Quote Originally Posted by MartianDestiny View Post
Yes, but I can almost guarantee those roads were legally blocked off, special event permits obtained, and proper signage placed in effected areas in advance of the event.

There IS a difference.
You're right.

And note, I said I've participated in 1 Critical Mass ride after all these years of monthly Critical mass rides in Toronto and Vancouver where I've lived in past 17 yrs.

Tonight I just finished listening to an archived radio broadcast from this morning. My dearie was interviewed by a radio talk show host who kept harping about the cyclists paying a license fee. I went to have a shower because I couldn't sit beside him and watch him, reining in his annoyance (mildly put) while he was radio-interviewed by phone.

And here dearie was explaining in shortest sound byte (because that's how media is these days), that cyclists ALREADY pay the construction and maintenance of roads/bridges (with their bike lanes, etc.) through property tax (well if you are a renter, you ARE paying the landloard/building owner). Controversy of Critical Mass Ride was used as a jumping off, inflammatory topic for the talk show host's real beef: get cyclists to pay usage fee.

It's tiring to hear this old argument. Cyclists' aren't taxpayers?? Give us a break.

And his cycling advocacy group does not organize the Critical Mass Ride nor does it influences its ride tactics/planning. The group actually distances itself from the CM Ride. But as we all know, all cyclists of all stripes get lumped in with CM Ride in the eyes of some drivers/non-cyclists.

Anyway I consoled dearie in his public on-air defense (call-in talk show listeners were mostly negative against the cyclists who seem to be lawless, don't have to pay carbon tax (forgetting what carbon tax's purpose was), etc.

There's other info. that's budgetary needs to be dug up ...later as ammunition.