Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Larry Littlefield

    Actually, it was a first rate job in terms of the time taken and other factors. I doubt they work that fast in general. And tip you hat to the benefits of technology, which allow streets to be stripped down and resurfaced much faster.

    I had a nice smooth ride both ways today, and am happy to be away from 8th Avenue.


    Ben Fried

    Seems like it would be much simpler and better to not allow Car2Go vehicles to park in metered spots.



    A green light means proceed if it is safe to do so. A green light does not just mean GO!

    There are signs up on the Hudson River Greenway saying that cyclists must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. This NY State law seems to apply no matter who has the light and who has the right of way. There are other signs in Riverside Park that say cyclists must yield to pedestrians at all times. I’d like to see motorists held to the same standard – put the same signs up for motorists that are up in Riverside Park or the Hudson River Greenway for cyclists such as: drivers must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, OR drivers must yield to pedestrians at all times.


    Joe R.

    Wow, I’m about as bold in traffic as they come but that picture scares the living daylights out of me. It’s practically like being on a highway.


    Adrian Bowers

    I don’t see how the argument that the driver had the light works here. The only excuse for hitting a pedestrian is if they literally darted out in front of you and there wasn’t sufficient time for a sufficiently vigilent driver to hit the brake and stop/swerve in time. That seems unlikely to be the case when it’s not one but three 60+ year old women at the same time. They all energetically jumped out in front of a car simultaneously? I cannot fathom a situation where that sounds plausible


    Joe R.

    No it would mean they’d devote a larger share of their fleet of unmarked cars to giving out tickets.

    Unmarked cars to catch bicycles???? If that isn’t a gross misallocation of resources then I don’t know what is. Besides, there’s no f-ing way I would stop unless the car had NYPD markings on it. An unmarked car could be anything, including a bunch of yahoos trying to steal my bike. Unmarked police cars are a tool to go after major felons, not cyclists.

    If the city was on better terms with bikes then someone dying from a collision with a bike for the first time in five years would not have led to this crackdown.

    So how can we change that? From where I stand it seems the vast majority of complaints against bikes are caused by the behavior of delivery cyclists. Unfortunately, competition dictates that if only one establishment skirts the law for fast deliveries, the rest have to or they risk going out of business. Would the solution be to levy major fines against the establishment (not the delivery cyclist) for dangerous riding? Would such fines just result in a disincentive for dangerous riding, or would they result in establishments switching to cars for delivery, which in the end might actually be worse from a safety standpoint? I don’t have the answers to this. The backlash against bikes is illogical on many levels but it’s hard to control what the public thinks once they get an idea into their head. What might work is putting out gory pictures of motor vehicle carnage, even if it may be distasteful to the families of the victims. You will never see someone flattened on the street like a steam roller went over them if they’re hit by a bike, but that’s all too common for the poor pedestrian or cyclist who ends up under the wheels of a truck. We need to divert the public’s attention to the real problem.


    Gayle Rose

    Interesting assumptions are being made. Base on studies in France, Seattle (Car2Go) and San Diego, one way car sharing takes people off of public transit, and reduces walking and biking. It seems that C2G does not serve ‘underserved’ areas well, has a more affluent user base, eats up parking in high demand areas and does not help lower car ownership (although it may help reduce the number of people driving into a city with their own car). There is no research to show that C2G carsharing helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless they have utilized an EV version of their Smart car. This is what we know (see research from 6T in France and Seattle’s first year report on C2G).



    That’s the typical speed cars go when they roll stop signs.

    It’s closer to five.


    Eric McClure

    Let’s not forget that PPW was, and may still be, the world’s most high-profile, if not most important, bike path:

    So what happens there is undoubtedly newsworthy, and sets a tone for the rest of New York City. And here’s hoping that tone is great protected bike infrastructure throughout NYC, especially in those neighborhoods that don’t generate tons of page views.



    This would be the end of these silly dragnets.

    No it would mean they’d devote a larger share of their fleet of unmarked cars to giving out tickets. They’d find every spot they can hide to catch people running reds and still give out tickets. Or they’d block the bike lane and then give you a ticket for leaving it. Looking for cops might save you from getting a ticket, but it won’t end the backlash against bikes that was necessary for the crackdown to take place anyway. If the city was on better terms with bikes then someone dying from a collision with a bike for the first time in five years would not have led to this crackdown.


    NYC has been making some big strides with bike infrastructure. We’ll get there!! So much so we’ll eventually have to rename ourselves back to New Amsterdam :D



    I disagree. The goal of the livable streets movement is to create an environment where it is safe and convenient to walk, bike, and take transit to reach most destinations. As others have mentioned, Car2Go offers a service which makes it easier to live without owning a car (a key determinant of driving), and anyone with a license and a credit card can use the service. Thus, the service can help people use a car when needed, and by not owning a car, they will walk, bike, and take transit more.

    JK, you mentioned this being contrary to sensible curb usage policy, but I don’t see it that way. Good curb use policy is about balancing the many needs of a city in a limited amount of space. Other curb uses often replace metered parking, including bike corrals, Citibike stations, and truck loading zones. Are you against these uses as well? They reduce metered parking supply, but I’d argue that they meet other needs. Finally, I don’t understand how this would even hamper the ParkSmart program. If anything, a market-based scheme for charging for metered parking would simply react to the change in the market. In this case, a minor decrease in supply (due to Car2Go vehicles sometimes occupying metered spaces) would result in a slight increase in meter rates until the desired equilibrium is reached. I recognize that most places don’t have ParkSmart, but I think that if an area is concerned, then a ParkSmart system would be a good complement to Car2Go.



    It warrants a Friday afternoon follow-up, yes. The headline is clearly tongue-in-cheek. You’re right, DOT’s fast attention to this particular issue highlights the lack of attention to bike infrastructure in many neighborhoods — an issue, by the way, that we cover quite a bit.


    Entitled whiny babies

    Does this really warrant 2 posts? PPW is one of the best bike facilities in the nation, and meanwhile there are entire neighborhoods in this city that aren’t served by the bicycle network at all. There are more important things to whine about.


    Joe R.

    I totally agree on everything you’re saying, and I pass reds myself, but only after ascertaining if the way is clear. That seems to be what you do as well. That said, in the interests of not giving the police cannon fodder, would it be that difficult to ask you NOT to pass red lights when you clearly see police are present, which is exactly what I do? That will mean you’ll have to wait the full cycle at some small percentage of lights, but it’s better than paying $190 of your hard-earned cash to NYC. If enough cyclists did this these dragnets would come up empty. The police would tell the locals who complain about bikes something like “Sorry, but we spent two weeks on this and only gave a few tickets. We have better things to do with our time.” This would be the end of these silly dragnets. They’re massive wastes of police manpower which do little for public safety (even Ferdinand would agree on that part).

    By the way, don’t expect “judgement” in the way the NYPD enforces the laws. The NYPD reminds me of the militant gorilla soldiers in the Planet of the Apes movies (I’m referring to the older ones with Charlton Heston).



    Totally disagre with your premise. It’s also against the law to walk across the street on a red light, it’s against the law to not have your blinker on for a turn, even if no one is around, it’s against the law to cross the street outside the crosswalk, and there numerous other examples of laws that are not striclty enforced to the letter of the law, but rather require ‘judgement’ by the police officer. They are paid to use judgement and reasonableness in enforcing laws. To think. In my case gliding through a red at 5 mph after i’ve looked both ways and there are no pedestrians and i’m not crossing the lane of traffic is beyond what i would consider reasonable.

    I agree the cop ‘can’ enforce the law. But to act like judgement isn’t used in enforcing common pedestrian/traffic laws is not accurate in my opinion.

    In my opinion, the police should be enforcing laws when they clearly see that someone is doing something that could harm someone or is unsafe. There are numberous bikers who deserve this enforcement. But blindly dropping the hammer on all bikers on a random 2-week period because ‘some’ bikers are unsafe seems like a ridiculous way of enforcing the law and policing the citizenry.


    Joe R.

    Where I live it’s quite common for them to cut the street in preparation for repaving, then leave it that way for weeks. Indeed, there are spots on Hillside Avenue where they cut parts of the pavement, but not all of it, something like a year ago. Don’t know what they were thinking, but cut pavement is really dangerous for cyclists at any speed. By the glacial standards I’m used to, it seems the PPW repaving was a super rush priority job.



    –> City Begins Work to Replace Walkway Linking Hamilton Beach With Train Station (Forum)

    is this the walkway crossing the Hawtree Basin at 163rd Avenue in Queens?

    I’m often wishing there was a footbridge to cross the Shellbank Basin east from Cross Bay Boulevard. Has there ever been one here, or mooted? (by the way, that Howard Beach Starbucks gets my vote for best sbux view in NYC).


    Neighbors for Better Barrels

    We’re going to sue each and every one of those orange barrels.


    Joe R.

    This is typical NYC. Look at what goes on in the subway, where often segments of routes will be closed more than they’re open. It seems doing anything here takes years even if it’s a very small scale project. This isn’t the same NYC which built the Empire State Building in a mere two years, or much of the original IRT system in less than ten. Now it takes a decade to build 2 miles of subway. WTF is going on?



    Yeah, this should be open tomorrow. It’s nuts.

    The DOT statement really highlighted “turtle mating season” as a factor in the 7-year closure of a bike path that runs next to an open eight-lane divided highway and the World Trade Center? Shaking my head…


    Joe R.

    Agreed on the part about running a red in front of a cop. I never do that. To me it’s tempting fate.


    Joe R.

    The reason “serious incidents” are relatively rare is that pedestrians are fully accustomed to giving up their right of way for somebody cutting them off.

    Well, in the case of motor vehicles do they have much choice? I’ve been cut off by turning cars while crossing multiple times. Outside of banging on the car, or if the car is going fairly slowly taking out my keys and scratching it, there’s not a whole lot I can do but wait.

    In fact, whenever a pedestrian with the walk signal has to wait for a motorist or cyclist, the system has failed.

    The system is a failure, period, because it depends on people following a script 100% of the time for safety. If someone makes a mistake, at best another will have their right-of-way usurped. At worst, someone may end up dead. Moreover, traffic signals lull people into a false sense of security, in that many people don’t even look when they have a green light (that’s everyone-drivers, cyclists, pedestrians) on the notion that a red light is somehow a magical force field. Doesn’t sound like a good system to me, especially when the parts of the script pertaining to pedestrians and cyclists not only can cause inordinate delays, but also at times place them in danger they could easily avoid, meaning they often ignore the script. I’d rather physically separate the three groups. Or failing that, get rid of the scrip altogether so everyone has to look at every single intersection all the time.

    If you must run red lights, how about you at least do so at a walking speed (about 3 mph), so that you can see what and who is approaching your path?

    In some cases 3 mph is indeed the maximum safe speed I can pass a red light. When and where I ride that’s relatively rare, but in any case don’t get the impression that I always pass red lights at 10 or 12 mph because I don’t.


    Joe R.

    Full speed for me is typically 17 to 23 mph on level roads with no winds. I’m gone past 60 mph on downgrades (not in NYC). I said this about my speeds running red lights:

    If lines of sight are close to zero, my speed will be close to zero as I approach the crosswalk. 10-12 mph is the most I will be going but that’s only in cases where I can see people leave the curb when I’m at least 40 feet from the crosswalk.

    Nothing in there about passing red lights at full speed. 10 mph isn’t blowing through anything. That’s the typical speed cars go when they roll stop signs.



    $278, same as a motorist when issued by a PO. You can fight, if you want, and try to lower the cost or dismiss it, however just be mindful there’s no plea bargaining in NYC, and if it’s a he said / she said case with no evidence on your side, NYC TVB courts tend to rule in favor of the cop, if present.

    If you’re found guilty, you should not be subject to points or surcharges. The law exempts cyclists and pedestrians, not motorists per No. 15 NYCRR 131.3 (b) (7) (v) for NYC Code Rules & Regulations.

    If you’re not confident that you will win in court or in an appeal, I would pay and move on. Just make sure they don’t issue you points, that’s a lot worse.

    Hope this helps.


    Brian Van Nieuwenhoven

    The situation with the WFC greenway segment is utterly pathetic. No one wants to take responsibility for what is at this point a completely unjustified length of closure. The original timelines on this closure were months, not years, and the continued seizure/closure of public space has no justification. There are ways to create a substitute lane that don’t involve routing circuitously through a large plaza with crowds. They just don’t want to do that. It’s inconvenient to them, I suppose. It’s intolerable for everyone to be so dense and stubborn, and downtown electeds should be all over this.

    BTW the 2015 projection… What is supposed to make me think they aren’t lying about that, too, after all the lies about closures and timelines since thirteen years ago?


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    Crossing the street or (as more frequently applies to my circumstances) turning the corner as a pedestrian?



    You are aware that walking your bike against the red light is unlawful too, right?


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    I will repeat once again my utter lack of esteem for New York’s police, who routinely use excessive violence, most especially against people from the most oppressed racial/ethnic groups. However, since you describe no violence nor even rudeness on the part of the police, then your claim of police harassment does not fly.

    Furthermore, It makes no difference how fast you were going, or how many ways you looked. The fact (to which you admit) is that you rode through a red light. Most of the time bicyclists get away with this, which has led to an unfortunate feeling of entitlement to ignore the law. We have no such entitlement; and when one of us is caught, it’s entirely our own fault.

    (Also, if you saw the cop car and did it anyway, well, that’s not very smart. You basically taunted the cops.)

    Despite the fact that I am the most vocal advocate for stopping at red lights, even I once got a ticket for this. It was in 2011, a few days after Matthieu Lefevre was killed in Brooklyn; and it was right at that same corner of Morgan and Meserole. I wasn’t actually pedalling through the intersection; I was walking the bike while straddling it, after having stopped at the light. By the standard that I use (creating a bad impression to witnesses), I thought I was OK, as no one would see that and think “those arrogant bicyclists”. But, evidently even that act is not in keeping with the law.

    This was infuriating on some level, because the cops responded to Lefevre’s killing by cracking down on the potential victims of vehicular violence, not on the potential perpetrators. Nevertheless, they had me on the technical violation of the law: I was in some sense “riding” the bike, even though I was only walking it while straddling it.

    (Side note: the cop who wrote the ticket didn’t harass me, either. In fact he actually apologised, saying that he had to do it, while gesturing to his older partner in the car.)

    So I paid the ticket, and just resolved to do better next time. Now, if I ever feel the need to go through a red light, I just get off the bike and walk it through. This happens many nights on the last leg of my ride home, at Woodhaven Blvd. and Jamaica Ave. The light typically turns red just as I approach Jamaica Ave. coming south on Woodhaven; so, rather than wait a full cycle, I just get off, walk around the corner to Jamaica, and get on again.

    The point is that no one — not you, not me, not anyone — is above the law. And it’s no good complaining when we’re caught doing something that we know we’re not allowed to do.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    You have no grounds to fight the ticket. The fact that “absolutely no cars or pedestrians were coming” is irrelevant, because the law does not give the individual cycilst the right to make that judgement call at a red light.

    Pay the ticket; it properly should be $190. Most importantly, you should learn from the experience, and do better next time. Stop at red lights, as we are all required to do.



    More often than not, the City usually dismisses multiple tickets for the same offense on the same day, except for one, regardless if you’re a cyclist or motorist. Unless you plead guilty, of course. The only problem is fighting tickets is a big hassle, easier said than done, even more so when the City writes you tickets for things that aren’t even illegal.



    Screw the kids who don’t have space to play, I want to have space for my luxury transportation vehicle.

    Classy shop owners. Who wants to support local business like that? Buy your stuff online or find sine businesses that support the community instead of leaching off of it.


    Ian Turner

    I assume the city will also be cancelling multiple tickets for running red lights?



    No, you quoted that informational advice to show me (incorrectly) that yielding to pedestrians somehow requires only liking for pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

    The reason “serious incidents” are relatively rare is that pedestrians are fully accustomed to giving up their right of way for somebody cutting them off. It’s like claiming that a neighborhood has no mugging problem because everybody gladly hands over their money and therefore nobody gets shot. In fact, whenever a pedestrian with the walk signal has to wait for a motorist or cyclist, the system has failed.

    If you must run red lights, how about you at least do so at a walking speed (about 3 mph), so that you can see what and who is approaching your path?



    More justification.

    Like it or not, every time you run a red light on your bike, you are breaking the law.

    Like it or not, a pedestrian running across the street with the walk signal is not breaking the law and has every right to expect to not encounter conflicts with cyclists or motorists.



    Nice justification, but by blowing through crosswalks at full speed you are cutting off pedestrians and giving other cyclists a bad name.



    Many renters own cars, and many renters can’t install washing machines under the conditions of their lease.


    Joe R.

    Honestly, I think running on sidewalks, although legal, falls into the same category as cycling on sidewalks-there are times when it’s OK, but other times when it’s really not a good idea (i.e crowded or narrow sidewalks). The speeds of a runner and slow cyclist are similar. Remember one of the biggest reasons given for not riding on sidewalks is that drivers turning or yielding to pedestrians at stop/yield signs don’t anticipate someone coming into the crosswalk at the speed of a cyclist (or a runner).

    From the standpoint of the runner, whether bikes are running the red light or not, I think it’s dangerous on many levels to run from the sidewalk into the crosswalk unless you have a clear view of approaching traffic. Walk signal or not, it’s not a given that vehicles won’t pass the red light. It may not even be intentional. People make mistakes sometimes. For that reason, runners should slow to walking speed if they don’t have a good view of approaching traffic before crossing. On the other hand, if lines of sight are good, they’ll see me and I’ll see them. I’ll certainly start yielding to a runner still on the sidewalk if it looks like there will be a conflict if I don’t.

    Also note that 2 seconds is the bare minimum I try to give myself. 3 or 4 is better.



    Well Cuomo dropped Hudson line to Penn when he mentioned Metronorth to Penn a while back so that killed the stop at 125th for now.

    MNR to Penn can’t happen until ESA is finished allowing LIRR to shift some trains crosstown making room for New Haven/Hudson line riders, and that’s what, 8 years away still? Could happen, just not soon.



    So people aren’t allowed to run on the sidewalk? Based on your numbers there’s potential for conflict if anyone does.


    Joe R.

    It means that vehicular traffic turning right or left is required to anticipate potential upcoming conflicts with other vehicles and with pedestrians in the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk, and to avoid those conflicts.

    Yes, exactly, and I quoted that informational advice to show you “anticipate” is largely a judgement call. It’s highly dependent upon the speed of approaching traffic, lines of sight, and most importantly the type of vehicle you’re operating. Someone operating something like an 18-wheeler will need to react to things many more seconds before there’s a conflict than someone on a bike, for example. While I appreciate your input, what you’re essentially doing here is questioning my judgement of what I need to do to anticipate conflicts. I certainly would never question yours with regard to what you do to stay safe while crossing a street. You may do things entirely differently in that situation than me because your reaction times, walking speeds, and even comfort zone may be entirely different.

    At some point we all have to trust each other’s judgement. What I find pretty amazing in this city is pedestrians jaywalk like crazy, cyclists run red lights like crazy, and yet serious incidents are relatively rare. That tells me people in general are good at operating in a manner which keeps them safe, at least when on foot or riding a bike. Operating a motor vehicle is another story. Here I think we can both agree you need quite a bit more standardization and regimentation because the consequences of a mistake are much higher than if a cyclist or pedestrian screws up (which they very rarely do).

    Remember coexisting in a big city is often a give or take scenario. It would be nice if nobody ever delayed anyone else but that’s not realistic. I’m quite tolerant of people crossing midblock or against the light, to the point that I adjust my speed or direction to give them a wide berth. I realize there are good reasons for doing this, both for safety and convenience. By the same token, pedestrians should realize there are both safety and convenience reasons for cyclists to run red lights. Now most cyclists won’t intentionally delay pedestrians crossing with the walk signal but we’re human, so it happens occasionally. Just as I don’t like entitled cyclists who whine for 10 minutes if the bike lane is blocked instead of just going around the vehicle, it rubs me the wrong way when pedestrians expect absolutes, as in never violate my right-of-way. Sure, I’ll aim for that, but sometimes it won’t happen. When that’s the case, I appreciate the same level of tolerance I give to people who may cross in front of me when I technically have the right-of-way. In both cases, the person with the right-of-way has the high ground, but at the same time we must remember right-of-way is something which is given, not taken.

    I’m not sure why I bother. It’s clear that you’re going to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of the law or of common courtesy.

    Not entirely true. I like to read posts like yours because on occasion they might tell me I’m doing something wrong. I have changed a few things about the way I ride based on reading other people’s posts here. I also give a lot of advice to other cyclists regarding things I’ve learned over the years to safely avoid conflicts. We can all learn from each other here.


    Joe R.

    I seems like we fundamentally agree in concept about what I must do but we’re splitting hairs over exactly when I need to react. The key here is if someone is crossing, I need to adjust my speed/direction such that I don’t force someone in the crosswalk to change their speed or direction to avoid me. That in turn requires me to see people some time prior to when they will actually be in my path. If I react when I see them step off the curb, I have more than enough time as they need to cross the parking lane (9-10 feet) plus the distance I typically ride away from the parking lane (~5 feet or more) before they’re in my path. Even at fast walking speeds it takes at least 2 seconds to cover that distance. 2 seconds is an eternity to a cyclist. The key here is for me to adjust my speed so I always have at least those 2 seconds (hopefully more) to react. And that’s what I do. If lines of sight are close to zero, my speed will be close to zero as I approach the crosswalk. 10-12 mph is the most I will be going but that’s only in cases where I can see people leave the curb when I’m at least 40 feet from the crosswalk.

    I think part of our misunderstanding comes from the fact that you don’t ride. If you did, you would realize a good cyclist is essentially in a hyperaware state where the world is going by in slow motion. Unlike a motor vehicle where the controls are clunky, I can change speed or direction nearly instantaneously when reacting to something in my path. I’ve avoided doors when were opened 10 feet in front of me when I was traveling at 20+ mph, for example, but in practice I prefer never to cut things that close if it’s within my control to do so. I can certainly easily give a pedestrian their legal right-of-way when I have at least two seconds advance notice before they’re in my path. If I were driving a motor vehicle with fewer sensory cues and more clunky controls, I might need at least 4 seconds. In that case, I wholeheartedly agree I would need to look for people on the sidewalk about to cross.

    The only instance where I can (and do) react to people while they’re still on the sidewalk but about to cross is when I’m in a curbside travel lane (very rare where I am). In that case I obviously have to as they will be in my path immediately after leaving the sidewalk.



    I find it strange that someone with a car doesn’t also own a washing machine.



    First, they have to get at the pricing issue. MetroNorth is far too expensive for many workers, so they end up taking subways to the free transfer Bee-Line Bus in Westchester. This makes for unbelievably long commutes.

    Second, they have to get HUD and the state to start doing something about job sprawl. They can’t pay lipservice to better transit, but then build a new TZ Bridge that encourages new manufacturing and distribution centers in Rockland and Orange Counties. If we’re going to give tax breaks to employers, we need to do it in transit-rich locations.

    Third, what ever happened to the new MetroNorth west side stations in Manhattan? The new Columbia campus at 125th Street could use a train station for commuters from these TOD Bronx stations, especially if the price is comparable to the subway.



    10-12 mph is about the maximum safe speed you can pass a red light

    If you can’t see pedestrians approaching the crosswalk (where they have the legal right of way and they have every right to expect no conflicting traffic whatsoever) at 10-12 mph, then 10-12 mph is too fast.



    Your quotation from the DMV website is informal advice on how to make a left turn, not a statement of the law. Here’s the relevant law, from (emphasis mine):

    (a) Traffic control signals. Whenever traffic is controlled by traffic control signals exhibiting different colored lights successively, the following colors shall indicate and apply to operators of vehicles and to pedestrians, except as superseded by pedestrian control signals, as follows:

    (1) Green alone:

    (i) Vehicular traffic facing such signals may proceed straight through or turn right or left unless a sign at such place prohibits any such movement. But vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right of way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited.

    (ii) Pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the roadway within any crosswalk.

    This (obviously) doesn’t mean that vehicular traffic turning right or left is only required to yield to other vehicles that are already situated within the intersection! It means that vehicular traffic turning right or left is required to anticipate potential upcoming conflicts with other vehicles and with pedestrians in the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk, and to avoid those conflicts.

    By definition, yielding requires anticipating the movements of others. When a motorist or a cyclist or a pedestrian is required to yield, that means that the motorist or cyclist or pedestrian is required to watch for and to anticipate the movement of whoever it is that he or she is required to yield to, and to slow down or stop if necessary to avoid a conflict.

    The law isn’t asking you to yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk, because you have no business cycling or driving on the sidewalk in the first place. The is asking you, in some situations, to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and at intersections, which requires watching for pedestrians approaching those crosswalks and intersections, because otherwise you are not yielding.

    If you cannot see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk from the curb, then you are going too fast to yield. In the specific situation “When traffic control signals or pedestrian control signals are not in place or not in operation” – where traffic generally moves faster than at a red light or a stop sign or a yield sign or a turn – a small piece of the burden is placed on the pedestrian’s shoulders: “no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the operator to yield.” But that doesn’t negate the basic requirement of motorists to yield. It also doesn’t apply at all at crosswalks with traffic control signals or pedestrian control signals.

    Spare me the whining about guessing games. 99% of the time, it is plainly obvious when a pedestrian is approaching a crosswalk with intent to cross or is standing at the foot of the crosswalk waiting to cross.

    I’m not sure why I bother. It’s clear that you’re going to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of the law or of common courtesy.


    Richard Garey

    The PRIMARY factor that prevents greater use of the Metro North in the Bronx is cost. The SECONDARY factor that prevents greater use of Metro North in the Bronx is schedule. Prior to getting all gung-ho about adding greater density to areas surrounding Metro North Stations, I highly recommond you look at River Park Towers and Morrisania Air Rights Housing. The former is built directly adjacent to the Morris Heights Metro North Station. The latter is built directly above the Melrose Metro North Station. These two high density housing complexes have been plagued by crime for decades. Just last week, the Feds arrested 19 members of the “River Park Towers Young Gunnerz” because they allegedly held residents captive to their drug dealing and violent acts. Morrisania Air Rights housing was nicknamed “Vietnam” by local residents due to the high volume of shootings at the complex. Part of the reason the crime is so high at these complexes is that they are considered isolated. Very FEW residents actually utilize the Metro North stations. The fact is that 9 out of 10 ten Bronxites work in the city. Until the MTA either reduces the Manhattan-Bound fare on the Metro North or adds shuttle lines to those tracks, I would be very cautious about adding greater density in these isolated areas.


    Larry Littlefield

    “The fourth-busiest station in the Metro-North system.”

    That’s a big surprise to me, and a big story if its true. Including Grand Central? Which of these trails — 125th, White Plains, Stamford, Greenwich, New Haven?

    Reverse commuting, and commuting to Fordham itself, must be bigger than I thought.



    Looks great, but I hope they include more than two shelters


    Joe R.

    Let’s say you have a road that is four lanes wide. One travel lane and one parking lane in each direction. You approach a red light and slow to ten mph to check for cross traffic before entering the intersection. That’s about 15 feet per second. Say the cross street is the same width, so roughly forty feet between crosswalks. At a reasonable walking speed of 4 mph, about 6 feet per second, a pedestrian enters the travel lane before you pass the crosswalk.

    You mean someone crossing on the opposite side of the intersection here, correct? I would certainly see that person in plenty of time to slow or stop as needed. As far as people crossing on the same side, I’ve already mentioned that I adjust my speed so I can stop within my field of view. Typically I can see people entering the crosswalk when I’m at least 25 or 30 feet from the crosswalk, often more. That means I can stop in plenty of time if I’m going 10 mph. If the distance is less, I adjust my speed accordingly. If there’s a tall vehicle parked right by the crosswalk, and I can’t swing left to increase my line of sight, I’ll barely be moving when I get to the crosswalk, fully prepared to stop if I see someone. I’ve repeated this multiple times. How is this not exercising due care? The main point is I can stop within my lines of sight if I must. The second point, and this seems to be where Andrew takes issue, is that I won’t adjust my speed or direction until someone actually steps off the curb unless the lane adjacent to the curb is a travel lane. There isn’t a conflict, I’m not forcing the person to wait by doing this because the instant I see them step off the curb I can stop well before the crosswalk if need be. If I’m right in the crosswalk the instant they’re ready to step off the curb, I’m long gone by the time they hit the travel lane. Again, no conflict, plus they don’t have to break their stride on my account.

    Maybe it’s a Manhattan thing with Andrew. I’ve noticed in Manhattan pedestrians are totally clueless in their spatial judgement. Many cross like a car can stop from 30 mph in 2 feet. There also seems to be a pathological hatred of bikes. I’ll never forget my week long stint as a bike messenger in midtown in the early 1980s. As I passed this woman, not doing anything wrong on my end besides riding, she whines “Ewwwww. A bicycle!” as if a roach just crawled on the kitchen counter. If that’s how Andrew regards cyclists, then I’m wrong no matter what I say or do.

    Going back to the example I gave in my last post what I want is for cars to slow as they see me. Not to slam on the brakes, just to slow moderately until they pass the crosswalk.

    And if I’m passing a red light at 10 mph or less, I’m already going slow in that scenario. Why is there a seeming double standard where “slow” for a car is considered to be maybe 10-15 mph but for a bike it’s more like 3 mph? If anything based on the relative masses the reverse should be true. Seriously, I hear dribble like that all the time here. We’re praising slow zones which keep drivers to 20 mph but at the same time lots of people here say riding at 20 mph is too fast in urban areas.

    Joe why is it that poor road design or illegal parking means pedestrians lose out?

    Everyone loses out. If motorists or cyclists have to go much slower than they otherwise would have to in order to ascertain if anyone is about to enter the travel lane then they lose out as well. There’s no good reason besides local politics, plus a huge sense of entitlement among motorists, that we must allow parking close to intersections. Many other places don’t allow it. Neither should NYC. Parking within 75 feet of the crosswalk on approach side of the intersection shouldn’t be allowed. It obscures the view of crossing pedestrians for vehicles going straight or turning. It obscures the view of vehicles for crossing pedestrians. It’s dangerous, period, too dangerous to allow in the name of car storage.

    If you pass a yield sign without stopping and a collision occurs, it is taken as prima facie evidence of failure to yield. You want red lights and stop signs to be yields for bikes. So wouldn’t it be the same? If the only reason a collision did not occur is because a pedestrian slowed down, wouldn’t that be failure to yield as well?

    Except the way I ride that would never happen. There just isn’t any situation the way I ride where I couldn’t stop in time if someone came into my field of view. I’ll readily admit I have seen asshole cyclists buzz pedestrians in crosswalks at 20 mph as they pass red lights but I’m not one of those suicidal idiots. Given the lines of sight at most NYC intersections, 10-12 mph is about the maximum safe speed you can pass a red light, assuming of course you can see people entering the crosswalk at least 30 feet away. Parked cars usually obscure cross traffic enough so it’s not safe to be going much faster. At some intersections lines of sight are so poor you need to nearly come to a stop. Anyway, no need continuing to rehash the same things repeatedly. If we had proper bike infrastructure none of this would be an issue. Frankly, were I to design a city from scratch bikes, pedestrians, and motor vehicles would each have their own level. That’s really the only way to keep everyone safe-by total physical separation. As we’ve seen from this discussion, 1000 people will have 1000 different views on safely operating. None of them will be right 100% of the time, and the laws certainly won’t be right 100% of the time. That’s why over 35,000 people die each year on our roads.

    This is most likely going to be my last post in this thread. I’ve explained things clearly to the best of my ability. It’ll be more productive use of everyone’s time if we focused on the statistically most dangerous things. Hint-it’s not late night cyclists passing red lights in Eastern Queens at mostly dead-as-a-door nail intersections.