Official insulting, wrong
Re: Cyclists slammed (Bob Holliday, Aug. 1). I was a participant in the recent Critical Mass ride. Every cyclist I could see moved as quickly as possible to get out of the way of the ambulance. We were able to remove 200 people from the path of the ambulance in a matter of seconds, and the statement issued by fire-paramedic official Ken Sim that we intentionally held up the progress of the ambulance is insulting and inaccurate.
Matthew Froese
Winnipeg
(Seems like officials always "get it wrong" where Critical Mass is concerned ...)
Typically inaccurate
I attended the Critical Mass ride on Friday, July 28. The police and ambulance official's claim that we didn't yield is typically inaccurate. As soon as we heard the siren, participants yelled "ambulance" and moved to the sides of the road. The efficiency with which we did so impressed me; it demonstrated how much more flexible bicycles are than cars.
Though I was happy with how we moved, many of us realized that taking a direct access road to a hospital was ill-considered. While the police can't seem to grasp that the ride is leaderless by design and the route is chosen on the street, those who attended will certainly remember to avoid such roads in the future.
Ken Gerrard
Winnipeg
(Almost an admission of fallibility there.)
Claim streets by force?
Critical Mass claims to promote bicycles as an alternate form of transportation. To reinforce this concept, cyclist Ken Gerrard said last Friday's ride was another "chance to claim their rightful place on city streets" (Critical mass rides along smoothly, Joyanne Pursaga, July 29). Sounds more like by force.
However, police say that Critical Mass cyclists continue to break the law by stopping traffic and running red lights. Even blocking an ambulance, not once but twice.
The only clear message Critical Mass sends is that it's OK for cyclists to flout the law and endanger the safety of others. And, of course, whine to the media and anyone else within earshot when arrested.
Al Yakimchuk
Winnipeg
(They are, after all, victims of a car culture.)
A limit to rights
I can't believe I read this quote from Critical Mass cyclist Marcel Lennon: "The only cyclists who weren't clearing the way were the police cyclists."
Does he actually believe this?
Everyone has their right to believe what they want -- no one has the right to put others at risk to prove a point.
David Martin
Winnipeg
(How true.)
Push for equal access
Re: Critical Mass
I wonder why no one has asked why there is no leadership among Critical Mass. That's because the political philosophy of Critical Mass is "anarchism," going back to the 19th century Russian philosophers Bakunin and Kropotkin. Critical Mass arose throughout North America, as the Sun says, to challenge the "car culture" by suggesting that, as roads are paid for by all citizens, pedestrians and cyclists have equal rights to them.
For those who whine about Critical Mass and defend the "car culture," might I suggest that they demand that the city provide bicycle paths and sidewalks (where in suburbia are there sidewalks?) throughout the city to allow all citizens equal access to public thoroughfares.
Nick Ternette
Winnipeg
(The militant attitudes of some cyclists are doing the cause more harm than good.)
Pedestrians unite!
It is time that the tired battle of drivers and cyclists come to an end. As the founding member of Pedestrian Rule, I shake my head at the rhetoric being thrown back and forth by cyclists (Critical Mass) and drivers (Critical Gas). Bicycles and vehicles are dangerous. People who operate them should be more aware of the small segment of society that truly chooses a safe and environmentally stable form of transportation. Pedestrians risk their lives on Winnipeg streets, while cyclists and drivers commonly disregard the rules of the road.
Let’s get a grip, Winnipeggers. Stop fighting about your dangerous deeds. Maybe leave the wheels at home tomorrow. The walkin’ ain’t crowded.
Matthew Aitken
Winnipeg
(Yes, let’s get a grip.)
Nick, you slay me!
It’s always nice to see the absurd contradictions of the left in full bloom.
In the opening paragraph of Nick Ternette’s letter of Aug. 3 (Push for equal access), he writes that Critical Mass subscribes to the principles of anarchism. One definition of anarchism I came across states that it is “the theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.”
Yet without missing a step, in the next paragraph he asks that “the city provide bicycle paths and sidewalks.”
So what is it? Does he want all forms of government, including civic, abolished?
Or does he just want to keep around the ones that can hopefully fund his pet projects?
Thank you, Mr. Ternette, for the best laugh I’ve had in weeks.
Jay Bruneau
Winnipeg
(What, were you in a coma?)
Enough of this Critical Mess
Re: Militant cyclists rile Katz (Ross Romaniuk, Aug. 2).
It’s nice to see that “Slammin’ Sammy Katz,” mayor of Winnipeg, has finally realized that those bicycle riders that call themselves “Critical Mass” are nothing but a Critical Mess. They disrupt the flow of traffic, they get in the way of law-abiding citizens, and claim they do nothing wrong.
I fully support the laying of charges by Winnipeg police against those individuals of this Critical Mess movement who break the law. They have been in the face of Winnipeggers for far too long.
It’s nice to see Slammin’ Sammy say he’s going to do something about this problem. It’s about time.
Robert Stock
Swan River
(Slammin’ Sammy?)
MacFarlane misses point
In Critical Mass protesters too critical (Aug, 7), Gordon MacFarlane misses the point concerning the raison d'etre of Critical Mass -- namely bicycles are clearly out to challenge the notion that persists in our "car culture" that cars are constitutionally protected from bicycles and pedestrians, mainly because roadways are publically owned by all citizens and because we all pay for them.
Mr. MacFarlane seems to be critical of people who have a vital point, but who express it in a particular fashion and, therefore, alienate people in the process. The fact is, even if they were polite about the way they expressed themselves, bicycles would still be the "enemy" of our "car culture"!
His suggestion that most Canadians are moderate and tolerant and can recognize the validity of a point well made is to miss the point altogether. Those moderate and tolerant Canadians don't have a political position on any issue -- don't feel strongly enough about anything, and don't participate in any form of public demonstration! Those who do protest are making a point and see themselves as being both part of the problem and the solution.
Nick Ternette
Winnipeg
(Thou, perhaps, doth protest too much.)