snow_echo_NY

agree with all of this... many cyclers are extremely bad examples of correct road usage as are many motorists and pedestrians. not everyone follows the rules, this much is clear. the idea is to create infrastructure that makes it preferable to follow it and in doing so, create safer streets for everyone. not an easy feat especially with New Yorkers who prioritize themselves over anyone else especially when getting around.

kickstart

I was stationed at Governors Island, but that was before there were any bike lanes, so I understand from firsthand experience what traffic is like in Manhattan, which is why I question less than perfect infrastructure being a bad thing for most folks.

noglider 

NYC traffic is pretty hairy, especially if you're not used to it, but the bike lanes may not make you feel safer. And I wonder if they actually are any safer than the general lanes.

And I also wonder about accident statistics. Traffic is heavy enough that most of the traffic moves very slowly. You might be safer on NYC streets than in most places as a result. Not only that, most motorists here are accustomed to seeing cyclists, and they give us room. That makes things much safer for us.

In summary, your fear may be high here which would be opposite the actual risks. You may be safer here.

noglider 

@snow_echo_NY, I agree with everything in your post 43. I agree streets and bridges are in bad shape, but I can't characterize streets as a disaster. They're better than they were 30 years ago, for sure.

I think NYC is unusual in having so many one-way streets. I think most streets in Manhattan are one-way. You all should understand that our left-side bike lanes are only on one way streets. They do not sit between the curb and oncoming traffic.

I only know of one one-way street where the bike lane is on the right, and that is Christopher St. I'm not sure it's on the right, but it might be because of the weird-angled left-hand turn-offs the street has. It's OK by me, as traffic isn't insane on that street.

spare_wheel

Nonsense.

snow_echo_NY

yes this is all true, bike lanes are on the left of one way streets, they are on the right of two-way streets.

i don't know, i think if you can say they are better than 30 years ago, yes, but you can also say that they are better than the turn of the century, late 1800-1900s as well The forgotten history of how automakers invented the crime of "jaywalking" - Vox -

to this end, i don't know. i think this is why people tolerate the conditions. b/c hey, it's better. but is it ideal for all? the meeker ave situation is pretty bad. atlantic ave is pretty bad. and this is just in brooklyn. upper manhattan and queens have sore spots too.

noglider 

You're right. I shouldn't defend the conditions of the streets just because they're better than before. They are not as good as they should be. One thing we could do to reduce wear on them is reducing motor vehicle traffic. It's the vehicles that wear the streets out, certainly not the bikes or pedestrians.

I don't mean to shout down your advocacy. I'm on your side.

snow_echo_NY

i know, i didn't take it as such so no worries. i agree, they should be charging motorists for using the roads and they absolutely shouldn't let tractor trailers on narrow city streets (like the video of the tractor trailer crashing into the right of way mural last weekend). why we don't have those laws befuddles me.

i think that's why (your reasoning it's better today than it was several years ago) i'm okay with having parked cars as a barrier between moving motorist traffic and moving bike traffic whereas others here are saying it's a huge issue b/c it obstructs visibility and probably contributes to crashes/accidents (as per Seattle noted). yes it would be ideal to have curbs like they do in Amsterdam to separate out the traffic but like i said not having car parking on the street would anger a lot of people.

the backlash by MTA for ROW is incredible and surprises me. i'm glad de Blasio came out with a statement yest/today that refuted it. it seems we're all on a very thin line. and agree with you that it's not that bad in terms of safely cycling the streets of the city.

agree b/c when there are many pedestrians and cyclists, the majority of motorists pass slowly. but there are those that do not and make somewhat to very risky moves that jeopardize people's lives < they are the issue. and to be clear, in the areas where motorists are the majority, it's not very safe for pedestrians and cyclists, i.e. meeker ave, atlantic ave in Brooklyn.

noglider 

I hear people die on Queens Blvd more than any other street, which is very easy to believe. I rode that street a lot when I was in high school (in the 70's), and it was frightful.

I don't think the bus drivers will win. Their argument was that it will slow things down. Really, really dumb. So safety comes with a cost. They are implying that the people will not be willing to pay the (time) cost it takes to be safe. Unbelievable.

snow_echo_NY

this is true, but there are times when the light changes and motorists rev their motors and spring forward into the intersection, even when people are not yet done crossing. for the bystander, it's unnerving. but motorists stuck in traffic seem to get frustrated and then reckless - and do ride up the curbs and cross the double yellow line to get around stuff (double parked cars).

yeah i would believe you that Queens Blvd is probably the worst, i often thought the crossings would benefit from becoming pedestrian overpasses like over the west side hwy to battery park and over FDR for the east side. but that doesn't help the foot traffic going from street to street parallel to the Blvd. nor cyclists.

i agree the MTA bus drivers do not have a strong case but the fact they even got a bill to be considered...well, how on earth did they get that? someone must have thought they had a leg to stand on.

katsrevenge

Oh, I'd still be afraid for a while. I'm used to very different traffic density on a bike. But I'd actually do it with bike lanes. I would never even try it without a bike lane.
Agree. I may be safer there. A walker was just run over today. Second walker hit in a few weeks. (Doesn't sound like much but it is a far smaller city!) At a corner that I dislike both riding and walking at because it is set up horribly. Too many people speed and barely bother stopping for the lights. This is a corner between a college and a big park. People are used to walkers and bikers but.. they just don't want to share, slow or stop.

noglider 

The density we have here serves as a constant reminder to watch or stop or both. In some places, perhaps yours, there is virtually no one on bike or on foot, so there are no ingrained habits among drivers for dealing with them. I lived in NJ until summer of 2013, and it was infuriating to see drivers completely forget -- if they ever knew in the first place -- to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. The problem there is so bad that the wording of the law changed from yield to stop, which is a stupid semantic difference in my mind. I bet it didn't change anyone's behavior, either.

Coal Buster

The change in law is more than a semantic difference. You must come to a complete stop when someone is anywhere in the crosswalk even if there is room for you to safely pass. Drivers follow the rule about fifty percent of the time.

As far as traffic slowing things down in NYC, maybe that occurs downtown, but uptown where I work, traffic often approaches highway speeds on Amsterdam and Broadway.

I believe it was R. Moses who made all the major avenues in NYC except for a few one way to improve traffic flow.

noglider 

Fifty percent in New Jersey? Not in my observation. Not even close. I'd say less than 5%.

I'm not opposed to one-way avenues, but I'd also be open to making them two-way once again if it made things safer. What do you think?

Coal Buster

I think rigid enforcement of the reduced 25mph speed limit would save more lives than anything else.

One thing about the one-ways is that there's more room for bikes. Car drivers aren't limited to only two lanes as they are on two-way streets. When I head south from the bridge on Amsterdam, it's two-way till 110th street. On days of alternate side parking, the delivery trucks park in the right driving lane leaving only one lane for both cars and cyclists.

Dahon.Steve

The cyclist in the video is riding wrecklessly and loses whatever point he was trying to make. When you create a situation much worse than what it is, you lose all credibility. I ride the bike lanes with my kick scooter and have none of the problems he encountered.

The bike lanes are much safer than what we had before which was nothing.

1. Crashes with injuries have been reduced by 17%

•Pedestrian injuries are down by 22%

•Cyclist injuries show a minor decrease even as bicycle volumes have dramatically increased

•Total injuries have dropped by 20%

•74% decrease in average risk of a serious injury to cyclists from 2001 to 2013

•Cyclist injury risk has generally decreased on protected bicycle lane corridors within this study as cyclist volumes rise and cyclist injures decrease

https://www.streetsblog.org/wp-conten...a-analysis.pdf

lostarchitect 

I do get a kick out of it when BF members who live nowhere near NYC try to tell us what's best for us here. I have no idea what's best for you in rural Ohio or small town Tennessee or Oklahoma... Why do you think you know what's best for New Yorkers?

PatrickGSR94

In what way was the guy in the video riding recklessly?

kickstart

Not yielding to pedestrians, and intentionally overtaking turning vehicles to instigate faux hooks.

spare_wheel

I finally watched the video. Absolutely hilarious VC butt hurt.

Oh noes!!! A manhole cover on a city road!!!
Eeeeeeek!!! A storm drain on a city road!!!
Aaaaaaaaaaaah!!! A dumpster almost entirely outside of bike lane!!!
OMG!!! A pedestrian standing near the bike lane!! I'm going to die!!!
Quelle Horreur!!! Bike-specific signals slow everyone* down!!!
Meeeeep!!! A cab almost left hooks me when I ride through an intersection like a fracking idiot!!!
The humanity!!! There isn't room to pass a cyclist but there is room to pass a salmon!!!


*Everyone=cagers.

I-Like-To-Bike

My friend from Portland "gets it."

Maybe one day the OP and the would-be VC video maven will "get it" too about riding a bike in a traffic crowded city; but I doubt it.

yankeefan

+1

A lot of them don't realize how different NYC is from other urban areas, not just by sheer density but also by the psychology of road users. Everyone is always in a rush and the whole idea of "yielding" to other road users is a foreign concept. Too often I've had encounters with cab drivers completely ignoring markings and barriers designating "protected" bike lanes and almost knock me flat just to pick up a fare. Even regular drivers view the bike lane as a sort of expressway that they can attempt to drive in when traffic is backed up for blocks. Of course this usually fails due to the fact that the bike lane is too narrow to accommodate a car but it certainly doesn't stop them from trying and potentially creating a safety hazard for us cyclists. Pedestrians are awfully inattentive for people attempting to navigate such a hectic city, and blindly step (usually jaywalking) into the bike lane starring at smartphones with headphones blocking out the sound of my bell. I'm not sure you can find this sort of craziness in any other North American city.

spare_wheel

25 mph. Vision zero. Very good drivers (natural selection and expense).

Meh.

PS: NYC has nothing on Boston of Philly. And no east coast city has anything on the sheer terror of taking the lane during rush hour in Dallas.

kickstart

+1 on Dallas, those urban cowboys in their dually crew cab diesel pickups are something special, the proverbial bull in a China shop.

PatrickGSR94

And yet I take the lane at all times and have dually crew cab pickups pass me in the next lane without any problems.