Bikes and Pedestrians in NYC parks

homeowner

This discussion was created from comments split from: Vision Zero picks up speed.

homeowner

Looks like the Vision Zero crackdown on bikers in the park has begun. Fox 5 was reporting this morning that police have been posted in the park and were physically stopping and slowing down speeding bikers. It doesn't seem as if anyone is getting ticketed, but that can't be far behind.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/18/cyclist-slams-into-pedestrian-in-central-park/

This is the 2nd pedestrian/biker fatality in the park in six weeks. I wonder if it's going to result in additional enforcement in Prospect Park as well.

pragmaticguy

And unlike autos you know this guy doesn't have liability insurance. Notice, no where in the article did it say that he even tried to slow down, he just took it on faith that she would move out of the way for him.

whynot_31

@homeowner -
Enforcement in Prospect Park has been sporatic at best. When I ride my bike on a few loops, I continue to see bikers not stop at lights to let peds cross.

....Peds with coolers, children and lawnchairs in tow.

I'm all for installing a rough surface before the cross walks, to slow the bikes down in the parks.

BTW, enforcement against cars is way up in the 77th and 78th. I am constantly seeing drivers pulled over on EP by the library and near Nostrand. They now have a cop with a radar gun regularly hanging out at EP and Washington.

southeast

They now have a cop with a radar gun regularly hanging out at EP and Washington.

Good to know...

newguy88

@homeowner Yes, two dead In six weeks. How many pedestrians have cars killed in those six weeks? Before six weeks ago last the bicycle caused pedestrian fatality was 2009. That article was, and as the Post always is, lacking in concrete facts and significantly biased. It's my understanding bikes are allowed in the car lanes in the parks just like in the street. Also anyone who has ever cycled knows you spend a lot of time yelling at jaywalkers to move. However, it does appear he was going way fast for the park.

@pragmaticguy Surly you don't think bikes should carry insurance? Also I really hope you don't take anything the Post publishes at face value! It's proven time and time again to be nothing more then a tabloid hiding behind the thinnest vail of journalism.

@whynot31 if we get rough patches for bikes. Will the park department also install barriers and railroad style gates to keep pedestrians out of the bike lane and from crossing against the light? I think not. Really the weekend warrior crowd needs to slow down and families with coolers need to cross at intersections and at least wait for bikes to roll by before blindly going into the bike lane.

For what its worth Transportation Alternatives has already published a statement condemning unsafe cycling. When was the last tIme AAA or any of the NIMBY crowed published a statement condemning unsafe driving after a car vs. pedestrian collision? The backlash against the bicycle spandex crowd is already quite serve within the cyclist community. Funny how car people, including on this site, engage in victim bashing but the cycling community doesn't. The Streetsblog article is well worth a read including many of the comments. http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/09/19/cyclist-strikes-woman-in-central-park-victim-on-life-support/

It actually appears that 77th is finally being to take the appearance of sorta taking dangerous drivers seriously. I wonder if its just the end of the month.

homeowner

@newguy88, I don't think that the fact that a bunch of people have been killed by cars provides any comfort to the loved ones of this woman or the the man killed last month. In all these cases, as in the cases of biker/driver or pedestrian/driver the focus should be on what actually happened, and not seek to ascribe fault to a class of people. The bottom line is that whether this was a case of a tourist being inattentive and in the wrong place, or a biker being reckless if we are going to pursue the public policy of slowing down traffic to make streets and roads safer, that applies to ALL roadway users not merely cars.

Vision Zero isn't zero vehicular deaths, but the two or three people that get killed by bikers are okay. Its supposed to be raising awareness of how each of us potentially contribute to unsafe road conditions and rasing awareness for everyone. And while you are correct that the Post seems to have a very particular point of view of bikes generally, the coverage by CBS and the Daily News is consistent with the only difference being that the Post is stating the woman is brain dead while the News is reporting that she is being kept alive on a ventilator.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/09/19/former-1010-wins-employee-remains-in-critical-condition-after-accident-with-cyclist-in-central-park/

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bicycle-rider-charged-central-park-collision-put-pedestrian-ventilator-article-1.1945604

I'd also note that while the cycling community may not victim bash, there isn't the immediate hubub and cry for charging the biker with a crime that comes with every vehicle/bike or vehicle/pedestrian fatality either. Guess when the police investigate and determine no criminal liability in these cases, its because they know what they're doing and aren't lazy.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/10/21/nypd-charges-0-7-percent-of-drivers-who-injure-and-kill-with-careless-driving/

pragmaticguy

@Newguy....First, why not carry insurnace? Not necessarily on the bike itself but what's called comprehensive personal liability. If this guy can afford a $3000 bike he can afford a $500 policy that would cover him for about $500,000.
Second....the AAA ALWAYS talks about unsafe driving. As a member I get their monthly mag and there's always something in it about texting or speeding so apparently you need to study up some more.

whynot_31

@newguy88 -

"@whynot31 if we get rough patches for bikes. Will the park department also install barriers and railroad style gates to keep pedestrians out of the bike lane and from crossing against the light? I think not. Really the weekend warrior crowd needs to slow down and families with coolers need to cross at intersections and at least wait for bikes to roll by before blindly going into the bike lane."

You are correct, they will not install gates for pedestrians. This is because when one looks at the rules posted on the Prospect Park website, one sees that pedestrians have the right of way.

http://www.prospectpark.org/visit/plan/safety

No where does it say that peds have to cross at intersections or wait for the light.

A lawyer for a pedestrian could easily argue that fact that this language is repeated so often and posted in red, that it trumps the rule that peds are even supposed to stay in their lane while using the loop.

Pedestrians have the right of way in Central Park too: http://www.centralparknyc.org/things-to-see-and-do/attractions/bicycling.html

Sorry.

newguy88

@Homeowner The cycling community is maintaining their call for careful and comprehensive investigation of the incident. Same as they always do granted they're beating the war drum less. Actually the NY DAILY news is pretty biased not as much as the Post but still. You're right the fact she was much more likely to get hit by a car is not much comfort to her family. To whom I'm sure all our thoughts and prayers are with. Had she been hit by a car this would not have received a 1/25th of the coverage it's getting and certinally wouldn't be followed by a crackdown on the safest group of road users.

@pargmaticguy That's wonderful that you know his financial situation and that he bought the bike new and for full MSRP! I have a road bike that costs under half what his would cost new. I bought it used and paid well under half of its MSRP. I know paying $500 for insurance would be a sizable chunk of my budget gone. Plus the chances of this happening again are pretty slim. So you can show me where the AAA after a driver has killed a pedestrian issued a statement condemning the driver as reckless and imploring everyone to be safe? I though they mostly issued statements against lowering the speed limit, red light cameras, speed cameras and traffic enforcement.

@whynot 31 nothing in the parks rules states they can cross against the light or anywhere they please. In fact had they stated that it would have contradicted both state and city law. They do however clearly state pedestrians and cyclists must use their own lanes. Sorry!

whynot_31

When a pedestrian is under no obligation to cross at an intersection (such as in a park), rules are not written Re: where one can cross. Such things are covered by the "pedestrians have the right of way" rule.

Remember, no one is arguing that bikes are as dangerous as cars. There is no need to defeat that argument.

You only need to defeat the lawyers and the police.

mugofmead111

I saw this story this morning on NY1: 

Patrons Say Cyclists Ignore Traffic Signals in Prospect Park

southeast

I wonder if it's going to result in additional enforcement in Prospect Park as well.

And here it comes - http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2014/10/closing-bell-cops-to-crack-down-on-speeding-cyclists-in-prospect-park/

southeast

"When cyclists stop at the signs, officers will remind them to stop for pedestrians at the signals and give out a flyer noting the 25-mile-per-hour speed limit."  

25mph on a bike is very fast, and for the ordinary person riding around the park, is quite difficult.  You may hit that speed going down the big hill, but even there, it's not easy.  I guess the really serious ones in "bicycle spandex crowd" can ride quicker than 25mph on a sustained basis around the park, but they are only a fraction of all the bikers in the park.

newguy88

Something for the anti-bike pro-death crowd to chew on.* http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/10/02/report-pedestrian-injuries-caused-by-cyclists-declining-in-nyc/

*Kidding, mostly.

mugofmead111

@newguy88, I wasn't aware of any pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists until that woman who had died of her injuries sustained in Central Park. However, I had heard of pedestrians being injured by cyclists. A former co-worker has sustained serious injuries that way.

newguy88

@mugofmead111 Until the two deaths in central park this year there wasn't a single pedestrian death due to bike untill back in 2009. Even injuries are exceedingly rare.  A pedestrian is still much more likely to be hit by a motorist and then much more likely to be severely injured or killed. 

whynot_31

@newguy88 -
Do you think number of pedestrians injured by bikes has gone down since 2011?

Then, about 500 pedestrians were injured by bikes a year to the degree that they had to be treated at a hospital.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/study-finds-higher-number-of-pedestrians-hurt-by-bikes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

newguy88

@whynot_31

According to the more recent study (2014 vs 2011) There was drop in cyclist vs. pedestrian collisions. Your study dates from 2011. Keep in mind most people hit by bicycles are treated as outpatients. 

whynot_31

Do you think that drop is due to safer behavior by bicyclists and/or pedestrians?

Maybe the number of uninsured people is growing, so they are not seeking treatment?

Are you defining bicycle injuries as being "rare" relative to ones involving motor vehicles? I hope not. That would seem silly relative to the miles traveled, the size of the vehicle, the numbers of such vehicles and their importance to the overall economy.

newguy88

@whynot_31

I'd attribute it to improved infrastructure and greater awareness of cyclists.

Actually my understanding is, thanks to the affordable healthcare act, less Americans are uninsured.

Yes they are realtively rare even if one ignores the comparison to cars which I hate apparently. When the statistics deem them rarer how is it silly to call a duck a duck? The Bicycle industry is a fast growing part of the economy. To discount it as otherwise is silly.

whynot_31

@Newguy88 -
I don't think the police are enforcing existing laws on bicycling because they discount the bicycle industry's role in the economy.

Rarely do I see members of the NYPD reading The Economist.

I think they are being told how to spend their shifts by their COs.

morralkan

I have no idea how many pedestrians are currently being struck by cyclists these days, at what speed, in what locations, or whether those injuries are minor, more serious, or very serious. Still, particularly when an older pedestrian is struck by a bike, the chances of that injury being serious, or even catastrophic to the injured person's way of life, are greatly increased. it is not a situation of being killed or simply sustaining a minor bruise. There is a LOT of space between those two extremes. Particularly in the case of the elderly, a broken hip may mean that the injured may never be self-sufficient again. 

Since it has been pointed out the the bicycle industry is a fast growing part of the economy and avid cyclists maintain that cycling should be considered a vital form of transportation in the city, it is perhaps incumbent upon cyclists to be required to obtain insurance, just as virtually every other form of transportation is required to have. Probably skateboarders also -- I've seen a lot of those engaging in very unsafe practices. After all, we don't accept drivers saying that they cannot afford insurance.

eastbloc

I doubt the social costs of damage caused by uninsured cyclists rise to the level where the social costs of requiring insurance would be justifiable.  And you don't surrender liability just because you don't have insurance.  

whynot_31

I agree.

In fact I hope that in the event I am ever hit by a bicyclist within a park, that the biker has no insurance and lots of assets.

I say this because insurance companies tend to have really good lawyers to avoid payouts, whereas individuals being sued are more likely to be represented by Lionel Hutz.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Hutz

mike dunlap

it is perhaps incumbent upon cyclists to be required to obtain insurance, just as virtually every other form of transportation is required to have. Probably skateboarders also

Hilarious.

When the level of death and destruction caused by cyclists gets even remotely close to the same universe as that caused by car drivers, let me know, and I'll completely support what is till then this complete idiocy.

whynot_31

In terms of injuries within NYC parks, it would not surprise me if bikers hit about the same number of peds as those hit by motor vehicles.

We should probably figure out a way to measure their impact on the overall park experience (discounting accidents) as well.

eastbloc

As a biker, I would be fine with "fast bike hours" in the park that would be not unlike off-leash dog hours.  There's no doubt that the Prospect Park loop is made more dangerous by the varying degrees of cycling intensity and disregard for the law.  

One of the most dangerous things that happens is that some cyclists stop when there are people in crosswalks while others continue.  The ones that stop indicate to crossing pedestrian traffic that it is OK to cross, and then they're hit by the ones who are trying to beat their next Strava record.

Frankly, I find loops of the park to be really monotonous and feel badly for anyone for whom that is their main way of enjoying cycling.

homeowner

I don't get the logic behind "I'll get insurance when cyclist cause as many deaths as drivers". Insurance has been a requirement of driving for a long time, well before the car became ubiquitous. If we are really moving to a more enlightened state where lower polluting transportation is the answer, why the hesitancy to protect the most vulnerable? Would the same argument be valid coming from a Smart car driver? How many Smart cars have ever killed someone? Fact is once the bike moves from primarily recreational use to primarily daily transportation and commercial use, insurance should not just be discussed by instituted. According to everything I read that's where we are now.

whynot_31

Well, presumably few people are commuting by doing laps in Prospect or Central Park.

Are you purposing that bikes are EITHER recreation or transportation at all times?

That seems too rigid. It seems like I would have to care why someone is riding their bike in the park.

eastbloc

Insurance doesn't protect anyone except the insured.  

Car insurance has only been mandatory in most places for several decades, and has only become mandatory because of the social burden of uninsured motorists.  It was not made to be required "to protect the most vulnerable" at all.  

There are countless behaviors that incur liability that do not require insurance.  The ones that do require it number very few for a reason.  Having a dog, or a swimming pool, or a trampoline, or even a gun does not require insurance.  You can easily stumble and push someone into the path of a subway car, or cause an automobile accident as a pedestrian.   Nonetheless, these do not require insurance.

It has nothing to do with whether it is "primarily daily transportation" or recreational, either.  You're required to have auto liability insurance for a recreational-use vehicle.  Your "fact" is an arbitrary distinction you've made up to support your argument.  Poorly.