lostarchitect 

I think it's generally pretty dumb to salmon here. For instance, when I leave work I have about a half block down which I could salmon to get to the corner--but I walk it. Every time. I just feel stupid salmoning, and I know how annoying it is when another bike is coming towards you forcing you out into traffic. It's rude and dangerous.

My opinion is not based on whether it is legal to ride against traffic, it's based on my goal of riding safely and courteously. I think salmoning is always discourteous and often unsafe, so I don't do it.

KonAaron Snake 

My actions and opinion on the matter is in line with yours. I have VERY RARELY salmoned on a tiny alley where there is rarely any traffic of any sort, and if I did see traffic, I'd stop and dismount.

KonAaron Snake 

I don't know Alec Baldwin, but I think he's a big enough name where he doesn't need an act. I suspect it's genuinely bad behavior.

I get it - he's bright, he's talented and he gets frustrated with seemingly senseless rules. I do too. But at a certain point, you realize you can't keep pissing into the wind. He seems like a guy who hasn't reached that point yet.

lostarchitect 

I have done that kind of thing too, now and again, but I am extremely wary when I do it.

One thing I really, really hate and which is common around here, is when someone riding down a two way street with bike lanes, crosses to the other side before the corner, and rides around the corner in the wrong side's bike lane. People do this, I think, because they are afraid to ride through the intersection. They don't pay attention to the fact that they are coming around a corner the wrong way, blind, into traffic--both bikes and cars--that often can't even see them until they round the corner. It drives me nuts.

There is one particular corner where I see it almost every day--Navy and Flushing in Brooklyn. People riding South on Navy will cross into the Northbound lane and turn left on Flushing. They will then ride the wrong way in the bike lane until they feel like they can cross Flushing. There is a construction fence at the corner, and has been for a year or more, so you can't really see jack until you're around it. Very stupid.

kickstart

I actually enjoyed riding my bike and motorcycle in NYC when I was stationed at Governors island, but my oldest brother who lives and owns a business in the village would give me greif about it, saying its too dangerous, ironically he's an avid rollerblader.

FBinNY 

It's all perspective. What we know is safe, what we don't we fear.

Nikon Rep

It appears Baldwin was unlawfully arrested.

He committed one of the most heinous and savage crimes in America......"contempt of cop".

New York law does not require cyclists to carry identification on them. New York law allows subjects who are going to receive an infraction or misdemeanor to verbally identify themselves.

Additionally, the First Amendment allows freedom of speech. Baldwin is within his rights to "mouth off to officers". There are even numerous SCTOUS cases where individuals have greater latitude in free speech (offensive speech) towards government officials than towards private citizens.

This is just another example of the American Police State where people are arrested and locked in a cage for simply riding a bicycle. No one was harmed, there is no victim.

Again, Baldwin's only crime was "contempt of cop".

KonAaron Snake 

If you haven't figured out by now that mouthing off to a cop isn't going to end up well, you have issues. Here's how it works, regardless of how you think it should work and regardless of what rights you think that you have:

Policing is a dangerous, difficult job. You're dealing with the dregs of humanity most of the time, all of whom are quick to tell you about your rights.

Most police are, frankly, not the best nor the brightest. The average police officer has below an average IQ. Most people don't want to do a job like that, so you aren't getting the best people most of the time. Most in my area don't have a basic college degree. And you're expecting them to have a finely attuned knowledge of law? Get real.

To do their jobs the police are given a great degree of leeway. They can't do their jobs without leeway and historically there is a concept called sovereign immunity that still infests many PD cultures. You can talk about your rights as much as you want, but the truth is that in most areas the police are getting the benefit of the doubt. They have to in order to do their jobs. An officer's mandate is to settle issues on site - the legality gets fought out later in court. So on site, you don't act like an ass or talk about your rights.

So - here's how it works. On site, you say yes sir and no sir. If you have a problem, or feel your rights were violated, you take that up with a community liaison, journalist, attorney, etc. But on site - you don't mouth off to the police. They have leeway, they get the benefit of the doubt. The idea is that the courts clean up the legality and rights afterwards. On site, an officer has nearly absolute power in most cases and you're a fool to challenge that.

You can complain about it, but that's how it works. Given the practical needs of allowing the police to do their jobs, I don't think it's unreasonable to give some leeway. I have personally argued with police many times - usually because they don't want to do their job. I know how and when to do it and, unlike you, I know what my actual rights to free speech are in relation to process and allowing the police to do their jobs. I can do it effectively, and the first rule is not to lose your temper or yell. I happen to live in an area with a horrendously incompetent police department and you have to be able to pressure effectively to get service here.

Nikon Rep

No it isn't.

KonAaron Snake 

I'm not going to respond to you any further. There's no point - you're an ideologue and you're past rational thought. Babble away.

Nikon Rep

Its irrational that a man is kidnapped and locked in cage for harming no one.

Who is the victim ?

FBinNY 

Yes, and No.

The law doesn't require that we carry identification, but officers issuing citations are within their rights in requiring that we prove identity. What's acceptable proof varies, (read my post no.3 here) and if he were nice about it the officer would have said, "no problem, I recognize you", but he insisted on being an idiot, which means a trip to the station house where he can identify himself, and prove it then accept a desk appearance ticket, or the original citation.

I routinely travel without ID, and it's never been an issue because it can be worked out easily enough, including when getting speeding ticket driving in Mass, where not having the paper license on you is an arrestable offense. But don't expect cops your shouting at or calling idiots (yes, it's your right) to make any effort to work with you.

lostarchitect 

Nikon, actually his crime was riding against traffic. It's not a major crime, but it is illegal. He got caught. When he was caught, he didn't have ID. This is a minor logistical issue, and not a crime. He appears to have made it a big issue by screaming and swearing at the cop. Now, the cops could have just given him the ticket and walked away. That would have been big of them. But when someone is screaming and yelling at you, it doesn't make you want to accommodate them--so they took him to the station to ID him. They solved the minor logistical issue in the way that would cause Baldwin the most hassle possible, because he was a jerk to them. Yeah, it was a petty thing to do, but then again, it appears Baldwin started the fire.

squirtdad

another Coastie... I was stationed on Governor's Island for Ice Patrol and rode my bike all over the city. This was back in the days where you either liked disco or you liked CBGB's

Nikon Rep

He was arrested and cited for two violations....one for the traffic violation and the other for New York 240.20 which is the disorderly conduct charge.

§ 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
behavior; or - (no)
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or (yelling in downtown new York ?)
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
obscene gesture; or (directed at police is exempt)
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or
meeting of persons; or (no)
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or (no)
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or (no)
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
which serves no legitimate purpose. (no)
Disorderly conduct is a violation.


He was arrested for contempt of cop. The police were wrong.

FBinNY 

Possibly. The DisCon will probably be dismissed if he plays nice between now the the appearance date. Often these can be settled in the hallway outside the courtroom through friendly negotiation (not AB's strong suit) as in plead guilty to the original violation -- riding against traffic -- and the other will be dismissed. Of course he can take it to trial, waste the time, hire a lawyer and most likely the judge will dismiss it, but there's no reason to do it the hard way. The DA's office values their time, and are usually very willing to make minor nonsense go away in order to settle the disposition before trial, and judges tend to go along.

KonAaron Snake 

Which is letting the courts clean it up afterwards, as designed. However you can go right to the courts, not yell at police and skip that whole handcuff stage by not being an idiot.

FBinNY 

Absolutely, as they say, there's an easy way and there's a hard way. AB chose the hard way, and in doing so is wasting everybody's time.

I have no sympathy and don't see this as an example of police excess if it's the result of his ranting.

GP

Are you a judge?

lostarchitect 

Maybe! Let's see what the judge says. Your opinion doesn't hold any legal water, as far as I know.

Also, if you read your "Disorderly conduct" quote, riding against the flow of traffic could qualify for number 5 or 7.

Edit, also, we don't know what he said. He could have made a threat, qualifying for #1 as well. It boils down to: you don't have enough information to declare that the police were wrong, unless you were there and saw and heard everything, and haven't told us.

Nikon Rep

It seems like in America today we try as hard as we can to criminalize as many people as we can and as many actions as possible.

Can you tell me who the victim is here ? Who was harmed ?

FBinNY 

We all were. Cops are paid with taxpayer dough. His antics wasted time keeping a cop tied up on BS to no end. I'm most certainly not the poster boy for law and order, or "obey the law because it's the law" but the cop had a legitimate cause of action, namely riding against traffic.

Possibly some smooth talk could have ended it there (works for me over half the time), or he could have ID'd himself and taken the ticket, but he had to play the fool and waste everybody's time.

He'll use the incident to advantage on late nite TV, so he still comes out ahead.

Nikon Rep

I was not victimized by Alec Baldwin. No one was.

Cops are paid their salaries whether the sit around doing nothing or they arrest cyclists.

Its pathetic that the cops in America will dedicate so much time and resources for something so harmless as riding a bicycle.

Its even worse that so many in America support this excessive police state mentality and THEN have the gall to accuse Baldwin of wasting tax payer money.

Americans want their militarized police force so this is what you get.

FBinNY 

This has NOTHING to do with the police state mentality you decry.

The cop probably had no intent to arrest anybody, simply to write a citation for riding against traffic of 5th Avenue (of all places). I'm all for "no harm/no foul" law enforcement, and have talked my way out of countless tickets over the years, but it was Mr. Baldwain that chose to escalate this.

As for priorities, I'm sure that there are other things out there, but riding against 5th avenue, of all places, is probably as serious a bicycle violation as possible. It's a busy avenue with enough congestion as it is, and pedestrians who will cross looking upstream, and not looking for a bicyclist coming the wrong way.

The violation is clear, the fine small, and he should have just taken the ticket.

Unless, your saying we shouldn't have any laws or police.

kickstart

I'm glad I live in the real world, and not in certain peoples head.

Freedom, the right to choose to not be an idiot. He made his choices, and got what he asked for. What's the problem?