Remember all those people saying Citibikes were bad because bicyclists would be killed right and left? Now only doesn't that happen, but bike injuries in cities with bike share have gone down. This isn't surprising since we know more bikes equal more safety for bicyclists. But it's still nice to know. And I hate to jinx anything, but has a single person on a Citibike been killed? What is it about talking about bikes and helmets that makes people, including Washington Post headline editors, get so looney? Of course the initial story in the Washington Post reported the opposite, which was completely wrong.
That headline was half-ass corrected (in their words, "updated") to read: "Proportion of head injuries rises in cities with bike share programs"
God forbid the headline would actually report that injuries (including head injuries) are down.
And of course one would expect the proportion of head injuries to go up when more bicyclists do not wear helmets. (I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure that bike share riders are less likely to wear helmets.)
But total head injuries are down! In other words, an effective way to reduce head injuries is not to get bicyclists to wear helmets, but to get more people to bike, helmeted or otherwise.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Friday, April 04, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Pretty cool. Though honestly, as a biker, I don't understand why you want a circle. Bikes don't need traffic circles. Still, it's a great way to cross the road. Traffic circles are horrible for bicyclists.
Monday, December 30, 2013
For spending $650 million of your own money while making this city a better place. I've lived here 12 years. So it's hard for me to imagine this city without your rich cranky benevolence. And particular thanks for appointing Janette Sadik-Khan. We'll miss both of you, but her moreso! Muchas Gracias!
Monday, December 16, 2013
In New York (and most of America) all you have to say after your kill a bicyclist is, "I didn't see him (or her)!" That's it. You go home. No ticket. No crime. I guess you have to file a claim to get your car fixed. The Economist looks at hypotheticals in the Netherlands:
• Let's say a truck is making a turn onto a high-speed four-lane street in The Hague, and rides over a cyclist in the bicycle lane. The accident is witnessed by a very reliable observer whose testimony is likely to stand up in court—say, the prime minister of the country. Who is at fault, and will have to pay damages and/or face criminal penalties? Answer: the truck driver. • But what if the same accident occurs on a two-lane street with no designated bicycle lane, so the bicycle is riding out in traffic? And what if there are no witnesses or video evidence? Who is at fault then? Answer: the truck driver. • What if there was a separate traffic light for bicycles at this intersection, and the cyclist was clearly running a red light? Answer: still the truck driver. • Okay, so...what if the bicycle was coming the wrong way up a one-way street, arrived at the intersection at the same time as the truck, and despite the fact that the truck was on the right, the bicycle seized the right-of-way and dashed straight across the intersection? Answer: the truck driver would have to pay at least 50% of the cyclist's damages, unless he can prove there was no way he could have seen the cyclist. • Fine. What if a tornado is racing through the streets of some Dutch town, picks the truck up, and hurls it into the bicyclist, who is in the middle of running a red light while going the wrong way up a one-way street, no hands? Answer: the truck driver will probably not have to pay the cyclist's damages, unless the cyclist was 14 or younger, in which case the truck driver will have to make an extra effort to prove that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident. To sum up: in the Netherlands, if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, the accident is always assumed to have been the driver's fault, not the cyclist's.The logic? "The law treats pedestrians and cyclists as weaker participants in traffic." Needless to say, it's much safer to bike in the Netherlands. In conclusion:
This regulatory regime places an extra burden on drivers. That burden can be summed up as follows: before you turn, you have to check carefully in the mirror to see whether there's a cyclist there. That's it....So I guess it depends on how much one values human life, as against the inconvenience of having to look in the rearview mirror more often.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Thursday, October 03, 2013
Wednesday, October 02, 2013
The Bike Snob NYC does what NYPD doesn't: Investigates a car that killed a kid:
Read the whole post. It's good. In that sad depressing kind of way.
But, you know, it's the victim's fault because she wasn't holding mommy's hand:
The girl was not holding her mother’s hand as they crossed the street near 5th Avenue and 55th St. in Sunset Park around 3:15 p.m., sources said. The little girl drifted into traffic and was crushed by a white Cadillac Escalade, sources said.
So, take a deep breath and say it with me now:
No criminality suspected!
Now, I may be suspicious by nature, but when I see a little girl dying in the street I actually do suspect criminality. I know, call me crazy, right? So I looked more closely at the picture.
First of all, the windows on that car are more tinted than Lindsay Lohan's sunglasses, which is illegal in New York City. Fine, not a smoking gun, but it's a start. Next, I looked up the license plate number, which is also legible in the photo. The system only gives you information on parking tickets and red light camera violations, but I found that this particular vehicle had received three tickets for not having a valid inspection:
The most recent of which was issued this past Saturday:
I considered the possibility that maybe I'd looked up the wrong plate, but the system is pretty clear on the fact that these tickets were issued to a white Cadillac.
Okay. Even though we're talking about a dead child for fuck's sake, let's give the owner the benefit of the doubt. Let's say after last Saturday's ticket he went and got his car inspected, and so he was operating his car fully legally when he ran over the child. (You know, apart from the windows.)
No. Fuck that. I'm pretty confident that tub of shit Escalade should not have been on the road. And I don't want to let the driver off the hook here, but I also suspect that if they'd towed the shit tub after that third ticket it would now be sitting in the impound at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and not on top of a dead child. If someone can't be bothered to get their potentially deadly $60,000 car inspected in two weeks then they shouldn't be allowed to have it. At the very least, you'd think that a dead child would be more than enough to arouse suspicion of criminality, and that maybe someone would, you know, look into it. I found this stuff in about 19 seconds while sitting around in my underpants drinking coffee. What else was he doing wrong? Are we not even going to investigate the possibility?
I'd love to see a mayor with the balls and/or vulva to admit that if you cracked down on all the assholes with expired inspections, no insurance, suspended licenses, out of state registration to save money when they actually live in New York, and so forth, you'd take a shitload of dangerous drivers off the road. Three tickets for no inspection? Tow that shit! "Oh, boo hoo, it's hard having a car in New York City." No shit, asshole. It should be hard, and if you can't hack it then don't drive. You're asking a lot of the city and its residents to accommodate your car. You should be creeping around town at 20mph with your valid paperwork on hand at all times, petrified at the idea of making contact with anything
Read the whole post. It's good. In that sad depressing kind of way.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Of course you won't see that headline in NYC. It's from San Francisco. What's interesting is how it happened. The San Fran bike coalition asked businesses if they had video footage. They had. The cops hadn't asked. The video shows the driver was at fault. As a side note, this was after a cop blocked the bike lane to teach about bike safety (the police chief later apologized for this). Of course none of this brings back a life. But a little justice is better than none. Now where is the video of the crash the maimed that poor British tourist?
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Can you believe there's a landlord PAC (political action committee)? Of course you can. REBNY, the Real Estate Board of New York, gives a lot of money to local and state politicians through "Jobs for New York." (You're not against "jobs" are you?!) The goal of REBNY: public altruism, of course. Well, and would it be so bad if all that pesky zoning disappeared? And rent regulation is kind of problem. I mean, landlords can't take more of your money. Public funding for developments? That's good, too. I mean why should property investors have to foot the entire bill to build things to make them money? It's all a little absurd. Until you consider how much Clout REBNY has. They spend a lot of money in races that don't have a lot of money. At a local level, who does REBNY support? The Vallone's of course. REBNY has spent $113,134 for Paul Vallone. It's such chump change for REBNY. This compares to the $91,466 that Paul has spend himself! That's right REBNY outspends the people they support. It's dirty as hell (and legal). Here in City Council District 22 (Astoria north of 34th Ave), REBNY supports Costa Constantinides. They've spend $106,000 on his behalf (Costa for Council has spent $121,000). That's why you keep getting glossy paper with his name on it. What does REBNY get for this? Well, maybe you should ask Costa. After all, he can't control who spends money on his behalf. And it's not like REBNY expects an quid pro quo. Of course not. Keep thinking that till rent stabilization is abolished.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Friday, August 23, 2013
This is rich. And I can't believe it's being reported with a straight face. The cab who tried to kill a bike and maimed a tourist blames the bike. The cab admits he didn't see the bike before the bike started banging on his cab. That's what Sherlock Holmes would call a "clue." See, when you're obliviously driving along in a car, as the cab driver says he was, "I didn’t see [cyclist Kenneth Olivo] — only when he banged on my car. He is not good." Dude, he was banging on your car because you didn't see him! Think it like a friendly tap of the horn. The horn you so liberally applied before loosing your temper and trying to kill the bicyclist and then severing a poor girl's leg in the process. Banging on a car says, "I'm here, and you're way to close to me, and you might kill me!" I've banged on cars. I imagine every urban biker has banged on a car at least once. Not be be an asshole or damage the car. See a bike bell doesn't cut it when a car is veering into you. My life is at stake, you prick! This is from the Bike Snob:
He says Tuesday's accident happened after he accelerated to get around a bicyclist who he says pounded on his car and yelled at him. Oh, really? I thought you accidentally stepped on the gas instead of the brake. Ah, whatever. We all know how it works: the driver gets to try on as many stories as he wants until he finds one that fits. When I was sideswiped from behind some years back, the driver explained to me with a shrug that "I thought I could get around you." Oopsie! You couldn't. Instead you sent me sprawling on a busy avenue in evening rush-hour traffic. However, what she told the police and the insurance company was that I hit her--because, you know, I make a habit of riding my bicycle into cars in reverse. As for the messenger pounding on the cab and hitting it, that shouldn't matter. I don't care if the messenger slapped the cabbie across the face with his dick. Whatever happened, the cabbie tried to assault the cyclist with his car, he missed, and he ripped off a woman's legs instead.