Rank is one adjective, among many, to describe the idea of one equating formulating law enforcement policy of parades with genocide.
New Police Rules; What is NYCC doing about it?
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:26am
#51
seeing parallels
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:37am
#52
Last
"Last comment to you...
Just because the Niemoller quote came from Germany doesn't mean all parallels equate with genocide or Nazis. Those were all terms you used, not I.
""Came for"" was the operative term in that Niemoller quote, and when the police target a group like they're now targeting cyclists in New York City, that's coming for them.
But perhaps you're a troll, I just realized, since labeling yourself an ""android"" implies a certain inability to think.
Good bye,
Dave, who is kinda tired of people who lack the straightforward quality of using their own names on this message board"
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:58am
#53
Sir, may I suggest, as had been done before in this thread, to write to your elected official. You will find doing so to be much more productive use of time than trolling here. Yes, that is correct. If you want to win an argument or even influence others, it is certainly not done with hyperbole, cavil and name-calling.
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 11:02am
#54
no vote by city council
The NYPD implemented these new rules without a vote from the city council.
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 6:53am
#55
NYPD Rule
As a practical matter, the NYPD Rule is less threatening to NYCC than to 5BBC. That's because, if need be, the NYCC could start a large ride outside the city limits, such as on the NJ side of the GW Bridge. By contrast, the 5BBC rides tend to take place in the city-- or at least the large ones do.
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 7:53am
#56
Large Groups of Runners
Does anyone know if the new rule affects the large groups of runners in Central Park around 7:00 p.m.? I do laps in the park, and wouldn't mind seeing the groups reduced in size.
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:02am
#57
Ironic?
"Are you being ironic, Mr. Pu, when you write that you ""wouldn't mind seeing the groups reduced in size""?
There's nothing like a police action to cut down the herd, eh?
Yes, let the police stop the runners...it won't bother the cyclists.
Or vice versa, on to infinity."
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:39am
#58
Large Groups of Runners
No, I wasn't being ironic. The large groups of runners pose a hazard to cyclists. The other day, I nearly collided with a runner going in the wrong direction. She wasn't a member of the group of runners, but she was forced into the main thoroughfare by the large group in the running and bicycling lanes. So that the large group was indirectly responsible for the near collision.
Similarly, when two large groups are running in different directions, one of them gets forced into the main thoroughfare. So here's an example where the size of the group has a bearing on safety.
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 11:00am
#59
you really don't get it, do you?
You nearly collide with a runner, and that's the runners problem.
But a car driving down the street shouldn't blame you if you're riding at the edge of a big group and hits you? You're in the big group, and big groups of runners are bad, but not cyclists?
Or maybe you do get it and just like being selfish.
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:58pm
#64
More from 5BBC
"Parade Permit Redux!
In case you haven't heard, the 5BBC this week filed a lawsuit (with other plaintiffs) in Federal Court to challenge 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. The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York today ruled that the Court did not have sufficient
time to review the parties' submissions in order to decide Plaintiffs' motion by Friday March 30, as Plaintiffs had requested. The Court ruled that it would hear additional evidence next week and then decide in the near future whether or not to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of the City's parade rules. See http://www.5bbc.org/parade/nypdsuit.shtml for a summary of events to date."
Fri, 03/30/2007 - 11:29am
#65
Anybody stupid enough to be caught in a group of 50 cyclists des
"I forgot to put this as part of the 11th Commandments:
Anybody stupid enough to be caught in a group of 50 cyclists deserves a ticket.
He who knows not, and
Knows not that he knows not,
Is a fool…..shun him.
He who knows not, and
Knows that he knows not,
Is a child…..teach him.
He who knows,
And knows not that he knows,
Is asleep…..wake him.
He who knows, and
Knows that he knows,
Is wise…..follow him.
-God"
Fri, 03/30/2007 - 12:39pm
#66
"""The rule is very easy to live with and we should.
Anybody stupid enough to be caught in a group of 50 cyclists deserves a ticket.""
Fred,
Apparently you missed David Hallerman's astute (though misunderstood by some) parallels between a similar line of reasoning and some historically more heinous laws. (Curiously, David's posts were inexplicably deleted from the message board. I fully expect this response will also get deleted, but maybe you'll get a chance to read it before that happens.)
Suppose we weren't talking about cyclists, but about members of an ethnic group; e.g., ""Anybody stupid enough to be caught in a group of 50 Jews deserves a ticket.""
Now, I know I can ""live"" with that rule. But should I *have* to live with that rule? Even if someone could explain why it might be preferable not to be in a group of 50 Jews, what if I *want* to be in a group of 50 Jews? There's nothing inherently criminal about 50 Jews gathered together; it's only if those 50 Jews break a law or do something that potentially threatens other people that the police need to be involved.
Why are cyclists any different?"
Fri, 03/30/2007 - 1:32pm
#67
Please Stop
I've enjoyed hearing both sides of this issue, and because I am a novice cyclist I've sat back and learned from those who have had much more experience. But Mr. Ross, please do not ever compare 50 Jews gathering to 50 Cyclists. That is offensive and is not an accurate comparison. 50 people walking down 5th Avenue would be a problem and the police would come and would disperse the crowd. And they should, Jew or any group. But to compare a religion to an inanimate object is ridiculous. Or is your point to say that Cycling is a religion now?
I think you should delete your own response.
Sun, 04/01/2007 - 2:32pm
#68
The rule shouldn't pass legal muster
"The number 50 is totally arbitrary, except to the extent that it's set high enough to reduce opposition to the rule itself.
The fact remains that if the police are concerned that a group of 50 or more cyclists will violate traffic laws, they can always just enforce the traffic laws.
As for those of you who think that the police will only enforce it against Critical Mass - that's just wishful thinking. If they do that, the police would be guilty of discriminatory enforcement of the law, potentially rendering their regulation unenforceable. The police will HAVE to enforce the regulation against other groups in order to be able to have their enforcement of the regulation against Critical Mass upheld.
Some people seem to think that enforcement authorities will only enforce laws and regulations in a manner that only affects ""wrongdoers."" History is replete with examples of enforecement authorities taking whatever authority they are given and using them to trample on the rights of innocents. Take a look at the current controversy over FBI surveillance post 9/11. The WWII imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens and the communist witch hunts of the 50s and 60s are just extreme examples of this type of behavior.
I hear people say that they are willing to give up some civil rights in the interest of greater security. If you feel that way, fine. But just remember that YOU are giving up YOUR civil rights as well, whether you exercise those rights or not. And as the story goes - when they come for you, who will speak up for you????"
Mon, 04/02/2007 - 5:39am
#69
LOL
What is a personal attack? Saying you're hypocrtical? But you are!
OK, I'll back off the rhetoric: What you *wrote* implies a lot of hypocrisy on your part, assuming you believe it.
There. You're welcome.
You called me some curse word earlier, which I see the moderators deleted. Was that a personal attack? Or in your view, is it OK for you do do that and me to not call you a hypocrite? Gee, that seems kinda...hypocritical.
Mon, 04/02/2007 - 5:42am
#70
LOL again
"""The last time we interacted, the moderator deleted the entire thread, yet you do it again""
Yes, I continue to speak honestly. I'm not sorry about that. Are you about using curse words?"
Mon, 04/02/2007 - 5:45am
#71
one last thing
It's not posturing -- it's what I believe. If it was posturing, I wouldn't have written my initial comments anonymously.
Wed, 04/04/2007 - 5:40pm
#72
The latest on NYPD attitudes towards group rides
"5BBC/NYPD LAWSUIT
(Received from the New York City Bike Coalition)
There are a couple of new documents on the http://5bbc.org/parade/casefiles.shtml
(scroll down to the bottom) - a declaration from NYPD Lt. Gannon on the
purported dangers of group bicycle rides, and the Plaintiffs' response.
I recommend reading Gannon's declaration, it's short and sheds light on
NYPD's attitudes towards group bike rides
"
Wed, 03/28/2007 - 2:03pm
#73
whittling
While I do not think it would affect me directly, I know that it could very easily if some cop wanted to do so.
Example:
A sticky illegal situation happens, when several groups of 20 make their way up Riverside Drive towards the GW, which (because we are riding in the same direction) could be considered a parade.
If even 1 person of the groups had a minor traffic violation, we could all be arrested and all of our bicycles impounded (and not given back). I think it is wrong for a bicycle to be confiscated and an arrest to happen for what would be a minor traffic violation.
I would never see cars being confiscated for something like this. It is just a further whittling away of people's rights to freedom of assembly use of public roads.
Wed, 03/28/2007 - 4:19pm
#74
real erosion of civil liberties
"Nitpicking about the number of riders that constitutes a parade misses the point that this is just one more erosion of our civil liberties that has become popular after 9/11. Arresting cyclists, protesters and making people fearful of expressing their opinions has become standard operating proceduce for this City and the NYPD. I have a close connection to 9/11 and I think that the excuse of ""fighting terrorism"" as justification for curtailing our civil liberties is disgusting. Stop making excuses for this real threat to our way of life. It is time that this club stands up and fights for our rights as cyclists."
Wed, 03/28/2007 - 6:24pm
#75
apology
I apologize to the board and leaders of NYCC for implying that they are doing nothing to advocate for cyclists. I realize that they are volunteers and are limited by what they can do. Still this is a large organization with clout, if it chooses to wield it. I think that an arm of the group should be created so that more people in NYCC might be able to coalesce the power of this large and beneficial club and so that there may be a more public face to this fight. If we don't fight for our rights we will lose them.
Wed, 03/28/2007 - 7:07pm
#76
David,
If you had included your email address in your post, I would contact you off-line. But since I don't know who you are or how else to contact you, it has to be done in public.
Apology accepted. Now, are you volunteering to help us with the advocacy work? We can always use more volunteers in all areas. Since you seem interested in this, you're tapped. Contact me by clicking on the email symbol above.
Carol
Wed, 03/28/2007 - 7:59pm
#77
Put this in perspective.
Yes, the erosion of civil liberties, which I never intend to use, disturbs me. Like most everybody else, I don't have an agenda. However, should we fall afoul of some yahoo with an agenda we could find ourselves being processed by the system of criminal justice. To most of us, this would be akin to finding oneself on the other side of the bars at a zoo. The concept of ceding one's civil rights amounts to somewhere between insanity and incompetence. We are discussing assembling for group rides. Why should we have to justify our actions? The powers that be are intent on writing the laws so that we could end up using our one call to contact an attorney. All it would take is one person in the club to have a name that is on a national security list and bingo: gotcha.
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 8:38pm
#78
or a name that sounds like a wanted person
there have been quite a few instances recently where people have been run through the system because their names sound or are spelled somewhat like a wanted person.
i was detained on a motor vehicle stop since my last name was like Jose Padilla's
Thu, 03/29/2007 - 9:08pm
#79
And even pedestrians trying to attend a rally have been pennedup
This happened at the Feb 15, 2003 rally against the war (to prevent all that has happened since). If you see my webpage on this event, you will see a video that shows peaceable people standing on sidewalks bulldozed by a team of police on horses. My video camera was knocked out of my hands by this. Take a look.
http://geography.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/AntiwarProtest.htm
Talk about civil liberties. You can't even stand on the sidewalk anymore (and we wouldn't have been standing there, penned up behind barricades, if the police had allowed a place to congregate for a proper rally).
Mon, 04/02/2007 - 5:55am
#80
GWB Closure
"I read the messages under the ""New Police Rules; What is NYCC doing about it?""
Someone asked what would everyone think if bikes were banned from midnight to 6 am from NYC streets. One reply, apparently in all seriousness, actually said it didn't bother him at all.
There have been quite a few agitated references to PORT ""closing"" the GWB side south path, as if the bridge were being closed - instead of the reality of cyclists being told to use the north side with all the stairs. Sure the PORT could improve the north side as the construction alternative, but there is access.
Now for the total disconnect question:
The GWB IS TOTALLY CLOSED TO BIKES BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 6:00 AM!! (emphasis added!) We have exactly the scenario that was presented as purely hypothetical - the only previously 24/7 land connection between NY and NJ is now closed 25 percent of the day (or half the night?) Cyclists now have 18/7 access, not 24/7, and this has been in place since the RNC - just because of the RNC. (Protesters marching to MSG - 34th Street might just start in Ft Lee NJ - right?)
For the record, PORT claims that they do not have the security resources to oversee the bike/ped path on the GWB at night. This is frightening, if PORT can't keep tracks of a few odd cyclists and walkers at 3 AM, how can they manage to secure the bridge from a truck bomber driving up with a semi full of explosives. NYC is being shortchanged on anti-terrorist funds, and PORT has made some very strange choices on their security priorities, with bicycle travel on the bottom again.
Bigger question. What the hell is with the NYCC members? This is a club made up primarily of educated professionals, many apparently both NY metro residents and cyclists for many years, and yet no one has connected these hypothetical + recently imposed + actually imposed police bans on bicycle travel?
Where is the institutional memory? Club members are livid about being forced to walk up the GWB north side stairs in cleats, but ignore the 6 Hour Ban on all bicycling? Poor access is a pain, but no access is a fatal flaw. What planet are these people living on?
One writer said that NYCC trips don't have to worry about NYPD bans the way 5BBC does, since NYCC can meet in NJ to start the trips. WOW, all NYCC members will be driving their cars from Manhattan to Fort Lee for the ride. No Problem, right? The issue is not just where the ride starts, it's how the riders will get to the start and go home from the finish - all roads must be open at all times.
And for those anal bike counters who think that if they stick to groups of 5 or 20, or 49 for that matter, that the NYPD will simply ignore them, remember that the decision is being made by the cop in the field. He or she decides whether there is an identifiable group, and hands one or all tickets, it's now up to you to argue with the judge. Believe me, you can't, and shouldn't, argue with the cop on the street once they decide to stop you. Even if the cop doesn't or can't count up to 50, they can issue traffic tickets that claim that you were not riding to the right or were impeding traffic or just picking your nose while riding (see NYS V&T Catch 22 for that law.) Tell it to the judge. Can you say ""Arbitrary and Capricious.""
NYCC rides are just as open to arbitrary police attack as the 5BBC or Critical Mass. Of course CM is ""always"" a target, but any ""group"" of more than one bicyclist will pop up in some cops radar screen.
But it's OK, don't worry, if you are all good Germans, or is it good cyclists, you don't have to worry.
"
Fri, 03/30/2007 - 7:40am
#81
Application of the Rule to Running Classes
Are there any runners in the group who know whether NY Road Runners regards the rule as applying to their huge running classes? On its face, the rule applies to the classes. I do laps in the park, and would like to see the running classes reduced in size.
Fri, 03/30/2007 - 10:57am
#82
New NYPD rules are are easy to handle. why the fuss?
We can gripe about a lot of things, such as why did NYC ever allow onstreet parking or why is the Highline being turned into a object d'art instead of an extension of the subway or LIRR or do why motorists just throw open car doors without looking.....
But we shouldn't be whining about a rule about 50 bicycles. Who wants to ride in a group of 50 bikes? Such a group will extend the length of a city block, are very difficult to lead, stop, start, etc.
The rule is very easy to live with and we should.
Anybody stupid enough to be caught in a group of 50 cyclists deserves a ticket.
The protests against the original stringent rules were successful, common sense prevailed, the NYPD backed off, congratulations to those who led the fight.
Now why don't we just enjoy our victory and continue to ride in manageable groups?
Fri, 03/30/2007 - 2:21pm
#83
"""Who wants to ride in a group of 50 bikes?"""
You ask a sensible question. At the most concrete level, the answer is 1) some riders with 5BBC, which has rides with 80 participants, 2) some riders with NYCC, such as on the SIGs and all-class rides, and perhaps most importantly, the participants in the Critical Mass rides. There is something refreshing about a gathering that isn't organized by anyone-- a sort of cyclists' Athenian democracy.
At a more abstract level, the resistance is a kind of push back against government encroachment. From the war in Iraq, to the suspension of rights at Guantanamo, to the NYPD parade rule, to the NYPD surveillance of legitimate political activity-- everyone in power has attempted to capitalize on fear of terrorism to expand their power. So it isn't just about cyclists, it's about the government telling you what you can and can't do.
Fri, 03/30/2007 - 4:22pm
#84
I used to run in the NYRR running classes. They were stringent about keeping way to the right. Subsequent to taking classes, I have always seen them well-behaved and in the runners' lane.
Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
Sat, 03/31/2007 - 4:33am
#85
Large Running Classes
Yes. If there are two groups running in different directions, one group gets forced into the roadway, where the cyclists are.
Similarly, the other day I nearly collided with a runner who was running clockwise. She wasn't a part of the running class proceeding counterclockwise, but she had been forced into the roadway by the running class. We didn't see each other until the last moment because I had just passed three cyclists riding three abreast.
And finally, even if the runners are staying to the left, it's impossible to know for certain that a runner won't dart into the roadway to pass other runners. Thus, as you are passing them, it becomes necessary to slow down. It's particularly a problem in the southeast corner of the drive, where the road narrows and the horse carriages prevent you from moving to the right.
I looked at the Road Runners website to see if the runners were talking about applicability of the NYPD rule to the running classes. But Road Runners doesn't appear to have a message board, and there wasn't a page talking about the rule.
Sat, 03/31/2007 - 6:42pm
#86
I often wonder why NYRR doesn't have a web forum.
What you say about runners can be said about cyclists. Except things happen much more quickly on 2 wheels. The park is a dangerous place to go full tilt when it is crowded. Thus the lament of city living. And to think of all those people who push a baby carriage around the Drive! They don't have the foggiest notion that a cyclist can't see the carriage from the rear and if the cyclist is a bit out of control and cuts in front of the person pushing the carriage, they can nail the carriage. Or how about little kids on bikes who you can't see behind adult. Another beast in the forest: you never know if someone is going to do a bonehead move like a U turn without looking back. Stationary bikes are boring but you spend less time in hospitals!
But this is all off-topic. Regarding the thread: do you think the NYCC would make me leave the club if I changed my name to Critical Mass?
Sat, 03/31/2007 - 6:48pm
#87
Sorry, Hank, you don't have enough mass to be critical. Now if you change it to Critical Thinking, you might have something.
Tue, 04/03/2007 - 4:27am
#88
"There are plenty of car drivers who would like to the number of cyclists on the roads they use reduced too.
Is that a laudable desire on their part? ""Get the other guy off the road."" How nice."
