I guess no one wants to listen to an overly sensationalized report giving us nothing but sound bites without any real investigation.

Why does the city keep giving bikers MORE freedom?

Oh. That’s right. America’s supposed to be about freedom for *everyone*. Not just those in 2,000+-lb. steel cages.

Isn’t that Veronica Moss in the background of one of those interviews, no?

If someone crashed a car into CBS 2 headquarters, they would still only see danger from bikes.

Many of the new bike lanes are the first EVER safe bike infrastructure on internal NYC streets. About those lanes, it looks like CBS is jumping to the jackass conclusion I’ve seen several times: new bike lanes are going to generate more danger, in the form of more cycling. That is like saying that building sidewalks creates jaywalking. It’s called jackass speculation and no science. That’s called making shit up.

Interestingly, in their teaser I count nine cyclists riding legally, seven riding illegally (on the sidewalk or salmoning), and one where it can’t be determined if he’s riding in the right direction or not. Unfortunately, we all observe too many cyclists salmoning, sidewalk riding, or failing to yield, which makes it too easy for a “news” organization like CBS2 to get their b-roll. C’mon, cyclists, let’s make Marcia Kramer work for her hatchet jobs!

Since CBS2 is so concerned with “out-of-control” behavior in the streets, it’s a wonder they didn’t pick up on the fact that 85% of drivers on Prospect Park West were breaking the law by speeding prior to DOT’s reconfiguration of the roadway.

Follow the corrupt money. Look for the car ads. Even big oil. Geiko (despite the gecko). Maybe CBS should have a moment of silence for believers in the violence caused by cyclists to apologize to BP.

Bikes are bi-modal, they are both walked and ridden; cyclists are not nearly as much like cars as pedestrians and car-like regulations are ludicrous like the “State Law” yield signs on the West Side Bike path: Why don’t they have them for all the cross walks in this town where people actually get killed?

(It’s real easy to go after dangerous cyclists when they really tick you off; having a bike does help; and bike chases do not have the extreme dangers of car chases. And, most likely New York State would not restrict cameras used to catch them.)

And, hopefully they’ll show the places where riders co-exist quite well like City Hall Park, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg Bridges (despite aggressive cyclists), West Side Bike Bikeway, Riverside Park, Norway (the New York CBS video unit would like this), etc.

And, the kill rates of cars and bicycles; locally, nationally, globally, etc., etc., etc.

I wasn’t aware that anyone still watched local network news.

What an excellent example to remind me why I havent watched local news in years. I much prefer my news to be…news! Not sensationalist stories with the only goal of getting people angry. In fact, the linked video almost seems like a parody.

Also, whats with all the recent attacks on FREEDOM? Aren’t we the country of freedom fries and freedom towers? But now letting a group exercise their freedom of religion downtown is bad, and letting cyclists have the freedom to ride is a problem.

Safe streets are the way to go. Make transit free and remove all cars from the city. The bike and pedestrian will never be safe trying to coexist with the auto. Because with autos you are not even safe on the sidewalk.

It’s a shame that motorists don’t break any rules; I was looking forward to the “Car Bedlam” story in this investigative series.

It seems that just about any bicycle-related news in NYC generates strong feelings and responses, especially from anti-bicycle people. While the people who really care may represent a small minority of the total population, in news, just like politics, a small but vocal minority can often have a large influence. I doubt the producers at CBS care much about biking as an issue, but they have figured out they can get ratings by reporting on it. And they can probably get better ratings by pandering to the anti-bike sentiment than by presenting a balanced (boring!) look at the relative merits of different transportation modes.

Why does biking, which represents a very small share of the actual transportation of the city, generate such visceral responses? I think it is because biking actively competes with driving for the same street space and resources. It ultimately comes down to self interest. Someone whose main mode of transportation is a car has a motivation to fight for every free parking spot on the street, to oppose and cession of car lanes for use as bike lines (and by the same logic any increase in tolls or fees on roads and bridges.)

Biking needs a serious image makeover if it’s ever going to gain significant share from cars. Right now, bikers are seen as dilettantes, and as reckless and dangerous vehicles. I think this last point is a result of the fact that bike crashes involving serious damage or injury are rare, so they are newsworthy and memorable. Car crashes are so common that they have become accepted as “background noise” – an unremarkable part of daily life.

Cars are also still the dominant transportation option for 99% of people in this country, a large number of outer borough residents, and, I’d bet, an overwhelming number of local news viewers.

Local news stations don’t report news, they report what their audience wants to see. Honestly, how many Streetsblog readers also count themselves as loyal consumers of TV news?

Also, bikes are visible. We can all see the rider on a bike as he zooms down the street, whether he’s observing traffic laws or not. Cars render their drivers invisible and as such turn them into part of the atmosphere, or background noise as the above commenter noticed. Bikes become an easy scapegoat for the true problem on our streets.

It’s worth nothing that CBS 2 is also a major sponsor of Summer Streets. They’re no good at journalism, but they seem to be good at talking out of both sides of their mouths.

I don’t think the assumption that drivers are raging at bicycle riders and not at other drivers is true. There is plenty of road rage directed at other drivers.

What is interesting is how seldom I see driver road rage directed at pedestrians here in NYC. Jerky bicycle riders are more likely to yell at pedestrians.

Bicycle riders need to be thought of the way pedestrians are — a slow moving fact of life that has to be adjusted to.

#29 Peter Engel regarding #27 Ian Turner (ditto):

“Disappointing that CBS decided to focus on the transportation mode that kills New Yorkers 1-2 per decade, and not the one that kills 3000-4000 New Yorkers per decade.”

In addition, there are a number of other very strong points as well which would make for a very powerful discussion such as transportation as heavy equipment is just too dangerous, wasteful, unnecessary, and such a large cause of environmental devastation that business-as-usual will have to stop if we are to survive the climate change crisis.

Here’s a good riddle to help further articulate this notion of “modal bias”:

Q: What do you call it when an automobile sits in the left-hand lane waiting to make a left turn?

A: Waiting to make a left turn.

Q: What do you call it when a bicycle sits in the left-hand lane waiting to make a left turn?

A: Blocking traffic.

I don’t see cyclists having anywhere near the ‘freedom’ that motorists have, and I don’t see them breaking any laws that motorists don’t.

I haven’t noticed them killing pedestrians and each other at the same rate motorists do, though. And the money spent on bike lanes is a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on maintaining motorist infrastructure.

A television news program indulging in sensationalism. My advice….don’t get your ‘news’ from television.

Well, I watched Monday’s report on CBS’s website, and it honestly wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be ( and I’m a cyclist ). For starters, they noted that the worst violators by far were bicycle delivery people, who incidentally comprise nearly half of Manhattan bicycle traffic. I’ve been saying exactly this for years. Because these delivery people are mostly what people in Manhattan experience, they get a poor impression of cyclists in general. Maybe it’s long past time to require that these delivery people be paid by the hour, rather than by the delivery. That would take away the financial incentives for the most outrageous behavoirs. Of course, the restaurant owners won’t care for the idea but too bad. And maybe some of the residents in these neighborhoods might start picking up their own food as well. Ironic how many complain about a problem largely created by their own laziness.

I also liked the interview with the commuter cyclist who admitted his worst offense was running lights, but at the same time noted that if cyclists were forced to stop at every single light, nobody would be riding bikes. As a cyclist, I concur. I ride in Queens, not Manhattan, so obviously I don’t encounter as much traffic. Nevertheless, there are way too many traffic lights here given the volume of traffic. I’d say 95% of them aren’t needed, but were put there because of vociferous community boards. Moreover, they’re horribly timed. If a cyclist were to obey the letter of the law, and wait the full cycle for every light, they’ll often get caught at the next one, and so on. Going a mile could end up taking 10 minutes or more instead of the 3 to 4 it might if you run one or two lights. That essentially brings cycling down to the speed of a fast walk. Generally I find that if I carefully go through one light, yielding to cars or pedestrians as needed, I’ll get mostly greens for a while. If I wait that light out, I get stuck at almost every single light. Simply retiming the lights for cycling speeds would eliminate quite a bit of cyclist’s red light running. The majority of cyclists will gladly stop and wait out a light if they might only encounter one or two in a 10 mile ride. But every block or two, it’s not only a major annoyance, but reaccelerating back to speed that often is beyond nearly every cyclist’s ability. I really hope this is covered somewhere in the series. Ideally, better timed lights and/or a change in the law allowing cyclists to proceed through red lights if clear are sorely needed. This is a clear case where a system designed to prevent automobiles from colliding with each other was foisted upon both bicycles and pedestrians. Pedestrians don’t need walk/don’t walk signals, either. Both pedestrians and cyclists have sufficient visibility to simply see if it’s OK to cross an intersection, and then do so if it is.

Anyway, so far my worst fears about the series haven’t been realized. And I really hope they go to the outer boroughs for some perspective. Most of the city’s attitudes and laws towards cycling are too Manhattan-centric. In the outer boroughs, for example, sidewalks are often nearly empty. Unlike Manhattan, they have plenty of room for both pedestrians and any cyclists who feel too uncomfortable riding in the street, and shouldn’t be forbidden to cyclists. As an experienced cyclist, I actually would rather the novice cyclists stay on the sidewalk until they learn to ride better and faster. Inexperienced cyclists are often a worse hazard than motorists.

By the time Bloomberg is finished ruining the city. It will be beyond repair.

God, I sure hope so!