Photo: Andrew Hinderaker

There are approximately 34,500 uniformed cops in New York City. For a few months this spring, it seemed like the lion’s share of them had it in for cyclists. T.A.’s switchboard was flooded with phone calls from members looking for legal advice, and our inbox was crammed with messages about summonses issued for red-light running or short stints of sidewalk cycling. There’s not much we could say: Those acts, no matter how respectfully they’re executed, are against the law, but others we started hearing about – including a citation for cycling with a tote bag hung from the handlebar and a stop for riding in a short skirt – seemed so patently absurd that the biking community was abuzz with theories of a concerted crackdown ordered from the top of One Police Plaza and an overtly anti-cyclist ethos at work.

According to Officer X, a four-year veteran of the NYPD and a regular bicyclist, that’s just not the case, or not exactly. Although the precinct commanders certainly respond to orders from the top brass, and those trickle all the way down to officers walking a beat, New York’s Finest never want to write dumb tickets – not even to cyclists. Still, every cop and every precinct needs to prove that they’re working hard, and sometimes stopping a two-wheeler is the easiest evidence available. Officer X was good enough to give us that bit of insight and a whole lot more from behind the blue wall in this issue’s sit-down interview.

Let’s get right down to it: Do police officers hate cyclists?
No. But a lot of things have changed since the Critical Mass incident in 2007, when that rookie cop pushed a cyclist off his bike in Times Square. Now whenever an officer views a cyclist, he immediately associates them with Critical Mass riders and that incident. Even when I ride my bike to the precinct, I get that: “You riding Critical Mass? You one of them?”

As a cop, you don’t want to see another officer go down like that, even if what he did is totally wrong, and that is going to open up your eyes. That young officer tried to do the right thing. Rather, he tried to do what he perceived as the right thing to control a situation. But he was wrong, and he got caught. He could have served time because he perjured himself. It’s upsetting: upsetting on the side of cyclists – for me personally – and very much upsetting on the side of police officers. Incidents like this cause a black eye for our department, and we don’t need anything else against us.

You say he tried to do the right thing, “to control the situation,” but the cop so obviously overreacted. What would have been the actual right thing?
You are never taught in the Police Academy how to deal with a cyclist. When you’re doing car stops, you’re taught to expect the worst, and in the field the worst can happen. Tactics are all about the hands: “Let me see your hands.” An officer approaching a cyclist, who can’t really hide their hands, will see that as a safer stop; an easier target. Sure, they may fight, they may resist, but they are very rarely the ones carrying the guns or the major drugs.

You have to understand, when you stop a motor vehicle, there is a voice in the back of your mind: “Am I going to go home at the end of the day? What’s the priority here? Them or me?” With a cyclist, that pressure isn’t there in the same way.

We’ve got about 10,000 subscribers, many of whom are cyclists in New York City. As an officer, and a cyclist, is there anything you would like to tell them?
As a beat cop speaking to cyclists, I would say to follow the law so you have nothing to worry about. As a cyclist speaking to a beat cop, I’d say sometimes it makes more sense to look both ways and coast through a red light.

If a cyclist should ride to a light, see that no one is coming and proceed cautiously, why not? But from an officer’s perspective, that is too messy. What if a vehicle comes out of nowhere? How long did the cyclist look to each side? Did they actually come to a complete stop? Was he rolling? It would be impossible to make something so subjective stick in court.

If you must, though, here’s a way to safely blow a red light: ride up to it, look both ways, then get of your bike and walk through the intersection, then get back on. No self-respecting cop is going to write a jaywalker.

Has anything changed since the ticket-fixing scandal in the Bronx?
A lot has changed. Now, there is a foolproof way to distribute tickets. The blanks are scanned with a barcode, and they are given to an officer, and after he issues them to the person who committed the violation – the motorist or the cyclist – he then has to report it back himself, so there is no pooling of the tickets. That is the foolproof way this is going to operate from here on out, and it’s going to change things.

How?
In the next two to three weeks [late July/early August] you may see a sudden decline in the amount of summonses issued to everyone: cyclists, motorists, everybody.

Because of the situation in the Bronx, our Internal Affairs Bureau is now monitoring traffic tickets and moving violations. Under this new policy, if an officer loses in court – no matter how good your testimony is – you have to show your summons and your memo book to the Internal Affair Bureau. Any officer who has any kind of sense is not going to want to subject himself to that kind of scrutiny. Even if you’ve got nothing to hide, even if you’re the best ticket writer with the most detailed memo book, you don’t want Internal Affairs looking at you. They investigate serious acts of misconduct, bribery, excessive force, stuff that no one wants associated with the police department and no officer wants to associate with.

But because Internal Affairs is now monitoring our traffic court appearances, a lot of officers have stopped, or cut down on, issuing moving violations because they don’t want to have unnecessary contact with Internal Affairs. That just came about two weeks ago. It’ll be interesting to see, by the time this is published, what happens.

Have you ever seen or heard about beat cops being pressured into ticketing cyclists?
A lot of what’s behind the scenes that normal people aren’t aware of is the quantitative side of police work. The amount of activity an officer needs to bring in is a huge part of the job. In a certain light, summonses are a quantitative account of your monthly performance. They prove to your commanding officer that you’ve been working.

There are no “quotas.” The term is “performance objectives.” They can’t use the word quotas, because it’s illegal, so they come up with stuff that’s similar.

In the same way that there are no “quotas,” there is no such thing as a “punishment” for not meeting your performance objective. But let’s say you wanted to get a good assignment, like being in a sector car every day. You would come in with a certain amount of summonsing activity; if you didn’t, you wouldn’t get that sector car. You might even transport prisoners for a month or sit in the hospital looking after a sick prisoner.

So what’s the standard performance objective?
The numbers vary, but usually, 10-20 summonses. Typically one or two criminal court summonses, a handful – maybe five – parking tickets, ten or so moving violations, and one arrest every month.

And the punishment?
That depends on what you want, but you don’t want to be the person that comes in with the least activity. At least if there is someone below you, you are not the bottom of the barrel. One of the hardest things to do is motivate a cop, because he has a guaranteed biweekly paycheck. At the end of the day, officers don’t want to be writing tickets. It depends on the officer, but most of them are lazy.

If you’re a team player – meaning you stick with the same amount as your coworkers – you won’t issue more summonses than anyone else. There are a few black sheep who do go above and beyond: try and prove their worth. Typically it’s a new officer. They want to prove to their supervisor, “Hey, I’m very active. Forget about the guy with 15 years on. Give me the special detail, the regular days off, the weekends, the normal hours.” It’s upsetting, not because I want everyone to be a team player, but because when I think of the officers who do issue all those tickets, it seems like they should not have been officers in the first place. They don’t understand discretion and common sense. People have bad days. They are just like you at the end of the day. You are no better because you have a gun and a shield. For some cops, it’s easy to forget that.

A few months after he turned 63 and was forced to retire from a distinguished 39-year career with the New York City Police Department, Chief Michael Scagnelli testified in favor of a T.A.-backed City Council bill that would make portions of the NYPD’s traffic data available to the public. Bucking the departmental line and contradicting some statements made by his successor, Chief Scagnelli lived up to his reputation for shooting straight and speaking his mind by delivering testimony (see bottom) that won the day.

Reclaim sat down with the storied Chief — who took on cell phones, implemented TrafficStat and pioneered accident-prone location details — at a diner on Hylan Boulevard in the Oakwood section of Staten Island. The next day, he was off to hunt elk in Colorado. Suffice it to say that the conversation found its way to our common interests quickly.

Reclaim: After 39 years on the force and seven as the NYPD’s transportation chief, what’s one of the most important lessons you’ve learned?

Chief Scagnelli: You can get good information from everybody. The best source to figure out what works is to ask the people who know the day-to-day of a place. I’ve heard great ideas from cleaning people at One Police Plaza, and from neighbors, and from letters from the public that ended up on my desk. It’s not just the professionals who know best.

Reclaim: Definitely. We’re big believers in the idea of local knowledge and community process. Do you have any tips for people who feel they’re not being heard, other than moving next door to a police chief or working in the same office as one?

Scagnelli: It’s important to write letters and make phone calls, and it’s important to remember that people are human. Tone is so important. You have to have a nice tone, because people who read letters all day will dismiss the ones that are nasty. If you start out ‘You don’t know anything about this or that’ then I can promise you that your letter won’t get considered in the same way as one that starts ‘Dear person who I’m sure is trying their best’.

Reclaim: What about the Mayor and the DOT? Are they doing their best?

The State Traffic Courts are too lenient. Even when an officer writes a good ticket, a person can hire an attorney and get postponements until it’s thrown out on a technicality.

Scagnelli: I’m not here to criticize, or even to advise, but I’ll tell you what I think is a great idea. I like that congestion pricing for parking that Professor Shoup from UCLA is talking about. That’s a great idea. So much traffic — you wouldn’t believe how much, maybe 20 percent — is just looking for a cheap spot to park on the street. If you could increase the cost of meters to free up spaces or discourage unnecessary driving, that would have a huge impact across the city.

Reclaim: Since you retired, the City has been experimenting with inching the price up in parts of Park Slope and the West Village.

Scagnelli: That’s good. They should keep inching it up. It has got to be something significant. 10 bucks, 12 bucks, it has got to be up there.

Reclaim: So what about regular congestion pricing or tolls on the East River bridges?

Scagnelli: I don’t think we should toll the East River bridges. Would it help traffic in Manhattan? Sure. Would it raise money? That depends on how it’s managed. But I think it would do a lot of negative things, too: pollution; congestion; park-and-ride problems in the boroughs; unnecessary divisions in the city. I don’t believe in that.

Reclaim: OK. But what we’re doing now isn’t reducing traffic and it definitely isn’t making any money.

Scagnelli: There are ways of using pricing to incentive public transportation and carpooling that don’t draw those borders around Manhattan. The parking plan I mentioned earlier, and why not single-driver fees to use HOV lanes on something like the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel? Something where there’s adequate transit nearby? Make it $20 to use it if you’re alone in a car. You’d make money and, better, you’d encourage people to carpool and take transit.

Reclaim: In the past we’ve heard you talk about the three E’s — engineering, enforcement and education. As a former top-cop how would you change the circumstances surrounding your E?

Scagnelli: The State Traffic Courts are too lenient. Even when an officer writes a good ticket, a person can hire an attorney and get postponements until it’s thrown out on a technicality. Groups like T.A. need to urge the State Legislature to overhaul the State Traffic Court system.

And upon conviction we need more severe punishments. The amount of money we’re fining people ought to be enough to change their mind. If the punishment for running a stop sign is $250, and you’re incredibly unlikely to get caught, you might run the stop sign. But if we change one thing, if we make the punishment $10,000 and take your car away — and I’m being over the top with that — but if we did that, you’d never run a stop sign, even if you were unlikely to get caught.

Reclaim: What about automated enforcement cameras?

Scagnelli: With red-light cameras, people learn where they are, and then they slam on their brakes when the light is yellow because they know they’ll get a ticket, so they can cause problems. But speed cameras, they wouldn’t have that problem. In the right locations — where it’s clear it’s not just about revenue but about safety — that’s where speed cameras would do the city a lot of good.

Reclaim: There has been a lot in the papers lately about scofflaw cyclists. What’s your take?

Scagnelli: Just from watching bicyclists for years and years, my opinion is that the greater majority obeys the rules. Now there are a lot of couriers and delivery people who don’t. They’re hustling to make a buck, putting their own lives in jeopardy, and it’s a shame, and they need to get fined just like drivers who break the law.

Reclaim: What about the Mayor’s plan to reduce speed limits in areas around the city to 20 mph?

Scagnelli: In city centers, like in Chinatown, many parts of Manhattan, and in really dense parts of the Boroughs, in those neighborhoods it would work and save lives, but I wouldn’t do it blanket throughout the city.

Reclaim: Any final thoughts, Chief? What about your legacy?

Scagnelli: My legacy? There’s a lot more to that than this [chuckles], but I’ll tell you, whenever you have anyone in charge of anything, the person in charge has to be zealous. If you’re not, then you’re not as good as you can be. Everyone should remember that. Between zeal and sharing — sharing the road or knowledge or your honest opinion — that’s how you get good things done.

Testimony of Michael Scagnelli
Chief of Transportation (retired)
New York City Police Department
—
New York City Council
Committee on Public Safety
Hearing on Intro. 0120
April 28th, 2010

—

In the year 2000 I took control of TrafficStat and re-engineered and improved it to reverse the trend of rising accidents, injuries and deaths. The central lesson of TrafficStat is that the more traffic data is available, the more capability there is to prevent accidents, injuries and the loss of life that too often occurs on New York City streets.

When I was Chief of Transportation, if legitimate organizations requested accident, injury and summonsing statistics, I would furnish them, provided I already had the information. I strongly believe that one way to help reduce traffic injuries and fatalities on New York City streets is for the NYPD to make traffic injury, fatality and summonsing data open and available to the public. The simple fact is that this information already exists in a form that could be easily released and made available to the public and other agencies focused on reducing traffic casualties.

If this information is made public, it will surely help citizens, community leaders, health professionals and elected officials draw much-needed attention to the dire need for more traffic safety solutions to be applied on our streets. I have always been a great believer in the transparency of the police department. It can only help the police and the citizens of New York City to make all known traffic data readily available to the public. Thank you.

###

Another Greenpoint resident has come forward reporting to have seen a police car, in violation of NYPD policy, chasing the speeding white mini-van that took the life of Violetta Kryzak in April.

Earlier this week, a reader who chose to be identified as 'Alex B.' emailed Streetsblog, writing that she had witnessed the chase. In an email exchange that followed, Alex B. explained what she saw: "I was on Manhattan between Norman and Meserole [Editor's note: seven blocks south of where the fatal collision took place] when two cars sped past me -- clearly one chasing the other. I remember being sure that the second car was police, although it was unmarked -- possibly because it had its lights on."

Her account matches the story of three other eyewitnesses. Their testimony runs counter to the version of events given by the 94th Precinct's commanding officer, Deputy Inspector Dennis Fulton, who told attendees of a precinct community council meeting that the department "has no indication that [a police pursuit] happened."

The NYPD’s public information office has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Manhattan Avenue minutes after the deadly crash. (Image: Greenpoint Gazette)

The NYPD continues to dispute eyewitness accounts of the events that preceded the vehicle-on-pedestrian collision that took the life of Violetta Kryzak, a 38-year-old mother and Greenpoint resident.

Despite the statements of three separate eyewitnesses stationed several blocks from one another who claim that at least one police vehicle was following the speeding white mini-van that struck and killed Kryzak, the 94th Precinct’s commanding officer maintains that a police pursuit did not occur.

At a precinct community council meeting last week, Deputy Inspector Dennis Fulton said that he can only go on what witnesses say, but that he has "no indication that [a police-pursuit] happened."

Streetsblog contacted the NYPD's Public Information Office for clarification about the contradiction between eyewitness accounts of the day’s events and Deputy Inspector Fulton’s understanding of what occurred. "Everybody’s going to say something," said a spokesperson.

The family of Violetta Kryzak has secured legal representation. A private investigator hired by the family’s lawyers is conducting interviews and searching for surveillance cameras that may have caught the alleged chase on tape.

The NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau also has an investigation underway, said Fulton.

The New York City Police Department denies that it was involved in a high-speed police chase preceding the vehicle-on-pedestrian collision that took the life of Violetta Kryzak, a 38-year-old Polish-American mother and Greenpoint resident, despite eyewitness accounts to the contrary first published by Streetsblog.

On Monday, at the 94th Precinct Community Council’s monthly meeting, Deputy Inspector Dennis Fulton, the precinct’s commanding officer, told approximately 40 assembled neighbors, “At this point it appears as though there was not a high-speed chase,” adding, “To make sure, it’s being investigated by our Internal Affairs Bureau. But it does not appear that anyone was following [the perpetrator].”

Fulton's statement contradicts numerous eyewitness accounts of the fatal crash. Three weeks ago, I reported on this tragedy for Streetsblog, and everyone I spoke with seemed sure that the police had pursued a white mini-van up Manhattan Avenue at a very high speed. The day of the crash I was told by Kamil Uminski, a 20-year-old man who witnessed the van strike Violetta Kryzak, “There were two cops chasing a white van up the avenue.”

Less than an hour after I heard Deputy Inspector Fulton deny that there was a high-speed chase, I emailed with a neighborhood mom named Sydney, who claims to have seen an unmarked police vehicle pursuing the white mini-van. I don't have Sydney's last name, only her email address, as a mutual friend put us in touch when I told her I was writing a follow-up story about this incident. Sydney replied to my inquiry: “I was slowly driving down Manhattan Avenue between Bedford Ave. and Norman Ave. headed west [Editor's note: eight blocks south of where the fatal collision took place] when the mini-van flew past my truck very close at an unbelievable speed nearly taking my rear view mirror with it. The van was occupying the opposite lane of Manhattan Avenue, which is a two-lane street and also headed west, in other words driving head-on into oncoming traffic. Seconds after the van passed my truck an undercover cop car in hot pursuit passed me traveling at the same speed and following the van as it weaved through traffic down the busy street.”

Yet another eyewitness, Cody Dennison, who claims to have seen police officers pursuing the white mini-van ten blocks south of the crash site, responded to an inquiry by email. He wrote: “The white mini-van was being pursued by a gray 4-door undercover police sedan with siren lights driving just as fast as the mini-van. I think there were two gray sedans but they were moving so fast I only saw one for sure. I saw the one gray sedan just as plain as day. And I said out loud, 'Why would they chase the driver towards the precinct?'"

Why indeed? According to the NYPD Patrol Guide: “Department policy requires that a vehicle pursuit be terminated whenever the risks to uniformed members of the service and the public outweigh the danger to the community if [the] suspect is not immediately apprehended.”

An afternoon high-speed car chase down Manhattan Avenue, a relatively narrow two-way street with two travel lanes, two parking lanes, two bus routes, scores of storefronts, a handful of churches and high pedestrian volumes, must outweigh the danger posed to the community by all but the most dangerous criminals, let alone Jose Maldonado, the 28-year old car thief who struck and killed Violetta Kryzak.

Everyone in the neighborhood knows as much, and I imagine the police officers at the 94th Precinct do as well. Perhaps this is why Deputy Inspector Fulton denied that there was a chase: To admit as much would be to admit that his officer’s acted negligently and violated procedural guidelines.

Either that’s the case or the eyewitnesses I’ve spoken to are mistaken.

The police department has not responded to numerous requests for comment.

The aftermath of yesterday's deadly car chase on Manhattan Avenue. Photo: Graham T. Beck

Manhattan Avenue, the bustling main street in my usually quiet Brooklyn neighborhood, became a multi-block crime scene yesterday afternoon when a mini-van driver, reportedly fleeing police at high speed, struck and killed a woman near India Street before crashing into a parked SUV five blocks further north.

The pedestrian who was struck, Violetta Kryzak, a 38-year old Polish immigrant and mother, was taken to Bellevue Hospital and pronounced dead following the crash. The driver of the van, Jose Maldonado, 28, is awaiting charges after being taken to Woodhull Hospital with a broken toe.

I was out walking my dog when I came upon the scene. Several people I spoke to near the multi-vehicle pileup told me that two unmarked, gray police cars without their sirens on were pursuing the mini-van down Manhattan Avenue at extremely high speed.

"There were two cops chasing a white van up the avenue," said Kamil Uminski, 20, who witnessed the van strike the pedestrian. "[The van driver] was flying -- like 100 miles an hour -- ran a red light at India Street, hit the lady, kept going, and I guess this is where he lost it."

NYPD has been unwilling to explain what prompted the high-speed chase, or even acknowledge that officers were pursuing the vehicle that struck the woman.

I've probably seen a thousand police chases on TV and in the movies, but this was the first time I'd come across the aftermath of the genuine article. It was easy to see why, in real life, the tactic has been discredited in all but the most extreme circumstances.

According to Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina, research indicates that most suspects chased by police are not serious criminals, but "deadbeats making stupid decisions to avoid being caught for not having a license or some offense that would be very minor compared to what happens when they initiate a pursuit."

Even when the suspect is being pursued for a serious crime, the outcome of these tactics is often deadly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that in 2001, 365 people died in police pursuits, including 140 who weren't in a police car or a vehicle being chased.

Yesterday's tragedy on Manhattan Avenue made these statistics all too real, and left many of the people I spoke to questioning the judgment of the police. As Miss Heather, the author of the Greenpoint neighborhood blog newyorkshitty, wrote to me in an email, "I cannot believe the police decided to pursue this guy down Manhattan Avenue which is without argument TEEMING with pedestrians. Very. BAD. Decision."

According to Leonard Levitt, who wrote the column "One Police Plaza" for Newsday and now pens NYPD Confidential, the police department has "taken the lead in swearing off high-speed pursuits as dangerous to both civilians and officers.” As to whether or not there are exceptions to this ‘swearing off’, Streetsblog has a request in with NYPD's public information office.

Given the tragic outcome of yesterday's pursuit, it seems a sensible time to ask: Is a police chase in the city ever appropriate? The television shows and movies that make screeching tires the stuff of everyday law enforcement send an unambiguous message: the faster the cops give chase, the greater their dedication to justice. But walking down Manhattan Avenue this morning, past piles of shattered glass, stains that I couldn’t help seeing as blood splotches, and the faces of people who might have been in mourning, police pursuit seemed a whole lot more complicated than getting a bad guy and burning some rubber.

Dollar Van Demos, the unlikely union of transportation needs and musical dreams that has entranced New York bloggers, is giving private transit operators in Brooklyn and Queens some of the best press they've ever received. But that isn't the only reason it's worth taking a fresh look at dollar vans. If the state legislature can't avert the MTA's doomsday scenario, the vans may soon see a surge in ridership -- perhaps big enough to launch a few recording careers.

Dollar vans are the unmarked and often unregulated 15-passenger vehicles that cruise Flatbush and Utica Avenues in Brooklyn, Jamaica Avenue in Queens, and other outer-borough thoroughfares picking up bus passengers and commuters. Service cuts and fare hikes would make their routes increasingly attractive to transit riders.

While that's a convenient fail-safe for residents of the transit-poor neighborhoods that dollar vans serve, it's problematic for the MTA and potentially dangerous for passengers.

It stands to reason that many dollar van trips (now priced at $1.50 or $2.00) would be New York City Transit trips if riders were satisfied with the level of service provided by area buses, so some trips lost to dollar vans not only represent dissatisfied transit customers, but also lost fare-box revenue at a time when the MTA needs every cent.

Furthermore, because many dollar vans are unlicensed and unregulated, and thus uninsured to operate as livery vehicles, passengers can expect little recourse in the event of a crash and little consistency from van to van and driver to driver.

Both the NYPD and the TLC are responsible for oversight of dollar vans but enforcement that would prevent illegal vans from operating and legal vans from poaching MTA passengers from bus stops has been spotty at best, according to City Council Transportation Chair John Liu.

The 63rd Precinct, which covers Mill Basin and Marine Park in Brooklyn -- neighborhoods favored by dollar van drivers looking to avoid traffic on Flatbush Avenue -- issued 49 moving violation tickets and 48 TLC tickets to the operators of legal dollar vans and impounded 25 illegal vans between June and October of 2008.

Still, that’s just a drop in the bucket.

In 1999, the New York Times estimated that there were between 2400 and 5000 dollar vans operating in New York City, a number that has no doubt fluctuated in recent years, but still represents a sizable fleet of private transit vehicles.

With commuters tightening their belts and MTA fare hikes and service cuts potentially on the way, this number may very well skyrocket, and what has long been a cottage industry loose and nimble enough to launch gimmicks like Dollar Van Demos could become an increasingly crucial part of the transportation network, for better and for worse.

For obvious reasons, it’s refreshing to see the steps that a small, privately owned transportation company will take to draw and please passengers. But for equally obvious reasons, it’s alarming to think that transit riders may have to rely more and more on an unregulated industry to get around their city.