Taxi Federation Calls for Strict Bicycle Laws After Bloody Midtown Crash
 

Following last week's accident at Rockefeller Center in which a tourist's leg was severed by a taxi. Quote from Taxi Federation Calls for Strict Bicycle Laws After Bloody Midtown Crash:

"NEW YORK—If it was up to Fernando Mateo, all bicyclists in New York City would have to get licenses and license plates, be subject to a bicycle ban if they committed too many violations, and be required to carry insurance....

"Mateo said that he has the support of two lawmakers who will introduce the bills on the city and state level: City Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez and State Senator Adriano Espaillat.

"Mateo did not deny that cab drivers are known for aggressive road behavior, but said that taxi drivers had a right to be on the road, while bicyclists did not. It is unclear what the legislative source of Mateo’s statement was, because, with few exceptions, the New York state charter treats bicycles the same as motorized vehicles."

I think when you look up the dictionary definition of "idiot," the name Fernando Mateo pops up as the first definition. A taxi driver tries to run down a cyclist and severs the foot of a tourist and the solution is to license, fine, and ban cyclists from the road because (according to Mr. Mateo), taxis have a right to be on the road but cyclists do not.

Let me see if I have this straight:
A taxi driver in a fit of road rage against a cyclist drives off the road over the curb and maims a tourist/by-stander.
As a result, with the support of local law-makers, there's push for stricter laws against bicycle riders.

How about holding the road rager accountable for his own behavior?

Geezus, what a bunch of dumb****s..... basically blaming cyclists for causing the cabbie's rampage.... they need to take the cabbie's license away permanently, and not call for bicycle licenses and plates. Hell, we might as well institute regular mental evaluations on cab drivers to see if they can hold up over the long term.

So we've made progress. We used to blame the victim. But it would be very hard to blame a pedestrian who was on the sidewalk at the time, so we had to get creative. Now we could blame the particular cyclist who supposedly precipitated the incident by making the cabby crazy, but that would mean having to look too closely it the particulars, so we blame everybody that had nothing at all to do with it.

Actually I'd support the measure, if it were financed by the city issuing 4,000 new taxi medallions so there would be enough cabs to pick up the possible increase in ridership.

If the reality of the situation wasn't so appalling your post would have me laughing on the ground.. I can't believe he had the nerve to say it, with the driver beside him and at the hospital of the lady the driver hit... pathetic.

I happen to be watching an article on the BBC news a week or so ago, with it being about the difference in taxi fares around the world. When the news article came to the London cab, one remark by the London cabbie that caught my attention was when he quipped, "There goes the bane of my very existence", while pointing out a local cyclist in general. Not just NYC cabbies that are in the fray.

Notice he also said bicyclists did not have a right to be on the road. Does he agree that pedestrians have a right to be on the curb?

Don't want to generalize the attitude of the cab drivers, but most of the "close calls" I've had with vehicles are with taxis. One of them cut right in front of me into the bus-only (except for bicycles) lane and stopped to drop off his fare. No turn signal.

One wonders where this man got the idea from that cyclists do not have the right to be on the road, unlike cabdrivers. Au contraire, cyclists have more right to be on the road than any driver:

1. Drivers need a licence, cyclists do not
2. Vehicles need to be taxed, cycles do not
3. drivers need public liability insurance, cyclists do not
4. Motor vehicles need an annual mechanical check (all US states?) cycles do not.

In other words, there is no bar on any cyclist going on the road, whereas drivers must fulfil a number of legal requirements before doing so. Ergo, cyclists have more right to be on the road.

This varies from state to state, or even from county to county in the state. I'd also suspect it's more like just emission test rather than (more comprehensive) mechanical checkup. In the county I lived until last month, we are only required to take an emission test every 5 years.

Don't confuse regulatory issues with rights issues.

I'm very happy to leave it that cyclists have equal rights to the road.

In any case, let's recognize political theater for what it is. This is a classic case of blame shifting, trying to set up a "he provoked me" defense. I doubt anyone will buy it. No matter how the cyclist might have provoked the driver (yet to be shown), I doubt they can show that he reached through the window and pushed the gas pedal.

IMO the driver and taxi union would do much better with the simple, "my foot slipped" defense. At least it might create reasonable doubt. OTOH, the slipped defense is best set up early on. Claiming it later isn't as credible.

Where did the 22 arrests for the bike rider come from?
Is it true?
If so how in the world did the a bike rider get arrested 22 times?
Sounds impossible-hey he is on a bike in a crowded city-how would he even get caught 22 times?
Anyway-any truth to the 22 ARRESTS?

If this provokes enough outrage and calls for legislation, a logical law would be to require that all new for hire vehicles (taxis, limos and buses) be equipped with crash prevention systems and so-called blackbox data recorders.

These systems are in their earlier stages, and there's no way of knowing how effective they'll be. But what better laboratory for testing than the streets of our cities? There's no need for an expensive retrofit requirement since fleet turnover is high enough that they'd be on all cars in a few years if we started now. Both systems are already available as options on many cars, and even standard on high end models, so no great hardship would be involved if mandated.

In the initial article witnesses described the cyclist being thrown up on the hood of the speeding cab before hitting the woman. So how does that jibe with the cyclist hitting the back and side of a cab, "panicking" the driver?

Furthermore, operation of a commercial vehicle is a highly revocable privilege, whereas the right to free private use of public roadway is the permanent enjoyment of free people.

Its not free, roads are paid for by taxes, almost no one completely escapes the tax man for their entire life.

It's not permanent, it can be revoked for bad behavior including but not limited too being knowingly negligent and reckless with no regard for the lives, health, and property of others.

You are correct though that commercial drives are and should be held to a higher standard of conduct.



As to the actual base topic of this thread, the taxi federation, its leader, and apparently many of its members are human trash and shouldn't be allowed to drive any full size vehicle on the public roadways much less drive one for a living.

Yes: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/c...GDmYbkg3nggpzL Just not for cycling offences. So let's not get too carried away with the cabbie's sole responsibility for this appalling tragedy

I think Chief meant free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.

Until someone shows me who else pressed the gas pedal, I'll still believe the cab driver has primary responsibility. It might be different if someone pointed a gun at him, but anyone who panics because of a bike messenger, other driver, pedestrian or even a tiger outside his closed window shouldn't be driving in NYC, much less doing so for hire.

(a) Some of us pay virtually no taxes; most of our taxation being sales tax on ordinary consumption. With no income, and no property ownership, an individual's tax contribution might be quite insignificant over a lifetime. Yet they have the same rights to free travel as the most heavily taxed individual. Therefore, there is NO correlation between taxation, and the right to travel on public roadway. Imagine your own personal miles being limited by some arbitrary proof of tax payments!

(b) Yes, reckless behavior can lead to revocation of the licensed privilege to operate a motor vehicle; but one may still continue to travel freely on the roadway using human powered vehicles. Unless imprisoned for crimes (perhaps with an ankle bracelet), the right to travel remains permanent. Thanks be to the bicycle!

(c) Exactly...they (commercial operators) are personally profiting from the same roadway that we rely on for our own private freedom of movement. They have no rights to delay, obstruct, endanger, or otherwise hinder my progress to my destination (I believe their use of the road is sub-ordinate to mine).

Hopefully, NY lawmakers can open their eyes to light of logic, and properly serve the public....

atbman
Thanks for the link.
YIKES- the guy who happened to be riding the bike-
IS A FULL TIME VIOLENT THUG-
kicks dogs?? threatens to decapitate people?? and he is loose??
After reading that-sure explains why the cabbie panicked-
sure hope bike community isn't backing this POS??

"You don’t know who you are messing with! I will stab you! I will decapitate you! I will kill you and your family!” Kenneth Olivo, 40, allegedly snarled in a McDonald’s at 545 Sixth Ave. on April 28."

The above is what he plead to-so anyone who sees him as a victim-is a fool-just ONE of his 22 arrests!
He was most certainly menacing this cabbie-it is what he does-and has been arrested for.
Cabbie pissed in his pants-panicked.

Cabbie wasn't in the McDonalds, and yes he did panic, but he's the one driving the car. I have no love for the street person who might have made him panic (if we believe the Cabbie's version), but my only sympathy here goes to the victim who lost her leg because a cabbie couldn't control his vehicle.

Provocation might go to the debate between criminal act or accident, but the cabbie will labe a very long row to how before he can convince me that he wasn't primarily at fault.

FNinNY
I was unclear-the quote was from his recent conviction.
He-the bike rider-isn't a street person-he apparently employed as a messenger-
but has a sideline being a low life thug-read his rap sheet-
it is filled with intimidation-forcing folks to give him a free ride "free swipe??" at the subways
Yeah he is a low life-scared the cabbie spit-less and the cabbie panicked
The guys was screaming something at him-probably in the same vein as what he was convicted of "decapitate kill family etc"
No surprise. The cabbie isn't some commando-just some poor immigrant trying to make a living.

You guys just don't want to blame the thug because he was described as a bike rider-
many here also reflexively blame drivers -hate drivers despite being drivers.

Gee, who to hate/fear the most: a low-level thug who likes to issue empty threats or a person who uses a ton of steel as a weapon in an attempt to maim/kill others? Decisions, decisions.