Community Board 7 will hold a public meeting on Tuesday to discuss CitiBike’s imminent arrival on the Upper West Side, and how to keep bicyclists and pedestrians safe. The board will also go over community comments submitted about the potential locations of CitiBike stations. CitiBike could arrive on the Upper West Side as soon as August, though the exact timing hasn’t been finalized.
The meeting will take place at 7 p.m. at community board offices, 250 West 87th street, just west of Broadway. The agenda is below, and we’ve covered the discussion over locations, with maps, in detail here.
Tuesday, June 9, 7:00 PM
At CB7 Office, 250 West 87th Street.
1. Citibike Site visit review by committee:
- Potential safety issues
- Potential traffic impacts
- Possible site conflicts
- If one of the above is present, possible alternate sites.
2. Citibike Community comments to date (from CB7 website and public comments)
3. Board and Community Discussion of Vision Zero principles as they pertain to Citibike:
- Enforcement (motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles)
NYPD – Failure to yield, traffic officers at high-risk areas, one-way street travel, speeding, earphones, cell phones, stop at red lights, riding in bike lanes
- Engineering
– Signage – Citi Bike wayfinding, bike kiosk signage
– Thermoplastic markings
– Resurfacing
– Northbound bike lane (DOT will come to CB7 in the fall to discuss)
– Operations and Maintenance in inclement weather
- Education
– Information for bike riders on rules on bikes
– Citibike educators at various stops during launch/humans at docking stations
– Nearest bike merchants for helmets and bike supplies
– Technology (Citibike app)
– Collaborative education sessions w high risk pedestrian groups
4. Citibike Implementation and Operational Data, followup w Motivate/Citibike/DOT
5. 21 outstanding Transportation Committee priorities for DOT – safety prioritization and action
6. CB7 Data Report – Rich Robbins
Photo by Jesse Chan-Norris.
I live in the 70s on Columbus. We have bike lanes and many of them are moved to accommodate construction on the sidewalks. They’ve become pedestrian /bike lanes and are treacherous. Bike riders are often using the lanes to go uptown, not down. Also treacherous. Earlier in the week I saw a citibike rider riding on the sidewalk between Amsterdam and Columbus.I hope someone in charge of safety is thinking about more than where those bikes get parked.
Before CitiBikes arrive, there needs to be enforcement. We were the third automobile waiting to make a left from Columbus onto West 72 Street this morning around 8:10am. At this intersection, there are separate traffic signals for pedestrians, bikes, and cars. The bike symbol was clearly red when it was our turn to enter the intersection to make the turn. One bike sped past us and continued south on Columbus, while another bike went around us to make a left onto West 72 Street. Luckily, there were no pedestrians trying to cross at this time. There were not delivery bikes – these were just regular cyclists in a rush to go somewhere. I’d love to try a CitiBike someday, but not if other cyclists are going to continue their law breaking ways.
I think the major thing every pedestrian wants is to have cyclists stop at all red lights.
Perhaps what pedestrians want is to not have to fear being hit by cars and killed.
A few cyclists running the lights? Most of those are delivery people, not citibike commuters.
Help me out. How many people have been killed by cyclists running red lights? How many people injured?
Now, how many have been injured or killed by cars? Intersections on West End dont get named after the victims of citibike accidents.
Again, this is what divides cycling advocates from so many of their neighbors. A person says that cyclists should stop at red lights, and rather than admit that they’re exactly right, we get fairly hysterical anti-car talking points vomited back at us.
Anyone averse to cyclists stopping at red lights is a flat-out opponent of 99% of their neighbors, and deserves to continue to be marginalized.
The problem with these meetings is that the level of discussion is remarkably low. There are those who delve deeply into cyclist behavior and it seems that pragmatism on roads not designed for cyclists is the vast majority of what people erroneously brand as dangerous behavior.
I quote from https://wapo.st/1sdm2Rd
“[P]erhaps, by giving cyclists their own safe space, they don’t feel the need to head down one-way streets to bypass busy roads, or to blow through red lights to stay ahead of traffic.”
“Infrastructure influences how we think about our own roles in public space [and] also physically shapes our behavior.”
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf
There’s also a fairly new concept called Bicycle Stress Level Mapping that underscores the importance of good road design.
On Columbus the DOT has introduced timed bike-lights on certain left-turn corners which, while well intentioned, accommodate the low level left-turn volumes much better than cyclists who have to speed and run red lights to pass more than two of them at a time. A simple solution would be a yield/blinking red for cyclists at these intersections to prevent them from having to run the red to avoid waiting 1.5 light cycles every other block that has these with red lights only at heavily used left turn lanes (96,86,79,72). It’s still probably LTS1, but even so could be further improved to positively influence cyclist behavior.
But it’s hard to get a word in when all people do is clamor for enforcement of pragmatic and calculated behavior to try to stay safe on poorly designed streets. As another commenter mentioned, cyclists are essentially pedestrians on wheels. I actually don’t think the Idaho Stop laws are very applicable here, but like with jay walking, clearly only egregious/dangerous infractions should be enforced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
“Bikeademic” wrote,
The problem with these meetings is that the level of discussion is remarkably low.
I am not familiar with the meetings of which you speak but replace “meetings” with one or more other words and the quoted sentence of yours expresses quite precisely a sentiment I have long had about something else… (I am not thinking of you or even this particular thread but rather the general, overall impression that I am left with after at least a year of following and participating in many threads.)
I disagree. Perhaps its my annoyance at the de facto response of “well, then they should have to stop at the lights!” which sets up this strawman argument that cyclists stopping at lights is actually a problem. It isnt. There are much bigger fish to fry than cyclists obeying lights. At most, they are momentary annoyances.
The bigger problem is the lack of enforcement, or inappropriate application, of laws to protect pedestrians. Car on pedestrian, car on bike accidents continue to rise.
And the ironic thing about all of this, is that more people on the streets and in the cars is an excellent way to begin that change. Force drivers to abandon the “I am the kind of the road, move the fuck out of my way” mentality and into one where they have to share the road.
Noah Rothstein said:
“Such gratuitous use of profanity detracts from your credibility and is particularly unbecoming to a lady.”
So what she said would be ok if a man said it? isn’t that a little 1950s? or 1880s?
I don’t think Debbie D. has to worry about “credibility.” She’s one of the most eloquent commenters on this site. keep ’em coming, Debbie D!
I wholeheartedly agree with your characterization of the “king of the road” mentality. All the education and mapping and lights means absolutely nothing. I witness every single day in Midtown Manhattan cylists
who ride on the sidewalk, blow through red lights, careen around pedestrians.
Money is a great equalizer. Cyclists should be licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles and be insured. Yes, that’s right. Since they reach speeds of 30 mph or more, it’s time for them to pay up.
Such gratuitous use of profanity detracts from your credibility and is particularly unbecoming to a lady.
Hear, hear. Well said.
(That was meant for Jeremy’s reply.)
I’m a big proponent of Citibike/Bicycling in general, but yes, Lucien, your point x1000 all day long.
It’s hard to believe that a 59-year-old man lost his life to unsafe driving on our UWS streets last week, a tour bus crushed a Spanish tourist to death last month, a driver crashed his Mercedes through a Columbus Ave sidewalk last week DURING the CB 7 meeting, and this is what our CB and NYPD are going to spend time on.
Zero fatalities in two-plus years of Citibike rides in Manhattan & Brooklyn. Eight vehicular crashes per day day across zips 10023, 10024, 10025, and 10069. Drivers have injured / killed 89 pedestrians and cyclists this year on the UWS, and injured / killed 94 other motorists. I hope the meeting organizers come prepared with comparable stats on Citibike-caused injuries seen in two-plus years.
I AM 85 AND VERY “WITH IT” AND I WALK VERY WELL. cROSSING THE STREET AT 77TH AND Columbus. MY FRIEND AND I WERE NEARLY HIT BY TWO BICYCILISTS RACING DOWN COLUMBUS WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS ON. THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF STOPPING FOR MY FRIEND AND ME. if I HAD NOT SEEN THEM WE SURELY WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED OR VERY BADLY INJURED.
Sadly, I have no trouble believing that what you described actually happened to you. And I wish you well.
I would just respectfully suggest that you try to make sure that the “Caps Lock” on your keyboards has not been activated before you compose your post.
Noah – Would you tell your mom to take her “cap lock” off the same way you told a stranger? Be nice, dude.
@ stuart: I only intended to be helpful and worded my suggestion as politely and respectfully as I could. I also only even mentioned the Caps Lock matter after first positively acknowledging the substance of the poster’s words and wishing her well. I honestly could not see how anyone could have taken offense to what I wrote.
Your post however, has caused me to reconsider the matter and begin to see how my words could have possibly come across in a way entirely at odds from how I intended them. This is because your post came across as sincere constructive criticism and not the rather vicious attack that another individual had made against me (in which the matter of my Caps Lock comment was clearly being used merely as a pretext or launching point for attacking and attempting to discredit me.)
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to apologize to Ms. Lubell in case my words offended her in any way. Such was certainly not my intent. I would also remind people that the nature of this medium is such that words can often easily be misconstrued and come across in ways that are very different from how the writer intended them. There is a general principal of assuming good faith in cases of doubt.
How about cameras at every intersection for failure to yield for both cars and bikes. Would have to put a plate on bike just like car and say fine car or bike 250 for each failure to yield, that would put a stop to the wild west on the West side.
Has anyone asked why this mindless “citibike” program is being foisted upon a congested city which has far too many other really pressing issues which need to be addressed?
What will it take to wake up all the brain-dead proponents of this folly?
Like the “climate change” nazis…..these imbeciles are paving the road to heII with their “good intentions”, all while ignoring the downside of implementing this absurd plan.
Has anyone actually LOOKED at….and COUNTED the number of bicycles using these bike paths? I have. And what have I seen?
* Underutilized bike paths….especially in the cold and wet weather.
* Cyclists still going in the wrong direction.
* Loss of parking spaces inconveniencing shoppers, businesses and residential parkers.
* Insane traffic tie-ups throughout the boroughs, especially Manhattan, resulting in delays for emergency vehicles…..and everyone else.
* Loss of tax revenues.
Are there any adults left in NYC govermment?
“Off Duty”,
You raise a number of valid concerns. It is unfortunate (though hardly surprising) that, as of this posting, no one has responded to any of them.
I realize this is veering off-topic but since you made this statement, I would like to make two points in reply.
First, shouldn’t the term “Nazis” be reserved for those who, like the actual Nazis, advocate or at least defend atrocities on the order of genocide? (Such atrocities include, I should note, the routine murder of the unborn, an atrocity that continues with impunity.)
On the question of climate change itself, I tend to be agnostic. (I find the position I have heard articulated by John Derbyshire[1], an individual with a strong scientific background, to be the most reasonable of any that I have heard on the topic.) What I find remarkable, however, concerns those who are the most vocal about the purported dangers of global warming. Specifically, the charges made by such individuals that various interests (commercial, political, ideological) have been allowed to triumph over sound science and the general public interest. Such charges may indeed have merit. The grotesque irony, however, is that the very people making such charges concerning global warming, tend, overwhelmingly, to be no less guilty of the very same thing –i.e., allowing the agenda of various lobbies to triumph over science and public good— in any number of other areas. The hypocrisy is rather incredible.[2]
Off Duty, whatever faults and excesses you may be guilty of, I tend to welcome your posts, finding them a refreshing change from the orthodoxy that clearly dominates not only on this site but throughout the geographical area that it represents. Being very much a dissident of both places (WSR as well as the UWS) myself, I tend to find myself in agreement with or at least appreciative of many of the views that you express. Nonetheless, you do have a distinct style that many –including those, like myself, who agree with the views you express– would describe as conspicuously over-the-top. Because of this, I cannot help but to suspect that you may be a troll; a persona created by someone who is actually of the opposite side, in order to satirize and delegitimize those who hold views such as the ones that you express in your posts.
I hope that this is not the case and that you sincerely hold the views that you express here.
You mean any who aren’t completely in the pockets of the various pernicious cultural lobbies (abortion-mongering, buggery-mongering, suicidal immigration policy, etc., etc.) that dominate politics in this town? None that I am aware of, I’m afraid. Not for a long time, anyways.
All the more reason why I hope that you are not a troll and that you live on the Upper West Side. It would be nice to know that there is someone here besides me who hasn’t drunk the proverbial Kool Aid. (Yes, I used a cliché`.)
If you are, in fact, a retired police officer, then I would like to thank you for your public service.
NOTES:
[1] Some examples of John Derbyshire’s statements on the topic of climate change can be found at the following URLs:
https://www.nationalreview.com/article/228701/trust-science-john-derbyshire
https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2010-02-19.html
https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2013-09-21.html
[2] Perhaps the most striking example of this is one that involves the whitewashing, sanction and effective promotion of a certain act that is inordinately disease-spreading (and, many would argue, manifestly gruesome and brutal). For a comprehensive treatment of this topic, I would refer the interested reader to the following two sites.
WARNING: Graphic content, especially at first site.
DISCLAIMER: No endorsement on my part should be assumed of any of the views or content at either site. My personal views in the areas-in-question tend to be rather complex and nuanced and can only be understood through detailed explanation on my part.
-Bill Weintraub’s Man2Man Alliance
-Rob McGee’s Frot Diggity Blog!
Note and bear in mind that both of these men are fiercely independent and intrepid dissidents. Unequivocally, unapologetically and actively PRO-homoerotic themselves, these individuals find absolutely no contradiction between that and the incisive criticism and condemnation of certain acts, behaviors, attitudes, philosophies and values that characterize and define their work.
@ Noah ….Firstly, let me assure you that I am NOT a “troll”….at least not to SANE, thoughtful and assiduously honest people. And quite frankly, I find your lament that I may in fact be a “troll” disconcerting, since if as you say, you “welcome” my comments……
How does that compute?
That said, I too find it refreshing that I am not alone in my observations that much of the world is either insane or in the accelerating process of becoming so. That this internet “rag” has so many clearly demented far, FAR left-wing commentators here who spout off some of the most insane drivel without much challenge has spurred me into making gruff responses to some of the more insidious postings.
Hence, I suppose, this explains my use of the word “Nazi” when referencing the “global warming” loons. I’m over with apologizing for “offensive language”, as I have found that polite language usually fails to penetrate the minds of imbeciles. (And I am NOT calling you an imbecile). You are however being overly sensitive to my writing style. Still, a close associate once pointed out that I do not write letters….but that I AIM them, so I accept your criticism…..flawed as it is, is.
I am confrontational when it comes to opposing the lies, distortions and half-truths so widely employed by the political left. I am also prone to ridiculing them as often as I can, especially since it is a tool that works.
I may not have responded to all the points in your message, but I am constrained by the reality that other people are clamoring for my attention.
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive criticism and insights. I discovered long age that I cannot cross every brook without somehow moving the rocks.
Change is scary but it will be okay.
Thanks for the condescension. It just confirms what sane people already know. This project is but one more irritant in the quality of life in NYC.
The inmates really have taken over the asylum.
Jump on a bike and feel the air on your face, you might like it so much that you’ll forget what it was you were so pissed off about.
ws: once again, I’m wishing WSR had a ‘like’ button. You nailed it.
As I was riding my bike up Broadway this aft, I heard a taxi honking loudly as he was coming east on W. 78th to cross Broadway. He was warning an old woman who decided to just cross south on Broadway at that block without the benefit of the light in her favor. Even as he honked, she barely moved. So he honked louder and she finally woke up and stopped.
It’s pedestrians like these, both the old and young, who are oblivious to cars, bikes, and everything else, that create as much, if not a bigger problem than bikes.
Don’t blame bikes for pedestrians’ disregard of what’s around them.
That being said, at least 3 cars turned illegally on the next block, W. 79th Street, coming east from WEA and turning left on Broadway. As I had the light and was continuing up, one car would have hit me if he hadn’t been paying attention. INSTALL CAMERAS at all these intersections, and the incidents of cars going through red lights will decline dramatically.
You sound like someone who appreciates that there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to these matters. I only wish there were more like you here, as opposed to all the people who are firmly entrenched in one or the other polarized camps. (Whether on this or on any number of other issues.)
It would be nice if at least some people who get distressed by bikes breaking rules would try once or twice to ride a bicycle in NYC. The first thing many people might discover is how natural it feels and how free and liberating it is to be moving on two wheels under your own power.
The second thing you might discover is how practical it is for everyday commutes and errand runs, given that New York’s terrain is conducive to pedaling, and the public transportation is crowded, unpredictable, and frustrating. For instance, rather than wait for a crowded bus and always leave a 1/2 hr leeway because of the possibility of it being delayed, you can just hop on your bike and know you’ll get there in a predictable amount of time.
The third thing you WILL discover however is that you feel very vulnerable and that no matter how careful and thoughtful and attentive you are, following the rules doesn’t always help, because the rules weren’t made for bicyclists and the roads aren’t optimized for bicyclists.
By default we are supposed to follow all the rules of motorized traffic, like
1. …waiting in the turn lane at busy intersections as if you were a fully protected human encased in a several ton self propelled machine. We’re not.
2. …Stopping full stop at every stop light and waiting for it to turn green. This is essential at many large, busy intersections, but there are so many less busy stoplights in the city ( or stoplights that are there solely for often rare pedestrians, such as on Riverside Drive) where it makes more sense for a bicycle to be careful and respectful but to move through once it’s obvious that no cars are coming and no pedestrians are being cut off or endangered in any way by your moving forward.
The truth is that bikes are not cars. Nor are they pedestrians of course. When you ride a bike, you’re somewhere in between. But you’re closer to the pedestrian scale in most of the things you do.
In terms of your vulnerability, you’re a lot closer to a pedestrian. In terms of the danger you pose to others, you are also a lot closer to a pedestrian than to a car, yet still it’s not unreasonable to be frightened or miffed by thoughtlessness and recklessness on the part of bicyclists, which can cause dustups, injuries and on very rare occasions, fatalities. But It’s easy to let your imagination run wild when seeing a cyclist break the rules, Bicycle riders are here to stay,and getting more common, that’s the thing. We’re not going away. And the rules and the roads will eventually have to change to accommodate that fact.
+1 all around
Nicely said. Thank you!
Exactly. Pedestrians use their “sense” all the time around here to judge when to cross against a light. I will stop selectively going through red lights when pedestrians stop jaywalking. And I will wear a helmet when they are required of drivers – car crashes are the largest source of fatal head trauma.
Mark, would you rather be hit by a car, a bicycle or another
pedestrian? Wishing you a safe ride or a safe walk…if you’re
driving the safety is up to you.
I walk a lot in Riverside Park. Years ago bike riders usually had bells, or whistles in their mouths, but no longer. You can’t hear them coming from behind you, so you get no warning. If you step to the side to avoid a puddle or dog poop on the sidewalk, you could get hit. Some of them move at over 20 mph. They need to be educated and to follow rules.
Avid cyclist here.
Law: All bikes must have bells. I do, use it all the time, even a courtesy “bing” while I’m slowly approaching a pedestrian from behind so they aren’t spooked or unintentionally swerve into my path.
Bike riders should be respectful of pedestrians, and always yield to them. It’s really that simple.
Just please don’t look at your smartphone when you’re jaywalking.
I came here to post the same thing. I run almost daily in Riverside Park, and the cyclists there are out of control. Part of the problem is that along much of the running path, walkers, runners, and cyclists are all forced to share a much-too-narrow lane. I stay as far to the right as possible, and have still had a few close calls with cyclists who are going way too fast, don’t use bells, and generally don’t seem to care about slowing down for pedestrians. It’s hard to enjoy my run when I’m constantly looking over my shoulder–as you said, it’s especially bad if you need to step around a puddle or a crack in the pavement. I hope that, with the influx of additional bicycles that Citibike will bring, the park may finally wise up and create a separate dedicated cycling lane/path where bicyclists could go as fast as they want, without putting pedestrians at risk.
My experience and observations in this area have been consistent with those of Frank Southworth and “RFr”.
I have also observed plenty of reckless and grossly inconsiderate behavior on the part of drivers as well as on the part of pedestrians. There is plenty of blame to go around here. But it does seem as though bicyclists stand-out particularly when it comes to having a brazen disregard for pedestrians and the law. (Not all, I’m sure but enough to create the impression.)
In the parks it’s the spandex crowd that you need to be afraid of. They all think they are on the Tour de France.
Do not allow our community to be destroyed by these bikes and the accidents they bring. They ruin the beauty of the UWS.
Chillax Peter, it’s going to be ok. You’ll see.
@Peter, that comment makes no sense. I understand some folks, both in this thread and on the UWS in general, having contention with cyclists abiding by the law, but crash data proves that protected bike lanes improve safety for everyone (https://www.streetsblog.org/2014/09/05/new-dot-report-shows-protected-bike-lanes-improve-safety-for-everybody/) and motor vehicles continuously kill pedestrians and cyclists alike (https://www.streetsblog.org/category/special-features/nypd-crash-data/).
Mark wrote,
Let’s analyze this for a moment, shall we?
Wearing a helmet is a relatively simple precaution that could save you from a gruesome death or what many would consider an even worse fate: being turned into a drooling, incontinent, impotent and–if not insentient, then wracked with pain– invalid for the rest of your life. You choose to place yourself at such risk, completely unnecessarily, by not wearing a helmet just because others whom you believe to be at be at even greater risk than yourself aren’t required to.
I honestly hope that you are never harmed as a result of your cavalier recklessness. Should you ever, G-d forbid, be so harmed, however, I am sure that your loved ones (and if you are still alive and compis mentis, you) will have something to take great comfort in. What, you ask? In the knowledge that in refusing to wear the helmet that likely would have saved you from such a horrific fate, you had been standing firmly on principle.
Hi Noah,
I’m moved by your concern and love for your fellow citizens. You convey a level of kindness above and beyond what’s expected of a New Yorker. But let’s be honest , a bicycle helmet law is a death sentence to a bike share program. The main appeal to CitiBike is convenience, and the ability to be able to jump on a bike on a moment’s notice for a quick trip across town or wherever it may be. Aside from the daily commuter that has a plan to go from home to work and viceversa everyday no one will carry their bike helmet with them on the off chance that they might get on a bicycle that day. Besides there are now studies showing the falsely amped saftey afforded by bicycle helmets particularly with motorized vehicles. So if you’re REALLY concerned about New Yorkers being safe while riding a bicycle in the city, please promote the installation of more bicycle friendly infrastructure that provide safe passages. If you’re wondering what that would look like, imagine children riding to school along their parents w/o the fear of getting mowed down by speeding and negligent motorists. Yes, this is a lofty dream but in the mean time stop using the helmet as an excuse for safety when you’re just trying to throw a wrench in the works.
I’m not trying to “throw a wrench” into anything. Nothing I wrote was an “excuse” for anything. Nowhere did I state that I opposed the CitiBike program or anything else involving bicycling. (I did acknowledge some of the criticisms and concerns that others had posted as being legitimate and at least worthy of consideration and discussion. That is not the same as expressing actual opposition to the initiative, something that I never did.)
I meant exactly what I said and said exactly what I meant, no more and no less. The context of my post about helmets, obviously lost on you and Tal F, was in showing how self-defeating Mark’s resolution not to wear a helmet as a cyclist until they are required for motor vehicle drivers. I was merely pointing-out that even if he is correct that drivers of motor vehicles should also be required to wear helmets, that is no reason for him not to wear one as a cyclist. His refusing to do so only places him at unnecessary risk of serious injury and death.
I would appreciate if you would respond to what I actually write and not to all kinds of conjecture, based on nothing more than your own assumptions, prejudices and biases, about what my motives and intents are. This is at least the second time that you have done the latter.
Citation needed.
Everything you write is equally, if not more, applicable to motorists not wearing helmets. Yet outside of sport motorists such as NASCAR it is extremely rare to see them wearing helmets. Let’s not exaggerate the problem, here, and stick to requiring helmets only for those engaged in a competitive sport, whether they be on a bike or in a car.
Non-driver here…
I am not a fan of cars, but honestly, much more fearful of cyclists. Almost daily observe cyclists throughout Manhattan who blow through red lights or go the wrong way with many pedestrian near-misses.
Yes vehicles are inherently more dangerous but most drivers do the right thing and follow laws. (Some don’t and yes it is dangerous) Not so with NYC cyclists who mostly ignore traffic lights. Feel sorry for exploited delivery people. Seems to me most egregious cyclists are the “regular” people on their own expensive bikes or Citibikes (downtown).
Very unhappy that Citibike is expanding to UWS and UES. I have no faith in NYC cyclists.
Your fear is not supported by the data on crash statistics. You are wasting your time and emotional effort being afraid of bikes. The behaviors you describe are not nearly as dangerous as a speeding car, which happens almost every moment of every day on most of the Avenues on the UWS.
Lets revisit that 6 months after Citibikes are rolled out on the UWS. I expect you’ll find they’ll be incredibly popular and well used, and having more people riding them will have a calming effect on bikers running red lights. Bike lanes will be heavily used, and when someone stops for a light, those behind them will have to stop. Maybe folks outside of the bike lanes will continue to run lights, but they’ll be the outliers and hopefully stopped by the police.
Change is a comin’, and for the better.
The bottom line is that NYC streets are dangerous for pedestrians. The danger comes from both cars and bikes. Total enforcement of current laws in the answer. Re: bikers, they must be made to stop at red lights, go with the flow of traffic, esp. on one-way streets, walk their bikes on footpaths in the parks, not ride on sidewalks, ride at a reasonable speed, etc. etc. Everyone on a bike needs to be made to follow these rules: inveterate NY bikers, tourists, delivery people, and 10-year-old kids racing down the sidewalk on bikes. Those can kill you as easily as any other. The primary goal of all our discussions should be the protection of pedestrians. Bikers should also wear helmets, and all bikes should be licensed. City officials, are you listening????
To UWSlover, why are you so concerned about bicyclists wearing their helmets? I can understand why you gripe on all the other issues, well not really but I see the poorly contrived logic. But why on earth are you and all the other frumpy people so hell bent on bicyclists wearing helmets? Helmets on bicyclists are not going to make you any safer from any of your unfounded apocalyptic fears you have from bicyclists in the city. So why oh why do you keep insisting on helmets?
The only thing I can think of is that all those opposed to CitiBike are just using the helmet premise as a hurdle to the expansion into the UWS and UES.
To be more clear, just about everything and anything CAN kill you. The question is which things are likely to. Most of those demands are unreasonable. Bike riders exist. Car drivers exist. Walkers exist.We all have to exist together. That’s the bottom line, not that one group, be it pedestrians, bike riders, or car drivers/riders need to be protected from any and every remote threat.
We have to make laws that can and will actually be followed because they are inherently reasonable to the majority of us,
Please, spend a week in Amsterdam and see the light. Thank you.
uh Jay — you need to spend a week on Amsterdam Ave. (where I was hit by a bike going through a red light – and no it was not a delivery man).
Cyclists need to obey the laws – which I know many disagree with … well that’s just tough.
Ugly tourist bikes, can’t stand the logo and hate the look. They’ll go under in a few years so I’m not morose about the future, but these things will drive me crazy until
then. You know these will be big quality of life offense magnets. They always end up tagged and become nets for garbage. We’re talking about the homeless capital of Manhattan up here not trendy Soho.
Just yesterday there were 2 tourist on city bikes flying down the sidewalk on CPW in the 60S (real safe)
OMG the horror!
Jaywalkers makes biking suck! Stay on the sidewalk until you have the light. Then bikers would not have to ride around you and make you fearful. Bikes are not cars. Bikers are steering around potholes, going up hills and riding into the wind, so we do need to bend the rules a bit, but pedestrians can just step back and wait a second. Friends don’t let friends walk and text!
What About the automobile drivers. My husband and live on the upper west side for 52 years together and I also was born and lived on the UWS for 72 years. The automobile drivers are put in peril because of the daredevil bike riders who ride on the wrong lanes against the traffic and run the red lights at the same time. I can’t remember the numerous times that we almost got into an accident and whose fault will it be in the end, certainly not the biker. They deserve to get the same tickets that an auto driver would get.
The law as it exists today does not make a distinction between motorized vehicles and bicycles. NYPD issues summonses to bicyclists for violatings such laws on a daily basis.
But don’t worry Susan your odds of getting a ticket if you strike a bicyclists or pedestrian in this city are close to nill. It takes nothing short of a miracle to make drivers accountable for negligence when they maim or kill. You can rest peacefully knowing that the very worst that could ever happen to you is having to send the car to shop to fix that unsightly dent on the hood left by another human being.
Putz!
Ooh! You really showed her!
Are you always this incisive and compelling?
I suppose I’m incisive and compelling enough for you to reply.
Especially downtown, constantly see cyclists, including Citibike users, run through red lights while pedestrians have a green light.
Also see cyclists slow buses in the “bus” lane. The UWS is more residential, including more kids and elderly.
True that pedestrians need to adhere (ie not walking into traffic, not walking and texting) but in NYC, cyclists pretty much disregard lights. (In contrast, cyclists in Minneapolis and DC are very respectful)
Not happy about Citibikes. Monies – public or in this case “private” – for transportation should be devoted to bus and subway, not bicycle infrastructure.
Hi Lisa,
Based on your logic all cars and trucks should be banned from the city since they constantly see them running red lights as well, speeding, go around school buses with the stop sign deployed, crossing double yellow lines, etc etc.
I was at the meeting. It was disturbing to watch controversial chairs Zweig and Albert refuse to allow public comments on the need for an Amsterdam Avenue bike lane. And to refer to providing safe infrastructure on this 6-lane avenue as ‘taking a lane away’ from the community. The community is requesting it. We asked for this 18 months ago. Must someone die before this gets done?
@Margaret, very good observation and point. The funny (in a sick way) thing is that multiple people have died on Amsterdam (and the surrounding avenues) in the most recent months.
What’s even more frightening (besides the trucks & cars speeding well in excess of 40mph+ daily) is the lack of transparency and shunning of public discourse on the matter. What a shame.
Wow! I wonder how places like China deal with
the milions of bikes, pedestrians and cars