Transportation Alternatives Takes This Month’s “Monthly Ride” To Emmons


by on Jan 27th, 2012

The “transportation advocacy organization,” Transportation Alternatives — whose mission it is “to reclaim New York City’s streets from the automobile, and to advocate for bicycling, walking and public transit as the best transportation alternatives” — will be bicycling over to our neck of the woods this weekend, and I know all of you will give them a hale and hearty welcome… right?

According to the TA Brooklyn Committee calendar, for its “Monthly Ride,” members of the group will ride this Sunday, January 29 at 11:00 a.m., to Emmons Avenue, “since there has recently been discussion about problems for cyclists there and recommendations for improvement.” From the calendar item:

The riders will meet at the corner of Washington Ave/Eastern Parkway in front of the Brooklyn Museum at 11AM. We will ride a couple of blocks on Eastern Parkway, then make a right on Bedford Avenue and ride Bedford all the way to Emmons Avenue, where we will get a chance to see first-hand the current layout and what we can suggest to improve the situation for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. We will make a left on Emmons and ride until Knapp St, where we will make a left, go a few blocks and wind up at Jordan’s Lobster Dock, where we can warm up with some clam chowder, lobster rolls, grilled salmon sandwiches or other delights. Be sure to bring a lock so you can comfortably leave your bikes and head inside to eat. Heading back, we can take Bedford Avenue again, or we can ride Emmons a little further and hook up with Ocean Parkway. The ride will be 16-17 miles round trip including the lunch stop. Approximate time for people heading all the way back to the Brooklyn Museum location would be 2.5-3 hours.

For additional information, call (212) 629-8080 or go to www.transalt.org.

Related posts

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • BrooklynBus

    When I go to the website, I see no events on their calendar for January 29th. Where on their website do you see this information?

  • Anonymous

    This sounds great. If I can reschedule my plans, I’ll make it.

  • Guest

    I just watched Paul Steely White’s video at the website and this is a very deluded man, possibly dangerous living in a dreamworld. You are not going to remove the automobile from city streets. Not sure what you could possibly do additionally to Bedford Avenue. It already has a sporadically used bike lane and a lane for cars on each side. But we should be more concerned that this groups main objective is to reclaim the streets from the automobile. Sounds like this group would be happy to do away with the car lanes altogether. Hopefully when these individuals ride down Bedford Avenue and Emmons they will follow all traffic rules which include 1) COMING TO A FULL STOP AT A RED LIGHT. 2) Ride in the direction of traffic NOT AGAINST IT. 3) STAYING WITHIN THEIR DESIGNATED BIKE LANE and NOT SWERVING INTO the car lane. This can have potentially dangerous results. Also please use your head and understand that cars will be going faster then you, if you “accidentally” ride into the car lane you will probably be honked at or you could possibly cause yourself and others injury.

    • BrooklynBus

      People do not realize how dangerous it is to ride a bicycle at times.  Last night I took my car into Manhattan, something I do once every three years. I was driving down 2nd Avenue at night in the rain.  There is a separated bike lane on Second Avenue with cars parked between the bike lane and trafffic. I had to make a left onto 23rd Street.  As I was making the left, a bicycle made a left alongside me and then crossed directly in front of me to continue to ride along the curb. I was being cautious making no sudden movements and everything turned out all right. 

      I only mention this because of the parked cars and the rain, I had absolutely no idea there was anyone alongside of me until we were both making the turn despite using my mirrors and looking around. It was not possible to see him until the very last moment. His bike had a rear light, but I do not recall him wearing any reflective clothing. I easily could have hit him when he crossed directly in front of me if I would have started to speed up from the 5 mph I was traveling.  Luckily he knew I was there.

      Does anyone else see how incredibly dangerous this is especially at night and in the rain for a bike to cross directly in front of you when making a turn?  I think he should have first let all the cars make their left turn before making his since he knew that he needed to get alongside the curb. Should he have had the right of way?

      • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

        One can’t defend or support the actions of a single cyclist and from there make assumptions on the dangers of being a cyclist, although it can be. The way I read your story was not of bikes or cars being dangerous, but rather a driver exhibiting caution in less than ideal conditions and kudos to you for that. I think we’d all be better off if everyone, drivers, and cyclists were polite and shared the road just as you did, but that speaks more to your character not your preferred mode of transportation and the option to choose to bicycle and still be safe on the road is incredibly important*

        *Edit: Not that you’re against it.

        • BrooklynBus

          Okay, but do you know who should have the right of way in the situation I described?  I think it makes more sense for the car to have the right of way since it is much easier for the bike to see the car, than it is for the car to see the bike. The bike was taking a very big chance by passing in front of me if I would have increased my speed slightly, just before the moment he crossed in front of me.

          If I would have hit or killed him God forbid, Steely-White would have been the first one to condemn me without investigating the facts, claiming the police always let the drivers go free as he has done in the past.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            I think in that situation, you should have had the right of way because as I see it you were already on the roadway and he was merging onto it. Merging traffic, including vehicles coming out of parking spots or turning onto a street must yield right of way to traffic already on that roadway. I’d say you had the right of way not because you were a car, but because you were already on the road.

          • BrooklynBus

            I tend to agree with you but I’m not sure if it is for the reason you stated because he really wasn’t merging since he was already on the roadway but in a bicycle lane. He was only merging when he crossed in front of me as we both made the same left turn, if that is what you mean by merging.

          • Andrew

            The bicycle was also on the road.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            My mistake, I meant lane. Obviously there’s no way to know for sure but it sounded like the rider was taking the lane to make the turn, and should have yielded to traffic in the lane but this is based on BrooklynBus’s account, and there’s no absolute way to know for sure what happened, just that an accident was avoided.

          • Andrew

            Lostinservice: The rider wasn’t “taking the lane.” The bike lane is on the left side of the street, so bicyclists don’t have to leave the bike lane to make a left turn. BrooklynBus made a left turn across an bike lane without first verifying that no bikes were approaching.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            You’re absolutely right then. I took a look at the intersection on google maps and BrooklynBus should in fact have yielded to the cyclist.

          • Can’t remember my password!

            Bikes legally have the right of way and if there’s a bike lane on the side of the street that you are about to cross it’s the driver’s responsibility to look and see if there are any cyclists who are about to cross that path. 

          • forgotpassword

            Bikes legally have the right of way and if there’s a bike lane on the side of the street that you are about to cross it’s the driver’s responsibility to look and see if there are any cyclists who are about to cross that path. 

          • BrooklynBus

            It’s also the cyclst’s responsibility to wear reflective clothing at night to be sure he can be seen.

          • Anonymous

            There’s no law that mandates cyclists need to wear reflective clothing. You need front and rear lights and reflectors, at minimum, on your wheels. Reflective clothing is an extra precaution and it’s smart to wear something that isn’t dark or black when it’s raining, but it’s not a required responsibility. 

      • Andrew

        By law, a driver making a turn is required to yield to pedestrians (in the crosswalk) and cyclists (whether in the bike lane or not) making conflicting straight-ahead moves.

        In this case, the cyclist was also turning, which possibly saved his life. If he had been going straight, you might have hit him had he not taken evasive action.

        If you cannot see where you are going in the rain, then you shouldn’t be driving in the rain. The “floating” parking lane ends between 25th and 24th, so there’s really no way you wouldn’t have seen the cyclist unless either you didn’t really look or you have vision problems.

        • BrooklynBus

          Yes, it’s real easy to talk and say I should have seen him and I shouldn’t have been driving at night in the rain if I didn’t. Yes, in your eyes there is never a situation where the cyclist could have been wrong. Have you ever been in a similar situation to know if the cyclist would have been visible? How could he with only a red light in the rear if he wasn’t wearing any reflective gear? With all the reflections and the rain, a dim light from a bicycle headlight if there was any was not enough. Also, if the parking lane ends between 24th and 25th as you say it does, the cyclist was definitely wrong because that means he was driving faster than I was and was trying to pass me in the bike lane which would have been real dumb with my left turn signal on. Why should he even think that he could be seen?

          • Andrew

            You asked, “Should he have had the right of way?” According to the law, the unequivocal answer is yes. From the New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations, Section 4-03 (Traffic signals):

            (a) Traffic control signals. Whenever traffic is controlled by traffic control signals exhibiting different colored lights successively, the following colors shall indicate and apply to operators of vehicles and to pedestrians, except as superseded by pedestrian control signals, as follows:
            (1) Green alone.
            (i) Vehicular traffic facing such signals may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits any such movement. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right of way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.

            (emphasis mine)

            Maybe you think that motorists making turns should have priority over bicyclists and pedestrians going straight (I think that would be a terrible idea, for a number of reasons, but you’re entitled to your opinion), but the actual law is that they do not.

            That places the legal burden 100% on the motorist to ensure that his or her turn is not conflicting with a bicyclist or pedestrian. The bicyclist or pedestrian is not legally obligated to wait or to wear any particular sort of clothing. (When I’m driving, I hate when pedestrians wait for me, since I know that I have to wait for them, and now I have to wait even longer.) Any motorist who is either unwilling or unable to look for conflicting bicyclists and pedestrians when turning should not be on the road.

            Getting back to this specific case, here’s the southward view from 24th, looking toward the intersection in question:
            http://g.co/maps/dvzhk

            I’m sorry, but there should be no visibility issue here, in any weather. It makes no difference if the bicyclist is going slower or faster than the vehicular traffic. I suspect that what happened here is that it didn’t occur to you to look.

            I have certainly never said that there is “never a situation where the cyclist could have been wrong,” but this isn’t among them.

          • Allan Rosen

            Well you suspect wrong. I did look into my rear view mirror and couldn’t see a thing other tan raindrops and a lot of reflection. Since I was barely moving at the time it didn’t even occur to me that someone on a bicycle would attempt to pass me, if that was what he was doing when my left turn signal was clearly on.

            I concede he had the right of way, but it was not a smart thing for him to do considering he was on a bike with no protection and not blowing a whistle or other audible device. And if the law doesn’t require reflective clothing at night for cyclists, that needs to be changed. And if someone cannot be seen, that is a visibility issue. Accidents happen all the time because of visibility issues.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

             Did you check your blindspot?

          • Andrew

            You’re right, maybe the cyclist shouldn’t have assumed that you’d obey the law. But every time I cross the street with the light, I assume that the motorists will obey the law.  It’s not always accurate, but if I weren’t willing to make that assumption, I’d never be able to leave home.

            No cyclist is going to stop at every intersection just in case a driver decides to break the law and turn into him. That’s simply not practical. Nor is it practical to slow down in the bike lane whenever car traffic in the adjacent lane slows down.

            The cyclist wasn’t invisible. You didn’t see him. Either you weren’t looking at the right place (did you glance over your shoulder?), or your vision is poor and you have no business behind the wheel of a car. You were driving on a city street, not an expressway. ALWAYS assume that there will be people around who aren’t encased in motor vehicles.

            Failure to be aware of your surroundings is not an “accident.” It’s negligence. If you want to drive, watch where you’re going.

    • Anonymous

      You have your “hopes” and I have mine.
      Let us also hope that pedestrians don’t obliviously walk in front of them and that cars don’t double park in the bike lanes so they don’t have to swerve into traffic. We should also hope that those cars, being faster and heavier and deadlier than them, don’t make turns right across thier paths. And, oh yeah, let’s hope while we’re at it thatparked cars don’t swing open thier doors and “door” them.

    • forgotpassword

      His goal is to not remove all cars from city streets, and the only person who would be delusional is someone who actually thinks White is dangerous. If you read the article you’d see the issue is with Emmons Ave, not Bedford. And people need to know that bikes are not restricted to the bike lanes! They are allowed in the car lane when they need to avoid something like someone opening their door or a pothole, or any other obstacle. People don’t generally “accidentally ride into the car lane”, there is a reason for it and it’s usually to prevent a crash. 

      • Guest

        I am so sorry I did not quote directly. PART of his mission is to “reclaim city streets from the automobile.” That better for you? What does that mean to you?  As for reading the article. Get off your high horse bicycle seat and pay attention before you accuse others of not reading correctly. —Riding down Bedford all the way to Emmons to assess first hand the current layout.— I actually don’t care and won’t be responding to this nonsense anymore but talk about a group of people grasping at straws to get their point across. As for the other cyclist who responded directly to me who can’t be bothered to watch out for pedestrians or cars because they will be too busy not following traffic rules as they believe they are entitled to the right of way at all times get a clue. When you seriously always find a way to fault the driver or pedestrian as I have read in other comments here, you are a danger to society and you should not be allowed to ride or drive any type of vehicle. Use some damn common sense when you are on the road.

        • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

          “As for the other [driver]who responded directly to me who can’t be
          bothered to watch out for pedestrians or [cyclists] because they will be too
          busy not following traffic rules as they believe they are entitled to
          the right of way at all times get a clue. When you seriously always find
          a way to fault the [cyclist] or pedestrian as I have read in other
          comments here, you are a danger to society and you should not be allowed
          to ride or drive any type of vehicle. Use some damn common sense when
          you are on the road.”

          This is fun, it’s like road entitlement mad libs!

        • Anonymous

          They’re riding down Bedford in order to get to Emmons. They’re assessing the situation on Emmons, it’s pretty clear in the article that Bedford has nothing to do with the assessment. 

          Not every cyclist thinks that, there are plenty of responsible cyclists who yield to pedestrians and know when they do and don’t have the right of way when it comes to cars. Right of way of traffic does not work like the food chain, just because something/someone has the biggest, fastest vehicle doesn’t mean they have the right of way all the time and can just plow into anything that is smaller and slower than them. It’s usually actually the opposite. You’re applying other people’s comments to mine and assuming that I don’t know the laws of the road or who has the right of way when, which is pretty ridiculous. 

          And “reclaim city streets from the automobile” refers to T.A.’s mission to reverse some of the damage done by what Robert Moses did when he took away space on the street that used to be devoted to pedestrians and bike traffic, which makes a lot more sense in compact cities such as New York, especially in cities where the majority of the population does not own cars. It doesn’t mean they want to get rid of cars and ban them from the city. Most people involved with T.A. and people who support T.A., including myself, use all modes of transportation here, which includes driving, biking, walking and public transit. No one is grasping at straws. 

          • Andrew

            For some reason, a lot of people have trouble understanding that there’s a vast middle ground between “all public space should be devoted to cars” and “cars should be banned.”

            I don’t think either extreme is a good thing, but I also think that we’ve come far too close to the first extreme. For most of a century, the city’s policy has been to make sure that cars are accommodated as best as possible, using the best 50′s-style traffic engineering principles, and then to parcel out whatever space is left over to everybody else. That policy is still largely in place, in my opinion (and White’s) to the city’s great detriment.

            All of the bike lanes, bus lanes, pedestrian plazas, etc. that we’ve seen pop up in the past few years have taken away far less than 1% of the space formerly available to cars. Nobody is seriously proposing that cars be banned.

          • Allan Rosen

            “Nobody is seriously proposing that cars be banned “.

            What would you say the goal of “Auto Free New York” is?

            We’re back again to your 1% argument. It may be 1% if you average it out over the whole City, but when you look at the specific neighborhood, it may be 30 % or more.

            And there is no such thing as “all public space devoted to cars”. Pedestrians use the sidewalk and the streets are used by cars, trucks, buses, taxis, limousines, motorcycles, bikes, etc, not just the private automobile.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            Auto free new york is to de-incentivize people from using privately owned cars by promoting alternative methods of transport including bicycles and public transit, not ban them altogether.

            You yourself champion improved bus infrastructure and with the SBS you support a plan to completely devote a lane of traffic to buses, how is that different than expanding bicycle infrastructure? The way I see it, you’re just picking and choosing when roadway can be taken away from cars, trucks, taxis, limos, and motorcycles but the end effect is still trying to prevent people from driving or owning cars by giving them a superior alternative.

          • Andrew

            What would you say the goal of “Auto Free New York” is?

            Google to the rescue! According to Auto-Free New York’s website:

            WHAT IS AUTO-FREE NY?
            A movement aimed at exploring and achieving the upper limit of “devehicularization” of our nation’s largest city. Get cars out of our parks. Curb the reckless motorists who dominate our streets. Cut noise, smog and traffic costs. Increase pedestrian space and safety. Invest in new transit options and expansion and make bicycling better. A livable city is possible!

            And delving in more deeply we find some numbers: “Cut car use in Manhattan by 20 percent, citywide by 5 percent.”

            So, no, Auto-Free New York, despite the misleading name, is not proposing that cars be banned. (Not that Paul Steely White has any connection to AFNY, anyway. AFNY is connected to George Haikalis and his Institute for Rational Urban Mobility.

            We’re back again to your 1% argument. It may be 1% if you average it out over the whole City, but when you look at the specific neighborhood, it may be 30 % or more.

            Which neighborhood in Brooklyn (or, for that matter, anywhere else in the city) has lost 30% of its car-oriented space to bike lanes, bus lanes, and pedestrian plazas in recent years?

            And there is no such thing as “all public space devoted to cars”. Pedestrians use the sidewalk and the streets are used by cars, trucks, buses, taxis, limousines, motorcycles, bikes, etc, not just the private automobile.

            Except where explicitly restricted to other vehicles (such as bike lanes, bus lanes, and truck loading zones), street space is overwhelmingly occupied by cars. That’s because, aside from trucks, cars take up much more space per capita than anything else you’ve listed. Most street space is designed for cars and is basically devoted to cars.

      • Andrew

        Citation, from the New York City Traffic Rules:

        Section 4-12(p) Bicycles:

        (1) Bicycle riders to use bicycle lanes. Whenever a usable path or lane for bicycles has been provided, bicycle riders shall use such path or lane only except under any of the following situations:
        (i) When preparing for a turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
        (ii) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, pushcarts, animals, surface hazards) that make it unsafe to continue within such bicycle path or lane.
        (2) Driving on or across bicycle lanes prohibited. No person shall drive a vehicle on or across a designated bicycle lane, except when it is reasonable and necessary:
        (i) to enter or leave a driveway; or
        (ii) to enter or leave a legal curbside parking space; or
        (iii) to cross an intersection; or
        (iv) to make a turn within an intersection; or
        (v) to comply with the direction of any law enforcement officer or other person authorized to enforce this rule; or
        (vi) to avoid an obstacle which leaves fewer than ten feet available for the free movement of vehicular traffic. Notwithstanding any other rule, no person shall drive a vehicle on or across a designated bicycle lane in such manner as to interfere with the safety and passage of persons operating bicycles thereon.

  • http://brooklynspoke.wordpress.com Doug G.

    Honest question. You have at least six people riding to your “neck of the woods” who will likely spend a decent amount of money at Jordan’s Lobster Dock.  Yet your post drips with sarcasm.  In this economy I would think that drawing people from other neighborhoods to spend money in yours would be a good thing.  It’s typically very easy for cyclists to explore other neighborhoods, since they don’t have to worry about finding a place to park when they get there.  What’s the issue here?

    • ES

      Honest answer. The tiny drop of *wink *wink* sarcasm to which you refer was more directed toward regular commenters of the site who have expressed their concerns (to put it mildly) about cyclists and bike lanes in previous posts on the subject (see: “Oriental Boulevard” in Manhattan Beach). I, personally, have nothing against people cycling over here, particularly not if they want to pump a couple hundred in cash into the pockets of a longtime area merchant. So long as they do it safely. I almost wrote that people should line Bedford and wave to you guys as you go past, but I wasn’t sure if that would have been a safety hazard, so I opted not to. See? No harm intended. :)

      • http://brooklynspoke.wordpress.com Doug G.

        Thanks for the answer.  Yes, I was equally snarky on Twitter, but I would argue that there’s something about the overall anti-cyclist tone of this site that didn’t necessarily lend itself to me wanting to give SB the benefit of the doubt.  Given that, I didn’t quite catch the sarcasm.

        Even your qualification – you write that you like people riding over here “as long as they do it safely” – speaks to what I see as a general misunderstanding of the relative dangers of cycling versus driving.  In no way would I argue that there aren’t cyclists who need to exercise not only more caution, but more respect for the law and other road users.  However, this site also frequently posts on car accidents all over the neighborhood that injure or kill many people.  Rarely do any of the writers here say that they have nothing against people driving over here, so long as they do it safely.

        Also, “you guys?”  Yes, I am a TA supporter, but I’m not coming on this ride.  I think we all need to do a better job of not lumping people in together as one monolithic group.

        Again, I thank you for your honest answer.  If anything, I hope we can continue an open, respectful dialogue that increases safety for everyone in Brooklyn.

        • BrooklynBus

          You talk about the anti-cyclist tone of this site. Do you criticize Streetsblog when they infer that all drivers are murderers and that the police have no interest in punishing motorists by letting the “murderers” go free?

          I just saw six cyclists at 2 PM biking along Oriental Blvd presumably from the TA group because you rarely see anyone using hat bike lane. Presumably they were checking it out looking for violations to complain about. About half of them were not wearing helmets, not very wise. Hope they get back before dark because none were wearing reflective clothing either.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            Better get those eyes checked because although that was us, I was the only one not wearing a helmet or reflective clothing. Every one of them was wearing a helmet and had some sort of reflective article on their person or bike. I even made the joke calling myself the black sheep for being the only one not wearing a helmet, because firstly they’re not required and secondly my helmet is not properly fitted and would be more harmful because of it.

            We went there because I wanted to show them the bike lane that the MB residents complain about. I have no clue what “violations” you expect them to be on the look out for, but thanks for the laugh though!

          • BrooklynBus

            My eyes are fine. I took a quick look and didn’t actually count those without helmets so you must have been the one I saw. When I said violations I meant something like a rut or pothole in the bicycle lane that would cause someone to go around it.

            Any helmet is better than none. If my sister were wearing one, she might be here today.

            Right after I saw you, I saw another guy going in the other direction. After he passed Ocean Avenue where the bike lane moves alongside the curb, he just continued riding along the zebra stripes and didnt bother to move over.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            If you took a quick look and didn’t count, making an estimation of “half” is asinine, and only serves to promote some sort of agenda. I’m sorry about your sister but a helmet that isn’t properly fitted is more dangerous than no helmet because it can impede your vision or distract you. I also don’t understand why you keep stressing cyclists being outside the bike lane since they can leave the bike lane at their discretion for a number of reasons.

          • Allan Rosen

            To Lost in Service: they can leave the bike lane for a number of reasons, yes, but they are breaking the law by riding down the zebra stripes when there is a perfectly good bike lane a few feet away.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            Sorry nope, again the right to leave the bike lane is at the discretion of the cyclist and there’s plenty of stretches of the bike lane that’s not in the best condition so for safety reasons a cyclist can leave the lane, just as I do on stretches of the Bedford ave bike lane.

          • Allan Rosen

            To Lost: if the cyclist has the discretion of using another lane rather than the bike lane, why has DOT ticketed cyclists for doing that? The gentlemen I saw didn’t even look at the bike lane when he decided to use the zebra stripes. He just rode where he felt like riding. It had nothing to do with safety. Cyclists need to follow the law just like everyone else.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            You make an excellent observation about that particular cyclist, just as you did about the entire TA group not wearing helmets. /sarcasm

            Here’s a hilarious video about the absurdity of police officers ticketing cyclists for riding outside the lane.

          • Andrew

            Streetsblog doesn’t infer, or even imply (the words don’t mean the same thing; look them up), that “all drivers are murderers.”

            One of the recurring themes on Streetsblog is that, following car-on-bike and car-on-ped crashes that result in injury and death, the NYPD is quick to declare “no criminality” regardless of the circumstances, or without even bothering to determine the facts. Here’s one particularly high profile case last occurred in October.

            But I don’t think Streetsblog has ever used the word “murderers” in this context. Citation, please?  Without “malice aforethought” it’s not murder.

          • Allan Rosen

            You can’t deny that Streetsblog isn’t biased. They report on every accident fatality between a car and bike where the cyclist is the victim with a huge headline. Yet how many articles did they publish promoting cyclist safety admonishing them for not following the laws? There must have been accidents where cars were forced to swerve because the driver was cut off by a cyclist, but you would never see such a story there.

            As far as the NYPD not doing a proper investigation, that is most likely do to laziness and happens with crimes as well. But according to Strretsblog the NYPD has some sort of agenda to routinely not punish motorists

          • Andrew

            You can’t deny that Streetsblog isn’t biased.

            Streetsblog doesn’t claim to be unbiased, and I never claimed otherwise. But it’s proven itself to be a far more reliable source of transportation news than the mainstream media, which is, despite its claims to the contrary, also biased.

            I’m intelligent enough that I can distinguish fact (which is either true or false) from opinion (which I might agree or disagree with). I often agree with Streetsblog’s opinions, but not always. It’s the facts that I find most valuable.

            One of the common themes in Streetsblog reporting is debunking the common myth that traffic fatalities are unavoidable, that nothing can be done to reduce fatality rates. In fact, every fatality has one or more causes (perhaps an inattentive pedestrian, perhaps a driver who broke a law or four, perhaps a traffic engineer who gave pedestrians 22 seconds to cross 10 lanes), and by honing in on those causes it’s possible to address them.

            To me, that’s an important goal.

            They report on every accident fatality between a car and bike where the cyclist is the victim with a huge headline.

            No they don’t. Each week there’s a summary (“The Weekly Carnage”), but most incidents don’t make it into the headlines.

            And, by the way, they’re not all accidents. They’re crashes, or collisions. Calling them accidents presumes that nobody was at fault.

            Yet how many articles did they publish promoting cyclist safety admonishing them for not following the laws?

            Plenty, and the issue comes up in the comments quite often. Most commenters seem to feel strongly that, e.g., “salmoning” (cycling in the wrong direction on a one-way street or bike lane) is wrong.

            There must have been accidents where cars were forced to swerve because the driver was cut off by a cyclist, but you would never see such a story there.

            Strange assumption. If the cyclist caused a fatality or serious injury, Streetsblog probably would report on it. But compared to motor vehicles, cyclists cause very few fatalities and serious injuries.

            As far as the NYPD not doing a proper investigation, that is most likely do to laziness and happens with crimes as well.

            Nonsense! There would be riots if the police treated murders the way they treat traffic fatalities. The NYPD’s treatment of traffic crimes (yes, they’re crimes too) is truly scandalous, but the mainstream media won’t touch them.

            But according to Strretsblog the NYPD has some sort of agenda to routinely not punish motorists

            There’s no need to punish motorists who follow the rules, but the police are quick to declare “no criminality” without even the most cursory of investigations. They simply don’t take the issue seriously. Their windshield perspective is probably a big contributor – why should they care about pedestrians and cyclists when they almost universally get around by car?

        • BrooklynBus

          You talk about the anti-cyclist tone of this site. Do you criticize Streetsblog when they infer that all drivers are murderers and that the police have no interest in punishing motorists by letting the “murderers” go free?

          I just saw six cyclists at 2 PM biking along Oriental Blvd presumably from the TA group because you rarely see anyone using hat bike lane. Presumably they were checking it out looking for violations to complain about. About half of them were not wearing helmets, not very wise. Hope they get back before dark because none were wearing reflective clothing either.

        • ES

          Re: “Rarely do any of the writers here say that they have nothing against people driving over here, so long as they do it safely.”

          I would respectfully argue that that is because we haven’t (to my knowledge) advertised groups of people driving together for a common cause. If a bunch of Sheepshead Bites readers were going to drive en masse over to, say, Red Hook for whatever reason…a blog fest, a flea market, a picnic, a dining experience, whatever…and I was charged with the task of writing a post advertising such an event, it would be my natural inclination to write “Drive carefully” just as I often tell friends and family to “Drive carefully” — out of a genuine concern — and, just as I would almost always would tell someone I care about to “eat [or drink] in good health.”

          I am not pro- or anti-any method of transportation, just so long as everyone engages in their chosen means of transit in a safe and respectful (to other commuters and pedestrians) manner, and I say that as a non-driving [occasional] cyclist myself, who makes an effort to observe and respect all the rules of the road and the people I am sharing it with.

          That I wrote “you guys” because I understandably mistakenly assumed you were among the riders… is that really even worth bringing up?

          I think we’d all be a whole lot better off if we engaged in dialogue with one another without first tossing barbs and accusations.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            I can verify that sheepshead bites isn’t biased for or against cyclists or bike lanes.

      • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

        “Honest answer. The tiny drop of *wink *wink* sarcasm to which you refer
        was more directed toward regular commenters of the site who have
        expressed their concerns (to put it mildly) about cyclists and bike
        lanes in previous posts on the subject”

        That’s the way I read it, because in previous posts commenters have been unwelcoming to cyclists and bike lanes, presumably because this is what they think of when they read bicycle:

        http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/196988-1/Cyclist-hit-explosion-tragic-accident.gif

    • ES

      Btw, nice of you, on Twitter, to criticize before you even asked. Frankly, it pisses me off what you did, but I won’t belabor the issue.

    • Guest

      Typical out of touch hipster. No clue about anything outside the bubble.

  • Dave

    Glad to know when Sheepshead Bayamos visit Park Slope, we can count on them to never drive over the 30 mph speed limit, never run a red light, never make an illegal u-turn, never fail to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, never honk their horns except to warn of danger, never park less than 15 feet from a fire hydrant, and never talk on their cellphones while behind the wheel.  We look forward to seeing you.

  • http://www.bigapplesewer.com/ Master Plumber

    I think instead of bike LANES, there should be bike ROUTES.  If they are restricted in certain areas the same way trucks are instead of being all over the place,  maybe it will be safer for everyone.  

    • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

      There are bike routes which are preferred routes for cyclists but they do not restrict bike traffic to them. For instance, Ave T is a bike route for east/west traffic here in southern Brooklyn, Emmons ave is a bike route (class 3) and when I advocate for the ave to to get a bike lane it is simply an upgrade to a class 2 which is a marked lane. The safest is a protected bike lane (class 1) which comes in different forms but it is separated from both pedestrian as well as motorized vehicles. Why you would somehow compare bike traffic to truck traffic and suggest that bikes should be restricted to only certain routes is beyond me.

      • AvenueTResident

        Please don’t tell the hipsters about our streets. Many of us would appreciate it if our rents were not jacked up by these clowns. Avenue T is a bad example as I am sure you know it runs through many neighborhoods which have very little and non existent public transportation. Also Southern Brooklyn is the real Brooklyn. Northern Brooklyn has sadly become flybynightland for the most part. Thank you.

        • Andrew

          Avenue T is a bad example as I am sure you know it runs through many neighborhoods which have very little and non existent public transportation.

          Sounds like a bike lane might come in handy, then.

          • guest

            I’m not sure who you are or where you come from. But I’m certain it’s not from around here. That wouldn’t solve anything. Yes. Let’s waste more money the city and taxpayers don’t have to put up another bike lane nobody will use.

          • Andrew

            Given how inexpensive a bike lane is, it doesn’t take many users for it to pay off. (And how much are taxpayers who don’t own or use cars paying for facilities for those who do?  A heck of a lot more than the city spends on bike lanes.)

            But I think you’re missing the point of bike lanes. The idea isn’t to install a bike lane and immediately have thousands of riders per hour. The bike lane network is still skeletal, and there are still relatively few trips that can be made in bike lanes. Bike mode share has been increasing rapidly in recent years, as the bike lane network has been expanding, and it will continue to expand as the network grows.I don’t ride a bike myself, but I see absolutely no harm in facilitating bike use for those who do (or who don’t yet but are considering it). The more people who get around by bike, the fewer will be vying for that seat on the subway or that parking space.

            I’m still curious.  Why would you say that a neighborhood with “very little and non existent public transportation” is a bad place for a bike lane?  Again, it seems to me that bike lanes are especially worthwhile where other options are limited.

          • guest

            You seem to not understand that many people in this area drive cars. This isn’t hipsterville. People get around by driving and walking. If there were better public transportation options perhaps they would take the bus or subway which doesn’t exist because of budget cuts and the MTA just not getting around to it or caring to be frank. People over here do not ride bikes as a mode of transportation so a bicycle lane is not needed. For people that do wish to ride bikes around here they know where to go where they can enjoy a recreational ride. We need better implementation to help get vehicle traffic moving over here and public transportation options. We do not need a bike lane and we certainly don’t need attention starved trust fund kids jacking up rents. As to why all the bike lanes have been popping up is because Bloomberg didn’t get the congestion pricing he wanted on the east river bridges. Plain and simple. Not because there is a high demand. Everything started popping up like crazy (bike lanes, pedestrian plazas) after he was shot down.

          • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

            You got some weird circular logic, we don’t have good bus infrastructure because there there isn’t enough revenue, but there isn’t enough revenue because the bus isn’t a viable transport method because we don’t have good bus infrastructure. So we should all just drive because its more convenient, but because buses are now competing with more cars they become even more inefficient and ridership decreases still and revenue goes down even further.

            You’d also be surprised how many people ride bikes in this area, so improved cycling infrastructure gives people the choice to bike instead of driving which in turn makes bus routes more efficient by keeping cars off the road, slowly at first.

            So it seems you want more people to take bus, but you still want a situation where driving a car is preferable to taking the bus or cycling. How in the blue fuck do you intend to incentivize people to take the bus then?

            You’re a typical NIMBY.

          • Allan Rosen

            To Lost. You say I pick and choose. You ask why I am for more bus lanes but not more bike lanes. That is not exactly true. I am only for more bus lanes when there are enough buses to justify taking a lane from traffic. And I am not against more bike lanes as long as they don’t interfere with traffic. The Bedford Avenue lanes is an example. The only change I would make is that you should be allowed to drive on the bike lane to go around someone making a left turn, provided no bikes are coming. Everyone does that now anyway. I am against putting them in the wrong places like on the most congested portion of Avenue J as DOT proposed or taking a lane from Avenue P also as proposed. The street grid was laid out with wider streets every ten blocks or so for a reason. It wasn’t so those streets should have bike lanes.

  • guest

    lostinservice: I can see this is going to go nowhere as usual with hipsters. I’m such a NIMBY that I’ve been mentioning wanting better transportation options such as BUS AND SUBWAY which are badly needed. I don’t believe southern Brooklyn needs any more bike lanes and there are many that agree with that assessment. Bike lanes are not the answer here. People here drive, walk and take public transportation where it is available. Thanks for giving me a good laugh though. Typical HIPSTER.

    • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

      Hey, do me a favor? When you call me a hipster, can you please play the banjo, whittle a stick, and perhaps marry your sister? I mean if you’re going to play the role of a backwards yokel you should at least commit to the role, so when you start doing those things I’ll play along an pretend I didn’t grow up in SHB and lived here since the age of 4.

      You can’t be “for” alternative transport options “except for bikes”
      because they’re inherently linked and accomplish the same goal:
      transportation options that are cheaper, environmentally friendlier, and
      more convenient than a car. You somehow fail to realize that improved bus and subway options accomplish the same goal as bike lanes. They provide a viable alternative to cars. People here drive because it’s better and easier than the current bus/subway/bike infrastructure in the area. You improve buses, people will ride buses, you improve bike infrastructure and people will ride bikes and all of that accomplishes the same goal, less people driving. People in the area don’t drive cars because it makes their dicks bigger, it’s because its more convenient. When bus/subway/bike infrastructure is improved driving a car becomes comparatively less convenient and people will drive less.

      This isn’t to say EVERYBODY will stop driving, my dad needs his car to carry incredibly heavy tools around for which no bus/bike/train would ever be a good alternative, but perhaps some others will and eventually more will follow and I won’t begin to touch on the subject of recreational riders and how they can bring customers to our local businesses.

      There are already plenty of cyclists in the area who use their bikes for food shopping, commute to work, or even use their bikes for work. Bus and subway run on fixed routes and are not always optimal modes of transportation, bikes pick up that slack and if the growth of cyclists in NYC keeps up we’ll have double the numbers in less than 4 years (likely in less time). It’s myopic not to invest in bike infrastructure, especially given how high the ROI is on such a small investment.

  • Janice from Marine Park

    Let’s make this 64 comments. I went on the SB ride on 1/29. I did not wear a helmet. (I wore a knitted hat with a brim from military surplus). I never wear a helmet. They are about as useful for serious protection as the St.Christopher medal hanging from your rear view mirror. If you believe in former Christian saints, then that’s your call. Helmets are only tested at very slow speeds by being dropped directly down, impacting the top. Not where you fall when you get hit by a car or a truck or fall due to a road hazard. If I did stunts and cyclocross, then maybe. I am almost 62 years old, and retired from lots of jobs. I still drive a car for distance, large purchases and bad weather. Or take transit. I ride my bike for other errands (mostly) or include an errand in my exercise routes. I do about 2000 miles a year on my black bike: bakery, butcher, bank, hardware store, discount store, nursery, cheese, post office, you get the picture. I do another 800 on an adult tricycle, and another couple of hundred on a little, unfashionable looking folder (in case I have to leave it too long where a bike might attract theft). Most of my riding is local (Marine Park, southern brooklyn, etc.) but I do go to the Lower East Side (a certain deli), Red Hook, Governor’s Island, or along Shore Parkway to Owls Head Park on occasion. I ride because walking too far makes me achey. I ride a bike because I don’t want to take a convoluted route and wait forever, with a bus and a train for a couple of miles and pay transit fares for just a small errand. I ride so I can park in front of the store instead of circling for a spot. I have a fake hip and spinal arthritis. I get more done on a bike without walking, and the bike carries my packages (handlebar basket and rear saddlebags/panniers). My internist seems to think I got healthy only after I retired and started riding so much. I am a car driver and a former motorcycle driver (25 years). I know the drill. Among my previous employments are Traffic Court (when it was on Schermerhorn), also gave road tests one summer, NYPD, and the emergency room of a NYC hospital. Curious nexus of experience, considering bicycle stuff, you can see how I am aware of the law, the driving public, law enforcement and the results of collisions between some innocent and incompetent, or malicious people. We need marked bike lanes to encourage those who do not ride because, as they tell me, they are afraid of the crazy drivers. There are plenty of good, competent, normal people driving cars. But then there are the knuckleheads. Same with people on bikes. Most people who ride bikes are also sometimes motorists and pedestrians. At this end of Brooklyn, the people I see riding on the street are NOT the dreaded trust-a-farian hipsters, but other people running errands. Not looking to just go round and round in a circle. Some Russian, some Chinese, some Italian, some Irish. At least half of them are over 40. And the numbers are increasing. A lot of this anti-bike hostility seems to be redirected from dislike of the mayor, DOT, and not well thought out. Bikes are not motor vehicles, they are just pedal pushing neighbors. The hostility is misdirected.

    • http://www.nedberke.com Ned Berke

      Welcome to the site, and thanks for your courteous and well thought out comment.