Re: Cycling and social policy

On 6/4/2025 5:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 6/4/2025 4:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:32:45 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 6/4/2025 12:39 PM, 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
<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.

>
But still less than the problems - by any measure - caused by birthright
citizens.
>

>
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.

>
Fueled by the fear mongering that all illegal immigrants are drug
dealers, rapists, and murderers, when in reality the crime perpetrated
by illegal immigrants is significantly lower (by any measure) than
birthright citizens.

>
Because there are (still) more birthright citizens.
>

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
barriers to international students, who supply large amounts of money to
our university systems. We shouldn't be dissuading science researchers
and engineers from other countries.
>
And I suspect that if you could magically make every illegal immigrant
instantaneously vanish, there would be a huge dip in our economic
productivity.

>
You can do more than 'suspect' that:
>
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation
>
"Due to the loss of workers across U.S. industries, we found that mass
deportation would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 to
6.8 percent. It would also result in significant reduction in tax
revenues for the U.S. government. In 2022 alone, undocumented immigrant
households paid $46.8 billion in federal taxes and $29.3 billion in
state and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants also contributed $22.6
billion to Social Security and $5.7 billion to Medicare."
>
Note also that they wouldn't be eligible to get any of that 22.6 billion
from social security since they aren't eligible.
>

>

>
But they still cost more.

What an excellent example of "True Belief" fundamentalism. No evidence necessary! Contrary evidence disregarded - and of course, no evidence provided.

Kind of like "illegal immigrants have no due process rights"

 I don't think I personally know anyone quite so intellectually weak.

To be fair, you don't personally know him. On that scale, his intellectual prowess is bare above that of kunich.

 (Well, I could describe one local guy who may come close, but he has enough good sense to keep his nonsense mostly to himself.)