Today’s Headlines

  • Still More Streetcar Questions Than Answers (Politico, Post, Bklyn Paper)
  • More on de Blasio’s BQX Pep Rally: GothamistAMNY, NY1, DNA
  • Driver Critically Injures Staten Island Cyclist (Advance 1, 2)
  • Crain’s Speculates on How Mayor and City Council May Come to Terms on Rezonings
  • Staten Island Officials Pin Economic Hopes on Cuomo-Subsidized Mall (Politico)
  • Citi Bike Riders Took 6,000+ Trips as Temps Dropped to Single Digits (WNYC)
  • Bratton: NYPD Recruits Can Park Wherever They Want Near Queens Police Academy (Times Ledger)
  • DOT to Study Street Hazards in Greenpoint and Williamsburg (Bklyn Paper)
  • Someone Needs to School UWS Crank Joseph Bolanos on What “Conflict of Interest” Means (WSS)
  • NYPD Brainstorms a Kinder, Gentler Times Square Station (Post)
  • It’s Difficult to Hold Negligent Motorists Accountable When Judges Drive Drunk Too (News)

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • AMH

    Can we please do away with the obligatory but worthless “It is unclear if the cyclist was wearing a helmet.”

    “A mangled bicycle can be seen laying [sic] in the middle of Richmond Road…”

    And should we even trust a paper that doesn’t know the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs?

  • Oh I wouldn’t say it’s a worthless line… it has a ton of impact in reminding readers of the idea that cyclists contribute negligence to all collisions in which they’re involved simply because they’re there! If you die or are gravely injured and you cannot state to a reporter you were wearing a helmet at the time of the collision, then the reader should know that you have no real appreciation of safety! So it’s all your fault.

    Never is the premise that a driver was likely to have done something incredibly wrong if they have hit a cyclist at enough speed to cause a fatal injury, helmet or not… which, if you study motor vehicle collisions with vulnerable street users, you see quickly that “driver clearly not at fault / not contributing” in these cases is extremely rare and mostly impossible.

  • Maggie

    The New York Post piece on NYPD’s plan to put $3.5 million in informational kiosks and expanded surveillance into its Times Square station is pretty astonishing.

    This already is perhaps the most public-friendly stations NYPD has. Why? It’s well-designed, it’s in the heart of a top tourist attraction, and most unique for the NYPD: there aren’t police officers’ cars parked all over the sidewalk in front of it. It’s one of the only stations that doesn’t telegraph shameless corruption, open tolerance for NYPD lawbreaking, and counter-productive apathy for the neighborhoods NYPD works in.

    Hopefully there’s strong oversight. If the NYPD is overfunded by $3.5 million, it’s a drop in their budget, but the city has myriad unmet needs for this money.

  • neroden

    Bratton: lawless criminal encouraging criminality.

    Citizen’s arrest time? Not yet, probably. But seriously, how can his approval of illegal parking by NYPD be tolerated?

  • bolwerk

    An able prosecutor could probably make a case against the culture of brutality Bratton has propagated. The same goes for Ray Kelly. What it would take is a populist backlash leading to an anti-authoritarian sweep of the DA offices. Unfortunately, I don’t think most people even understand this, even if will could be found to do it.

  • bolwerk

    It’s too bad all the armchair fiscal conservatives who whine about transit improvements don’t aim their pens at the NYPD. It might do some good.

  • Andres Dee

    And in the worst case “I didn’t see her”. “Well, OK then.”