On Mon May 26 21:17:54 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 5/26/2025 1:15 PM, NFN Smith wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

New York Times article on police cracking down on ebike traffic
violations. Let's see if this will get people past the paywall:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/24/nyregion/ebikes-scooters-cyclists-
nyc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.voH2.AOcHv0jrnp79&smid=url-share

Ignoring the political drivel of the story...

The problem is with classifying ebikes as "bikes" (e.g. 2 wheels) rather than accounting the dynamics of a powered vehicle.

When it comes to bicycles, it's too easy to consider a traditional bike
to be a "pedestrian", because it's slower than a motor vehicle, and is
not powered. However a lot of the time, traditional bikes and
pedestrians are incompatible sharing the same space.

I agree. In bike advocacy discussions, I've heard very competent people
point out that bikes and pedestrians mix badly. It can be OK with conscientious cyclists and sensible pedestrians, but both are often absent.

I've found that even
multi-use paths are frequently not a good place for serious riding,
because of the speed differential between a bicycle and a pedestrian.

Yes. I've heard the term "pathlete" applied derisively to bicyclists
doing speed work on multi-use paths.

And there's even an in-between space for things like unpowered scooters
or roller blades that are faster than pedestrians but slower than bikes.

However, with ebikes (and for that matter, powered scooters) when you
add powered propulsion, then you're adding an extra measure of speed, including that too many ebikes are capable of speeds in excess of what
is possible than for all but the fastest fitness riders.

And it's been pointed out that to ride at 20 mph, most people require
years of training. They start slow and tend to make most of their
mistakes at slow (less dangerous) speeds. But ebikes allow total novices
to ride faster than most experts.

I'm fully of the opinion that any bike should be regarded as a vehicle,
and generally, ridden on streets, where it's understood by both the
rider and motorists that the bike is subject to all the rules of the
road, both rights and responsibilities. Yet at the same time, I recognize there are combinations of road and bike (and rider) that are incompatible with each other. It's not unlike trying to drive a Ferrari in a school zone, or taking an antique Model-T Ford out onto a freeway.

However, the issue with the ebikes is the question of speed, as well as
the understanding of the rules of the road. With a motorcycle, it's normally necessary to have licensing, both for the bike and the
operator. Somehow, it seems to have not occurred that just because the propulsion system of an ebike is electrical rather than an internal combustion engine that the ebike should not be subject to the same rules
as the motorcycle, rather than being regarded in the same light as an unpowered bicycle, simply because it has two wheels.

All true. Regarding the "somehow" - the crazy legal situation arose, as
I understand, from intense lobbying by bicycle industry lobbyists. They always need "the next big thing" to save their industry, and they
realized that if ebikes needed licensing and were prohibited from bike
lanes and paths, that they would sell far fewer of them.

And here we are.

The local bike trails are densely packed with dog walkers who seldom think to be aware of other users and the other users are bike (hence the term "bike path") I will say that for the most part the dogs being walked are more intelligent than the walkers
themselves. These paths happen to be land filll where I used to walk on trails through marsh as a child so I know it well. Building 100 foot high land fill crests on the edde of the bay has destroyed the ecosystem and I'm sure it does the same thing to
whereever they get the landfill from. Death and decay is left behind and only 1/4th of a mile of the path has actually managed to restore itself. Dog walkers will not walk along this area because there are those icky insects, And the occassional snake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri May 30 08:25:26 2025 Zen Cycle wrote:

Braindead magatards like the floriduh dumbass will consistently look for
a political scapegoat for any issue they have based their ignorant
opinions on, as is shown by his parroting of magatard groupthink nonsense.

Andrew isn't as bad as most but even he more recently is allowing
himself to get sucked into the magatard groupthink propaganda - there is
no evidence in that article to support "Criminal illegal aliens....are
where her sympathies lie."

Since you're spending your time saying dumb things, shouldn't you tell us that you did 600 miles this year of "virtual riding" at an average speed of 20 mph? I need another good laugh.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri May 30 13:34:36 2025 Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2025 12:51:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 5/30/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:

The Statute (of long standing) is clear. Illegal aliens are subject
to summary deportation.

An argument can be made, and I'd agree, that a finding of fact (is this
person actually here illegally?) is a reasonable precursor.

Thank you. But obviously, finding of fact has been absent in many cases,
as noted in the news. Things like photoshopped images of tattoos have
been used instead of facts.

Illegal aliens either previously convicted of a crime or subject to a prior
deportation order are the bulk of the present deportees, which is both
morally and legally correct IMHO.

I see some inconsistencies in your thinking. You often dig out uncommon, >unusual events and post links here, seemingly to complain about some >government system or procedure. You don't normally compare those events
to "the bulk of" similar cases.

That's from the guy who claimed that because a some people who got
shot also owned guns, was evidence that owning a gun made it more
likely to get shot.

But remember that Frank rode coast to coast. When I pointed out that my step children did that as well, twice, what was his response? That they started 10 miles short of the mouth of the Columbia River and so didn't ride coast to coast.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)