NYPD Gets Wheel Tough on Bikers

  • Home
  • NYPD Gets Wheel Tough on Bikers
64 replies [Last post]
Anonymous's picture
Carol Wood (not verified)
More on Dunleavy
Anonymous's picture
Carol Wood (not verified)
The proposed amendment

I have a pdf of the proposed amendment--looks to me to clearly discriminate against bicycles. Can it be posted on this site or somewhere else, so whoever wants one can download it? I don't have time to send 100 emails.

TA and possibly the Bike Coalition will be holding press conferences on the issue. Time's Up held one this morning, no report yet.

Anonymous's picture
Richard Rosenthal (not verified)
We have a sympathetic representative on the City Council

Claudette, above, suggested we get someone on City Council. We may already have that someone.

The following is part of a note Charlie Komanoff wrote today:


I attended the Time's Up press conference
this morning to oppose the NYPD's proposed
rule changes previously reported here.

It was held at the XU space on East Houston,
from 10:30 to around 12 noon.

Speakers were XU attorney Norman Siegel,
Council Member Allan Gerson, Bill DiPaola
and Matthew Roth on behalf of XU, and myself.

Around half-a-dozen press were there. I
recognized NY Times metro columnist Clyde
Haberman and Downtown Express reporter
Jeff Siegel. Several radio, I think. No TV.

Most noteworthy, I'd say, was Gerson. He
spoke forcefully and eloquently against
the rule changes as an assault on a free
city, as usurpation of the City Council's
legislative powers, and as an attack on
bicycling. If Gerson follows through even
partially on his words today, then we may
have the elected champion we need around
which to develop public and political
opposition to the proposal.

Anonymous's picture
Carol Wood (not verified)
Time's Up press conference

"[An account sent by Right-of-Way's Charlie Komanoff.]

[Sorry for the duplication--I just emailed Charlie before Richard posted.]

I attended the Time's Up press conference
this morning to oppose the NYPD's proposed
rule changes previously reported here.

It was held at the XU space on East Houston,
from 10:30 to around 12 noon.

Speakers were XU attorney Norman Siegel,
Council Member Allan Gerson, Bill DiPaola
and Matthew Roth on behalf of XU, and myself.

Around half-a-dozen press were there. I
recognized NY Times metro columnist Clyde
Haberman and Downtown Express reporter
Jeff Siegel. Several radio, I think. No TV.

Most noteworthy, I'd say, was Gerson. He
spoke forcefully and eloquently against
the rule changes as an assault on a free
city, as usurpation of the City Council's
legislative powers, and as an attack on
bicycling. If Gerson follows through even
partially on his words today, then we may
have the elected champion we need around
which to develop public and political
opposition to the proposal.

I spoke largely to Safety In Numbers.
My sound bite was:
""The City provides neither infrastructure
nor traffic-law enforcement for safe
cycling. Only the presence of large
numbers of cyclists provides a modicum
of safety. By discouraging and even
criminalizing cycling, the proposed NYPD
policy will kill cyclists as surely as
speeding SUV's and tow trucks kill cyclists.""

I also had a Safety-in-Numbers graphic that
I'll send to anyone -- write me off-list.

I want to express my gratitude to Time's Up
for pulling this together. Bill D, Barbara
Ross, Kim, Naomi and many other volunteers
put in tons of work. It's terrific to see XU
respond so quickly and strategically.

I also want to say:
* Bill D's quote in yesterday's Times (nicely
abetted by the reporter) was brilliant:
... defendants say they encourage riders to ride
together in small groups for safety, ""until the
city creates a safe bicycling infrastructure,""
said Bill DiPaola, the director of Time's Up,
a nonprofit environmental group in the city.
* Steve Stollman also spoke today, with
incredibly trenchant remarks casting the NYPD
policy as an attack on civil society. (I can't
paraphrase; Steve was terrific.)
* I got to buttonhole Gerson beforehand on my
preliminary analysis showing that a helmet law
will cost more lives than it will save.
"

Anonymous's picture
chris (not verified)
walkers of 35 or more....

If pedestrians in groups of 35 or more need a parade permit. Will al the tour groups lead by flag-waving leaders need to get these parade permits.

Would this, too, be enforced? Could I as a citizen as an officer to check to see if they have a permit? and detainm them if they do not?

Anonymous's picture
Carol Wood (not verified)
PETITION FORM/LETTER TO CITY

I have a petition form against the amendment, sent to me from TA, which will collect them. I will send it to whoever wants to help collect signatures, or you can use the text below.

Individual letters to the Mayor and City Council are probably the most effective statement.

The NYC Bike Coalition is meeting Monday and will be discussing possible responses. NYCC should definitely weigh in, whether through the coalition or on its own.

NYCC members should make their thoughts known to both the city and the club.

Also, please be aware that the NYPD probably reads this site to get a sense of how unified or divided the cycling community is, as well as what any of us are planning.

-------------------------------

Here's what the petition reads. You could also use it as a letter to the Mayor and CC:

WE OPPOSE THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT’S PROPOSED CHANGES TO PARADE PERMIT RULES

In the late afternoon of July 18, 2006 the New York City Police Department proposed changing City rules regarding parade permits.

Under the New York City Police Department’s proposed rules:

• Any group of two (yes 2) or more cyclists or pedestrians traveling down a public street, who violate any traffic law, rule or regulation can be arrested for parading without a permit;

• Every group of 20 or more cyclists must obtain a permit from the NYPD;

• Every group of 35 of more pedestrians must obtain a permit from the NYPD

These proposed rules can be used to stop anyone in New York City from walking and biking. They will give the New York City Police Department carte blanche to arrest any two or more persons that they want.

There will be a public hearing on these proposed changes on August 23rd, at 6pm, at One Police Plaza, Manhattan. (Hope you’re not on vacation!)

As New Yorkers, we are appalled by these proposed changes, we oppose them, and we demand that they be immediately withdrawn.

NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE I WANT TO HELP (EMAIL/PHONE)

Anonymous's picture
bill vojtech (not verified)

Ray Kelly's spin on the issue in today's NY Post oped section.

Anonymous's picture
chris (not verified)
link
Anonymous's picture
Bob (not verified)
Watch out tandem riders

"""Any group of two or more cyclists or pedestrians traveling down a public street, who violate any traffic law, rule or regulation can be arrested for parading without a permit;""

So the penalty for blowing a stop sign on a tandam is now subject arrest for parading. Very nice.

Does one have to be pedalling to be counted as a cyclist or just riding? Maybe you're subject to arrest for parading if you're riding in one of those theater district rickshaws and it runs a light? Or if I violate a traffic law with my kid in the baby trailer I go to jail for parading?"

Anonymous's picture
liz shura (not verified)

In the Stallman decision, which the NYPD is trying to address with these new rules, the judge called the parade permitting scheme unconstitutional in part because it was written so vaguely that even 2 cyclists together could concievably be called a parade. So it's at least a little funny that the NYPD is responding by *declaring* 2 cyclists to be a parade. It may no longer be unconstitutionally vague, but it seems unconstitutionally restrictive...

Anonymous's picture
John A. (not verified)

"Judging by Ray Kelly's commentary, the rule is also a ""bill of attainder."" He says pretty clearly that the purpose of the rules is to rein in Critical Mass. Creating a law that targets only one person (or in this case, specific, narrowly defined group) is unconstitutional. I don't see how they're going to get this one past Judge Stallman either."

Anonymous's picture
bill vojtech (not verified)

Yet I wonder how many of us would breathe a sigh of relief if we knew for a fact it WOULD ONLY be use against Critical Mass?

Reminds me of the writer who said when the Nazis came for the Jew he stayed quiet. Same for the Gypsies and Catholics. When they came for him, there was no one left to object?

I detest Critical Mass, but I'll object to the noose the government fashions for them lest it be used against us some day.

Anonymous's picture
John A. (not verified)

"I would definitely not give a sigh of relief. First of all, I can't really say that Critical Mass bothers me. I was walking around the city a lot during the Republican Convention and ran into the CM protests a couple of times, and I have to say I found the whole thing interesting, and educative.

A few drivers (in all, what, a couple of hundred people? amid orders of magnitude more people walking around) were inconvenienced. Boo hoo. Then the police responded in wildly disproportionate fashion, as they did throughout the convention period. In retrospect, as the court cases and actions against NYPD are making clear, they were looking for reasons to do this. Now we know that there's a serious anti-civil-liberties streak runnging through the NYPD, and CM is one of the reasons we know this. In my book, that's valuable.

Apart from this, any time the state starts passing laws so clearly targeted at one individual or group, I get concerned, regardless of what I may think of that group. ""Bad law, but at least they got the bastards"" does not fly as far as I'm concerned
"

Anonymous's picture
PLee (not verified)
NYPD's on the other side of the looking glass

Groups of two or more can be arrested for parading without a permit but you only need a permit if you're over 20 cyclists or 35 pedestrians???

Groups of two or more can be arrested for parading without a permit but only if they violate a traffic law, rule or regulation???

Lewis Carroll would have a field day with this.

cycling trips