10. August 2006 um 12:14 #567288
Hintereinander Fahren könnte bald in NY gefährlich werden. Die Verkehrsbestimmungen sollen dahingehend geändert werden, dass schon 2 oder mehr Radfahrer bereits eine Gruppe sind. Gruppenfahrten müssten demnach auch angemeldet werden. Zuwiderhandlungen können mit Arrest bestraft werden. aufpassen sollte man auch, wenn der vor einem Fahrende einen Verkehrsverstoß begeht. Dann könnte man mit dran sein, weil man ja eine Gruppe ist.
Wiederholungstäter kommen wahrscheinlich auf den elektrischen Stuhl.Quote:New York Police Department tightens screws on cyclists
By Chris Henry
Cyclists and pedestrians in New York City could be facing a long, inhospitable road ahead if the New York Police Department gets its way on August 23. A proposed change to the city’s parade permit regulations, spearheaded by the NYPD and up for public hearing on the 23rd, would amend the definition of „parade“ to require any group of 20 or more cyclists (or 35 or more pedestrians) to obtain a permit and an approved route on local streets. Moreover, two or more cyclists or pedestrians who violate any traffic law, rule or regulation on a public street could be arrested for parading without a permit.
The potential ramifications of the proposed changes have raised the ire of the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives, as well as local racing and recreational cycling clubs in the city, who are urging their members to fight the proposal at the upcoming hearing or through contact with elected officials.
Cyclists are already facing new limitations on speed and park usage in Central Park by the police and New York City Department of Parks & Recreation. Now the prospects of being arrested for riding in groups, or worse yet, fears of guilt by association when riding in proximity to other cyclists who may violate traffic laws or regulations (including not having bells on bikes or riding in bike lanes), have recreational and competitive cyclists alike fearing for the future of two wheeled transport and training in the Big Apple.
The NYPD’s proposal, in its Statement of Basis and Purpose, claims that „Each of these types of activities has the likelihood to significantly disrupt vehicular and pedestrian traffic and adversely affect public health and safety, unless subject to regulatory control via the permitting process. The amendments to the rules will permit the Police Department to adequately preserve the public peace and prevent obstructions of public streets and sidewalks.“
Tensions between police and some cyclists have mounted in the past year as the NYPD has sought to increasingly thwart activist movements such as Critical Mass. With municipal tolerance of controversial Critical Mass rides at a low ebb, and police arrests of participants on the rise, the New York State Supreme Court nonetheless ruled recently that the city’s parade permit rules were too broad to warrant widespread suppression [of Critical Mass] by the NYPD. The proposed amendments to the parade permit rules would offer the police a strong stick and the legal upper hand against all cyclists, who as a group do not command the same respect as motorists in the city administration.
A public hearing will be held on August 23rd at 6pm at One Police Plaza in Manhattan. Written comments, or requests to offer testimony at the hearing, may be sent to Assistant Deputy Commissioner Thomas P. Doepfner, New York City Police Department, 1 Police Plaza, Room 1406, New York, New York 10038. Transportation Alternatives has also created an online form to fax Mayor Michael Bloomberg, accessible at the following address: http://www.transalt.org/e-bulletin/2006/Aug/0802.html#efax. More information, including suggestions for contacting Mayor Bloomberg and other officials, is available on Transportation Alternatives‘ website: http://www.transalt.org10. August 2006 um 12:17 #642966RüCup
- Beiträge: 1641
die amis10. August 2006 um 12:28 #642967Stefu
- Beiträge: 2394
Und wie soll Hincapie jetzt weiter Hinterradlutschen üben?10. August 2006 um 13:21 #642968fensterscheibe
- Beiträge: 3300
Der übt das doch nicht in New York. Obwohl im Stadtdschungel wäre er vor Dopingkontrolleuren ziemlich sicher. Ne, der fährt irgendwo im Hinterland rum, so wie Armi früher in Texas.
Gut gedopt ist halb gewonnen!10. August 2006 um 18:15 #642969
Sind Fixies illegal? Scheinbar ja in Portland/OregonQuote:Fixies outlawed?
By John Stevenson
There’s been a bit of hoo-ha in various bike forums around the net in the last few days about a case in Portland, Oregon where a rider was fined for not having a separate brake on her fixed-gear bike. According to bikeportland.org, bike messenger Ayla Holland was ticketed on June 1 and charged with violating Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 815.280(2)(a) which states:
A bicycle must be equipped with a brake that enables the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement. strong enough to skid tire.
Ms Holland’s lawyer Mark Ginsberg attempted to argue that a fixie’s transmission constituted a brake. The judge was having none of it, and in his decision said:
„The brake must be a device separate from the musculature of the rider. Take me for instance. I don’t have leg muscles as strong as a messenger… how would I stop safely?“
This has led to some rather alarmist talk about the future of fixies. „Will the cops now feel emboldened to go out and ticket everyone on a fixed-gear? Are fixed-gears now essentially illegal? Are fixed-gears truly a public safety hazard?“ asks Jonathan Maus in bikeportland.org.
Well, no. The issue here is a badly-written piece of legislation being interpreted by a judge so that it achieves its aims, rather than what the absolute letter of the law says.
A fixed-gear bike with no brakes cannot stop in as short a space as one with a front brake, because only the rear wheel is providing the braking force. As a vehicle on the road, it’s therefore clearly less safe.
This is a matter of simple physics. In the third edition of Bicycling Science, David Gordon Wilson demonstrates that the maximum deceleration of a crouched rider on a standard bike (that is, not a recumbent) on a dry road is 0.56g. Try to brake any harder than that and you go over the handlebars, which is the limit condition, as the limit from tyre adhesion of vehicles that don’t pitch over (tandems, recumbents and cars) is about 0.8g.
If you brake with only the rear wheel, according to Wilson, the limit is 0.256g, because braking effectively shifts your weight forward, reducing the load on the rear wheel to the point that it skids at that deceleration. Once a tyre is skidding, its braking effectiveness is reduced because you no longer have sticky solid rubber in contact with the road, but a lubricating layer of molten rubber. (Which incidentally demonstrates that the Oregon legislation was written by someone with no clue at all about bikes.)
Therefore, however good a fixie rider is, stopping distance is roughly doubled without a front brake. In practice, it’s probably more than that.
In some jurisdictions, better-written laws make this issue moot. In the UK, for example, the law requires a bike to have two independent braking systems. I used to ride a fixie in the winter in the UK, and I knew quite a few fixie riders who dispensed with a rear brake on the grounds that the transmission was a braking system, but I never met anyone daft enough to have just a rear brake.
This judge has clearly decided to ignore the letter of the law in favour of enforcing its obvious intent, that bikes have at least one maximally effective brake. That’s the sort of thing judges are handy for: turning idiotically badly-written legislation into rules that make sense in the real world.
All that fixie riders have to do to conform is slap on a front brake; hardly rocket surgery, and a long way from fixies being suddenly illegal. And to fixie riders who are about to reach for the email to defend riding brakeless fixies, I refer you to Cmdr Montgomery Scott: „You canna change the laws of physics!“10. August 2006 um 18:19 #642970Pinarella
- Beiträge: 1899
Die Deutsche Polizei ist anscheinend eher radfahrerfreundlich:10. August 2006 um 18:23 #642971
…und auch noch auf der falschen Fahrbahnseite.11. August 2006 um 6:58 #642972Stefu
- Beiträge: 2394
Tja, die deutschen Verkehrsregeln sind ja auch nicht immer einfach:6. August 2009 um 16:36 #642973LapébieTeilnehmer
Quote:Original von Stahlross
- Beiträge: 6800
Sind Fixies illegal?
Das Amtsgericht Bonn sagt nein, aber nur im speziellen Fall, nicht etwa allgemeingültig … ?(
Fährt das Stahlross eigentlich auch bremsenlose Fixies bei der Arbeit?
Vive le Tour. Vive le cyclisme.8. August 2009 um 0:42 #642974
meine fresse wie alt der fred ist!
and now: for whom it may concerns!
ich fahre einfach fahrrad! wer verrät schon gern sein betriebs- und antriebsgeheimnis? :rolleyes:8. August 2009 um 0:47 #642975
- Du musst angemeldet sein, um auf dieses Thema antworten zu können.