Comments on: Today’s Headlines

By: Doc Barnett

Doc Barnett — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:44:28 +0000

The officer sounds reasonable, but he's not acting reasonably if he issues tickets for violations that haven't occurred that are (in his head) for violating a different law (that is probably unconstitutional). If participants are too be believed, most of the tickets given out are illegitimate. One alternative to caving in to the misbegotten "parade" law is to videotape as much of the affair as possible, challenge all the tickets in court, and have most of the them thrown out. Showing that the police are the ones unconcerned with the rule of law (if that's the case) would do a lot to change public perception. Also the officer's implication that not standing up for particular interpretations of militia-oriented amendments means you lose the whole bill o' rights was pretty unreasonable.

By: Gizler

Gizler — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:05:33 +0000

David, I agree, that officer is perfectly reasonable. He reasonably points out that critical mass would have a better claim to being "traffic" if it didn't run red lights en masse.

By: g

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:43:00 +0000

Maybe this is wishful thinking or naive but if Critical Mass got permits, in a year or two from now there'd be so many bikes on the streets they wouldn't matter anymore.

It was really dramatic when they took over the streets and staging the same could still have a very positive effect.

No doubt Republicans have had a real knack for being divisive.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:12:01 +0000

Steve, that's my dream--to bike around all day, make a list of things that need to be fixed, and get paid! I trust that Streetsblog will share the job posting when it becomes available.

-H

By: Gelston Hinds

Gelston Hinds — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:39:25 +0000

The Bike Brigrade can be highly effective if it is a show of force in uniform monitoring as well as surveying the bike lanes. They should be deputized to issue tickets. They should be as authoritative as the Brownies. Which gives me the idea that they should put the Brownies on bicycles -- starting with that woman in the video last week!

By: JF

JF — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:09:59 +0000

By the way, where is Brodsky complaining that a flat subway fare is regressive and that the subway should be paid for entirely out of income and sales taxes? A flat fare is far more regressive than congestion pricing, given that there are no start-up costs to riding on the subway.

Good point, Dave. I seem to remember that at some point Brodsky said that in principle he was just as opposed to the flat subway fare as to congestion pricing. He sure has been quiet on this issue, though. I'm surprised that more people don't call him on it.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:01:54 +0000

Hannah, I bet that if it had wanted to, DOT could have staffed this survey project on an all-volunteer basis from the biking community using the available open-source technology of MyBikeLane, UncivilServants, "People's 311", Flickr, etc. It's probably better though that some cyclists are getting wages and health benefits out of it . . . as long as its done right!

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:57:26 +0000

Don't you think that police officer in "NYPD Officer on Critical Mass: 'No Bicyclist Is Innocent'" comes off as actually reasonably intelligent and well-spoken, even if you disagree with him? I think the headline might be aimed at whipping up passions more than at reflecting what's actually in the article. He also says that 'no cop is innocent.'

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:53:16 +0000

Steve and JF - I think Bloomberg agrees.

I also agree that his seeming disjunction of 'straphangers' and the 'public' is unfortunate, when the vast majority of New Yorkers (the public) ride the subway. But I think he is just trying to distinguish between the two different ways that the public funds the subways (through fares and taxes).

By the way, where is Brodsky complaining that a flat subway fare is regressive and that the subway should be paid for entirely out of income and sales taxes? A flat fare is far more regressive than congestion pricing, given that there are no start-up costs to riding on the subway.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:44:33 +0000

How can I join the bureaucrat bike brigade?!

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:43:35 +0000

Cyclist summonses: "Police have been cracking down on violations since 2004, when 35,644 summonses were issued." Gee, what happened in 2004 to lead the city to "crack down"? I'd like to see a geographic distribution of where the summonses starting in 2004 were issued.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:40:40 +0000

Maybe so Dave--but sin't that worse? Shouldn't motorists be "socked" through tolls to pay for "the system" they are using?

By: JF

JF — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:35:03 +0000

It's still annoying, Dave. We should "sock it" to the people who cause the most damage and pollution, use the most resources, and can afford the most to pay it. As a member of "the public," I don't want my income and sales taxes going to maintain roadways and bridges that are used by a small minority.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:29:08 +0000

Steve -

Although I at first interpreted this as you did, I think he might have meant raising the amount going to the MTA from general tax revenues by 'sock it to the public.'

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:25:01 +0000

"Pricing Not Enough": Why are motorists "the public"? "You can sock it to the straphangers, or you can sock it to the public - or you can let the system fall apart," Bloomberg said yesterday."

By: oishii

oishii — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:46:10 +0000

This post gives me a weird sense of deja vu.

By: nobody

nobody — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 13:40:16 +0000

Ah Marty, he never saw a parking spot he didn't like:

http://nyc.uncivilservants.org/post/index/412