Judge dismisses New York's bid to force bike rally to get permit

NEW YORK (AP) -- The city's bid to force cyclists to obtain a parade permit for a monthly Manhattan bicycle rally that has resulted in hundreds of arrests since summer was dismissed Thursday by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III tossed out the city's countersuit and said the issue should be resolved in state court.

Although Pauley did not condone the cyclists' actions, he noted that police had not required the Critical Mass rallies to have permits for nearly a decade until officers began arresting riders two days before this summer's Republican National convention.

In addition, he said, police had for years aided the rallies by blocking cross-town intersections to allow cyclists to proceed without interruption and by letting them run red lights.



"After allowing Critical Mass rides in Manhattan for 10 years without permits," Pauley wrote, "the police department has acquiesced to the very conduct it now seeks to prohibit."

Pauley also cited testimony this month by assistant police Chief Bruce H. Smolka Jr., who said the department "can enforce the laws without an injunction, but an injunction would be helpful."

Pauley also denied the city's application to require cyclists to get a permit from the Department of Parks and Recreation to gather at Union Square Park before the start of each rally, saying that was an issue for state courts.

Cyclists had argued that since no one claims to organize the event, the issuance of permits would have been difficult. They said they do not need a formal organization because they have the same rights to streets as motorists do.

Attorney Norman Seagal, who represented five cyclists who had their bikes seized at a rally, said he hoped the city would accept the ruling.

"We believe that the judge was legally correct, and hopefully the strength of his legal argument will deter the city from seeking to appeal," Seagal said.

Sheryl Neufeld, of the city law department, said that she was disappointed in the decision and that the city was considering an appeal.

"To allow Critical Mass bike rides to continue in their present form continues to be a danger to the public safety," she said.

The bike rides started in San Francisco in 1992 and came to New York two years later. They generally occur all over the world on the last Friday of each month and are designed to make a statement about cyclists' rights and to protest urban areas' reliance on motor vehicles.

They became large enough in New York recently that police decided to tighten the rules, leading to the arrest of more than 260 cyclists during a ride days before the GOP convention in August.

Dozens more cyclists were arrested at subsequent rallies.

YAHOO! It's gonna be a party on the New Years Eve ride, no doubt! :D

YAHOO! It's gonna be a party on the New Years Eve ride, no doubt! :D

Keep us posted. We are all watching on http://nyc.indymedia.org

Good deal. Have you noticed that the one city most directly affected by Sept.11th and it's aftermath seems the least willing to do away with civil rights like some of these goose steppin' red states? Lead by example, that's what Momma used to say...

Good deal. Have you noticed that the one city most directly affected by Sept.11th and it's aftermath seems the least willing to do away with civil rights like some of these goose steppin' red states? Lead by example, that's what Momma used to say...

Why do they call the red states red states anyways? Sometimes, I can't tell the difference between the red states and China, in terms of civil rights. The only difference is the people in the red states are fatter than the Chinese.

Why do they call the red states red states anyways?
Cuz they're soaked in blood.

Cuz they're soaked in blood.

OIC. I thought it's because they are all pinko commies.

It ought to be Blue and Grey. The underlying issues that brought about the Civil War are still at least partly there. Republican gerrymandering has aggravated the problem(s).

From what I gather, the suit was not dismissed on the merits of the case. All that happened was that the Federal court decided it was not the correct venue for the city to initiate the litigation.

Expect the city to file the same suit in state court.

hmmm....i love how just because you do not agree with their political point of view, they're commie racists. btw, i live in a red state, and i'm not republican or democrat. i agree that racisim is a problem, but not just in the south. it's still fairly prolific across the entire country.

Red states were named for the red color TV news give a state on a map when the Repubilican canadate wins that states Electorial votes. Democrats are shaded blue, while the rare indepentent are shaded white. (last happened in 1948)

I think their really is no such thing as bad publicity and that even if the Supreme Court did ban the rides that it woudl get more people to think about the situation and to act in different methods. Afterall, when has the law ever been on our side?

I'm glad Critical Mass won. What was happening to those cyclists was horrible. I hope they continue to win in State court whatever appeals the city might launch.

God I hate nazis.

The red and blue colors of the states in TV news coverage were just the opposite a while ago (Republicans blue, Democrats red) until someone complained that the red was too harsh for liberal socialist Democrats, and they chose a more soothing blue color for them. :)

I'd say this thread has degenerated pretty well beyond the original post...

I think their really is no such thing as bad publicity and that even if the Supreme Court did ban the rides that it woudl get more people to think about the situation and to act in different methods. Afterall, when has the law ever been on our side?

The law is more the convenience of motorists', not for bicyclists' safety.

Why do they call the red states red states anyways? Sometimes, I can't tell the difference between the red states and China, in terms of civil rights. The only difference is the people in the red states are fatter than the Chinese.
Clearly open-minded thinking at it's zenith.

I thought the red states were red to symbolize the fascism of the repugnican party. And the democrats are blue because they keep losing :-)

I'd say this thread has degenerated pretty well beyond the original post...
I hate when that happens...

But want to know: how will this ruling help commuting cyclists? I realize that when one person's rights are curtailed, all our rights are threatened. But what problem is Critical Mass addressing, other than the problem of police overreaction to their rides? It obviously helps Critical Mass (for now,) but how will it help me?

This isn't the commuting forum, it's the advocacy forum; but if it helps, here's what one of my lawyer friends posted on a local list in response to questions regarding how the NYC ruling helps Critical Mass in other cities like Portland (where the cops have been overbearing for the last two years). I think I've highlighted the critical passage(s):

Disclaimer: this ain't legal advice, okay?

"The real lesson is not the following legal stuff, but to look at how the NYC CM folks have framed the fight as one about their first amendment rights! If you are talking to the press or whomever, think about if that is how you...might want to frame your local fight.

legal stuff:

Short answer, [the NYC ruling] is "persuasive" but not binding anywhere else.

Medium answer, there are state and federal courts, each has trial, appellate and supreme courts (although NY's lowest court is called the state supreme court, so be careful out there!)

Trial court decisions are binding only to the facts and litigants involved. BUT other trial courts look around to see what their neighbors are doing. legally though only higher courts have binding effect on courts below them, and even then state in state only and federal in federal only (mainly). So a state appelate court decision is binding on all trial courts in that state, but not necessarily in other appelate courts in that state, which is why a supreme court will hear an issue, to settle it once and for all.

Long answer: state supreme court decision is law of that state, US Supreme CT decision is binding in the US, each however has different jurisdiction and in some instances a STATE supreme court decision can be appealed to the US supreme court.

If an appellate court has ruled on a case, then that is the law for all those below them, unless and until the appropriate supreme court changes or upholds their decision.

In general, once the trial court has made a decision people need to decide if they want to appeal or not. There are tons of reasons to appeal and to not appeal, some deal with the legal issues, some deal with external issues like money or politics. They always say when your client says they'll take their case to the supreme court, get paid in advance!

So the New York Federal Trial Court decision is binding on them, but as was previously noted there is the interplay between state and federal claims, and what court is proper to be dealing with this stuff.
Now if this exact same issue were to come up in Portland and we were in state court, the state court would look to Oregon law first, then maybe federal law, but a federal trial decision is not binding anywhere but in that trial, for those litigants and those facts. Also in Federal court unless it is a state issue, you would only look to federal law.

So I think the moral in this story, is that the iceberg has many tips and we are one and NY is another. NYCM has a well-framed fight going on and the court is following the law!"

This isn't the commuting forum, it's the advocacy forum; but if it helps, here's what one of my lawyer friends posted on a local list in response to questions regarding how the NYC ruling helps Critical Mass in other cities like Portland (where the cops have been overbearing for the last two years). I think I've highlighted the critical passage(s):

...

So, to answer LittleBigMan, it doesn't help the person who uses the bicycle everday for practical reasons (real advocacy), it helps CM. Right?

Depends... Mainly on when the police start considering ten commuters in a bike lane heading for work at the same time a procession that needs a parade permit.

But then again, they would never stretch the Critical Mass thing out to other cyclists. They're just after Critical Mass, right?

Right?

On one hand cops from one side of town don't seem to talk to cops on the other, unless some directive comes from on high. This directive has come from the top, so...
Maybe we could be targeted as commuters. Other members have sugested this, and I think it is valid, cops do let bikes run lights and stretch laws, which benifits bike commuting. But CM is good for riding and commuting, you know when some car passes another in the bikelane nearly killing you, and they say they don't care about any of that when you confront them, you feel alone and vunerable. CM shows you that there are others out there eating the same sh*t, still riding.

CM shows you that there are others out there eating the same sh*t, still riding.

Damn that's good, dude. I've been trying to put that into words for awhile. Well said.
;)

Good deal. Have you noticed that the one city most directly affected by Sept.11th and it's aftermath seems the least willing to do away with civil rights like some of these goose steppin' red states? Lead by example, that's what Momma used to say...

I must have totally missed your point. From the actions of the City of New York, as evidenced in the posts of New Yorkers on this forum, it seems that New York is having no problem at all trying to do away with people's rights.

I must have totally missed your point. From the actions of the City of New York, as evidenced in the posts of New Yorkers on this forum, it seems that New York is having no problem at all trying to do away with people's rights.

Yes, exactly - just like the rest of the country. The difference? New Yorkers are fighting back; the rest of the country - present company excluded - is eating donuts and watching Fox and thanking God that they've been given the chance to "temporarily" surrender their rights in order to help fight terror.

Depends... Mainly on when the police start considering ten commuters in a bike lane heading for work at the same time a procession that needs a parade permit.

But then again, they would never stretch the Critical Mass thing out to other cyclists. They're just after Critical Mass, right?

Right?
I think they are targeting Critical Mass.

If you're out to ride a bike, do it. If you want to ride as a group, do it. If you want to provoke police into stepping over legal boundaries, do it. But don't confuse motives.

"Civil disobedience" is a calculated form of activating social change which requires it's participants to accept the legal consequences of their actions. Ghandi was an example, as was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Critical Mass rides can take on the form of a political demonstration. That's fine, I support that. But which cyclists will benefit, other than Critical Mass riders?

I think it's a legitimate question.

...which cyclists will benefit, other than Critical Mass riders? I think it's a legitimate question.
No doubt. I think the answer has been given here before.

In cities with vibrant and active Critical Mass rides, there are more cyclists on the roads at other times, too. That's known to improve cyclists' safety all around.

Cyclists who participate in CM are more likely to become involved in other forms of cycling advocacy, which also leads to improvements that benefit all cyclists.

If the local gov't is paying attention to the simple, original message of CM, it may encourage them (perhaps with a little outside nudging) to put a little more time, money and effort into improving conditions for cycling from a institutional standpoint - that is, design and construction of a variety of improvements and ammenities for cyclists. If they do their homework well, those ammenities may actually work for cyclists. It could anything from installing more bike parking throughout the city, to passing an ordinance requiring large employers to provide showers and lockers for bicycle commuters, to a traffic safety enforcement program directed at motorists with the objective being to make the roads safer for cycling (and perhaps walking as well).

Or maybe it's something completely different, like someone who got busted on one of the recent NYC CM rides getting pissed off enough about it to run for city council and win on a pro-bicycling platform and become a voice for cycling advocacy on the inside...

the debate over and over is, that not everyone is out to prevoke the excitable cops, the cops are out to arrest anyone and everyone on the last friday of every month. Is everycop a b*stard? No is every Crit Mass rider a holigan? No

If the local gov't is paying attention to the simple, original message of CM, it may encourage them (perhaps with a little outside nudging) to put a little more time, money and effort into improving conditions for cycling from a institutional standpoint - that is, design and construction of a variety of improvements and ammenities for cyclists. If they do their homework well, those ammenities may actually work for cyclists. It could anything from installing more bike parking throughout the city, to passing an ordinance requiring large employers to provide showers and lockers for bicycle commuters, to a traffic safety enforcement program directed at motorists with the objective being to make the roads safer for cycling (and perhaps walking as well).
Ok, not a bad thing.

But you're saying that CM will benefit all people who ride bikes by encouraging government to improve conditions for all cyclists, such as requiring bike parking, showers, and safe roads for cycling and walking.

How will CM accomplish this, since CM has no leaders, no organized structure? How do you make the jump from a victory of allowing a mass of cyclists to ride together without being hassled by police to requiring showers at work, etc., without an organized political arm of CM, which, by nature, would violate the "simple, original message of CM?"

Ok, not a bad thing.

But you're saying that CM will benefit all people who ride bikes by encouraging government to improve conditions for all cyclists, such as requiring bike parking, showers, and safe roads for cycling and walking.

How will CM accomplish this, since CM has no leaders, no organized structure? How do you make the jump from a victory of allowing a mass of cyclists to ride together without being hassled by police to requiring showers at work, etc., without an organized political arm of CM, which, by nature, would violate the "simple, original message of CM?"
As I said above, I think cyclists who participate in CM are more likely to become involved in other forms of cycling advocacy, which leads to improvements that benefit all cyclists.

In NYC, for example, that might mean joining and/or volunteering to work for Transportation Alternatives, the 'mainstream' cycling advocacy group there.

Or it might mean becoming more active in Times Up!, the 'alternative' cycling advocacy group in NYC that helped put together the CM defense for the recent court case.

As I said above, I think cyclists who participate in CM are more likely to become involved in other forms of cycling advocacy, which leads to improvements that benefit all cyclists.
I think public opinion is a very powerful tool in advancing any cause. Most of the public are motorists. What if CM aggravates the very people they want to influence? How will this help me, when I am alone in a sea of angry drivers?

I think public opinion is a very powerful tool in advancing any cause. Most of the public are motorists. What if CM aggravates the very people they want to influence? How will this help me, when I am alone in a sea of angry drivers?
I'm sure there are no reliable stats on this, but I'd venture an educated guess that only a very small percentage of motorists ever even encounter a Critical Mass ride, and that only a slightly larger percentage of motorists even know what Critical Mass is. They're all driving in normal every day motor vehicle congestion and gridlock 30 days a month anyway, and only a fraction of a fraction of those motorists might ever encounter a critical mass ride for a few minutes, one evening a month at CM's usual off-peak day and time - it's not untypical to get asked by motorists "what's going on?" when they encounter a CM ride.

My personal experience in Portland is that more motorists that encounter a CM ride are supportive of Critical Mass than not. The intolerant 5% of motorists that CM might piss off are going to be pissed at bicyclists anyway, regardless of CM.

Therefore, my conclusion is that this is a non-issue.

As far as public opinion goes, the mainstream media (TV and print) are firmly in the pocket of the car and truck manufacturers - they are, after all, primarily supported by ads for motor vehicles - so generally speaking I'd expect them to be unsupportive regardless of how well a CM ride is executed or the participants behave.

I don't suppose Ghandi got real favorable coverage in the UK press back when; come to think of it Martin Luther King probably didn't fare too well in editorials in the mainstream Birmingham, Alabama daily (or other southern papers) either, but they didn't let it stop them, because they believed in their cause.

I think public opinion is a very powerful tool in advancing any cause. Most of the public are motorists. What if CM aggravates the very people they want to influence? How will this help me, when I am alone in a sea of angry drivers?

Motorists are out of control and disrespectful of bicyclist rights on the road.

Law enforcement agencies are not enforcing the rights of the bicyclist.

We need public awareness of bicyclist's rights on the road.

CM helps with public awareness of bicyclists.

You are not a lone bicyclist!

Is there CM in Baltimore City?

Most of the public are motorists. What if CM aggravates the very people they want to influence? How will this help me, when I am alone in a sea of angry drivers?

I swear on my dead grandfather, there is no more tired and boring argument given in the world of cycling and cycling advocacy than this one.

I can easily answer this "question" with another question, the answer to which is much more obvious:

What has not angering motorists gotten cyclists in the past?

I'm so tired of hearing what CM might do to anger motorists. As Randya rightly pointed out, few motorists ever even come across a CM ride. Even in New York City, the hotbed of CM conflicts; the rides happen on Friday night, about two hours after rush hour.

To say Critical Mass angers drivers would be to assume that there are drivers caught in it, and I can pretty much tell you that logically, it doesn't make sense that 2-300 cyclists can even make an impression on the 3-4 million cars that come through the city on a daily basis.

Notice, also, that no one says "Aren't Puerto Ricans angering drivers by closing off 20 blocks for a parade?" Or, "Jeez, don't the 100 motorcycles riding five abreast on the West Side Highway really just stop up traffic and anger drivers?"

Cyclists seem to be expected to give in and give in and give in and give in until it hurts. No similar concession is expected of anyone else in this city or any other.

As wildjim said:

Motorists are out of control and disrespectful of bicyclist rights on the road.

Law enforcement agencies are not enforcing the rights of the bicyclist.

We need public awareness of bicyclist's rights on the road.

You can draw your own conclusions about the effectiveness of Critical Mass in that regard, but it doesn't seem like anything else is working, either.

I swear, people along my route seem to actually know me and give me a lot more room than I see them give even cars sometimes. Buses that used to try to pass me now just stay behind me till their next stop. The guys at the construction zone that normally block cars to haul equipment across the street stop their lifts for me when they see me coming. Sometimes I get a nod. Traffic cops hold cars for that precious few seconds and let me through.
Of course this is after 6 months of going on the same route day in and day out.
If I were to do that once a month on the last friday, I doubt they'll actually recognize that I'm cycling for utility on top of everything else.

:

What has not angering motorists gotten cyclists in the past?

Well, let's see. Where i ride it means i have seen motorists edge WAY OVER into the line of oncoming traffic even when they didn't need to...just a foot or two would have made me feel secure. It means I often get to camp for free in areas where cyclists have established a reputation for courtesy and professionalism (the old trans-am route, for example). When I stop at a local trucker diner for morning coffee, I often chat with folks I see on the road who are amazed at how courteous and responsive I am (because of my rear view mirror) to the problems their bulk might cause on the road. And I repay the complement since they often move so far over for me when they can. Perhaps this courteous world doesn't exist in the big city? That question answers itself.

:I'm so tired of hearing what CM might do to anger motorists. As Randya rightly pointed out, few motorists ever even come across a CM ride. Even in New York City, the hotbed of CM conflicts; the rides happen on Friday night, about two hours after rush hour.

So what. I haven't come across a CM ride in my car OR on my bike. But from what some CMers seem to think is their idea of cycling I'd want to have as little to do with them as possible, also. The bad publiciyt they get is, by and large, deserved.

:

Notice, also, that no one says "Aren't Puerto Ricans angering drivers by closing off 20 blocks for a parade?" Or, "Jeez, don't the 100 motorcycles riding five abreast on the West Side Highway really just stop up traffic and anger drivers?"

Not an appropraite analogy at all. Parades close off streets entirely...they don't dash onto a regular highway and expect traffic (YES..traffic...bicycle are NOT traffic no matter what ya say) to go around their candy asses. And last time I looked motorcycles were going as fast, if not faster, as vehicles in the lanes they occupy, as well as having all the brake lights and signals that entitle them to be vehicles on the main roadway.

roughstuff

In the U.K., Roughstuff, a cycle (Bike or trike) is a vehicle under the road traffic act.
So is it true, out there in her Majesties Colonnies, that they are not traffic?

In the U.K., Roughstuff, a cycle (Bike or trike) is a vehicle under the road traffic act.
So is it true, out there in her Majesties Colonnies, that they are not traffic?

Pedaldog...look, you can CALL yourself whatever you want. I don't care if the road traffic act says a guy on a bicycle is traffic or the next British Queen. My point is that you are in the presence of vehicles that have all kinds of signals, warning devices, and protection devices, the vast majority of which do not require hands to be moved from the steering mechanism. Bike have none of this. SO to me we are and always will be secondary vehicles.

Its like going out onto an american football field with no equipment because the law says you 'are a player.' Please don't come crying to me when your skull is fractured and your ribs broken.

roughstuff

Pedaldog...look, you can CALL yourself whatever you want. I don't care if the road traffic act says a guy on a bicycle is traffic or the next British Queen. My point is that you are in the presence of vehicles that have all kinds of signals, warning devices, and protection devices, the vast majority of which do not require hands to be moved from the steering mechanism. Bike have none of this. SO to me we are and always will be secondary vehicles.

Its like going out onto an american football field with no equipment because the law says you 'are a player.' Please don't come crying to me when your skull is fractured and your ribs broken.

roughstuff

Broaden your mind. . .

Consider This:

MARYLAND LAW

In Maryland, the bicycle is classified as a vehicle with all of the same requirements and restrictions as a motor vehicle, except the following:

Bicycles are prohibited on:
Roads where the posted speed limits are greater than 50 mph (riding on the shoulder of the roadway is permitted)
Expressways or other roadways where bicycles are prohibited
The travel lanes of roads where there exists a smooth shoulder or bicycle lane (except to makeleft turns or to avoid debris in the shoulder space)

On all public roads, where bicycling is allowed, the operator must:
Wear a bicycle helmet if they are under 16 years old
Obey all traffic signs, signals and other traffic devises
Ride in the same direction as motor vehicles, as near to the right side of the roadway as possible
Use standard arm signals to alert other drivers of lane changes and turns
Stop for school buses when they are loading or unloading children
Yield to pedestrians
Refrain from wearing a headset that covers both ears

Legally, the bicycle must be equipped with:
Front and rear lamps and reflectors if the bicycle is used on a public road at any time when there is insufficient light or inclement weather
A bell or horn (sirens and whistles are not acceptable)
Brakes

Pedaldog...look, you can CALL yourself whatever you want. I don't care if the road traffic act says a guy on a bicycle is traffic or the next British Queen. My point is that you are in the presence of vehicles that have all kinds of signals, warning devices, and protection devices, the vast majority of which do not require hands to be moved from the steering mechanism. Bike have none of this. SO to me we are and always will be secondary vehicles.

Its like going out onto an american football field with no equipment because the law says you 'are a player.' Please don't come crying to me when your skull is fractured and your ribs broken.

roughstuff

First point is that I have "Traumatic Brain injuries" already from a MOTORcycle smash in 1996.
Second point is that it's people who view cyclists as "Secondary vehicles" are the problem here!

First point is that I have "Traumatic Brain injuries" already from a MOTORcycle smash in 1996.
Second point is that it's people who view cyclists as "Secondary vehicles" are the problem here!


First point: I have never thought of motorcycles as particularly safe either, even though they fit the definition of what counts as traffic. So much for your argument that calling bicycles 'traffic' will somehow make them better off. Sit on top of the roof of a car and it won't be safe either; but that's basically what a motorcycle is.

On your other point: knowing the limitations of my bike on the roadway, and riding mega defensively because I am a secondary vehicle, has enabled me to avoid countless unpleasant situations. Might an accident loom in my future? Perhaps, time will tell. But seeing myself as a 2ndary vehicle has never been a problem for me.

roughstuff

Sheryl Neufeld, of the city law department, said that she was disappointed in the decision and that the city was considering an appeal.

"To allow Critical Mass bike rides to continue in their present form continues to be a danger to the public safety," she said.
"Danger to public safety?"

:rolleyes: