NYPD’s Willy-B Bike Path Security Theater Turns Into NYPD’s Delancey Street Bike Ticket Trap

Where there's poor street design, NYPD will be there to hand out tickets for non-compliance.

DOT’s planned redesign of the Willy-B approach still has westbound cyclists swerving around a concrete barrier, rather than going straight through it. That’s a problem. Image: NYC DOT
DOT’s planned redesign of the Willy-B approach still has westbound cyclists swerving around a concrete barrier, rather than going straight through it. That’s a problem. Image: NYC DOT

Over the weekend Casey Neistat posted a video highlighting a problem with the way bike traffic is directed coming off the Williamsburg Bridge onto Delancey Street.

The lane for eastbound bike traffic goes through a hole in a security barrier — installed after NYPD insisted on a raft of “counterterror” obstructions at the foot of East River bicycle crossings — and on toward the bridge. But westbound cyclists aren’t supposed to go through that hole. Instead, markings and signage — which are more than a little confusing — direct cyclists to turn left or right onto Clinton Street.

Street design that is counterintuitive to the way people naturally want to ride or walk is poor design. And where there’s poor street design, NYPD will be there to hand out tickets for non-compliance, which was the impetus for Neistat’s video:

Last year DOT released a plan to upgrade the approach to the Willy-B bike path. But rather than cutting out a second opening for westbound cyclists, the new design still expects them to swerve unintuitively to the right before proceeding on Delancey. For cyclists descending from the bridge, this won’t fix the problem.

On a related note, the current openings in the security barrier are already a tight squeeze anytime more than one person wants to go through. With bike traffic over the bridge expected to increase dramatically during the L train shutdown, the bottlenecks will get worse.

We’ve asked DOT if the agency might rethink the way bike traffic is directed here. We’ll update this post if we get a response.

  • MtotheI

    Mr. DeBlasio, tear down this wall!

  • Reader

    DOT could fix this, much like they could fix other NYPD ticket trap areas such as T intersections. They need to start thinking creatively and looking at how people actually move in this city.

  • J

    In terms of rule-following, you basically have 3 options:

    1) Create a design that makes it obvious and convenient to follow the rules.
    2) Enforce rule-following through consistent and heavy-handed enforcement.
    3) Accept a culture of rule-breaking

    NYC has been in #3 for nearly a century in a variety of situations. We sometimes veer into #2 policies but there is typically a backlash. There is very very seldom an effort to do #1. DOT has even codified #3 in policy through the creation of double parking lanes. Just bad policy making on all fronts, and very little is being done to change this. DOT has a lot of power to move towards #1 through a variety of policy options at their disposal, but they don’t appear to want to.

  • JarekFA

    The only time I’ve seen them do 1) was the time they created the the real short two-way bike lane from the Brooklyn Bridge in Manhattan to Spruce St (entrance to FiDi), which has been really useful (though in the mornings I don’t take the bike lane but rather ride in traffic so I can turn left with the light instead of waiting.

    I used to ride the wrong way for this short stretch every evening on my way home. The legal route would be a 6 block detour that didn’t feel particularly safe either. Everyone rode the wrong way for this stretch. But that’s the only time I’ve seen it.

  • There are two gigantic red signs that say WRONG WAY. One can reasonably assert that that this restriction is counter to how riders would normally ride, and that it should be changed. But to say that the signs are confusing is absurd. The signs couldn’t be clearer if they were blinking or spinning around.

    Those who think that westbound travel should be allowed in the centre of Delancey Street straight off the bridge should put pressure on the City Council; if I am reading the map right, that spot is in the district of Council Member Carlina Rivera.

    But don’t disobey two huge and obvious signs and then complain when you’re caught. We can advocate for more sensible rules without displaying a cluelessly arrogant “the law doesn’t apply to us” mentality.

  • Jeff

    Similarly, there’s a one-block contraflow bike lane on 23rd St in Queens under the 59th St Bridge that lets people go south from the bridge.

  • JL

    Nice video Neistat. How did you get the overhead traffic shot? BTW the cop speaking at the end is full of it about drivers are law abiding and cyclists are not. Ask him to stand at any N/S avenue intersection at rush hour and count how many cars go through after light turns red. It’s all about flow. I enjoyed his righteous tone, you should’ve called him out on stopping vehicular violence instead low hanging fruit picking. Being lazy is no substitute for not doing their jobs effectively.

  • Reader

    You’re wrong. The signs are absolutely not clear until you’re right on top of them. It’s a terrible design.

  • You can see the signs from a long, long way away. They are very big and very red.

  • Imagine if someone erected a long, low wall on a city block with a nice flat surface but at either end put up signs that said “no sitting.” Would anyone be surprised if people either didn’t see or ignored the signs and sat down? Would it be a good use of NYPD resources to ticket people for sitting?

    If people are doing this, they’re not scofflaws. They’re responding rationally to bad design! DOT needs to learn from this mistake, watch how people are actually using the design, and tweak it to make it intuitive and safe.

  • Man, here you go again.

    Great example: Plaza Street in Brooklyn. It was a one-way loop around Grand Army Plaza with a high level of salmoning. Wagging fingers at people on bikes didn’t fix things. Getting DOT to observe behavior there and install a two-way bike lane did.

    If this many people are behaving in a way that the city does not want, whether they are willfully disobeying the signs or not, then something is wrong with the design. It should be fixed. Asking “us” to behave in order to deserve a solution here is like herding cats. There is no “us.”

  • JarekFA

    Let’s go to the tape. Yes, they’re big and red (well, red on white).
    But they’re also vandalized with stickers and theres’a
    ton of others distractions to the eye in the background. I think you can win on an appeal given the degree to which they’re vandalized and not as prominent given all the background noise/distractions.


  • And look at the shark teeth, just in front of the cyclist’s front wheel. If you’re not a traffic engineer, would you know what those are? Or would you think they’re four arrows pointing forward?

  • Vooch

    you win the internet today

  • JarekFA

    I don’t ride in this area much but I did take Christie north and across Delancey (just a couple avenues over from where Casey was ticketed). Yah, no shortage of cars running the lights (see video in tweet — Note: The light turns yellow and the FHV has a long way to go, it doesn’t slow down, rather it speeds up to make the turn (which it didn’t) and then cross a very dangerous intersection). The bikes go “the wrong way” through there in very high volumes with little incident. If you get hit, it’d suck, but it won’t be fatal. I agree that they should signal to bikes to “slow down” but at the same time, people on bike want to be able to maintain some speed. A narrow gate I think serves that well. Let’s be honest. NYC DOT — while at times, do a decent job, are failing New Yorkers here . It quite obviously should have a center run protected lane, in the median, going all the way to Bowery. It’s so obvious.


  • JarekFA

    NYC DOT can stripe bike lanes on the side streets and ask bikes to enter via suffolk/clinton all they want.
    But people on bike aren’t 2nd class citizens who expect to go out of the way.
    They want to take Delancey for the same reason the cars do — because it’s the main arterial that gets them to their destination the quickest.
    I don’t feel safe at all on Delancey but many of people do and I think it’s quite dangerous given that cars are revving up to make the light to get on the bridge at speed and that’s just a recipe for disaster.
    See this tweet to see how the side streets for bikes regularly look. Such a disgrace that the nation’s most used bridge for bikes just dumps people like this — and then they have the gall to ticket the bikes for doing what’s most intuitive. https://twitter.com/jonorcutt/status/992135366567190533

  • OK, there’s no “us”; there’s only each individual.

    And each individual who chooses to disobey two gigantic red signs while riding right between them is misbehaving in a way that should not be defended, a way that cannot be justified by saying “the rule is stupid” or “the design is bad”.

    What’s worse is that this obvious disregard of two huge signs takes place in front of hundreds of witnesses who come away with the (not inaccurate) impression that bicyclists think that they are above the law. This leads directly to angry objections whenever a new bike-related advance is proposed in order to improve stupid rules or to fix bad design. So it is self-defeating.

    (Of course, these same witnesses, seeing a car blow the light at the same location, will typically not angrily conclude that drivers think that that they are above the law, and so we have to restrict driving in some way. This inconsistency in thinking on the part of the public is a measure of how engrained driving has become as opposed to cycling, which remains a marginalised activity.)

  • johnnieutah

    I ride the bridge daily and this never fails to infuriate me. When there’s even a moderate amount of foot or bike traffic the whole bridge approach is chaos. It doesn’t need to be this way! Even the other side of this SAME BRIDGE makes better use of traffic *and* security.

  • jeff

    Unbelievable. No sane person who needs to continue straight on Delancey would, instead of going straight and staying in the protected area, turn and expose themselves to highway-like traffic with cars coming down the bridge at 60+ mph, only to turn back onto the protected path 20 feet later. People ignore the “wrong way” sign because it’s stupid and dangerous and it should be ignored.

  • Simon Phearson

    They are very big and very red, and look nothing like most “wrong way” signs, and are posted at a point where most cyclists naturally assume, from the design, that they can proceed straight.

    If you’re riding down a street and encounter a stop sign in the middle of a block, with no apparent cross street or painted crosswalk, do you stop?

  • Simon Phearson

    Ferdinand likes to think that his wrong-headed pedantry serves some beneficial social good, but in fact his reflexive support for unchecked authoritarianism and apologia for windshield-perspective bias makes him a menace. He lends support to those who would wipe cycling infrastructure off our streets, while warning all of the rest of us that it’d be our own fault if that ever happens.

    He’s a menace and a lunatic.

  • $98 for this ticket.

    $50 for running a red light in a 2-ton vehicle.

  • qrt145

    And running a red light on a bike? $190!

  • eastphilliamsburg

    Does anyone have anymore detail from when the concrete bathtub went in (2011?) and why DOT is being so stubborn about it’s reconfiguration?

    I’ve heard a few theories about Federal or Port Authority involvement. But I can’t understand why another hole can’t be cut through, especially with the new Delancey lanes coming soon.

  • AMH

    Why don’t motorists have to swerve around a concrete wall to get on and off the bridge?

  • There is little that is more worthy of contempt than the windshield perspective, the idea that driving is the default state, and the related notion that “driver” essentially equals “citizen”. Decades of bad policy decisions predicated on this offensively wrongheaded presumption are responsible for the sorry condition of our city streets, which are not only infested by private autos operated by incompetents, but which are also degraded by the storage of these autos in public space.

    The fight to mitigate the harm done by these bad policy decisions is ongoing. And every little step of that fight is like pulling teeth, because of the entrenched unearned privilege claimed by drivers.

    When goofball bicyclists see two giant signs that say WRONG WAY (signs that could not be any more prominent if they were on fire), and then ride right between these signs to go the wrong f-ing way, this makes everything harder than it needs to be, because that sort of behaviour pushes our allies away. See the recent comments by Corey Johnson that conditioned his support for bicycling on bicyclists following the law; and see the betrayals by Jimmy Van Bramer and Ydanis Rodriguez, surely accommodations to bike-hating constituents.

    We need to understand the ugly truth that every illegal act by a bicyclist empowers those who want to stop the advancement of bike infrastructure (43rd/Skillman Avenues) and even get rid of the bike infrastructure that we have already achieved (Dyckman Avenue), people who want generally to keep bicycling marginalised. So the most helpful thing that any bicyclist can do is simply to avoid giving our enemies free ammunition.

  • Simon Phearson

    YOU are the one giving carheads “free ammunition,” by constantly chiming in with your asinine, unproven theory about scofflaw cycling behavior. YOU are the one coming out in favor of cycling detours that minimize inconvenience to drivers but put cyclists at risk. YOU are the one castigating other cyclists for their illegal behavior, when there are no drivers present.

    Even here, you are blaming scofflaw behavior for resistance to Dyckman’s lanes. But that example just perfectly shows how irrelevant scofflaw biking is. People oppose those lanes because of the way it has impacted (driving) traffic flow. Which is to say, people are upset because it makes driving scofflaw behavior’s impact harder to avoid. So notwithstanding the fact that drivers are complaining about a condition that their own illegal behavior is causing, you find a way to shame cyclists if we lose the lanes.

    You are, simply speaking, as near to an enemy of cycling as you can be. What you are doing here is simply unconscionable.

  • Bicyclists’ scofflaw behaviour most definitely drives complaints to electeds. We know this because the politicians tell us so. And it is obvious that these complaints swell the anti-bike voices that cause the politicians to back off of their support for bicycling-related measures, or to refuse to touch such measures in the first place.

    So every act of blowing a light or going the wrong way on a bike is effectively part of a very public campaign to halt the advance of bicycle infrastructure. Congratulations on the success of that campaign.

    A particularly dreadful effect of the windshield perspective that we can plainly see is the fact that bicyclists’ law-breaking is scrutinised in a way that drivers’ law-breaking is not, as a driver running a red light (or engaging in any other of their myriad constant offences) is never considered to be a valid basis for imposing restrictions on drivers. The windshield perspective inures most of society to drivers’ bad behaviour, and makes even the victims of vehicular violence virtually blind to it. This infuriating discrepancy between how people see driver misconduct versus how they see bicyclist misconduct is down simply to drivers being a hegemonic group, a group whose interests are taken for granted within society’s norms, while bicyclists are a marginalised group, a true “other” whose interests are perceived to lack legitimacy.

    This is profoundly unjust and unfair. And, like so much of what is profoundly unjust and unfair, it is reality in our backward society. We can fantasise about a world in which this condition did not prevail. Imagine a world in which the volume of bicyclists and cars were reversed: we’d have cities in which the vast majority of street users were using bicycles, and only a relative few cars were out there. In that kind of world, it would be bicyclists’ interests, not drivers’ interests, that would be taken for granted; and no one would look at any one red-light-running cyclist as a reason to take away bike infrastructure.

    It’s good to keep that fantasy goal in mind. But it’s also necessary to understand that there are a million real-world steps required to approach that goal. And every one of those real-world steps involves gaining and retaining the support of elected representatives.

    I understand the ideological position that you articulate: bicyclists should have what’s best for bicyclists, drivers and cars be damned. I even agree with that position. But, while I’m as ideologically-driven as anyone you’ll ever meet, I seem to have grasped something that you have not: namely, that ideology must not harden into dogma.

    Shouting absolutes (such as in the Queens Boulevard situation, in which you demand a bike lane running straight up QB all the way to the bridge), while ignoring real-world conditions (for instance, the fact that such a bike lane west of Van Dam Street would require a wholesale reenineering of Queens Boulevard that no New York politician who ever lived would support) is useless. Indeed, it’s worse than useless, because it casts advances (such as the 43rd/Skillman Avenue bike lanes which offer a nicer ride to bicyclists than a QB bike lane ever could) as defeats instead of the important victories that they actually are.

    Kindly get your head out of your own ass and join us here in the real world, where bicyling advocacy consists entirely of cultivating allies and of strategising and of picking battles — in other words: playing politics.

  • Simon Phearson

    I am not here to debate you, Ferdinand, or to read yet another one of your irrelevant tirades rehearsing the same exact points, over and over, with no new insight or correction of errors. I no longer believe you have the self-awareness or sophistication to do this or to recognize the harm you cause. I am just saying that you should be ashamed of yourself, and shunned.

  • Don’t debate me. Debate those legislators who, when asked about bicycle lanes, respond by citing constituents’ complaints regarding bicyclist behaviour. Go tell those politicians that they should ignore what they hear from voters.

    Or, you could wake the f up and understand that the less illegal riding that bicyclists do, the fewer complaints there will be, and the better our chances will be of winning legislators’ support. (The sad thing is that you probably cannot understand that; such is the monumental degree of delusion under which you labour.)

  • Simon Phearson

    Don’t debate me. Debate those legislators who, when asked about bicycle lanes, respond by citing constituents’ complaints regarding bicyclist behaviour. Go tell those politicians that they should ignore what they hear from voters.

    This proves nothing. Plus, it’s just factually off-base.

    I am so sick of your saying this, again and again. It does not matter how respectfully or thoughtfully I engage you, you never adjust what you say about this issue to address your obvious mistakes or to even anticipate common criticism. You just repeat yourself, again and again. Why? Why do you waste our time this way? And why should anyone pay attention to you, when it’s clear this is all you have to say?

    (1) Most politicians opposing cycling infrastructure are not citing cyclist behavior as a reason not to install it. They just aren’t. They cite lack of parking, loading, business concerns, congestion, and other factors that are less about providing an “amenity” to cyclists who don’t deserve it than they are just about changing the status quo.

    (2) Even when politicians do cite cyclist misbehavior as a reason to oppose cycling infrastructure, we have no reason that they are doing so honestly or accurately. For all we know, they are just riffing on their own pet peeves.

    (3) Even if we do assume that politicians are just honestly responding in good faith to constituent complaints, we have no reason to believe that those constituent complaints are particularly numerous or even, for that matter, accurate. An UESider might have a chip on her shoulder about “scofflaw cyclists” just because she had a close call with a fast delivery cyclist when she stepped without looking into a protected bike lane. We don’t have any basis for believing that being more or less compliant will prompt fewer complaints. That’s entirely your unmerited assumption.

    In the pile of absurdities that your argument implies or takes for granted, it’s important to note at this juncture that your advice to cyclists is not that they act legally, but that they appear to act legally. This is not actually the same thing. For instance, on my routes, I’ve come across about three of those “cyclists use ped signal” signs (though only one of those actually featured an LPI). The signs are tiny, hard to see, and easily missed. That said, where I see them, I have been legally proceeding with the LPI. I don’t think it’s any stretch of the imagination to suspect that the drivers I am leaving behind suspect that I am breaking the law; and certainly the pedestrians that continue to cross in front of me – against their light – do not expect me to be proceeding through the intersection, so they may suspect the same. Similarly, on Vernon, there is for much of its length an unusable two-way bike lane and a sharrow in the northbound lane of traffic. Drivers might well assume I ought to be using the bike lane, notwithstanding the painted sharrows, because it’s there. But I am under no such legal obligation.

    I could go on. Leaving a bike lane to avoid an obstruction or dooring risk. Safely sidling up to the stop line at the front of a line of stopped cars. Just using a protected bike lane. There are a whole lot legal maneuvers that drivers/pedestrians might complain about, and a whole lot of illegal maneuvers that drivers/pedestrians probably don’t care about (like the wrong-way sign at the bottom of the WB bridge, which probably only right-way cyclists care about).

    No, face it – this is your pet peeve, and one for which you won’t let a single opportunity pass without spilling another 600 words on the subject. It makes no sense, it’s not a factually accurate description of what politicians or policymakers are doing, it posits an implausible causal relation between the slightest appearance of a traffic infraction and official actions that demonstrably happen for unrelated reasons, and it compels the conclusion that we should all behave not as legally-compliant cyclists but as cyclists that drivers – the dominant, empowered class – might deign to view as acceptable.

    Maybe I should start calling you Uncle Ferdinand.

  • it’s important to note at this juncture that your advice to cyclists is not that they act legally, but that they appear to act legally. This is not actually the same thing. For instance, on my routes, I’ve come across about three of those “cyclists use ped signal” signs (though only one of those actually featured an LPI). The signs are tiny, hard to see, and easily missed. That said, where I see them, I have been legally proceeding with the LPI. I don’t think it’s any stretch of the imagination to suspect that the drivers I am leaving behind suspect that I am breaking the law; and certainly the pedestrians that continue to cross in front of me – against their light – do not expect me to be proceeding through the intersection, so they may suspect the same.

    This is an excellent point. This LPI thing has been very clumsily handled, and very probably leads to the perception of law-breaking where there is none, as you suggest. If there was going to be a pilot project, then the signs needed to be very big, to combat this possibility.

    There is little that we can do about poorly informed drivers who misinterpret the other legal manoevres that you describe as illegal. This tells us that, even if every bicyclist rode legally 100% of the time, there would still be a handful of complaints to elected officials. But the impossibility of ever getting the complaints down to zero is not an excuse for not caring about engaging in behaviour that surely prompts complaints. (And it is simply unreasonble to refuse to acknowledge the logical supposition that more incidents of such behaviour will tend to lead to more complaints.)

    You make a valid point as well about the distinction between following the law and appearing to follow the law; though in the overhwelming majority of occasions these are the same thing, because everyone knows what a red light means or what a WRONG WAY sign means, even if many people don’t know what sharrows mean.

    I will admit that I don’t care about a bicyclist breaking the law if witnesses are not going to hold that act against bicyclists. The best examples of this that I can think of are the Triborough Bridge and the bridge between Rockaway and Broad Channel. On both of those bridges, the rules state that bicyclists must walk their bikes. Yet it is inconceivable to me that even one out of the hundreds of people in cars who pass a riding cyclist would have the reaction “Look at those crazy bicyclists who refuse to follow the rules!”

    By contrast, we can be quite certain that plenty of people who witness cyclists ignoring the WRONG WAY signs at the Manhattan landing of the Williamsburg Bridge will have exactly that reaction, especially considering that most of the cyclists who zoom between those signs will merge a block later into westbound Delancey Street in the left lane, full daredevil style. This pisses people off just as surely as do those irresponsible morons who bomb up Manhattan’s avenues by splitting the lanes. The arrogance of such cyclists is palpable; to think that observers will see these guys as harmless and lovable scamps is not realistic in the slightest.

    So, even accepting your assertion that the key thing is not appearing to break the law, the ignoring of two flaming scarlet signs that are placed at eye-level and are twice as big as a cyclist’s head constitutes behaviour that most definitely appears to break the law.

    A bicyclist who runs a red light at 3am on a deserted street is most likely not doing anyone any harm, because that bicyclist might have been seen by literally no one. But if you’re riding over the Williamsburg Bridge, then people are seeing you, no matter what time of day. And you can rest assured that they’re judging you by what you do. Worse, they’re judging me and every other bicyclist by what you do. That’s the problem.

  • clarknt67

    I’ve been taking the Williamsburg Bridge more lately. Mr. Neistat is not wrong: The bicycle traffic flow around the approach is not well thought out at all. NYC can do better.

  • clarknt67

    Yeah, is what gets me. You can visually see a safe way to navigate all that dangerous vehicle traffic leaving and approaching the bridge by going directly straight into the safe harbor of the mostly empty median. But NO! You’re not allow to do that. For some reason that empty space is preserved, for nothing.

  • BruceWillisThrowsACar@You

    If they’re so concerned with cyclists not stopping for peds there, either separate us from them OR place a metric fuckton of speed bumps and bollards five feet apart prior to the ped crossing so that the intuitive design of going fucking straight can be implemented.

  • BruceWillisThrowsACar@You

    To be fair, the $50 motorist ticket is a civil violation from a red light camera. Us cyclists do not apply to red light cameras as far as I know.

    If a policeman tickets a motorist (as one would for a cyclist at traps which may be unfair or not depending on style of intersection) for a red light violation (which i havent seen them do but apparently there are ‘stats’ that back up their enforcement of motorists violating traffic devices) it is around 200 bucks.

    I still think regardless of camera or policeman witnessing a red light violation it should be incredibly severe for any motorist considering the inherent potential for injury and death they carry compared to any other class of road user.

  • BruceWillisThrowsACar@You

    Your last sentence is true, however it is most likely only so since pedestrians aren’t mixing with or permitted on the north side of the brooklyn end approach of the bridge.

    The manhattan approach is a clusterfuck with both peds, pedestrians, and motorists on either side which within feet intersect and conflict with each other unlike the brooklyn approach.

    All in all, the Brooklyn side of the williamsburg bridge for all methods of transport was designed properly. I don’t know what the fuck happened for the manhattan approach. Perhaps there wasn’t a graceful way to merge them all for whatever reason back then when it was initially designed or when the last amendment was performed.

    However, DOT’s current plan is better than what currently exists in a way, but it is still ass and they can make the mfing hole, place bollards 5 feet apart prior to the ped crossing, a fuck ton of speed bumps, and a yield or stop sign to help mitigate manhattan bound hill bombers from coming in hot or too hot.

  • Well, as it is, the police never pull over cars for red light violations so the only effective enforcement is the $50. And the police never give anyone on a bicycle a break (there’s no step-down ticket or automatic plea-out), AND they have to go to court for a whole day to fight the citation or attempt to plea it down, so yes that is still effectively $200+ for every first citation written. And then if the cops tail you for 2 more violations on the same stop (which they never do for cars, ever?) your one bicycle traffic stop is $1,700 because of the escalating fines, up to $1,000 on the third offense.

    This is exactly how the state & the police are enforcing this, so the technicality that “the same law applies to both bike and car” excludes the reality that the NYPD only enforces that law for bikes.

  • jeff

    I saw the NYPD doing this again yesterday evening (May 20). Four officers. If the city would just dip a bit further into taxpayer’s pockets, maybe we could have 6 or 8 officers there at all times and forever rid the city of bicyclists who try to stay in the bike lane instead of veering out onto Delancey st!

  • Ben

    i disagree guys. although the intersection is odd and looks like you want to go straight, it doesn’t make sense to do that and can be dangerous. the bike lane Casey wants actually ends at the red light up ahead anyway. The only reason the eastbound bike lane even exists there is because it is common for cyclists to get on the bridge from suffolk st (it has a bike lane). suffolk st is one way onto delancey so a cyclist coming off the bridge technically can’t turn onto suffolk. But where they want you to turn you can turn onto Clinton St. They also don’t have a westbound lane there because they do not want cyclists merging onto the far left lane of traffic on delancey with cars coming off a bridge at possibly higher speeds. all it would take is one inexperienced cyclist getting killed coming off Willy B that merged onto the fast lane of delancey and this same site would be asking what bozo designed that bike lane.


Will This Year’s “Operation Safe Cycle” Make Anyone Safer?

Yesterday NYPD showed New York that police do actually enforce the speed limit on local streets. Check out the radar guns on Broadway. Today the department is showing the city that cyclists get tickets too. NYPD’s “Operation Safe Cycle” is a two-week enforcement campaign targeting “hazardous violations that create a danger for pedestrians and cyclists.” […]