Re: Cycling and social policy

On 6/3/2025 10:43 PM, 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.
 

As USA cyclists, wee see the same things and share the same criticisms, generally.
Yes, urban pedestrians do complain of careening idiots on two wheels. This is not a new problem:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/jfkgrfth.jpg
Automobile pilots complain as much or more and they get more press. There are valid criticisms here but there's also a lot of invention.
A disinterested observer could cite examples and counterexamples of disparate punishment for cyclists and autos. The numbers are huge and, as in any large set, with myriad situations and outcomes. The recent NYC policy (administrative ticket for autos, criminal complaint for cyclists) is egregious and probably temporary but I don't know that.
Electric powered two wheelers look a lot like bicycles on first glance. I think they are very different by their nature, and do present severe risk in traffic, let alone on sidewalks. Besides being generally heavier and faster (trouble enough), they are piloted generally by non-cyclists who do not have the 'street sense' of people with extensive experience riding in traffic and generally lack handling skills besides perspective.  I'm sure there are some savvy responsible electric pilots. They are outnumbered.
All that considered, which are actual social, legislative and law enforcement issues, tossing in 'discrimination against illegals' is a useless red herring IMHO. That's why I noticed the emphasis cited in The Post:
https://nypost.com/2025/05/30/opinion/lefties-pro-migrant-push-back-on-tischs-e-bike-crackdown-is-obscene/
It was not I, not Ms Tisch, not Post editors but rather NYC City Council members who injected an illegal alien argument into a traffic enforcement issue.  My comments were not specifically about illegal aliens so much as noting how absurd that is to traffic policy in NYC.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971