Skip to content

Recent Comments



    I would note that there are situations where following the letter of the law on one’s bike actually puts you in danger because you are following rules written for motor vehicles. I will often make a right turn on red at intersections where waiting for the green would mix me in with two lanes of turning cars. Taking the forbidden right on red gets me ahead of that group of cars which improves my safety. Of course, if there is oncoming traffic or crossing pedestrians, I wait. It’s not about wanting to be above the law, it’s about the law not corresponding to what is reasonable and prudent because it wasn’t written for bikes. Of course this isn’t an excuse for anyone to ride their bike recklessly, but it explains why a certain degree of this behavior exists. Moreover, certain instances of so-called red light running are no more dangerous than pedestrian jaywalking. Plus, there’s no evidence that cyclists violate the law at any greater rate than do motorists.


    Alexander Vucelic

    there was a gruesome photo circulating that was chilling in the extreme.



    And being a completely innocent pedestrian following the law can get you killed without any consequences for the person responsible. Life’s not fair, is it?



    Well said. In general, there are many drivers who do dangerous things all the time, whether out of monotony or aggression. They keep doing what they’re doing because they’ve never hurt anyone… Until they do.



    It needs to be said (because TWU seems to think the opposite) but no advocate thinks this driver acted INTENTIONALLY. She didn’t mean to kill anyone. She clearly had a clean record, as the report states. But if she took this turn at twice the allowed limit, I might interpret that as a sign she had done it before, perhaps many times before. The fact that someone died as a result was not an accident, then, but almost a statistical inevitability.

    This is exactly the kind of mentality the ROW was meant to discourage: you may think you’re a perfectly good driver because, hey, you know what you’re doing and have never hurt anyone in the past. So what if you bend the rules? But there are things that every driver does, such as taking a turn too fast, that can result in tragedy. As news of this law continues to spread, hopefully drivers will rethink the little things that, while not as reckless as drunk driving or texting, contribute to a dangerous environment on NYC streets.


    Joe R.

    And that might be fine if the MTA itself was willing to accept responsibility but it isn’t. A good analogy might be punishing the restaurant owners instead of the restaurant delivery people because they’re the ones who set the working conditions which result in their delivery people riding recklessly. If the MTA really does take a hard line on drivers not adhering to schedules then it’s setting conditions which result in reckless driving. Therefore, it makes more sense to punish the MTA, not individual drivers (unless they’re shown to be doing things not in keeping with the MTA’s conditions of employment).



    apparently not. Just a cub reporter trying to break into the biz and make ends meet. Just doing his job, throwing innocent pedestrians under the you know what



    So first the TWU said that bus drivers shouldn’t be arrested and cuffed at the scene; now they’re saying they shouldn’t be arrested and cuffed three months later after an investigation concluded the driver was at fault. They also said that the standard MTA report process already in place was sufficient; now they dispute the conclusions of the report.

    They just keep moving the goalposts and their true goal shines through: to absolve their drivers of any and all responsibility.



    I almost feel bad bringing this up, but Daniel Prendergast isn’t related to Thomas Prendergast, right?


    Joe R.

    Anyone know if MTA buses have onboard speed recorders? I know a lot of intercity buses have those.

    I’m getting physically nauseous thinking of the “trial of blood and soft tissue” in the graphic above. I’m guessing anyone who witnessed this won’t soon forget it.


    Andrew Balmer

    I think you can only argue that those things constitute a minor subsidy, if at all.

    Of course the city brokers the deal, because Citi Bike is deeply connected with the city and locations must be coordinated with various agencies. The city brokers lots of deals with lots of contractors. I don’t think you’d consider that brokerage time to be a subsidy, in the same way that I don’t think you’d consider it a subsidy when my apartment landlord brokers the deal to let me rent his apartment.

    As far as “planning support” goes, yes, the city does provide planning support to Citi Bike. But the city provides far greater planning support to all other modes of transportation, and has done so for decades.



    Given that the city brokers the deal and gives substantial planning support, i’d argue that there is a significant subsidy.



    FUD. this would only be true if pedestrians were /walking in the streets/. Bikeshare has absolutely nothing to do with it. Classic NIMBY.



    “free” it isn’t. It takes time, and money, and you have to pay one way or the other. alternatively, bicycles are completely free, everywhere, and the cost of bikeshare is ridiculously cheap compared to basically any other city service.



    Until the pricing structure of bikeshare is fixed, they’ll be one issue or another with these things. Frankly, $100/year is massively too cheap.



    It is. They’re probably thousands of times safer than automobiles.



    A crackdown on e-bikes is nuts. The dirt bikes and ATVs that blast down the street, blowing through red lights at 50mph should be dealt with first, along with speeding drivers. But I’m sure we’d all be better off if restaurants would just use cars to make deliveries.



    I am finding myself agreeing with Steve Cuozzo…. I feel filthy and need a shower now, but much of what he says about the yellow cab “industry” rings true. (minus the annoying petty Cuozzo things he always inserts to add ‘color’ to his columns)



    “So we enforce the unworkable rule and you have a massive traffic jam in the city.”

    Exactly! When are people going to learn that the current system doesn’t work and stop breaking the law to force it to work?

    “So what’s it going to be… gridlock?”

    Yes, because there’s too many vehicles on the road. If people actually obeyed the laws it’d be impossible to drive and people would find alternatives.

    Instead you have idiots making exemptions for the laws that don’t work and not addressing the cause.



    “There is a lot to look at on a left turn and to assume that the blind spot is occupied would mean that no bus moves.”

    Why is it ok for you to drive a huge bus where you can’t see, when you wouldn’t close your eyes and drive a car where you can’t see?


    It’s really that simple. Blind spot? Do not drive there, at all!


    Bus rider

    TWU can’t get its talking points straight. First they say that arresting drivers on the spot without a thorough investigation is wrong and have pushed legislation to get this (rarely applied) practice to stop. But in the Post story, they’re complaining that a driver was asked to surrender *three months* after the incident, presumably after a thorough investigation by NYPD and the Bronx DA’s office.

    Call me a cynic, but one would think the TWU just doesn’t want its drivers held responsible when they kill another human being.


    Alexander Vucelic

    Gotta love it when the TWU Prez promptes both TA & Stretsblog



    Re: the Post’s reporting of the Bushwick hit-and-run. They make sure to mention dead pedestrian was “jaywalking” (by whose account?) and that the driver passed sobriety tests…the next day. a) unless it was just-after-midnight the next day, that’s pretty irrelevant and b) driver killed a ped and left the scene–sobriety excuses nothing. If anything, it’s almost worse if those were decisions he/she made sober.



    Translation: “Not making anything up, but let me try to change the subject.”

    Who said anything about a perfect world? You just want a world where you don’t risk consequences for the stupid things you obviously do.

    But, sure, I’m all for no-regulation. Get rid of cars and take the police with you. We don’t need police to regulate us, but we do need police to regulate the vehicles. Vehicles need to follow set rules. People don’t.


    Eugene Weixel

    I’ll trust Emily Guendelsberger on the question of Uber drivers and app distracted driving. Unlike you and people who just want cheap labor rides, she had no dog in this fight when she reported first hand that you cannot be a successful Uber driver without being a distracted driver.


    Eugene Weixel

    Oh, no one should pay. After all, you have Uber behind you….


    Eugene Weixel

    I doubt there are sufficient crash investigations and records of crash statistics to know for sure. Uber itself doubtless has a treasure trove of facts about Uber driver crashes. NYPD is as usual totally useless in this regard. Citypaper reporter Emily Guendelsberger tells the world that you cannot be a successful Uber driver without being a distracted driver. She tried.


    Junior sheikh

    New web site is
    looking good. Thanks for the great effort.

    link building packages


    Junior sheikh

    Your music is
    amazing. You have some very talented artists. I wish you the best of success.

    link building firm



    Thanks for sharing
    the info, keep up the good work going…. I really enjoyed exploring your
    site. good resource…

    link building agency


    Junior sheikh

    Very nice article,
    I enjoyed reading your post, very nice share, I want to twit this to my
    followers. Thanks!.

    Proutklarton Getting Miracle Plan


    Junior sheikh

    Superbly written
    article, if only all bloggers offered the same content as you, the internet
    would be a far better place..

    Proutklarton Getting Miracle Plan



    I just couldn’t
    leave your website before telling you that I truly enjoyed the top quality
    info you present to your visitors? Will be back again frequently to check up
    on new posts.

    Proutklarton Mind Instructor Plan



    It’s a question of speed. Higher speed -> more intense protection. Heavy double parking -> more intense protection.

    On a bridge like this, where the speed limit is unenforced and vehicle speeds regularly exceed 45mph, more intense protection is necessary.


    Willie Wilmette

    Everyone has seen taxi drivers on the phone, that doesn’t mean that is encouraged. Two quick clicks is all it takes, about as easy as changing your radio station. Of course, the driver is at fault if they get distracted.


    Stephanie Davids

    I see where the writer is coming from, but I really don’t agree. Yes, people are trying to make money, but there are very few people who would put up with the traffic for just a few bucks here and there


    Joe R.

    Nothing there is even remotely exciting. It’s a lot of piecemeal stuff—half a mile here, a mile there, nothing anywhere near where I typically ride regardless. I got a bit excited seeing the 12.6 miles under Queens Community Board 5-Phase 2 but it turned out that was just the total mileage of another bunch of piecemeal projects. That’s exactly what’s wrong here. You can even confirm that when you try to find bike routes with Google Maps. You invariably end up with a route with a gazillion confusing twists and turns which you’ll never remember without a map in front of you. We need contiguous bicycle truck routes running the full length of major arterials, supplemented by either quiet side streets, or bike infrastructure on busier side streets.

    When we’re still at a few percent mode share when we’re both collecting Social Security don’t say I didn’t tell you so. NYC got a good start on bike projects under JSK but it failed to build on that in Bloomberg’s last term. DeBlasio totally dropped the ball. Meanwhile other US cities are adding bike infrastructure left and right.




    Joe R.

    Honestly in NYC right now there doesn’t seem to be political will or funding for much beyond sharrows.



    Huge difference when you have a body of water on one side like on the belt, and the separation is often much greater than what would be feasible on other highway ROWs.

    There’s only political will and funding for so many bike projects. Your viaducts would squeeze everything else out even if you increased funding and public support significantly. Handwave all you want, that won’t change.


    Jonathan R

    Your argument is now circular. Travel outside a seven-mile limit is a bad idea because such travel needs subsidies to be viable (today, 11:34 am), and subsidies for travel are bad because people are using them to go further than seven miles (yesterday, 10:59 pm).



    Question: why is it free to keep a car in parked on the street in NYC, and we charge so much for bike share and subways? Why not reverse that – charge to park overnight in Manhattan at least – and use the money for docks?



    Let business’ and museums and neighborhoods pay to have the docks. bike share has increased revenue for businesses – many would be fighting to secure a dock.

    The real problem is putting equity over effectiveness. I don’t believe we will achieve equity until we have a high functioning government – great streets and neighborhoods, great schools – and that often takes baby steps.


    Alexander Vucelic

    State power ?

    No way, The last Thing I want Is someone murdered by a state functionary because They didn’t pay Subway fare.

    my Post must have been poorly written.

    To clarify; there should Be zero subsidies on any form of transportation.



    Thanks for your
    insight for your fantastic posting. I’m glad I have taken the time to see



    Jonathan R

    In other words, your argument about the value of spare time is not convincing enough, and state power should be used to make it more convincing.


    Joe R.

    No arguments about the awful air quality near highways. It might be possible to mitigate that if the adjacent bike path had a buffer of vegetation. That would also mitigate the noise. That said, routes like the Belt Parkway Greenway are directly adjacent to the highway in places, separated by just a jersey barrier, and the pollution levels are probably no worse than they would be in a protected bike lane on a busy arterial. Fact is air pollution from motor vehicles is likely a major impediment to cycling in NYC no matter where you put the bike paths. It’s one reason I cycle at the times I do.

    We need a low stress bike network on local streets regardless of whether or not we have “express” bike infrastructure parallel to highways, so it’s not a case of either/or. The highway bike routes would either make longer trips feasible, or perhaps shave some time off shorter ones if they could be used for part of the trip. It’s much like driving in the city. You might use a highway for a few exits even on a 3 or 5 mile trip because it could shave a few minutes off your travel time.


    Eugene Weixel

    Everyone has seen Uber drivers app fiddling while in motion. Call them amateurs who drive distracted for Uber.


    Willie Wilmette

    Anybody can text and drive, that is why they made it illegal. The reason to have two rideshare apps running is so you can pick to first one to ping you, you do not know how much it pays or where it will take you until after you pick up the passenger . It is understandable that you did not know this since you have not driven for Uber or Lyft. I run all apps from one phone but there are some who use two phones.


    Willie Wilmette

    Amateurs may chase surges, surges tend to disappear by the time you get there.