Re: Cycling and social policy

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 11:50:23 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
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 absolutely want there to be less immagration than thsre was under
the Biden's administration. It's not a surprise that I'm not alone.

--
C'est bon
Soloman