Vision Zero picks up speed

How many cyclists have you seen wearing only ONE earbud, Mead?

I can't say I've seen any. Honestly I don't pay much attention to cyclists at all. Those whom I do notice aren't wearing any. 

How many cyclists have you seen wearing only ONE earbud, Mead?

Well over half of those that wear them whenever I notice. I don't obsessively monitor cyclists for such things though given I've never seen one hurt or damage anyone or anything.

Rats. I wish the Vision Zero map were open to accept more comments. I could add a few more comments about a nearby intersection or two. (Crossing Empire Boulevard in the morning sucks!)

They gave a client of mine a double parking ticket outside my office on St. Johns and Troy. I think he was inside for about three minutes but as soon as the cop got out of the car he started writing and by that time it was too late

There are times when double parking actually does serve a purpose, to wit, picking up or discharging an elderly person with limited mobility, loading or unloading materials, discharging small children, etc. Not every person that double parks does so because they are lazy.

Judge not, and all that jazz..

Well since I see people double park, turn off and leave their cars when there is a parking space up the block much more often then I see people double park to pick up or discharge elderly passengers or move heavy things. Also I see people all the time on Park between Nostrand and New York pull in front of the their friend's building jump out and have a conversation all while never even attempting to find a parking space. Also let's not forget all the times people double park in front of OPEN parking spaces. I don't think I'm wrong for judging them for being lazy.

I think it's comical the hatred that so many on this board have for autos. I guess they never ride in them because if they do then they're all hypocrites. But no matter what, they'll all take at least one ride unless they're having a bicyclist pull their coffins to the cemetery or crematorium.

Again only two people ever talk about hating autos. You and the Morralkan. I for one have never stated I hate autos. Find me a quote where I or any oneelse has stated this or actually says this or be quite if you can't say something that adds to the discussion. I for one do take the occasional car ride and acknowledge their utility. Why do you believe cars have the right to break the law and endanger others if they only do so for a few minutes?

@newguy88, I get where you're coming from, however I'm extremely sensitive to this after sitting for my godchild who suffers from hemophilia. During the two weeks that I was responsible for him I had to take him for an emergency infusion after a bleed and upon returning to the house, was screamed at by someone walking by that I was breaking the law when I stopped next to parked cars to give him the opportunity to get out and go upstairs to rest. As an otherwise healthy-looking teen, he told me to ignore them, that he's used to people not thinking he's sick. Just because you don't see a reason, doesn't mean that a valid one doesn't exist.

See I get that. It's hard caring for a sick or elderly relative and in those cases yeah double park. But situations like this make up .10% of total double parking.

I enjoyed reading everyone's comments. Many legitimate points of view. I think the current version of Vision Zero misses one angle. The quality of driving skills and judgement.

I think driver skills have deteriorated. I think the state driving test should be more difficult maybe like in Germany (80 something hours of training not 6 like in NY). The current system is a joke.

As a daily driver I see many unskilled drivers behind the wheel. Examples: outside mirrors folded in. No headlights at night or during rain or snow. Turn signal only used after the turn begins. Waiting for green turn arrows where there are none. Inability to stay in one lane. Turning right from left lane. Driving down a block obstructed by an active garbage truck and then beeping. Some of these drivers could run someone over and not even no it.

There was a driver in Maspeth Queens about 2 years ago that injured a child on the way to school. The child was pinned against a store front by the car. The car wasn't speeding or running a red light. She was backing into a parking space. Yet somehow knocked down a small tree and parking meter then hit the child. None of the Vision Zero elements would have prevented the above crash example.

If you ask me in a perfect world the road test would be given with manual steering and stick shift.

They tell us driving is a privilege not a right but they hand out licenses like candy.

any thoughts?

The point here is that no matter what laws are invoked or what enforcement is going to take place people unfortunately will die. That's why they're called accidents. And as for all the comments on here about what a scourge cars are lets remember that even in the days of the horse and buggy people got trampled or thrown. And yes it was probably a smaller amount but it still happened and for the amount of vehicle miles driven the percentage of people that die is probably not that large.

@wirenutThe
problem with addressing driver training is that it follows squarely under the
state's authority. For this reason alone I can't see the requirements for
getting a license intensified any time in the foreseeable future. The process
of trading an out of state license for a NY one was absurdly easy. I just had
to sign a form stating that my old license was still valid and that I had it
for more than six months. There was no concern about whether or not my old
state had actually prepared me to drive.

While Germany is getting
a lot of buzz right now about their very high standards. However, England,
Japan and Hong Kong have fairly high standards too. I'm told much of the EU has
much higher standards than the US has. The problem here in the states is
legally driving is a privilege.

However, we, from
judges, cops, lawmakers and citizens, treat it like a constitutional right.
I've known two people in my home state who have gotten multiple speeding
tickets, been in multiple wrecks and one has had a DUI. Yet they still have
licenses. The guy with a DUI got a hardship license allowing him to drive to
work, school and legal hearings. Despite the fact that he lived at home with
his parents and sister all who have licenses. Heck the judge who suspended his
license told him how to get a hardship license. He should have told him how to
get a bus pass. Here in NY we keep letting people who hit and kill other people
keep their licenses! It's insanity!

 I remember that incident
well. I believe the lady suffered "pedal confusion." If you don't
know what pedal does what you don't need to be driving. There are laws
currently on the books that allow the NYPD to arrest dangerous drivers and DAs
to prosecute. However the NYPD routinely messes up accident reports, sometimes
quite severely, doesn't interview witnesses, and commonly fails to try to find
video evidence in crashes that don't kill the pedestrian or cyclist. DAs
partially because of this refuse to prosecute drivers. Also its harder to
prosecute a driver who runs down and kills a child then it is to prosecute
someone for a drunken bar fight that doesn't end in any injuries. Again Albany
writes the laws. So thanks to their laziness and incompetency killers allowed
back on our roads. 

@mugofmead11 Is quite
right greater enforcement would do more than trying to change the requirements
for getting a license would. However this will not happen with our current NYPD
and DAs. The NYPD has proven time and time again hey don’t take crashes seriously.
While there is some speed enforcement after a crash, unless it was a DUI, there
is rarely any action taken against the driver.

@pragmaticguy
Name one time just ONE time anyone here other than yourself used the words
"anti-cars" or stated they hate cars. JUST ONE! By the way an
accident assumes no one is at fault. The word accident is falling out of use
instead collision is being used. Careless driving causes collisions not an
accident. If I'm driving over the speed limit, make a turn and hit a pedestrian
who has the right of way it was a collision and not an accident. If when
carrying a glass of water from the kitchen to my desk I spill some it was an
accident and not a collision. Get the difference?

@mugofmead111 Blast it all! You have stumbled upon my master plan to rid the world of cars by removing all the gas stations everywhere! *Evil genius laughs*

Let's say people are "anti-car". The irresponsible usage of cars (like with guns) generates ill will. One can argue that the ill will derives more from the people using them than with the actual inanimate object.

No one is calling anyone names.

The fact is that several people on this site have made it abundently clear that they would be much happier if no autos were allowed in the 5 boros. And New Guy, I am neither quoting nor paraphrasing anyone's anti-car remarks... I am using my own words to characterize their statements.

Traffic regulation is fine. It should be applied, first and foremost, to pedestrians who blithely cross major thoroughfares with earbuds in and while staring at their cellphone screens. Next it should be applied to bicyclists who run red lights (something I used to do regularly while riding) or ride the wrong way on one-way streets.

After that it should be applied to cops, who are apparently taught that the rules of the road do not apply to them, even when they're just on their way home or to cadge free coffee and donuts from a local shop.

Finally, it should be applied to all drivers of automobiles, but in such a manner as not to be overly punitive, in the sense of trying to discourage all drivers from ever sitting behind the wheel of a car.