barenakedbiker

https://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/55910.html

oboeguy

I asked a cop a few days ago, one who was driving one of those motorized trikes they use for ticketing, to ticket a guy who just pulled-up in a bike lane. The dumba55 said "he's not parked". It's never going to happen.

I like the poll results, 15-0 at last check in favor.

Treespeed

Loved the clown brigade.

dynaryder

Awsome.

But shouldn't they have all climbed off of one tiny tricycle?

mac

I voted NO.

If you are not allowed to park your vehicle on the side of the road, a sign will be posted and/or the curb will be painted a different color (red, green (temp), etc.). No sign means you can park your vehicle. Unfortunately, part of the bike lanes in my city are too close to the curb (i.e. there should not be any bike lanes to begin with) and the cars overlap into them. Should they get tickets? No way. I just ride further out into the street.

BTW - that "indymedia" site is part of a worldwide anti-American group already raided by the FBI for their activities.

halfbiked

mac- sounds like the problem in your city is where the bike lanes are defined. I'd agree, that there is a need for streetside parking. Around here though, if the bike line is against the curb, its no parking. On some streets its along the parked cars, which ain't great due to the door problem, but its better than having no lane.

Treespeed

Wrong. This is the reason the London IndyMedia site was taken down, Anti-Italian politics. And since when did criticism of the government become anti-American? Or have you not heard of the First Ammendment?

Not to mention the Fourth which seems to apply in this case.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

08 Aug 2005 13:53 GMT
In response to a freedom of information act request by Indymedia and the Eletronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the government of the United States partially released some documents relating to the seizure of an indymedia server in 2004. On October 7, 2004, an indymedia server in England was seizied by the American FBI, taking offline about twenty Indymedia sites. The seizure included a clause of secrecy that forbade the company which housed the server to comment on the case and the content of the seizure order. Indymedia thus has its server seized without any knowledge of who ordered the apprehension and why. After an international campaign by groups that defend the freedom of the press and the civil laws, the server was returned without any information being given on the reason for the seizure or the restitution. After a judicial battle that lasted almost a year, Indymedia and the EFF, an organization that defends civil liberties on the InterNet, obtained the partial release of documents relating to the case. The reason for the seizure, now divulged, was the inquiry of the Italian government into a letter bomb sent to the European Commission President Romano Prodi in December of 2003. Apparently, many indymedia websites are being investigated for having published the manifesto of a supposed Informal Anarchist Federacy that assumed responsibility for the attempted attack. The documents also disclose that www.squat.net and www.alasbarricadas.org are being investigated for the same reasons.
The attempted attack on Romano Prodi and claim of the authorship for the Informal Anarchist Federacy is viewed with distrust by the anarchist community of Italy, which was completely unaware of the groups that composed the supposed federacy. Many Italian anarchic organizations had published declarations repudiating the act, classifying it as "vanguardist" and suggesting that the supposed anarchist attack on Prodi is being used as an excuse for the persecution of militant radical groups.