Lawsuit to remove the PPW bike lane

Despite the venom reserved here for double parkers, I would like to point out that sometimes it is a necessary evil. When delivery trucks, impatient hospital visitors, ambulettes, etc. go crazy honking when you are double parked for 20 seconds, they don't realize that for many of us, these heavily trafficked blocks are where we live, and sometimes you just have to stop to let out or pick up children or unload groceries. It's just a fact of life in New York City. Try to take deep breaths for 10 seconds and realize that temporary double parkers are not necessarily being pains in the ass for the sake of it; it's just that rather than circle for 45 minutes until a spot opens up on your block, sometimes it makes more sense to double park to pack up a car or vice versa. Then you can be on your way.

Um, I think in addition to automobiles coming into play, we've had some population growth since the city was first designed.

Historical populations

YearPop. %±

16984,937—

17125,84018.3%

17237,24824.1%

173710,66447.1%

174611,7179.9%

175613,04611.3%

177121,86367.6%

179033,13151.5%

180060,51582.7%

181096,37359.3%

1820123,70628.4%

1830202,58963.8%

1840312,71054.4%

1850515,54764.9%

1860813,66957.8%

1870942,29215.8%

18801,206,29928.0%

18901,515,30125.6%

19003,437,202126.8%

19104,766,88338.7%

19205,620,04817.9%

19306,930,44623.3%

19407,454,9957.6%

19507,891,9575.9%

19607,781,984?1.4%

19707,894,8621.5%

19807,071,639?10.4%

19907,322,5643.5%

20008,008,2889.4%

2009*8,391,8814.8%

Being that population growth is going to continue and our city is of a fixed size, maybe we need to adapt our transportation systems to the changes. (?!)

Because they use a disproportionate amount of resources, let's start with allocating fewer resources for private cars, and more to other resources. ....buses, bikes, pedestrians, subways, etc

Source of figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City

WhyFi said:

Eh, my response to the same suggestion in another thread -

It's been what I've been trying to say through the whole frigging 7 pages of this thread.

Idlewild said:

It's been what I've been trying to say through the whole frigging 7 pages of this thread.

Yeah, I know. Anyway, every layout makes a compromise.

I've been waiting for someone to say the DOT has turned into an agency that is anti-car.

...in response, I was going to post this link to DOT's website.

http://thedailypothole.tumblr.com/post/3766383666/tools-of-the-trade-ever-wonder-what-it-is-that

Now, what am going to do with my time and this link?

As a way to defend themselves against being "now anti-car", perhaps DOT could point out that they are just as bad at filling potholes as under the prior director?

Would this make car owners believe that they getting the same respect as they did before?

or, do New Yorkers (car owners, bikers, old people, pedestrians, etc) love to complain, regardless of the merit of the complaint?

I, myself, like to complain about how much we complain. I always have something to do as a result.

I can't believe I have managed to go this long without getting nailed by some biker?

I was going to say, please be careful when you hitchhike on the Prospect Park Loop looking for a "ride" from a Spandexer or one of those baggy parachute pants, wearing mountain-bikers. They'll not only nail you, they'll leave you for dead on the two-way PPW bike path.

whyfi-

you mean some bikers look so hot in spandex or parachute pants that they will change your sexual orientation?

huh.

whynot_31 said:

whyfi-

you mean some bikers look so hot in spandex or parachute pants that they will change your sexual orientation?

huh.

some people don't like the way it looks and they are used to getting their way.

BKChickie said:

Maybe someone can explain the controversy over this bike lane to me, because I just don't get it. Yes, traffic is slower, but not horribly so. There's still parking, and there's a little verge of pavement between bikers and cars. There's no verge on the passenger side, but there would be none normally. It seems like it's a safely improvement for everyone. What am I missing?

A small, wealthy, privileged, well-connected group doesn't want their lifestyle (minus two parking spaces per block, the ability to drive 40+ mph through residential neighborhoods, all asphalt to be BLACK NOT GREEN) threatened or changed in any way.

Regardless of how privileged and unique their lifestyles is, and worse, regardless of safety to the public.

BKChickie said:

Maybe someone can explain the controversy over this bike lane to me, because I just don't get it. Yes, traffic is slower, but not horribly so.

Actually, slower traffic was one of the intended results of putting in a bike lane. Studies show that slower traffic means fewer deaths. So the one minor drawback you see, isn't even a drawback at all. I'd say the reason you don't see what's wrong with the lane is because you obviously possess common sense. Like this person:

krnie said:

I don't even own a bike and I love the PPW bike lane. Crossing PPW doesn't feel nearly as much like cheating death as it used to.

WhyFi said:

Since there are a lot of eyes on this thread, I thought that it would be a good idea to post some cycling-related info.

NYC - City Council Bill to Stop Red Light Blitz in Central Park

Council Members Rodriguez and Gentile are planning to introduce a bill that would mandate traffic signals in parks be flashing yellow, when the park drives are closed to vehicular traffic. In January and February Central Park Precinct has issued 230 tickets to cyclists going through red lights when the park was closed to vehicular traffic. The fine is $270. This bill needs additional sponsors to pass. The bill will be introduced next week. Contacting your now local Council Member is important.

This link on the NYCC's Message Board has all the relevant information.

http://www.nycc.org/message-board/action-alert-we-helped-make-happen-flashing-yellow-bill-city-council-lets-get-it-passe

Good, that ticketing blitz was beyond pointless, and at the community meeting the precinct commander, Captain Philip Wishnia, basically couldn't even defend it.

From Streetsblog:

* Wishnia said that 230 summonses have been issued to cyclists so far this year, compared to 160 speeding summonses issued to drivers all of last year and 62 the prior year. Wishnia maintained the summonses given to cyclists are “not a lot” and that it “doesn’t amount to zero tolerance enforcement.”

* “We cyclists don’t understand how routine speeding by motorists in the park is condoned and even encouraged in this way, but you can’t allow a cyclist to ride through a red light in a deserted intersection in the park,” said Vaccaro. “How can an officer have the discretion to ignore one, but not the other?”

* Wishnia responded: “My officers have discretion. Not everyone who went through a light got a summons.” But when a cyclist asked under what circumstances he could go through a red light without getting a ticket, Wishnia replied, “I won’t tell you what your window of opportunity is.”

* One audience member presented his calculation that a park visitor has an infinitesimal chance of being struck by a cyclist (35 million park visitors in 2010 vs. 43 incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, an unknown number of which were not the cyclist’s fault). When Wishnia was pressed by this and other questioners on his evidence for a problem warranting the current crackdown, he declared, “Even one injury is too many.”

* Stephen Bauman of the Five Borough Bicycle Club made a detailed legal argument that cyclists are not subject to Vehicle and Traffic Laws during non-car hours. “I think you’re making up the law,” Bauman said. “VTL does not apply directly to bicycles, and only to roadways ‘ordinarily used for vehicular travel.’”

* Wishnia claimed that the crashes involving bikes typically happen when the cars aren’t in the park. “I can guarantee you that if you ban cars in the park, there will be more crashes.”

* More from Wishnia: “When you’re leaned over your racing handlebars, you’re not looking out for pedestrians.”

* Wishnia refused to address a question about why officers don’t try to keep joggers out of the bike lane. “Right now we’re talking about cyclists, not runners. There are lots of other things we could talk of.”

* An 8-year-old girl asked Wishia: “If cyclists are being killed all the time, why are they being punished?”

* “I believe in this little yellow light idea that would give cyclists the right to use the park,” said Stringer. “I sent a letter to DOT. If we (i.e. cyclists) respect the yellow light, we shouldn’t be hitting cyclists with $270 tickets.”

* Wishnia estimated the crowd at 300 but claimed that the room could be filled with just as many who favor the current enforcement regime. “Where are they?” the crowd roared back.

whynot_31 said:Does the cause of "safer streets thru traffic calming and more bike lanes" benefit or suffer as a result?

This is why I believe if you're going to protest something, wear a suit and tie. The people whose minds you want to change will take you seriously. But the Hippies never listen to me.