Bicyclist assaults NYPD officer

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry to see "skeptics" so quick to rush and judge here.

This is just like truthers who make snap judgements about videos that don't show the entire picture, before they know all the facts, based on preconcieved notions.

We are just seeing a small part of this entire thing. We do not know what this person did off camera before that.

The fact that some are willing to watch a 1:10 video that may be the tail end of who knows what other activities, and rush to proclaim the cop a piece of garbage and needing of dismisal is incredibly reactionary and demonstrates bias held against police in general. I'm shocked at some of you. Let's wait for the facts and evidence. This quick assumption of guilt is insanely over the top and reactionary and biased.

Whoever watches this and doesn't think the cop is automatically guilty is somehow an idiot? How can any critical thinker rush to that conclusion on a short video that could be part of a much greater sequence of events? Maybe what we see is exactly what it is, and if so, I agree the cop should be fired. But to just see this little snippet, assume it contains all details, all facts, and is completely worty of interpetation on it's on, without any other extenuating circumstances or evidence, is a ridiculous rush to judgement.

And you are the good skeptic ignoreing the police officers clearly inaccurate report? Why are you ignoreing that what the police officer arrested the person for is clearly not what happened? That any supposed reason that the officer had for his actions was not mentioned in the report, instead the officer decided to lie and say that the biker intentionaly ramed him.

Good skeptic's clearly ignore evidence that doesn't fit their views I see.

I have said and so have others that the video is not damning in and of itself, but the video combined with the officers report of the event are damning.

 

[Piggy]

I swear, what we did turned some people's minds around a full 360 degrees!

I absolutely agree that you most likely changed everyone's opinion a full 360 degrees. No argument there.

I think we can probably agree that there are some times, some places, where certain causes would justify a degree of civil disobedience and disruption, if not outright rebellion. Is annoying some people by making them a few minutes late worth the starry-eyed hopes of getting one more bike lane?

Crashing lunch counters and staging bus boycotts in an effort to end racial segregation. Yeah, that's worth civil disruption.

But clogging the streets in an effort to get people to support spending tax money to do a favor for cyclists? Tell me, has that actually worked anywhere?

 

[Smackety]

The streets are already clogged...

 

[jimbob]

Yes. It is illegal to block in intersection, this is anti gridlock laws.

We, And according to wiki (New York amongst others) have "box junctions" where this is the case. Often seems more honoured by the breach than the observance...

 

[Molinaro]

I've been in a handfull of critical mass rides here in Toronto.

I was a bike courier from 1995 through 1999. The rides would take place starting at 5pm on the last Friday of the month.

Here in Toronto, the Police approved way to mass-ride is as follows:

- if the head of the pack of riders approaches a red light, the entire pack stops and waits for a green.
- if a light turns red while the pack is crossing, the entire pack continues until all have crossed.


Where problems seem to arrise, in my annectodatal experiences, is that some people think that if you inch forward a little bit at a time, it's ok to bump into a bike with your car. It's mindboggling how often I saw someone do just that.

And that is when the pack mentality takes over a the car gets swarmed by a small minority of the riders.

The riders making up a mass-ride are very diverse in their makeup. Even among the couriers you end up with a great deal of diversity. The spectrum stretches from people who were squiggy kids last week, to racers who see the job as training time. By racers I mean everything from people who race in off road mountain bike races, to road races, to fix gear track racing.
Among the non-couriers you get weekend riders, with their kids. And you get a great many commuting 'suits'.

The one thing that I learned when I was a courier was that you cannot generalize about bike couriers. There is just as much diversity among them as there are among any group of people. I got to meet a bunch of them from around the world also, during the World Courier Championship that was in Toronto in the late 90s (and again this year, although I did not attend).


Now back to the thread at hand. My point in this annecdotal rambling is that being a rider in a critical mass doesn't say anything more about an individual other than the fact that they are taking part in a critical mass. There can be quite a bit a variance in the behaviour of those who take part and all should not be judged by the behaviour of the worst of the lot.

 

[Piggy]

- if a light turns red while the pack is crossing, the entire pack continues until all have crossed.

So, if me and a bunch of buddies decide that we're going to get in our cars and go somewhere together, we have the right to ignore traffic laws and inconvenience the hell out of everybody else so we don't get separated?

 

[Molinaro]

So, if me and a bunch of buddies decide that we're going to get in our cars and go somewhere together, we have the right to ignore traffic laws and inconvenience the hell out of everybody else so we don't get separated?

It hapens every day with wedding and funeral processions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

We, And according to wiki (New York amongst others) have "box junctions" where this is the case. Often seems more honoured by the breach than the observance...

I have not seen any intersections marked that way in NYC, it is just that the intersection is pretty clear as it is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It hapens every day with wedding and funeral processions.

Well I know that many funeral processions have purple lights and flags marking them, and have special laws regarding their use. Weddings I don't think have those laws and should be charged if they are violating traffic laws in that way.

 

[xinit]

Can you tell me , before the video started, exactly what took place? No? Maybe the cyclist hit someone, maybe not you don't know. Maybe you should wait and get all the facts. As much as I would like the cop to be wrong, I will cut him some slack before I accuse him like you have.

When I was watching this, it looked like the cops were looking for someone specific. They didn't appear to be just standing there, and the cop on tackling duty appeared to have gone after that one cyclist for a reason; right or wrong.

Maybe his wife left him for that hippie...

 

[xinit]

I swear, what we did turned some people's minds around a full 360 degrees!

360 degrees? So you left people with exactly the same opinions they had before you came along?

Good job.

 

[porch]

I swear, what we did turned some people's minds around a full 360 degrees!

For want of a smiley, the joke was lost.

:yellowface:

 

[egslim]

So, if me and a bunch of buddies decide that we're going to get in our cars and go somewhere together, we have the right to ignore traffic laws and inconvenience the hell out of everybody else so we don't get separated?

When I was in primary school our class cycled in a group to and from the gym. That group acted like a single vehicle in traffic. The teacher in front followed the traffic laws, and everyone else followed him without stopping for anyone else.

I expect the laws governing behaviour of a cyclist column to be different per country, and in the US probably per state. But I wouldn't automatically assume this behaviour illegal.

 

[porch]

Crashing lunch counters and staging bus boycotts in an effort to end racial segregation. Yeah, that's worth civil disruption.

But clogging the streets in an effort to get people to support spending tax money to do a favor for cyclists?

Truth be told, the example of civil rights for blacks in America was one example in the back of my mind that I would be embarrassed to draw a direct parallel with. Yet . . . can we now further agree that we're talking about a matter of degrees?

Furthermore, the way we arrange our cities and the modes of transportation therein, is, to me, a much larger issue than a favour for a special interest group.

Tell me, has that actually worked anywhere?

I don't know. Do you know? Seems like a pretty hard thing to quantify. How much do individual leaders (MLK, Ghandi, Mandela) or particular actions of protest effect the course of history? Could it be a matter of timing, in which the popular consciousness had already been prepared for a change?

Not to backpedal yellowface: ) but the main purpose of my posting in this thread wasn't to show that CM is the best thing since bicycle-powered bread slicers. What I was trying to convey, Molinaro has already said better:

My point in this annecdotal rambling is that being a rider in a critical mass doesn't say anything more about an individual other than the fact that they are taking part in a critical mass. There can be quite a bit a variance in the behaviour of those who take part and all should not be judged by the behaviour of the worst of the lot.

 

[Piggy]

It hapens every day with wedding and funeral processions.

I see, so you had police escort and you were performing a service which everyone agrees is respectful. You weren't just doing it because you all had agreed amongst yourselves that this is what you'd do regardless of what anyone else thought or where they had to go or what they had to do. Well, that's different, then.

 

[Piggy]

I wouldn't automatically assume this behaviour illegal.

I don't know of any provision in the state code for "bunches of vehicles who are traveling together get to violate signals and the laws regarding right of way". I can't imagine that there would be any such law, because it would require others to make judgments regarding who is together and therefore who gets to simply ignore the traffic signal.

So yeah, I assume that it is illegal to ignore traffic signals because you and your buddies have simply decided to.

 

[Piggy]

Truth be told, the example of civil rights for blacks in America was one example in the back of my mind that I would be embarrassed to draw a direct parallel with. Yet . . . can we now further agree that we're talking about a matter of degrees?

No. The 2 cases are qualitatively different.

Furthermore, the way we arrange our cities and the modes of transportation therein, is, to me, a much larger issue than a favour for a special interest group.

No argument there. And that's what ticks me off about the CM crowd. They are counter-productive. Making people angry at cyclists doesn't help us to get people on the side of promoting more resources for cycling or any other kind of alternative transportation.

I don't know. Do you know? Seems like a pretty hard thing to quantify. How much do individual leaders (MLK, Ghandi, Mandela) or particular actions of protest effect the course of history? Could it be a matter of timing, in which the popular consciousness had already been prepared for a change?

I think we can point to some pretty specific cases of change being brought about by the movements headed by MLK, Ghandi, and Mandela. Not so CM.

 

[egslim]

I don't know of any provision in the state code for "bunches of vehicles who are traveling together get to violate signals and the laws regarding right of way".

I do know for certain in the Netherlands a designated column of military vehicles is allowed to act that way. The first vehicle has to obey the signals and follow the standard laws regarding right of way, the other vehicles only have to follow the first. They can pass through red, ignore traffic from the right, and other drivers are forbidden from intersecting the column.

They don't violate the laws regarding right of way, the rules for military columns supercede the standard laws valid for ordinary drivers.

Similarly, rules for a column of pedestrians are different from those for individual pedestrians. For example, the former are legally allowed use of the road, even if it slows down upcoming traffic who are unable to pass.

 

[Checkmite]

I think some of the negative reactions to Critical Mass show a sickness in our culture. We've got this crazy entitlement thing going on which makes people think that being inconvenienced or slowed down in any way means they are justified to react in any way they see fit. People need to learn to relax and calm down, especially when they are driving.

I disagree profoundly. I believe the "sense of entitlement" is being more strongly demonstrated by groups like Critical Mass who think that calling an action a show of "speech" entitles them to create massive and deliberate disruptions to infrastructure and private citizens' lawful actions without any kind of consequences.

"Freedom of speech" means the government cannot stop you from speaking. It doesn't mean anybody around you HAS to listen. Nor does it mean that other people cannot respond to you negatively - because that is speech as well. You have the right to stand on a sidewalk and shout your message at me as I walk past. You do not have the right to physically detain me from ignoring you and walking past you - and that is what Critical Mass does. If they were just a bunch of people riding bicycles, that would be different. But as has been already mentioned, this group has a history of blatantly ignoring laws that apply to bicyclists.

And yes, to me the video looks like both the cop and the bicyclist were trying to move out of each other's way, but ended up moving in the same direction - something that happens a lot. From the cop's perspective, if in his mind he knows he's trying to move, and the bicyclist steers in the same direction the cop is moving, I can understand why he would think the bicyclist steered that way deliberately. They did overdo it when it came to manhandling the guy, though.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree profoundly. I believe the "sense of entitlement" is being more strongly demonstrated by groups like Critical Mass who think that calling an action a show of "speech" entitles them to create massive and deliberate disruptions to infrastructure and private citizens' lawful actions without any kind of consequences.

"Freedom of speech" means the government cannot stop you from speaking. It doesn't mean anybody around you HAS to listen. Nor does it mean that other people cannot respond to you negatively - because that is speech as well. You have the right to stand on a sidewalk and shout your message at me as I walk past. You do not have the right to physically detain me from ignoring you and walking past you - and that is what Critical Mass does. If they were just a bunch of people riding bicycles, that would be different. But as has been already mentioned, this group has a history of blatantly ignoring laws that apply to bicyclists.

And yes, to me the video looks like both the cop and the bicyclist were trying to move out of each other's way, but ended up moving in the same direction - something that happens a lot. From the cop's perspective, if in his mind he knows he's trying to move, and the bicyclist steers in the same direction the cop is moving, I can understand why he would think the bicyclist steered that way deliberately. They did overdo it when it came to manhandling the guy, though.

How does that fit with the fact that he impacted the rider, but in his report he states that he was rammed by the rider? The report did not say "the bike moved into the area that I was entering at an increasing rate with my shoulder down and accidentaly tackeled the guy" it says that the bike ramed him.

Why he has not been charged with falsifiying a police report and interfearing with a police investigation I don't know.

I can see how that sort of thing can happen, and it is possible that it was an accident, but it does not look that way to me.