Contemplating Critical Mass

So evidently they've largely stopped arresting cyclists participating in New York City's monthly critical mass group bike ride. I suppose this is a good thing, except perhaps for those who consider their participation in same to be civil disobedience in the proper sense of that by now worn out term. After all, disobedience becomes all too civil when arrests don't follow.

I'm not a big critical mass supporter or opponent, and I believe I've written about my ambivalence on the topic on this blog before. The gist of my ambivalence is this: when I've participated, all I've seen is a bunch of pissed off drivers. I'm not sure they're going to be any more charitable to cyclists they encounter on the road in the future for having been held up behind a phalanx of cyclists taking their time. On the other hand, the intrusion, on balance, is minimal, and I do like the consciousness-raising as well as the community-building aspects of the enterprise. In short, while I will probably continue to ride only rarely, I certainly respect those who do so every month and would defend their right to do so.

Here's the reason I'm writing about this, though. Evidently, the police in New York were arresting dozens of cyclists each month for parading without a permit. A judge, however, rebuked them for doing so, either ruling or strongly suggesting that the charge cannot apply to this activity. In lieu of mass arrests, this month, police handed out summons for, inter alia, crossing against a signal and riding the wrong way up Broadway.

And this is where my question comes in. Wouldn't it be far more demonstrative if in riding en masse the group obeyed traffic signals, yielded to pedestrians, and so on? In Pittsburgh, scouts essentially shut down intersections with their bodies and riders disregard the relevant traffic signals, which of course is that aspect of the ride most infuriating to drivers.

But it's not parading without a permit, or parading or demonstrating at all, if a bunch of people driving their legal vehicles on public roads and observing all relevant laws, happen to end up together and take up a lot of space. And that's where the ride would be far more interesting in not violating signals.

Sure, the group would have more trouble staying together, but in becoming more strung out the "statement," if that's what it is, would merely be bigger, the number of people conscious of what they're seeing greater, and the impact more diffuse but no less significant.

I don't observe all laws when I'm on my bike, because I ride in part to not sit in traffic, to not wait mindlessly at red lights where no traffic is in sight, and so on. I try to keep moving, for practical and aesthetic purposes. But the more treacherous the situation, the more legal my riding becomes; often, in evening traffic, I simply slide out into the lane and wait my turn with the other cars; similarly, at busy intersections, I also bide my time. Not because I must, but because it's safer and thus less stressful.

I by no means intend to defend the New York police. In arresting people on a trumped up permit charge is patently ridiculous under the law, and just meanspirited. But as I've said here before, the real critical mass is individual people riding often, taking up their rightful places on the road, behaving well, integrating themselves into traffic where necessary and being at once firm about their own entitlement to the road and polite to automobiles who share that road. "Share the road," that is to say, should cut both ways. I wish fewer people drove, but the reality is that many people have no option, especially in a mass transit-starved city like Pittsburgh.

I'm curious whether any of my readers have thoughts on the role of Critical Mass rides, their effect, and whether it mightn't be more effective to restructure the rides to respect the laws we so adamantly demand that cars observe when it suits us then flout when it doesn't.