« Curb Cut-apalooza at The Minerva Walkabout with Montrose: A Crown Heights Tale »

September 29, 2009

Bikes and Bodies on the Brooklyn Bridge

In the weekend New York Times, Robert Sullivan tackles the nightmare that we all know and many avoid: the Brooklyn Bridge elevated path. Designated half pedestrian walkway, half bike lane, the white line separating the two is never enough. Tourists often wander across the line with cameras glued to their faces, unaware of the cyclists zooming towards them; and cyclists, well, sometimes they zoom too much. Sullivan's solution: instead of signs and bollards, just separate the two—give bicyclists a protected lane on the lower level, among the cars. This suggestion will surely sound unpleasant to many bicyclists: they will lack the scenic views of the upper level and it sounds like a bad deal for anyone who enjoys breathing oxygen. Sullivan resisted the idea as well, but argues that "if we bicyclists cede the Brooklyn Bridge walkway, then it might be a step toward winning the public’s respect. Then, just maybe, pedestrians would call a truce and recognize that their real enemy is the car ..." It's a respectable argument, one definitely worth mulling over, but we still voted no on the Gothamist poll asking whether bikes should be banned from the upper level (64 percent said yes at the time of writing this post).
Bicyclists vs. Pedestrians: An Armistice [NY Times]
Vote: Ban Bikes from the Brooklyn Bridge Walkway? [Gothamist]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11661

Comments

Just put up a barrier between the cyclist pathway and the pedestrian pathway. No, a white line isn't going to be effective.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, they have now made two streets in Philly one lane only for cars and one lane for bicycles....Pine St and Spruce St. I don't care so much about Spruce but I take Pine home from the train station in the taxi and this seems to add to the cost of the taxi ride.

I'm going to take it out far more aggressively on bicyclists who make the mistake of riding through the intersection when I'm on foot and have the light.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 29, 2009 10:23 AM

these threads never end well.. and wasnt this posted already or talked about in another thread or am i going crazy.

personally im never commenting on the bikers vs. peds. vs. motororists. it never leads to anything good hahah

personally id be afraid to walk or bike over bridges considering they are prime terror targets. too scary

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at September 29, 2009 10:24 AM

I also voted no. It should not be that hard for pedestrians to keep to one side and bikes to the other. I have seen this from both sides and I really think that it is more a factor of lack of respect from the pedestrians than from the bikes. I rarely if ever see bikes in the walk lane but often see people walking without paying attention in the bike lane. Its not that complicated folks.

Posted by: wasder at September 29, 2009 10:27 AM

haha! a bike lane by the cars?

dumbest. idea. ever.

Posted by: ftgreenepark at September 29, 2009 10:27 AM

I'd gladly lose the scenic view to gain an unobstructed, dedicated path over Bklyn Bridge. I rarely bike over that bridge, and when I do, I'm too busy dodging tourists to enjoy myself.

Posted by: dannyhellman at September 29, 2009 10:28 AM

we need to find some type of middle ground. The Manhattan bridge which is virtually all for cyclists just isn't the same as the brooklyn bridge walkway. Perhaps a bike lane on the lower level of the brooklyn bridge is what cyclists need for cars to treat us as "vehicles" to which we are legally regarded as.
We can never split the brooklyn bridge walkway down the middle without people crossing. There are just too many tourists and sight-seeing people who are mesmerized by the nyc skyline (and how can we blame them!)

Posted by: BenCFT at September 29, 2009 10:31 AM

are bikers just too cheap to pay the 2.25 to take the subway? granted, i understand it's good exercise (mildly), but soho is completely clogged with bikes attached and chained to EVERYTHING! you can't even enjoy a stroll without getting knocked in the spleen from an errant handlebar. parked cars are just as annoying i guess and so are pedestrians. this thread makes my brain hurt

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at September 29, 2009 10:31 AM

This would be great. No different than sharing the street with cars, and probably safer if you can separate it.

Views are not relevant- cyclists who are going to stop and ogle the skyline are in other cyclists way.

While we are at it, there should be better enforcement of the non-cycle path on the Manhattan bridge.

Posted by: Park Place at September 29, 2009 10:32 AM

i love biking over the brooklyn bridge (not on weekends!) but it can be a bit of an obstacle course (but you gotta love seeing the city through the eyes of a tourist sometimes though).
but i suggest taking the bk bridge in in the morning (less tourists+gorgeous view) and taking the manhattan bridge back in the evening (no tourists+fast+nice view).

Posted by: CGmodern at September 29, 2009 10:33 AM

Bikes are vehicles, when they collide with pedestrians the consequences can be nasty, especially for old people. If we can keep them apart, we should. Whether or not there is room to do this on the Brooklyn bridge, I don't know. I know for a fact that the Pulaski bridge going from Greenpoint to LIC is a nightmare for pedestrians with bicyclists hurtling down the ramps. In that case there is more than enough room for the city to make a bike lane in one of the underused car lanes which can be separated by a concrete divider.

I know its standard pratice in the US to ride your bike on the sidewalk, but I'm still amazed its permitted. I remember get a clip round the ear from a copper back home when I rode on the sidewalk once. Having said that, I can also say NY car drivers are a lot less respectful of cyclists than in other cities. You take your life in your hands cycling in this city.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 29, 2009 10:36 AM

Of course bikers should be banned. There have been so many close calls with bikers going very, very fast and almost hitting people and joggers.

Riding bikes on the sidewalk is illegal and riding bikes on the walkway should be the same. Bikes belong on the road with cars.

Not very difficult to understand.

Posted by: CookieCutterBrownstone at September 29, 2009 10:37 AM

Yes. Ban them.

Posted by: eh at September 29, 2009 10:39 AM

Oh they will ban bikers from the WALKWAY, its just a matter of under what circumstance.

It can be done with thought and reason (like the op/ed piece suggests) OR it will be done as knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy that is bound to occur if the status-quo is kept.

It is easy to say it is simple (like Wasder does) - just keep to your 'side' BUT unfortunatly it is not that simple.

There are many orders of magnitude more pedestrians than bikers and the walkway is VERY narrow. Even if you wanted to keep to your side - sometimes it is simply not possible. Not to mention that on the Brooklyn side - pedestrians HAVE to cross the bike lane to get to the stairs (and when bikers come down the incline they are often moving (illegally) very fast.

Further since many of the pedestrians are tourists it is simply not practical to expect that no tourist will want to stop and admire the view on the 'other side' - and if they stop in the pedestrian lane they very well might be stampeded.

The walkway has ALWAYS been a narrow throughoufare and infact was the the scene of a terrible tragedy (involving I beleive a dozen or so fatalities and scores injured) due to crowding and panic soon after the bridge 1st opened. (1882)

Pedestrians cannot not be forced into an even smaller corridor to accommodate bicyclists going extremely fast and not expect another tragedy.

I note that if you look down while on the walkway, there is a street level wire access lane 9probably used for workmen, certainly that could be retrofitted (during the bridges reconstruction) into a protected bikeway that will be safer for the bikers and keep pedestrians safe as well. Until that time, a dedicated bike lane on the roadway (could shift sides depending on time of day) is a necessity. Do it now, or do it later, but it will be done.

Posted by: fsrg at September 29, 2009 10:39 AM

It seems to me that all the pro biking arguments center around it being a "beneficial for society". If thats the case, then the logical conclusion is that that bike lane should be where that status is best preserved which would be in a protected lane by the cars.
If you say that pedestrians just need to watch out or whatever, you are essentially arguing that enjoyment of transit is an important public issue(which we never do for cars) or that without the inducement of a pleasent trip across the bridge we stand to lose significant numbers of bikers and their positive externalities. I don't think that is true either.

Posted by: Ledbury at September 29, 2009 10:42 AM

When it's too crowded i just swim across the river.

Posted by: big swinging nick at September 29, 2009 10:51 AM

Bicycles should be walked over the Brooklyn Bridge walkway.
What's the hurry? It is a pleasant one mile stroll. This is more about ego and hubris than it is about exercize or transportation.
The Bridge can barely accommodate motor traffic as is. eliminating a lane will just make the congestion worse and the emmissions worse for walkers and cyclists.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 29, 2009 10:51 AM

"It should not be that hard for pedestrians to keep to one side and bikes to the other. "

When it comes to transportation planning, relying on what people *should* do is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 10:55 AM

Minard, if more city (Brooklyn) residents are now choosing to bike, why shouldn't the changing face of transportation be taken into account when deciding how many lanes should be used by cars?

Posted by: dittoburg at September 29, 2009 10:57 AM

When I walk over the bridge I'm constantly telling people "watch it, watch it!". Most don't know what we natives know. Cyclists like to go really fast, feel it is their right, and don't anticipate that an unwarry pedestrian will suddenly step in the way. The crazy cyclists have definitely diminished the enjoyment of walking over the bridge for me. Some cyclists are respectful and understand that they are not on wide open country road, but some are crazy, and they are a menace to life and limb. Everyone should be made to walk their bikes on the walkway. Cops should be posted by the towers to enforce the rule.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 29, 2009 11:04 AM

Most countries don't have a problem with having a shared ped. lane and bike lane. Parts of Germany share typical sidewalks. Give it some time and more people will become used to having to share the road. Biking infractions need to be enforced. Americans tend think the world is their battle field and so get out of their way and don't tell me what to do. That is the case whether they are a ped., a biker, or a driver. They can't do wrong.
I ride of the Brklyn. Br. twice a day and it is short of appalling. How much time does it add to your trip to slow down. The same goes for drivers. Calm down.

Posted by: oldrte10 at September 29, 2009 11:04 AM

As I said in the other thread, blaming the problem on the bikers is silly, especially since it is mostly the peds who do not stay on their side. If you have a problem with the set-up, that's one thing. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
I am not opposed to have a bike line on the bridge roadway, especially for the evening commute home (the morning is a piece of cake). But this whole "bikers are rude and disrespectful" thing is complete crap.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at September 29, 2009 11:04 AM

i'm for a separated bike lane on bridge if fsrq's suggestion is not possible.

there is a death waiting to happen.

i wouldn't like it, but when disaster strikes, they will create a bike only situation on the manhattan bridge and brkn bridge will be only peds.

Posted by: antidope at September 29, 2009 11:07 AM

"But this whole "bikers are rude and disrespectful" thing is complete crap."

Spoken like a true partisan. There are disrespectful cyclists, disrespectful pedestrians and disrespectful motorists. You need to get out more if you haven't realized that yet.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 29, 2009 11:17 AM

I walk (not bike) over the Bridge at least once, often twice a day. That said, I think bikers have as much right to ride over the upper level of the Bridge as pedestrians have to walk over the Bridge. I think putting a barricade of some sort between the pedestrian and bike lanes is a good compromise.

New Yorkers who walk over the Bridge on any regular basis tend not to stop and ogle the City, or stop at all for that matter (which is why most tourists go home with photos of "rude" New Yorkers walking in front of their cameras). We don't want to discourage tourists (like them or not, they're great for the City's economy), but I think much larger signage should be installed on both sides of the Bridge, in numerous languages, advising tourists to not only stay on the pedestrian side of the Bridge but to be considerate of other pedestrians walking across the Bridge.

fsrq is right about pedestrians having to cross the bike lane to exit the Bridge on the Brooklyn side, so signage reminding bikers to slow down there would also be welcome.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 29, 2009 11:25 AM

"signage reminding bikers to slow down"

Biff, this means you!! Though I suspect you were gunning for me when you ran me down. ; )

Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 29, 2009 11:28 AM

As a biker, I wouldn't mind a restricted lower bike level. Those tourists and other gawkers are a pain in the ass! Then again, sometimes I like to stop my bike, take a seat on a bench and just check out the view. I'd miss that.

Posted by: East New York at September 29, 2009 11:33 AM

"Bicycles should be walked over the Brooklyn Bridge walkway.
What's the hurry?"

I like to see how fast I can go.

Posted by: East New York at September 29, 2009 11:36 AM

CGar, at least I honked my Harpo-esque horn first, before running you over.

A barrier down the middle and better signage!

More bikes, less cars. And cyclists (of which I am one), please do not speed and breakneck speed and PLEASE do not scream in a poor, unsuspecting tourist's ear when they unwittingly block the bike lane. I've seen it a million times and it's horribly rude and gives all cyclists a bad name.

Thank you.

Posted by: Biff Champion at September 29, 2009 11:44 AM

"signage reminding bikers to slow down there would also be welcome."

And what percentage of bikers who are currently speeding would slow down once confronted with new signage?

Generally speaking, traffic regulations are considered an advisory notification by most regular bikers to be obeyed or ignored as they see fit.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 11:48 AM

"And what percentage of bikers who are currently speeding would slow down once confronted with new signage?"

We can only hope, northsloperenter. It's certainly worth a shot before banning bikers from the upper level altogether and reconfiguring the lower level. I also think it's in the bikers' interests to slow down - In August, I saw a biker thrown over his handlebars onto the pavement after running into a tourist, blood gushing from his forehead, face, etc. The tourist was relatively unscathed.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 29, 2009 11:56 AM

"We can only hope, northsloperenter. "

Hope is for people who have planned badly.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 11:59 AM

I do like to go fast, including over the bridge. But I'll always slow down if conditions are too crowded, and I don't shout at people while zooming, because that's just unnecessary. I pick my spots to zoom. As CarrollGardened points out, the biker is at risk, too. I try to be considerate while still managing to get my speed thing on.

Posted by: East New York at September 29, 2009 12:06 PM

"I saw a biker thrown over his handlebars onto the pavement after running into a tourist, blood gushing from his forehead, face, etc."

I guess his helmet didn't protect him?

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 12:06 PM

As a daily bike commuter over the Brooklyn Bridge, I would gladly trade the worry and fear of collision with a pedestrian for a dedicated lane on the traffic deck of the bridge. Pedestrian congestion on the bridge is exacerbated by the sheer variety of pedestrians - you have your slow moving tourists who gobble up real estate in packs, your nutball photographers taking every cliched shot, your walking commuters, and even the occasional idiot jogger (don't they know that they're going to get stuck behind a slow moving tourist?) There is inevitable spillover into the bike lane, and anyone riding their bike over the bridge has to understand that there will be a few close calls.

On the other hand, as anyone who has ridden a bike through the city streets knows, it can be very dangerous to share the road with aggressive New York drivers. I think that we got our reputation as insane people because it takes a special breed to tangle with the traffic on NY streets.

Posted by: architect66 at September 29, 2009 12:07 PM

"I guess his helmet didn't protect him?"

By the time I walked by, he was sitting on the ground against the fence and wasn't wearing a helmet. Don't know if he was biking without one, lost it in the collision, or removed it afterwards.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 29, 2009 12:12 PM

CG - isnt there signage already for cyclists to stop?

I know some of the cylcists may be coming from wall street area and brklyn bridge is closer...but for others manhattan bridge is probably much faster, I wonder if they all are aware of it.

The walkway over the brk bridge has become an esplanade not a walkway to get from here to there and times of day and year is not at all practical to think they are going to fit on one side. Unfortunately some cyclists (and only some) think the one side is some sort of expressway. But that is probably just that cyclists personality - obnoxious , self-involved, rude...whether he/she is on bike, driving, walking or in a relationship.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 29, 2009 12:17 PM

Pete, there is signage already, but it's small and, I believe, only in English, which is why I thought large signs in a number of languages would help.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 29, 2009 12:20 PM

"signage reminding bikers to slow down there would also be welcome."

I dont think signage would work (all that well) -

there used to be a stop sign on the Brooklyn side (bike lane) for pedestrians to cross over to get to the stairs - I never ever ever saw a bicyclist stop once.

there used to be signage on the Manhattan side that told bikers to walk their bikes from Centre Street to the stairs (or vice versa) - I never ever saw a bicyclist walk there bike in that section, once.

It is simply an untenable situation and since in politics #s matter and their are far more pedestrians than bikers (even bikers are sometimes pedestrians) - when tragedy strikes, and it will, the bikers are going to get the blame, the restrictions and the hassle - so in a preemptive move they should push for a solution - otherwise they face total ban from the bridge, and potentially licensing and insurance requirements after that.

Posted by: fsrg at September 29, 2009 12:22 PM

I walk every day. Even with some annoying tourists, I still have one of best commutes in the country.

Posted by: jessibaby at September 29, 2009 12:26 PM

jessi, that's exactly how I feel!

Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 29, 2009 12:30 PM

"you have your slow moving tourists who gobble up real estate in packs, your nutball photographers taking every cliched shot, your walking commuters, and even the occasional idiot jogger"

You know, there are plenty of spacious suburbs in America...

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 12:38 PM

"More bikes, less cars. And cyclists (of which I am one), please do not speed and breakneck speed and PLEASE do not scream in a poor, unsuspecting tourist's ear when they unwittingly block the bike lane. I've seen it a million times and it's horribly rude and gives all cyclists a bad name.

Thank you."

Now get the f*ck off the road, you effin tourist, go the f*ck back to Ohio you fat asshat!

Biff, that's how we usually do it around here :-)

Posted by: denton at September 29, 2009 1:17 PM

"I guess his helmet didn't protect him?"

There seems to be this misunderstanding about helmet laws. Adults are not required to wear helmets in NY.

Posted by: denton at September 29, 2009 1:20 PM

I trained for the marathon by running over that bridge a few thousand times. Love that place.

Aside from the high speed stupidity of a pretty significant number of cyclists, why should a small number of cyclists get the same amount of space as 5-10 times more pedestrians? Yep, I have counted.

Close a road lane to cars. Give pedestrians and cycles both more space and let the cars wait. And in meantime, maybe the cyclists could slow the $%#$ down.

Posted by: Johnny at September 29, 2009 1:31 PM

and adults are not required to act like adults either(obviously).

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 29, 2009 1:31 PM

There is no misunderstanding.

People riding bikes over 15 mph over city streets and bridges have a view of reality that is so pollyanaish and so unrealistic I find it hard to take their suggestions seriously.

They clearly fail to appreciate the risks of their behavior to themselves, which means they almost certainly underestimate the risks they pose to others.

Admittedly, bicycle helmets are unbelievably unattractive.

Some manufacturer could make a small fortune designing bike helmets that don't make 40ish pot bellied urbanites look so silly.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 1:37 PM

I will repost what I said in the "Blog Wrap" from yesterday...

Also, the bridge is about a mile-and-a-half long. Biking vs. walking -- it's the difference between a crossing time of about 10 minute and a half hour!

So, let's get back to the purpose of the bridge for a second. We all seem to agree that *cars* have a place on the bridge, right!? Why? Because the bridge was BUILT to bring people and goods across the river.

Bicycles are a standard and necessary form of vehicular transportation. (Yes, necessary... try to fit another car on the bridge... and don't counter with "take the subway" because the folks in cars can do that too!)

So, what groups is the unintended group? Wandering tourists. Should they be banned from the bridge? Of course not, but they should understand that walking into a lane for VEHICULAR TRAFFIC is not acceptable. If someone wanders into the middle of the street... is the car/taxi/bus driver being "rude" when they honk at them (or even hit them)?!

It's not an us vs. them situation. You say the bridge is oh so crowded... yeah, it's pretty crowded, but not so crowded that folks can't stay on their own sides!!!

I will continue to use the bridge. I will *ride* my bike on the bridge. And I will continue to shout angrily and make all sorts of noises when pedestrians wander into the BICYCLE LANE. It's not an issue of being a "higher life form" -- it's a matter of courtesy and safety. Yes, the lack of courtesy on the part of the walkers!

(You can make all the comments you want about bicycles breaking other traffic laws... but that has NOTHING to do with this issue. This is just about the Brooklyn Bridge.)

And I will add... I am most definitely in support of creating a bike lane on the "car" deck of the Brooklyn Bridge. Just accepting cars and always looking for ways to accommodate MORE volume is very backward thinking. Bicycles, walking and public transportation is both far more sustainable and probably necessary in many many ways.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2009 1:41 PM

P.S. Oooops, forgot an important phrase here. Should have said 'without helmets'...

People riding bikes WITHOUT HELMETS over 15 mph over city streets and bridges have a view of reality that is so pollyanaish and so unrealistic I find it hard to take their suggestions seriously.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 1:41 PM

"If someone wanders into the middle of the street... is the car/taxi/bus driver being "rude" when they honk at them (or even hit them)?!"tybur6

If they hit them when they could have stopped, then it is more than rude - its a crime; if the reason they strayed onto the street was to legitimately avoid some obstruction, and you honked and yelled obscenities at them - then yes that is rude and if it was in a no honking zone it is also a code violation.

"It's not an us vs. them situation. You say the bridge is oh so crowded... yeah, it's pretty crowded, but not so crowded that folks can't stay on their own sides!!!" tybur6

Well I disagree and either way on the Brooklyn side, there is a point where their is no "side" since pedestrians have to cross the bike lane - do you stop or yield? Do other bicyclists?

Legitimate question - if it was determined that at certain times there were in fact too many pedestrians to fit in the designated walking lane, would you then take a more accommodating stance to pedestrians "wandering"?

Posted by: fsrg at September 29, 2009 1:52 PM

FSRQ --

#1) If a pedestrian wanders in front of you in the street, honking is not illegal because blowing a horn for emergencies is perfectly legal...

#2) If I'm driving my car at 25 mph and a person steps off the sidewalk in front of me... they are crushed. I'm not at fault. This tends to be the sort of situation on the Brooklyn Bridge. They just step into the bike lane all of a sudden.

#3) I do yield for the pedestrian exit, so perhaps I'm one of the few? But the fact is, pedestrians are ALSO supposed to yield... It's like any other place in traffic. Think of an on-ramp on the highway, the entering car is the *new* variable and they have to be conscious of the *existing* condition. There's a white line on pathway -- I am about to cross it to exit, maybe I should be conscious of the fact that there are *existing conditions* on the other side of the line. Also, I yield (slow) and stop if I must... but since the pedestrian is crossing the bike lane, there is a bit of a right-of-way thing there... no? I'm talking about a simple expectation for the pedestrians to have a modicum of awareness of their surroundings. Why is being on a bridge an excuse for that now to take place?

#4) To your legitimate question... so be it. If there are indeed too many pedestrians, then give us a bike lane on the lower deck!! (A PROTECTED bike lane with a separation that cannot be breached by traffic, like the orange poles in the battery tunnel separating the lanes... they can be driven over by emergency vehicles)

If you want to go on the upper, scenic deck... you can walk your bike. Reduce the car lanes (which would actually get to be a bit wider, which would be nice) and create a better system for merging and exiting. I am all for reducing the volume of automobile traffic going over the Brooklyn Bridge. (Especially if they ticket the cars heavily for honking when stuck in traffic -- that doesn't do anything to help.)

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2009 2:09 PM

so Tybur6, wouldn't it be easier to use the manhattan bridge and not deal with the congestion on brooklyn bridge?
even if couple blocks out of way.. less stressful and save time.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 29, 2009 2:25 PM

My two cents...the Brooklyn Bridge walkway is a hazard as long as the pedestrians have to share the walkway with bike traffic. There is no way to convince tourists not to dart suddenly or block the pathway trying to get photographs. To them, it's just an observation deck the same as on the Empire State Building or 30 Rock. Try convincing someone from Kansas who takes their car to the end of their drive to pick up the mail that people actually walk--or actually bike to get to work or home. It just doesn't occur to them. You can't convince happy families to NOT hold hands all the way across the pathway or push double-wide strollers either. To them it's a pleasure stroll on their vacation. The fact that they are impeding legitimate commuter traffic does not cross their minds. Mind you, they'd all lay on their horns big time if you were trying to take a picture in the middle of their way home at rush hour. But we can't help it that our way home is their once-in-a-lifetime vacation so it is best to deal with it. We are lucky our commute has such a breathtaking view. If you want to not be impeded, take the Manhattan Bridge--otherwise, get used to pedestrians in your way, whether you are a biker, jogger or fast walker. Even if they make a dedicated bike lane, what will they do about that crazy roller blade guy who seems to WANT to hit tourists and pedestrians? He is always skating at top speed and screaming at and shouldering everybody who is one inch into the bike (nowhere does it say rollerblade path, buddy) lane. I openly long for the day I see that guy have a major leg-breaking wipeout.

Posted by: Beau Guest at September 29, 2009 2:29 PM

Go over the manhattan bridge instead - better work out and no annoying peds to get in your way.

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 29, 2009 2:39 PM

There's no way the city is going to dedicate a part of the Brooklyn Bridge car tier to bikes-- it's a feeder for two major highways-- the BQE and the FDR! What I don't understand is why bikers insist on riding so fast on the bridge. If they biked at roughly the same speed of the walkers or joggers, the terror factor would be reduced considerably. They would even have ample time to stop if a wayward tourist stepped in their path!

Posted by: AlixF at September 29, 2009 2:42 PM

Pete - You are basically proposing a bicycle ban on the Brooklyn Bridge?! Either official or de facto (getting rid of the bike lane perhaps... or just not trying to make conditions better for all involved)

Bicycles and pedestrians should be accommodated! Not forced elsewhere. Biking and walking need to be made more attractive. Cars have their place, but taking away the incentives for cars is not a bad thing.... especially going into the city. Not necessarily suggesting tolls on the bridges, that sort of punishes folks that *need* to drive and this city can't seem to understand "peak" vs. "non-peak" driving (driving during off-peak hours should be incentivized)

Riding a bike across *any* of the bridges should be ENCOURAGED and IMPROVED. Traffic calming to take place so perhaps bike riders don't get into a mindset of aggression... just go to prospect park when it's open to cars. The car drivers are out to get you! And immediately you go from "happy cruise in the park" to "i wanna fuck you up and smash your windshield" But, the NYPD doesn't feel the need to slow cars down to below Indy 500 speeds... in the PARK.

I'm a little all over the place here. But there are a lot of contributing factors. Bikers are aggressive for many reasons and many of them are survival instincts engendered by the way traffic, in general, in handled/enforced in this city. There are terrible stop light sequences all over the city that basically *require* a driver to drive aggressively and very fast unless they want to stop at every single light... stuff like that.

I'm a share-the-road sort of chap, but that attitude is not shared by many. Anything to make biking in Brooklyn and anywhere else in this city better... I'm all for it.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2009 2:43 PM

"what will they do about that crazy roller blade guy who seems to WANT to hit tourists and pedestrians? He is always skating at top speed and screaming at and shouldering everybody who is one inch into the bike (nowhere does it say rollerblade path, buddy) lane"

Fortunately, I've never run into this guy, literally or figuratively. Now I'll know to be on the lookout. Thanks for the warning, Beau Gest.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at September 29, 2009 2:51 PM

Folks;

Late to the party, with just one slightly off-the-wall observation. It is a sign of Brooklyn (and NYC's) progress that we have this problem. Consider the following:

-at one time the BB had trolleys running on it (Tybur6?). They were torn up in the early 50's to make more room for cars.

-I can remember that it was not too long ago when you were considered nutso to walk on the BB, especially after dusk, due to the crime.

So, this is a "happy" challenge: more pedestrians and bikes!

Clearly something needs to be done. I ride my bike over there on ocassion, and I also feel like it's an accident that is waiting to happen. I agree with the proposal to set aside part of the roadway for bikes as a first step.

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2009 2:54 PM

Also... on the Manhattan side, the two bridges are almost a mile apart. So if you work in or visit the bottom bit of Manhattan, that's the closer bridge. PLUS, if you use the bike path on the West Side (which is grrrreat) you can come from anywhere in Manhattan. Going cross-town from the West Side highway up four block on Warren Street is MUCH more pleasant and SAFER than the 10 or 12 blocks on Canal Street (or similar) to get to the blue bridge.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2009 2:57 PM

Oh Man Benson!!! Bring Back the Brooklyn Bridge Trolley!! If it had a bike "car" like some trolleys in Europe and I would even be tempted to look for a job in Manhattan!! Yippeee! Down with cars, Up with Trolleys!

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2009 2:59 PM

Why shouldn't bicyclists simply walk their bikes over the bridge? If they want to move more quickly there is always the Manhattan Bridge. I am of the school that pedestrians always have the right of way. In this case, there is simply not enough room to accommodate bikes and pedestrians on the Brooklyn Bridge- so bicyclists should dismount. The bridge promenade is a great outdoor location to stroll and enjoy the view.

Tyburg- your analysis of the intended users of the bridge is way off. I have not researched this, but I would bet good money that the intended purpose of the upper deck was always to transport pedestrians. It is bikers who are more likely the unintended users.

Posted by: orestes at September 29, 2009 3:00 PM

I agree with tybur6. and a couple others.

1. Bridge is for commuters, not tourists; they should learn to be respectful of the place they're visiting. IF they don't show respect for this city and its inhabitants, why should we show them any? It's so dangerous to have to avoid some idiot stepping into the path of your bike - chances are the bicyclist will steer away from the chump and end up hurting themselves.

2. Traffic, according to new research and observation (as opposed to old assumptions), is safer when diverse modes of transportation are forced to mix, and when less external regulation like traffic lights is imposed, because people have to be alert, use their brains, and engage in their environment -- ie take responsibility for their actions. The results, at least in europe, where they've been replacing classic light-controlled intersections with open squares and roundabouts with no regulation or lanes, show staggering decreases in accidents. Turns out, people can regulate themselves way better when asked to use their own brains and eyes. GEt over yourself and cooperate. Not every traffic/pedestrian/bike problem can or should be solved by some DOT person running around with a paint roller. Sometimes we just have to TRY A LITTLE HARDER.

3. Seems to me that this "nightmare" is really just some dude's aversion to bad manners. This is NYC!!!!! What's next, the Statue of Liberty needs to be polished and cleaned of that ugly "green" gook?

4. Dirty Hipster, Manhattan bridge doesn't exit anywhere near Brooklyn bridge on the manhattan side. What are you talking about, take the other bridge? Yeah people can take Queensboro too, but it doesn't make actual SENSE.

Posted by: iz at September 29, 2009 3:02 PM

@CarrollGardens. You'll know him when you hear him! And certainly when you feel him. Mirrored sunglasses, biker shorts, crash helmet. I've been elbowed by him once and one time witnessed him come up behind an extremely startled female jogger and physically grab her by the shoulders, and push her over to the pedestrian side of the walkway. He clearly seems to relish the confrontation because he skates like he's trying to set some kind of record in spite of all the tourist traffic. He invariably leaves a bunch of people yelling at him in his wake--but he comes up on you so fast and is by you so fast that he never gets the beating he deserves. A real hit-and-run kind of guy. I just have to wonder what he's so angry about!

Posted by: Beau Guest at September 29, 2009 3:10 PM

The biggest factor for bicycle riders when it comes to staying safe is predictability. Cars on the Brooklyn Bridge road would be far safer because the tourists are completely unpredictable. You never know what they are going to do.

Cars are mostly predictable, 80-90% of the time, a cyclist knows what cars are going to do before they do it, leaving you to deal with other issues such parked cars opening doors, potholes, pedestrians etc.

As far as walking over the bridge with bikes, I invite rail commuters to get out of the train car, walk for a mile, and then get back in the train car on their way to work. Sounds like fun doesn't it?

Posted by: Kannerr at September 29, 2009 3:21 PM

orestes -- I was talking about the intended use of the BRIDGE, not the little upper deck thing.

As Benson pointed out, originally there was a trolley, one traffic lane in each direction for wagons, and lots of space for pedestrians walking and pushing their own wagons.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2009 3:43 PM

BIKE SPEED LIMIT ON BB OF 10MPH.

USE ONLY FOR TOURISM.

maybe we can solve the budget deficit with a few cops handing out tix to bikers...

there is not enough room for a physical barrier.

if you want to go fast go to the manhattan br. we will have to sacrifice bikers in downtown who will have an extra mile of pedalling pleasure.

brought to you by a brooklyn bridge biker (riding fast and angry and scared)

Posted by: antidope at September 29, 2009 3:45 PM

tybur6
"#1) If a pedestrian wanders in front of you in the street, honking is not illegal because blowing a horn for emergencies is perfectly legal...

#3) I do yield for the pedestrian exit, so perhaps I'm one of the few? But the fact is, pedestrians are ALSO supposed to yield..."

#1 - yes,but if you gratuitously blow it to somehow "punish" the pedestrian it is a violation - and frankly in many of the bike/ped confrontations, true the ped stepped "over the line" but the biker creates such a scene yelling, and screaming that it is beyond just "warning"

#2 No, if a pedestrian jumps out into the roadway, you have to try to avoid them or stop - if you dont and it can be determined that you could have then it is very likely that you will be found liable civilly and in extreme cases - criminally. Again many of the confrontations on the bridge appear to me to be closer to this scenario (ie. the walkway lane is packed with people, people are often stepping "over the line" to pass and otherwise walk, and ignoring these OBVIOUS hazzards, bikers are traveling at extremely high rates of speed. A pedestrian stepping "over the line" does not alleviate the bikers (or motorists) obligations for reasonableness and due care - and the judgement will be looked at in light most favorable to the most vulnerable (in this case - the pedestrian)

#3 No Pedestrian has right of way - only the biker is "supposed" to yield

Posted by: fsrg at September 29, 2009 4:47 PM

"(riding fast and angry and scared)"

yeah, I feel comfortable with you controlling 200+ pounds of flesh and metal speeding past me...

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 4:58 PM

Holy relevant news story Batman:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_skate_rage

STAMFORD, Conn. – A Connecticut in-line skater faces assault and other charges after a confrontation over whether a 4-year-old on a tricycle had the right to be on a bike path. Stamford police charged 43-year-old Chris Karamon with third-degree assault, risk of injury to a minor and other crimes.

Police said Karamon shouted and cursed at the boy's parents on the path in Cove Island Park. Police said he later skated into the boy's father, who was shielding his children, and threw a helmet and water bottle at him.

Police Lt. Sean Cooney said the path is for use by everyone, not just skaters.

Karamon declined to comment Tuesday morning.

___

Information from: The Advocate, http://www.stamfordadvocate.com

Posted by: fsrg at September 29, 2009 5:18 PM

A possible effective and relatively inexpensive solution would be to add a series of plastic posts at about waist height the length of the already existing painted line which separates the pedestrian and bike lanes. Set about a foot away from each other, these plastic posts would 'give' in the event a biker was forced into them, but would result in less serious injury than a more substantial barrier. It would not marginalize the space on either side. Surely the odd tourist would 'jump' the barrier to get their photo, but it would cut down on it significantly just by adding a clear division.

Besides the practical implication of the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges opening into two different parts of the city, the ride across the Brooklyn Bridge is like no other. Bikers should be allowed this right, just as pedestrians have it. And there can and should be a safer way for everyone to coexist.

Posted by: CobbleHill at September 29, 2009 5:55 PM

"And there can and should be a safer way for everyone to coexist."

How about -- bike speed limit 10 mph?

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 29, 2009 7:51 PM

BB path should be no bikes. they can take the MB path.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at September 29, 2009 8:29 PM

Driver here and there's really no space below for a bike lane. A dedicated lane for cyclist will get in the way of emergency vehicles and just screw up the matrix.

You people upstairs really need to find a happy medium and move on.

Posted by: jack slade at September 29, 2009 11:13 PM

there should be an enforced bike speed limit.

and another thing. cars should pay a toll.

we need to find a happy medium downstairs and move on.

Posted by: antidope at September 30, 2009 9:49 AM

Agreed speeding cyclist should get ticketed like cars.

Would you toll a car crossing the bridge and not toll a bike? that wouldnt be fair.

Posted by: jack slade at September 30, 2009 1:09 PM

This has already gone on too long, and some of what is said here below was said already and better above, but here's my three cents posted in a parallel dialogue on Streetsblog:

We may not like it, but Robert Sullivan is right about bikes and the Brooklyn Bridge. And the pro-bike lobby represented in Streetsblog and Transportation Alternatives needs to pay heed rather than cry foul. As urban biking has increased, so has anti-bike sentiment. The non-biking populace still outnumbers our cycling crowd by at least a hundred to one.

Pedestrians fearful of being clipped by bikers at crosswalks don’t stop and think how grateful they are that bikes aren’t SUVs. We bike riders may see ourselves as eco-friendly contributors to traffic decongestion, but to many pedestrians we are just pests. There is a reason why Bill Thompson concluded that Mayor Bloomberg’s blessing of bike lanes is a point of vulnerability for the incumbent, even in cycle-happy Williamsburg.

As Sullivan argues, the wonderful Brooklyn Bridge walkway is one of those places that is making a bad relationship worse.

A decade or less ago you could walk or bike across the bridge with something approaching a sense of restful solitude. That’s long gone, with more New Yorkers biking everywhere and every tourist guidebook urging a Bridge stroll (followed by the mandatory pizza at the former Patsy’s). On weekends the pedestrian side of the path can barely accommodate the foot traffic.

For almost two decades I’ve been a regular from-and-to-Brooklyn bike commuter. The Manhattan Bridge is now best for heading up the East Side, but for Wall Street or Tribeca or the Hudson the Brooklyn is still the only way to go. Yet after ten minutes on the bridge as a mere pedestrian I’m ready to sign a bike-banning petition.This is an architectural treasure, not a velodrome. Bikers still usually enjoy more personal space on the bridge than walkers, the pedestrians wandering blindly into bike lanes notwithstanding. Yet as a group we bikers can seem selfish and outright rude, thanks to snarling shouts at straying walkers from the off-to-the-races Lycra brigade. Bridge walkers are not all clueless tourists, either. There are plenty of ordinary Brooklynites and Manhattanites headed for work or errands while enjoying the views and fresh air. Not all path-clogging snapshot-takers are out-of-towners: listen to them talking, if you slow down enough to hear.

So Sullivan is correct: something has to give. Putting bikes on the roadways below with the cars may not be the best alternative, though.

Creating dedicated bike paths on the bridge roadways would reduce an already congested and narrow three-lane bridge crossing to just two, one of which each way is essentially an exit lane, to Cadman Plaza/Fulton Street and the FDR, respectively. The bike paths would have to go on the inside lanes, which makes bridge approaches and exits physically tricky, and probably prohibitively expensive. And they would still snarl inbound and outbound auto traffic, even if adopted as part of a bridge-toll congestion pricing plan.

Here are five alternative ideas, in roughly declining order of ambition:

* Retrofitting: Build new bike paths paralleling the wooden pedestrian walk on each side, some six feet above with light protective fencing, right over the roadway. Use as the undergirding the existing steel framework over the roadways. Horrified preservationists can be reminded that this would be just the latest transport-mode alteration of the iconic span, and with minor visual impact. Granted, this framework inconveniently ends before the bridge does, in both directions, but extensions could be cantilevered down to return to the inside walkway entrance and exit. Or, better, on the Manhattan side, create bike flyways from the new overhead bike lanes in and out of City Hall Park.
* Bike speed limits: Coasting down the bridge slopes unimpeded, a bike quickly reaches 15-20 mph, too fast at peak use times given the proximity of pedestrians. Add a little aggressive pedaling and downhill bike speed can exceed 25 mph, a speed that is dangerous to nearby walkers and slower-moving bikers alike. Screaming ‘on your left’ or ‘get off the bleeping bike path’ is not an acceptable civic compromise. How about a voluntarily observed 10mph cycling limit on the bridge, at least on weekends, perhaps with radar-gun signs signaling an approaching biker’s speed?
* The Coney Island precedent: The boardwalk at the beach is open to bikes from 5 am to 10 am only. That seems to work well, allowing reasonable access to recreational bikers but avoiding conflicts and congestion when pedestrian traffic gets too heavy for both. The Bridge path is quite different, as a weekday commuter route, but it could also be closed to bike traffic after 10 am on weekends when tourism and other bridge strolling triples the weekday pedestrian flow.
* The Manhattan Transfer: Biking the Manhattan Bridge instead would be more popular if there were a direct, protected east-west bike route between the bridge and the West Side. Build it now, with barriers and signposts and all, roughly a block south of Canal all the way to the Hudson River Greenway. And that includes a rethinking and rebuilding of the current bridge access and exit routes on the Manhattan side, which after the last series of improvements still require adept dodging of delivery vans, intercity buses, pedestrians and skateboarders.
* And finally, get those City Hall and Board of Ed cars with their spurious parking passes off the bike path in front of City Hall Park. The southbound bike lane directly across from the Brooklyn Bridge entrance should be one of New York's busiest, but has instead been a free linear parking lot for assorted municipal functionaries, forcing bikes out into fast traffic or onto the crowded sidewalk. Fixing this won't resolve biker-vs-walker tensions in the greater Bridge area, but it would keep a few more bikers off sidewalks, away from buses and out of emergency rooms.

Call it the Broken-Bikepath Theory of Transportation Mismanagement: You can hardly expect your average car-driving civilian to respect bike lanes

Posted by: Canonchet at September 30, 2009 7:16 PM

addendum:
Call it the Broken-Bikepath Theory of Transportation Mismanagement: You can hardly expect your average car-driving civilian to respect bike lanes as no-parking zones if this elemental rule is brazenly flouted by senior city officials in one of the most visible and critical marked bike lanes in the city. Nor can you expect the police to start ticketing parked cars for blocking bike lanes elsewhere if this rule is never enforced right in front of City Hall. Instead, the police also use the Centre Street bike lane for workday parking.

Posted by: Canonchet at September 30, 2009 7:23 PM

« Curb Cut-apalooza at The Minerva Walkabout with Montrose: A Crown Heights Tale »

September 29, 2009

Bikes and Bodies on the Brooklyn Bridge

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions