New Police Rules; What is NYCC doing about it?

88 replies [Last post]

Tue, 03/27/2007 - 6:15pm

Anonymous

"This is what 5BBC has to say about it. I think we should be doing something likewise...

Dear 5BBC Member:

On March 27, the 5BBC and several other affected parties filed a lawsuit in Federal court, asking a judge to stop the NYPD's new rules that would let the NYPD ticket or arrest any ""recognizable group"" of 50 or more cyclists that ride together without first obtaining a parade permit from the Police Department.

Suing city government is not one of the ordinary roles of the 5BBC. But organizing group bicycle rides is. The NYPD's parade rules essentially criminalize large bike rides, under the dubious claim that bicycle rides are a danger to public health and safety.

Although the NYPD rule changes were apparently intended for use against the monthly ""Critical Mass"" rides, the rules also apply to any 5BBC day trip that might draw 50 or more riders, and perhaps even to the 5BBC Montauk Century.

We looked into applying for permits for our rides, but found that it was a bureaucratic nightmare. The rules for parades are totally inappropriate for bicycle rides. For example, 5th Ave on a Sunday is prohibited, even though most of 5th Ave is an official NYC bike route. The width of every roadway in the route must be listed in the permit, and the 5BBC would have to appoint a ""Chief Officer"" for each ""parade"", who would be ""Responsible for the Strict Observance of all Rules
and Regulations of Said Permit"" (see for yourself at
http://5bbc.org/parade/paradepermit.pdf ).

We could have stood by, ignored the new rules, and let the police arrest bicyclists at Critical Mass and hoped that they wouldn't come for us. But the 5BBC board decided that we could not do that, not when the civil rights of all bicyclists in New York City and indeed group bicycling itself was under attack.

For more information about the suit, please see our Web pages at http://5bbc.org/parade/ . Some of the documents of the suit are available online for your perusal, and we will be putting up more documents as they become available.

Sincerely yours,

Ed DeFreitas
President, Five Borough Bicycle Club"

Tue, 03/27/2007 - 6:38pm

sg not ka or bmk (not verified)

I assume you tried to stop this rule before it was enacted?

By writing to your elected officials.

Tue, 03/27/2007 - 9:08pm

Natalia Lincoln (not verified)

"Yep, that, and also by showing up at One Police Plaza for the public hearing a few months ago. Our good-citizen reward was ""50 or more"" rather than ""30 or more"" constituting a ""parade.""

Either way, it's a joke as well as an infringement of civil rights."

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 6:41am

Paul (not verified)

I'd leave the NYCC if they follow the 5BBC's lead

Suing the city is ridiculous. How many times have you ridden with 49 other riders? While the idea of being in a car makes me cringe, I don't think being in a car behind 50 bikers is something that I'd find very enjoyable either. People don't normally congregate in large numbers unless they are up to something.

I'm glad that the 5BBC made this move and not the NYCC as it's childish and needlessly confrontational.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 6:54am

Christian Edstrom (not verified)

"Right, so 50 bicycles is a ""parade"" but 50 cars is, um, undefined traffic? And because you elect to ride a bike you should be subject to arrest, rather than a ticket, for traffic infractions?

Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me, too."

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 7:52am

Paul (not verified)

Short of a funeral, when was the last time you saw 50 cars ride in a group?

My interpretation of the rules is that its intention is solely to prevent groups from congesting roadways, blocking intersections and creating havoc; the police have no interest in groups that ride solely for the sake of getting from one place to the other.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 8:15am

J (not verified)

Astounding Paul!

Please, Paul, see your doctor. Myopia is a degenerative disease. :-0

Cars ride in groups of 100s, 1,000s, daily and are responsible for most if not all congestion, gridlock and other traffic hindrances. They travel in packs determined by speed, direction and traffic control devices. We’ll leave aside environmental and health issues.

WTF - that is WAKE TF up!! Or be a sheep. Or do nothing. But do not defend cars in this scenario. I hope you re-think this, or that you are a solitary voice of dejected submission to Byzantine regulations intended to truncate your liberties.

People that congregate are “up to something.” You sound a little to the political right of Genghis Khan.

Again – and with due respect – Wake TF up!! Or surrender your bike now.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 8:34am

Paul (not verified)

Cool, you've resorted to name calling.

Step back and please provide reason why a group of cyclist would ride & remain in a group of 50 or more. Once stated, please advise how they could do it without impacting other bikes, cars, and pedestrians using the same road.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 9:24am

Zac (not verified)

A-19 sig has over 50 riders.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 9:36am

J (not verified)

Shoot them as they pass by!! Don't let Paul kill them all (;-) I'm having fun Paul!!

:-P

I think most SIGs break up into grupettos of 20 or so.

Still, yes, at the start of finish, 50+ may be seen riding and subject to punishments.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 10:44am

#10

Paul (not verified)

"True, but riding isn't parading, where the primary purpose is to be on display.

Maggie, has the 5BBC approached the NYPD and inquired if the Montauk Century is categorized as a parade? My guess is that it would not, but that's because I'm applying the ""what would Nassau County do"" logic. In another words, if Nassau and Suffolk counties don't have a problem with the group riding out through their counties, there is no way that NYC will have a problem.
"

Fri, 03/30/2007 - 1:58pm

#11

Maggie Clarke (not verified)

Montauk

I don't know what they have done, but since it starts in the city, I would guess that they have had or will have to get a permit and will have to have a parade master or whatever they call it, and whatever other foolishness is required. Further, they will probably be held responsible for everything wrong that every single one of the riders does.

The City's new rules about more than 20 congregating in a city park is something that I am always nervous about when I have events at my community garden. We could get busted for having a birthday party, a planting day, an art show, or childrens' crafts. This came about at the same time that the first regulation about limiting bicyclists on the road came out (and I posted that first regulation right here at the time).

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 9:34am

#12

J (not verified)

Paul,

Just being jocular for ease’s sake on a tough topic. I am not attacking you personally, but rather your arguments. Genghis!! :-P

Cyclists do not have to justify riding or congregating. The government must show why it is NOT justified. And to do that, and deem it unsafe, is restrictive of civil rights and constitutes a prior restraint. Very bad in a free society.

Of course any vehicle or ped has some impact on the roads. But the 100,000s of cars, each one weighing 2 tons and more, spewing filth into the air – they impact the road much more greatly. Gridlock and traffic jams are seldom if ever the result of peds and cycles. It is cars that do it. Packs of cars. Yet 50 cyclists need a permit because they suddenly constitute a “parade”???

If you are not attuned to the warped logic and abridgement of civil rights involved, my paltry words won’t convince you.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 9:47am

#13

David (not verified)

NYCC advocating for cyclists, why not.

While this club is made up of volunteers it is very large and therefore has some clout that it should start wielding by advocating for the club and other cyclists. First they should join the lawsuit against the NYPD parade rules. This directly affects the club. I would think that many of the SIG rides are in violation of the over 50 parade rules along with Escape NY and other larger NYCC rides. It would be foolish for this club not to advocate for it's right to use city streets and other issues that impinge on cyclists like the closing of the South Path of the GWB for what seems to be the third spring. It seems there are some people who are afraid of raising their voices and just hope every issue will go away by themselves but the only way to reverse the negative conditions that are increasingly being imposed on cyclists is to fight it any way we can and that includes lawsuits. Isn't that the American Way. Although I am not suggesting a lawsuit against the PA I don't see why we shouldn't complain to the PA as a club about the closing of the south path. I doubt the Port Authority is reading the NYCC Message board and instead of enduring the dangerous conditions that exist on the North path we should ask that they open the south path. There is no guarantee that they will in any way accommodate cyclists but they should hear about the great inconvenience that a great many cyclists endure every weekend. I doubt they will close all the walkways to cyclists just because some group complains.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 5:28pm

#14

Carol Waaser (not verified)

WE DO!!!

Okay, so how many times do I have to post a message on this board to tell club members that THE NYCC DOES ADVOCATE FOR CYCLIST'S RIGHTS! We belong to the NYC Bicycle Coalition and put our name on letters to public officials. We (members of the Board) send individual letters and emails to public officials on behalf of NYCC. We post messages on the board to encourage members to write their City Council members or the Mayor's office and attend meetings.

Who do you think the NYCC is? It consists of some 2,000 members. How many of you show up at the meetings, press conferences and protests to advocate for cyclist's rights? (Did anyone go to the Brooklyn Community Board meeting I posted a notice about recently?) How many of you actually write to public officials when we post a notice that we need letters?

The Board consists of 14 volunteers who have full-time jobs, families, outside obligations and, oh yeah, like to get out for a ride once in a while. But, yes, we still take the time to advocate for cyclist's rights. Do you?

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 7:52am

#15

Carol Wood (not verified)

Community board meeting is TONIGHT Thurs. 3/29

"[Don't know if this is the same one Carol refers to, but Noah at TA is sending out this reminder.

--Carol, non-Brooklyner]

Tonight, Thursday, March 29, the DOT is presenting a plan to Brooklyn Community Board 6 for new bike lanes on 9th Street in Park Slope. Please attend to show your support for the proposed lanes, and bring your cycling friends, neighbors and family members too!

The meeting will be:
Tonight, Thursday, March 29, 6:30pm
Old First Reformed Church
729 Carroll Street (corner of 7th Avenue)

You can see the full agenda at:
http://www.brooklyncb6.org/calendar/#29

The 9th Street bike lanes are planned to run between Prospect Park West and 3rd Avenue and are part of the City's Bicycle Master Plan (you can see the dotted ""planned/proposed route"" marking on the City's bike map). They'll make a nice connection between Prospect Park and the 3rd and 5th Avenue bike lanes.

I hope you can go to tonight's meeting and speak out in support of these lanes.

Community Board insiders are already hearing opposition from drivers (they don't want to lose their double parking privileges!).

These are pretty standard bike lanes but even a little NIMBY resistance could turn off the DOT, so please come out and support the bike lanes and tell your friends and fellow cyclists to come out too!

If you can't make the meeting, you can contact the Community Board and express your support for the proposed 9th Street bike lanes. The board
can be contacted at:

Craig R. Hammerman, District Manager
Community Board 6
250 Baltic Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201-6401
T: (718) 643-3027
F: (718) 624-8410
E: [email protected]

Thanks for speaking out in support of these new bike lanes!
"

Fri, 03/30/2007 - 1:51pm

#16

Maggie Clarke (not verified)

Advocating for Rights on Trains

A long time ago, when most of you were in short pants, as Club secretary I wrote on behalf of the Club to dozens of state Senators to encourage them to vote to pass a bill that the Assembly had already passed to allow bikes on commuter rail. This was back in 1983. Everybody now takes that for granted, and probably figures that it was always the case. No. We had to fight very hard for it. All the clubs did. Would you all mind if we had no access to trains? Fighting for the right to ride our bikes on the road is our bread and butter. If we don't fight for our right to ride on the road (while obeying all rules of the road), then we deserve whatever befalls us.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 9:17am

#17

TDF (not verified)

what is WAKE TF up ??? Is the TDF up & coming? (nm)

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 9:41am

#18

J (not verified)

TdF - go Lance! Good one!

WTF:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wtf

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 10:21am

#19

Christian Edstrom (not verified)

Just went outside. There were about 50 cars driving together on Broadway between 88th and 90th. Wonder where they're all going together?

Given the current tactics of the NYPD and the climate toward cyclists since the RNC, I think that your (and my) interpretation of the rule is moot. The only interpretation that matters is that of the NYPD and they have shown to be violently hostile to cyclists in the recent past.

Add to that that this rule is a clear infringement on constitutionally-guaranteed rights, it's clear it has to be opposed, whether or not it affects my personal riding habits (which, other than the SIG, are conducted in groups of less than 5).

Speaking of this new rule, anyone up for herding 47 ducks down 5th Avenue with me? Can two people succesfully herd 47 ducks? No permit required, at least. We and the ducks will keep as far to the right as practicable, and stop for red lights, of course.

- Christian

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 12:50pm

#20

Tom Laskey (not verified)

Shouldn't there be a line drawn between routine traffic and a parade? Does anyone have a problem with the 5 Boro Bike Tour needing a permit of some kind? The question is, where is the theshold, what is the magic number of bikes in a group that constitutes a parade. There is no question in my mind that large numbers of cyclists riding the same exact route to the same destination in close formation on busy city streets presents a safety hazard not only for the cycists themselves but for others.

For the record, in over 10 years as a member of NYCC, I have never been on a club ride nor have I heard of any rides where 50 of us rode together in a pack through the city. The SIGs and ENY have more participants but usually break into smaller groups rarely larger than 20.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 1:40pm

#21

Dave Hallerman (not verified)

But SIG Groups...

Yes, the B-SIG (for example) breaks up into smaller groups. However, say the 7 or 8 different B-SIG groups leave Central Park around the same time. All of a sudden, from the authority's point-of-view, it could be seen as a group of more than 50.

There's a lot more to say on this topic -- such as following the logic that the police became far more interested in cyclists concurrent with the Republican National Convention here in 2004 -- but just from the NYCC perspective, laws or rules that limit cycling groups are bound to rise up and bite us in the a** someday.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 1:44pm

#22

george (not verified)

Yes, parades need different treatment to traffic. But the NYPD proposal singles out 50 cyclists as deserving different treatment from, say, 50 cars. Why not include all vehicles in the proposals? After all, 50 cars travel in a pack to the same destination every time the Mets or Yankees play at home. Doesn't that constitute a hazard to the rest of the city street users?

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 2:14pm

#23

Christian Edstrom (not verified)

"Tom,

I don't think that there is a ""magic number"" of bicycles which constitute a parade. Any more than there is a specific number of cars which constitute a parade. A cyclist is a road user like any other, and should be treated as one.

Now, if the police want to write rules that apply severe penalties specifically for ""corking"" of intersections or other infractions which may be committed by groups of cyclists and which disturb traffic patterns, I'm fine with that. But that's not what they've done.

- Christian

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 7:28am

#24

Tom Laskey (not verified)

Good Point Christian

But I do think that comparing a group of 50 cyclists riding in a coordinated group on the same route to the same destination, to 50 random cars on the street is a spurious argument. Riding in a group implies staying together at intersections and many times that means going through red lights and corcking intersections in order to stay together.

I do agree that the law should be more specific as to behavior than numbers and should include all vehicles whether human or machine powered.

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 10:24am

#25

Bob Ross (not verified)

"""Riding in a group implies staying together at intersections""

I guess no one else on the NYCC's rides got that memo.

Fri, 03/30/2007 - 1:41pm

#26

Maggie Clarke (not verified)

So is it NYCC policy that our rides run red lights?

A former president is stating that going through red lights and I'm not sure what corcking an intersection is, but these are something we Need To Do in order to ride in a group? Is this on the website as official NYCC policy on riding etiquette? I think it's time for the League of American Bicyclists to come here and conduct some Effective Cyclist training. It is undeniable that some leaders run red lights. Other times rides are interrupted by a light. Those following are sometimes insecure about whether they will be left behind. Maybe we need to be making some policies clear to leaders and riders alike and then we can all be on the same page. (I've long advocated that we need to have leader policies as well about a lot of things, including the listing of pace of a ride and then the execution. I will bet you dimes to donuts that most ride leaders and riders alike do not know the meaning of a given speed as listed as I continue to hear crazy stories of confusion with average speed, doing the same speed up and down hills etc). Do we have such policies on the website?

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:05am

#27

Hannah (not verified)

NYCC rides with 50+ cyclists

"For the record, I have led NYCC rides that drew more than 50 cyclists. Until a couple years ago I co-listed my ""Bridges by Night"" ride with NYCC, and that got more than 70 riders one year. Slow and scenic, mostly on quiet streets, not a typical NYCC ride but enjoyable and worthwhile nonetheless.

-Hannah"

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 10:50am

#28

Rich Conroy (not verified)

What is a parade vs. traffic?

Traffic is when various people using the road move more or less smoothly according to a number of common conventions (like drive on the right, stop at red lights, yield the right of way under certain circumstances). These conventions are normally codified into traffic law.

A parade temporarily suspends normal traffic operations. Parades require that police block intersections or escort the parade participants. The participants need not follow the normal traffic conventions like yielding to cross traffic. For that reason the Five Boro Bike Tour gets a parade permit.

Bike rides, regardless of the number, should not need a parade permit if they follow routine traffic conventions. If parades were about the number of users on the road, then every baseball game would require a parade permit for blocking traffic on surrounding roads, while fans travel en masse to the same destination.

But Critical Mass rides frequently don't observe traffic conventions (at least the one's I've seen didn't), and the ones in Brooklyn get a police escort. Since normal traffic doesn't need a police escort, it does beg the question (which the City has been ineptly raising all along in a way that affects all cyclists, not just CM cyclists) of whether CM rides shouldn't also get a parade permit if they cannot operate as part of traffic.

Rich

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 1:22pm

#29

mike p (not verified)

what if the group obeys all traffic rules

what if the group of 50 acts just like a group of cars and follows all traffic rules. There is no traffic rule in the city of ny stating bicyclist must ride on the side of the road, so if a group obeys all rules and stops at lights, why should they be subject to arrest?
Safety is aways brought up, if the vehicle traffic would slow down to 20mph the loss of life and number of traffic collisions would be much lower. 30 mph plus is much to fast for these congested streets and sidewalks.

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 2:46pm

#30

Carol Wood (not verified)

Wow

"""People don't normally congregate in large numbers unless they are up to something.""

Well put, Paul. Especially if they are minorities, or not obviously affluent, or are wild-eyed bicyclist radical anarchists (biggest tip-off: riding bikes that cost less than $5,000 and not wearing spandex).

But drivers, GOP delegates, tourists swarming the town? Well, I guess we can make an exception for them.

I'd have been terribly pleased if the NYCC had had the gumption to originate this lawsuit. And even happier if that were cause for illiberal-minded folks to leave it. But no, we're too busy complaining about a one-month closure of the south path of the GWB--an issue that stands to alter the very course of history.

BTW, apparently there's a new rant-blog for NYPD fans, which has posted photographs of T.A.'s Paul White and Matthew Roth. One poster asks why someone doesn't go and ""hammer"" them this weekend. That's really cool--threats of physical violence against public figures.

So it's great to see NYCC members stand up strong behind the few engaged citizens who are actually trying to make a difference for other cyclists.

(I sure wish people would post their real names on this board, so I would know whom to avoid.)

I'm renewing my membership to 5BBC right now.
"

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 3:46pm

#31

Paul (not verified)

"Is your post politically driven or do you really have a need to ride with 49 or more other people?
In my 20+ years of biking (4 of which were with the 5BBC), I've never had the need or desire to ride with such a large number of people. Even if I wanted to join a caravan, it's nearly impossible to ride with 25 or more people and actually get somewhere.

Had the NYPD said picked 5 as the magic number than your concerns would be valid. However, the NYPD picked a larger number, 50 (which, according to Arlo Guthrie, is the minimum number to be qualified as a ""movement""), that far exceeds any number a group of cyclists would need to travel someplace and this is why I don't understand why this is a concern.

So, I have to ask, if they picked some obscene number like 5,000 or 50,000, would you still be concerned and if you were, is it because you regualry ride with 49,999 other riders or is it because the rule just doesn't feel right?

>>I sure wish people would post their real names on this board, so I would know whom to avoid<<
Do you really avoid/dislike people who have different opinions than you?"

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 4:38pm

#32

Carol Wood (not verified)

"I am asked a bunch of rhetorical questions, of which I am answering only one: ""Do you really avoid/dislike people who have different opinions than you?""

In cases where the speaker lives his life the way he wants, but does not presume to foresee the intentions of all others, to prejudge them as evil, and (most to the point) express a desire to deprive them of their constitutional and human rights, why no--then different views are refreshing.

In this particular case, yes."

Wed, 03/28/2007 - 7:56pm

#33

Zac (not verified)

But the police DID pick a ridiculously low number originally and was forced to back away from it when the city council wouldn't go for it. And it wasn't 5, that number was 2. And the intent was clearly to harass cyclists in any number.

The threat of a lawsuit made them back away, as did the city council. But a lawsuit is coming anyway because any number is too small. I'd be surprised if the police won this one, and if they don't they would find some other reason to stop cyclists.

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 5:07am

#34

Matthew Zimmerman (not verified)

In defense of Paul

"I agree with Paul. The purpose of the law is to control Critical Mass which does meet and intentionally blocks traffic. I don't think the law is there to harass cyclists out for fun. Of course you can say it doesn't matter what the law's intent is, the law is the law and can be enforced and is therefore dangerous and you'd be right, but I still think there are other battles to fight.

Yes, you can look out your window and see 50 cars driving down 5th Ave, but they tend to be in single file and follow the traffic lights for the most part, which most cyclists unfortuately don't. (That frurstrates me) But if 50 cars want to get together and drive down 5th Ave slowly, not follow traffic lights, and block traffic, (Puerto Rican Day parade, St. Patty's Day parade) they do have to get a permit and that is reasonable.

I don't have a big problem with this law, but I think there are better solutions and I am sure most of us would agree the best one would be real bike paths so that this isn't an issue. The other would be for the NYPD to avail themselves of exisiting laws to control Critcal Mass (there must be some law about willfully disturving traffic on the books).

I am really disappointed that people attacked Paul in the way they did. One should feel safe to post their views on this board without being attacked. Paul didn't attack those who were against the law, just presented a different view. To tell him to WTF up and compare him to Genghas Kahn is bad board etiqute I think.

My experience has been reactionary victim mentaliy rarely accomplishes anything. It usually makes opponents not take you seriously. I think the the approach the NYCC and 5BBB is more reasonable and affective than what Critical Mass does. Crynig ""the man is putting me down"", in my opinion, is rarely affective.

My name is Matthew Zimmerman and I ride in the C-SIG if anyone wishes to avoid me. Sorry.

Matt"

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:05am

#35

J (not verified)

Oh such a shanda!

I, John P., called Paul Genghis and myopic. I was being jocular, as I said to him already. He, you, have valid points and I, we are discussing them and having some recreation.

Now, WTF, you presume Paul is so ineffectual that he needs your help with an sub-topic that is stale. Go %^&*()(* yourself Zimmer… and the bike you rode in on. ? Again, I make a joke!! Please do not pontificate to me about netiquette. We are all adults and some of us have senses of humor.

I think the point is that while few rides have packs of 50 or over, 50 is still an arbitrary number selected to restrict the civil rights of cyclists. Suppose a city ordinance went into effect prohibiting cycling between midnight and 6 AM. You, in your wisdom (OK, sarcasm alert) would argue in favor of the ordinance because you don’t ride after midnight. You DO NOT but now you … CANNOT!!! Likewise, the “50 parade police policy” is just another straw removed from your stack of freedoms. Is it “cruel and unusual”??? Maybe not. But it certainly is restrictive. And worse, it abridges our rights and acts as a staging ground for more onerous restrictions. Or maybe not onerous, alone, but if you start “nickel and diming,” eventually you start adding up dollars.

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:31am

#36

Matt Zimmerman (not verified)

Yeah, but then you went on to insult him more! ;-) I'm allowed to talk about netiquette. I don't think it went to the level of pontificating. I mean, it wasn't that pompous and I am not papal. Plus, it wasn't just you. A few others were jumping on him.

Obviously this is a debate that is hard to resolve because the balance between civil liberties and community safety is always difficult. I don't mind wearing seat belts and having to have an airbag in a car. And I don't mind speed limits or safety caps on medicine bottles. If they banned cycling between midnight and 6 A.M. for safety reasons I wouldn't mind either.

I don't think 50 is completely arbitrary. It seems to be a number a reasonable person could see as blocking traffic. I don't have a problem with the law, but on the other hand it isn't a law I see as that necessary and wouldn't fight to keep it either.

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:55am

#37

Natalia Lincoln (not verified)

"Matt, 50 bikes ARE traffic. In the same way that people have to grin and bear it if there are too many cars, ""too many bikes"" would be just another variation in our wonderful American cornucopia o' transit. Plus, chances are a traffic snarl of 50 bikes is going to resolve itself a lot quicker than the same number of cars.

The fact is that American drivers do not want to give up their motorized lifestyle, and they would rather blame bikes for screwing up the beautiful, serene order of the streets than the six-ton waddling elephants like SUVs, Ford F-150's, and giant semis trying to cram themselves down freakin' Bergen Street. Yeah, everything would be just hunky-dory if the damn bikes would just disappear.

As for a hypothetical ban on bikes between 12 Midnight and 6 AM, (1) Don't give 'em any ideas, and (2) What would you say if they tried to ban CARS for the same times? A bit of a damper on free movement, wouldn't you say? Some of us don't OWN cars. This would be akin to a curfew. Safety's one thing. Civil rights are quite another.

So, no, I don't approve of the police creating their own laws -- that's the executive branch taking on a legislative function, and as such, destructive of the balance of powers in a putative democracy -- be it about 5, 30, 50, or 1000 riders. No floats and loud music, no parade. Give us a break. It's utter BS designed to facilitate cyclist harassment, as well as undemocratic."

Fri, 03/30/2007 - 7:57am

#38

Richard Pu (not verified)

Pretextual use of 9/11

I second Natalia's last comment. People in a position of power used 9/11 as a pretext for expanding their power. Bush used it to start a war and to suspend basic rights like habeas corpus. Back here at home, the NYPD used 9/11 as a pretext to ban the Critical Mass rides.

It's all well and fine to discuss the merits of the rule. But no one should lose sight of the fact that what's really going on is that the NYPD is going on a power trip. The purport of protecting the public is pretext, sheer pretext.

Fri, 03/30/2007 - 9:26am

#39

Matt Zimmerman (not verified)

No, I agree, 50 bikes riding down the street are traffic the same way 50 cars are. But usually I don't see 50 bikes, and if 50 drivers got together with the intent to block traffic in protest it would be different. I think that is what the law is about, not to harass group rides. That being said, if we had good bike paths this would be less of an issue and I am sure there are other laws on the books the NYPD could use (blocking traffic, etc.) in cases of protest. It is similar to the states now that are making laws that day laborers can't congregate to look for work even though there already laws about loitering the police could use.

I felt few of the initial reactions to this thread seemed to be a bit of a knee-jerk and a little bit chicken-little, but I can see the arguments against this law.

Sat, 03/31/2007 - 10:17am

#40

Jim N (not verified)

Point of this law?

Forgive me if this point has been made already, but if the point if this law is to prevent demonstrators from using bicycles to block automobile traffic, wouldn't it have made more sense to ban that activity (if it isn't already covered in some other law), and not the activity of riding together in large groups?

Or, is it that the NYPD has the authority to set policy on parade permits, but not motor vehicle law?

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:56pm

#41

Maggie Clarke (not verified)

I so love snide remarks... not

Reply to Paul. The NYCC has a number of large rides. Have you ever heard of All Class Club rides? At least in the past we used to celebrate our Club by having all the parts of these rides go back to the City together. I remember coleading one back from Bethpage State Park all the way to Queens at a pace slow enough that the C's could keep up. It was quite a feeling, and I'm sure, quite a sight for those who happened to see us. We also have organized large rides like ENY that would have to conform. And before you ridicule the 5BBC, realize that MANY of their typical day trips attract 50 riders. And the way you've written your response, you are making the point that one driver has more rights to the road than 50 bicyclists? And 50 bicyclists riding together are automatically up to some criminality?

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 4:29am

#42

Barbara Gillespie (not verified)

NYPD Issues Related to Cyclists

Hello, I am new to the NYCC and am not aware of the issues that NYCC members have experienced with the NYPD's rules related to cyclists. From reading through the responses to this post, I get the impression that there are alot of people in the club who are against the NYPD, but I am not sure why. It seems that this is a very hot topic amongst people who have been involved with the club for a while. However, I would bet that most of the 2,000+/- NYCC club members are not at all aware of these issues and what they can do to help. While this topic may have been included in club newsletters, it might be helpful if the NYCC web site was updated to include an 'Advocacy' section where objective background information for such topics could be posted, along with suggested action steps to let club members know what they can do to help.

Fri, 03/30/2007 - 1:22pm

#43

Maggie Clarke (not verified)

Update website - good idea

The club does pick its advocacy extremely carefully, so why not put up a section on this?

Fri, 03/30/2007 - 5:15pm

#44

Carol Waaser (not verified)

Same Old Reason

We don't have an advocacy section up on the website because it takes a lot of volunteer time to make that happen. We've been soliciting more help for our web team for several weeks...no takers. Is anyone volunteering to handle the new advocacy section of the website?

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 6:21am

#45

Dave Hallerman (not verified)

Just Substitute

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
--Rev. Martin Niemoller (1945)

As in the quote above, just substitute “Critical Mass” or “Cyclist” for the religion or political party of your choice.

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 7:22am

#46

mike p (not verified)

central park loop too

This parade permit will apply to riding in central park. There is no requirement for the bicyclist to know or associate with the riders near them. If a group was riding up riverside drive and the usual bunch of other non NYCC riders happened to be heading in the same direction , the parade rules woulds also apply.

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:11am

#47

Paranoid Android (not verified)

Whom is he refering to as 'They'?

Whom is he referring to as 'they'?*

Maybe it's time we all trade in our helmets for tin foil hats.

- P.A.

* equating police enforcement with Nazi Germany is well..._______

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:22am

#48

Dave Hallerman (not verified)

Mr. Android

"Mr. Android, it's not about any one nation or any one period in history, but it's a concept that if the authorities don't like a particular group of people -- thinking them uppity, say -- then they'll find ways to control those people.

Unless others, who identify with the uppity group's rights, say something.

Of course, if you really are an android, then you are literal and also lack a heart.

Think when the term ""uppity"" was more current, if a sense of history was programmed into you."

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:54am

#49

Hyperbolic Paranoid Android (not verified)

Who are you referring to as the authorities?

Do those authorities not ride bicycles or drive cars or both? Perhaps they all are an homogeneous group of pure blood with blue eyes, blond hair, speak German and march lock step. Making a point is one thing, going overboard with it is incredulous.

Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:11am

#50

Dave Hallerman (not verified)

Of Course, It Depends

"Discussion with androids is difficult, because they are programmed like any robot. If you think authorities are homogeneous, I suggest getting re-programmed and adding history to your programming.

That said, who the authorities are differs in various cases. Try these:

* In NYC now, with these regulations, it's the police backed up by the mayor.

* In Chicago, right now, the mayor rides a bike, and therefore cyclists are treated with more respect.

* When the term ""uppity"" was more current and was often applied to black folks, the authorities were again police and the government. At the same time, other authorities were sympathetic to both blacks and the US Constitution, and therefore worked against those authorities who considered others as ""uppity.""

* Sometimes individuals or unelected groups take on their own authority, and make changes. (Isn't that one of the themes in this thread?)

So, if you don't see parallels in the world, perhaps you don't see..."

NYCC.org

New Police Rules; What is NYCC doing about it?