Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Cycling and social policy
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 13:47:44 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <38du3kd3t9eqqjkkulrh56um2et8rir05k@4ax.com>
References: <101f650$178mo$1@dont-email.me> <101g9rj$1hvsg$5@dont-email.me> <101hnal$24ksl$2@dont-email.me> <101mi1u$3ua51$3@dont-email.me> <101mskd$aqa$3@dont-email.me> <101n5e3$2sls$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:47:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3d34e04fca600bacf62ae5311c6ee752";
	logging-data="193272"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DZKYgi+cy1yiE7hEZnJ5iDB4W5sK1zzM="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2IJo2LeF8fQNi+x5vn7tp94/WtE=

>El Salvador On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:47:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2025 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 6/3/2025 5:16 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2025 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2025 8:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2025 11:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2025/05/30/opinion/lefties-pro- migrant- push- 
>>>>>> back- on- tischs-e-bike-crackdown-is-obscene/
>>>>>
>>>>> The New York Post trades heavily in sensationalism and political 
>>>>> divisiveness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here was the main point in the New York Times article I linked on 
>>>>> this issue: "Cyclists who blow through red lights without 
>>>>> endangering anyone else can now be forced to appear in court. 
>>>>> Drivers who commit the same violation cannot." As I presently noted 
>>>>> here, immigrants, legal or not, were barely mentioned. Complaints 
>>>>> centered around the fact that bikes or ebikes are a tiny portion of 
>>>>> pedestrian risk - motor vehicles are far, far more dangerous - but 
>>>>> motoring offenses are treated far more lightly.
>>>>>
>>>>> And regarding the incident linked within your NYP article regarding 
>>>>> a 3-year-old girl getting knocked down when she ran into a protected 
>>>>> bike lane: Both the article describing it and the bulk of reader 
>>>>> comments faulted the design of the bike lane, not the fact that it 
>>>>> was an ebike. If there was _any_ mention of immigrants, it was 
>>>>> minor. (I'm one of those who think that facility design is nuts.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, let's please remember that most immigrants are legal. Many 
>>>>> do take low paying jobs, including things like food delivery, but 
>>>>> that does not make them into illegals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I found the 'discrimination toward illegals' argument interesting in 
>>>> a macabre sort of way.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, I agree with you that most foreigners here are legally 
>>>> present. I am a strong proponent of clarity to distinguish among 
>>>> newly naturalized citizens, temporary visa holders, resident aliens 
>>>> and illegal aliens. Conflating those is dishonest if not pernicious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And yet you had no problem conflating a comment from a community 
>>> activist who said e-bike legislation was an attempt to marginalize the 
>>> immigrant community with support for illegal immigration.
>> 
>> It was not I.
>> 
>>  From the report linked above:
>> 
>> "The proof? How they used a budget hearing to assail NYPD Commissioner 
>> Jessica Tisch for deciding to issue criminal summonses to law-breaking 
>> e-bike riders, instead of mere traffic-court tickets, to discourage 
>> reckless road behavior.
>> 
>> Their gripe?
>> 
>> A lot of e-bike riders are delivery drivers for food apps, and a lot of 
>> delivery drivers are illegal immigrants — who might get deported if 
>> slapped with a criminal summons."
>
>Again, that seems to be _your_ take on the reason for the complaints. 
>But I don't think that take is justified by the total text of the 
>article, nor its points of emphasis. As I read it, the main complaint 
>was that motorists are obviously a much greater hazard, yet are being 
>treated much more gently than ebike riders. Hell, look at the relative 
>fatality counts.
>
>Certainly, the vast majority of NYC ebike riders have nothing to do with 
>delivering food. Yes, ebikers should be reasonably obedient to the laws 
>("reasonably" since nobody is perfect). But ISTM that those with the 
>largest negative impact on society should be treated most harshly.

I can get all the leftist propaganda I want without paying for it.

--
C'est bon
Soloman