Today’s Headlines

  • DOT’s Using a Cycling Safety Index to Prioritize Next Round of Bike Infrastructure (NYT)
  • Turning Cab Driver Kills Woman, 80, in Upper East Side Side Crosswalk (Post)
  • More Weekend Carnage: UES (Post); Rosedale (News, Post); Westchester Ave (News); Hamilton Hts (Post)
  • Rumor Has It Cuomo and Christie Plan to Sack Port Authority Chair John Degnan (PoliticoNews)
  • Lhota: More Overnight FasTrack Repairs Coming, Not Extensive Systemwide Shutdowns (Post, AMNY)
  • Ross Barkan: Don’t Play Cuomo’s Game and Deflect Blame for Subway Mess Away From Him (Gothamist)
  • Speaking of Which, Here’s Some Subway False Equivalence That’s as Tough on de Blasio as Cuomo (News)
  • Rodriguez and Dinowitz Will Go on a Subway Listening Tour (News)
  • What Will It Take for Dinowitz and Heastie to Provide Oversight of Cuomo’s MTA? (Reinvent Albany)
  • De Blasio: Restaurants, Not Workers, Should Pay E-Bike Fines (WNYC, Post); But Why Are They Illegal? (Gothamist)
  • Daily News Endorses Motivate’s Plan for Citi Bike Expansion
  • People Might Get Killed Because of the Post‘s Coverage of Traffic Court

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • reasonableexplanation

    No reason for the ebikes to be illegal. Allowing them would make a lot of people who currently balk at biking to work reconsider.

  • Vooch

    The NYTs article signals we are winning.

  • Vooch

    we agree once again !!

  • hellskitchencyclist

    I think that Woody Allen should form a Pedophiles against Cycling lobby–maybe Trump will make it a cabinet-level post??? Seriously unreal. Somebody who marries his own stepdaughter thinks that bikes are disruptive to the body politic??? What a self-centered whiny idiot.

  • hellskitchencyclist

    Haven’t you guys noticed at all how fast the e-bikes are? I don’t think they should be illegal, but I don’t think they belong in the bike path–they should have to just go where cars do, I think. But really, the problem, over and above, is cars. Of course, cyclists should get Dutch/European style registration, training, etc.–and btw, I’ve lived in Amsterdam for a significant amount of time. Most of this so-called “regulation” is nonexistent–it’s just that most Dutch cyclists are aware of how to ride safely and with consideration because it’s a cultural norm. I suspect that will slowly happen in NYC, too. But the more infrastructure we have, the better. With the subway imploding, it’s urgent to make bikes at least 10x more prevalent than they are now. We should have 100K Citibikes, and we should have at least 20% of all commuting by bike, push scooter, skateboard, etc. Anything but a car.

  • hellskitchencyclist

    My question: instead of always reacting, why don’t we–the cyclists and friends/allies–put forth a really strong positive program and try to push that through more legibly and visibly? I’m part of a variety of groups that lack awareness of this–radical/lefty groups–black lives matter, etc.–queer/trans groups–all these should be getting connected to transport and cycling, because this affects everybody, and the less money and power you have, the more screwed you are by the expensive, dangerous infrastructure. Love how the Citibike map basically covers the whitest/richest parts of NYC. That kind of thing could be a coalitional rallying point!!!!

  • JarekFA

    it’s just that most Dutch cyclists are aware of how to ride safely and with consideration because it’s a cultural norm. I suspect that will slowly happen in NYC, too.

    Lol, that’s not it at all. It’s not the cyclists’ culture. It’s the prioritization of cyclists over Single Occupancy [motor] Vehicles and allocating road and curb space accordingly. None of this, everyone gets to park on the street for free shit. In fact, in my family’s neighborhood in Utrecht, there is absolutely no free street parking. And it’s expensive too. Like $10/day.

    Also, for your reference, it’s up to each individual municipality in NL as to how they want to regulate pedal assist and e-bikes, including whether they’re allowed on bike paths.

  • Joe R.

    If we’re talking e-bikes which are legal by the federal definition then they can’t exceed 20 mph unless it’s by the rider’s own effort. That makes them no faster, often slower, than many human cyclists. On downgrades I’ve passed some e-bikes like they were standing still. If they’re too fast for bike paths, then this means the bike paths can’t accommodate faster human cyclists either. That means those paths are substandard. In the Netherlands they design bike infrastructure to be good for at least 30 kph (19 mph) in urban areas and at least 40 kph (25 mph) outside of urban areas. Those are minimum standards. Usually the infrastructure is overdesigned but in any case standard Dutch bicycle infrastructure can accommodate 20 mph e-bikes everywhere (well, technically they’re exceeding the urban standards by 1 mph but that’s moot given the typical overdesign).

    Agreed we need to make bikes at least 10 times more prevalent. E-bikes would help greatly there by opening up cycling to many for whom it’s currently not possible. That would be those who are just out of shape. It would also be those who bike now for short trips, but shun longer ones.

  • Joe R.

    I’m no fan of Woody Allen but he wasn’t married to Mia Farrow at the time he started having an affair with her adopted daughter. Although he was living with Farrow like husband and wife, they weren’t in fact married, and therefore he had no formal relation to her adopted daughter. Sure, the entire thing was in very bad taste but at least it didn’t sink to the level of screwing your stepdaughter.

    The allegations of sexual misconduct with Farrow’s two younger children were never proven.

    That said, there’s enough to dislike about Woody Allen hurting the cause of cycling without bringing up his sordid personal life. In a way I’ve always pitied him. Anyone who has been through as much therapy as him and is still a mess deserves our sympathy.

  • dave “paco” abraham

    Re: the NY Times article touches on this newly released NYC DOT report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bike-ridership-safety.shtml). I hope Streetsblog and its commenters do an in-depth analysis on its findings. At quick glance… the moment I see BK CB3 on the priority area map, I get optimistic that DOT will propose flipping the parking and making Bedford Avenue a protected bike lane from Atlantic Ave to Flushing Ave.

  • Joe R.

    The Post’s traffic court article just got me thinking about how we could handle things better. If the goal is safety, not revenue, the perhaps instead of a fine you would be required to attend a safety class. You would also have your driving privileges revoked, including for things like double parking and parking in the bike lane. I think that would be a bigger deterrent. Right now you need to rack up moving violations during a certain period before facing license suspension. My understanding is parking violations don’t carry points at all. That means you can basically pay to violate the law whenever you feel like, with the additional caveat of rarely being caught due to lax enforcement.

    I would rather you get some sort of license suspension for each and every violation except maybe curbside parking at times when it’s not allowed (that would still carry a fine). Double parking might mean 2 weeks, parking in the bike lane a month, maybe failure to yield six months. This concept would give violators a timeout to think about it. It would also keep the public safe from them until the suspension expired. Lastly, it would eliminate one common complaint from drivers, namely that enforcement is solely revenue driven. Being that the city would actually lose money when tickets were given instead of the reverse, police would need to prioritize going after the most dangerous offenses, not the easiest ones.

    Any further thoughts on this?