Today’s Headlines

  • SUV Driver Who Killed Cyclist on 4th Ave Didn’t Take Anti-Seizure Meds (PostNYT, Gothamist)
  • DNA Maps the 150 Crashes Near Barclays Center This Year
  • On First Day of Off-Board Fare Collection, M86 Service 25% Faster Than Walking (News)
  • Ben Kabak Envisions a Full-Fledged 86th Street Busway (2nd Ave Sagas)
  • Uber Seeks Out Al Sharpton to Fight City Hall’s “Uber Cap” (Crain’s)
  • Trump Tower’s Bonus Plaza Is an Altar to the Donald (NYT)
  • How Much of NYC’s Manufacturing Zones Are Automotive Shops? (Cap’n Transit)
  • Take This as a Sign That the Sidewalk Isn’t Wide Enough (EV Grieve via DNA)
  • More Coverage of Queens Bike Initiative From DNA
  • What If NYC Subway Turnstiles Made “Lovely and Gentle” Sounds? (WNYC)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • com63
  • Alexander Vucelic
  • Jesse

    It would be insensitive to suggest that the SUV driver should not be eligible for a driver’s license if he’s prone to seizures. So I won’t do that….

  • WalkingNPR

    So…the driver knew he had seizures and didn’t take medication to prevent them. Then I say again, preventable crash, not “accident.”

  • Bolwerk

    I’ll try to be using “preventable crash” from now on!

  • Kevin Love

    Meanwhile, in places that actually give a rat’s ass about human life, action is taken to prevent people from driving if they cannot do so safely due to a medical condition.

    No, we don’t have to go to Europe or Japan. All we have to do is look across the New York/Ontario border. A quote from:

    http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/medical-review/physicians.shtml

    “Every legally qualified medical practitioner shall report to the Registrar the name, address and clinical condition of every person sixteen years of age or over attending upon a medical practitioner for medical services, who, in the opinion of such medical practitioner is suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for such person to operate a motor vehicle.”

  • Kevin Love

    How about, “Criminal Negligence.”

  • Jeff

    I, personally, prefer the term “whoopsy-doodle” when a human being is killed due to the willful negligence of another.

  • Bolwerk

    The sperglord Libertardian car advocate puts a great deal of emphasis on free will to make rational decisions.

    WalkingNPR’s phrase turns the tables on that.

  • WalkingNPR

    Well sure, if you want to get into technical terminology….

  • Maggie

    I’ve watched NYPD make arrests in the last couple weeks of a protester who sneezed on a cop, and punch then arrest a man on the sidewalk who was apparently carrying a pocketknife.

    It’s unreal that you can plow straight through a bicyclist, killing him instantly, claim you had a medical event, and have NYPD treat that as plausible, reasonable, and acceptable for the public. And devote public resources the next day not to policing dangerous driving, but against bicyclists at T-intersections. I can’t imagine a much better way to lose public trust and respect.

    I hope NYT follows up hard on this important story, and what it says about our public safety.

  • red_greenlight1

    How about homicide?

  • red_greenlight1

    Events like yesterday make going out to tonight’s Vision Zero protest essential. Do not let the spectre of rain dissuade you from going!

  • Nanter

    Contrast that with New York State where as a physician I can’t break confidentiality to report a dangerous driver to the state even if I have substantive evidence that they are a clear and present danger (e.g. Untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea, untreated seizure disorder).

  • Kevin Love

    That’s crazy. And what confidentiality? The reports to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles are not public records. I am not seeing any confidentiality issue here. From the previous link:

    “The report referred to in subsection (1) is privileged for the information of the Registrar only and shall not be open for public inspection, and such report is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any trial except to prove compliance with subsection (1).”

    By the way, the reference to proving compliance is because if a medical doctor does not file the mandatory report and the car driver gets into a crash and blames it on his medical condition, guess who gets sued? That’s right. The medical doctor gets sued.

    The “not being sued” concept provides a very, very strong incentive for doctors to file the mandatory report with the Registrar if their patient has a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive.

  • Alexander Vucelic

    Killer’s name is Claudio Rodriguez

    from post article

    “….A bicyclist was killed Monday morning by an out-of-control driver who slammed into him near the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, cops said.

    The driver, Claudio Rodriguez, apparently suffered a seizure at the wheel of his Honda Pilot SUV before fatally hitting the 35-year-old cyclist and striking two vehicles, sources said.

    Six others were injured in the bloody chain of events.

    Rodriguez, 37, lost control of the SUV while driving north on Fourth Avenue and slammed it into the back of a gray 2014 Toyota that was at a red light at the intersection of Dean Street, sources said.

    The driver, Claudio Rodriguez, had apparently suffered a seizure while traveling north on Fourth Avenue in his Honda Pilot SUV, sources said.
    Rodriguez, 37, lost control of the SUV and slammed it into the back of a gray 2014 Toyota that sitting at a red light at the intersection of Dean Street, sources said.

    Witnesses and police said Rodriguez’s SUV then hopped the median and accelerated into oncoming traffic for a block before hitting the unidentified cyclist near Pacific Street.

    With the cyclist’s body on the hood, the SUV continued north until he struck a black 2004 Mitsubishi that was traveling east on Atlantic Avenue, police said.
    After smashing into the Mitsubishi, the SUV eventually came to a crashing halt outside a Vitamin Shoppe near Fourth and Flatbush avenues, police said.

    “It was surreal,” said Joseph Weaver, 41, who witnessed the crash, which injured six others. “I still can’t believe what I saw.”

    “I heard a loud bang. I saw a man’s body go up in the air,” said Weaver, a construction worker.

    “The guy was motionless on the ground. It was scary.”
    Rodriguez remained at the scene.

    He spoke about the crash in a video recorded by an eyewitness and viewed by The Post.

    “I was feeling, like, you know when you feel dizzy,” Rodriguez explains in the footage. “After that, I don’t remember until I hit the other guy and the other guy hit me.”

    He admitted to cops that he had forgotten to take medication on Monday to control his seizures, law-enforcement sources said.

    Cops have not charged Rodriguez with a crime and were waiting for his blood-test results.

    Authorities added that the cyclist had a green light and was traveling with traffic at the time of the accident.

    Five other people involved in the crash were taken to Methodist Hospital in serious but stable condition, police said….”

  • qrt145

    We just need to float around the notion that foreign terrorists are recruiting epileptics to kill with impunity, and see the confidentiality thrown out the window. 🙂

  • nanter

    The statute you’re citing in Canada seems very clear that physicians are mandated reporters; I am however talking about New York state.

    Protection of confidentiality between physician and patient is sacrosanct, and under a combination of HIPAA and state specific statutes breaking said confidentiality is limited to few exceptions. The protection of confidentiality is also not limited to public disclosures but to any disclosure to any third party from the patient that the patient does not explicitly authorize (or for which an exception is provided by statute).

    Unfortunately, in New York State, there is no permissive reporting law on the books (as many other states have; some even have mandatory reporting laws similar to your Canadian example) that grants physicians immunity from criminal and civil liability for reporting a dangerous driver to the DMV.

    Until such a law is on the books here, you’ll have to count on drivers to self report. Good luck with that!

  • If the cyclist wasn’t carrying ID and had not been identified as of this morning, how do they know he was 35 years old?

  • Alexander Vucelic
  • If you are feeling dizzy and you are driving a car. You pull over and stop. End of story. If I am walking and I feel dizzy I stop walking and sit down. If I am biking and feel dizzy or really tired I stop and evaluate. If you are feeling dizzy and you KNOW you didn’t take your medication you should immediately hit the brake and wait. Drivers have this unbelievable sense of they can do whatever they want when they get behind a wheel.

  • qrt145

    My wild guess is that it was a wild guess.

  • WalkingNPR

    …much like the rest of the Post’s reporting on car crashes.

  • Andres Dee

    “Witnesses and police said Rodriguez’s SUV then hopped the median and accelerated into oncoming traffic for a block before hitting the unidentified cyclist near Pacific Street.”

    Memo to whoever programmed this self-driving-SUV: You need to work on the “Sh–! I’ve rear-ended someone. Get me the fu– outta here!” routine.

  • Kevin Love

    Which is why I am saying we need such a statute. To quote Bugs Bunny, “There oughta be a law.”

  • AnoNYC

    About manufacturing zones and the proliferation of automotive businesses.

    On what planet are these jobs upwardly mobile as indicated by some supporters? Also, as the article discusses, the externalities are huge and detrimental to communities where the vast majority do not even utilize those products and services.

    Jerome Ave needs to be rezoned into a mixed use, dense, walkable, transportation orientated neighborhood as it once was.

  • AnoNYC

    Also:

    Brooklyn BP Bikes Down “Hairy” Flatbush Ave Following Cyclist Death

    http://gothamist.com/2015/07/14/eric_adams_barclays_bike.php

  • lop

    How far do you want to take the reporting requirement? I mean, for what level of increased risk?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495589/

    For a number of reasons, physicians should be restrained in reporting to
    authorities drivers with a mild or moderate increase in driving risk.
    First, this degree of added risk is on the same order as other
    conditions where reporting is not considered professionally or legally
    appropriate, e.g., benzodiazapine use. Second, the burdens of loss of
    driving privilege may be out of proportion to threat to personal and
    public safety. Third, physician-as-policer is of questionable long-term,
    net benefit to patients. Patients may avoid health services in these
    circumstances. This avoidance would limit physicians’ effectiveness in
    caring for such patients and, by corollary, preclude physician
    involvement in driver safety. Physicians should educate patients about
    relevant conditions which impair driving, and be attentive to increases
    in disability over time. For example, a patient with cataracts should be
    educated as to its early effects on night vision. A patient declining
    treatment for sleep apnea should be counseled about the increased
    driving risk associated with the untreated condition. Where driving risk
    is profound and the patient refuses to cease driving, physicians should
    contact the licensing agency. The marked and immediate risk to patient
    and public safety outweigh the potential consequences of reporting on
    the future care of patients.

  • lop

    For a number of reasons, physicians should be restrained in reporting to authorities drivers with a mild or moderate increase in driving risk. First, this degree of added risk is on the same order as other conditions where reporting is not considered professionally or legally appropriate, e.g., benzodiazapine use. Second, the burdens of loss of driving privilege may be out of proportion to threat to personal and public safety. Third, physician-as-policer is of questionable long-term, net benefit to patients. Patients may avoid health services in these circumstances. This avoidance would limit physicians’ effectiveness in caring for such patients and, by corollary, preclude physician involvement in driver safety. Physicians should educate patients about relevant conditions which impair driving, and be attentive to increases in disability over time. For example, a patient with cataracts should be educated as to its early effects on night vision. A patient declining treatment for sleep apnea should be counseled about the increased driving risk associated with the untreated condition. Where driving risk is profound and the patient refuses to cease driving, physicians should contact the licensing agency. The marked and immediate risk to patient and public safety outweigh the potential consequences of reporting on the future care of patients.

  • Andres Dee

    So the rest of us have to accept the consequences of someone’s refusal to take a f—ing bus?

  • lop

    Depends. What level of risk are you talking about? If it places a middle aged person at an elevated risk, but still less than the average male in his early twenties should you take away his license?

  • Kevin Love

    I am in favor of going with what has a proven track record of working.

    In those US states which have reporting requirements, the language tends to be similar to the Ontario example:

    “…suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for such person to operate a motor vehicle.”

    Obviously, one should err on the side of caution, so that innocent children and other members of the public do not wind up dead or seriously injured. Fortunately, such caution tends to be induced by the prospect of the doctor having his pants sued off for failing to report when there is a subsequent car crash and death or injury.

  • Kevin Love

    For those states with reporting requirements, the level of risk is usually that the medical condition makes it “dangerous to drive.”

    In each particular case, it will be the trial jury who is making the decision, “did the doctor commit medical malpractice by failing to report.”

  • lop

    You’re dodging my question. What level of risk relative to the general driving population are you saying isn’t permitted in your system? Is it still equitable in a rural part of the state where there is minimal if any transit service?

  • Kevin Love

    Huh? It isn’t my system. There are many states where this is in effect, and it seems to work just fine.

    The level of risk is that the person is “…suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for such person to operate a motor vehicle.”

    I am not aware of any state that gives an exemption for rural areas. It appears that people who live in rural areas also have concerns about not being killed and made dead.