Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error?
iquantny.tumblr.com
iquantny.tumblr.com
The short answer is that bicycle riding in cities sucks.
It's loud, slippery, uneven, blocked, takes a lot of physical effort, is full of unpredictable giant metal things that can kill you, teeming with large moving meat pillars that will jump in front of you at any moment, you're completely exposed to the weather and can't safely look at a map while you navigate. They've created a few strips of pot-hole ridden, double parked green pavement that they say is just for you but it's not safe even if you're being safe and extremely uncomfortable. Bicycle riding also happens though to be the fastest, most liberating way to get around and is good exercise so you put up with it, but you put up with it while annoying a few people yourself. You block lanes when you feel like it's safer to do so, cross red lights when you think it's safe so you save some time and so you can stay in front of the same wave of traffic as they already know you're there. Some times you make a bad decision that results in a honk but you've also been splashed, cut-off, bumped, blocked and almost doored and you don't have a horn of your own for when that happens. You're up against a torment of danger and uncomfortable that can kill you and the most you can ever do is make someone annoyed or maybe flip a mirror back. You start to realize that the cards aren't in your favor and that annoying drivers in their crash cages, with AC, maps, surround sound, horns, gas pedals and bucket seats really isn't that big of a deal. You just don't equate your presence on the road with theirs and don't think the same laws should apply. Not because you're magically above the law but because through years of experience you can see that the situations are completely different and require completely different attention. You think to yourself, the day cars weight 40lbs and go 15mph is the day you obey all the same laws as them.
Depends on the city
My only addition is why cyclists don't completely stop at stop signs. It's a LOT of work to get up to speed from a dead stop, so it seems a bit pointless to do it when you can clearly see that no one is in the intersection. Also, as you are trying to accelerate from a dead stop, it takes a while to get through the intersection. If there does happen to be a motorist there, they have to sit and wait while you (slowly) go by. It isn't necessarily legal, but cyclists not completely stopping probably helps everyone.
Cyclist red light running does affect pedestrians. Consider this guy who was killed in NYC. [1]
We all have to share the road. For cyclists, motorists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians in no order.
[1] http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/new-yorks-cycles-of-death-our-a...
I don't live in a city so I'm not familiar with bicyclist in that environment, but in the town I live in, which has a strong outdoor recreation community and a University, cyclists also do not obey traffic laws.
This town's claim of being "bicycle friendly" is questionable, but you can get most places safely enough. There are bike lanes or shared lanes on many streets, double-wide sidewalks (which can be used by bicyclists) here and there, and a bike accessible trail system that winds around and through the town if you're willing go a bit out of your way. With a strong cyclist presence in town most drivers are fairly comfortable sharing the road. I've been bicycling around town for several years, both for recreation and to save $400/year on a parking permit for work, and never been involved in an accident.
But I still see cyclist riding up and down sidewalks in the downtown area (which has signs every few hundred feet stating that cycling is not permitted on sidewalks) or cutting off cars at busy intersections (even if the intersection is being directed by a traffic cop). I have even, no kidding, seen a cyclist run a red light in the oncoming traffic lane at night with no lights, reflectors, or a helmet.
For instance, you even see bicycle cops riding their bikes on the wrong side of the street. If they're chasing a suspect or heading to a crime scene I'll forgive it, but they usually aren't in a hurry and are actually ignorant of the law they are supposed to enforce.
As a pedestrian I have been hit multiple times by cyclists on a sidewalk and in fact when I was in high school I knocked a pedestrian down pretty hard when I was rolling down a steep hill.
You know, this one I understand entirely. When I walk on a road without sidewalks, I always walk on the wrong side of the road, so I can see what's coming and whether they're paying attention. Getting mowed down from behind by someone not looking where they're going isn't on my bucket list.
If you ride with traffic and get hit, your relative speed at collision will be 15 mph and the collision will push you away from the car.
If you ride against traffic and get hit, you're dealing with a head-on collision at 45 mph relative speed.
That's why I always ride with traffic.
If you are going to stay on the road with other vehicles: You _never_ ride against traffic. Drivers are less likely to see you if you are biking where they normally don't anticipate any traffic. Even in a rural environment, biking with the flow of traffic gives the driver better visual cues that something else is on the road (you) and they have more time to plan their approach. It also gives them more time to find something appropriate to throw at you.
If you ride against traffic, then you still "don't see" the vehicles that are going in the same direction as you, and you are now on their left. Sure, they're on the opposite side of the road, but you don't know if they are paying attention or what. Thus: no more safety gained by riding on the opposite side of the road, where you aren't supposed to be.
The most dangerous area is, obviously, an intersection, where being on the wrong side of the road is demonstrably less safe[1]. After that, it's the blind spot over the crest of a hill. If you are going against the flow of traffic, you will be moving your slowest when you are in that blind spot. Moving with the flow of traffic -> moving quickly through that blind spot.
Knowing when a vehicle is coming up behind you, with plenty of time to react if necessary, is solved with a $12 helmet mirror.
Pedestrians, in the absence of sidewalks, do have the option to face incoming or outgoing traffic, and the usual choice is to face oncoming traffic as you suggested.
Additionally, the increase in speed differential (which is much more significant for cyclists than pedestrians) created by cycling towards oncoming traffic greatly reduces available reaction time of both parties.
When you are travelling in the same direction as the traffic there is usually still a speed differential but it is substantially less. While you no longer have the ability to see potential problems "coming at you", drivers have significantly more time to notice you and react accordingly.
Lesson learned: I'm the best driver in the world!
So rather than assume that the other drivers have come to the same conclusion that I have, I make it explicit by waving. Sometimes it's a little confusing if they try to wave you at the same time, but that's life.
So waving through someone who's not actively crossing is not correctly yielding the right of way. OTOH, drivers should bloody well expect pedestrians to start crossing in front of them when you haven't stopped yet (both states say that a pedestrian may not step out if there is inadequate room for the car to react and stop; by the contrapositive a pedestrian may step out in front of a car if there is adequate distance.)
Always be mindful of the people you're going to be making wait, though.
Better have good insurance. Defensively driving is the best way to avoid accidents and collisions. Always assume the other party will do something wrong, and you will be far safer because of it.
Imho, 4-way stops are terrible no matter how you slice it: in heavy traffic they're really inefficient not to mention difficult to navigate, and should be replaced with a traffic light. In light traffic they're also inefficient, and should be replaced with a yield from the non-dominant direction.
In Sweden the default rule at an unsigned intersection is that you yield to the right. This means there's a well-defined algorithm for conflict resolution without putting stop signs at every little intersection. Apparently the idea that you could possibly navigate an intersection without signage is absurd to Americans, though.
There are very clear right-of-way rules for this situation, and if both drivers can manage to remember those simple rules, no hand signals will be needed.
It will never be fully predictable: people make mistakes. It is always safer and better to assume that someone will do something unpredictable like run a red light. It could even be because of mechanical error.
When riding motorcycles in ~~Asia~~ some asian countries (did it for 6 years), you assume that people will run the red light. It happens, during rush hour, 100% of the time.
So, you drive appropriately and it is safer because of that.
Edit: changed Asia to some asian countries. I didn't want to be specific but ended up being to general which was wrong.
Similarly though, I wonder what would happen after a weeklong publicized clamp down on blocking the box.
Honestly, I have (almost) only ever seen NYPD officers standing around with nothing to do. I don't know if that's because they are drastically overmanned or because they intentionally deploy loafing cops for the deterrent effect.
It is what uniformed police officers are supposed to do in popular imagination. Many in evidence in most UK cities in the run up to Xmas.
I live in NYC, I have seen this happen.
Of course, it is much more difficult and disruptive to ticket a car that has just blown a red light at high speed, than a biker who has blown a red light. Unfortunately, the city isn't allowed to install red light cams in most places because of Albany. Red light cams would be a safe, fair counterpart to increased red light enforcement for bikes. That being said, very very very few people are injured and none are killed because of bikes running reds (neither collision in Central Park this year was at an intersection). Likely hundreds are injured and at least dozens are killed from cars running red lights every year.
I think cycling is great (I'm also a cyclist as well). But the fact they don't carry a vehicle registration shouldn't exempt them the rules of the public road to make them predictable users (and unpredictable users, such as those erratically lane splitting, jaywalking, reckless driving, under the influence, speeding, etc, should be penalized to encourage predictable use).
I feel the same as a pedestrian. I can't count the number of times I've had to jump out of the way of a cyclist running a red light. Predictability is important for everyone on the road so following the same rules as other vehicles on the road makes sense.
Here's the reality in NYC. Pedestrians ignore traffic laws. Cyclists ignore traffic laws. Cars ignore traffic laws. Everyone does whatever they want 24/7, and focusing on one group isn't going to fix the problem. The problem might even be unfixable.
Bicyclists can be a nuisance, but drivers are a menace. I know where I'd like to see enforcement concentrated, and it's not on the bicyclists.
When I'm walking in DC, I don't actually find cars that threatening, I've never been nearly hit by one living here 29 years. Bicyclists here have a dont give a fuck attitude towards every other user of the road/sidewalks though and I've nearly been hit on many occasions .
Cycling injuries and public road infractions are often under reported or unreported. Cyclists also have less protective gear (Kevlar padding, body armor, leather, less protective helmet).
At least vehicles that act like wildcards will eventually be pulled over, and with any luck, lose their driving privileges. You should always assume everyone on the road is a loose cannon--however, that doesn't mean you should be a wildcard in return (e.g not stopping at red lights).
[1] Should only be done at stopped or traffic below 15mph. http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/lanesplitguide.html
That's 40mph top speed recommendation for lane splitting. In practice I find I sometimes need to lane split at 50mph when traffic is tightly packed - drivers do not see motorcycles in their blind spots and side-view mirrors when you are riding alongside. I have had cars try to merge into me on multiple occasions when I'm taking the full lane and traveling at the speed of traffic.
When lane splitting, drivers either see me coming up on them in their side-view mirror (the angle of the side-view mirror works to your and the driver's advantage when you are between lanes), or I can see them prepare to make a lane change by signalling, turning their front wheels when stopped, or just pulling out without looking (which will usually happen ahead of you and give you time to brake - drivers do a much better job of not merging into cars in their blind spots, and that's what makes it safe to travel between two cars).
It's fine to put cars in a "probably won't do anything unpredictable" box, if the worst comes to the worst there'll be some paperwork to fill in (might not be true for you on a motorbike of course). A cyclist the worst thing that will happen will be to the cyclist.
My general rule, as both biker and pedestrian, is to not get in the way of others who have the right of way. They shouldn't have to change course or worry about you. Most pedestrians (and plenty bikers too) are absolutely clueluess though. They don't look for bike lanes, they walk in the bikelanes, they jaywalk without looking if a bike (or car) is coming, they open car doors without looking, etc. I think this frustrates a lot of bikers, so they end up not caring and trying to ride through a crosswalk full of pedestrians and doing other asshole things, but I don't think that's the norm.
As a reasonable adult, I know I shouldn't jaywalk or run a red light because they are rules, but I have confidence via my senses that I can do that with absolute safety and respect for myself and others.
IMO that should be the rule for everyone :) The point I was trying to make was that often in these sorts of debates I see a lot of finger pointing between drivers & cyclists, with the cyclists saying, "Yeah, but we're more vulnerable - you all need to be more careful and allow us to do XYZ". But then they ignore that there's a third party who is even more vulnerable and often the behavior the cyclists propose increases danger to that third party.
"that I can do that with absolute safety and respect for myself and others."
As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm AOK with people doing whatever they like in terms of traffic rules as long as it has zero impact on other people. Running red lights, jaywalking, etc - if no one is around, who cares? I jaywalk multiple times a day around the corner from my house - I live just off a busy main drag with very few crosswalks, so I just wait until there's a massive gap in the traffic on both sides and run across. OTOH I see people crossing that street all the time by just walking out and holding their hands up to signal to drivers that they should stop ... sorry, but no.
If there's a demand to enforce the rules more stringently in the name of safety, would those doing the demanding also want to see citations for jaywalking?
It doesn't appear to be about safety, as the statistics clearly indicate that it's currently safe. It appears to be about making money and possibly discourage cycling.
Speaking as someone who bikes/takes transit everywhere (in Seattle, not NYC), what an oxymoron. I'm not saying that at every single stop sign you have to come to a complete, foot-on-the-ground stop, but running lights is ridiculous and will do nothing but increase the hatred for all cyclists held by drivers by antagonizing them. Every OTHER form of transportation seems to do just fine "stopping at every goddamn light". Get off your high horse - even if a bicycle running a light isn't the same threat to public safety as a multi-ton steel death machine doing so, claiming that you can do so and be a "safe cyclist" will do nothing but hurt your credibility.
I've heard that some states legally treat red lights and stop signs as yield signs for bicyclists, and I think that's reasonable. I view what I do as the same as jay walking... Technically illegal, but no one is going to stand and wait at a cross walk for 30 seconds for a light to change when it's clear there's no one coming.
That's my philosophy. I primarily walk, but at times drive & bike.
My take is that iff there is no one else who could possibly be impacted by it that running stop signs and red lights is AOK.
The problem I often see with this is that most people only consider one of the other two modes of transportation (no on cares about Segways, muahaha!) and forgets the other one - often the pedestrians.
What I really hate is a pack of cyclists blowing past a red light when my kids are walking with me across a sidewalk (example: Riverside Drive).
I am sorry but I felt it was obvious I wasn't talking about parked cars.
As for the drivers worrying about unexpected cyclists getting in their path.. no, that has nothing to do with the colour of the light. Yes, it may be a concern, just like unexpected cars getting in their path might be a concern. And it has nothing to do with the colour of the light. So it pays to approach an intersection carefully. Because if you drive enough, you may eventually find out that some intersections don't even have lights to begin with, and a car or a cyclist might've misjudged your speed. Yes, even I could make such a mistake and misjudge someone. That's the risk we all take in traffic. Red doesn't mean unsafe. Green doesn't mean the path is clear. What do you do when the light blinks yellow or turns off? What do you do when the light turns green for you and also for the cyclist next to you?
I run reds, but I judge the safety of it just as I would if there were no lights, or as if I were crossing where there's no intersection. And yes I do account for the fact that drivers are not going by the standard yield rules in a light-controlled intersection. I'm not reckless.
Certainly does not stop at every red light. Specifically pedestrians. Bikes are more maneuverable and faster than pedestrians while decreasing safety only by the slightest margin if even any. I honestly don't see the problem.
Also I think it's important to note that there is no term for "safely crossing an intersection even though the light is red." That and blowing through indiscriminately are both referred to as "running" which I think contributes to a large problem in perception.
This is a case where if something is done relatively infrequently, it is quite safe. But once it becomes common, it is very unsafe. A lot of other traffic laws are the same.
I agree that running red lights is bad in the general case, however I do have some exceptions. In certain circumstances waiting for the light to turn is leaving me in a vulnerable position, or a place where I'm going to block traffic and piss off a lot of drivers. In these cases sometimes I dismount and walk, sometimes I ride out slowly as a pedestrian (London intersections tend to be 3-phase with the walk cycle being all directions, also there are no turns-on-red).
This makes some people angry who want to stick their head in the sand and pretend a bicycle is the same as a motor vehicle. The problem is that it's not. If you are a fast rider in a dense urban area such as London you can at times approximate being a vehicle, but slow riders or fast uncongested roads you can't.
For me it's all about safety and courtesy. I am courteous to pedestrians and I am courteous to motor vehicle traffic. For instance, I move over to let cars pass and I don't take any more space than is necessary to be safe. If a car is stuck behind me I try to go as fast I can until it's safe to make room for them to pass. Similarly if I'm stuck in an unsafe position I may do a technical illegal maneuver to get out of it. This pisses some people off sometimes, usually drivers who have never pedaled in an urban environment ever, but you know what? It's my ass out there on the line and being at times a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian in equal shares, I have a better idea what is safe and considerate than most.
Because of all this, the "Idaho Stop" is a recognized, lawful traffic behavior for cyclists in many jurisdictions. It lets them treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs.
Someone claiming to be a safe cyclist who runs red lights may present poorly to people who only drive, or who imagine a cyclist speeding through a red light at 20+ MPH, but it's not an oxymoron and it should be understood by someone who is familiar with cycling.
I believe many jurisdictions allow bicyclists to proceed through a red light if they stop and wait for a minute or two and the light doesn't change, as a way to compensate for sensor-activated lights that bicycles won't trigger. But that's quite different.
I doubt this applies in NYC, though. If you're proceeding through a red light just to save 60 seconds waiting for the light, you're doing it wrong.
So you combine terrible infrastructure for bikes with road rules that don't protect them, relegate them to the sides, but expect them to follow all of the car-designed rules, which often make no sense for vehicles going <15mph with very low momentum and much, much better vision for the driver.
It's the old UI adage, "the user isn't wrong".
It also makes is more dangerous for me to stop at red lights - because cyclists are bottlenecks in road. they can easily cause a lot of cars to slow down. I have had situations where I stopped at a red light and 4 huge lorries were behind me and once the signal got green they tried to overtake me.It was a really scary ride. If I got ahead on the mostly empty road I could moved ahead enough to reduce the time I was a bottleneck on the road benefiting both the car drivers and me.
I've yet to be hit, but I've come damn close many times. To add insult to injury, most of the time the cyclists has yelled at me to watch where I'm going. The hypocrisy of that one astounded me.
Based on my comprehensive understanding (watched The Wire and read articles), made up stats and policing are old buddies.
Resources allocated in one realm means a dip in another. Using bad stats to justify a reallocation should be alarming to local residents.
If you've ever commuted via bike, you probably understand how little sense it makes to stop at every sign and roll no lights.
(Note that I'm not saying that these law breaking activities are equivalent; only that there are a multitude of laws that are not enforced, and a change in enforcement is indeed a policy change.)
Anyway, the cops should be focused on those who are in tenuous control of two tons of steel, going three times the speed of a bicycle.
There are lots of flaws in the NYPD's approach to investigating traffic incidents:
10 cyclists were killed in 2013, 17 in 2012. In 2013 there were 4,000+ cyclist injuries citywide. ( http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrians... )
The other issue is that that the NYPD does a very poor job investigating traffic incidents... There are 19 investigators citywide (with a 40,000 member police force) and patrol officers routinely screw up the recording of data. ( http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/02/15/nypds-lax-crash-invest... )
Understanding the process in filling out reports and understanding what the data means is critical to analysis. The type of data in this dataset and the quality of the data make it difficult to draw conclusions. In a big city like NYC minor stuff like bike accidents where someone doesn't die, the police either won't get called or won't flush 20 minutes down the toilet filling out reports.
It's not necessarily a mathematical error. You can make any set of stats show pretty much anything you want. From that same data, one could conclude that collisions on bicycles only ever occur on intersections, and therefore we need to invest more in underpasses, which are completely safe, as this data shows no collisions in underpasses. Underpasses save lives.
Magic, eh?
Bike Lanes by Casey Neistat.
For instance - "cyclist accidents that caused deaths" : 2013: 0, 2014: 0
Jill Tarlov was killed by a biker in September:
http://gothamist.com/2014/09/22/jill_tarlov_central_park.php
Irving Schachter was killed by a biker in August:
But the premise of the article asks if the 5th Precinct plans to "start ticketing more cyclists". The tweet didn't say that. It said they'll be enforcing violations, which is what you expect police officers to do with laws that are on the books.
You're right - maybe the stats are bad, and the post is right to ask for clarification. But the post assumes the tweet means they'll change their enforcement tactics, and I don't read that in this tweet.