Railfan photographer harassment?

[Jeff nor Lisa]

Railfans have been harassed on the streets of Burlington City taking
pictures of RL cars.

Could you elaborate on when this happened, who did the harassment,
and on what grounds? Were the photographers on a public sidewalk,
in the street, or in the station or track grounds? What exactly
happened?


There have been numerous articles in the news media about proposed
or actual photography bans, including Time Magazine (5/24/04 issue).

However, the actual impact is not clear. There are some confirmed
and unstantiated reports, some people bringing up stuff that happened
years ago; others reporting incidents in which actual trespassing
or passenger movement was impeded. Some blur the question by
bringing up ancient civil rights issues.

I am curious as to hard actual confirmed events.


I do know that I recently went out and took pictures on a
pleasant Saturday and the train line was swarming with railfans,
both on and off the property, and everyone was taking pictures
with no interference at all.

[Joe Versaggi]

Post by Jeff nor Lisa

Railfans have been harassed on the streets of Burlington City taking
pictures of RL cars.

Could you elaborate on when this happened, who did the harassment,
and on what grounds? Were the photographers on a public sidewalk,
in the street, or in the station or track grounds? What exactly
happened?

I know who the guy is. Yes, he was harrassed by an NJT cop on the
streets telling him he could not photograph any NJT vehicle from
anywhere, including a sidewalk on a public street that he was
on, where the train runs down the middle of the steet like a trolley
car. This is the incident that earned NJT a couple of well-deserved
editorials bashings about their gestapo antics, and if this is all they
can come up with to combat terrorism (on the RiverLiine of all places),
we are really in trouble.

[GC]

Post by Joe Versaggi
editorials bashings about their gestapo antics, and if this is all they
can come up with to combat terrorism (on the RiverLiine of all places),
we are really in trouble.

and AMTRAK is encouraging people to take pictures of their trains.
kinda ill-timed, huh?

http://www.amtrak.com/calendarcontest.html

[Art Clemons]

Post by GC
and AMTRAK is encouraging people to take pictures of their trains.
kinda ill-timed, huh?

I have in the recent past seen Amtrak employees insist that an
individual put away cameras or face legal consequences. I do have to
wonder just what security rules would be violated by shooting a picture
of a train interior or the scenery as the train whizzes by.

[Jeff nor Lisa]

Post by Joe Versaggi

Railfans have been harassed on the streets of Burlington City taking
pictures of RL cars.

I know who the guy is.

Was it only one person, or a group of people?

Note that on a recent Saturday the River Line was swarming with
photographers, in the stations, riding the cars, and along the way,
and everybody was having a good time.

Post by Joe Versaggi
Yes, he was harrassed by an NJT cop on the
streets telling him he could not photograph any NJT vehicle from
anywhere, including a sidewalk on a public street that he was
on, where the train runs down the middle of the steet like a trolley
car.
This is the incident that earned NJT a couple of well-deserved
editorials bashings about their gestapo antics

How long was he detained at the police station? Was he formally
charged with any offense, and if so what? How many other
railfans were arrested with him?

[magyar]

Misc.Transport.Road added because us "roadfans" are concerned about police
cracking down on us eventually as well...

Post by Jeff nor Lisa

Post by Joe Versaggi

Railfans have been harassed on the streets of Burlington City taking
pictures of RL cars.

I know who the guy is.

Was it only one person, or a group of people?
Note that on a recent Saturday the River Line was swarming with
photographers, in the stations, riding the cars, and along the way,
and everybody was having a good time.

Post by Joe Versaggi
Yes, he was harrassed by an NJT cop on the
streets telling him he could not photograph any NJT vehicle from
anywhere, including a sidewalk on a public street that he was
on, where the train runs down the middle of the steet like a trolley
car.
This is the incident that earned NJT a couple of well-deserved
editorials bashings about their gestapo antics

How long was he detained at the police station? Was he formally
charged with any offense, and if so what? How many other
railfans were arrested with him?

Memo to self.
Do not attempt anymore highway (as well as railroad) photographs in New
Jersey.

Sandor G

[Florence Henderson Had A Mullet]

Post by magyar
Memo to self.
Do not attempt anymore highway (as well as railroad) photographs in New
Jersey.

Memo to self:

Do attempt more highway (as well as railroad) photographs in New Jersey.
If they want to take me to jail, then that's their problem, because
they're the ones who will get sued.

[Art Clemons]

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet
Do attempt more highway (as well as railroad) photographs in New
Jersey. If they want to take me to jail, then that's their problem,
because they're the ones who will get sued.

Let me suggest that suing the police is a hobby for most folks, it can
be fun but is seldom renumerative.

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by magyar
Memo to self.
Do not attempt anymore highway (as well as railroad) photographs in New
Jersey.

Do attempt more highway (as well as railroad) photographs in New Jersey.
If they want to take me to jail, then that's their problem, because
they're the ones who will get sued.

do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[Florence Henderson Had A Mullet]

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I saw a report a few years ago of someone being successfully prosecuted
by the Turnpike authority for taking pix of an accident that were
intended to satisfy the needs of an insurance company.

[Florence Henderson Had A Mullet]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 01:30:55 -0500, "Michael G. Koerner"

Post by Michael G. Koerner
I saw a report a few years ago of someone being successfully prosecuted
by the Turnpike authority for taking pix of an accident that were
intended to satisfy the needs of an insurance company.

That's stupid.

Let them try to prosecute me. I will absolutely humiliate them.

[Paul D. DeRocco]

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet
That's stupid.
Let them try to prosecute me. I will absolutely humiliate them.

Not with a name like "Florence H. H. A. Mullet".

[Dan Morisseau]

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet
Let them try to prosecute me. I will absolutely humiliate them.

I want to see your best stuff. Go for it, tough guy - talk's cheap!
You're pretty tough ... around the mouth!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Michael G. Koerner
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

Give it up, Koerner. The groundbreaking for the NEW buildings (which,
however much the original plans have been tampered with, will still be
immeasurably superior to the twin phalli) is on July 4. Less than a
month from now.

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Michael G. Koerner
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

Give it up, Koerner. The groundbreaking for the NEW buildings (which,
however much the original plans have been tampered with, will still be
immeasurably superior to the twin phalli) is on July 4. Less than a
month from now.

I will not. Silverstein _does not have the money_ to build any of those
buildings and that (so called) 'Freedom Tower' is the worst piece of
architectural trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA,
or any other people (Albany's Empire State Plaza is better than it).
The only people who are pushing that plan appear to me to be Petaki and
a few of his minions, along with Liebskind (who is crying for another
$1million as a 'genius fee'). I am very definitely sensing an
'Emporer's New Clothes' thing developing here with that proposal.

Yes, I know that I am feeding a troll with this response, I am now more
resolute on this than I have been at any time since the attack.

We now return you to our more normal discussions of roads, rails, etc in
the NYC area and the USA/world in general.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Michael G. Koerner
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

Give it up, Koerner. The groundbreaking for the NEW buildings (which,
however much the original plans have been tampered with, will still be
immeasurably superior to the twin phalli) is on July 4. Less than a
month from now.

I will not. Silverstein _does not have the money_ to build any of those

? They're not his to build.

Post by Michael G. Koerner
buildings and that (so called) 'Freedom Tower' is the worst piece of
architectural trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA,

Oh, now you're some sort of expert on architecture? The very fact that
you champion those monstrosities proves that you're not.

You probably even like the new WWII Memorial.

What's worse, you probably even like the Peace Officers Memorial that it
so much resembles!

Which turned out as awful as it did because its program was intended to
be the exact opposite of the Vietnam Memorial -- which idiots like Ross
Perot could not understand from the plans and renderings.

Post by Michael G. Koerner
or any other people (Albany's Empire State Plaza is better than it).
The only people who are pushing that plan appear to me to be Petaki and
a few of his minions, along with Liebskind (who is crying for another
$1million as a 'genius fee'). I am very definitely sensing an
'Emporer's New Clothes' thing developing here with that proposal.
Yes, I know that I am feeding a troll with this response, I am now more
resolute on this than I have been at any time since the attack.
We now return you to our more normal discussions of roads, rails, etc in
the NYC area and the USA/world in general.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they PROUDLY | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

Neither "roads" nor "USA/world in general" are relevant to this
newsgroup.

[Exile on Market Street]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Neither "roads" nor "USA/world in general" are relevant to this
newsgroup.

This discussion was crossposted to several newsgroups, including
misc.transport.road, to which Koerner subscribes. They deal with *both* of
the above topics.

Now what this is doing on phl.transportation kinda mystifies me, except that
I think the original poster is quite familiar with it and several of its
regulars.

Oh, wait -- the thread originated with phl.t regular "Jeff nor Lisa" posting
to that group that Burlington (City, NJ) police were hassling people taking
pictures of River Line cars, which run in the middle of the street through
that community. Since they are in a public way, this behavior is really out
of bounds.

--Sandy, denizen of both phl.t and m.t.r

[magyar]

Post by Exile on Market Street

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Neither "roads" nor "USA/world in general" are relevant to this
newsgroup.

This discussion was crossposted to several newsgroups, including
misc.transport.road, to which Koerner subscribes. They deal with *both* of
the above topics.
Now what this is doing on phl.transportation kinda mystifies me, except that
I think the original poster is quite familiar with it and several of its
regulars.
Oh, wait -- the thread originated with phl.t regular "Jeff nor Lisa" posting
to that group that Burlington (City, NJ) police were hassling people taking
pictures of River Line cars, which run in the middle of the street through
that community. Since they are in a public way, this behavior is really out
of bounds.
--Sandy, denizen of both phl.t and m.t.r

I saw it on phl.t and brought to MTR because of the "legal aspects" of
photographing "public structures."
Where this thread was before Philadelphia, I don't know.

Sandor G

[Jeff nor Lisa]

Post by magyar
I saw it on phl.t and brought to MTR because of the "legal aspects" of
photographing "public structures."
Where this thread was before Philadelphia, I don't know.

This thread deviated when someone complained about another person's
signature. If your reader supports showing the thread index, you
can see where that occured. The discussion on buildings has nothing
to do with public photography.

[Jeff nor Lisa]

Post by Exile on Market Street
Oh, wait -- the thread originated with phl.t regular "Jeff nor Lisa" posting
to that group that Burlington (City, NJ) police were hassling people taking
pictures of River Line cars, which run in the middle of the street through
that community. Since they are in a public way, this behavior is really out
of bounds.

The original post was a question as to what exactly happened
in Burlington to either just a single photographer or a group of
photographers, being apparently on a public sidewalk. It may have
been as simple as "move along".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jeff nor Lisa

Post by Exile on Market Street
Oh, wait -- the thread originated with phl.t regular "Jeff nor Lisa" posting
to that group that Burlington (City, NJ) police were hassling people taking
pictures of River Line cars, which run in the middle of the street through
that community. Since they are in a public way, this behavior is really out
of bounds.

The original post was a question as to what exactly happened
in Burlington to either just a single photographer or a group of
photographers, being apparently on a public sidewalk. It may have
been as simple as "move along".

Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

[Jeff nor Lisa]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

1) People from Burlington commute up to NYC. Also, railfans from the NYC
area come down to Burlington.

2) New Jersey Transit operates in the NYC area.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Jeff nor Lisa

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

1) People from Burlington commute up to NYC. Also, railfans from the NYC
area come down to Burlington.
2) New Jersey Transit operates in the NYC area.

What's NJT doing in Vermont?

[Jishnu Mukerji]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jeff nor Lisa

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

1) People from Burlington commute up to NYC. Also, railfans from the NYC
area come down to Burlington.
2) New Jersey Transit operates in the NYC area.

What's NJT doing in Vermont?

That would be Burlington NJ (between Trenton and Camden) on NJTransit's new DLRV
River Line), not Burlington VT.

/J

[Sean]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jeff nor Lisa

Post by Exile on Market Street
Oh, wait -- the thread originated with phl.t regular "Jeff nor Lisa" posting
to that group that Burlington (City, NJ) police were hassling people taking
pictures of River Line cars, which run in the middle of the street through
that community. Since they are in a public way, this behavior is really out
of bounds.

The original post was a question as to what exactly happened
in Burlington to either just a single photographer or a group of
photographers, being apparently on a public sidewalk. It may have
been as simple as "move along".

Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

In typical New York arrogance you continue to complain that New York
isn't involved.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sean

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Jeff nor Lisa

Post by Exile on Market Street
Oh, wait -- the thread originated with phl.t regular "Jeff nor Lisa" posting
to that group that Burlington (City, NJ) police were hassling people taking
pictures of River Line cars, which run in the middle of the street through
that community. Since they are in a public way, this behavior is really out
of bounds.

The original post was a question as to what exactly happened
in Burlington to either just a single photographer or a group of
photographers, being apparently on a public sidewalk. It may have
been as simple as "move along".

Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

In typical New York arrogance you continue to complain that New York
isn't involved.

What, the NYPD participated in harassment in Burlington, NJ?

[John David Galt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

Complain to David Greenberger. He's the one who insists on including
nyc.transit in the newsgroups list on posts about issues not especially
related to New York City. I've given up on persuading him to stop.
(Likewise phl.transportation)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by John David Galt

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

Complain to David Greenberger. He's the one who insists on including
nyc.transit in the newsgroups list on posts about issues not especially
related to New York City. I've given up on persuading him to stop.
(Likewise phl.transportation)

He appears here far, far less often than when he dwelt in Urbana, IL.

[David J. Greenberger]

Post by John David Galt

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

Complain to David Greenberger. He's the one who insists on including
nyc.transit in the newsgroups list on posts about issues not especially
related to New York City. I've given up on persuading him to stop.
(Likewise phl.transportation)

According to Google, I've made 12 posts to nyc.transit (this makes 13)
so far in 2004. This is the first post of mine in this thread. I'm
not sure how I'm to blame here.

When I remember, I generally look at the Newsgroups line and make
whatever adjustments I think are necessary -- either adding new
relevant groups or using Followups-To to remove irrelevant groups.
(In most cases I don't think it's a good idea to snatch a thread away
from a group immediately, since some participants may only be
following it on that group. Instead I suggest its removal in the
followup post. Whether that suggestion is taken is not up to me.)

I'm afraid I'm not sure which posts you had in mind.

[John David Galt]

Post by David J. Greenberger

Post by John David Galt

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

Complain to David Greenberger. He's the one who insists on including
nyc.transit in the newsgroups list on posts about issues not especially
related to New York City. I've given up on persuading him to stop.
(Likewise phl.transportation)

According to Google, I've made 12 posts to nyc.transit (this makes 13)
so far in 2004. This is the first post of mine in this thread. I'm
not sure how I'm to blame here.
When I remember, I generally look at the Newsgroups line and make
whatever adjustments I think are necessary -- either adding new
relevant groups or using Followups-To to remove irrelevant groups.
(In most cases I don't think it's a good idea to snatch a thread away
from a group immediately, since some participants may only be
following it on that group. Instead I suggest its removal in the
followup post. Whether that suggestion is taken is not up to me.)
I'm afraid I'm not sure which posts you had in mind.

You're right, I'm wrong. I should have checked for recent posts.
I've mostly killfiled the car-vs-transit-argument threads where I used
to see you do this. (When I respond to them, it's usually because
they're crossposted to some other group I read.) My mistake. Sorry.

John

[www.JimWilliamson.net]

Post by John David Galt

Post by David J. Greenberger

Post by John David Galt

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Burlington -- whichever Burlington, anywhere in the world -- is not
relevant to nyc.transit.

Complain to David Greenberger. He's the one who insists on including
nyc.transit in the newsgroups list on posts about issues not especially
related to New York City. I've given up on persuading him to stop.
(Likewise phl.transportation)

According to Google, I've made 12 posts to nyc.transit (this makes 13)
so far in 2004. This is the first post of mine in this thread. I'm
not sure how I'm to blame here.
When I remember, I generally look at the Newsgroups line and make
whatever adjustments I think are necessary -- either adding new
relevant groups or using Followups-To to remove irrelevant groups.
(In most cases I don't think it's a good idea to snatch a thread away
from a group immediately, since some participants may only be
following it on that group. Instead I suggest its removal in the
followup post. Whether that suggestion is taken is not up to me.)
I'm afraid I'm not sure which posts you had in mind.

You're right, I'm wrong. I should have checked for recent posts.
I've mostly killfiled the car-vs-transit-argument threads where I used
to see you do this. (When I respond to them, it's usually because
they're crossposted to some other group I read.) My mistake. Sorry.
John

WOW - Cheers to ya both for upstanding posts. In so many groups this would
have been a flame war.

[Fustanella]

Post by Michael G. Koerner
buildings and that (so called) 'Freedom Tower' is the worst piece of
architectural trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA,

In your opinion. I and others clearly disagree.

[b***@despammed.com]

Post by Michael G. Koerner
buildings and that (so called) 'Freedom Tower' is the worst piece of
architectural trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA,
or any other people (Albany's Empire State Plaza is better than it).

Um, not to get too involved in this World Trade Center .sig file dispute
thing, but:

Most of the experts I have heard insist that the Marquam Bridge here in
Portland, Oregon is by far "the worst piece of architectural trash to have
ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA." Unfortunately, they not
only proposed, but went ahead and foisted and built the damn thing.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by b***@despammed.com

Post by Michael G. Koerner
buildings and that (so called) 'Freedom Tower' is the worst piece of
architectural trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA,
or any other people (Albany's Empire State Plaza is better than it).

Um, not to get too involved in this World Trade Center .sig file dispute
Most of the experts I have heard insist that the Marquam Bridge here in
Portland, Oregon is by far "the worst piece of architectural trash to have
ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA." Unfortunately, they not
only proposed, but went ahead and foisted and built the damn thing.

Got a picture?

[Clayton Bigsby]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@despammed.com
Most of the experts I have heard insist that the Marquam Bridge here
in Portland, Oregon is by far "the worst piece of architectural
trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA."
Unfortunately, they not only proposed, but went ahead and foisted
and built the damn thing.

Got a picture?

There are several pics of this bridge at
http://www.bizave.com/cgi-bin/photoalbum.cgi?photoalbum=pdxbridges&slidetag=Marquam

or

http://tinyurl.com/25wvl

--

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Clayton Bigsby

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@despammed.com
Most of the experts I have heard insist that the Marquam Bridge here
in Portland, Oregon is by far "the worst piece of architectural
trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA."
Unfortunately, they not only proposed, but went ahead and foisted
and built the damn thing.

Got a picture?

There are several pics of this bridge at
http://www.bizave.com/cgi-bin/photoalbum.cgi?photoalbum=pdxbridges&slidetag=Marquam

What's the big deal? A double-decker highway had to cross a few hundred
yards of water -- there are structures like that on highways all over
the country.

[Aaron "Katt" O'Donnell]

Dateline: misc.transport.road, Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:18:34 GMT.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Clayton Bigsby

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by b***@despammed.com
Most of the experts I have heard insist that the Marquam Bridge here
in Portland, Oregon is by far "the worst piece of architectural
trash to have ever been proposed to be foisted on the USA."
Unfortunately, they not only proposed, but went ahead and foisted
and built the damn thing.

Got a picture?

There are several pics of this bridge at
http://www.bizave.com/cgi-bin/photoalbum.cgi?photoalbum=pdxbridges&slidetag=Marquam

What's the big deal? A double-decker highway had to cross a few hundred
yards of water -- there are structures like that on highways all over
the country.

If you look at all the other Portland bridges, they've all got unique
architectural or engineering features that set them apart from other
bridges. The Marquam is your everyday generic bridge, therefore it
sucks. Or so say many of my fellow Portlanders. I think it looks okay.
Not terribly exciting, but a bridge is a bridge.

Complaints about the Marquam led to the design of th Fremont Bridge,
which you can see pictures of on that same site listed above. It's a
neat bridge, but it cost alot more then the Marquam.

[Pete from Boston]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Michael G. Koerner
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________

Give it up, Koerner. The groundbreaking for the NEW buildings (which,
however much the original plans have been tampered with, will still be
immeasurably superior to the twin phalli) is on July 4. Less than a
month from now.

It's astounding how many times you've let this sig get under your skin.
Let it go. You're just egging him on.

[s***@temple.edu]

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

The only time I had a police officer ask me to not shoot photos was when I
was litterally standing in front of the Burlington County police building
that's at the foot of the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge last summer while I was
waiting for a friend to use the restroom. A cop stepped out of the
building and politely asked me to stop shooting photos of the bridge. I
complied and then the cop invited me in to shoot some photos of my friend
with the cops. Go figure.

When the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge was undergoing maintenance in March, I went
to the Cove Nature Preserve down at the foot of the bridge on the NJ side
early one evening and I shot at least 30 photos of the bridge with my
digital camera. No one bothered me. As I was leaving, someone else arrived
to shoot photos of the bridge. Anyone who doubts me is free to look at my
photos online at http://picard.ocis.temple.edu/~stan/TPB/TPB.html

[127.0.0.1]

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

good for you, if a trooper spotted you the results would've different



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[Pete from Boston]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

good for you, if a trooper spotted you the results would've different

Maybe, maybe not. But I will agree that getting away with something
makes it neither 'safe' nor legal. That said, I wholeheartedly encourage
anyone and everyone I can to photograph away until told to stop. Just be
aware that someone will likely try to stop you, and when they do, you
should be prepared to offer polite and innocuous justification for your
actions, and leave. Then go repeat the whole process somewhere else.

The best defense aginst curtailing freedoms is to exercise them.

And no, I'm not an attorney, and no, you can't say I advised you to
break the law.

[127.0.0.1]

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:20:06 -0400, Pete from Boston

Post by Pete from Boston

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

good for you, if a trooper spotted you the results would've different

Maybe, maybe not. But I will agree that getting away with something
makes it neither 'safe' nor legal. That said, I wholeheartedly encourage
anyone and everyone I can to photograph away until told to stop. Just be
aware that someone will likely try to stop you, and when they do, you
should be prepared to offer polite and innocuous justification for your
actions, and leave. Then go repeat the whole process somewhere else.
The best defense aginst curtailing freedoms is to exercise them.
And no, I'm not an attorney, and no, you can't say I advised you to
break the law.

do that on the turnpike and the first time you'll get a ticket, the
second time you'll spend some time in jail, but if proving a point is
that important to you, go for it



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[www.JimWilliamson.net]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:20:06 -0400, Pete from Boston

Post by Pete from Boston

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

good for you, if a trooper spotted you the results would've different

Maybe, maybe not. But I will agree that getting away with something
makes it neither 'safe' nor legal. That said, I wholeheartedly encourage
anyone and everyone I can to photograph away until told to stop. Just be
aware that someone will likely try to stop you, and when they do, you
should be prepared to offer polite and innocuous justification for your
actions, and leave. Then go repeat the whole process somewhere else.
The best defense aginst curtailing freedoms is to exercise them.
And no, I'm not an attorney, and no, you can't say I advised you to
break the law.

do that on the turnpike and the first time you'll get a ticket, the
second time you'll spend some time in jail, but if proving a point is
that important to you, go for it

People have been known die for issues of principle

[127.0.0.1]

Post by www.JimWilliamson.net

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:20:06 -0400, Pete from Boston

Post by Pete from Boston

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

good for you, if a trooper spotted you the results would've different

Maybe, maybe not. But I will agree that getting away with something
makes it neither 'safe' nor legal. That said, I wholeheartedly encourage
anyone and everyone I can to photograph away until told to stop. Just be
aware that someone will likely try to stop you, and when they do, you
should be prepared to offer polite and innocuous justification for your
actions, and leave. Then go repeat the whole process somewhere else.
The best defense aginst curtailing freedoms is to exercise them.
And no, I'm not an attorney, and no, you can't say I advised you to
break the law.

do that on the turnpike and the first time you'll get a ticket, the
second time you'll spend some time in jail, but if proving a point is
that important to you, go for it

People have been known die for issues of principle

sure they have, but taking a photo of a highway isn't enough of a
cause for anyone



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[s***@temple.edu]

Post by 127.0.0.1
sure they have, but taking a photo of a highway isn't enough of a
cause for anyone

So why are our men and women fighting and risking their lives in
Iraq? Oil doesn't seem to be worth lives either.

[127.0.0.1]

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by 127.0.0.1
sure they have, but taking a photo of a highway isn't enough of a
cause for anyone

So why are our men and women fighting and risking their lives in
Iraq? Oil doesn't seem to be worth lives either.

are you always such an idiot?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[s***@temple.edu]

Post by 127.0.0.1
are you always such an idiot?

Not at all, but you seem to hold that title quite well.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by 127.0.0.1
sure they have, but taking a photo of a highway isn't enough of a
cause for anyone

So why are our men and women fighting and risking their lives in
Iraq? Oil doesn't seem to be worth lives either.

It sure doesn't have anything to do with "fighting terror." (Or didn't,
until the US induced al-Qaeda to infest Iraq.) Even Dumbya has
acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[Michael G. Koerner]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

good for you, if a trooper spotted you the results would've different

IIRC, from a MTR discussion a few years ago (pre-attack), the NJTP
anti-photo rules don't apply if the photographer is a PASSENGER in a
vehicle on the highway and they are going at traffic speed.

[127.0.0.1]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 00:23:33 -0500, "Michael G. Koerner"

Post by Michael G. Koerner

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.

good for you, if a trooper spotted you the results would've different

IIRC, from a MTR discussion a few years ago (pre-attack), the NJTP
anti-photo rules don't apply if the photographer is a PASSENGER in a
vehicle on the highway and they are going at traffic speed.

I don't believe that is true, a couple of years ago they harassed a
news crew for driving down the road while taping.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[Eric C. Near]

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Florence Henderson Had A Mullet

Post by 127.0.0.1
do it on the NJ turnpike and you'll lose, try it, I dare you

I will. Just because you said I'd lose if I tried it.

I have stopped two or three times on the NJ turnpike to shoot photos of
the NJ skyline when I was passing by early on a Saturday or Sunday
morning. I have never had a problem.
The only time I had a police officer ask me to not shoot photos was when I
was litterally standing in front of the Burlington County police building
that's at the foot of the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge last summer while I was
waiting for a friend to use the restroom. A cop stepped out of the
building and politely asked me to stop shooting photos of the bridge. I
complied and then the cop invited me in to shoot some photos of my friend
with the cops. Go figure.
When the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge was undergoing maintenance in March, I went
to the Cove Nature Preserve down at the foot of the bridge on the NJ side
early one evening and I shot at least 30 photos of the bridge with my
digital camera. No one bothered me. As I was leaving, someone else arrived
to shoot photos of the bridge. Anyone who doubts me is free to look at my
photos online at http://picard.ocis.temple.edu/~stan/TPB/TPB.html

I was asked by a cop once why I was taking pictures of a bridge and I
simply told him it was for my personal archival purposes and possibly a
website. Since it was a historical bridge he didn't have a problem with
it. I don't expect all cops to react that way. It's their job to find
out _why_ you're taking the photos, and if the cop determines it's a
good reason, that's it. Now if you're doing something illegal like
pulling to the shoulder of a toll road for non-emergency purposes, well,
that's your problem.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[b***@despammed.com]

Post by Eric C. Near
I was asked by a cop once why I was taking pictures of a bridge and I
simply told him it was for my personal archival purposes and possibly a
website. Since it was a historical bridge he didn't have a problem with
it. I don't expect all cops to react that way. It's their job to find
out _why_ you're taking the photos, and if the cop determines it's a
good reason, that's it.

"Oh yes officer. You see, I'm planning to blow up this bridge on next
Tuesday at 4 pm, and I thought it would be good to get some archival shots
to send back home of before and after."

Somehow, I think someone taking photos for actual terrorist purposes will
probably have an imaginitive excuse of some sort as to why they need to
take photos of a particular object from whatever location they choose.

As Hajo has said before on misc.transport.rail.americas, the only country
today that probably has a successful camera ban is North Korea - not
exactly a place most of us would want emulated at home.

[Eric C. Near]

Post by b***@despammed.com
"Oh yes officer. You see, I'm planning to blow up this bridge on next
Tuesday at 4 pm, and I thought it would be good to get some archival shots
to send back home of before and after."

Believe me, if I said this to one of my local officers, he would think I
was the funniest guy on earth. (They don't get out much.)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by b***@despammed.com
As Hajo has said before on misc.transport.rail.americas, the only country
today that probably has a successful camera ban is North Korea - not
exactly a place most of us would want emulated at home.

Demonstrated by photos of the Ryongchon station blowup: As soon as they
allow Red Cross and others to work, it might not even work in North
Korea.


While rail photography used to be a problem in China, I'm told that this
is no longer the case. For the steam fans, here is a nice page by a
german foamer about steam operation in China:
http://home.arcor.de/schienenwege/unterm/china/chinam.html

And especially for you as the steam fan: ;-) If you want to see
mainline steam in normal operation, you have to go NOW. I'm told that
2004 will be the last year of QJ survival! Hurry up!


As a replacement, they have fielded quite some 100 mph running with the
April timetable change. Now the 100 mph network has grown to 4800 miles.


Hans-Joachim

[e***@no.spam]

It's their job to find out _why_ you're taking the photos

Bull

[Eric C. Near]

It's their job to find out _why_ you're taking the photos

Bull

Unfortunately, not bull. Most agencies require interrogation of people
taking photos of critical locations, in many cases including
infrastructure, when the terrorist threat level is blue or higher. \

An example:

(Georgia)
http://www.usg.edu/homelandsecurity/resources/ps_guidelines.phtml

(Louisiana)
http://www.loep.state.la.us/homeland/HSThreatAdvisory.htm
Interesting since LA requires this even at Low threat.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Allen Seth Dunn]

Post by Eric C. Near

It's their job to find out _why_ you're taking the photos

Bull

Unfortunately, not bull. Most agencies require interrogation of people
taking photos of critical locations, in many cases including
infrastructure, when the terrorist threat level is blue or higher. \

Which I don't understand at all. As long as you take a picture with no more
detail than that of what you could find on a postcard somewhere, I see no
reason why police agencies should give a damn (like taking a picture of City
Hall in Philly from a few blocks away). Now, if you're taking detailed
pictures of just parts of the structure in question (with no part that
stands out as an attraction or meeting point), that I could understand.

Post by Eric C. Near
(Georgia)
http://www.usg.edu/homelandsecurity/resources/ps_guidelines.phtml
(Louisiana)
http://www.loep.state.la.us/homeland/HSThreatAdvisory.htm
Interesting since LA requires this even at Low threat.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Eric C. Near
good reason, that's it. Now if you're doing something illegal like
pulling to the shoulder of a toll road for non-emergency purposes, well,
that's your problem.

You mean, the AAA is urging me to break the law when it tells me to pull
over and nap for twenty minutes if I'm feeling drowsy?

And _what_, one more time, does this have to do with nyc.transit?

[127.0.0.1]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:49:27 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Eric C. Near
good reason, that's it. Now if you're doing something illegal like
pulling to the shoulder of a toll road for non-emergency purposes, well,
that's your problem.

You mean, the AAA is urging me to break the law when it tells me to pull
over and nap for twenty minutes if I'm feeling drowsy?

it all depends on where you pull over



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[Eric C. Near]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:49:27 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Eric C. Near
good reason, that's it. Now if you're doing something illegal like
pulling to the shoulder of a toll road for non-emergency purposes, well,
that's your problem.

You mean, the AAA is urging me to break the law when it tells me to pull
over and nap for twenty minutes if I'm feeling drowsy?

it all depends on where you pull over

And the argument that your pulling over and sleeping prevents a
hazardous driving condition.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[s***@temple.edu]

Post by Eric C. Near
I was asked by a cop once why I was taking pictures of a bridge and I
simply told him it was for my personal archival purposes and possibly a
website. Since it was a historical bridge he didn't have a problem with
it. I don't expect all cops to react that way. It's their job to find
out _why_ you're taking the photos, and if the cop determines it's a
good reason, that's it. Now if you're doing something illegal like
pulling to the shoulder of a toll road for non-emergency purposes, well,
that's your problem.

No one has ever bothered me when I shoot photos of the Brooklyn Bridge
and I know cops have seen me do that. I even shot a few photos of the
bridge about ten days after the 9/11 attacks. No problem.

[127.0.0.1]

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by Eric C. Near
I was asked by a cop once why I was taking pictures of a bridge and I
simply told him it was for my personal archival purposes and possibly a
website. Since it was a historical bridge he didn't have a problem with
it. I don't expect all cops to react that way. It's their job to find
out _why_ you're taking the photos, and if the cop determines it's a
good reason, that's it. Now if you're doing something illegal like
pulling to the shoulder of a toll road for non-emergency purposes, well,
that's your problem.

No one has ever bothered me when I shoot photos of the Brooklyn Bridge
and I know cops have seen me do that. I even shot a few photos of the
bridge about ten days after the 9/11 attacks. No problem.

did you stop your car on the bridge? can you read for comprehension?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the current email spam attacks my email account is not included,
reply via the newsgroups or ask for a valid email address.

[s***@temple.edu]

Post by 127.0.0.1
did you stop your car on the bridge? can you read for comprehension?

No, and yes.

I walked across the pedistrian platform above the Brooklyn Bridge.

[randee]

No, it's not their job; it's nobody's business why anybody is taking
photos of anything.
--
wf.

Post by Eric C. Near
it. I don't expect all cops to react that way. It's their job to find
out _why_ you're taking the photos, and if the cop determines it's a
good reason, that's it. Now if you're doing something illegal like

[Art Clemons]

However, the actual impact is not clear.  There are some confirmed
and unstantiated reports, some people bringing up stuff that happened
years ago; others reporting incidents in which actual trespassing
or passenger movement was impeded.  Some blur the question by
bringing up ancient civil rights issues.

There is little doubt that RR special agents aka railroad police are now
arresting folks including railfans at a rate that's a lot higher than
in the past, so much so that pilferage on sidings is probably being
ignored to deal with it. Amtrak now will not allow the use of cameras
onboard, and I have seen folks with cameras told to put them away or
face legal difficulties on Amtrak.

I must say that banning photography is kind of a joke, most of the rail
routes are obvious and one does not need a picture or video to commit a
terrorist act on railroads. I won't detail the obvious ones but it
would not take a genius to find a way to disrupt rail service or cause
derailments.

[josef]

: I must say that banning photography is kind of a joke, most of the rail
: routes are obvious and one does not need a picture or video to commit a
: terrorist act on railroads. I won't detail the obvious ones but it
: would not take a genius to find a way to disrupt rail service or cause
: derailments.

telling people to put cameras away is free. they don't have to spend money
trying to make us feel more secure. like someone said earlier, if this is
all they can do for "security", we are in trouble.

[s***@temple.edu]

Post by josef
telling people to put cameras away is free. they don't have to spend money
trying to make us feel more secure. like someone said earlier, if this is
all they can do for "security", we are in trouble.

Good point. It is the height of obsurdity to deny people permission
to shoot photos on trains, or of trains.

[Sean]

Post by s***@temple.edu

Post by josef
telling people to put cameras away is free. they don't have to spend money
trying to make us feel more secure. like someone said earlier, if this is
all they can do for "security", we are in trouble.

Good point. It is the height of obsurdity to deny people permission
to shoot photos on trains, or of trains.

If you take a picture you might steal the train's soul....

<This arguement has as much base in reality as the terrorist excuse>