Re: [Mpls] Critical Mass - Compromise Proposal

[Jim McGuire]

Greetings,   First off, I want to be clear.  I in no way claim to represent Critical Mass.  I am giving my own opinion and I will attempt to explain some of what I believe would be their point of view, but Critical Mass will have to speak for themselves.   I want to respond to the idea of making the Critical Mass ride a legal city sponsored event.  Although I like the idea in principal, it may not be workable.  Or, at least, if it does become a city sponsored event it will cease to be Critical Mass. I'll start by quoting from www.minnesotacriticalmass.org :   "We, the people of Critical Mass, ride to create a temporary autonomous zone; a place where bicycles do have the right of way--and not just on paper; an ephermal non-imaginary safe, quiet, clean, and fun use of the public good, the streets which we all pay for and the air which we all breath; a place where the rules are designed for bicycles, not cars."   A "temporary autonomous zone" is an exercise in empowerment.  Regardless of our individual opinions the fact is that the people in Critical Mass take part as a political statement.  When told they have to move because they're blocking traffic they respond, correctly, "We are traffic".  For a couple of hours a month they take the opportunity claim the streets as their own.  Regardless of how you feel about it this cannot be accomplished in a city sponsored legal ride.   I believe that Mayor Rybak, Dean Zimmerman, and others are truly trying to find a compromise when they discuss a city sponsored ride.  The question then becomes what can the city do to resolve the issues raised by Critical Mass rides.  There are a number of questions:   1) Why did the Minneapolis Police Department conduct a pre-meditated assault on Friday's Critical Mass ride?   2) What can the City do to further its support of alternative forms of transportation?   3) Does the City want, in any way, to show support for Critical Mass?   4) If so, how can the City do that without compromising the principles of either side?   #1 is beyond my ken.  I'm afraid the best answer I have is "because they don't like them."  Critical Mass is the "same crowd" as the people who protested the ISAG conference (though I doubt there are as many under cover police in Critical Mass rides as there were amongst the demonstrators at ISAG).  It is in the purview of the MPD to prevent disorder.  Sometimes they prefer to cause it.   #2 is far too complicated to address here, but that on-going discussion should continue.   #3 - I hope is yes   #4 - I would suggest a compromise.  Propose to Critical Mass that their next monthly ride be entirely legal.  Given someone's post here earlier that appears to mean they'd need a parade permit.  (This perplexes me.  Does one need a parade permit to drive ten cars down Hennepin Ave?  Why does one need one to ride bicycles en masse?  Perhaps this provision should be repealed.)  If so, help them get the permit.  Then join them.  Critical Mass invites anyone to participate - Why not the mayor and members of the City Council?  Not in an official capacity, per se, but as private citizens like the other members of Critical Mass.   If, after that event, the city wants to develop its own regularly scheduled safety rides - wonderful!  They will, however, clearly be seperate events from Critical Mass.  Perhaps if the citys events are successful enough in time the "need" for Critical Mass rides will be gone, but I wouldn't hold your breath.   Jim McGuire Como