This would be totally impossible with the City’s planned bikeshare.

If you’re REALLY pissed about this, consider (in addition to sending an efax to Ulruich) making it to the CB 8 meeting tomorrow night, where a resolution calling for registration and insurance of e-bikes will be voted on. Like many, I’m unhappy with the driving habits of some of the delivery guys who favor e-bikes, but it is very clear to me that the folks behind this resolution would love to expand it to all cyclists. This is the leading edge of this registration nonsense and it would send a great signal to Ulrich and others if we could beat it back. Even on the merits, the resolution makes no sense; the problem is riding habits, not dangers inherent in the technologuy, and registration and insurance won’t get at the problem.

The meeting is at 6:30 at the Ramaz School Auditorium, 129 East 85th Street. Show up at 6:15 to make sure you get your two minutes to speak at the beginning of the meeting.

Aside from just generally being a bad idea there isn’t all that much more to say about the proposal. Even Eric Ulrich admits he hasn’t really thought out how to deal with enforcement or how it would apply to tourists. Maybe he’s hoping so find some other councilmembers to flesh it out for him so he can just hang his name on it.

as a cyclist i would be for this if there were also a way to ticket jaywalkers. fair is fair

Wouldn’t hurt to contact your Councilmember and tell him/her that it’s a bad idea as well. Ulrich is correct that there are several other Councilmembers who would sign on to this.

Don’t just send the e-fax — call! The staffer I got asked if I lived in Ulrich’s district. When I said no, he instructed me to call my own councilmember. I asked if Ulrich plans ever to run for citywide office. If so, I said, his anti-bicycling stand, coupled with his apparent unwillingness to address the real street safety threat to his constituents, would weigh heavily against my ever casting a vote for him. Call now. Let’s inundate his office: 718 738-1083

Yes, the guy I spoke with sounded pretty beleaguered. And that’s a bad thing? They keep hearing from the city’s growing thousands of cyclists and maybe their boss will drop this proposal that could be described as just plain silly if it didn’t also threaten actual lives.

Hey, what are some guidelines about when you call an elected’s district office and when you call their legislative office? I’ve never known. Thanks.

Thanks Streetsblog for the props on Friday.

Unfortunately you gonna’ hate my opinion on the bicycle registration issue for you NYC folk and here’s why.

Back in October of 2009 I had the pleasure of attending the very well run Walk21NYC Conference. NYCDoT were spectacular hosts. Anyway, on the eve of the conference I helped assist visiting attendees on a bike tour of NYC bicycle facilities run by local advocates, consultants and DoT staff. However, after a long evening of riding around the city, many of the visiting attendees were beginning to comment on the lawlessness of a large percentage of the cyclists on the streets. Most of the people attending the conference were government officials, consultants and advocates themselves who work on bicycle and pedestrian issues in their local communities.

Here’s the issue as I see it. Yes, bicyclists are not killing or injuring people anywhere on the same scale as motorists. However, the percentage of NYC bicyclists flagrantly flouting the law is just outstanding and probably equal if not even greater than the percentage of motorists flagrantly flouting the law. For example, when was the last time you saw 95% of motorists operating their vehicles at night without lights??

And as the number of cyclists continues to grow in NYC, regular people on the streets are just seeing more and more lawbreaking cyclists. This is some new phenomenon to them and one they want to see controlled.

I still think Ulrich’s proposal is as ill founded as the one on our side of the Hudson. I totally disagree with his notion that, “Being on the road is a privilege, not an absolute right.” That is only the case for motorist and states license motorists due to the inherent hazards automobiles can wreak on the general public when operated by an incompetent persons.

However I due agree with Ulrich when he says, “The people on bicycles brought this on themselves by behaving this way.”

You can’t have it both ways and TA would be wise to recognize this as it advocates to prevent this proposal from becoming reality.

@Andy B,

As a group, cyclists don’t flout the laws any more than motorists do. Motorists speed, cyclists run red lights instead. Both seem to occur with the same frequency for their respective groups. And don’t get me started on pedestrians. When was the last time anyone saw a pedestrian actually wait out a don’t walk signal if the crosswalk was clear ( and no, I don’t do this either because it makes zero sense )? The difference is pedestrians and autos have been around so long that their behavoir is just background noise. My guess is if the current enforcement effort doesn’t kill off cycling, in a few years the cyclists will just be background noise also. The problem is the other two groups are still figuring out the etiquette on how to deal with cyclists. I’ll be the first to admit cyclists aren’t helping matters either when they engage in unpredictable behavoir. If you’re a motorist or pedestrian, you shouldn’t have to toss a coin to determine if that cyclist will grant you right-of-way if you have the light. And by the same token, once that cyclist grants you the right-of-way, you shouldn’t chastise them for then continuing on their journey if traffic allows. Pedestrians do it all the time, yet we never hear cries of “ticket those scofflaw red-light running pedestrians”.

I get the unease with the large number of new cyclists on the streets. What I don’t get is this new obsession with “the law”, or that cyclists should be held to a higher standard than any other group. If a law is ignored by only a small percentage of the population, then that indicates the law doesn’t prohibit everyday actions a reasonable person might engage in. On the flip side, if a law is routinely ignored, then maybe it’s just a bad law, and should be modified or repealed ( i.e. Prohibition ). And many of our laws with respect to cycling are indeed bad laws which fail to account for the strengths and limitations of human-powered transportation.

It may be true those conference attendees were struck by the lawlessness of NYC cyclists. It’s equally true however that many may have come from places where the citizenry is more law-abiding. NYC has always had a lawless, “wild west” feel to it. That’s actually part of its appeal to me, provided the serious crimes are dealt with. Another factor is that many were government officials. Almost to a T, government officials legislate in an ivory tower. They often pass laws which make no sense, and then are shocked when such laws are routinely flouted because even the police recognize the law makes no sense, hence refuse to enforce it ( i.e. think back to how long Guiliani’s jaywalking crackdown lasted ). Maybe some of these officials should actually talk to people who bike every day. When the law imposes an unreasonable set of conditions, it will be largely ignored. That’s the case with both the pedestrian and cycling laws in NYC. Both groups are already marginalized in an infrastructure largely designed to speed as many automobiles as rapidly as possible. If they obeyed the laws to a T, it would add insult to injury by compromising both their efficiency, and possibly safety, largely just to cater autos. It’s high time NYC seriously looked at modifying both its cycling and pedestrian laws.

I called mr. Ulrich’s office to discuss this proposal. They asked if I was a constituent in his district. I indicated that i was not and was told that he could therefore not speak with me. I asked that he call me so I could discuss the proposed legislation; I was curious to hear his pov.
I am still waiting for his call. I guess he is too busy to speak to anyone outside of Queens.