I’m still not completely clear from reading this article or from the comments: if you ride in the “only cars” lane when there are no cars in the park (other than the occasional official vehicle) then are you breaking the law and can you be ticketed?

And another question, does this apply throughout the entire loop, even in sections where non-official cars aren’t ever allowed? I don’t ride that much in Central Park these days but it seems like that’s still a pretty large percentage of the loop. Are they saying that this has been the law all the time and now they are going to enforce it? Is this supposed to solve something? What exactly?

Yes, exactly. For the same reasons, traffic signals don’t belong in a park either. My jaw dropped to the ground when I heard the park drive has something like 47 traffic signals. That’s one every 700 feet or so. No street anywhere should have traffic signals that often, much less one in a park.

i waiting for a “everything goes lane,” when will that be implemented?!

It’s supposed to prevent a repeat of the recent bike-ped accident. You see, he was biking in the “wrong” lane — meaning the lane where 2-ton hunks of steel could be hurtling down the road at 25mph — when he collided with a ped. If bikes are kept properly in “their” lane (for the convenience of drivers of course), then pedestrians wandering aimlessly in the “cars only” lane while texting won’t have to worry any more about getting hit by some crazy biker.

I believe that other than the speed limit, no other rules have changed from before. Previously: when Park Drive is open to cars, cyclists must remain in their designated lanes. When Park Drive is closed to cars, cyclists can use the travel lane only for temporary passing, according to the NYCDOT, but must return to the bike lane.

So in answer to your question: It is possible you could be ticketed if you do not return back into the bike lanes. To cross over to pass, turn, or to avoid an obstacle you should be fine. Again, other than the speed limit and a shorter crosswalk, I don’t believe anything else has changed.

We have all these fucking traffic engineers and they come up with a plan that could’ve been designed by Chris Christie’s croonies on the back of a cocktail napkin. “I’ve got an idea . . . how about we . . .!”

Maybe we’ll be lucky and old man winter will wipe this all away. Either that or we’ll at least have confirmation that the response from DOT on bike lane restriping is straight BS.

To what extent does it have to be accommodated? What’s wrong with racing up a bridge, cruiding down and then turning around to do so again? Or using a velodrome?

Thanks Polly Trottenberg for reminding everyone that Central Park is NOT a refuge from traffic, noise, and pollution.

To what extent do cars have to be accommodated in Central Park? Or for that matter in NYC? We’ve made the streets hellholes just to accommodate the minority who drives, yet we focus on people who like to ride bikes fast as if they’re some rolling cancer which needs to be driven from the city.

The type of person who enjoys fast road riding is not going to enjoy racing up or down a bridge, or going in circles on a velodrome (of which only one exists in NYC anyway). Larry asks a perfectly legitimate question. If we had a decent bike network like the Netherlands, complete with bicycle superhighways, then you have something useful for fast riding during off-peak hours, perhaps even all day long if there isn’t much bicycle traffic. That same infrastructure also serves its primary purpose of fostering utility cycling.

NYC might remember many of these people who like riding $10,000 bikes fast also tend to be professionals who pay a lot of taxes. From where I stand it doesn’t seem like they’re getting a whole lot for their money. Central Park has been made more and more worthless from a training standpoint, first with the red light tickets, and now with all these other changes. I know these types of cyclists aren’t particularly popular here because they don’t ride heavy Dutch bikes at a Streetsblog approved 8 mph, but to me it’s certainly feasible for NYC to accommodate their needs. That’s doubly true because the same infrastructure which could accommodate them will also accommodate a whole range of utility cyclists.

Of course, we think slapping a little paint on a street makes bikes infrastructure. And DeBlasio wants to double bike mode share by 2020? At this rate he’ll cut it in half instead.

Really, I’m very, very disappointed. Gridlock Sam made a bunch of suggestions for Central Park which would have made much more sense than this Orwellian nightmare.

A small extent. The same way the city provides ball fields and swimming pools for sports. It’s not an unreasonable request – if we believe participatory sports is a good thing – which public policy in general seems to have accepted – then having one place (Kissena veolodrome) in the whole city to do it seems bizarre. Have a few miles in each boro.

I’m a moderately athletic cyclist, and in Central Park now, if I pedal down every hill with moderate effort, I’m breaking the law.

Also, what Joe R. said.

I’ll just add that the Kissena veolodrome is inadequate in both quantity and *quality*. It’s a mediocre track at best.

I think that people who want to ride fast laps in CP have to face the fact that powerful constituencies of the park just don’t want you to do that. The loop is the perfect length for lap cycling, and it has just enough hills to keep it interesting, but, sorry, it’s not a cycling facility. As someone who once really enjoyed lap cycling (but gave up because of overcrowding a long time ago), I’ve moved on (and over the GWB).

I’ve been riding a bike in Manhattan (recreationally, athletically, commuteratively, fecklessly, etc.) since the early 70s, including in CP. CP is only suitable for commuting and feckless cycling now, and that has been the case for the better part of 20 years (the beginning of the end was when the first roller blade found the park). These changes in striping and rules will have no impact on the vast majority of cyclists who are of the commuterative and feckless varieties, and these changes are obviously designed to restrict cycling to those forms. The City may some day decide to accommodate more racer-ish modes of cycling, but it won’t be in CP.

Oh, but those same fucks will argue that you need ULURP review and Environmental Impact Statements for bike lanes.

How about buying a heavier bike? I challenge anyone to hit 25 mph on my old Schwinn. You want exercise- that will do the job!

Exactly.

For some people part of the appeal isn’t just the workout, but the speed resulting from the effort. That’s why many racers and serious amateurs do everything they can to cheat the wind. If you’re just interested in a workout, a stationary exercise bike will do just fine. There’s a lot of good reasons besides exercise behind road riding. I personally like it all. The sights and sounds of the city, the sensation of speed, the wind in my hair and my ears. That all makes it interesting enough so I keep coming back for more. Until I discovered cycling as a teenager, no other physical activity held my interest for very long. Now over 36 years later I’m still at it, although this year I haven’t had as much time as I might have liked to ride. I’ll probably still make 1,000 miles and change for the year, which is horrible for me but not horrible in general.

By the way, I hit 30 mph on my Dad’s old 3 speed upright bike once, so it is possible but not easy to get decent speed out of a heavy bike.

Thats true

And when cars aren’t in the park, instead of making use of that lane, they just condense park real estate for everyone else. Makes plenty of sense!