Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    My Bikes
    S5 VWD
    Posts
    3,450
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    NYC Bicycle Access to Buildings Bill

    Please help out by sending a notice

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

  2. #2
    Ogr8nwmypstmksnosnse pgoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    My Bikes
    1986 Trek 500, 2003 Orbea Team Euskaltel, 2005 Cannondale R1000
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks - this is a good one to get on...let Liu know!
    Quote Originally Posted by jsharr View Post
    People whose sig line does not include a jsharr quote annoy me.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Commando303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    614
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Is there a link to the bill?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    2000 Montague CX, I do not recommend it, but still ride it.
    Strida 3, I recommend it for rides < 10mi wo steep hills.
    2006 Rowbike 720 Sport, I recommend it as an exercise bike.
    1996 Birdy, Recommend.
    Wieleder CARiBIKE (folding), decent frame.

  5. #5
    Professional Fuss-Budget Bacciagalupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,384
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As far as I can tell, here's the latest version of the bill: http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/textf...TOKEN=79482838


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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 demonstrate that fear of bike theft is the biggest deterrent to bike commuters....

  6. #6
    Senior Member Commando303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    614
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
    Streetsblog claims that multiple studies 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.
    2000 Montague CX, I do not recommend it, but still ride it.
    Strida 3, I recommend it for rides < 10mi wo steep hills.
    2006 Rowbike 720 Sport, I recommend it as an exercise bike.
    1996 Birdy, Recommend.
    Wieleder CARiBIKE (folding), decent frame.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    My Bikes
    S5 VWD
    Posts
    3,450
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Professional Fuss-Budget Bacciagalupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,384
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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?

    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    2000 Montague CX, I do not recommend it, but still ride it.
    Strida 3, I recommend it for rides < 10mi wo steep hills.
    2006 Rowbike 720 Sport, I recommend it as an exercise bike.
    1996 Birdy, Recommend.
    Wieleder CARiBIKE (folding), decent frame.

  11. #11
    Female Member KitN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    NYC
    My Bikes
    Citizen Tokyo (Silver), Schwinn Collegiate (1980's)
    Posts
    915
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Professional Fuss-Budget Bacciagalupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,384
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  13. #13
    Female Member KitN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    NYC
    My Bikes
    Citizen Tokyo (Silver), Schwinn Collegiate (1980's)
    Posts
    915
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    It is clearly inappropriete in some buildings, and I think the property owner is the best judge of that.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    stole your bike roadiejorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Bergen, NJ
    My Bikes
    Orbea Orca, Ridley Compact
    Posts
    6,695
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe View Post
    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.


    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.
    I like pie

  15. #15
    Ogr8nwmypstmksnosnse pgoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    My Bikes
    1986 Trek 500, 2003 Orbea Team Euskaltel, 2005 Cannondale R1000
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by jsharr View Post
    People whose sig line does not include a jsharr quote annoy me.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NYC - where bicycles go to die
    Posts
    1,312
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    2000 Montague CX, I do not recommend it, but still ride it.
    Strida 3, I recommend it for rides < 10mi wo steep hills.
    2006 Rowbike 720 Sport, I recommend it as an exercise bike.
    1996 Birdy, Recommend.
    Wieleder CARiBIKE (folding), decent frame.

  18. #18
    stole your bike roadiejorge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Bergen, NJ
    My Bikes
    Orbea Orca, Ridley Compact
    Posts
    6,695
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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?

    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 like pie

  19. #19
    Ogr8nwmypstmksnosnse pgoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    My Bikes
    1986 Trek 500, 2003 Orbea Team Euskaltel, 2005 Cannondale R1000
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pgoat View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsharr View Post
    People whose sig line does not include a jsharr quote annoy me.

  20. #20
    SERENITY NOW!!! jyossarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In the 212
    My Bikes
    Haro Vector, IRO Rob Roy, Bianchi Veloce
    Posts
    8,757
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    HHCMF - Take pride in your ability to amaze lesser mortals! - MikeR



    We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

  21. #21
    Professional Fuss-Budget Bacciagalupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,384
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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? Talk about an onerous requirement....


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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 to steal a bicycle on the street in broad daylight.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by ge08rge
    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.
    Last edited by Bacciagalupe; 07-06-09 at 06:25 PM.

  22. #22
    Ogr8nwmypstmksnosnse pgoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    My Bikes
    1986 Trek 500, 2003 Orbea Team Euskaltel, 2005 Cannondale R1000
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you for that / \
    Quote Originally Posted by jsharr View Post
    People whose sig line does not include a jsharr quote annoy me.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,014
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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?
    2000 Montague CX, I do not recommend it, but still ride it.
    Strida 3, I recommend it for rides < 10mi wo steep hills.
    2006 Rowbike 720 Sport, I recommend it as an exercise bike.
    1996 Birdy, Recommend.
    Wieleder CARiBIKE (folding), decent frame.

  24. #24
    Professional Fuss-Budget Bacciagalupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,384
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post
    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**.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge
    >>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.

  25. #25
    Ogr8nwmypstmksnosnse pgoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    My Bikes
    1986 Trek 500, 2003 Orbea Team Euskaltel, 2005 Cannondale R1000
    Posts
    2,786
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geo8rge View Post

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsharr View Post
    People whose sig line does not include a jsharr quote annoy me.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •