Saturday, May 28, 2011

Tagging the bicycles


From the Daily News:

"Messengers and folks who work for restaurants tend to be the worst [traffic law] offenders," said Councilman David Greenfield (D-Brooklyn). "They have a financial incentive to be reckless drivers. ...It's the Wild West of transportation."

Greenfield is introducing legislation today that would force businesses that hire cyclists to apply for license plates for each employee's bike.

The companies would also have to show proof of insurance - to cover injuries to their rider and any pedestrians they may plow over.

Any business that fails to acquire the city-issued tags would face a $1,000 fine - and cops would get the green light to seize the scofflaw bikes.

"License plates are the great equalizer," Greenfield insisted. "If you have a license plate, you're responsible. Everyone knows who you are. They know who's in charge and we can track you down."

License plates, he said, could someday allow cops to bust bad bikers with red light cameras.

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

About time as long as its kept to commercial biking!

Anonymous said...

the cost will be minimal. tag them all,for the safety of the walking public .

Anonymous said...

It should be extended to private bikers too!

Why should reckless idiots on two wheeled vehicles get a free pass just because they're not messengers, etc. ?

I almost got hit by one private citizen on a bike the other day...
and I would have liked to be able to have identified him by a license plate number.

And FU, in advance, if you disagree with me any of you hot-dogging bike freaks!

Anonymous said...

The worst offenders are the cyclists in Central Park, who hog the road, never stop for a red light, and barrel down the hills at high speed.

Emir said...

People have been riding bicycles in NYC for years. Its strange how ALL OF THE SUDDEN everyone now has a story to tell of being hit with a bike or nearly run down by one...like recently or last week or last month...

All my years living in NYC, bike riding was never a controversial topic until the past few years. Unfortunately, now everything in the city has to be regulated from bicycle riding to the number to calories we consume.

Sarah said...

Ah the truth always comes to the top. And how much will you have to pay for one of these "tags". Another way to take your money and give it to those who want to control you.

Anonymous said...

Nice try, Emir. Which flyover state are you from? We don't say "all of THE sudden" around these parts. Take your bike back to Oklahoma, you hipster douchecunt.

You can go with him, Sarah.

Take your ironic tee shirts and go home.

Anonymous said...

If it's a vehicle that uses the streets, it should be licensed. Period.

And all of a sudden people have stories because the reckless DOT commissioner has been beating the drum telling everyone to ride a bike, so now you have a whole bunch of inexperienced douchebags making stupid moves because they think they are entitled to.

Anonymous said...

Silly idea, just like Queens Crap.

Anonymous said...

If the blog is so silly, why are you reading it?

Tubby Stashitsky said...

Silly idea, just like Queens Crap.
------------------------------------------------
EVAN! I told you to keep a low profile. This is how you respect my wishes? Oy Vey!

PS After all, it's not like either of us can actually ride a bike anyhow.

Mayor Mike said...

"Ah the truth always comes to the top. And how much will you have to pay for one of these "tags". Another way to take your money and give it to those who want to control you."



Where will the money go? I got two words for all of you. Bike lanes!

Anonymous said...

At least in Europe, they did bike lines CORRECTLY - YEARS AGO - and they are PART OF THE SIDEWALK. This administration did them all wrong and they have blood on their hands from the many accidents and deaths from putting cyclists in the street with all of our maniacal Jersey & Florida transplanted drivers here now along with the lawless taxi drivers that refuse to stop for red lights and keep clear of crosswalks when people are walking in them.

This city truly sucks now.

Johnny Loo said...

This city truly sucks now.

Why do you think my lips are so thick...and getting thicker?

Sarah said...

To anony #5 we dont say "around these parts" asshole.

Queens Crapper said...

I dunno, I say it all the time.

Anonymous said...

About time as long as its kept to commercial biking!

HAHAHA! You want to venture down the slippery slope, don't complain when it bites you in the ass later.

Anonymous said...

HAHAHA! You want to venture down the slippery slope, don't complain when it bites you in the ass later.

And your explanation is...?
Dumbass!

Anonymous said...

I almost got hit by one private citizen on a bike the other day...
and I would have liked to be able to have identified him by a license plate number.

And done what??? Nothing. I'm sure we all have had incidents where we were "almost" hit by a car. Nothing you can do about if you don't get hit. License plate or not.

Anonymous said...

And your explanation is...?

The poster thinks it's a good idea, as long as it applies to others but not him. He doesn't see the slippery slope that will eventually lead to applying the same law to any cyclist.
We are such an over regulated, over litigious, finger pointing society of crybabies. It's pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Since current laws that apply to bicyclists are ignored by police who witness infractions and do nothing, how would additional regulations of any kind resolve the situation? Being able to identify violators is a step in the right direction.

Joe said...

Tax and make them buy all buy plates & insurance....ALL OF THEM.
Why should the private or commercial motorist get sued every-time somebody is hurt or ends up under the wheels due to a bicycle ?
Whenever somebody is hurt bad and has no insurance the cops have a tendency to establish liability points to the insured on the report. Police investigators will even look the other way on DWI for the sake of the victims pending hospital bills.

I ended up getting arrested for roadrage with one of these bicycle morons. This dude dressed like a fag spiderman was riding uphill on Community drive toward LIE.
The idiot kept grabbing my door handle, rear HF antenna mount on for a free ride.
I told him to F_ off "don't make get out of my truck"

The SOB then reached into a pouch and busted out my rear 1/4 window with something.
We ending up in a full fistfight in the middle Community drive/495 service roadway.
(BTW --these bicyclists are in pretty good shape, be warned before going at it with one)

Lucky I had witnesses who saw the whole thing (charges dismissed)
The worst part was driving around the moon craters of Willets in January searching for a OEM privacy glass window for a GMC Jimmy ($50)

Queens Crapper said...

Can someone please explain the "slippery slope" to me since none of you seem to have any problem with cars being licensed? If cars are licensed, all vehicles that ride in the street should be licensed.

Anonymous said...

Crappy, do you really think a human powered 30 lb bike (plus rider, maybe 180-250) is anywhere near the scale of a 2-4k lb gas powered vehicle? There is a tremendous difference. To classify them the same doesn't make sense, and there is a reason that historically cars are licensed and insured and bikes aren't. Cars are capable (and they do, just read the paper) of inflicting damage and death on a scale that no bicycle could come close to.
Look, there is an argument to be made for registering and insuring bikes. Sure they can, and sometimes do, cause damage, but so can rollerbladers, joggers, people with hand trucks, people playing softball in the park. That softball could kill or seriously injure a player or bystander or seriously damage someones car. Or a basketball or soccer ball could roll in the street and cause an accident. At what point do we stop, or do we try to legislate every possible risk and give up more personal freedom for more bureaucracy and more TAXATION?

That is one example of the slippery slope concept; that eventually you will need a permit to play a game of catch with your kid outside. The slippery slope as I brought it up, was in reference to the comment made by the first poster, who seems to think it's a great idea as long as it's commercial cyclists. Well today it might be commercial cyclists, and tomorrow it will likely be recreational cyclists, then children cyclists; with a dip in our pocket every step of the way.

Crappy, I'm curious, did you ride a bike as a child and have you ridden one as an adult anytime recently? An occasional weekend ride around the neighborhood when the weather is nice is great, and if you have ever taken one, you would know that stopping at every stop sign and traffic light like a car would be completely unnecessary. You slow down and stop when you need to for traffic and pedestrians. It's very simple and safe if you have any sense. No need to ruin a great recreational activity that generations of us local Queens folks have enjoyed pretty much without hassle or incident because of your dislike of the Manhattan bike lanes and their sometimes douche chill inducing riders.

-Jor said...

I dont know what that means eather.

However I believe all vehicles that ride on taxpayer public roadways should be paying their share of taxes to use the roads, be subject to the same VTL, penalty's and liability insurance (including surcharges).
No more friggan free rides !!

Some of these messengers are being paid $10-$20 a minute bonuses to deliver signatures and documents to Wall streets speculators & bankers.
As 3rd party "cyclist messenger DBAs" nobody gives a dam.
They CUT DOWN people in the street wile some tower person exempt from liability makes million dollar commissions.
F_**em !!
Close the loopholes and Make em ALL pay and insurance!!

Anonymous said...

Sure Joe, screw all the regular neighborhood people in this city to spite a few messengers and Lance Armstrong types. Have you seen how people drive their cars in Manhattan?
Enforcing the law against the reckless makes sense. Making everyone else pay for the recklessness of some doesn't.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention in comparing bikes to cars, when someone in a car hits a pedestrian, they are safe inside their steel skeleton, and if they hit another car they have seat belts, airbags, and a couple of tons of steel to protect them. If someone on a bike hits a pedestrian that cyclist is just as likely to be seriously injured, and if they hit a moving car they will likely have serious problems (or no problems ever again). It's a great incentive for cyclists to avoid collisions that drivers of cars do not have.

Anonymous said...

I would love to see NYPD enforcing the laws period. Let's start with the 30 MPH speed limit that applies to the vast majority of NYC roads. Imagine how many accidents on Woodhaven would be avoided if the limit was enforced and observed.

I'm also curious as to why Queens Crap readers (and anti-bike folks generally) are so quick to assume all bikers are hipsters from flyover states. It's not a fact based stereotype, but it does seem to make the demonizing easier. The _fact_ is that many many born and bred NY'ers ride bikes, because they grew up without cars and rely on public transport, walking, and bikes to get around. And I'm not talking about Manhattanites...my wife has lived in Queens most of her life and doesn't drive, but bikes to the train, to do errands, to bring our daughter to the park...all pure evil stuff that is clearly ruining Queens Crap readers' quality of life. We apologize in advance.

Anonymous said...

The _fact_ is that many many born and bred NY'ers ride bikes,

That's kind of what I was trying to say, but in my experience it seems to be more recreational riders than commuters/errands. Although I did use a bicycle to commute when I stated college, as I was not yet 18 and couldn't afford a car when I turned 18 anyway.

Anonymous said...

Since when does property damage justify assault in the eyes of the law?

Anonymous said...

And I failed proofreading in college, probably because I stated attending instead of started.

Anonymous said...

If someone on a bike hits a pedestrian that cyclist is just as likely to be seriously injured,...

.................................................

And what about the injuries to the pedestrian? Oops. I guess you forgot to factor that in to your equation!

Anonymous said...

"And what about the injuries to the pedestrian? Oops. I guess you forgot to factor that in to your equation!"

It appears that most of the posters could care less!

Anonymous said...

Cabbies are reckless as well. Having them "tagged" doesn't help. LOL.

Anonymous said...

Illegals working illegally by delivering using illegal electric bikes!

Anonymous said...

"And what about the injuries to the pedestrian? Oops. I guess you forgot to factor that in to your equation!"

It appears that most of the posters could care less!
-------------------------------------------
Sad, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

The point about motorized bikes is a good one. They shouldn't be allowed in the 5 boros...but who knows if it would matters--ATV's aren't allowed and are frequently driven on the streets with impunity in the Outer Boroughs and Northern Manhattan.

It does matter when pedestrians are injured. And getting buzzed by a bike running a light saloming through a sidewalk sucks.

Bad driving is the enemy--people who drive cars badly, bikes badly, or somehow manage to pilot their own two feet badly. Bad driving is rude and dangerous, and we have every reason to try and control and limit it.

Anonymous said...

The law should be, if you hit them while they are breaking the law you get a gold star of gratitude

Anonymous said...

Joe,

Never get out of your car/truck. It is a two ton weapon. Use it on that reckless scum.

Queens Crapper said...

First of all, I am not anti-bike. I am anti-the attitude that has come with riding a bike the past 10 years, that you can do whatever you want, and this attitude is sanctioned by the government because bikes are saving the planet now. The subscribers to this belief are the same folks that look down on anyone who uses a car for any purpose. They refuse to accept that bikes are impractical for many people living in large swaths of the city who are served by poor mass transit, they see the world only through their own special lens. Bikes do not substitute for mass transit, yet this is the crock of shit we have been fed by Bloomberg and his minions since he took office. The city should be spending money upgrading mass transit, which is overburdened. With a million more people, what do they think will happen? They're all going to ride bikes? The city does not contribute a large enough share to the MTA, and that's a good part of the reason things are the way they are. Instead, the city would rather paint lines in the street, call it innovative and out of the box thinking and leave it at that. Well, I for one am not fooled by the B.S. and if you are brainwashedly repeating the "bikes are green" mantra the way daddy wants you to, then expect to be called out on the carpet for it. This is also happening now because developers are being encouraged to no longer provide adequate parking so as many people can be packed into as small amount of space as possible. We keep hearing nonsense about carbon footprints, yet NYC is one of the most polluted cities in the country. People wouldn't need cars so much if mass transit were adequately upgraded. So lets fix our bus and subway systems and leave the bicycle shit alone. As another commenter pointed out, bikes have been part of the city landscape for many decades, so why do they need special accommodations now? It's all a smokescreen. WAKE UP.

Anonymous said...

"Cabbies are reckless as well. Having them "tagged" doesn't help. LOL."

Actually it does help. If an accident comes to litigation the plate and registration require the driver(s) to have insurance

Anonymous said...

Crapper, your comment is spot on (I'm one of the pro-bike commenters).

Bike lanes are no substitute for critically needed mass transit improvements. But the money spent on bike infrastructure is a drop in the bucket.

And I don't think the new bike lanes embolden bad riders--the most egregious riders don't tend to make much use of the lanes.

Queens Crapper said...

It is a drop in the bucket, and the bike lane money by and large comes from the feds, not the city. But my point is that focus is intentionally being shifted away from mass transit (unless it's the 2nd avenue subway or a 7 line station for the west side) to bikes to exonerate the mayor from his responsibility to fund the MTA so we can all have safe, clean subway stations near us, have regular bus service and expansion of service in the outer boroughs where it is most needed.

Anonymous said...

I thought there WAS a law on bikes, license plates, etc. passed way back in '90s or so--I lived on Upper East Side then and rememebr the pressure put on city council back then by powerful citizens in 10021 zip. All businesses were supposed to license bikes, put plates on bikes, and clearly identify their business. What happened? No enforecement? We should not pass laws that will not be enforced; we should enforce those on the books.

Anonymous said...

Well, I for one am not fooled by the B.S. and if you are brainwashedly repeating the "bikes are green" mantra the way daddy wants you to, then expect to be called out on the carpet for it.

Who here is doing that?

The MTA is a mess of financial mismanagement and waste, and I'm not referring to the living wage salaries of the workers either. To expect the mayor to dump more money to the MTA so they can squander it is foolish. What we need is serious accountability in the MTA so it can be run more like a business, rather than a non competing slush fund.

Also crappy, for those physically able, which is more of the population than you probably think, and those mentally able (because psychology is what makes a lot of people think they cant ride), riding a bike can be a better option than transit, even when the transit is good. I'm not saying transit shouldn't be funded, expanded or improved, I'm saying often a bike can be much quicker than even good transit options. When I was in college I rode a bike back and forth when the weather was reasonable, and took the bus when the weather was lousy. The bike was so much faster and pleasant, not because the transit wasn't good, but because of the nature of transit. If you take the bus you have to walk to the bus stop, 1, 2, 3, or more blocks is not uncommon, yet reasonable, but still time consuming. Then you have to wait for the bus, still more time, even during frequent service, then you have to ride in close quarters with the general public who are often inconsiderate and unpleasant to ride with. Then the bus has to make many stops along the way to pick up and drop off, which is unavoidable, and drive in traffic as well, usually on major thoroughfares. Often a transfer (to another bus) will be required, which is more time, and when you get to your destination, even more walking, maybe another block or two or more. Riding a bicycle gives you the kind of door to door convenience that a car provides without all that waiting, and riding with people with loud headphones, too much perfume, and smelly food or poor hygiene. Better bus service does not address many of these issues. It is unreasonable for us to expect door to door bus service, or bus service without frequent stops, or a service network so intricate that we would rarely need a transfer.
It's not about "being green" or anything, it is a reasonable option that is available to many who can't afford a car or who are going somewhere where a car is impractical. I'm sure there are many people who have a direct bus ride to main st to catch the 7 train who would rather ride a bike (when the weather allows) to main st if it was feasible (right now it's not) rather than take the bus.
Something that incidentally would not cost the MTA any revenue since people would still pay the same fare to enter the subway instead of transferring.
Wanting better transit does not have to make you anti bike. There is a place for both.

Anonymous said...

My biking is a viable option comment applies to my own experience here in Queens, but Manhattan is a different ball game, because the traffic is so heavy that riding becomes prohibitively dangerous. That is why they are putting protected bike lanes on the avenues, because riding is not a safe or practical option without them except for the most agile and daring.
The Manhattan bike lanes are a pain in my ass, as I don't ever bike in the city, but I DO drive a truck in the city very often. So understand that my comment comes from someone negatively affected by the new lanes.
That said, in a population concentrated island such as Manhattan, does it make sense to say that some people shouldn't be riding bicycles to get around? There's way too many people for everyone (or even a majority) to own cars. Shouldn't they have some choice other than the subway or bus? In a city as diverse as NY, in a country as free as the USA, should people not have the right to do that? And if they do have the right, should they not be entitled to some accommodations to provide reasonable safety? Or are we so selfish that as drivers that we demand all the space is ours and people who choose to ride bikes are worth less than us, and therefore not entitled to their own space or protection from maniacal NYC drivers?
What anti bikers are doing is thinking only about their own needs and completely dismissing the needs of another group, regardless of the effect on that groups safety or ability to exercise their freedom of choice. This selfishness is typical, so I am not surprised, and it is the reason we live in a city of 8 million assholes. People want to think only about themselves, everyone else is unimportant and unworthy of consideration. Is that how we want to be as a society? Is that how we want to be as individuals? Do we really want to say that the safety and lives of people who choose to ride bicycles is much less important than our desire to sit in less traffic and get where we want to go a few minutes faster?
Those bike lanes are still a pain in my ass and cause me aggravation, but at least I am willing to recognize the benefit they provide to others who choose to be different.

Anonymous said...

bike tags and commercial bike delivery jockey insurance time has come .

DEAL WITH IT....

Queens Crapper said...

Bikes and cars have shared space since both were invented. No one is saying bikes shouldnt exist. There is no need to bend over backwards to encourage their use at the expense of mass transit. Yes, the MTA is a bloated bureaucracy, but so is DOT. We still need to work with what we got.

Anonymous said...

Your argument sounds sensible crappy, but keep in mind that a lot of people against bike lanes are not at all motivated by desire for transit funding, but by a dislike of losing road space to the new bike lanes, and in some cases a dislike for who they perceive the "typical" rider to be.

Even your own previous stories and comments leave me with the impression that you are more against bikers and bike lanes (on an emotion level), than you are pro transit. Other posters here are obviously against bikers based mostly on emotional reactions to their experiences. It's funny how the same people are not anti-drivers. Anyone who hasn't had multiple bad experiences with clueless, inexperienced, oblivious, and downright reckless car and truck drivers in this city, probably never leaves the house. Yes we seem to accept these as part of big city living. But a couple of close calls with cyclists and they become public enemy number one. Why the double standard, and why the outrage over cyclists when we accept so many pedestrian deaths each year without outrage?
The streets of this city are not perfect or safe, nor should we expect them to be. But to demonize one group (bikers) and ignore another group (drivers, of which I am a part of) which is responsible for much greater death and destruction is an effort that is obviously based in bias.

Regardless, when it comes to transit and cycling issues, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the MTA is a bloated bureaucracy, but so is DOT. We still need to work with what we got.

Yes, that doesn't mean that the city should just throw more money at the MTA as you suggest, which is a waste of our hard earned tax dollars given the current management at MTA.

Anonymous said...

People wouldn't need cars so much if mass transit were adequately upgraded.

I disagree with this. People who can afford to own cars are going to use them if they have them. Nothing wrong with that btw. But you are not likely to make transit good enough to get people to leave their car at home or not own a car at all. Transit will never be able to provide the door to door possibilities that a car can.

Make transit better for the people that use it? Sounds good. Make it better because it will get people to get out of their cars? Highly unlikely.

Anonymous said...

"The subscribers to this belief are the same folks that look down on anyone who uses a car for any purpose."

This is probably a very small (yet vocal) portion of bike riders, and in no way represents your average native Borough residing New Yorker who rides a bicycle for recreation, or because they can't afford a car.

It seems like you want to punish the whole for the beliefs of a few.

Joe said...

"and if they hit a moving car they will likely have serious problems"

Yes and the motorist is the one who gets sued and suffer's huge insurance increases even if its 100% the bikers fault.
Mike The Bike already has cops automatically writing accidents up with negligence on the car driver when a jerk on a bike is seriously hurt.

You people keep forgetting New York is a "No Fault Insurance State"
Its the car driver that gets "socked" and sued every-time one of these cyclist aO's ends up under a car or squished.
A lawyers dream since most insurgence company's settle out of court to save money on a trial.

Anonymous said...

Forced to pay more money versus getting seriously injured or killed.

It sounds like you are complaining about the possibility of suffering less painful of the two scenarios. Why would you care about the guy with the broken (insert body part) when damn this might cost you money! And yes, I pay plenty for my insurance also.

And yes, our auto insurance industry is seriously fucked up and ripe with fraud and abuse, so how does feeding more people into that broken system really benefit anybody?
That's right, it's the I get screwed so the next guy deserves to get screwed right along with me. Another mentality that makes our society so much better.

Joe said...

No is put the brakes on the guy doing the screwing this way I get screwed less.
Letting motorists foot the bill for uninsured daredevils on bicycles using the same roads isn't fair.

....slamming them with moving violations sends their insurgence premiums skyrocketing. It will make these morons think
Without license and insurance points traffic tickets are meaningless.
Giving a bicyclist indemnification and passing their hospital bills to over to a Motorist no fault car insurance (and possible estate holdings) is a license for bicyclist to DRIVE WORSE and commit MASSIVE personal injury fraud!!
The Russians and BukRahs must be licking their chops right now

Cav said...

Greetings Bike Advocates.

Let me state from the outset that I am not against anyone who chooses to use a bicycle to get around. I have made two observations regarding this matter which I state here without rancor.

First: It seems you've brought attention upon yourselves what with the demands for bike lanes and the antics of Critical Mass, et al. Whether these are the minority or the majority is immaterial, they draw attention.
So try to understand that not all attention is positive and should you choose push the issue, you might wind up paying for your hobby.

Second: Being abrasive, pushy and obnoxious is a sure-fire way to draw negative attention. Nobody wants to hear born again bikers preaching yet another boorish sermon and damning the unbelievers to hellire. Have you ever heard the old adage 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar'? If the ill-mannered boors are a minority, it is the responsibility of the good majority to make themselves known and to try to muzzle the assholes.

If you want respect, then respect others.
Just saying....

Archie B said...

Go down to Bushwick bikes and mopeds are EVERYWHERE
It seems to go hand in hand with these self titled "artists" and musicians.
Most look like bums, unshaven walking around in 99 cent store tank Ts that could never be hired for a day job.

I did not tell them to go into Liberal arts so they can be live on the rocks always be broke.
These jerks and green heads ride bikes because they cant afford green cars or housing with parking.

Why should others pay and suffer for their bad decisions in life? Just about every one of them thinks they are going to be the next Warhol or popstar.
We have enough bums and illegals in the city to deal with screw these hipsters with the bikes. Let them move back to mom and dad back in East Bumble*ck Iowa, California whatever !!
These bring NOTHING to the city aside what lines some greedy Williamsburg landlords pockets

georgetheatheist said...

Where can I buy one of those electric bikes?

Anonymous said...

Cav, I don't get it--how can responsible bicyclists 'muzzle' the jerks? I don't even know them...

And what are motorists doing to address terrible, aggressive, fast and deadly bad driving?

It seems to me that responsible recreational and commuting riders are getting tarred with a wide brush.

If drivers were similarly stereotyped, cars would be outlawed. Make no mistake about it--a swerving red light running bike cannot be as dangerous as a 2000+ pound car going more than twice as fast.

Anonymous said...

Where can I buy one of those electric bikes?

Best Buy, ships to any store, except the popular models are back ordered right now.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcat17006&type=page&skuId=9623467&searchpage=true&_requestid=374957

Anonymous said...

quit the dialogue on auto's and trucks.the topic is the tagging of all bikes and insurance coverage of bike delivery jockey's for restaurants .

the walking public needs accident protection from these out of control bikers,at once.

Cav said...

Anonymous post# 59 said:

"Cav, I don't get it--how can responsible bicyclists 'muzzle' the jerks? I don't even know them..."

Response:

If you're a member of any of these organizations, then speak up amongst your peers. But by your response, I can tell you won't even consider being critical of any bad behavior or the aforementioned boorishness on the part of your peers. Your reluctance to do so is your own passive acceptance of obnoxious behavior as justified. I'm probably talking to a wall here.


Anonymous post # 59 continues:

"And what are motorists doing to address terrible, aggressive, fast and deadly bad driving?"

Response:

*groan* Wasn't this silly meme dealt with in earlier posts? Alright, for those who weren't paying attention or have reading comprehension issues:
Motorists are licensed, registered, and insured. As such are subject to cameras and polce enforcement which means suspension of driving privileges. Arrest for driving with a suspended license.
Therefore motorists are accountable for their actions. Bicyclists, at least the commercial types germaine to this post, are not.

Anonymous post #59 still continues:

"It seems to me that responsible recreational and commuting riders are getting tarred with a wide brush."

Response:

Oh for the love of God, or Gaia or whatever deity (secular or metaphysical) you worship, stop whining already!!!!!
What wide brush did I tar YOU, specifically, YOU, with? I addressed my comments to the behavior of a particular segment of bikers. If you consider yourself a specimen of these assholes, then that's your problem.
Really, this playing the victim buisness when you receive criticism is childish.

And anonymous post #59 drones on some more of the same old same old:

"If drivers were similarly stereotyped, cars would be outlawed. Make no mistake about it--a swerving red light running bike cannot be as dangerous as a 2000+ pound car going more than twice as fast."

Response:

Yes. And a bicycle hitting pedestrian can and does cause serious injury without any accountability. The, uh, primary point of this post. So what's your point?

You've proven my contention that the noveau bike zealot as being pushy, abraisive, obnoxious boors who when called on, rather than acknowlege a problem (that would require introspection not native to a narcissist or fanatic), resorts to selective outrage and a pitiful 'boo-hoo they're picking on poor little me', play the victim defense (more the textbook response of a narcissist).

So I take it you don't understand what I said about catching more flies with honey? Or are simply too self-righteous and entitled to make any sense of it. I don't know you personally to be able to say for sure.
But by your refusal to deal with the issues I've raised, you've signaled your passive acceptance of the points I originally stated. Thank you. QED.

Anyhoo, one response is my usual limit. So happy trails.

Anonymous said...

What wide brush did I tar YOU, specifically, YOU, with?

It's not all about YOU and YOUR comments. People who are against a small segment of bicycle riders often talk like they dislike anyone on a bicycle and want laws and enforcement that will affect all bikers, even the casual neighborhood riders and ordinary working people.

"If you're a member of any of these organizations, then speak up amongst your peers."

What you apparently fail to understand is these organizations are not "peers" of the casual non- environmental person who rides as an individual choice. Many people ride bicycles for a number of personal reasons (affordability, convenience, recreation, exercise) and are in no way a part of the cars are evil bikes are holy movement that is loosely organized and vocal. Most riders are similar to (and in many cases are) drivers; individuals who are using a medium for transportation or recreation, not any kind of activist or affiliated with some kind of organization. They are often just regular people who want to quietly go about their business, who don't even have any connection or interaction with the extreme bike activists/critical mass type riders.
So again, to demonize bicyclists based on the vocal extreme minority is painting with a broad brush, and unfair to the average going about their business individual that lives and works throughout our city (not just in lower Manhattan or DT Brooklyn)

Queens Crapper said...

All laws are written to apply to all people. There's always a handful of dopes that ruin it for everyone!

Anonymous said...

All bikes ridden on public streets by adults should be tagged and should be required to carry casualty and collisions insurance just like an automobile.

Anonymous said...

It's not the bikes or guns, it's the users. Those messengers would have to have their sneakers tagged as well. Have you ever been the first one into a high rise office in the morning and tripped over all the menus?