As Matt and I drove over the Throgs Neck Bridge this past weekend we noticed the signs prohibiting photography. Why?
The MTA, which runs the bridge, has a spot on their website for submitting questions. So I did.
I am curious about the prohibition of photography on the Throgs Neck Bridge. I drove over the bridge on Saturday on my way to the Brooklyn Bridge (I understand it is not MTA) which hosts thousands of walkers with no photography restrictions. In fact I was going there specifically to take photos.
Can you point me to the underlying regulation which enables this prohibition? I looked but could not find it and I know MTA has no such restriction in the subway.
Has MTA ever published a justification or other explanation for this rule.
All the best,
Geoff Fox
Hamden, CT
I’m not sure when an answer will come, but it probably won’t be fast. Their email acknowledgment admonishes: “You will receive a response as soon as possible; however, some responses can take up to 15 business days.”
Seriously though, is the Throgs Neck or other MTA bridge more of a target than the storied and iconic Brooklyn Bridge? And isn’t it a little late to worry? A quick Google Image search of “Throgs Neck Bridge¹” shows about 11,100 photos and pictures.
Who is being foolhardy: New York City which owns the Brooklyn Bridge or the MTA and their spans?
I’ll post the response when it’s received.
¹ – By putting my query within quotation marks Google only returns the exact phrase “Throgs Neck Bridge.”
here’s a threaded discussion on this topic:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,9684336
I’d have taken a photo of the sign itself, but that’s just the way I am. 🙂
Screw ’em. MTA might run it, but it’s a “public place” and I can take photos in any public place. I pay no attention to the Patriot Act, because it is not at all patriotic.
“People willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.”
– Benjamin Franklin
I was at a Burger King the other day and saw a sign that said “no photography or video taping” —
it seems a little odd that a restaurant would post that at its entrance.
My guess is that, with the prevalence of facebook and youtube, they just don’t want their stores/logo associated with content they can’t control. Especially as negative images are more likely to go viral.