Taxi Federation Calls for Strict Bicycle Laws After Bloody Midtown Crash
08-26-13, 01:45 PM
#51
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
FBinNY
Your words
"In his own words he couldn't hear what the cyclist was yelling at him because he had the window up."
His actual words- hint "barely"
"I had my windows up and my A/C on. I could barely hear what he was saying."
Simple- being a foreigner means he won't know that NYNY bike messengers are known to make outrageous threats-and displays of fake violence-beating on cars snarling etc-but they generally don't follow thru-
a local would be aware of that-non native especially a foreigner-would have no idea that it is all show(most of the time)-
Foreigner won't know this-you-from NY state- would-right?
I didn't suggest that panicking excused him-his insurance is certainly on the hook
panicking not admirable, but understandable.
The bike riding thug-yeah he will get off the hook-but judging from past behavior he had a hand in this outcome-no victim-convicted thug!!
Your words
"In his own words he couldn't hear what the cyclist was yelling at him because he had the window up."
His actual words- hint "barely"
"I had my windows up and my A/C on. I could barely hear what he was saying."
Simple- being a foreigner means he won't know that NYNY bike messengers are known to make outrageous threats-and displays of fake violence-beating on cars snarling etc-but they generally don't follow thru-
a local would be aware of that-non native especially a foreigner-would have no idea that it is all show(most of the time)-
Foreigner won't know this-you-from NY state- would-right?
I didn't suggest that panicking excused him-his insurance is certainly on the hook
panicking not admirable, but understandable.
The bike riding thug-yeah he will get off the hook-but judging from past behavior he had a hand in this outcome-no victim-convicted thug!!
Last edited by phoebeisis; 08-26-13 at 01:52 PM.
08-26-13, 04:43 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
[QUOTE=FBinNY;15997114]
I'm not confusing regulatory issues with rights issues. A driver does not have a right to be on the road, but must jump thro' regulatory hoops in order to be on the road. A cyclist has the right to be on the road because there are no rules to stop him from being on the road (most freeways excepted). The law cannot even ban a cyclist from riding on the highway AFAIK, even if s/he breaks the law
We don't. In the UK or the US, for the reasons outlined above, our right to be on the road is superior.
Don't confuse regulatory issues with rights issues.
I'm very happy to leave it that cyclists have equal rights to the road.
08-26-13, 07:30 PM
#53
Transportation Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbo1889
(a) Its not free, roads are paid for by taxes, almost no one completely escapes the tax man for their entire life.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(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....
(a) My point is that "There Is No Such Thing As a Free Lunch". Roads are not free, somehow they have to be paid for and they are paid for by tax dollars collectively. There is no specific tax that only covers automobile use that covers the cost of the roads completely and only the cost of roads. Anyone that ever pays a cent in taxes helped pay for the roads in some small part. Almost no-one ever escapes the tax man for their entire life, this is a very important point for all road users to understand.
(b) Even rights as defined in the very foundational documents of our the our nation (I'm talking U.S.A.) are neither absolute nor permanent. Based on bad behavior proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial even the most basic right of all, the right to life itself can be forfeited by an individual. The concept of "rights" is that government and society as a whole is forbidden from unilaterally depriving the people as a whole of any specific right. I will use the right to bear arms encoded in the 2nd amendment as an example. Not because I want to discuss guns and gun rights but rather because guns like cars are dangerous machines that can either be purposely used to murder another individual or through negligence and careless use can also kill, maim, injure, and do damage to property. They are both kinetic energy weapons. By the "right" which is codified (law doesn't make a right, law merely acknowledges it in writing) government can't take everyone's guns away or take everyone's cars away or forbid the lawful use of either.
However, specific individuals who have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they cannot be trusted with such dangerous machines can be denied both their use and possession. For example if you use a gun to commit a string of armed robberies after they catch you and you serve your jail term when they let you out it is now standard procedure in our society to also specify that by your actions you have given up part of your rights and you can no longer own, posses, or use a gun even if you do so for lawful purposes. The same although done less often is true of cars, there are some people that based on their horrific actions with cars are forbidden from ever owning or driving one ever again in their lifetime and justifiably so and I wish they would apply that standard as strictly as they do with guns.
The analogy can be taken a step further. How about the common but still potentially deadly kitchen knife? Without a specific court order otherwise even convinced gun felons can legaly own, posses, and use those. How about the human powered vehicle less dangerous then a car but still potentially deadly, especially to pedestrians if operated recklessly known as a bicycle? Without a specific court order otherwise even a driver that has been specifically banned from every owning or driving a car again in their lifetime can have and ride on of those on the public roadways.
I know there are some people who are under specific court order to not own or posses any weapon of any kind even a freaking kitchen knife. I think they should probably not be out of jail but they are and that is the level of restriction that they have earned by their deeds and how far they have gone to forfeit their "rights" which started out with them being able to own guns.
How about bicycle vehicles? Lets say you have someone who starts out driving cars and kills and injures a lot of people and he is such a bad case that he gets he ends up being forbidden to ever own or drive a car again. So he switches to a bike and then starts riding the bike recklessly and causing collisions including collisions with other cyclists and even running down pedestrians. Finally he ends up killing another person with the bike. Has he or has he not made it clear that he can't even be trusted with a bicycle and is or is not a specific court order not well in line at a bare minimum for this guy that from now on he is either on foot or a passenger and will never be operating any vehicle of any kind ********** And, yes, there really are people that are that big of @%$^#%&%#& @^%@&%#& $^%&& !%$$ and for the protection of the basic rights of others and societal order itself you have to take them all the way down to the bottom row, and not just when it comes to operating potentially dangerous vehicle machines around others where other people could be hurt if they are reckless. There are plenty of other areas of life where you would find people that are no more trustworthy and can't any more responsibility then a 2-year old child and someone has to deal with them.
No right is ever completely absolute on an individual level. Individuals can forfeit any and every right if they push it far enough, and some of them will. Just the nature of the human creature.
08-26-13, 09:07 PM
#54
24-Speed Machine
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
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?
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?
08-26-13, 09:34 PM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,725
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5793 Post(s)
Liked 2,584 Times
in
1,432 Posts
....
Simple- being a foreigner means he won't know that NYNY bike messengers are known to make outrageous threats-and displays of fake violence-beating on cars snarling etc-but they generally don't follow thru-
a local would be aware of that-non native especially a foreigner-would have no idea that it is all show(most of the time)-
Foreigner won't know this-you-from NY state- would-right?
Simple- being a foreigner means he won't know that NYNY bike messengers are known to make outrageous threats-and displays of fake violence-beating on cars snarling etc-but they generally don't follow thru-
a local would be aware of that-non native especially a foreigner-would have no idea that it is all show(most of the time)-
Foreigner won't know this-you-from NY state- would-right?
BTW- I was never one of the "hang-em high" brigade, and reserved judgement as to whether this was a road rage or a panicked driver incident. But at the very least the driver is responsible for his actions.
Now was the cyclist also partly responsible as an instigator, possibly since it usually takes two to tango. But the "the Devil made me do it" defence doesn't wash as far as I'm concerned.
All the side issues are by way of explanation, which is fine, and might prevent or cause criminal charges, but an explanation isn't necessarily an excuse.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
08-26-13, 10:05 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,248
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
48 Posts
As I understand, this is a case of an unlawful operation of a motor vehicle resulting in a severe injury. This leads to my question; how are we even hearing from this cab driver?
Is he being interviewed in jail?
(in all seriousness, I can not open any of the links to the articles; can someone PM me a copy of the article?)
Is he being interviewed in jail?
(in all seriousness, I can not open any of the links to the articles; can someone PM me a copy of the article?)
Last edited by Robert C; 08-27-13 at 01:18 AM.
08-27-13, 04:55 AM
#57
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
FBinNY
Of course the driver is responsible, but the degree of responsibility
1) Money responsible-"Lawsuit responsible"
or 2) Criminal responsible-"jail responsible"
If the thug had brandished a serious weapon-he didn't or we would have heard of it-he might be completely off the hook.
Does this driver have any violent history? Three years-some of it driving a cab-if he is predisposed toward road rage there might be some history?
Our "innocent bike rider" has PLENTY of history that indicates his propensities. To get arrested 22 times?- he established his bone fides as a nickel and dime thug with little interest in changing.He steals SMALL and threatens violence over NOTHING- he is....
This is EXACTLY the sort of bad ending folks like this precipitate.He isn't finished.
Of course the driver is responsible, but the degree of responsibility
1) Money responsible-"Lawsuit responsible"
or 2) Criminal responsible-"jail responsible"
If the thug had brandished a serious weapon-he didn't or we would have heard of it-he might be completely off the hook.
Does this driver have any violent history? Three years-some of it driving a cab-if he is predisposed toward road rage there might be some history?
Our "innocent bike rider" has PLENTY of history that indicates his propensities. To get arrested 22 times?- he established his bone fides as a nickel and dime thug with little interest in changing.He steals SMALL and threatens violence over NOTHING- he is....
This is EXACTLY the sort of bad ending folks like this precipitate.He isn't finished.
08-27-13, 05:40 AM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northeast United States
Posts: 1,147
Bikes: Tarmac, Focus Urban 8, Giant Hybrid
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If we look at the histories of both individuals - they got hot with each other and one ended up permanently altering the life of an innocent person. I see these dramas occur on a almost everyday basis here in the Big Crapple. Not to this magnitude, but similar. People get fed up with each very easily in this town and end up taking it out on each other. From the surface one is more at fault than the other.
When I have to commute, or go out in public I have to be very cognizant of the people and environment around me. This type of hyper-vigilance gets exhausting and probably for someone like a cabbie, or messenger who are constantly bombarded by negative stimuli - the reactions / actions may be way out of proportion.
When I have to commute, or go out in public I have to be very cognizant of the people and environment around me. This type of hyper-vigilance gets exhausting and probably for someone like a cabbie, or messenger who are constantly bombarded by negative stimuli - the reactions / actions may be way out of proportion.
08-27-13, 04:33 PM
#59
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Essex
Safe bet they are both a bit twitchy.
Does the cabbie have any violent history- folks saying "that cabbie tried to run me over"
Usually after something like this horror show-
the negative stuff comes out-as it did for the 22 arrests "I'm going to cut your head off" guy on the bike
Safe bet they are both a bit twitchy.
Does the cabbie have any violent history- folks saying "that cabbie tried to run me over"
Usually after something like this horror show-
the negative stuff comes out-as it did for the 22 arrests "I'm going to cut your head off" guy on the bike
08-27-13, 05:40 PM
#60
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Just an observation: as far as we have been told by the news articles, most, if not all, of what are on the cyclist's rap sheet are not traffic-related, so a stricter bicycle law as demanded by the Taxi Federation might not have prevented this accident; whereas, most, if not all, of what we have been told about the cabbie are traffic violations, which have direct impact on traffic safety. The cabbie may not be a violent man like the cyclist, but as far as road safety is concerned, he is highly responsible.
(by the way, FYI, "Himon, a native of Bangladesh who has been in the United States for nearly five years...", from the above linked interview article)
(by the way, FYI, "Himon, a native of Bangladesh who has been in the United States for nearly five years...", from the above linked interview article)
Last edited by vol; 08-27-13 at 05:43 PM.
08-27-13, 06:25 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Northeast United States
Posts: 1,147
Bikes: Tarmac, Focus Urban 8, Giant Hybrid
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Essex
Safe bet they are both a bit twitchy.
Does the cabbie have any violent history- folks saying "that cabbie tried to run me over"
Usually after something like this horror show-
the negative stuff comes out-as it did for the 22 arrests "I'm going to cut your head off" guy on the bike
Safe bet they are both a bit twitchy.
Does the cabbie have any violent history- folks saying "that cabbie tried to run me over"
Usually after something like this horror show-
the negative stuff comes out-as it did for the 22 arrests "I'm going to cut your head off" guy on the bike
08-27-13, 07:02 PM
#62
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
The Taxis Federation stuff-kinda odd??
Do the taxis guys have some long standing beef with bike messengers in NYNY ?
Seems odd that they would choose this episode to make their case with the public?
Is that it-bike messengers and cabbies at one anothers throats?
You would think they could find a better case-maybe a messengers weaving in and out of traffic-T-boning some oldster-child??
Do the taxis guys have some long standing beef with bike messengers in NYNY ?
Seems odd that they would choose this episode to make their case with the public?
Is that it-bike messengers and cabbies at one anothers throats?
You would think they could find a better case-maybe a messengers weaving in and out of traffic-T-boning some oldster-child??
08-27-13, 07:48 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, the leafy NW side
Posts: 2,479
Bikes: 1974 Motobecane Grand Record, 1987 Miyata Pro, 1988 Bob Jackson Lady Mixte (wife's), others in the family
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked 155 Times
in
79 Posts
The Taxis Federation stuff-kinda odd??
Do the taxis guys have some long standing beef with bike messengers in NYNY ?
Seems odd that they would choose this episode to make their case with the public?
Is that it-bike messengers and cabbies at one anothers throats?
You would think they could find a better case-maybe a messengers weaving in and out of traffic-T-boning some oldster-child??
Do the taxis guys have some long standing beef with bike messengers in NYNY ?
Seems odd that they would choose this episode to make their case with the public?
Is that it-bike messengers and cabbies at one anothers throats?
You would think they could find a better case-maybe a messengers weaving in and out of traffic-T-boning some oldster-child??
Have you been to NYC?
__________________
I never think I have hit hard, unless it rebounds.
- Dr Samuel Johnson
I never think I have hit hard, unless it rebounds.
- Dr Samuel Johnson
Last edited by Chicago Al; 08-27-13 at 08:11 PM.
08-27-13, 08:08 PM
#64
Fat Guy on a Little Bike
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,944
Bikes: Two wheeled ones
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1254 Post(s)
Liked 345 Times
in
174 Posts
Center City Philly is the same in principle, just less intense in magnitude. Cabbies are frequently hyper aggressive and don't like cyclists, messengers ride like Dominoes pizza drivers in the 30 minutes or it's free days and pedestrians think all traffic user right of way should default to them in all situations. It's a pain, people yell and some get hurt on occasion. The worst groups are the peds and sidewalk cyclists.
08-28-13, 05:22 AM
#65
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Thanks snake chicago
So plenty of friction-for a long time
I've been to NYNY- but not since 1959
Yeah it was crowded then- seem to remember delivery bikes-groceries-on sidewalks in Manhattan
Philadelphia -same story-1958 or so and delivery bikes rode on sidewalk
Still seems odd that the cabbie association would go to bat on this episode-
the bike rider -maybe argue he should be in jail-but it had little to do with the bike-
So plenty of friction-for a long time
I've been to NYNY- but not since 1959
Yeah it was crowded then- seem to remember delivery bikes-groceries-on sidewalks in Manhattan
Philadelphia -same story-1958 or so and delivery bikes rode on sidewalk
Still seems odd that the cabbie association would go to bat on this episode-
the bike rider -maybe argue he should be in jail-but it had little to do with the bike-
08-28-13, 10:36 AM
#66
Fat Guy on a Little Bike
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 15,944
Bikes: Two wheeled ones
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1254 Post(s)
Liked 345 Times
in
174 Posts
FBIinNY is exactly right - it's a distraction/scape goat, it has no basis in reality. Blame someone else, yell...try to obfuscate. Ultimately you're responsible for your own actions.
I absolutely detest sidewalk riders...nothing would make me happier than jamming a silca into their front wheel. I don't get to do that because we have rules. I also don't get to go on a rage because of a sidewalk cyclist, punch a cab driver and say the biker made me do it.
I absolutely detest sidewalk riders...nothing would make me happier than jamming a silca into their front wheel. I don't get to do that because we have rules. I also don't get to go on a rage because of a sidewalk cyclist, punch a cab driver and say the biker made me do it.
08-28-13, 12:11 PM
#67
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
It is an odd episode to use to champion "bike messengers break laws need to be regulated"
Yeah-an episode where a bike rider cut in front of a cab-the cab swerved-caused an accident-that would be the case I would use.
This one-??? the cabbies must have a low rent shill-should have told the cabbie to shut up except for the "so sorry etc"
Yeah-an episode where a bike rider cut in front of a cab-the cab swerved-caused an accident-that would be the case I would use.
This one-??? the cabbies must have a low rent shill-should have told the cabbie to shut up except for the "so sorry etc"
08-28-13, 01:12 PM
#68
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 379
Bikes: SR, Bianchi, Raleigh, Bertin, Kona, Schwinn, Eisentraut, Zunow, Columbine, Naked, Nishiki, Phillips, Specialized, Giant
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
(a) My point is that "There Is No Such Thing As a Free Lunch". Roads are not free, somehow they have to be paid for and they are paid for by tax dollars collectively. There is no specific tax that only covers automobile use that covers the cost of the roads completely and only the cost of roads. Anyone that ever pays a cent in taxes helped pay for the roads in some small part. Almost no-one ever escapes the tax man for their entire life, this is a very important point for all road users to understand.
(b) Even rights as defined in the very foundational documents of our the our nation (I'm talking U.S.A.) are neither absolute nor permanent. Based on bad behavior proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial even the most basic right of all, the right to life itself can be forfeited by an individual. The concept of "rights" is that government and society as a whole is forbidden from unilaterally depriving the people as a whole of any specific right. I will use the right to bear arms encoded in the 2nd amendment as an example. Not because I want to discuss guns and gun rights but rather because guns like cars are dangerous machines that can either be purposely used to murder another individual or through negligence and careless use can also kill, maim, injure, and do damage to property. They are both kinetic energy weapons. By the "right" which is codified (law doesn't make a right, law merely acknowledges it in writing) government can't take everyone's guns away or take everyone's cars away or forbid the lawful use of either.
However, specific individuals who have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they cannot be trusted with such dangerous machines can be denied both their use and possession. For example if you use a gun to commit a string of armed robberies after they catch you and you serve your jail term when they let you out it is now standard procedure in our society to also specify that by your actions you have given up part of your rights and you can no longer own, posses, or use a gun even if you do so for lawful purposes. The same although done less often is true of cars, there are some people that based on their horrific actions with cars are forbidden from ever owning or driving one ever again in their lifetime and justifiably so and I wish they would apply that standard as strictly as they do with guns.
The analogy can be taken a step further. How about the common but still potentially deadly kitchen knife? Without a specific court order otherwise even convinced gun felons can legaly own, posses, and use those. How about the human powered vehicle less dangerous then a car but still potentially deadly, especially to pedestrians if operated recklessly known as a bicycle? Without a specific court order otherwise even a driver that has been specifically banned from every owning or driving a car again in their lifetime can have and ride on of those on the public roadways.
I know there are some people who are under specific court order to not own or posses any weapon of any kind even a freaking kitchen knife. I think they should probably not be out of jail but they are and that is the level of restriction that they have earned by their deeds and how far they have gone to forfeit their "rights" which started out with them being able to own guns.
How about bicycle vehicles? Lets say you have someone who starts out driving cars and kills and injures a lot of people and he is such a bad case that he gets he ends up being forbidden to ever own or drive a car again. So he switches to a bike and then starts riding the bike recklessly and causing collisions including collisions with other cyclists and even running down pedestrians. Finally he ends up killing another person with the bike. Has he or has he not made it clear that he can't even be trusted with a bicycle and is or is not a specific court order not well in line at a bare minimum for this guy that from now on he is either on foot or a passenger and will never be operating any vehicle of any kind ********** And, yes, there really are people that are that big of @%$^#%&%#& @^%@&%#& $^%&& !%$$ and for the protection of the basic rights of others and societal order itself you have to take them all the way down to the bottom row, and not just when it comes to operating potentially dangerous vehicle machines around others where other people could be hurt if they are reckless. There are plenty of other areas of life where you would find people that are no more trustworthy and can't any more responsibility then a 2-year old child and someone has to deal with them.
No right is ever completely absolute on an individual level. Individuals can forfeit any and every right if they push it far enough, and some of them will. Just the nature of the human creature.
(b) Even rights as defined in the very foundational documents of our the our nation (I'm talking U.S.A.) are neither absolute nor permanent. Based on bad behavior proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial even the most basic right of all, the right to life itself can be forfeited by an individual. The concept of "rights" is that government and society as a whole is forbidden from unilaterally depriving the people as a whole of any specific right. I will use the right to bear arms encoded in the 2nd amendment as an example. Not because I want to discuss guns and gun rights but rather because guns like cars are dangerous machines that can either be purposely used to murder another individual or through negligence and careless use can also kill, maim, injure, and do damage to property. They are both kinetic energy weapons. By the "right" which is codified (law doesn't make a right, law merely acknowledges it in writing) government can't take everyone's guns away or take everyone's cars away or forbid the lawful use of either.
However, specific individuals who have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they cannot be trusted with such dangerous machines can be denied both their use and possession. For example if you use a gun to commit a string of armed robberies after they catch you and you serve your jail term when they let you out it is now standard procedure in our society to also specify that by your actions you have given up part of your rights and you can no longer own, posses, or use a gun even if you do so for lawful purposes. The same although done less often is true of cars, there are some people that based on their horrific actions with cars are forbidden from ever owning or driving one ever again in their lifetime and justifiably so and I wish they would apply that standard as strictly as they do with guns.
The analogy can be taken a step further. How about the common but still potentially deadly kitchen knife? Without a specific court order otherwise even convinced gun felons can legaly own, posses, and use those. How about the human powered vehicle less dangerous then a car but still potentially deadly, especially to pedestrians if operated recklessly known as a bicycle? Without a specific court order otherwise even a driver that has been specifically banned from every owning or driving a car again in their lifetime can have and ride on of those on the public roadways.
I know there are some people who are under specific court order to not own or posses any weapon of any kind even a freaking kitchen knife. I think they should probably not be out of jail but they are and that is the level of restriction that they have earned by their deeds and how far they have gone to forfeit their "rights" which started out with them being able to own guns.
How about bicycle vehicles? Lets say you have someone who starts out driving cars and kills and injures a lot of people and he is such a bad case that he gets he ends up being forbidden to ever own or drive a car again. So he switches to a bike and then starts riding the bike recklessly and causing collisions including collisions with other cyclists and even running down pedestrians. Finally he ends up killing another person with the bike. Has he or has he not made it clear that he can't even be trusted with a bicycle and is or is not a specific court order not well in line at a bare minimum for this guy that from now on he is either on foot or a passenger and will never be operating any vehicle of any kind ********** And, yes, there really are people that are that big of @%$^#%&%#& @^%@&%#& $^%&& !%$$ and for the protection of the basic rights of others and societal order itself you have to take them all the way down to the bottom row, and not just when it comes to operating potentially dangerous vehicle machines around others where other people could be hurt if they are reckless. There are plenty of other areas of life where you would find people that are no more trustworthy and can't any more responsibility then a 2-year old child and someone has to deal with them.
No right is ever completely absolute on an individual level. Individuals can forfeit any and every right if they push it far enough, and some of them will. Just the nature of the human creature.
(a) Yes, there is no free lunch when it comes to benefits put in place by the gov’t (at all levels). However, my freedom to travel has NO relation to how much of my wealth ended up in a gov’t coffer.
All of us use parks, roads, libraries, civil protection, and other public amenities without having to show proof of tax filings (e.g. I can freely use the public library in your hometown, thought I have not paid a cent of tax to your city). It’s not a “pay for play” system (thankfully).
That’s why it sounds so comical when motorists whine about cyclists & insist that we have no rights to the road because we don’t pay taxes. Of course cyclists don’t, no one pays taxes to use the road (except commercial operators)
The premise of the motorists’ complaint is as absurd as trying to quibble over how much national defense each person earns based on their tax contributions!
(b) As long as I behave in a civil manner, respecting the same rights of others, my rights are not up for negotiation. In that regard, I should expect my rights to remain intact indefinitely.
You give examples of individuals who have forfeited some rights due to their actions, so yes, that means our rights are subject to suspension on an individual basis. As a group, cyclists cannot have rights suspended in knee-jerk fashion, and are therefore permanent. As long as I am not wrongfully convicted (another topic altogether), I should not have to consider my rights as temporary.
You also give examples of silly (wrong) gov’t awarded restrictions. Although the right to own a knife is not a given, it is a basic right to be able to feed ourselves. How is the man to cut his food? And just how would his ban on knives be enforced?
Has there ever been anyone banned from operating a bicycle? Wouldn’t they just be incarcerated if they are a menace to others?
So yes, our rights to various things in life can be justly ( and unjustly) revoked.
And on that note, I'd like to apologize for driving the thread topic into a ditch!
08-28-13, 01:16 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,725
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5793 Post(s)
Liked 2,584 Times
in
1,432 Posts
(sorry, I just couldn't resist)
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
08-28-13, 03:29 PM
#70
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Turbo… very thoughtful and passionate response. You & I are not disagreeing; maybe we see two different realities.
(a) Yes, there is no free lunch when it comes to benefits put in place by the gov’t (at all levels). However, my freedom to travel has NO relation to how much of my wealth ended up in a gov’t coffer.
All of us use parks, roads, libraries, civil protection, and other public amenities without having to show proof of tax filings (e.g. I can freely use the public library in your hometown, thought I have not paid a cent of tax to your city). It’s not a “pay for play” system (thankfully).
That’s why it sounds so comical when motorists whine about cyclists & insist that we have no rights to the road because we don’t pay taxes. Of course cyclists don’t, no one pays taxes to use the road (except commercial operators)
The premise of the motorists’ complaint is as absurd as trying to quibble over how much national defense each person earns based on their tax contributions!
(a) Yes, there is no free lunch when it comes to benefits put in place by the gov’t (at all levels). However, my freedom to travel has NO relation to how much of my wealth ended up in a gov’t coffer.
All of us use parks, roads, libraries, civil protection, and other public amenities without having to show proof of tax filings (e.g. I can freely use the public library in your hometown, thought I have not paid a cent of tax to your city). It’s not a “pay for play” system (thankfully).
That’s why it sounds so comical when motorists whine about cyclists & insist that we have no rights to the road because we don’t pay taxes. Of course cyclists don’t, no one pays taxes to use the road (except commercial operators)
The premise of the motorists’ complaint is as absurd as trying to quibble over how much national defense each person earns based on their tax contributions!
IMO, Turbo didn't talk about the specific freedom to travel being set apart from taxes, because it's so BASIC to the question, but I'm still glad you added it.
Chuck Hagel needs you two as advisors, LOL!
08-28-13, 05:41 PM
#71
Transportation Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Posts: 1,206
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
@ Chief
The guy I had the unfortunate experience of being a co-worker with was the one I know of who wasn't even allowed to have a kitchen knife by specific court order. He had done a string of armed robberies with a hand-gun and had gone to jail for that and after finishing most of his sentence they let him out on probation and after a month or two of being out he pulled another hold up only used a big kitchen knife instead of a gun. So he went back to jail to finish his original sentence and his new time for the knife hold-up concurrently and when he finished his time out in full when they let him back out there was a specific court order issues that he wasn't allowed to have any weapon of any kind including even a kitchen knife or they would send him back in for more time.
From my experience with him it was well warranted and I think they should have just locked him up and thrown away the key. He was one of those individuals that had a net negative contribution to society. What some people call "a waste of oxygen".
------------------------
Anyway, the main reason I responded to your original post is because it came across as a claim to a "free right" that never cost anything and could never be taken away under any circumstances.
Life don't work that way, and thinking that and having that kind of attitude (which you personally upon deeper discussion don't seem to have although the initial post kind of looked like it) is a good first step towards pushing things so far out that you can end up forfeit your rights.
The guy I had the unfortunate experience of being a co-worker with was the one I know of who wasn't even allowed to have a kitchen knife by specific court order. He had done a string of armed robberies with a hand-gun and had gone to jail for that and after finishing most of his sentence they let him out on probation and after a month or two of being out he pulled another hold up only used a big kitchen knife instead of a gun. So he went back to jail to finish his original sentence and his new time for the knife hold-up concurrently and when he finished his time out in full when they let him back out there was a specific court order issues that he wasn't allowed to have any weapon of any kind including even a kitchen knife or they would send him back in for more time.
From my experience with him it was well warranted and I think they should have just locked him up and thrown away the key. He was one of those individuals that had a net negative contribution to society. What some people call "a waste of oxygen".
------------------------
Anyway, the main reason I responded to your original post is because it came across as a claim to a "free right" that never cost anything and could never be taken away under any circumstances.
Life don't work that way, and thinking that and having that kind of attitude (which you personally upon deeper discussion don't seem to have although the initial post kind of looked like it) is a good first step towards pushing things so far out that you can end up forfeit your rights.
08-29-13, 07:37 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
HERE is another NY Post report.
Quote:
"He has seven points,” Mateo said. “If he pays $1,000 fine he can work until he has 10 points. The federation and its 28,000 workers will not allow his license to be revoked.”
“There’s a lot of pressure and demands on drivers. There are drivers that are irresponsible but that isn’t the case here.”
“This young man has a family to support,” Mateo said. “If he can find another job, great. If not, he should be allowed to drive a cab."
Quote:
"He has seven points,” Mateo said. “If he pays $1,000 fine he can work until he has 10 points. The federation and its 28,000 workers will not allow his license to be revoked.”
“There’s a lot of pressure and demands on drivers. There are drivers that are irresponsible but that isn’t the case here.”
“This young man has a family to support,” Mateo said. “If he can find another job, great. If not, he should be allowed to drive a cab."
08-29-13, 07:48 AM
#73
Banned
08-29-13, 08:04 AM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
“He was in my way and I got upset, so I gave him notice that I wanted to pass through,” he said, meaning he leaned on his horn.
“He started pounding on my car with his hands and was yelling things at me. I suddenly felt like I had to get out of there. It was becoming a bad situation. So I accelerated to get in front of him.”
The cab driver admits he started the confrontation by "he said, meaning he leaned on his horn" so how can he use the cyclist road rage as an excuse?
“He started pounding on my car with his hands and was yelling things at me. I suddenly felt like I had to get out of there. It was becoming a bad situation. So I accelerated to get in front of him.”
The cab driver admits he started the confrontation by "he said, meaning he leaned on his horn" so how can he use the cyclist road rage as an excuse?
08-29-13, 08:09 AM
#75
Banned