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: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:33:57 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 196
Message-ID: <ap014kpb9su55g9dpe5n456nqqdpndrf21@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> <101n5uh$3t0p$1@dont-email.me> <101ofca$ilu4$1@dont-email.me> <2k104k1g30so0fqb1hgfh1jqfmeulbsr3u@4ax.com> <101pic0$rahk$4@dont-email.me> <101ppvv$7nm9$3@dont-email.me> <101pqr9$t4q0$1@dont-email.me> <101pssl$traa$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 19:34:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="03e45df4fb90f84259f164a9ad56948f";
	logging-data="1019234"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9GI6o7Ap3NNev4brXRMtCslOzGmCcsVo="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WjQb1yqoOsmdt8CsZ2v9DGO/hZs=

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 12:39:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/4/2025 12:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 6/4/2025 10:50 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2025 9:40 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2025 3:50 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 23:43:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 11:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:47 AM, Frank Krygowski 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You didn't find it odd that New Yorkers would just assume food 
>>>>>>> delivery
>>>>>>> on electric bicycles was by illegal aliens?  I did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the deliverers are indeed illegal and working, that's a 
>>>>>>> violation of
>>>>>>> Federal law, as is hiring/paying them on the employer's part. I'm 
>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>> that happens but to significant numbers of electric bicycle 
>>>>>>> pilots? I'm
>>>>>>> skeptical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, it's difficult for me to tell what we agree on or
>>>>>> disagree on, regarding the NYT and NYP articles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For (attempted) clarity on my views: ISTM the pedestrians have
>>>>>> complained about hazards from ebikes. ISTM others complain that errant
>>>>>> motorists are treated more kindly than ebike riders, even though
>>>>>> motorists constitute a much greater hazard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And ISTM that the fundamental issue has next to nothing to do with
>>>>>> immigrants, legal or illegal. However, some right wingers have been
>>>>>> triggered, as usual, by the very thought of immigrants in America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another Krygowski strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt many people are "triggered by the very thought of immigrants
>>>>> in America" since most of us are descendant of immigrants.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> C'est bon
>>>>> Soloman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> We USAians are heartily welcoming of immigrants generally, and moreso 
>>>> over time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lol...what load of horseshit...
>>>
>>>  From July 2024
>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb- 
>>> immigration.aspx
>>> "Significantly more U.S. adults than a year ago, 55% versus 41%, would 
>>> like to see immigration to the U.S. decreased. This is the first time 
>>> since 2005 that a majority of Americans have wanted there to be less 
>>> immigration, and today’s figure is the largest percentage holding that 
>>> view since a 58% reading in 2001. "
>>>
>> 
>> I believe that number.  Recent excesses and abuse of policy (and 
>> hundreds of well publicized incidents by criminal illegal aliens) have 
>> caused real and widespread (and expensive) problems.
>> 
>> Which is not the same as principle/ethos.  Immigration (of every type) 
>> is at an historic record high...
>
>Only in raw count, not in percentage of the population. When my (and 
>probably your) ancestors arrived, immigrants were a higher percentage of 
>the population.
>
>https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
>
>> with predictable problems.
>
>... and there were all sorts of problems back then, as well. I think 
>most were generated by people who would have joined MAGA had it existed. 
>Their motivations were certainly aligned with MAGA. They wore white 
>hoods and robes in stead of red hats.
>
>> Remove the 
>> illegals and those numbers are much more workable.
>
>Yes, we shouldn't have illegal immigrants. But we shouldn't be punishing 
>legal immigrants and sweeping them into the same net, which is what "due 
>process" is intended to prevent. We shouldn't be furiously building 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========