NYPD Gets Wheel Tough on Bikers
So now, thanks to Critical Mass, (and the fascist NYPD), cycling and walking are illegal in NYC.
35 or more pedestrians walking together describes the sidewalk on most midtown streets most of the time. Since you can never prove if two individuals had the same destination and route plan, only that they were where they were when they violated the regulations, walking on crowded streets is outlawed.
Their bike regulations also mean we need parade permits for our club rides, or we have to limit the number of participants. And obey all traffic regulations, or else...
If you are riding with a friend and you both go through a red light, (or you follow a stranger through a red light or he follows you), you are both subject to arrest, not just a ticket.
Thank you so much, Critical Mass.
Since cars aren't mentioned, it would appear Times Up' next move would be to do a Critical Mass with thousands of 'em -- honking horns, jamming streets, blocking intersections, etc.
Except they rename the demonstration ... Rush Hour.
Police would be powerless to stop them.
"Bill,
It's peculiar that you blame other cyclists for this regulatory frenzy unleashed by the ""fascist"" NYPD.
By pointing the finger at CM, you're buying into the scapegoating mindset that looks to assign to select groups the blame for myriad problems (cyclists, messengers, deliverymen, protestors of any stripe, any nonwhite person, someimes purely innocent people at random). The NYPD brass loves having people like you on their side. Divide and conquer never fails.
You recently said you had stopped riding in the city, or at least Midtown, because of the car taffic. So, your solution to a difficult problem is to avoid it. Others take a more active stance that looks beyond the status quo (and is their constitutional right). No one's tarring and feathering you for your choice, even though it requires far less courage.
What's even weirder is that this finger-pointing is not necessary to make your (very familiar) point that you don't like regulations. In fact it undermines it. If we all reviled CM the way you do, well then maybe we'd agree that we DO need regulations to keep people like that off the street. Which way do you want it?
"
"Carol,
At least some of the fingers must be pointed at Critical Mass. Prior to the RNC, CM enjoyed a solid relationship with the police - even receiving police escort, no harrasment over the pick-a-route randomness, and precious little bother over the nonviolent protest and traffic blocking.
When some people who participated in the CM rides decided to use the ride (which exists ostensibly to promote cyclist rights, etc.) to protest Bush and the RNC, that's when the problems started. The police, for whatever reason, really took umbrage with protesters of Bush. And cyclists who turned the Critical Mass ride purpose away from cycling issues and toward other issues caused us to get lumped in with the protesters so reviled by the police structure.
It's not scapegoating or turning on our own. It's a realistic look at the situation on the ground. And it was ""other cyclists"" that brought undue and somewhat unwarranted attention on CM in particular and cyclists in general. Now we all suffer the consequenses of those actions (the question of whether those consequenses are justified is another discussion).
-Donald"
"In prior years, we didn't have Bruce Smolka in charge of Manhattan south of 59th Street. (Remember Amadou Diallou?)
A large archive of press and personal accounts exists showing that with rare exception the cyclists arrested at CM have not been the ""outlaw"" variety so ingrained in the public imagination. Rather, people in bike lanes, stopped at lights, walking their bikes on the sidewalk.
There's a lot on this board if you search and also at Time's Up's press center.
The germane point in this thread is (or should be) whether recreational cycling clubs are going to feebly accept yet more unequal treatment from the city. I'll join in on such a discussion. But no more on the purely diversionary issue of CM, especially as it gets mischaracterized here."
"That's the post-RNC self-portrayal of CM by Times Up. Polite, respecting traffic laws, etc. Anyone ever do a pre-RNC CM? I did 2, the last being just 2 months before RNC in 2004. There was no one at that ride encouraging the cyclists to respect traffic laws, as they do now. Nor in the September 2003 CM that I attended. Respect for rules of the road was a post-RNC, post-""we're in deep doo-doo with the city now, so maybe we should start respecting traffic laws"" phenomenon. CM & Times Up, unlike the bike clubs, postured long and loud about cyclists rights, but did little to educate cyclists about their responsibilities while using the roads, at least until the post-RNC police repression. Only then did they start handing out leaflets encouraging CM cyclists to respect traffic laws--an afterthought borne of trouble. For any bike club I've been involved with, respecting the rules of the road is a starting point, not an afterthought.
CM is partly responsible for this mess. Certainly not the indefensible form and substance of the city's response (the bogus ticketting, false arrests, video tape surveillance, and now this overblown demand for permits--those are the city's doing, when it had other options), but CM's pre-RNC behavior virtually guaranteed a response of some sort. The response, happened to be Bruce Smolka, among others. On the last CM ride I attended, the ride leaders (oh yes, there are leaders in this ""leaderless"" ride) stopped the ride on Park Ave. in the UES for at least 10 minutes, mainly so that cyclists could shout pro-cycling slogans while holding their bikes in the air. Cyclists up and down the line blocked (corked) intersections, effectively denying the right of way to other road users, something I'm sure would have outraged the same participants if the act had been committed by motorists, denying use of the roads to cyclists. Then they headed up to a community garden in the Bronx, which got trampled as thanks for its invitation. And this was supposed to celebrate, promote, and represent cycling? I can't think of any NYC club that acts this way. The clubs somehow managed to pull of dozens of rides each month without attracting any police attention!
So yes, this is partly about Smolka and other personalities within NYPD and the City admin, but CM and Times Up are a very willing partner to this situation, with the leaderless charade, and a ride that calls itself traffic while breaking most basic traffic rules, etc.
Times Up likes to tout its legal victories as evidence of how it has stood up for cyclists' rights (rights no other cycling organization's behavior has called into question). Rather than celebrating, we should breathe a sigh of relief that the lawsuits didn't land in the courtroom of a less sympathetic or fair-minded judge, and that the city bungled its case so badly. The cases could have very easily gone less favorably.
If CM was such a boon to cycling locally, the members of local clubs & cycling orgs would not be so divided. People skeptical of CM are not necessarily scapegoating or siding with the police; the skepticism is rooted in some real problems with the way CM is run, and what, if anything, it represents for cycling. Even a staunch participant in the ride from 5bbc, who has been subject to NYPD harassment has mixed feelings about CM (http://www.5bbc.org/bicycletter/200605/petersadventure.shtml ).
The city has behaved in reprehensible ways that has rallied a lot of support & sympathy for the CM participants and innocent bystanders, which is probably as it should be. But it has also obscured a hard look at the ways in which CM contributed to the crisis. That would be ""blaming the victims"", who thus won't have their own behavior scrutinized. There are points along the way in which Times Up & CM could have taken steps to prevent the entire blow-up with the city, personalities like Smolka's notwithstanding. They could have re-scheduled or cancelle"
Dang, Rich, take a breath.
I've written before on this board about how riding in CM changed my attitude toward riding in the city, for which I'm eternally grateful. But I won't bore everyone with it again.
Cyclists (like humans generally) behave badly everywhere, and CM cyclists are no exceptions. Yet most of the people the cops arrest are not doing anything illegal. It's clear you and plenty of others don't approve of the ride, but that doesn't justify throwing them in jail, confiscating their bikes, and messing up their lives and bank balances for over a year. I know a lot of people this has happened to and they are perfectly nice people.
One could equally point out that we NYCCers are no angels either. By and large NYCC's training programs are phenomenally effective in promoting discipline, but let's be honest, there are plenty of transgressions.
How about those cyclists bombing ahead downhill on a car-heavy, narrow, twisty Westchester road, only to stop short in the road where everyone could run into them? Or impatient paceliners who huff past you on an uphill only to lose steam but stay to the left so no one else can get past without going into the oncoming lane? Who blast ahead of the ride leader, who then has to chase them down because they went the wrong way? Who pass on the right? Who ride two feet to the left of the paceline, causing cars to back up and then speed furiously past, putting everyone at risk? Who constantly yo-yo back and forth, back and forth, pedaling furiously and then coasting? Who blow through traffic lights without looking? Who take incredibly stupid risks in order to gain a slight advantage on the other guy--on a recreational ride? It's not only dangerous, it's emotionally exhausting.
Or trampling: look at the condition of the deli or bagel shop bathroom next time the NYCC passes through. (The club once discussed making a contribution to frequented bathroom stops. It's not a bad idea.)
But I love the NYCC just the same, and appreciate all it's done for me and other cyclists. I will defend its right to exist just as I defend CM.
I have already admitted to indulging in bad bahavior myself at least 25% of the time.
Once again, the pro/anti-CM argument is counterproductive in the context of agitating for better cycling conditions. Love it, hate it as you wish--go or don't go. But don't make it the focus of your rage. Save that for the city.
"You're right--I'm not a big fan of CM. But I AM appalled at the NYPD tactics & behaviors. I've never believed that whatever ""sins"" the CM phenomenon has committed, ""justified"" NYPD's fascist and un-professional response. I don't believe that people targetted by NYPD ""deserve"" it, unless they were actually committing a traffic infraction for which they received a ticket--no more. My beef with the CM is not personal, but with some of its claims to be representing cyclists and promoting their rights. I think that that CM and Times Up are partly responsible for the standoff between NYPD/NYC and cyclists, a standoff that is not helping the cause of cycling in NYC. I think that cyclists should be wary of Times Up's claims to effective bike advocacy. Please note that I don't blame Times Up/CM for the form & substance of the city's response (for which I see the city as entirely responsible), but for behaviors which virtually guaranteed some kind of response, something over which Times Up & CM had some influence."
"http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_CONVENTION_ARRESTS_BAOL-?SITE=NYNYD&SECTION=MIDEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
NYC settles with 13 arrested during Republican convention
NEW YORK (AP) -- The city has settled 13 of the hundreds of claims against it related to arrests during protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention, a spokeswoman said Thursday.
The settlements total $411,072, an average of $31,620, according to Laura Rivera, a spokeswoman in city Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr.'s office.
"
I don't believe in fighting fights you can't win. Critical Mass is fighting a losing battle.
I'm a Libertarian. In Libertarian circles there's a, (half joking), saying: It's too late to work within the system and too soon to start shooting the bastards.
The NYCC and it's rides were well under the radar of the powers that be– we had no battle to fight. Then Critical Mass came along. Even they were no problem till the RNC.
It's still likely that we'll be able to lead our rides and that the regs will be enforced against Critical Mass, but now we have to hope they don't turn their gaze on us and see Critical Mass– I doubt they can tell the difference.
And yes, we should protest at the meetings and present ourselves as sane and responsible adults.
As for blame: If someone disturbs a hornet's nest and you get stung, do you blame the hornet? No, but you don't love the hornet either. The NYPD's response is fascist AND predictable.
"Can someone explain the purpose of CM? Is it an organization that is supposed to advance the general cycling cause? If that's the case they sure are failing their mission.
The impression I get is participants in CM only want to use it as an opprtunity to ""stick it to the man"" (and use it as a vehicle for political protests)."
Two posters here are blaming CMs. That's misguided. There are Critical Masses taking place around the country without the reaction of the police that we see here, so let's not blame CMs.
Carol had it right: it was Bully-Bruce Smolka's arrival that marked the advent of the PD's sudden ire--yes, along with the timing of the GOP convention.
Meanwhile, as a matter of routine, drivers continue to block cross streets by the thousands without being ticketed. And the PD continues to stonewall about its enforcement, or lack thereof, against driver in CP.
Prediction: those attending the public hearing--at Police Headquarters rather than a neutral site--will be asked to sign in or register if they want to speak and likely be photographed without their knowing it.
"You misunderstand the point, probably because I was unclear.
""The advent of the PD's sudden ire"" was using the Critical Mass ride as a dual purpose protest. At the RNC, the CM ride became about that protest with raising awareness about bicycles as afterthought, at best. The PD did not like all the protesting (as is evidenced by all the rest of the stuff they pulled). Using the CM ride as a anti-Bush protest called attention to cyclists as counter to the PDs thinking and we all now get painted with the same brush, even if unfairly.
I'm not saying the PD is not to blame and I agree with your comments about lack of enforcement in CP. BUT... A large number of cyclists woke the beast and now we're seeing the backlash. Someone else's hornets metaphor is perfect here. We don't have to love the hornet's sting, but someone in our group poked its nest with a stick and we need to accept part of the blame."
Richard-
Yes, Smolka is a bully. And CM attracts his attention to cyclists in general. At least after the RNC, his reactions are predictable. To continue taunting him and to be shocked and appalled at his reaction is stupid.
Yes, drivers routinely block intersection. But the police, the political class and the non-cycling public, (NEWS FLASH: they out number us), view cars and their use as sacred. This will not change.
The same majority view adult cyclists as children who refuse to grow up. They don't notice that we don't pollute, take up less room on the road, make for a healthier society, etc. What they do notice is that we insist on playing with our toys on THEIR roads, (and sidewalks). When some of us misbehave, they don't like it, and we all suffer.
Signing in and being photographed? Afraid of a no-knock warrant and a trip to Guantanamo? At least it's still a free country, right?
"This is the best line:
Peter Vallone Jr., chairman of the City Council's Public Safety Committee, agreed, saying that strict enforcement of activities that might block emergency vehicles is prudent in the aftermath of 9/11.
""Anything that impedes emergency vehicles has to be regulated in this day and age, and that's exactly what the PD is doing here,"" said Vallone, a longtime champion of the NYPD.
well, it certainly isn't the motorists. because the streets are entirely clear of these obstacles. I've never seen an emergency vehicle trapped in a congestion of motor-vehicle traffic for 5+ minutes.
BUT THE PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS?!?!?! ZOMFG!!! they are the ones to blame for our metropolitan arterial sclorosis.
Vallone, you are an urban-planning super-genius"
Here is the Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/nyregion/19demo.html
Public Hearing
August 23, 6.00pm
Police Plaza
See you there. Wear a suit. And call your Councilperson in advance. Let them know that the proposed rules are in direct conflict with Federal law, per Judge William Pauley III's prior ruling.
That's it. I'm pissed. My gloves are off!
- Christian
If we were all to organize to go to this meeting, would we need a permit?
Critical mass riders have the same right to demonstrate against Bush as any other citizens have to demonstrate for or against Bush, Kerry, Clinton or any other politician. That's the essence of democracy. Any attempt to hinder CM or other cyclists because of political protest sets the 1st amendment at naught. Whatever our politics, let's all support free speech and congress and work to have the freedom to cycle unmolested by police in New York.
The bottom line is that in NYC a group needs a permit in order to demonstrate. CM or anyone else has every right to demonstrate, so long as proper channels are followed.
However, this action by the city is clearly overkill. Surely our cops have better things to do than to pick on cyclists.
~Claudette
"Since when is riding your bike a ""demonstration""?
Sometimes, a bike ride is just a bike ride.
"
When it is a deliberate effort by a group of people to make government aware of a political issue, such as the purpose of Critical Mass.
However, it is up to the arresting officer to prove that there is, indeed a demonstration going on. As I wrote before, this action is clearly overkill.
What might bring the message home would be for EVERY cycling group to send permit requests for EVERY ride, such that the court system will have no choice but to change the scale of this legislation. There is NO WAY the court could handle the load if every group over 20 participants (or pedestrians... sheesh!) would send in requests for permits to ride/walk together. The court or permit office would have time for little else.
~CML
"http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/paradepermit.pdf
Note that Sunday ""parades"" can't start before 2 pm."
Claudette:
It brings you no credit and only shame and banishment that you think like me. I had this very same idea, the point being to tie up resources. But here's why I turned against my own idea....
The lesser reason is it would take nothing for the city or the PD to assign one more or two more civilian administrative employees to deal with this. Or, worse yet, they wouldn't put on more staff and simply not get around to issuing a permit and beg off due to overload.
But here's the clincher reason we don't want to do this: we do NOT want to cede to the city or the PD the right and prerogative to issue permits for rides such as we're discussing. That would be a really bad precedent.
(...but I love the combative way you think; well, others will disparage any idea if it is thought to be combative--so let's just say non-supine.)
"I agree, Richard.
When the RNC came to town and people were told they could not hold rallies in Central Park the Libertarians said ""we don't need no stinking permits"" and went to the park. They did not arrest us."
When bicycles are outlawed, only outlaws will go on bike rides.
"Yikes; go check out the NYT article Metro/B2 (but I'm sure the horrifying news is available in other places, as well).
Probably in overreaction to bike protests, the Police Dept. is clarifying ""parade controls"" and wants to require a parade permit in advance for groups of 20+ cyclists.
That will wreck havoc on the NYC cycling community.
What can we most effectively do?
With concern,
Susan"
Enjoy life.
Police have better things to do.
I beleive you stand a better chance of getting a ticket for:
A) Running a red light
b) Biking in the wrong direction of the road
c) Biking on a sidewalk
d) Biking naked
e) Peeing while biking
Ride and enjoy, jus be careful out there.
rm
They will soon realize they have bitten off more than they can chew.
Since when did that stop them from biting off even more?
But when and if this issue is again raised, there will be some hard evidence of how ridiculous it is.
Obviously the most useful course of action would to have a cyclist be elected to city council. Any takers?
~Claudette
Or get rid of the city council.
I'm sure they can chew us up just fine... we're a tidbit.
the Mayor
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html
councilmember
http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/index.cfm
"An interesting perspective of cycling in NYC from ""the guy on the street.""
I just sent him this via e-mail, which bounced back. I'll try sending it to letter to the editor:
Steve-
I often agree with you, and about Critical Mass bike rides I mostly do. But I'm a long time member of the New York Cycle Club, and we promote safe and lawful rides. We get tarred with the same brush as these lunatics.
We run bike rides that almost always exceed 20 riders. Legally we now need a parade permit. That's 6-10 rides per weekend and even a few mid-week.
You got one thing very wrong:
"" How many times, right outside my office, has a taxi delivered me between 47th and 48th streets on Sixth Avenue about three feet from parked cars on the curbside?
And how many times has some mobile moron on a bike, as I opened the door after paying the fare, crashed into that door trying to illegally squeeze through? ""
Cyclists are supposed to ride to the side, near the parked cars. Cabs are supposed to pull to the CURB to let you out, not 3 feet from parked cars. Anyone opening a door into traffic is responsible for looking before they fling it into traffic. And since bicycles are supposed to ride in that space, it is ""traffic.""
You see cyclist habitually breaking traffic regulations. We see motorists and pedestrians doing the same. Despite your bad experiences with cyclists and cab doors, you still don't look first. Why? Even if the cyclist were in the wrong, it's in your best interest to look. In general I find people don't learn– it's always the car with the mashed in front end that runs the stop sign.
Bill Vojtech
"
"NY Post Article
How many times, right outside my office, has a taxi delivered me between 47th and 48th streets on Sixth Avenue about three feet from parked cars on the curbside?
And how many times has some mobile moron on a bike, as I opened the door after paying the fare, crashed into that door trying to illegally squeeze through?
It happens and the rider protests in profanity and yells, ""Man, you could have killed me.""
Pity I failed."
Actually, I'd call it morally repugnant on the author's part, and a dereliction of public duty on the Post's part.
Boycott the Post.
The Post is located between 47th and 48th on the west side of 6th Ave. In other words, Dunleavy is getting out of his cab into the bike lane.
Dunleavy, keep up the good work of fighting for poor innocent taxi passengers!
and, at least for the time being, it has yet to be restriped following the resurfacing below 23rd.
"The fact that the Post is a hirsute, lowest-common-denominator, parochial, ill-mannered, Bush-luvvin' RAG has kept me from ever buying a copy, so any boycott on my part would be somewhat without impact.
Despite the amusing alliterated headlines and the heartstring-plucking stories about local heroes, evil creeps out to get innocent children, and the obligatory pedal-pushing maniacs, yes, the Post is in essence a crappy, lower-class tabloid.
Unfortunately, it's a crappy tabloid that reflects and reinforces the opinions of a great many people. You know, before I read Mr. (and I use the term ""Mr."" loosely) Dunleavy's droppings, I never realized how regular non-cycling Joes must perceive this whole bike thing: gawd, what the poor drivers of NYC have to put up with! It's getting so you can't even open your car door without one of them bike nuts slamming into it, and then suing you, just because you didn't look before getting out. Man, you gotta be so careful, and for what? If you could just get rid of all the bikes and pedestrians, you'd never have to pay attention!
It's got to be frustrating enough to sit in traffic choking in your own greenhouse gases, watching a bike cut through -- but then sometimes these uppity ""bikers"" want to ride together, clogging traffic even more and endangering your car.
No wonder the internal-combustion crowd hates us. To even exist is to be an inconvenience -- an obstacle -- sometimes a target.
The problem is, NYC never really had bikes in mind. Apart from greenways, there are few places designated for bikes only. Bikes are vehicles, but not cars, and nobody knows where to put them. Bikes are illegal on the sidewalk but in danger on the street; cyclists look like spazzes on the road because there IS no real place for us -- we're improvising. Improvising when we're forced out of our bike lanes by parked cars and random idiots. Improvising as we negotiate the need to ride out from possible doorings vs. blocking car traffic. And we're being scapegoated for traffic problems when it seems perfectly clear from this vantage point that there are just too many motorized vehicles on the road, many of them absolutely, unnecessarily enormous. SUVs, anyone?
So I'm more in favor of a letter blitz on Mr. Dunleavings. Bill -- if you find out what e-mail address gets through, please let us know."
Forget the Post, they just like the attention.
A letter to the Mayor and City Council might be more productive. As I said before, I have the proposed amendment.
------------------
Susan posted the addresses above:
the Mayor
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html
councilmember
http://www.nyccouncil.info/constituent/index.cfm
[you need to find out who your councilperson is--the site should tell you]
Just tell me where to write!
Can we circulate a petition addressed to the Mayor or City Counsil, demanding bikers' rights -- that NYCC members, their friends and relatives, and maybe members of other bike clubs can sign? We can collect several hundred signatures (or a few thousands). I don't know how many one would need to attract any attention?
"I am surprised (and pleased) to see the outpouring of letters in the Post. I guess enough people responded.
I still think writing our pols is most important, though."
"We love you, Sam.
http://www.nydailynews.com/10-29-2003/city_life/advice/gridlocksam/story/437492p-368648c.html
...Dunleavy is just plain wrong when he says that bike riders who ride adjacent to stopped cabs are breaking the law. He is also irresponsible by trivializing bike fatalities. He is encouraging open season on cyclists. I've seen drivers curse cyclists for taking up road space. What most drivers don't realize is that it was the cycling community that pressed for paved roads in the first place, more than 100 years ago. So, I am calling on all my readers, when you get behind the wheel of a car, respect history and give the bike rider a break.
"
I just used the letters to the editor link on the NYPost.com website.
You sure know alot about the Post for someone who does not buy it. I actually find a good bit of anti-Bush stuff. An quite a few Pulitzer winners write for them.
"Mr.Dunleavy:
Because you are an old Law and Order voice, I am surprised by your July 20th screed which was brought to my attention. You wrote, ""How many times, right outside my office, has a taxi delivered me between 47th and 48th streets on Sixth Avenue about three feet [emphasis added] from parked cars on the curbside?"" As you know, a driver is legally obliged to discharge passengers no more than 12"" from a curb.
As you also know, §1214 of the New York State Vehicle & Traffic Law states, ""No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic.""
If everyone, cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, taxi passengers, and law and order columnists would give people their right-of-way, we would have a safer city. But, then, you would be denied the occasional punching bag for your hypocrisy.
My name, address, phone."
Did this e-mail bounce back as undeliverable? Mine did to that address.
