From the NY Times:An expanded study of bicycle behavior in Midtown Manhattan has found that “a large number of cyclists routinely disobey many traffic laws.” Thirty-seven percent rode through red lights, while 28.7 percent paused to look — then ran the light. More than 10 percent rode against traffic, and fully two-thirds were riding without a helmet, a requirement for delivery workers and children under 14.
From Commuter Outrage:
Norvell’s first complaint: “They picked probably one of the only areas of the city that is bereft of bike lanes …” According to Norvell, the area under study has about six bike lanes, and below 14th Street there are more than a dozen.
That’s very nice, but what does it have to do with helmet use, running red lights, not using headlights at night, listening to iPods, etc?
Then they did their tired old publicity stunt to show that bikes are faster than cabs and the subway. Did anyone check to make sure the bicyclist rode legally since stats indicate that probably didn't happen?
19 comments:
Would some councilperson put in a bill to require that anyone riding a bike for commercial purposes to wear a D.O.T reflective vest.........and that includes those fucking delivery guys on motor scooters???!!!! Your average bicyclist seems to be fairly cautious,though.
Went grocery shopping on Queens Blvd today. Just as dangerous on the sidewalk as crossing Blvd. Counted 10 bikes on sidewalk in the space of one half hour. Seriously thinking of getting a big stick.
Bike riders never observe safety rules - even the yuppies (forget about the delivery guys - a group that is MIA at the TA meetings BTW, not unlike brown skinned people at city wide preservation functions).
If you want to see what the city is like with everyone riding bikes, go to Central Park and try to cross some of the roads.
I guess the biggest disappointment I have in this young generation is how they shamelessly let themselves be tools for developers,
like sticking decals for community killing projects on their kayaks in return for money,
advertising developer projects on their literature,
dutifully following developer guidlines on what they can or cannot do with the waterfront (who needs to connect with Archie Bunker for a waterfront park for his community when Blumturd says you get a boat launch),
to their fixated moronic insistance that bikes are the thing (tying up city resources on expanding a network of bike routes as they nonchalantly see vital services like hospitals and the uniformed services get cut back)
to getting jobs in city planning
and the like after they cut their teeth on the green thing.
I'll take scofflaw bikers over law-abiding car drivers anytime. At the end of the day, who's causing more damage to ourselves, our city and our world?
Yes, let's take all the cars off the road. Who will then pay for the bridges, tunnels, subways and other projects dependent on them? Bicyclists?
I'll take scofflaw bikers over law-abiding car drivers anytime.
how about subways and busses? all in deplorable condition. all filled to capacity (which would limit development - which is the whole point of bikes).
people gave up bikes 100 years ago because they are not practical.
to their fixated moronic insistance that bikes are the thing (tying up city resources on expanding a network of bike routes as they nonchalantly see vital services like hospitals and the uniformed services get cut back)
---
Well guys, any answers? Our taxes are subsidies for you while our quality of life declines.
Now you want our support?
Bullshit!
Like Blumturd Flu, we have the Blumturd Bikers.
If a scofflaw bicyclist hits you hard enough, you'll be just as dead or maimed as if a motorist does.
When bicylists ride like maniacs and endanger pedestrians and motorists alike, they lose all right to respect.
Once in Oyster bay, a phalanx of several dozen bicyclists came right at me on both sides of the yellow line.
With no space except a ditch on either side of me, the only thing that saved them from certain death was that I routinely ignored posted limits to crawl along at least 10 miles an hour slower than I should have.
Had I been maintaining my speed, they would have been under my wheels. Then I would have had many months of trials and thousands of dollars in lawyer's bills because of their stupidity.
There are obnoxious people using all modes of transportation. I won't excuse any motorist or cyclist using cell phones (far more common among the former), iPods, etc.
But bear in mind that cars, SUVs, and trucks remain a far greater burden upon neighborhoods. When perfectly operated, cars create noise (honking as well as engines and clanks of pothole covers, etc.), needless pollution, wear and tear on infrastructure, and a constant potential hazard (operator error, brake failure, and kids have been known to heedlessly chase balls out into the street, for example). In uses that are both in violation of the law and absolutely routine, they also pollute (idling), and pose even greater hazards -- speeding, running red lights very often, etc.
Let's remember that a bicycle running a red light is typically moving under 10 miles per hour with a weight of under 200 pounds. Newtownian physics revealed that force equals mass times acceleration. A bike running a red light does not approach the danger to others of even the smallest car. More than that, some intersections in NYC are extremely dangerous for bikers to "go with traffic." Poking out ahead of the surge is often preventive, in terms of accidents. And how many car drivers are willing to allow a bicyclist to occupy a full traffic lane, as is their right by law?
One great example of poor city planning: the fenced bike ramp from the Queensboro Bridge. On the Manhattan side, the off ramp ends at the pedestrian crosswalk on the south side of E60 at the uptown running First Ave. A biker has to either run the light to head north without the danger of the eastbound flow of traffic, or turn left across all of that traffic. Both scenarios violate the law. I've requested that a biker turning box be painted to solve this issue.
Traffic laws were rewritten for cars in the past century. Streets were, also in he past century, redesigned for cars. When they are redone again for a smarter transportation future, bikers and pedestrians won't have to improvise traffic behaviors.
I'm glad the Queens Crapper and others here are obviously implicitly endorsing rewriting laws and redoing street design to make bicycling and walking safer. :)
ERIK BAARD - Well thought out, well written. I was going to write something similar myself but you saved me the trouble and probably did a better job than I would have done. Nice. Now let the hating begin.
to their fixated moronic I guess the biggest disappointment I have in this young generation is how they shamelessly let themselves be tools for developers,
like sticking decals for community killing projects on their kayaks in return for money,
advertising developer projects on their literature,
dutifully following developer guidlines on what they can or cannot do with the waterfront (who needs to connect with Archie Bunker for a waterfront park for his community when Blumturd says you get a boat launch),
to their fixated moronic insistance that bikes are the thing (tying up city resources on expanding a network of bike routes as they nonchalantly see vital services like hospitals and the uniformed services get cut back)
to getting jobs in city planning
and the like after they cut their teeth on the green thing.
^^^^^^^
Well Eric? Is supporting the developer over the public's good really worth it?
I love those bike lanes!I ride my harley on them all the time.44 mpg and more fun than a trek.
Bicycles are not a realistic option for older or handicapped people. Yes, cars are a burden in the city, and I have chosen to skip ownership for that reason, but I have a major problem with physically-fit bicyclists who feel it is their right to mow down pedestrians.
The average bicyclist is far more reckless than the average motorist who must identify himself with license plates, pass road tests and carry insurance in case he injures someone.
A bicyclist can hit you and be on his merry way. Until bicyclists using the roads start considering themselves vehicles and acting appropriately, they deserve all the contempt they often garner.
Hats off to bicyclists who actually follow traffic law and respect other users.
"But bear in mind that cars, SUVs, and trucks remain a far greater burden upon neighborhoods. When perfectly operated, cars create noise (honking as well as engines and clanks of pothole covers, etc.), needless pollution, wear and tear on infrastructure, and a constant potential hazard (operator error, brake failure, and kids have been known to heedlessly chase balls out into the street, for example). In uses that are both in violation of the law and absolutely routine, they also pollute (idling), and pose even greater hazards -- speeding, running red lights very often, etc."
Yes, we all understand this. But our transportation infrastructure was put in place decades before most of us were born, and then overdevelopment happened. So unless we do massive eminent domain and spend billions on new subways, we are stuck with the crappy "two-fare" bus system. Most people cannot bike to work, to school, to shop or to worship. It is highly impractical. So instead of being stuck on stupid and installing bike lanes everywhere so a tiny minority of people can take them or leave them, the smart thing to do would be to improve bus service - something that would not have happened under congestion pricing. Think simple - skip-stop service and dedicated bus lanes.
What is even worse is that the transportation system at the turn of the last century was actually superior to what we have now.
We systematically dismantled trolleys, railroad lines and subway Els to greater facilitate car sales.
Better bus service combined with the most efficient use of our existing rail stock would go a long way to helping our city into the future.
I have no real gripe against bicyclists--fewer heart attacks and strokes, but prefer to see skilled cyclists, not wheeled madmen on the streets.
Contempt for other is not palatable in anyone.
I totally agree that reckless disregard for the safety of others is intolerable. I live on Queens Plaza where cyclists fly off the ramp and against traffic (there's no path yet to safely go east, but it's been designed) and where cars and trucks routinely fly through red lights without even slowing down!
Transportation Alternatives hammers away at officials to support all means of smarter transit, not just biking. They table in the bitter cold to inform residents of potential service cuts. They promote and discover bus solutions. And much of this labor is done by volunteers. Some might disagree with particular bike lanes (and who expects total agreement on all issues?) but most of TA's volunteers on Queens are natives, long-time residents, and few, if any, live in the waterfront towers.
The vision is simple: on our streets, pedestrians are the highest priority. We're all pedestrians at some point. Bike lanes and paths are not territorial claims but safety features because riders are physically as vulnerable as pedestrians. Not everyone can bike, but those who can and do render a service by freeing up subway seats, reducing and calming auto traffic, cutting pollution, and lowering health care costs for all by combating obesity related illnesses.
Our street designs, traffic light timings, and laws don't serve pedestrians and bikers well. As we grow toward a better system, our moral duty to safety and consideration mustn't waver.
Don't worry though -- we'll all find other, less lethal, ways to be obnoxious to each other! :)
Transportation Alternatives has my respect, also Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, which supports traffic calming. I am all for anything that gets us to our destination unmaimed.
It amazes me that, possibly more than any other issue addressed on this blog, bicyclists must endure the most knee-jerk wrath. Most people are hating without thinking (Erik Baard a notable exception).
Like this:
people gave up bikes 100 years ago because they are not practical.
If people gave up bikes 100 years ago, you've got nothing to complain about, right?
If a scofflaw bicyclist hits you hard enough, you'll be just as dead or maimed as if a motorist does.
As another commenter stated, this just isn't supported by simple algebra-based physics. It's not supported by the stats, either. How many pedestrians are killed by cyclists every year, and how many are killed by motorized vehicles?
Post a Comment