OK, I didn't mean to sucker you in here with a false, sensational headline a la checkout register newspapers, but if the argument Assistant District Attorney Bender made yesterday in seeking an injunction against the Critical Mass rides were enforced even-handedly, it would extend to all our rides in which more than 20 people joined.
She contended any gathering of 20 or more cyclists for a ride that had a leader and was announced ahead of time should require a ride permit by the city. As it happens, that applies to us more than it does to Critical Mass since, unlike ours, their rides are leaderless.
Well, clearly we aren't under attack...but what is is logic and the even handed application of law.
The City of NY would require us to have a permit for our rides.
Fri, 12/10/2004 - 6:06am
Fri, 12/10/2004 - 10:43am
#1
Covering Bases?
"Pretty outrageous. Wonder if it's proposed to cover bases, to enforce selectively when it's convenient to impede rides or collect revenue (fines). 20 is a pretty big paceline/group--is it likely that someone's ride wouldn't be made up of smaller clusters each with its own subleader (""we don't know those other 8 riders who happen to be a half-block behind us"").
Hmmm."
Fri, 12/10/2004 - 2:08pm
#2
Another point that could require our rides to have permits
"Not that the City would ever require us to get permits for each of our rides with twenty or more people, but, again, in the name of fair-mindedness and even-handedness, I'm preaching consistent application of the law....
A.D.A. Bender cited something in the Code or law that requires ""processions"" to have permits. She alleged Critical Mass was a procession and a parade (which also requires a permit).
I ask you, if a paceline isn't a procession, what is?
To demonstrate the absurdity of the requirement as written (in order that the city change it), I'm sorely tempted to put the city through a permitting process for my rides."
