Critical Mass: 150 Police to Ensure City Link Profits : Melbourne Indymedia

Critical mass is a ‘disorganisation’ of bike riders campaigning for cyclists rights on the road, as well as pointing out the destructive nature of the oil and car economy and it’s links to environmental degradation, climate change, privatision of public space, war and much more.

Police have erected cyclone fencing close to the tunnel to ensure that riders will be unable to enter and ‘disrupt’ traffic. Previously the police have tolerated critical mass rides through the tunnel, which according to The Age “in June last year reportedly cost Transurban $40,000 in lost revenue”. On this occasion the police have decided to mount a massive operation (potentially of greater cost) to ensure no frivolity or fun interrupts the Friday grind of traffic.

More importantly, police are threatening cyclists with potential 5 year jail terms for riding on what should be a public road in the interests of protecting Transurban’s profits. And whilst the Herald Sun would like to write the participants off as having a “pathological hatred of cars,” the point remains that riding on a public road is fine but as soon as you potentially threaten the profits of a large corporation your activity becomes unacceptable.

Just a couple of quick points for clarification.

Firstly, the police don't jail people; courts do (at least in this State!). The police lay charges for breaches of laws which may or may not attract imprisonment as a legislatively mandated sanction. Whether a defendant is imprisoned in respect to a particular breach is a matter for a court, not the arresting nor prosecuting authority.

Better informed MIM readers will know, of course, that despite the shrill hyperbole about cyclists being lumped off to jail and massive monetary penalties provided for, neither of these consequences is likely to eventuate in reality, given the sentencing regime which operates in Victoria.

Secondly, it's not really the 'threatening' of corporate profits which renders this type of activity unacceptable in the minds of many people; most people couldn't give a rat's about City Link's bottom line.

No, it's the significant inconvenience caused to other road users which has eventually resonated with the police. As the above author correctly argues, the tunnel is a public road and motorists, who comprise all of us at some time of our daily lives, are the public and are entitled to use it unobstructed by a small group of activists.

The timing of Critical Mass during peak hour on a Friday evening shows that its main purpose is not a symbolic 'reclaiming' of a public road, but an endeavour calculated to cause as much inconvenience as possible to other people. Otherwise they could 'reclaim' the road at 5.00 am on a Sunday without interfering with the right of free movement of other people.

Yes, the tunnel is a public road, just as the MCG is a public resource. But just as the public does not have an unfettered right to enter and remain inside the MCG without a valid ticket, those who lack the required 'ticket' to use the runnel have no right to enter it and disrupt those who do.

As always, I stand ready to bring reason and balance to arguments sullied by misinformation and personal prejudice.

Well, "Informed One" - if you'd actually been to any of the rides and read the press before and after, the fact is that the 'inconvenience' perception comes about primarily because of what Transurban tells the media, not what actually happens.

ie they claim a 2 hour tunnel / bridge closure when there's a ride. Usually it takes about 20 minutes for the ride to go through / over.

They claim 8-10,000 cars affected (that's for the two hours), when it's generally on the tail end of their time window (ie fewer cars / minute) and a small fraction of the time they claim, so a tiny fraction of the number they claim.

In previous instances both Vicroads and the Police have said in the media on the following day that there weren't "massive traffic disruptions" due to the ride.

But Citylink still spout hyperbole, and that's what corporate media reports. The above Vicroads/Police information was only reported by the ABC (after the last tunnel ride).

Citylink need to increase the perceived value of their product, for the sake of both enforcing 'brand' value and making their shareholders feel fluffy (ie, "without us, you're all screwed! And it'll take, like, NINE BILLION YEARS to drive home, and YOU'LL MISS AUSTRALIAN IDOL!!!")

Fact is, on the last tunnel ride traffic was stopped for MUCH longer in the other direction due to an accident on the West Gate.

Don't think that because you read a Transurban Press Release with a revised byline you're informed.

Hi Henrik.

I must have fumbled the ball with this one. My mistake.

I merely made two points in response to the drivel originally posted.

One, the courts send people to jail, the police don't.

Two, City Link's bottom line is a matter of significant indifference to everyone except the Government and shareholders. The issue is one of major inconvenience to thousands of other people, caused by a small group.

Now sit down and take your Tegritol like a good boy.

So as long as we bring along our e-tags, according to your reasoning, we should be allowed to ride through the tunnel in peace?

It sounds so easy!

"informed one" sez the issue is convenience.

silly us, thinking that global warming, asthma epidemics, road fatalities and wars for oil are more important than the convenience of a small # of homebound drivers.

No, those issues are not subordinate to the inconvenience of drivers.

Although MIM is the forum for banality, it is simplistic to argue that it is either one or the other.

Some Critical Mass participants seem to think that they have a monopoly on caring about issues such as "global warming, asthma epidemics, road fatalities and wars for oil" .

That none of the hundreds of thousands of daily Melbourne motorists have an inkling of the threats to the world's environment through the use of fossil fuels.

That they alone possess some unique insight into the evils of the world.

Self-possessed tossers with an inflated perception of their capacity to effect meangingful change on these big issues.

Now I'm afraid I've tired of responding to inane and repetitive waffle on this subject.

I'm off to another post to bring balance and reason to the mosaic of confused drivel here at MIM.

IO

So Henrik hits us with ubiquitous 'they'. The faceless number crunchers. They claim 8-10,000 cars affected (that's for the two hours), when it's generally on the tail end of their time window (ie fewer cars / minute) and a small fraction of the time they claim, so a tiny fraction of the number they claim And the purile 'tiny fraction' Get real.... If these trouble makers with their bikes cause inconvenience to just one person then they should be arrested and charged with any infringement the police can find. Who do these inconsiderate jerks think they are. I see the ranks will be bolstered by the howler monkeys.

No "ubiquitous they" - read again, I was referring to what Transurban tells the press which the press then parrot.

Not through shady background deals that I claim special knowledge of, but words used by their PR people in TV interviews, that are also reported in the print media as fact, before and after the event, even after the facts don't play out how they claimed.

ie in February they (ok, TRANSURBAN, want me to spell it?) claimed that the Bolte bridge would be closed for 2 hours (6pm-8pm), and 8,000 cars wouldn't be able to go through. It was closed from 7:30-7:50. The rate (cars/minute) would decrease over that period, as you get further from peak hour. Therefore 20min/120min = 1300 cars - at the lower rate by that time maybe 700 odd.

I'm fine with "these troublemakers" (faceless, presumably) who "cause inconvenience to just one person" being fined, as long as that is applied uniformly to motorists, who cause injury and property damage to people without prosecution, because the police don't care unless there's two cars involved. What about the two cars I saw casually driving straight through red lights on Elizabeth Street the other night? Surely now that I've seen that, it gives me the right to go absolutely ape-shit about motorists, and demand unrealistic things be done about them?

What about the woman who recently got out of court WITH HER LICENCE after running over and killing a motorcyclist, driving home drunk? Surely she deserves to be taken off the road, as she's obviously not responsible enough to be entrusted with a ton of steel..

But no, she's not 'inconveniencing' anyone. Because they're dead, apparently. Oh, and she needs her car for her job. So she can kill who she likes.

check out this slice of reality, from that noted peacenik and Ba'athist Thomas Friedman:

"If I can't be The Man, then I at least want to be the owner of a Hummer - with American flag decals all over the back bumper, because Hummer owners are, on average, a little more patriotic than you and me.

Yes, I want to drive the mother of all gas-guzzlers that gets so little mileage you have to drive from gas station to gas station. Yes, I want to drive my Hummer and never have to think that by consuming so much oil, I am making transfer payments to the worst Arab regimes that transfer money to Islamic charities that transfer money to madrassas that teach children intolerance, antipluralism
and how to hate the infidels.

And when one day one of those madrassa graduates goes off and joins the jihad in Falluja and kills my neighbor's son, who is in the U.S. Army Rangers, I want to drive to his funeral in my Hummer. Yes, I want to curse his killers in front of his mother and wail aloud, "If there was only something I could do ..." And then I want to drive home in my Hummer, stopping at two gas stations along the way."

No one doubts there are people driving vehicles who are a hazard both to themselves as well as others.

[url=http://polanimal.it.net.au/viewtopic.php?t=452&start=0] look here [/url]

That is something the authorities address with laws, rules and regulations.

If a drink driver who kills someone is treated leniently by the courts it is no reason for a bike rider to disrupt other road users daily buisness.

The bike riding fraternity would have everyone else believe they are intelligent people staying healthy and not polluting the enviroment.
Fine.
But when they ride in groups on on single lane roads, sit in big bunches at traffic lights, occupy roads where there is an adjacent bike path generally cause free flowing traffic to slow down then any credibility is lost.

It seems a large group of people under helmuts, in lycra, have the collective respect for other road users as you would expect from the herd of sheep.

no doubt there are as proportionately as many selfish cyclists as there are selfish car drivers. its easy for car drivers to be irritated at cyclists tho cos they require extra thought from entranced driver.

the bigger issues tho are the point: why should we subsidise the car industry to the detriment of our own lives, and how long before more people unlearn the profoundly unsustainable mantra's of bigger/faster/more comfortable is better & damn everybody else. The evidence from the planet is unmistakeable -
(more population + more consumption)*depleted non&renewable resources =
mass extinctions, climate change, and war.

I ride a bike. I use the pathways and lanes provided, however it is nescessary to use roads at times. I remain conscious of traffic and courteous to drivers, yet I have been abused, threatened and spat at. Never mind being spat at from exuast pipes.
I'd rather use bike paths, however they have problems too.Pedestrians blindy walking across lanes without looking in both directions or in a group taking up the whole width of the lane paying no attention to the warning bell of oncoming cyclists and then "copping a serve" for doing no less than what I have the right to do - ride.
Now I'm not trying to say that cyclists are perfect, or even me for that matter, but take it from an experienced rider/motorist/pedestrian, riders cop the rough end of the stick. Get out and have a ride if you don't believe me, perhaps meet a few people and you'll also find that we are not all crazy loon stunt riders on a suicide mission nor are we some sort of anarchist revolutionists out to change the world into a hippies paradise. We are in general, average road users and have every right to be there.

Now, if some riders want to voice their opinions by way of protest- let them -we do after all live in a democratic society and cyclists have every right to take up an entire lane, as the law states it, "cyclists must stay as close as practible to the gutter/side of the road". Which if you think about it allows a cyclist to pre-empt opening doors from parked cars, an entirely safe pratice. As a group there is no law against it either, so try not to stress out, we all have lives to live and some circumstances, that are out of our control, will cause inconvienence no matter what. So please be patient and tolerant - the small steps to a better world.

Along with all the cyclists out there riding for their own health and well-being every day, there are many more keen and interested who refuse to ride on the road. Bike paths are great, and assure riders that there will not be an enraged driver sitting on their rear wheel hurling abuse. For our keen and interested riders, the problem is battling with drivers enroute to a favourite bike path.