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.
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.
On 5/31/2025 9:19 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.
and false narratives.
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.
And that fact that a person may be working towards making sure that an >immigrants constitutional protections are not being violated does not >automatically make them a supporter of illegal immigration (a lame and >unsupportable theory promoted recently by others in this forum)
Then There are these hypocritical little gems in that NYP OpEd:
"Nobody�s getting �swept up� in the justice system here as long as they >simply obey the rules of the road. "
Remove "road" from that sentence: We see daily reports of legal US
residents and citizens following the rules getting detained by ICE.
"If a few more toddlers get mowed down because e-bikers get to ignore
traffic laws � well, that�s acceptable collateral damage. "
It's a pity they don't feel the same about assault weapons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
El Salvador On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:47:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> 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.
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."
And yes, I did find that interesting in a macabre sort of way.
The argument is no different than Orville Faubus' flouting of federal
law. People do remember that Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to
forcibly desegregate Little Rock Central High in 1958. This is widely regarded as an appropriate, bold and noble decision and I heartily
agree. What most people do not remember is that eventually Federal
soldiers left, and Central High was closed in defiance. Our present situation is yet a moving drama and not over by a long shot.
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.
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.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 23:43:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> 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
On 6/4/2025 3:50 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 23:43:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> 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.
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
<[email protected]> 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. "
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
<[email protected]> 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. "
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
<[email protected]> 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:It was not I.
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. >>>>>>>>>
��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.
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.
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.
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
<[email protected]> 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:It was not I.
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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
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.
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.
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:Another Krygowski strawman.
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:It was not I.
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. >>>>>>>>>>
��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. >>>>>>
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.
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.
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
<[email protected]> 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.
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.
On 6/4/2025 4:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:32:45 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>What an excellent example of "True Belief" fundamentalism. No evidence >necessary! Contrary evidence disregarded - and of course, no evidence >provided.
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:Another Krygowski strawman.
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:It was not I.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
��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. >>>>>>>>
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.
I don't think I personally know anyone quite so intellectually weak.
(Well, I could describe one local guy who may come close, but he has
enough good sense to keep his nonsense mostly to himself.)
On 6/4/2025 4:12 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:32:45 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:Another Krygowski strawman.
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:It was not I.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
On 6/4/2025 4:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:32:45 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>What an excellent example of "True Belief" fundamentalism. No evidence necessary! Contrary evidence disregarded - and of course, no evidence provided.
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:Another Krygowski strawman.
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:It was not I.
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
I don't think I personally know anyone quite so intellectually weak.
(Well, I could describe one local guy who may come close, but he has
enough good sense to keep his nonsense mostly to himself.)
On 6/4/2025 4:12 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:32:45 -0400, Zen Cycle <[email protected]>
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:Another Krygowski strawman.
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:It was not I.
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-The New York Post trades heavily in sensationalism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political
back- on- tischs-e-bike-crackdown-is- obscene/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
���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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
No, they don't. The Immigration Council link I posted above proves that.
If you have any information with hard data that comes to a different >conclusion, feel free to post it. (note I wrote "hard data". that
doesn't mean some magatard website parroting stephen millers latest
racist bullshit rant.)
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 <[email protected]>What an excellent example of "True Belief" fundamentalism. No evidence
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
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/3/2025 11:56 AM, AMuzi wrote:Another Krygowski strawman.
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:It was not I.
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-The New York Post trades heavily in sensationalism and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political
back- on- tischs-e-bike-crackdown-is- obscene/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
���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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
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.)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:45:53 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,391 |
