Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
BrooklynBus

Can We Trust DOT About Buses and Bicycles?

Recommended Posts

Another endless whine. Please stick to buses, where the rhetoric is only tired, as opposed to bikes, where the rhetoric is dangerous:

"Last week, the Queens Chronicle reported a traffic fatality at 91st Avenue and a bike rider injured at 1 a.m., both on Woodhaven Boulevard, when motorists do not expect to see cyclists on the road"

What the hell sort of lazy excuse-making is that? Drivers only have to pay attention at certain hours, and if a cyclist is out at night, they shouldn't have surprised the driver? 

"so why should we believe the DOT that more protected lanes and further encouragement of cycling will make cycling safer?"

It is widely understood by every transit planning official in the world that cycling safety increases as a critical mass of cyclists develops, and that separating cyclist traffic from car traffic is part of that safety. Consider nearly any northern European city where this experiment has been taken seriously, or even places like London which have improved their infrastructure in similar ways. It is a good thing you're not making planning decisions when you demonstrate this kind of resistance to statistical reality or accepted evidence. I have my many qualms with the DOT too, but this is not something they've made up themselves.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

It is widely understood by every transit planning official in the world that cycling safety increases as a critical mass of cyclists develops, and that separating cyclist traffic from car traffic is part of that safety. Consider nearly any northern European city where this experiment has been taken seriously, or even places like London which have improved their infrastructure in similar ways. It is a good thing you're not making planning decisions when you demonstrate this kind of resistance to statistical reality or accepted evidence. I have my many qualms with the DOT too, but this is not something they've made up themselves.

THANK YOU! It's about damn time someone said that...

The willful ignorance to be completely unaware of what methods other cities have tried (and have proved to be effective) is ridiculous and in this context downright dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Another endless whine. Please stick to buses, where the rhetoric is only tired, as opposed to bikes, where the rhetoric is dangerous:

"Last week, the Queens Chronicle reported a traffic fatality at 91st Avenue and a bike rider injured at 1 a.m., both on Woodhaven Boulevard, when motorists do not expect to see cyclists on the road"

What the hell sort of lazy excuse-making is that? Drivers only have to pay attention at certain hours, and if a cyclist is out at night, they shouldn't have surprised the driver? 

"so why should we believe the DOT that more protected lanes and further encouragement of cycling will make cycling safer?"

It is widely understood by every transit planning official in the world that cycling safety increases as a critical mass of cyclists develops, and that separating cyclist traffic from car traffic is part of that safety. Consider nearly any northern European city where this experiment has been taken seriously, or even places like London which have improved their infrastructure in similar ways. It is a good thing you're not making planning decisions when you demonstrate this kind of resistance to statistical reality or accepted evidence. I have my many qualms with the DOT too, but this is not something they've made up themselves.

If anything, the concern should be about competent implementation of the concepts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't trust the DOT & at the same time, I will never understand this fixation with Woodhaven blvd.... But whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Another endless whine. Please stick to buses, where the rhetoric is only tired, as opposed to bikes, where the rhetoric is dangerous:

"Last week, the Queens Chronicle reported a traffic fatality at 91st Avenue and a bike rider injured at 1 a.m., both on Woodhaven Boulevard, when motorists do not expect to see cyclists on the road"

What the hell sort of lazy excuse-making is that? Drivers only have to pay attention at certain hours, and if a cyclist is out at night, they shouldn't have surprised the driver? 

"so why should we believe the DOT that more protected lanes and further encouragement of cycling will make cycling safer?"

It is widely understood by every transit planning official in the world that cycling safety increases as a critical mass of cyclists develops, and that separating cyclist traffic from car traffic is part of that safety. Consider nearly any northern European city where this experiment has been taken seriously, or even places like London which have improved their infrastructure in similar ways. It is a good thing you're not making planning decisions when you demonstrate this kind of resistance to statistical reality or accepted evidence. I have my many qualms with the DOT too, but this is not something they've made up themselves.

Let me ask you one question. Have you ever driven a car at night and encountered cyclists? Well, I have, and they are very easy to hit when they show up unexpectedly like at night without headlights or reflectors and cycling between the double yellow line or traveling in the wrong direction. What about cyclists who have a protected bike lanes and instead choose to use a traffic lane instead because they consider the bike lane too slow for them? I have seen that too. I have also seen cyclists at night who were only visible because of reflective strips on their sneakers. So quit blaming drivers for every crash with a cyclist, giving them free reign to do whatever they like, like 90 percent if them going through red lights. 

The more we encourage cycling, the more traffic fatalities there will be regardless if the rate of fatalities decline. It is not the solution to improving travel for the single reason that it is not an all-weather solution. The answer is improved mass transit with better service levels, not continuing to reduce the frequency of service as we are doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2019 at 11:32 AM, BrooklynBus said:

Let me ask you one question. Have you ever driven a car at night and encountered cyclists? Well, I have, and they are very easy to hit when they show up unexpectedly like at night without headlights or reflectors.

Yes, because every pedestrian and cyclist should wear high-vis vests and helmet flashlights so that the poor drivers can focus their tunnel vision elsewhere. 

On 8/9/2019 at 11:32 AM, BrooklynBus said:

What about cyclists who have a protected bike lanes and instead choose to use a traffic lane instead because they consider the bike lane too slow for them? I have seen that too.

This is 100% legal. There are many reasons why one might not use the bike lane; perhaps there's a pothole or debris, a car is parked in it, the bicyclist wants to make a left turn, etc. People change lanes.

Perhaps if one were to drive at a reasonable speed, then they could slow down in time once actually seeing a driver. If you're on a poorly lit road at night you shouldn't be driving very quickly anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Yes, because every pedestrian and cyclist should wear high-vis vests and helmet flashlights so that the poor drivers can focus their tunnel vision elsewhere. 

This is 100% legal. There are many reasons why one might not use the bike lane; perhaps there's a pothole or debris, a car is parked in it, the bicyclist wants to make a left turn, etc. People change lanes.

Perhaps if one were to drive at a reasonable speed, then they could slow down in time once actually seeing a driver. If you're on a poorly lit road at night you shouldn't be driving very quickly anyways.

You obviously hate all drivers because I notice how you carefully edited out my comments about cyclists going the wrong way, cycling between the double yellow lines and going through red lights. And the time I noticed a cyclist in the regular lanes, there were other cyclists in the bicycle lane. So yes, if there is debris or the lane is in poor condition, the cyclist doesn’t have to use it, but not because he wants to travel faster than other cyclists, because it is too slow for them. I see that you can never admit that cyclists can do anything wrong. As far as drivers going faster than they should, yes of course some do that, but by far most drivers drive safely and conscientiously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.