A copy of the January 9, 2006 Decision in People v. Bezjak is available online at: http://www.oliverandoliverlaw.com/ORAM.pdf .

After reading the entire ruling, I am quite concerned about the following part:

The Charge of Obstructing Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic (PL 240.20(5))...Bicycles are vehicles entitled to the use of the public roads. However, from a practical perspective, they differ in important respects from motorized vehicles. They generally move at a slower speed than cars, and bicyclists are more vulnerable to injury. These distinctions are recognized in the traffic rules that provide special lanes for bicycles and, in the absence of such lanes, require that they travel at the margins of the highway. These regulations serve the dual purpose of affording bicyclists a measure of protection at the same time that they structure a traffic flow less likely to be impeded by slower moving vehicles.
...
Here, the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each of the eight defendants were participants in a group of at least fifty bicyclists and, as part of that group, rode their bikes in a manner which obstructed the flow of vehicular traffic. Accordingly, each of the defendants is found guilty of violating Penal Law Section 240.20(5).


So in other words, the judge has decided that cyclists can be ticketed for slowing down traffic. This has serious implications for any group of cyclists.

-Steve Goodridge

From New York State DOT's bicycle and pedestrian page (http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1231)

Section 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle lanes and bicycle paths.
(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle shall be driven either on a usable bicycle lane or, if a usable bicycle lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right- hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding bicycles upon a shoulder, bicycle lane or bicycle path intended for the use of bicycles may ride two or more abreast if sufficient space is available, except when passing a vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian standing or proceeding along such shoulder, lane or path, persons riding bicycles shall ride single file. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being overtaken by another vehicle.
(c) Any person operating a bicycle who is entering the roadway from a private road, driveway, alley or over a curb shall come to a full stop before entering the roadway.

The judge did nothing of the sort. The judge ruled that the defendents and indeed the entire group of cyclists were riding in a manner designed to block traffic and provoke public disorder - and I agree with his ruling. Having a right to the road is far different than having any right to purposely impede traffic and provoke public disorder. If a group of peds, or indeed motorists, had exhibited the same behavior, the result would have been the same. Remember, there was no permit issued, which would have made the imposition to traffic legal.

You also failed to mention how the judge did cyclists and everyone a favor by dismissing the charges concerning NYC's parade permitting scheme.

This is the problem I have with so-called advocates of cycling or any other bent - your spinning of facts in order to evoke emotional responses in support of your cause makes you no better than any other politician. People are capable of honest debate on issues and making their own decisions without attempted manipulation by dishonest advocates.

Cyclists are subject to the same laws as anyone else, no matter which way to try to spin it. I'm becoming more and more convinced that CM is doing more to hurt cyclists than to help.

I think you may be trying to push the slippery slope argument. And I agree, except against what you're probably thinking.
This is more about making sure these idiots don't block traffic for no good reason.
Take the lane if you have to, hell stay in the lane if you can't move over (I usually point out bad road conditions so drivers know the reason why I'm blocking the one and only lane of traffic for an extended period of time), but for the love of god don't block the whole road and make every vehicle wait behind you at 15mph.
Hell I'd be pissed too if I were on my BIKE and a bunch of idiots decided to go 15mph and block the entire road.

There goes CM in NJ.

Isn't this a moot point anyways, since bicyclist have to follow the same laws as cars, isn't there a law that allows the police to ticket cagers if they slow down traffic as well which means they can already ticket cyclist from doing the same thing?

Wouldn't it be a funny CM if everyone rode no more than two abreast?

Wouldn't it be a funny CM if everyone rode no more than two abreast?

Oh yeah, nothing can go wrong with this brilliant plan of yours. Yeah, the authorities won't mind at all, just like they didn't mind CM at the RNC last summer. Brilliant...

I'm just saying it might be funny. I'm not trying to make any sarcastic remarks or anything. I realize that no matter what, the NYPD will probably be hassling and/or arresting people at CM.

I just went through the manual for biking in PA., they say we are to be considered another car on the road. We are to ride in the correct lanes. To put us off to the sides of the road is just dangerous! I know I've almost been hit. This ruling really burns me up! If the courts and the law won't respect us and our rights to be on the roads, how can we expect the cars on the road to!

I went to one critical mass. It consisted of blocking rush hour traffic on a friday afternoon,ignoring traffic signals ,spitting on cars and calling the cops pigs.

That was real frigging productive :rolleyes: Calling the same people who are protecting you from 10,000 pissed off SUV drivers "Pigs"
I didn't stick around for the end.

For sure not all the Critical Mass rides have that behavior but one was enough to turn me off.

The judge did nothing of the sort. The judge ruled that the defendents and indeed the entire group of cyclists were riding in a manner designed to block traffic and provoke public disorder - and I agree with his ruling.

You also failed to mention how the judge did cyclists and everyone a favor by dismissing the charges concerning NYC's parade permitting scheme.
I don't think Steve is trying to take things out of context by quoting that one paragraph. Rather, I see it as a warning that a future court case could use this paragraph and apply it out of context to non-Critical Mass cyclists.

There goes CM in NJ.

I am wondering...have all CM rides been based in urban areas? Have they ever do rides in rural areas, perhaps on roads that would be great roads for cycling, but have a reputation for being dangerous? I know the most pressing commuting problems are in the cities, so would not be surprised at an urban focus.

roughstuff

I don't think Steve is trying to take things out of context by quoting that one paragraph. Rather, I see it as a warning that a future court case could use this paragraph and apply it out of context to non-Critical Mass cyclists.

Reading the entire decision I don't see that. This is a NY court interpreting NY law and the statement Steve cited was not the reason they were found guilty, but merely an affirmation of current NY law (already cited by Hartmann) leading to the crux of the issue - that the cyclists were blocking the entire road, not paying heed to traffic signs/signals and doing so to provoke public disorder. The current law already applies to future NY cases and doubt a court in another state is going to cite another state's law in contradiction to it's own. Come guys, I know you are smart enough to know that a rain drop is not grounds to sound the alarm that the sky is falling.

I just went through the manual for biking in PA., they say we are to be considered another car on the road. We are to ride in the correct lanes. To put us off to the sides of the road is just dangerous! I know I've almost been hit. This ruling really burns me up! If the courts and the law won't respect us and our rights to be on the roads, how can we expect the cars on the road to!

This is NY, not PA. A PA judge is not going to base a decision on NY law in contradiction to the laws of PA. Take a breath, nobody is threatening your right to the road here and the issue is moot in NY where the law is already on the books. Of course you could send cash to a NY advocacy group with the intent to fund an effort to rewrite their current law. ;)

I just went through the manual for biking in PA., they say we are to be considered another car on the road. We are to ride in the correct lanes. To put us off to the sides of the road is just dangerous! I know I've almost been hit. This ruling really burns me up! If the courts and the law won't respect us and our rights to be on the roads, how can we expect the cars on the road to!

Did you miss this paragraph? (http://www.dot.state.pa.us/BIKE/WEB/bikelaws.htm)

Summary :IF you can keep up with traffic you can take the lane , if not you keep right.


"(c) Slower than prevailing speeds.-- A pedalcycle operated at slower than prevailing speed shall be operated in accordance with the provisions of Section 3301(b), unless it is unsafe to do so.

[3301(b). Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.
Upon all roadways, any vehicles proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions than existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.

Comment: Taken together, 3505 (c) and 3301 (b) state that slower vehicles should keep to the right, which is the normal expectation of all road users, while permitting bicyclists to make movements consistent with their intended route.

I don't think Steve is trying to take things out of context by quoting that one paragraph. Rather, I see it as a warning that a future court case could use this paragraph and apply it out of context to non-Critical Mass cyclists.

Right; the judge opined that the side-of-the-road requirements and development of bike lanes were evidence that the traffic law is intended to prevent bicyclists from delaying motorists, and that if cyclists operate such that motor traffic is delayed, they violate the ordinance. The judge cited operating with a large group of cyclists as one way that the cyclist could be cited, since in that case the group delays the motorists. But the judge or another reading his opinion might also conclude that cycling alone on a narrow two-lane road would also be a violation, since the same effect - slowing motor traffic - occurs.

I find it ironic that the judge did such a good job of identifying the practical and constitutional problems with NYC's parade ordinance based first amendment grounds - including the fact that cyclists who join the ride could not be assumed to know that no permit was obtained and that joining the ride would be a violation - and yet, he did not apply the same logic to the impeding traffic charge. He finds the individual cyclists guilty of impeding traffic simply for being on the road at the same time as the rest of the group. If the parade permit ordinance is believed to have a "chilling" effect on cyclists wishing to join the other cyclists and exercise their first amendment rights as the judge states, doesn't his interpretation of the impeding traffic law do the exact same thing? If the other cyclists have a parade permit, then the impeding traffic ordinance does not apply, so why should the law make me fear an impeding traffic ticket by not knowing the status of their permit? And why should I be prohibited from following the same path as the other cyclists just because I am on a bike, when a motorist would not be charged for the same action?

It seems to me that the judge has ruled that cyclists are not really legitimate "traffic", i.e. the presence of other bicycles on the road makes it a crime to ride near them. Rather, he has ruled that CM is a parade, and that while the NYC parade ordinance is overbearing and too vague, cyclists who ride together will still be in violation if they affect the convenience of motorists. This is a violation that motorists have never been charged with, even when their numbers cause other road users inconvenience.

This is a NY court interpreting NY law and the statement Steve cited was not the reason they were found guilty, but merely an affirmation of current NY law (already cited by Hartmann) leading to the crux of the issue - that the cyclists were blocking the entire road, not paying heed to traffic signs/signals and doing so to provoke public disorder. The current law already applies to future NY cases and doubt a court in another state is going to cite another state's law in contradiction to it's own. Come guys, I know you are smart enough to know that a rain drop is not grounds to sound the alarm that the sky is falling.
But NY already has a law on the books prohibiting two abreast. Why couldn't the court simply reference the two abreast law, rather than go on about "special lanes" and the "margins of the highway", which are clearly not relevant here? That's what I find disturbing.

(Edit: I posted this before reading Steve's reply.)

Keep in mind that New York has the nation's most restrictive anti-cycling laws. It is one of six states that mandate bike lane use, and has a unusual clause in its law saying bicycles must be ridden "in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic." In addition, local jurisdictions have the right to "order signs or markings to identify the portion of the highway to be used for bicycle travel."

This page http://www.geocities.com/fredoswald/law-reform.html grades the bicycling laws of various states. New York got an F-.

On the bright side, on an absolute scale New York's law is still not that restrictive. I would imagine that most people who are not regulars here believe such a law is the norm nationwide.

Maybe in other states, unfortunately, CM really did a number between cyclist-police relations last year, I'd prefer to stay out of it.
Pissing off motorists I'm used to. Pissing off cops I'd rather not, yet, anyway.

I'm just saying it might be funny. I'm not trying to make any sarcastic remarks or anything. I realize that no matter what, the NYPD will probably be hassling and/or arresting people at CM.

From New York State DOT's bicycle and pedestrian page (http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1231)

Section 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle lanes and bicycle paths.
(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle shall be driven either on a usable bicycle lane or, if a usable bicycle lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right- hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding bicycles upon a shoulder, bicycle lane or bicycle path intended for the use of bicycles may ride two or more abreast if sufficient space is available, except when passing a vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian standing or proceeding along such shoulder, lane or path, persons riding bicycles shall ride single file. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being overtaken by another vehicle.
(c) Any person operating a bicycle who is entering the roadway from a private road, driveway, alley or over a curb shall come to a full stop before entering the roadway.

Doesn't apply in NYC, not even a little:

NYC DOT traffic rules, section 4-02, paragraph (e):
State law provisions superceded. Pursuant to authority provided by section 1642 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the following provisions of such law shall not be effective in the City of New York: sections 1112... 1234

Study after study after study has shown that Critical Mass in NYC, in terms of real driver hours added to congestion, has a traffic-inducing effect so minor as to be effectively nil - so low, in fact, that the traffic congestion added by CM could be more than negated by enforcing the law against mobile billboards in the city. Removing just two mobile billboards (or two semi trucks, or four panel trucks, or six SUVs) operating duing rush hour on weekdays over the course of the month would reduce traffic load more than eliminating Critical Mass. Even the most extreme of the City's experts have testified to Critical Mass having an impact less than 30% higher than that in the mobile-billboard example cited.

At any rate, this decision looks to me like a real victory for the CM legal defense team. IANAL, but I think there's plenty of reason to believe the one charge on which they were found guilty will not stand on appeal.

From New York State DOT's bicycle and pedestrian page (http://www.dot.state.ny.us/pubtrans/share.html#1231)

Section 1234. Riding on roadways, shoulders, bicycle lanes and bicycle paths.
(a) Upon all roadways, any bicycle shall be driven either on a usable bicycle lane or, if a usable bicycle lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right- hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic except when preparing for a left turn or when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions that would make it unsafe to continue along near the right-hand curb or edge. Conditions to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or traffic lanes too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side-by-side within the lane.
(b) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast. Persons riding bicycles upon a shoulder, bicycle lane or bicycle path intended for the use of bicycles may ride two or more abreast if sufficient space is available, except when passing a vehicle, bicycle or pedestrian standing or proceeding along such shoulder, lane or path, persons riding bicycles shall ride single file. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall ride single file when being overtaken by another vehicle.
(c) Any person operating a bicycle who is entering the roadway from a private road, driveway, alley or over a curb shall come to a full stop before entering the roadway.

this is superceded by city law, which permits more than two abreast.

VTL 1234 has no applicability in the City of New York, which is the very first thing the City admitted in the first hearing in the Bray lawsuit.

Its closest local analogue is Section 4-12(p) of the DOT Rules (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/pdf/trafrule.pdf), which is much more permissive in terms of cyclists' freedom of movement, recognizing the unique traffic hazards that face them in New York City. In Bray, we submitted evidence that the intent of the Rule was to keep cars out of substandard bike lanes, not to confine bikes within easy range of dooring. How does the Rule read to you alongside the more restrictive State law requirement?

I believe we mounted a strong defense to the disorderly conduct charges. The "voluminous" papers we submitted are here (www.oliverandoliverlaw.com/jan8MOL.doc) if folks are interested in reviewing them.

Reading the entire decision I don't see that. This is a NY court interpreting NY law and the statement Steve cited was not the reason they were found guilty, but merely an affirmation of current NY law (already cited by Hartmann) leading to the crux of the issue - that the cyclists were blocking the entire road, not paying heed to traffic signs/signals and doing so to provoke public disorder. The current law already applies to future NY cases and doubt a court in another state is going to cite another state's law in contradiction to it's own. Come guys, I know you are smart enough to know that a rain drop is not grounds to sound the alarm that the sky is falling.
Precedent is precedent, and this is new precedent.

Not only is this ruling alarming, your lack of alarm is alarming too.

Read this again, forgetting the context. When judges make general statements like this, they have general applicability outside of the specific context in which they are made: [Bicycles] generally move at a slower speed than cars, and bicyclists are more vulnerable to injury. These distinctions are recognized in the traffic rules that provide special lanes for bicycles and, in the absence of such lanes, require that they travel at the margins of the highway. These regulations serve the dual purpose of affording bicyclists a measure of protection at the same time that they structure a traffic flow less likely to be impeded by slower moving vehicles.

The assertion that bicyclists are safer in the bike lanes or "at the margins" has no factual basis, ignores the overwhelming factor of intersections in cyclist safety, and in fact, is contradicted by every study I'm aware of.

The attitude here is eerily reminiscent of the CHP officer who said that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

The sky might not be falling, but these drips from the ceiling indicate the roof is leaking, and if we just ignore it, it's only to get worse and worse.

These distinctions are recognized in the traffic rules that provide special lanes for bicycles and, in the absence of such lanes, require that they travel at the margins of the highway.

Once again, (this time cited in a legal decision), the mere existence of bike lanes functions to reinforce the notion that cycling outside of the bike lanes is unsafe and/or inappropriate.

The mere existence of bike lanes is obviously a major factor behind this decision. Drip, drip...

Having a right to the road is far different than having any right to purposely impede traffic and provoke public disorder. --- I agree. When I am driving my car, I do not want slow-moving bicyclists to deliberately impede my way. And during the past 34 years of adult cycling, I have never needed to purposely impede the motor traffic.
Like the sage said: "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."

IMO, you should express solidarity with the defendents or keep your opinion to yourself, divide and conquer is the rallying cry of the motorist.

Having a right to the road is far different than having any right to purposely impede traffic and provoke public disorder.
I agree too.

Common Misconceptions About VC

There is considerable confusion expressed about the meaning of vehicular cycling. Among these, are:
...
"VC is needlessly blocking cars"

Cyclists who ride in the center of a lane needlessly impeding faster traffic are sometimes mistakenly referred to as vehicular cyclists; yet by definition a cyclist who needlessly impedes faster traffic is violating the vehicular rules of the road and is hence not riding vehicularly.

Misconception: VC is needlessly blocking cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling#.22VC_is_needlessly_blocking_cars.22)

However, if they were purposely impeding traffic, then find them guilty of that.

But purposely impeding traffic is different from simply impeding traffic, which may be for a legitimate reason (I'm not saying it was in this case; again, my concern is the same as Steve's, it is the general wording of the justification that could be applied in other contexts).

What the judge said he found them guilty of was simply "rode their bikes in a manner which obstructed the flow of vehicular traffic". There is no qualification that it was purposely impeding, or needlessly impeding, or anything like that. It was a blanket statement. In other words, he ruled that cyclists are obligated to stay out of the way of cars, period.

This case also illuminates a big problem with the way side-of-the-road and mandatory bike lane laws are currently written. They put the burden of proof on the cyclist to show that his impeding of traffic was justified, rather than requiring the state to prove that the cyclist's was needlessly impeding traffic.

That's outrageous.

IMO, you should express solidarity with the defendents or keep your opinion to yourself

'agree or shut up'......and just who in the hell are you? More importantly, why in the world would a rational person want to express solidarity with those whom they disagree, particularly when the people in question are arguably doing more to hurt our position than to help it?

divide and conquer is the rallying cry of the motorist.

:rolleyes:

-B

IMO, you should express solidarity with the defendents or keep your opinion to yourself, divide and conquer is the rallying cry of the motorist.
There is some survival advantage to sticking with the other tribe members, no matter what, to an extent. But when you compromise your own tribe's best interests in supporting other tribe members, this approach begins to backfire.

Defending cyclists who were clearly in the wrong is ultimately probably not acting in the best interests of cycling.

There is some survival advantage to sticking with the other tribe members, no matter what, to an extent. But when you compromise your own tribe's best interests in supporting other tribe members, this approach begins to backfire.

Defending cyclists who were clearly in the wrong is ultimately probably not acting in the best interests of cycling.
Have you participated in CM in NYC or anywhere else?

Study after study after study has shown that Critical Mass in NYC, in terms of real driver hours added to congestion, has a traffic-inducing effect so minor as to be effectively nil - so low, in fact, that the traffic congestion added by CM could be more than negated by enforcing the law against mobile billboards in the city. Removing just two mobile billboards (

Interesting defense. Everybody else is doing it so why can't we? As my dad use to ask "If everybody jumped off the bridge does that mean you have to?"

Study after study has also shown that running over and killing a cyclist, in terms of people killed on the road, has had relatively little effect on the total number of people killed on the road by drivers (since they appear to kill each other and themselves so often). As a result, you can pretty much ignore the bikers who are killed, they blend right in with the "noise" in the data.
I wouldn't wanna use THAT argument in court...

I totally agree, what you forgot to put emphasis on your quote was the word HIGHWAY.
I too, due mostly to common sense and the will to live, would stay the hell off a lane of HIGHWAY traffic and stick to the shoulder.
On a street though, that's a different story.

Once again, (this time cited in a legal decision), the mere existence of bike lanes functions to reinforce the notion that cycling outside of the bike lanes is unsafe and/or inappropriate.

The mere existence of bike lanes is obviously a major factor behind this decision. Drip, drip...

You nay sayers, have you ever ridden here? There was a transit strike last month, the Mayor says ride bikes, walk. Before the strike, the mayor was having cyclists fined for not riding in bike lanes even though there were cars parked in it, no lights IN THE DAYTIME. etc. Some thing like 30 people a year are killed by cars that jump sidewalks and pin them to buildings. I have seen people get in fist fights because someone was double parked where they wanted to double park. It is carelessly dangerous here and we as non-armored users of the street need and deserve better. The mayor and the city want you to think that the city is an easy place to ride, yet they seem to do anything they can to make it more difficult. Presently the mayor is trying any method possible make it illegal to gather, or to voice dissent and lumping it together with this attack on group bike rides. NYC Cyclists need to be the squeaky wheel, we need to be noticed and to flex our collective power to achieve safer conditions.

Everyone should ride here, you could see a New York that is far more amazing than any other means of travel. You would also witness garbage trucks that back down entire city blocks so to not have to drive around one. Delivery vans that absolutely blow lights, just to get caught behind other traffic a light later. Lastly, speeding cars that will buzz you within inches to then wait at the red. I don't see them being fined or arrested, those actions are actually dangerous. Is this so different than the rest of the country? We are talking about slightly inconveniencing Non-Emergency (most often single occupant) vehicles by minutes. Is this the one anomalous cycling hellhole? New Yorkers don't roll over when they get a raw deal, they stand up, and are noisy about it.

You nay sayers, have you ever ridden here? There was a transit strike last month, the Mayor says ride bikes, walk. Before the strike, the mayor was having cyclists fined for not riding in bike lanes even though there were cars parked in it, no lights IN THE DAYTIME. etc. Some thing like 30 people a year are killed by cars that jump sidewalks and pin them to buildings. I have seen people get in fist fights because someone was double parked where they wanted to double park. It is carelessly dangerous here and we as non-armored users of the street need and deserve better. The mayor and the city want you to think that the city is an easy place to ride, yet they seem to do anything they can to make it more difficult. Presently the mayor is trying any method possible make it illegal to gather, or to voice dissent and lumping it together with this attack on group bike rides. NYC Cyclists need to be the squeaky wheel, we need to be noticed and to flex our collective power to achieve safer conditions.

Everyone should ride here, you could see a New York that is far more amazing than any other means of travel. You would also witness garbage trucks that back down entire city blocks so to not have to drive around one. Delivery vans that absolutely blow lights, just to get caught behind other traffic a light later. Lastly, speeding cars that will buzz you within inches to then wait at the red. I don't see them being fined or arrested, those actions are actually dangerous. Is this so different than the rest of the country? We are talking about slightly inconveniencing Non-Emergency (most often single occupant) vehicles by minutes. Is this the one anomalous cycling hellhole? New Yorkers don't roll over when they get a raw deal, they stand up, and are noisy about it.

Raw deal my arse. Yes, I have ridden in NY, so that dawg don't hunt. This has nothing to do with environment or cyclists rights, the issue is that a bunch of people deliberately blocked traffic and provoked public disorder - it would not matter if they were on a bike, in a car, on foot, or in the Oscar Myer Wienermobile - it is against the law pretty much everywhere. You break the law, you take the consequences and don't run around whining like a schoolkid who got his hand slapped for sneaking cookies.

What I find disturbing is that so many people are willing to excuse cyclists breaking the law, yet scream bloody murder when a motorist breaks the law and gets away with it. If you want the law to be enforced, you should be willing to obey it yourself. If you feel the law is wrong, by all means protest...but if in the course of the protest you break the law and get busted, take the consequences of your actions like an adult. You say you need and want better...but your definition of better seems to be that you want the laws enforced on motorists, but bicycles should be exempt from those same laws...sorry pal, it don't work that way.

Nobody at all has commented on the fact that this judge pretty much told NYC that their permitting scheme is horse-pucky - THAT is where some precedent may be taken, to the benefit of all, NYers and everyone else. The other comments have about as much likelyhood of being used as a precedent as GWB learning how to walk and talk at the same time.

I totally agree, what you forgot to put emphasis on your quote was the word HIGHWAY.
I too, due mostly to common sense and the will to live, would stay the hell off a lane of HIGHWAY traffic and stick to the shoulder.
On a street though, that's a different story.

Perhaps you're thinking of freeways. According to the usual legal use of the word highway, all public streets open to vehicular traffic are highways. Common, everyday household use of the word highway implies main roads or freeways, but the legal use of the word highway is much more broad.

So in other words, the judge has decided that cyclists can be ticketed for slowing down traffic. This has serious implications for any group of cyclists.
I am strongly in favor of protection of cyclists' right to use the road. There is one point in the ruling which I think is not consistent with the spirit of traffic law pertaining to cyclists: that cyclists should ride "at the margins of the roadway," which seems to imply riding outside the traffic lane upon the shoulder.

However, the decision is overwhelmingly based not upon traffic law, but penal law, specifically disorderly conduct. Here is what Section 240.20 of the New York Penal Law says--pay particular attention to 240.20(5) and 240.20(6), the latter (6) being dismissed for lack of legal sufficiency--

Section 240.20 Disorderly conduct

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

2. He makes unreasonable noise; or

3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or

6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or

7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Disorderly conduct is a violation.

Notice the spirit of the law, that obstructing traffic is done "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof..." Riding a bicycle for transportation is not covered here, as is underscored by this part of the ruling: "While a single cyclist's disregard of these regulations may not amount to an obstruction of vehicular traffic, a large group of cyclists riding together, and spread across the roadway from curb to curb, effectively creates a roadblock that slows and impedes the passage of other traffic. When this conduct is coupled with disregard of traffic signals and a pattern of weaving around and in front of motor vehicles, the risk of provoking public disorder is real and imminent and the bicyclists are plainly demonstrating an intent to cause such disorder...

This has nothing to do with environment or cyclists rights, the issue is that a bunch of people deliberately blocked traffic and provoked public disorder - it would not matter if they were on a bike, in a car, on foot, or in the Oscar Myer Wienermobile - it is against the law pretty much everywhere. You break the law, you take the consequences and don't run around whining like a schoolkid who got his hand slapped for sneaking cookies.

My complaint with the judge's ruling is that he finds the cyclists guilty of *criminal* disorderly conduct (I was in error when I called it "impeding traffic" as the charge was actually "obstructing traffic under the penal code section on disorderly conduct) simply for being on the same road at the same time with the other cyclists. He did not find them individually guilty of violating any traffic law; he found them guilty based on association with others who were witnessed violating traffic laws. The judge ruled that because some of the cyclists were violating traffic laws, and because some motorists were delayed due to the size of the group (he does not state which of these conditions was necessary and sufficient for the disorderly conduct charge) then the cyclists are guilty because they were part of the same ride.

I have always advocated that if police have a complaint with cyclists violating the rules of the road, then they should ticket the individuals for their specifictraffic violations - not attempt to arrest the entire group. If I were driving a car and following my brother-in-law from a wedding service to a reception, and he violated a traffic law on the way, but I did not, should I be found guilty of disorderly conduct for having the same trip endpoints at the same time? Of course not, which is why I am frustrated with this ruling. It seems to exhibit a lack of understanding both of traffic law and traffic bicycling. Not only should it be considered reasonable for a group of cyclists to create some delay for motorists behind them, just as a group of motorists will create delay for others who follow, but a large group of cyclists creates less total delay for other road users - per cyclist - than would each cyclist riding alone spaced out in a different place in the city, because the group is more compact and makes more efficient use of the road capacity.

The judge's opinion appears to be that creating a temporary delay to motorists by riding together constitutes disorderly conduct because some motorists might get upset and do something dangerous. But any nonviolent public expression, such as a civil rights march or kissing your partner (of the wrong race or gender) risks making people upset, and the courts have consistently protected such nonviolent, peaceful, lawful acts of expression. So why wouldn't the judge in this case rule to protect the defendents for exercising their right to ride their bike at that place and time?

I think the disorderly conduct ruling was based more on prejudice than an attempt to properly interpret the law. The judge was very concerned about protecting the first amendment in the general sense, but when he was able find a fault (i.e. slowness) specific to bicyclists in particular, and could cite traffic laws that support discrimination against that class, he had no trouble in making a ruling that I think certainly has a chilling effect on cyclists' ability to exercise their first amendment rights with other cyclists, even when they themselves attempt to follow the traffic laws.

-Steve Goodridge

Notice the spirit of the law, that obstructing traffic is done "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof..." Riding a bicycle for transportation is not covered here, as is underscored by this part of the ruling: "While a single cyclist's disregard of these regulations may not amount to an obstruction of vehicular traffic, a large group of cyclists riding together, and spread across the roadway from curb to curb, effectively creates a roadblock that slows and impedes the passage of other traffic. When this conduct is coupled with disregard of traffic signals and a pattern of weaving around and in front of motor vehicles, the risk of provoking public disorder is real and imminent and the bicyclists are plainly demonstrating an intent to cause such disorder...

I think we have very similar opinions on this issue.

My concern is this: if some participants of the ride violate traffic laws with the intent to create disruption, but others do not, should the traffic-law-abiding members be found guilty of same even if the only evidence against them is that they were on the same road at the same time?

That is, is it just to expect those following cyclists who decided to join the ride because it looked like good-natured fun to know that the purpose of the ride was to create a public disruption? Would it not be prudent to limit prosecution to those who were witnessed making specific traffic violations?

-Steve Goodridge

I have always advocated that if police have a complaint with cyclists violating the rules of the road, then they should ticket the individuals for their specifictraffic violations - not attempt to arrest the entire group. If I were driving a car and following my brother-in-law from a wedding service to a reception, and he violated a traffic law on the way, but I did not, should I be found guilty of disorderly conduct for having the same trip endpoints at the same time?
Here's where I disagree with you, Steve.

The point is that the disorderly conduct charges were based on an intent to create disorder. Perhaps not everyone in the ride had that intent, but the general purpose and behavior of the group seemed to. In the case of a group driving from a wedding, for example, if one driver engages in disorderly conduct it would not be applicable to others because the intent of the group is not disorderly in nature.

I think we have very similar opinions on this issue.

My concern is this: if some participants of the ride violate traffic laws with the intent to create disruption, but others do not, should the traffic-law-abiding members be found guilty of same even if the only evidence against them is that they were on the same road at the same time?

That is, is it just to expect those following cyclists who decided to join the ride because it looked like good-natured fun to know that the purpose of the ride was to create a public disruption? Would it not be prudent to limit prosecution to those who were witnessed making specific traffic violations?

-Steve Goodridge
You make good point, Steve. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like something for a lawyer to hash out.

Here's where I disagree with you, Steve.

The point is that the disorderly conduct charges were based on an intent to create disorder. Perhaps not everyone in the ride had that intent, but the general purpose and behavior of the group seemed to. In the case of a group driving from a wedding, for example, if one driver engages in disorderly conduct it would not be applicable to others because the intent of the group is not disorderly in nature.

I very much oppose the actions of ride organizers who intend to create disorder. I support their prosecution. However, given the way the ride is widely marketed as a "fun" community-oriented activity, I wonder why we cannot find reasonable doubt as to some participants' intent.

The judge ruled that some participants could not be expected to know that the ride did not have a permit, so how can he decide that all participants should be expected to know that the ride was intended to create disorder?

-Steve Goodridge

First you said this:
So in other words, the judge has decided that cyclists can be ticketed for slowing down traffic. This has serious implications for any group of cyclists.[QUOTE]

Now you say:
[QUOTE=sggoodri]
I think the disorderly conduct ruling was based more on prejudice than an attempt to properly interpret the law. The judge was very concerned about protecting the first amendment in the general sense, but when he was able find a fault (i.e. slowness) specific to bicyclists in particular, and could cite traffic laws that support discrimination against that class, he had no trouble in making a ruling that I think certainly has a chilling effect on cyclists' ability to exercise their first amendment rights with other cyclists, even when they themselves attempt to follow the traffic laws.


I agree that just singling out just the cyclists they could catch was BS, but I also don't see the rest of the cyclists involved coming forward and saying 'hey, if you want to charge one of us you have to charge all of us' - so much for that solidarity thing. Easy thing to yak about, till you gotta practice what you preach.

To your point, singling out one of a group isn't anything new, how many people in here have been ticketed for speeding by a cop when others on the road were obviously going faster? Are you innocent because he didn't pull over everyone all at once? (Ha, I wish!)

As for 1st Amendment rights, please, if you want to make a free expression, do it within the law. Would I be justified under the 1st Amendment if I threw blood all over you and your wife because I was a PETA member and wanted to speak out against wearing animal furr or skin? And, if for some reason the only way you can express what you want to express is by breaking the law, then accept the consequences of doing so.

Seriously, do you think mainstream America is going to have any sympathy for these cyclists or cyclists in general based upon the judge's ruling or your interpretations of it? If you want to effectively advocate cycling, those ordinary Americans are the people you need on your side, being perceived as a fringe lunatic will not get you very far...just ask right-wing militias, PETA and other groups who are considered as such. Steve, you should know that as well as I do, since you have some experience in politics. The only advantage of a fringe position is the ability to bargain away things you didn't really care about to get things you really want...but when you adopt such tactics those fringe supporters aren't real happy when they learn you gave them up as bargaining chips.

Once again, (this time cited in a legal decision), the mere existence of bike lanes functions to reinforce the notion that cycling outside of the bike lanes is unsafe and/or inappropriate.

The mere existence of bike lanes is obviously a major factor behind this decision. Drip, drip...


I think the mere existance of a mandatory bike lane law is more to the point here and not the existence of a bike lane itself.

You nay sayers, have you ever ridden here? There was a transit strike last month, the Mayor says ride bikes, walk. Before the strike, the mayor was having cyclists fined for not riding in bike lanes even though there were cars parked in it, no lights IN THE DAYTIME. etc....The mayor and the city want you to think that the city is an easy place to ride, yet they seem to do anything they can to make it more difficult. Presently the mayor is trying any method possible make it illegal to gather, or to voice dissent and lumping it together with this attack on group bike rides. NYC Cyclists need to be the squeaky wheel, we need to be noticed and to flex our collective power to achieve safer conditions.

...New Yorkers don't roll over when they get a raw deal, they stand up, and are noisy about it.
Whether or not I agree with CM's tactical strategies, if CM is a vehicle for change to improve conditions for cyclists and for standing up to unfair use of power, I can stand behind that kind of motive. It wouldn't be the first time Americans sought change using the weapon of civil disobedience. You have to give credit to anyone who's willing to risk breaking the law and possibly getting arrested in order to make their point.

The mere existence of bike lanes is obviously a major factor behind this decision. Drip, drip...

I think the mere existance of a mandatory bike lane law is more to the point here and not the existence of a bike lane itself.

You are free to think what you want.
The fact is the ruling mentions only the providing of "special" lanes, not any requirement that they be used.

To this judge, just like to the vast majority of everyone else, at least in the U.S., the mere existence of a bike lane implies that that is where cyclists are supposed to be riding, and outside of that "special" lane is where they are NOT supposed be riding.

You are free to think what you want.
The fact is the ruling mentions only the providing of "special" lanes, not any requirement that they be used.

To this judge, just like to the vast majority of everyone else, at least in the U.S., the mere existence of a bike lane implies that that is where cyclists are supposed to be riding, and outside of that "special" lane is where they are NOT supposed be riding.

I would submit to you that the average driver would believe that the bicycles shouldn't be in the road anyway, heaven forbid you should come before one of these judges. Individual Judges make very little difference in the grand scheme of things as lower courts have come up with some pretty boneheaded decisions. It is when we get to the upper courts that things start to get worrisome for me. Personally, I am more concerned with the actual laws themselves and not the perceptions of people. In the case of New York it is alarming that they have a law forcing people to use bike lanes. Bike Lanes are a wonderful option but I agree that they should be just that, an option. The Radical VC agenda doesn't seem to have any room for Bike Lanes just like the gun lobby doesn't have any room for assault weapon bans because they both fear that compromising even just a little on issues that seem to make good sense for some will lead to an eroding of rights. Anyway, the Judge may not have mentioned the bike lane law but the fact that New York has one should point out the fact that at least the government of New York has a rather peculiar view of Cyclists and their use of the road, if the government feels this way about cyclists how can we be surprised when a judge makes a similar decision? Either way, whoever made that bike lane law also appoints the judges so come to your own conclusions.

The VC agenda doesn't seem to have any room for Bike Lanes ...
I can't speak for the mythical "VC agenda". But regardless of whether there is any room for bike lanes, there is the separate issue of whether the mere existence of bike lanes reinforces the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

The fact that bike lane supporters indicate an unwillingness to look at this particular question objectively shows that their position is based much more in emotion than on reason.

I can't speak for the mythical "VC agenda". But regardless of whether there is any room for bike lanes, there is the separate issue of whether the mere existence of bike lanes reinforces the notion that cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars.

The fact that bike lane supporters indicate an unwillingness to look at this particular question objectively shows that their position is based much more in emotion than on reason.


And what about the viewpoint that bike lanes show drivers that cyclists do have a right to the road? I mean, it seems to me a driver without a bike lane there thinks "that stupid cyclist, he needs to get out of the road". With a bikelane he thinks "Hmmm, how interesting a lane for bicycles in the road, must mean they have a place here".

Just so you know there is another way to interpret that whole "what bikelanes make drivers think" line.

I think bike lanes break apart a drivers idea that cyclists should not be in the road at all. Seems like a '"reason"able idea to me.

Here is another thought, how many judges in this country last year ruled in favor of cyclists without even mentioning bike lanes? Seems like we are making a judgment call on the opinion of 1 Judge here which might, um, be a bit emotional so to speak as opposed to reasonable.