Did you follow the thread on ChiFG about critical mass? There seemed to be two different perspectives on what the objective of CM is about: bike advocacy or, as you say, 'shock treatment'. It quickly became clear that, given the attitudes of motorists to cyclists, you can't have both. I don't see shoving the superiority of bicycling in the faces of motorists as advocacy. There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of snail-paced freeway traffic and having a ride, but to call it advocacy or activism is a little naive. Participatory events like Eugene's Bike Parade were much better alternatives to CM.

no i didn't read the thread.
you've said you think it's "naive", and that you don't think of it as advocacy, but not why.
go on....

btw, i didn't call it 'effective' or 'revolutionary' or claim to think it was the preferred way of going about things. but i'd ride with them. it's a deterritorialization of the freeway, at minimum. beyond that, it seems to me a lot more questions about what amounts to "non-naive politics" are probably in order. and i realize that these people in LA may think of what they're doing as a 'wake-up call'...in some respects, i think probably it is. but maybe not for the reasons they think it is. they can't master the messages something like this communicates. but it doesn't mean that there is no political importance to doing something like this. perhaps a broadening of the politics of life in urban spaces is in order?
anyway, i haven't put forward a committed viewpoint anywhere on CM, these Crimanimalz, or otherwise. i'm just saying A) i think these guys are interesting and i'd go on one of these rides, and B) whatever notion of the political economy of transportation and urban space can't account for this beyond the opposition "useful gesture / non-useful gesture" might be in need of a widening.

Hey, I wasn't attributing the naivete to you and, like I said, "There's nothing wrong with taking advantage of snail-paced freeway traffic and having a ride". Also, my comments were geared toward this particular action, not necessarily the group as a whole But to respond to yr questions...

This is what I got from the vid and their wiki (and some thoughts on what 'non-naive' might amount to here):

1: Their decision making process alone indicates that they understand themselves as a political organization with a deliberative procedure for taking action.

2: Their first objective is to advocate for cycling as an eco-friendly mode of transportation which, if used by more people, would effectively boycot oil-dependency (so far so good).

3: The message of the particular action shown in the vid: cycling is a faster way to get from point A to point B--even on L.A. freeways, ironically enough. The statement of their banner: "If you were on a bike, you'd be home by now" (or something like that). This is what made me think that they were being a bit naive. Why?

A: They presuppose the uses people are making of their cars and their destinations. Without interviewing or polling, there is no way of telling how many people that passed under their panner actually live close enough to their point of departure to actually make cycling feasible. Also, there is no way of knowing whether or not cars were being used because it was the only feasible mode of transportation for the need of the motorist. Granted: shitloads of people use cars when they do not need to, whether for pleasure or out of laziness--not to mention that the kinds of cars people use are often beyond the scope of need. In any case, without said knowlede, Crimanimalz take for granted a motorist open to the suggestion of riding a bike for the same purpose that they were using their car. A better use of statistical data might have resulted in determining sites of action where the audience could be determined to a reasonable extent (such as, data from the Dept. of Transportation shows that road A is primarily used for purposes X, Y, and Z between the times of such and such). We're sort of left in the dark on the site-specific context of the action. All the "research and scouting" seemed to be oriented toward finding a stretch of asphalt where motorists would be going slow for a predictable amount of time.

B: They target motorists that are perhaps at the most frustrated part of their day. Tactically speaking, having that fact shoved in their face probably won't get you that far (just look at driver resentment when there's a CM). Now, granted, maybe you'll get one person, snailing along at 10 MPH in a 75 speed zone, who reads the banner and, instead of reacting to the cyclists, reflects on their situation and how, yes, in fact, they certainly could be home just this very instant. And they ponder and think, and think some more--about the war in iraq and the oil-based infrastructure and the widening hole in the ozone layer,increasing skin cancer rates and smog, the dead troops, scarcity of water, billions wasted on war, corruption of the gov't--until finally they roll down their windows, stick out their head and yell 'I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE." (Speaking of which, check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q ). At which point they set their car on fire and walk home, inciting thousands of others in the process. But I'll bet that this sort of stuff is the furthest thing from their minds, because they've just been told that they're chumps by smart-alecky cyclists.

C: This dynamic is played out. I'm not sure you can even call it a deterritorialization unless deterritorialization here is just the fact that they were breaking the law by using non-motorized vehicles on the highway (i.e., do you mean that deterritorialization = transgression?). I don't know what their ride does to wake people up (they seemed much more interested in cool-looking shots with neat effects featuring themselves).

3: They would have been much better off without the banner-message. Or they could have done some research that shows that they actually know their audience and, on the basis of that research, formulate a more effective statement. Mass actions involving bikers CAN be productive, but it isn't always. And an unproductive mass can mean a public perception of bikers as a nuisance--which can lead to dangers such as more instances of road rage in the future as cyclist-motorist tensions mount. With things like that on the line, yes, i think that the useful/non-usefual opposition is a good place to start by thinking these practices insofar as they take place under the pretenses of bicycle advocacy. So, while i agree that in "doing something like this" there could be political importance, I just don't see it here. I see self-glorifying antics to show off to friends and kids on bikeforums and whatnot.

4: Obviously, broadening the politics of life in urban spaces IS in order. But given what I have said, I don't think they have put as much thought into their politics as they have into their spiffy web-site design, spoke cards, and video-editing. And yes, the political economy of transportation is the issue here, but the objectives, tactics, strategies, and techniques of interventions within that political economy must be thought out. I didn't see this evinced in their wiki, their press release, or in the Santa Monica Press, WEEKEND EDITION, MAY 10-11, 2008 (there, everything seems to be focused on the riders).

sure, they're juvenile (i.e. they're having fun doing what they're doing, and taking pics and making spoke cards, etc). and they are, to an extent anyway, de facto wrong about the time it takes for an LA commuter to get home (a huge percentage of commuters live a long ways away from downtown LA, e.g. in the Valley, out east I-10, etc), so strategic choices about who their signs are trying to 'court' might have rendered a more receptive audience. this is all true.

i think you're kind of sensationalizing or mystifying the whole issue by painting this picture (akin to something like the movie Falling Down) of an abandoned burning car, etc., as nobody, even them, is waiting for such a spectacle. besides, cars burn on the side of US101 or I-5 all the time. it's no big thing really. i've seen plenty.

as far as 'public perception' goes, i tend to think that people will take up bike riding for two main reasons: a) their friends do it and they get influenced that way, or b) something convinces them that it's actually more efficient, sensible, economical, for them personally (i.e. narcissistic reasons). there's no way to promote the former except by being a biker oneself and setting an example for people you know. as regards the latter, seeing bikes whizz by when you're stuck in traffic happens all the time in every major metropolitan zone. messengers cut across Manhattan every day way faster than cars/cabs, same in the Loop, same in SF, etc. LA is a bit unusual in this respect, because it's so spread out, so disparate and sprawled, and the city has put so little effort into being bike-friendly, that there really hasn't (to my knowledge) been anything close to the explosion of bike-commuter culture as there is in these other areas. it's also a geographical issue: there are mountains and hills which separate areas of north LA that are simply tedious for anyone not taking a car. freeways are the only real way (given the lack of real public transportation, i.e. functional subways system) to get around.
so this means that it is still functionally implausible for a large percentage of people to bicycle on a day to day basis from one area of LA to another. BUT, the traffic is horrible. so seeing a biker race by while you're stuck in traffic does produce a knowledge-effect, i.e. that of the relative speeds involved. and i think this is one of the main motivating factors leading people in a metropolitan area to ride bikes. still, none of this means they need by this

token to be on the freeway. you're prob right this is just a cherry-picked captive audience.
but, entering the freeway is a deterritorialization not simply from a functional point of view (this road is for cars only, you may only use these 'lines' to move on it, etc), but also since they involve swarms and packs rather than isolated machine-units, draw aberrant lines, are not 'going from A to B' and don't enter the space through the sanctioned rules of its design, etc etc. a larger conversation should, i still maintain, be had (you agreed of course) about the politics of urban space, since i'm not sure the recognition model of 'advocacy' (a vocalisation, a plea, a reasonable request) is the only kind of 'useful' political action. recall "reclaim the streets", or even the nomad bike-dance-parties in Eugene. many other examples could be given. and Virilio has some very important things to say about the political functions of highways, roads, the automobile, and the flows of speed and violence they implicate that ought to be considered here as well, before we write off the 'interruptive' aesthetic of these juvenile rascals entirely.

1: Re: sensationalizaton: Ha! Dude, that was part joke. The points I was making with it: A) their strategy seems totally unreasonable; B) we learn nothing of their effects or what objectives of theirs have been met, neither on their wiki, their press releases, their vids, nor their media covereage.

2: Take CCM as a counter-example. CCM is affiliated with the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, which together have singlehandedly given us every bikelane in the city and more. Crimanimalz has given people spokecards and cool vids of themselves "deterritorializing" the highway and getting in trouble with the law. It's not just that they're juvenile. They sensationalize themselves under the pretenses of being political.

3: Totally disagree with your characterization of reason b for people taking up biking. Are you willing to reduce any political decision that takes up a set of knowledges to narcissism? Or are you being ironic?

4: Regarding the knowledge effects produced by Crimanimalz, you state: "BUT, the traffic is horrible. so seeing a biker race by while you're stuck in traffic does produce a knowledge-effect, i.e. that of the relative speeds involved. and i think this is one of the main motivating factors leading people in a metropolitan area to ride bikes. still, none of this means they need by this".

If you could find some data on this, great. Maybe some polls or interviews would do. But really, i don't know how you can claim what specific knowledge effect was produced in this instance--or if there is even just one, or which knowledge effect was produced in the greatest numbers. This was also something I pointed out above: if a political group is invested in actions which involve objectives, it is beneficial on every front to be involved in the reconnaissance of their effects. Political organizations with objectives should produce their own knowledges regarding their objectves and the success of their strategies, tactics, and techniques. This is a criteria for any successful CM.

5: Re: deterritorialization: well, they do go from point a to point b; they do frame their ride as serving a function (get home faster, reterritorialize); but as they say themselves: "it's every rider for themselves". Swarms and Packs: that's just a result of poor planning and a lack of forethought regarding potentially hazardous situations, as i mentioned above. Aberrant lines: yes, they sure do those, but now we're at the bare minimum of political activity.

6: I think you downplay everthing about this group and their action that doesn't take the generic form, "group of people rides bikes on highway." If not, let me know. When evaluating a political group, I don't think it's a good idea to just throw their discourse out the window. That said, what is riding on highways? Here, it is a tactic or a maneuver. The group and their tactic need to be evaluated separately. Crimanimalz are not the first to use this tactic and I think they do a pretty lame job of deploying it. You don't want to write Crimanimalz off entirely? Why not? What are they doing that is irreducible to the generic fom given above? If the generic form above is all you are interested in with them, then I think it's time to start considering the tactic they use in a new context without all their stupid baggage.

7: As a tactic, riding on highways can be used in many different ways. And what I have said here does not apply to it, regarded simply as a tactic. I indicated this in the beginning of my first comment. So, what are the conditions under which this tactic is useful? If you had the objectives of Crimanimalz, I pointed out a few (and here are some more): rider safety; organization; effective use of knowledge in planning; reconnaissance regarding the effects produced by the action; productive exchanges with motorists.

8: Recognition model of advocacy vs. other forms of political action: You're right--I even stated this in my first comment (c.f., Eugene Bike Parade). Although the Eugene Bike Parade pretty much just made one reasonable request over and over again to those it encountered ('come dance/ride with us' and 'let us into your indoor space so we can dance there then leave'). But, go on, you were saying about other kinds of useful actions? What are they? And what will they do? How will they be evaluated?

By the way, this was cut off (stupid faves comment length limit strikes again): I'm serious about these last questions. If you read the thread on critical mass in the chifg, there are a lot of cyclists who are frustrated with CCM because it has alienated a lot of people by relying on a re-claim the streets mentality, which has led to violent encounters between cyclists and motorists (with both parties being at fault, depending on the case).

There is definitely space in the CCM scene for introducting new tactics, objectives, etc. While reading that thread, I felt like the issue you want to emphasize about alternative uses of urban space fell by the wayside. That said, a ride that has 'deterritorialization' as its strict objective should clearly delineate itself as such in as many ways as possible so as to avoid confusion with your typical CM (blackblock, anyone?). Because the CCM needs the recognition of their advocacy if they are to continue fighting for things like more bike lanes, stiffer penalites against motorists who endanger cyclists, and more secure bike parking throughout the city, they cannot risk more radical tactics.

[edited out my polemicism].

"If you could find some data on this, great. Maybe some polls or interviews would do."

what is it with your need for statistics, numbers, data and etc?
what i hear you saying is basically, if it doesn't function as an appendage of the city's own infrastructural self-management schema, including subscribing to the statist recording apparatus of census and polling, it will not be able to make a 'polite' appeal to the powers that be. and that this is the only way all the good stuff we love about the world came about.

personally, i think that's ridiculous.

maybe you've been reading too much of the liberal-reformist (hate to say it) bullshit posted by the conservatives on chifg.

and all this use of 'tactics' and 'strategy'....there's also something positive about having a bit of fun on a freeway. like we used to in the mall playing capture the flag. I'd be happy seeing the city made into a playground, before it becomes a warzone.
and i think the notion of 'occupying' space rather than polemically engaging in 'point-making' interventions with motorists is fine and dandy too. and not apolitical. and if that 'alienates' motorists, well that's too bad.

but i need to get back to work.

um, whoa. i think you could only spin that as a summation by ignoring 90% of what i said. and then to add insult to injury with yr last comment? WUT? i understand that i wrote a long response, but seriously, what gives?

anyways, first, i'll restate my point about the use of statistical knowledge in political activity in different terms: knowledge of a population can be used to change the politics of that population, regardless of the source of the knowledge used. i don't see anything wrong with using statistics or knowledge generally toward ends it was not produced for. there is nothing inherent in using statistics to carry out an action that would automatically assimilate that action into "the city's own infrastructural self-management schema". if you disagree, please explain why. because i think it's more revolutionary to displace the statist objectives and use the knowledge effects of a population for radical action than to simply dismiss statistical data as somehow untouchable because it's 'statist'. the latter position assumes that the knowledge effects of 'the state' carry some mystical state-essence that forever determine the outcome of the use of said knowledge effects.

secondly, you evaded my question. i asked how you can claim to know what knowledge effects are produced by the actions of groups like Crimanimalz. it was a serious question and i suggested ways of empirically discovering what knowledge effects were produced in the millieu by the action of crimanimalz. I wasn't confining the discussion to a set of exclusive forms of investigation that i find acceptable. But you respond in the following manner (paraphrasing): 'dude, yr so statist and gullable to conservativism that i don't even have to take you seriously.' are you kidding me???

thirdly, could you explain your pessimism remark? i never dismissed actions that don't take up statistics or like knowledge-sets. i only discuss the use of retrieved data as a possibility in relation to a specific action with specificified objectives, though, as stated, i see the use of data on a community or the millieu of an action as potentially useful beyond the scope of this action and its objectives. did you read the last paragraph of my response? i think i clearly indicate that there are uses of CM that go the route of bicycle advocacy, which entails a dimension of diplomacy with city government, just as there are uses of CM that have nothing to do with bicycle advocacy or city government, and whose effects need not exceed the level of the multitude of its participants. in other words, personally, i like bikelanes. i would like to see more installed in every city. i would like it if more city planners took bicycling seriously as a form of urban transportation in planning adjustments to city infrastructure in order to reduce pollution, oil dependency, and so on. i also recognize (as i mentioned before your last response) that advocating for such changes is not the sole purpose of organizing a CM and that a CM can take up the invention of new styles of action as its own objective.

"and all this use of 'tactics' and 'strategy'....there's also something positive about having a bit of fun on a freeway."

i made this exact same point in my first comment.

"and i think the notion of 'occupying' space rather than polemically engaging in 'point-making' interventions with motorists is fine and dandy too. and not apolitical. and if that 'alienates' motorists, well that's too bad."

agreed--sort of. in the case of crimanimalz, this seemed to be their strategy: occupy the space. however, this totally contradicted their mission statement concerning bike advocacy. my naivete comment sticks: you don't advocate for cycling by engaging in acts that could easily alienate the very people to whom you're appealing. yes, ride the highway! great! but when people do that and say "we're fightin' the man, man!" i just shake my head.

laslty: did you check out the thread on critical mass (i think it's called 'some critical mass (and some critical sass)? as you know that i know, there's some conservativism on chifg. but nevertheless, that threat was interesting to watch develop. i never jumped in, but it was good to see a local debate on a local action that i am relatively uninformed about as a new chicagoan.

i'm seriously too busy for this right now. gotta write my presentation.

but this:

"there is nothing inherent in using statistics to carry out an action that would automatically assimilate that action into "the city's own infrastructural self-management schema". if you disagree, please explain why. because i think it's more revolutionary to displace the statist objectives and use the knowledge effects of a population for radical action than to simply dismiss statistical data as somehow untouchable because it's 'statist'. the latter position assumes that the knowledge effects of 'the state' carry some mystical state-essence that forever determine the outcome of the use of said knowledge effects."

even though in the next paragraph, and before already, you distinguish between 'diplomacy with government' and 'other kinds of uses of CM', you're running them together in the above claim. what i'm dismissive of is the attempt to call diplomacy 'politics', and what you're dismissive of is any 'other practices' that can't offer a scientifico-statistic transcendental account of their own legitimacy (e.g. "how you can claim to know what knowledge effects are produced by the actions of groups like Crimanimalz."). i was the first to admit that the efficacy of these kids is not along the lines they think it is (advocacy/ diplomacy). so i don't care what they 'say' they're accomplishing. that was never what i liked about it anyway.

what i don't like is this:
you seem in the above quote to be referring to the diplomatic act of asking the city to make bike lanes and penalize motorist 'more revolutionary' than other non-diplomatic [i.e. reformist] practices. you seem to say that somehow this 'displaces' the statist objectives? (or rather: how does this 'displacement of statism through a manipulation of statistics at all relevant to what we're talking about if this is not what you meant?) how is that displacement, exactly? it's just integrating yourself into a city bureaucracy as a slightly more squeaky wheel than the one next to you, and scrambling for public funds. i'm not saying i'm against it, I wish people wouldn't do this, or that i don't like bike lanes, or racks, or whatever. but i also don't think politics means filing a petition with the city for more bike lanes. and if that's still something worth doing, it perhaps constitutes the least radical dimension of the political spectrum, as it in no way whatsoever calls into question the legitimacy or the repressive

...functioning of the statist apparatus. it simply asks for a handout.

[oh goddamit it got cut off.]

ps. i posted some stuff in my previous post above that i deleted. e.g. the pessimism remark, and the end comment. i *deleted* them. and before any response came through. so yeah. it's cause i didn't want to hang onto them. no point in asking me about them.

"what i'm dismissive of is the attempt to call diplomacy 'politics'"

why is diplomacy not political?

"what you're dismissive of is any 'other practices' that can't offer a scientifico-statistic transcendental account of their own legitimacy".

wrong. i won't restate myself for a fourth or fifth time. i never affirmed statistics as a legitimation discourse, only as a tool to be used in mastering the site of an action. what do you mean by "scientifico-statistic transcendental"?

"i was the first to admit that the efficacy of these kids is not along the lines they think it is (advocacy/ diplomacy). so i don't care what they 'say' they're accomplishing. that was never what i liked about it anyway."

Right. However, the way you phrased yr statement ("and i realize that these people in LA may think of what they're doing as a 'wake-up call'...in some respects, i think probably it is. but maybe not for the reasons they think it is. they can't master the messages something like this communicates") was ambiguous enough to warrant a more precise criticism of the actions and discourse of the group and hence further discussion.

"you seem in the above quote to be referring to the diplomatic act of asking the city to make bike lanes and penalize motorist 'more revolutionary' than other non-diplomatic [i.e. reformist] practices."

no, you're misplacing the privileging entailed in my quote. i do not privilege reformism over radicalism. i privilege the practices that make use of statistical data in such a way as to reverse relations of power. such practices can be either reformist or revolutionary. HOWEVER, the privilege is relative, as i said nothing else than that i privilege such practices (be they reformist or revolutionary) over the theoretico-practical position that dismisses such data from the outset (your position). the dismissal of such a tool out of hand is reactionary. it presupposes that ends are inscribed within means and that the instruments of power are static and fetishistically imbued with the essence of their authors. it's not really even a privileging, rather, i'm just saying that it's better not to dismiss the use of any kind of knowledge in political practice than to dismiss something out of hand and decrease the range of your toolset.

the relevance of statistics concerned the action of crimanimalz initially. but more broadly, tons of information concerning transportation and traffic is produced each year. CM actions, whether reformist or revolutionary, have an abundance of data at their fingertips. why not use it when it would be beneficial? why not use city traffic data to determine the most effective places and times to stage an action? why not use city traffic data to know what kinds of motorists you will be dealing with? why not use such data to target places where there is increased commercial use of roadways? because it was produced with the city's intent to target which roads need to be maintained on a more frequent basis so as to ensure smooth commodity flows? because it is currently used by advertisers to help them pick billboard locations? because it's "statist"!?!?! ha! C'MON!

displacement more specifically: what is meant by displacement here begins with a tool produced within an economy of power that has been used to structure behavior in advance of the agency it conducts. traffic data, for instance, may be used to specify appropriate sites for billboard advertisements, road maintenance, and other uses along with the sheer production of information. when this tool is no longer used to subjugate agency but becomes an implement that supports the empowerment of agency, this entails that the objectives under which the tool was formerly used have now been rendered inactive. when traffic data is no longer used to subject road-users to advertisements, conduct their travels within the city, and instead becomes used for a CM (whether radical or reformist), this data no longer carries its attendant gonvernmental objectives. rather, they are displaced--put out of operation however temporarily--and are made to make way for the unthought objectives of people discovering their agency in CM. the use of the data becomes radically autonomist as people reclaim the very technology that would otherwise function as a tool of normation/normaliztion.

this is how i've been understanding the use of knowledge, particularly statistics, in our conversation here. in itself, knowledge and statistics are neither statist nor revolutionary, nor reformist, and so on. and not once have i said otherwise.

"and if that's still something worth doing, it perhaps constitutes the least radical dimension of the political spectrum, as it in no way whatsoever calls into question the legitimacy or the repressive functioning of the statist apparatus. it simply asks for a handout."

what is the statist apparatus? i don't understand what you mean by the state. this gets us off topic, so you don't have to answer it if you don't want to, ut i thought i'd mention that i've had no idea what you've been referring to each time you've used this word.

we'll talk about this sometime in person. i'm not feeling like writing some long response.

peace