|
Since the big ride at the RNC, it seems, the NYPD has become even more out of control than ever w/r/t Critical Mass. In the New York Times today, Jim Dwyer shows – with the help of video footage – how police officers at Critical Mass events are a much bigger danger to themselves and others than any of the people on bikes. Marked and unmarked NYPD vehicles are driving on the wrong side of the street, on sidewalks, on bike lanes, screeching across the street, and generally doing their best Starsky & Hutch impression on a monthly basis. Dwyer comes up with some classic NYT deadpan:
The department's guidelines say that before starting a pursuit, officers should consider the nature of the offense and how crowded the area is. The guidelines also include an instruction, highlighted in bold type, that says, "Department policy requires that a vehicle pursuit be terminated whenever the risks to uniformed members of the service and the public outweigh the danger to the community if suspect is not immediately apprehended."
One police spokesman said that applies to the pursuit of motor vehicles, not to bicycles; Mr. Browne would not comment on that interpretation. The bicycle riders generally are charged with offenses like parading without a permit that are violations of the city's administrative code, which are not included in the state's penal code of felonies and misdemeanors.
It's still unclear to me why the NYPD is being so aggressive with Critical Mass. But there's no doubt that they've transformed what's meant to be a joyful evening of biking safely around city streets into an antagonistic and unpleasant occurrence for all concerned. At this point, I fear, the police have painted themselves into a corner: they can't back down without loss of face. Are there any constructive ideas for how they might be able to achieve the "mutual de-escalation of rhetoric and conduct" that a state judge has asked for?
One way would be getting Time's Up to agree that a good sliver of their ridership on these events are, indeed, assholes.
I've been a TA member for 10 years. I am avidly pro-cyclist in just about every aspect of transportation planning. But there is no denying that a certain segment of this constituency is the immature, ABC No Rio-loving, squatter-romantic crowd for whom anarcho-syndicalism means they can sit around, spare change all day, and steal someone else's food.
I guarantee you that a small percentage, but a vocal one, shows up in hopes of inciting a conflict with the police. Given how easily the NYPD behaves on a spectrum from irrational to criminal (evidence of outright perjury began to surface in the RNC trials) with little or no provocation, why those people aren't outright expelled is beyond me.
Another good idea would be for the NYPD to simply stay home. Given that Critical Mass has been happening with very little incident for ten years, maybe just sitting it out (particularly in the cold months, when attendance is lower) and seeing if traffic in Manhattan doesn't grind to a halt and the economy doesn't collaspse might be instrucive on the best way to develop a response.
If you scare off the middle classes, it's hardly surprising that what's left is going to be the anarcho-syndicalist rump. Critical mass, back in the day, was an opportunity for little old ladies who haven't ridden a bike in decades to venture out onto the normally-scary streets, safe in the knowledge that they're not going to be sideswiped by an asshole driver. Those people aren't going to turn up if they think -- with good reason -- that there's a serious chance they'll get arrested in doing so. And so they won't ride their bikes on the streets of NYC, ever.
Before the RNC, the NYPD had a great relationship with Critical Mass. What happened in 2004 changed everything seemingly forever, and I really don't understand why.
Posted by: Felix on February 25, 2006 01:36 AMI'm tempted to say it's because the NYPD is unable to extricate the observable benefits Bratton's changes in low level offender policing (though I still think people overestimate the effect of arresting people for public urination and underestimate the effect of COMPSTAT and the tacit acknowleding that the NYPD simply underpatrolled the worst precincts) from an institutional culture of behaving like a big swinging dick when someone gives you gun, but I think it's endemic to NY culture. NY'ers tend to be territorial and confrontational.
Sure, the NYPD still patrols Tompkin's like a riot is going to happen any second, even though most of the current users would likely support even more draconian interventions against the gutterpunk than is currently in evidence, but watch two people argue over a parking space. It's the exact same dynamic. No one will back down.
The RNC Critical Mass will stand as one of those overheated, juvenile screaming matches we've all found ourselves in the midst of when a cab cuts us off. But though I'm able admit later I overreacted, the police show little capability for this, and the outliers how think 'tall bikes' are some sancrosact act of resistance will never admit they are a bit too precious about their revolution.
And people should take note: socio-economically, Manhattan is a rich suburb. It's hard to imagine Alpahbet City, the LES, Tribeca, big chunks of midtown and the whole west side as being places where people could pretty much do whatever they wanted without oversight or retribution, but that part of our culture disappeared when luxury housing was rolled out like carpet. Agitprop is no longer acceptable just about anywhere in Manhattan.
If Critical Mass wants to get the NYPD off its back, they should move to Brooklyn.
Posted by: 99 on February 25, 2006 02:08 AM99 is on point with observing that a percentage of participants are trouble-makers, as can be witnessed on CM rides in other cities as well. As the saying goes, it only takes a few bad apples... Here in LA we have Critical Mass and a few other mob-action rides - specifically Midnight Ridazz - which are very much high spirited cycling fun, but plagued with 'punk' upstarts who find protection in the mass and seek it a place to vent 'anger at the man'. After the last Ridazz, I commented about (among other things) the careless discarding of spent beer cans and bottles during the ride on a local web forum and was advised by a so called 'litterpunk' that the trashing of city streets was actually a rebelious and political act speaking to the suppression of the poor. um, yeah I'll try to remember that the next time I fix a flat after rolling through a busted 40. When I pointed out how agressive the cops have become towards riders in NYC, and that it could easily happen in LA too if such behavior on the part of the cyclists went unchecked from within, I was told to take my 'bottled opinions' and 'regurgitate' them elsewhere. This from a poster with the handle 'vomitron' on a forum dedicated to cycling activism. Fact is, when you put several hundred cyclists on the street and wave all traffic laws in the name of a good time, eventually you're gonna piss off some of the regular folks who are just trying to get around town, and they're gonna complain to the cops. The cops are gonna listen to 'tax payers' who drive cars, not 'miscreants' who ride bicycles - witness multiple recent cases nationally of bike/car accidents in which the driver, clearly at fault, was not cited, even when the result of the crash was the death of the cyclist. And certainly within the bunch there are those who are actually looking for that confrontation with the law to validate whatever hairbrained angst protest they feel like wearing on their sleeves. The combination of being a minority group with little respect to begin with and a few bad eggs in the bunch, gives the police all the sanction they need to over-act. Unfortunately within the cycling community there is such a division of opinion, I doubt we'll ever find a sollution. As soon as you make suggestions for a code of conduct that could help the overall position of joe and jane cyclist in the street, you become branded as a square, a narc or an authoritarian in a crowd that staunchly doesn't like to be told what to do or how to act, even from within it's own ranks. The irony to this minority of self-styled cycling anarchists as they wear all maner of 'share the road' slogans on helmet, shirt and bike is just how much damage their behavior causes for the rest of us that just want to ride to where we're going with out being targets of the cops, drivers and our fellow citizens. I'll continue to participate in group rides, but I no longer feel like a part of the group.
Posted by: bafc23 on February 26, 2006 05:04 AMI guess the non-punks will be increasingly only at organised, corporate events like these. Which, I have to say, have a great atmosphere and are lots of fun. But they do give the impression that in order to ride safely on your own streets, you have to pay someone money.
Posted by: Felix on February 26, 2006 06:37 PMWhat I'm surprised at is how consistently you hear about a heavy handed arrest, but it is typically followed by the notation that the arrestee ran a traffic signal or was traveling a one-way street in the wrong direction.
I hate to be a grump (well, maybe I don't), but if you are going to participate in a ride that is 'flaunting' police authority, doesn't it make sense to insure you travel the correct direction and stop at traffic signals? And no matter how liberating it may be to ride a bike, a traffic law is a traffic law. Would you be surprised if a cop was angry when you didn't stop after being summonded for running a traffic light in a car?
99, Critical Mass was never conceived as "flaunting police authority". In most of the cities in which it convenes, the cyclists have a very good relationship with the police -- just like they did in NYC before the RNC came to town.
Interestingly, in Friday's ride, the police seemed to change tactics: instead of arresting people, they would stop cyclists more or less at random, fine them $200, and dock a point off their license. Which means that if they catch them a second time next month, the fine could be much, much worse. It goes without saying, of course, that many if not most of the CM cyclists are not the kind of people who have $200 lying around, let alone much more.
Posted by: Felix on February 26, 2006 08:37 PMHere's an decent piece from the NY Press that addresses many of the same points, but with the benefit of more direct experience than I have.
Posted by: 99 on March 5, 2006 07:41 PM