Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Catrike Ryder 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: 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 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 >>>>> 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 ==========