Red Hook Gets New Bike Lanes

What;s not to like?

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 10:59 AM

this will be one of the two main thoroughfares to IKEA. With the park, the bike lanes, the traffic; it will be a mess down there in a year.

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 11:24 AM

This Bike lane will be worthless once AY is Built

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 11:47 AM

My colleagues at work refer to these as "suicide lanes".

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 1:25 PM

As a Red Hook resident and long-standing bike commuter, I'm glad to finally see some bicycle lanes in the neighborhood. A lot people bike to the pool and to dine at the ballfields.

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 1:35 PM

Bike lanes will be worthless once AY is built.

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 2:38 PM

2:38-You will be useless once AY is built. Bike lanes tend to give you a false sense of security but are needed in any city that considers itself progressive.NYC is way behind.

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 3:14 PM

My prediction: NYC will get lots of bike lanes because it considers itself progressive, and then a whole lot of bicyclists will die as a result.

Bike lanes don't work well in a place like this. I'm a total fan of bike lanes, but not where they're gonna kill the people riding bikes.

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 3:22 PM

3:22 You make no sense. Bike lanes work when the public is educated about them-Cyclist, pedestrians and motorist. Like I stated @ 3:14 bike lanes are problematic but are still better for the INEXPERIENCED rider/commuter than a raw street. There will be a new bike line (recessed) with a physical barrier on 9th ave. between 23 and 14th I beleive, check Transportation Alternatives for more info, this type of lane seems over the top but it may work. We cyclist need all the help we can get.

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 3:35 PM

I don't really understand what a bike lane is supposed to do for you. Is it just a politically correct gesture? Bikes will still weave back and forth between vehicles and vehicles will drive on whatever portion of road they manage to find unblocked. The bike lanes along the curb make the least sense as that is where trucks and cars park and unload. The ones that are painted bright green in historic district are not only useless but ugly. What next? Baby stroller lanes? Wheelchair only lanes?

Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 4:24 PM

Even if bike lanes do little to provide extra space on the street for bikers, at least the sight of them raises awareness of the fact that there are actually other things besides cars on the streets. And the more drivers are aware of and look out for bikes, the less accidents there will be, and the more people will be encouraged to ride their bikes.

I'm not really sure who could honestly oppose things that make bike riding easier in this city. Riding bikes is healthier for you, and cuts down on pollution, traffic jams and overcrowding on public transportation for everyone else. What on earth is not to like?

I heard that the fine folks on 9th Street objected to the bike lanes because it would mean they would get bigger parking tickets when they were caught double-parking to unload their groceries. Honestly.

Posted by: guest at September 22, 2007 1:27 PM

4:24, I think your problem is that you're looking at bike lanes as something to keep bike riders contained. Bikes are legally allowed to ride alongside cars and trucks on any street anyhow, but the cars and trucks rarely share the road with them like they're supposed to. And who ends up getting killed? Not the truck drivers. Bike lanes are designated for bike use only, so that bikes have at least some space on the road that is (at least in theory) safe for them to ride in.

Also, bike lanes that run against curbs are never on blocks where parking is legal anyhow. So if the car/truck is parked/unloading there, they're doing it illegally.

The green lanes are the street-level equivalent of the reflectors and lights that bikers wear: they stand out visually, so drivers know they're there and are less likely to ignore them and run some hapless pizza delivery guy over.

Everyone should have the experience of riding a bike in the city, just like everyone should have the experience of being a pedestrian and a driver at some point: once you've done it yourself, you're much more aware of the other people around you, and less likely to get all road ragey on their ass (or crosswalk-ragey, for pedestrians).

Posted by: guest at September 22, 2007 1:38 PM

Bike lanes help build awareness of cyclists on the streets of New York, help show cyclists the best routes for travel and help reduce injuries and fatalities.

On wide, heavily-trafficked streets, bike lanes also tend to have a traffic-calming effect.

A joint study of the Dept. of Health, DOT and NYPD last year found that of the 225 cyclist fatalities between 1995 and 2006, only one occurred in a bike lane.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/09/12/city-announces-bike-safety-improvements/

Posted by: guest at September 22, 2007 3:34 PM

I don't think the picture is of Bay St. It is Red Hook but not Bay St. It might be Lorrine St.

Posted by: guest at September 22, 2007 4:31 PM

In most contexts, bike lanes help preserve bicyclists' much-deserved right to be on the road. The lanes physically identify an area as specifically for bikes and they let motorists know that they are to respect the rights of those riding bikes. This is what bike lanes are supposed to do, and it is what they usually do.

In extremely dense, urban areas, bikes lanes lull bicyclists into a false sense of security. In most cases, bicyclists swear that they will not be lulled into a false sense of security by the bike lane. They then begin riding in the bike lane and shortly thereafter have a false sense of security in the bike lane. Then they die.

And 3:34, I don't know about the study you're citing, but I remain unimpressed. I myself have lost two friends in the last three years, both of whom were riding in bike lanes and both of whom were tragically struck and killed.

I'm not against bike lanes. I'm very pro bike lane, but not in areas where we KNOW, in advance, that motorists will not respect bike lanes. And bear in mind that there are numerous things that account for the 'lack of respect'. In some cases, it's not that motorists don't care about those in bike lanes, but rather that there are psychological limits on the amount of visual data motorists and bicyclists can process and attend to at any given point in time; and if you're driving/riding in Manhattan there's one hell of a lot of data to process. It then comes down to whether you want vulnerable, exposed bicyclists to be sharing the road with two ton hunks of steel. Ordinarily I think they can share the road perfectly well. But sometimes, in the most congested areas, I think it's a problem.

I think it's for a very good reason that bike lanes are occasionally referred to as 'suicide lanes'. It's also why I, as a bicyclist, typcially ignore bike lanes in the city when they're available. I find that it's actually safer (as a bicyclist) to ignore them.

Posted by: guest at September 23, 2007 8:44 AM

Many dog owners feel like their dogs have a right to pee anywhere, and still feel they should have dog runs, even if rarely used.

That doesn't mean that all dog owners do this, that all dog owners are selfish jerks, that dogs should be outlawed, or that dog runs should be abolished. There are jerks from all walks of life. Even bicycle riders. Shocker.

As for the riding-on-the-sidewalk particular brand of jerkishness, don't worry, everyone agrees with you. The city has a very strict law about that. If caught riding on a sidewalk, a biker can get his/her bike immediately and permanently taken away.

Re: the Manhattan bridge: until very recently (August, I think), the bike lane on the Manhattan bridge was closed. So the bikers you saw on the pedestrian side didn't really have a choice. Unlike the pedestrians I see every day on the bike side, now that it's open again. :)

But seriously. It shouldn't be pedestrian vs. bikes vs. dog owners vs. strollers. It should be pedestrians and dog owners and strollers and bikers together against cars. Friends, Romans, pedestrians.

Posted by: guest at September 23, 2007 12:39 PM

8:44, here's the link to the report: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf , and the info on fatalities in bike lines is on page 23.

Were the fatatilities you're talking about in NYC? Cause the report only cites 1 fatality involving a bike in a bike lane and a motor vehicle.

And 12:33: maybe it's safe to ride without a helmet in Europe, where there's a culture of biking, but it's certainly not safe in NYC. Everyone should wear a helmet, no matter how dorky they think it is. Everyone should value the integrity of their brain over that of their hairdo.

Posted by: guest at September 23, 2007 12:45 PM

from that report:

Nearly all bicyclist fatalities (92%) occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles.
•Although they make up only 5–17% of vehicles on NYC roadways,large vehicles (trucks,buses) accounted
for almost one third (32%) of fatalities.
•Although there are many more miles of local roads,more than half of fatal crashes occurred on arterial (large,
four lane) roads (53%).
•7% of fatal crashes occurred on limited access highways,where bicycling is prohibited.
•Only one fatal crash with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane.
•Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
•Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.

Posted by: guest at September 23, 2007 12:54 PM