak out against it if the police weren't becoming involved in Critical Mass, nor would that have been part of the initial ride's message.

In any event, this is fascinating. It seems like a microcosm of many rebellious groups with a message. Once success or mainstream acceptance begins to occur (like, police assistance for example, even though there's still a long way to go for equity in transportation choices), there are those in the group that feel they are being co-opted or compromised. After the onset of the French Revolution, for example, many revolutionaries were killed because they were no longer seen as being revolutionary enough during what ended up being known as the Reign of Terror. This is the challenge of success.

If you ask me, police accompaniment (in the form of bike cops, not cruisers, motorcycles, or goofy segways) is a real step in the right direction. It's a tangible manifestation of cyclists' right to the road - something drivers frequently question us on. It's also a chance to, maybe, educate officers about the perils of being a cyclist.

If it's about being rebellious, individual, and whatnot, then that's cool, tell the cops to take a hike. But if you're looking to make a statement and work towards transportation equity in city streets, welcome the police with open arms. Just don't get the two twisted.

Posted by: helmet head | October 14, 2008 4:13 PM

Most of the people on bicycle's are marjor knuckleheads. Just go downtown and watch for yourself. They ride on the wrong side of the road, on the sidewalks, ride down the one way streets the wrong way. Most of them look like fruitcakes (and no mr./mrs. PC I'm not talking about gays) They have no order about them, they ride like the wind is in their face. The true bicyclist is someone who trains for a race. To the group who does not want the police for an escort, will be the first ones to complain when something happens to them. "where was the police,they dont like us". Hey psycho-lists take your next ride on the Q-bridge. P.S wear your helmet, I would'nt want aything happenning to your fruitcake.

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 14, 2008 5:06 PM

I debated whether to respond to your foolishness point-by-point. Helmet Head, and then I realized that in all likelihood, no thinking person would take you seriously. With the time I've saved, I'm going to read a book. Thanks!

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | October 14, 2008 5:10 PM

Look at the you tube on critical mass in new york and see what a cop did to one of the riders.

Posted by: David Streever | October 14, 2008 5:20 PM

Helmet Head,
agreed! Too bad the drivers and pedestrians are the same.

What is it about bikes that compels non-riders to associate us with each other?

The police presence on Crit Mass has been wonderful. Speaking as one of the only consistent people to lead the ride (seriously people this is supposed to be a group thing! Why don't you all help!) I am very grateful for the police presence. They make everything go easy, & do no restrict me in any way.

No one in "our" crit mass is going to enter a "pissing" contest to determine who is the "real crit mass". It's an international movement, & no one individual gets to determine who is "right" or "wrong" with it.

That being said, I'm sticking with the cop ride.

Posted by: Bob Abuey | October 14, 2008 6:24 PM

"Maintain peace, not order", "Watch out, cops on the loose"? Cute slogans. Does their "critical mass" ride take them down Winchester Ave, Stevens St or Poplar St? Lets re-route the ride down these streets, Id then like to see the attitudes of riders

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | October 14, 2008 6:56 PM

That Melinda represents the rival pro-cop faction of cyclists, there is an underhanded but unsurprising bias in this article that is annoying. As far as coverage of cycling topics, the NHI serves as a veritable mouthpiece for Elm City Cycling (ECC), an organization that many think takes all the fun out of riding a bicycle in New Haven. Previous to ECC's partnering with the police, one of the joys of riding a bike was that the activity sort of fell outside the law, at least as far as enforcement was concerned. Now the police, too, share ECC's mission to force bicyclists to obey all traffic laws, most of which were written for automobiles. In fact it seems ECC is largely responsible for cops starting to issue tickets to cyclists downtown for minor traffic infractions, as this development started mere weeks after Feiner met with the cops at Koffee? and negotiated the Critical Mass police escort.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 14, 2008 7:32 PM

talk about knuckle heads...Cammille the kid in the first picture DEAR YOU AND SOME OF YOUR FRIENDS walked out in front of mine and other cars to day in ON COMING TRAFFIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the light was green dearly!!! Grow up! You sttut like you guys were so cool NOT! If I was your mother you would be in the house for days!

Posted by: Ben | October 14, 2008 7:38 PM

I've been told that "David Streever ruined everything."
I just wanted to say, "Thanks David, I like the way you've ruined things." I'll be buying a shirt.

Posted by: Mr. Stephen Peter Ross | October 14, 2008 8:37 PM

I enjoy bicycling. The more critical mass rides the better. Whether knuckleheads or punks or hipsters or any of the bullshit people attribute with riders or their bikes (this includes cyclists themselves), most just want to ride their bike around because it's fun and in almost every way better than a car.

Oh, Alphonse:
"BAN CARS FROM THE STREETS DOWNTOWN AT ALL HOURS!"
-fixed

Posted by: Diana | October 14, 2008 9:05 PM

No way, ms Cedar Hill! camille always looks about 7 ways before she crosses the street. It was probably just her goofball friends.

And I really like that "ban cars in rush hour" idea. I have to ride in rush hour to get to school every morning and it's just awful. Cheers, Alphonse.

Posted by: OMG | October 14, 2008 9:40 PM

You are kidding me right? Surprise surprise, Lugo is the middle of some other rant. Kids, grow up! Or you are going to get arrested.

Posted by: st.pt.ia | October 14, 2008 10:07 PM

Camille and group sounds to me like a bunch of antisocials out lollygagging around giving real bike riders a bad name.

Great article re their signs though. Lost in the dark as they rode away. Classic. I can picture that. I'm thinking of the band going into the dead end in Animal House.

it'd be funny if they weren't all menacelites to society, and a danger to us all at that.

They give looove a Bad name!

Posted by: Bruce | October 14, 2008 11:23 PM

Alphonse: Brilliant suggestion! Perhaps we should also ban pedestrians and make automobile ownership mandatory. Those who cannot afford them should be marched out of the city!

Posted by: Josh Smith | October 14, 2008 11:25 PM

People riding bikes and breaking every traffic rule in the book does not make it "fun" -- it makes it chaotic and extremely dangerous for everyone involved, and it makes all law-abiding cyclists look bad. There's a difference between reckless abandon and fun, and if you don't see a difference, there's something wrong. Before blaming ECC for your lack of lawless "fun" in this city, try coming to our meetings and participating in what goes on. After all, they're public meetings. The last thing we want is for cycling to be less fun. The fun will come with added safety -- and we can't do that alone, nor can we change it overnight. In the meantime, what everyone should do is learn the bike traffic laws and follow them to the best of their ability. This will show everyone that there's a serious cycling culture brewing, rather than just a bunch of scofflaws haphazardly riding bikes around however they feel like riding. If we all do that, we'll get a lot more respect than if we continued to give motorists a metaphorical middle finger by breaking all the traffic laws, or by just following the laws when we feel like following them.

But, at least we're all having this discussion and debate. Ten years ago, very few people rode a bicycle in New Haven. Now, even the average Joe is starting to ride. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take sustained unbelievably high gas prices before cycling is taken seriously as a mode of transportation in this city and state. As always, though, I hope I'm wrong about that. Anyway... flame away, anti-cyclists and anti-law rebels, flame away. I'm used to it by now, as common sense doesn't always elicit the most positive response in people.

Posted by: David Streever | October 15, 2008 12:12 AM

Nestor,

didn't realize you were such a dork!
Don't blame Feiner
I ruined everything :)!

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | October 15, 2008 8:26 AM

Critical Mass is nothing more than a group of anarchists dressed up as bicyclists engaging in a tyranny of the minority. I hope they cut off a member of the "Hole in the Wall" gang one day and get the kind of response they deserve.

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 15, 2008 9:02 AM

Nestor, the first major crackdown on lawbreaking by cyclists took place three or four years ago, and had nothing to do with Elm City Cycling or Matthew Feiner. Remember those blue posters that got hung up all over downtown? They listed all the likely traffic infractions a cyclist could commit and gave the fines for each one, and included a warning that police would be aggressively enforcing those rules. At the time, cycling advocates approached the city and asked why they were emphasizing lawbreaking by people on bikes, while seemingly ignoring much more dangerous behavior by motorists. This was the beginning of a long and productive conversation about the general state of traffic safety in New Haven.

Posted by: carlos verde | October 15, 2008 9:04 AM

It seems to me that this whole thing about biking has really gotten out of hand. I've been riging a bike for many years. Recently I've been using mine to work. But everyone must keep in mind that the biggest problems always come from those who don't want the best for the masses.

What I mean is this: Josh said "People riding bikes and breaking every traffic rule in the book does not make it "fun" -- it makes it chaotic and extremely dangerous for everyone involved, and it makes all law-abiding cyclists look bad."

Nestor said: "Previous to ECC's partnering with the police, one of the joys of riding a bike was that the activity sort of fell outside the law, at least as far as enforcement was concerned. Now the police, too, share ECC's mission to force bicyclists to obey all traffic laws, most of which were written for automobiles. In fact it seems ECC is largely responsible for cops starting to issue tickets to cyclists downtown for minor traffic infractions..."

People, let's keep some points in focus. Josh is right there are alyways those who like to do things wrongly, maybe because they just want attention. These people make riding dangerous because thoes are the ones we all see riding incorrectly and nearly causing accidents. I see other riders go through red lights, make turns infront of cars, just daring the motorist to hit them.

And for those who, like Nestor, feel that it's not fair for the police to ticket bike riders, YOU are the reason for the biking laws. Remember, "There would be no laws if there were not theats to the well being of others" And you can quote me on that! Laws help to create and promote saftey by teaching the wrong doers what their parents failed to teach them. LIFE IS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. IT'S ABOUT US!

We have police because we have people who have a limited perspective of life and need someone to help to improve that perspective. Police are like teachers who don't teach, lawyers who fail to represent, ministers who take & take, priests who abuse children and politicians who don't represent the people who elect them, They are all from the human race. No one is perfect and in each of these profession's as well as cyclists, their good out number their bad.

Posted by: David Streever | October 15, 2008 9:14 AM

Nestor Makhno:

I'm not sure how you decided that.

The police came to US because of behavior they had witnessed. They'd already been tasked with stopping the not-at-all anarchistic riding they'd been seeing, due to an overwhelming volume of citizen complaints.

We don't generate half as many calls/e-mails/letters complaining about cars as cars/walkers do about cyclists.

The city approached us, & Feiner made the best deal possible.

He didn't make provisions for ticketing cyclists: They had already decided to, but offered to work with us as a first step.

Because we are responsible membersof the community, who use our real names, it was easy for them to find us & approach us.

Sorry no one came to you. I tried looking you up in the phone book and got nuthin'.

Posted by: Leo Trotsky | October 15, 2008 9:49 AM

Nestor! I thought I drove you and your band of anarchists into exile over 80 years ago! Go back to Paris and ride your bike how you wish there.

Posted by: Mr. Stephen Peter Ross | October 15, 2008 10:03 AM

"Critical Mass is nothing more than a group of anarchists dressed up as bicyclists engaging in a tyranny of the minority."

Right now I'm thinking of the kids and seniors who ride critical mass wearing Flux of Pink Indians tee shirts and bum flaps. Thanks for the laugh, Fedup. You should buy a Crass record and learn something.

But in some cases, you're right. And Josh, while I'm personally very thankful for ECC and everything you guys do for us, I think you need to understand there there is a sizable contingent of cyclists (and indeed they are cyclists) who disagree with your approach. For them, riding a bike is an extension of their disdain for politics, for leaders, and for rules; with its coordination with the police, ECC can be viewed as an extension of this "control." While I may not share the sentiment (at least in ragard to riding a bicycle), I can recognize it.

And having many times seen these Camille and co. kicking around town on their bikes, I've never seen them endanger themselves or others with their riding. This is an important distinction.

This is no flame, Josh. Even if it is counterproductive to a larger, more inclusive goal, I can't help but sympathize with their motives.

Posted by: historian | October 15, 2008 10:47 AM

streever, If you're trying to contact Nestor you might want to find an early 20th century Ukrainian phonebook.

Posted by: hamhock16 | October 15, 2008 11:16 AM

It seems to me, and this is illustrates my feel for the way Obama woud approach governing, that it's a good thing that two supposed adversaries can find comon ground. Isn't this what good gov't. is about? Cheers to the 5-0 and Massers.

More bikes, less cars-alright!

Why don't some of you suburbanites move on into town and get yourself a bike? I could be wrong, but I think there are some deals on houses now.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | October 15, 2008 11:25 AM

"Right now I'm thinking of the kids and seniors who ride critical mass wearing Flux of Pink Indians tee shirts and bum flaps."

MR STEPHEN PETER ROSS

Mr. Trotsky will probably agree with me in that any socialist or communist movement, there are people called "useful idiots" which put a kind face on their ideology to help gain acceptance. Obama has also learned this very well. Just think of the video with children singing praises to their fearless leader. Where have we seen that before?

Posted by: David Streever | October 15, 2008 11:36 AM

I do agree in many ways with SPR on this--just as I posted to our list serv--ecc is not and should not be an umbrella group controlling or dictating the actions of cyclists.

We advocate for a lowest common denominator safety for all, and that's appropriate: it's all we can do, really. For us to decide what does or doesn't constitute a critical mass isn't really fair, nor is it an aim of our organization. There will always be individuals who do not feel represented by us (or any other advocacy group) but we do our best, as volunteers, with busy schedules & limited time to try and make things better for a majority of individuals.

We are succeeding, and will continue to do our best.

We don't endorse the ideology or practices of this Critical Mass ride, but we also don't endorse the current Critical MAss ride. Many of our riders ride it, but it's not under our control.

I see neither controversy nor any problem in this: the reality is if we didn't come to Crit Mass on the last friday of the month, it would still happen. If we sent a press release asking people to stop riding, it would still happen.

ECC is not critical mass. ECC is not riding your bike. ECC is neither a governing body nor a regulatory agency. We are simply folks on bikes working very, very hard to make things safe for others, typically using the time that others use to watch TV or veg out, to do so.

Thanks for any kind or supportive words, & if you'd like to be involved, please don't hestitate to be in touch: we are very happy to have new members & to work with outside groups to reach common goals.

Posted by: Helmet Head | October 15, 2008 12:01 PM

Mr. Kurtz you did respond. You took time away from your reading, to add a little note. Thank you, most other people did not even write a small note. Thanks again, and I'll see you on the sidewalk riding your bicycle once again.

Posted by: Tom Harned | October 15, 2008 2:40 PM

Wow,

Based on some of the comments here it seems like ECC has somehow managed to upset extremists on both the left and the right.

That fact is that most city residents don't hate cyclists, poor people who don't own cars, the police, or "the state".

Most people want safer roads and more transportation choices. ECC is certainly one of the groups advocating for that, and they are certainly not alone.

-Tom

Posted by: DNA | October 15, 2008 6:10 PM

I have to agree with Stephen Peter Ross.
For me, being an adult often feels like being forced to conform with everyone else in society. Like forcing a square peg into a round hole every day. After working all month I used to enjoy CM as a short break from the confines of all our rules and regulations. Like a "Speak Easy".. But now, be careful, the police will be right there by your side.

Feiner is a businessman and for him, this negotiation with the police was probably seen as a good business move as well as an accession to power.

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | October 15, 2008 8:46 PM

The Streeve is a nice guy, though his appeals to the "lowest common denominator" make him akin to the Sarah Palin of local cycling advocates and thus his comments, of course, do not deserve serious comment. On the other hand, I do apologize for sweeping statements about ECC, members of which make up a good lot, especially Matthew Feiner. Still Melinda has a certain influence here locally that deserves to be questioned and her writing is what sparked my hostility. The idea of fun, thank god, is subjective, and Mr. Ross at least understands, I think, that Flux of Pink Indians' fans shouldn't care less about the desires of the town's almost aristocratic cycling intelligentsia and have a true populist sense of freedom, whether regarding cycling or anything else.

Posted by: Josh Smith | October 15, 2008 8:48 PM

Critical Mass is not under Elm City Cycling's control, nor will it ever be, so the approach to CM rides is not ours to hate or dislike. I realize that you probably know this, but I'm just saying it here so non-cyclists and anti-police cyclists realize that fact. If no one showed up to CM from ECC, would there be no ride? Of course there'd be a ride. That proves that ECC has no control over it. It's become a cultural thing in American cities and it's taken on a life of its own, independent from any one cycling group.

It seems as though those who are against establishment, laws, rules, police, or politicians are sending some flames our way just because we want to put specific bike infrastructure in the city, and the lawless people don't want to feel restricted to just using bike lanes and such. Don't get me wrong, I hate the bike lanes we have now because they weren't done right, but just having them there increases cycling awareness, culture -- and the sheer amount of bikes out there is increasing as well, with every new mile of bike lanes that get painted, every new bike rack or stand that's put up, every bike event that's held. Isn't that the point of cycling, to enjoy it with others?

Let me just make this clear -- ECC is doing positive things for this city and we work our butts off while other people are either riding their bikes like lawless hooligans, speeding in cars and not paying attention to the road, watching their TVs at home, or complaining about us online. We're going to continue to push for more (and better) bike lanes, greenways, sharrows, and other bike infrastructure; stricter enforcement of all traffic (motorized or not); and more events where we can represent cycling and teach people the right way to ride versus the wrong way.

Just because a prominent member or two of the cycling community met with the police and found a creative compromise for Critical Mass is not a reason to hate ECC or assign blame to us for what some perceive to be "the wrong approach". It's not our fault that CM is police-escorted, but then again, most of us like it (myself included), so we're going to continue to attend that monthly ride. If you're still bitter about it, though, because you love to live on the edge -- and damn us all for not wanting to skirt the law! -- then you have to blame nearly all of New Haven's cyclists, the ones who turn out in droves month after month in support of the cycling celebration that is Critical Mass. The vast majority seems to welcome the ride support from the police that no other city in America enjoys right now. After all, what's so different about the bike cops corking the intersections rather than civilians? We're all riding bikes through downtown New Haven!! Isn't that good enough reason to enjoy it?

Posted by: David Streever | October 15, 2008 11:28 PM

Nestor:

I am only describing what any large group with a large number of members who have different opinions does: we find what we all agree on. It ends up being a lowest common denominator approach. I find that frustrating at times, but remind myself that this is a reality of group interactions.

Bizarre that you'd compare me to Palin--or yourself to a famous revolutionary--I'm pretty sure he didn't spend his time hiding out writing screeds :) Maybe you should take a cue & get involved?

(and your attack on Melinda is a little crappy. Check out what she really does--for instance, re-read this article and realize she has reported fairly. Melinda is an active cyclist & advocate who does a lot of good for the community. She's responsible for scores of young people wearing helmets & bike lights, for starts--you may want to include her in your list of good people next time)

Posted by: Nestor Makhno | October 15, 2008 11:41 PM

Josh, a "specific bike infrastructure" sounds too much like a Stalinist "superstructure" to me. Thanks to you, I will lazily support the other Critical Mass, as I think the participants might even refrain from shunning "lawless hooligans," who might even occasionally be caught "watching TV." If nothing else I won't have to suffer someone from ECC teaching me the "right way to ride." Unwittingly, you are digging the organization's own grave.

Posted by: muva | October 16, 2008 8:32 AM

"Speaking as one of the only consistent people to lead the ride"

"We don't endorse the ideology or practices of this Critical Mass ride, but we also don't endorse the current Critical Mass ride. Many of our riders ride it, but it's not under our control."

How does someone, who has no prior understanding of "Critical Mass", see these two statements and not find them contradictory?
If the ECC "brass" really want to show they are not the "owners" of Critical Mass, they should not allow one of their most voracious mouthpieces to ride at the front of the pack.
No one can deny the good work ECC has done for New Haven's cycling community. They have put cycling in the forefront of city planning (read the recent Piscitelli article). Bicycles are now more visible in New Haven, the byproduct of which is increased enforcement.
One of my friends was recently ticketed and the officer told him to "tell [his] friends I'm enforcing traffic laws." Clearly, some police officers resent being told how to do their jobs (odd) and see ECC as the culprit. They then incorrectly assume the "look" of an ECC member, and take out their frustrations on the wrong people, by selectively enforcing traffic laws as they pertain to bicycles.

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 16, 2008 8:49 AM

I'm not sure it's accurate to describe cycling enthusiasts or activists as an "aristocratic intelligentsia," and it seems odd that even within that part of the culture interested in cycling, we're drawing lines between--pardon the phrase--"Joe Sixpack" (maybe Joe Singlespeed?) and "coastal elites." ECC's goal is to promote cycling as recreation and transportation; we organize tours and bike rides for novices and people from other areas, arrange bike safety jamborees for kids, host social gatherings (like commuter breakfasts) for cyclists, and hold public meetings on the second Monday of each month at City Hall. We work closely with various people and agencies within the city government to improve facilities such as bike lanes and bicycle racks. Any interested party is invited to get involved in any ECC activities; one can that by subscribing to our email listserv (www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/elmcitycycling) or visiting our website (www.elmcitycycling.org) or coming to the monthly meeting (second Monday at 6:00 at City Hall). Add yourself to the aristocracy!

Regarding law-breaking; yes, ECC generally supports safe, responsible, courteous and legal use of the roadways by all users: motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. This is not exactly the same thing as "forcing all cyclists to obey all traffic laws, most of which were written for automobiles." (for example, one topic under occasional discussion is arguing in favor of legalizing the 'Idaho stop.') The main concern is encouraging people to ride safely. I don't have a problem with reckless people being issued tickets when they break the law. When I've been walking, I've nearly been struck many times by people riding their bikes on sidewalks. When I drive, I've had people on bikes blow lights right across my path or dart out from sidewalk cutouts without looking. And we're all familiar with the kids who angry motorists (like Alphonse Credenza) drag into any discussion of cycling, the ones riding four abreast against traffic pulling wheelies down the street. Who can condone that?

One more thing before I stop rambling (and thanks for your patience if you're still reading). One of the pitfalls of citizen journalism is a sometimes blurry line between the reporter and the subject matter. When writing about cycling issues, Melinda Tuhus is pretty transparent about her affiliation with Elm City Cycling and she deserves a lot of credit for the time and effort she puts in; like David said above, she's secured funding to provide free or low-cost helmets and lights to area kids and worked hard to educate young cyclists about safe use of the roads. I thought she was pretty fair, here, but of course, others are free to disagree. That's what this forum is for, right?

Posted by: JF Dupuis | October 16, 2008 6:53 PM

This is off topic, but for my thesis I am researching the effects of drugs and alcohol on a person's writing. Reading these comments I noticed that "Nestor Makhnov" appears to have written his original post sober. Later his grammar, syntax and punctuation deteriorates to the point that I would bet my 1978 Francesco Moser that he was growing increasingly drunk and/or stoned when writing his last posts.

Posted by: Mr. Stephen Peter Ross | October 16, 2008 11:41 PM

This conversation has some legs, and it seems to be heading to a good place. This may be overly optimistic, but by having conversations like these now, the disparate groups of riders out there will be better informed when legislation is to be written and as the number of cyclists balloons, it becomes that much more important.

ECC doesn't need to apologize for anything, nor do the people who oppose the police escorts on the CM rides. I'm willing to bet that they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, either.

I'm glad that Streever, Bill Kurtz, and Josh Smith have more clearly articulated what their group does and I have no doubt that the compromise they helped reach with the police was the only one to take.

On the other hand, Uva has a very good point: there are a number of officers out there who resent the cycling community and who are being pretty bratty about it. In my own limited experience, I'd say the "cool cops" on the CM rides are the exception to the rule. Herein lies a major problem.

The only accord that needs to be struck is between these absurd cycling factions. As the willing focus, as their passion becomes more understandable by a greater number of people, attitudes will change as a matter of course. Motorists already seem to be more cognizent of what's going on than they were four months ago, so it's working.

I can't even believe I just wrote all that. We talking about riding bikes here, for Trotsky's sake!

Posted by: Josh Smith | October 18, 2008 1:07 AM

Digging the organization's grave? Are you kidding me? Please tell me you're kidding. ECC is very, very far from the grave -- in fact, we're now incorporated as a nonprofit organization. Yes, we're educating people how to ride "the right way", within the framework of the law. This makes cycling safer for everyone. But, hey, what would I know about safety? Apparently wanting a safe bike route across town is now "Stalinist". What I meant by "specific bike infrastructure" at the time of my post was: Things like bike lanes, bike boulevards, roundabouts, etc., and not just anything we think up out of the blue that has no precedent. We generally only offer up examples of infrastructure that has worked for other cities and towns, so in that sense, it could also be said to be specific.

As far as me being the reason you're going to the Alt-CM ride, go right ahead, Nestor. Maybe you can go take other peoples' quotes out of context while they talk on the ride, the same way you did with me on here. I shouldn't have to explain this, but just so you understand what I was talking about, my reference to people watching TV at home involved people sitting at home watching TV while ECC worked hard to make positive changes here through meetings and volunteer efforts at events throughout the city. I'm not banning your TV-watching, Nestor, but hey -- you'd do well to pick up a book on occasion and practice your comprehension of ideas while reading. It's obvious that those skills were not exactly on point while you read my post.

Your move.