I Tried To Write A Defense of Critical Mass . . .

EVAN JOHNSON STAFF

In the spirit of contributing to the already bloated and ineloquent public/media discussion concerning the mass, critical bike ride known as Critical Mass; in the hopes of provoking more ire and more angry, caustic thoughts and letters; in the (absurd) hopes that all this anger will eventually settle gracefully into a gentle layer of productive self-reflection for all of us, here are some occupationallyobligatory thoughts on Critical Mass.

Critical Mass, as a movement that can affect positive change, can fail or succeed on two accounts. First, the political philosophy of the movement must be coherent and tenable. Contrary to various editorials and letters to the editor in the Sun and the Free Press, this does not necessarily mean that the movement must abandon its ostensible anarchist leanings. Anarchism is not nihilism.

Second, the movement can fail on practical terms. If the movement’s failure to garner any kind of popular support results likewise in the popular rejection of its philosophy, then it may do more harm than good. Media coverage of the event has been overwhelmingly uninformed and devoid of analysis and as a result has hampered the movement’s chances of becoming legitimate to the public.

Because Critical Mass is not organized hierarchically and because people are encouraged to join in for their own reasons, the philosophical or political motivations behind Critical Mass seem to many observers to be unformulated and undefined, which is why the ride itself needs to be accompanied by a public dialogue. To most riders, encouraging discussion is the very purpose of the ride.

Following the July 28 ride, accusations flew that Critical Mass riders blocked an ambulance that was carrying a critically ill patient to St. Boniface Hospital. The Free Press and the Sun both ran articles on the matter, with the Sun article going so far as to suggest that the riders deliberately blocked the ambulance.

Soon, Sam Katz (or Slammin’ Sammy, as one Sun reader saw fit to dub him) weighed in on the matter, saying, “It’s a good thing I wasn’t on that ambulance or one of my loved ones was . . . I would have cleared a path.” This evocation of mayorally-advocated vigilante justice is a bit disturbing, but it is probably a helpful comment in its demonstration of the unintelligent, hypocritical, and reactionary thinking that has been a result of this particular incident.

To begin with, the facts of both the Sun and the Free Press articles have been widely disputed by witnesses at the scene, most of whom claim that the riders were more quick and efficient than most cars in clearing out of the ambulance’s path. This calls to mind a slogan, oft-used by Critical Mass participants worldwide: “we aren’t blocking traffic, we are traffic.”

The point here is that cyclists should not be treated hypocritically on such matters just because they’re a bunch of scruffy hippies. Cars block ambulances all the time, but do their best to get out of the way. Most Critical Mass participants would agree that if cyclists were deliberately blocking an ambulance, they ought to be treated with the same disapproving ticketing that the police would inflict upon the inconsiderate motorist. Likewise, cyclists that break any traffic laws ought to be aware of the consequences.

Still, a more accurate slogan for Critical Mass would be “we are blocking traffic, we are traffic.” Because, like cars do every day, Critical Mass cyclists are blocking traffic. And, just like car traffic, it’s annoying for other people stuck in traffic. And we all know, or assume, anyway, that traffic stress makes people both less productive and more verbally abusive in the workplace. As a criticism of Critical Mass, though, this is sort of an insufficiently penetrating argument; drawing attention to the harmful effects of traffic is rather central to the point.

On a final note, I should state that I enthusiastically agree with most of Winnipeg’s Critical Mass riders and with what I’ve perceived (I hope correctly) to be the intended political statement of the movement: that roads are paid for by all taxpayers and should not cater so exclusively to automobiles, especially downtown; that it has become politically and ethically irresponsible for a city to rely so heavily on cars; that public transportation is an issue that needs attention from the city’s government if it is ever going to be a viable transportation alternative.

I’d add to that two of my own personal convictions, which I personally wouldn’t use as a basis for public protest but do nevertheless firmly believe to be true: that cars are ugly, stupid, loud, and smelly, and that they make cities ugly, stupid, loud and smelly.