Vision Zero picks up speed
  • I'm not saying these stats aren't a good thing as far as safety is concerned but I guarantee Mayor Billy is licking his chops at the money this is bringing in.
  • Given how much money he is spending on the various municipal union contracts, he is going to need all the money he can get.

    The projected "health cost savings" are going to be very hard to achieve....
  • Of course, because the workers don't want to pay for their own health insurance. Unlike me, who shells out $1350 a month for the wife and myself.
  • I must admit that even if part of the motivation is raising money thru tickets, I am ok with Vision Zero so far.

    ....I am impressed that the police have complied with their new orders.
  • I'm not sure if anyone on this board remembers TIME'S UP - Critical Mass.    It was basically a pro-biking organization that engaged in civil disobedience:   

    http://times-up.org/rides/critical-mass

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time's_Up!

    The group is still around, but as their cause has made progress (bike lanes, citibike, etc), they have lost many of their members.    The police also hate them, and effectively now make it very difficult for them to clog and block busy streets. 

    A far milder group (Ghost Bikes) has now taken the limelight.   Unlike Time's Up, they pursue their cause (memorializing dead bikers) in a way that is designed not to annoy lots of people:   http://ghostbikes.org/

    Now we have a group that wants to memorialize pedestrian deaths though the rapid application of spray paint:  



  • There's a ghost bike near me by the Firestone on the corner of Bedford Avenue and Empire Boulevard. I remember that story.

    It'd be nice to see pedestrian deaths memorialized through spray paint...in addition to makeshift memorials of candles, flowers, and teddy bears.
  • NYT article on Broadway (Manhattan) speed limit being lowered from 30 to 25 mph:

    A few blocks
    south, at 73rd Street and Broadway, where delivery trucks were idling in an
    unbroken chain, Anthony Henry, a driver for Fresh Direct who drives this
    stretch six days a week, said he thought that the new speed limit would help
    get cabdrivers under control.

    “Yellow cabs come through here speeding all the time,” he
    said. “They aren’t giving old ladies enough time to cross the street — they’re
    always trying to make the old ladies run,” he said.



    I don't think lowering speed limits does much; true results come from street redesigns... but symbolic moves in the right direction are better than nothing.

  • The average speed in Manhattan is about 6 mph according to the last study that was done so I don't think the slower limit will help much except on the avenue streets. Crosstown it's not going to change a thing. And as for the truck driver complaining about the cabs....well that the pot calling the kettle black because as we all know, everyone tries to make as much time up as they can. If they didn't there would be no jaywalkers either.
  • Wondering what Vision Zero entails at the agency level?

    It isn't a secret

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/pages/home/actions.html
  • If deBlasio were truly serious about Vision Zero, he would act to make it illegal for pedestrians and cyclists to wear earphones and text/phone while crossing a street. Of course there are bad drivers, but there are also a hell of a lot bad cyclists and pedestrians. 

    I didn't realize that the average crosstown Manhattan speed is 6MPH, pragmatic. Maybe the limit should be lowered to 4 or 5 MPH to further ensure pedestrian and biker safety. LOL
  • The law already restricts cyclist to wearing one earbud at a time. 

    If one is going to ban pedestrians from texting while crossing the street, one might as well ban pedestrians from texting while they are walking on the sidewalk!

    I can see average crosstown Manhattan speed being 6 mph. I drove into Manhattan yesterday. It;s bad. I wonder whether there there should be a separate lights for pedestrian crossing and vehicle movement. 
  • As the city becomes more populous and wealthy, I think traffic will get worse.

    Wealth = huge amounts of commerce and movement of people

    Vision Zero will leave the popular lexicon in a few years, and it should be interesting to see if it is deemed a success despite these factors.

    Will people declare that, although it may not have reduced traffic or injuries and deaths, there would have been more of them without Vision Zero?

  • How does NYC compare to Los Angeles as far as traffic injuries/deaths go?  LA is a big city that has limited public transportation options.  It is worth noting that pedestrians are much better behaved in LA, and jaywalking is actually enforced (at least more than we are familiar with here in NYC).
  • I don't think the city is going to get weathier. I think that a small portion of the city is going to be stupidly wealthy and everyone else is just going to be trapped here, biking and walking because they can't even afford to ride on the bedbug infested subways. Vision Zero is preparing us for this future.
  • Subway ridership has certainly soared over the past few years. Annual total rides increased by about 150M between 2007 and 2013.

    http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/index.htm

    Yup, some of those riders are going to have bed bugs on them.
  • Just for information....one out of every 25 people (or 4%) in NYC is a millionaire so how much more wealthy can the city get? It's a paradox to the statistic that states that NYC is the unhappiest city in the U.S.
  • Only if you don't think many people are happiest when they are complaining.
  • Are they complaining or bragging??
  • I think that depends on the individual.
  • How many cyclists have you seen wearing only ONE earbud, Mead?
  • morralkan said:

    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. 
  • You need to be more aware of your surroundings.
  • morralkan said:

    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.
  • When cyclists are biking distractedly through intersections while grooving to their "music" or talking on their cell phones, they may not crash into anyone, but they can and do cause traffic accidents.
    I know that you hate all cars and think that bikers cycle on water.
  • 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!)
  • I saw a NYPD police van pulling along double parked cars this evening threatening to give tickets if they didn't move. Hopefully the 77th is beginning to take double parking seriously! They could easily issue a ton of citations if they focused on Dean and Bergen.  
  • 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
  • Good for them! Your client was lazy and endangered other road users and hence deserved a ticket. 

    Could we being seeing the very beings of the NYPD actually enforcing road laws for the benefit of all?
  • There is less violent crime, so it makes sense for their jobs to change.

  • 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..
  • The answer is to create lots of loading zones, or fire hydrants.
  • 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.
  • homeowner said:

    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.
  • homeowner said:

    @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.
  • Err, I might have spoken too soon! NYPD refuses to investigate hit and run, blames victim for not personally contacting them -her lawyer contacted them repeatedly- and instead they crackdown on cyclists.http://http://gothamist.com/2014/09/17/bushwick_cops_crack_down_on_cyclist.php
  • Looks like the Vision Zero crackdown on bikers in the park has begun. Fox 5 was reporting this morning that police have been posted in the park and were physically stopping and slowing down speeding bikers. It doesn't seem as if anyone is getting ticketed, but that can't be far behind.

    http://nypost.com/2014/09/18/cyclist-slams-into-pedestrian-in-central-park/

    This is the 2nd pedestrian/biker fatality in the park in six weeks. I wonder if it's going to result in additional enforcement in Prospect Park as well.
  • And unlike autos you know this guy doesn't have liability insurance. Notice, no where in the article did it say that he even tried to slow down, he just took it on faith that she would move out of the way for him.
  • @homeowner -
    Enforcement in Prospect Park has been sporatic at best. When I ride my bike on a few loops, I continue to see bikers not stop at lights to let peds cross.

    ....Peds with coolers, children and lawnchairs in tow.

    I'm all for installing a rough surface before the cross walks, to slow the bikes down in the parks.

    BTW, enforcement against cars is way up in the 77th and 78th. I am constantly seeing drivers pulled over on EP by the library and near Nostrand. They now have a cop with a radar gun regularly hanging out at EP and Washington.
  • whynot_31 said:

    They now have a cop with a radar gun regularly hanging out at EP and Washington.



    Good to know...
  • @homeowner Yes, two dead In six weeks. How many pedestrians have cars killed in those six weeks? Before six weeks ago last the bicycle caused pedestrian fatality was 2009. That article was, and as the Post always is, lacking in concrete facts and significantly biased. It's my understanding bikes are allowed in the car lanes in the parks just like in the street. Also anyone who has ever cycled knows you spend a lot of time yelling at jaywalkers to move. However, it does appear he was going way fast for the park.

    @pragmaticguy Surly you don't think bikes should carry insurance? Also I really hope you don't take anything the Post publishes at face value! It's proven time and time again to be nothing more then a tabloid hiding behind the thinnest vail of journalism.

    @whynot31 if we get rough patches for bikes. Will the park department also install barriers and railroad style gates to keep pedestrians out of the bike lane and from crossing against the light? I think not. Really the weekend warrior crowd needs to slow down and families with coolers need to cross at intersections and at least wait for bikes to roll by before blindly going into the bike lane.

    For what its worth Transportation Alternatives has already published a statement condemning unsafe cycling. When was the last tIme AAA or any of the NIMBY crowed published a statement condemning unsafe driving after a car vs. pedestrian collision? The backlash against the bicycle spandex crowd is already quite serve within the cyclist community. Funny how car people, including on this site, engage in victim bashing but the cycling community doesn't. The Streetsblog article is well worth a read including many of the comments. http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/09/19/cyclist-strikes-woman-in-central-park-victim-on-life-support/

    It actually appears that 77th is finally being to take the appearance of sorta taking dangerous drivers seriously. I wonder if its just the end of the month.

  • @newguy88, I don't think that the fact that a bunch of people have been killed by cars provides any comfort to the loved ones of this woman or the the man killed last month. In all these cases, as in the cases of biker/driver or pedestrian/driver the focus should be on what actually happened, and not seek to ascribe fault to a class of people. The bottom line is that whether this was a case of a tourist being inattentive and in the wrong place, or a biker being reckless if we are going to pursue the public policy of slowing down traffic to make streets and roads safer, that applies to ALL roadway users not merely cars.

    Vision Zero isn't zero vehicular deaths, but the two or three people that get killed by bikers are okay. Its supposed to be raising awareness of how each of us potentially contribute to unsafe road conditions and rasing awareness for everyone. And while you are correct that the Post seems to have a very particular point of view of bikes generally, the coverage by CBS and the Daily News is consistent with the only difference being that the Post is stating the woman is brain dead while the News is reporting that she is being kept alive on a ventilator.

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/09/19/former-1010-wins-employee-remains-in-critical-condition-after-accident-with-cyclist-in-central-park/

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/bicycle-rider-charged-central-park-collision-put-pedestrian-ventilator-article-1.1945604

    I'd also note that while the cycling community may not victim bash, there isn't the immediate hubub and cry for charging the biker with a crime that comes with every vehicle/bike or vehicle/pedestrian fatality either. Guess when the police investigate and determine no criminal liability in these cases, its because they know what they're doing and aren't lazy.

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/10/21/nypd-charges-0-7-percent-of-drivers-who-injure-and-kill-with-careless-driving/
  • @Newguy....First, why not carry insurnace? Not necessarily on the bike itself but what's called comprehensive personal liability. If this guy can afford a $3000 bike he can afford a $500 policy that would cover him for about $500,000.
    Second....the AAA ALWAYS talks about unsafe driving. As a member I get their monthly mag and there's always something in it about texting or speeding so apparently you need to study up some more.
  • @newguy88 -

    "@whynot31 if we get rough patches for bikes. Will the park department also install barriers and railroad style gates to keep pedestrians out of the bike lane and from crossing against the light? I think not. Really the weekend warrior crowd needs to slow down and families with coolers need to cross at intersections and at least wait for bikes to roll by before blindly going into the bike lane."

    You are correct, they will not install gates for pedestrians. This is because when one looks at the rules posted on the Prospect Park website, one sees that pedestrians have the right of way.

    http://www.prospectpark.org/visit/plan/safety

    No where does it say that peds have to cross at intersections or wait for the light.

    A lawyer for a pedestrian could easily argue that fact that this language is repeated so often and posted in red, that it trumps the rule that peds are even supposed to stay in their lane while using the loop.

    Pedestrians have the right of way in Central Park too: http://www.centralparknyc.org/things-to-see-and-do/attractions/bicycling.html

    Sorry.
  • @Homeowner The cycling community is maintaining their call for careful and comprehensive investigation of the incident. Same as they always do granted they're beating the war drum less. Actually the NY DAILY news is pretty biased not as much as the Post but still. You're right the fact she was much more likely to get hit by a car is not much comfort to her family. To whom I'm sure all our thoughts and prayers are with. Had she been hit by a car this would not have received a 1/25th of the coverage it's getting and certinally wouldn't be followed by a crackdown on the safest group of road users.

    @pargmaticguy That's wonderful that you know his financial situation and that he bought the bike new and for full MSRP! I have a road bike that costs under half what his would cost new. I bought it used and paid well under half of its MSRP. I know paying $500 for insurance would be a sizable chunk of my budget gone. Plus the chances of this happening again are pretty slim. So you can show me where the AAA after a driver has killed a pedestrian issued a statement condemning the driver as reckless and imploring everyone to be safe? I though they mostly issued statements against lowering the speed limit, red light cameras, speed cameras and traffic enforcement.

    @whynot 31 nothing in the parks rules states they can cross against the light or anywhere they please. In fact had they stated that it would have contradicted both state and city law. They do however clearly state pedestrians and cyclists must use their own lanes. Sorry!
  • When a pedestrian is under no obligation to cross at an intersection (such as in a park), rules are not written Re: where one can cross. Such things are covered by the "pedestrians have the right of way" rule.

    Remember, no one is arguing that bikes are as dangerous as cars. There is no need to defeat that argument.

    You only need to defeat the lawyers and the police.
  • 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?

  • Is the NYS driving test not difficult enough? (I wouldn't know; incidentally I obtained my license during a 3 year period when I lived out of state). 

    I admittedly can do better on parallel parking (something not address on my out-of-state road test). 

    I'm not sure whether a stricter NYS driving test would address the issues listed by @wirenut, but enforcement would. Speaking of enforcement, some of the commenters on Gothamist who respond to stories of pedestrians and cyclists being hit by cars point out lackluster response by the criminal justice system either due to sucky laws or from law enforcement. 
  • 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.
  • For all you anti-car people....I was driving down Atlantic in East New York this morning and there was a mobile speed camera. Some guy was sitting in a Ford Escape with a camera and radar gun attached to the top. That thing must have snapped at least 10 cars in the one minute that I was stopped at the light. It was like a strobe. And since it's not supposed to ticket anyone unless they're going at least 10 over (or 35 for those who can't add) everyone must have been doing near 40. All in all, a big money day for NYC in just the time that camera was there.
  • @wirenut The
    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?

  • By the way, I mentioned in the Associated thread that at this rate this neighborhood won't have many gas stations left! Maybe that will be a win for being "anti-car"! LOL*




    *tongue planted firmly in cheek
  • @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*

    *No such plan exists. Nor do I wish to have such a plan.
  • @Newguy....I don't have to prove that someone stated verbatim that they are anti-car. By questioning what I said you are admitting to being that way because I didn't single anyone out. The fact that quite a few on here have a distaste for vehicles shows that they are anti-car. Pro-lifers don't have to say they're anti-abortion to show that they're pro life they just have to keep saying that life is the better choice. The same applies here.
  • 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.

    This is why we can't have nice things in a densely populated borough
  • @pragmaticguy My god you're just... uh... I really don't have friendly words. I admitted nothing nor am I anti-car. In fact in a couple places I have stated that I get cars and their utility value. 

    You keep stating that people here have stated they are anti-car. Here is a quote where you have called people, on this board, who want traffic regulation anti-car  "I think it's comical the hatred that so many on this board have for autos." You typed that and you should own up to it. You are unable to field any logical arguments in favor of not fighting against dangerous driving. So you call people names. Like a five year old would.
  • 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.
  • booklaw said:


    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.



    If automobile drivers were following the laws, traffic rules, etc, then how would enforcement be overly punitive to the average law-abiding driver? [/devil's advocate]

    booklaw said:

    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.


    Like the officer who struck and killed pedestrian Ryo Oyamada?
  • A 25 mph speed limit on a major thoroughfare like Eastern Parkway or Atlantic Avenue is punitive. It says to drivers, "this city doesn't want you. Go away."

    It would be much, much better to flood the streets with cop cars, and with speed and red light cameras, to enforce a 35 mph speed limit, then to make all drivers crawl so as to prevent a few bad eggs from recklessly racing.
  • I would also favor strict enforcement of relaxed traffic laws against bicyclists... I see no reason why bikers should have to waste hard-built momentum by stopping at stop signs or red lights when there are no cars or pedestrians at or near the intersection.

    So require bicyclists to do a "rolling stop"... I.e. To slow down sufficiently to ensure that they are not endangering themselves or others by blowing through the intersection, and heavily fine or even jail the reckless few who ignore even those relaxed requirements.
  • What is great about "enforcement" as a topic is that everyone can say that if the laws were enforced on others, they would -in turn- respect the law.   However, no one wants to be the first group the enforcement is levied against.

    So, we create situations (ie speed limits) in which virtually everyone is breaking the law, and then:

    - complain that the police use discretion when they enforce it.
    - wonder why the court system is clogged with personal injury lawsuits.

    It's all kinda self supporting.  

     
  • In this city, the police have rarely enforced traffic laws. We also have a frightening number of unlicensed, uninsured drivers.
  • I suspect they are among those with the least to lose in a civil suit.
  • booklaw said:

    In this city, the police have rarely enforced traffic laws. We also have a frightening number of unlicensed, uninsured drivers.



    I'm pretty sure the insurance won't be terribly eager to pay out for people with fake registrations in PA/GA/whatever, either.
  • newguy88 said:

    @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*


    *No such plan exists. Nor do I wish to have such a plan.



    We saw the chaos & violence when we ran out of gas after Storm Sandy. Life would be extremely different.
  • Several months ago a Deputy DOT Commissioner stated at a press conference announcing a new 25MPH speed zone somewhere that (I'm para - phrasing) this lower speed limit will help prevent injuries to jay walkers. He used the word "jaywalkers".

    Growing up in NYC I was taught that as long as you wait your turn (on the sidewalk) to cross the street, it doesn't matter how fast the cars are driving while you wait for the light to change. Some streets were 25MPH some were 30MPH some were 40MPH

    I think this concept is still true. And as a driver I resent that because government can not control blatant jay walking, it has resorted to lowering speed limits with the mantra: if hit by a car at 25 mph you have a greater chance of living.

    They're throwing up their hands in failure.

    Its akin to someone stealing your garbage cans.
    You cant stop him so you just put out fewer cans for him to steal.
  • @wirenut I just want to reiterate that was a joke. I fully understand and realize that we need gas stations. 

    The problem is people no longer feel the need to pay attention when they Jaywalk. They stare down at smartphones with earbuds in blazing music so they don't hear or see anything. Jaywalking is here to stay I fear and as drivers, and cyclists, it's our legal and moral obligation to watch out for them. As per the law which requires drivers to exercise due caution according to road conditions. When was the last time a jaywalker injured or killed anyone other than themselves. Yet cars kill people every single freaking day. If you can't handle jaywalkers you have no business being behind a wheel in NYC.

    Frankly, after three years on a bicycle I've learned to watch out for jaywalkers at crosswalks or in the middle of certain streets i.e. danger points. Like cars I expected them to do the most unexpected thing and the most on expected time. That being said they are the last group of road users to not be hit by a ticketing blitz. And you know what? I'm OK with that the police should focus their time on attention on cars you know the multi-ton vehicles that actually kill and maim large numbers of people each year. That being said would it kill people to look up before they cross the street against the light? Seriously would it?

    How can the government control it? It's part of NYC culture in a way we eat dirty water dogs and walk against the light. The only way they could control it would be to put fences along all streets and have railroad style gates at all intersections. Really people need to look up and that goes for drivers too. At least once on every single ride I take I see a driver texting, playing with a navigation system, or talking on a phone. 

    I don't believe the speed limit was lowered to protect jaywalkers.The reason many safe street advocates wanted 20 and settled for 25 MPH speed limit because if you're hit at the speed you are much more likely to survive. Could you find me a link where any DOT employee suggested the speed limit was to keep jaywalkers safe? 

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook