interview with Ian Bickis

Ian Bickis recently interviewed me for an article on Vancouver Critical Mass for Momentum. The full interview is below. The article will appear in the the Nov/Dec issue.  Look for it!

1) How informed do you think participants are of what critical mass is for and how it operates?

There is a wide range of knowledge about Critical Mass. Many people we talk to demonstrate complex and thoughtful understandings of the mass, its history and culture, and have highly thought-out beliefs about the purpose of the mass. But since we started looking at this in April, we also talk to a lot of people who have almost no knowledge of the ride and how it works. Many of these people are first-timers, but some have participated three, four, five times, and still have ideas about the mass that don’t jive with what we’ve observed, and what many long-time massers take for granted. For instance, many people are coming to the ride without any idea of what “corking” is, and how the ride will manage traffic lights. Perhaps more fundamentally, many newer riders assume that the ride is somehow centrally organized, and thus don’t feel any sense of agency or responsibility for determining how the ride works through their own behaviour. For example, they might think the route is predetermined, or that who will cork is pre-determined, and thus don’t engage themselves with those issues.

This lack of information mostly comes from the massive influx of new riders. It also comes from a local media drooling in anticipation of a Critical Mass blood bath (which hasn’t materialized), and from politicians who knowingly promote falsehoods about critical mass, such as the City and VPD promoting the idea that Critical Mass is some kind of organization with official leadership with whom they can negotiate.

What’s perhaps most interesting about this lack of knowledge and shared understanding of the ride is the response by Critical Mass participants. Some basic information about the ride is communicated regularly to the gathered participants by megaphone or small PA. Obviously, the message doesn’t always get across, and concerned massers have spontaneously employed some of the common practices for maintaining critical mass culture—distributing flyers about the ride, and distributing (and discussing) similar information on the Velolove list and facebook group. Addition, a small group of participants called for a meeting of those who care about Critical Mass. About 40 people attended and discussed issues facing the mass and ways of approaching them most effectively while respecting the non-hierarchical, emergent ideal of the mass.

The one point on which all participants seem to share a common understanding is that a lot of people are going to cycle together and take up a lot of asphalt.

2) How possible is it for some in the group to influence the behaviour of other (such as encouraging less antagonistic actions, not blocking oncoming traffic and keeping the group moving)?

First, let me say that the problems you list are not, in my opinion, the most important issues facing the ride. The most important issue to most Critical Massers is safety, and safety depends on comprehensive corking, and a pace and route that allows the ride to stay together as a group with no thin spots. Another safety issue concerns responding to anger in ways that de-escalate conflict and violence.

But to answer the more general question, it’s definitely possible for some massers to influence the behaviour of other massers, and help determine the behaviour of the mass as a whole. Perhaps the most important way of influencing others is leading by example. The more riders there are corking, the more motivated other riders will be to cork. If riders see other riders responding to aggression in a peaceful manner, the less likely they are to respond to aggression with more aggression. People can also intervene in situations to suggest alternatives, discourage others from certain behaviours, etc. In our research, we’ve seen how some people’s actions can influence others and affect the behaviour and experience of the ride as a whole. Another way in which people can influence the ride is through attempting to educate newer riders on how the mass works, and encouraging individuals to make choices that thoughtfully take others’ well-being into account. And quite simply, people can influence others by engaging in dialogue with other riders, before, during, and after the ride.

We see evidence of all these mechanisms of influence in the ride currently, and its clear many of them have been in place for sometime, or have emerged when people perceived the need. Importantly, the mechanisms of influence at work are non-hierarchical and non-coercive; they do not arise from any leadership or fixed organizational structure. In fact, attempts to influence the ride will fail if perceived as coming from an individual or group who is attempting to assume control of the ride, and thus threatening the ride’s integrity as anti-authoritarian.

3) Have you talked to motorists at all in your research to gauge general reactions to the critical mass? What have they said?

Anyone who has ridden in Critical Mass can tell you that a few motorists will express anger toward the ride, and a few more express amusement or enthusiast support. I can only assume that the attitudes of the less expressive motorists lie somewhere in between. We’ll have a better sense of this when we start interviewing motorists during the September ride.

4) From the perspective of a social psychologist, what are your general impressions of the ride? Do you think it effective and a good way to change societal behaviour and encourage/improve cycling?

CM demonstrates how, by coordinating their actions, individual people can rise up from a position of marginalization—freed from domination and empowered to create a different world.

Whether Critical Mass is effective depends on what you assume its goals are.

Critical Mass is highly effective at, albeit temporarily, inverting the bike-car hierarchy and moving a large mass of cyclists through the city safely, even in (or especially in) parts of the city where many people wouldn’t dare go without the mass.

It’s highly effective as a celebration. Nearly everyone we talk to about their participation in the ride says that it’s fun.

It’s effective at community building and maintenance. It’s effective at creating and maintaining bike culture.

One important way Critical Mass is effective is by transforming participants into more serious and politicized cyclists. Indeed, my own participation in Critical Mass led me to give up my car. So if people say that Critical Mass never converted a motorist, they’re wrong!

Critical Mass is effective at inspiring participants with a vision of the city in which cycling is a primary form of transportation and cars are not.

It’s certainly effective at helping put the issue of cycling on the political agenda. Whether that attention is positive or negative is debatable. And if it is negative, you could make a pretty convincing argument that the recent negative attention is the fault of local media and politicians, rather than the ride itself.

Compared to these ways in which Critical Mass is effective, it is less effective at encouraging motorists to give up their cars, or directly influencing cycling infrastructure and policy. But by inspiring and politicizing cyclists, and by making cyclists visible, CM likely leads indirectly to positive changes in infrastructure and policy that are dealt with more directly by other forms of cycling advocacy.

Advertisement