Three articles about cycling - The first one relates to buses

[BrooklynBus]

Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Aug 14 14:38:42 2017

 

The first one relates to buses.

 

Don't Trust DOT Stats" http://www.qchron.com/editions/central/don-t-trust-dot-stats-on-bike-safety-or-anything/article_610bc5d2-7c7c-11e7-9998-af75bbe2f29e.html

 

Bike Helmets Yes, Lanes No http://www.qchron.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/bike-helmets-yes-lanes-no/article_9bd571e1-317f-5ba3-b2f9-8e9234203ec0.html

 

NY Times Op Ed - Wheels of Misfortune https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/traffic-bike-laws.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FBicycles%20and%20Bicycling&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection

 

Although Streetsblog consistently calls for manslaughter charges to be brought against any driver killing a pedestrian even if it was an accident, they don't believe the same should be true about the reckless cyclist who killed a pedestrian (in this article). Instead of saying anything bad about the cyclist, they criticize the New York Times for printing this op-ed.

 

Apparently they do not believe cyclists should be held to the same standards as motorists. Someone needs to point out their hypocrisy to them. I can't since they banned me for life for expressing my opinions which obviously disagree with theirs. They only want their one-sided opinions expressed and have no interest in fair discussions or democracy.

[BreeddekalbL]

Well i told you MM viverito wanted to pass a law that ALL BIKES were exempt from traffic laws 

[Interested Rider]

This is what happens when the "my way or the highway crowd"  will  not tolerate the views of others so they do everything to stifle any form of dissent. It is amazing how these individuals have forgotten about how our founding fathers fought to make sure that all opinions will be heard and not just their views alone. The bicyclists and vision zero crowd have an agenda that completely shuts off all dissenting views and unfortunately, it is the same agenda that many of our political leaders .have subscribed to in recent years. These individuals  almost all of whom hate the United States Constitution and the great country that our founding fathers bequeathed to us would prefer that we live in a country where there is no dissent and these elitists can do what they want  to the public.

[QM1to6Ave]

I miss the times when the NYPD cracked down on bike violations. 

[B35 via Church]

You'll get no argument from me when it comes to bicyclists, they get away with murder in this city.... One thing I don't miss about working in the village, is having the delivery guys Lance Armstrong-ing on the sidewalk.... I don't think many of these bicyclists realize that you can kill someone with a bike..... You have bicyclists that have a wanton disregard & quite frankly, a certain disrespect for peds - but at the same time, try to bully peds for sidewalk space because they're bullied by motorists on the roads..... Talk about a kick in the head.....

 

...without a helmet.

[Interested Rider]

What the cycling community has to realize is that until they clean up their act and get rid of their kamikazes that are making walking and driving quite dangerous, they will get absolutely no sympathy from us no matter what their mouthpieces spew out in the name of cycling to the media and their politician friends. What bothers me more is their mouthpieces and their supporters run a good game about what motorists are doing but the silence as to the number of accidents and fatalities caused by the cycling kamikazes is for more important to the walking public as compared with the motoring public in terms of accidents and fatalities. Has anyone noticed that the "vision zero" does not apply the cyclists who love to do their pedaling on the sidewalks instead of the streets where they belong? When it comes to having any sympathy for the cyclists, count me out!

[MHV9218]

Cars kill around 150 pedestrians each year (144 last year, down from 2015), along with lots of other car passengers and drivers.

 

There's a pedestrian killed from a bike maybe once every three or four years. We could do without this ridiculous, statistically unsound kind of fear-mongering that acts as if bikers pose anywhere near as much of a threat as cars. Bike-pedestrian fatalities, statistically, are almost meaningless overall.

[BrooklynBus]

Cars kill around 150 pedestrians each year (144 last year, down from 2015), along with lots of other car passengers and drivers.

 

There's a pedestrian killed from a bike maybe once every three or four years. We could do without this ridiculous, statistically unsound kind of fear-mongering that acts as if bikers pose anywhere near as much of a threat as cars. Bike-pedestrian fatalities, statistically, are almost meaningless overall.

There is no statistically unsound fear mongering coming from me. So according to you since fewer bikers kill pedestrians than motor vehicles, we can just forget about the 98 percent of cyclists running red lights and cyclists who injure pedestrians. Right?

 

DOT is who is using unsound statistics.

 

Using five year averages masks the fact KSI could have increased each year for the past ten years. Instead of extrapolating, let's look at the statistics we do have for cyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries for the past five years excluding accidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles.

 

We find that the total of injuries and fatalities increased for three years in a row from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 there were 4099 reported bicycle and pedestrian injuries and deaths. In 2014, there were 4792. In 2015, there were 5273. In 2016, the number was 4985.

Comparing 2012 and 2016, the increase was 11.4%. Comparing 2013 and 2016, the increase was 21.6%. Comparing 2013 and 2015, the increase was 28.6%.

 

So cycling may be safer looking at the years between 1996 and 2014. But why rely on 2 and a half year old data as DOT has done?

 

And by the way I dare you to tell the writer of he NY Times article that her mother's death was meaningless.

[MHV9218]

There is no statistically unsound fear mongering coming from me. So according to you since fewer bikers kill pedestrians than motor vehicles, we can just forget about the 98 percent of cyclists running red lights and cyclists who injure pedestrians. Right?

 

DOT is who is using unsound statistics.

 

Using five year averages masks the fact KSI could have increased each year for the past ten years. Instead of extrapolating, let's look at the statistics we do have for cyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries for the past five years excluding accidents between pedestrians and motor vehicles.

 

We find that the total of injuries and fatalities increased for three years in a row from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 there were 4099 reported bicycle and pedestrian injuries and deaths. In 2014, there were 4792. In 2015, there were 5273. In 2016, the number was 4985.

Comparing 2012 and 2016, the increase was 11.4%. Comparing 2013 and 2016, the increase was 21.6%. Comparing 2013 and 2015, the increase was 28.6%.

 

So cycling may be safer looking at the years between 1996 and 2014. But why rely on 2 and a half year old data as DOT has done?

 

And by the way I dare you to tell the writer of he NY Times article that her mother's death was meaningless.

 

I almost can't believe that you offer these figures and do so little to provide context or even accurately reference them. Cycling has increased 80% over the past five years. Those numbers are not controlled: raw accident statistics are simply the total number of incidents, not any measure of safety. Given the increase, it has actually gotten safer. Also, "bicycle injuries" proves absolutely nothing in the way of cyclists being responsible for accidents: that includes accidents in which they were hurt.

 

I'm really grossed out by the way you use these numbers in such a manipulative and deceiving way. 

[BrooklynBus]

I almost can't believe that you offer these figures and do so little to provide context or even accurately reference them. Cycling has increased 80% over the past five years. Those numbers are not controlled: raw accident statistics are simply the total number of incidents, not any measure of safety. Given the increase, it has actually gotten safer. Also, "bicycle injuries" proves absolutely nothing in the way of cyclists being responsible for accidents: that includes accidents in which they were hurt.

 

I'm really grossed out by the way you use these numbers in such a manipulative and deceiving way.

 

The statistics are all on DOT's website. They are easy enough to find. There is a crash data report for each of the years I cited.

 

I didn't say anything about cyclists being responsible for accidents which they were involved in so quit twisting what I am saying.

 

All you are doing is trying to make it appear that all cyclists are innocent victims which is far from the truth. Most of them are law breakers and many have zero common sense. Just last night while driving I encountered a cyclist at 11 PM traveling on the double yellow line, dressed in black, without any reflectors or lights. He was just asking to be hit. Luckily I saw him in time.

 

And you claim I am manipulating and deceiving. Explanation to me how DOT has fatality and injury data for 2015 and 2016 but doesn't have KSI data for these two years. It is DOT who is being manipulative and deceiving by drawing its conclusions first, then carefully selecting which data it wants to present to support those conclusions. Have you told that writer yet that her mother's death is a meaningless statistic?

[BrooklynBus]

Here is an article that shows bike deaths and injuries are soaring. But instead of encouraging cycling by recommending more bike lanes, they should be encouraging use of other modes like buses.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/bike-riding-isnt-childs-play-anymore-and-cycling-crash-deaths-are-soaring/2017/08/23/abbcb22e-8773-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.b2d8a55e7a4f#comments

[MHV9218]

Here is an article that shows bike deaths and injuries are soaring. But instead of encouraging cycling by recommending more bike lanes, they should be encouraging use of other modes like buses.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/bike-riding-isnt-childs-play-anymore-and-cycling-crash-deaths-are-soaring/2017/08/23/abbcb22e-8773-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.b2d8a55e7a4f#comments

 

Another fabulously stupid take.

 

1) Bike injuries soar as biking booms while infrastructure lacks. More bike lanes has been proven, time and time again, to mean safer biking. Better biking infrastructure means safer cycling.

 

2) This is not an either-or, so please don't try to manufacture that impression. Buses and cycling work in concert, because they reduce the number of cars on the road. More bikes mean less traffic and faster buses. It's really quite simple. Furthermore, most street redesigns incorporate BRT or bus lanes alongside bike lanes. 

 

This stuff isn't rocket science. I understand that you prefer cars to any other mode of transportation, but try not to be too selfish about this stuff. I drive too. When I do, I know that my car matters less than a bus full of people, and that I'm taking up needless space that could be better served by biking, walking, or using public transportation. 

[BrooklynBus]

When you build more bike lanes you increase the numbers who cycle to commute. That increases the number of bike injuries and deaths.

 

Buses and cycling do not work in concert. On two way streets, they interfere with buses pulling in and out of bus stops and do not reduce the numbers of cars on the roads. If the bike lanes did not exist, those bike riders would not go and purchase a car. They would use the bus or train. They only prefer cycling because buses and subways are unreliable and more expensive.

 

Actually, it's not "quite simple". It makes no sense to inconvenience hundreds of thousand each day to install bike lanes on Queens Blvd for example, to benefit only 2,000.

 

And no I do not prefer cars to any form of transportation. I only use my car when it makes the most sense. Why should I take a 90 minute bus trip when my car gets me there in 20 minutes? I have been fighting my entire adult life for better bus service and actually have accomplished that. My B1 is the seventh most ridden route in Brooklyn. That's more than you can say.

 

We need to invest more in buses with more direct routing, More routes that reduce the number of connections required. A change in the fare structure that doesn't penalize someone needing no three or four buses to make a trip and an increase in reliability. SBS along existing routes accomplishes none of that. Investing in sensible bus routing improvements that do not penalize automobile drivers is far more prudent than investing in constructing additional bike lanes that injure people and are difficult to use during inclement weather.. That isn't rocket science either. It is common sense.

[MHV9218]

When you build more bike lanes you increase the numbers who cycle to commute. That increases the number of bike injuries and deaths.

 

Not really. Bike lanes are proven to decrease the number of injuries on a given road. On top of that, cyclists are statistically safer traveling in packs that are predictable and visible for drivers. Even an influx of cyclists on a major thoroughfare would probably see a net decrease or similar level of accidents once a bike lane was installed. It's the addition of commuters to roads with no infrastructure that leads to injuries.

 

Buses and cycling do not work in concert. On two way streets, they interfere with buses pulling in and out of bus stops and do not reduce the numbers of cars on the roads. If the bike lanes did not exist, those bike riders would not go and purchase a car. They would use the bus or train. They only prefer cycling because buses and subways are unreliable and more expensive.

 

Every transportation planner in the country would tell you that alternative forms of transportation (buses, subways, bikes) do, in fact, work in concert. You're making up your assertion that bikers would not drive, and I would be willing to bet quite confidently that there are significant numbers of outer borough drivers who would bike on short commutes if their routes were easier. We can look to any variety of cities with lackluster transit infrastructure and robust bike networks for evidence of this phenomenon, in which people do, in fact, leave cars for bikes. Copenhagen comes to mind, as does Stockholm, parts of London, Portland, Toronto, etc. Your anecdote about bikes interfering with buses at stops is both statistically meaningless and a strange assertion to make, as it's obvious to anybody who's ever ridden a bus that traffic is the most difficult thing to reckon with at bus stops (idling cars, drivers who refuse to yield to a bus pulling out, etc.).

 

Actually, it's not "quite simple". It makes no sense to inconvenience hundreds of thousand each day to install bike lanes on Queens Blvd for example, to benefit only 2,000.

 

Reducing and streamlining car traffic on a street like that through improved and safer bike infrastructure actually benefits drivers, who are no longer forced to reckon with bikes in traffic lanes, and encounter fewer drivers on the road. Safer, more streamlined roads with vehicles all traveling the same speed benefit all drivers. Secondly, if this were the philosophy--that the immediate number of riders is the permanent number--there would be no rationale for transit improvement anywhere. Why ever improve alternative transportation options if cars are going there anyway? It's because transportation improvement should both meet and anticipate demand, and people only switch to alternative options when those options are present in the first place. 

 

We need to invest more in buses with more direct routing, More routes that reduce the number of connections required. A change in the fare structure that doesn't penalize someone needing no three or four buses to make a trip and an increase in reliability. SBS along existing routes accomplishes none of that. Investing in sensible bus routing improvements that do not penalize automobile drivers is far more prudent than investing in constructing additional bike lanes that injure people and are difficult to use during inclement weather.. That isn't rocket science either. It is common sense.

 

A better transfer structure in a good idea. But "more direct routing" is both far less simply found, for the hundreds of routes around the city, than you suggest, nor is it a real solution. That's piecemeal at best. Actual service improvements like SBS are smarter and more productive investments. Bike lanes do not "injure people," they reduce injuries, and automobile drivers are not "penalized" when better transit infrastructure is installed. It's shocking to me that you ever worked in transportation planning with as closed and biased a mindset as yours.

[BrooklynBus]

Not really. Bike lanes are proven to decrease the number of injuries on a given road. On top of that, cyclists are statistically safer traveling in packs that are predictable and visible for drivers. Even an influx of cyclists on a major thoroughfare would probably see a net decrease or similar level of accidents once a bike lane was installed. It's the addition of commuters to roads with no infrastructure that leads to injuries.

 

Every transportation planner in the country would tell you that alternative forms of transportation (buses, subways, bikes) do, in fact, work in concert. You're making up your assertion that bikers would not drive, and I would be willing to bet quite confidently that there are significant numbers of outer borough drivers who would bike on short commutes if their routes were easier. We can look to any variety of cities with lackluster transit infrastructure and robust bike networks for evidence of this phenomenon, in which people do, in fact, leave cars for bikes. Copenhagen comes to mind, as does Stockholm, parts of London, Portland, Toronto, etc. Your anecdote about bikes interfering with buses at stops is both statistically meaningless and a strange assertion to make, as it's obvious to anybody who's ever ridden a bus that traffic is the most difficult thing to reckon with at bus stops (idling cars, drivers who refuse to yield to a bus pulling out, etc.).

 

Reducing and streamlining car traffic on a street like that through improved and safer bike infrastructure actually benefits drivers, who are no longer forced to reckon with bikes in traffic lanes, and encounter fewer drivers on the road. Safer, more streamlined roads with vehicles all traveling the same speed benefit all drivers. Secondly, if this were the philosophy--that the immediate number of riders is the permanent number--there would be no rationale for transit improvement anywhere. Why ever improve alternative transportation options if cars are going there anyway? It's because transportation improvement should both meet and anticipate demand, and people only switch to alternative options when those options are present in the first place.

 

A better transfer structure in a good idea. But "more direct routing" is both far less simply found, for the hundreds of routes around the city, than you suggest, nor is it a real solution. That's piecemeal at best. Actual service improvements like SBS are smarter and more productive investments. Bike lanes do not "injure people," they reduce injuries, and automobile drivers are not "penalized" when better transit infrastructure is installed. It's shocking to me that you ever worked in transportation planning with as closed and biased a mindset as yours.

"Bike lanes are proven to decrease the number of injuries on a given road."

 

The article showed that with increasing bike traffic comes increased bike injuries and deaths. Period.

 

I have never seen cyclists traveling in packs unless they are traveling with a group of friends. Do you really think that bike lanes on every street would increase bike traffic so much and reduce car traffic so much that it will be common to see bikes come in packs?

 

You mention Copenhagen which has so many bikes they have to deal with bicycle traffic congestion.

 

You also believe it is a good idea for all vehicles to be traveling at the same speed. So your goal is to create so much traffic congestion by stalling bike lanes everywhere so that cars can travel no faster than bikes. Unfortunately, it appears DOT agrees with you because Transportation Alternatives seems to be determining our transportation policy. You will find few drivers who agree and believe that they should not travel any faster than a bike. It would not benefit everyone as you contend but will slow just down auto travel which is your goal.

 

Drivers refuse to yield to buses pulling out of bus stops because it is not the law. I have asked my state assemblyman to introduce this in Albany and he will not give me an answer why he won't.

 

More direct bus routes enabling more direct and fewer connections is a real solution. We have bus routes based on hundred year old travel patterns and the MTA has no desire to modernize and improve the system. They would rather just cut service to reduce operating costs.

 

You call SBS a "service improvement" when there is no data available to indicate that is the case. Buses traveling faster does not equate with bus passengers making trips in less time. And data totally ignores the effect on other forms of travel whose trip times are increased. DOT is currently planning a B82 SBS with exclusive lanes where the buses are already traveling at average speeds of over 20 mph. Those lanes will decrease travel speeds for everyone else and not even help bus riders. Most SBS routes have been losing patronage and all cost more to operate annually.

 

My mind is quite open. I won't accept blanket statements like SBS has been a tremendous success when the evidence is not there to support that. I am also not willing to inconvenience a hundred thousand for the benefit of two thousand. Any planner will tell you the goal of any change is to help more than you hurt.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Not really. Bike lanes are proven to decrease the number of injuries on a given road. On top of that, cyclists are statistically safer traveling in packs that are predictable and visible for drivers. Even an influx of cyclists on a major thoroughfare would probably see a net decrease or similar level of accidents once a bike lane was installed. It's the addition of commuters to roads with no infrastructure that leads to injuries.

 

Oh please. You're one to talk about biases... There are plenty of dangerous bikers out here along with the drivers. As a pedestrian, I find their behavior appalling, especially in Manhattan. You can't cross the street because even though you have the light, they will speed up so they can blow by you and not have to stop, especially those messengers. We don't need more bike lanes. We need measures to mitigate congestion and allow for better traffic flow.

[BrooklynBus]

Oh please. You're one to talk about biases... There are plenty of dangerous bikers out here along with the drivers. As a pedestrian, I find their behavior appalling, especially in Manhattan. You can't cross the street because even though you have the light, they will speed up so they can blow by you and not have to stop, especially those messengers. We don't need more bike lanes. We need measures to mitigate congestion and allow for better traffic flow.

That's the thng about bicycle advocates. You will never hear them blame a cyclist for doing anything wrong.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's the thng about bicycle advocates. You will never hear them blame a cyclist for doing anything wrong.

Yes I know. Yet another example of his hypocrisy. I was crossing 6th Avenue just the other days and even though we had the light, we had to wait while obnoxious messenger and another guy making a delivery on a bike came through. 

[BrooklynBus]

Yes I know. Yet another example of his hypocrisy. I was crossing 6th Avenue just the other days and even though we had the light, we had to wait while obnoxious messenger and another guy making a delivery on a bike came through.

 

He says bikes and buses work in concert but when my friend was getting off a bus, she nearly got run over by a speeding bike although he saw the bus stopped with its door open. The only reason why the bike missed her was because she was slow in getting off the bus.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

He says bikes and buses work in concert but when my friend was getting off a bus, she nearly got run over by a speeding bike although he saw the bus stopped with its door open. The only reason why the bike missed her was because she was slow in getting off the bus.

Not surprised. A lot of these bicyclists think they own the road.

[BreeddekalbL]

Surprisingly you know who opposes the renovation of streets on queens blvd the old nemesis koslowitz

Not surprised. A lot of these bicyclists think they own the road.

Especially when you have a city that rolls out the red carpet for them and basically tells walkers good luck.

[Interested Rider]

I am tired of the cyclists not taking responsibility for their own actions and both Via Garibaldi & Brooklyn Bus are correct as to what is wrong with cycling today. The reason that there are laws on the books for motorists is that when a person drives a car, there is a large amount of responsibility that goes along with it. It is also the reason that motorists have to take tests to prove that they are knowledgeable in the rules of the road. There are penalties for motorists for failing to follow rules and regulations and during my time in corrections, i saw many motorists who paid the price for failing to follow the law.. 

Crossing the street in Manhattan is a nightmare even though I wait a couple of seconds after I am able to cross to allow for the stupid ones when they are on a bicycle or in a car. I do the same where I live with one major difference; the stupid ones are not only on street, they are on the sidewalk as well. I do not have a pair of headphones so that I can hear if a car is coming but  the vast majority of cyclists do not even have a warning bell which should be used on the street to warn pedestrians and cars of their approach. Cameras do not work as even though they can catch the motorists what about the cyclists who do not have plates and therefore are not registered, they can get away scot-free. What is fair, is fair and the cyclist that disregards the rules should be punished just like the motorist who fails to abide by the rules. When i am walking across the street and a cyclist stops to allow me to cross, i say thank you to him as it serves to reinforce positive behavior and I do the same thing with motorists. it is bad enough that I have to watch for those as I cross the street with the light but why should I put my life in danger when I am walking on a sidewalk that is for pedestrians?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I am tired of the cyclists not taking responsibility for their own actions and both Via Garibaldi & Brooklyn Bus are correct as to what is wrong with cycling today. The reason that there are laws on the books for motorists is that when a person drives a car, there is a large amount of responsibility that goes along with it. It is also the reason that motorists have to take tests to prove that they are knowledgeable in the rules of the road. There are penalties for motorists for failing to follow rules and regulations and during my time in corrections, i saw many motorists who paid the price for failing to follow the law.. 

Crossing the street in Manhattan is a nightmare even though I wait a couple of seconds after I am able to cross to allow for the stupid ones when they are on a bicycle or in a car. I do the same where I live with one major difference; the stupid ones are not only on street, they are on the sidewalk as well. I do not have a pair of headphones so that I can hear if a car is coming but  the vast majority of cyclists do not even have a warning bell which should be used on the street to warn pedestrians and cars of their approach. Cameras do not work as even though they can catch the motorists what about the cyclists who do not have plates and therefore are not registered, they can get away scot-free. What is fair, is fair and the cyclist that disregards the rules should be punished just like the motorist who fails to abide by the rules. When i am walking across the street and a cyclist stops to allow me to cross, i say thank you to him as it serves to reinforce positive behavior and I do the same thing with motorists. it is bad enough that I have to watch for those as I cross the street with the light but why should I put my life in danger when I am walking on a sidewalk that is for pedestrians?

Not only in the street but some of them even come onto the sidewalk at full speed out of nowhere. This has happened on numerous occasions, and my immediate reaction is shock because they jump on the sidewalk from anywhere and then the why in the hell are you riding a bike in the sidewalk and not in the street look? They look at me and usually apologize, but it's like why are you doing that in the first place? They also ride against traffic and you have to look everywhere before crossing. It's really out of control and there needs to be penalties for them as well, just like drivers, as they are reckless.

[Statty]

Lately I've been seeing many bicycles not stopping at red lights. Especially when a bus is pulling into a near sided stop and a bicycle is coming around that same corner from the other end. Its problematic when the operator has to pull in.