Photographing the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge

On Jun 29, 9:47 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@************> wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."

You'll see such signs at many area facilites operated by that
authority, such as the Throgs Neck bridge.

The Brooklyn Bridge is under different control, so it doesn't have the
same restrictions.

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."

First of all, the signs probably said "strictly," not "strickly." But be
that as it may...

It's a pure post-9/11 terror scare play. There is no justifiable reason
for it, and it is not consistent across NYC or elsewhere. It may not
even be illegal to take pictures of the bridge from a moving car,
despite the signs.

If you really want a picture of the bridge, head south on the Belt and
pull off into the parking areas immediately south of it. You can do
pretty good panos from there.

In article
<0377f2f2-d7b6-4c88-a095-c4e97cd89a37@v1g2000pra.************.com>,
dbd <dbd@ieee.org> wrote:

> In the state of California it is illegal to fish from bridges. That's
> not about endangered species or the historical potential for terrorist
> bait fishermen. It's about keeping people, distracted by pursuing
> their personal activity, from blocking traffic or getting killed by
> it.

Well, that may be one reason. But it's about making sure that virtually
invisible fishing lines (with sharp hooks on the ends) are not dangling
over the side of the bridge into a navigable waterway. Consider what would
happen to you if you were operating a boat and ran into such a line? Not
pretty.

On Jun 29, 12:53 pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@**************> wrote:

> The 'free' bridges in the city are operated by the NYCDOT.  There are no
> restrictions (how many shots of the underside of the Brooklyn Bridge
> have you seen?).

The Waterfall will probably change that figure!

> Big difference, the famous theater example [shouting "fire"]
> could get many people hurt immediately.  

True, but I think the larger point of that famous example is that free
speech isn't absolute; that there are certain types of speech that can
get you in legal hot water (defamation, lying under oath, making
threats, etc.).

James

Shawn Hirn wrote:
> Yesterday, a friend and I drove from central NJ to Coney Island just to
> check out the area for the day. Our route took us across the
> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> I drove, but had my friend been so inclined, he could have easily taken
> out his digital camera from his pocket and snapped a few photos or used
> its video recording feature to shoot some video as we traveled over the
> bridge.
>
> What's the bid deal about photographing that bridge. I have several
> photos that I shot of that bridge from a friend's small plane a few
> weeks prior to 9/11/2001 and I imagine if I was still in touch with that
> friend, we could go up and shoot some more photos. I also don't see why
> this ban exists; it can't possibly be for security, can it? I could
> easily shoot photos of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge from several vantage
> points and the authorities would never know.
>
> I have also shot many photos of the Brooklyn Bridge, even about two
> weeks after 9/11 occurred, and I have spent some enjoyable afternoons
> walking across that bridge photographing it on foot, so why the
> prohibition about shooting photos of the "Verrazano-Narrows Bridge" but
> not the Brooklyn Bridge? It makes no sense.
>
> I am wondering if anyone has actually been caught shooting such photos
> and hassled by the cops? Actually, a few years ago, I was asked not to
> shoot photos of the Tacony-Palmyra bridge near where I live. That bridge
> spans the Delaware River. I was standing on the New Jersey side of the
> bridge, in front of a police station, when a cop walked over to me and
> asked me to put my camera away, which I did. Despite that, I have
> subsequently shot numerous photos of that bridge, from the park that's
> adjacent to that bridge, no problem.

It seems pretty silly, given that a terrorist who wanted to know where
to place an explosive to weaken the bridge wouldn't pay any attention to
the signs.

In article <srhi-7085F7.09475629062008@newsgroups.************>,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@************> wrote:

> Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> said something along the lines of ...
>
> "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."

I recall reading years ago that the signs on the NY bridges had more to
do with preventing cars from stopping for picture taking more than
anything else. As others have said, the rule is unenforceable. And it
likely has no supporting law since that would be struck down in court on
the first challenge.

On Jun 29, 9:31 pm, Bolwerk <n...@way.org2> wrote:

> So, if you want to fight it by taking DAMN near as MANY pictures as you
> LIKE, be my guest, but I'm not aware of anything in the federal or state
> constitutions, or in statutory or common law, saying the MTA isn't
> within its authority.
>
> - Show quoted text -
______________

Like I said, PASSENGER in a MOVING VEHICLE, not parked or walking on
the bridge snapping away. If some "authority" is actually going to
pursue someone in the back of a BUS or the front passenger seat of a
car or SUV then they really have too much time on their hands or must
be members of the 4th Reich.

-CC

On Jun 29, 8:57 pm, TH O <t...@tho.23.invalid> wrote:
> In article <srhi-7085F7.09475629062...@newsgroups.************>,
>  Shawn Hirn <s...@************> wrote:
>
> > Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.
>
> > My buddy and I couldn't help but notice numerous signs on both ends of
> > the bridge warning people not to video tape or photograph it. The signs
> > said something along the lines of ...
>
> > "No photography or video. Strickly enforced."
>
> I recall reading years ago that the signs on the NY bridges had more to
> do with preventing cars from stopping for picture taking more than
> anything else. As others have said, the rule is unenforceable. And it
> likely has no supporting law since that would be struck down in court on
> the first challenge.

What does that have to do with the signs around the piers of the
bridges?

On Jun 30, 12:34 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 8:05 am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <00055392-3494-4d63-8327-80bfa1d48...@59g2000hsb.************.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@************> writes
> >>> I will assume from your reference to the Canberra War Memorial that
> >>> you are an Australian and not aware that the Civil War was between
> >>> 1861 and 1865.
>
> >> The Civil War was between 1642 to 1646... no one specified a country for
> >> the Civil War in this international group. .
>
> > "This group" is nyc.transit.
>
> No, "this group" is rec.photo.digital, rec.autos.driving, nyc.transit,
> and ***********.usa-canada.  Well over half the people reading this
> thread are _not_ in the US, reading in globally chartered groups,
> therefore you _must_ specify which country's Civil War you are referring
> to.  There is more to the world than just the US, I hope you realize...

I'm not respnsible for the profligate promiscuity of one Shawn Him.