Prospect Park Volunteer In Coma After Being Struck By Cyclist

As expected, lawsuits are beginning to be filed by Personal Injury Lawyers.

This first one was filed this week pertains to a pedestrian- biker accident that happened over the summer.

The main target: The Parks Department and the NYPD.

Brownstoner wrote: The Post reports that a woman hit by a bicyclist in Prospect Park last summer is suing the city for $3 million. The suit alleges that the Parks Dept. and the NYPD are “negligent, careless and reckless” when it comes to enforcing traffic regulations in the park. The woman, Dana Jacks, was hospitalized for 25 days following the accident. Over the summer, Jacks also filed a lawsuit against the bicyclist, who countersued, saying Jacks was “unlawfully outside the crosswalk.” The lawsuit comes as the city examines traffic calming in the park.

Yesterday the Daily News reported on a community meeting about the issue in which some said that cars should be banned from the park and others said cyclists are “out of control” and don’t obey traffic lights. Two weeks ago another pedestrian was hit by a cyclist in the park and is still in intensive care.

Source for quote: http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2011/11/lawsuit-filed-over-bicycling-accident-in-prospect-park/#disqus_thread

Post article about lawsuit: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/woman_hit_by_cyclist_sues_city_for_yVemflYASFEfGAXBMWPoNM#ixzz1e3q1HcX7

Maybe. ...but such a lawsuits would be far more complicated, and I imagine it would be harder to collect damages.

In the suit by the pedestrian, I expect part of the "compensation" to be in the form of better signage and enforcement.

The Tristate Transportation Campaign and Transportation alternatives are the major advocates behind paying more attention to peds and bikes. So far, they have not felt strong enough to file any major lawsuits on behalf of a suit of peds and bikes, but they do have a sympathetic DOT Commiss at the moment.

DR-

This lawsuit, the one I link above that was filed this week:

Post article about lawsuit: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/woman_hit_by_cyclist_sues_city_for_yVemflYASFEfGAXBMWPoNM#ixzz1e3q1HcX7

I'll try to type slower.

DR-

I'm actually surprised when anyone does.

I suspect the changes discussed at the mtg will be deemed too little to late, but the changes might allow the Parks Dept to cast itself in a way that reduces or eliminates its exposure.

I think it would be amazing if cyclists/bikers would obey the law and stop at red lights. I have never seen this happen in PP. It would also be great if pedestrians would obey the laws that apply to them as well, however I have seen thousands of peds. over the years doing just that.

rezist said:

I think it would be amazing if cyclists/bikers would obey the law and stop at red lights. I have never seen this happen in PP. It would also be great if pedestrians would obey the laws that apply to them as well, however I have seen thousands of peds. over the years doing just that.

In the new PPW bike lane, cyclists are required to yield to pedestrians not stop at the red lights. I do that.

Now that you got me thinking of it. I yield to pedestrians more when I am on my bike than I stop at red lights when I am walking.

rezist said:

I think it would be amazing if cyclists/bikers would obey the law and stop at red lights. I have never seen this happen in PP. It would also be great if pedestrians would obey the laws that apply to them as well, however I have seen thousands of peds. over the years doing just that.

You *shouldn't* expect to see anywhere near the same number (or percentage) of cyclists and pedestrians displaying strict adherence to the traffic laws and it has nothing to do with cyclists being dicks, it has to do with humans being humans.

When discussing whether or not someone is following all the rules of the road, we can really distill it down to stopping, slowing, yielding. Think about what this means depending upon the mode of conveyance - for walkers, it means almost nothing. For runners, it means a little more. For fast moving cyclist, it means a heck of a lot more. "It," is the amount of strenuous effort necessary to get back up to speed. The same person that, while walking, stopped and politely yielded to the crossing stroller is far less likely, when on a bicycle, to do the same. Maybe they'll think that it's still a safe bet to speed up a little and pass in front of the stroller. If not, maybe they'll slow a little, instead, and pass behind the stroller. What they're not going to do, though, is come to a dead stop when they think that there's a safe alternative, whether or not their actions strictly adhere to the letter of the law. The problem, of course, is that some people show poorer judgement than others which can result in close calls or, sometimes, collisions. (Another factor, of course, is the action/judgement of the person that they're crossing paths with. Ride a bike long enough and you'll find that you don't care which decision [forward, stop or back] someone goes with, just as long as they make a decision and stick with it. One time, as I was riding down Broadway, I came upon an elderly gent crossing against the light [I was the only traffic]. He saw me from about a half-block away. If he would have kept walking, I would have passed 6-8 feet behind him. Instead, he was struck with analysis paralysis and he started shuffling side-to-side, back and forth, back and forth. It was comical - I was far away and not even going particularly fast, maybe 15-ish MPH, but after an eternity of him shuffling and me slowing while trying to counter, I had to come to a dead stop to avoid hitting him.)

Anyway, the point of this long-winded explanation is this - let's get over this us/them schism wherein you cite precedence and pretend that pedestrians are more virtuous than cyclists, because it's just not true. We're all the same assholes, it's just far, far more inconvenient for assholes on bikes to hide it.

Now, as to whether or not the signals in the park make sense at a given time of the day... nah - another time.

I'm glad that they addressed pedestrian rules and responsibilities, too. :roll:

ringrunner said:

It it really the law that bikes must stop at red lights when the park is closed to car traffic??

In Central Park there are signs at every crosswalk saying "YIELD" to pedestrians, not stop.

I documented these signs for the Prospect Park Safety Committee this summer.

Signs that work in Central Park

Those traffic lights in Prospect Park should be switched to blinking yellow (yield) for the roadway and blinking red for the crosswalk (stop)during the non-car hours of Prospect Park.

Stop trying to inject sense in to the situation.

whynot_31 said:

I view this weekend's efforts by the Parks Department as siding with the pedestrian, freeing them from the heavy burdens of responsibility and common sense.

Fixed for accuracy.

I have to share my road crossing experiences this morning in the park. Around 8am I was on the east side of the park, near the rink. Lots of cars and bikes were streaming past. The traffic light at the crossing stayed yellow for at least 3 minutes and I never had a chance to run between cars and bikes during that time, which I think means we need the crossings. Eventually one driver stopped for me and after a bit a driver in the other lane finally slowed enough for the dog and I to run across, with the cars behind them honking plenty. It was ridiculous.

Later, I was at another crosswalk on that side of the park. The light did turn red for cars and I went to cross. The car in the outer lane, nearest me, had stopped but the cars in the other lane noticeably sped up! I don't think they saw me and had I not had the dog with me, and therefore being extra cautious, I would have been nailed by that front car which I had seen and thought had plenty of time to stop after the light went red.

It's very dangerous when a pedestrian can't even cross the road with the light due to cars and bikes both flying through lights. And I've had similar experiences to the cars running red lights many many times. There are a couple of spots that I think the police could just park and write tons of tickets for running red lights and I hope that they do as part of the supposed crack-downs coming.

Those barrels on the southern end seem like they are making things worse. I'm not a spandex-style cycler but I do sometimes bike the loop and it seems like they make it hard for cyclists to move sideways to go around each other or avoid pedestrians (I'm okay if they don't stop on the hill, but just don't fly past and be willing to go around the peds.)

I'm not sure what the solution is there but that doesn't really seem like a good one.

By slowly letting the road degrade to a gravel like surface, the parks dept could save money, and bikers would slow down.

This inaction would be consistent with their present "pedestrians have the right of way throughout the park" mantra.

whynot_31 said:

By slowly letting the road degrade to a gravel like surface, the parks dept could save money, and bikers would slow down.

This would be extremely dangerous for inline skaters. In addition to individuals there are a couple of teams that practice on the loop, and one of the biggest inline marathons is in Pros. Park every year.