As much as some people hate bicyclists...

[narf]

What I am getting at, and I'm getting pretty tired of trying to explain something that is really common sense.

If you have to explain something to several people numerous times it might be time to consider whether it really is common sense or not.

 

[MadCat360]

Drive around in a poor suburbs with a golden rolex out your window, and you might get robbed. Is it right? No. Should this happen? No. Does this happen? Yes. How will you deal with this possibility?

Since this is a rhetorical question, I assume you want people to say that they won't wear the Rolex. But that does not solve the problem at all since you might still get robbed wearing a Rolex or not, just like you might still get run over by a crazy psycho even as you're riding your bicycle in a perfectly legal, respectful way - not being in a large pack of cyclists seriously inconveniencing motorists is not a surefire preventative against such an attack. Wearing a Rolex, driving a Bentley with the windows down and the doors unlocked, sitting at a red light in a deserted intersection in the worst part of town may not be smart, but it is not wrong, and he's not responsible for being mugged and/or carjacked.

The solution is to penalize the people who are wrong with the appropriate punishment. The cyclists need to be fined for the infractions they may have committed (I don't know Brazilian traffic laws). The psycho driver needs to be put in prison for the appropriate time for attempted murder. The cyclists are responsible for disobeying any traffic laws. The driver is responsible for a potentially murderous rampage. The end.

 

[NecroJoe]

The psycho driver needs to be put in prison for the appropriate time for attempted murder. The cyclists are responsible for disobeying any traffic laws. The driver is responsible for a potentially murderous rampage. The end.

Thread distilled to it's most basic elements.

 

[SirEdward]

Since this is a rhetorical question, I assume you want people to say that they won't wear the Rolex.

You're assuming too fast. I'm saying that if you -choose- to wear it, you have be aware of what might happen.

But that does not solve the problem at all since you might still get robbed wearing a Rolex or not

yes

, just like you might still get run over by a crazy psycho even as you're riding your bicycle in a perfectly legal, respectful way

yes. Provoking is just a better way to find yourself a dedicated psycho.

- not being in a large pack of cyclists seriously inconveniencing motorists is not a surefire preventative against such an attack.

it sure isn't.

Wearing a Rolex, driving a Bentley with the windows down and the doors unlocked, sitting at a red light in a deserted intersection in the worst part of town may not be smart,

Definitely.

but it is not wrong, and he's not responsible for being mugged and/or carjacked.

Yes. But it's not a matter of -Law-, it's a matter of practical results. You want to drive around with your Rolex no matter what? Fine. Law won't find you responsible for being robbed, but you are responsible in front of yourself for -choosing- not to take any precaution whatsoever, or even getting yourself in a bad situation. The other person's responsibilities are not likely to change very much. You don't care because law is with you? Fine. You don't want to renounce to your liberty? Fine. You want to show off? Again: fine. It's your choice. But you have to deal with the -factual- (not legal) consequences of what you do.

The solution is to penalize the people who are wrong with the appropriate punishment.

Not only that. I think this is just part of the solution. The other one is think ahead a bit. Help yourself a bit (just a bit), you will help the crazy people too. Then you can go on with what you planned, if you so decide, but at least you won't be up for a delusion smashing.

The cyclists need to be fined for the infractions they may have committed (I don't know Brazilian traffic laws). The psycho driver needs to be put in prison for the appropriate time for attempted murder. The cyclists are responsible for disobeying any traffic laws. The driver is responsible for a potentially murderous rampage. The end.

Yes. We've been agreeing on that since the beginning (I speak for myself, but I don't think my point of view is so different from many others') The other considerations are beyond the legal plan.

---

Personal opinion:

I'm really so glad that nobody get hurt seriously, because I don't want people to get permanent damage (or even just injured, where possible) and because then we can focus on the implications of what happened. They made a bet: they bet that if they were enough they could stop the traffic, rule other people and do whatever they wanted and nobody would do anything. They lost. They would win with standard people, but they didn't take into account the crazy idiots.

In my opinion, this shows one thing: as much as there are problems between motorists and cyclists, as much as there are drivers who don't give a damn, one of the reasons cyclists can ride on roads is the fact that they are respected by a big majority of motorists.

Seeing what I see daily, and therefore thinking what I think, I'd say that cyclists mostly need to figure out that they are part of a community, they are not entitled to do whatever they want (which is what Critical Mass seems to try to achieve), they have to respect others because they need the same respect in the first place to simply be able to ride among traffic.

No respect, and this can happen. There's no right or wrong here, no judgement.

Many will disagree. Ok. But that last part is just my opinion.

 

[prizrak]

If you have to explain something to several people numerous times it might be time to consider whether it really is common sense or not.

Or if the people in question are idiots....

 

[tigger]

What I am getting at, and I'm getting pretty tired of trying to explain something that is really common sense, is that if you INTENTIONALLY piss*** people off you should expect a reaction.

A reaction, yes. Having a dozen or so bicyclists mowed down by a speeding car for no apparent reason, no.

This is the point that plenty of people have been trying to make in this thread. You're attempting to lay the blame of this assault on the Critical Mass riders. I don't like them, I've made that plenty clear, but to claim that they're somehow at fault for (or should of foreseen) the actions of some nutjob is just plain wrong. You call this guy (the VW driver) a criminal while partially excusing his actions. I'm just looking for a consistent opinion out of you.

Reductio ad RETARDED in this case not even absurdum anymore....

Why don't you come back to this when you can form a coherent argument, one that's not based on irrelevant personal experiences, hypothetical situations, or calling someone's argument "retarded."

 

[prizrak]

Why don't you come back to this when you can form a coherent argument, one that's not based on irrelevant personal experiences, hypothetical situations, or calling someone's argument "retarded."

Wow... Let me just ask you, if humans are so good natured why do we have prisons?
When someone compares unprovoked attacks on women to an attack that was sparked by deliberate action it's retarded....

This is the point that plenty of people have been trying to make in this thread. You're attempting to lay the blame of this assault on the Critical Mass riders. I don't like them, I've made that plenty clear, but to claim that they're somehow at fault for (or should of foreseen) the actions of some nutjob is just plain wrong. You call this guy (the VW driver) a criminal while partially excusing his actions. I'm just looking for a consistent opinion out of you.

I'm going to break it down to you in very simple terms.

What CM's were doing was stupid and unnecessary they should not have been doing it. What the guy did was stupid and unnecessary he should not have been doing it.

I blame the cyclists for creating a dangerous situation for themselves by deliberately pissing off a large number of people. I blame the Golf driver for attempted murder (or assault with a deadly weapon).

What you don't seem to be getting is that CM put themselves into a position where there was a possibility of an extremely violent response. When you stage a protest you always risk violence, you can never be sure that the response will be proportional to the amount of aggravation you cause.

If you don't think that violence can come out of pretty much nothing I suggest you Google Boston riots when Red Sox won the World Series a couple of years ago....

 

[mpicco]

Wow... Let me just ask you, if humans are so good natured why do we have prisons?
When someone compares unprovoked attacks on women to an attack that was sparked by deliberate action it's retarded....

You're way over your head already. What for you is not grounds for attack, it is for other people.
[Brazilian crazy motorist thinking]Fuck, I'm losing 5 minutes in traffic! these assholes deserve THIS!
[Religious over-fanatic]Fuck, this woman is disrespecting our Gods and our Religion and deserves THIS!

So which one is really asking for it? That depends on the yardstick you use to measure their transgressions, isn't it?

Well, for you, the cyclists were asking for it.
For the religious fanatic the woman was asking for it.

FOR ME: NEITHER THE WOMAN NOR THE CYCLISTS WERE ASKING FOR IT

Is it so hard to understand?!

 

[prizrak]

You're way over your head already. What for you is not grounds for attack, it is for other people.
[Brazilian crazy motorist thinking]Fuck, I'm losing 5 minutes in traffic! these assholes deserve THIS!
[Religious over-fanatic]Fuck, this woman is disrespecting our Gods and our Religion and deserves THIS!

So which one is really asking for it? That depends on the yardstick you use to measure their transgressions, isn't it?

Well, for you, the cyclists were asking for it.
For the religious fanatic the woman was asking for it.

FOR ME: NEITHER THE WOMAN NOR THE CYCLISTS WERE ASKING FOR IT

Is it so hard to understand?!

*sigh* Is it so hard to understand the "DO NOT INTENTIONALLY PISS PEOPLE OFF" concept? I am not saying either was asking for it, I am saying that INTENTIONALLY pissing people off is a bad idea because you DON'T KNOW how they will react***. I simply don't understand how you can possibly disagree with such a simple premise.

***Well you really shouldn't piss people off on purpose just because its not right in general but at the very least personal safety should be a consideration.

 

[Average Guy]

Just because I'm not allowed to drive a car jet it doesn't mean you have to run me over on purpose

 

[prizrak]

Just because I'm not allowed to drive a car jet it doesn't mean you have to run me over on purpose

Oh I would never run you over, your avatar is too awesome

 

[captain_70s]

Now, I don't think anyone here condones the driver's actions, or is saying the cyclists deserved what happened but it is a fact, if they had not been there they would not have been hurt.

Now if they had something they were fighting for I would understand this, but I quote from their UK website.

We are not sure, opinions seem to differ. There are probably as many aims of CM as there are participants. Each individual comes there with his or her own idea of what it's about, and the sum of this makes up the Mass.

So there is no set reason for this event to occur at all, it achieves nothing and exists solely for the purpose of pissing people off for no reason.
Apply this to another scenario: You wouldn't walk around a bar calling people gay at random for no reason, you know that for every few people who will just ignore you one of them will take great offence and punch you in the face.

I could agree completely if they had an agenda, but the only reason for their existence is to piss people off. And to be quite frank, that is asking for trouble.

 

[katwalk]

*sigh* Is it so hard to understand the "DO NOT INTENTIONALLY PISS PEOPLE OFF" concept? I am not saying either was asking for it, I am saying that INTENTIONALLY pissing people off is a bad idea because you DON'T KNOW how they will react***. I simply don't understand how you can possibly disagree with such a simple premise.

***Well you really shouldn't piss people off on purpose just because its not right in general but at the very least personal safety should be a consideration.

Just give up Prizrak. I was having pretty much the same argument in the road rage thread saying that you should never get out of your car and go up to the guy who pissed you off because it's dangerous and after a few pages of trying to get that point across I gave up because it wasn't worth it.

It is worth noting, I just went out to buy some muffins. Within .1 miles from my house I was tailgated for going the speed limit (my car wasn't really warmed up yet) and at 5.5 miles I was beeped at and tailgated for going what I think was 40 in a 35. The idea you could coast on a bicycle down a main road without angering people is absurdly naive and most people learn that lesson still on their learners permit.

 

[prizrak]

Just give up Prizrak. I was having pretty much the same argument in the road rage thread saying that you should never get out of your car and go up to the guy who pissed you off because it's dangerous and after a few pages of trying to get that point across I gave up because it wasn't worth it.

It is worth noting, I just went out to buy some muffins. Within .1 miles from my house I was tailgated for going the speed limit (my car wasn't really warmed up yet) and at 5.5 miles I was beeped at and tailgated for going what I think was 40 in a 35. The idea you could coast on a bicycle down a main road without angering people is absurdly naive and most people learn that lesson still on their learners permit.

I kinda have already (given up that is) it just baffles me that people are so against the idea of "don't piss others off because you don't know what they might do".

 

[mpicco]

So there is no set reason for this event to occur at all, it achieves nothing and exists solely for the purpose of pissing people off for no reason.
Apply this to another scenario: You wouldn't walk around a bar calling people gay at random for no reason, you know that for every few people who will just ignore you one of them will take great offence and punch you in the face.

I have no association to CM nor do I ride a lot on my bike, but have you never been pissed off by some parade supporting some shit you don't give a damn about? I've lived in a major city for some years and sometimes I did want to throw a couple of cans on these people's heads.
If there was a free concert on the middle of the street by your favorite performer, I'm sure I can find someone that will be pissed off at the idea no matter how awesome thousands think it is.
The fact that CM doesn't "organize" or "ask permission" for these events is a huge 'douchebag-point' on their behalf, surely. But I, and a lot of other people I'm sure, have gotten delayed, annoyed, pissed off and whatever other bad things you wanna add. It's a part of living in society and specially in a big city.
As I said before, if these people become such an annoyance, the city and the police have the means and authority to take care of them. If they really are that unpopular, the amount of complaints that the authorities would receive would make them act upon it.

 

[MadCat360]

Yes. But it's not a matter of -Law-, it's a matter of practical results.

It is a matter of law because an important function of law is to assign blame for an illegal incident. If you don't agree with the standard by which society apportions blame then you have no standard, you have this confusing mess of logic you've come up with, which is completely subjective at best.

The idea that you shouldn't do something on the grounds of what a known unknown (angry person) or unknown unknown (meteors? Spontaneous combustion?) might do doesn't work at all. The idea that you are then responsible for what happens to you from things you can't predict is completely absurd. The only way to ensure that doesn't happen is to just kill yourself.

Running a red light and getting broadsided is predictable. Riding on the street in a large group (something which happens very often and is not strictly illegal as far as I know) and being assaulted by a murderous driver is not predictable. Accepting that an event is possible, maybe even likely, is not in principle accepting responsibility for that event (that's why there are liability waivers in dangerous places like race tracks - without the waivers the operators are responsible for accidents and open to being sued heavily).

 

[prizrak]

Riding on the street in a large group (something which happens very often and is not strictly illegal as far as I know)

Under NYS law cyclists have to ride single file on the right most side of the road or a bicycle lane. This could also fall under obstructing traffic given the speed they were going at. If they caused other people to start throwing things at them it could be deemed disrupting public order.

It is a matter of law because an important function of law is to assign blame for an illegal incident.

A problem with law is that it is reactive not proactive. In other words the Golf driver could not have been arrested BEFORE mowing down a bunch of cyclists so there would have been no way to prevent their injuries (from a legal standpoint).

BTW under current NYS laws the only thing that the driver of the Golf would have been charged with is fleeing a scene of an accident**. If he had ran over the cyclists and stopped to help them he would have gotten away with a traffic ticket.

**In order for it to be considered an assault with a deadly weapon or an attempted murder prosecutor would have to prove intent, which is very difficult to do in a random attack like this.

 

[SirEdward]

I have no association to CM nor do I ride a lot on my bike, but have you never been pissed off by some parade supporting some shit you don't give a damn about? I've lived in a major city for some years and sometimes I did want to throw a couple of cans on these people's heads.

There you are!

Luckily for you, and for them, you are like almost everyone and you can go on a big deal standing those kind of annoyances.

BUT! some people are different, they can't handle this and we have developed a word to describe them: crazy. What they will do is unpredictable. Everybody has to deal them. So, we have to take this into account when we plan our actions.

If there was a free concert on the middle of the street by your favorite performer, I'm sure I can find someone that will be pissed off at the idea no matter how awesome thousands think it is.

Yes, and will maybe go on striking people down with a baseball bat. Then get arrested for assault, etc. etc. There is a big difference, however; in the case of your concert, among those who attended to it, probably noone would have done anything to piss off anyone. Probably (let's assume this case) the concert was made for the love of beauty, or for the love of music, or for amusement. CM, on the other hand, rides to piss off. The concert couldn't avoid causing blocks, CM could, but did this anyway on purpose. I see a huge difference between doing something "positive", "for", "in favour of", and doing something negative, "against", "in contrast to".

If you are not convinced, think about this: what if the concert you proposed as an example was organized with the aim not to amuse the audience, but to keep the neighborhood awaken during the night? would your judgement be the same, or would you consider them in a different way?

What CM does is, in itself, a better way to tickle the mind of disturbed people around. So they should know this. After Captain_70s' suggestion, I read the Critical Mass Italy Manifesto, and I found precisely the will to make other people angry. They should expect bad reactions. Normal people are like me, or Kat, or Prizrak: we don't like them at all and we -say- that. Some people are different, they are out of their mind and can do something completely crazy.

Did CM asked for it? Of course they weren't asking for a madman on a killing instinct, not even with their despicable behaviour, but they surely made it so that it was easier for them to bump into this reaction. Also, pay attention, because if we consider standard criticism and annoyance, they have not only asked for it, but it was their main goal. What has happened is just a completely out of range reaction of those same feelings they were aiming to wake up.

Is right? Is it wrong? I know that you are searching for "good" or "bad", so that you can judge the situation and classify everything (it's our human nature), but let's get beyond that without being judgemental. The interesting question is: have they ever thought what could happen?

That is the point that divides us.

I personally think not, because they were clearly over-amazed by what had happened. They made an error, in my opinion, and since I don't like them, I point it out and I criticize them. They played with fire (human nature is dangerous) and they got burned (lukily not in a serious way). If they were children we'd say: "see? pay more attention next time!".

The fire's responsibility clearly doesn't change a bit. In our case, the driver -is- indeed a person and could have chosen to act differently, so it's still guilty of assault with a lethal weapon, whether the CM people are arrogant douchebags or immaculate souls full of good thoughts.

It is a matter of law because an important function of law is to assign blame for an illegal incident. If you don't agree with the standard by which society apportions blame then you have no standard, you have this confusing mess of logic you've come up with, which is completely subjective at best.

Considering the fact that law can condemn an innocent and save a criminal, even if the aim is the opposite, I think the problem here is not my logic, but your simplistic thinking that responsibilities are dictated by law. Law doesn't decide what has been done, nor what is right or wrong. laws sets what is allowed and what is not.

Also, in this case, it -isn't- a matter of law, since -we ALL agree- that the driver must be thrown in prison and the CM people's fault was for a driving ticket.

The idea that you shouldn't do something on the grounds of what a known unknown (angry person) or unknown unknown (meteors? Spontaneous combustion?) might do doesn't work at all. The idea that you are then responsible for what happens to you from things you can't predict is completely absurd. The only way to ensure that doesn't happen is to just kill yourself.

You are clearly overangered for some unknown reason. I repeat myself: when you cross a street, do you pay attention to what cars do, even if you are on zebra crossing? I assume yes. If what you say is correct, you should cross without paying attention, because the law is on your side. When I cross a street, I never put myself on the line of the car unless it is clear to me that the car is stopping. You can decide to go on even if you don't know if the driver have seen you and will stop, because the law is on your side. I say yours is not a smart move, because if the driver hasn't seen you, who will get hurt? Your line of thoughts end in a move which is not too smart. It's better to take precautions, even if you are legally right, because law helps you, but doesn't stop bad things from happening.

Running a red light and getting broadsided is predictable. Riding on the street in a large group (something which happens very often and is not strictly illegal as far as I know) and being assaulted by a murderous driver is not predictable.

Pissing people off and getting violent reaction -is- predictable. You can still decide to piss people off and get to have them rightly convicted if they do some bad things, but don't go around like it's a completely unpredictable event.

Accepting that an event is possible, maybe even likely, is not in principle accepting responsibility for that event

Responsibility has no sides, everyone has its own. Maybe your level of responsibility in something is 0, but it still is with you -AND- the other people. I think you confuse responsibility with guilt. Guilt is what is defined by law. Responsibility is just a fact of life, and you are always responsible for everything you do, whether it is allowed by law or not.

 

[narf]

Wow... Let me just ask you, if humans are so good natured why do we have prisons?

For Brazilian Golf drivers.

I blame the cyclists for creating a dangerous situation for themselves by deliberately pissing off a large number of people.

The situation was not dangerous. The only source of danger was the Golf driver.

When you stage a protest you always risk violence, you can never be sure that the response will be proportional to the amount of aggravation you cause.

Based on that nobody should ever protest against anything in any way, shape or form. After all, some nutjob might run them over in a Golf out of nowhere for no apparent reason.

It is a fact, if they had not been there they would not have been hurt.

To me the driver looked like a ticking timebomb, so in fact they could have been run over by him while walking the dog on the sidewalk if he stepped into dog poo earlier.

Under NYS law cyclists have to ride single file on the right most side of the road or a bicycle lane. This could also fall under obstructing traffic given the speed they were going at. If they caused other people to start throwing things at them it could be deemed disrupting public order.

All these things may be true and would certainly warrant tickets. Nothing more, nothing less - especially not being run over by a Golf.
Other people throwing things is their choice to throw though, so not the bicyclists' fault.

 

[tigger]

What you don't seem to be getting is that CM put themselves into a position where there was a possibility of an extremely violent response.

I'm not sure what you read, but I explicitly stated that they should expect a reaction. The fact that an extremely violent reaction was possible is pretty obvious, given that it's the reason we're having this conversation.

When you stage a protest you always risk violence, you can never be sure that the response will be proportional to the amount of aggravation you cause.

Sure. But you can't blame the protesters for the violence perpetrated against them. You argue that we're responsible for our own safety (implying we can foresee and control the actions of others), but in reality all we're responsible for are our own actions. Critical Mass idiots should face the full brunt of the law for what they do. That's a reasonable consequence for their actions and it's what they should expect. But they're not responsible (not to blame) for the actions of a lunatic.