Bikes and Pedestrians in NYC parks
Comments
-
Conversely, the act of requiring bicyclists to carry insurance would primarily result in the creation of an additional administrative bureaucracy to issue and enforce this insurance. Most of the costs of the insurance would be consumed by these administrative costs, since the actual cost of covering the liability would be pennies per bicyclist per day, but the administrative costs could easily amount to a hundred dollars a year or more.This would hurt adoption rates of the alternate mode of transport, on the one hand, and make people choose more dangerous or socially costly forms, or simply ignore the law, which would be difficult for police to enforce anyway as bicyclists aren't required to register their vehicles.It would disproportionately hurt "the most vulnerable", a group you suggest should be protected, in the forms of those for whom bicycling right now is the most affordable way to get around.It would criminalize people who may have been perfectly responsible (and fully liable) bicyclists, and put them needlessly at odds with the law.Did you think about any of this for more than five seconds, homeowner?
-
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.
Good luck with that. Let me know what you figure out.
We should probably figure out a way to measure their impact on the overall park experience (discounting accidents) as well. -
I am ok with the present system, wherein peds have the right of way and police periodically go on ticket blitzes against bikers.
Despite such blitzes being all over the news, 100s of bikers fail to adapt for the length of the blitz and are ticketed. -
why the hesitancy to protect the most vulnerable?
Because for one thing it would greatly reduce the number of cyclists, and it has been extensively documented that cyclist safety is very highly correlated with number of cyclists in an area.
Bike commuters are well aware of this, but it doesn't sound like you are one. And increasing the number of cyclists in the city very clearly isn't something you want. -
Did you think about any of this for more than five seconds, homeowner?
It was an extremely disingenous post pretending to care for the safety of a group whose numbers he would love to see greatly reduced. -
I am ok with the present system, wherein peds have the right of way and police periodically go on ticket blitzes against bikers.
I'm all for ticketing cyclists who endanger pedestrians by riding erratically or blowing through crosswalks. Unfortunately that isn't what most of the ticket blitzes focus on.
Despite such blitzes being all over the news, 100s of bikers fail to adapt for the length of the blitz and are ticketed.
By the way, in bike friendly European cities, cyclists much more closely follow the rules of the road, stopping at signs and lights, yielding to pedestrians, etc. I was biking in Munich a few weeks ago and was reminded of this. So much more orderly.
Why is this? Because there is extensive bike infrastructure all over Munich and similar cities, allowing women, children, and the elderly to feel safe in commuting by bike. So they do, and those most likely to be aggressive, law-breaking riders fall into line with them. There is none of this urban warrior environment created here by a culture still extremely hostile to cyclists; one that pits cyclists against deadly machinery very often used by drivers to dangerously threaten and menace cyclists that have frustrated them (often by having done nothing more than cost the driver a few seconds on his trip).
NYC could do so much more to create a bike-friendly environment by building the same extensive infrastructure found in the cities I reference. Widen bike lanes, protect them with curbs and buffers separating them from cars (e.g. as done with the PPW lane), put in many more racks and corrals, create left-hand turn boxes, and so on.
You want to greatly reduce cyclist law-breaking. Ticket blitzes obviously don't do that (as they don't for car drivers either). The only thing proven to do that are the type things I listed. So you'd support greatly increased pro-cycling investments such as those I mention, right? -
Peds have the right of way throughout parks. You would need to change that first.
You would also have to convince the masses that more rights and space for bikes in parks would somehow benefit them, whether they road a bike or not.
Why are you bringing up cars and bike infrastructure in a conversation about parks? -
1) Peds have the right of way throughout parks. You would need to change that first.
2) You would also have to convince the masses that more rights and space for bikes in parks would somehow benefit them, whether they road a bike or not.
3) Why are you bringing up cars and bike infrastructure in a conversation about parks?
1) You wouldn't have to change right of way. You just create separate infrastructure. This has been done in many parks around the world.2) I'm aware of how democracy works.3) Because it is relevant to the question of reducing bike, pedestrian, and car related injuries (both in and outside of parks), a topic you raised in several places within this thread before I did. (Not sure why this is even an issue... it's all relevant to the discussion.)Anyway, I don't think I need to reiterate the question you ducked. It's obvious from your posts here about cyclists that you would not support the only actions proven to reduce the behaviors of theirs you claim to want reduced. -
We don't have to agree on methods to pursue the same goals.
For example, many parks have gone the very effective route of prohibiting bikes.
Do you believe that bikers need more allies to achieve our goals in parks?
-
1) We don't have to agree on methods to pursue the same goals.
2) For example, many parks have gone the very effective route of prohibiting bikes.
3) Do you believe that bikers need more allies to achieve our goals in parks?
1) OK. I haven't seen you give one proven to work in reducing law-breaking by cyclists. What alternatives to mine do you have that have also proven to work?2) On parks with streets such as those we're referring to? Interesting. Can you name a few?3) I don't believe you and I share the same goals here at all, but yes, I would like cyclists to have more allies. -
Other cities have certainly grown tired of bikes to the degree that they have considered banning them from parks:
http://m.savannahnow.com/news/2014-06-27/savannah-considering-forsyth-park-bike-ban#gsc.tab=0
Restrictions regarding hours they are allowed is done by others. Google is helpful in this regard.
One can also read Transportation Planning magazines, or go to bike advocacy sites.
The latter tend to use terms like "oppression", "short sighted", etc -
@Mikedunlap, outside of Prospect, Central, Van Cortland, and Flushing Meadows, are there other parks that you think could handle the kind of infrastructure you speak of? It seems to me that in the vast majority of NYC parks there isn't enough real estate to create a bike "infrastructure" without encroaching on existing open space or reducing the walkways to allow for separated roadways. So are you really only talking about the largest park in each borough, or do you envision "infrastructure" in all parks?
-
Should we factor in what % of park users bike, vs the % that does not?
On Sunday, I biked around Prospect Oark a few times just as some breast cancer march was ending. There was probably 20k peds on the road.
Even more than on good summer weekends. -
@Mikedunlap, outside of Prospect, Central, Van Cortland, and Flushing Meadows, are there other parks that you think could handle the kind of infrastructure you speak of? It seems to me that in the vast majority of NYC parks there isn't enough real estate to create a bike "infrastructure" without encroaching on existing open space or reducing the walkways to allow for separated roadways. So are you really only talking about the largest park in each borough, or do you envision "infrastructure" in all parks?
I'm fine with what exists in the parks now. I was mainly referring to a heavy investment in infrastructure outside the parks as well which helps create the type streets culture (for everyone using them) as exists in many European cities.A couple tragic but exceedingly rare incidents recently, but there isn't any serious problem between cyclists and pedestrians in the parks. -
Other cities have certainly grown tired of bikes to the degree that they have considered banning them from parks:
Ha. That is just beautiful.
http://m.savannahnow.com/news/2014-06-27/savannah-considering-forsyth-park-bike-ban#gsc.tab=0
Restrictions regarding hours they are allowed is done by others. Google is helpful in this regard.
One can also read Transportation Planning magazines, or go to bike advocacy sites.
The latter tend to use terms like "oppression", "short sighted", etcYou claim many parks have prohibited bikes. So I ask for examples to back up that claim. You fail to produce even one (from "many") and then make a typically snarky comment about me needing to Google it.Bravo. -
You appeared to need the help.
"there isn't any serious problem between cyclists and pedestrians in the parks."Obviously, that really depends on how you define and measure "problems"- If we are measuring deaths in the parks caused by bikes, I would agree it is pretty hard to kill a healthy ped while riding a bike.
- If we measure injuries, the numbers are higher.
- If we measure the number of people who are annoyed because they can't jog, cross or walk around without encountering someone on a bike whistling, shouting, etc., I suspect we would get a really high number.
While some peds may be afraid of injury or death from bikes, I suspect that most peds define the problem a quality of life issue.Like most quality of life issues (littering, public intoxication, pot holes, etc), the public usually tolerates them, but occasionally bother to get help of the authorities to do do a crackdown.Needless to say, the persons effected by the crackdown complain that the police should be focusing on more important issues (rape, murder, etc), while the majority smirks. -
See here is whynot's problem in a nutshell. Despite saying he is a subway user, thus, a pedestrian and an occasional cyclist. He doesn't see Vision Zero as affecting him or an important goal. In many ways he personifies the callous indifference to the well being of others that some New Yorkers exhibit in terms of street safety.
-
The Vision Zero thread was split off from this one.
On this one, you get find faults with my views on Park usage.
The other one is for alleging I am indifferent to the people outside the park, and part of a similar class. -
You appeared to need the help.
You made the claim, dude. I knew it was completely false so I made a simple request for examples. You couldn't find any so, rather than just admit you were wrong, decided to pout and tell me to Google it. I'm not the one who needed any help here. Your bogus claim that "many" parks have prohibited cyclists was easily exposed as false. Thanks for the layup.
-
In many ways he personifies the callous indifference to the well being of others that some New Yorkers exhibit in terms of street safety.
A perfect example of it. Fortunately his crowd is losing this battle though. With every passing year the city (along with progressive cities elsewhere) gets more serious about reducing traffic violence. Speed limits will continue to fall, streets will continue to be redesigned to slow traffic, more bike lanes will go in, etc. -
Many parks have prohibited cyclists.Focus on only parks. You can do it.
-
Many parks have prohibited cyclists.
Cool. Happy to read about them once you find even 1 example. -
You have never seen a no bikes allowed sign at a park?
-
It's very telling - and kind of sad - that you can't just admit you made a statement that is wrong. I'm obviously not going to get any examples that support your claim, so I'm done with this one.
-
I'll take that as a "yes, I have seen no bikes allowed signs in parks. Many parks have prohibited bikes"
-
@mike_dunlap I find it really sad that a lady is horribly mugged, beaten and people here are freaking out. Another lady got run over by multiple cars on Flatbush over the summer and people here were tripping over themselves to defend the drivers i.e. her killers. It's sad when our neighbors will condone one type of violence, which ended in a death which was likely a homicide, and condemn another. You are right however this attitude of callousness and victim blaming is slowly but surely becoming uncouth. Sometimes change is scary and even enlightened people who in other situations would be progressive will scream against it. However, Brooklynian is not the world and the calls for reform have become so strong that despite what some might think the wheels of change are in motion.For the record I condemn ALL acts of violence against my fellow citizens.
-
We are having trouble staying focused on bikes and pedestrians in parks.
-
Misdirect?Also, We were/are on topic they just shoved us in another topic.
-
I think it may be more of a perceived injustice than an actual one.How do you propose resolving the conflicts between pedestrians and bikes in the parks?By stating that pedestrians have the right of way within the parks, the Parks Department defines bikers as deviant in most situations of conflict.
Quote:
Edwin Lemert developed the idea of primary and secondary deviation as a way to explain the process of labeling. Primary deviance is any general deviance before the deviant is labeled as such. Secondary deviance is any action that takes place after primary deviance as a reaction to the institutional identification of the person as a deviant.
When an actor commits a crime (primary deviance), however mild, the institution will bring social penalties down on the actor. However, punishment does not necessarily stop crime, so the actor might commit the same primary deviance again, bringing even harsher reactions from the institutions. At this point, the actor will start to resent the institution, while the institution brings harsher and harsher repression. Eventually, the whole community will stigmatize the actor as a deviant and the actor will not be able to tolerate this, but will ultimately accept his or her role as a criminal, and will commit criminal acts that fit the role of a criminal.
Primary And Secondary Deviation is what causes people to become harder criminals. Primary deviance is the time when the person is labeled deviant through confession or reporting. Secondary deviance is deviance before and after the primary deviance. Retrospective labeling happens when the deviant recognizes his acts as deviant prior to the primary deviance, while prospective labeling is when the deviant recognizes future acts as deviant. The steps to becoming a criminal are:
1. Primary deviation.
2. Social penalties.
3. Secondary deviation.
4. Stronger penalties.
5. Further deviation with resentment and hostility towards punishers.
6. Community stigmatizes the deviant as a criminal. Tolerance threshold passed.
7. Strengthening of deviant conduct because of stigmatizing penalties.
8. Acceptance as role of deviant or criminal actor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(sociology)
Have too many bikers reached the 8th of his 8 Steps? -
Very timely article from DNA today:
35 crashes involving peds and bikes so far this year in Central Park
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141022/upper-west-side/central-park-bikers-hit-pedestrians-35-times-this-year-police-say
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