The solution is to zone more Sunnysides where people of all ages live together. I have some friends on the next block where three generations live in the same apartment complex. The mother lives on the top floor of one building (the father died last year, sadly). The sister has an apartment in the other building, and the brother lives in another apartment with his wife and daughter (when she’s not at college). They all hang out at the cafe down the street. It’s a vertical village.

When his father lost his ability to drive, he lost his mobility and freedom? The choice was between driving or else rotting away in front of a TV? It was a physical impossibility to WALK?

In some of these places, it’s not a physical impossibility but it’s just unpleasant and dangerous. My grandfather had a similar experience; he lived in a condo in a sprawly part of Florida, and then my uncle moved him to an assisted-living center in a sprawly part of California. There was nowhere to walk to within a reasonable distance for an 87-year-old man even if he felt comfortable walking there.

That’s why I like my neighborhood in Queens: you can walk to everything, and there are lots of places (park benches, cafes, senior centers, the VFW) where senior citizens can walk to and socialize. It could be safer, but it’s a lot safer than where my grandfather lived. It’ll be even better when they roll out Safe Streets for Seniors here next year.

http://www.govisland.com/Press_Room/06-04-08bikeshare.asp

Do you ever ride a bicycle yourself or are you strictly a walker (in the pedestrian sense, not the UES socialite sense)?

I’m looking forward to seeing you while you’re striding along the Hudson River Promenade.

Seriously? I hate it when people do that. If everyone could just look where they’re going and be aware of what’s around them, it wouldn’t be necessary.

When his father lost his ability to drive, he lost his mobility and freedom? The choice was between driving or else rotting away in front of a TV? It was a physical impossibility to WALK?

I think a little civility goes a long way. In Riverside Park, where I do most of my walking, some bikers call out or use their bells when passing me from behind. Thanks, you guys are great!

I always look over my shoulder when about to cross into an intersecting path. I wish I didn’t have to, but it helps me avoid collisions. On two occasions, bikers have called out “thank you!” They get the gold medal for civility.

The bikers who use shared paths at racing speed bug me, but there hasn’t been much of a concerted effort to change their behavior, so why not start with a PR campaign and more “go slow” signs? I’ll bet that would make for more considerate cyclists and happier peds.

I’m not proposing any bans at all. Quite the contrary, actually. I have little faith in rules that aren’t reinforced by physical constraints. Speed limits won’t do any good as long as road conditions don’t discourage higher speeds, and the traffic lights don’t command any respect because they just look surreal in the park.

That leaves the question of where the bike racers should go. My basic attitude is that if you want to operate a vehicle at highway speeds, you can do so on a highway. That may be hard in the city because you’d probably have to go to either New Jersey or Long Island to find a suitable highway. How about a hybrid solution: We get rid of all the blacktop except for a dedicated “Wild West” lane for bikes only, without speed limits, fenced off on both sides to keep kids and dogs out, with bridges for pedestrians to cross?

What many experts do agree would help older drivers is changing the design of roads, especially intersections, where drivers often have problems judging speed and distance. So some states are redesigning them. They are installing left-turn lanes, left-turn signals, street signs well before the intersection and replacing eight-inch traffic lights with 12-inch ones.

This is code for road widening. Widening roads encourages driving by people of all ages, worsens the already poor pedestrian experience in most places, worstens our rainwater runoff problems, and is an expensive and poor use of tax dollars.

With Central Park, once again we have the problem of too many people (pedestrians, dog walkers, families with children, utility cyclists, racing cyclists, joggers, etc.) competing for too little car-free road space.

I agree with the premise that a park is a refuge from automobile traffic and that pedestrians should have priority at all times. The problem with the current traffic light configuration is that it encourages cyclists (whether more commuting-oriented like myself or more racing-oriented) to blow through lights. When you have lights than turn red frequently, and often no pedestrians crossing, it feels like an arbitrary imposition. Your suggestion of having lights turn red on pedestrian demand seems a reasonable way to re-engineer the system to meet everyone’s needs most of the time. Pedestrians can cross when they need to and cyclists can continue to ride when there’s no pedestrian traffic. Cylists respect the red light because there’s a compelling reason for it.

With a set-up like this, I think ticketing cyclists who blow through a red light would be completely reasonable, as it would be endangering other people’s safety (as well as their own).

I am always sad to see pedestrians and cyclists pitted against one another. All cyclists in New York are also pedestrians and we two groups have common cause in taking back the streets. Where their interests diverge is that cyclists are a minority facing an inadequate infrastructure, whereas pedestrians are a majority and have a ubiquitous network of sidewalks supporting their needs. Cyclists are required to share roads with automobiles where they are a minority, where space is often not allocated to them–and, when it is, it is frequently disrespected (cars parked in bike lanes, pedestrians walking in bike lanes, etc.), putting their lives at risk. So I understand cyclists are angry and frustrated, although I by no means condone careless, rude, and dangerous behavior towards pedestrians.

… from behind a brightly-colored hand puppet.

(I couldn’t resist)

Apparently you don’t know that the hedge fund guys mentioned in the NY Mag article are major underwriters of T.A., or that most of the racers I know in NYC are also bike commuters/utilitarian riders as well and generally agree with this site’s viewpoints other than the obvious absurd stuff.

The NY Mag piece was a total piece of crap that could’ve been and probably was written in 1978, 1988 (start to mix in roller bladers) and 1998 as well as today. Unfortunately, most of the cyclists quoted didn’t have the sense to smell set up, and considering the trashy outlet that NY Mag is, that is pretty naive.