City no longer hitting brakes on Slope bike lanes stalled by PPW controversy

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

The city is rolling out a pair of new Park Slope bike lanes after hitting the brakes on the paths last year amid the controversy over the Prospect Park West cycling route.

On June 21, the Department of Transportation will unveil a plan for two new bike paths — running east on 14th Street and west on 15th Street between Third Avenue and Prospect Park West — sixteen months after the agency abruptly scrubbed a public meeting to present the same roadway proposal while a lawsuit over the nearby Park-side lane brewed.

The long-in-the-works traffic-calming plan pleases cyclists who say the infrastructure is one more sign the protected Prospect Park West viaduct is here to stay.

The proposed lanes on 14th and 15th streets have also earned support from neighbors, who say the paths gives bikers a straight-shot route from Gowanus to Prospect Park and help slow speeding drivers on the mostly residential streets.

“It’s a great path to the park,” said 14th Street resident David Garcia. “There will be less room for cars to pass — but that’s okay; it makes drivers more cautious.”

Bike boosters say added the lane will also help slow drivers on 15th Street, which is downhill and becomes wide west of Eighth Avenue.

“They are very appropriate places for bike lanes,” said Park Slope cycling enthusiast Eric McClure.

The plan began in 2010, when Councilman Brad Lander (D–Park Slope) asked the city to study the feasibility of bike lanes on the streets as part of a traffic calming measure at Bartel-Pritchard Square and 15th Street.

The city had already classified 14th and 15th streets as “potential bicycle routes” in a bicycle master plan, making them likely spots for pedaling paths.

Then in February 2011 — amid backlash and a brewing lawsuit over the then-new Prospect Park West bike lane — Community Board 6’s Transportation Committee posted an online agenda item indicating the city would present a plan for the paths.

But after a reporter from this newspaper called the city with questions, the item was abruptly removed from the agenda.

Now, even the most vocal bike lane opponents offer little criticism about the proposed routes on 14th and 15th streets — which will ferry cyclists to the high-profile lane on Prospect Park West.

“Our issue was with the specific means by which the Prospect Park West lane was created — not other bike lanes in Park Slope,” said Louise Hainline of Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes, which last year sued the city over the Prospect Park West bike lane.

The plan comes on the heels of two other city projects that bike boosters say indicate the controversial path is here to stay: the installation of cement pedestrian islands on Prospect Park West and a new two-way bike lane on Plaza Street West that links to the path.

A spokeswoman for the city offered few details about the new plan, saying only that “the agency will be presenting a proposal to the community board.”

But Lander had plenty to say.

“[It] will make our streets safer for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike,” he said.

Reach reporter Natalie O'Neill at or by calling her at (718) 260-4505.
Updated 5:34 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Scott from Park Slope says:
There you have it--NiBBLe's objections to the PPW bike lane was never about bike lanes or the process with which they are created, but about impeding Chuck Schumer's and his wife Iris Weinshall's limousines ability to ferry them to meet with important (tm) people and other important (tm) people to come meet with them for high tea. Whatever you peasants want to do in the distant wilds of 14-15th Streets among the other peasants is fine by them. Hooray for democracy and all that, ahem, ahem.

Why is that jackass still a Senator, exactly?
June 21, 2012, 8:13 am
Scott from Park Slope says:
The residents on 14th & 15th Streets are going to like the bike lanes for the traffic calming alone. Alternate side parking will be tricky with double-parking (watch: the meter maids are going to go on a spree), but the reduction in automotive speeds and attendant noise are worth that inconvenience. I wish we had a bike lane coming in on our street, too.
June 21, 2012, 8:17 am
Resident from PPW says:
Go away, Louise.
June 21, 2012, 8:33 am
S from Bklyn says:
Maybe Louise Hainline can prove she's for "better bike lanes" by coming to the CB6 meeting on this subject tonight at 6:30 PM.

It's just down the street from where she lives. She can take the bike lane in both directions. Just be careful when you reach 14th Street - there's no bike lane!
June 21, 2012, 8:58 am
jay from pslope says:
here is some news below from MSNBC from the west coast where bikes are more entrenched, We have had similar things happen in Prospect Park. I actually got hit by a biker in the park on Monday, he was riding in the pedestrian lane in the wrong direction, and not using the bike lane. Meanwhile cars keep driving in places they are not supposed to either. Cops REALLY need to do their job and ticket everyone A LOT more.

Cyclist accused of vehicular manslaughter over pedestrian's death pleads not guilty
By staff and news services

SAN FRANCISCO -- A cyclist charged with vehicular manslaughter in the death of an elderly pedestrian at a busy San Francisco intersection pleaded not guilty Wednesday.

Software developer Chris Bucchere, 36, is accused of recklessly speeding downhill through a red light and into an intersection crowded with pedestrians in the city's Castro District on March 29. He struck Sutchi Hui, 71, who was crossing the street with his wife and died of his injuries four days later.

The case, a rare felony prosecution of a bicycle rider for a fatal accident, comes amid a 71 percent increase in bike traffic in San Francisco in the past five years. It also marks the third instance in which a pedestrian has been killed by a cyclist during the past year in the Bay Area.
Advertise | AdChoices

Evidence against Bucchere, who is free on $150,000 bond, includes several eyewitnesses and a surveillance video that have helped investigators put his estimated speed at up to 35 miles per hour.

A spokeswoman for District Attorney George Gascon's office, Stephanie Ong Stillman, said investigators had evidence Bucchere also ran a number of stop signs on his way downhill to the intersection where the crash occurred.

'Plowed through'
Authorities also suspect Bucchere was the author of an online blog post about the accident in which the cyclist recalled being "too committed" to stop at the traffic light before going through it.

"I couldn't see a line through the crowd and I couldn't stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find," the post said, going on to describe a "river of blood on the asphalt" in the aftermath of the collision.

The post drew criticism from other people in the forum when Bucchere wrote that the moral of the story was that it was important for cyclists to wear helmets, local station KTVU Channel 2 News reported. The post was later removed.

Follow @msnbc_us

The San Francisco Chronicle said Bucchere had been trying to set a speed record for a popular bike route through that neighborhood, and an electronic monitoring device on his bike provided investigators with some of their evidence against him.

In a written statement issued to reporters at the courthouse on Wednesday, Bucchere's lawyer, Julie Salamon, said her client "anticipates the day when he may express his deepest condolences to the Hui family for their tragic loss. But for now, while the case is ongoing, he will continue to cooperate with the authorities and to respond responsibly to the charges in court."

Bucchere, who left the courthouse without speaking to reporters following his 10-minute arraignment, is due back in court on July 27, when the judge will set a date for a preliminary hearing.

Stillman said Bucchere was the first bicyclist charged by Gascon with felony vehicular manslaughter, an offense for which prosecutors must show gross negligence and is punishable by up to six years in prison.

In March, cyclist Randolph Ang, 23, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter for running down a 67-year-old woman who died a month later. He was sentenced to three years' probation and 500 hours of community service.

In a more recent accident, a 92-year-old woman was struck and killed by a cyclist in a crosswalk near El Cerrito, east of San Francisco.
June 21, 2012, 9:12 am
T from PPW says:
The last pedestrian killed by a cyclist in NYC was in 2009. The last cyclist killed by a motorist in NYC was last week. The last pedestrian killed by a motorist in NYC was yesterday.

Obviously horrible what happened in SF, but the fact that you have to reach all the way to the west coast to find a bike-caused death is telling. I agree, though, that the NYPD are asleep at the wheel when it comes to protecting New Yorkers from dangerous road users.
June 21, 2012, 9:27 am
jay from pslope says:
you missed the point, bikes are way more in use in SAN Fran than NYC right now, as more bikes go into use around here you will see this kind of thing begin to climb here, cops need to get on it.
June 21, 2012, 9:31 am
ty from pps says:
Swampy -- Isn't it your coffee break yet? No comment?
June 21, 2012, 9:31 am
T from PPW says:
Not true, jay. As bike commuting levels go up, accident rates fall. It's already happened in NYC.
June 21, 2012, 9:37 am
jay from pslope says:
t, if more people use more bikes, then there will be more bike related accidents, simple math yes? maybe fewer car related issues, but still there will be more bike accidents because there are simply more people using em. You really want to argue over that?
Also, I don't think that the fact that someone has not been killed by a bike in 2 1/2 years in NYC (at least according to your post) is dispositive, its more just a matter of luck that some one has not died more recently than that from a bike, for instance the 2 people in Prospect Park who got hit, that were in a coma, etc, were not killed, which was in the news. They could have been and its just luck that they were not, and people get hit by bikes all the time, and it usually does not get reported.
I still have a nice bruise on my arm from the jackhole on a bike who hit me on Monday to prove that, and its not the first time its happened to me either. What is the point of calling the cops though, they won't do anything about it.
Bikes are less lethal than cars, but that does not mean they are not without problems.
Like I said, cops need to get on this and enforce traffic rules on bikes as well as cars without mercy, and I really don't get why they seem to basically refuse to do so except maybe once a year in a so called ticket blitz to get some press and make it seem like they are doing their job.
June 21, 2012, 9:54 am
ty from pps says:
Jay... While your first sentence is inaccurate for several reasons, I COMPLETELY agree with your sentiments about enforcement.

The politically motivated "ticket blitzes" have NOTHING to do with safety. Nothing.

The NYPD needs to enforce traffic laws, period. They don't. Their own statistics confirm this. The amount of tickets written compared to the traffic volume and number of unenforced violations in this city is baffling. The NYPD needs to start *engaging* the community by educating people.

Why do the police cars just drive past double-parkers, aggressive cyclists, and pedestrians wandering/crowding the street? Why don't the slow their cars down and SAY SOMETHING. Don't write a ticket. I don't care. Just make it known that the NYPD is actually interested in enforcing things related to safety... not just politically expedient ticket blitzing and "real crime." (Last time I checked a person killed by a speeding car is just as dead as someone who was shot.)

I'm also happy to see (at least a couple in Manhattan) more cops on bikes. I'm seriously tired of the NYPD and their Long Island style "windshield view" of the city.
June 21, 2012, 10:14 am
Scott from Park Slope says:
Jay, I'm sorry you got hit by a bike that wasn't using the bike lane. That sucks. There are inconsiderate cyclists just as there are inconsiderate pedestrians and drivers. I've seen other cyclists doing the same thing in the park and it annoys me too.

But your insinuation that more bikes = death, mayhem, murder! is weird. Your argument hangs on a vanishingly small probability that will only persuade mathematicians of the most pedantic variety. If you're that concerned about traffic accidents you ought to be laying down at the entrance to GAP, crying, weeping, wailing, waving your arms and begging people to stop driving cars. Oh, the humanity!

Jay, it's simple physics. A bike, which weighs a couple pounds, and the human riding it, travelling at bike speeds produces far, far less force than even a small car with a small person driving it, going car speeds. It's rare for a bike to produce enough force from the right angle, in the right situation to result in a fatal collision. But even a compact car rolling over a toddler at 5mph is going to kill.

Like T pointed out, the real culprit in traffic fatalities is the car. Cars obviously have their uses and aren't going away anytime soon, but stop dressing up your anti-bike phobia with ridiculous nonsense.
June 21, 2012, 10:17 am
T from PPW says:
Jay -

Please Google "Safety in Numbers" and bicycles. You are confusing the number of accidents with the accident rate. It's okay but you are incorrect.

If you have 100 people riding bikes in your neighborhood and 10 of them are involved in accidents, you have an accident rate of 10%. But if you have 1000 people riding bikes and 20 of them get into accidents, you have an accident rate of 2%.

The NUMBER may go up, but the rate decreases. Math. About as simple as it gets, though not as simple as you'd like it to be. More bikes on the road means safer biking overall...and safer streets for pedestrians. That's why places like Amsterdam have few pedestrian deaths even though they have tons and tons of people riding bikes.

You are right that bikes are not without problems even though they are less lethal. Everyone needs to be courteous and safe.
June 21, 2012, 10:26 am
Jym from PLG says:
• I love how Hainline is retreating from her earlier, more-encompassing generalizations, so that her group's efforts sound a little less like abject failure. Will she ever self-diagnose her own confirmation bias, though?

@jay/pslope - There's less biking in San Francisco than in Brooklyn, and much less bike infrastructure (though they are trying to catch up). In any event, the incident in question has nothing to do with bike infrastructure; you're just using it free-associate with your own random gripes.
June 21, 2012, 10:40 am
jay from pslope says:
ugh t and Scott, look you are are both wrong, if more people use more bikes, then there will be more people on bikes, and that means there will be more bike accidents.
If no one ever rode a bike there would be no bike accidents, right? Why you want to argue over this simple statistical certainly is beyond me. By the way Scott you mis-used the word pedantic, but nice try.
As for laying down at GAP failing my arms, ect, now who does that? The only people I know who do that are spoiled 4 year olds, are you suggesting that I should act like a spoiled 4 year old? Is that what you do? Hows that working for you Scott?
Where did I say mayhem and death and murder? NOWHERE, so stop making stupid stuff up, it makes you look foolish and you should expect more of yourself.
As for your physics argument, yes it is true that less mass equal less force, (funny that you complain about mathematicians but then try to trot out a physics argument, a bit intellectually dishonest eh?) but you ignore the reality that humans are basically walking bags of water and it only takes five pounds of force (a baby's grip is more than that) to break a knee.
Yes bikes are less lethal, I said so, try reading instead of making crap up, but bikes still have enough mass to mess people up and they do, not as much cars, but that is not the issue, wrong is still wrong, and that is what you are, and bikes need to be policed without mercy, just like cars.
Stop assuming that I am anti-bike and that I have a phobia, I don't, and your statement is factually un-true, and unless you have a medical license you are not even qualified to make such a retarded statement in the first place, let alone to make such a statement about me, so just stop with the name calling, again, you should expect more of yourself and shame on you.
I actually own two bikes and do century rides, but I follow ALL of the laws, for the simple reason that I am NOT a criminal.
June 21, 2012, 10:49 am
T from PPW says:
jay is a crazy person who doesn't understand statistics. peace out.
June 21, 2012, 10:55 am
jay from pslope says:
T you are correct in that 10 out of 100 is 10% but if a 1000 then is 2%, BUT if bike use goes up 10 times, then there will be a corresponding rise in bike accidents.
Don't believe me, its cool, but go talk to an actuary at an insurance company, they run these numbers all day long and have done so for over a 100 years full time as a job.
They will tell you that you cant expect to increase bike use by 10 times and have bike accidentals only to double, baring some sort of new major safety innovation that currently does not exist.
Its just not real and your argument is simply false, now maybe its possible under the safety in number theory that it will keep accidents from rising as much as it other wise would, so maybe we only get an 9.5 times increase in bike accidents for an over all accident rate of 9,5%, or 95 bike accidents, but your numbers that you put up just don't make sense on the face of it.
I get what you are trying to argue, but if more bikes go out on the road, you are going to see the accident rates stay about the same. People are not all of a sudden going to be so much safer than they were before. In fact the counter argument to your theory is the mob-mentality that can occur and then people actually become more unsafe.
I personally don't think either theory applies to bikes, as day in and day put people are pretty consistent with their behavior, and that most likely you will see a pretty steady rate of bike accident rate, whether that bike use goes up or down.
June 21, 2012, 11:03 am
jay from pslope says:
T I am not a crazy person because I see that your numbers are bogus, but maybe coming from you I should take that as a compliment because only crazy person or a stupid person would think your argument and bogus numbers hold any water and agree with you. But thanks for dragging things into the gutter once again.
June 21, 2012, 11:06 am
ty from pps says:
Jay -- to be fair, "but your numbers that you put up just don't make sense on the face of it" is a pretty lame argument. There are LOTS of things related to street design, safety and efficiency that "don't make sense on the face of it."

Who would think that "road diets" -- reducing the number of lanes on a road, along with other related things -- would actually IMPROVE traffic flow?

Who would think that HEAT would make things cold? There's something in your kitchen that does just that...
June 21, 2012, 11:12 am
Actuary from AllState says:
Insurance companies do run these numbers. And the reason they don't offer bike accident insurance is because the rate of bike accidents is so low.

I Googled Safety in Numbers for you:

In fact, you can "expect to increase bike use by 10 times and have bike accidentals only to double."
June 21, 2012, 11:17 am
jay from pslope says:
ty ok, maybe you have a point and the insurance people don't know their own business, could be, so maybe my argument is lame, but i made one, you don't even do that and offer nothing expect a conclusionary statement, which is not even an argument, so prove it up, show me. Show me how you can have bike increase go up 10 times and not seen a more or less stable accident rate, and that somehow magically accident rates will decrease in the absence of a major safety innovation?
It has not happened in anything else in transportation so why is it going to happen in bikes?
Road diets actually do make sense on their face, not sure why you think they don't, can you explain why you think they don't make sense on their face as well?
As for heat making things cold are you referring to the absence of heat or are you referring to expansion which cools a substance?
Thanks and look forward to your response.
June 21, 2012, 11:24 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Can someone please explain why anyone objects to these lanes.

Who do they harm, bother?

They just tell drivers to stay on one side of the rode so bikers can have a little more room on the other.
June 21, 2012, 11:32 am
jay from pslope says:
ok so called actuary thanks for that, but two things, one that article cites NO numbers, so that is an issue, second, no one really has any accurate idea of how many people actually are riding bikes and how many miles they are ridding, so any study that does not FIRST have that baseline is going to be totally flawed, its just made up guess work.
If you are an actual actuary, you would know that, and you would not submit some second rate article on unnamed and un-cited studies as proof, and if you are an actual actuary, you would have numbers, and you don't seem to?
June 21, 2012, 11:37 am
ty from pps says:
Jay -- you think that road diets make sense on their face? That reducing the number of travel lanes from 4 to 2, say, will increase the rate of travel on that road? (This is a typical road diet)

I am starting to think you don't know what "on their face" means.

And Jay -- you can read that article Actuary posted and many others about rates of injury. "For example, a community that doubles its cycling numbers can expect a one-third drop in the per-cyclist frequency of a crash with a motor vehicle." To translate... for example if the frequency was 10 out of 1,000 -- the new frequency is 6 or 7 out of 1,000.
June 21, 2012, 11:41 am
Tony from ps says:
Can this reporter actually do some investigation of terminology and facts to educate herself on the difference between "bike paths" and "bike lanes". They are two totally different things and this reporting is just a mess about it from the get-go.
June 21, 2012, 11:43 am
jay from pslope says:
LOL, Ty that I understand what a road diet is and why it makes sense because I dont require further explanation does not mean that it does not make sense on its face, it just means you don't get it.
Again Ty, more unnamed studies without a baseline of how many are riding, that is not scientific evidence that is hokum.
Show me a real study, over several years, where every day they tracked, counted, and verified and proved the numbers of how many people were actually riding and how many miles they ride and then how many accidents occurred?
You can't do it because no such study exists, at least that I know of, but maybe you know of one?
You may think I am being obstinate on this point, but the reality is that many many times people think that somehow something is true when it is in fact not, and its mere folk wisdom that is in truth wrong, so give me a real study please.
Again a second rate article with no named study is not proof of anything. Show me how bikes are somehow different that all other methods of human transportation.
Also I just checked, my insurance agent would be more than happy to sell me another insurance policy, you can get insurance for biking, so actuary, are you who you say you are?
June 21, 2012, 11:57 am
ty from pps says:
Jay -- How about this. It has a pretty graphs for you.
June 21, 2012, 11:57 am
Chris from Bushwick says:
Jay - here's proof: In New York City, there were 18 cyclist fatalities in 2000. There were 19 in 2010. That's a statistically insignificant increase. The NYCDOT's Screenline Cyclist counts showed a 257% increase in bicycle ridership during the same period - from 12,800 to 33,000 riders in a 12-hour period.

Boom. Safety in numbers.
June 21, 2012, 11:59 am
ty from pps says:
"where every day they tracked, counted, and verified and proved the numbers of how many people were actually riding and how many miles they ride and then how many accidents occurred?"

Seriously? This is the threshold for considering data valid? There is no data collection like this for ANYTHING. Though, guess what, there WILL BE. The CitiBike bikeshare system has GPS transponders in all of their bikes and will be collecting data from it all! 10,000 bikes worth of data.
June 21, 2012, 11:59 am
ty from pps says:
(Jay -- that's called a general liability policy. I can get one to be a pedestrian too... I bet I can get my insurance agent to write "Walker's Insurance" on the top with a crayon.)
June 21, 2012, 12:02 pm
whatever from Greenpoint says:
Tal is that you using a new name? Jay sounds a lot like you. Maybe twin brother then?

I'm waiting for MVP of the comment section, Swampy, to respond as well....but maybe his brain pimple finally popped at this news.
June 21, 2012, 1:53 pm
jay from pslope says:
Chris what is your source? Link please? By the way though, I am talking about ALL reported Bike accidents, not just the ones where people get killed, so show me that please.
Like some want to point out in here, bikes usually don't go fast enough and have enough mass to kill the rider of one, so you can't have it both ways and cherry pick numbers.
TY, what, now you claim to hear my phone conversations with my insurance agent? HAHAHA. I asked specifically about a bike, and yes you can get it. Again nice try though. And yes, show me a study that is legitimate, you have had all day and turned up nothing, so instead you have decided to run your mouth off with more stupid name calling. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Whatever, no I am not Tal, strange though that he has not posted in here yet normally he would be all over this hope the heat did not get to him. And by the way whatever I always thought you were swampy.
June 21, 2012, 3:20 pm
jay from pslope says:
and one other thing ty the link you posted is to a biased bike lobby group website. Really thats all you got?
June 21, 2012, 3:22 pm
ty from pps says:
Jay -- are you effing kidding? They posted information from GOVERNMENT sources. Don't read the text. Just read the source material. Jeepers.
June 21, 2012, 3:55 pm
Chris from Bushwick says:
Jay: Those numbers are straight from the NYCDOT:
June 21, 2012, 4:01 pm
Shook from Here says:
jay, the DOT s now required to record ALL reported bike accidents, not just the ones where people get killed. Local Law 13 passed the City Council last year:

First three months results are in. 26 bike accidents.
June 21, 2012, 4:17 pm
jay from pslope says:
Chris, thanks for the link I have to say those are some really interesting stats, I have a few issues with them, such as the one that asks us to believe that only 15 bicycles were injured last year, that seems way low, and the fact that they only do an 18 hour count something like times a year, but having said that, you guys are right, bicycling has gotten safer while ridership has gone up according the to the DOT numbers. Thanks for clearing that up, good job.
June 21, 2012, 5:16 pm
ty from pps says:
Jay -- You're getting a little undeservedly douchey. What numbers are you reading on that report?? 15? You want us to believe you understand statistics if you can't read a simple 9-page report that's broken up into three sections with clear titles?

In the Three Month Period (Oct - Dec 2011)

Bicycle/Motor Vehicle:
Cyclist Injuries -- 755
Cyclist Fatalities -- 3

Pedestrian Injuries -- 26
Cyclist Injuries -- 6
No fatalities

Between Two Bicycles:
Cyclist Injuries -- 3

Single Bicycle:
Cyclist Injuries -- 15
June 21, 2012, 5:43 pm
jay from pslope says:
ummm ty I just agreed with chris and thanked chris for the numbers and you call me douchey?
OK, so either you can't read or you just like to call people names behind the safety of a keyboard. Either way you have NO class.
June 21, 2012, 9:10 pm
ty from pps says:
jay -- apologies... I read "Thanks for clearing that up, good job." as douchey sarcasm.
June 21, 2012, 9:18 pm
mike from GP says:
So can we stop arguing now? Can we agree that increasing biking and walking, and calming and reducing car traffic are good things?

Let's move on to making this a reality.
June 21, 2012, 9:42 pm
Scott from Park Slope says:
Jay, Merriam Webster: Pedant-b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge.

Extrapolating getting bumped by a bike in the park into an obvious need for a police crackdown on cyclists exemplifies pedantry. Your other posts have rather affirmed, not disproved, that assessment. Quellenkritik? That's straight out of the pedant's playbook.

We could get into Ty's point of "safety in numbers" based on government studies vs. your unfounded assumption of a straight linear relationship between number of bicycles and number of bike-caused accidents when we're talking about a heavily multi-variate system, but I'm not sure you'd get it.

Again, I'm sorry you got hit by a bike. The bruises must hurt. You're probably outraged, especially when during car-free hours bikes pretty much have the car lanes plus the "bike" lane. You're right, that cyclist was a jerk. I may have even witnessed the incident you're talking about, because I saw a very similar incident just past the turnoff for the GAP exit.

But the real hazard on the roads are not bicycles, but cars. If we really want to reduce road accidents then we ought to direct our resources to comprehensive traffic calming and enforcement. Sending out our limited number of cops to ticket bikes when the stats are so lopsided in the other direction doesn't make sense.
June 22, 2012, 12:24 am
Scott from Park Slope says:
Mike--amen! Roads are at capacity. Ridership on the MTA has grown dramatically over the past decade, but service keeps getting cut back because of budget woes. More people keep moving to New York, and the mini-baby boom keeps adding to the population too. Expanding the network of protected bike lanes is about the most cost-effective way to absorb the need for all those extra people to get around.
June 22, 2012, 12:31 am
Larry Littlefield from Windsor Terrace says:
Hey Jay, the daredevil jerks were already riding bicycles. Bicycle infrastructure just makes things safer for the rest of us. Even the inexperienced who make mistakes will not be riding as fast.

I see pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle drivers do things I would never do while walking, riding, and driving. Riding around teaching my kids to drive I constantly saw already licensed drivers do things that if one my kids did them even once, I would not allow them to get their license.
June 22, 2012, 9:03 am
Larry Littlefield from Windsor Terrace says:
The data below will never be put in perspective without similar data on collisions between two pedestrians and single pedestrian accidents. The city certainly gets sued a lot for those.

In the Three Month Period (Oct - Dec 2011)

Bicycle/Motor Vehicle:
Cyclist Injuries -- 755
Cyclist Fatalities -- 3

Pedestrian Injuries -- 26
Cyclist Injuries -- 6
No fatalities

Between Two Bicycles:
Cyclist Injuries -- 3

Single Bicycle:
Cyclist Injuries -- 15
June 22, 2012, 9:06 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
First of all, just like there are those that have a ride to be supporting bike lanes, there are also allowed to be those opposing them as well. If you don't like other groups having a say, then become the next dictator of Zimbabwe, so that there can be bike lanes everywhere, and everyone must ride them by force. Nevertheless, the reason for concerns is because for the most parts, cyclists tend not to follow the rules by treating all traffic lights and signs as decorations, and don't even use their own lanes that they pushed so much for. I am glad that the article on the elderly person who was killed by a cyclist over in SF was brought, because it shows that people can be killed by bicycles as well, and I hope that cyclist gets thrown behind bars, but Streetsblog will probably call him a political prisoner. Serioulsy, I find traffic calming to only be something that works in theory, because it will most likely cause traffic on streets, which is probably what Bloomberg will probably use to promote congestion pricing by creating the very congestion itself. On a side note, I do have a life outside of online message boards unlike some here who just don't.
June 22, 2012, 10:52 am
jay from pslope says:
Scott, police DO need to crack down on bicycles breaking the law, that is not "minutiae" and it is NOT minutiae to me when I am a person who got hit. Civil society operates on the basis of rule of law, and for it to work, people need to follow the law.
Maybe to you that is minutiae, but to me its kind of a thing, not to mention its actually a crime, its called hit and run.
Really what you are saying in your rant against me is that by being concerned about this kind of stuff is that I just need to get over it and that I am a big baby because I take issue with getting hit by a bike and that nothing should be done about such things. So really what you are doing is simply insulting me and attempting to degrade me. I take issue with that and with you.
WHO made you emperor? What makes you think that you get to decide that someone getting injured by a criminal act is something for the police to not do something about? Who made you god?
Furthermore the event you say you witnessed, a bike accident on GAP was not me, so, on the same day, in the same area, we now know that at least two people got hit by a bike. Assuming of course you are telling the truth and not lying about it. But hey, not a "real hazard" right?
That clearly shows it IS a problem and it is not "minutiae" the fact that you don't get that demonstrates a) you think people getting injured on an on-going basis is not important which is why you classify it as "minutiae" which means you are a replusive piece non-human garbage or b) you don't understand the word that you used.
I initially chose to go with option b because its the nicer option and did not want to assume that you are a repulsive not human piece of garbage, clearly I was wrong and should have gone with option a from the jump.
You take all kinds of issues with cars, fair enough, have you seen anywhere that I have said that drivers should not get ticketed charged or hauled to jail? NO you have not because I have never said such things. Cars need to get nailed as well. Its not either or Scott.
It seems to me that based on your comments that you think bikers should not have to follow the law because its not a big deal, well, it actually is.
Why? Think about it for more than a second, if your keg-fly brain can handle it, people would be a hell of a lot more receptive to increasing bike lanes and use etc if more bikers realize that they too have an impact on society and worked with people to keep things reasonable for everyone, rather than calling them names and acting like a mini-facist, which is what you are doing.
The fact that you don't get that, demonstrates that you have an incredible lack of maturity and really need to grow as a person.
The reality is we all live here and have to find a way to make things work, bikers and non bikers alike. People like you Scott make that harder, you are the pro-bikers worse kind of enemy, you make the rest of us pro-bike people look bad, you make enemies out of people who otherwise would support positions that you claim to believe in, you make foolish statements, you make people who are pro-bikes look like irrational irresponsible fascist extremists, and no one likes a fascist Scott.
That makes it a hell of a lot harder to get support for bike friendly projects. You may think you are pro bike Scott, but pro bike people really don't need your kind of "help".

June 22, 2012, 11:10 am
jay from pslope says:
right on larry
June 22, 2012, 11:13 am
ty from pps says:
Oh, Tal... i was actually hoping you were dead. But I see you recovered from your most recent golf ball related head injury to post the SAME crap. You are cutting and pasting, right? Or do you *think* you're saying something different... ya know, due to memory problems from the head trauma?
June 22, 2012, 11:40 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
First of all, ty, you don't wish for someone's death no matter how much you hate them, and I have never wished for you to be dead. The real truth is that those that commute by bicycle are still just a blip on the radar according to a recent study on the US Census Bureau. Why do their needs outweigh all other commuters that outnumber them in such big ways? All this us vs them talk really doesn't help at all. Stop thinking that anyone who is either opposed or concerned about bike lanes is anti-bicycle. Also, asking them to follow the rules isn't a call to have them off the roads either. One other thing, personal attacks on those you think are on the opposition isn't going to help either but just create more enemies. BTW, I am not against police cracking down on reckless drivers as I am for them going after rogue cyclists, who show no respect to the law whatsoever.
June 22, 2012, 12:31 pm
ty from pps says:
Tal - I don't hate you... and I wasn't *actively* wishing for your death. It was more of a passive, wouldn't put up too much of a struggle sort of hoping.
June 22, 2012, 1:28 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:

I don't hate you either. I find you a source of amusement. It is funny that someone who knows so little can say so much. You visit Brooklyn or read about it and claim to know more than the people who live here.

But what is most amusing is that you act like you care

Go away.
June 23, 2012, 6:06 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Other Michael, look up hypocrisy in the dictionary, and I am sure you will find you picture there. I can say the same about you and other fellow Streetsbloggers who use Amsterdam or other cities across the nation or world and say that they can work here when it probably won't. Also, I doubt any of you actually spent some real time in those cities rather than just a few weeks there. If you really like Europe so much, then just move there, because nobody is forcing you to stay here especially if love bicycles so much. Even there, they are moving back to the car as they are in China, which is another country you praise so much with bicycles.
June 23, 2012, 4:34 pm
Old time Brooklyn from Slope says:
If you need a special lane to ride a bike you have way bigger issues - do you need a special lane to bang your gf or buuter those buns lol?
June 23, 2012, 8:46 pm
Jim Walden from Gibson Dunn says:
Indeed... Louise Hainline issue was with the process by which the PPW redesign took place... The redesign was part of an open, community-driven, democratic process that played out over years and engaged every stakeholder in the neighborhood.

And, you know what? That's not how Louise and her buddies Norman Steisel and Iris Weinshall got things done when they were power players during the Koch and Giuliani Administrations. So, it's no surprise they weren't happy about it.
June 23, 2012, 10:34 pm
ty from pps says:
Old Time -- I'll try one more time...

The 'special' lanes for bicycles are not necessary to use a bicycle. You know that. The lanes are primarily for the drivers of CARS -- so they don't crush the bicycles that are on the street. If bicycles lanes didn't have a clear cause-and-effect reduction in cars crushing cyclists, I would agree with you... bicycle lanes shouldn't required for CARS, but they clearly are.

Do drivers need that stripe in the middle of the road to drive their cars?! No. It's the same thing.
June 23, 2012, 10:55 pm
ty from pps says:
Oh, and Tal, you're an ignoramus. I hope your mom doesn't let you go outside alone.

(China isn't "moving back to cars" -- I would inform you of the obvious, but reality isn't your strong suit.)
June 23, 2012, 10:58 pm
Old time brooklyn from Slope says:
ty - i have been riding bikes in brooklyn over 50years - no special lane needed just keep you wits about you - pretty simple - btw - saw a few pedalphiles chop a light on 7 adn union yesterday = like the song says - i smoke my cigar, i drive in my car, the only time im happy is when i play my guitar (cream). drivers DRIVE - bikers pedal - lets sing some revisionist beach boy songs changing out car stuff to bike stuff - surely a babe magnet
June 24, 2012, 12:37 am
Other Michael from Park Slope says:

I don't know anything European or Chinese bike lanes or roads..... Never talked about them. Maybe you should stop talking about Brooklyn.
June 24, 2012, 2:29 am
Mike from Park Slope says:
Can we all at least agree people like Ty are do not add to civil discourse on even this overblown issue.
June 24, 2012, 7:03 am
ty from pps says:
Old Time -- Glad you missed the point. Well done.
June 24, 2012, 10:40 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Other Michael, I look at Streetsblog, and I see a lot of your friends rambling about how great bicycles are when it comes to Europe, so that isn't a lie there. At least in Europe, I don't hear about cyclists flouting the laws and always claiming that they always have the right of way. I can never understand why that is the case here. It could be because some cyclists such as those on Streetsblog like to believe that they are not part of the system that they are trying to fight. Nevertheless, cyclist are recquired to follow the laws, and last time I checked that wasn't an option. As for ty, that was really insulting, and didn't your mother ever say this, "If you have nothing nice to say at someone, then don't say anything at all."
June 24, 2012, 8:19 pm
ty from pps says:
Tal -- Who taught you to make everything into hyperbole?

(I'll wait while you look up hyperbole. You can either use the internet or you can go upstairs and ask your mom for a dictionary. I'll give you a hint... It's what dumb people use when they can't actually deal with complex ideas.)
June 24, 2012, 8:47 pm
Old time brooklyn from Slope says:
ty - no point to miss - keep eyes ane ears open - lube up boi lol
June 24, 2012, 10:23 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:

Streetblog does raise the issues of bikers following the laws. All the time. You just don't see it.

But I am being nice. I am just pointing out that your ignorance of what is actually going on is comical.

People in Brooklyn are trying to figure out how to make things better. YOU are not here, you don't know what is going on. GO AWAY.
June 25, 2012, 7:15 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Sorry Other Michael, but a slap on the wrist isn't enough to make them follow the laws. Most of the time, I hear them crying foul over what they call a ticket blitz despite the fact that they are constantly flouting the law. I find bike zealots to be very hypocritical when it comes to saying who should follow the laws. Practice what you preach sometimes rather than saying, "Do as I say, not as I do." If you don't, you have no moral legitimacy. Either way, you are just reading a reflection in the mirror, because it's all backwards, but you closed mind will never admit to that.
June 25, 2012, 3:48 pm
Other Michael from Park Slope says:
Why do I bother?
June 25, 2012, 9:08 pm

Comments closed.

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.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: