The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Donal's picture

    Getting Around in the City

     

    Under the auspices of Mayor Bloomberg, Janette Sadik-Khan has been making NYC roads, some of them, safer for bicyclists and pedestrians alike. Favoring any traffic other than cars can be politically risky, as DC Mayor Adrian Fenty discovered while losing the primary. According to Colbert King at the Washington Post (hat tip Washcycle):

    In questions submitted by the audience, and in barbs hurled at the mayor by lesser-known mayoral candidates, three expressions of derision directed toward Fenty were used almost interchangeably: "The Washington Post" (which endorsed him), "dog parks" and "bike lanes" (both of which he champions). These are three thinly disguised code words for white influence. They also reflect a mind-set that holds that the city's dwindling black majority is being kicked to the curb.

    Of course Fenty primarily hurt himself by replacing black officials with white officials, and older black teachers with younger white teachers, but it is interesting that bike lanes are seen as infrastructure aimed at white folk because I see riders of all colors in Baltimore. But even though most cyclists also drive cars, people tend to see bicyclists as "intruders" disrupting the natural order of things, as evidenced by this flyer in California (Hat tip Cyclicious).

    Part of that attitude is certainly due to cyclists' own bad behavior. Last week, I drove to work because of a job site meeting, and was driving home by way of Charles Street, which varies from two to three lanes, and has a lot of traffic lights. Here comes a biker, no helmet, between the two rows of cars. He waits for opposing traffic to pass, runs the red light, then takes over the right lane. Even though I was in the left lane, and even though I'm a cyclist, I was pissed off at him for earning negative points for the rest of us. I tend to stay to the right, and have no qualms about using the sidewalk where the car traffic is too intense. Unlike some places, Baltimoreans seem very accepting of cyclists on their sidewalks. Bikes are banned at Inner Harbor during the busy hours, but otherwise, even the bicycle cops ride on the sidewalks.

    Back in NYC, however, pedestrians and cyclists hate each other with the sort of ire usually reserved for drivers and cyclists. Articles have been written about bicycle traffic, generating hundreds of comments, insults and threats, but the essence is that cars dominate the roads, and pedestrians are plentiful on the sidewalks and roads, so even careful cyclists have a hard time getting around without getting in the way of cars, or without scaring the bejesus out of pedestrians. And some cyclists are not careful at all, riding as fast as they can with little regard for people in their way, even other cyclists. Pedestrians are used to avoiding cars in the street, but bikes seem to come at them from all directions while they are busy with cell phones or lattes. A bicycle messenger machismo seems evident. I was a passenger in a BMW convertible in DC once, and a cyclist came towards the car full tilt. The driver, my boss, sat stone-faced until the cyclist banked sharply away at the last second. He told  us they did that all the time to try to scare people.

    But having lived in a few cities, I have to note that some pedestrians are even a nuisance to other pedestrians (meaning me). Groups walking together, for example, will walk two-by-two on narrower sidewalks, then spread out to the full width of the wider sidewalks, making it difficult to get past. In my neighborhood, people stop and chat right where the lightpole and ATM line reduce the sidewalk to nothing. People lurch out of shop doors without looking for other foot traffic, much less bike traffic. It is hard to imagine the two groups sharing the same spaces unless the traffic is light and people are unhurried, both of which are generally the case in Charm City.

    I used to be opposed to separate bike lanes because the ones I knew were bike paths with isolated stretches through fields and woods far away from streets and stores and safety. With bike lanes adjacent to well-traveled streets, I think Sadik-Khan is headed in the right direction in NYC, but I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg sees bike lanes as a companion political strategy to his stop-and-frisk cleanup of the poor for the benefit of well-to-do shoppers. And I wonder if that combination is what doomed Fenty in DC, and made bike lanes a symbol of white gentrification.

    Comments

    .

      In LA we have freeways . . .

    And plenty of crazy ass nuts and bicycle riding wackos . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NLmiuyLa98




    ~OGD~


    There are always those who will drive recklessly. Yesterday I was in a large group of cars driving on I-70 headed towards Baltimore. Drops of rain were hitting my windshield, but we were all doing 75mph. I was in the center of three lanes with cars all around, when two motorcycles passed us like we were standing still, weaving between cars spaced about as close as in the video above. Seconds later, four more bikes did the same thing, and two more after that. Half a minute later a large BMW snaked through the crowd of cars, which had spread out a bit, also at very high speed. A few minutes later a Caddy did the same thing.


    What you are really looking for, I think, is for people to use good judgment.  I doubt that can be legislated - or designed for them.

    Observationally, trying to impose designed solutions seems to create more of a mess at times, at least during the period of adjustment.  And that period of adjustment can be longer by far than anyone intends.

    Roundabouts are a very good example.  People in many parts of the country are not accustomed to them, and especially in busier areas, they have created confusion, in some cases to the point of hazard.

    "Calming" solutions can also produce unintended consequences.  When bumpouts and full-length left-turn lanes take parking off arterial streets and try to reduce traffic volume, many drivers will begin to detour down otherwise lightly-used side streets, without slowing down appropriately.  Many neighborhood residents then also begin to call for parking restrictions as the additional cars begin to land on the side streets.  This does have an adverse effect on neighborhood shopping districts, as it tends to drive people who can't find a place to park in order to shop at a neighborhood area toward the suburban big-box parking lots.  Helps the suburb and its tax base, doesn't do so much for the city in the long run.

    As I opened, this is something I doubt can be either legislated or designed.  It's an attempt to require people to use good judgment, when the normal human tendency is to look for the shortcut.

    I don't have ultimate answers for this.  Just observations.


    I bike around NYC, and I'm pleased that the city is putting in new bike lines, but I'm profoundly underwhelmed by the execution. Consider the picture of Times Square on the video you posted. That's called "shared space." In the picture, people are sitting in their seats, and the roadway is clear for bikes. In reality, pedestrians stroll or idle in the bikeway most hours of the day. It's virtually impassable on a bike. I travel on an avenue without a bike lane instead.

    I don't blame the pedestrians. I blame poor planners. The bikeway cuts through two pedestrian areas without even a curb to separate it, so of course pedestrians treat it as an extension of the sidewalk.

    On some avenues, the city has set up bikeways between the curb on the left and a parking lane on the right. This is safer, I assume, because there is a line of parked cars between the bikers and the avenue. The problem is that pedestrians in NYC stand as far as they can into the avenues while waiting for the light to change. So they stand in the parking lanes. And of course, they don't pay attention when they cross the bike lane to reach the parking lane even though the light is green. So if you're biking in one of these lanes, you have to be ready to stop for careless pedestrians at every intersection.

    But the pedestrians are just doing what they've always done. The city should be educating them about the change, with signs for example, in order to ease confusion and enhance safety.

    Reckless bikers are a problem too, and I'm for increased enforcement of biking violations, but let's not conflate bike lanes with reckless bikers. If a pedestrian gets hit by a delivery guy going the wrong way against a red light, that's obviously the delivery guy's fault. If a pedestrian gets hit while crossing a bike lane without looking on a don't walk sign, that's the pedestrian's fault.

    But the city might make it a little easier for everyone.


    If a pedestrian gets hit by a delivery guy going the wrong way against a red light, that's obviously the delivery guy's fault. If a pedestrian gets hit while crossing a bike lane without looking on a don't walk sign, that's the pedestrian's fault.

    If a cyclist who runs a red light gets hit by a car, is that the cyclist's fault then?  And will it be considered to be that way in court?


    I'm not a lawyer, but yes, I'm pretty sure it is (assuming that the car was not driving recklessly).


    I'm not a lawyer either, but when a car strikes a bike, either the cyclist is assumed to be at fault or the driver, "just didn't see the cyclist," as with Natasha Pettigrew, the MD Green Party candidate that was killed on a three lane road in suburban MD.

    "Pettigrew was training to compete in a triathlon when she was struck by the SUV. The 41-year-old driver continued for nearly four miles to her home before finding the bicycle lodged underneath her vehicle, Maryland State Police said. Police say neither speed nor alcohol appear to have been factors in the crash and so far, no charges have been filed."


    It seems that far too many people have an attitude these days Donal. Not just the cyclists or pedestrians.