Bikes and Pedestrians in NYC parks - Brooklynian

Bikes and Pedestrians in NYC parks

edited October 2014 in Brooklyn Politics
This discussion was created from comments split from: Vision Zero picks up speed.

Comments

  • edited September 2014
    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.
  • edited September 2014
    @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.
  • They now have a cop with a radar gun regularly hanging out at EP and Washington.
    Good to know...
  • edited September 2014
    @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.
  • edited September 2014
    @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.
  • edited September 2014
    @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!
  • edited September 2014
    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 wonder if it's going to result in additional enforcement in Prospect Park as well.
    And here it comes - http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2014/10/closing-bell-cops-to-crack-down-on-speeding-cyclists-in-prospect-park/
  • "When cyclists stop at the signs, officers will remind them to stop for pedestrians at the signals and give out a flyer noting the 25-mile-per-hour speed limit."  

    25mph on a bike is very fast, and for the ordinary person riding around the park, is quite difficult.  You may hit that speed going down the big hill, but even there, it's not easy.  I guess the really serious ones in "bicycle spandex crowd" can ride quicker than 25mph on a sustained basis around the park, but they are only a fraction of all the bikers in the park.
  • @newguy88, I wasn't aware of any pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists until that woman who had died of her injuries sustained in Central Park. However, I had heard of pedestrians being injured by cyclists. A former co-worker has sustained serious injuries that way.
  • @mugofmead111 Until the two deaths in central park this year there wasn't a single pedestrian death due to bike untill back in 2009. Even injuries are exceedingly rare.  A pedestrian is still much more likely to be hit by a motorist and then much more likely to be severely injured or killed. 
  • @newguy88 -
    Do you think number of pedestrians injured by bikes has gone down since 2011?

    Then, about 500 pedestrians were injured by bikes a year to the degree that they had to be treated at a hospital.

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/study-finds-higher-number-of-pedestrians-hurt-by-bikes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
  • edited October 2014
    @whynot_31 ;

    According to the more recent study (2014 vs 2011) There was drop in cyclist vs. pedestrian collisions. Your study dates from 2011. Keep in mind most people hit by bicycles are treated as outpatients. 
  • Do you think that drop is due to safer behavior by bicyclists and/or pedestrians?

    Maybe the number of uninsured people is growing, so they are not seeking treatment?

    Are you defining bicycle injuries as being "rare" relative to ones involving motor vehicles? I hope not. That would seem silly relative to the miles traveled, the size of the vehicle, the numbers of such vehicles and their importance to the overall economy.
  • @whynot_31

    I'd attribute it to improved infrastructure and greater awareness of cyclists.

    Actually my understanding is, thanks to the affordable healthcare act, less Americans are uninsured.

    Yes they are realtively rare even if one ignores the comparison to cars which I hate apparently. When the statistics deem them rarer how is it silly to call a duck a duck? The Bicycle industry is a fast growing part of the economy. To discount it as otherwise is silly.
  • edited October 2014
    @Newguy88 -
    I don't think the police are enforcing existing laws on bicycling because they discount the bicycle industry's role in the economy.

    Rarely do I see members of the NYPD reading The Economist.

    I think they are being told how to spend their shifts by their COs.
  • I have no idea how many pedestrians are currently being struck by cyclists these days, at what speed, in what locations, or whether those injuries are minor, more serious, or very serious. Still, particularly when an older pedestrian is struck by a bike, the chances of that injury being serious, or even catastrophic to the injured person's way of life, are greatly increased. it is not a situation of being killed or simply sustaining a minor bruise. There is a LOT of space between those two extremes. Particularly in the case of the elderly, a broken hip may mean that the injured may never be self-sufficient again. 
    Since it has been pointed out the the bicycle industry is a fast growing part of the economy and avid cyclists maintain that cycling should be considered a vital form of transportation in the city, it is perhaps incumbent upon cyclists to be required to obtain insurance, just as virtually every other form of transportation is required to have. Probably skateboarders also -- I've seen a lot of those engaging in very unsafe practices. After all, we don't accept drivers saying that they cannot afford insurance.
  • edited October 2014
    I doubt the social costs of damage caused by uninsured cyclists rise to the level where the social costs of requiring insurance would be justifiable.  And you don't surrender liability just because you don't have insurance.  


  • edited October 2014
    I agree.

    In fact I hope that in the event I am ever hit by a bicyclist within a park, that the biker has no insurance and lots of assets.

    I say this because insurance companies tend to have really good lawyers to avoid payouts, whereas individuals being sued are more likely to be represented by Lionel Hutz.


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Hutz
  • it is perhaps incumbent upon cyclists to be required to obtain insurance, just as virtually every other form of transportation is required to have. Probably skateboarders also
    Hilarious.

    When the level of death and destruction caused by cyclists gets even remotely close to the same universe as that caused by car drivers, let me know, and I'll completely support what is till then this complete idiocy.


  • edited October 2014
    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.

    We should probably figure out a way to measure their impact on the overall park experience (discounting accidents) as well.
  • As a biker, I would be fine with "fast bike hours" in the park that would be not unlike off-leash dog hours.  There's no doubt that the Prospect Park loop is made more dangerous by the varying degrees of cycling intensity and disregard for the law.  

    One of the most dangerous things that happens is that some cyclists stop when there are people in crosswalks while others continue.  The ones that stop indicate to crossing pedestrian traffic that it is OK to cross, and then they're hit by the ones who are trying to beat their next Strava record.

    Frankly, I find loops of the park to be really monotonous and feel badly for anyone for whom that is their main way of enjoying cycling.
  • I don't get the logic behind "I'll get insurance when cyclist cause as many deaths as drivers". Insurance has been a requirement of driving for a long time, well before the car became ubiquitous. If we are really moving to a more enlightened state where lower polluting transportation is the answer, why the hesitancy to protect the most vulnerable? Would the same argument be valid coming from a Smart car driver? How many Smart cars have ever killed someone? Fact is once the bike moves from primarily recreational use to primarily daily transportation and commercial use, insurance should not just be discussed by instituted. According to everything I read that's where we are now.
  • edited October 2014
    Well, presumably few people are commuting by doing laps in Prospect or Central Park.

    Are you purposing that bikes are EITHER recreation or transportation at all times?

    That seems too rigid. It seems like I would have to care why someone is riding their bike in the park.
  • edited October 2014
    Insurance doesn't protect anyone except the insured.  

    Car insurance has only been mandatory in most places for several decades, and has only become mandatory because of the social burden of uninsured motorists.  It was not made to be required "to protect the most vulnerable" at all.  

    There are countless behaviors that incur liability that do not require insurance.  The ones that do require it number very few for a reason.  Having a dog, or a swimming pool, or a trampoline, or even a gun does not require insurance.  You can easily stumble and push someone into the path of a subway car, or cause an automobile accident as a pedestrian.   Nonetheless, these do not require insurance.

    It has nothing to do with whether it is "primarily daily transportation" or recreational, either.  You're required to have auto liability insurance for a recreational-use vehicle.  Your "fact" is an arbitrary distinction you've made up to support your argument.  Poorly.
  • 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.

    We should probably figure out a way to measure their impact on the overall park experience (discounting accidents) as well.
    Good luck with that. Let me know what you figure out.
  • 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.

    Despite such blitzes being all over the news, 100s of bikers fail to adapt for the length of the blitz and are ticketed.
    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.

    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?
  • edited October 2014
    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?
  • edited October 2014
    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.
  • edited October 2014
    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?



  • edited October 2014
    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.  
  • edited October 2014
    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
  • edited October 2014
    @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?
  • edited October 2014
    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:

    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
    Ha.  That is just beautiful.

    You 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.
  • edited October 2014
    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.  
  • edited October 2014
    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. 
  • edited October 2014
    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.
  • edited October 2014
    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.
  • edited October 2014
    Many parks have prohibited cyclists.

    Focus on only parks.    You can do it. 

  • edited October 2014
    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?  
  • edited October 2014
    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.
  • edited October 2014
    I'll take that as a "yes, I have seen no bikes allowed signs in parks.   Many parks have prohibited bikes"
  • edited October 2014
    @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.
  • edited October 2014
    Misdirect?

    Also, We were/are on topic they just shoved us in another topic. 
  • edited October 2014
    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
  • @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.
    @newguy88, are you therefore suggesting that the biker who hit and killed the woman in CP should be charged with murder? According to all reports, the biker was clearly aware that a collision was imminent and rather than swerving, stopping or falling, he yelled "get out of the way" several times before striking her. Does this failure to act meet your definition of violence against an innocent person, and if not can you explain how this is different?
  • @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.
    One key difference is that the muggers did what they did intentionally whereas drivers in most cases didn't intend to kill their victim.

    But the results are the same: dead people, wrecked lives, destroyed property, etc.  So this - putting intentions aside and focusing on the results - is where my amazement at what you describe comes in: many people have no interest in doing the only things proven to reduce such deaths.  Why?  Because those things would cause them the most minor inconveniences (many of which actually don't even materialize after such changes anyway).  
  • John McEnroe rants against 'lunatic' cyclists in Central Park: http://pagesix.com/2014/10/21/john-mcenroe-rants-against-lunatic-cyclists-in-central-park/?_ga=1.196329580.1965030224.1401028033
    "I love to mountain bike."

    Ha.  This is an automatic within any Boomer rant against cyclists (and it is almost always car-addicted Boomers who go on these rants).  Gotta cite your bike cred... the funny thing is that it's always non-commuting bike usage they cite (e.g. riding around Prospect Park).  It's also so transparently phony most of the time.  

    These ranting Boomers hate bike commuters.  They want streets entirely to themselves and are totally cool with all kinds of traffic violence, often opposing even the most minor changes to street infrastructure and laws proven to reduce fatalities. 
  • edited October 2014
    I am not sure why we are discussing bike commuters or motor vehicles on a thread about parks.
  • John McEnroe rants against 'lunatic' cyclists in Central Park: http://pagesix.com/2014/10/21/john-mcenroe-rants-against-lunatic-cyclists-in-central-park/?_ga=1.196329580.1965030224.1401028033
    "I love to mountain bike."

    Ha.  This is an automatic within any Boomer rant against cyclists (and it is almost always car-addicted Boomers who go on these rants).  Gotta cite your bike cred... the funny thing is that it's always non-commuting bike usage they cite (e.g. riding around Prospect Park).  It's also so transparently phony most of the time.  

    These ranting Boomers hate bike commuters.  They want streets entirely to themselves and are totally cool with all kinds of traffic violence, often opposing even the most minor changes to street infrastructure and laws proven to reduce fatalities. 
    So what are the minor changes in biking infrastructure that would reduce fatalities in parks that you would support? If reducing the number from 2 to zero was possible through the implementation of speed bumps, signal enforcement, ticketing etc. would that be an acceptable reduction?
  • edited October 2014
    So what are the minor changes in biking infrastructure that would reduce fatalities in parks that you would support? If reducing the number from 2 to zero was possible through the implementation of speed bumps, signal enforcement, ticketing etc. would that be an acceptable reduction?
    I was referring to changes outside the park in response to posts referencing injuries and other issues there.

    I'm fine with the parks as they are now, although Central Park will be even better when cars are removed completely - but for the occasional maintenance / police / emergency vehicle - as they eventually will be.  As you note, serious injuries and fatalities to pedestrians caused by cyclists are extremely rare in the parks.  
  • edited October 2014
    Many bikers are ok with how the parks are now, and were opposed to the changes that were enacted in Prospect Park a few years ago.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/nyregion/changes-planned-for-prospect-park-loop.html

    I expect the pro ped forces to state the redesigns were insufficient, and that additional changes are needed.

    This quote in the article is what it is about to them:

    “I certainly applaud any changes that will make Prospect Park safer for all,” he said in a statement. “But it’s also important to keep in mind that none of the accidents that spurred the creation of this task force involved an automobile, so I am not convinced these changes are the solution.”

    In these situations, peds prove their point by simply writing such statements down and letting time elapse.

    Then, bikes end up prohibited in some parks, and their use restricted in others.

    Winter is coming, by keeping everyone inside, it will likely help the public forget about the situation until the spring.

Sign In or Register to comment.