Senate Report: Bush Missed Chance To Catch Bin Laden
2nd Avenue Subway Cooling System Will "Blight" UES
Leftover Metrocard Change Infuriates Some
Diners: Calories Counts Are Ruining Fancy Restaurants
State Dinner Party Crashers Want Money For Interview
An interesting follow up to a post from two weeks ago about the Department of Transportation's ridiculous ness. The NY Sun has an interview with Andrew Vesselinovitch, the DOT's bike program director who quit, and, boy, he doesn't pull any punches:
Mr. Vesselinovitch said that when Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff in April asked the department for more miles of bicycle lanes, his superiors asked him to come up with excuses to refuse to do so, including the need for more staff and the interference of other city agencies. In fact, he said, there was nothing impeding the new lanes except for [DOT Commissioner Iris] Weinshall and her insistence on giving community boards veto power over proposed lanes.Well, those are our tax dollars at bureaucratic work: People being charged with developing excuses. Vesselinovitch is going to the Illinois Institute of Technology to study architecture, telling the Sun, "I want streets to be living places, places more dedicated to social activities, rather than just conduits for motor vehicles."
In other transporation news, the state is thinking about making Staten Island's bus lanes carpool lanes. The Staten Island Advance saw over 2,000 cars use the bus-only lanes over two days, but the police only pulled over two of them.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"her insistence on giving community boards veto power over proposed lanes."
Here in Bay Ridge (which is, at times, dominated by senior citizens and wealthy housewives) there was actually a virulent reaction to the installation of bike lanes on Shore Rd (which is already a 25mph street w/ a park running along one side). People argued illogically that it made the road less safe.
Here's Weinshall's husband supporting bike routes. Maybe they could talk over dinner one evening.
"Our environment is our most precious resource. Unfortunately, in New York City, especially in Staten Island where there are less mass transit alternatives, a car is often seen as the only way to travel and the environment comes second to other transportation concerns. So when there is an opportunity for government to offer and environmentally friendly transportation alternative that people can constructively use and enjoy we have to seize it," Schumer said. "The Staten Island Greenway will provide all the residents of Staten Island a way to enjoy the beauty of this island both for transportation and for recreation."
bklynd, if you're going to call the argument illogical you could at least explain it.
Not that I'm against bike lanes but the cyclists in New York ignore traffic laws as much if not more than the cars. Cyclists routinely ride on the sidewalks, travel the wrong way down one way streets (and incredibly major avenues), and almost never stop at traffic lights or stop signs. To believe this will chane simply by adding bike lanes is what is illogical.
It is all a big conspiracy so people don't figure out that Iris Weinshall is Chuck Schumer's spouse.
And what does Chuck do anyway? It seems like he just holds press conferences.
In response to kablammo:
"cyclists in New York ignore traffic laws as much if not more than the cars"
blah, blah, blah. this is such rhetorical nonesense, and it has nothing to do with this conversation. Cars are dangerous and have ruined this city. period. Stop using rhetorical statements to scapegoat cyclists.
Here's the start of another cyclist vs. motorist vs. pedestrian rumble!
I bet vicious name calling starts by post 13.
Here's the start of another cyclist vs. motorist vs. pedestrian rumble!
I bet vicious name calling starts by post 13.
Acutally, kablamo, the illogic is on your side. The lack of bike lanes, and the piteously poor enforcement of them (say it loud: cops-hate-bikers) is what leads most cyclists to ride on sidewalks, etc. I personally hate riding on the sidewalk - it's not safe, you get (earned) dirty looks, and its generally against my principles to act like a 12-year-old - but I was riding through Bay Ridge and Boro Park last night and if I didn't go on the sidewalk I would have had several chances to become a hood ornament. Given the choice of death vs. pissing people off, there's only one choice to make.
I agree with kablammo. I have managed to avoid being hit by a car because I (logically) look in the direction of on-coming traffic when crossing the street. I have, on the other hand, been hit by not one but three idiot bicyclists who then proceeded to rip into me for not looking and seeing them coming the wrong down the street. Give up the "rhetorical nonsense" argument, John Q Public. Bicyclists are not the blameless saints in this mess. This city is above all a pedestrian city and anything with wheels should obey the rules for the safety of the pedestrians.
Pedestrians top the hierarchy of transportation use followed by bicycles followed by cars. Bikers in the city do ride in ways that endanger pedestrians at times.
However, that does not excuse the woefully inadequate number of bike lanes in this city. Aside from the west side bike route, there's really no way to get place to place using bike lanes.
"It's hard to be a saint when you live in the city"
I thin that is Springsteen
Well, normally I would give a shit about your argument, kablammo, since I am also annoyed by cyclists who flout the rules and people who whine about cars. But, in this context, it is nonsensical.
The argument at the time (which was repeated for a few weeks in the Brooklyn Paper) was that the bike lane somehow made the road narrower and thus more dangerous to drive & park on. But - (a) it's a very wide road. (b) on one side (and in some places, both sides) it actually creates a buffer between you and your parked car and traffic. It feels WAY safer. And (c) it must have some "traffic calming" effect, since it emphasizes that the road is already a recreational area (which is the reason for the reduced speed limit.) I personally interpreted the flap as free-floating resentment with no real point.
If you ever journeyed out to BR and took a look, you'd see that it's just not the right context to carp about the cyclists vs. the world thing.
We need more bikelanes like we need more cowbells!
Seriously, they should at the least connect the FDR lanes between 37th and 50th streets so we can ride around the whole island.
The rhetorical nonsense is the argment that a bunch of idiot bikers riding on sidelwalks or asshole messengers riding the wrong way on streets are reasons not to have bike lanes. A similar nonsensical argument would be its silly to maintain the traffic infrastructure since there are auto drivers that run into pedestrians and kill them or go the wrong way on one way streets. You don't even notice bicycilists that obey the rules -- the only ones you remember are the one who irritate you.
The citizens of the city would benefit from bike lanes, as proven in multiple DOT studies on city planning. Proper bike lanes encourage safer bicyclists, as DOT studies have determined that most bicyclists look for the most effecient path. If that path is a bike lane, they use it.
Does anyone know how European cities do it? They have CRAZY narrow streets and yet still manage to have extremely bicycle/pedestrian friendly conditions. Or do I just not know about pedestrians and cyclists getting killed in droves on the streets of Amsterdam?
MT: bikers who ride on sidewalks or the wrong way down streets and who don't yield to pedestrians at red lights are the minority - but they give ALL bikers a bad name as a result. As a cyclist I don't like these people either: not only do they bring undue criticism to cyclists like me who obey the laws, but they also make things a lot more dangerous for pedestrians AND cyclists.
That being said, pedestrians curse me out on a regular basis when they try to cross the street against the light and I go zooming past them. I have the right of way, but that somehow doesn't matter - I still get abuse hurled at me by people risking their own lives by jaywalking blindly into traffic. That, for me, is the number one reason cycling can be unpleasant in the city: law-breaking, abusive pedestrians and NOT the actual traffic.
Occasionally a cyclist will annoy a pedestrian or driver by breaking traffic laws. Pedestrians and drivers also routinely break the law.
It comes down to this for me: cars degrade the standard of living in this city by contributing to air and noise pollution, traffic congestion, and they also consume huge amounts of fuel. Bikes, however, do none of those things. Why are we arguing against cyclists?
Most pedestrians J walk...
I think we should get rid of the sidewalks..?
Iris Weinshall is an incompetent fraud and should not be in charge of DOT. You can send her a nice message at
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/maildot.html
look, motherfuckers! it's a pretty simple argument to defeat. When I am in a car it's the bicyclists and pedestrians fault! When I am a pedestrian then it is the cars and the bicyclists fault, and when I am on a bike, the onus is on the cars and pedestrians. Got It? good.
Thanks Gothamist for this further insight into the twisted workings of the Dept. of Motorized Transportation.
kablammo: in addition to "bklynd"s story of the Bay Ridge bike lane, they were complaining that (get this):
1) because there was a bike lane, more people were biking on shore pkwy.
2) then, when people double-parked their cars on shore parkways, as they had always done, they were now parking on a bike lane
3) because there were more bikers (1), the bikers had to go around the double-parked cars (2), thus, slowing down traffic.
apparently it was too much change for the community board to handle.
Dutch Superiority!
Those NL mofos kick ass in the bike lane dept. We could learn a thing or 2 from them ...
Thank you Gwin!!! I love how pedestrian bitch at me for going with the light when they're jaywalking - if you're going to show such little regard for your own well-being, why should I show any? If you hang out in traffic when you don't have the light, you're going to have some close calls with moving vehicles (both cars AND bikes) - stay on the curb and wait for the light like I do when I have the red. And for the record, I never ride the wrong way down the street - that seems to be a delivery guy thing. I can only speak on my own behalf that people who do that piss me off and put ME in danger because I have to ride further into traffic.
In response to kablammo:
"cyclists in New York ignore traffic laws as much if not more than the cars"
blah, blah, blah. this is such rhetorical nonesense, and it has nothing to do with this conversation. Cars are dangerous and have ruined this city. period. Stop using rhetorical statements to scapegoat cyclists.
[5] Posted by: john q public | July 24, 2006 03:49 PM
***********************************************
Almost every pedestrian has noticed the bad behavior of bicyclists. How is this mere rhetoric?
Admittedly, New York pedestrians ignore the rules as well. But over the years, New York walkers and drivers have reached a sort of understanding. Bicyclists add a dangerous, unpredictable element to the mix. They come fast, from all directions, following no rules, angling across streets unpredictably. Often, one has to run to get out of the bicyclist's way and into the path of an onrushing car.
Now, I am in favor of bicycling and bicycle lanes and I am no friend of cars. And, it seems to me, bicycle lanes would, logically, cut down on some of the problems I've just described.
But bicyclists are not pure-hearted environmental angels; they are primarily people and demonstrably at least as selfish and disruptive in their actions while bicycling as any other segment is while doing its thang.
I never ride the wrong way down the street - that seems to be a delivery guy thing.
[24] Posted by: e. | July 25, 2006 08:21 AM
******************************************
Definitely NOT only a delivery guy thing.
John Q. Public: Often, one has to run to get out of the bicyclist's way and into the path of an onrushing car.
By your own indication, that means the pedestrian is standing in the street already -- which they SHOULDN'T be doing if they don't have the light!
I think the bottom line is that we need some bike lanes everywhere. There will always be bad drivers, bad pedestrians and bad cyclists. However, most of us (cyclists) are safe and courteous and want to have a healthier commute, lifestyle and planet. With as wide as most avenues are in NYC, I do not understand why we cannot have a skinny little bike lane attached to one side.
Currently, I am frustrated because I live and work on the East side of Manhattan. I want to take the FDR riverside park route to ride to work, but it inconveniently ends around 60th street for 30 blocks. Unfortunately, I work between those blocks, and the alternate route forces me to go down York then over to 2nd Ave. If any of you ever bike in the morning (or drive) you will know that 2nd Ave is extremely treacherous between 38th & 34th (because of the entrance to Queensboro).
My ride could be so much safer with a dedicated lane down either 2nd or FDR.
Also, I do get the angry comments from drivers frequently. This happens when I am in the bike lanes (believe me, I am overly cautious). What is up with all of this hostility?