Too little too late?
After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
221–230 of 317 posts
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is literally blaming the victim. Pedestrians aren't carrying a multi-tonne vehicle that can kill people. Traffic lights are for drivers, and it's drivers who should pay attention. The first step to fixing traffic deaths is fixing the laws that make causing a traffic accident more affordable than paying attention on the road. Right now you can drive while using a cellphone and run over as many people as you want…
If you walk when you have been assigned to walk, your risk of an accident goes down. Please do not wave your faux high ground around like an argument.
If you drive like you are assigned to drive, your risk of running over people goes down to 100%.
The responsibility of not killing people is on the drivers.
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on what I've seen in Chicago, it seems that the missing element is informing the public of the relevant laws. To my knowledge, the rules covering bicycles and pedestrians have never been on Illinois's written test, they aren't necessarily covered in driver's (or other) education, and, since most motorists (and also, I'm guessing, cyclists) come from more suburban environments where there just aren't as many bik…
If cars are driving in bike lanes then it's not very good bike infrastructure. The best bike & pedestrian infrastructure is isolated from auto infrastructure as much as possible. Drivers take up every possible piece of real estate available and steal space from adjoining infrastructure when they can get away with it.
The best possible bike infrastructure is also very expensive to construct, and can't be built overnight. Given many major US cities' budget problems, I think that making the perfect the enemy of the good is probably a great way to doom ourselves to the worst.
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#224> The dangers came into focus this year after 25 cyclists were killed on city streets — the highest toll in two decades. The "highest toll in two decades" gives some context, but I wish writers would share ratio metrics rather than absolute numbers in cases like this. I.e. the number of active cyclists on the road might be outpacing the deaths, but we don't know when you just say "25 cyclists were killed in 2019." Al…
Are you saying the value of these cyclist's lives is based on how many cyclists there are?
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#225Former road cyclist chiming in. I've been a regular bicycle commuter for over 10 years. Earlier this year I was hit by a motorist who demonstrated extreme lack of judgement when passing me earlier this year, leading to some injuries that will probably mostly heal in another year or so. I seriously dodged a bullet and recognize how lucky I've been doing what I was doing.
In short, my platform now is that meatbag-controlled multi-ton steel boxes hurling along at up to 60mph and meatbags sitting on top of some tubes stuck together don't belong on the same infrastructure. It will never work.
I am categorically opposed to bike lanes delimited only by some paint on the ground. If it is physically possible for a motor vehicle to occupy a space designated for a bicycle, it isn't safe. It won't work. The marginal increase in bicyclist safety isn't nearly enough. Any lobbying to try to build that type of bicycle infrastructure out is a distraction from what actually needs to be lobbied for. By consenting to bike lanes, the government has an "out." They can say that they are "doing something" for bicyclists, so it's a fair deal, and their job is done.
In reality, it isn't anywhere close to fair, and the job isn't anywhere close to done.
Until bicycle tracks completely separated from vehicular traffic are ubiquitous across all major metropolitan areas of the United States, the country won't be able to begin to claw its way out of its self-inflicted transportation apocalypse. Anybody who attempts to commute by car during rush hour in a major United States metropolitan area knows what I'm talking about. Millions are wasting away years of human life and productivity stuck in their cars in stop-and-go traffic every single day.
There needs to be a will to spend billions, not millions, on infrastructure only for pedestrians and bicyclists. Something on the scale of the the Federal Aid Highway Acts of 1921 and 1956 needs to happen today, in 2019.
Congress needs to authorize federal funds to create something on the magnitude of 50,000 miles of paved separate cycle/pedestrian tracks. There needs to be a National Urban Mobility Trust Fund with a $100 billion infusion, for starters. I for one will demand nothing less, and I won't ever stop demanding it.
We need to stop messing around with these in-the-trenches, one-city-council-at-a-time battles that bicyclist clubs are trying to fight to eek out their pathetic and ineffective lines of paint on the road.
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I wish they also tell us how many accidents do bikers cause themselves as they are notorious for not following any traffic rules - thereby endangering the live of others.
I see this question come up all the time and the answer is that on average, fewer than one person per year dies due to a collision with a bicycle in NYC. In fact 5 of the last 8 years had zero pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cyclists. [1] Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of "endangering the lives of others." [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bi…
Cyclists do kill pedestrians in NYC. E.g.: https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-who-killed-woman-in-centr...
Not saying it's a high probability, especially as compared to motor vehicles, but to state the opposite -- cyclists don't have a history of endangering the lives of others -- is also false. They can and do kill pedestrians.
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just means they add bicycle setbacks in an attempt to scare drivers. It doesn't solve the problem when people are routinely allowed to drive without demonstrating an understanding of how a traffic light is supposed to be interpreted.
It does partially solve the problem. Protected intersections make lanes of walking and biking much more obvious to drivers, and the curbs are such that drivers slow down more and have better visibility.
Except for the fact that the bike lane is hidden by parked cars until shortly before getting to the intersection. What do you see in this image: https://imgur.com/a/JcS4RK5
The other thing is that if you go by the figures and text in https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/don... on pages 12 and 13, you'll find that a right turning driver can only see about 8.2 feet to their right when making a turn. That's the only opportunity they have to see an approaching cyclist who comes from behind them moving at 16 feet per second.
A half second to react to a cyclist appearing in the driver's field of view (as shown as the picture on page 13) is not enough time for a driver to yield.
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#228If you don't live in NYC you should know that a lot of bicycles in NYC are delivery guys riding electrified bicycles that go up to 20MpH. Many of them don't wear helmets and ride dangerously. I don't have anything to back this tip but the raise of deaths can be linked to raise of electric bicycles
just curious what your observations are on people in cars wearing seat belts.
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being down-voted for the tone of your post I think. But I think it's an interesting point. If there is evidence that US bikers have a culture that does not following traffic laws that can and should seriously impact policy decisions. It's possible some of the great suggestions here that work well in other cities wouldn't work in the US for this or any dozen of other reasons. Not saying that there for is such a…
It's not an interesting point because this topic has already been studied. Cyclists break traffic laws at roughly the same rates as motorists.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of studies in this area. Do you know of studies that compare breaking traffic laws of cyclists in different countries?
Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this question come up all the time and the answer is that on average, fewer than one person per year dies due to a collision with a bicycle in NYC. In fact 5 of the last 8 years had zero pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cyclists. [1] Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of "endangering the lives of others." [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bi…
Cyclists do kill pedestrians in NYC. E.g.: https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-who-killed-woman-in-centr... Not saying it's a high probability, especially as compared to motor vehicles, but to state the opposite -- cyclists don't have a history of endangering the lives of others -- is also false. They can and do kill pedestrians.
The person you are replying to didn't say it's impossible for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian, just that it doesn't happen very often. They cited a statistic, you found an anecdote to counter. The disconnect seems to be around the word history. You're taking it to mean "something that's ever occurred", where as the person above is taken it to mean "something that is a common occurrence".