Park Slope Bike Lane Protest Pits Seniors Against Cyclists

Compared to the paltry turnout at last week's bike lane protest in the East Village, this morning's protest in Park Slope gathered a formidable crowd on Prospect Park West. Around 200 lane supporters of all ages gathered beside the bike lane, bearing signs and chanting "We love safe streets," all but drowning out the fifty or so lane protesters a few yards away. The age homogeneity among lane opponents was striking; they all seemed to be enjoying their Autumn years—or rather they would be if not for those meddling bike lanes.

The PPW lane, put in five months ago, is "redundant," according to Bob Linn, who stood on a park bench and preached into a bullhorn about the aesthetic impact of the lane. "It looks like the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel," declared Linn. "Why do they think they can mutilate this extremely beautiful boulevard?" He felt that it did nothing to reduce the need for cars. "Its useful to maybe a handful of bikers. You can count the number who ride by in an hour on one hand." He echoed the general sentiment of the anti-laners, arguing that riders could just use the lane that runs through Prospect Park. Linn was immediately bombarded with shouts from the pro-laners who reminded him that the park lane is one-way.

Aaron Naparstek spoke into a bullhorn in front of the pro-lane crowd. "This is about the sustainability of New York. This is about reducing our dependence on oil!" He reminded the protesters that the construction of the lane was not some arbitrary attack on their sovereignty. "It was the result of a decision made by Community Board 6 and the Park Slope Neighbors. These sorts of street redesigns don't just happen by themselves."

Peter Kaufman, a bike commuter and blogger who broke the Henry Street bike lane church abuse scandal, felt that the narrower Prospect Park West has played a significant role in making the straightaway safer. Before the lane, he said, "People would just gun it. Now, because it's a little constricted; psychologically the drivers feel they have to slow down." In response to the keep-bikes-in-the-park argument of the protesters, Kaufman laughed. "I would suspect every one of these people who are saying that the bikes belong in the park were opposed to taking the cars out of Prospect Park in the first place."

"I served in the army in Europe!" shouted bike lane foe Tony Srour. "They all ride their bikes the right way. They're very cautious over there. Here, I have to look both ways! Even with the walk sign! Twice I was almost hit crossing with my grandson." His wife, Cathy Srour, said, "I'm more afraid of being hit by a bike than by a car. It's more likely right here!" But Park Slope resident Leah Paulos shook her head at that logic. "It's just common sense. Would you rather be hit by a bike or a car?" Um, neither?

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Zoe Schlanger in News on October 21, 2010 11:11 AM

Comments [rss]

Olen Holm

this is the weirdest thing I have ever seen. protest and antiprotest of a bike lane. white people are crazy.

jules1000

I will never understand why anyone would be against bike lanes.

Reckless cyclists are reckless no matter where they drive.

And the new bike lanes in the East Village: yes, it takes a bit getting used to. Just like any change needs getting used to.

I'm a cyclist, and I am completely against reckless cyclists. When I walk and have a green light I will not stop for a cyclist who wants to cross.

I'm generally amazed by the overall hatred against cyclists. Would a thousand more cars be better? For instant cards that bring 2nd avenue to a standstill at 5pm and block the intersection so pedestrians can't pass?

Oh, but those horrible cyclists and those terrible bike lanes.

Insane

thefacts

FOLKS: This type of virulent, perverted comment by this nitwit and a couple of others is why so many people disdain cycling zealots.

Hey Joannie Girl,

Does that also apply to your mother?

JacqueMehoff

c'mon the same could be said on the other side.

even on the NYT blog, which picked up this story, had some crazy posters on the car side, see road rage and bikers beware. like I said, it all balances out in the end.

thefacts

Jacque, you c'mon.

Did you read what she wrote at #25?:

"Old people live too long! Especially in Park Slope. So what if a few of them get hit by bikes. Good Riddance."

This is not sarcasm or irony.

Please show me in the comments here any pedestrian wishing such hatred on a group of people.

Substitute 'gay, black, Jewish, Asian, etc', and she would have rightfully been shouted down by the commenters here.

Not a single cycling advocate corrected her.

Even someone as reasonable as you doesn't condemn her disgusting statement.

I read most of the NYT comments. NYT doesn't allow hateful comments.

So, I see nothing comparable there or here coming from the pedestrians/bike lane opponents.

Angelson wrote a hateful statement and not a single cyclist condemned her. That speaks volumes.

I wonder if she feels the same way about her mother or grandmother.

JacqueMehoff

and, I don't hate old people. there's some great old people and some really assholey ones. I've been lucky to meet some really great cool ones. You get to meet a lot of them when you're in a hospital often.

JacqueMehoff

You're telling me some of the pro car commenters never said anything about forcing a bicyclist to the curb, run them over, etc.

listen I don't want to argue with you. I've read what she wrote including her post history, that's what she does.

that poster's grandmother will die same as mine did, same with my mother someday. we're all gonna die.

ohhleary

Wow. You want someone ELSE to point out any of the hundreds of Gothamist comments that have threatened harm, maiming, or death upon cyclists?

Are you too retarded to find it yourself? Because there are literally hundreds of them. I really have no reason to waste my time finding them - the "search" function is there for a reason.

thefacts

In this country, there are "protected classes".

Under State, City and Federal laws, you cannot discriminate based on religion, sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnic origin, and AGE.

These are characteristics that people inherit and have no control over, or are rights protected by our Constitution.

Cyclists are not a protected class. Neither are motorists. Or hipsters. Nor idiots. We can discriminate against them with impunity.

As I commented, if she wrote, e.g., that it would be 'good riddance' if gays, or women, or Jews, or blacks, or Italians were to die, the commenters would be all over her.

But the fact that she wants old people to die and no one criticizes her is a disgrace. Bad enough for her, but worse damming for the cycling advocates.

If you fail to see the distinction, what can I say?

random transplant

Cyclists, as tax payers, want to see equal representation for road use.

They're playing the "founding father" card, not the "protected class" card.

thefacts

Fine. You want to be treated equally?

Get cyclists registered with a license plate and insurance, so when they attempt to hit and run, there is recourse.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

random transplant

Bikers recieved 26,000 tickets in NYC last year. They are still subject to traffic law. They are required to hold a photo ID like everyone else. They are responsible for paying damages to your insurance company out of pocket, just like drivers without full coverage.

Just like drivers, bad bikers can easily pose as great bikers during a road test.

Maybe I agree, maybe bikers should have to have a license...it would help shut people with your view up and wouldn't change the way we bike at all.

Ed

Did anyone catch the Nine car pileup on Flatbush Ave.@ Grand Army Plaza just after the rally? SUV driver gets inpatient, decides to create a third lane just for himself, between the two traffic lanes, takes out eight of his fellow drivers, one driver needed the jaws of life! Isn't it ironic, don't you think... Traffic Calming Today, Traffic Calming Forever!!

JacqueMehoff

like I said, everything will balance out in the end. when it happens, you'll know why.

brooklynbrenda

Ok, so if the anti-PPW bike lane guy says he can count the number of bikers who ride by (on the bike lane) in an hour on one hand, that is cause for getting rid of the lane? That doesn't make any sense. I dont think anyone's neck is going to hurt from looking left and right more than one time before crossing the street.

What does make sense is getting speeding cars out of prospect park since you can pretty much count them on one hand but they are flying death traps, racing along at speeds exceeding 40 mph indiscriminately honking their horns at joggers, bikers, moms, and just generally upsetting the zen-ness of nature.

I heart the PPW bike lane and I heart old people.

Peter

I'd like to point out the contradictory nature of their arguments.

On the one hand, they say no one uses the lane. On the other, they keep talking about how they are constantly in danger of being run over by bikes in a lane they say is never used.

Peter

inklake

eyekantspel

why all the hate on old people? They have probably been living in the neighborhood longer than anyone, and they have a right to their opinion. If they've found that the bike lanes are a problem, they have a right to voice their opinion.

The one guy, Tony Srour, says that he & his grandson were almost hit on 2 occasions. His wife seems to think that bikes are more of a threat to her than cars. A little more courtesy by the cyclists, especially in neighborhoods where old people are walking, would probably be a better approach than protests/ counterprotests.

Spirit of 76

I don't think it's so much a hatred of old people as hatred of stupid people, who just happen to be mostly old in this particular instance. If most of the protesters who showed up had been young, we'd still be calling them idiots.

unretrofiedforu

Why are they idiots? Why are there concerns any less important than your's?

This is America remember? They feel opposed to it so they are voice their opinions.

yse

I agree 100%. I'm one of those rare cyclists who does stop at stop signs/red lights and rides the right way in bike lanes, etc...

If cyclists were just more courteous to others and aware of their surroundings, they would do a lot to further their cause. Seems win-win if you ask me. Unless you think getting to your destination 5 minutes faster is worth all this anti-cycling rage - not to mention your own safety as well as the safety of others.

There is zero reason (in principle) pedestrians and cyclists should be in conflict. Cars and cyclists, I understand (but don't agree with). But isn't having more bikes and fewer cars on the road actually SAFER for pedestrians?

True we'd should normalize for things like "number of cyclists on the road/time on road vs. number of cars/time on road" (To get an accident rate that is per vehicle per hour). But I'm pretty sure that still wouldn't get you to a point where cycling is less safe for pedestrians. Note that there seem to be no "fatalities" - just injuries - listed for cycling. Besides, the decrease in car related accidents is more or less commensurate with the reduction in car use in the city, whereas the decrease in cycling related injuries goes down despite an INCREASE in cycling .