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…
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
When it’s too crowded i just swim across the river.
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.