|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Some Bicyclists Think They Are Above the Law
In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more
than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. The study was posted on IMBA's web site, but IMBA decided to remove it. After all, we can't have people TELLING THE TRUTH about mountain biking, can we? Mike From: Zach Kaplan Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 06:36:50 -0700 Subject: [ebbc-talk] FW: Another run-in with Critical Mass http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../a/2007/04/08/ BAG0SP504J1.DTL Another run-in with Critical Mass Shattered window of family car wasn't only encounter -- limo had harrowing clash, too Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross Sunday, April 8, 2007Another run-in with Critical Mass - Shattered window of family c... Make of it as you will, but there was another ugly confrontation during the last Critical Mass ride in San Francisco, not just the one involving a Redwood City family celebrating a birthday in Japantown. Motorists and bike riders alike have been up in arms since our yarn Wednesday about bicyclists shattering the back window of a car that had unwittingly found itself in the middle of a pedaling Critical Mass pack. Motorists were outraged over the conduct of the cyclists; the riders insist they got a bum rap for a driver they thought should have been arrested for hit-and-run. Whatever the case, this type of scrape isn't exactly unheard of. It turns out that a couple of hours before the Japantown incident, about 7 p.m. March 30, a limousine driver had a run-in with a Critical Mass cyclist down in the Tenderloin. The result: one dented limo hood, one limo tire slashed and one Critical Mass rider getting booked for felony malicious mischief. Limo driver Dennis Webb, 46, told us it all started when he was driving a group of four young women to a club South of Market and a female bicyclist blocked his limo on Hyde Street, near McAllister. Webb said he leaned out the window and asked the cyclist to move. Instead, according to the police report, the cyclist got off her bike, unwrapped a lollypop and started licking it. Webb said he got out of his car to talk to her when another male rider also pulled in front of his limo. After briefly exchanging words with the man, Webb said he grabbed the male cyclist's bike and tried to pull it out of the way. He then got back into his limo in hopes of going around the riders. Before he could move, however, Webb said another cyclist -- who he later identified to police as 31-year-old Gabriel Nugent -- smacked into the front driver's side of his car, then punched the hood with a u-shape bicycle lock, denting it. Cyclist Nugent, however, told officers that he only hit the car with his lock after Webb had gunned his engine. No one disputes that after the limo was struck, driver Webb grabbed Nugent's bike, apparently to keep the cyclist from leaving until the cops could be summoned. In the meantime, according to officers we interviewed, other cyclists surrounded the limo driver and one knocked his cell phone to the ground. Eileen Shields, a San Francisco Health Department spokeswoman who was participating in the ride along with other members of the department, told us she passed by just as things were getting ugly. Shields said the driver was trying to elude about eight cyclists who had surrounded him and who were chanting, "He tried to run him over, he tried to run him over ...'' Next there was a loud pop -- as someone slashed the limo's tire. According to Sgt. Gavin McEachern, who was among the officers who arrived at the scene, an unidentified bicyclist reached into the front seat of Webb's limo and stole his keys from the ignition, then rode off. Webb was stranded, and his limo blocked traffic in the street for two hours before it could finally be towed. After interviewing everyone involved and a number of witnesses, police took the bike lock into evidence and arrested Nugent on charges of felony malicious mischief and impeding traffic. A spokesperson for the district attorney said Nugent was later released on $20,100 bail and is scheduled to appear in court May 11 on a reduced misdemeanor charge. Nugent did not return phone calls Friday seeking comment. "It saddened me to watch this, and a lot of people stopped (to observe),'' the Health Department's Shields said. "A lot felt what was happening to the driver was terrible.'' Shields said it had started out as a beautiful evening, and she and friends were excited about participating in the ride, which drew anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 riders to Justin Herman Plaza at the start. "Everyone was in a great mood,'' she said. But while many people waved to the riders as they crossed through downtown, Shields said there was a noticeable tension in the air when the cyclists pedaled past Union Square, where a number of motorists stuck in traffic began honking their horns. "That just invites guys with attitudes to pound on the cars,'' she said. "It really saddens me that this element is part of Critical Mass.'' Webb, who has been driving for 30 years, said he had never even heard of the group until his run-in. "But I tell people about them now,'' he said. Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told us she was unaware of the episode, but said, "We don't condone violence on our streets anytime, whether during a Critical Mass ride or anytime." She added, "Most people know that 99 percent of bicyclists and drivers do the right thing, and there's always 1 percent who cause problems for all of us.'' One man band: One of the more interesting side notes to state Sen. Don Perata's proposed statewide ballot measure calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq was that he pretty much did it on his own, without consultation with fellow Democrats or lawmakers. Most didn't even know what he was up to until they heard about the press conference. As for the idea the anti-Iraq war measure is a ploy to draw more Democrats to the polls and therefore increase the odds of passing a term-limit extension so that Perata and other lawmakers could stay in office longer? "Have you seen the polling numbers?" Perata replied. "At this point, I'm not even sure if there is going to be a term-limit extension on the ballot." On the lighter side: Sign painters union chief and Port Commissioner Mike Hardeman had an Opening Day he won't soon forget. He was scheduled to go to the dentist. But, what the heck -- why not catch a few innings first, and, besides, there was that pregame All- Star luncheon. He went. He ate. And right in the middle of a bite, out flew his front tooth. The next thing you know, Hardeman, Felipe Alou and Juan Marichal were down on their knees searching for the lost chomper -- only to have it found by Gaylord Perry, who was sitting at a nearby table where the tooth had landed. Meanwhile, across town at a neighborhood bar in San Francisco's Glen Park neighborhood, they hoped to lure in customers for an Opening Day party with some "common cents.'' Scrawled on a sign hanging in the window: Beer: $8 at PacBell, $4 here. Hot dogs: $6 at Pac Bell, free here. EXTRA! Catch our Web page at www.SFGate.com/matierandross. Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on CBS-5 morning and evening news, and can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call them at (415) 777-8815 or e-mail . === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The empty drum makes the most noise
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. The study was posted on IMBA's web site, but IMBA decided to remove it. After all, we can't have people TELLING THE TRUTH about mountain biking, can we? Nobody polled me for this "Scientific survey." Was anybody here actually included in these "scientific" results? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action :: Unequivocal, Mike Vandeman, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
On Apr 8, 8:07 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action :: Unequivocal, Mike Vandeman, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...interests.html Coal Interests Fight Polar Bear Action An organization representing companies that mine coal and burn it to make electricity has called on its members to fight the proposed listing of the polar bear as an endangered or threatened species. "This will essentially declare 'open season' for environmental lawyers to sue to block viirtually any project that involves carbon dioxide emissions," the Western Business Roundtable said in an e-mail. To settle a lawsuit by environmental groups, the Department of Interior announced last month that it would take a year to consider whether global warming and melting Arctic ice justifies declaring the bear "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. "This seems a little unfair, pitting all those big coal companies and power companies against the poor polar bear," sniffed Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist Inside the secretive plan to gut the Endangered Species Act Proposed regulatory changes, obtained by Salon, would destroy the "safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction," say environmentalists. March 27, 2007 | The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is maneuvering to fundamentally weaken the Endangered Species Act, its strategy laid out in an internal 117-page draft proposal obtained by Salon. The proposed changes limit the number of species that can be protected and curtail the acres of wildlife habitat to be preserved. It shifts authority to enforce the act from the federal government to the states, and it dilutes legal barriers that protect habitat from sprawl, logging or mining. "The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered Species Act," says Jan Hasselman, a Seattle attorney with Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, who helped Salon interpret the proposal. "This is a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's most popular environmental protections. If these regulations stand up, the act will no longer provide a safety net for animals and plants on the brink of extinction." In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the public. All copies of the working document were given a number corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the concern with secrecy: "Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation." Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not based on "defensible science," says a federal employee who asked to remain anonymous. Yet "there is genuine fear of retaliation for communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs." Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review process. Administration critics characterize the secrecy as a way to maintain spin control, says Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a national environmental group. "This administration will often release a 300-page-long document at a press conference for a newspaper story that will go to press in two hours, giving the media or public no opportunity to digest it and figure out what's going on," Suckling says. "[Interior Secretary Dirk] Kempthorne will give a feel-good quote about how the new regulations are good for the environment, and they can win the public relations war." In some ways, the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act should come as no surprise. President Bush has hardly been one of its fans. Under his reign, the administration has granted 57 species endangered status, the action in each case being prompted by a lawsuit. That's fewer than in any other administration in history -- and far fewer than were listed during the administrations of Reagan (253), Clinton (521) or Bush I (234). Furthermore, during this administration, nearly half of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees who work with endangered species reported that they had been directed by their superiors to ignore scientific evidence that would result in recommendations for the protection of species, according to a 2005 survey of more than 1,400 service biologists, ecologists and botanists conducted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit organization. "We are not allowed to be honest and forthright, we are expected to rubber stamp everything," wrote a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist as part of the survey. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is the worst it has ever been." The agency has long seen a need to improve the act, says Tollefson. "This is a look at what's possible," he says. "Too much of our time as an agency is spent responding to litigation rather than working on recovering the species that are most in need. The current way the act is run creates disincentives for people to get involved with recovering species." Kempthorne, boss of the Fish and Wildlife Service, has been an outspoken critic of the act. When he was a U.S. senator from Idaho in the late 1990s, he championed legislation that would have allowed government agencies to exempt their actions from Endangered Species Act regulations, and would have required federal agents to conduct cost-benefit analyses when considering whether to list a species as endangered. (The legislation failed.) Last June, in his early days as interior secretary, Kempthorne told reporters, "I really believe that we can make improvements to the act itself." Kempthorne is keeping good on his promise. The proposed draft is littered with language lifted directly from both Kempthorne's 1998 legislation as well as from a contentious bill by former Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. (which was also shot down by Congress). It's "a wish list of regulations that the administration and its industry allies have been talking about for years," says Suckling. Written in terse, dry legal language, the proposed draft doesn't make for easy reading. However, the changes, often seemingly subtle, generally serve to strip the Fish and Wildlife Service of the power to do its stated job: to protect wildlife. Some verge on the biologically ridiculous, say critics, while others are a clear concession to industry and conservative Western governors who have long complained that the act degrades the economies of their states by preventing natural-resource extraction. One change would significantly limit the number of species eligible for endangered status. Currently, if a species is likely to become extinct in "the foreseeable future" -- a species-specific timeframe that can stretch up to 300 years -- it's a candidate for act protections. However, the new rules scale back that timeline to mean either 20 years or 10 generations (the agency can choose which timeline). For certain species with long life spans, such as killer whales, grizzly bears or wolves, two decades isn't even one generation. So even if they might be in danger of extinction, they would not make the endangered species list because they'd be unlikely to die out in two decades. "It makes absolutely no sense biologically," wrote Hasselman in an e- mail. "One of the Act's weaknesses is that species aren't protected until they're already in trouble and this proposal puts that flaw on steroids." Perhaps the most significant proposed change gives state governors the opportunity and funding to take over virtually every aspect of the act from the federal government. This includes not only the right to create species-recovery plans and the power to veto the reintroduction of endangered species within state boundaries, but even the authority to determine what plants and animals get protection. For plants and animals in Western states, that's bad news: State politicians throughout the region howled in opposition to the reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf into Arizona and the Northern Rockies wolf into Yellowstone National Park. "If states are involved, the act would only get minimally enforced," says Bob Hallock, a recently retired 34-year veteran of the Fish and Wildlife Service who, as an endangered species specialist, worked with state agencies in Idaho, Washington and Montana. "States are, if anything, closer to special economic interests. They're more manipulated. The states have not demonstrated the will or interest in upholding the act. It's why we created a federal law in the first place." Additional tweaks in the law would have a major impact. For instance, the proposal would narrow the definition of a species' geographic range from the landscape it inhabited historically to the land it currently occupies. Since the main reason most plants and animals head toward extinction is due to limited habitat, the change would strongly hamper the government's ability to protect chunks of land and allow for a healthy recovery in the wild. The proposal would also allow both ongoing and planned projects by such federal agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service to go forward, even when scientific evidence indicates that the projects may drive a species to extinction. Under the new regulations, as long as the dam or logging isn't hastening the previous rate of extinction, it's approved. "This makes recovery of species impossible," says Suckling. (You can read the entire proposal, a PDF file, here.) Gutting the Endangered Species Act will only thicken the pall that has hung over the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past six years, Hallock says. "They [the Bush administration] don't want the regulations to be effective. People in the agency are like a bunch of whipped dogs," he says. "I think it's just unacceptable to go around squashing other species; they're of incalculable benefit to us. The optimism we had when this agency started has absolutely been dashed." http://www.earthjustice.org/news/pre...otections.html Bush Administration Rewrite of Endangered Species Act Regulations Would Gut Protections Hush-hush proposal "a no-holds-barred end run around one of America's most popular laws" Washington, DC -- A secret draft of regulations that fundamentally rewrite the Endangered Species Act was leaked to two environmental organizations, which provided them to the press last night An article in Salon quotes Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman saying, "The proposed changes fundamentally gut the intent of the Endangered Species Act." The changes are fiercely technical and complicated, but make future listings extremely difficult, redefine key concepts to the detriment of protected species, virtually hand over administration of the act to hostile states, and severely restrict habitat protections. Many of the changes -- lifted from unsuccessful legislative proposals from then-Senator (now Interior Secretary) Dirk Kempthorne and the recently defeated congressman Richard Pombo -- are reactions to policies and practices established as a result of litigation filed by environmental organizations including Earthjustice. "After the failure of these legislative proposals in the last Congress, the Bush administration has opted to gut the Endangered Species Act through the only avenue left open: administrative regulations," said Hasselman. "This end-run around the will of Congress and the American people will not succeed." A major change would make it more difficult for a species to gain protection, by scaling back the "foreseeable future" timeframe in which to consider whether a species is likely to become extinct. Instead of looking far enough ahead to be able to reasonably determine whether a species could be heading for extinction, the new regulations would drastically shorten the timeframe to either 20 years or 10 generations at the agency's discretion. For species with long generations like killer whales and grizzly bears, this truncated view of the future isn't nearly enough time to accurately predict whether they are at-risk now. "These draft regulations represent a total rejection of the values held by the vast majority Americans: that we have a responsibility to protect imperiled species and the special places they call home," said Kate Freund, Legislative Associate at Earthjustice. According to several sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service quoted by Salon, hostility to the law within the agency has never been so intense. "I have 20 years of federal service in this and this is the worst it has ever been," one unnamed source is quoted as saying. In addition, the proposal would allow projects by the Forest Service and other agencies to proceed even if scientific evidence suggests that the projects might drive species to extinction so long as the rate of decline doesn't accelerate owing to the project. The Bush administration's antipathy to the law is shown by the numbers of species it has protected, in each case as the result of litigation -- 57. By comparison, 253 species were listed during the Reagan administration, 521 under Clinton, and 234 under Bush I. The administration reportedly had expected to reveal the new regulations in a few weeks. The draft regulations must be published in the Federal Register for public comment before they can become final, which is likely to be at least a year off. Contact: Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340, ext. 25 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Some Bicyclists Think They Are Above the Law
Mike Vandeman wrote:
In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens! -Beej |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Some Bicyclists Think They Are Above the Law
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 06:23:20 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens! Then why is it so hard to find one of them? -Beej === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Some Bicyclists Think They Are Above the Law
Beej Jorgensen wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens! -Beej Has a scientific study been performed to find out what percentage of environmentalists kooks obey the law? And when we say "the law" which one are we talking about anyway? Matt |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Some Bicyclists Think They Are Above the Law
Mike Vandeman wrote:
Mike Vandeman wrote: In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens! Then why is it so hard to find one of them? Is the number you posted accurate? Perhaps the study is flawed. -Beej |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The empty drum makes the most noise, the debris within clatters most raucously
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message news On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:41:28 GMT, "JP" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. The study was posted on IMBA's web site, but IMBA decided to remove it. After all, we can't have people TELLING THE TRUTH about mountain biking, can we? Nobody polled me for this "Scientific survey." Was anybody here actually included in these "scientific" results? It wasn't a "survey". Surveys are notoriously inaccurate. And this is nonsense. 500 observations over a three month period ten yeasrs ago in one location with two "laws" as a criteria. No accounting made for multiple observations of the same rider. It was a classic example of using graduate students for busywork to gather data for an obscure useless repot. This garbage is the best you got Mikey. Blither on hapless one. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Some Bicyclists Think They Are Above the Law
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:54:36 -0600, MattB
wrote: Beej Jorgensen wrote: Mike Vandeman wrote: In the case of mountain bikers, a scientific study showed that more than 85% of mountain bikers don't obey the law. Up to 15% of mountain bikers are law-abiding citizens! -Beej Has a scientific study been performed to find out what percentage of environmentalists kooks obey the law? And when we say "the law" which one are we talking about anyway? We don't need to break the law, because we already have access to trails. But, of course, mountain bikers ALSO have access; they just don't want to admit it. Matt === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicyclists Usually *NOT* At Fault | Steven M. O'Neill | Social Issues | 39 | October 8th 04 04:17 AM |
Bicyclists usually NOT at fault | Peter Keller | Australia | 0 | September 30th 04 01:07 AM |
Bicyclists are motorists? Since when? | chrisrange | Social Issues | 2 | August 6th 04 05:29 AM |
10 ways how bicyclists pay their way. | Robert Haston | Social Issues | 9 | August 2nd 04 02:47 PM |
Uni performance for Bicyclists | monociclos | Unicycling | 5 | May 22nd 04 12:48 AM |