wild how anti cop this website is until it's directed at a group of people that personally annoys them. read the fucking article, cyclists court summons higher than they ever have been in 7 years should be a HUGE red flag, and the punishment, again if anyone actually read the article, is far more strict than if you were in a vehicle doing the same thing. this is bullshit to pad out NYC's court docket
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
276 points (97.9% liked)
News
31304 readers
3883 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
New Yorker here.
It's to target the immigrate population of delivery cyclists, thus triggering deportation due to "criminal conviction"
It has nothing to do with court docket numbers, everything to do with Trump's crackdown.
Adams golfs with the Mustard Mussolini, they're tight. Share a background in shady political shit.
In Japan the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the larger vehicle. If a truck hits a car it's on the onus of the truck driver to prove he wasn't doing anything wrong, and if a car hits a cyclist, the car driver has to prove their innocence etc.
I think to most Americans that seems appalling (what if the stupid cyclist was doing something reckless?! Etc.), but it definitely makes people in Japan drive much safer in areas where there are potential cyclists, and thus makes it safer to cycle places easily.
It's the same in the Netherlands. The most vulnerable traffic participant is always protected. Bicycle gets hit by a car? Cars fault. Pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle? Cyclists fault. And so on.
Blind pedestrian gets hit by sighted pedestrian? Sighted pedestrian's fault and also a total dick move.
I lived in a town with a huge seeing impaired population and it did take a little getting used to, but you adapt to being more aware of your surroundings pretty quickly. I didn’t ever actually collide with any person, but I’ve bumped into a couple of canes when the angle was such that I couldn’t tell they were coming towards me. I did feel like a huge dick though.
The cane is there to detect obstacles. They are used to it hitting things, it's part of their life.
You don't have to feel bad about it even though it is something you should try to avoid. It's hard to see that cane when it is poking out in front of the person all the way at the ground if you turn around or things like that.
If I had to guess you both apologized when it happened, and both of you should be able to walk away satisfied after a random friendly interaction like that.
load more comments
(6 replies)
America is run by car lobbyist. They're trying to get rid of kei cars and because the kei trucks are taking sales away from the giant American trucks with the same bed size. Trains and street cars were killed by GM to make room for their cars.
It feels a lot safer to be a pedestrian in Japan. I never saw a driver take precedence for themselves.
The general traffic rule is that unless indicated otherwise, roads are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists, so you're the one borrowing their roads, not the other way around.
I agree with this mentality, but it goes both ways. If a cyclist rode with consideration of the fact that they will lose every battle with a motor vehicle of any size they would also ride more cautiously. There are tons of bad drivers, and they are driving both motor vehicles and bicycles.
Some of those citations are cyclists on sidewalks endangering pedestrians...
Others is cyclists running red lights.
So, cyclists hitting a pedestrian, I feel like we'd agree who's at fault.
But say a cyclists runs a red light and tbones a SUV, you're saying the SUV is at fault?
They're saying it's on the SUV driver to prove they didn't do illegal things that resulted in the accident, assuming normal police requests don't do it first (security camera footage of the intersection) because nobody knows for sure who ran a red light except the people involved, unless there's proof.
Not "someone said the SUV ran a red light and everyone believed them instantly without proof and the SUV was found at fault"
They said assumed, which makes me think it’s a general predisposition, but open to additional evidence. We assume a car that rear-ends another is at fault, but that doesn’t make that if car A pushes car B into car C, the operator of car B is necessarily liable for car C’s damages. It’s just the going theory before additional evidence comes into play.
load more comments
(3 replies)
In America the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the poorer person. It's on them to spend exorbitant legal fees to prove their innocence.
load more comments
(14 replies)
I've regularly commuted by bicycle for almost 2 decade in 3 different countries.
I'm sorry but if you're cycling (or using an e-bike) on the sidewalk you deserved to get punished for it. Same if you cross a red-light when pedestrians are crossing. (I'm so so about crossing a red-light when there are no traffic or pedestrians crossing: I won't do it myself but if you're not endangering others it's no big deal in my book if other cyclists do it).
Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.
Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.
100% but then cars and trucks parked on the cycling lanes, road work without a new bike lane, etc (impossible to have an exhaustive list but I bet you've seen countless video of cyclists everywhere unable to have a single ride on the actual cycling lane) ALSO must get punished because they are the ones prompting dangerous cycling too. There is no justification for putting others in danger but then it has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.
There is no justification for putting others in danger ~~but then~~. It has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.
Fixed it for ya.
There is no justification to put others in danger, period. That applies as much to drivers as to cyclists.
The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.
I've cycled in places like London, back when few people did it and the cycling infrastructure was basically non-existent and what little there was, were mostly tiny lanes painted blue on the side of the road with no actual safety from the cars and which tended to have cars parked on top.
People still didn't cycle on the sidewalk there back then, even in places without cycling lanes.
The sidewalk is not a place for cyclists: it's filled with people who don't expect cyclists and fragile and highly unpredictable pedestrians like children and dogs.
The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.
Well then you didn't fix anything for me as that was precisely my point. You might not understand or agree with what I wrote but based on upvotes, others do.
PS: FWIW and to step back a bit cyclists actually rarely do put others and themselves in actual danger even when they do break the law https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists-reckless-lawbreakers/
load more comments
(1 replies)
the sidewalk things applies to proper cities where sidewalks are actually used by pedestrians and the road can be used by cyclists. actual streets
there are lots of suburbs where that's not the case - 80km/h traffic on a two lane each way, separated center, grass boulevard between the pavement and the sidewalk etc, and a sidewalk used by nobody because it doesn't connect to anything for over a km.
that's the one time sidewalks are okay to cycle on. and even then, better not be going the wrong way at intersections or going too fast at intersections, nobody expects that
Fair enough.
This article, however, is about New York, were none of that applies.
Keep riding your ebikes. Please slow down and make noise when you ride past me on the sidewalk. I swear somebody almost hits every day In out walking around. A simple "Honk honk, coming through", please.
"If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You're done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons, which means you have to take a day off of work, go to court, probably you should hire a lawyer. And if you are an immigrant, then that can put you at risk of deportation," Berlanga said.
I'm in California, not in New York City, but I have to say that while I have seen cars run red lights, it is exceedingly rare, whereas I see bicyclists doing it all the time. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if New York City has a similar situation. Whether-or-not the current situation is a good one, I do think that there's a lack of deterrence as things stand.
EDIT: And while that's the most egregious issue, I also see:
-
People riding their bikes on the street at night without a light, which they are required to have here. This one boggles me, because I've almost been hit on a number of occasions while bicycling with a light at night, and now use both a regular headlight and a flashing headlight and a flashing taillight to increase visibility. People who bicycle in black clothes with no lights at night are crazy, even issues of illegality aside, and I see those every night.
-
Not nearly as common, but bicyclists cycling the wrong way down roads. Automobiles don't do this.
Alright, I hear you, but I think the point is that a cyclist running a red light mostly endangers themselves, while a car running a red light endangers others. Here in Colorado, we changed the laws such that a red light is a stop sign for bicycles, and a stop sign a yield, in recognition of the differences in risk. (Edit: cars -> bicycles)
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeah, should be an option to pay the fine online. No court summons needed (waste of taxpayer money).
Imagine being ticketed for walking the wrong way down a sidewalk or crossing the street. At intersections pedestrians generally have the right of way unless it's signalized (or a car is already inside the intersection).
Cyclist are pedestrians.
These kind of stories almost read as "car is king" and all other modes of travel (walking, running, cycling) are required to conform around the car. Next thing you know grandma will get a ticket for riding her mobility scooter the wrong way down a sidewalk.
The main issue is improper Infrastructure. Streets are destinations and Roads are throughways. Street are multi-use and should be designed as such.
This is a street. It's a destination where local pedestrians have the right of way.
This is a "strode" its a neither a street or a road. Car rule and use these as throughways.
This is a road. It's a proper throughway with no street parking or driveways. Reduced conflict zones such as no intersections or left turn.
Also obligatory:
Emotos, ie. "Self powered" high speed electric motorcycles should be treated similar to regular motorcycles or cars.
Ebikes ie. "Pedal assist" or "human-powered" bicycles are low speed and similar in nature to regular bicycles or in some cases "mobility devices" like grandmas mobility scooter.
Cyclist are pedestrians.
Unless you mean this in some very unconventional way — absolutely not. Bicycles are vehicles.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Down voted for this:
Cyclist are pedestrians.
But want to say thanks for the explanations. Regardless of whether I agree with your opinions.
not even close, people are pedestrians, ive encountered more often than not that bicycles ignore pedestratians when they are crossing the streets, or if they are behind a person, sorry but they act like they are in cars themselves.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›