Today’s Headlines

  • Hundreds of Straphangers Attend MTA Workshop Saturday (NY1
  • Feds Approve $1.3 Billion for 2nd Ave. Subway (NYT)
  • Definitive IPCC Report Says Action on Climate Change is Essential (Grist)
  • City Institutes First of Nine Holiday Gridlock Alert Days (NY1
  • Developers Present Proposals for Manhattan’s West Side Railyards (NYT, Sun)
  • Who Needs Pricing? Krueger Launches Truck Emissions Crackdown (Liz Krueger)
  • Son of Brooklyn Brewery Founder Killed Cycling on Manhattan Bridge (Gothamist)
  • Coney Island Boardwalk Swallows Another Victim (Post)
  • Larry Littlefield

    Soon after 2014, enough baby boomers will be retiring that most federal money, and perhaps state and local as well, will be diverted to senior citizen income and health care. If it isn’t built by then, it never will be.

    The federal government is covering one-third of the cost of the SAS. We waited 10 years to break ground. Had the MTA broken ground in 2007, the upper half would be finished, and it would have cost us less than what we are going to pay. The federal government is giving us negative money.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Of course I meant to say “had the MTA broken ground in 1996” without the federal money, it would have cost us less.

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    Charges were not filed against Romage

    This shows that there are some times when the motorist is obviously not at fault. Nobody driving across the Manhattan Bridge can be expected to anticipate a cyclist falling from the upper level in front of them.

    As Noah says, though, it wasn’t completely the cyclist’s fault either.

  • After a really brief look at the west side railyards proposals, one thing struck me:

    The Brookfield Properties Architects plan “would restore the street grid to the superblocks and allow the project to flow seamlessly to the south and the West Chelsea neighborhood.”

    Pretty cool.

  • mf

    While it’s unclear that Cycling under the Influcence might have been a contributing factor to this horrible accident, it is clear that cycling and walking under the influence can greatly increase one’s chances of suffering some form of mishap.

    Just as MADD in the 80s made people aware of this problem, I don’t think it would be outside of streetsblog’s mission to publicize the fact that its just as dangerous (if not more so) to be on the streets on a bicycle while drinking, as it is to be driving.

    One may not be as likely to kill an innocent bystander, but the danger is real nevertheless.

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    Just as MADD in the 80s made people aware of this problem, I don’t think it would be outside of streetsblog’s mission to publicize the fact that its just as dangerous (if not more so) to be on the streets on a bicycle while drinking, as it is to be driving.

    One may not be as likely to kill an innocent bystander, but the danger is real nevertheless.

    I agree that the danger is real, but if you’re not as likely to kill an innocent bystander, then that means that it’s less dangerous.

    Also, if you run into a wall or a tree when going top speed on a bike, you have a decent chance of surviving. Even better on foot. If you run into a wall or a tree when speeding in a car, your chances of surviving are much less.

    So no, it’s not more dangerous to be on the streets on a bicycle or on foot. If we put out that mistaken impression, it could lead people to choose to drive home instead of walking to the train, which would be very very bad.

  • I think people in general are pretty aware that riding a bike across an unfamiliar city bridge after an evening of drinking is a dangerous proposition, but we’re never going to clear popular nightlife spots of reveling youth, nor should we try. Working to make a our city streets and bridges less of a shooting gallery for pedestrians and cyclists, whether it’s Friday night and they’ve been drinking or Monday morning and they’re groggy, is the humane thing to do.

    Also I agree with “not be as likely to kill an innocent bystander”, except times a thousand or so.

  • ddartley

    Good job, Liz Kreuger, about trucks and buses idling and polluting. But what about cars idling? I realize that mostly, they don’t pollute as badly as as an idling truck, but it’s still pollution, and the behavior is still illegal.

    The fact idling is not a centerpiece of PlaNYC, which seeks a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas production, to some extent makes it a laughingstock. It’s almost like a city trying to address the problem of litter on its streets by making dramatic, controversial policy changes about the packaging goods come in, rather than cracking down on the actual practice of littering.

  • Dave H.

    Angus,

    I’m not sure if you mean ‘fault’ in a general sense or a more legal-technical sense, but as far liability etc. is concerned, the cyclist was almost certainly at fault. I would certainly not dispute that the entrance to the Manhattan Bridge could be made a little easier to find, however.

  • Eric

    I don’t think we really know whether or not alcohol played any role at all in Sam Hindy’s death. Regardless, it’s a real tragedy.

    As is the presence of trolls in the Gothamist comments. I advise staying away from the comments if you read their piece on Sam’s death.

  • Yay Liz Krueger!

    As for BUI (Bicycling Under the Influence), this is an interesting study:

    http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html

    The gist of it is that being drunk while doing anything greatly increases your own risk of death.