Re: logistics associated with starting a new riding group?

02-06-2007, 11:06 AM

Legal issues are probably the biggest consideration. Like, what if
someone gets hurt and so forth. You may not be an official club, but
I'd worry about any laws, local or otherwise, which may beg to differ
with you on that! I know it sounds ridiculous, but...maybe it's
'cause I'm in New York, with half the world's lawyers here....

02-06-2007, 01:57 PM

Prisoner at War wrote:
> Legal issues are probably the biggest consideration. Like, what if
> someone gets hurt and so forth. You may not be an official club, but
> I'd worry about any laws, local or otherwise, which may beg to differ
> with you on that! I know it sounds ridiculous, but...maybe it's
> 'cause I'm in New York, with half the world's lawyers here....
>
Don't draft any paperwork that calls you a "club". Then you are just a
group of cyclists that happen to be riding together.
That should make you lawyer-proof.
Having each other's phone numbers and informally riding together doesn't
make a club. You could have a separate '5s' for cycling activities. The
'5s' is for cell phones as seen on television (over and over).
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 05:46 AM

On Feb 6, 5:57 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
> > Legal issues are probably the biggest consideration. Like, what if
> > someone gets hurt and so forth. You may not be an official club, but
> > I'd worry about any laws, local or otherwise, which may beg to differ
> > with you on that! I know it sounds ridiculous, but...maybe it's
> > 'cause I'm in New York, with half the world's lawyers here....
>
> Don't draft any paperwork that calls you a "club". Then you are just a
> group of cyclists that happen to be riding together.
> That should make you lawyer-proof.

I'm not sure about that. For example, look at so-called "common law
marriages"...there's no paperwork saying "husband and wife" but if
they split the guy's still liable to pay child-support for her kids
that she already had previous to their relationship!

> Having each other's phone numbers and informally riding together doesn't
> make a club. You could have a separate '5s' for cycling activities. The
> '5s' is for cell phones as seen on television (over and over).

Dude, this is liberal NYC, and the City wants bicyclists numbering
more than twenty (or whatever the exact number is) to apply for a
parade permit first. Wedding and funeral processions in cars are all
right, but bicyclists they want to crack down on....

I'm just saying, you never know...sometimes the law thinks in the "if
it looks like duck and walks like a duck" frame-of-mind...if folks
meeting regularly to ride can look to a casual observer to be a bike
club, the law may decide that for all practical intents and purposes
they are! I hope not, of course, but you hear about crazy lawyer-****
in the news all the time....

> Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 10:59 AM

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Feb 6, 5:57 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> Prisoner at War wrote:
>>> Legal issues are probably the biggest consideration. Like, what if
>>> someone gets hurt and so forth. You may not be an official club, but
>>> I'd worry about any laws, local or otherwise, which may beg to differ
>>> with you on that! I know it sounds ridiculous, but...maybe it's
>>> 'cause I'm in New York, with half the world's lawyers here....
>> Don't draft any paperwork that calls you a "club". Then you are just a
>> group of cyclists that happen to be riding together.
>> That should make you lawyer-proof.
>
> I'm not sure about that. For example, look at so-called "common law
> marriages"...there's no paperwork saying "husband and wife" but if
> they split the guy's still liable to pay child-support for her kids
> that she already had previous to their relationship!
>
>> Having each other's phone numbers and informally riding together doesn't
>> make a club. You could have a separate '5s' for cycling activities. The
>> '5s' is for cell phones as seen on television (over and over).
>
> Dude, this is liberal NYC, and the City wants bicyclists numbering
> more than twenty (or whatever the exact number is) to apply for a
> parade permit first. Wedding and funeral processions in cars are all
> right, but bicyclists they want to crack down on....

I'm not sure that isn't an apples and oranges comparison.
>
> I'm just saying, you never know...sometimes the law thinks in the "if
> it looks like duck and walks like a duck" frame-of-mind...if folks
> meeting regularly to ride can look to a casual observer to be a bike
> club, the law may decide that for all practical intents and purposes
> they are! I hope not, of course, but you hear about crazy lawyer-****
> in the news all the time....

AAARRGGGHH. If that is any reflection of how the mayor runs things I
sure don't want him dropping his hat in the "Run for president" ring.
>
>> Bill Baka, again.
>
>

02-14-2007, 09:36 PM

On Feb 9, 2:59 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Prisoner at War wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 5:57 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >> Prisoner at War wrote:
> >>> Legal issues are probably the biggest consideration. Like, what if
> >>> someone gets hurt and so forth. You may not be an official club, but
> >>> I'd worry about any laws, local or otherwise, which may beg to differ
> >>> with you on that! I know it sounds ridiculous, but...maybe it's
> >>> 'cause I'm in New York, with half the world's lawyers here....
> >> Don't draft any paperwork that calls you a "club". Then you are just a
> >> group of cyclists that happen to be riding together.
> >> That should make you lawyer-proof.
>
> > I'm not sure about that. For example, look at so-called "common law
> > marriages"...there's no paperwork saying "husband and wife" but if
> > they split the guy's still liable to pay child-support for her kids
> > that she already had previous to their relationship!
>
> >> Having each other's phone numbers and informally riding together doesn't
> >> make a club. You could have a separate '5s' for cycling activities. The
> >> '5s' is for cell phones as seen on television (over and over).
>
> > Dude, this is liberal NYC, and the City wants bicyclists numbering
> > more than twenty (or whatever the exact number is) to apply for a
> > parade permit first. Wedding and funeral processions in cars are all
> > right, but bicyclists they want to crack down on....
>
> I'm not sure that isn't an apples and oranges comparison.

Yeah, but they're both fruits! So maybe if you're after Vitamin C,
then it does matter whether you have an orange or an apple, but if you
just feel like a healthy snack, then no, it doesn't matter too
much...I'm just saying that the City has some weird ideas about
cycling (I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
bike is a vehicle" mentality, such that now biking peaceably on
sidewalks is considered a crime), and I'd not be too surprised if
things turn out as I fear...I'm telling you, I have a lot of
experience with lawyers, and they really can con the devil himself out
his dues (ever read "Merchant of Venice"??)....

> AAARRGGGHH. If that is any reflection of how the mayor runs things I
> sure don't want him dropping his hat in the "Run for president" ring.

It's very curious, but I'm not sure Mayor Bloomberg even notices
bicycling matters, unlike his personal interest in gun control and
public health and grand building projects...no, the anti-bicycling
impetus seems to be from the NYPD for some reason....

> >> Bill Baka, again.

02-15-2007, 03:02 AM

On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
>bike is a vehicle" mentality,

I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
more limited rights on the road.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
****************************

02-15-2007, 10:05 AM

On Feb 15, 7:02 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
>
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
> >bike is a vehicle" mentality,
>
> I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
> more limited rights on the road.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

I must disagree. AFAIK, bicyclists have always had road rights, as do
even pedestrians. Driving is a *priviledge* -- it's licensed, after
all -- and I'm afraid we lose sight of that because human nature finds
it easy to bully the Little Guy....

No, bicyclists have always had road rights. Bikes predate
automobiles! And I don't see any benefit at all to this "a bike is a
vehicle too!" mentality -- if you really believed that, you'd be
calling for us to be licensed (with plates!) and insured as well, like
any other vehicle!

What, should skateboarders and foot-scooters have to wear helmets and
stay off sidewalks, too?? How about folks jogging at 10 mph???

Damned fascists!!

02-15-2007, 12:21 PM

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:59 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> AAARRGGGHH. If that is any reflection of how the mayor runs things I
>> sure don't want him dropping his hat in the "Run for president" ring.
>
> It's very curious, but I'm not sure Mayor Bloomberg even notices
> bicycling matters, unlike his personal interest in gun control and
> public health and grand building projects...no, the anti-bicycling
> impetus seems to be from the NYPD for some reason....
>
I was thinking Guilliani(sp?). Bloomberg is a total unknown to me? Does
he drive a gas guzzling SUV or get limo'd everywhere he goes? Has he
EVER ridden a bike? Many city kids never get a chance to ride a bike,
due to money, theft, and parents concerns over the freedom to go into
bad areas. The closest I have ever come to a big city was growing up in
the Chicago suburbs where I could ride into the city, but chose to ride
away from it. Riding in Chicago seemed so improbable that even at 14 I
took the Metra train and hooked up with the 'El' subway/skyway system
then took buses to things like the museums. I don't know if Chicago is
bike unfriendly by law, but my common sense tells me I want to be in a
car in that city. New York doesn't seem to be that different in terms of
population density, so is it ridable or what?
Sidewalks being illegal does not make much sense unless some hot shots
tried 20 MPH and actually caused accidents that got the law passed.
8 MPH on a sidewalk beats 20 MPH in traffic, for me, at least.
Bill Baka

02-15-2007, 02:39 PM

On 15 Feb 2007 11:05:57 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On Feb 15, 7:02 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>wrote:
>> On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
>>
>> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> >I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
>> >bike is a vehicle" mentality,
>>
>> I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
>> more limited rights on the road.
>> --
>
>I must disagree. AFAIK, bicyclists have always had road rights, as do
>even pedestrians.

Even pedestrians?
Really? So you can just walk down a typical road or street as much as
you want - no need to be on the sidewalk? I did not know that.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
****************************

02-15-2007, 02:48 PM

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:39:31 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On 15 Feb 2007 11:05:57 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 15, 7:02 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>>wrote:
>>> On 14 Feb 2007 22:36:39 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
>>>
>>> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> >I'd really like to meet the asses who started the whole "a
>>> >bike is a vehicle" mentality,
>>>
>>> I didn't start it but strongly agree with it. W/o it we'd have even
>>> more limited rights on the road.
>>> --
>>
>>I must disagree. AFAIK, bicyclists have always had road rights, as do
>>even pedestrians.
>
>Even pedestrians?
>Really? So you can just walk down a typical road or street as much as
>you want - no need to be on the sidewalk? I did not know that.

Many highways (used in the technical sense) either

a) include the pavement set aside for pedestrians; or

b) have no such pavement, and all traffic uses the road surface.

Now of course, there are differences in the details depending on the
jurisdiction, but the essential difference which results in cyclists
(and pedestrians) having a _right_ to use the roads and drivers of
motor-cars having merely a _permission_, is that driving a motor-car
is not permitted unless the individual who wishes to do so asks to do
so, pays some form of fee to do so, and undergoes various tests to
determine if he or she should be allowed to do so; whereas the
cyclists' (and pedestrians') right to use the roads exists ab initio.