Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
Anyone know if the people were O.K. today involved in the bike accident in the park around noon? It looked pretty bad with a lot of blood and ambulances. Makes you stop and remember that we need to share that park road with both experienced and less experienced bicyclists as well as walkers, people with strollers, children, joggers and roller bladers.
Brooklynian » Forum » Park Slope »
-
True. Hope everyone ends up without serious injury. I've never seen a bicyclist "share" the road with pedestrians in PPP, at least not at the crossings. One of my jobs requires me to drive almost daily for several hours all throughout the city (manhattan) and I see this constantly.
I'm all for bike lanes, but it would be nice if cyclists used them and obeyed traffic laws (don't get me started on drivers, especially cabbies.) When drivers or pedestrians don't they suffer consequences... death, tickets, accidents... As a motorcycle rider and former cyclist I take the responsibility for riding a vehicle that is no match for a car/truck/BUS!
Everyday, at almost EVERY red light I see peds. drivers, and cyclists putting themselves and others in danger, it seems that the bottom line is that whatever the mode of transportation, no one respects anyone else... and harbors a false sense of entitlement in respect to their personal space as it reflects on the roads or sidewalks they use.
I understand a cyclist turning laps in the park not wanting to stop for red lights, and I understand trucks, and cars needing to double park to load and unload in bike lanes, I equally understand the frustrations drivers and peds. have with cyclists (skate boarders etc...) disobeying laws, basically risking their lives against tons of steel because they feel they "share" the road.
My point is that we don't share the road.
-
My point is that we don't share the road.
Hence the need to ban automobiles in Prospect Park.
your anger is delicious. - dieter -
Just as an FYI: this accident was between two bicylysts and no cars were involved. This has nothing to do with cars and bikes. I was amazed how much injured this one person was.
I have been cut off numerous times by people squeezing in and I have been yelled at by the bike teams when I have had to swerve to miss a little one on a scooter (guess I should just run the kids over so I don't interrupt their training)
-
WTGirl said:
I have been cut off numerous times by people squeezing in and I have been yelled at by the bike teams when I have had to swerve to miss a little one on a scooter (guess I should just run the kids over so I don't interrupt their training)That's a pretty stupid comment. It isn't about an inconvenience, it's about safety. You swerving in to their path is obviously dangerous. It's good to be aware enough to avoid a collision in front of you, but your level of awareness and anticipation should extend to traffic trailing you, as well.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
hope everyone involved is ok.
I've been yelled at by cyclists more than I can remember when running in Prospect Park -- when I'm following the rules. It happens when they want to pass a slower cyclist and so swerve into the ped. lane and yell at me to move. It happens when I want to cross the street and they have a red light and they yell to get out of their way. I bike for recreation from time to time and the lack of respect for pedestrians is always insane.
I can completely imagine these same intitled cyclists expecting slower/newer cyclists to get out of their way no matter what as well.mostly unrelated story: On Friday night I was walking home in the rain on Franklin Avenue. A cyclist came up behind me on the sidewalk and I jumped out of the way. I said (nicely) that cyclists aren't supposed to be on the sidewalk and recently our neighborhood has had a lot of ticketing for cyclists, so just be aware. He told me "eff the po po" and then kept riding towards a group of people walking. He then turned around (while still biking towards the pedestrians on the sidewalk) to yell that his "daddy owns a dealership" whatever that means. My husband claims it's an Aqua Teen Hunger Force reference which certainly doesn't improve my view of this guy. The pedestrians in front of me had to step off of the sidewalk to get out of his way. Classy.
-
most cyclist are fine people except the jerk offs who don't have brakes.
I hope we get updated on these folks and everything is okay.
Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure). -
xlizellx said:
mostly unrelated story: On Friday night I was walking home in the rain on Franklin Avenue. A cyclist came up behind me on the sidewalk and I jumped out of the way. I said (nicely) that cyclists aren't supposed to be on the sidewalk and recently our neighborhood has had a lot of ticketing for cyclists, so just be aware. He told me "eff the po po" and then kept riding towards a group of people walking. He then turned around (while still biking towards the pedestrians on the sidewalk) to yell that his "daddy owns a dealership" whatever that means. My husband claims it's an Aqua Teen Hunger Force reference which certainly doesn't improve my view of this guy. The pedestrians in front of me had to step off of the sidewalk to get out of his way. Classy.Don't confuse a d-bag on a bike with a cyclist. If s/he's on the sidewalk, they're not cyclists.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
side walks are fine if nobody is on them :p, back in the day it was the only safe way to ride in brooklyn. the law against riding on sidewalks is very new. plus the further you get from downtown areas aka gentrifying areas, side walks aren't that crowded.
Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure). -
The Slope's sidewalks are already congested by strollers and granny carts. Adding in bikes could have deadly consequences.
your anger is delicious. - dieter -
I'm all for banning cars in the park, that eliminates 1/3 of the problem. After that we could focus on the cyclists that break the laws in the park as well as the peds.
-
That's a pretty stupid comment. It isn't about an inconvenience, it's about safety. You swerving in to their path is obviously dangerous. It's good to be aware enough to avoid a collision in front of you, but your level of awareness and anticipation should extend to traffic trailing you, as well.
Really? Stupid? Really.....so a public park that is for ALL kinds of people and ALL kinds of activities on a weekend should be reserved for the same group of guys training and yelling at us? Next time, I will run the 4 year old over.....because that was my option....swerve to miss the swerving 4 year old or else run the kid over or break hard and fly over my handle bars. Frankly....if I had the energy....now that Tupper is gone....I would fight to ban bike training during the busy weekend park hours. In fact your comment is kind of giving me the energy to take this on. Its the same attitude I find in the park when I want to take my young children biking. I have to worry about a small group of guys who think they own the road.
-
The problem is the guys behind her that are going too quickly and/or too close to someone else to avoid any slight swerving. I'd like to see one actually stop and yell their nasty words to someone's face, but they just say their bit and speed off.
Speed biking is dangerous. Everyone I know who races has had emergency surgery at least once as a result of a race collision among bikes. All of those I can think of at the moment have plates and screws holding parts of their faces together after such wrecks. To me, that's an activity that doesn't belong in a recreational city park. Sure, stay in shape with some laps but please be aware and courteous to other users, it's really easy. I say this as someone who regularly jogs or bikes the loop, and walks my dog in the park daily.
I hope whoever was hurt, recovers quickly.
-
WTGirl said:
Really? Stupid? Really.....so a public park that is for ALL kinds of people and ALL kinds of activities on a weekend should be reserved for the same group of guys training and yelling at us? Next time, I will run the 4 year old over.....because that was my option....swerve to miss the swerving 4 year old or else run the kid over or break hard and fly over my handle bars. Frankly....if I had the energy....now that Tupper is gone....I would fight to ban bike training during the busy weekend park hours. In fact your comment is kind of giving me the energy to take this on. Its the same attitude I find in the park when I want to take my young children biking. I have to worry about a small group of guys who think they own the road.Wow, talk about comprehension failure - take a deep breath and re-read. I said that your insinuation, that the cyclists yelled at you because they're being inconvenienced, is stupid. They're yelling because you're putting yourself and others in danger when you act erratically.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
I believe my friend was injured in this accident. She is now in the hospital and we are searching for details. If you saw this happen on Saturday, would you mind getting in touch? You can e-mail me at jeremybeiler@gmail.com. Thanks so much for any help, Jeremy
-
I wish the police would start enforcing the walkway down from the Museum to the Library. That is where the bicyclists are constantly a problem in my opinion.
That jerkoff on the sidewalk sounds like a real idiot. Sadly there are a lot of them around these days.
Getting a bike does not mean you need a license like you do with a car, so I think that eliminates some of the responsibility which is necessary. Part of the reason I find giving people tickets for riding on the sidewalk such a joke. I am one angry bicyclist about that. Gotta go to the courthouse in the middle of July, fun, to sort out the ticket thing.
It is an issue riding in the park. When you got a good groove going and then pedestrians come along, it is hard to stop.
Sorry about the accident. That sounds really ugly. I hope everyone involved is ok.
-
I think a big part of the problem in Prospect Park is that the rules are confusing.
The lane that has a stencil of a bike in it is only for bikes when there is traffic in the park. From 5- 7pm from Grand Army Plaza to Park Circle and from 7-9 am going the other way. Non holiday weekdays only. Confused? Me too.
Do bikes have to stop at red light when the road is closed to traffic? I asked a cop, he did not know.
Also it is had to tell where you can ride in the park. I see all sorts of cars and trucks riding all over the paths and sidewalks, I am never sure if I can ride there.
Don't get me started -
WhyFi said:
Wow, talk about comprehension failure - take a deep breath and re-read. I said that your insinuation, that the cyclists yelled at you because they're being inconvenienced, is stupid. They're yelling because you're putting yourself and others in danger when you act erratically.Swerving to avoid a kid on a scooter may be erratic behavior, but the danger is caused by the excessive speed of the cycle convoys. Swerving may cause a crash if there was a rollerblader or jogger, but the severity would be in a different league than an accident with the (generally) less-than-friendly cyclists that race the park.
-
The very slick roads at the time certainly didn't help. You're taking a chance when you ride in drizzle on any kind of bike without disc brakes. Does the NYPD or Parks Department create investigative write-ups on bicycle accidents, or just report that one happened and let the lawyers sort through the details?
"Clamato! Straight Up! No chasah! -
This brings to memory the rules they have in skiing, wherein it is the obligation of the skier to avoid the person in front of them, AS OPPOSED to the obligation of the person in front having an obligation to avoid being creamed by the person behind.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
8thandPrez said:
Swerving to avoid a kid on a scooter may be erratic behavior, but the danger is caused by the excessive speed of the cycle convoys. Swerving may cause a crash if there was a rollerblader or jogger, but the severity would be in a different league than an accident with the (generally) less-than-friendly cyclists that race the park.Sooooooo you'd defend someone that causes the accident, but condemn the non-liable party because of the severity? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.
As far as your sole condemnation of cyclists, I've been riding in park, toolin' along at 20 mph, only to have a train of inline skaters thunder past. A runner, similarly cut-off and collided with by an erratic swerve, is one 5-foot fall away from potential blunt force trauma to the noggin. Is your solution to have everyone travel at speeds under 10mph?
And the "less-than-friendly cyclists" notion - how do you know that they're less than friendly? Because (some) occasionally yell? Okay. Um, do you exercise? Imagine that you're exerting yourself, your heart rate at three times its normal pace, gobs of air rushing in and out of your lungs to keep up with the oxygen demands of your body. Do you think that you're going to talk at cool, measured pace and tone? If you see someone 10 yards ahead, meandering through lanes, and you want to alert them to your presence, what's your voice going to sound like? Is your inside voice going to cover that gap? Give me a break with this "they're such mean tyrants," crap. I challenge you to politely engage a cyclist that's stopped along the path - ask questions about their bike ("hey - that's cool, how much does it weigh?"), ask for a shop recommendation or ask for directions - I can guarantee you that you'll find a better nice guy-to-asshole ratio than you will in the general public (people that exercise regularly generally have a more positive outlook).
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
whynot_31 said:
This brings to memory the rules they have in skiing, wherein it is the obligation of the skier to avoid the person in front of them, AS OPPOSED to the obligation of the person in front having an obligation to avoid being creamed by the person behind.Doesn't the very nature of controlling speed in skiing dictate that you zig-zag in wide berths? Makes sense for the onus to be on the passer, in that scenario, but rules of traffic are more appropriate here - stay in your lane and safely negotiate merges/lane changes/turns.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
I always thought the skiing rule was written to protect the slowpoke (aka me) who must zigzag to maintain a speed they are comfortable with (i.e. 15 mph), FROM the skier who is able to fly down the hill at 50 mph without turning at all.
By charging the skilled skier with avoiding those in front of them, the ski slope (ahem, "park") can be enjoyed by everyone.
....of course, those who want to be around only talented skiers could pay top dollar to go to a challenging course where they can go at break neck speeds. For skiers, there is Utah. And for bikers who like to race, there are palindromes.... or even hours at prospect park that is not used as much.
At some point, the yelling guy(s) with the spandex are the jerks. I'd say it is when they are going 25 mph on a sunny, crowded Saturday afternoon.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
I always thought the skiing rule was written to protect the slowpoke (aka me) who must zigzag to maintain a speed they are comfortable with (i.e. 15 mph), FROM the skier who is able to fly down the hill at 50 mph without turning at all.Yes, this is what I was getting at. Zig-zagging is not necessary to control speed on a bike.
whynot_31 said:And for bikers who like to race, there are palindromes.... or even hours at prospect park that is not used as much.
1) They're not racing. When they're racing, they're going faster. When they're racing, the path is essentially closed and there are marshals.
2) track racing is a considerably different discipline than road racing.
3) yes, it makes a lot more sense to go on off hours, but not everyone has that schedule flexibility (especially when you're trying to get 4 or 5 people together)....not that there's anything wrong with that. -
Racing is relative term.
But suffice it to say, that I think you are not putting enough responsibility on the bikers who go fast.
I think you are putting too much of an obligation on the casual park users. For example, I do not feel it is everyone's obligation to stay out of their way or risk being hit, or even yelled at.
I suspect the minority of bikers that I describe does a disservice to their cause, and would not be surprised if park users convince the police to give them speeding tickets.
I see no reason why the park should not have a speed limit for bikes during peak hours.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
I think you are not putting enough responsibility on the bikers who go fast.I think you are putting too much of an obligation on the casual park users. For example, I do not feel it is everyone's obligation to stay out of their way or risk being hit, or even yelled at.
No, I'm saying that there's obligation in both directions.
During hours when automobiles aren't allowed, the outer two lanes are expressly dedicated towards faster moving traffic. People meandering in and through those lanes need to do so with caution to ensure their own safety.
Cyclists are under obligation to anticipate traffic flow in front of them and do their best to avoid it. In the above case, the bike rider that swerved to avoid a kid, the cyclists clearly upheld that obligation by virtue of not plowing into the swerver. The severity of the cyclists admonition is purely up to interpretation, which is why I provided context above - much like tone is difficult to read in online conversations, tone is also difficult to read when talk is loud and abrupt, due to exertion or adrenaline kick when the 'fight or flight' response is triggered by danger. ...or would you prefer no admonition at all?
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
they should really get rid of cars and make more lanes for everyone, there are more walkers, runners, roller bladers, bikers etc.. than cars. its really silly how they still allow cars in there.
typical of short shortsightedness of politicians. there is enough roads for cars to get through to the other area. I myself almost never even use the so called pass through lol. I took the other ways around it doesn't make too much difference. once i used it cause a friend insisted, wasn't much faster. Its not like the central park pass through which is a real one. this is more like a huge detour.
Fight white guilt and injustice by smoking tax free guilt free Reservation Smokes or go gamble in a Native Casino.
I like to stick it to The Man, The Man happens to be Liberal in NYC(power Structure). -
FYI, whynot - your editing is making it difficult to address points.
On that note, 'racing' is not a relative term. Differences in output during training and racing conditions are well known and documented every day by people with measuring instruments to do so. Training rides regularly include speeds of 20-25 mph whereas racing sprints top 40 mph. Bunch sprinting is HIGHLY discouraged outside of races or select group rides on (typically) country roads ('town sign' sprinting is common - wherein you pour in on before coming back in to city limits). In the thousands of miles that I have put in at PP, I have NEVER seen a group sprint and I very rarely see individuals working on sprint intervals.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
I rarely see park users who are not considerate of the fast bikers. In an attempt to avoid being hit and yelled at they look both ways, then scurry across the drive to avoid being hit or yelled at.
So, I think the pedestrians and slower bikers are presently doing their part, and a speed limit for bikers would be ideal. The limit would define what speed is reasonable given the variety of people using the park. It would basically define "racing" and "being a prick".
...the limit would be based on the day, time of day, and season.
The bikes that go fast inconvenience too many people at present, and a radar gun would allow racers to be objectively judged.
Until such a law is passed, I hope people start to refuse to move out of their way or at least yell back at them when they act like they own the park.
....when it comes to respecting pedestrians and slower bikers, some of the fast bikers act like livery drivers.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I wish the police would start enforcing the walkway down from the Museum to the Library. That is where the bicyclists are constantly a problem in my opinion.
Bicyclists take to the sidewalk on that stretch between the Museum and the Library because the auto traffic on that part of Eastern Parkway is absolutely terrifying. Both Eastern & Ocean Parkways are long overdue for a traffic-calming redesign.
-
Danny-
Eastern Parkway is presently being "calmed", CB8 approved it.Construction is happening over the next year or so.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Understandable. Still, they ought to dismount and walk their bikes.
"Clamato! Straight Up! No chasah! -
whynot_31 said:
I rarely see park users who are not considerate of the fast bikers. In an attempt to avoid being hit and yelled at they look both ways, then scurry across the drive to avoid being hit or yelled at.This is different from my experience. Yes, there are plenty, I'd go so far as to say a majority, of people that are aware but there are still several instances of obliviousness in a lap or two around the park.
whynot_31 said:
So, I think the pedestrians and slower bikers are presently doing their part, and a speed limit for bikers would be ideal. The limit would define what speed is reasonable given the variety of people using the park. It would basically define "racing" and "being a prick"....the limit would be based on the day, time of day, and season.
The bikes that go fast inconvenience too many people at present, and a radar gun would allow racers to be objectively judged.
And how would you feel about this in conjunction with ticketing slow moving and erratic park users occupying the lanes dedicated to faster moving traffic? You say that I am putting too much obligation on the shoulders of non-cyclists, I say that you are putting virtually none on them.
whynot_31 said:Until such a law is passed, I hope people start to refuse to move out of their way or at least yell back at them when they act like they own the park.
Let me get this straight - you would advocate that, should a park user put themselves in peril by occupying a lane of traffic dedicated to other, faster park users, they should stand their ground, daring someone to run in to them? On one hand, this is foolishness tantamount to a jaywalker stopping in the middle of the street and giving an automobile driver grief. On the other hand, this would probably be an improvement over the current left-or-right guessing game dance that typically takes place.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
Idlewild said:
Understandable. Still, they ought to dismount and walk their bikes.Agreed (or take a different route).
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
This is different from my experience. Yes, there are plenty, I'd go so far as to say a majority, of people that are aware but there are still several instances of obliviousness in a lap or two around the park.
I would still put the onus on the fast biker riders to politely avoid these people, or recommend that they bike slower so the slow people do not present as much of a "life or death" obstacle. I wish bikers could go as fast as they wanted, but -given the varying users of the park- I do not believe we can safely accommodate them.
And how would you feel about this in conjunction with ticketing slow moving and erratic park users occupying the lanes dedicated to faster moving traffic? You say that I am putting too much obligation on the shoulders of non-cyclists, I say that you are putting virtually none on them.
Because the majority of the people are slower than the bikers we have described, I don't see a need to put a rule on slowness. If a kid is out there on training wheels or mom is struggling to haul their kid around on the bike seat at 5 mph, I'm okay with this. I've tried to consider both points of view, but it continues to be the guy going 25 mph that thinks he should have the road to himself that causes the problem in my mind.
Let me get this straight - you would advocate that, should a park user put themselves in peril by occupying a lane of traffic dedicated to other, faster park users, they should stand their ground, daring someone to run in to them? On one hand, this is foolishness tantamount to a jaywalker stopping in the middle of the street and giving an automobile driver grief. On the other hand, this would probably be an improvement over the current left-or-right guessing game dance that typically takes place.
It is not clear to me that we have devoted lanes to bikers going the speed I describe.
Because no one has the inherent right to use the park as they please, I am ok with this being a situation in which the majority of users define what "too fast is", and when a group of park users are being inconsiderate of another, larger group of park users.
....rule making is needed when groups or individuals engage in actions that are not considerate to others. It's a natural way of establishing norms.
How fast do you think the limit should be on a summer Saturday between 9 AM and 6 PM?
P.S. Do we even know if a speeding biker was to blame on Saturday? This could be just a routine crash of casual users.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
And for bikers who like to race, there are palindromes.... or even hours at prospect park that is not used as much.
Palindromes are words (or numbers) that are the same backwards as they are forwards. Like Kayak. There is a song by They Might Be Giants (who I believe live in PS) called I Palidrome I. It's a good song.
Pelotons are packs of road cyclists. This does not always have to do with racing, though. You can ride in a peloton when just training.
But even those are not for all "bikers who like to race" --I'm a triathlete and pelotons are illegal in triathlons, so why would I want to train in on?
But I agree a lot of cyclists need to learn to share the park. As do most people who go there. I'm shocked by the number of people who walk across the road without looking in either direction. I see this when I'm walking in the park, running in the park, or cycling in the park and it does not seem to be one "type" of person, it seems many people are just randomly not paying attention, or on cellphones wandering aimlessly.
I hope the cyclists in the accident mentioned above are ok!
-
Related note.
2 weeks(ish) ago I was running in the park, in the "running" lane. I came to the stoplight on the PPW side of the park. Stopped, crossed the road and got some water at the fountain.
A guy on a bike pulled up, got off his bike and undid his water bottle and waited for me (this took like, 3 seconds).
A cop SUV was driving along, about 15 mph (guesstimate). Light was red for traffic. I jogged back out (looking BOTH ways) to cross the road back to the run path, to continue my run.
The cop SUV did NOT stop at the red light, until it rolled through the light and almost hit me (I had to jump back). I stood there in front, and yelled "What the fuck, it's a red light!?!" And threw up my arms in disgust, staring them down.
The cop squack'd his siren (the sound one, not light one) at me!!!!!!! Then it proceeded to amble along (clearly not going anywhere in a hurry) forcing me out of the way, lest I be run over.
The bike guy and I just stared at each other in disbelief.
What the fuck was up with that?
-
so noted:
whynot » And for bikers who like to race unimpeded by clueless pedestrians and slower bikers, there are velodromes.... or even hours at prospect park that is not used as much.
yes, if speed was a factor in this accident I hope the bikers will slow down for their own safety as well as others.
...no one should be going so fast that accidents are likely.
Such voluntary actions also may prevent the imposition of speed limits and other restrictions on bikers who are not considerate of others.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
@ KosherDave-As futile as it may be, I'd still report the fucker after remembering his squad car number. Maybe even send a certified letter.
Playing NTSB armchair investigator, I'm guessing speed and a slick road are the factors. Especially if it happened on the downward hill past the 15th Street exit. When I see bicycle accidents, it's usually on that hill. Either the lead biker lost control or swerved and the side or rear biker was tailgating and didn't have time to stop. Or, the first biker could have spun out and by the time the second biker saw him, especially in the vision depleting drizzle, it was too late.
If I may pipe dream for a moment: I believe what the city needs to do is build a Prospect Park sized bicycle park. Have the inner ring dedicated to the road & cyclo-cross. The outer to the casual/leisure folks. Then build some artificial hills-the whole amateur, novice and pro thing for mountain bikes. There's certainly plenty of room by Gateway Recreational/Jamaica Bay, and the huge empty lot by Smith Street & Liquer (sp?). Actually, with the exception of Manhattan, they can probably achieve this in all of the boroughs. Very little maintenance would be needed and the city would certainly make money from the sales tax associated with goods and services related to the sport.
"Clamato! Straight Up! No chasah! -
I guess that I was operating under the false pretense that the established rules governing the traffic lane usage were acknowledged and understood. I see know that I was likely wrong, but this may be a good place to start.
When Park Drives are closed to motor vehicle traffic:
• The recreation lane is reserved for walkers and runners only.
• Cyclists and skaters stay on the main roadway and out of the recreation lane.
• Cyclists and skaters travel in a counter-clockwise direction on the roadway at all times.
• Skaters and slower cyclists should stay in the middle lane while faster cyclists use the outside (right) lane.
• Always remain alert for motor vehicles, even when the Drive is closed.
• Official Park vehicles use the Drive at all times
With the above in mind, I don't see how the park fails to accommodate all users, kid on training wheels included, when these rules are adhered to and without placing some arbitrary speed limit....not that there's anything wrong with that. -
I agree, those rules are not observed, and would welcome formal or informal enforcement of them.
However, I continue to see the need for a bike speed limit even if all of the above rules were followed. The limit would not have to be arbitrary.
There's just too many people for bikes to believe they can go as fast as they want, and not expect to cause a hazardous condition.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Do you mean that there's just too many people not following the rules for bikes to believe they can go as fast as they want, and not expect to cause a hazardous condition? If so, I agree. Otherwise, you seem to be suggesting that one groups failure to adhere to the rules should be allowed to negatively impact another groups enjoyment of the park and I can't agree with that.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
Do you mean that there's just too many people not following the rules for bikes to believe they can go as fast as they want, and not expect to cause a hazardous condition? If so, I agree.
excellent.
Otherwise, you seem to be suggesting that one groups failure to adhere to the rules should be allowed to negatively impact another groups enjoyment of the park and I can't agree with that.
The rule breakers are composed of far more than one group. There are bikers, skaters, strollers, joggers, roller bladers, dog walkers, etc. that all break the rules.
Until we can change all of their habits, I believe we may have to restrict the ability of bikers to go as fast as they want. The method presently used by fast bikers (mostly yelling) with no decrease in speed in not acceptable.
I wish that we could provide bikers a park in which they were free from the interference from people walking aimlessly about.
...but I also believe that is the public would like a space in which it does not have to be 100% alert at all times in order to avoid a speeding biker, it should be able to have this.
I also wish we could give bikers the private park they so deserve, but I fear we can not.
...alas, given the current state of rule abiding by the general public, we may have no ability to allow bikers going over 25 mph during peak hours.
I wished I lived in a place where I was not as interdependent. Ayn Rand describes such places as lovely.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
excellent.Yes, and as I have already noted, cyclists have already made this concession by strongly discouraging sprinting in such places as the park. It's quite a concession to stay under 30 when 45+ is achievable (even for a fatass like me) on the parkway. You're welcome.
whynot_31 said:
The rule breakers are composed of far more than one group. There are bikers, skaters, strollers, joggers, roller bladers, dog walkers, etc. that all break the rules.Until we can change all of their habits, I believe we may have to restrict the ability of bikers to go as fast as they want. The method presently used by fast bikers (mostly yelling) with no decrease in speed in not acceptable.
Yet you haven't provided sufficient (or any, really) reason why cyclists should be the only group imposed upon (relative to the current rules) when it is primarily the infractions of others that put them on a (literal) collision course. Why is seeking adherence to existing rules an unacceptable place to start?
Further, I would disagree with the notion that all cyclists yell and none decrease speed. Additionally, proof is in the pudding - if you can show me statistics that reinforce your notion that measures taken by cyclists are not acceptable, and result in too frequent bodily harm, which they are responsible for, I might be willing to rethink my stance. It seems, though, that your argument is based upon an unsafe feeling.
whynot_31 said:
...but I also believe that is the public would like a space in which it does not have to be 100% alert at all times in order to avoid a speeding biker, it should be able to have this.No one is asking for 100% alert at all times, just 100% awareness when entering a lane designated for fast moving users of the parkway (it's also worth pointing out that those two lanes are the ONLY bit of park available to cyclists and skaters, while every other inch is available to walkers/runners).
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
One's feelings are often based on logic.
I concede that the world is an unfair place, and merely point out that the comfort and safety of all would be increased if "reasonable restrictions" were placed on cyclists with regard to maximum speed.
I have yet to read that we have designated a lane for "fast moving users of the parkway".
If we have, then -you are correct- the onus would be on other users to get out of the way.
In light of the fact the road is used by a variety of park goers, (some of whom need to cross the lane), don't you feel some kind of definition of what constitutes and acceptable degree of "fast" is reasonable?
....this would not be the first time in history that one group had to be considerate of another.
Although Ayn Rand's vision of creating a society in which our actions affected no one else is lovely, I do not believe it has been achieved on the roads of Prospect Park.
....hence, it is important to understand the difference between rights (they are inalienable), and privileges.
I suspect that a democratic process would place a further restrictions on the allowable speeds of bicyclists ....with (or without) the studies you so desire.
Shouldn't the definition of what speed is "reasonable" be subject to the input of more than the individual?
Are you opposed to a democratic process of allocating privileges?
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
whynot_31 said:
I am incapable of feeling, but excel at logic.Um, I'm going to leave this one alone.
whynot_31 said:I concede that the world in an unfair place, and merely point out that the comfort and safety of all would be increased if reasonable restrictions were placed on cyclists with regard to maximum speed.
whynot_31 said:In light of the fact the road is used by a variety of park goers, (some of whom need to cross the lane), don't you feel some kind of speed restriction is reasonable?
Don't you feel that we should strive to see if the more fair for everyone (ie, current) rules are sufficient before placing further restrictions on a single group? I do. If you don't think that enforcement of the current policy is worth the effort, what's your logic behind adopting a *new* policy that would then have to be enforced? If you're going to enforce, enforce now.
I feel that there already *is* a self-imposed, reasonable speed restriction, as I have mentioned twice. Working in a paceline is a very different thing than working a lead-out and sprint in excess of 45 mph on a flat stretch. For those that need to cross, there are several crosswalks and cyclists and skaters are required to stop and let them cross when they have the signal.
whynot_31 said:I have yet to read that we have designated a lane for "fast moving users of the parkway". If we have, then -you are correct- the onus would be on other users to get out of the way.
Something other than what I posted previously?
Prospect Park Rules » • Skaters and slower cyclists should stay in the middle lane while faster cyclists use the outside (right) lane.
whynot_31 said:....this would not be the first time in history that one group had to be considerate of another.
There's a difference between being considerate of another group and making further concessions to another group because that group can't be bothered to be adequately considerate to you in the first place.
whynot_31 said:Although Ayn Rand's vision of creating a society in which our actions affected no one else is lovely, I do not believe it has been achieved on the roads of Prospect Park.
If there has been any failing of this sort, it is likely because there haven't been adequate attempts to educate users of the parkway rules. Until that effort has been made, it seems silly to me to devote more resources to the park, such as officers with radar guns, when they could be better utilized elsewhere (do you think that there's already enough police coverage elsewhere in the precinct?)
whynot_31 said:...hence, it is important to understand the difference between rights (they are inalienable), and privileges.
Blather that's neither here nor there.
whynot_31 said:I suspect that a democratic process would place a further restrictions on the allowable speeds of bicyclists ....with or without the studies you so desire.
Shouldn't the definition of what speed is "reasonable" be subject to the input of more than the individual?
Sure, if the current model doesn't work, but there hasn't been adequate evidence provided to show that the current model doesn't work other than a few individuals expressing unease because they've been loudly talked at.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
WhyFi cyclists, skateboarders, rollerbladers and bicyclists don't stop at crossings when peds. have the right of way, neither in PP or anywhere else in the city.
Just as pedestrians scuttle across insanely busy avenues in front of speeding cabs as well as my work vehicle. I see this at nearly EVERY intersection I stop at. I make have of my living driving in manhattan, I see this all day almost everyday.
-
Dismissing the difference between rights and privileges as blather makes me believe that you do not perceive the issue the same way as the majority.
We live in a society which strives to allocate privileges fairly based on a democratic process.
I have yet to be convinced that limits would not be imposed if the issue was decided upon.
A rule could simply sanction the current level of scorn that irresponsible bikers presently receive.
The present scorn seems ineffective.
On the radar gun front, I believe the revenue collected from cyclists would fund the program nicely. similar enforcement would be applied to peds who placed bikers in danger.
I'm quite reasonable.
I'm just giving the majority what it desires in terms of it wants the park to be used.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Isn't the speed limit in the park 30mph?
Let's enforce that, especially when peds and kids are present.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
WhyFi said:
Yet you haven't provided sufficient (or any, really) reason why cyclists should be the only group imposed upon (relative to the current rules) when it is primarily the infractions of others that put them on a (literal) collision course. Why is seeking adherence to existing rules an unacceptable place to start?Wait, weren't you someone who thought that the police should crack down on cars for ticketing instead of bikes because of how much more "deadly" they are. Isn't this the same principle? The bikes will cause more damage the faster they go. Bikes will cause more damage than pedestrians/slow bikes/bladers/etc. So shouldn't they be upheld to a higher standard of following safety rules to keep everyone safe?
I rode my bike around the park for the third time ever today. I run it 3-4 times per week. It was a different perspective, and sure, people walked in front of me and I had to slow down or people tried to pass me -- but I was inconvenienced by fast bikes trying to weave in and out to get to where they needed to go. It seems very unsafe.
Also -- I agree with Whynot that you should be responsible for people/bikes/etc. in front of you and just be aware of everything else around you. If I am driving a car and slam on my brakes to avoid something in front of me and you rear-end me -- YOU are responsible for hurting my car even though it was caused by me stopping suddenly to avoid a problem in front of me. Leave room between yourselves and it's less likely to be an issue.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!