Bike Accident in Prospect Park on Saturday
Comments
-
Understandable. Still, they ought to dismount and walk their bikes.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 wrote: 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.
-
@ 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.
-
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:
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.
• 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
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 wrote: • 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.
-
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.
-
Isn't the speed limit in the park 30mph?
Let's enforce that, especially when peds and kids are present.
-
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.
-
whynot_31 said:
Isn't the speed limit in the park 30mph?Let's enforce that, especially when peds and kids are present.
Whoops, it is actually 25 mph.
This sounds reasonable. Let's enforce that. That seems like it would provide a safe environment for everyone. The cop could just sit there all day and issue tickets to cars and bikes.
Who knows, some cars may decide to take another route in light of the enforcement.
Everyone would win
-
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.Makes perfect sense to me. Swerving to avoid a kid and causing a bike accident isn't negligent or willful. It's unintentional. The onus is on the bike rider, being the one coming from behind and the one traveling at 40mph, to ensure that they don't cream every kid that wanders on their scooter.
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?
Fair enough, rollerbladers can travel at similar speeds and cause similar damage. They need to be similarly aware of their surroundings and responsibilities.
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?
Yes, I exercise in the park 2x per week. I usually trail run, but occasionally will run the road. I admit I was overgeneralizing when I called cyclists obnoxious. Clearly they're not all d-bags. But I definitely have seen my share of assholes-in-spandex that have yelled at me. And, yes, I get pissed if I have to detour around a pack of walkers occupying the entire jogging lane, but I don't yell. I seethe quietly while reminding myself that the park is often overcrowded and has to serve lots of different peoples' differing needs.
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).
I don't doubt that cyclists would be friendly were I to engage them about the details of their ride. But I don't care about their bike (although I *DO* wonder why they all wear those hideously ugly riding clothes covered in logos.) Again, I admit I was overgeneralizing for dramatic effect, but I've never had anyone yell at me in the park other than cyclists and the random hobo.
-
The incident with the biker and the pedestrian on Saturday wasn't an accident, it was an assault by the biker on a young woman who was out for a walk. After slamming in to her at full speed, the spandex-clad biker laid on the grass looking inconvenienced while pedestrians tried to stop the blood and call the cops and keep the woman calm and still. That poor woman was grievously injured and will pay a terrible price for his speed and indifference.
The biker should be criminally prosecuted; anyone who visits that much misery on another human being through their reckless behavior should be punished.
-
I thought it was between two cyclists?
-
Is there a news story anywhere about this accident? How badly was the pedestrian injured?
-
I've been crossing a roadway when the pedestrian sign is green, and had to dodge and weave and finagle through the oncoming bike riders more times than I can remember. I was terrified of these bikers as a kid and barely learned to ride a bike then. The mere idea of sharing the road with people who go so quickly and don't stop, and yes, I have been yelled at too, well, I'll stay off those Death Machines myself.
I'm not inherently graceful or athletically inclined and I'm quite sure that if I were to get on a two-wheeled vehicle of pain again, I would veer into the "fast lane" accidentally. If there were some time that I knew mass groups of speeding Non-Stoppers were not going to be there, I might actually be inclined to learn how to ride a bike properly. It's a little sad since I've lived close to the park for the past 9 years and it's one of the only methods of exercising that doesn't damage me.
-
Road bikers are sort of getting a bad rap. I have noticed through my daily park walks that it's mostly lone wolfs who weave in & out of the pedestrian lanes. Mostly on hybrids. That's not to say I don't see the occasional Colnago pull a weave. But it seems to be mostly hybrids or mountain bikes. Even roller-bladers. As far as speeding and not stopping: every biker & roller-blader & skate boarder does it. The one thing I have noticed is that the road packs do tend to stay out of the pedestrian lanes and mostly occupy the outer roadway. Just an observation.
I would like to find out what exactly happened last Saturday.
-
mm.. Hogan... It sounds like you were actually there as a witness or a "victim." Only saying.. It is your first post here and you seem to be talking with authority and not just a poster with an opinion.
-
No one wants to respond to my posts. Figured. It would entail accepting ownership and responsibility.
People on Bikes, Cars, Skates and Foot break the laws constantly. The avid runners, cyclists, walkers and bikers remain silent when called out on their misdeeds.
Instead the thread disintegrates into a philosophical debate mixed with acceptable regulations and enforcements as well as the not so subtle advocation of each posters personal interests.
pro tip: stop at red lights and yield the right of way.
That's the bottom line. The Park doesn't exist for cyclists to blast past red lights, and it wasn't designed for speeding motorists. It was however created for everyone to enjoy.
Cars and bikes are among the only few things that lessen my enjoyment of the park. Aside from garbage, dog shit, and hipsters.
As a former cyclist/current motorcycle rider/pedestrian/motorist/... I'm thinking that a constant flow of traffic in loop form (identical to oval track racing) stands in direct opposition to what most parks were designed for.
-
Maybe the longest post in Brooklynian history? Oy.
rezist said:
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.Wrong. That some don't doesn't mean that none do. I'll agree with the rest of your statement that, no matter the mode of transportation, most people are selfish and, often, idiots.
whynot_31 said:
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.That's because you seem to think the blather relevant to only your side of the discussion, which it's not.
whynot_31 said:
Isn't the speed limit in the park [25]mph?Let's enforce that, especially when peds and kids are present.
Great, and isn't the outer lane for faster moving park users? Let's enforce that, too.
Here's the rub - currently, speeds at the park rarely exceed 22mph, except on the hill (I have a speedometer, I ride there, I know), yet there's still this bellyache. So what's the problem? It's not speed, it's what I've been preaching all along - too many people are ignorant or dismissive of lane designations. This is where conflict originates.
xlizellx said:
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?No, you've misinterpreted. I (and many others) said that police shouldn't focus on cyclists at the expense of ignoring automobile infractions.
xlizellx said: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.
That they were weaving only reinforces my point that too many are ignorant of lane designations. If people stay in the proper lane, and have caution when crossing or otherwise entering a faster moving lane, most problems go away.
xlizellx said: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.
Agreed, but this is different from a swerve scenario, isn't it? If someone makes an unsafe merge/lane change, they are at fault.
8thandPrez said:
Makes perfect sense to me. Swerving to avoid a kid and causing a bike accident isn't negligent or willful. It's unintentional. The onus is on the bike rider, being the one coming from behind and the one traveling at 40mph, to ensure that they don't cream every kid that wanders on their scooter.See immediate response above. Also, your perception of speed needs some serious calibration if you really think that you see cyclists traveling at 40mph in the park. That's just false, unless you believe that the schlubs in the park are faster than the Tour de France racers, which average somewhere around 29 mph on the flat courses (with the considerable advantage of having a large number of riders available to overcome or share the burden of air resistance).
8thandPrez said:
Fair enough, rollerbladers can travel at similar speeds and cause similar damage. They need to be similarly aware of their surroundings and responsibilities.Yes, but my point extended beyond that to include the fact that even a runner, tripped, can be harmed. In other words, speed is a factor, but the environment that causes the collision should be the greater consideration.
8thandPrez said:
Yes, I exercise in the park 2x per week. I usually trail run, but occasionally will run the road. I admit I was overgeneralizing when I called cyclists obnoxious. Clearly they're not all d-bags. But I definitely have seen my share of assholes-in-spandex that have yelled at me. And, yes, I get pissed if I have to detour around a pack of walkers occupying the entire jogging lane, but I don't yell. I seethe quietly while reminding myself that the park is often overcrowded and has to serve lots of different peoples' differing needs.I don't doubt that cyclists would be friendly were I to engage them about the details of their ride. But I don't care about their bike (although I *DO* wonder why they all wear those hideously ugly riding clothes covered in logos.) Again, I admit I was overgeneralizing for dramatic effect, but I've never had anyone yell at me in the park other than cyclists and the random hobo.
That's all well and good, but you fail to acknowledge my attempt to explain, and humanize, why they occasionally yell and why emotion is (sometimes) wrongly attributed to it.
Idlewild said:
Road bikers are sort of getting a bad rap. I have noticed through my daily park walks that it's mostly lone wolfs who weave in & out of the pedestrian lanes. Mostly on hybrids. That's not to say I don't see the occasional Colnago pull a weave. But it seems to be mostly hybrids or mountain bikes. Even roller-bladers. As far as speeding and not stopping: every biker & roller-blader & skate boarder does it. The one thing I have noticed is that the road packs do tend to stay out of the pedestrian lanes and mostly occupy the outer roadway. Just an observation.Yes, I would agree with all of this, even the part about not enough cyclists and skaters stopping for peds, with the signal, in the cross walk. Personally, I often stop or I give wide berth (>8 feet behind their direction travel). Unfortunately, some people still feel that passing 8' behind them is an insult. And yes, no one wants to hurt their Colnago, Time, Cervelo, etc.
rezist said:
No one wants to respond to my posts. Figured. It would entail accepting ownership and responsibility.People on Bikes, Cars, Skates and Foot break the laws constantly. The avid runners, cyclists, walkers and bikers remain silent when called out on their misdeeds.
Head in the sand is a very popular self defense mechanism.
rezist said:
pro tip: stop at red lights and yield the right of way.To this I would add - make an effort to stay in the properly designated lane and use caution when entering or crossing faster moving lanes.
rezist said:
As a former cyclist/current motorcycle rider/pedestrian/motorist/... I'm thinking that a constant flow of traffic in loop form (identical to oval track racing) stands in direct opposition to what most parks were designed for.If you're talking about automobiles, I would agree. If you're talking about cyclists, skaters, runners and walkers, I would ask what you're smoking.
-
are the lights just for cars? or do walkers and bikes need to yield like they would on the street to peds in the crosswalk?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds