Northeast - NYC Bicycle Access to Buildings Bill

Please help out by sending a notice

http://transalt.org/takeaction/actioncenter/3349

Thanks - this is a good one to get on...let Liu know!:thumb:

Is there a link to the bill?

Don't owners have a right to operate their properties as they see fit? Tenants can negotiate leases as they see fit. There are plenty of buildings in NYC where bike access would be a nuisance, or fire hazard. Bicyclists can also buy smaller folding bicycles.

Even worse the bill will give the rudest stupidest people in the bicycling community a tool to bludgeon anyone who dares suggest their full sized bike with panniers and whatever else does not belong in a cramped office. I think this is a very bad idea and would not support it. I would even testify against it.

An odd bug-a-boo of the people in charge is they seem to think people do not bicycle to work because there is no parking. People do not bicycle to work because they live too far away, or it is unsafe, or they cannot maintain personal hygiene after cycling through the city.

As far as I can tell, here's the latest version of the bill: http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textfiles/Int%200871-2008.htm?CFID=2059391&CFTOKEN=79482838



Don't owners have a right to operate their properties as they see fit?
Sorry, no. ;) There are plenty of regulations on commercial buildings.

It appears that:
• it's just a "bicycle access plan," not necessarily that the building has to build a bike room. The building can say "bikes can now use the freight elevator" and they're in compliance.
• a tenant has to request it first (i.e. it's not a blanket requirement for all commercial buildings)
• a building can request an exemption if there's secure bike parking nearby
• the law will not force a building to add bike access if that winds up violating fire codes or impedes ingress/egress



People do not bicycle to work because they live too far away, or it is unsafe, or they cannot maintain personal hygiene after cycling through the city.
Streetsblog claims that multiple studies (http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/04/new-version-of-bicycle-access-bill-surfaces-in-city-council/) demonstrate that fear of bike theft is the biggest deterrent to bike commuters....

I've skimmed the text of the bill, and I think it seems to be a somewhat "nothing" piece of legislation. That said, I don't know if I support it, partly because I'm generally not very fond of government's telling private structures how they must conduct themselves.

Streetsblog claims that multiple studies (http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/04/new-version-of-bicycle-access-bill-surfaces-in-city-council/) demonstrate that fear of bike theft is the biggest deterrent to bike commuters....

The bill is a nuisance. I do not see that property owners should have to spend all day writing access plans, or hiring newly unemployed legal interns to write and respond to that silliness.

1) If you cannot afford to lose your bike, you cannot afford to own it. Sorry that is the way of the world.
2) If people really wanted to bring their bike indoors, they would buy one that was designed for that, a folding bike. Perhaps educating people as to their choices would be a good idea. A monthly pass is $89, so you could buy a pretty nice dahon or strida every year if you wanted. A Brompton every 2 years.
3) Those studies are of people who are not commuting. People who actually commute know that their bikes are fairly safe if they take some common sense precautions, like not buying an expensive bike to begin with.

The bill is a nuisance. I do not see that property owners should have to spend all day writing access plans, or hiring newly unemployed legal interns to write and respond to that silliness.

1) If you cannot afford to lose your bike, you cannot afford to own it. Sorry that is the way of the world.
2) If people really wanted to bring their bike indoors, they would buy one that was designed for that, a folding bike. Perhaps educating people as to their choices would be a good idea. A monthly pass is $89, so you could buy a pretty nice dahon or strida every year if you wanted. A Brompton every 2 years.
3) Those studies are of people who are not commuting. People who actually commute know that their bikes are fairly safe if they take some common sense precautions, like not buying an expensive bike to begin with.

Most office buildings don't want to be bothered with bikes. It most cases they have the ability to accommodate them they just see any profit in it. We all profit from the reduced emissions (o emissions) related to bikes and therefore allowing bikes in office buildings serves the greater good.

The bill is a nuisance. I do not see that property owners should have to spend all day writing access plans, or hiring newly unemployed legal interns to write and respond to that silliness.
They don't have to. All they need to do is allow the tenants to bring bicycles into the building, e.g. give bike commuters access to the freight elevators during its normal operating hours, and fill out a form.

Again, there are countless regulations on commercial buildings - many of which are far more onerous and expensive for building owners than this.



1) If you cannot afford to lose your bike, you cannot afford to own it. Sorry that is the way of the world.
While I agree with the general principle, and accept that bike theft is a part of Life in the Big City, the reality is that bike theft is very high in NYC; thieves will take just about any bike, no matter how beat up it is; bike theft is disruptive; and even a beater bike can be expensive, especially for low-wage workers.

This is a near-zero-cost way to mitigate that risk.



2) If people really wanted to bring their bike indoors, they would buy one that was designed for that, a folding bike....
Nice theory, except that as I know from experience, many commercial buildings will refuse to allow even folding bikes into the building. And even a collapsed folding bike can be heavy, bulky and dirty.



3) Those studies are of people who are not commuting. People who actually commute know that their bikes are fairly safe if they take some common sense precautions, like not buying an expensive bike to begin with.
H'm, if you don't like the conclusion, attack the study, right? :D

If you're trying to find out why people are not commuting by bike, you have to talk to people who aren't commuting by bike. Which of the two questions make sense:

"You do not commute by bicycle. Why don't you commute by bicycle?"
or
"You commute by bicycle. Why don't you commute by bicycle?"


I might add that if I believed this bill to be onerous, I wouldn't support it.

even a beater bike can be expensive, especially for low-wage workers. - Monthly metro card is $89.

there are countless regulations on commercial buildings - Some regulations are probably useful like fire regulations. Others are not, like allowing annoying people to demand privileges they did not negotiate in their lease, or employment agreement. I honestly do not see property owners being mean and keeping bicyclists from bringing their bikes into their buildings. It is clearly inappropriete in some buildings, and I think the property owner is the best judge of that.

thieves will take just about any bike - Bikes can be stolen from offices, but that is not the point, it is your bike and your problem. Learn to solve your problems, yourself.

I do not think it is a good idea to give the most annoying people in the bicycling community the ability to appoint themselves bike sheriff and harass building owners, demanding to know why they cannot bring their full sized un covered bikes into a posh building where people regularly wear $1000 suits.

I personally would like to know of any building that rejects a small folded bike in a carry bag. I have never heard of such a thing.

Once again property owners make their living accommodating tenants. I do not see why they would pointlessly harass their tenants, or why those tenants don't find a new location.

People who actually commute know that their bikes are fairly safe if they take some common sense precautions, like not buying an expensive bike to begin with.

I have to agree with this statement, in general.

I, personally, ride an inexpensive folding bike that I take inside with me because I know all too well the high probablility of bicycle theft in NYC.

GET A FOLDING BIKE IF YOU WANT TO BRING YOUR BIKE INSIDE BUILDINGS!

If you refuse, then be prepared to be refused entrance into a lot of buildings. Your large sized bikes ARE a safety hazard in a lot of situations. So unless there are designated areas to park your bike indoors without creating a hazard then you'll just have to buy an expensive lock along with that expensive full-sized bike and lock it up OUTSIDE.

I am against any law forcing all building to allow full-sized bikes in without having a safe, designated area in which to park those full-sized bikes without jeopardizing, inconveniencing and annoying everyone else in the process.

Bike theft is rampant and a societal problem, and the options to protect your bike are limited and often ineffective. Nor are bikes always (or even primarily) stolen due to negligence on the owner's part. Since this has developed into an issue with other societal implications (e.g. discouraging many people from cycling to work), a simple broad-based solution is fully justified.

Characterizing everyone who wants to park their bike at work as an "annoying activist" is slightly absurd, and does not alter the fundamental issue. And moving is not exactly an option; it's expensive, highly disruptive, and there's no guarantee the new building will honor requests for bike access. Or to put it on your terms: if you don't want to deal with fussy tenants, don't own or manage a commercial building.

I might add that the current issue over the bill isn't a massive groundswell of disapproval, apparently it's just political machinations by John Liu. He's supported the bill for months, but now that he plans to run against the bill's author for Comptroller, he's holding it up, suggesting it shouldn't be reviewed by his committee (which has worked on it for 8 months) and so forth.

I.e. as far as I can tell, it's not like building owners are up in arms over this -- or if they are, there's no public expression of it.

Building owners will do what's in their own best interest, which is not necessarily to the benefit of their tenants. As the law is simple, costs the building almost nothing, will hopefully will mitigate a major issue for many potential bike commuters, it's a no-brainer.

even a beater bike can be expensive

Agreed. Have you looked on Craigslist lately?? Sellers are asking for way too much even for beaters BUT you can find inexpensive beaters if you look really, really hard. I did! I recently aquired a solid little beater that I lock outside while running errands inside shops and buildings. I specifically purchased the beater to be as unattractive a target to thieves as I could get and I STILL lock it with the best mini ulock on the planet AND an armored cable that I use to secure the seat and wheels. I follow all safety precaustions with my beater like not leaving it unattened for longer than it would take to break the lock, locking it in highly visible, highly trafficed areas, etc.

Ride a beater (and properly lock it with the best lock you can get your hands on) or ride a folder (and bring the folder inside with you). Your chances of theft are seriously diminished by doing either of the above.



It is clearly inappropriete in some buildings, and I think the property owner is the best judge of that.

Agreed.



thieves will take just about any bike - Bikes can be stolen from offices, but that is not the point, it is your bike and your problem. Learn to solve your problems, yourself.

Yep. Thieves will steal anything but the point is to make it incredibly unappetizing to steal or nearly impossible to steal. As I described above, ride a beater and lock up properly or ride a folder and take it with you indoors. That effectively knocks down your chance of theft but NOTHING will completely eliminate theft.

Bikes "disappear" from locked bike storage cages in buildings! You can be held at knife/gunpoint and have your bike stolen out from under you. Anything can happen but you can at least knock down the chances of normal theft by following common sense and the above advice on bike choice & locks.



I personally would like to know of any building that rejects a small folded bike in a carry bag. I have never heard of such a thing.

I am speaking from 1st hand, daily experience, and I can honestly say as an owner and rider of a folding bike as my primary form of transport and commuting that I have NEVER been denied access to ANY building with my folding bike. I normally have it UNCOVERED but carrying it in my hand like luggage. No one even bats an eyelash. I do have a bag specifically made for the bike but I have only used it twice not because someone demanded it of me for entrance into a building.

I have never experienced or witnessed anyone with a folding bike being denied entrance to any building. So, moral of the story: Get a folding bike if you want guaranteed entrance into almost any building.

It's okay if folding bikes don't work for you but be prepared to properly lock your bike up outside. It's pretty straight forward.

Bike theft is rampant and a societal problem, and the options to protect your bike are limited and often ineffective. Nor are bikes always (or even primarily) stolen due to negligence on the owner's part. Since this has developed into an issue with other societal implications (e.g. discouraging many people from cycling to work), a simple broad-based solution is fully justified.

Characterizing everyone who wants to park their bike at work as an "annoying activist" is slightly absurd, and does not alter the fundamental issue. And moving is not exactly an option; it's expensive, highly disruptive, and there's no guarantee the new building will honor requests for bike access. Or to put it on your terms: if you don't want to deal with fussy tenants, don't own or manage a commercial building.

I might add that the current issue over the bill isn't a massive groundswell of disapproval, apparently it's just political machinations by John Liu. He's supported the bill for months, but now that he plans to run against the bill's author for Comptroller, he's holding it up, suggesting it shouldn't be reviewed by his committee (which has worked on it for 8 months) and so forth.

I.e. as far as I can tell, it's not like building owners are up in arms over this -- or if they are, there's no public expression of it.

Building owners will do what's in their own best interest, which is not necessarily to the benefit of their tenants. As the law is simple, costs the building almost nothing, will hopefully will mitigate a major issue for many potential bike commuters, it's a no-brainer.

:thumb:

Well said. I don't like to impose on anyone but there are always ways to find a middle ground between both parties and I'm sure this would fall into that category since it shouldn't be that big of a fuss for building owners. Commercial buildings have freight elevators cyclists can use which would take them to the freight area of their floor. Employees need to take up bike storage on their floor with their employer, which might be easier to get sorted with "green" initiatives being popular now. The building I work in does not allow cyclists in the front passenger elevators but does grant cyclists access to the freight which I regularly use without incident, and I am fortunate to have my own office where I can secure my bike. I allow my employees who wish to ride to work access to one of our empty offices for bike storage so it works out for all.

Even worse the bill will give the rudest stupidest people in the bicycling community a tool to bludgeon anyone who dares suggest their full sized bike with panniers and whatever else does not belong in a cramped office.



I do not think it is a good idea to give the most annoying people in the bicycling community the ability to appoint themselves bike sheriff and harass building owners, demanding to know why they cannot bring their full sized un covered bikes into a posh building where people regularly wear $1000 suits.


I have two questions -
1. Who are these rude, stupid annoying people you refer to?

2. Do you actually commute by bike on any regular basis?

I read the bill and am already able to bring my bike inside at work, but can't do so at my university. Hopefully if this type of thinking gains momentum my school will be able to provide some kind of secure parking for students. I was recently in London for a few days and noticed that even some very large university buildings (in comparison to my graduate-student only institution) had fenced off bicycle parking lots. This type of legislation is a baby step toward bare minimum bike infrastructure in this city, and as it is written it does not place a burden on building owners.

My school is on 34th street and 5th ave in Manhattan - leave anything there for a few hours and it will be stolen. I currently do not ride my bicycle there (I did for a few weeks before two locks that I was leaving there overnight were taken) because I KNOW that eventually it would disappear.

1) I do not think it is a good idea create heaps of regulations to make activists feel good. I do not understand why a tenant cannot simply, when a lease is being negotiated make whatever requests they want. In general I think "administrative law" is over used, and is unnecessary in this case.

2) The bill itself is completely ignorant of the fact that there is a bicycle designed to be easily stored indoors. folding bikes. I do not see that storing a full sized bike at work is some right that needs protecting.

3) Responding within the given time period of the bill is a scam. It is designed to force the owner to hire lawyers and architects or just agree to the demand for bicycle access. If anything the tenant should be required to pay for any studies to solve their problem.

4) The bike theft aspect is BS. Allowing unrestricted use of freight elevators will make theft of everything much worse. People may avoid riding a particular expensive bike due to theft concerns, but they are free to purchase a more sensible bicycle. I used to email people who posted about their bike thefts on craigslist. One large category of theft was bikes stored indoors but unlocked. People who do not commute to work by bike do not live close enough for it to be a good idea. Or they cannot maintain proper appearance and bicycle. I really doubt theft is the issue. If you ride the subway 250 days a year at $4 a round trip that is $1000.

5) The assumption behind the bill is that people who tell bicyclists they cannot do whatever they want are being malicious. Why not assume the property owner knows what they are doing. I do not think giving tenants a right to use freight elevators for bicycles is reasonable. Freight elevators are not there to lift tenant's employees' personal property on a daily basis. That is an abuse in my opinion. It is also an expense that should be paid by the tenant.

6) Is there actually a case where a property owner has told a tenant they cannot bring bikes? What exactly is the need for the law.

"I read the bill and am already able to bring my bike inside at work, but can't do so at my university." The bill will likely not help you as it only talks about the tenant being able to make complaints. Complain to the University.

"leave anything there for a few hours and it will be stolen" I doubt a cheap bike, with seatpost removed, and with a ulock will be stolen. Too much work, for too little $. Why not use the money you save bicycling to buy a folding bike.

1) I do not think it is a good idea create heaps of regulations to make activists feel good. I do not understand why a tenant cannot simply, when a lease is being negotiated make whatever requests they want. In general I think "administrative law" is over used, and is unnecessary in this case.

2) The bill itself is completely ignorant of the fact that there is a bicycle designed to be easily stored indoors. folding bikes. I do not see that storing a full sized bike at work is some right that needs protecting.

3) Responding within the given time period of the bill is a scam. It is designed to force the owner to hire lawyers and architects or just agree to the demand for bicycle access. If anything the tenant should be required to pay for any studies to solve their problem.

4) The bike theft aspect is BS. Allowing unrestricted use of freight elevators will make theft of everything much worse. People may avoid riding a particular expensive bike due to theft concerns, but they are free to purchase a more sensible bicycle. I used to email people who posted about their bike thefts on craigslist. One large category of theft was bikes stored indoors but unlocked. People who do not commute to work by bike do not live close enough for it to be a good idea. Or they cannot maintain proper appearance and bicycle. I really doubt theft is the issue. If you ride the subway 250 days a year at $4 a round trip that is $1000.

5) The assumption behind the bill is that people who tell bicyclists they cannot do whatever they want are being malicious. Why not assume the property owner knows what they are doing. I do not think giving tenants a right to use freight elevators for bicycles is reasonable. Freight elevators are not there to lift tenant's employees' personal property on a daily basis. That is an abuse in my opinion. It is also an expense that should be paid by the tenant.

6) Is there actually a case where a property owner has told a tenant they cannot bring bikes? What exactly is the need for the law.

"I read the bill and am already able to bring my bike inside at work, but can't do so at my university." The bill will likely not help you as it only talks about the tenant being able to make complaints. Complain to the University.

"leave anything there for a few hours and it will be stolen" I doubt a cheap bike, with seatpost removed, and with a ulock will be stolen. Too much work, for too little $. Why not use the money you save bicycling to buy a folding bike.

1) I don't think this is about making cyclist activists feel good, and while new tenants should request these things when negotiating a lease there should be room in that lease to address issues not considered in the initial lease; things do change you know.

2) So everyone should get folding bikes? I have no interest in getting a folding bike if there is a way I can use the bike I do ride as a commuter as well. I don't like the idea of making my choice to ride to work a nuissance and would only be interested in working with building owners to use their available access (namely freight elevators) to reach my floor.

3) Forcing buildings to create bicycle access is a bit much, but in the case of most commercial buildings people work in I suspect there is already a perfectly functional elevator that can accommodate.

4) Bike theft aspect BS? :roflmao2:

5) Sometimes property owners can be pretty unaccommodating despite having the ability to make life easier for some people. If you work in a building you usually have access to the freight anyway since your space will also have a freight area. The building I'm in has a card access system for the elevators so without the card the elevators are pretty useless.

6) That might depend where the cyclist was attempting to bring the bike in through as most buildings will not let you do so through the front lobby, and rightfully so.


It should come down to the tenants to work with property owners in order to make it easier for cyclists to bring their bikes in to work. Tenants will have to work out where in their space they can secure bicycles and property owners can help work out a way tenants can bring their bikes in through existing access points. This whole notion of "get folding bikes" is absurd for those who don't ride them nor want to spend money on a new bike, by the same token expecting property owners to take on a large expense just to cater to cyclists is unreasonable as well. Cheap bikes get stolen quite often, and if the entire thing isn't stolen then the parts are; keep in mind most people in the city aren't locking up expensive bikes on the street. People who have expensive bikes don't deserve to have their bikes stolen anymore than people who live in nice neighborhoods deserve to be burglarized and the more you post the more it sounds like you just have this myopic view of what people should be riding.

I have two questions -
1. Who are these rude, stupid annoying people you refer to?

2. Do you actually commute by bike on any regular basis?

so, 1= anyone who disagrees with you is marginalized with a generic label.

2= no reply, which probably means, no.

Building access would be nice. Covered bike parking would be nice, even if it was outside. Any bike parking would be nice. I'm tired of being hassled by the security guards telling me I can't lock up to the one and only city provided bike rack on my block.

I do not understand why a tenant cannot simply, when a lease is being negotiated make whatever requests they want. In general I think "administrative law" is over used, and is unnecessary in this case.
• The official tenant (e.g. the employer) may not care about a bike commuter's request. An employee has zero leverage in that situation.
• Many building owners are pleasant, many are not. Moving your business is expensive and disruptive, and there's no guarantee that a request for bike access will be honored.



2) The bill itself is completely ignorant of the fact that there is a bicycle designed to be easily stored indoors. folding bikes.
Meaning what, that everyone who wants to commute by bike should purchase a folding bike? :twitchy: Talk about an onerous requirement....



3) Responding within the given time period of the bill is a scam. It is designed to force the owner to hire lawyers and architects or just agree to the demand for bicycle access. If anything the tenant should be required to pay for any studies to solve their problem.
This is a straw man argument. The owner has to fill out a form, that's about it. They are not required to build a bike room or a separate entrance, let alone hire lawyers. Even contesting it does not require an appearance in court -- just an indication how there is either acceptable parking in a certain radius, or that adding bike access presents a fire hazard.



4) The bike theft aspect is BS. Allowing unrestricted use of freight elevators will make theft of everything much worse.....
Again, another straw man.

• The bill does not automatically grant anyone extra access to freight elevators; it just lets tenants bring a bike indoors.
• Sending out a few emails hardly qualifies as a scientific survey that proves how and where theft happens.
• Separately, it is pathetically easy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7zb8YXrmIA) to steal a bicycle on the street in broad daylight.



The assumption behind the bill is that people who tell bicyclists they cannot do whatever they want are being malicious.
Yet another straw man argument. There's no presumption of "maliciousness," only a recognition that not all buildings are providing access. Nor is this carte blanche for a cyclist, far from it. For example, there is absolutely no stipulation that the freight hours need to change to accommodate cyclists.



Why not assume the property owner knows what they are doing. I do not think giving tenants a right to use freight elevators for bicycles is reasonable. Freight elevators are not there to lift tenant's employees' personal property on a daily basis. That is an abuse in my opinion. It is also an expense that should be paid by the tenant.
Property owners do not necessarily act in the best interests of either their clients, or the city as a whole. Freight elevators are there precisely for the purpose of transporting items that should not be taken in a normal passenger elevator, regardless of who owns it. And the "expense" of operating a freight is part of what you pay with your lease.

I'm going to guess that you haven't spent a lot of time dealing with building owners or managers. Again, some (including most I've dealt with) are very pleasant and willing to work with a tenant; others are nowhere near as solicitous. I even know some who are highly professional, but will not necessarily put their tenant's needs over their own.



6) Is there actually a case where a property owner has told a tenant they cannot bring bikes? What exactly is the need for the law.
Obviously there is a need, or the bill wouldn't exist.

Mind you, I agree this law must be carefully written. Since I don't have a problem with regulations -- with the caveat that they not be onerous -- I don't find your arguments terribly compelling.

Thank you for that / \

Let's run through some of these:
*****************************
so, 1= anyone who disagrees with you is marginalized with a generic label.

2= no reply, which probably means, no.

Nope, but what you want is law that others have to comply with. You are not discussing this with a property owner, you are forcing that person to comply with your wishes or suffer the consequences. That is the problem. I have not problem with you going to the property owner and having a discussion, what you want to do is create expensive legal procedures as a punishment when someone disagrees with you.
*****************************************
Meaning what, that everyone who wants to commute by bike should purchase a folding bike? Talk about an onerous requirement....

You can commute with any bike you like including a motorcycle. You will need to park in the street, pay for parking, or go to a destination with parking arraingements. If you are in a tizzy about chaining your bike to a pole, and do not have the money to pay for parking, you can buy a folding bike. Choosing the correct tool for the job is the point here. I am sorry if the bike you love most in the world is not going to work in your commute.

************************
The owner has to fill out a form, that's about it.

What happens if they fill it out late, incorrectly, or do not understand it. The reality is that the form will be an official emission of the government of the city of new york. It will most likely be filled out by the property owner's attorney, and since the attorney will not sign anything that might be wrong an architect may have to be consulted. This is not some survey sent out by transportation alternatives, this is a serious request from the government that will have to be taken seriously by the property owner.

*********
Bike theft aspect BS?

Sure is. It is a cost of commuting. You need to take theft into account when choosing your bike. I am also amused that you think putting your bike in some bike room, or even by your desk will reduce the chance of your bike being stolen. It is not clear to me. It is also not clear that bike theft is the reason people do not commute by bike. This weekend I saw a huge number of bikes chained around the Brooklyn museum for their Target free admission Saturday. I would say the impediment to commuting to the Brooklyn museum was the admission fee. No one was bold enough to demand indoor bicycle parking.

**********************
Obviously there is a need, or the bill wouldn't exist.

Nah, some activist type needs a resume bullet. I really have never heard of a leasor being unable to resolve their bicycle policy with the leasee. Can you give an actual example of this?

**********************************
The official tenant (e.g. the employer) may not care about a bike commuter's request. An employee has zero leverage in that situation.
Many building owners are pleasant, many are not. Moving your business is expensive and disruptive, and there's no guarantee that a request for bike access will be honored.

So what? When dealing with a business with poor service, stop using them. It is really that simple.

********************************
The bill does not automatically grant anyone extra access to freight elevators; it just lets tenants bring a bike indoors.

So why is there mention of freight elevators? If it is in the law it will be a point of dispute. If it is a point of dispute it will eventually cost money to defend, even if the dispute is absurd.

***********************

Once again the problem with the law is it is a law. People will have to take it seriously. Even worse there is no filing fee. Any ding dong can write a semi literate complaint demanding a response, but the property owner has to hire lawyers to respond. I really see no need for this. It is a very bad unnecessary idea. And it will give all sorts of activists the idea that whatever their pet peeve is it should be inflicted on others. Tenants should negotiate with property owners. Property owners are not malicious, they have a vested interest in easy commuting to their property, this law will just make the relationship between property owners and bicycle commuters hostile.

Once again is there an actual dispute that this law is supposed to address?

so, 1= anyone who disagrees with you is marginalized with a generic label.
I'm simply pointing out that some (not all) of your objections involve a specific logical fallacy. Meanwhile, you are ratcheting up the ad hom attacks on any supporters and/or beneficiaries of the bill....

I also find it amusing that you simultaneously claim that there is no issue whatsoever -- i.e. building owners are granting sufficient access, to the point where you do not even perceive a problem -- yet you also predict that there will be a massive flurry of work-intensive requests for bike access plans.

So which is it? If there's no problem, there won't be any requests. If building owners are blocking access, and requests get filed, then obviously the law is addressing someone's concerns. Or are you going to make yet another ad hom attack, and suggest that any tenant or subtenant (yet again, that's a business owner, not an activist-employee) who files a request is an {insert insulting description here**.



What happens if they fill it out late, incorrectly, or do not understand it....
They have 30 days; hardly an utter disaster. The idea that you need an architect and a lawyer to list the number of entrances, and describe the path to the freight, is mildly amusing. Violations are unspecified in the bill.



I am also amused that you think putting your bike in some bike room, or even by your desk will reduce the chance of your bike being stolen. It is not clear to me.
I think it's pretty clear that while far from foolproof, it's much easier to steal a bike on the street than inside an office, where you need to pass several people to access the office. Again, check out the video I linked. The guy was able to steal a bike (his own, mind you) using bolt cutters, a hacksaw (took him 6 minutes), even an angle grinder. All in broad daylight and in at least one instance, right front of police. At least if the bike is indoors, it's out of sight and much less of a target of opportunity.

By the way, what good will a folding bike do you, if it is just as likely to get stolen from your office as it is on the street?



It is also not clear that bike theft is the reason people do not commute by bike.
It's clear to everyone else. It's not the only factor, but the available studies, to which links have already been provided, confirm this conclusion.



So what? When dealing with a business with poor service, stop using them. It is really that simple.
Are you joking?

Let's say you own a small business in Manhattan. You have 50 employees, you work in a building with 20 floors and 2 freight elevators. You have a multi-year lease and an established presence. Moving can easily go into 5 figures, especially if you factor in renovation costs in the new space, legal fees, moving costs, furniture costs, loss of staff productivity, increase in leasing costs.... And again, if after the move you have no guarantee of continual bike access, the move was a waste. Doing all that so a couple of employees can bring a bike upstairs is not going to happen.



>>The bill does not automatically grant anyone extra access to freight elevators; it just lets tenants bring a bike indoors.
So why is there mention of freight elevators?
To be clear:
- the building does not need to let non-employees access the freight.
- the building does not need to add extra operating hours to the freight, to satisfy the tenant or the bill.

Nah, some activist type needs a resume bullet.

all i see is this /\.

what 'type' are you, exactly?





everything else you write is blah blah to support your anger. get over it.

Sounds like geo8rge's objection is based more on feelings toward uppity cycling advocates than anything else. It would be great if all property owners were willing to negotiate and work in everyone's best interest, but laws are put in place to keep those who don't in check. If building owners are willing to provide as much access as they can without it negatively affecting their ability to secure and operate their location then I don't see the problem with the bill. To say that bike theft isn't a concern for commuters isn't accurate, and you don't have to own a high end bike to be worried about it (or its components) being stolen.

Sounds like geo8rge's objection is based more on feelings toward uppity cycling advocates than anything else.

How does one define uppity? It's a hate based statement. like saying there should be no abortion because only feminazis want that anyway.

I appreciate the line by line arguments against the bill but if you are going to obfuscate your own agenda while taking generalized and mean spirited pot shots at others you have to expect some heat.

I am a citizen who pays taxes and respects other's rights and I also happen to ride a bike to work for many reasons - some personal, others for the good of everyone. I don't appreciate being labeled or lumped in with other people.

How does one define uppity? It's a hate based statement. like saying there should be no abortion because only feminazis want that anyway.

I appreciate the line by line arguments against the bill but if you are going to obfuscate your own agenda while taking generalized and mean spirited pot shots at others you have to expect some heat.

I am a citizen who pays taxes and respects other's rights and I also happen to ride a bike to work for many reasons - some personal, others for the good of everyone. I don't appreciate being labeled or lumped in with other people.


Just to clarify I don't think cycling activists looking to make riding safer and easier in the city are "uppity", I'm just imagining it's how he views them. I commute to work often as well and can see the benefits of a bill that would make it more convenient for riders to bring their bikes to work without having to go and buy a new bike specifically for that purpose.

I didn't think you felt that way, sorry if i wasn't clear.

1) What is proposed is a law. If you do not comply you will be punished. If you do not understand what you are supposed to do, you will be punished. If you make a mistake you can be accused of perjury. What is proposed is not an objective, an ideal or a good idea. What is proposed is a law that property owners will have to comply with or be punished.

2) The way the law is written anyone who wants to complain can do so for free, and compel the property owner to hire expensive professionals to reply. Complying with a law is expensive. You will have to hire lawyers and possibly other professionals like architects.

3) Property owners actually want their buildings to be easy to get to. Why create a confrontational situation between owners and tenants. I do not see why a property owner would be against bicycle commuting.

4) I have not heard of any case where a tenant was refused accommodation. I do not understand the need for this law.

5) I do not understand why someone who is going to commute every working day cannot buy a suitable folding bicycle, perhaps with the subway money they are saving. The silliest aspect of this is the bicyclist simply can chose to ride a more suitable bicycle.

6) I do not see that tenants have a right to daily use of a freight elevator for personal property like a bicycle.

7) It is not clear to me that indoor facilities are better than chaining to a pole in the street. For example there will most likely be a 110v outlet in the storage room that will allow a thief to use power tools.

8) I really doubt that what is preventing people from commuting is fear of theft. Mostly it is distance and personal issues. I see plenty of bikes chained infront of office buildings so commuters are not afraid of theft.

In short the law is unnecessary, an unfair expensive imposition on property owners, and a bad idea.

1) What is proposed is a law. If you do not comply you will be punished. If you do not understand what you are supposed to do, you will be punished. If you make a mistake you can be accused of perjury. What is proposed is not an objective, an ideal or a good idea. What is proposed is a law that property owners will have to comply with or be punished.

I'm still curious as to what the access problems to commercial buildings are, most in the city have freight areas perfectly suited for that purpose.


2) The way the law is written anyone who wants to complain can do so for free, and compel the property owner to hire expensive professionals to reply. Complying with a law is expensive. You will have to hire lawyers and possibly other professionals like architects.

That should be clarified so the language clearly states that it's the tenant renting the space who is filing a complaint, there should also be a review process to assess the benefits and justify the expense the property owner would incur. In an ideal world the tenant filing the complaint would help pay some of these expenses if they're the only ones filing a complaint.


3) Property owners actually want their buildings to be easy to get to. Why create a confrontational situation between owners and tenants. I do not see why a property owner would be against bicycle commuting.

I don't see why people are mean either, but they are.


4) I have not heard of any case where a tenant was refused accommodation. I do not understand the need for this law.

One example is 1515 Broadway where you cannot take a bicycle inside the building (folding or otherwise) because they provide a bike closet which is often full, and despite security people have had items stolen.



5) I do not understand why someone who is going to commute every working day cannot buy a suitable folding bicycle, perhaps with the subway money they are saving. The silliest aspect of this is the bicyclist simply can chose to ride a more suitable bicycle.

This is just absolute bollocks. There are plenty of people who ride bicycles for more than just commuting, for which a folding bike is not suitable.


6) I do not see that tenants have a right to daily use of a freight elevator for personal property like a bicycle.

If they are tenants then they should, it would be almost absurd not having access to the freight since it is generally part of the tenants leased/rented space. In the building I work in we have full access to the freight elevators and so do the other tenants, access to the floors is controlled by access cards.


7) It is not clear to me that indoor facilities are better than chaining to a pole in the street. For example there will most likely be a 110v outlet in the storage room that will allow a thief to use power tools.

Theft is possible everywhere so no place is completely secure, however one would venture to guess that being locked away in a storage room is a bit safer than sitting on a street where anyone can come along and take it or its parts.


8) I really doubt that what is preventing people from commuting is fear of theft. Mostly it is distance and personal issues. I see plenty of bikes chained infront of office buildings so commuters are not afraid of theft.

There are plenty of people who don't commute for the reasons you stated, but I'm sure in that mix are people who don't want their bikes stolen and those are usually avid cyclists who own bikes that don't make sense to chain up. Now I'm sure you go on ad nauseam about "proper" bikes for commuting but I think the solution is for people to take the issue up with their employers so they can find space in their area to store bicycles if enough people are interested then the tenant can take up access issues with the property owner.



In short the law is unnecessary, an unfair expensive imposition on property owners, and a bad idea.

It could stand to be revised so that complaints come from the renter and not from just one individual, and only if the owner cannot justify reasons to not allow access to freight areas. There is always a middle ground and that's what needs to be found in this case.

5) I do not understand why someone who is going to commute every working day cannot buy a suitable folding bicycle, perhaps with the subway money they are saving. The silliest aspect of this is the bicyclist simply can chose to ride a more suitable bicycle.

Try telling motorists they only need this

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040820/040820_Smartshowroom.h2.jpg

not this

http://www.topgear.com/us/images/pic/46pic_sema.jpg

Then I'll listen to this nonsense of yours.

7) It is not clear to me that indoor facilities are better than chaining to a pole in the street. For example there will most likely be a 110v outlet in the storage room that will allow a thief to use power tools.

You really know nothing about leaving a bike on the street, do you?


8) I really doubt that what is preventing people from commuting is fear of theft. Mostly it is distance and personal issues. I see plenty of bikes chained infront of office buildings so commuters are not afraid of theft.

And more proof you are not a bike commuter. Which means you are presenting an argument, but only from one side, and a very biased one at that. The fact that bikes are chained in front of an office building does nothing to support your statement. I ride everywhere and leave my bike on the street only when absolutely necessary, and I worry whenever I do so. Don't presume to know everything

In short the law is unnecessary, an unfair expensive imposition on property owners, and a bad idea.

It's unnecessary for you, it would appear. I respect that....Now, If you're finished how about giving it a rest and listening to what cyclists are saying about it, for or against?

I see that bald repetition is now a substitute for rational argument. Remind me to put that in my quiver of rhetorical arrows... ;)

• Violations are not stipulated, but are most likely small fines. No one's getting sent to jail over this.

• The bill clearly stipulates that only a tenant or subtenant can place the request. There's no indication that one person with no connection to the building can bring building management to its knees by making outrageous demands for bike access, or that you need a massive multi-day engineering survey to fill out a DOT form. (Or do you bring your attorney with you to the DMV when you renew your driver's license? :P) This is obviously a ginned-up and illogical claim.

• Several surveys have in fact indicated "fear of bike theft" is a major factor in the decision not to bike commute -- not the only or exclusive reason, but definitely one critical factor (and the leading one). I fail to see why you can't accept this basic fact.

As to "who's complaining" go ask Transportation Alternatives or some of the Council Members, I'm sure they have more info on that.


And of course, your own position involves multiple contradictory premises and/or conclusions, as one might expect with such post-hoc excuses. Such as:

- The law is a terrible and massive imposition, by asking building owners to do provide a form of access they are already so willing to provide, that you can't conceive of a problem in the first place.
- It's wrong to force people to do something against their inclinations, but anyone who doesn't commute with a folding bike gets what they deserve.
- Bikes are not safer if kept indoors, but you should get a folding bike so you can... bring your bike indoors.
- Tenants who pay for the right to use the freight elevator, don't have the right to use the freight elevator.

Normally I'd expect a rational response rather than a rote recitation of already-refuted positions, but.... :D

yeah, i'm done too.

Someone suggested on Streetsblog that Liu is holding the bill up because he feels it should be overseen by the Buildings Department rather than DOT... not because of all this nonsense mentioned above.

I think the bill is good and will help more people ride to work, please support it by following the link on the first post.

"In the building I work ..." Each building is different, that is why the law is a bad idea. I am glad that the situation in that building permits access to the freight elevators. In other buildings that is probably not the case which is why the property owner is denying access.

"One example is 1515 Broadway where you cannot take a bicycle inside the building (folding or otherwise) because they provide a bike closet which is often full, and despite security people have had items stolen."

I hate to tell you this but that building would just say they have this dinky bike room, that is their access plan. Thank you for pointing out that bikes are often stolen from indoor storage areas. A point transportation alternatives does seem to understand.

"Someone suggested on Streetsblog that Liu is holding the bill up" - He got my email suggesting he look at some folding bikes.

" Violations are not stipulated, but are most likely small fines. No one's getting sent to jail over this."
The lack of details is not encouraging.

"everal surveys have in fact indicated "fear of bike theft" is a major factor in the decision not to bike commute -- not the only or exclusive reason, but definitely one critical factor (and the leading one). I fail to see why you can't accept this basic fact."

Because people already commute with full sized bikes, which they respectfully leave outside, or folding bikes. Those are the real commuters. Years back a politician, Mark Green?, got garages to accept bikes for twice the amount as the single trip transit fare. People did not take up the offer. I do not see that the offer of free is going to make that much of a difference.

If you do not live within about 3 mi of your destination, you are unlikely to bike there. If personal appearance is very important to your employment, you are unlikely to commute by bicycle. Most people will not commute in rain, snow, or heat.

"The bill clearly stipulates that only a tenant or subtenant can place the request. " Some tenants are just leasing a single office space in say the empire state building. Again I do not understand why property owners and tenants cannot negotiate these details. I also do not understand why one tenant can force all the tenants into the same situation. Maybe most of the tenants agree with the building owner?

I also do not understand why people expect a law to be created for every pet peeve they have.

"In the building I work ..." Each building is different, that is why the law is a bad idea. I am glad that the situation in that building permits access to the freight elevators. In other buildings that is probably not the case which is why the property owner is denying access.

Well to probe the reasons why tenants can't access the freight and allow people to use the freight is what I'd be interested in, and whether they are valid reasons.


"One example is 1515 Broadway where you cannot take a bicycle inside the building (folding or otherwise) because they provide a bike closet which is often full, and despite security people have had items stolen."

I hate to tell you this but that building would just say they have this dinky bike room, that is their access plan. Thank you for pointing out that bikes are often stolen from indoor storage areas. A point transportation alternatives does seem to understand.

I don't think anyone is saying that bikes can't be stolen from indoor storage areas, the idea is that it would reduce the possibility of theft and is more of a controlled environment they can secure better. So this being the case then are you just suggesting that no one should ride to work because their bike will be stolen?


"Someone suggested on Streetsblog that Liu is holding the bill up" - He got my email suggesting he look at some folding bikes.

:roflmao2: This is the answer to everything for you it seems.


" Violations are not stipulated, but are most likely small fines. No one's getting sent to jail over this."
The lack of details is not encouraging.

But it's not discouraging either, just something that needs to be worked out with both the cycling activists and property owners interests in mind.


"everal surveys have in fact indicated "fear of bike theft" is a major factor in the decision not to bike commute -- not the only or exclusive reason, but definitely one critical factor (and the leading one). I fail to see why you can't accept this basic fact."

Because people already commute with full sized bikes, which they respectfully leave outside, or folding bikes. Those are the real commuters. Years back a politician, Mark Green?, got garages to accept bikes for twice the amount as the single trip transit fare. People did not take up the offer. I do not see that the offer of free is going to make that much of a difference.

If you do not live within about 3 mi of your destination, you are unlikely to bike there. If personal appearance is very important to your employment, you are unlikely to commute by bicycle. Most people will not commute in rain, snow, or heat.

Bringing a bike inside is disrespectful? If the cyclist is not interefering with other tenants while coming in and out of the building what exactly is the problem? Obviously there are those who don't like to ride and get sweaty, but they're not likely to commute to work anyway. You might be surprised to know there are some of us who actually ride our bikes and don't mind distance, at the same time we come in to work and get changed so we're perfectly presentable for a day at the office; a little preparation and planning is all it takes. My commute is well over 28 miles and there are plenty of people who commute more than that, I think it's safe to say we're commuters.


"The bill clearly stipulates that only a tenant or subtenant can place the request. " Some tenants are just leasing a single office space in say the empire state building. Again I do not understand why property owners and tenants cannot negotiate these details. I also do not understand why one tenant can force all the tenants into the same situation. Maybe most of the tenants agree with the building owner?

I think they should negotiate the details and work it out between themselves, but that's assuming everyone is reasonable and that's not always the case which is why laws set those guidelines.


I also do not understand why people expect a law to be created for every pet peeve they have

I think this goes beyond a pet peeve, and if no one advocated for things nothing would change.

As the wise Forest Gump once said "and that's all I have to say about that".

If you do not live within about 3 mi of your destination, you are unlikely to bike there. If personal appearance is very important to your employment, you are unlikely to commute by bicycle. Most people will not commute in rain, snow, or heat.

:notamused:

:roflmao2: This is the answer to everything for you it seems.



Note his sig, his bikes (listed) are all folders except the oddball rowing bike. He sure is enthusiastic! :thumb:

Being a happy Brompton owner, I have a pet peeve regarding running errands while commuting. I don't bring a chain/lock with me because it sort of defeats the purpose of taking the bike into the office. Plus I don't want to leave it outside since it's expensive and damn hard to lock up properly anyway. My only choice when running into a store is to fold it up and bring it in. This doesn't seem like it would be terribly inconvenient considering I can fold it in about 20 seconds...then you realize how tiny the aisles are and how crowded grocery stores can get. Coupled with a bag of a change of clothes/shoes and a shopping basket...well, it basically sucks enough that I avoid shopping if I'm commuting on the folder.

"what I'd be interested in, and whether they are valid reasons. " Once again the administative court of NYC is not composed of experts in everything. The owner of a building is the person who is most expert in that building. That is why they, while negotiating with a tenant, are best to determine what is or is not a good idea. Once you start creating administrative code for your pet peeves, then others will do the same.

"This is the answer to everything for you it seems." Yes it is. If you can solve a problem yourself, why involve others, why instigate legal proceedings. Just get a tool that works, and leave your full sized bike at home.

"Bringing a bike inside is disrespectful?" If the proprietor does not want in inside, leave it outside, that is called good manners. I suspect I could bring my bike into church museums and many other clearly inappropriate places. I don't because I have common sense and respect for those institutions.

"assuming everyone is reasonable ""if no one advocated for things nothing would change." Property owners are not an obstacle, they are making common sense business decisions. The problem with the administrative law solution to all your complaints is you are assuming you know what you are talking about and the evil property owner is a moron. The property owner is the one who knows the building best, that is what they do for a living. It is not in their best interest to make access to the building difficult. Once again are there a number of real world examples where bringing bicycles into NYC office buildings makes sense but it is forbidden by the management? I personally think making this a law is very unreasonable, and even dangerous. Why can't dog owners require building owners to let their pets in, or hire experts to dispute allowing pets into office buildings?

If someone says no to you, think there should be a law to make them agree with you?

For what it's worth, I'm one of the supposed "few" people who don't commute to work because of the fear of theft.
I have a big problem locking my bike outside Brooklyn Heights near Atlantic.
IF I'm allowed to bring my bike into the building and store it in my OWN office, I will gladly commute by bike everyday. But the policy for my institution is no bikes allowed in, even if I have my own office, where the bike would not be a fire hazard.

"what I'd be interested in, and whether they are valid reasons. " Once again the administative court of NYC is not composed of experts in everything. The owner of a building is the person who is most expert in that building. That is why they, while negotiating with a tenant, are best to determine what is or is not a good idea. Once you start creating administrative code for your pet peeves, then others will do the same.

"This is the answer to everything for you it seems." Yes it is. If you can solve a problem yourself, why involve others, why instigate legal proceedings. Just get a tool that works, and leave your full sized bike at home.

"Bringing a bike inside is disrespectful?" If the proprietor does not want in inside, leave it outside, that is called good manners. I suspect I could bring my bike into church museums and many other clearly inappropriate places. I don't because I have common sense and respect for those institutions.

"assuming everyone is reasonable ""if no one advocated for things nothing would change." Property owners are not an obstacle, they are making common sense business decisions. The problem with the administrative law solution to all your complaints is you are assuming you know what you are talking about and the evil property owner is a moron. The property owner is the one who knows the building best, that is what they do for a living. It is not in their best interest to make access to the building difficult. Once again are there a number of real world examples where bringing bicycles into NYC office buildings makes sense but it is forbidden by the management? I personally think making this a law is very unreasonable, and even dangerous. Why can't dog owners require building owners to let their pets in, or hire experts to dispute allowing pets into office buildings?

If someone says no to you, think there should be a law to make them agree with you?


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e134/popzeus71/f-paper.jpg

For what it's worth, I'm one of the supposed "few" people who don't commute to work because of the fear of theft.
I have a big problem locking my bike outside Brooklyn Heights near Atlantic.
IF I'm allowed to bring my bike into the building and store it in my OWN office, I will gladly commute by bike everyday. But the policy for my institution is no bikes allowed in, even if I have my own office, where the bike would not be a fire hazard.

The law would not apply to you, all rights are given to the tenant, with the right of a costly objection given to the property owner.

I would not assume your bicycle will be safe stored indoors. I used to email people who advertised stolen bike on craigslist, unchained bicycles stored indoors were a common form of theft.

There are obvious solutions you can take:
1) a folding bike
2) a beater bike you could afford to loose.

Both solutions can be financed by your transit savings. If you go cheap enough you could have your beater bike stolen every 3 months and still break even. I doubt your bike will be stolen that often. Once again it is your choice but I do not see why you need to ride exactly one specific bike to work, or not at all.

I have had bikes stolen if they are cheap you get over it. I think you are over reacting to the possibility of bike theft. Trust me it is not the end of the world, no reason to go into morning for a beater bike.

My guess is if the law is implemented a bike room will be located in a sub basement. There will be thefts. Then people will not bike because of the thefts. I also predict that Mr Liu will get no additional support do to this, in the same way Mark Greene got none with his parking bikes in garages scheme. In fact people do not bike to work mostly because the do not want to.

Another problem with administrative law solutions to pet peeves is other people have pet peeves. At some point you will be subjected to other people great idea for a law. Once again, writing a new law every time some says no to what you and your small circle of friends are certain is a reasonable request is a very bad idea.

I would not assume your bicycle will be safe stored indoors. I used to email people who advertised stolen bike on craigslist, unchained bicycles stored indoors were a common form of theft.

There are obvious solutions you can take:
1) a folding bike



1. You say bikes should not be assumed safe when stored indoors.

2. You advocate getting a folding bike that can be stored indoors.

:thumb:

The law would not apply to you, all rights are given to the tenant, with the right of a costly objection given to the property owner.

I would not assume your bicycle will be safe stored indoors. I used to email people who advertised stolen bike on craigslist, unchained bicycles stored indoors were a common form of theft.

There are obvious solutions you can take:
1) a folding bike
2) a beater bike you could afford to loose.

Both solutions can be financed by your transit savings. If you go cheap enough you could have your beater bike stolen every 3 months and still break even. I doubt your bike will be stolen that often. Once again it is your choice but I do not see why you need to ride exactly one specific bike to work, or not at all.

I have had bikes stolen if they are cheap you get over it. I think you are over reacting to the possibility of bike theft. Trust me it is not the end of the world, no reason to go into morning for a beater bike.

My guess is if the law is implemented a bike room will be located in a sub basement. There will be thefts. Then people will not bike because of the thefts. I also predict that Mr Liu will get no additional support do to this, in the same way Mark Greene got none with his parking bikes in garages scheme. In fact people do not bike to work mostly because the do not want to.

Another problem with administrative law solutions to pet peeves is other people have pet peeves. At some point you will be subjected to other people great idea for a law. Once again, writing a new law every time some says no to what you and your small circle of friends are certain is a reasonable request is a very bad idea.


1. My bike WOULD be safe stored indoors, because I'm the only one with keys to my office (besides house cleaning, they come after I leave anyway).

2. I understand the fact of buying a beater bike. But let's be honest here, we're all on a bike forum. This is our hobby. We enjoy upgrading/pampering/buying expensive stuff for our bikes. A beater bike is fine for the general public but not with us. After spending time building bikes with quality components/frame/aesthetics how can I even ride a beater everyday knowing the ride is pure garbage.

3. Again I'll state, I simply dont bike to work because of the fear of theft. I want to ride the bike I built as a bike enthusiast. I have my own office to store the bike too. I dont want to ride a beater and I'm not riding a bike to make the Earth a greener place. I simply like to ride my own bikes.

geo8rge
Holy crap dude, you're freaking clueless. I will no longer click on this thread because of the stupidity that you are spewing. Why do you want me to not be able to bring my bike into my office. How does this hurt you.

geo8rge
Holy crap dude, you're freaking clueless. I will no longer click on this thread because of the stupidity that you are spewing. Why do you want me to not be able to bring my bike into my office. How does this hurt you.

It doesn't. The problem is if a property owner (*) tells you you cannot bring your bike you want to create an administrative law with complicated and expensive procedures that requires property owners to do what you say or they will have to deal with the government. When it was a discussion between the merchant(property owner) and the customer (you) I had no problem. You want to involve the government in what is a commercial relationship which both parties can terminate.

It does involve me as more and more every time an American has a pet peeve they want a new law to force others to do what they want. This is creating a burden for everyone.

This law is also like critical mass where a mess was created in the name of bicyclists.

(*) People who devote their lives and money to property management but evidently don't know how to manage properties according to bicycle activists who have never managed a property.

Would this bill have positive externality benefits? Perhaps more bike commuters and less congested on the 4/5/6 lines for example? Otherwise, I don't see why a law should be passed for this. Is there a reason why employees couldn't together demand this at their own job, rather than relying on a nanny government to solve their problems?

I find that this thread is being littered by folks that think that big government is bad.

Please start your own thread on that matter.

With regard to NYC it has laws and regulations for just about everything ( it might be more socialist than any other city, state or government) and this bike bill is a good idea.