Another pedestrian struck by a cyclist in Prospect Park

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

A cyclist struck a pedestrian, breaking the 62-year-old man’s hand on a dangerous section of roadway in Prospect Park where the city is trying to slow bikers by forcing them into a narrow lane lined with traffic cones.

In the second serious accident since the street safety measure was put in place, the cyclist ran into the passer-by at around 4 pm on Saturday on West Lake Drive near the Vanderbilt Street Playground, police said.

Park officials insist the cyclist got distracted and fell, injuring no one but himself in the crash. But police say the biker hit a pedestrian, who was then transported by ambulance to New York Methodist Hospital.

The accident comes two months after the Department of Transportation deployed two dozen bright orange, barrel-sized cones intended to tame the roadway after bike accidents left two pedestrians with severe brain injuries, sparking a lawsuit against the city. Last month, a cyclist wiped out next to the cones.

The orange drums are supposed to keep cyclists from reaching dangerous speeds on the downhill section of the street, but some bike advocates worry they are making the road more chaotic.

“There’s less room to maneuver — so there’s a sense [the cones] make things more dangerous,” said cycling booster Eric McClure.

Not only do the cones give cyclists less room to avoid obstacles, they also obstruct bikers’ vision — making it harder to spot pedestrians who are trying to cross the lane, said McClure.

“The city is trying to do the right thing — but I’m not sure it’s actually helping,” he said.

On a recent Brooklyn Paper visit to the hill, cyclists appeared confused about whether they should ride between the cones or beside them — especially since the barrels sit next to a lane marked with a bicycle symbol, which, confusingly, cyclists are only supposed to use during the few weekday hours when the park is open to cars.

The city insists that using cones to constrict cyclists is the best way to keep the park safe because it “decreases the distance a pedestrian must cross” in front of the bikers, according to a spokeswoman from the Department of Transportation.

Other new safety measures include a more-visible crosswalk and a sign warning cyclists to yield for pedestrians, she added.

But traffic engineering experts say more could be done to make the road safe for cyclists and pedestrians.

To keep cyclists from going too fast, the city could force bicyclists to take a zigzagging path on the hill, requiring them to cut their speed before they start their descent, said Jamie Parks, a traffic planner at Kittleson and Associates, an engineering firm that specializes in bicycle transit in bike-loving cities including Portland, Ore.

“One option is to physically curve the path on the hill to slow down cyclists,” Parks said.

Or the city could install speed bump-like devices, like rumble strips for bikes, he said. Those strips would be similar to what already exist at pedestrian crossings along the controversial Prospect Park West bike lane.

Prospect Park officials see the current street design as a work in progress, saying they will continue to monitor the hill.

“There may not be one perfect solution,” Prospect Park Alliance president Emily Lloyd said at a recent meeting. “But we want to be thinking about them.”

Reach reporter Natalie O'Neill at or by calling her at (718) 260-4505.

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Resident from PPW says:
I wish the pedestrian a speedy recovery. I am sure the bicyclist's registration and insurance card was presented at the time of the accident so that he or she could pay for the medical costs....Ooooops, my apologies, those nasty things only apply towards owning a big bad automobile. C'mon, if people are going to drive bicycles like automobiles, the bicycles should be be registered, insured and follow the rules of the road (including stopping at red lights!).
Jan. 11, 2012, 5:15 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Ya think maybe these barrels aren't working?
Jan. 11, 2012, 5:59 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
and Natalie,

The PPW bike lane is not controversial, you just keep saying it is.
Jan. 11, 2012, 6:01 am
mike from GP says:
One thing that could help is getting the cars out of the Park. That would free up Parks/DOT to better separate the bicyclists, pedestrians, etc, as well as implement more effective and safer bicycle traffic calming. Why the majority of park users (pedestrians and bicyclists) have to suffer because of a tiny and selfish minority (drivers) is beyond me.
Jan. 11, 2012, 8:04 am
S from PPW says:
What happened to "Enough is Enough!"

The PPW is not controversial. 80% of the neighborhood loves it. Only Louise Hainline and Iris Weinshall are still fighting against it.

Enough is enough, indeed. The Brooklyn Paper is full of garbage.
Jan. 11, 2012, 9:07 am
Other resident from PPW says:
Resident, how do you know the cyclist didn't have the light? Are you aware of facts that are not in this article?

Perhaps he was in the wrong, but your reflexive hatred of bikes doesn't help much.
Jan. 11, 2012, 9:11 am
bb from Greenpoint says:
Yea - its not controversial, thats why there's been acres of news stories about it and a COURT CASE.... (cut to 4-yr old with hands over ears shouting la la la I can't hear you)

Get the drivers and the cyclists out of the park.
Jan. 11, 2012, 9:13 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:

It is only controversial to a few.
Jan. 11, 2012, 9:23 am
Chris from Bushwick says:
bb: Get cyclists out of the park?! So now, the same morons who clamor that cycling is a "recreational activity" that "should only be done in parks" are now calling for a ban of cycling IN parks?

Honestly, the stupidity and double-talk of the anti-bike crowd never ceases to amaze me.
Jan. 11, 2012, 9:40 am
BigO from C Gardens says:
I'm tired of laws protecting people from themselves. If you are dumb enough to ride a bike too fast, you don't wear a helmet and crash. You get what you deserve. If you're REALLY dumb enough to just walk infront of a speeding bike or enter a roadway without looking. Then you deserve what's coming. It's Darwin's Survival of the Fittest theory. There should be a law preventing anyone from filing suit against the city and the park wasting our tax money. The responsibility should be between the two individuals.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:07 am
ty from pps says:
They should really just fence in the entire park. If you don't allow people in there at all, no one will get hurt.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:08 am
Kate from P Slope says:

You are sooo right! Once you start treating people like babies they start acting like it. People should be responsible for their actions and lay blame on everyone else. For example in China,, if you kill the head of a household in a car accident, you are now responsible for that household.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:12 am
Kate from P Slope says:
*NOT lay blame on everyone else.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:12 am
JONB from South Brooklyn says:
If i support a car-free park, will the cycling advocates support a ban bike racing or competive cycling in the park between 8am-7pm? no, i didn't think so.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:17 am
liam from kensington says:
OMG - Regrade the hill? Are you kidding? If the city was serious about pedestrian safety they would simply move the crosswalk away from the blind curve to a place - say, 25-50 yards south - where pedestrians can see what's coming at them.

Right now there's a blind spot if you are trying to walk from the West side of the road to the East; DOT should block that off and move it down to a spot with more visibility a little further south. Currently it's less than ideal for both pedestrians AND cyclists, who can't see if a pedestrian is going to jump out into the street either.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:22 am
T from PPW says:
Shouldn't this have a Meadows of Shame crying squirrel graphic?
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:23 am
Journalism Professor from Brooklyn says:

My editor once gave me great advice when I was starting out in journalism. He told me that adjectives are mostly bad for news stories.

Here's a tip for you: Stop putting the adjective "controversial" in front of "Prospect Park West bike lane."

It will make your reporting a whole letter better and more accurate to boot.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:30 am
ty from pps says:
Totally agree -- Natalie O'Neill doesn't even know which graphic to use when she's writing this crap.

Though, I have to admit this is probably her most "balanced" article yet... not saying much, but perhaps she's actually been taking some time to reflect on journalistic ethics, her career, her divisive effect on the community, her self-worth vs. whoring herself out, etc.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:31 am
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Wow, it only took 4 comments in an article about a biker hitting a pedestrian to blame it on cars. Typical anti car wack jobs.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:58 am
Lillith from Fort Greene says:
Move the crosswalk and slow the bikes the hell down!
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:06 am
Joe from Crown Heights says:
Considering the engineering of the park drive to carry cars makes it overly wide and open, I think it's unfair to point a finger at the car traffic. I don't think this is nearly as big a problem on greenways across the city as it is on these park "drives"
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:15 am
Joe from Crown Heights says:
I DON'T think it's unfair, that is
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:16 am
LOLcat from Park Slope says:

You need to do some critical thinking. Insure bikes? Are you nuts? How would this be done? How could it be enforced? I learned how to ride a bike almost as soon as I could walk, should my 2 year old self be required to be licensed and insured? Should pedestrians/runners also need to be insured? They can be the cause of serious injury as well.

You 1%'ers have no idea how the world works (my guess is you haven't worked a 9-5 in many years) and need to remove yourself from any kind of conversation about civics.
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:23 am
Mary from Windsor Terrace says:
hehe I can see it now..a whole troop of cops giving tickets to bikers and yelling at pedestrians to cross safely in the park while someone gets a beating in a mugging just a few yards away on PP southwest, and another woman get's groped. Not to mention all the trash in the park during the summer. Perhaps there are better things to worry about than people walking in front of bikes. The only thing dangerous about a fast bike riding on a ROAD is the idiot who steps in front of it.
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:32 am
Ken from Greenpoint says:
the answer and solution is: bicycle registration and insurance insurance insurance insurance!!! noting is for free here in nyc.... must of bikers are just driving off wile the pedestrian are being taking to hospital, that's all we ask give some respect to pedestrians!!!....
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:39 am
Priscilla from Park Slope says:
Mary and others blaming the pedestrians for stepping out in front of bikes, this is the most common scenario and I see it literally every time I'm in the park which is a few times a week: pedestrians cross BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY PER THE WALK SIGN and a bike speeds through ignoring the sign and going at a speed far to fast to react safely to pedestrians or children or animals, anything. To any reasonable person that would be considered incredibly bad judgment by the cyclist. If not criminal behavior if they hurt somebody. I agree let them wipe out and get a brain injury if they insist on cycling that fast. But they should not be allowed to take another human being with them. It's only a matter of time before they hit a child. The rabid, blind, biased defense of cyclists is not helping their cause. Just makes it sound like a cult.
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:45 am
Tom from pp says:
did somebody say must of the bikers are idiots?
rule #1 yield for pedestrians, #2 use hand signals,(not the finger) that's the only rule they are only following......
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:45 am
Kg from Slope says:
The obvious order or respect starts with Pedestrians. they are the most vulnerable. That's how it works in countries with common sense like the Netherlands. Pedestrians get the benefit of the doubt, then bicyclists then the Car. Clearly a car can easily kill a biker,, therefore common sense says the car needs to practice the most caution. Therefore in the Netherlands the car is almost always in the err in an accident. The same goes for the bike vs pedestrian. However in the Netherlands if a pedestrian is hit in a bike lane, there is NO sympathy for the pedestrian, because the ONLY way to get hit by a bicycle in a bike lane is to make an ERROR and step infront of it. INSURANCE is NOT NOT NOT NOT the answer..
Jan. 11, 2012, 11:47 am
F.L. Olmstead from NYC says:
A large part of the people of New York,are ignorant of a park, properly so-called. They will need to be trained to the proper use of it, to be restrained in the abuse of it, and this can be best done gradually. Our parks dept must maintain a militaristic stature including proper uniforms, salutes and ranking. These soldiers will be held as the keepers of the park and will enforce the laws of the park accordingly. Park goers must stay on the paths and off of the grass adn speed limit must be set a sevel miles an hour. All swimming, fishing, playing of musical intruments and sports should be banned. The park should be used for quiet meditation as a place where nature is respected to the fullest extent and allows the average city goer a chance to escape the noise of the city.
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:03 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Coming from a bike-lane supporter, I agree with Kg from Slope that "the obvious order or [did you mean of?] respect starts with pedestrians."
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:13 pm
liclovr from LIC says:
there needs to be designated crossings for pedestrians - just as on a road with automobile traffic. if you're biking at any speed its dangerous to have pedestrians crossing just anywhere without any signalling/signage
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:15 pm
Peter from South Slope says:
"Park officials insist the cyclist got distracted and fell, injuring no one but himself in the crash. But police say the biker hit a pedestrian, who was then transported by ambulance to New York Methodist Hospital."

THIS sounds like the story! The Park says one thing, the police say another, and the reporter can't be bothered to call up the hospital and verify what actually happened! Everything else in the "story" hinges on this and turns into a pro/anti bike rant.
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:29 pm
S from PPW says:
Everyone knows that the insurance and licensing requirement for drivers has resulted in zero car accidents, deaths, or hit-and-runs.

So let's definitely license bikes!
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:31 pm
Pat from Williamsburg says:
Using bicycle speed bumps and signs noting them when bike paths are approaching pedestrian crossings would seem to be a simply solution to slowing down speeding bicyclist.
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:38 pm
Pat from Williamsburg says:
Using bicycle speed bumps and signs noting them when bike paths are approaching pedestrian crossings would seem to be a simply solution to slowing down speeding bicyclist.
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:38 pm
bb from Greenpoint says:
Yea Chris - I'm sure you're amazed by everything all the time. And seeing as I don't want any vehicles in the park I'm allegedly part of the "anti-bike" crowd.

Doesn't your binary world get a bit boring to live in sometimes?
Jan. 11, 2012, 12:54 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Eventually, enough innocent people are going to be left maimed and destitute after unfortunate encounters with bicycles that insurance is going to be mandated to ride a bicycle in the city.

The only question is how many people have to suffer first.

Jan. 11, 2012, 1:10 pm
homegrown from bkLyn says:
I've lived in NYC my entire life until 6 months ago, I left. I look back now and read this crap, you guys realize you are worse than the White family of W. Virginia. It's amazing the lack of common sense and ability to find a reasonable way to use your parks. It's a PARK for recreational use.. you can't figure that out!? WTF!? I always thought city folk were civilized, educated and step above the rest. Focus on some real problems, grow up!
Jan. 11, 2012, 1:14 pm
smrtR Dan U from pp says:
Henry Ford, innocent people left maimed.. really!!? More people hurt themselves on the subway system tripping on bad stairs, falling when a train brakes too fast than EVER will be hit by a bicycle. A bicycle rider that recklessly injures an pedestrian should be personally held accountable. Insurance is NOT going to happen, stop wasting your time on the subject.
Jan. 11, 2012, 1:21 pm
NYPD watch from Bklyn says:
Meanwhile, a 57-year-old man was hit and killed by two drivers in Williamsburg, one of whom was witnessed speeding at 50 mph.

But the bikes! The bikes!!!!!
Jan. 11, 2012, 1:40 pm
Webster from Dictionary says:
Giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.
debatable - contentious - moot - argumentative - arguable
Jan. 11, 2012, 1:57 pm
adamben from bedstuy says:
the best solution would be to teach people to look both ways before crossing the road.
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:08 pm
E from clinton hill says:
regrading the park or installing speed bumps would mean that pp would immediately become unsuitable for the hundreds of races (and not just bike races, foot races, rollerblade meets, fun runs, charity events, etc...) that occur there every year as it would be too dangerous for the competitors.

mind you, most of these people train in the park before most of you louts are even starting to wake up. you probably have no idea they even exist because dumbasses like the subject of this sad excuse for news are the ones you see at 4pm on a saturday, running into things and making the rest of us look bad.

I'm sick and tired of me and my ilk being the focus of all this "outrage." dumb-—— Freds are the ones to blame - off duty cops on squeaky hybrids and basketball shorts, geriatric people not watching where they're going, families walking eight abreast in the roadway, teenagers slaloming on longboards the wrong way down the hill, people riding bikes with their dogs running alongside, and salmon of all types are what causes conflict in the park.

- signed, your friendly neighborhood anti-car zealot/lycra-nazi
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:09 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
"A bicycle rider that recklessly injures an pedestrian should be personally held accountable. Insurance is NOT going to happen, stop wasting your time on the subject."

I haven't heard anyone take both sides of an issue like that since the last time I heard Mitt Romney speak. I'm sure everyone reading this will agree with half of what you wrote.
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:09 pm
ty from pps says:
Webster -- and yes, there are DEGREES of controversy. When a neighborhood-wide topic has only has 8 opponents (e.g., the PPW bike lane) it is *barely* controversial... or *mildly* controversial... or only controversial in the minds of old, rich NIMBYs with nothing better to whine about... or something like that.

Jan. 11, 2012, 2:10 pm
ty from pps says:
adamben -- Folks can't even refrain from pushing their BABY STROLLER into flowing traffic... why would they look both ways before crossing the street? Seems like a lot of effort. Doesn't the world screech to a halt when someone dangles their foot off the sidewalk (or, charges into the street without looking)? I thought that's how it worked...
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:12 pm
Dock Oscar from Grope Slope says:
Yeah, really.

Bikers should yield to pedestrians. Honest.

But having rumble strips and a big "SLOW" painted on the road seems inexpensive and helpful.

Lastly, many different types of accidents happen. Last one I saw, personally, had a girl literally run into a guy walking down the hill (not crossing). She was confused as she was riding in the teeny bike line during the weekend instead of the big bike lane (that is only in use during week days). Same hill, same spot.

Call it "Dead Man's Curve"
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:13 pm
prillis says:
speed HUMPS are the solution. speed bumps and rumble strips are too dangerous, but humps are gradual, but still force traffic to slow down.

the only ones against it are racers, but who cares (other than E from clinton hill and fellow peloton wannabes)? safety first.

NYPD watch - pls explain how an accident in williamsburg is relevant to this discussion.
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:20 pm
ty from pps says:
prillis -- Forget bikes... Every single person who has ever thought about driving a car in Prospect Park, led by Marty Markowitz, will march (or drive) in protest of any sort of speed hump/bump in the park. You know that, right?
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:24 pm
prillis says:
yes. there was also a lot of lame outrage against the humps throughout the various streets in PS, against the bike lane on PPW, etc., but good prevailed over evil.
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:29 pm
Keith from LIC says:
stop acting like a bunch of babies... its getting out of control, rock bottom must of bikers are idiots!!!!! you not going to change them...
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:29 pm
grandma from Brooklyn says:
I ride an old bicycle really slow and I admire anyone who gets off their couch to exercise. I'm sorry all my elderly friends think it's nonsense but that's because when we were younger people didn't care about being active. I suppose that's why so many of my friends have serious health issues before they are 70. Either way I think calling all bike riders bad names is just an ignorant thing to do. In general anyone who has a negative issue with the other without compromise is the real id#@t. There are bikers and pedestrians who are nice to each other don't categorize them because you are unwilling to be helpful to the situation.
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:43 pm
huh? from slope says:
Someone explain to me how bike insurance will help anyone?
-Enforcement: Who will enforce an insurance law? The city? Great we can't even keep our city clean and safe and now we want it to spend tons of our tax money making sure bikes have insurance.

-Benefits: Who benefits? Not the biker and not a potential victim of an accident... you really think an insurance company is going to pay out without a legal fight.. once again more money spent and none gained. An insurance policy would give the biker legal representation without any extra cost thus making it harder for a victim to retain any legal or financial support.

Conclusion: all lot money spent with only an insurance company making money and no one getting any benefit, not the city, not pedestrians,, no one! its the dumbest idea ever
Jan. 11, 2012, 2:56 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
@ Henry Ford from Bay Ridge--

Injured and maimed? What the what? Losing marbles there, buddy. Injured, maybe. Maimed--maybe if 50 cycles spun over each other. Just last week as I was crossing North 4th on Bedford Avenue a cyclist struck me square. We were both negligent--he didn't come to a stop as he should have, and I should've been looking at traffic from the west--if it had been an automobile I most certainly would have ended up in the hospital with serious injury. Instead, the air got knocked out of my gut, the cyclist apologized profusely, I grunted an apology back, and we went on our way.

This is an anecdote, so it's not entirely fair to post it. Instead, how's about statistics that prove the City on a whole is safer because more cyclists and bike lanes are on City Streets--that way we can dispense with nonsense about who is actually maiming who here {including the maiming of logic and reason}:

From that article, which cites a Department of Transportation report:
"As of Tuesday, there were 237 fatalities in the city this year, down 40 percent compared to 2001. Of these, 134 were pedestrian fatalities resulting from collisions with vehicles, which are at an all-time low. The fatality rate for cyclists has also decreased; while bike ridership has quadrupled in the last decade, cyclist fatality numbers have remained roughly the same."
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:11 pm
ALC from Park Slope says:
I'd have to vote with the people who say the barrels just make it more dangerous, from what I've seen. Nor do I think that the easy answer of slowing down cyclists answers the problem (although it does some help.) And none of these accidents happened in a crosswalk. It is a complex problem that is going to take a complex solution including that pedestrians take some responsibility to use pedestrian lanes.
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:12 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
We could ask, "how many fatalities by automobile accidents occur before the City acts"--if we borrowed your language, but fatalities are on a decline by automobile accidents precisely because the City is acting--to install bike lanes and encourage cycling.
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:13 pm
DG from Bklyn says:
Dennis, the insurance companies wouldn't make money covering bikes. If they would, don't you think they'd offer it to savvy bike riders and lobby cities and states to require it?

People pay hundreds in car insurance every month, which allows insurance companies to cover the costs of big payouts, repairs, and medical expenses. Premiums and deductibles are based on a lot of factors, one of which is the cost of the driver's automobile.

But how much would an insurance company be able to charge customers to cover bikes? Two dollars a month? Ten? Maybe twenty? And how high would the deductible be? Five hundred bucks? For that price you could get a nice new bike instead of filing an insurance claim.

As for paying out medical expenses, if I pay $300 per year to Geico or AllState for bike coverage then hit someone, resulting in even a modest medical bill of $1000, the insurance company has just lost $700. That's terrible business.

Believe me, the finest actuaries at each of the country's biggest insurers has definitely weighed the advantages and disadvantages of covering bikes. They've decided it's not worth it.
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:22 pm
ty from pps says:
ALC -- May I repeat something you wrote: And none of these accidents happened in a crosswalk.

Once more... And none of these accidents happened in a crosswalk.

I'm not taking away responsibility of a cyclist or a driver, but want to VERY MUCH emphasize the responsibility of the pedestrian. I am a pedestrian. You are one too, unless you are a magical (or very wealthy) person.

Where do you stand when waiting for the light? Always on the curb, right? Never standing in the road, right? Do you always cross at a crosswalk? Never from between cars? You always look both ways? You always walk predictably? Never texting or otherwise distracted when in the road, right?
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:25 pm
Detroit Mac from Navy Yard says:
I have over 25,000 miles logged riding my bike in Prospect Park (as well as many years walking my dog there). I have collided with, or had very close calls with: runners, walkers, dogs, squirrels, ball players, skaters, bladers, skiers, Police (on and off duty), Park employees (and their trucks), gangsters, roadworks, and other riders. There is nothing you can do to prevent all accidents outside of banning EVERYBODY from the Park (banning people from living would be the only 100% sure solution). And yes, there are bad bike riders, but no one group has a monopoly on acting like idiots. The competition for every square inch of space in this city is such that there will always be conflicts and accidents. We might end some of this discussion if we could see exactly how many people, in total, have been injured in the park year to year... and measure that to those involving bike riders. I would guess that number of bike vs walkers is quite low - (most likely - more pedestrians have been injured just walking the uneven paths!) And we might remember that the park road was originally build for cyclists and horse drawn carriages - not pedestrians or autos (and Ocean Parkway was originally build JUST for cyclists).
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:28 pm
Tom from L. Gardens says:
Funny how this is really only a problem on the west side of the park...
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:31 pm
jooltman from Park Slope says:
Wow 60 comments? No wonder Brooklyn Paper keeps saying that the PPW lane is "controversial." "Safe and beloved" don't increase your readership, truth be damned.
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:40 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
DG, I don't disagree with your point. Truth be told, when it comes to insurance I lack the expertise or even rudimentary knowledge to respond. But I think you missed my point: there's lots of exaggeration and reliance on personal anecdote to characterize cyclists and bike lanes as unsafe. Those exaggerations and misleading accounts are usually coupled with a "pro-auto" stance. Many of those anecdotes are about close-calls and lack of politeness and decorum--they're not usually about collisions. There's a reason for that, as my anecdote implied: a collision with an automobile will hurt you serious; a collision with a cycle will hurt you much less so. And those accounts are not corroborated by Department of Transportation statistics from recent studies: on the whole, as automobile use declines and cycling soars, the City becomes much safer.

This isn't to say anyone is precluded from decorum, of course, but we're not talking about whether or not cyclists are rude. We're talking about whether or not Henry Ford from Bay Ridge is justified in his melodramatic lamentations about people being maimed by bicycles.
Jan. 11, 2012, 3:47 pm
Mark from Crown Hts says:
Obviously this requires a lot of rather high speed bumps along the roadway. That will certainly slow down the bikers. On the long downhill slope, though, I think the bumps would throw the bikers off their seats, so that might not be the best solution. :-)
I had another idea, though: put bands of patio tables and chairs along the route. Führer Sadik-Khan loves them and they've certainly slowed down the traffic in Times and Herald Squares. I'm sure they would totally eliminate the bicycle speeding problem in the park and make it safe for pedestrians once again.
Jan. 11, 2012, 5:34 pm
It's time to get those RECKLESS bike riders out of the park and out of the city. Let them ride like maniacs in the cornfields of Iowa.
Jan. 11, 2012, 6:09 pm
wednesday says:
Where are the "project kids" throwing bricks when we need them?
Jan. 11, 2012, 6:47 pm
David from Park Slope says:
Your headline makes it clear that there was an actual accident involving a pedestrian. But then you write:

"Park officials insist the cyclist got distracted and fell, injuring no one but himself in the crash. But police say the biker hit a pedestrian, who was then transported by ambulance to New York Methodist Hospital."

So - was someone hit, or not? And if it's not clear - why did your headline writer decide that someone HAD been hit? And on what basis? This is beyond shoddy reporting. The story/headline leads with an accident, but nobody is quoted with direct knowledge of the accident.

If you want to write a story about traffic calming devices, fine. Then lead with that. Stop trying to scare people to move papers. Bikers pay taxes. The vast majority of them are respectful park users trying to enjoy it just the way anyone else would. We want to be cooperative, constructive participants in finding solutions to issues like creating an effective street design to protect pedestrians AND cyclists.

Your approach is more of the same yellow journalism. Scary headlines, to get people agitated. Kind of how you still insist on putting the park in Brooklyn Bridge "Park" in quotes to grind that axe that somehow the best new public amenity in Brooklyn in generations is something less than a public park.
Jan. 11, 2012, 7:13 pm
Mike from nearby says:
Get the cars out and redesign the roadway to make it safe for everyone.
Jan. 11, 2012, 7:56 pm
Amanda from Prospect Heights says:
Before anyone bothers commenting on or perhaps writing an article like this, maybe they should actually go to that spot of the park and watch all the pedestrians aimlessly or purposely wander into the middle of the roadway directly into an oncoming bike's path at the last minute. It happens several times, every time I'm in this spot. The cones have only made it worse. They make it so that when someone inevitably does jump out into the street whether or not they see the bike coming, the cyclist has no way to get around them now and will either crash into the pedestrian or the barrel. The speed of bikes, generally a whopping 15-20mph, is not the issue here, it's pedestrians' behavior. Anyone with half a mind who actually goes to this spot can see that.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:16 pm
Tr from Bklyn says:
It's time to get those RECKLESS car drivers out of the park and out of the city. Let them drive like maniacs in New Jersey.
Jan. 11, 2012, 10:36 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
I wonder if Brooklyn Paper will report on this:

This happened in the Southside, so it's in BP's jurisdiction, but there are some factors weighing against BP doing the right thing: it was two automobiles and no cyclists, it involved a death and not hurt feelings, it happened in the Southside and the victim was a Hispanic local and not in the thoroughly gentrified Northside where squabblers are agents of gentrification.
Jan. 12, 2012, 9:30 am
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Out of the last 4 comments, only one was related to the article above. A pedestrian was hit by a CYCLIST in the park. This article has nothing to do with cars, so please spare the rest of us from your anti automobile obsessions.
Jan. 12, 2012, 9:55 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Nonsense--it is entirely related to BP's inconsistent reporting. Firstly, BP is furthering hysteria with their focus on bike lanes and cyclists--cynically to generate traffic. Secondly, it is failing to report on automobile accidents. Thirdly, if it involves Hispanics from the Southside you can count on BP's reporters off somewhere reporting on the creaming of cupcakes in cafes in the Northside before they deign to care. If there is any "anti-" obsession here, it is very much like your own.
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:09 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Because BP is focusing on cyclist issues, and in the sleaziest way possible, it is incumbent upon us to balance the reporting and lessen the hysteria on bicycles by contextualizing with articles and posts about automobile accidents and fatalities. It's shameful that the comments threads on these "cyclist plague" articles are more balanced and do better research than the articles themselves.
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:12 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
The same problems this article has with figuring out who to believe here as pointed out by Dave from Park Slope and others is being repeated by Gothamist:
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:22 am
henry ford from bay ridge says:
@dennis: Complaining about a website stirring controversy to draw traffic by furthering hysteria about bike lanes, and then linking to gothamist is quite funny. Thanks for the laugh.

It's painfully obvious that BP caters to a narrow section of Brooklyn, while remaining oblivious to the rest of the borough. I certainly agree with you about that.

If you are truly outraged by said hysteria, why help the site by increasing traffic, and help the them raise their ad rates?

P.S. I own a car, and ride a bike here too. I'm not anti anything.
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:38 am
ALC from Park Slope says:
The problem with the reporter's story is that she didn't get the story right. There was 2 different accidents, not just 1. There was also an accident (I passed it) on Tuesday the 9th (not in a crosswalk)in the area of the cones. A ambulance came to pick him up his hand looked injured, the cyclist remained at the scene. I do not know who's fault it was.
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:47 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Henry, I don't know if I'd say I'm "outraged" by this issue. BP's pro-gentrification reporting outrages me. BP's inconsistencies outrage me--especially on Williamsburg. As to my contribution to this hysteria--my wish is only to counter and negate the inconsistency of this issue by offering another perspective [as many posters here are also doing, and very well that we do]. Maybe I/we am/are not doing a good job with our rhetoric--sure, maybe we can all tone it down. But responding and thus expanding BP's narrow focus is not part of the hysteria here.
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:47 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
I'm outraged by BP leaping to report on cyclist-pedestrian collisions, and the cream on cupcakes and the foam on lattes in cafes, while neglecting issues like this:
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:49 am
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Dennis, you are outraged by BP reporting news that doesn't fit your narrative (cars are evil, cyclists are harmless).

Cyclists are dangerous too, as my uninsured friend with multiple broken ribs, and insurmountable hospital bills from getting run down by a biker that cursed and spat upon him as he rode off would tell you.

BP should certainly be reporting on the havoc that out of control bikers cause.
Jan. 12, 2012, 12:13 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Again, nonsense. "Owning a bicycle, too" [give me a break] does not preclude one from sense. I have never opposed BP reporting any narrative--in fact, my issue is that BP's narrative is narrow to a bunch of goons such as yourself. In fact, don't be dishonest, it is in fact you who has history of posting on these public threads about supposed "anti-automobile" sentiments. You introduced this into the conversation herein--that's what you're known for. Your pattern is to type in your pseudonym ["henry ford"] then immediately launch into how everyone else is "anti-automobile" and how it is such a detriment to society and order.

What nonsense.

Now you want to project this nonsense about how BP doesn't fit someone's narrative and how someone is frustrated by it--you have this narrative ready at hand for anyone who examines your lunacy and you apply just as instantly, irrespective of the person's actual position that you are attacking. Here, as many other posters have noticed and you are ignoring, BP has focused on this Prospect Park Bike Lane issue to great effect. It nowhere ever does any such examination into automobile issues. In fact, it's seeming counterpart in Gothamist has just reported on an automobile accident that killed a long-time family man in the area, to great consternation in the area:

If BP in fact followed your logic then it would have already reported on this--we're talking about a death here, and you're talking about some multiple ribs broken--you want to really get into a game of escalation here? Please.
Jan. 12, 2012, 12:25 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Indeed, if you haven't already noticed--the only time BP reports on automobile accidents is to refer to cyclist death. And only to imply in its reporting and to reinforce in the lunacy of people like you, that somehow the cyclist "was at fault."
Jan. 12, 2012, 12:26 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
To the rest of you: apologies for the repeated clauses and bad grammar, but we can't edit our posts here. I'd clean up sentences if I could.
Jan. 12, 2012, 12:32 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Dennis, to use your words "my wish is only to counter and negate the inconsistency of this issue by offering another perspective" by responding to "anti-automobile sentiments" such as another poster spewing "It's time to get those RECKLESS car drivers out of the park and out of the city. Let them drive like maniacs in New Jersey." in an article about a CYCLIST hitting a pedestrian.

Your second post contains nothing more than unsupported innuendo that sounds like it was written by a psychotic lunatic. Takes one to know one, I guess.
Jan. 12, 2012, 12:57 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Now you're just repeating ad hominem attacks with ZERO content. Boring. Let's spice things up, buddy--why waste the finite brain cells God allots you. So I'm "anti-auto." So what? It's nonsense that I should be ashamed to admit something that is good for people, lessens dependence on foreign oil and thus foreign aid and thus strengthens us strategically around the world without the use of wars and increases health and thus trillions spent on preventable care. So to everyone else who has sense in their head, while your attention is drawn, check out some under-reported anti-auto propaganda:

"Cycling is booming in New York. Commuter cycling has increased by 26% between 2008-2009 and more than doubled since 2005. The New York City Department of Health estimates that over a half million New Yorkers ride bikes. So what are you waiting for?"

[DOT Commissioner says, " spite of the dramatic hike in the numbers of urban bike riders over the past decade, serious bike injuries and fatalities have remained unchanged"...DOT engineering improvements are one factor. “When we put down protected bike lanes, they improve safety for everybody, for drivers, for pedestrians, for cyclists. Every time we put down a protected lane, injuries go down 40 percent."
Jan. 12, 2012, 2:02 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Excuse me, sentence above is "and thus REDUCE trillions spent on preventable care."

And there's one more, while we're drawn,

"An unidentified man was struck and killed by two drivers while walking on Borinquen Place in Williamsburg earlier this morning around 6 a.m. Details are still emerging about the cause of the crash, but the FDNY confirms that the victim was pronounced D.O.A. and that he was hit twice by two different vehicles. The NYPD press office tells us that at this point, "no criminality is suspected." One local resident sent us the photo below, and describes the grisly scene near South First Street:
I saw family members crying and I guess the guy was hit by a car "going like 50" —according to a witness i spoke with. He was then hit by a second vehicle and was killed on the spot. A Spanish man around 50 years old is how he was described to me. I came up to the site [in front of my building] at around 10 a.m. and the street was already blocked off and flares burned out.
There was a crowd of onlookers and I saw the sheet over the body in the street. I did not see any vehicles around that looked damaged or anyone speaking with police, but witnesses said both drivers stayed at the scene. Motorists speed like crazy down this street to get on the Williamsburg Bridge. I watch them run the light, pass in the bike lane, and speed like it's a free for all.
Update 12:05 p.m.: Police sources tell the Post that the victim is Lepoldo Hernandez, 57, who was walking to meet his coworker, who drove him work on Long Island every day. Hernandez was hit by a car headed eastbound, and then run over again by a minivan driver when he was lying in the street. His coworker tells the Post, "The family is having a nervous breakdown right now. I can’t even talk to them.""
Jan. 12, 2012, 2:03 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
There's no shame in admitting you are anti auto. There is also no reason not to demand that drivers obey traffic laws, I'm sure most people here have had as many near death experiences with psychos running lights, and stop signs as I have.

There is also nothing anti auto in encouraging more people to ride bikes. It's a fun way to get around, less pollution, less gridlock, more parking, etc.

However, attempting to "wean" the public off of cars and onto bikes is futile. That Jeannie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in, unless it's at the point of a gun. Meaning that people that have had the freedom to have cars are not giving it up easily. The solution is fuel cells or whatever technology that brings us cars that don't lead us to be dependent on hostile nations, or are as polluting as the oil industry.
Jan. 12, 2012, 2:46 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
There ya go. Now you're talking. Except "[weaning] the public off of cars and onto bikes is futile." It's not futile because it's already happening.
Jan. 12, 2012, 2:54 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Outside of some younger inner city inhabitants, it's futile.

For instance, the 100's of millions(?) of people in China that have recently started driving certainly overshadows a few NY'ers buying bikes.
Jan. 12, 2012, 3:05 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Don't look to China for leadership in this regard. They're tantamount to superpower by lifting off OUR book. Let US lead the way--China will follow. If we develop and mass produce and mass implement the solutions you earlier described, the world will follow.
Jan. 12, 2012, 3:12 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
And shouldn't it be fitting that the spark is in Brooklyn?
Jan. 12, 2012, 3:12 pm
T from Prospect Heights says:
It is time for everyone to take responsibility for their actions and stop accusing others for the accidents while making broad generalizations about groups of people who use the park. Not all cyclists speed. Not all pedestrians look where they are going. Take a minute to stop and think about crossing the street and walking where appropriate, keeping your cell phone in your pocket while walking or riding, keeping dogs on leashes until they get to the lawn (during off leash hours), and recognizing that many other people use the park. It is a place to enjoy and release stress rather than increase it. Be responsible in how you use the park, and if you see abuses, try addressing them respectfully.
Jan. 12, 2012, 3:38 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
I agree with you about China lifting our book, which also includes not having anywhere near enough of their own oil to sooth their emerging addiction. Hopefully, that (and smog choked cities) will spur development in both countries.
Jan. 12, 2012, 3:50 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:

Let's begin here. I mean, technology is advancing so rapidly on the far ends of research that our children will laugh at our argument. Go crazy. Let loose your imagination--why not? Who is going to be harmed? Then, take those imaginations and send them to the Brooklyn Borough President's office--in the reference line write, "The Brooklyn We Want." Right now there is transition there, and coupled with national and international attention, opportunity is being born.

That way, the next time we argue on a Brooklyn Paper thread, it will be much more meaningful than this, and under much greater headlines.
Jan. 12, 2012, 6:02 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Once again, a cyclist injures a pedestrian, and all the bike zealots come to the defense of that said cyclist while using cars as the scapegoat when that's not relevant to the discussion. I do agree that they should be registered, licensed, and insured especially if they say they want the same rights as all other vehicles, but don't want to pay for them. Still, I find it ridiculous to believe that if cars could no longer be in Prospect Park it would work better for the cyclists as if Israel withdrawling all settlements in the Palestinian terrortories will mean an end to all terrorist attacks done by Hamas, and we all saw what happened back in 2005 when that was done from the Gaza Strip. The point is that cyclists have to start following the rules rather than acting like victims to them, otherwise there will be more rules created. Maybe a return of the ticket blitz will make them understand that the rules do apply to them. That cyclist should pay all the medical bills that he owes to that person he hit.
Jan. 12, 2012, 8:12 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Juxtaposing bike use against automobile use as if it is the same juxtaposition between Israel and terrorism is repugnant. That is entirely a false dichotomy, and doesn't speak well to your argument that you would use such a flagrant foul. Cyclists are not terrorists any more than automobile owners are Israel. Of course the cyclist should pay medical bills owed, but please, for God's sake, be sane with argument.
Jan. 12, 2012, 8:18 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Dennis, the point was basing something known as wishfull thinking. Some of these bike zealots believe that if cars are no longer allowed in Prospect Park, all of the problems just go away when I believe that to be completely preposterous. Although I will admit that was sort of extreme to say that was because it was to show an example where wishfull thinking doesn't work. Afterall, I am a realist, and I believe how things can only work through reality, not some unwarranted assumptions. The problem with this is that are groups that are cheif enablers to rogue cyclists that tell them that following the rules makes them part of the system, so acting like a renagade is the way to go. Bottom line, the issue with cyclists flouting the law isn't something new, some of it goes all the way back to when Ed Koch was mayor and originally gave them the benefit of the doubt only to step back later after hearing all the complaints that they weren't following the rules. Respect is something one must earn, not demand.
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:08 pm
Mike says:
What this thread needed was DEFINITELY Tal Barzilai.
Jan. 12, 2012, 10:53 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:

What do you assume the biker involved in this accident was breaking the rules?
Jan. 13, 2012, 5:49 am
Doug from Park Slope says:
Speed Bumps people! It would slow bikers and the crazy-ass cars that feel the need for speed. Put 3-4 of these bumps on the down hill and problem solved.
Jan. 13, 2012, 7:09 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Prillis and others here have suggested speed bumps also, and while it is a good compromise [not the best, just good], putting them on the downhill will cause further injuries. Elsewhere on the lanes, maybe?
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:02 am
prillis says:
speed humps will only cause problems to those going TOO FAST.
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:20 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Thanks, Prillis. That makes sense.
Jan. 13, 2012, 5:17 pm
better from Yet says:
boobie traps hooked up to speed sensors! It will only cause problems for those going TOO FAST. then
we all get to watch our taxes dissapear into a nice fat lawsuit. speed bumps - humps.. that's almost as dumb as registration or insurance requirements
Jan. 13, 2012, 5:20 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Speed bumps (like these barrels) will cause more accidents.
Jan. 13, 2012, 5:23 pm
PJ from fort greene says:
What a waste. If pedestrians would open their eyes before wandering into the road with their back to traffic, there would be no such accidents.
Jan. 13, 2012, 10:14 pm
Bill from Left Coast (CA) says:
If you ride a bike & hurt some one you should be held accountable; If obvious - do the right thing; If in doubt, police reports & legal procedures can determine shares of blame; If you can't afford to pay for the potential liability of giving some one severe brain damage - more costly than killing some one - you better get insurance or not ride a bike near anyone. No need to insure bikes or shoes; but liability insurance is part of covering your own responsibility if an accident occurs.

If your city builds a multi use path your city will have more conflicts; if a road is designed to accommodate bikes and motor vehicles and everyone follows the rules, and bike riders stay off the sidewalk and pathways or roll as slow as a pedestrian and bike ways are provided and pedestrians stay off them, bikes could go as fast as they want and pedestrians could go as slow as they want.

I liked the "Don't be A Jerk" campaign - don't think I would like living in your high density world though...
Jan. 14, 2012, 8:41 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Bill, thank you for sharing your perspective. But I disagree with this statement: "If your city builds a multi use path your city will have more conflicts..."

That's contradicted by the head of the Department of Transportation, who recently said:
"...there were 237 fatalities in [New York] this year, down 40 percent compared to 2001. Of these, 134 were pedestrian fatalities resulting from collisions with vehicles, which are at an all-time low. The fatality rate for cyclists has also decreased; while bike ridership has quadrupled in the last decade, cyclist fatality numbers have remained roughly the same."

AND "" spite of the dramatic hike in the numbers of urban bike riders over the past decade, serious bike injuries and fatalities have remained unchanged"...DOT engineering improvements are one factor. “When we put down protected bike lanes, they improve safety for everybody, for drivers, for pedestrians, for cyclists. Every time we put down a protected lane, injuries go down 40 percent."
Jan. 14, 2012, 2:54 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Also, I've given the issue more thought and ordered some dinner last night, and when the delivery guy rang my bell, I realized that requiring insurance for cyclists would clearly harm this too low-paid man: the restaurants would clearly add insurance costs for their bicycles onto him, or even onto me whenever I order food thus preventing me from ordering delivery--either way, an insurance requirement would be a job-killer.
Jan. 14, 2012, 2:56 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
First off, many of you bike zealots need to stop acting like victims of the rule. Just to let you know, there were no new rules placed, just an enforcement of what rules already exist. The truth is that something needs to stopped to cyclists who come on pedestrians without warning, and that mainly has to do with them flouting the laws. If there a speed bumps on they fall, then that will show them not to go so fast or they will feel more pain. As for the licensing, registriation, and insuring, this isn't a new idea, but I think the real reason it's opposed isn't because of the costs, but because some will be afraid that they will get caught and can be tracked especially if they do a hit and run, and someone noticed some identification on them. I do find it ironic that cyclists claim to want the same rights to the road as all other operators of vehichles do, but they don't want to pay for it.
Jan. 14, 2012, 4:16 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
I'll repeat, since Tal wasn't adding to the conversation there--it was all speculation and ad hominem. The nonsense he is lording over "bike zealots" is axiomatic and expected of all human beings, so we can just cut away the hate and copy-paste the rest and replace "bike zealots" with "lumberjacks" or "CEOs" or "driver on Borinquen Place who mowed down a life with an automobile"--there is nothing unique there to bicyclists. The only purpose is to reinvigorate some hard feelings--not anything constructive.

So we'll repeat some "bike zealotry":

"...there were 237 fatalities in [New York] this year, down 40 percent compared to 2001. Of these, 134 were pedestrian fatalities resulting from collisions with vehicles, which are at an all-time low. The fatality rate for cyclists has also decreased; while bike ridership has quadrupled in the last decade, cyclist fatality numbers have remained roughly the same."

AND "" spite of the dramatic hike in the numbers of urban bike riders over the past decade, serious bike injuries and fatalities have remained unchanged"...DOT engineering improvements are one factor. “When we put down protected bike lanes, they improve safety for everybody, for drivers, for pedestrians, for cyclists. Every time we put down a protected lane, injuries go down 40 percent."

Since Tal is only repeating himself, why can't we?
Jan. 14, 2012, 6:30 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
In other words, Tal has no facts or data. He only has his imagination, and it is full of paranoia and wild conspiracy about "cyclists"--ooh, they're body-snatchers out to get us!
Jan. 14, 2012, 6:31 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Dennis, I suggest that you apollogize immediately for your personal remarks that verge on slander. They are a hit way below the belt and where I come from, only cowards attack the poster, as opposed to the arguments. Reguaurdless, many cyclists are to blame for traffic incidents, but everybody seems to jump on the motorists who I might add pay the taxes that make these superflouous bike lanes possible. BTW Dennis, I know you are one of them with your zealoutry in defending those undebunkables over at streetsblog. Fine, but can't you at least discuss the issues in a civilized manner instead of attacking me personally? Why does this site always remind me of Hamas (streetsblog) against Israel (motorists)? I am speaking up for the silent moral majority that is tired of getting sand kicked in it's face.
Jan. 14, 2012, 9:33 pm
ty from pps says:
Tal -- "where I come from" people try to say rational things and not rant at no end based on just plain crazy. If you aren't following, YOU are irrational and rant at no end in a crazy way.

No apologies, from "where I come from" you don't deserve one.
Jan. 14, 2012, 10:26 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Nice impersonation of me ty.........NOT! You probably did that to insult me. Whoever, made that 9:33 PM comment wasn't me. Then again, Dennis could have done that as well, which I am holding both of you as suspects. For the record, I have seen the PPW bike lane recently, and it was barely used when I saw it last month. For the last time, I don't hate anyone who rides a bicycle, I hate those who use their egos as an excuse to not follow the rules and claim that they are above them. The more they act like this, the more enemies they create. Don't use such claims from DOT, because JSK has a history of fudging data.
Jan. 14, 2012, 10:37 pm
ty from pps says:
You paranoia aside, Tal. But when you saw the PPW bike lane last month, did you also see the AMPLE capacity provided by the two lanes on the street?
Jan. 14, 2012, 10:44 pm
Mike says:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." Heinlein
Jan. 15, 2012, 1:29 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
The main point is that bicycles can actually injure people, and that is what Natalie was talking about. Don't try to hide that claim by using some stats. I know that an article like this will probably be burried on a biased website like Streetsblog, while others will be wishing the worst for her and probably her death as well. My only thing is to prevent further accidents like this is to enforce the laws, and I am tired of hearing those crying foul on that. As for Mike, I find that statement to be rather childish and insulting, so come back when you grow a brain.
Jan. 15, 2012, 11:50 am
Ed from Windsor Terrace says:
It's funny how so many jump to conclusions without knowing facts. That intersection has a light and a pedestrian cross signal which means that the cyclist could have had a green light and the pedestrian could have been crossing against a no-walk signal.

The other thing is, motorists kill pedestrians and cyclists, and other drivers all the time and yet people are not outraged about that?

Why be selective?...If you are angry with reckless bikers, you should also be angry with reckless drivers and reckless pedestrians.
Jan. 15, 2012, 12:22 pm
Lisa from Windsor Terrace says:
I agree with Ed in that people jump to conclusions and get outraged by headlines; that is usually what sparks draconian and mostly nonsensical measures like the ones mentioned in the article. As a cyclist and a runner, I get to see both sides of the coin. As runner I don't put myself in dangerous situations where I have to rely on a cyclist make the right decision. Most runners, walkers, etc. feel that they should be able to do whatever they want because they are pedestrians. When I ride, I find I have to avoid pedestrians who choose to put themselves in danger. I am OK with that because I don't want a police state! Is there anything wrong with asking people to use good judgement and leave lawmakers out of it?
Jan. 15, 2012, 3:43 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Ed, I do call out reckless drivers just as much, so I am not being selective here. However, I can tell you that websites such as Streetsblog hardly ever calls out reckless cyclists. If anything, they just give them a slap on the wrist, while they wished for reckless drivers to be burnned to the stake. Just because the number on cyclists injuring or killing pedestrians is smaller doesn't make them less of a threat, and this does remind me of the anti-Israel when they use such claims to claim that Hamas aren't terrorists in that they kill less than what the Mossad or IDF does. The only difference with cyclists is that they have the tendency to be unpredictable especially when a lot of them happen to flout the laws a lot. Until they start getting their act together, there will be more enforcement and ticket blitzes in the near future, and I know who will be crying foul on that.
Jan. 15, 2012, 3:52 pm
ty from pps says:
tal -- you're just nuts. wowzers.
Jan. 15, 2012, 6:57 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
I take it that you are not a nerdy leftist, ty, because they will understand this very easily, especially Al Gore himself, who is said to the founder of such group.
Jan. 15, 2012, 11:49 pm
Josh from Park Slope says:
I run into people walking on the streets frequently to people wearing headphones, I-pod ear buds, etc. how many of these people hit were wearing ear buds? It's not all crazy-speeding bikers the walkers/runners in the park have to pay attention as well.
Jan. 16, 2012, 8:05 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
That post on January 15 at 3:52pm couldn't have been written by me b/c at that time I was playing pokemon with the little boy who lives down the lane. Back to the issue. Everything wrong in the world (mainly, those bike zealouts from streetsblogger) reminds me of Hamas and Israel. The point is, you guys don't support Israel or the WNBA or motorists, with is tantamount to supporting Hamas, Ratner, and bike zealouts. The only difference is that the latter are more predictable than the former. As a nerdy-leftist, I exsell in the ability to break down the arguments of my oponents and debunk them one by one. There can't be two legal systems; somebody has to be in charge, and that goes for Israel, women's professional basketball, and bikelanes alike. I've respected your views and I would ask that you do the same for me.
Jan. 17, 2012, 5:04 pm
Vinny from None of your business says:
Hey anti car losers....bikes are for fourteen year olds. No grown man should be prancing around in yellow spandex shorts with a matching yellow helmet. I came back to brooklyn after thirty years and this is what I see everywhere? Guys peddling around all prissy like with flashing reflectors on their helmets. Hey genius. Yeah you,with the flourescent spandex biking suit peddling down the middle of the road in the dark. I see you from a mile away. But some old guy with cataracts and lenses the size of coke bottles will not. And your pretty little helmet isnt gonna protect your empty melon. So start dressing like a real brooklyn man and drive a real car,prefferebly a giant buick. Yeah, you may pollute the environment but stinking up the air is better than getting hit by aggressive ny drivers, right?
Jan. 20, 2012, 6:05 pm
prillis says:
vinny, you just made my day.
Jan. 20, 2012, 6:24 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.