Asana Cycles
Asana Cycles
Are we Critical Mass?
History of Critical Mass & Bicycle Advocacy
Ryan Laperle
San Jose State University
Introduction to the Early Bicycle Movement
The evolution of the bicycle has grown since its late 1860s debut to the political demonstrations of the last 20 years. Although historical accounts are dated further back in the 1800s, the 1860s are credited for the bicycling “craze” andthe evolution of the bicycle that is known today throughout the world. The invention of the velocipede in England in 1869 introduced personal transportation, leisure entertainment, and sport or utilitarian transportations. The new sport ofbicycle racing from 1869-1890 allowed manufacturers to produce new, rapid designs and evolve the bicycle (Ritchie, 1999).
The velocipede craze of the late 1860s, also introduced social gatherings in the form of velocipede clubs, or velo for short. Velo clubs such as the Liverpool Velocipede Club, Wolverhampton Velocipede Club, and Surrey BicycleClub, all contributed to the growth of cycling in their respected areas. By 1873, there were 7 clubs in London, and a distinct line between amateur and professional status became visible between the heavily professional North and amateurstatus of the South (Ritchie (1999). This distinction was representative of the social class of England at the time, consisting of working-class families of the North and middle-class families of the South.
Bicycle races and other bicycle social gatherings of the late 1860s and early 1870s produced crowds of up to 15-16,000 (Ritchie, 1999). From the historical accounts of the late1800s, it is obvious the bicycle has played an importantrole in social gatherings and personal transportation. There are distinct similarities of social congregations from those of the 1800s and the present, as millions of people watch cycling events on television, and thousands gather and participatein monthly bicycle movements around the world.
Historically, bicycle movements have been seen around the world, from San Francisco, London, Budapest, Malaysia and most every country in between (Carlsson, 1993a). From previous literature, bicycle movements have sustainedon entertainment with races, social gatherings for casual rides, and wellness (Richie, 1999). Present day bicycle movements involve critical mass, utilitarianism, anti-car, and self-health (Carlsson, 2002). The beginning of a true environmentalbicycle movement was critical mass. Critical mass first started in San Francisco in 1992, and ever since has grown into a monthly event that closes down cities around the world (Carlsson, 1994).
In this essay, I explore the history of critical mass and other forms of bike advocacy, their victories and failures, offer empirical accounts from a November 2010 San Francisco critical mass ride and a local group ride that sharessimilar identities. By using accounts from local rides, the contextualization of critical mass can be seen in weekly rides instead of once a month. The use of empirical accounts will hope to serve as a lens to the insider view of bike advocacyand bike enthusiasts alike. This essay will explore the motivations of critical mass and explore its effects on a social utopian paradigm.
The empirical accounts from critical mass occurred on November 26, 2010 in San Francisco. Participating in critical mass illustrated heterogeneous perspectives and the philosophy of the ride. When the ride first started there was anestimated 500 people participating in critical mass. At the high point of the ride, there was an estimated 1,000 riders.
The empirical accounts for the local ride will be the “Saturday Morning Ride” (SMR) in Monterey, California. On an average SMR there will be from 25-50 riders. The Velo Club of Monterey has put on the SMR since 1979. For 38miles through Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Pebble Beach there is blocking parking lots, running stop signs, holding up traffic, and exceeding speed limits on descents.
History of Critical Mass
A great misconception of critical mass is that it was the brainchild of Chris Carlsson, when he presented the idea at a monthly meeting to the less enthusiastic San Francisco Bike Coalition in 1992. Although, Carlsson admits such anevent did take place, he suggests social movements do no erupt from individuals nor do ideas develop like critical mass, from one person. According to these claims, critical mass began rather unassumingly (Carlsson, 1993a). There arevarious goals of critical mass, such as “it’s about having fun in the street,” “it’s about a more social way of life,” “it’s about asserting our right to the road,” “we are not blocking traffic, we are traffic,” and “it’s about banning cars” (Carlsson et al., 1994, p.1).
When critical mass started in September 1992, it was called the “Commute Clot,” and drew a total of 60 cyclists from the area. The “Commute Clot” was renamed after Ted White’s 1991 documentary “Return of the Scorcher” showedcyclists in China riding through intersections once a “critical mass” is achieved (Blickstein & Hanson, 2001). The original goal of critical mass was for a group of commuting cyclist to meet and ride home together (Furness, 2007). Since then,
critical mass has expanded into other independent critical mass groups in approximately 400 cities around the world, often gathering thousands of cyclist on the last Friday of each month at rush hour (Cuauhtemoc & Hernandez, 2007).
Critical mass is both structured and unstructured, and it’s founders refer to it as an “organized coincidence” (Carlsson et al., 1994).
“Where are we going?!?”
The “organized coincidence” known as critical mass has no specific leader, affiliation, charter, or agenda. The monthly ride is a chance for its participants (“massers”) to take back the public space that is theirs. It is a chance for the
massers to regain parks and streets, as well as to be in control of their life (Cuauhtemoc & Hernandez, 2007). From an outsider’s perspective, critical mass is seen as chaotic, rebellious, a celebration, a loud scream and a soft whisper(Higgins, 2000). Since critical mass has no leader, or specific interpretations associated with the ride, the ride relies on the participant’s interpretations (Furness, 2007). I rode so that I may have inspired one person to ride a bike to work, one
day the following week instead of drive a car.
During my critical mass ride in San Francisco, hundreds of times the phrase “where are we going?!?” was shouted out. At first I thought: “I’m just riding home”, as historically it is an “organized coincidence” that everyone rides
home together. However, as the ride went on and the shouting of “where are we going?!?” continued, I realized that it is not a question, but a statement. ”Where are we going?!?” is not a physical place, but a call for action for a social
movement from the car driven world to a more efficient means of transportation, and ultimately a more sustainable means of life.
Xerocracy
At critical mass, massers will handout flyers, magazines, stickers, and posters to other massers, and motorists stuck in traffic (Carlsson, 1993a). The massers use “xerocracy” or “rule through photocopying” in attempts to build
support for their utilitarian society (Furness, 2007, p. 301). Since the goal of critical mass is interpreted by the masser’s, there are many perspectives within the xerocracy. The xerocrats are able to have a voice through xerocracy and let thepublic know why they ride instead of drive, and participate in critical mass. Such features observed are issues with ecology, autonomy, use of public space, and anti-car. Xerocracy allows massers to exercise democracy by building aframework that challenges corporate and conformity ideals (Cuauhtemoc & Hernandez, 2007).
Xerocracy is not only to educate bystanders and other massers of what the ride is about, but is to help improve safety along the ride. For example a masser may pass out a flyer that details a tricky corner or intersection so other
massers are aware of potential risks that lay ahead. Carlsson et al. (1994) describes the cyclists, or “cork” as they are known, who pass out flyers as the true diplomats of the ride to outsiders. The flyer distribution is also said to be a tactic to
block, or “cork” traffic, while providing bystanders with knowledge of the ride (Furness, 2007).
During critical mass ride, I participated with two other massers to “cork” traffic. There was a gap for a gold Mercedes to sneak into the middle of the mass, however we quickly parked our bikes in front of the car, making her stop. Asthe mass continued, car free within the group, fellow massers praised us as they passed by. A few massers would call out “nice cork!” or “right on, brother!” One of the two other massers that corked the Mercedes with me chose not toacknowledge that we were blocking traffic but, in true “think like a masser” fashion he said: “This seems like a nice place to take a break!” Corking the Mercedes made the ride feel alive, it helped to feel what the ride was about, and that it ispossible to shutdown a city and have car-free bike advocacy ride. It helped to put into context why I chose to research and participate in the ride, it was my own personal protest for bike advocacy and environmental awareness by means ofcorking one car in hopes that they may ride a bike or walk to work one day next week.
Environmental and Anti-car paradigms
Critical mass participants assume the role of presenting the average citizen of a utilitarian environment if they are aware or unaware of the protest. Massers provide their colossal demonstration of their ideal utilitarian environment byutilizing tools like xerocracy and the simple act of participating in critical mass.
The bicycle is a perfect vehicle for a social movement, as it has been the center of previous social movements. During the 1890s, the bicycle became a means for women to break free from their social expected norms, and weardifferent attire separate from their expected conservative gendered norms (Horton, 2006). Unfortunately, in the beginning women were excluded from velocipeding in the 1870s-80s (Ritchie, 1999). In the 1890s, women began racing and inthe 1930s feminists and socialists used the novelty to release the constraints on women (Horton 2006). The bicycle enabled women to participate in activities outside of their social norms and push for greater freedoms. Given the bicyclehelped play a major role in women’s rights, perhaps the bicycle can encourage more environmental friendly activities, on a global scale. The bicycle has the potential to act as a catalyst in a social movement towards a more ecological friendlyand more sustainable future.
During the 1970s, the concerns of an energy crisis and gasoline shortage were changing the world’s view on natural resources. At this same time the automobile was a readily technology that was booming. The environmentalist in the1970s shifted away from the conservation of areas and protection of endangered species and directed their assaults on how the general public is endangering the environment. Environmentalist directed most of their attention towardsenvironmentally unfriendly practices and the use of cars (Horton, 2006).
In 1978, Sears, Tyler, Citrin, and Kinder suggested the amount of energy used in Los Angeles is dependent on private expenditures. Such expenditures include the automobile and how much oil is needed. Los Angeles, already beingin an energy crisis, Sears et al. (1978) predicted “…a considerable potential for the disruption of normal life styles existed in Los Angeles, making the availability of energy a particularly salient issue” (p. 61). From Sears et al. (1978)
prediction it is obvious that in times of energy or natural resource crisis, a change for private expenditures is desired.
In the same year, Illich (1978) suggests the energy policies adopted at the time of the energy crisis will dictate the character of social relations communities will enjoy, come the year 2000. Sadly, we are still in the same state ofdependence of natural resources more than ever. Illich argues, that for a true solution to resolve the energy crisis, a high-speed approach to life must not be a high demand. However, if the corporate industry continues to dominate a need ofspeed and dependence of motorized trips, the desired speed for a sustainable society will remain a utopian dream. Illich later suggests bicycles are the most energy efficient and superior vehicles for the public to adopt. He further illustrates hisargument by presenting this ideological shift:
Bicycles let people move with greater speed without taking up significant amounts of scarce space, energy, or time…They can get the benefit of technological breakthroughs without putting undue claims on the schedules,
energy, or space of others….Every increase in motorized speed creates new demands on space and time. The use of the bicycle is self-limiting. It allows people to create a new relationship between their life-space and their life-time, between territory and the pulse of their being, without destroying their inherited balance. The advantages of modern self-powered traffic are obvious, and ignored (p. 18-19).
From arguments and evidence from those of Illich (1978) and Sears et al. (1978) respectively, critical mass is able to make strong historical arguments for the use of bicycles over cars. This is accomplished by suggesting the bicycle isthe car’s “other,” in the context of cars being ‘the problem’ and bicycles being ‘the solution’ (Horton, 2006, p.43).
Another example of suggesting the bicycle is a superior mode of transportation is demonstrated from a report in Toronto, Canada in 2007. In their report, Cambell et al. (2007) worked with the Toronto Environment Office to assess the health impacts of air pollution from traffic. From previous scientific studies, they found traffic pollution gives rise to 440 premature deaths and 1,700 hospitalizations a year. Of those hospitalizations, 1,200 are children with bronchitis episodes due to traffic related pollution. Cambell et al. (2007) suggest there is a need to limit traffic within Toronto. Furthermore, there is a need to use alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling, and public transportation.
Cambell et al. (2007), like the arguments of Sears et al. (1978), calls for a reduction in private car use and given the fixed public space within a city there is a need to use it more efficiently.
Although environmental and health are some main issues, road space will be less congested for motorized traffic. However, Cambell et al. (2007) stresses the need to give priority to pedestrians, cyclist, and transit users if their model is adopted by the city. The suggestions of Sears et al. (1978), Illich (1978), and Cambell et al. (2007) provide strong arguments that bicycles are not only the superior mode of transportation, but a healthier mode for ones self health and theenvironment. Like Cambell and colleagues arguments, critical mass encourages rejecting social norms that motorized vehicles are the only means to reach destinations. Rejecting social norms by urban cycling instead of driving a car is also both mentally and physically refreshing (Carlsson, 2002). Carlsson (2002) rejects the common “truths” of dominant society in that: “you must have a car to get around” (p. 78). To support these claims is a quote from a local VCM rider:
“I’ve been car free for most of my adult life, the car centric life has long since left my persona.”-Devian Gilbert, local VCM rider (Devian Gilbert personal communication, October 10, 2010)
Critical mass and bike advocacy have a thorough history of anti-car paradigms. Those stuck in traffic from critical mass often become infuriated with the hold up, and look at the demonstration as complete anarchy (Higgins, 2000).
Car traffic naturally looks at critical mass as an inconvenience. However, most motorists are stuck in the model of need for speed for society to work as proposed originally by Illich in 1978. However, the negative relationship between cyclists and motorists are not the doings of one group. Critical mass will often encounter “snails.” Carlsson et al. (1994) describes snails as a group of antagonistic bicyclist that will creep behind the mass, slowing before intersections andholding motorist up longer than they have to. Unfortunately, snails are not participating in critical mass for the wellness of the ride, they participate exclusively to antagonize motorist. Carlsson et al. (1994) suggests snails can single-handilyruin any positive knowledge a motorist may have of the ride. Antagonistic behavior of both cyclist and motorist are not limited to critical mass events, they happen throughout the world on a daily basis with even the common commuter.
The Velo Club of Monterey and the Saturday Morning Ride (SMR) often have dangerous encounters with motorist, and both groups can be antagonistic at times. Previously at the beginning of a ride, the SMR runs the first set ofstop signs in Cannery Row. There was a minivan making a left turn before the peloton was near the stop sign. However, the minivan stopped in the middle of the intersection as if to make sure the peloton stopped at the stop sign. Like a well-tuned machine, the riders shouted and signaled to fellow cyclist behind them to slow down and prepare to stop to avoid a crash. After verbal exchanges from both parties, one cyclist went up to the minivan and hit the side of the van with hisfist in frustration. The reaction of the cyclist would have been described as inappropriate, according to Carlsson et al. (1994). Since interactions between motorists and cyclists should stay positive and never resort to physical contact, especially with the car itself.
The everlasting confrontations between cyclist and motorist may never be resolved as long as both exist. Carlsson (2002) illustrates the anxiety and anger associated with a motorist in grid lock during a critical mass by suggesting heis:
…trapped as he is in a vehicle that symbolizes his freedom while actually imprisoning him – in debt and anxiety, but at that moment, in a metal box in a traffic jam. He has traded a great deal of his life to “own” this car… (p. 79).
From this example the symbolism describes how massers remove themselves from social norms and from the overwhelming saturation of media. Carlsson (2002) explains that with the removal of media the cyclist is able to experience life directly instead of being trapped in a metal box (car) with the media (radio).
Interestingly enough, VCM does just this when cars are blocked for a short period during a rest stop in Pebble Beach. When the SMR takes a break at the clubhouse of Pebble Beach Golf Links, a parking/roundabout is blocked andcars cannot get out until the ride continues. The motorist (or golfers) are trapped inside their cars, and left to think that they may possibly be late or miss their tee time at their expensive, and exclusive golf resort. Whether the cyclists are awareof what is occurring or not, the motorists are in obvious frustration with the disruption to their golf outing extravaganza.
The paradigm of cyclist’s views on motorists may never change since both groups refuse to understand each other’s outlook on what is, or could be, a sustainable society. As long as there are still available natural resources, thevicious cycle of fighting for public space will become a continuum.
Overall Victory or Bust?
Since 1992, critical mass has been a phenomenon that occurs on the last Friday of the month at rush hour in San Francisco. Thousands of cyclists will gather and simply “ride home together” but at the same time promote bikeadvocacy (Carlsson et al., 1994). With any large-scale public act, there will be repercussions from the city that it is held in. Large public acts such as critical mass makes cities look bad, and when cities look bad there are negativerepercussions. Critical mass is supposed to be a positive event, but sometimes it is nearly impossible when snails, motorist, or police officers antagonize each other (Carlsson et al., 1994).
Critical mass is not intended for confrontation with police or motorists, but there are. In a newsletter in 1993, Chris Carlsson writes to those who are antagonistic and suggest that if they want to be militant and fight with police, do not do it as a “parasite on critical mass” (Carlsson, 1993b). Carlsson continues to suggest that these individuals should take their behavior somewhere else because critical mass does not need them to impose their narrow, unimaginative, andhormonal behavior.
Since 1992 there have been many arrests with critical mass all over the world. Perhaps the most popular cases were critical mass rides in San Francisco in 1997, New York City in 2004, and Seattle in 2008.
The mayor of San Francisco in 1997, Willie Brown, wanted to crack down on critical mass. An estimated 5000 cyclist were in attendance for the critical mass ride. Mayor Brown wanted to confiscate their bicycles. Instead, the ride turned into a riot, and police quickly turned from their original agenda of escorting the ride. It was originally reported that 250 cyclists were arrested, but the next day the number revealed to only be 101. One officer was quoted by saying he use to enjoy critical mass and “this used to be fun. It was just a bicycle ride” (Herron, J., Finnie, C., & Gurnon, E., 1997 p.1).
Another infamous account of police brutality happened in New York City from September 2004 to January 2006. Recently in October 2010, New York City agreed to pay nearly $1 million to participants in the affected critical massrides. A total of 83 riders were arrested or ticketed during these rides were awarded sums ranging from $500-$35,000. This settlement did not include those arrests and settlements made on the same grounds during the 2004 RepublicNational Convention critical mass ride when 250 people were arrested (Doty, 2010).
In Seattle, July 2008 critical mass ride, a car hit a group of cyclist that “accidently” rode his car into them when the driver became irate. However, cyclists reportedly then assaulted the driver (Black, 2008). Violent accounts like Seattlein 2008 suggest to the greater public that critical mass is a group of cyclists that do not follow the rules of the road or have any direction. It is because of examples like Seattle that critical mass is frowned upon, and its ideals are lost intranslation through antagonistic behavior, when originally the goal was to move towards a more utilitarian society.
While participating in the San Francisco critical mass in November 2010, we would often encounter angry citizens or motorists that would yell and honk their horns at the cyclists. At one point while riding downtown, we encountereda large mass of people, as if there was a parade occurring at night in downtown San Francisco. The tens of thousands of people were cheering for us, and many were taking pictures. Perhaps this helped the ride’s goals immensely.
Similarities can be drawn form this moment to the popular “Truth” anti-smoking advertisements on television. Where at the end of each commercial, a symbol will appear above the heads of those that become educated after the publicdemonstrations of anti-smoking. Perhaps and hopefully, thousands were educated that night of bike advocacy in a quick span of those couple blocks.
So, does critical mass help bike advocacy or hurt it? Like any civil disobedience for any social change, there are those that are impatient or act violent in a retaliation of the event. Black (2008) suggests that like any social movement, there are advocacy organizations that work with influential officials. Since there are no leaders in critical mass, the continuum of irritation, antagonistic behavior, and violence is inevitable. However, if the voices of bike advocacy and promotion of environmental friendly transportation are heard, then critical mass will become completely successful. After participating in critical mass, it was clear that the majority of the massers simply wanted the public to ride more bikes and not cars. Unfortunately, like the observations of Illich in 1978, if there is a continued desire of speed of transportation for society to thrive, then movements such as critical mass may never be able to fully reach its goals.
A Brief History of Bike Lanes
The advent of the bicycle and critical mass are true testaments to bike advocacy. However, simple bike lanes are also forms of bike advocacy. Bike cycling clubs demanded better roads for cycling as early as 1885 through the GeneralDutch Cyclist Union. The first known bike lanes, or bike paths, were developed in the Netherlands in 1899. Between 1899 and 1902, an experimental bike path was laid out over a stretch of 1400-meters. The road for automobiles was widened 6 meters with two paved bike lanes on either side. In 1901, the Netherlands set aside a separate budget for the construction of bike paths throughout the country (Welleman,1999). With the safety provided by the development ofcycling groups such as the General Dutch Cyclist Union, the velo clubs previously mentioned from England, and bike lanes, cycling was able to become both a safe and enjoyable hobby for the public.
During the 1950s, bike lanes began to disappear and car-parking lanes appeared. With the decrease in bicycle use, bicycles were banned from certain roads in cities for car speeds to increase. It wasn’t until the mid to late 1970s that amajor development plan for expanding of existing bicycle lanes occurred. In the year 2000, an estimated 15 to 22 billion Dutch guilders would have been spent to construct and finish repairs to existing bike lanes (Welleman, 1999).
Today, bike lanes are continued to be added to cities and becoming more visible. A more progressive approach to the typical bike lane is seen with green lanes, or advanced stop lines. Such green lanes or advanced stop lines are usedto reduce conflicts between motorist and cyclist (Pucher, Dill, & Handy, 2010). Green lanes, and advanced stop lines are currently being used in cities such as Portland, New York City, and San Francisco (Goebel, 2010).
Conclusion
Bicycle advocacy dates back to the late 1860s with the introduction of the bicycle. Since then, the bicycle has become an important vehicle in women’s rights, a successful speed of sustainability, and an attempt for a large-scale social movement. The bicycle has been argued as a means to both conserve and solve energy crisis, and an alternative to motorized trips. Since 1992, critical mass has opened new doors towards a social movement to prove that a car should not be the first means of transportation. Critical mass has to do more with just riding a bike instead of driving a car. Critical mass is a way of thinking, and a different way of looking at the world. It’s stepping away from our social norms of an overwhelming saturation of media of weather, talk radio, celebrity gossip, television, sporting scores, marketing, and the general news and stepping towards a more utilitarian society (Carlsson, 2002).
The history of bike advocacy since the 1860s started with the demand for bike lanes, and safety. Currently bike advocates still fight for bike lanes and safety, but with the addition of a major social shift from an automobile dependent to a bicycle sustainable society. Over time the speed of life has become so fast, the bicycle may seem obsolete because of faster and reliable automobiles. However, the larger truth still exists that the bicycle is better for the environment, is healthier for the cyclist, and is a withdrawal from economic activity (Carlsson, 2002). Critical mass is a movement that is able to strike a significant blow into the system that controls our societies today. The greater mass of society continues to support a culture that thrives on habits that destroy the environment. This greater mass drains out the voices of the small percentage of people that ride bikes that would like to change the social dependence of motorized trips. Critical mass should not be looked at as an unorganized or chaotic protest but as an attempt to heal our society before we destroy the landscapes we call home.
References
Black, G. (2008) Critical mass: help or hurt the cause of bike advocacy? Bicycle Paper, 37(7) 3.
Blickstein, S. & Hanson, S. (2001). Critical mass: forging a politics of sustainablemobility in the information age. Transportation, 28, 347-362.
Cambell, M., Bassil, K., Morgan., C., Lalani, M., Ronald, Macfarlane., & Bienefeld, M.
(2007) Air pollution burden of illness from traffic in Toronto – problems and solutions. November 2007. Toronto: Toronto Public Health.
Carlsson, C. (1993a). Critical mass from the inside out. Accessed on 10/18/10 onhttp://www.scorcher.org/cmhistory/insideout.htmlCarlsson, C. (1993b). A challenge to the “real militants” out there: Accessed on 10/18/10 on http://web.archive.org/web/20060503235441/www.scorcher.org/cmhistory/copsnrowdies.htmlCarlsson, C., Swanson, J., D’Andrade, H., French, N., Verdekal, B., Roberts, K., et al. (1994). How to make a critcal mass lessons and ideas from the san francisco
experience. Accessed on 10/18/10 on http://www.scorcher.org/cmhistory/howto.htmlCarlsson, C. (2002). Cycling under the radar – assertive desertion. Critical Mass: Bicycling’s Defiant Celebration. Oakland: AK Press
Carlsson, C. (2007). ‘Outlaw’ bicycling. Affinities: A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture and Action, 1(1) 86-106.
Cuauhtemoc, C. & Hernandez, G. (2007). Ready or not, the velorution has arrived: critical mass – an exercise in democracy. Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 8(2) 133-161.
Devian Gilbert (2010) Personal communication October 10, 2010.
Doty, C. (2010). Bike riders in new york win settlement. New York Times, October 18,
2010 Accessed on 11/20/10 on http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/
nyregion/19critical.html?ref=critical_massFurness, Z. (2007). Critical mass, urban space and velomobility. Mobilities, 2(2) 299-319.
Goebel, B. (2010). San Francisco to get five green bike boxes on market street. SF Streets Blog.org, November 19, 2010. Accessed on November 27, 2010 on http://sf.streetsblog.org/2010/11/19/san-francisco-to-get-five-gree-bikeboxes-
on
market-street/
Higgins, C. (2000). Critical to recall real ‘mass’ appeal. San Francisco Gate, 30 June, p.
2. Accessed on 11/17/10 on http://critical-mass.info/about2.html.
Herron J., Finnie, C., & Gurnon, E. (1997). Brown: take bikes of busted cyclist critical
mass fiasco finger-pointing starts. The Examiner, July 27th Accessed on 11/20/10 on http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1997/07/27/NEWS1025.dtl
&hw=critical%20mass%20willie%20brown&ao=2
Horton, D. (2006). Environmentalism and the bicycle. Environmental Politics, 15(1) 41-58.
Illich, I. (1978). Energy and equality. New York: Pantheon.
Ritchie, A. (1999). The origins of bicycle racing in england: technology, entertainment, sponsorship and advertising in the early history of the sport. Journal of Sport History, 26(3) 489-520.
Pucher J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase
bicycling: an international review. Preventive Medicine, 50, S106-S125.
Sears, DO., Tyler, TR., Citrin, J., & Kinder, DR. (1978). Political system support and public response to the energy crisis. American Journal of Political Science 22(1)
56-82.
Welleman, T. (1999). The dutch bicycle master plan. The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
Yates, M. (2010). Cycling advocacy group slams removal of capondanno lanes. Silive, Novemeber 19, 2010 Accessed on 11/21/2010 on http://www.silive.com/news/
index.ssf/2010/11/cycling_advocacy_group_slams_r.html.
Monday, December 27, 2010