NYPD: 1,295 Pedestrians and Cyclists Injured, 14 Killed in Traffic in November

Image: NYPD
Image: NYPD

Twenty-five people died in New York City traffic in November, and 4,222 were injured, according to the latest NYPD crash data report [PDF].

As of the end of November, 138 pedestrians and cyclists were reported killed by city motorists this year, and 13,523 injured, compared to 161 deaths and 14,721 injuries for the same period in 2013.

Citywide, at least 10 pedestrians and two cyclists were fatally struck by drivers: two pedestrians and one cyclist in Manhattan; two pedestrians and one cyclist in the Bronx; four pedestrians in Brooklyn; three pedestrians in Queens; and one pedestrian in Staten Island. Among the victims were Alex Davis, Melvina Hibbert, Edmund Chou, Julian Mendez Porres, Jenna Daniels, Latchman Singh, Mohammad Uddin, Robert Perry, Shan Zheng, Jason Aitcheson, and an unnamed male pedestrian in Queens.

Motorists killed at least one child and three seniors in November: Mohammad Uddin, 14; Melvina Hibbert, 76; Edmund Chou, 79; and Julian Mendez Porres, 88.

Motorists killed at least one cyclist whose death was not covered in the press.

Across the city, 1,017 pedestrians and 278 cyclists were reported hurt in collisions with motor vehicles. Per NYPD policy, few of these crashes were investigated by trained officers.

Of 11 fatal crashes on surface streets reported by Streetsblog and other outlets, one motorist was known to have been charged for causing a death: the Manhattan driver accused of striking Robert Perry and leaving the scene was charged with homicide. There were no reports of police and district attorneys applying the city’s Right of Way law following a fatal crash in November. Historically, nearly half of motorists who kill a New York City pedestrian or cyclist do not receive so much as a citation for careless driving.

In one case, immediately after a pedestrian was killed, police exonerated the driver by telling the press the victim was “outside the crosswalk.” In two cases, NYPD publicly blamed seniors struck by motorists for their own deaths.

Eight motorists and three passengers died in the city in November; 1,354 and 1,573 were injured, respectively.

There were 16,906 motor vehicle crashes in the city last month, including 3,111 that resulted in injury or death.

Download November NYPD summons data here. NYPD posts geocoded crash data here. Crash and summons data from prior months is available in multiple formats here.

Below are contributing factors for crashes resulting in injury and death.

Image: NYPD
Image: NYPD
  • How many people were killed and injured by cyclists? How many tickets were written to cyclists?

  • Maggie

    ‘Motorists killed at least one cyclist whose death was not covered in the press.’

    Thank you for calling this out.

  • Nathanael

    This is just more evidence of the *lawlessness* of the NYPD.

    As if we didn’t have enough evidence of NYPD lawlessness.

    Perhaps the most extremely from the behavior of Patrick Lynch, head of the “Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association”, who has a history of openly attacking his bosses the Mayors, and threatening to incite riots (he actually did start a riot once, in hostility to Dinkins), and should be fired for cause immediately.


    Police should be strictly prohibited from having unions, actually — it’s critically important to be able to fire any police officer instantly for losing the public trust. The only way to clean up the NYPD is to start eliminating thuggish gang leaders like Lynch, who belongs in federal prison for inciting riots.

  • red_greenlight1

    I think vision zero is a resounding success! All hail the genius that is De Blasio! Oh and the NYPD continues to do a bang up job. Sorry but in all seriousness this guy is a failure.

  • Bolwerk

    Lynch needs to be hit in the teeth with a 2×4.

    I’m not sure you can say other public sector groups can have unions, but not police. Police do have personnel issues, same as janitors or teachers or bus drivers or whatever.

    The problem is police dictate public policy. Other public sector unions may manage to hold the line, keeping rules around long past their time, but police are the only branch of the civil service that simply get to dictate rules the rest of us must follow. We get policed, but for some reason police are supposed to be trusted to police themselves.

    That’s fucked up. Almost as fucked up as the military doing it. And the military, whatever its problems, mostly isn’t a very big threat to the civilian population of the United States precisely because it *doesn’t* get to dictate and enforce the rules we have to follow.

  • Bolwerk

    Glass is half full: only 7 more years of de Blasio! Happy New Year!

    Glass is half empty: gawdamnit, 7 more years of de Blasio 🙁

    Empty or full the glass needs to be washed: only 7 more years of Rudy Giuliani

  • red_greenlight1

    You’re assuming that he will get re-elected despite having and continuing to alienate his political base.

  • He’ll run for re-election by abandoning the sectors which naively supported him the first time, including livable-streets advocates.

    He certainly won’t be posing as a “progressive” this time around. With Bratton by his side, he’ll tout himself as a law-and-order guy. As pertains to the issues we discuss here, we should count on his moving to restore “balance” by removing bike lanes — never forget that he as Public Advocate denounced Sadik-Khan as a “radical”. (Of course, she was indeed a radical, which is exactly what we needed. But de Blasio was speaking as a defender of the auto-centric status quo.)

    No one can say for sure whether he’ll be successful. But one may reasonably guess that he will be.

  • Bolwerk

    I expect he will be reelected and am not pleased by it. And, if he isn’t, the alternatives are mostly terrible. Republikans have all of de Blasio’s/Bloomberg’s (they’re really almost the same person) bad qualities, and then some, and none of their good ones.

    The Democrats are unlikely to entertain fielding an anti-authoritarian candidate against an authoritarian Democratic incumbent. The Democratic Party ONLY cares about winning, and the only way to make it come out against police brutality is to convince it that it’s a losing proposition for them. (It is, but they have to believe it.)

  • Bolwerk

    He’s so muddled and wishywashy that his only choice when something makes him uncomfortable is denial.

    I actually expected worse from him with bike lanes, but he has mostly left Bloomberg’s efforts alone or even built on them. The danger for bike lanes probably comes in the run-up to election (~2017) though. It does help that formerly obstinate Democrats are pushing safe streets initiatives now that they’ve turned out to be, well, popular.

  • Joe R.

    This is why even though you hated the idea I think us livable streets advocates should have pushed for more permanent, totally separate bike infrastructure which included full grade separation. Besides being operationally more efficient than stop-and-go lanes on surface streets, once built such things would be politically much more difficult to have removed. After all, by their nature they’re not taking street space from cars, so you can’t use that argument. They’re not putting pedestrians in danger from speeding bikes, so that argument goes out the window. You can’t have complaints about cyclists on this infrastructure ignoring red lights or stop signs because they’re wouldn’t be any. I’ll grant that a complimentary network of surface bike infrastructure to go the proverbial last mile would be nice to have along with the major bike highways, but if this surface network were removed you could still get close to where you wanted to be just on the bike highways alone, with quiet side streets without bike infrastructure allowing travel the rest of the way. Also, once major trunk bike routes were permanently built and heavily used, there would be political pressure to keep the complimentary surface routes.

    Hopefully this will be a learning experience. Next time around push for something highly permanent. Look at the Belt Parkway Greenway or the Hudson River Greenway. Those existed through administrations totally hostile to bikes. Nobody will rip out permanent infrastructure which cost many millions to build. On the other hand, thermoplast is subject to the whims of whomever is in Gracie Mansion.

  • Apart from my distaste for the idea from aesthetic and other standpoints, this scheme you describe would be so expensive and would so drastically alter the visual environment that it is a non-starter politically. It is — with no exaggeration — impossible.

    Therefore, any energy that livable-streets advocates would expend on such a plan would be energy wasted. Sensible people are never going to squander their political capital on pushing for unreachable goals when there are many reachable goals at hand, as there were when Bloomberg was mayor.

  • Joe R.

    How come the highways got built? Those are an order of magnitude worse in every category you mention, and they mostly provide utility to people who don’t even live in NYC. Surely something which would by and large be useful mainly to city residents, while costing far less than our urban highways cost, might have a good chance of being built. If nothing else, I suspect the same people who are opposed to bike infrastructure on surface streets would embrace the concept because they can relate to it being somewhat analogous to the auto highways they love.

    I wouldn’t even worry about aesthetics. Most of the places where these would make sense are fugly arterials like Northern Boulevard where a nicely designed viaduct might actually be an improvement. Certainly I don’t consider any of our arterials things of beauty as they are now. They’re car sewers with atrocious looking curbside parking. If someone objected on aesthetic grounds, I might be quick to point out how ugly rows upon rows of parked cars look.

    Expensive? Maybe a few billion for what I envision. That’s less than 1% of the NYC budget if built over five to ten years. If Bloomberg or some other super rich person can be convinced to fund the idea then money is a non-starter. We can start building it tomorrow. If there were any objections, we’ll tell people if we can’t build the bike highways then the car highways are coming down-all of them. Have trucks full of TNT ready to start doing that. That’ll shut people up for sure.

    Let me ask you this-what have we really accomplished which is so lasting? There’s a chance many of the surface lanes will disappear if de Blasio gets a second term. Even with these lanes, from where I stand they only serve a small portion of the city, and they don’t make getting around by bike any better or faster than before. Most of the outer boroughs got zip, so we’re no better or worse off if what got built is removed. And that’s another thing I should mention-you want broad support, do something in the outer boroughs which will actually make biking much better there. My idea would have fit that bill precisely. Anyone who rides in the outer boroughs wants something better than potholed, traffic-clogged streets with gazillions of ill-timed traffic signals and loads of double-parked cars.

  • Bolwerk

    Grade-separated bikeways are one of those things that fall under the “really rarely excusable” transportation category along with monorails, urban elevated parks, and grade-separated busways. Not something to be categorically against, but the exceptions pretty much prove the rule.

    Some car-free or mostly car-free streets with lights timed to pace cyclists would pretty much do the same job, IMHO better and cheaper and more pleasantly for cyclists.

  • Joe R.

    Well, my question would be why do cars which aren’t even a burden to start and stop get nice, grade-separated highways and bikes would rarely get such things? The issues with timed lights are many:

    1) They’re never timed well for all or even most cyclists.

    2) Even for the cyclists they’re timed perfectly for, on some days with headwinds or tailwinds the timing will be off.

    3) If you hit any obstacles in between lights you get out of sync with the green wave.

    4) When you add up the cost of the lights and maintenance, it might not actually be all that much more expensive to just do grade separation.

    I am in favor of traffic signals on bike routes which have bike sensors and give bikes priority. If bike traffic isn’t very high, you can do that without causing car traffic to stop frequently while waiting for bikes.

    Remember you don’t necessarily need viaducts running for the entire length of the bikeway. You might on streets with frequent signalized intersections but quite a few arterials in the outer boroughs only have lights every few blocks. In that case, you might have the bike route pass under those signalized intersections, with a conventional protected lane in between. That’s not costly, and it’s totally unobtrusive.

    We can also do the “unthinkable” and maybe appropriate a lane on the city’s car highways for bikes. In that case, you need to put a barrier between it and the car lanes, and have separate entrances/exits. Still, I don’t think the cost would be exorbitant relative to the benefits. And then you have the city’s many railway viaducts and els. Why not hang a bike lane off those?

    The whole point is if we build something in steel and concrete instead of thermoplast, it’s highly likely to be around in the long run.

  • Bolwerk

    Car highways are the last sanctioned form of urban blight. Most should probably be torn down, with exceptions for some other uses like transit.

    Bike highways wouldn’t be blight, but I don’t know that I see them as so practical. Long stretches of green (or the equivalent of orange flashing lights) on avenues/boulevards would suffice to make cyclists almost never have to stop unless they’re making a turn onto another street. Better for buses and pedestrians too.

  • An extensive network of elevated roads, with entryways at each intersection that are long enough to make the grade manageable, certainly would constitute blight. Even if these imagined roads would be for bikes, they would still cast shadows on the street.

    The streets are ours; that’s where we belong — as I was reminded during my pleasant 28-mile pleasure ride up and down the Midtown avenues during the mild temperatures of this past Saturday. We just need these streets to be managed properly, both in terms of engineering (protected lanes; lights timed to a bike-friendly speed of 15 miles per hour) and in terms of legislation (the Idaho stop).

  • Joe R.

    No, no, no! There would be absolutely no need for entrance ramps at every intersection. Remember, these are analogous to highways. One or two entrances or exits per mile are all that is needed. You ride the rest of the way on surface streets. And by using switchbacks, the entrances and exits can fit in a space of about 60 feet.

    The shadows might actually be beneficial during warmer weather. Also, they can shelter sidewalks from precipitation. Either way, too much sun is bad for you anyway, so I’m not seeing shadows as a downside. Realistically, in much of the city with very tall buildings not much sun makes it to street level anyway, so your argument against shadows is a red herring.

    I’ll fully support streets properly engineered for bikes and pedestrians, not cars, in lieu of my viaducts. That doesn’t mean stupid traffic signals timed at 15 mph or some other speed. It means so little motor traffic that traffic signals or stop signs don’t exist. It also means on these streets bikes and peds get the right-of-way over motor traffic at intersections. Do all that and we don’t need viaducts. Sad to say, I see this as even less likely to happen than an elaborate system of viaducts. The people who matter insist that every corner of NYC remains accessible to private autos. Also, nobody has shown any desire to do things to dramatically reduce motor traffic, like ban curbside parking, implement congestion charges, perhaps even ban non-NYC residents from entering the city by car during peak hours.

    On the Idaho stop, it’s needed regardless but even here I consider that yet another compromise on the part of bikes and peds. If it were up to me bicycles and pedestrians would have priority over motor traffic always at intersections, regardless of the color of the light. It would be incumbent for motorists to slow down enough, even when they had a green light, so they could yield to a bike or pedestrian crossing the street. No reason at all in a great walking/biking city like New York for non-motorized traffic to be delayed by motor traffic.

    On another note, I finally broke 1000 miles for the year today. Really lousy year for me, but at least I hit four figures. This weekend was actually pretty good-28 miles yesterday, 23 today. Just like old times. Hopefully I’ll be back to normal mileage in 2015.

  • Joe R.

    There’s one scenario I can think of where bike highways would be extremely practical-namely if velomobiles were mass-produced so the average person could afford one. State-of-the-art velomobiles let a rider of average ability go 25 to 30 mph, a strong rider perhaps 40 to 50 mph. The catch is it takes a while to get up to speed, so by definition velomobiles can only come into their own on infrastructure where they just get up to cruising speed, then stay there. I can’t envision anything at street level where that might be possible. Even if you take traffic signals out of the equation, this is NYC. There’s always something popping up every few blocks which slows you down. You also have the poor condition of the streets which makes high-speed cruising impractical. And then of course you don’t want 40 mph velomobiles where pedestrians are. All these things point to the need for totally separate, non-stop infrastructure.

    So yes, even though it’s a hypothetical, I can see at least one scenario where bike highways would actually be necessary. Using them to provide human-powered transport with average speeds in excess of 25 mph would certainly be a worthy goal to strive for in the long term.

  • CheshireKitty

    I agree on greenways/bike paths separate from car lanes such as those on Ocean Parkway. Some European cities are expanding no-car zones in city centers. I think, even though our climate is more rigorous than that of Europe (greater temperature extremes in N. America although N. European winters can be pretty rough) we could strive to emulate or at least strive to follow those models. The parts of the US that have a more moderate climate (California, the South, Hawaii, PR) there is no reason to not immediately set aside and protect car lanes as bike lanes. The cost is minimal and anything to slow the use of cars should be tried. A “novel” idea might be re-examining rail options – re-opening discontinued rail lines. Or, if the lines are not going to be re-activated, then they could be turned into bike paths/hiking trails/parks.

  • CheshireKitty

    It is interesting to look at the proposed re-configuration of the car lanes, pedestrian,and bike paths on the Pulaski Bridge http://gothamist.com/2014/10/08/pulaski_bridge.php. According to the plan, 1 lane is going to be taken from traffic for a 2 way bike path; the proposed reconfiguration puts a protected bike path into an existing highway (although the bridge is not a highway it is a 3 way roadway each way) by removing one car lane. This is an improvement or amenity that could be duplicated on limited access roads which would do much to promote cyclist safety and therefore encourage cycling. Cyclists and motorists want the option of getting from point A to point B without hitting lights – cyclists should be allowed to use limited access roads. But simply setting aside a lane for bikes is not safe enough given the speed at which the car traffic is traveling. There must be barriers in place to protect the bike path. These improvements are a reasonable and not terribly expensive compromise.

    I agree that viaducts carrying bike paths could also add to a community – they could be sculptural elements, below them could be park strips or other community uses. They are expensive to build though – which is why, until a network of viaducts is built, the existing highways could be adapted or reconfigured to allow for protected bike lanes.

  • ahwr

    You know you won’t be able to race around too much in your parks with all the joggers, homeless napping, pedestrians, miscreants spitting on cars below etc… right? Maybe at midnight – but that’s the whole thing for you isn’t it? You want a nice place to race on your bike at night? That’s just not the top priority of the city. And it really shouldn’t be.

  • Joe R.

    Not too many issues with joggers, homeless, or miscreants on car highways. I’m not seeing why it would be on bike highways. That’s what the police are for anyway-to keep trespassers from where they don’t belong.

  • Bolwerk

    It’s not often I have to ask this, and I obviously don’t entirely agree with Joe on this issue, but after reading Joe’s entire post: what the hell are you talking about?

  • ahwr

    If you build an elevated bike path how do you plan to keep non cyclists out? It’ll be a refuge from the motor vehicle dominated surface. Unless you have a small army of police to continuously patrol do you really think nobody but cyclists will try and make use of it?

  • Joe R.

    He’s saying the same nonsense I’ve heard from others regarding this idea-they think bike viaducts will be overrun by homeless, joggers, etc. I don’t think anyone on foot will feel all that welcome with a bunch of bikes speeding by inches away. If there turns out to be an issue with inappropriate users on the viaducts, well, finally the NYPD can do something useful for cyclists and arrest them.

  • Joe R.

    Easy-full height turnstyles at the entrances/exits which can only be opened with an appropriate card, coupled with cameras to photograph the person using the card. If they’re on foot, their card immediately gets invalidated, they can’t exit, and the police show up and arrest them. Problem solved. Once a few people get nabbed trying to use these viaducts for unintended uses, the message will get across.

    It’ll be a refuge from the motor vehicle dominated surface.

    And perhaps that points to a need to build a parallel facility for people on foot, which is actually something I favor.

  • Joe R.

    Exactly. Before we build a mile of purpose-built bike viaduct there is a plethora of existing grade-separated infrastructure which can be leveraged. Get people used to riding without stopping, they’ll want more of it. That’s when we can consider bike viaducts to fill in the gaps.

  • Bolwerk

    How do we keep non-drivers off the FDR drive? It may surprise the police state crowd, but most people aren’t narcissistic apes who compulsively flout sensible rules and the safety of their own hides.

  • ahwr

    Why wouldn’t people go up there without a bike? It would be less unpleasant dealing with some bikes than dealing with far more trucks and cars on the surface. Nevermind all the tourists stopping their citibikes three abreast to check a map or take a picture.

  • ahwr

    Being around speeding cars is unpleasant. Bikes will be going slower than cars and trucks on the surface, never mind on the LIE or FDR. Even at a constant speed bikes are not nearly as unpleasant to be around as cars and trucks. That’s why you already see pedestrians infringing on bike infrastructure.

  • Joe R.

    That seems to be an issue unique to NYC. I suspect the reason is we don’t have nearly enough good bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Look, I get it. Bikes sometimes go on sidewalks because the alternative of being on a dangerous street is far less pleasant. That issue is largely fixed by giving cyclists a more pleasant place to ride parallel to the sidewalk. Same thing here. Why not build some parallel pedestrian facilities on the viaduct? That could probably be done without adding more than 10% or 20% to the cost. A lot of the places where pedestrians intrude on bike lanes could really use wider sidewalks. In the end we just don’t have enough space for everyone. If we don’t want to “make” space by building on multiple levels, then what are the alternatives? We could in theory radically reduce motor traffic volumes. Politically, for now anyway, that’s suicide.

  • Bolwerk

    As if people incidentally going up is even a very big problem. It’d not exactly be a pleasant or interesting place to take a stroll, and a cyclists usually aren’t impotent to injure people.

    There are bigger impracticalities. Aesthetics even.

  • ahwr

    Narrow motor vehicle lanes, take lanes for sidewalks, plazas, transit lanes, and bike lanes. Not in theory. In practice. That’s affordable, but can only be done slowly for the time being. Building more space and casting the surface in shadows? Not affordable, and not politically feasible. There’s plenty of space. It just has to be used differently.

    The alternative to biking on the sidewalk is not biking on a dangerous street. It’s walking your bike on the sidewalk.

    It’s not an issue unique to nyc. People respond to the built environment. Bikes ride on an empty sidewalk because it’s empty. If it was full of pedestrians they’d at least walk the bike instead, if not stay in the roadway. Cars speed in wide lanes everywhere they are built. Pedestrians go wherever is safest, most comfortable and most convenient. If the built environment remains the same except you build an elevated path that doesn’t admit motorized vehicles? It’s a park, it will be used as one. So it won’t be available for bikes to speed by. Except if you run it through a low density area, at which point it’s just not affordable to build.

  • ahwr

    The high line seems pretty crowded. Get rid of the food, the plantings, the rails etc…and it will still be too crowded for cyclists to race around. But that’s all joe is after. A place he can let loose and ride as fast as he wants. Not everything can be accommodated in a city. My point wasn’t that cyclists would hurt anyone. But that they’d slow down to stay safe. Joe wouldn’t get what he wants, at least during the day.

  • Joe R.

    This is funny because one common negative I hear about elevated infrastructure like pedestrian bridges is that it’s often not used by choice because of the burden of climbing up or down. So that issue will magically disappear here? From what I can gather, most trips on foot in NYC are 10 blocks or less. Many are less than 5 blocks. It’s not worthwhile for most people on foot to climb up if they’ll soon be coming down again. Maybe I can see the appeal of the viaducts for joggers, but not for anyone else not on a bike. Even for joggers, the solution is to have a hard concrete surface. Joggers sometimes opt for the road over the sidewalk because it’s softer asphalt. Concrete surfacing on the viaducts negates that advantage. It also lets bike tires roll a little better, perhaps enough to bring speeds up by 0.5 to 1 mph.

    That’s affordable, but can only be done slowly for the time being.

    Correction-it’s being done at a glacial pace in Manhattan and parts of Queens/Brooklyn right across the river. It’s not being done AT ALL anywhere else. Point of fact very little was done elsewhere even with Bloomberg and JSK.

    Except if you run it through a low density area, at which point it’s just not affordable to build.

    By definition you’re going to have to serve low and high density areas. It’s all relative, anyway. The outermost parts of Queens or Brooklyn are still denser than a lot of US cities, so you’re still serving lots of people, just not as many as closer to the core.

    Here’s a good point to think about. Highways cost one or two orders of magnitude more than what I propose, and yet they’re built in areas far less dense than the least dense parts of NYC. Given that, why wouldn’t they be affordable? Also, consider that density might increase dramatically once there was a way to connect to places 7 or 8 or 10 miles away in 30 minutes. That was the model when the subways were built. The IRT lines in the Bronx went through farmland in the beginning. It eventually increased in density.

  • Joe R.

    The High Line is designed as a park. It’s too short to be practical for bikes either for commuting or recreation.

    But that’s all joe is after. A place he can let loose and ride as fast as he wants.

    I’m not all about riding fast recreationally. What I’m after here is a way to get around the city which sucks less than the alternatives. Unless you’re lucky enough to have the beginning and end of your trip near a subway station, getting around this city absolutely stinks. Even then it might still suck if you have to change trains a few times. It’s no secret time lost traveling costs NYC a lot of money, both directly and in terms of lost potential productivity.

    Look at what your average speeds are for much of the day for any mode but subway. They’re typically 10 mph or less. It shouldn’t take an hour or more to go ten miles. We don’t have the money for comprehensive subway coverage to fix this. We certainly couldn’t build enough roads to eliminate congestion if we decided cars were the way to go. We can’t get buses going much faster than they do now even with fixes like prepaid boarding and traffic light preemption. We can however design a human-powered network which can offer 15 to 20 mph average speeds right now, with 25+ mph possible in some hypothetical future where velomobiles are more affordable.

    That’s what I’m after-a way one might go halfway across the city in 30 minutes or less which is available to people of all income levels. Right now that really doesn’t exist, except maybe cars/taxis during off-peak hours (neither of these are affordable to people on modest incomes).

  • RoeJ

    Yes the police are for harassing pedestrians. We need more of that.

  • Joe R.

    Look, the police ticket cyclists on sidewalks, so it’s only fair for them to ticket pedestrians on bike specific infrastructure. I’m tired of the double standard where pedestrians complain when bikes intrude on their space, but they feel free to nonchalantly walk in a bike lane.

  • RoeJ

    That’s the attitude that gets coffee thrown at you.

  • Joe R.

    So you’re OK with double standards then? I really don’t feel the police should be harassing either cyclists or pedestrians, but if they must, at least treat similar offenses in the same manner.

  • RoeJ

    No double standard at all. When people drive like douches I throw stuff at their car. When people bike like douches I throw stuff at their bike. Or are you the one who wants a double standard now?

  • Bolwerk

    Why aren’t pedestrians constantly being killed by cyclists on sidewalks?

  • ahwr

    Because the cyclists slow down when pedestrians are around. Just like they will on joe’s parks. So they won’t be available as the speedway he wants except at night, and even then not in the summer.

  • Joe R.

    I’m not even talking about biking or driving like douches. I’m just talking about people biking or walking where they don’t belong. If we make bike viaducts, people on foot don’t belong there, whether they’re behaving like douches or not. By the same token, bikes don’t belong on sidewalks, even if they’re not behaving like douches. We as a society have made many such restrictions in the interests of efficiency or safety. We don’t allow people on railroad tracks. We don’t allow cyclists or pedestrians on highways. If we make separate infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians, then both should be where they belong.

    It sounds to me like you think there would be nothing wrong with people walking on viaducts or other places specifically designed only for bikes, and a cyclist complaining about it would be douche.

  • Joe R.

    It’s only a “park” in your mind. I’m not seeing how something with two to four ~5 foot lanes, a hard concrete surface, and literally no space other than the travel lanes, qualifies as a park. It would be downright hostile to someone on foot. You seriously think cyclists will slow down on something purposely built for them to go whatever speed they felt like going? They don’t even slow down on the bike paths on the bridges when pedestrians go on the bike side. I’ve seen videos of cyclists blowing past people on foot at 25 or 30 mph on those paths.

    Why would a person want to walk up there anyway? There are no points of interest. If they see something interesting down below they have to walk to the nearest exit, then double back on the sidewalk. Speaking of that, remember what I said about 1 or 2 exits per mile? Unless someone plans to walk at least that far, why would they want to be up there? As a sidewalk alternative, these things are next to useless.

    You’re inventing a silly reason why these wouldn’t have the utility they’re designed to have because you don’t like the idea. I’m fine with you not liking the idea. I’m not fine with you making up stuff you know is highly unlikely to happen to shoot it down. There are loads of solutions to keep people on foot off if it ever became an issue, which I doubt it would. Probably a real good reason people wouldn’t go up there would be when it makes the news that someone who did got seriously hurt or killed.

  • RoeJ

    Maybe you’re right. We should build a network of viaducts. Just not allow any bikes on them. Any biker tries to and we’ll have NYPD swat teams execute them.

  • Joe R.

    Did I say anything about SWAT teams executing people walking on bike viaducts? I just said have the police deal with them. Most likely that would be a ticket of some sort, which is exactly what the police do to someone caught biking on a sidewalk.

    Perhaps you could explain exactly what you meant with your “That’s the attitude that gets coffee thrown at you.” comment? I didn’t see anything I said where such a comment would make a bit of sense.

  • Joe R.

    In keeping with that line of thought:


    NYC comes in as the 7th worst city for an active lifestyle, behind Houston of all places! It’s hard to tell what to make of this, but apparently NYC sorely lacks amenities conducive to an active lifestyle. No surprise to me. Walking or biking during much of the day is an unpleasant chore with hordes of motor traffic and constant delays at lights. These same things make trips to places designed for activity, like parks, much more onerous than they need be. Whatever activity a lot of people get seems to be incidental, like walking to/from mass transit, or to the corner store.

    We might gauge the success of Vision Zero when lots of people actually want to be out, even if they’re not doing anything in particular.

  • ahwr

    Yes fitness clubs are expensive, and golf courses are minimal and they charge a fortune in NYC.


In Memoriam

For as long as anyone can remember, New York City has treated most drivers who kill other people as unwitting players in someone else’s tragedy. With a new mayoral administration and the advent of Vision Zero, 2014 was to be the year the city began in earnest to hold reckless motorists, including those whose negligence would ordinarily […]