Today’s Headlines

  • Right of Way Remembers New Yorkers Lost to Traffic Violence Last Year (News, Post)
  • Straphangers and Riders Alliance: Pay for Subway Upgrades With Value Capture (News)
  • TWU: Law That Made It a Misdemeanor to Hit Someone With the Right of Way Is Too Vague (News)
  • One More Reason Not to Exempt MTA Bus Drivers From Right of Way Law (Post)
  • Green Cab Driver Strikes Woman in Bed-Stuy Saturday Morning, Causing Severe Head Injury (News)
  • DOT Road Diet Plan for East Tremont Ave Runs Up Against Bronx Community Board 10 (BxTimes)
  • Bus Riders Left Hanging as Community Boards Dawdle Over 125th Street Bus Lanes (DNA)
  • Staten Island Advance Is for BRT, Against Bus Lanes
  • The Case for Spending on Accessible Subways and Buses Instead of Access-a-Ride (News)
  • NYC Doesn’t Resurface Its Streets Frequently Enough (WNYC)
  • Schumer Wants to Give Commuter Railroads 3 More Years to Install Positive Train Control (AMNY)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • J

    Someone should tell the SI Advance that you can’t be for BRT and against bus lanes. Without bus lanes, it’s not BRT.

  • Andres Dee

    AFAIK, the ROW law says it’s a misdemeanor to cause injury or death to someone with ROW.

    Injury. Death. Right of Way. Misdemeanor. It doesn’t matter if the driver is going 3MPH or 300. How vague is that?

    If the law has ambiguities, then it needs to be fixed. For all drivers. And while we’re at it, let’s bump it up to a felony.

  • J

    I read through the SI Advance article, and it turns out they’re for BRT where there is already a vacant ROW, just not anywhere else where it would take away car lanes. So basically, they only want the North Shore BRT.

  • stairbob

    Staten Island Advance Is for Ponies, Against Rainbows

  • Joe R.

    Instead of bumping it up to a felony (with all the extra burden that gives the prosecution), lets have mandatory lifetime license revocation as part of the penalty. If you also want to include possible jail time (with a higher standard of proof) that’s fine but at a minimum if you kill or seriously injure someone with the right of way while driving you should never, ever be able to drive again. And while we’re at it make the permanent license revocation part of the penalty apply retroactively to anyone who has killed or injured someone in the past with the right of way. That would instantly get at least a few thousand bad drivers off the roads for good.

  • Larry Littlefield

    The bus fleet is 100 percent accessible, and has been for a long time, via wheelchair lifts.

  • WalkingNPR

    ““The world has been turned upside down when NYC believes it’s a smart idea to arrest a veteran bus operator who was going 3 miles an hour and exercising the utmost care,” TWU Local 100 President John Samuelsen said.”

    How long is it going to take for people to realize if you hit a human with the right of way, you were, by definition, not “exercising the utmost care”?

  • AnoNYC

    East Tremont is a speedway but how about SBS lanes throughout?

  • Bolwerk

    Yes, though the experience is overall probably still slow and, I would think, pretty humiliating. There probably isn’t a good way to deal with wheelchairs on public transit.

  • Seth Rosenblum

    That section of Bedford avenue in BedStuy is so frustrating. All they need to do is reverse the position of the bike lane + buffer and parking lane and they’ve made it a perfect street. It’s would slow the traffic and narrow the crossings by about half.

  • Joe R.

    I tend to agree. Given the rather huge costs of accommodating a relative minority of people in wheelchairs and with other severe disabilities I think that same money would be better spent on two other things instead. One, put R&D into finding medical ways to get as many of these people out of wheelchairs as possible. That would also immensely improve their overall quality of life. Two, design wheelchairs able to negotiate regular steps. Actually, if you look at the stuff designed by Boston Dynamics this might actually be on the horizon. It really wouldn’t be a wheelchair anymore as the wheels would be replaced by robotic appendages resembling limbs but the benefit would be increased mobility for the disabled. Of course, you’ll probably have the groups which make big money off handicapped accessibility, starting with Access-A-Ride, fighting both things tooth and nail. Nevertheless, as you mention there’s really no good way to deal with wheelchairs on public transit, and attempting to do so is stretching already sparse transit budgets even more.

  • Bolwerk

    *shrug* IMHO, this is one of those immensely rare circumstances where subsidizing a taxi or even a private automobile is entirely appropriate.

    Our society gets it backwards: the able-bodied are expected to drive and the disabled are expected to use transit.

  • Damn constitution

    Yea the supreme court won’t let you impose any sort of punishment retroactively like permanently revoke driver’s licenses.

  • Joe R.

    This isn’t under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction because you’re not depriving a person of life, liberty, or property by revoking their driver’s license. Driving is a privilege, not a basic fundamental right. As such it can be revoked for any reason at all, or even no reason. The state can declare a new set of standards tomorrow for driver’s licensing, prohibit everyone from driving until they meet those standards, and there would be no legal recourse.

    Of course, you can’t retroactively apply penalties like fines or jail but I wasn’t suggesting we do that anyway.

  • Damn constitution

    When states have tried to retroactively apply stiffer penalties for DWIs they’ve been shot down by the courts.

    Constitution doesn’t let the federal government, or the states apply ex post facto punishments.

    Life’s a bitch isn’t it

  • Joe R.

    What kind of stiffer penalties? Higher fines perhaps? No, you can’t do that but nothing is stopping states from retroactively revoking driver’s licenses. Remember states don’t even need a reason to do so. States have all kinds of licenses for businesses and other things. They can change the terms of those licenses whenever they see fit. They generally will give advance notice so people have time to comply with the new requirements but they don’t have to.

    Remember the state has a perfectly valid reason, namely safety, to retroactively revoke the licenses of drivers who have killed or injured people in the past. I doubt any case protesting them doing so would even make it to the appellate, never mind the Supreme Court.

  • Damn constitution

    What kind of stiffer penalties?

    Longer license suspensions. Say person A gets their third DWI and faces a mandatory suspension of 6 months. Before that time is up the punishment for third DWI conviction is upped to a mandatory suspension of 2 years. Where DMVs have tried to apply that new standard to person A to deny their application for a license it has been shot down by the courts.

    You’d have a much better chance if you asked for license suspension for someone who commits a serious traffic violation (speeding 30+), at fault fatal crash etc…if they have a history of dangerous driving, which would include injuring or killing someone with the ROW.

  • Andres Dee

    There should not be a third DWI.

    DWIs should be treated the way we treat sex offenders (who are barred from living and being in so many places, that in some communities they’re unemployed and homeless, yet we’re OK with that, tough on them).

    We’ve deferred so much to drivers…”Oh, come on, how will he get to work if he can’t drive”, “Oh, we’ll send her to class”, “Oh, we’ll giver him an interlock”…that we incentivize DWI. For drivers facing DWI, alternate forms of transit (or the consequences of lack thereof) do not seem to register. Why can’t DWIs take the bus, or a taxi, or PRT or hyperloop or self-driving car? And if these don’t exist near where they live or need to go, then write your congressman or move.

    First DWI, max second; revocation. Third; jail for driving without a license (IMHO, should be a felony…and licenses should only be revoked for offenses related to driving).

  • Kevin Love

    Driving is a privilege, not a right. A drivers licence revocation is NOT a punishment or penalty. So it can indeed be applied retroactively.

  • Maggie

    I’m not sure if you linked to coverage on this Flatbush Avenue crash over the weekend? A BMW traveling at 100 mph slammed into a Walgreens truck at 4:35 am, leaving 3 people on life support.

    Apart from everything else, to me it’s an example why our lifesaving speed cameras should be running 24-7.