Today’s Headlines

  • David Yassky Accuses John Liu of Playing Politics With Bike Access (Post)
  • Paterson: Dems Should Drop Opposition to Pedro Espada as Senate President (News)
  • City Council May Consider Bill to Eliminate Public Advocate (City Hall)
  • Times Can’t Wait to Pass Judgment on Unfinished Pedestrianized Broadway. Oh, Wait
  • Times Health Blog: Is Cycling Bad for Your Bones?
  • Post: Con Ed, DOT Endangered Pedestrians by Slacking on Stray Voltage Tests
  • Instead of More Spots, Riverdale Needs Parking Permits, BRT, Bike Lanes (R’dale Press)
  • Bronx Church Group Wants Ped Safety Improvements in University Heights (Norwood News)
  • Reuters Blogger Tries Out the Komanoff Balanced Transportation Analyzer
  • Reflecting on the Pitfalls of Disney-fied Transit (Transport Politic via Streetsblog.net)
  • david
  • The Times health blog title should really be, “Is Bicycle Racing Bad for Your Bones”? As it says in the last paragraph, “most recreational cyclists probably don’t need to worry too much about their bones.” The blogger probably should have added commuter cyclists to that.

  • rlb

    I think the conclusion is that bicycle racing is bad for your bones. The question I have, “is bike commuting bad for your bones?” unfortunately goes unanswered. The article doesn’t address people that ride a bike for 1 hour a day.

  • Larry Littlefield

    From the WSJ: “Most travel is not for its own sake. So reducing the total miles traveled — whether the length or number of trips — means people would have to reduce the activities they want and need to do. People would be ‘coerced,’ in effect, to live in less desirable places or work in less desirable jobs; shop in fewer and closer stores; see their doctor less frequently; visit fewer family members and friends.”

    As a result of nearly 30 years of policies and practices that have made younger generations worse off than those who came before, they are going to pay to spend less on something. Generation Greed doesn’t seem to want to come to terms with that. Younger people are “coerced” by higher taxes (as senior benefits explode), the loss of non-wage income (pensions, health insurance) followed by cuts in wage income, etc. And yet there is no talk of how the cost of living can be reduced.

  • This gem from that WSJ post is hilarious: “Moreover, public transportation (passenger rail services, subways, buses, light rail) requires heavy subsidies, while roads mostly pay for themselves through fuel taxes.”

  • Don’t forget all the people who are coerced by zoning to drive long distances for work, recreation and shopping because there are none of those things (however desirable) within walking distance or even a short drive.

  • Oh, by the way, here’s a surprising article from this morning: http://lohud.com/article/20090706/NEWS02/907060338/-1/SPORTS

    New Rochelle beat New York to the punch in requiring bike parking in new buildings. All the more reason to badger John Liu.

  • RE: Times Can’t Wait to Pass Judgment on Unfinished Pedestrianized Broadway

    The Times is the paper for people who love to tell their family back in Iowa how loud, crowded, dangerous, and intolerable it is here–but never actually experience any of that themselves except for brief moments between the taxi or limo and the doorman.

  • John Liu, a politician, is playing politics regarding the bike access bill? What will they think of next?

  • Larry Littlefield

    “The Times is the paper for people who love to tell their family back in Iowa.”

    At this point I think all the newspapers have the demographics of Buick, at least for the dead trees version. I believe that is responsible for some of what they are reluctant to talk about. Then again, that is the demographic of the average state legislator, and beneficiary of its policies, as well.

  • I need to mountain bike more, for my bones sake. I think I will take some time off of work for that purpose.

  • Chris, NYC already requires bike parking in new buildings. The current Liu/Yassky controversy is about bike access to existing buildings.

  • vnm
  • I get a kick out of the Advance story:

    More people should ride bicycles, for a number of reasons. But in the real world, that’s not going to happen to the degree the cycling true believers fantasize about. Many people simply can’t. And the great majority of those who have the physical ability have no desire to ride bicycles for transportation or sport — especially on city streets. So hard-core cyclists will always be a finite minority, no matter how many bike lanes the city creates. And the notion that all these new lanes will promote a massive surge in cycling is pure fantasy.

    Replace “ride bicycles” with “drive automobiles” and watch the logic crumble. “Many people simply can’t [drive automobiles] [true]. And the great majority of those who have the physical ability have no desire to drive automobiles for transportation or sport–especially on city streets [arguably true]. So hard-core drivers will always be a finite minority, no matter how many auto lanes the city creates [evidently false]. And the notion that all these new lanes will promote a massive surge in driving is pure fantasy.”

    Would that it were true. Given the cost and the carnage associated with auto use, you think that Staten Islanders (and the rest of New Yorkers) would be eager for more transport options.

  • Is bicycling bad for your bones?

    How about your cardio-vascular fitness, which is much more important to the average person’s health?

  • I’m all confused. I ride a mountain bike, but on the road. Are my bones crap, or not?

  • Ian Turner

    This article about the bones may or may not be factually accurate, but is certainly missing the point: Cycling is way healthier than not cycling, regardless of the osseous impact.

  • Yes, let us draw our lessons from the extreme edge case, and apply them to the vast swath of normal life.