| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2007/5/14-16 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Bicycle] UID:46630 Activity:high |
5/14 Hey, Mark is this you running over cyclists?
http://www.csua.org/u/ip2
\_ Of course not. Though this is utterly predictable, and I wouldn't
have a problem defending that person. Being attacked like that in a
mob, I think it's reasonable to flee to safety, and CM's total
disregard for laws seems to remove them from the safety of law.
Amusingly, I've biked or bussed for most of the last 10 years. It's
not cyclists I have a problem with (I am one), it's the CM mob.
-emarkp
\_ Actually, it looks like the car driver hopped a curb to
deliberately provoke a confrontation with the cyclists.
Isn't that how you see it?
\_ Your complete insistence on ignoring evidence to fit your world
view is incredible. This video does not show bikes breaking any
laws at all, and they're not even blocking the car; he just
intentionally ran into a legitimate road user because he
wanted to. To defend actions such as that is completely
ridiculous. -tom
\_ Again we have an edited video. The car hopped a curb, but it's
unclear what caused it. The lane on the other side of the
median is going the other way, so it wasn't just driving down
the lane and suddenly decided to jump the median. My guess
would be that it swerved to avoid a bike or turned into the
lane wide to avoid a bike and was pissed at the cyclists. But
that's just a guess. Tom will jump in with a guess that he'll
declare to be The Truth, but of course we don't know without
the full story. -emarkp
\_ Your complete insistence on ignoring evidence to
fit your world view is incredible. This video
does not show bikes breaking any laws at all, and
they're not even blocking the car; he just
intentionally ran into a legitimate road user
because he wanted to. To defend actions such as
that is completely ridiculous. -tom
\_ So he was clearly not "fleeing to safety" right? I think
we can at least agree on that, right? Go back to 00:32
in the video and tell me again how the car driver was
fleeing for safety.
\_ Note that the driver is trying to get out of the way of
ONCOMING TRAFFIC. I don't know how it got there, nor do
you. But it was trying to get out of the way of a car
coming right at it. -emarkp
\_ And then it was stuck behind some bicylists, so
clearly "fleeing to safety" by running over them.
Wow, you really do have an odd worldview...
\_ So these cyclists are hogging the entire road for no reason
other than to slow down traffic (thus being assholes) and
you think it's the car provoking a confrontation? Then the
guy runs over and props his bike against the car's front
you think it's the car provoking a confrontation? Then a
guy runs there and props his bike against the car's front
bumper and acts surprised when it gets run over.
\_ They're not slowing down traffic, they *are* traffic. -tom
\_ ^traffic^other traffic
\_ how does that modification change anything? Traffic
always slows down other traffic; certianly Critical
Mass slows down other traffic a lot less than a
similar number of cars does. -tom
\_ Maybe but so what? They are moving slower than
the cars, purposefully taking up all the lanes...
basically inconveniencing people just to "make
a statement" (which is what?) They are there
basically for the express purpose of annoying the
car drivers.
\_ Critical Mass doesn't have an "express"
purpose for anything. I think most people
who do it do it because riding in a big
group with loud music is fun. -tom
\_ This is typical car driver attitude: anything in front
of me going slower than me is "provoking a confrontation"
with me. Unfortunately, many people are killed and
maimed every day because of this hostile, selfish and
immature attitude on the part of automobile drivers.
It does not matter who or what is in front of them:
another car, a cyclist or a pedestrian, if they are
in the drivers way, they are "provoking" them.
\_ Actually the average driver is not hostile but
apathetic and just trying to get somewhere. CM is
hostile and childish and looking for confrontations.
If it keeps up expect to see the PD coming down on
them for everything in the book starting with the
red light violations.
\_ It is the apathetic drivers that run over pedestrians
and cylists every single day in San Francisco? Good
to know they are not angry when they do it, just
indifferent. And if you think the automobile holds
the balance of political power in Berkeley and
indifferent. And if you think the automobile drivers
hold the balance of political power in Berkeley and
San Francisco, you haven't been paying attention.
\_ No, it doesn't extend to "anything in front".
Nice strawman.
\_ You obviously have never tried driving the
speed limit in the fast lane.
\_ Why would I do that?
\_ Oh, I don't know, maybe because that is
what is legal, perhaps. Maybe because you
might want to see first hand the maniacal
hostility of your fellow drivers, which the
rest of us have to put up with every single
day. |
| 5/17 |
|
| www.csua.org/u/ip2 -> www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7b-Yk9IAN4&mode=related&search= WheelsOfChange (4 hours ago) marked as spam Due to the harassment of this site, comments are hereby discontinued for the near future. Sorry to those who had legitimate comments still to make. Attacking a first-amendment protected demonstration by barreling over a median strip, striking a disabled man, running over his foot, injuring his knee, plowing over a bicycle and careening through a crowd, is indefensible. commops (4 hours ago) marked as spam last time i checked, vehicles have the right of way on streets. unless blocked off for special even (tour de france, etc) -- they had no right frocking w/ that driver. why he went over the divider is a whole other subject - who the frock knows. And when were VEHICLES supposed to move over for other ones just because they go slower? Maybe I should blast a horn in your face to get you to move over in downtown traffic too. aussiekwv (5 hours ago) marked as spam Oh dear abuse because you are too much of a coward to answer my question. But hold I thought you leaving, so why are you still here? In the wake of the incident of motorist violence at San Francisco Critical Mass on Friday, March 30, 2007, this video is presented as a counterpoint to the gross misrepresentation in much of the Bay Area media. The hype began with a gossip column in the SF Chronicle. The side of the story which hasn't been told: a mother in a minivan reportedly endangered her children and the demonstrators by crashing through the Critical Mass in San Francisco. She struck one cyclist, who repotedly flew 4-5 feet, and crushed the cyclist's bicycle underwheel. One cyclist reportedly erred in throwing a bicycle at the rear of the van, which had tinted windows. None of the children inside, who were not visible, were injured. There were no further acts of agression in response to the attack. The police failed to arrest the driver, wihch is all too common in the everyday mistreatments of bicyclists, and particularly true at Critical Mass. The attached video shows a parallel event, in which a mother terrifies her child, jumps a curb to attack, strikes a cyclist (a cancer victim, incidentally, and partially disabled), traps his foot underwheel, then pushes through and crushes the bicycle. A police lieutenant failed to respond immediately after (audio problems need to be corrected, but you can see the cyclists are asking for justice). The full video shows that there was a police helicopter and police stationed at intersections along the way. Their failure to protect the cyclists speaks to the endemic and institutionalized discrimination against bicycling which is a foundation for the need for critical mass demonstrations. |