Driver says video shows Critical Mass cyclists breaking law. Drew Karedes, KHOU
Cell phone video given to KHOU by a viewer clearly shows a stream riders passing through a red light. Cars can be heard honking repeatedly as drivers wait for the cyclists to pass.
Some drivers who have had their own experiences with the organized ride believe participants are not exercising caution.
"Half of them are my friends. They're punks," said driver Ryan Ottea. "They're using their mass as a weapon for running lights. They're using the mass to stop traffic because they can."
Critical Mass spokesman Kyle Nielsen says that is not true.
He believes riders are exercising free speech rights and are not doing anything wrong.
Nielsen admits that cyclists do pass through red lights to stick with the rest of the group.
"Cars control the roads 29 days out of the month, and I think once a month ride is not unreasonable," said Kyle Nielsen.
There is no question, upon viewing the video, that the bicyclists in question are ignoring and outright breaking existing traffic laws. As a matter of fact, Mr. Nielsen admits as much in his statements. In past interviews, Mr. Nielsen has been keen to state that Critical Mass is all about forcing automobile drivers to follow the laws in respect to bicycles on the road. As a matter of fact, in almost every article where a bicyclists is hit by an automobile cycling advocates raise their grease-stained hands in the air and scream bloody murder about the heathens in cars who are intentionally hunting them down.
This is, as you might imagine, patently false. Yes there are cases where cars and bikes get too close together and yes there are people who have, publically, espoused the belief that bicycles have no place on the roads (a false idea I might add -more later-) but there have been no situations where it's been proven that someone intentionally targeted a bicyclist. In all cases the accidents have been the result of accidents. Tragic as they may be, they're happening because neither car-driver nor bicycle-rider has much experience, in Houston, co-existing.
Then you get Mr. Nielsen’s comments, which strongly imply that the bicycle crowd clearly feels that the rule of law only applies one way. This is destructive and troubling because it means that the majority of Critical Mass riders are self-indulgent pillocks with no concern for their fellow man, which runs counter to the image that they display, or that has been portrayed in the Houston Media.
Unlike some, I understand that bicycles have a right to the road. They are classified as vehicles and share the same rights and responsibilities as do automobile traffic. This also means that the law, the breaking of which is not covered by 1st Amendment rights, applies to them equally. Whether or not Mr. Nielsen thinks them ignoring the traffic laws for one day is "reasonable" is not the question. Nor would I say should Mr. Nielsen’s opinions be given much credence, going forward, due to his apparent lack of understanding of the basics of civil activity in a society governed (ostensibly) by the rule of law.
There are options for Critical Mass to follow the law, one of which is to pay for a police escort to ride shotgun and stop traffic as the group moves through. Of course, this would involve following procedures and paying money and this group seems ill-equipped to be bothered with filling out the paperwork required for such a function. The other option is for the police to do their job and enforce the laws fairly. Whether or not you agree with the goals of Critical Mass you should, at the very least, understand the problems with letting them flaunt the law for no other reason than they just don't feel bothered by breaking it.
Houston is making strides in accommodating bicyclists and their needs as part of their overall transit plans. By any measure this is a positive development. What Houston doesn't need are groups of two-wheeled justice-bringers deciding what laws they will follow and what laws they won't. HPD doesn't need to be taking sides either. This is not a political question but a legal one. The old saying is that justice is blind. In Houston it's become apparent that she's not blind at all. If anything she's dispensed with a very large side of political prejudice. This is both alarming and saddening at the same time.
