John Forester, the creator of the Effective Cycling program, has written on many occasions disparagingly of environmentalists who promote policies ostensibly in favor of, but actually detrimental to cyclists. I don't know what specifically he has written about Critical Mass, but I suspect he would view it unfavorably. Those who are partisans of the Effective Cycling school of thought are generally, not surprisingly, uncomfortable with Critical Mass.

The reasons for this are fairly clear:

The message of Effective Cycling is that cycling, including cycling in traffic, can be done safely if people develop good cycling skills for these situations. Critical Mass, on the other hand, appears to be a complaint against the domination of our cities by automobiles. Critical Mass appears to give the message that the streets are not safe because of automobiles. This seems to directly contradict the message of Effective Cycling.

People who take the Effective Cycling view are also afraid that events like Critical Mass will rub off badly on the general public, that they will result in an anti-cyclist backlash. They fear being associated with what will be portrayed as an undisciplined rabble.

These apparent conflicts need not exist. In actuality, there is no necessary contradiction between the message of Effective Cycling and of events like Critical Mass. While cycling can be done in a safe manner, even in traffic, there is no reason not to promote the reduction of traffic. Not only might streets be safer with less traffic, or calmer traffic, but this is a major quality-of-life issue. Critical Mass activists are not only promoting cycling, they are also promoting quality of life. This extends far beyond the issue of safe cycling.

As to "being associated with rabble rousers," Critical Mass is a movement to promote activities that improve the quality of life in our cities, including cycling and other non-automotive transportation. The manner in which the promotion is done will be found objectionable by some people. This, however, cannot be helped. Critical Mass is also a movement of many people. The precise nature of the outcome of both Critical Mass in general, as well in particular places, is unpredictable, as with every social movement. It does not claim to have any central control or organization. It can be what we make of it. Among Critical Massers are those who believe in Effective Cycling, and also those who are wholly ignorant of it. There are undoubtedly people from all walks of life, united by a common concern with the quality of life in their cities. I don't believe people motivated by such legitimate concerns can be dismissed as mere "rabble rousers."

What do I hope, as one individual, to accomplish by Critical Mass? As I have written elsewhere, the event accomplishes at least two general sets of goals in my view:

1) Promote and raise awareness of cycling as one of the ways to improve urban quality of life

2) Directly improve the bikability and enjoyability of the city right along its route, right while it's taking place. We want more people to bike. While Critical Mass takes place, right in its midst, the city everywhere along its route becomes a bicycling paradise, ideally. While it can be argued that this is at the expense of motorists, since it only happens once a month, it seems to me like a small price to pay for raising awareness of these important issues. Surely, motorists can endure a few minutes of slowdowns caused by Critical Mass cyclists per month, when they have to endure many, many more hours of traffic jams caused by their fellow motorists all month long! This doesn't seem to me like such a drastic imposition, relative to the benefits to be gained.