[*BCM*] Observation

[Moz]

tony siddall wrote:
> Turil started to get at this, but I would be interested to hear
> someone articulate CM's theory of change;

Can I just ask that people try to remember that Critical Mass is not an
organisation, does not have a viewpoint, does not have a purpose, and
cannot speak with one voice? Please, it's not that hard: critical mass
is a bunch of anarchists on bikes[1]. That's it. Simple, really.

So when you ask "what does Critical Mass want", the question inherently
cannot be answered. Perhaps replace "critical mass" with "everyone in
america" if that helps.

So ask "what is everyone in americas theory of change?"  Does that make
it more obvious that there is no one answer?


Personally, my theory is that Critical Mass as an agent for change works
in a very simple, very direct way. It is purely an answer to the
allegation that "no-one rides a bike in this city". Anyone who says that
  can be told "so what about the 300 riders in Critical Mass every
month?" at which point suddenly lots of people ride AND THEY MUST BE
STOPPED.

Which leads nicely into "how do you stop critical mass" and the answer
seems to be mass arrests/shoot a few of them; or build bike facilities.
Christchurch, New Zealand crushed Critical Mass out of existance by
making the city cycle friendly and responsive to cyclists soncerns. It's
a lot easier than the other way...

And FWIW there seems to be no way to make Mass acceptable to people as 
embedded in the system as Anne is. Even Sydney where Mass is legal and 
supported by the cops (and riders are friendly and helpful and give out 
happy fliers to motorists) still gets people like her saying "if you'd 
just stop being disruptive..." You can't win.

Moz in Sydney, Australia
[1] anarchists, meaning people who want not to have an organisation
rather than as a generic term of mindless abuse. But hey, take it as you
will.