NYC fights terrorists, bans walking in groups

If it wasn't enough that we are now subject to random subway searches, NYPD is introducing more rules.

1) Groups of 10 or more bicyclists or pedestrians who plan to travel more than two city blocks without complying with traffic laws will require a permit or be subject to arrest.

2) Groups of 30 or more bicyclists or vehicles which obey traffic laws will also require a permit or be subject to arrest.

Who needs terrorists with goberment like that?

 

On the face of what you write, I don't see an anti-terror measure, as much as a public safety measure. Groups of 10 bicyclists not obeying traffic laws, or 30 obeying laws without permits - seems to me, it is reasonable to require what the city is requiring, as a matter of public safety.

Where we are, for example, it is illegal for bicyclists and skateboarders to use sidewalks during certain hours of the day. While some folks went up in arms about "rights infringement," the reasoning was justified, it seems to me - the sidewalks are narrow, and way too many people exiting businesses or walking down the sidewalk were getting clocked by bicyclists and skateboarders flying down the street in complete disregard for pedestrians. I can tell you, from personal observation, that most I have seen that fly down the street seem to take a certain delight in cutting the gap between themselves and the pedestrians quite close, in order to scare the ped or make them move to get out of the way. Sometimes that gap is too close and the ped gets injured. Businesses were pissed, as were the people getting injured; so the city made the laws.

 

It IS a rights infringement, you are in effect punishing people for the vice and not the crime; a common ideal among utopian socialists.

And please don't give me crap about how it is best for society, or it is what society chooses, or hobbes. Individual rights are the basis of a free society, and no this does not mean anarchy. Government exists and has power, but only the power to protect the rights of its citizens and not to provide what is best for everyone at the expense of the peoples liberties.

 

Math20, you appear to be angry you were squarely owned on another thread. Please try to stick to the facts. On the other thread, you were defending a criminal psychopath's right to practice his crimes; here, you appear to be defending the "right" of folks to injure other people.

Do you, in fact, have a cogent point to make?

 

You did not royally own me, we both made several posts on the issue and you cannot give up on your idea that society chooses what is best for all of us.

As for my point, yes I do have one and I posted it. Government does not have the right to impose its view on what is best onto us through force.

People do not have the right to injure people on purpose, but they do have the right to take place in an activity that MIGHT POTENTIALLY MAYBE lead to someone getting hurt.

 

Hahahaha. OK, math.

I'm sorry - but in my opinion that is the most ridiculous thing I've yet heard, and I've heard a good deal.

By your reasoning, I have every right to take a loaded gun, and, while there are beachgoers on the beach, fire off a pistol about 6" over their heads from 30 yards away as I enjoy shooting in air. Now, if someone gets plugged, it was only an accident and not on purpose; someone MIGHT POTENTIALLY MAYBE (what is "might potentially maybe"? Sort of like, couldbepossiblyperhaps?) get hurt, but to hell with it. "I have the right."

Baseless, in my opinion.

 

They are trying to stop large groups of people from breaking traffic laws. Where is the crime?

 

Firing a weapon at someone is different then riding a bike with no intention of harm. Firing a weapon at someone is DIRECTLY causing harm to a person, riding a bike and potentially running into someone is INDIRECTLY harming someone, for you to regulate indirect harm like this is like putting everyone who drives a car in jail for "killing people with global warming."

 

Indirectly harming someone? Guy, it's called keeping people safe. You don't go into situations that indanger other people on the road. That's what traffic laws are for. Do you think large groups people should be able to ride down the roads on their bikes while putting drivers and themselves in harms way? Do you think that's a right? It's not. You don't have the right to put other people in danger for your own convenience.

 

Please read again. I am not firing AT someone DIRECTLY causing them harm. I am firing NEAR them with no intent to harm. I just get my rocks off shooting air. Both things - the gun, the bike - have the potential to do injury (in the case of the bikes on the sidewalks they have caused injury. Hence, this thing called "law" which you seem to have a profound objection to). By your criteria, so long as there (1) is only the potential, and (2) no intent to do harm, you are good to go.

So, as with the other thread, I'll repeat: I don't intend to harm anyone by shooting over the heads - I enjoy the "right" to shoot air. But the potential exists to hurt them. To hell with them - it's my right. Exactly appropos of your reasoning, and exactly where your reasoning is deeply flawed, in my opinion.

 

The more densely populated an area is, the greater likelihood that laws will be enacted to manage movement a lot closer.

NYC is a unique American city as it has been hit by a pair of terrorist attacks. Although I am all for preserving basic liberties, I can understand where the government feels the need to intervene to control people movement.

 

Actually when they refer to groups of people moving "without complying with traffic laws" they mean things like demonstrations (political or otherwise). Not complying with traffic laws for all other purposes has been illegal for a long time. Basically NYPD Commissioner wants the power to grant (or not) power to assemble and/or protest. I can assure you we don't have a problem of large groups of people walking around trampling pedestrians or anything like that. No more than any large city.

 

Let me explain a little better, directly and indirectly I meant as a description for the potential, not for the action. By shooting a gun at someone, or near them, there is a direct potential for someone being hurt because if a bullet flys close to someone there is a large chance that someone will get hit with that bullet.

If you are riding a bicycle, causing harm to another person would only result from the off chance that someone chooses to get in your way and you are unable to brake, which is more of an indirect harm potential.

 

I can't say it any clearer...plowing through a crowded sidewalk simply because you feel like it, with only the potential and not the intent to harm, is exactly the same situation as firing a pistol over the head of beachgoers; Additionally, please tell me the last time a pedestrian "chose to get in the way of a bicyclist." Or when you last chose to jump in front of a careening car. Or you chose to stand before the breech of a firing weapon. It is illegal, as Demosfen indicates, as it should be. Did you have something else?

If this is not something you can get, Math, as with the thread on psychopathic animal torture, I'm afraid I'll just have to wish you the best.

 

Gotcha. I was confused, though, when you said:

-So, my mind went to "well, seems reasonable to me." We have a lot of injuries that have happened in our areas from just this kind of thing, so it seems a reasonable thing to me. But I better understand now what you are saying.

 

So a group of 10 bicyclists are going to all be riding on the sidewalk? People who deliberately drive into a crowded group of people should be stopped, but people who are riding a bicycle and minding their own business should not.

It is all in the wording of the law, it should be "If you are running into crowded group of people with a bicycle you may be stopped" instead of "If you're caught riding a bike with some friends we'll arrest you"

 

Oh, come now, Math. You did say:

-even all-capping for emphasis, correct? This was you? As with the other thread, it seems you spend considerable effort in defending something, then moving on once that something has been explored and brought to light.

So, which is it? We should, or should not ban activities based on the potential for harm? ("MIGHT POTENTIALLY MAYBE lead to someone getting hurt").

 

Both, deliberately running into a group of people is far different from riding a bicycle where you might hit someone.

It is all in the semantics of the law, for example; Carrying a gun should not be illegal but shooting someone with it unjustly should be.

 

You do not have the right to drive your bicycle in a place where you might hit someone. Like I said before, your rights do not exceed to the point where you are allowed to put other people in physical danger for your own convenience.

 

It depends very much on the type of potential, as I have stated earlier. Banning certain video games because there is some anecdotal evidence that they might grow up to be more violent is ridiculous because it is an indirect type of harm, but direct potential like pointing a gun at someone who is not harming you should be made illegal.