Verrazano-Narrows bridge

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:11:30 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:59:33 -0400, Scotius wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:38:16 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge. However,
there are no rules saying you can't photograph the bridge itself. I took
this just off the Belt Parkway tonight, and fought off a rat between my
tripod and my car door on the way back!

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44216856
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44220725

Anyone trained to place explosives in even the most basic way
could take one look at a bridge and know exactly where to put them,
I'm sure.
Therefore, the rules regarding not being able to take pictures
from bridges are not for the reasons they claim they are.

I'm not of the opinion that the bad guys take pictures of bridges in
order to blow them up, but your comment is not particularly logical as
a reason a photograph would not be needed to blow up a bridge.

The bad guy explosive expert could take a photograph of the bridge in
order to provide a diagram for his underlings to use as a map in
placing the charges. The guys actually placing the charges may not be
explosives experts.

If I'm running a terrorist group, I'm not sending my explosive expert
out on the bridge. I'm going send more expendable troops out with
just enough training to know how, but not necessarily where, to place
the charges.

I didn't think of that... good thinking.

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:54:36 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:59:33 -0400, Scotius wrote:
: On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:38:16 -0500, Cynicor
: wrote:
:
: NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge. However,
: there are no rules saying you can't photograph the bridge itself. I took
: this just off the Belt Parkway tonight, and fought off a rat between my
: tripod and my car door on the way back!
:
: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44216856
: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44220725
:
: Anyone trained to place explosives in even the most basic way
: could take one look at a bridge and know exactly where to put them,
: I'm sure.
: Therefore, the rules regarding not being able to take pictures
: from bridges are not for the reasons they claim they are.

Of course they're not. Undoubtedly they're so that the photographer can't show
the public how poorly the bridges are maintained.

Bob

Actually, that's good thinking too. And now that I think of
it, you're probably quite right.

"Peter" wrote in
:



Correction:
In my prior message I typed referred to "MTA." I should have stated
that Photography is not addressed directly in the regulations, however
signs are posted that prohibit photography. (You figure that one out.)

Any inconvenience that may have been caused by this error is deeply
regretted.


Another possibility is that maybe picture takers would have slowed or stopped
traffic?


--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 19:35:55 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:09:03 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:
: "Scotius" wrote in message
: ...
: On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:38:16 -0500, Cynicor
: wrote:
:
: NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge. However,
: there are no rules saying you can't photograph the bridge itself. I
took
: this just off the Belt Parkway tonight, and fought off a rat between
my
: tripod and my car door on the way back!
:
: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44216856
: http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44220725
:
: Anyone trained to place explosives in even the most basic way
: could take one look at a bridge and know exactly where to put them,
: I'm sure.
: Therefore, the rules regarding not being able to take pictures
: from bridges are not for the reasons they claim they are.
:
:
: NYC has no rule prohibiting photos from or of bridges. The MTA has such
a
: rule as to their bridges, but it is rarely enforced. Also their is no
MTA
: bridge that has a walkway..

How do you account for the prohibition of photography on the George
Washington
Bridge?

My wife is afraid to drive on the bridge, so we have an understood
division of
labor: I drive, and she takes the obligatory pictures of the "no
photography"
signs. ;^)



It is not a NYC bridge. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Port
Authority. Although they have lots of no photography signs, the rule is not
usually enforced. Also taking pictures of the bridge itself is not
prohibited., but may be restricted. the non-stated reason is revenue
generation.

http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/media-access.html

Correction:
In my prior message I typed referred to "MTA." I should have stated that
Photography is not addressed directly in the regulations, however signs are
posted that prohibit photography. (You figure that one out.)

Any inconvenience that may have been caused by this error is deeply
regretted.

Hey! Here's a NOVEL idea. How about if you crapshooting ****s obey those
"no photography allowed" signs and go shoot something else? Then maybe you
won't have 20,000 photos of the very same images that ever other
crapshooting tourist has in their collections too.

Just an idea.

eye-roll

LOL!

Robert Coe wrote in
:

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:59:33 -0400, Scotius wrote:

: Therefore, the rules regarding not being able to take pictures
: from bridges are not for the reasons they claim they are.

Of course they're not. Undoubtedly they're so that the photographer
can't show the public how poorly the bridges are maintained.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/04/ny...dge-death.html
--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:15:48 -0500, SneakyP
wrote:


--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

I've always thought this hilarious. Now who on earth would *EVER* want to
email you. Too ****in' funny. What signs of desperation you show.

LOL!

"SneakyP" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in
:



Correction:
In my prior message I typed referred to "MTA." I should have stated
that Photography is not addressed directly in the regulations, however
signs are posted that prohibit photography. (You figure that one out.)

Any inconvenience that may have been caused by this error is deeply
regretted.


Another possibility is that maybe picture takers would have slowed or
stopped
traffic?



Not when walking underneath the bridge on public property.

--
Peter

"SneakyP" wrote in message
. 1...
Robert Coe wrote in
:

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:59:33 -0400, Scotius wrote:

: Therefore, the rules regarding not being able to take pictures
: from bridges are not for the reasons they claim they are.

Of course they're not. Undoubtedly they're so that the photographer
can't show the public how poorly the bridges are maintained.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/04/ny...dge-death.html


Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Winning is a different matter.
Last year a kid got hurt on a jetty when he slipped on some wet rocks. duh!
His claim was that, despite warning signs, there was no fence to keep him
off the jetty.
**** happens and it's not Always actionable.

--
Peter