Monday, September 11, 2006
The Differences Between Critical Mass and S.P.I.N.
For those who have ridden in both C.M. and S.P.I.N. rallies the differences between the two is seemingly minimal. Aside from minor differences in a appearance: such as the prevalence of Spandex during the S.P.I.N. rally rather than the outlandish signs and costumes which characterize C.M, or the higher mean age of riders participating in S.P.I.N.; there is only two major differences between the two groups. These two differences are the organizational structure and S.P.I.N.’s willingness to apply for a parade permit, and these subtle differences give both C.M. and S.P.I.N there prospective strengths and weaknesses.
The lack of an organizational structure, especially the leaderless structure of C.M., is one of the most common criticisms levelled against the group. While this form of organization has its disadvantages, there are also strengths which are rarely extolled, by the mainstream local media.
Firstly the leaderless structure enables C.M. to shield itself from litigation—often resulting in the mainstream media referring to it as “unaccountable”. Simply put if someone wanted to bring a civil or criminal case against C.M. they would be unable to do so because C.M. is not a formalized organization but an idea. Instead they would be forced to identify and bring litigious action against the individual or individuals who committed the wrong-doing in question. So contrary to media hype C.M. is not unaccountable, rather each individual participant is accountable for his or her own actions. In contrast S.P.I.N. is a formal organization with designated leaders and therefore the organization and its leaders could theoretically face legal action.
Second, any member of the group is free to participate in shaping the dynamics of the group. By riding at the front of the mass participants can influence the direction of the route. Participants are free to handing out information (leaflets, pamphlets, zines, etc.), decorations, costumes, or bring music along for the ride. This leaves critical mass well equipped to accommodate a wide diversity of opinions, characters, and objectives within the mass. Some ride for environmental concerns, some for physical activity, some ride for better infrastructure within the city, and some ride for the enjoyment of riding in a group. Some participants own cars, some feel we need better public transportation in combination to more bicycles, and some are ideologically committed to a society based entirely on HPT.
The countering criticism is that the allowance of a diversity of opinions has hindered the focus on attainable objectives within the group. The allowance of diverse opinions has created an environment whereby participants have imported in a wide variety of peripheral debates—such as global climate change, and the war in Iraq—and connected them to the C.M. movement. These peripheral debates then detract attention away from simple attainable goals which are more directly related to HPT advocacy such as improving cycling infrastructure. The argument continues that without a hierarchical structure C.M. lacks the appropriate means to keep all members focused and orderly. Therefore a few antagonistic radicals can, and some may argue have (eg. the May ride), soured the reputation of the entire group.
There is some strength to the above mentioned argument, but I think that it fails to recognize that the most participants in C.M. are less concerned with tangible political results than they are with heightening awareness and creating debate. As Ryan Kinrade confers
“As an apolitical, leaderless movement it will never have the clout required to change minds at city hall. All it can do is continue to serve as a reminder that a growing number of pedal-pushers demand rights and a place in the consciousness of the motorized majority.”
S.P.I.N. then may be equipped to push for change at City Hall, but as pointed out by Councillor Jenny Gerbasi at the S.P.I.N. rally, S.P.I.N. owes C.M. a thank you for raising the level of awareness of bicycling advocacy in
The final and most substantial difference between S.P.I.N. and C.M. remains the fact that S.P.I.N. applied for a parade permit, while C.M. does not. This is probably the single biggest sticking issue between C.M. and the Winnipeg Police Service. C.M. sits in a precarious position here, because to a certain extent they are attempting to have their cake and eat it too. I am a supporter of C.M. and I am not looking to “come down” on the movement; but it seems to me that we can’t act as a parade by being escorted through red lights either by ourselves or by the police and still claim we are simply traffic. This I feel leaves C.M. with two options, apply for the parade permit, or change our methods of riding. I personally prefer changing our methods of riding.
Simply put 200 riders randomly moving in all different directions through the downtown area may be more effectual than a single mass. So long as participants obeyed the rules of the road there is little the Winnipeg Police Service could say or do. After all, a bicycle has rights to the road as well. Skateboarders and roller-bladers could move along side the mass on the sidewalk where allowed and jog where skateboarding and blading is prohibited. The general speed of C.M. is slow enough to allow this. The mass need not be single file because it is legal to pass on the left side. In this way faster moving riders would act as a buffer between traffic and the slower moving riders on the right. These faster riders could then slow down or circle the block to continue the process. With the over-whelming presence of cell-phones meeting up after the ride would be quite possible with a little bit of networking—besides it would be a great way to meet people with common interests and exchange phone numbers.
The inherent problem with this plan is that it is a bit chaotic, which raises some concerns about safety, but I think that through good communication and common-sense riding these safety concerns could be minimized. Riding in such a fashion also has the advantage of showing the current inadequacies of the law if the number of cyclists on roads were to increase. Of course we could continue to ride as amass but perhaps then we should consider applying for a parade permit. This is not a debate I feel capable of answering and I’m interested to hear other peoples opinions on the matter, but it is an issue that should be discussed.
