Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Bikeholes prove they aren't environmentally friendly

From the NY Post:

A nonprofit group that espouses cycling as an eco-friendly substitute to cars in the city is not so friendly to trees -- faxing thousands of sheets of paper opposing a bike-registration proposal to the city councilman behind the push.

City Councilman Eric Ulrich said he got the reams of faxes from Transportation Alternatives, accusing him of a "hateful attack against every New Yorker who owns a bike now or might ride in the future."

The Queens Republican called it a tremendous waste of paper -- especially from a group that considers itself environmentally friendly.

"Transportation Alternatives promotes itself as a champion of environmentally friendly causes, yet they inundated my office with 4,840 paper faxes -- 99 percent of which came from people who don't even live in my district," Ulrich said. "These kinds of tactics are anything but 'green' -- they're just wasteful."


Anonymous said...

I'm a Green myself but these people are a bunch of fucking idiots.
What a misguided bunch of dweebs.
Focus people, you're way out of line.

Roger said...

This is a way of diverting attention from the issue. Perhaps you should look at the validity of their concerns.

Queens Crapper said...

I already have looked at their concerns. If you want a piece of the road, register your damn bike. It will generate revenue, which they they certainly don't seem to mind having others fork over, will force accountability, may help recover stolen bikes and it's not like it's that much money.

Remember we have to make up for the money we will lose from all those people switching from cars to bikes...

Anonymous said...

Sylar from "Heroes" is right on the money with this one.

Anonymous said...

Ulrich for Mayor!

Anonymous said...

Bikeholes? Aren't you witty.

Anonymous said...

His district is the obesity capital of the city, producing more flatulence carbon than all the cows in Wisconsin! All those bovine "boys" eating in their pizzarias when they aren't offing each othr for whale blubber.

Anonymous said...

Actually the obesity capitals of the city are minority neighborhoods, not his.

Unknown said...

I agree that bikes should be registered for the same reasons Crappy says.
What I'm surprised about is that government offices are still using old out dated equipment. My faxes come onto my computer and I only print the ones I need. Such a shame..

Anonymous said...

Eric Ulrich is a brilliantly ruthless man - like Bloomberg.

Whether you are biketard or not, ...this is a prime issue of him finding a spin on complaining about New Yorkers voicing their concern.

BTW, I wonder how much Walmart is paying him to be their only supporter in the city council.

I also love how he covers his small-business, bike-rubbing arse with a brief "I support small businesses like Worksman cycles"

This politician is obviously a whiney sham.

Queens Crapper said...

He is not the only council member to support Walmart. The fact is, unless they need a variance of some sort, the council cannot prevent them from opening a store within city limits.

Yes, he found a spin, but the 'tards could have just called his office and tied up his phone lines to express their dissenting opinion. They fell right into a trap. Not one of them saw the negative side of what they were doing.

Must be hard being a 'tard. said...

Not reely. If you vork at it mit reps und der proper diet, it's very zimple. Hahr-hahr.

Anonymous said...

He's the sole voice of support for Walmart.

He's a hack. He's a politician complaining that New Yorkers are voicing an issue. What difference does it make if they're biketards or not?

There is obviously a bigger issue here, that he is not concerned with what people think if it is not in line with what he wants (like ahem ...Bloomberg) The fact that he can say "nearly 5000 people are not supporting me but haha look at them using up my paper"

So basically, if I want to voice my concern to this politician, not only will he not listen, he'll humiliate me and poke holes in what's concerning me? C'mon Queens Crapper, sounds like a hack politician to me.

Queens Crapper said...

Walmart Debate Heats Up

There's Halloran defending Walmart. And I am sure the other 3 GOPers as well as the more conservative Dems like Vallone and Vacca also are not opposed to Walmart.

As for being embarrassed and having holes poked in concerns, that has been a biketard tactic from the beginning. So why not fight fire with fire?

Meli said...

Just looked at the Transportation Alternatives website, I don't see them claiming anything about being environmentally friendly. They are just an advocacy group that's pro-biking, walking, and mass-transit. They seem to be more concerned with the safety of humans than environment.

In fact there's not one mention in their about, nor their mission statement about environment. Although, I suppose biking is inherently more environmentally friendly, but I don't think it's something these Transportation Alternative people are pushing.

Honestly, this is just a way to take away, mock, and attack the validity of people voicing their concerns. (Whatever the issue may be). Which is an attack to anyone who wants to voice their concerns in the future, bikehole or not. This politician is definitely an ***hole.

Queens Crapper said...

Didn't look very hard:

"Transportation Alternatives is a non-profit advocacy organization founded in 1973 to promote environment-friendly urban transportation. Our roots are in bicycling, but our agenda embraces broader issues — freedom from automobile-dependence, a grassroots relationship to environmental issues, and protecting and enhancing neighborhoods and civic life by promoting cycling, walking and public transit."

Meli said...

Oh, lol. That's funny, when I googled it, I found it archived to something really old. Nothing current. Can you please link me to the page where you found that? KThanks.

Meli said...

I still def agree, though:

"There is obviously a bigger issue here, that he is not concerned with what people think if it is not in line with what he wants (like ahem ...Bloomberg) The fact that he can say "nearly 5000 people are not supporting me but haha look at them using up my paper"

So basically, if I want to voice my concern to this politician, not only will he not listen, he'll humiliate me and poke holes in what's concerning me? C'mon Queens Crapper, sounds like a hack politician to me."

I don't understand how you can just negate the fact he's doing that? It's a bit ridiculous... fighting fire with fire? Really? Seriously?

Lately, he's also been very diligent about his presence in the media. It's smart.

But hopefully when I have concern in the future, he will be taking me seriously, at least...which I don't think he'll be doing.

Meli said...

If you find a current link, please link me. I'd like to see other mentions, thanks!

Meli said...

Yes, I found the TA enviornment thing you referred to, it was on an old archived page on their site copyrighted in 1997.

But, It seems if they no longer make that claim. Which you can see in their about and mission statements.

It's pretty blatant: If you find a current link, please link me. I'd like to see other mentions, thanks!

Queens Crapper said...

So they went from being an environmental organization to just being a group of biketards? Even less reason to take them seriously. They abandoned their founding mission statement. Hilarious.

Meli said...

So Ulrich has no basis.

The group doesn't claim any there's no irony.

Basically, this proves, is when faced with 5000 concerns, Eric Ulrich complains. He doesn't care because he doesn't agree with it. Just like Bloomberg. These are the kinds of politicians we DO NOT want.

Meli said...

While I may not care about the group, I don't find this kind of behavior from a politician hilarious. It's concerning.

Queens Crapper said...

Look, this was a concerted effort to stick it to the councilman because they didn't like his proposal. A more effective approach would have been to collect petition signatures, not to fax him repeatedly so that his own constituents could not get correspondence through and he could not conduct business of the office. And TA supporters repeatedly claim they are saving the environment by biking rather than driving although they weren't driving in the first place.

So no, I don't think his response proves anything.

Anonymous said...

Here's a mention from 2007:

Tricycling Is Good for the Environment

Anonymous said...

I am a constituent of Eric Ulrich's and it upsets me that my tax dollars were wasted while these losers tied up his fax machine and ate up his paper that I paid for.

Anonymous said...

Not the first time they've been hypocrites...

T.A. E-Fax: Save Pedicabs!

Please send an e-fax to the City Council and urge them to abstain from overriding the Mayor's veto and to re-write the pedicab regulations so that they both ensure safety and encourage green business and environmentally-friendly transportation.

Anonymous said...

Crappy, grow up. You are obviously against the bike movement, that's fine, but try to sound like a reasonable adult when you make your case. Calling people biketards and referring to their "damn" bikes comes off as petulant and immature.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't TA mention that Eric met w. them days after the proposal was first reported so its not like he's doing this and refusing to hear from them. Also the fax was CC'd to Councilman Vacca, Speaker Quinn and the Mayor. That's like 20K faxes.

Queens Crapper said...

That's funny. You focused on 2 words I used instead of the arguments I made. You have no point.

Must be a 'tard.

Anonymous said...

As a constituent of Eric Ulrich, maybe you should tell him to focus on issues that effect his own community. Not enough cops on 102/106 precinct, too many rowdy bars, speedsters on crossbay blvd, that casino mess on liberty ave and try to get him to advocate for the small businesses on liberty ave mess. INSTEAD of focusing on issues his constituency doesn't even face...the 15 bikers a summer that ride down crossbay blvd...REALLY, that's his pressing issue???

I'm a constituent of Eric Ulrich also, and I'd like to see him addressing concerns at a cb 10 meeting on years when an election campaign is not present. I'd like him to address more of my concerns. And I'd like my tax dollars to be spent on issues that directly effect my community.

I don't understand why he's jumping on an issue that rarely effects us. Even most of our delivery men use cars. Jeez, the 20 bikes a year I see in Howard Beach/Ozone Park is totally not worth the research he has to do in order to make this legislation.


If he didn't spend his time on this stupid bike issue, he wouldn't be wasting my tax money on faxes he wouldn't have received in the first place...

Anonymous said...

An e-fax is an electronic fax. If NYC was set up with that, there would not be a waste of paper...

Queens Crapper said...

An e-fax sends a fax to a fax machine that may or may not use paper. The police precincts don't even have e-mail that can handle attachments, so the city certainly isn't spending money to upgrade fax machines in this economic climate.

Anonymous said...

Lots of comments on this site about apathy and how nobody takes action on the issues that matter. These folks take action to voice their opinion on an issue important to them, and you follow the Post in their pathetic attempt to invalidate their opinion. We all use and waste paper regularly without much thought. This phony outrage about the trees killed for this paper is blatantly disingenuous.

To insinuate that people who choose to bike rather than burn hundreds if not thousands of gallons of fossil fuel annually are not really helping the environment because they each used a few sheets of paper to get their message across is a ridiculous argument. Crappy, when you feed into the pathetic spin put forth by the Post and local (sleasy) politicians, it erodes the respect of some of your blog followers.

Queens Crapper said...

Fact: People who turn to biking generally gave up riding mass transit, not driving.

Fact: TA met with Ulrich about this issue, there was no need to ask their members to bombard him with faxes that are not environmentally friendly.

Fact: 20000 faxes is not a few sheets of paper.

Fact: The people commenting here are TA supporters or Streetsbloggers and are not regular readers of this blog. I know because I took a look at my Statcounter.

Anonymous said...

I also really wish, Eric Ulrich would just stick to the issues that effect, me, and other people within his constituency.

My tax money is going to what? Why is this bike thing even an issue in our community. Why can't he focus on legislation that would make an impact on the community that i'm paying my tax dollars on?

Anonymous said...

"That's funny. You focused on 2 words I used instead of the arguments I made. You have no point."

My point is you are coming off like a petulant child. Your arguments are so obviously based on your emotions that they end up sounding more like the rantings of a bitter person.

"Must be a 'tard."
If you mean biketard, I am not at all. I'm a motorist; one who happens to realize that there are many more interests than just my own.

Queens Crapper said...

You have bike lanes in your community that were put there without the community's consent. And you are paying for bike lanes all over the city for people to benefit from who do not want to contribute toward them the way car drivers contribute to infrastructure costs. That's why it's an issue for Ulrich.

And I have used much worse language on this site; I guess you don't read the blog often, which proves my point about regular readers not commenting on this thread. Tell Mr. White I said hi.

Anonymous said...

"Crappy, grow up. You are obviously against the bike movement, that's fine, but try to sound like a reasonable adult when you make your case. Calling people biketards and referring to their "damn" bikes comes off as petulant and immature."

Fact: I wrote this, and I am a regular reader of this blog, not a TA or streetblogger.

Queens Crapper said...

It's also interesting that all the pro-bike comments have been coming in minutes apart.

Anonymous said...

"Lots of comments on this site about apathy and how nobody takes action on the issues that matter. These folks take action to voice their opinion on an issue important to them, and you follow the Post in their pathetic attempt to invalidate their opinion. We all use and waste paper regularly without much thought. This phony outrage about the trees killed for this paper is blatantly disingenuous. "

Fact: I wrote this one too.
Still a QC reader, not a bike advocate.

Anonymous said...

the link seems to have T.A. supporting the pedicabs industry in n.y.c.
a relating story to this post was written by Candice M. Giove,,on sunday,2/20/11. e.mail

"A WHEEL CHEATER",pedi-king an "illegal" menace.

if you travel in manhattan,you will encounter the pedi-bikes slowing truck,car,bus traffic practically to a stop. especially at corner turns. they park four and five at theatre curbs,taking vehicle spaces. pedestrians are in jeopardy of these menace bikers.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, there are other more pressing issues in my community than 5 blocks of bike lanes that no one even uses.

And while I may be paying for bike lanes throughout the city, I'd like Mr. Ulrich to directly focus on my community. The issue of bike registration is not an issue here when everyone drives.

Maybe some other council people in western queens where bikers predominantly reign should take this registration issue up.

Ulrich should pay attention to members of his community - and the fact of the matter is if he didn't pay attention to the bike riders at all, they wouldn't have been tying his fax lines up, and people within his constituency could reach him.

Anonymous said...

I'm not writing any pro-bike bs, i'm writing pro-Howard Beach, Ozone Park, Rockaway Beach substance

Queens Crapper said...

Council members focus on issues throughout the city as well as in their own district. And those 5 blocks of bike lanes will soon become 50 if Sadik-Khan gets her way.

Queens Crapper said...

Out of 5000 faxes, 15 were from constituents within his district, which means they are not opposed to bicycle registration. I still don't understand why Transportation Alternatives is. Do they not support responsibility? How about raising revenue for the city to pave the roads?

Anonymous said...

"These folks take action to voice their opinion on an issue important to them"

Why is this issue important to them? Because they don't want to pay to register their vehicle? Every other vehicle that uses the streets is registered and none of those users are complaining.

Anonymous said...

Because they think they are a privileged class of people immune to rules which is evidenced by the way most of them ride.

Erik Baard said...

I won't jump on the bandwagon to attack Ulrich, or to praise him. I'll confine my comments to the subject at hand.

I favor regulating business use of bicycles -- messenger and delivery services, for example. This can realistically be addressed, and true liability should rest with owners who press for unsafe speeds from workers who fear losing their jobs.

This article, however, reflects a lack of seriousness and perhaps a good dose of pandering. This is a citywide issue, so naturally many people from outside Ulrich's district will write in to him. It was already argued here that this issue is not a distraction from Ulrich's district issues, as bike lanes are being put in citywide and the costs and benefits are shared.

There are a couple of logical lapses here.

First of all, registering and licensing bicycles, and then enforcing those requirements, would be a regulatory nightmare. This seems to run counter to the NY Post's anti-regulatory thrust. That said, this blog does promote many regulations and enforcement actions regarding land use and other quality of life issues.

Secondly, the hazards posed by bicycles are far less than those posed by automobiles, which are already poorly supervised. Red lights and stop signs are run routinely by car and truck drivers, and driving distractions are barely addressed even though research has shown enormous danger is posed by driver talking on cell phones (including those with speaker phones and bluetooth connections), fiddling with radios and electronic devices, and even texting. It seems foolish to add trivial laws to the books when core safety issues are neglected.

Lastly, our traffic laws were written for automobile use. Our stoplights were timed for automobile use. If legislators and others want to see greater compliance, I suggest that New York City follow the precedents established by other cities, states, and nations to recognize that some requirements simply make little sense for a bicycles which lack the mass and acceleration of vehicles that weigh tons and can achieve speeds over 100 miles per hour. Riders typically weigh in, with their bicycles, at just over 200 pounds and cruise at 12 miles per hour. We might, however, see a closer convergence if speed limits are lowered to 20 miles per hour. That change would save lives in itself, of course.

A single pertinent example of a law unfairly applied:

One purpose for stop lights is to prevent conflicts and accidents when pedestrians and vehicles approach from different directions. This is fully applicable to bicycles. Another purpose is to prevent "accelerator drift" so that driver don't gradually reach unsafe speeds through eagerness or inattentiveness. Bicycles operating under human muscle power rarely reach the side street speed limit of 30 miles per hour -- they certainly won't drift over it. So it makes sense for a bicycle rider to approach a light, pause to ensure the way is clear, and proceed. This is indeed the law in many places. This allowes a rider to reach his or her destination in a timely manner while keeping streets safe.

Ulrich's complaint that faxes are wasting paper is a comical distraction from the far greater environmental benefits of riding, which he is actively discouraging. Besides, hasn't he heard of the paperless office? All faxes can be received and stored electronically. His office controls this. His constituents should be concerned about both the paper waste and waste of funds his paper fax generates. I suspect he's already moving to upgrade his systems.

Queens Crapper said...

How is he actively discouraging bicycling by asking that the vehicles be registered? No one has explained this yet.

Anonymous said...

Is the dude in the picture Ulrich, because he looks Hispanic.

Erik Baard said...

@QC: Whenever you add fees, paperwork, penalties, etc. you discourage an activity. Bicycling isn't just an equal alternative to car driving. In terms of our city's future, it's markedly better. It's better for the environment, user health (with safeguards, such as the ones so often reviled here), pedestrian safety (no number of hysterical anecdotes can overcome facts and comparisons to automobile accident rates), quality of life (bike paths and lanes put car traffic further from sidewalk benches, often include green planted barriers, and calm, and bikes themselves make less noise and produce no smog or soot), and help foster community. Bicycling is patriotic in a time when we know the large scale environmental costs of burning oil, and how it forces our proudly independent nation into a crippling addiction. Bicyclists are more likely to stop, eat, and shop for small items at small, local businesses frequently as opposed to making weekly trips to big box stores that ship profits out of state. Bicyclists are more likely to be aware of what's happening on streets, traveling at about 12 miles per hour and having to look all ways, making them safer from crime.

So it makes sense for government to not stand in the way of individual riders while belatedly included this growing segment of residents in its infrastructure plans.

There's also the issue of proportionality. How would registration fees and penalties be assessed? Cost of the vehicle? Many bikes on the road would click in under $100. Rail on about hipsters and yuppies with fancy bikes, but those constitute a small fraction of bikes in continual use. So then maybe cost of infrastructure? One overpass or bridge repair used exclusively by automobiles (remember that many tunnels and bridges are closed to bicycles) exceeds decades of lane painting. Okay, maybe wear and tear on the roads bikes do use? Well, weighing in at what cars often have just in their trunks, bikes really cause negligible damage to infrastructure.

So how much will you charge to be fair? Pennies? The system would quickly cost more than any benefits of adding a new bureaucracy.

Bicyclists don't have a powerful lobby. Car drivers and the oil industry does. Bike commuters are at this time outnumbered by car drivers. So why are city officials around the world belatedly making room for bikers? Because the benefits are so great.

Ponder this: 269 people died in accidents on our roads last year. That's down a third from 2001. We didn't all get suddenly smarter. We're making improvements. People are walking among us now who would be dead if not for these improvements. If we'd cut the city's cancer death rate by a third in a decade at such little cost, it would be a triumph.

Queens Crapper said...

"Whenever you add fees, paperwork, penalties, etc. you discourage an activity."

If that's the case, why do we have more cars than ever in the city?

By no means is the City encouraging bike use as a way to reduce traffic or the number of cars. That is a total myth. Bike people by and large stop using mass transit to ride their bikes.

Erik Baard said...

@QC: Now imagine how many cars we'd have if we didn't have the bureaucratic hurdles!

As for bikes vs. cars, in a narrow sense you're right. Also, some grammarians would argue that the popular t-shirt reading "ONE LESS CAR" should be "ONE FEWER CAR." :)

But back to the real issue. Yes, I agree that most riders would otherwise be taking mass transit. Transportation Alternatives sees this as a seamless tapestry (forgive my Catholic jargon) with walking, biking, and mass transit being the primary means by which NYers should get around. But please take this a step further.

1) By getting more people onto bikes, especially for relatively short hops (say under two miles), you free up space on the train. That makes room for people who otherwise would turn away from subways due to overcrowding, or encourages car drivers to take trains and buses because it's less of a press.

2) The bike infrastructure being put into place is very carefully considered. It's portrayed as arbitrary or bizarrely sadistic to car drivers on this blog, but that's irrational. Look at the routes and where bike racks are being placed. You'll see that bike routes and racks are being integrated with the subway system and major bus routes to encourage people to bike to a station and then ride. This solution is also being adopted in cities worldwide. Right now you often have people driving to stations. So in this equation, we are starting to see car driving replaced. Those numbers will increase if other cities are models (and NYers are human, after all, so we have reason to think we'll follow some established patterns).

Anyway, it's really hard to argue with dramatic reductions in death rates brought about by a comprehensive overhaul of our streetscape. Moreover, the death rates can't be fudged. Unless you want to accuse Commissioner Sadik-Khan of hiding corpses and silencing the grieving families.

A final note: Bicyclists comes from all walks of life. Bicyclists are neighbors from all generations, ethnic groups, income levels, and professional and educational background. "Bike culture" exists in response to challenges, but where biking is the norm (like the Netherlands) it really isn't so easily defined. Even here there are so many subcultures of bicyclists, from buttoned down to anarchic, hipster to people with hip replacements. Often on this blog we see bicyclists derided as being transplants from the Midwest (where, actually, you'll find a far more dominant "car culture") but of course we have immigrants and residents hailing from all corners of the nation and Earth. And yes, we have native New York bicyclists like myself and other members of the Queens Volunteer Committee of Transportation Alternatives. So please ease up with the "biketard" comments and open hostility that might drive up page hits but do little to better the lives of Queens residents.

You'll find many bicyclists share your priorities -- green streets, neighborhood preservation (nothing kills a neighborhood like a street widening for more cars or having it torn down altogether for a highway) and the noise and road rage produced by more and more cars.

Kevin Walsh said...

>>>>1) By getting more people onto bikes, especially for relatively short hops (say under two miles), you free up space on the train. That makes room for people who otherwise would turn away from subways due to overcrowding, or encourages car drivers to take trains and buses because it's less of a press.<<<

Eric, many of us are 50 or better and are weekend bicyclists now. Depending on bikes as a major means of getting to and from work is not going to happen.

Anonymous said...


Funny, that's not what happens elsewhere. Usually, when people are provided quality, safe and convenient bike infrastructure, people of all ages and abilities will take to bicycling more.

And really, don't box yourself in to what you think you would or wouldn't do! :)

Anonymous said...

Kevin, I love your Forgotten New York site, but you may be wrong on this issue. I will turn 60 this year, I am a fairly successful professional, politically a moderate and I find it hysterical that on this site I am dismissed as a bikehole.

Pre 9/11 I drove from Bay Ridge to midtown. That option disappeared in the immediate months following 9/11 and I started taking the R and N once again. But after awhile, I looked at other options. I still own a car, but my attitude towards it has changed. For both environmental and political reasons, we as a country need to drastically cut the non-essential use of the automobile. Our car/oil addiction feeds despots, terrorists and the new totalitarians.

At some point after 9/11, I got out my old 10 speed and got it working again (not too well). And not too long after bought a new bike that I have been using for many years now to commute from Bay Ridge to Manhattan, I would say I bike about two-thirds of the time except in winter, when the snow and ice get in the way and make it more dangerous - most winters it is more like 25%,; this winter has been less than that. The times I don't bike, I am now mostly on the R.

There are so many benefits. I am in better shape. I consume significantly less gasoline. It saves time. And there is the power of endorphins. As I explain to others who are tempted to ride, I arrive at work happy and it takes me at least an hour to be as miserable as everybody else.

Yes, I realize I am far from the current norm. But I am not unique and there are more and more people using bikes and with gas soon to be over $4.00 a gallon again, hopefully many more people will turn to biking as part of their transportation options. Every other year or so, I have given a lunch time seminar at my place of business for people who are interested in maybe trying bike commuting or using a bike in NYC. I get a very nice size turnout across the entire spectrum of jobs and ages. The most common concern and impediment for most people is related to safety. The expanded network of bike lanes (which have cost next to nothing to install), helps to bridge this fear.

Right now there is a concerted backlash against bikes. Mostly, I see it as a surrogate issue used against the Mayor and JSK is the surrogate focus of the attacks. But, in other places it is a real backlash as the driving minority perhaps feels threatened and sees their "taken for granted" view eroding for the future.

There will be growing pains, but NYC should be doing what it can to to encourage biking as a transportation alternative (along with improving transportation and discouraging the non-essential use of cars). For someone who gets so many other things right, it is a shame to see that Queens Crapper just doesn't get bikes or some how sees bikes only in terms of annoying hipsters. It would be something for the Queens Crapper to ride with me a few morning from Bay Ridge and maybe after a few times actually get it.

But in the interim, I think I will come up with a new name for myself as I approach 60 and call myself the Bay Ridge Bikehole - it has a ring to it.

Anonymous said...

depriving motorists of two lanes on manhattan avenues, such as broadway or seventh avenue is not improving the traffic flow.
this is contributing to road rage and traffic backup. squeezing the bike lanes into already congested roadways is insane.

in order to drive a car downtown,broadway and & 7th avenue are not my routes any longer, since the bike lanes were installed.

the bikers and bench bike jockeys(so-called pedi-cabs) insist on riding down the center of avenues.

the bike accident ,death and injury, data has not been collected ,so far.
when it is done honestly ,these lanes will disappear quickly.

have fun in a n.y.c. "RICKSHAW", for the foolish tourists,and pray that you do not get killed.

Cav said...

It seems to me that if using bicycles to get around was such a great idea that there wouldn't be a need for Sadik-Khan and T.A. to push it. And I do find them rather pushy.
Nobody ever has to work hard to promote a great idea or the most efficient method of doing something.

Considering the bicycle has been around for about 135 years, if it's use here hasn't become widespread by now, it probably never will.

It's just my opinion that bicycle lanes should be set up in response to a marked increase in ridership.
Bikes should then be registered and pay the fees to help support the roadways and defray the cost of installing the lanes.
I don't believe bike lanes should be created in a vague 'if you build it they will come' fantasy.

Erik Baard said...

@Cav: The city was rebuilt to encourage automobiles.

Queens Crapper said...

Because bicycles are an inefficient, outdated mode of transportation.

Kevin Walsh said...

When workable shower facilities are provided at work, I'll think about going 20 round trip miles to work, severely uphill part of the way, biking to work.

Here's a novel concept: make transit easier, faster and affordable. Instead, as as soon as there's a shortfall, fares rise and service sucks.

Snake Plissskin said...

Crappy is right - people left bikes at home 100 years ago just because they are an outmoded form of transportation. Even the third world is jettising them ASAP.

The future is the electric streetcar intracities, and rail intercity.

Erik Baard said...

@QC: Not in tight urban areas. Robert Moses believed in sprawl, suburbanization, etc. Cars were the trend and he hopped on it. The buyers were young people with rising affluence...Oh no! HIPSTERS! :)

All kidding aside, the wiping out of neighborhoods and clogging of our streets was achieved by bureaucratic fiat. You're really going to hound Sadik-Khan over bike lanes but gloss over Robert Moses for wiping out historic neighborhoods???

@Kevin: Fully agree that we need more mass transit, and improvements to what exists. The rounding error of white paint costs doesn't affect that, and most bikers are also mass transit users and bike advocates tend to be mass transit advocates.

I also proposed earlier in the last decade, and continue to push (when I have time) a program called "Arrive Clean." It would be a MetroCard-like swipe program allowing users to shower at gyms. You'd pay a fee monthly (less than a monthly MetroCard) through the DOT or a recognized biking or running group. You swipe in and have 45 minutes to shower and change. After that, penalties start adding up. Then you swipe out.

Anonymous said...

Between two stools one goes (falls) to the ground.