Donate
Indybay Needs Your Help: Donate Now!
We need to raise $5000 to continue operating.
All donations go directly to operating costs.
SF Bay Area Indymedia
indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate
More
donate
$777.00 donated in past month

africa

canada

east asia

europe

latin america

oceania

south asia

united states

west asia

process

projects

regions

topics

East Bay | Indymedia

Berkeley Critical Mass Out of Line
by Joe Konn
Sunday May 13th, 2007 6:39 AM
Video released by Jason Meggs of Berkeley Critical Mass undermines the efforts of cyclists. Video shows a clearly befuddled senior couple surrounded by Critical Mass bikers harassing them.
On Saturday Berkeley Critical Mass took to the streets of Berkeley, CA. As usual, there were no significant incidents as they passed through downtown Berkeley. When they reached the intersection of the Alameda and Monterrey, the driver of a mini van came in contact with the bicycle of Critical Mass rider. There is disagreement among witnesses as to who was at fault. Critical Mass folks clearly seeing it as the automobile driver's fault. Witnesses interviewed by Berkeley police felt the driver was attacked by the bicyclists.

Jason Meggs, California coordinator for Critical Mass, released a video of the altercation. The edited video is available on their website (http://www.bclu.org). The video does not reveal the cause of the accident, it begins with pictures of dozens of bicyclists riding through Berkeley, skips ahead, to a scene showing a crowd of bicyclists haranguing an elderly couple in a mini van. There is a bicycle under the front of the van. Clearly the contact was at a very low speed. The driver appears confused and is clearly not angry. The bicyclists build the tempo of accusation, the driver is clearly afraid and has no idea what needs to be done to relieve the situation. He is confused; the Critical Mass folks accuse the couple in the van of being drunk. The older woman passenger opens her door, explains she has cerebral palsy. She clearly wants to exit the mini van, but is too afraid. Eventually, one of the cyclists climbs on the van and breaks the windshield.

The police ticketed no one.

Mr. Meggs immediately took the offensive in a style reminiscient of the political propaganda wars of the seventies. He complained loudly about the media bias, then slipped in his edited video propaganda piece. Anyone familiar with the tactics revealed in the video will recognize the 'old school' organizing techniques. 1) cause a nuisance, 2) hope that someone will be drawn into the trap, or 3) become a bit disoriented and make a mistake. 3) Shout and gesture to amplify the situation, 4) take pictures
or, better, video being careful 5) to choose the best shots. 6) Proclaim innocence of all provocation, 7) have prepared press releases and edited video. 8) Prepare outrageous headlines for your constituents, 9) Complain loudly and file suit.

Sound familiar? Folks on the correct side of the argument (more bikes, fewer cars) need to let the power of their ideas and example work for them, not jump into the mud with Mr Rove, and the Swiftboaters, ad nauseum. A picture of healthy, fit cyclist shouting at a pair of confused seniors undermines anything Critical Mass Berkeley has done to further the cause of leaning cars behind. In fact, it makes clear the elitist nature of the bicycle group. There is only room on the road for folks fit enough to pedal.

Get real
by sup
Sunday May 13th, 2007 8:54 AM
It's never acceptable to deliberately run into someone, even at speeds below 5mph. What is seen on that tape is pretty egregious. He didn't accidentally hit someone through confusion. He hit the first person, then kept driving as their foot was entangled and they started to go under the vehicle.
There are many witness reports which you aren't mentioning about the behavior and demeanor of the driver just before the video started. He had been quite angry, and started accelerating into the intersection against the light. Someone's age doesn't make it okay to act like this.

It is fear of behavior like this which makes it nearly impossible to allow kids under age 12 to ride bicycles in this area because there isn't enough off-road space.
What do you mean by "BCM Out of Line?"
by luci
Sunday May 13th, 2007 12:34 PM
All that I see up above is an attack on Jason Meggs, not on Berkeley Critical Mass. Jason is not everyone's favorite person, but is it really necessary to single him out for attack all the time? He uses his resources, such as his videocamera and his apparent lack of a need for sleep, to serve both the environment (bicycle causes) and the movement. I disagree with his decision to send the footage and announcement around to the corporate media, but would you even know about this incident if it weren't for Jason's efforts? He was not the only cyclist on the ride, yet he gets several paragraphs in your diatribe.

What about an attack on public transit (Paratransit), which clearly does not provide enough service to keep this "befuddled" driver and his disabled wife from driving themselves around town?

We should not get behind the wheel if we don't feel aware enough to drive safely (I use the "we," even though I don't have a car). That applies to when we are tired, hungry, angry, etc. Why is it that these incidents at critical mass only happen when the driver is not at 100% awareness, awakeness, fullness, happiness, etc?
Looking for a fight
by Citizen Smith
Sunday May 13th, 2007 9:17 PM
If you go looking for a fight - don't be surprised when you find one.

I saw this ride on MLK a little earlier - they were all having a wonderfull time holding up traffic and running red-lights. I'm sorry but I don't understand how this encourages people to be more aware and or considerate of cyclists - it just show me a group of people that once a month enjoy getting their own back on car drivers by breaking the same laws - if anything it just makes the situation worse.
A few years ago I used to cheer on CM - now i see them as a bunch of thugs - showing videos of crying children is not going to make me believe any differently.
Perhaps you could post some footage of the injured cyclists - or the interview you did right after - this being such a heinous crime as you are claiming.

Perhaps you would also like to upload some footage of the oil leaking out of the car your guys destroyed a few years ago on Telegraph Ave during the "Reclaim The Streets" protest - don't tell me it didn't happen as I was right there trying to stop it going into the storm drain- it was just after you built the toxic bonefire of furniture outside Ameoba and then graffitied the apartment block on the corning of Channing.

I like the idea of more people riding bicycles but you guys have really lost the plot, not to mention the support you used to have - nobody likes people that are rude and self-righteous - if you really want to do all you can to help save the planet perhaps you could stop contributing any C02 at all - this could be best achieved by a cessation of breathing.

On yer bike CM
Joe Konn Misinformed
by Enola
Monday May 14th, 2007 3:34 AM
First of all, Berkeley Critical Mass is not held on a Saturday.
Secondly, not all witnesses interviewed by the BPD said the bicyclists were at fault, but the police only released statements from those siding with them. Hard to believe, huh?
Third, if rolling your eyes, accelerating to injure people and yelling are signs of confusion, I guess the driver was confused. But if he didn't know what to do, maybe he could have listened to one of the many panicked riders telling him to back up his car.
He could have easily backed up because the van was not surrounded - You can see in the video that there is no one at all behind him. Fourth, the passenger was not "afraid to exit the van" - she DID exit the van and was making accusations until some "independent witness" escorted her back into the van. Please view footage carefully before making statements about it, and learn the whole story - both sides - before reporting it.
Mr. Smith,
by Porcelina
Monday May 14th, 2007 3:41 AM
Critical Mass and Reclaim the Streets are unrelated events.
Re:Critical Mass and Reclaim the Street
by Citizen Smith
Monday May 14th, 2007 11:28 AM
Except that it's the same people riding bikes - i see you guys ride up Telegraph (while burning toxic flags) every month and it's the same people as attended "Reclaim the Streets".

Are you telling me that Jason Meggs is not also part of "Reclaim the Streets" Berkeley?
Here's a copy of text found on http://www.berkeleycriticalmass.org/

Reclaim the Streets -- street reclamations in protest of global capitalism.
These two strips of photos were taken from a collection located on
another SF Bay Area RTS webpage, from the September 26, 2000 ("S26") demonstration
which included a Critical Mass ride as part of the protest.

That accusation doesn't make any sense.
by Wynd
Monday May 14th, 2007 2:44 PM
How can bicyclists place their bikes under the tire of a van? It's a pretty heavy van - Which, by the way, was running into them.
Disgusting behavior by Cyclists
by slp
Monday May 14th, 2007 7:41 PM
I watched the video of the alleged attack. I also talked with a friend who was deliberately setup by a cyclist in San Francisco. I myself watched a cyclist delibrately scream profanity at a passing car on Kearny St. in San Francisco that wasn't even close to him. Apparently some members of Critical Mass are going around delibrately attempting to draw innocent motorists into setups designed to look like a delibrate attack on them. To scream and yell at an elderly couple things like "How dare you be so violent??" Young people half their age. Both the couple looked frightended and bewildered. The man's wife had Cerebal Palsy. Like a street gang on bicycles. They all should have been arrested for assault for this disgusting display. Nothing excuses this attack on Seniors.
Jason Meggs responds.
by Jason Meggs
Tuesday May 15th, 2007 7:42 AM
Hi,

Just found this story and thread. Constructive criticism is *very* welcome.

Firstly, I've been assembling responses to the various issues criticizing the victims.

http://bclu.org/20070511/quickfacts.html

(The idea was to provide quick facts, but it seems to have become a bit long and growing.)

Secondly, Luci, thanks for sharing that you disagree with providing the footage to the media.
A group of people considered this. True, I don't think we realized that some would not see
that this event could only be caused by a motorist driving into the crowd. While many
incidents like this happen, and are often caught much better on my video, we often don't
post them to indymedia let alone the mass media. It's part of daily life as a bicycle
demonstrator, and quite frankly, as a bicyclist no matter who you are.

In this instance, a motivating factor was the presence of media in the context of more than a
month of false vilification of CM by the corporate media over the incident at SFCM in March.
The media claims a mother and her children were surrounded and their windows smashed.
The reality, from credible reports and what the driver admits to (and which sounds credible
after 14+ years of watching it over and over again) is that the driver sped through the
crowd and hit a bicyclist, causing injury and damaging a bike, and then fled. Nobody knew
there were kids behind the tinted windows. Most of us do not condone smashing a window
even after a violent hit and run. It can only do harm, and the media will misuse it.

(For one of the most balanced and non-distorted, non-expanded, non-hyperbolic treatments in
the television mass media, see this account: http://www.ktvu.com/video/11523434/index.html
.)

Unfortunately, the media had all the circumstantial evidence they needed to malign the group
once again here; there was a spiderweb fracture in the center of the driver's window. There was
also an army of police who were hell bent on lying about the incident (much as they lie whenever
bicyclists, pedestrians, and people using wheelchairs are struck, but here it was an armada of
police including a lieutenant who blatantly showed her bias against the group).

Cops and media make for a powerful frame-up. We felt we had to show as much of what we
could to counter the inevitable spree of misinformation (selling more and more car commercials
and cars along the way).

You can see how this was presented with my voice added on many stories, now linked from
http://bclu.org/20070511/

Would the treatment of us be better or worse without all this effort (and yes, Luci, painfully little
sleep)?

Who has a better, alternative approach?
Critical Mass Rides are the new Side Shows
by Jon
Tuesday May 15th, 2007 2:34 PM
I consider myself an avid cyclist, and have some thoughts on the "New Side Shows." The "New Side Shows" differ little from the "Old Side Shows". People with nothing to do on a Friday night, scour the blogs or "NEW MEDIA" sites to find the meeting places, gather around chanting and throw their hands in the air (or at windshields) like they just don't care. Difference is the Old Side Shows (with cars) dont end in as much violence as their 2 wheeled counterparts these days. Oh how I miss the old Friday Night Side Show with its screetching tires, E40 blaring from the speakers, happy people ghost riding the wip getting hyphy. The best part about the Old Side Shows is they happen at night when only the participants can actually enjoy them. The New Side Shows are forced upon the general populace during the day for Performance Art value.
Old Side Shows had no political agenda, no "Journalists" with cool digital cameras taking pictures of bike lock wielding cyclists "provoked" into smashing the windshields of Single Mothers and Retired Pensioners. These "Journalists" are the new Paparazzi. They provoke incidents, capture it on film then sell their footage to the highest bidder for dollar value or their own self-importance. When they get popped in the face by the proverbial Sean Penn's of the world they cry foul. PUT YOUR CAMERA DOWN. FINISH THE RIDE. DON'T BEAT UP OLD PEOPLE, and clear the streets so the real Side Shows can continue on in peace.
Car sideshows kill people and make much more noise
by Oakland Mass Rider
Tuesday May 15th, 2007 11:58 PM
Jon, Jon, Jon c'mon pal, think about what you are saying: you prefer the car sideshows and ensuing high speed chases, in which folks have --died--, over a bicycle event that can result in minor delays for car traffic on a few streets earlier in the evening, one day per month?

What about the exhaust and tire smoke? Doesn't breathing it in make you feel healthful and alive? How's your flexibility after cruising around all night in your Trans-Am Jon? Don't you love spending hundreds per month on gas?

Do you really think those car sideshow events have more redeeming cultural value than an event which raises consciousness of bicycling, a much more sustainable form of transportation. The aggrandizement of rear-wheel-drive, 8 cylinder, penis extensions, in any way shape or form, through "sideshows" or newspaper or television advertisments, is a laughable testment to poor consumer choices and even more backward energy policies.

Remember, when you ride alone in your $#!tty Escalade you ride with Bin Laden ! : )
Provide the uncut video
by Mike Burg
Wednesday May 16th, 2007 10:03 AM
A good alternative would be to provide the complete, unedited video. There are at least three cuts in the middle of the scene of violence you have been distributing-right in the middle-which are obvious to anyone. Why are they there? You look like you are hiding something. I have been caught in the middle of protests where drivers literally drive right into us, and even I have trouble taking your side when I see three bikes under a van, a girl in pain, I'm thinking "Oh my god what is wrong with that driver?" then -CUT- A shot of the driver.

You either tell the whole story or you are no different that KRON or the BPD, you are spinning BS. It is incumbant on you to release the video from the moment the video detected the incident, until the video stopped rolling or left the scene. No Indian Rock, oh look at the peaceful hippies, no shots of some guys butt running red lights, just the video of the incident and all of it. You claimed on the KRON interview that that was all the video, that it was uncut and that it patently, demonstrably a false statement.

If what you are saying is true about the incident then why would releasing the whole video undermine your position or anything about CM?
edit the above comment
by Michael burg
Wednesday May 16th, 2007 10:04 AM
I forgot to mention that the above comment is directed at Jason's last post.
Get Real
by Bob
Wednesday May 16th, 2007 1:06 PM
This is clearly a staged event. When are you bully law breakers going to learn that your BS just doesn't fly? I find it very suspcious that in one moment of the video everything is fine and dandy and the next there are bikes thrown under a car. Sorry, but no footage in between? It would have taken at least a minute to get from realtive peace and calm to utter chaos and mayhem. What's the matter Jason, couldn't find the record button? Please, you people are looking to entrap someone to either sue them or get your face in a paper. Just admit it, your an unhappy homosexual who hates himself and all other heterosexual law abbiding citizens.

Perhaps you should trying riding your bike with the seat securely fastened to the post, instead of off it.

Cheers,

Bob from the tenderloin
Berkeley Police aren 't fooled by Jason Megg's Tactics
by Tom Swick
Wednesday May 16th, 2007 2:55 PM
According to KRON, charges will be filed, and it won't be against the elderly driver. I'm trying not to judge Critical Mass too harshly, as I keep reminding myself that they may not be represented by the punks that assaulted this couple, and they may not be represented by the incredibly dishonest Jason Meggs.
Roads are Dangerous Mom Taught Me That
by Yeah, She Did
Friday May 18th, 2007 4:28 PM
Its amazing to me, but people get into accidents all the frickin time--that's why insurance companies pretty much rule a significant portion of the economy. They make a bucketload of money and pay it out to the government so nobody disturbs them while they make bucketloads more. Try regulating them, and see who rules.

So, shocker, its dangerous to drive. Anything. And since I got a doctorate in urban transportation planning, let me give you a primer on who gets hurt: the bigger the vehicle, the less damage to the person in it. Period. Even with airbags. Sorry, semitruck trumps my little Civic with all its airbags at speed. I and my passengers would die in anything like a 40mph crash. As you observed, semitruck even trumps freeway interchange (the passenger lived), at freeway speeds!

My point? The smaller and less covered your vehicle, the more body parts get hurt and detached and the more you die. My Civic, not so good as my friend's van. My bike, not so good as my buddy's motorcycle. My friend's kid on her skateboard, I would cream her on my bike at speed. Because.....THE ROADWAY IS DANGEROUS AND WE TAKE A CHANCE OF BEING INJURED AND DYING OR DOING THAT TO ANOTHER EVERY FRICKIN TIME WE GO OUT THERE.

So lets not do this: Piss each other off.

Lets do this: Be as safe in our vehicles as we can be. Charge Grandpa a frickin fortune if he's in an accident. Price him out of his car if he's a real menace. The insurance companies will love you.

Make him take five (not online) road courses a year if he gets one ticket. Better yet, get harsh and make everyone do that.

Force cops to stop giving warnings. Make all violations just killer on your insurance. Force all vehicles to get insurance and pay through the a$$ if they run red lights, do stunt driving, etc... Oh wait, bicycles are vehicles.....

Sorry, did I harsh your ride?

For everyone to be safe, you have to get **everyone** to slow down and pay attention. A big badass mass bike ride through urban streets doesn't do much to help individual responsibility. But baby, it sure pisses people off.

Which really helps the level of courtesy and individual thoughtfulness among all drivers of all vehicles out there on the road. Not.

Its a dangerous road out there. You can do a lot to the roads to make them safe and slow down cars. But that costs $$$. Everybody wants city roadway improvement $$$, nobody gets that, because that pork doesn't have the backing of major transnational corporate builders. Little local traffic calming projects don't have the juice like a big bridge or highway or transit project. Big pork trumps little traffic calming any day. Unless they tack it onto big pork.

Till then, you have to realize, hold everybody's hand when you cross that road. Nobody's going to fix it anytime soon to make it safe. And don't be cruel to each other. We have to share and its just as dangerous as mom taught you.
Safe Bicycle Transportation Improvements Needed
by Oakland Mass Rider
Saturday May 19th, 2007 1:53 PM
Actually a bicycle is considered a "device" by the California Vehicle Code (CVC-231).

But you make some redeeming points. Isn't it clear we need to fund better transportation engineering improvements in our cities to ease tensions between bicyclists and motorists? Don't you feel we can make sensible improvments to safety with lane reductions and restriping, segregated bikeways, bike friendly signal improvements, bicycle boulevards, etc.?

Remember, that additional space on the streets that we reserve for bicyclists could save your own child's life and limbs or that of your friends and family.
Dangerous
by Samurai7
Saturday May 19th, 2007 5:14 PM
Speaking for the many, many cyclists who don't particpate in critical mass, I really resent the Masser habit of picking fights with motorists, even if they might be in the wrong. Pissing off drivers only guarantees that they'll take it out on the next cyclist they see. I'm sure Meggs would
love to have every car in Berkeley off the road, but it ain't gonna happen. All his tactics end up doing is making cycling more dangerous for the rest of us, who have to contend with the results of his tactics.
Debunking more bunk
by JM
Saturday May 19th, 2007 6:03 PM
Okay...just an attempt to reply to some of these (often clearly bogus) posts. Sorry if I don't get to all of them, there are other important things to be doing than playing to harassment.

"You claimed on the KRON interview that that was all the video, that it was uncut."

No, that's wrong. Go watch it again. I said it was too long (because the media has often criticized me for bringing too much footage and because I really didn't have time to interview that day; I guess I should have refused the interview, but he promised I'd get to explain the entire incident -- he lied). I said it had all the essential elements of what the driver did. I said there was no more footage before the footage I provided. I certainly wish I'd been filming constantly. The KRON reporter was just looking to make it look like they're on it, and make CM look bad. They didn't ask for the full footage until right in the middle of the interview, when they knew it would be impossible to give it to them anyway. More lies in the media.

"This is clearly a staged event."

How on earth could that be possible? There is no way to organize critical mass to hoist a van. Don't you think the riders would have gotten better Hollywood style video if they were so sophisticated as to stage this?

"I really resent the Masser habit of picking fights with motorists, even if they might be in the wrong. Pissing off drivers only guarantees that they'll take it out on the next cyclist they see. I'm sure Meggs would
love to have every car in Berkeley off the road, but it ain't gonna happen. All his tactics end up doing is making cycling more dangerous for the rest of us, who have to contend with the results of his tactics."

Can you please explain what "tactics" I used? I acted as a legal observer and videotaped an incident showing a motorist attacking people who had a right to the road and a Constitutional right to demonstrate. I provided lots of footage of it including things that don't look so good like people screaming and cursing (which is something I wouldn't be doing but it's hard to blame them when they think someone is being killed, see people being pinned and sucked under a bumper, watch bikes be crushed, etc.).

How is that a "tactic"? Are you accusing me of something? Be explicit. And, what kind of approach is that, to say cyclists stay quiet and not ride together because it only makes things "more dangerous." Things are unacceptable and people have a fundamental right to address that. Please don't stick your head in the sand, but if you must, don't be so indignant when others refuse to join you.

Finally, where do you get the idea that CM has a "habit of picking fights with motorists." Can you please provide any evidence at all of this?

Thanks!





Stuff the Vehicle Code, School, and Mom Taught Me
by Yeah, She Did
Sunday May 20th, 2007 1:37 AM
About the bikes being vehicles thing:

"California Vehicle Code Section 21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application."

Bikes are devices, yes, according to the vehicle code. DRIVERS of bicycles are subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle. Ok, so when bicycles are occupied by persons and in motion, on the roadway, bingo, the law treats you as if you are driving a vehicle.

In point of fact, a bicycle is a device whose driver is subject to all the laws applicable to drivers of vehicles while they are riding their bicycles. Sorry to have boiled that down to the simplicity of saying a bicycle is a vehicle. My bad, the arcane nature of the Code.

ALL the driving laws are applicable to bicycle riders (this part of the Code says "including, but not limited to"). However, If you look up the codes they highlight for your edification under this Section, besides driving under the influence which this spells out, the highlighted codes include the basic driving laws like what you do at the scene of an accident (Division 10 is called Accidents and Accident Reports); Section 27400, Headsets and Earplugs (don't wear them); Division 16.7, Registration and Licensing of Bicycles (of course); Division 17, Offenses and Prosecution (tickets and what happens in traffic court, etc.); and Division 18, Penalties and Disposition of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures (all the traffic laws and what bad stuff you can do on the street and what it'll get ya). Some stuff bikes can't do (presumably), like violate exhaust standards.

Anyway, thought I would clarify that, consider my transportation law errata added to my above comments. Mom would be proud that I was diligent. Take care all. And be mightly safe out there, one and all.

Oh yeah, on the Headsets and Earplugs Section (27400). I have a friend who had to endure watching a grade crossing security video of a bicyclist who was wearing their ipod while going around the flashing and closed choo-choo train crossing arms. At least he was happy when he was obliterated. It was traumatic for my friend, who had to watch this in a professional capacity. I had to stay up with him the night after he saw that video; grainy didn't help. God. Trains are great to have but uber-dangerous for everyone and you will never, ever beat the train. Ever. Even if you have beat a freight train you don't know if a faster passenger train is about to be on top of you. Train trumps everything--trains are the king of mass and speed and no matter what you're in you're history if it hits you, cuz its force is maximum.

In Europe they have something called 4-quad gates and ped gates that are very useful in stopping all cars, bikes and peds from entering the train crossing but here we have so many unguarded crossings, and gates which do not completely close off access to the train even in guarded crossings.

But again, $$$ for this are limited. We need so many local public projects to enhance safety and we don't get it. Big pork, big transnational construction of major projects with billion-dollar price tags, these are what interests Congress. Not standardized local safety projects like improved rail crossings (so bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicle drivers are as safe as they are in many parts of Europe).

Anyway, I could rant on. I wish we could turn our energies to demanding REAL dollars, even the little bit of money (in relative terms for highway projects) that they just spent on the 880/580 interchange would be incredible if similar dollars were spent on traffic calming. Interesting that federal highway dollars just pop out of nowhere to reimburse the state of CA when that major highway link goes down, but try to get that kind of money for traffic calming on local streets, hah! No way.

People need to understand where the pork is, who the big constructors and engineering firms are that pay to play and also even help invent the massive projects that get the federal and state money, and why traffic calming or safety projects that would actually change people's lives on the local streets never get the money they require, money that would create a tremendous urban environment if the projects were widespread and not just on a few select streets. Cities are generally responsible for these traffic calming projects and cities do not get the huge dollars generally speaking. Its the regional, state and federal entities that dispense the huge dollars to their buddies in major corporate partnerings for the big interchange, highway, bridge, rail, etc., projects that they consider large enough to hold their interest.

Sick but true. Bicycle and pedestrian and traffic calming projects are going to be funded of course by the regional transportation agency but its always a drop in the bucket compared to other modes and projects and as a percentage of the total budget. Its a pork thing, a political thing. Not right.


Critical Mass vs. Urban Planning
by JDub
Wednesday May 23rd, 2007 10:20 AM
HIGHWAY TO BELL
To say that sensible urban planning in the Bay Area or California in general is easy would be a huge overstatement. That being said, the need for safe and effective routes for non gas vehicles will undoubtetly grow in this century as technology and high gas prices will force regional governments to think outside the 4 wheel box. Now, can we all be Davis CA? A town where cyclists can ride from one side of town to the other by virtually coming into no contact with motors vehicles. The answer most definitely is no, however important lessons can be taken from the design of such bike friendly city states.
A TALE OF TWO CITIES
The future success of Califonia cities effectly dealing with high density commuting and high gas prices lies in the development of long open non auto routes. Hence, the Rail / Trail. Two cities that have similar pre-existing rail systems that cut through town are Santa Cruz and Palo Alto. One is a self described left leaning city where several innovative Bike Companies are located, and the other city is more center left, has a strong bike community but generally puts more of an emphasis on Venture Capital rather than venturing out for a ride. So which city would you think would build a rail trail first. While Santa Cruz has the political conviction and valiant bike transportation proponants, Palo Alto is the only city of the two to make the rail trail a reality. While Palo Altos tracks (Cal Train) are hot and active, Santa Cruz has a virtually unused track system that runs though town yet have been blocked from developing a Rail System in recent years. So how can Palo Alto develope an effective rail system and Santa Cruz lag behind? Money of course is the obvious problem, Palo Alto city coffers being a bit more filled at this time. Yet the real reason for the lack of developement is "community opposition".
NIMBY
The "Not in my backyard" saying has never been more valid than in the city of Santa Cruz. The train tracks border the backyards of several neighborhoods that cut through the city. Unfortuneatly, this extremely backward ideology gains ground when Santa Cruz's conservative underbelly's opions are swayed by events such Critical Mass' run-ins with retiries and mothers (two groups more identifiable to Ed and Ethel, than the cookie cutter urban activists in vogue today). Community consenus enabled the rail trail come to reality in Palo Alto in a geograpical environment less suited than in Santa Cruz. So here is my message to Critical Mass: LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND CONCENTRATE ON SENSIBLE RESULTS AND DON'T TRY TO PROVOKE CHANGE. Come together and show ALL people that bike commuting is more than sunning yourself on rocks, its something that will promote safe travel for everyone.
Video
by jm
Thursday May 24th, 2007 12:10 PM
Cyclists, Lies & Videotape
by Jim
( downtowntrouble [at] yahoo.com ) Friday May 25th, 2007 8:09 AM
Right on, Joe Konn! I am a progressive cyclist who, for the past 20 or so years, has done touring, commuting, mountain biking and road racing. I’ve also done my fair share of advocacy for cyclists and the environment through various leagues and coalitions, and know my rights as a cyclist on the road. And my responsibilities…

…which is why these two videos left me fuming at the Critical Mass participants. First, the Berkeley incident. (I wasn't there...this is my interpretation of the videos). The scene opens with the Critical Mass group…cruising through a red light. Um, hello? Red means stop. We have the right to be on the road, and the responsibility to obey the traffic laws. Move ahead, and then I see a group (mob?) of angry (violent?) cyclists surrounding a van with an elderly couple inside. An accident has happened and, thankfully, no one is hurt. Assuming the driver was at fault, and the group wasn’t running another red light, your violent reaction was still over the top. Stop the drama, call the police, get the license plate number, and relax.

Move ahead to the San Francisco incident, where I see a group of cyclists taking up two lanes of traffic (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/04/27/18405869.php/18405869.php?show_comments=1#comments). And oblivious, apparently, to all the cars trying to get around them. Yes, we have the right to use the road. But we don’t have the right to take up the entire road to intentionally block traffic, as it appears in the video. It is illegal and leaves the impression that cyclists are nothing more than passive-aggressive vigilantes. Which tends to negate what so many cyclists continue to fight for: the right to be on the road in the first place. Yes, of course the “crazy driver” should still be arrested (where were the police?)…and the cyclists ticketed. You are NOT helping.

Thanks for listening.
get cars off the road
by klimber
Friday May 25th, 2007 9:36 PM
what's the argument? cars are 3,000+ lb. weapons and bicyclists are non-polluting exercise machines. so what if a windshield gets smashed? a cyclist is going to get mauled or killed in an accident. how that the berkeley motorist get away with crushing 3 bikes? that is not justice. I don't care how aggressive the CM bikers were, if someone thinks they can drive into a crowd of bicyclists, they deserve to have their windshield smashed.

screw this CM once a month crap, I'm talking about CM everyday, smash & slash the cars of anyone with bad attitudes, they can wait f*ckin three minutes for us to move on; we gotta plug up everything, no business as usual, until this corrupt corporate free-trading, empire expanding, civilian bombing, earth raping war machine is shut down.

yeah I have a car and sometimes drive but I support CM wholeheartedly, and I'd get rid of my car in a second if I public transportation or carsharing was cheaper and more available.

-k
YouTubers Exposed
by JM
Wednesday May 30th, 2007 11:39 AM
The problem of motorist violence which bicyclists and pedestrians see all too often, has been captured by some students in one incident on youtube (see below). The comments on youtube continue to be inflamatory, defamatory, prejudiced, vile and violent. The news report itself covers the fact that the police officer wouldn't have believed the cyclist. It's yet another parallel incident, and it shows how sick the people representing the car companies are.

To see their comments, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H0Pb_qjj6k

This video is actually several videos spliced into one
by JelloBiafra
Thursday May 31st, 2007 4:44 PM
This video was put together, using at least 2 spliced together videos.

This is not one video. You can see JM clearly midway through the video. He is wearing a black helmet, dark shirt, with white stripes going down the sleeves.

He cannot possibly be the cameraman, and film himself at the same time.

This is a compilation of several videos. None of which have been released to the public.
Oh Jason. This public relations disaster is of your Making. Learn from It.
by MondegreenMom
( rags1927 [at] yahoo.com ) Tuesday Jun 5th, 2007 5:18 PM
Please direct everyone to the the YouTube video of your interview with the KRON reporter. The most important segment is from about 2:44 to 2:59 where you tell Jonathan Bloom that the video is uncut, having just told him that its edited to tell the story you want told.

Its difficult to see in this video, but while you talk about the video you shot and sold to the media you can also be seen in the footage on the screen next to you. In the copies of your original footage that were renamed and reposted on Youtube this takes place about 3:01. While reposting without your permission was not polite, several commentors felt it necessary because you had started blocking and removing posts on your original video that were "critical" of Critical Mass. You eventually took down the original edited video and replaced it with an edited and narrarated video covering the same event.
Mispeaking is not grounds for dismissing a point...
by pedestrian
Tuesday Jun 5th, 2007 5:32 PM
In the video there are bikes immediately in front of the van (the first is being held by a rider standing to the side of the van, the second has a rider on it) which is shown stopped. The bikes are then knocked down by the van creeping forward as a shouting crowd breaks the windshield wiper on the driver's side of the car. It is specious to discount Critical Mass's shared responsibility for what happened on the basis that no one actually picked the van up and placed bikes under it. A question unanswered by those who were there is why the girl with the green hat placed her foot back into the pile of bikes, having been free. Those two moments lend credibility to the theory that the damage was staged.
Edit to above:
by pedestrian
Tuesday Jun 5th, 2007 5:39 PM
This is in reference to Wynd's pointing out that putting bicycles under a van would be hard, because van's are heavy (and someone was trying to run into them at the time).
The BCLU doesn't make sense
by Jim
( downtowntrouble [at] yahoo.com ) Tuesday Jun 5th, 2007 8:35 PM
From BCLU.org: "I was a rider at this incident and was coming up the hill toward the intersection and watched the motorist enter the intersection where Critical Mass riders were pausing. The driver of the van drove out into the intersection and approached a rider who turned and stopped as the van approached. This is a common tactic to prevent drivers from cutting through bike traffic and endangering riders...." which sounds very much like the critical mass riders did put their bikes in front of the van. What other "tactics" have been used?

You can read this and other nonsensical rants at http://bclu.org/20070511/kron-criticisms.html The more I read, the more questions I have (why were they "pausing" in the middle of the intersection?) and the harder I find it to support BCLU/Critical Mass' version of the incident.
Jason's Mess
by Aimee
Wednesday Jun 6th, 2007 12:26 PM
"Can you please explain what "tactics" I used? I acted as a legal observer and videotaped an incident showing a motorist attacking people who had a right to the road and a Constitutional right to demonstrate. I provided lots of footage of it including things that don't look so good like people screaming and cursing."

The tactics used are mentioned on the BCLU website, and the media critiques in particular. In the video, I don't see a "motorist attacking people", I see the bicyclists attacking the motorist. If the driver was aggressive before he was filmed, it certainly isn't evident in the video. And yes, we have the right to demonstrate, but not the right to break the law (the motorist or the cyclists).
Endless debunking...
by Jason Meggs
Thursday Jun 7th, 2007 11:24 AM
"where you tell Jonathan Bloom that the video is uncut, having just told him that its edited to tell the story you want told"

That's not true.

Everything I said was true. See the faq at http://www.BCLU.org/

Also, the reporter who lied to me and sprung this "missing footage" trick (knowing full well what video was being provided as he'd already seen it on youtube), was not "Jonathan Bloom," but Jeff Bush.

Ask him why he pulled this trick. Ask him and KRON why they posted this, continue to lie about the incidents (e.g., "bicyclists smashed windows" and other dishonest spin), and why they pulled the one good piece they did, in which they gave fair time to both sides by interviewing Meggs.

That's right, KRON is censoring the truth by suppressing a more balanced story they did on the eve of the April SF Critical Mass ride, April 27, 2007.

Jeff Bush's number is 415.760.4396.

His fax is 415.561.8136.

His email is bush [at] kron4.com

Jeff promised us that we would get to go frame by frame through the video and show exactly what happened, and to be able to tell our side of the story. In keeping with that, I was trying to show him how the motorist clearly hits the gas again with people right in front of his van, and you can clearly see someone collapsing with their bike in front of the bumper.

Why didn't they keep their word?

Why did they interrupt me right then to spring this "where's the rest of the footage" surprise, when the media has always complained that they want short "B-roll" from stringers (people who provide footage independently). Also, his camera light was not on or covered up, making me think he wasn't even recording, that's dishonest and may even be illegal.

Ask Jeff and KRON about that, too.





2 Wheels Good, 4 Wheels Bad
by JelloBiafra
Monday Jun 11th, 2007 4:16 PM
Propaganda - 101

1) When confronted with the truth, switch subjects as fast as possible
2) Destroy evidence, then blame the media, who wishes to get to that evidence
3) Put only the evidence on the table that coincides with your particular viewpoint
4) Believe the lie
5) When someone disagrees with you, smear them to no end. be Vicious. be Ruthless.
6) A proper sacrifice is needed to ensure moral authority
7) Post 'reasonable' information, on Youtube, in a 'reasonable' fashion. When people disagree and point out blatant inconsistancies, destroy the evidence. Take down the video, delete all users comments, then post a NEW and IMPROVED version.
8) Block all undesirables from commenting to the N&I video
9) Protect the guilty
10) Point the finger at the defenseless. Pack beats Individual. Everytime.

2 Wheels Good.
4 Wheels Bad.

(Taken from Animal Farm - George Orwell)
Endless attempts at debunking...
by MondegreenMom
Monday Jun 11th, 2007 4:53 PM
Jason.

You can't MAKE truth, even by referring people to your "quick facts" at BCLU.org. - which are just longer explanations of what you have said here and other places. Most of what you have said is uncorroborated, or you haven't included corroboration from others. I've read your "Quick Facts" -- and believe that your desire to be right so completely outweighs any facts of the case that your responses are not to be trusted. I also believe that your paranoia regarding the motives of others is based in the knowledge that you would lie for a good cause -- so everyone else probably is lying, too. (And there's that thing about suggesting that people are being paid to assassinate your character and make Critical Mass look bad - as far as I know everyone "attacking" you is a volunteer, just like me).

Here are my "Quick Facts" about your veracity as a journalist, organizer and spokesperson for CM:

You reject big facts by finding small technicalities, and you decry media spin -- while using it. For example:

You called my statement above was "untrue". I said "the video is uncut" ...and what you actually said on the video at the point I mentioned, was, "its uncut.". You definitely also state that the video was edited to tell the story you wanted told...so where was my lie?

You reject the KRON report for saying things like "bicyclists smashed windows" instead of your preferred "A bicyclist broke a window." But, then you accused Mr. Head of "barreling across the intersection" and "smashing into bikes", while the evidence of your own video shows a more moderate story. You can't have it both ways!

Perhaps most strange, your "Mom Violence at Critical Mass" video was published without mention that it was filmed in Sacramento in 2002 -- but your other videos include the date and place they were made. Perhaps you thought the video would be a less strong "counterpoint" to the SF incident if you mentioned that it was 5 years old.

You can't use these methods of argument AND accuse anyone else of "dishonest spin", Jason. You are the most dishonest person I have studied in a long time.

Whether that is part of why KRON removed the 4/27/07 story may never be known. It would certainly be sufficient. Because you are dishonest, and paranoid about whether the media is being "fair" to you (which seems to equate with agreeing with you and believing your unproved accounts of what happened), you are forcefully representing Critical Mass as whiners and bullies, too.

Thank you for correcting me about Jeff Bush and Jonathan Bloom. I realized my mistake after I posted. Jonathan was the on-screen reporter, and Jeff Bush was the person who interview you and willfully tricked you by asking for the unedited footage. I appreciate the contact information, too, I was looking for a way to follow up with the television stations.

You can do better.
Oh come on
by theRealJello
Friday Oct 19th, 2007 2:38 PM
Oh come on. Stop persecuting Critical Mass and people brave enough to speak publicly about it.

You obviously weren't there, and obviously are ignoring the severity of the motorist's actions, the spin of the media, and the deluge of politically motivated bullshit that was used to target those who are brave enough to go out and represent on a monthly basis for the long-term.

Meggs is one of the most astute people around, and even if he made mistakes, or happened to be standing there as a convenient target when others made mistakes, core truths here hold and you're ignoring them.

What's your true motive? Really, don't hide behind doublespeak about others being paranoid. Have you forgotten that the police adopted Head's story that bicycles were placed under his vehicle? That the media edited out the key portion showing Head drive forward into standing people? That the police refused to accept that evidence? There's so much here. The real problem is an endemic difficulty for truth to emerge. The fallacy of authority prevails, with a hefty dose of spin.

What would you have done? Replay the entire sequence, what would you have done differently?
Simple-think, simple-speak
by Always room for...
Thursday Oct 25th, 2007 5:38 AM
Propaganda - 101

(Offered by a master of it?)

1) When confronted with the truth, switch subjects as fast as possible

What truth was switched from?

2) Destroy evidence, then blame the media, who wishes to get to that evidence

What evidence was destroyed?

3) Put only the evidence on the table that coincides with your particular viewpoint

What evidence was suppressed?
Was all evidence coincident?

4) Believe the lie

What lie?

5) When someone disagrees with you, smear them to no end. be Vicious. be Ruthless.

Who did this? Give an example.

6) A proper sacrifice is needed to ensure moral authority

What sacrifice? What moral authority? Explain.

7) Post 'reasonable' information, on Youtube, in a 'reasonable' fashion. When people disagree and point out blatant inconsistancies, destroy the evidence. Take down the video, delete all users comments, then post a NEW and IMPROVED version.

Was this really in Orwell's tract?

(Note that the deleted video doesn't delete all copies, it deletes one thread and begins a new one.)


8) Block all undesirables from commenting to the N&I video

Really?

Don't the critics have plenty of other venues where the video has been reposted without permission,
with an editorial bias? Aren't there 1,000s of comments and numerous forums out there?

9) Protect the guilty

Elaborate?

10) Point the finger at the defenseless. Pack beats Individual. Everytime.


Who exactly is the defenseless? Who are the pack?

Does an endless bombardment of bullshit from a small anonymous group of people
who were not present at the scene not constitute a "pack"? And the police, not a
"pack"? And the bicyclist, not at all defenseless?

2 Wheels Good.
4 Wheels Bad.

Simple-speak.

It's offensive that Jello's name is being used in vain.
So many opinions stated as fact. So little time. Let me try & answer your questions, Jello
by MondegreenMom
Tuesday Nov 13th, 2007 10:24 AM
"You obviously weren't there, and obviously are ignoring the severity of the motorist's actions, the spin of the media, and the deluge of politically motivated bullshit that was used to target those who are brave enough to go out and represent on a monthly basis for the long-term."

You're wrong, Mr. Jello, and THAT is a fact based on every statement you made in the paragraph
above. Don't assume you know anything about me or where I was or what I would ignore or pay
attention to. I'm also curious about your attributing courage to any group so dependent on safety
in numbers -- that can become so quickly unhinged when challenged.

"Meggs is one of the most astute people around, and even if he made mistakes, or happened to be standing there as a convenient target when others made mistakes, core truths here hold and you're ignoring them."

The inaccuracies here go without comment.

"What's your true motive?"

Berkeley is full of people whose sense of mission interferes with their sense of reality. Since Jason
Meggs is intelligent, my expectation is that he would rise above the status quo. He has not done that.

"Really, don't hide behind doublespeak about others being paranoid. Have you forgotten that the police adopted Head's story that bicycles were placed under his vehicle? That the media edited out the key portion showing Head drive forward into standing people? That the police refused to accept that evidence?"

Please read my comments above concerning honesty, etc. I applaud your passion but you're wrong here.
Ask Jason. There was no editing of the original video he sold to the media and posted on YouTube, except
the editing he himself did - and then denied having done. Unfortunately Jason is known to the Berkeley
Police as someone whose version of the truth is not readily verifiable. Another camera person might have
gotten more respect, and done more to adequately represent Critical Mass' story.

"There's so much here. The real problem is an endemic difficulty for truth to emerge. The fallacy of authority prevails, with a hefty dose of spin."

Wait! Are YOU Jason Meggs? I suddenly recognized the large word/passive voice style of prose...but, it
really doesn't matter either way. Nevermind.

"What would you have done? Replay the entire sequence, what would you have done differently?"

As a biker who has seen Critical Mass in action, I would not have joined a ride. As a driver who has seen
Critical Mass in action, I would not have entered the intersection until it was clear. As a fan of news
gathering from independent sources, I now carry a video camera, just like Jason Meggs. If I ever choose
to sell footage to the media, I will be sure they get an uncut copy in addition to any edits I might make
and I will keep an unedited copy in case I don't like their version.

Thanks for asking!

Re: opinions and videoing
by mahtin
Tuesday Nov 13th, 2007 4:27 PM
It's great to hear that you carry a camera around all the time. I wish that everyone could afford to have one. And that everyone had the time and money to make multiple copies of their originals and the edited versions. (See, you are forgetting that there is a time element in these situations- one wants to get something to the corporate media while it's "news")
Any argument is neutralized by attributing wealth & leisure to the other person....right?
by MondegreenMom
Tuesday Nov 13th, 2007 10:49 PM
I guess if it really matters to you you'll find someone to give you a video camera, as I did. Even when purchased, video cameras aren't all that expensive unless you need a spiffy little one like Jason has.

As for making multiple copies of the video -- I said that if I planned to sell the video I'd keep copies. I guess selling the video would have to cover that expense, no? Or....you could hand the uncut tape over to the media and let them absorb that cost, while still meeting the need for expedience.

You know, Jason said the three bikes damaged in this fracas had a combined value of $3000. Either he exagerated, or the owners of the bikes found money to pay for what they thought was important to them...too bad no one credible was carrying a video camera.

Dismissing me on the basis of who or what you assume I am is the kind of cheap shot that Critical Mass supporters (are you one?) should avoid. It makes you look narrow-minded and shallow - not what you intended.
Joe Konn Evidently A Sham
by Ethical Observer
Thursday Feb 7th, 2008 9:52 AM
Anyone familiar with Indymedia knows that there are anonymous posts which are designed to be deceptive, for the specific purpose of spreading misinformation, discrediting activists, and sewing the seeds of enmity. There is a pattern to these posts. Typically the author invents a persona.

Is "Joe Konn" such a creation? Has anyone ever heard of this person, who speaks as if he represents some vast majority with whom he's long been a member?

Joe provided an email address in his general IMC post on this issue, which I wrote to in hopes of getting to the bottom of this. "Joe" never responded.