No.

"Any 'racing' you see at this point is just a two-wheeled pi$$ing contest and is not sanctioned by any official body."

I'm not going to argue over terms I don't care about and didn't even use. I mentioned training rides and races; official races may already have adequate crossing assistance, but the same needs to happen any time that people are going to ride as fast as they are able and refuse to yield. Other people are not expecting it, they don't hear the riders coming, and minor crashes happen. What is the actual frequency? I would like to know. I don't care about anecdotes, though I note you've gotten creative and projected two onto me anyway, in order to accuse me of a VENDETTA. (Tell me how your melodrama ends!)

Maybe there's not really a problem. I expect the claims are greatly exaggerated, as they are when New Yorkers say they are terrorized by bicycles on the streets but keep stubbornly getting killed by autos at a rate two orders of magnitude higher. Or maybe parks are different, at least for minor injuries, and I should think that all parties would like to know what the situation is. If there's no real problem: awesome. You'll have something based in fact to tell all the people calling for you to be banned all the time. If there is a problem, you'll know where to start fixing it. Either way, collecting and reporting minor crash statistics in parks is the first step for athletic cyclists trying to repair their rather terrible image, if they care to.

Speaking of that image, it's funny that you came after my hopeful little suggestion when there are people calling for "bikers" to be killed. I hate fast riders a lot less than most New Yorkers; I'm even friends with a few. (I try to avoid talking about bicycles with them though, as it usually leads to boredom on my part and condescension on theirs.) If anything my comment went too far against the community associations and boards. I apologize for implying that people in them don't work; I have no idea if they do or not. I don't know how to explain their regressive (in the literal, not economic, sense) tendencies, and shouldn't guess. All that really matters is that they regularly try to put the brakes on positive change.

1) It would be easy to implement. Any traffic engineer can see that the roadway is WAY over capacity, and removing a lane will have almost no impact on the precious LOS.
2) It would reduce conflicts between bikers and joggers who currently compete for space in one tiny lane.
3) It would slow car speeds because one car traveling at or below the speed limit would regulate the speed of all the cars behind it.
4) #3 would likely frustrate drivers, used to racing through the park, possibly enough for them to consider an alternate route or mode.
5) #4 may cause even lower vehicle counts in the park, showing even more reduced capacity.

Any thoughts?

FWIW, the races in Central Park and Prospect Park are put on by the Century Road Club with approvals from NYC Parks and all other applicable agencies. They take place at dawn, have marshals, and the season has actually been over for two weeks now. Any "racing" you see at this point is just a two-wheeled pi$$ing contest and is not sanctioned by any official body.

If there were numbers to back that up (within the park, we know it isn't true outside) it would be damning for the racing contingent. I think it's probably not the case fatality wise, but could be for minor injuries. Something to look at, in terms of organizing training rides and races, and also how the roadway is laid out (definitely should be two way, as you've mentioned elsewhere). I'm very tempted to say "to heck with their high-speed recreation", but ideally it could be accommodated safely within the city (unlike, you know, NYC's put-upon skeet shooting enthusiasts). If the park is ever completely closed to cars, it's incombent on everyone to face the problem and be willing to compromise. A "fast" cyclist co-op (membership required to participate), where extensive manpower is used to put marshals at every intersection, perhaps? I don't think that blind traffic lights are either necessary or helpful in fixing the problem.

"I don't know if it's possible for any neighborhood association to speak for all local residents..."

I don't know if it's possible for any such organization to speak for even a plurality of residents, as they tend to attract rather a segment of the population—and not the most forward looking one. I shutter to think what my neighborhood organizations are advocating (or rather scuttling) on my behalf, and I will do my best to infiltrate them as soon as I'm finished trying to secure a future for my family (working). I do make time to vote, though, and I do feel fairly well represented by city government. The last thing I need or want is an outside organization pretending to represent me by opposing projects that people I've voted for are trying to carry out. When community organizations bring new locally grown ideas to elected officials, they can be helpful. But when they oppose progress to preserve particular privileges that the status quo may provide to members and their friends, they're beyond useless.

That's just my opinion as neither a "biker" nor a "non-biker", but a New Yorker.

If you disagree with our position on an issue, you are welcome to contact us or come to a meeting (the next meeting will be Thurs. Nov. 13 at 6:30pm at Holy Name in the Rectory basement). Windsor Terrace had not had a neighborhood association in the recent past and we are very proud of the work we've done which includes advocating for enforcement of truck parking rules on McDonald Ave. which has drastically reduced the number of trucks parked there overnight, monitoring the possible trucking of contaminated soil on Caton Ave., and lobbying for traffic calming measures on several dangerous intersections. Our view on the cars in the park issue is that the DOT should include neighborhoods affected by any traffic changes in the discussion before implementing these changes.

Best, Lauren Collins
Co-Founder
Windsor Terrace Alliance
(718) 393-8119
http://www.windsorterracealliance.org
lauren@windsorterracealliance.org

I agree they are much more dangerous than the cars in the park, because among other things the stoplights do not stop them (or me) or even slow them down. Really, really dangerous for toddlers.

But I haven't seen races going on all day long in Prospect Park(perhaps because I'm not there on a weekday?) The ones I see are early in the morning on weekends, with lookouts to warn pedestrians. That seems reasonable to me.

During Summer Streets, on the other hand, my wife and I took our first ride around the Central Park loop, and that was really scary. We saw two people really badly injured -- a female jogger who was crossing the road and a speed biker who plowed right into her.

The real issue is speed. At my pace I can hit the breaks and stop in a few feet. And there is a another issue -- where are fast bikers who ride for exercise supposed to go?

(It's time for this movement to grow up and stop the fascistic tactics!)

We're on the road to eliminating real elections, and picking up speed. Fascistic tactics make more sense to me every day.

Tom was on the staff at City Planning and Ron was on the City Planning Commission when I was there.

(And if there were more people like Tom and Ron on Community Boards, we might be putting people before automobiles.)

But there wouldn't be more people like them on the Boards. They had a romantic committment to localism, but localism generally devolves into localized self-interest, as the suburban experience shows. I doubt Tom and Ron would be in favor of exclusionary zoning, but that's what local control of land use has provided.

Neither do I think they would favor sticking it to new people and businesses to favor those cashing in and moving out, but that is also the culture of New York. You've got to see things as they are. I was once on a community board (7) myself.

the Windsor Terrace Alliance does not speak for me or MANY of my neighbors

You can start with Tom Angotti and Ron Shiffman. (Inside joke, very few people know who they are, but I do.)

I favor giving community boards more power (and more resources) but then expecting more of them.

No more power to community boards without them being held more accountable for their actions. They should be elected the way they are in London and Paris. There's no good reason why judges are "elected" but community board members are "appointed."

On topic, this issue has always been a difference of perspective between southern Brooklyn, with a preference for traveling by car, and a northern Brooklyn more open to alternate modes. Since the relaxation of term limits is all over the news today, I will also mention that the current borough president has always been sympathetic to CB14 and its chair, Alvin Berk, on this issue.

The Youth Advocates recorded the speed of every car driving through the park during the afternoon, from 5pm to 7pm, and their count came to 604 cars over a two hour period (90% of which were speeding). Your estimate of 300 cars per hour is spot on. So is your idea for a trial period; it is time to see what a car-free park would look like.

I think all community board meetings should take place on the sidewalks of the community supposedly being served.

Does any one have a more recent estimate of how many cars per hour are using the park?

Also, if these hundreds of cars are zooming through the park, what happens to them when they exit the park? Doesn't this also cause some traffic congestion for some other neighborhood?

Anyway, yeah, Mayor Bloomberg, let's do the trial already so we can have some actual numbers on the effets.