Good post, good point.
We are on our own, the cops won't ticket these people but they will arrest cyclists for fabricated legal violations. I think it was sad to see all the posters on this forum blame the cyclist, if you haven't been here, if you haven't ridden here, and you really don't know how she was killed, yet you blame her...
Maybe suggested bike routes should not have commercial traffic on them and the speed limit should be lowered, anything to cut the aggressiveness. It seems that if you take someone's life, negligently or "accidentally" you should automatically lose your license for a long while. That would bleed some of the aggressive arrogance out of some of these drivers.

By choosing to ride in NYC, you are accepting a certain amount of risk. For those of us that know what NYC is like, this should come as no surprise. What happened was tragic, but I fail to see how anyone can blame either party. None of us were there.

One of my Aussie mates, Jock (a regular on The Aussie Thread) nearly met a similar fate - he was unable to unclip and fell beneath the wheels of a moving truck. He survived, and still rides and races today. I'm curious about what his thoughts on the subject are.

The stories are very clear, she was avoiding being doored, in NYC you door someone, you do not have "control over your vehicle" and you are at fault.

I think the larger point some of the city riders were making, is that these trucks don't need to be there, nor do they need to be such a protected sacred cow.
IMO, they don't deseve such respect.

Exactly! They don't sail large supertankers into shallow harbors, they don't run a 100,000 volt trunk int the middle of the city, they don't run a 16 lane interstate superhighway through densely populated city, and they sure as hell shouldn't have 18 wheelers in dense urban traffic.

Just allowing tractor trailer trucks on a street like 5th Avenue creates a dangerous situation. Take a look at the overhead photos . It doesn't look like there's enough room for a large truck to safely pass a parked tractor-trailer without crossing the double yellow line - not to forget any traffic passing in the opposite direction.

Of course businesses need deliveries but they don't have to be delivered in truck this large.

Stacy

i guess i don't really disagree, but restricting this kind of traffic and requiring all cargo to be re-packed outside of the city for delivery would be prohibitively expensive.

bk

Are you sure? I don't know, but these trucks sit in traffic created by their size anyway, it would seem that if they were smaller and electric ( I think they get loaded just out of the city, if not in the city anyway) they would be much less a burden on themselves and city dwellers. Do you know it would be "prohibitively" expensive?

An electric truck? There's a great idea. A couple thousand pounds of lead and chemicals underneath. And it will be charged how? From electricity generated by a nuclear plant? Just wondering, that's all. Let me know if that's going to bring back this cyclist.

Maybe 2 smaller trucks would be a better idea. Twice as many vehicles on the road that way.

Not trying to start an argument here, just pointing out that there's no easy solution here.

You're looking at this from a completely wrong perspective. I don't care if it's generated by nuclear, the problem isn't the energy (For me at least), it's that trucks spew a lot of crap into the air, which my body has to filter out since I'm an air breathing engine. Replace cars in DENSE urban environments with electric and the air can be much cleaner. And rather than SLA, which is pretty old school, they can go with either metal hydride or lithium.

Smaller trucks and greater restrictions won't bring back this cyclist, but don't you think it might prevent future accidents?

A lot of these trucks are loaded by the docks on the shore. Small stores don't need to be restocked with 18 wheelers. Large stores should have an area for those trucks to unload, just not in the street and they certainly shouldn't arrive by means of residential streets.

Cleaner air at the expense of what? Electricity isn't free, with the exception of solar. Electrics still have an environmental impact. NiMH of lithium to power a large vehicle? I'm sure companies would jump at the chance to spend an extra couple of hundred thousand for a truck with a lower GVW rating. Plenty of clean burning compressed gas cabs where I live (as opposed to petrol). Gas powered buses too.

Each of us makes choices every day. You choose to ride in the city, you accept the risk. There is no other place in the world like NYC. If you want to live there, you've got to compromise.

I totally understand what you're getting at here, and agree that the cost of consumerism must be paid at some point in the supply chain, vis a vis fuel choices for vehicles. But I do, as a Brooklyn native & lifelong NYC citizen, take exception to this one thought you've shared. It's really important, in NYC, to be willing to push back right now. There are mighty changes afoot, what with a billionaire mayor eager to curtail civil liberties and at the same time give away huge tracts of land to billionaire developers, and yet the west side stadium died in a hail of public and vocal dissent. We don't have to compromise, and every new yorker has a chance to remake the city in his own image, if he can find enough like-minded folks to push back.

One example-Commerce Bank recently tried to build a new facility on the same avenue where this accident took place. CommerceBank is a suburban chain, mostly, and their banks are for the most part freestanding buildings with drive-thru lanes. (If you don't know park slope, this sort of facility simply could not be less appropriate) This is what they had planned for their new branch in the heart of brownstone Brooklyn, but enough folks kicked up a ruckus that they've modified their plans to fit better with the spirit and character of the neighborhood.

The minute we give the momentum over to developers and profiteers is the minute we lose the city. Thes fukkers can and have been fought off before, but only if everyone here stands firm and claims the city for its citizens and not those who seek to bleed it dry.

OK, that's enough civic boosterism for now.

I understand your passion here. I lived in Rockland County for my first 7 years. Even though I have permanent residency in Australia, I'm still a New Yorker by birth.

You obviously don't live in a dense city and if you do, you're obviously ignorant to the density of pollution here. The point isn't to eliminate pollution, it's to reduce the density of it. Gas powered isn't free either, it (DUH) also has an environmental impact, all the way from processing to combustion. Neither is solar if you follow it from production to end product.
Rockland county's much different from NYC. Millions of vehicles in a densely populated city spewing anything out in the air isn't the solution since most only drive 20-30 miles a day.
I understand you love to point out flaws and ask "what if?" but do you have any ideas for resolving the problem?

Funny, you and I used to agree on most things. I haven't been to NYC for just over a year now, but that doesn't make me ignorant. As I recall, most of the traffic was taxis and buses. No one is forcing people to drive in the city, there's plenty of alternative transport. Conversely, no one is forcing anyone to live in the city.

At the risk of generating a further argument, why do you choose to live in the city? I live near the beach, in a low density area, which still has excellent public transport. I'm not willing to sacrifice health and safety for whatever allure a big city has.

And no, I don't have a solution to the problem. But I'm realistic in my views as well. You are fighting politicians and the almighty dollar, which is almost always a losing battle.

yeah, ok, i didn't think of that.
bk

just thinking about the labor to change to smaller trucks / pay twice as many drivers, etc. was what lead me to think that.

i obviously don't have any empirical data, but i have some experience with shipping/freight charges and getting trucks to deliver equipment in the city.

9 times out of 10 the trucking companies are doing their best just to get the stuff there in the first place. I can't even imagine how big a wrench size requirements/having to change trucks would throw into the equation.

bk

Is there existing space available to unload these trucks? Or would this be a requirement for future stores? I doubt that 1 square foot of NY real estate would be used for a loading dock unless absolutely necessary. And are trucks able to get to these locations without travelling on residential streets? I know we have strictly enforced weight limits here.

As far as smaller trucks, from a purely financial view, I can't see that happening. We move about 1,300 metric tonnes of aluminium per day, all by rail. We bring in our empty containers by rail as often as possible too. Next choice is 3 containers on a B Double. Our most expensive option is one box on a single truck. The difference between rail and trucks works out to $50/container x 300 containers/week. A single truck can deliver to multiple locations in one day. A smaller truck may have to go in and out of the city several times to deliver goods, or the supplier needs to send out more trucks to achieve the same volume. That means more truck miles for the same quantity of goods. Two prime movers put out twice as much pollution as one, and probably use twice the fuel, given that so much time is spent idling in traffic. To sum it all up, unless consumers will accept higher prices for their goods, the bigger trucks are going to have to be in city, and cyclists, pedestrians and motorists will need to deal with that.

Incredibly dumb bicycling, no matter how you cut it.

My wife made a similar comment about riding clipped in in NYC traffic.

"A bicyclist who tried to squeeze between two trucks"

Trucks should be there, shouldn't, air pollution blah blah.

One who tries this move is risking one's life. It's a hell of a big bet to avoid the inconvenience of stopping the bike and perhaps *gasp* walking the damn thing around the obstruction.

Good point, I have no data either. Twice the trucks may mean twice the traffic, if that is really the end result of smaller delivery vehicles. Sadly, your rail solutions have been nearly destroyed here. I wish I had a picture of the way McDonalds resupplies their restaurants in town. 18 Wheeler with a roller ramp thing from the curb to the front door. To be fair, I am not sure I have seen this between 9-5 but people have to wait for a break in the frozen cholesterol boxes to stop or walk out in the second lane of traffic around the rig. I don't have the answer, yet, but there are literally tens of thousands of car and trucks that don't leave the five boroughs ever; cabs, delivery trucks, FedEx, etc. That a truck could be smaller or non combustion still might not have saved this woman, but it would certainly change the feel of the "street". I think 95% of this country has its head in the sand about what things finally cost and the impact of extremely cheap goods. I would like to think that people who see the destructive outcome at home and abroad would gladly pay more to live a life with less effect on the world. i.e.death of a lawyer in Park Slope or a child in Iraq or pollution etc.

It's no more dangerous than FG's, toe straps, or platforms, if you know what you're doing.
Unfortunately some people either don't or they take risks and lose. It's unfortunately and freak accidents like this are a combination of poor cycling techniques combined with chance.

Maybe I was too harsh above; this might be the kind of thing (riding between vehicles) that you do successfully so many times, you forget how dangerous it really is.

No, not safer than platforms in traffic. Even pro riders can't always unclip in time.