« Open Thread The Caroline Launches on Ocean Parkway »

March 24, 2009

City Planning Pushing New Bike-Friendly Rules

bike-storage-0309.jpgPrompted by an email alerting us to the creation of a new Department of City Planning portal, we stumbled across an announcement from earlier this month of new regulations regarding bicycle parking in new building in the five boroughs. Citing a lack of adequate and safe parking as a major factor in people not biking to work, City Planning approved a text amendment on March 4 that would "require indoor, secure bicycle parking in new developments, substantial enlargements, and residential conversions." In addition, "the regulations would apply to multi-family residential, community facility, and commercial buildings, including public parking garages, in all zoning districts." For more details, check out the slide show presentation or the text amendment. As Streetsblog pointed out at the time, the City Council has until late April to vote on the measure.




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:29 AM | Comments (52)
Categories: Quality of Life, Streets, Zoning

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8963

Comments

They should also approve an amendment banning precipitation or temperatures below 45 or above 70 degrees.

Oh, and another one banning cars from hitting bikes and bikes from hitting pedestrians.

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 9:39 AM

is it wrong i love jumping in front of A-holes on bikes to make them swerve out of control? but bike parking in building is a good idea.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at March 24, 2009 9:47 AM

If the city is going to force bicycle parking the city should enforc bicycle laws. As in no riding on the sidewalk. Riding with the flow of traffic. Adhering to all traffic signals and regulations.

It seems to me that most cyclists in this city don't realize bicycles are bound by the same traffic regulations as motor vehicles.


Now, if we can do something about motorized 2 wheeled transport, motorcycle & scooter, parking, that'd be something I'd be excited about.

Posted by: christopher at March 24, 2009 9:50 AM

Here, here, christopher. Most of these a**holes don't understand what a traffic light means and that the pedestrian has the right of way over a bicycle.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 24, 2009 9:52 AM

Great just what we need... Even more bikes on the road. When are they going to pass some regulations cracking down on cyclist that have no regard for traffic laws. I'm sick of bicyclist who run red lights, ride the wrong way on one way streets, fail to yield to pedestrians in the walkway, while talking on phone and fiddling with their ipods. Not to mention countless other violations.

Posted by: Colonel Steve Austin at March 24, 2009 10:03 AM

christopher, agree w/most of what you say about the cyclists (im one), except for the traffic lights / stop signs, just as pedestrians dont wait for green.

funny thing when i used to ride w/a peloton in L.A., the cops set a speed trap at the bottom of a descent we would ride, tons of tix for doing 55 in a 35 :(

rob, i once encountered someone like you, he lost out. not smart to jump in front of a metal contraption coming at you at 25mph. some folks will call you on your b.s.

Posted by: goldie at March 24, 2009 10:11 AM

watch out multi-family brownstone owners....how you gonna get bike parking inside your building.
As for many cyclists, althought many are respectful and careful, too many are not. Last night walking down 2nd aven and e14th street..some dope on bike makes illegal left turn riding 1 handed talking on cell phone and no helmet of course..proceeds to ride slowly and talking in middle of lane on 14th.
And walking over Manhattan bridge many of them insist on riding on pedestrian path rather than using the bike side. Which is ok except 1/2 of them consider a speedway.
(why not send this thread to Transportation ALternatives - who think cyclists are the most wonderful thing in gods creation).

Posted by: Petebklyn at March 24, 2009 10:12 AM

Agreed Steve Austin.

And if you look up the regs within the DOT (which I've done for a different forum) it clearly states bicycles are bound by all motor vehicle traffic laws.

Posted by: christopher at March 24, 2009 10:12 AM

@Colonel Steve Austin: When are they going to pass some regulations cracking down on drivers that have no regard for traffic laws? I'm sick of cars who run red lights, block crosswalks, make midblock u-turns, fail to yield to pedestrians in the walkway, park in bike lanes, while talking on phone and fiddling with their ipods. Not to mention countless other violations.

Posted by: zinka at March 24, 2009 10:15 AM

I've thought more than once what a great new use for my folded up umbrella when some moron on a bike comes racing through the intersection. If you hear about it happening, it'll likely have been me that did it, inadvertently of course. "Why I was just crossing the intersection and the bike must have caught my umbrella when he came roaring through against the light."

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 24, 2009 10:28 AM

If we're going to hand the roads over to the bicyclist, at least enforce the laws a little bit.

I just wish the NYPD would spend 1 weekend actually enforcing traffic laws against cyclist. Go after them with the same zeal they're going after hands-free offenders now. I bet that would go a long way toward 'educating' bikers. The only problem is, how does one go about enforcing traffic laws for cyclist?

Since you don't need a license to ride a bike on the road and we don't require mandatory ID, how would officers actually go about writing citations, John and Jane Doe citations?

I've been in countries in Europe where enforcement of traffic laws on bicyclists are no joke. In Switzerland, i saw a guy get cited for improperly signaling a right turn. He signaled with his right arm, instead of giving the left arm up signal. I've also seen cyclists issued speeding tickets as well.


Posted by: Colonel Steve Austin at March 24, 2009 10:28 AM

Amazing how the haters come out on even an innocuous post about bike parking. No wonder the majority of people wouldn't even think about cycling with attitudes like this.

Listen up, folks: as a regular biker, non-spandex-clad, looks-like-your f*&(ing neighbor, is-respectful of pedestrians and goes by quite slow on my errands, it's people like you driving too fast, coming too near and honking that make me occasionally skip by on the sidewalk.

I mostly obey traffic laws. But I won't endanger myself. And yes, I go the wrong way on Carroll St to my house.

And as or helmets, check out the rest of the world...400 million cyclists can't be wrong.

Posted by: cmu at March 24, 2009 10:37 AM

cmu - natasha richardson was wrong. a guy in my peloton that was coming to a stop, fell and hit his helmetless melon on the curb's corner and went into a coma, was wrong.

all fun and games till you die b/c you were too cool for a helmet.

Posted by: goldie at March 24, 2009 10:42 AM

I don't ride a bike. But there's a phrase for motorcyclists and probably bikers as well who don't wear helmets: "Organ donors."

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 24, 2009 10:58 AM

You bike haters sound like my curmudgeonly dad. To say that one group (drivers, bikers, pedestrians) is always in the wrong is just ridiculous. For one tiny example, for every biker on the "walk" of the Manhattan Bridge, there is a walker on the "bike" side.

Posted by: Kris at March 24, 2009 11:03 AM

As a non-biker, all this hate directed at bikers is weird. Yes, bikers do all those annoying things, and I have a special beef with you, cmu, because I have nearly been hit several times by bikers going the wrong way on a one-way street. Call me crazy, but it doesn't occur to me to look the wrong way before I start to cross.

Still, the big enemy out there is mechanized vehicle drivers. When they violate laws, and even when they follow them, they menace everyone around them, pedestrians, bikers, and even fellow drivers. Traffic law enforcement should be a bigger priority in NYC, especially in areas with a high volume of mechanized vehicle traffic. The City could make up a good portion of its lost real estate tax revenues just by enforcing through-truck regulations.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at March 24, 2009 11:05 AM

"watch out multi-family brownstone owners....how you gonna get bike parking inside your building."
Posted by: Petebklyn at March 24, 2009 10:12 AM

Brownstone/row houses are exempt.

From slide 14 of the DOT presentation:

Residential waiver:
>waive requirement for buildings with 10 or fewer units
>calculate requirement by individual building segment (e.g rowhouse) rather than building lot

Example
>Rowhouse on a single zoning lot (21 units in an R7 district)
>Requirement waived, each building is 10 units or less

Posted by: christopher at March 24, 2009 11:06 AM

Pitbull,
"is it wrong i love jumping in front of A-holes on bikes to make them swerve out of control?"
.... and into the path of traffic? or just out of control scraping across the pavement and into the hospital?
Is this what you really want? What's wrong with you?

Posted by: lincolnlimestone at March 24, 2009 11:20 AM

Cars are more dangerous than bikes but they are less chaotic and more carefully regulated.

Also, the cars are already here and the problems and grievances relating thereunto are well understood.

The city is trying to increase bike traffic while not doing anything to curtail car traffic.

I mean, there is the magical mystery fantasy that when someone starts biking they stop driving, but in NYC when someone starts biking it usually means they stop walking.

So the end result is:

Same number of cars on the road
More bikes on the road
More accidents and more hazards for pedestrians

Most of the people who complain about bikes are pedestrians.

Cars are much easier to see than bikes (esp. bikes that go the wrong way on the street, run red lights, ride outside the bike lane, weave in and out of traffic, or ride on the sidewalks).

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 11:23 AM

"What's wrong with you?"

man, that would be a WHOLE seperate, long thread ;)

Posted by: goldie at March 24, 2009 11:24 AM

This is a nice addition to the zoning resolution.

I do agree with the above poster in that there needs to be a more concerted effort to reduce the amount of cars on the road. The bike lanes are a joke. If a six year old can not safely use it, it is not a safe bike lane. Bikes need to be separate from vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Posted by: wpg at March 24, 2009 11:44 AM

Everyone sees things thru the lens of their own experience, but it would behoove you to also read carefully. Note I said I travel slowly. It's those spandex speeders you need to direct your anger towards; I do too.

The probability of my hitting someone on Carroll street while riding reverse is ZERO.

Helmets: Please see ample evidence of their non-utility. EVERYONE has anecdotal evidence of a person injured/killed without a helmet. As I said, there are 100's of millions of cyclists world over who do not wear them. They are not being killed in droves. Helmets discourage cycling (see Australia eg).

The Richardson mention is illuminating. So now we need to wear helmets when skiing? When will it end? There's actually a study saying that wearing helmets while driving (a car) reduces a small number of fatalities. The truth is, cycling or other accidents will happen. People will get injured or killed, and being paranoid about risk-avoidance (that's you, DIBS, it's even more strange for a non-cyclist to be so overly concerned about us) is not the answer.

But all this is noise compared to the rubbish about "more accidents and hazards" if there is more cycling.

"Cars are much easier to see than bikes" Not if you opened your eyes maybe.

Posted by: cmu at March 24, 2009 11:47 AM

CMU - just ride without a helmut if you want. But don't try to make it into a principalled stance - you aren't going to convince anyone.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at March 24, 2009 11:57 AM

helmet study: http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm

ride w/o one. i dont care. hope you dont have a spouse or kids though.

Posted by: goldie at March 24, 2009 12:05 PM

CMU - hope you don't get hurt riding without a helmet. I'm one of those people who would have been killed or severely injured without a helmet - way back in 1990 in my case. I don't advise anyone to unnecessarily avoid risks, but there's no reason to unnecessarily take risks either. BTW if bikers get hurt without a helmet, should we expect our taxpayer-funded emergency rooms to pay for their medical care?

Also do you have evidence that non-helmet-wearing bikers aren't being killed in droves, other than anecdotal? Granted, we don't hear about it in our news, but why would we even if it was happening? I can see the headline: BURKINA FASO CRACKDOWN ON BAREHEADED BIKERS...

And now back to grading homework - will return to Brownstoner this evening.

Posted by: sixyearsandcounting at March 24, 2009 12:14 PM

"The city is trying to increase bike traffic while not doing anything to curtail car traffic."

proposed east river tolls
attempted congestion pricing
crosstown thru streets
pedestrian plazas

i'm sure more that i cant think of off the top of my head..
the city is certainly trying to curtail traffic. the goal is make it as painful as possible to get people to stop taking their cars to work unless they absolutely have to.

Posted by: Danny Noonan at March 24, 2009 12:16 PM

"For one tiny example, for every biker on the "walk" of the Manhattan Bridge, there is a walker on the "bike" side. "
--- I really doubt it greatly but next time I'll try to see if I notice any pedestrians over there.

Posted by: Petebklyn at March 24, 2009 12:17 PM

"the city is certainly trying to curtail traffic. the goal is make it as painful as possible to get people to stop taking their cars to work unless they absolutely have to."

That's horrible public policy and will be completely ineffective since the MTA is raising fares and cutting service.

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 12:32 PM

But all this is noise compared to the rubbish about "more accidents and hazards" if there is more cycling.

"Cars are much easier to see than bikes" Not if you opened your eyes maybe.
---------------

I mean what I say and I mean it very simply. You don't have to like it, but denying it makes me question your thought process.


Cars are bigger than bikes. Thus they are easier to see. There is nothing to debate here. This is basic physics. More surface area = more reflected photons = greater likelihood of photos being captured by the eye.


If there are 100 more bikes on the road today than last year there are absolutely more hazards (physics again) and almost certainly more accidents (this is not pure physics as the extra bikes do note REQUIRE more accidents but in this city the likelihood of them increasing accidents is 100%).

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 12:36 PM

nsr, wpg et al: read up on why predictability is not necessarily a good thing in multi-modal situations (ie not just cars). read up on the shared streets movement, and Jan Gelb's planning theories. You'll find that the more interaction there is between peds, cycles and cars, the safer a zone becomes. This is not just my opinion, it's implemented in many places.

your statement that it's harder to see a cycle than a car is difficult to swallow, it's as if the eye had a lower limit of discernment (like, for example, an object 5ft tall and 4 feet long in profile). Yes, there may be SOME situations where this is true, but when a cycle basher says "I didn't see the cyclist" that means "I was not paying any attention to vehicles who pose no threat to me."

So "more hazards" is really "more potential accidents," not, "more dangerous?" OK, if you want to slice and dice language like that, I have to agree. But it's misleading.

Anyway, 1 more bike = 1 less [something], unless you postulate that the new biker wasn't going anywhere before that; if it's a car, your statement is clearly wrong; even if he were a ped, it's not clear it's "more hazardous".


Posted by: cmu at March 24, 2009 12:56 PM

To toss a related log on the fire...
... I mentioned, in one of my posts above, motorcycles and scooters and parking for them.

If the city was really trying to reduce congestion, traffic, etc, why is there a big jump from the car to the bicycle? I would think getting a single person from a 5 passenger car to a 2 passenger motorcycle/scooter is a vast improvement and a great step forward. Sure it's still a motor vehicle, but smaller in size, impact, etc.

I think what annoys me the most about all this bicycle stuff is the all or none attitude of most of the proponents. I belong to a group that has had dealings with TA and they basically say "if it has a motor we want it off the road, it's either bicycle or it's wrong".

I think the bicycle initiatives, and traffic/congestion ones in general, would gain a lot more traction if there was consideration for the possible steps in between.

(full disclosure - my main transportation is a Vespa, but I think my argument still has merits, my own bias aside ;) )

Posted by: christopher at March 24, 2009 12:57 PM

Chris: I'm far from an all-or-nothing person, I love driving, I just don't want to do it for day-to-day errands, short trips or commuting. I agree, TA is somewhat one-sided.

I'm perpetually surprised about the anti-cyclists. When 9th st bike lane was proposed, you should've seen them and hear them at the planning meeting. You'd think these people had never visited a bike-friendly city (many in Europe) or a country like India with millions of cycles everywhere. I can just imagine the cries of outrage by one of them in Madras: No bike lanes! They almost hit me! They intimidate cars! They have 2 helmetless kids on the rack with them!

Posted by: cmu at March 24, 2009 1:03 PM

I'm all for bike lanes, but they need to be done proper.

Removing parking spots/delivery zones and adding a bike lane (as has happened in Williamsburg) isn't helpful, and it ads to the anti-cyclist cause.

I think biking is great. Cars have a purpose. I think the animosity, from both sides, comes from the "our way or the highway" posturing and campaigning.

Make it like China. Separate bike lanes. Lights for the bike lanes. Enforced rules and regulations. When I was in Beijing it was amazing to watch. Hordes of cyclists, all moving in unison, breaking off when needed, in their own lanes, not cutting off cars or pedestrians. It was like watching a symphony of people, cyclists, motorists...

That would be cool...

Posted by: christopher at March 24, 2009 1:34 PM

"For one tiny example, for every biker on the "walk" of the Manhattan Bridge, there is a walker on the "bike" side. "

Kris, proportionately there are more walkers and the space is not fairly used if half is given to walkers, half to bikers.

Posted by: infinitejester at March 24, 2009 2:26 PM

People who are bikers: have you ever been about to cross a street or to turn to enter a store when a biker passes you suddenly from behind your field of vision? The biker approaching you sees you and anticipates their move; but the walker is treated like a potted plant when they can move suddenly or do something unexpected. I've only once had someone ring their bell from behind me; usually they swoop by and in my shock at the near-collision I don't think to yell at them.

Posted by: infinitejester at March 24, 2009 2:28 PM

"your statement that it's harder to see a cycle than a car is difficult to swallow"

Your difficulty swallowing this basic fact confuses me.

When people say things like this (i.e., deny basic physics because it doesn't support their cause), it inclines me to treat all of their commentary with extreme suspicion.

I have 2 problems with cyclists in the city: (1) they are not a viable transportation alternative and (2) as a group they make the streets more dangerous.

#2 would be possible to fix, but I'm not sure about #1. There are some very basic and difficult to resolve problems with biking becoming a significant form a transportation in this city:

1. Weather.
2. Only healthy people between 16 and 55 should be biking any significant distance on city streets.
3. Weather.
4. Bridges.
5. Weather.
6. Lack of secure bike storage at most destinations.
7. Weather.
8. Insistence by bikers that they can ride the wrong way down one way streets.
9. Weather.
10. Safely operating a bicycle is more difficult than safely operating an automobile (although non-safe automobile operation is significantly more dangerous to the general public).
11. Weather.

Did I mention weather?

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 2:32 PM

More indoor bicycle parking is great, but I wish it was easier to get a bike rack from the city for areas that need one. I can't get a free bike rack in front of my 5th Ave home, despite the fact that will be heavily used by bar and restaurant patrons. The restaurant next door, however, can get one, but doesn't seem interested.

As for cyclists ignoring traffic lights, traffic laws, and pedestrians, don't get me started. As a pedestrian who actually does not jaywalk and spends time standing and waiting for lights to change, it infuriates me that I constantly miss getting mowed down by inches when a cyclist runs a red light.

Posted by: mscrochety at March 24, 2009 2:46 PM

Obviously there are stupid bicyclists. There are also stupid pedestrians and stupid motorists. Why should bicyclists be singled out for more traffic enforcement when motorists and pedestrians are to blame for the vast majority of bad behavior? Safety is my foremost thought when cycling, and I'm continually dodging goofball in cars and on foot who jaywalk, u-turn, yammer mindlessly on their cell phones, and otherwise disregard the safety of everyone around them.

PS to *rob* and daveinbedstuy: I suspect that the two of you are just indulging in fantasy, but what you're describing is criminal behavior, akin to tossing a TV set off of a highway overpass into traffic. There is absolutely no justification for it, and if you were to try stunts like that on me when I'm on my bike, you'd better hope that I don't get back up.

Posted by: dannyhellman at March 24, 2009 2:47 PM

northsloperenter- I think you forgot to mention "weather."

Joking aside, I have to agree (altough the topping out at age 55 seems a little odd. I know quite a few people in their 60's and 70's who are more physically fit than a lot of younger people.)

I really do have to say that bikes are visually more difficult to see- its a fact. It's not a choice car drivers make, or a determined ignorance. Speaking as an artist, (and much beloved back seat driver)- bikes are visually more difficult to see and especially in a visually complex scene.

More than that, the argument of cars vs bikes is a distraction from the real issue- the public transportation system. That needs to be addressed before we see any benefit. Bikes are not a stopgap measure or a solution to the transportation problem.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 24, 2009 2:48 PM

Northslope renter:

weather: On a handful of days each year, the roads are snow and ice covered and therefore not suitable for riding. In places where bicycles (and motorcycles, for that matter) are treated as transportation, not toys, a little cold, heat, or rain is shrugged off.

Your 16 to 55 comment is simple misinformed ageism. My kids are in middle school and routinely ride three or four miles to their friends' houses. My mother is in her seventies and rides centuries. Bicycling is very easy on the joints, and of course have gears that let you set your level of resistance.

My bike works just fine on bridges, with the exception of those like the VN that don't accommodate bikes. But that's the bridge's fault.

Safely operating a bike does take more skill than driving a car, but you see relatively few cyclists talking on the cell or texting or putting on makeup.

I don't ride the wrong way, but I do run red lights. Probably about as often as you jaywalk, and with the exact same cost to society.

Posted by: Sparafucile at March 24, 2009 2:49 PM

"Why should bicyclists be singled out for more traffic enforcement when motorists and pedestrians are to blame for the vast majority of bad behavior? "

I don't see bikers getting singled out for ANY traffic enforcement.

Posted by: infinitejester at March 24, 2009 2:50 PM

also when you get hit by a bike, who the heck do you sue? when you get hit by a car at least you have definite money coming to you from a lawsuit to their insurance company right? cyclists should be forced to have insurance if they drive on city streets.

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at March 24, 2009 3:08 PM

I topped out the age limit at 55 somewhat arbitrarily. There are plenty of 60 year olds who could handle it, but there is a loss of twitch reflexes and vision as people age. They still might be fine for getting down a bike lane on a quiet street but probably should not be riding down Flatbush during rush hour.

As for children under 16, that's up to their parents. I went everywhere on my bike from age 12-16, but I grew up in a much more suburban area where drivers were use to watching out for kids rather than struggling to get home through this @#$2ing god awful rush hour traffic.

Some of the maneuvers I've seen drivers make on flatbush would make me very worried about letting a 14 year old bike around there.

The problem with the bridges are they bottleneck the city badly and are a rate limiting factor on all transportation and also concentrate traffic (bike and auto) in a complex and dangerous way. They are also part of the reason that flatbush is such a nightmare.

As for weather...

The issue isn't weather or not Captain Bikerdude is brave enough to ride his bike when it is 22 degrees or 88 degrees, the question is will a significant enough number of citizens be out riding their bikes in that type of weather to warrant city planners to allocate significant (and limited) resources to the encouragement of bicycling.

I say no. Put more energy into finding ways to avoid MTA fare increases or train reductions.

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 3:12 PM

weather or not... sheesh.

Got weather on my brain.

Sick to death of this cold, long, lingering winter...

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 3:16 PM

I again agree with your points, northsloperenter but stil bothered by the ageism. I understand the lessened reflexes, etc. but in that case allowing anyone over 60 to drive is considerably worse than letting them bike- in your book? One thing I've learned in life- never stereotype. All the exceptions come crawling out of the woodwork just to make you look foolish :-)

Actually- Anyone biking down Flatbush in rush hour is taking a huge risk.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 24, 2009 3:43 PM

Truth is not an ism.

It's possible that I'm wrong and that a high percentage of seniors have the strength, reflexes, and judgment to safely bike around the city, but in that case I'm make a factual error (overestimating the deterioration of human strength, vision, and reflexes), not a prejudicial judgment.

Driving requires less skill than bicycling. I think there are plenty of people who can safely drive but who cannot safely operate a bicycle on city streets (ride in the park is a different thing altogether).

There are plenty of people in the 30s and 40s who should not be bicycling either (bad visions, bad knees, bad back, badly overweight, believe they are invincible, believe pedestrians should get the @#$$ out of their way, etc.)

And, yes, I think as we age we should at the very least get our vision checked every time we renew our driver's licenses.

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 3:57 PM

P.S. About Flatbush during rush hour... The place is a menace. It's like Herald Square stretched out over several miles. Walking there is dice. Biking there is dangerous.

And how can the city promote bicycling as a transportation alternative if a major artery like Flatbush is pretty much not usable by sane cyclists?


FWIW, if the city were going to invest in cycling options, I think they need to do away with bike lanes and close down entire roadways (or 1/2 of a roadway with a physical barrier preventing cars from getting to the bike side) for bicyclists to create a truly safe and usable bikeway.

But that brings me back to the weather... does it really make sense to have, for example, Pacific Street, designated "bike only" from November to March?

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 4:02 PM

*walking there is dicey...

I'm done for the day. Can't type.

Posted by: northsloperenter at March 24, 2009 4:04 PM

northsloperenter- did you have an accident and are now addled from falling on your un-helmeted head? :-)

I agree, the bike lanes as they are now set up are a waste. And I think we are not set up in this country to have biking as a major form of transportation, like they do in China- unfortunately for us. That brings me back to my other point- it makes no sense to worry about bike lanes when the public transportation system all but insures the heavy use of cars in NYC. Not to mention wasting 15 billion on a short section of subway on the upper east side when whole sections of the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn have next to nothing by way of public transportation.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 24, 2009 4:12 PM

nsr: are you serious? you actually think it's ok for an over-60 to drive a car but not cycle? I totally disagree that it's easier to drive than cycle; any competent person can cycle w/o danger to anyone. I think this attitude, that 'anyone can drive' is why we have 50,000 vehicle deaths per year in the US.

Weather is the only reasonable reason you've mentioned, and again, if you check out cities where cycling is the norm, they do so in late fall and early spring.

bxgrl, we finally disagree on the visibility issue. But I was stating it more narrowly, that "noticing" a cyclist is just as easy as "noticing" a car.

nsr can babble on about physics and whether or not a larger object is more "visible" but that has little to do with traffic. I guess he thinks traffic lights and signs are not "visible" either due to their size. In this traffic engineers agree with him...notice that the standard for signage/lights has steadily crept up in size; compare, for example to Parisian lights.

Posted by: cmu at March 24, 2009 5:37 PM

I'd love to see statistics for pedestrians injured by bicyclists riding on the sidewalk. There's that one story about the elderly fellow who died after a chicken delivery bicycle knocked him down, but I can't remember hearing any similar tales. Meanwhile, there seems to be a new auto-on-cyclist fatality every month or so.

Personally, I only ride on the sidewalk when construction and/or traffic insanity makes it too dangerous to ride in the street. In those instances, I always ride slowly. I've only hit one pedestrian in my cycling life; it was twenty years ago, during a rainstorm. A woman darted off an island in Park Ave South directly in front of me, and there was no way I could avoid hitting her. She went down on her behind, immediately got back up, and skittered away. I still feel bad about it, but at least we both walked away unhurt. Try walking away after an SUV hits you.

If we're interested in making the streets safer, we need to focus on the automobile. EVERYONE is endangered by drunk driving, road rage, drivers yapping on cel phones, lax enforcement of traffic violations, etc.

Posted by: dannyhellman at March 25, 2009 12:43 AM

When I was about 5 years old, I was run over by a bicyclist on the sidewalk who didn't see me. As an adult a few years ago, I was almost run over in a crosswalk by a bicyclist turning against the light, the wrong way on a one-way street. Fortunately, I had just enough room and time to sidestep the front wheel, grab the handle bars and bring him to a stop (he told me I should have looked where I was going!) As I tell my kids, look both ways before you cross, even if it is a one-way street; don't ever assume all the traffic will stop just because there's a red light (forget about stop signs). I don't "hate" bicyclists. I just recognize them as one more hazard I've got to be alert to when I'm walking around this city.

Posted by: 16Street at March 25, 2009 12:46 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions