Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Counterpoint to Media Lies about Critical Mass
Here is a counterpoint to the media lies regarding a highly hyped incident at San Francisco Critical Mass. Anyone familiar with the rides sees through these lies, but the public is being brainwashed. Is this merely to sell more car ads, or something even more sinister? The fact that rides are now occurring regularly and growing in Oakland, Walnut Creek, Emeryville and Berkeley, and successfully calling attention to global climate change and war for oil, may be part of the reason for this latest concerted attack on Critical Mass.
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
flew 4-5 feet, and crushed the cyclist's bicycle underwheel.
She then fled the scene (hit and run). Cyclists chased and detained the
cyclist. One cyclist reportedly erred in throwing a bicycle at the rear
of the van, which had tinted windows, and broke the window. 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 violence
against 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.
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
flew 4-5 feet, and crushed the cyclist's bicycle underwheel.
She then fled the scene (hit and run). Cyclists chased and detained the
cyclist. One cyclist reportedly erred in throwing a bicycle at the rear
of the van, which had tinted windows, and broke the window. 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 violence
against 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.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
One thing which is a real blind spot in caring/lefty/liberal communities is the issue of woman-initiated violence. As a feminist male, I have seen this first-hand. The immediate perception when there's violence involving a woman is that the woman was the victim. Looks like the media chose this incident because of the mom and kids. As someone who has been attacked, unprovoked, by a woman, and seen people assume that I was wrong, because I was male, I can sypmathize. The problem of domestic violence and war is of course a problem with a very male face. Women are increasingly participating in war. Some women do beat their kids. Some women do initiate violence. It's sexist to assume women never commit violence, just as it's racist to assume only blacks commit crimes. We will be weak as a society as long as we hold on to those types of knee-jerk reactions. The media controls what we see, so they will show whatever makes us fall in line. We must be stronger than that, and take care of one another more, if we are to ever have a just and sustainable society. Males, be proactive and caring.
To document just this type of crap.
Thanks, BCLU, for showing everyone what cyclists have to put up with and how the police almost always favor cars over bikes regardless of how obnoxious and dangerous car drivers act.
Bikers usually only respond after being assaulted with cars as deadly weapons. If the cars could just wait 2, 3, or 4 minutes for the CM to pass, everything would be fine. But in our immediate gratification world, impatient drivers often would rather run over someone than be delayed on their way to Starbucks.
Thanks, BCLU, for showing everyone what cyclists have to put up with and how the police almost always favor cars over bikes regardless of how obnoxious and dangerous car drivers act.
Bikers usually only respond after being assaulted with cars as deadly weapons. If the cars could just wait 2, 3, or 4 minutes for the CM to pass, everything would be fine. But in our immediate gratification world, impatient drivers often would rather run over someone than be delayed on their way to Starbucks.
Yes, most new digital cameras, and many of the used 2-3 megapixel ones for sale on Ebay for $50 have a filmclip option button. This, plus the more expensive video camera phones allows almost everyone to be video-ready, and limited only by battery power and SecureDigital card size.
Riding with a video camera in your hand is somewhat tricky because you need to brake with your other hand, but if you think it through beforehand, or are ready to quickly grab a camera from your pocket, lots of people will now be ready to record this stuff.
I can think of so many crazy events that happened in the 2003-2004 antiwar demo era when most people didn't have these cameras, and you basically had to trust eyewitness accounts that a pickup truck driver ran into people, or other things happened. Lots of the indybay photos from that time were grainier.
Riding with a video camera in your hand is somewhat tricky because you need to brake with your other hand, but if you think it through beforehand, or are ready to quickly grab a camera from your pocket, lots of people will now be ready to record this stuff.
I can think of so many crazy events that happened in the 2003-2004 antiwar demo era when most people didn't have these cameras, and you basically had to trust eyewitness accounts that a pickup truck driver ran into people, or other things happened. Lots of the indybay photos from that time were grainier.
Jason,
Very nice. What an easy target to prove your point. Put your bicycle in the path of elderly people., film it and make your children cry. What point were you trying to prove? Should we all park our cars? Have you looked at the calendar and if you had, do you realize that it is the year 2007. Do you understand that even if you eat granola your whole life, when you reach a certain year in your life you must drive. Yep…drive.
Sure in the old days before cars we didn’t have this luxury. Just like they didn’t have the luxury of CT scans, incredible treatments for illnesses that would kill you in a week. We didn’t have phones to call 911 to save our lives. We didn’t have helicopters to lift the critically injured. Is this what you really want? Would you prefer that we all just lived in caves or all rode our bicycles like the Chinese? I guess the point I’m trying to make is this; you cannot accept one technology that favors only you and reject another that favors someone else. This is a double standard and is unacceptable. I accept all technology because every bit of technology favors someone on this earth. I think the only technology we can agree upon that favors no one would be nuclear weaponry. Right?
I think it is a pathetic stunt and you’re not making any point other than being an asshole and imposing your will on everyone else. You would fit in nicely with the Taliban. They think the same way. Hitler would have loved someone like you and your group working to sway the masses.
If you want to ride bikes like everyone else, then move to China. If this is not an option…
Then buy a fucking time machine. I hear you can get them cheap on the Internet.
PS: Yes I do drive. I don’t make wasteful trips, I don’t speed and I keep my car in good operating condition and yes…I am a realist.
One other thing. Horrible choice of media to use for propaganda purposes.
This piece works completely against what you’re trying to say, which I do understand to a degree.
Very nice. What an easy target to prove your point. Put your bicycle in the path of elderly people., film it and make your children cry. What point were you trying to prove? Should we all park our cars? Have you looked at the calendar and if you had, do you realize that it is the year 2007. Do you understand that even if you eat granola your whole life, when you reach a certain year in your life you must drive. Yep…drive.
Sure in the old days before cars we didn’t have this luxury. Just like they didn’t have the luxury of CT scans, incredible treatments for illnesses that would kill you in a week. We didn’t have phones to call 911 to save our lives. We didn’t have helicopters to lift the critically injured. Is this what you really want? Would you prefer that we all just lived in caves or all rode our bicycles like the Chinese? I guess the point I’m trying to make is this; you cannot accept one technology that favors only you and reject another that favors someone else. This is a double standard and is unacceptable. I accept all technology because every bit of technology favors someone on this earth. I think the only technology we can agree upon that favors no one would be nuclear weaponry. Right?
I think it is a pathetic stunt and you’re not making any point other than being an asshole and imposing your will on everyone else. You would fit in nicely with the Taliban. They think the same way. Hitler would have loved someone like you and your group working to sway the masses.
If you want to ride bikes like everyone else, then move to China. If this is not an option…
Then buy a fucking time machine. I hear you can get them cheap on the Internet.
PS: Yes I do drive. I don’t make wasteful trips, I don’t speed and I keep my car in good operating condition and yes…I am a realist.
One other thing. Horrible choice of media to use for propaganda purposes.
This piece works completely against what you’re trying to say, which I do understand to a degree.
KTVU did the most balanced, non-distorted television news coverage of the March SFCM incident that I'm
aware of:
http://www.ktvu.com/video/11523434/index.html
It stands in stark constrast to over a month of lies that build on themselves. True, our efforts have
had an effect, and many stories now mention that bicyclists say the driver struck a cyclist first,
although the full details are usually not elucidated.
aware of:
http://www.ktvu.com/video/11523434/index.html
It stands in stark constrast to over a month of lies that build on themselves. True, our efforts have
had an effect, and many stories now mention that bicyclists say the driver struck a cyclist first,
although the full details are usually not elucidated.
If you watch the video of the mother who drove over the bicycle, it is plain as day that she was forced into on-coming traffic by cyclists. After being forced into on-coming traffic she was forced to go back to the correct lane of traffic by driving over a curb. The child in the car was plainly visible by all because her window was open, as per the video. These protestors need to find a new means of protesting because they are just attempting to make themselves martyrs by instigating the rest of the public. Its nice that they have a goal, but a motor-vehicle-free world is not going to happen, regardless of how many families are put in harms way (IE. being forced into on-coming traffic).
Thanks for providing the video, which clearly shows the "injured" rider to be free and clear of the car immediately after contact. It shows him to be 2-3 ft. away from the car, leaning away from the car, and entirely out of contact with the vehicle, which is not stopped.
Question: ow does he suddenly, (after your camera conveniently turns away and then returns to the shot) have his foot under the car while squealing that he's being run over?
Answer: He put it there. Because it's another staged accident. Just like the one in Berkeley this past week.
I'm glad you guys are showing these videos, because they're exposing you as liars. (Not to mention drama queens. Cancer victim this time, babies that seem more afraid of your camera in their face than the incident the other time . Whatcha gonna pull out of your hat at the next ride; a double amputee with a puppy in his backpack?).
Question: ow does he suddenly, (after your camera conveniently turns away and then returns to the shot) have his foot under the car while squealing that he's being run over?
Answer: He put it there. Because it's another staged accident. Just like the one in Berkeley this past week.
I'm glad you guys are showing these videos, because they're exposing you as liars. (Not to mention drama queens. Cancer victim this time, babies that seem more afraid of your camera in their face than the incident the other time . Whatcha gonna pull out of your hat at the next ride; a double amputee with a puppy in his backpack?).
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. 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. 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 on the first place. Yes, of course the “crazy driver” should still be arrested (where were the police?)…and the cyclists ticketed.
Thanks for listening.
…which is why these two videos left me fuming at the Critical Mass participants. First, the Berkeley incident. 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. 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 on the first place. Yes, of course the “crazy driver” should still be arrested (where were the police?)…and the cyclists ticketed.
Thanks for listening.
Hey now,
When did signals become so all mighty sacred? More sacred than human life? Than human rights? Then the Constitution?
100 years ago there were no signals. Because there were no cars. Cars have cost us so much, and signals are just one of the many sinks of our money and our resources.
Signals are there to maximize the volume and throughput of motor traffic. Period.
There are serious questions as to whether they actually protect pedestrians at all.
They serve as a barrier for walkers and bikers.
They increase traffic on the streets that have them, causing inequities.
They increase speeds, and lead to collisions.
Motorists run them regularly, so much so that we sink even more $$$ (after the half million that many cost nowadays) on robot cameras, trying to catch their image, fine them a pittance for the harm they cause.
We sit and wait at signals, add it up -- hundreds of hours a year for many of us.
There are better ways. Stop demonizing cyclists for acting as a train, a long bus; they deserve a break, and the signalized system owes them far more than it can ever repay.
When did signals become so all mighty sacred? More sacred than human life? Than human rights? Then the Constitution?
100 years ago there were no signals. Because there were no cars. Cars have cost us so much, and signals are just one of the many sinks of our money and our resources.
Signals are there to maximize the volume and throughput of motor traffic. Period.
There are serious questions as to whether they actually protect pedestrians at all.
They serve as a barrier for walkers and bikers.
They increase traffic on the streets that have them, causing inequities.
They increase speeds, and lead to collisions.
Motorists run them regularly, so much so that we sink even more $$$ (after the half million that many cost nowadays) on robot cameras, trying to catch their image, fine them a pittance for the harm they cause.
We sit and wait at signals, add it up -- hundreds of hours a year for many of us.
There are better ways. Stop demonizing cyclists for acting as a train, a long bus; they deserve a break, and the signalized system owes them far more than it can ever repay.
Your actions are hurting the reputation of all cyclists. Because of your actions, I will never feel comfortable cycling in the great city of San Francisco again.....and soon any other nearby city. The video you display shows wanton disregard for the flow of traffic and people...no matter what the chosen form of transportation. You are trouble-makers and I am ashamed that you are cyclists!!!
I went looking for this incident because it seemed egregious -- at first glance. Not only does it start to look staged on close examination, but it also represents an incident that took place five years ago, in Sacramento. Neither fact changes the potential message, but the fact that Jason didn't choose to mention it bothers me.
Initially I assumed it was from San Francisco... in light of recent events there.
Initially I assumed it was from San Francisco... in light of recent events there.
As cyclists we face an ever increasing barrage of obsticles. Cars, riding environment, driver aggression, THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY!!, and the millions of average Americans that are too self absorbed to give a damn. I wonder what the percentage of cyclists who have been the victim of a bicycle / automobile accident? I have been hit 5 different times in my experience since 1993. I am angry ! we are not second class citizens... I pay my taxes and so do most of you! We should have protection and respect. I am working to bring change for all of us. It will begin with raising funds for Lobbying,collegiate programs, bicycles for Kids to ride to school and adults with special needs. Please contact me through the website for more information ... I am just building the website now so if you guys and gals have any suggestions feel free! http://www.worldcyclingcoalition.com This will be a non-profit deal. Tax deductible as well. thanks Jim
For more information:
http://www.worldcyclingcoalition.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$115.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network