It’s been an interesting month for Vancouver’s version of Critical Mass, the leaderless bike ride that takes place on the last Friday of every month in cities around the world. Vancouver’s July 31 ride became the focus of media hysteria when Mayor Gregor Robertson let it be known that he was “pissed off” about the lack of a predetermined route. Robertson and police chief Jim Chu went so far as to call for a meeting with the “organizers” of Critical Mass. Which is kind of ridiculous, since Critical Mass doesn’t have organizers — and Gregor, who has participated in the ride in the past, ought to know that.

Anyway, the ride went ahead as scheduled, and with a minimum of fuss. (I participated, mainly because I was annoyed by the negative media attention.) But the powers that be haven’t given up trying to assert control over future rides. Now city councillor Andrea Reimer is complaining that the ride “hasn’t been well marshaled, it has been loose. As a result it has made it less easier to cycle and less clear why we are doing it…. It was good to see more marshals out [at the July ride] and for them to be very clear about why they are riding, right?”

Well, no.

Look, I know this is hard for politicians to understand, but Critical Mass doesn’t have leaders. There are no organizers for the mayor and the police chief to talk to. There are no marshals responsible for maintaining order on the ride. And there is no single goal or agenda or point that Critical Mass is trying to make (beyond a very broad “Bikes are awesome!”). Some people participate because they hate cars, others participate to draw attention to how unfriendly Vancouver is towards cyclists, and still others participate simply because it’s fun. To talk about “being very clear about why they are riding” is to completely misunderstand Critical Mass. Even calling it a “protest” is a bit of a stretch. Critical Mass is literally just a bunch of people meeting up at the same time and place every month and going for a bike ride together. There is no basis of unity beyond that — and it’s definitely not something you need to have leaders to do, any more than my friends and I need a leader when we ride our bikes to a party (or whatever).

When Andrea Reimer refers to “marshals,” she is probably referring to the self-appointed leaders at the July ride — the ones who brought their own PA system to address the crowd before the ride began, and then tried to cooperate with the cops to divert the ride according to their own pre-determined plan, without the consent of the other 3,000 participants on the ride. Well, I’m sorry, Andrea, but those people have no more authority than anyone else. In fact, to the extent that people ignored the self-appointed leaders and did what they collectively wanted to do, I’d say the ride was a success.

And that’s as it should be. Critical Mass shouldn’t have leaders or organizers — that just creates a target for cops to harass and for politicians to co-opt. Vancouver has been fairly lucky that the authorities are so tolerant of the ride. There are many stories of rides in other cities where the cops cracked down and arrested participants (last year in New York, for example, a cop was caught on video assaulting a cyclist during Critical Mass). The recent hysteria may be a sign that the local tolerance is waning. Under the circumstances, it would be a big mistake to give the authorities a target to crack down on. A crowd of 3,000 cyclists is pretty much unstoppable short of overt use of force by the cops; a small group of leaders, self-appointed or otherwise, would be much easier to manipulate.

But why is Vancouver’s tolerance only waning now, years after the rides began in Vancouver? I think Mike Cantelon has a point when he connects the current controversy to the Olympics. After all, the February 2010 ride will be happening right in the middle of the 2010 Winter Games. Mike puts it best in a comment on another story:

They’ll only be okay with Critical Mass during the Olympics if they can control it. To move towards this, local politicians want to to see Critical Mass become hierarchal, with leaders they can influence so they have control over the route. They want this ASAP so they can test this control over the half year leading up to the Olympics.

I don’t think the Olympics are the whole story here, but the powers that be are obviously keen to “maintain order” during the Games (hence the $900 million security budget, the crackdown on civil liberties, etc.). There’s no question that they would love it if Critical Mass had a hierarchy to exert pressure on, so as to avoid any unpleasantness on February 26, 2010 and every ride thereafter. What worries me is those self-appointed leaders. It’s not too hard to imagine people like that setting themselves up as Critical Mass “representatives” (with the best of intentions, of course) and, ultimately, collaborating with the powers that be. It’s a classic problem: some event or movement challenges the status quo, the keepers of the status quo push back against it, someone eventually emerges as the voice of compromise — and sure enough, that event or movement becomes compromised, softening and undermining the “challenge” that it poses until it no longer challenges anything at all. Critical Mass is hardly a social movement, but it definitely constitutes a challenge to the status quo, and it does so in a beautifully empowering and non-hierarchical way. It would be a shame to see that radical edge sanded away, yet again, in the name of accommodation.