PPW Bike Lane Kerfuffle: Volume MCDVI (Apx)
There’s a feature about the city’s bike wars in the latest New York mag entitled “Not Quite Copenhagen,” and the Prospect Park West imbroglio plays a very prominent role. What’s learned? Bike-lane foe Louise Hainline has “an expensive spy camera” to document the bike lane traffic because she’s intent on debunking city stats about how…
There’s a feature about the city’s bike wars in the latest New York mag entitled “Not Quite Copenhagen,” and the Prospect Park West imbroglio plays a very prominent role. What’s learned? Bike-lane foe Louise Hainline has “an expensive spy camera” to document the bike lane traffic because she’s intent on debunking city stats about how much usage it gets and says the characterization of her and others who oppose the lane—”that we’re a bunch of old, crotchety rich people that don’t understand that they deserve to have a bike lane on our street”—is incorrect. Then there’s Aaron Naparstek, creator of Streetsblog and co-founder of Park Slope Neighbors, who says this about the firm working pro bono on the suit against the lane: “It’s crazy. Gibson Dunn is the law firm that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Now they’re working to get rid of a bike lane. Think about that.” Meanwhile, former transportation commissioner Iris Weinshall’s support opposition to the lane is also called questioned: “‘Clearly, if the lawsuit was to succeed, [Weinshall] could say, ‘See, I was reasonable after all,’ says Andrew Vesselinovitch, who served as the New York City ‘bike czar’ under Weinshall before leaving the DOT in protest in 2006. To Weinshall’s critics, she is waging a personal vendetta” against current commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Following the publication of the article, the city defended its bike lane program and said the majority of New Yorkers support the lanes.
Not Quite Copenhagen [NY Mag]
Zinka, I am with BSD. It’s one thing to question the motivation of the law firm in the sense that representing well-heeled Park Slope families is not the usual purpose for pro bono work.
It’s rather different and not very useful just to go with the “Gibson Dunn represented Bush in Bush v. Gore so they must be evil” as implied by the quote in the article.
(Anyway, I think that the Bush v. Gore stuff might have been paid work actually. Gibson Dunn historically has represented the Republican Party in various instances.)
Etson — I don’t see how the DOT is trying to curtail the right to drive here.
Also, Brooklyn Heights also has bike lanes. Are you saying there should be more for parity?
I dunno, BSD, I think it’s pretty reasonable to question the motivation of the high-powered law firm that is representing these politically connected plaintiffs pro bono in their lawsuit against their neighbors and against the long process of civic engagement that led to this street safety improvement.
I’m for the lane, but we really don’t need people like Aaron Naparstek making those mind-boggling idiotic comments.
etson — also, Traffic Lights are another example of Positive Liberty. Do you consider the stop light at a busy intersection an infringement on your individual freedom?! Or does this actually make driving safer and actually make you *more* free to drive a car?
by the way etson… who are you referring to when you say, “the more it may make them less likely to interfere in Park Slope in other ways in future.” ?!?!
The PPW bike lane was a COMMUNITY initiative. The community asked for it. There was no big brother, paternalism here.
etson — You should really brush up on your conception of liberty. There are two basic types of liberty Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty (Cf. Isaiah Berlin).
Negative Liberty is “freedom from…” — In this case it is the liberty you’re talking about. These goddamn bike people trying to take away my goddamn car!
Positive Liberty is the liberty of society… specifically the liberty of a republic, such as the one we live in. This is the “liberty for…” — This is the creation of a “space” in order to have freedom to do something. THIS is the bike lane. This is an expression of Positive Liberty. Without the bike lane, you are not allowing ME my liberty.
Simple example… You are free to have as many quarters as you want! I can never say you can’t have quarters. (BUT there are no quarters!)
Compare… You are free to ride you bike everywhere you want! (BUT the streets are high speed death zones filled with drivers that have no interest in your safety and resent your existence.)
Can you imagine, people fighting over a bike lane.
why dont we just blow up the world and end all our problems
A nice blog post on Hainline:
http://brooklynspoke.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/physician-heal-thyself/
And etson, there is no “right” to drive in NYC. There is also not enough room for everyone to drive. What could be wrong with making every mode of transportation as safe and convenient as it can be, relative to the equal needs of other modes of transportation?
What’s discourteous is sitting out the five-year-long public engagement process, and then suing your neighbors, claiming none of it ever happened.