RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General
Re: Border Crossing Bike ban response for LC not Guido, sorry(43 posts)
|Re: Border Crossing Bike ban response for LC not Guido, sorry||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 8:08 AM
|grew up in San Diego and live in New York now. I was riding my bike to work on the day of the attacks and saw the buildings collapse from the walkway of the Brooklyn Bridge.
The Tijuana/San Diego border crossing is the busiest crossing in the world. The amount of drugs, illegal aliens, and anything else imaginable that comes through there is staggering.
The ratio of the cars and people that are actually searched compared to the ones that just walk, drive or bike in is minuscule. Border crossing guards work mainly on intuition and profiling rather than searching every unit going through the crossing.
The avenue for easliy smuggled terrorist factions and supplies is a recipe for disaster. I applaud the new border vigilance. They are finally waking up to the problems that exist there.
"I still can't figure out what effect Sept 11 had that changed bike traffic from 200 to 2,500 per day? This is a long way from NY." Posted by: LC Apr-04-02, 06:45 PM
For you to say that San Diego is a "long way" from New York makes me think that you have little concept of what lies outside whatever secluded little community you presently reside (Happyland USA). Think of this, how far away is the war we are waging in Afghanistan?
Look before you leap.
I had my camera that day (9/11). Take a look.
|bikes and terrorists||MJ|
Apr 5, 2002 8:20 AM
|you can wrap it up however you want - photos, personal accounts, local knowledge etc. - the fact is that bikes aren't secret weapons - a photo of a horrific event doesn't an argument about this point make - increased vigilance needs to be realistic, logical and porportional to actual security concerns - September 11 is not an excuse to lose all mental faculties and blindly justify anything in the name of safety without debate (or thought)
if you can still walk bikes through the border then there's absolutley no change to the actual level of security is there? - it's just another inconvenience justified by pedantic 'security' concerns
'A man who would give up freedom in return for security deserves neither.' - Thomas Jefferson
|As a former messenger||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 8:36 AM
|The things I could carry, or have carried or seen my former colleagues carry in a messenger bag leads me to believe that I have more experience in this area than you.
I have messengered on both coasts and have seen messengers (not all of them) carrying guns, knives (myself included here), drugs and whatever else you can imagine.
I never said bikes were "secret weapons." I think that should be quite obvious. It is the people on the bikes that are the potential secret weapons. Think about the suicide bombers.
I think that a picture can produce an argument. The photo illustrates the consequences of lax security and impotent screening.
|As a former messenger||MJ|
Apr 5, 2002 8:54 AM
|nobody's saying be lax - but there's no sense in banning bikes from being ridden through the border because of security issues when they can be walked through by foot
who cares if people carry guns or knives through the border? what are they gonna hijack a booth? what's your point here? why does your experience as a messenger bear on the conversation if the people are the actual concern? if they're bringing something more dangerous across the border (than guns or knives) they still get through - they just have to walk - it's hysterical inconvenience and justification in the name of security - how ridiculous is that?
people on the bikes - why single out cyclists as potential terrorists - they're subject (or should be) to the same requirements as people in cars - whatever they may carry in their dangerous dirty nuke messenger bags - in this case the only change to the crossing is that cyclists now have to walk through the border - how is that making things safer? are their bags being searched at the walk through for dirty nukes, drugs, exotic animal furs or whatever they're looking for this week? banning cyclists from riding through is a ridiculous example of how anything is being justified at the expense of 'security'
this is despite the fact that all borders are porous and real security (drugs/terrorists) is not provided by border controls or countermeasures
your picture attempts to justify and strengthen your position (like your comment about being a messenger and thereby being more qualified) when neither have any impact on the actual situation at hand
|I actually know several riders who commute through the border||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 9:07 AM
|by bike. They told me that they were never searched while on their bikes.
By going through the pedestrian walkway they are under the scrutiny of the cameras in the long security corridor for a much longer time. This is how the border guards catch pedestrians trying to smuggle something in.
They peruse them while they are waiting in the line, much the same way that the cameras peruse the cars waiting to cross.
I am sure that all bags are being searched at the border. I have ridden across the border (San Diego/Tijuana). Have you?
There is nothing wrong with trying to justify and strengthen my position. That is the essence of an argument.
|I actually know several riders who commute through the border||MJ|
Apr 5, 2002 9:58 AM
|I've not ridden through but I have walked through there and wasn't searched - nor were my bags nor did I see anybody get searched |
how many people walk though every day without getting serached? focusing on bikes is hysterical and un-productive
don't cameras work in the auto lanes as well as in the pedestrian crossing
justifying yuor argument only works or is helpful when your example is pertinent
I agree with Evieto - are shoes on airplanes gonna be banned next?
Apr 5, 2002 11:18 PM
|Reacted to your pix in the first thread below, before reading this thread.
It's interesting that apparently most everyone gets through the border crossings, only a few spotchecked. Backpacks notwithstanding, enough explosives to blow up a pizzeria could be stashed inside a bike frame, but the dogs would smell it, and the technique would only work one time.
I too, am a little paranoid at the young guys in camo standing in the airports with their loaded M-16s, especially when the news announces another helicopter crashing with several troops on board, or advance scouts getting killed by "friendly fire." Haven't almost all US losses (after 9-11!) been an ignominious result of it's own military incompetence rather than of honorable warriors in combat bravely taking enemy bullets?
Willingly giving up freedom for security is how the German people allowed the mass extermination of the Jews. And now the Jews are, with supreme irony, thinking the same thing about the Palestinians. It's the mantra of the totalitarian state. It rests on fear and paranoia, the very thing we were warned against the day after 9-11. The best weapon against terrorism is not to be terrorised. Vigilance, yes, the same kind when one is screaming down 2nd Avenue with the traffic, but not dread, fear, loathing. That kills the spirit.
This isn't a territorial war. Arab Muslims aren't trying to take over. If they were, they wouldn't be using themselves as weapons delivery systems. They're fighting a spiritual war, playing to the media, trying to demoralize us. Conventional 20th Century mechanized warfare is impotent fighting this kind of war, if not perversely counterproductive, as we are seeing every night on the TV dispatches from Israel: a teenage girl reading her statement of martyrdom before blowing herself up, intercut with images of faceless Israeli tanks crushing ambulances against walls of concrete buildings.
I'm sorry, seeing your picture brought all these thoughts into my head and compelled me to put them down. It is a very powerful image that will define this century, as the atom bomb mushroom cloud defined the 20th. The faces on those people crossing the bridge say it all. I hope we will overcome this loss of innocence, and be stronger and wiser from it.
|If a guy can get on a plane with a bomb in his shoe||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 9:17 AM
|Why wouldnt you think that a bike would be a good weapon?|
|If a guy can get on a plane with a bomb in his shoe||elviento|
Apr 5, 2002 9:37 AM
|But the question is is it worth the extra cost/inconvenience for a safety concern? For example, are we going to ban shoes since someone has planted a bomb in his shoe?|
|They made me take mine off.||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 9:40 AM
|They had me and everyone else take our shoes off to be x-rayed. I thought this was a great idea.
Dont you think this is a great idea?
Apr 5, 2002 11:51 AM
|A cost benefit analysis:
The cost and inconvenience imposed by those security rules (such as the ones I had to go through before a 2hour bus ride) is doubtlessly huge. Besides the actual billions of dollars invested, the added time in travel surely costs a lot to our society/economy. I know the extra delay costs my clients about $500 a round trip, and that's concrete cost, believe it or not.
On the other hand, you need to look at the realistic improvement in security. To know that, you have to first evaluate the potentially insecurity. It's uninevitable for people to overestimate risk after a big attack (an old saying goes: once bitten by a snake, scared of ropes for 10 years). The actual improvement in security, which is not huge, with the added gunman at a bridge or whatever. Just think how many of these measures could have prevented 911? Having some gunman at the WTC, or shorten the stay of a 50 year old Chinese lady who is visiting her kid at college? I don't think that makes a huge difference. The shoe bomb thing was a joke. I am surprised you buy that.
The conclusion is we are spending a lot of money to pacify exaggerated sense of insecurity, and bring us a false sense of great improvement in security. Note I am not totally dismissing the risk or the benefit of the measures, but to me the added benefit is worth far less than the cost. That's all.
Another question for you, onespeed, is that if you are accustomed to carrying guns, drugs, and all that sh$t in messenger bags, aren't you yourself a risk to society and human lives?
|bikes and terrorists||elviento|
Apr 5, 2002 8:49 AM
|The visiting time allowed for parents of Korean and Chinese students in the USA has been shortened from 6 months to 4 weeks, for security concerns.|
Apr 5, 2002 8:56 AM
|that anything can be justified in the present climate and everyone seems to be buying it
we all know how dangerous visiting Asian parents can get after 4 weeks in the US...
|Who's in charge, Joe McCarthy?||laffeaux|
Apr 5, 2002 9:49 AM
|I feel less save, more inconviencenced, and a bit proturbed at the increased spending on "security" after the attacks. I live in the SF Bay Area, and I think our attepts at "security" are ridiculous. We're currently protecting our bridges by posting guards with M-16s at the end of each bridge. How a few guys with machine guns standing at either end of the Bay Bridge (several miles long) watching traffic as it flows by at 60+ mph supposed to save the bridge from attack is beyond me. It's a waste of tax payers money in my opinion. |
I feel the same way about airport security. I recently picked up a friend of mine from SJ International Airport. To park in short term parking my car was searched by some kid in a camo uniform. Instead of feeling safer, I felt violated. Did he take anything while he searched? Then I walked into the airport where there were many armed guards walking around. What creditinals does it take to join the army? A HS diploma? Why is some guy with a machine gun in the airport a good thing? Who is to say one of them won't open fire? Timothy McVeigh carried a gun for the same agency that employeed these guys. Who's to say these guys are any more stable? All I keep thinking about is the statistics that say if I have a gun in my house for protection, that there's a greater chance that it will kill a loved one than an intruder. How are guns at the airport any different? Get them out of the airport! We've already had one National Guardsman accidently shoot himself at the SF Airport. What innocent will be shot next?
Someone said you can have freedom or security; you can't have both. The September 11th attack was horrible, but I'm not sure that the freedoms that we're losing is how we should react.
|You are right in some respects||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 9:56 AM
|But at least we are making an effort to increase security.
The alternatives for no guns is an impotent security force that wouldnt be able to deal with an armed assailant.
Feeling violated after a search is unsettling but the person is just doing his/her job. Were you missing anything? Always take badge number or the ID of anyone wanting to search you.
"What innocent will be shot next?" How many innocents died on 9/11?
|Who's in charge, Joe McCarthy?||granda|
Apr 5, 2002 10:13 AM
|I live in the bay area and agree with you about the guards at bridges, what a joke. |
I also agree with you about potential wacko's in our military and police departments. Why do these people get to legally carry concealed guns
when it's a crime for the gun savvy law-abidding citizen to carry one? who's more qualified here? And how do our gun laws promote security when only the wackos are going to be the ones disobeying them? Rediculous gun laws -Just another example of how we could have security and freedom, instead we have neither.
Apr 5, 2002 9:38 AM
|My understanding is that the "closure" isn't really a "closure" and that they never said it was about security.
The statement from border authorities I read said that cyclists have to pass through with pedestrians (which stinks AND is slower). They aren't banned. And the justification is that the vehicle traffic is so heavy, and there is no bike lane, so they thought it unsafe to have the cyclists amid the cars.
Still seems like a crummy solution to this perceived "problem," but I think the discussion of Sept 11th is misguided.
I can probably find the hyperlink to the msn.com story regarding the closure, but it said nothing about September 11th.
|You are right.||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 9:47 AM
|It was more of safety issue. According to the article.
The fact is the border crossing situation has always been a "crummy" situation. I remember when there would be 3 hour waits at the border.
I dont think that the 9/11 bent to this discussion is misguided though. Originally I was responding to the comment made by LC about NY being a long way from San Diego.
Apr 5, 2002 2:14 PM
|That's what I get for joining a conversation already in progress! :)|
|Bike ban has nothing to do about security||badabill|
Apr 5, 2002 10:36 AM
|I live less tha 5 miles from the TJ border and can tell you for a fact the bike ban had nothing to do with security. After the 9/11 attack commuters from TJ were subjected to huge lines and long waits. Many found it was easier to ride a bike thru the lines and on the other side catch the Trolly to San Diego. Bike traffic increased from less than a 150 a day to over 2500. Drivers complained to the customs about bikes cutting to the front of lines so customs banned bikes. The simple fact is that customs does not want to deal with bikes. And if you think all bags and cars are checked at the border you are fooling yourself. Border security has changed little. I cross the border on foot a couple of times a month and see little change. a Few more guards and a little longer wait. This is the bussiest border in the world and to think every bag and package is checked is crazy|
|I have already said that the ban had nothing to do with security||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:43 AM
|re: Re: Border Crossing Bike ban response for LC not Guido, sorr||Ahimsa|
Apr 5, 2002 10:36 AM
|"Onespeed" enlighten us all by saying:
"I have ridden across the border (San Diego/Tijuana). Have you?"
"you have little concept of what lies outside whatever secluded little community you presently reside (Happyland USA)."
"As a former messenger........The things I could carry, or have carried or seen my former colleagues carry in a messenger bag leads me to believe that I have more experience in this area than you."
Gee, didya stay at a holiday in last night too? What a smug pr!ck you are. I bet you enjoy the smell of your own farts. I've slung packages, it doesn't ,make me a friggin' political analyst, and I certainly don't wear it like a badge.
"They had me and everyone else take our shoes off to be x-rayed. I thought this was a great idea. Dont you think this is a great idea?"
Heck yes, I think they should start checking rectums too. Wouldn't that be great? Huh? Guys? That'd be great huh?
You'd be the first in line to sign away your rights for "protection" wouldn't ya?
Then the finale:
"How many innocents died on 9/11?"
Sanctimonious hogsh!t. We all were stunned and horrified that day. Get over yourself already. It ain't your baby, stop feedin' it. Jingoist.
A. (I'd slam the door on ya, but your narrow mind would just slip right through.)
|"Onespeed" enlighten us all by saying:||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:41 AM
|I am just trying.
Funny how you find the need to inject your speech with profanity.
Everything you said made that much more sense and had a greater impact.
Apr 5, 2002 10:44 AM
|I'm a vulgar, vulgar man.
|You have proven that more than once. nm||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:45 AM
Apr 5, 2002 10:47 AM
|I'm a vulgar, vulgar man.
|So you keep reminding us. nm||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:47 AM
Apr 5, 2002 10:48 AM
|I'm a vulgar, vulgar man.
|One track mind Ahimsa?||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:50 AM
Apr 5, 2002 10:51 AM
|I'm a vulgar, vulgar man.
|Just like a sheep.||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:52 AM
Apr 5, 2002 10:52 AM
|I am a vulgar, vulgar man.
A. (Gimee room son, I'm goin' for a record here.)
|Dubious record at best.||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:53 AM
Apr 5, 2002 10:56 AM
|I am a vulgar, vulgar man.
A. (Oops, thought you got it there but ya didn't.)
|I am not sure if you "got it."||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 10:58 AM
|Nah, yer right bro.||Ahimsa|
Apr 5, 2002 11:09 AM
|You nailed me.
|There is only one way to settle this debate.||Slipstream|
Apr 5, 2002 11:00 AM
|Ahisma, wha'dya think? Will you join us. First, we go for a long ride together; afterwards, we get snockered in a smokey anteroom of a bar until everyone is puking their guts the next day. I'll buy the first & last rounds. |
You see, everyone will have forgotten whatever conclusions they may have arrived at the night before and the whole argument will start all over again.
In these times of bitter debate we need to allow a little room for insouciance.
btw. my wife says I'm trying--very trying!
Apr 5, 2002 11:08 AM
I'm just fookin' with 'im a little that's all.
You know. Bah. As in Mary had a little lamb. Just wanted to see how long he'd follow me. He was close with the sheep comment, but I'm glad I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt.
|Nursery rhymes your specialty?||onespeed|
Apr 5, 2002 11:09 AM
Apr 5, 2002 11:12 AM
|I'm into shepherding.
Apr 5, 2002 11:13 AM
|I am into messengering.|
Apr 5, 2002 11:39 AM
|"To create man was a quaint and original idea, but to add the sheep was tautology." Mark Twain |
...talk about going in circles ;?)
|A: An exploding Sheep||128|
Apr 5, 2002 12:20 PM
|Q: What goes 'sis-BAHH-boom.'
-Carnac the Magnificient