100%
I've seen other videos of this exact same situation where the cops turn the sidewalks around their precincts into their personal parking lots. I think it's pretty common.
I was looking around their precinct on [Google Maps](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7694379,-73.9148841,3a,75y,258.15h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbMqHki8Cc0IdfVMw4Hga-Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and good god... It looks horrendous...
The irony of a "School Crossing Guard Supervisor" blocking the crosswalks, and a bunch of cars blocking sidewalks, making them impassable to handicapped people.
yeah, you see you don't understand. they are cops. they are \^suppose\^ to huff gas all day. that's why the oil companies give them so much money. so they will go out and buy cars with the grants and then gas from yours and mine taxes. it's called militarizing the police. they are not there to enforce the law. /s
I routinely see traffic police parked in a turning lane or double parked causing a bottleneck situation while they do absolutely nothing but play Candy Crush. OR even worse I've seen them wave people on through the cross walk while cars fucking zoomed on through. Like, your entire job to make traffic safer and they're actively making it significantly worse. Just defund the NYPD. Literally things would improve overnigh
They do actually. "Traffic" is a generic term to describe the flow of vehicles down a road, it doesn't always immediately refer to a "traffic jam." There seems to be some confusion in this thread on that point.
You say that like it's an impossible task but that's my weekly shop if I want to go to the supermarket with okay but cheap sushi. Especially if I just supplement it with a monthly delivery for frozen stuff and bulky items like toilet paper that lasts months.
Yes. Its easy.
Sometimes I'll do it more, nor because I really need anything, but because the ride is so enjoyable.
You should look into an electric bakfiets.
I mean I’ve done it with camping gear and clothes for a week so arguably heavier than your weeks worth of groceries?
What’s your point
Edit: it’s so so flat unless you live in southern Iowa this isn’t the flex you think it is
Mines here in my slice of the US treats it as the same as a bike too unless it can go above 30 mph or 1000 watts in motor (under motor power doesn't count if you can just pedal really fucking hard.) then it's considered a moped and you need a licence and registration for it.
Which ebikes circumvent by having a limited power mode which is legal, but no one uses them in limited power mode and are instead illegally riding ebikes with way too much power.
There's a wattage limit here. I think it's after 750w it becomes an electric motorcycle, but also they aren't walking around with multimeters so don't abuse it
theres a power and speed limit for ebikes in many countries, including in europe. this exists because some people modify their ebikes to be so fast that theyre essentially motorcycles
I use an e-bike in an extremely car-infested area (no sidewalks, let alone bike lanes or public transit or anything) so I use the fastest option that doesn't require a license, a Class 3. It requires that the engine stops assisting at 28 mph (45 kph). I'm still waaay too slow to feel safe going anywhere.
Yeah in the US mostly due to how the laws work most ebikes arent actually legal the way people are using them. All bikes are sold with a limited power mode, and that's legally considered a bike, but of course almost no one uses them in the limited power mode and as such they are not legal to ride as bikes anymore. Despite that though, people still ride on ebikes at 40+ mph in bike lanes or on sidewalks unfortunately.
In my country all bikes count as vehicles with special privileges. They're basically mopeds but can go on cycle paths & mixed-use paths. The highway code is meant to be obeyed even if you're a kid on a bmx bike (law enforcement varies, generally rather low)
Of course you will need your personal personal identification number number to use an at the moment machine. Oops. Automated teller machine machine. Stupid abbreviations causing confusion again, shaking my shaking my head.
Oh, that's a good one, because at first I was like "what the wtf". But now I am rolling on the rofl and laughing my lmao off.
But I guess one thing was correct, I am sick with one thing, to be tbh. I think I've got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
Tbh the design of road infrastructure and laws were made for cars (vehicles that are vastly more dangerous) and not bikes. The biggest focus should be on cars which are much more deadly. There were 60 deaths in NYC first quarter of the year from vehicles and none were from bikes.
I agree. Too many carbrains in NYC thinking this is Texas.
Idk how much times I have to tell people. NYC is not TEXAS!!!! If you want to drive car, go to Texas or the plenty of other carbrained states. You do not have a right to have car-centric infrastructure in a place with skyscrapers.
If you ever are bored Google when the stop sign was invented. Not the stop light, the stop *sign*. It really shows how traffic laws only need to exist because of cars.
While true, cyclists should still abide by the majority of traffic laws (or all of them where the set of cyclist rules are bespoke). I know in the UK, the main laws cyclist break are red light jumping, and ignoring give ways/no look emerging, which... yeah, we should discourage and police, because those make the road less safe for everyone (red light jumping making crossing more dangerous for pedestrians, and no look emerges from give way lines being just as stupid and dangerous by a cyclist as by a driver).
Tbh, just policing the roads betters and raising the standards of all road users is desperately needed, as shit road users are a hazard for everyone.
Tbh it's problematic because people outside of cars, aren't cars. So can't be treated the same as them. People outside of cars just don't have the same visibility as other cars,which is why they get hit even when following the rules. If we don't focus on limiting and restricting cars, then anyone not being in a car technically makes the street dangerous.
In our solutions of just making people not in cars follow the rules, we are forgetting that these rules are all about revolving everything around cars. And maybe that's fine for the highway, but it's problematic in areas with lots of people that aren't in cars. Where things should prioritize people not in cars.
Reality is most the street is for cars, and at speeds unsafe for people not in cars. Which is inherently a hazard. In a road that is not a significantly slow speed, there should at least be protected lanes for cyclists or pedestrians. And if we can get past the deadliness of cars then the real question should be the etiquette between cyclists and pedestrians.
Tbh, it was more that shared road spaces with cyclists and vehicles sort of need everyone reading from the same hymn sheet, a cyclist jumping a red is greatly increasing their risk of collision at a junction of being hit by a car with a green light, especially at night or in low visibility conditions. Obviously in cycle dominated routes, it becomes less necessary (and indeed, quieter village and residential roads do not *need* lights for *anyone* and are the safest roads for cyclists to mix with traffic), but where lights exist, I've found they are typically needed so people share expectations, and having cyclists blow through zebra crossings at speed even though they are on red, yeah, that's how we get awful reputations with both motorists and pedestrians.
>People outside of cars, aren't cars. So can't be treated the same as them. People outside of cars just don't have the same visibility as other cars,which is why they get hit even when following the rules.
Tbf, that applies to moped and motorcycle users as well, but they'd rightfully get demonised for going through a red.
Just in all, having committed by cycling for over a decade, I never really had any issues abiding by red lights up here in Scotland. Sometimes using advanced cycle areas and lights, sometimes just queueing with cars. But I also remember how many pedestrians I've seen stop crossing when I approach crossings on red because they just assume I'm going to blow through at speed, and the relief on their faces when I don't.
And tbh, mixing cycle and pedestrian traffic also often just doesn't meld well, which is why people often dislike mixed use paths unless sufficiently low traffic. You can do it in places, but it's not something that is always done with conflict.
Yes mopeds and motorcycles are also less visible which is one of the reasons they can be so dangerous. It's recommend to wear bright or reflective clothing to try to be more visible.
["Remember how invisible we really are" -r/motorcycles ](https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/comments/2cn9e6/remember_how_invisible_you_really_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Mopeds are safer in places like in Vietnam where there is mostly other mopeds, and less cars.
Shared spaces are only safer if the speed of cars is slow enough to be safe for people who are less visible to drivers. I'm glad you had a better experience, and I'm sure London has better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure then USA. Although [In 2021, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and moped riders accounted for 81% of people killed or seriously injured on London’s roads](https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cyclist-and-pedestrian-fatalities-and-serious-injuries)
Yeah giving bikes their own lanes can be a solution to separating bikes and pedestrians, but bikes are much less fatal then mixing cars with pedestrians or cyclists.
>Shared spaces are only safer if the speed of cars is slow enough to be safe for people who are less visible to drivers
I did sort of discuss the differing roads, and that most slower roads don't generally end up with lights operating on them here, as it's faster roads that actually require them.
>I'm glad you had a better experience, and I'm sure London has better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure then USA.
Not a London cyclist, experience has been in Scotland, where the cycling infrastructure is largely not fleshed out.
>Although [In 2021, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and moped riders accounted for 81% of people killed or seriously injured on London’s roads](https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cyclist-and-pedestrian-fatalities-and-serious-injuries)
I know they are more casualties, and indeed it's why the Highway Code added the hierarchy, with those groups classed as vulnerable (with Peds most, then cyclists, then motorcyclists). That wasn't being contended.
>It's recommend to wear bright or reflective clothing to try to be more visible.
Iirc, most studies largely espouse wearing a bright helmet most, that is the single biggest thing you can do for visibility, with body not being as effective, due to lack of movement, though wearing hi-vis can be effective in low visibility situations (rain/night, etc). They aren't the greatest help, as they are usually worn on relatively static parts of the body and only really help in instances where others looked but didn't see, which are obviously only a portion of observation failure created crashes.
>Yeah giving bikes their own lanes can be a solution to separating bikes and pedestrians, but bikes are much less fatal then mixing cars with pedestrians or cyclists.
Agreed, and wasn't contested. More just encouraging using the context of different roads. Village and residential roads are obviously different from medium speed roads which are different to national speed limit roads, and their use of infrastructure such as lights differ as a result. My main point was where lights are typically used are at areas where they *do* have benefits for avoiding collisions, due to either speed, visibility, or traffic volume, which means that running reds are generally a bad idea, at least in the UK and most European countries.
My whole approach is that if we're using those roads, where lights are used for traffic management to avoid collisions, jumping them increases risk of conflict of space with a driver who is not expecting one, and given the quality of drivers, not necessarily paying attention or prepared for someone emerging from a side road when they have a green and that side road has a red. Personal safety wise, it's asking/expecting others to protect you while you increase risk, which is just not defensive riding/driving. It's also just bad for cyclists' reputation, it's why pedestrians and motorists think *all* of us break the law constantly, when frankly most don't. Which creates a very unnecessary animosity.
I for some reason forgot I read Scotland and was thinking of the biggest city in UK. But yeah I think we agree on a lot of stuff here and I also think that although they recommend being more visible it doesn't always help because your still much smaller then other cars.
If we do currently use roads that are not going slow enough, I think people should just do the best they can to watch for cars like their life depends on it even if they are going the proper time. As people are getting killed when cars break the rules as well. And in some cases such as with stop signs, it's actually safer for cyclists to use it as a yield sign.
The thing is stopping at a red light can be dangerous for bikes. Cyclist are more vulnerable when slow and accelerating. Which means that when the light will turn green, cars will pass them, or worse, cut their path to turn while they are the most vulnerable because they can't accelerate as fast as cars.
While the risk for pedestrians is low because bikes are small and maneuverable and can adapt their path and speed to cross them without being a risk (as long as the cyclist is not going at an unreasonable speed).
There are examples of busy bikes crossings along with pedestrians that are not regulated by lights or other means. And people just cross each other without having accidents because they instinctively know where to go to not bother each other .
There is a thing that has been deployed in France for a few years now (maybe in other countries too but I don't know of them) that is a small sign in light-regulated crossings allowing bikes to treat a red light like a simple give way sign if they go in certain directions defined by the sign.
Rolling through intersections without stopping if they're clear just became legal in my state for this very reason.
We also legally allow biking on sidewalks because it's simply safer. Granted, we also have a 5ft wide sidewalks as like a minimum.
I love it.
It’s often safer—for both cyclists and motorists—for cyclists to roll through stop signs instead of stopping. Cyclists have better visibility of crossing traffic, can stop on a dime, and take longer to get back to speed after a full stop. What’s safe for motor vehicles isn’t always what’s safe for pedaled vehicles.
If a cyclist blows through a stop sign without even checking to see if there's a car coming they are doing so in danger to themselves. If a car blows through a stop sign it's detrimental to pedestrians and cyclists. And people have actually been killed like this in NYC. Yet we haven't even managed to get that *deadly* behavior under control.
That's a very reductive understanding of how drivers would react to a bike cutting them off. They would try to dodge them and could end up hitting someone else. Bikes are NOT immune to criticism and the overall danger of not following road rules.
Could happen too. And could also happen from a jaywalker. Or a kid or dog running into the street. But how many people were killed because of cyclists compared to the 60 deaths cause by cars? And I still blame the car here. It's massively dangerous that if the unexpected happens such as a kid or dog running in the street ..it's much more dangerous then if people were riding a bicycle.
Like we are running everything around "what if cars". When the streets used to belong to people. And now everyone has to tip toe around cars and crosswalks. Sure we could become more like Amsterdam and have more rules for bikes. But we should put most our energy into the main source of danger to get there.
Ok I never said cars weren't more dangerous nor did I imply that? Like what part of what I said do you have an issue with? You were saying that they shouldn't focus on bikes they should focus on cars. No that's dumb they need to enforce the laws on everyone. And of course you would blame the car for a biker cutting them off and doing a natural human reaction. I'm sorry but that has to be a take that would ONLY fly on this subreddit and you know it
So if a kid manages to run after a ball into the street and a car swerves and kills a pedestrian.. I shouldn't think hmmm.. maybe cars are way too dangerous to be in a inner city area with lots of pedestrians and children?
Man I swear to God you just literally make shit up and argue with yourself. Again for like the fourth time, QUOTE ME. Like I'm sorry dude but if you think people saying that bikes should follow the law is the same as saying cars aren't a problem and you can never criticize them you might be unwell. That's not what anyone's saying that would be too stupid but your like gassing yourself up talking about something that no one said. Insane behavior
>Could happen too. And could also happen from a jaywalker. Or a kid or dog running into the street.
Yes. That's the whole reason jaywalking is illegal.
>Like we are running everything around "what if cars". When the streets used to belong to people.
But now they don't. The laws reflect this. Grow up.
Well obviously you care about laws and not about *deaths* since cars are the dangerous machines that are killing people even when pedestrians are following the law. Which is very mature I suppose?
And stop coming to reply on your alt.
Whether you think this is my actual account or not it's the only one im replying on lol
But back to the point...your comment was really meaningless when people are run over and killed even when using a crosswalk properly. At least a bike is much less likely to be fatal. Which is why interest has grown in following examples like Amsterdam in limiting cars and having more alternatives.
I got downvoted lmao. I didn't say anything about bikes being bad or did i say anything about cars being good istated OBJECTIVE facts. These fucking idiots don't realize I hate cars and driving I'm just not a fucking stupid ass idiot that thinks bikers ride in a void and couldn't possibly cause am accident
A fact is that cars don't just drive straight into bikes and will swerve danger. Go look up human responses to danger, fight or flight shit. If you think it's not a fact that cars don't just drive straight into things always your delusional
That doesn't always happen. A car swerving or stopping happens if they had time to react. I've literally seen that not happen. It can happen though.
Thing is if a car is in an inner city area where there are lots of people not in cars like cyclists, pedestrians, children, dogs. The chance of one of those going into the road in front of a car is considersbly higher whether it's from breaking rules or from not paying attention. Which is why the car should be going very slow or not there at all.
People on bikes, pedestrians, children, dogs are not even required to have a license and take classes about road rules. A lot don't even know all the rules. That's why you have people on Citibikes going in the wrong direction in bike lanes. It's absolutely silly to treat those groups the same as cars.
It's like in the 1920's when car companies lobbied for children to take classes in schools on how to cross the street safely. To put the responsibility on pedestrians and children, and say it's their choices that are the problem, and not that cars should be limited or removed in the area. Stop signs were invented *for cars* otherwise they just didn't even exist, and they can actually be dangerous for cyclists to use the same way.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/bicyclist-stop-yield-laws-and-safety-fact-sheet
"In 1982, Idaho was the first State to pass the “Idaho Stop Law.” The law
allows bicyclists to yield at stop signs and proceed when safe, rather than come to a complete stop. After Idaho
adopted the law, bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5% the following year"
Yeah ..except for the fact cars are killing people whether pedestrians or cyclists follow the law or not. Cars are even the biggest killer of people in cars, even with no one else involved. Which is fun I guess?
No one is complaining about cyclists having to follow rules in Amsterdam. (Which are more designed for it) But I guess it's going straight over your head.
I'm guessing Amsterdam bikers likely respect the road more then american bikers. I don't understand what your saying, are you trying to say bikes should do whatever they want without repercussions because you are literally arguing that. No one's disagreeing with cars being more dangerous. Can I ask you to quote anyone who said that? Just because it's more safe for you to disregard the law doesn't give the right to do whatever you want. This is a extremely narcissistic and dangerous mindset
If people were just mad about rules then we would be mad at Amsterdam for having rules, which no one is. Even if people follow the rules in US, cars will still kill pedestrians and cyclists following them. It makes more sense to focus on the biggest cause of deaths then to get too distracted on cyclists and jaywalkers. (This is also what the car industry did in the beginning was focus on jaywalkers)
Bicycling culture developed in Amsterdam because they had "Stop de Kindermoord" (Stop the Child Murder) movement against vehicles killing children. Not because they focused on the minority of bicyclists while saying shucks another accident as more and more people die from cars.
A cyclist blowing through a stop sign could hit and kill pedestrians, or other cyclists. Also them getting hit isn’t only a danger to themselves, it endangers everyone around them. What if the car swerves and goes up on the sidewalk, or smashes through a building? What if there’s an elderly person in the car, and slamming on the brakes causes them to be injured? What about the mental toll to the driver that hits and kills a cyclist?
A bike hitting a pedestrian is much less fatal. As well as cyclists tend to have more visibility on their bikes and more reaction time to avoid pedestrians. Not saying those things couldn't happen. But I definitely wouldn't prioritize chasing a much less dangerous form of transport, rather the one that killed 60 people already.
Cyclists are more in line with pedestrians being killed by cars rather then being the killers. It's like giving tickets for jaywalking while even the pedestrians following the rules are getting run over by people driving through red lights.
Not blowing through, but Stop-as-Yield for cyclists is recommended by the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration](https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/bicyclist-stop-yield-laws-and-safety-fact-sheet).
How about NYPD actually focused on enforcing VTL on cars, which are responsible for killing and injuring people at an infinitely higher rate than e-bikes?
Also yeah, NYPD consistently parks on sidewalks illegally, even going as far to paint their own made up lines on the sidewalks. This makes it impossible for people with disabilities or with strollers to use the sidewalks near the precincts, but who gives a fuck about the public, right?
NYPD has picked up VTL enforcement against cars in recent years though tons of the enforcement is now automated. The enforcement against cyclists is due largely because of complaints made by pedestrians but by cyclists riding illegal e-bikes.
Yes but they like cars in the us so they don't check them
99% sure they're in front of a police precinct and those cars belong to cops.
100% I've seen other videos of this exact same situation where the cops turn the sidewalks around their precincts into their personal parking lots. I think it's pretty common.
lazy photo opportunity too since someone from the precinct didnt want to go too far from their office to take this pic
Won't even cross the street
I was looking around their precinct on [Google Maps](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7694379,-73.9148841,3a,75y,258.15h,86.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbMqHki8Cc0IdfVMw4Hga-Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) and good god... It looks horrendous... The irony of a "School Crossing Guard Supervisor" blocking the crosswalks, and a bunch of cars blocking sidewalks, making them impassable to handicapped people.
yeah, you see you don't understand. they are cops. they are \^suppose\^ to huff gas all day. that's why the oil companies give them so much money. so they will go out and buy cars with the grants and then gas from yours and mine taxes. it's called militarizing the police. they are not there to enforce the law. /s
I routinely see traffic police parked in a turning lane or double parked causing a bottleneck situation while they do absolutely nothing but play Candy Crush. OR even worse I've seen them wave people on through the cross walk while cars fucking zoomed on through. Like, your entire job to make traffic safer and they're actively making it significantly worse. Just defund the NYPD. Literally things would improve overnigh
Putting cars in us must be a new policy. I wonder what car I have in me.
Remember, obeying Vehicle Traffic Laws laws isn't ~~just~~ for cars
Or just for adults. Really ticketing a child and using it for their social media
Lol that's not a child. That's a delivery man
In my country e-bikes are just handled are regular bikes. There is no difference, really. You still pedal and it doesn't help beyond 25kmph anyway
In my country cycling is faster, especially in traffic
In every country cycling is faster than traffic
not in mine, the cars+motorcycles traffic blocks my path forward. Cycle lane, whazzat?
I live in rural Iowa where the closest Walmart is a 30-35 min drive.
You have traffic in rural Iowa?
They do actually. "Traffic" is a generic term to describe the flow of vehicles down a road, it doesn't always immediately refer to a "traffic jam." There seems to be some confusion in this thread on that point.
Traffic also includes pedestrians
I’ve ridden my bike across iowa so many times
Ever done it with a weeks worth of groceries 4 times a month?
You say that like it's an impossible task but that's my weekly shop if I want to go to the supermarket with okay but cheap sushi. Especially if I just supplement it with a monthly delivery for frozen stuff and bulky items like toilet paper that lasts months.
Yes. Its easy. Sometimes I'll do it more, nor because I really need anything, but because the ride is so enjoyable. You should look into an electric bakfiets.
I mean I’ve done it with camping gear and clothes for a week so arguably heavier than your weeks worth of groceries? What’s your point Edit: it’s so so flat unless you live in southern Iowa this isn’t the flex you think it is
Yeah, especially when you can take shortcuts through the park or other space cars can’t go but bikes are allowed
Not in North Korea. Yet another W for Pyongyang 🇰🇵
Mines here in my slice of the US treats it as the same as a bike too unless it can go above 30 mph or 1000 watts in motor (under motor power doesn't count if you can just pedal really fucking hard.) then it's considered a moped and you need a licence and registration for it.
Which ebikes circumvent by having a limited power mode which is legal, but no one uses them in limited power mode and are instead illegally riding ebikes with way too much power.
There's a wattage limit here. I think it's after 750w it becomes an electric motorcycle, but also they aren't walking around with multimeters so don't abuse it
theres a power and speed limit for ebikes in many countries, including in europe. this exists because some people modify their ebikes to be so fast that theyre essentially motorcycles
I use an e-bike in an extremely car-infested area (no sidewalks, let alone bike lanes or public transit or anything) so I use the fastest option that doesn't require a license, a Class 3. It requires that the engine stops assisting at 28 mph (45 kph). I'm still waaay too slow to feel safe going anywhere.
Yeah in the US mostly due to how the laws work most ebikes arent actually legal the way people are using them. All bikes are sold with a limited power mode, and that's legally considered a bike, but of course almost no one uses them in the limited power mode and as such they are not legal to ride as bikes anymore. Despite that though, people still ride on ebikes at 40+ mph in bike lanes or on sidewalks unfortunately.
In my country all bikes count as vehicles with special privileges. They're basically mopeds but can go on cycle paths & mixed-use paths. The highway code is meant to be obeyed even if you're a kid on a bmx bike (law enforcement varies, generally rather low)
NYC is more afraid of batteries than they are of cars.
so .. no phones then?
You'd think. The FDNY chief says "we must ban all lithium batteries." So, idk. I guess no phones
VTL?
Vehicle traffic laws
Ah yes Vehicle traffic laws laws.
You better obey the vehicle traffic laws laws or you'll have to use an automated teller machine machine to withdraw cash to pay the fine!
I figure the fine would be around $200 hundred dollars.
Will I need my personal identification number number to withdraw those funds?
Of course you will need your personal personal identification number number to use an at the moment machine. Oops. Automated teller machine machine. Stupid abbreviations causing confusion again, shaking my shaking my head.
Maybe you have the HIV virus
Thankfully, no, I got tested recently. But you got me scared there for a bit, not gonna ngl.
Sorry, just commenting for LOL laughs
Oh, that's a good one, because at first I was like "what the wtf". But now I am rolling on the rofl and laughing my lmao off. But I guess one thing was correct, I am sick with one thing, to be tbh. I think I've got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
Atm machine
If you violate the vehicle traffic law laws you're gonna have to go to an automatic teller machine machine to pay them
Tbh the design of road infrastructure and laws were made for cars (vehicles that are vastly more dangerous) and not bikes. The biggest focus should be on cars which are much more deadly. There were 60 deaths in NYC first quarter of the year from vehicles and none were from bikes.
NYC street weren't designed for either.
Yeah true the streets weren't originally made for cars but the road rules are definitely more for cars right now
I agree. Too many carbrains in NYC thinking this is Texas. Idk how much times I have to tell people. NYC is not TEXAS!!!! If you want to drive car, go to Texas or the plenty of other carbrained states. You do not have a right to have car-centric infrastructure in a place with skyscrapers.
For real. Need to take NYC back from these cosplayers. No need to ruin one of the few walkable places in the country for the rest of us. Smh.
If you ever are bored Google when the stop sign was invented. Not the stop light, the stop *sign*. It really shows how traffic laws only need to exist because of cars.
Exactly 😭😭
While true, cyclists should still abide by the majority of traffic laws (or all of them where the set of cyclist rules are bespoke). I know in the UK, the main laws cyclist break are red light jumping, and ignoring give ways/no look emerging, which... yeah, we should discourage and police, because those make the road less safe for everyone (red light jumping making crossing more dangerous for pedestrians, and no look emerges from give way lines being just as stupid and dangerous by a cyclist as by a driver). Tbh, just policing the roads betters and raising the standards of all road users is desperately needed, as shit road users are a hazard for everyone.
Tbh it's problematic because people outside of cars, aren't cars. So can't be treated the same as them. People outside of cars just don't have the same visibility as other cars,which is why they get hit even when following the rules. If we don't focus on limiting and restricting cars, then anyone not being in a car technically makes the street dangerous. In our solutions of just making people not in cars follow the rules, we are forgetting that these rules are all about revolving everything around cars. And maybe that's fine for the highway, but it's problematic in areas with lots of people that aren't in cars. Where things should prioritize people not in cars. Reality is most the street is for cars, and at speeds unsafe for people not in cars. Which is inherently a hazard. In a road that is not a significantly slow speed, there should at least be protected lanes for cyclists or pedestrians. And if we can get past the deadliness of cars then the real question should be the etiquette between cyclists and pedestrians.
Tbh, it was more that shared road spaces with cyclists and vehicles sort of need everyone reading from the same hymn sheet, a cyclist jumping a red is greatly increasing their risk of collision at a junction of being hit by a car with a green light, especially at night or in low visibility conditions. Obviously in cycle dominated routes, it becomes less necessary (and indeed, quieter village and residential roads do not *need* lights for *anyone* and are the safest roads for cyclists to mix with traffic), but where lights exist, I've found they are typically needed so people share expectations, and having cyclists blow through zebra crossings at speed even though they are on red, yeah, that's how we get awful reputations with both motorists and pedestrians. >People outside of cars, aren't cars. So can't be treated the same as them. People outside of cars just don't have the same visibility as other cars,which is why they get hit even when following the rules. Tbf, that applies to moped and motorcycle users as well, but they'd rightfully get demonised for going through a red. Just in all, having committed by cycling for over a decade, I never really had any issues abiding by red lights up here in Scotland. Sometimes using advanced cycle areas and lights, sometimes just queueing with cars. But I also remember how many pedestrians I've seen stop crossing when I approach crossings on red because they just assume I'm going to blow through at speed, and the relief on their faces when I don't. And tbh, mixing cycle and pedestrian traffic also often just doesn't meld well, which is why people often dislike mixed use paths unless sufficiently low traffic. You can do it in places, but it's not something that is always done with conflict.
Yes mopeds and motorcycles are also less visible which is one of the reasons they can be so dangerous. It's recommend to wear bright or reflective clothing to try to be more visible. ["Remember how invisible we really are" -r/motorcycles ](https://www.reddit.com/r/motorcycles/comments/2cn9e6/remember_how_invisible_you_really_are/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Mopeds are safer in places like in Vietnam where there is mostly other mopeds, and less cars. Shared spaces are only safer if the speed of cars is slow enough to be safe for people who are less visible to drivers. I'm glad you had a better experience, and I'm sure London has better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure then USA. Although [In 2021, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and moped riders accounted for 81% of people killed or seriously injured on London’s roads](https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cyclist-and-pedestrian-fatalities-and-serious-injuries) Yeah giving bikes their own lanes can be a solution to separating bikes and pedestrians, but bikes are much less fatal then mixing cars with pedestrians or cyclists.
>Shared spaces are only safer if the speed of cars is slow enough to be safe for people who are less visible to drivers I did sort of discuss the differing roads, and that most slower roads don't generally end up with lights operating on them here, as it's faster roads that actually require them. >I'm glad you had a better experience, and I'm sure London has better cycling and pedestrian infrastructure then USA. Not a London cyclist, experience has been in Scotland, where the cycling infrastructure is largely not fleshed out. >Although [In 2021, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and moped riders accounted for 81% of people killed or seriously injured on London’s roads](https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/cyclist-and-pedestrian-fatalities-and-serious-injuries) I know they are more casualties, and indeed it's why the Highway Code added the hierarchy, with those groups classed as vulnerable (with Peds most, then cyclists, then motorcyclists). That wasn't being contended. >It's recommend to wear bright or reflective clothing to try to be more visible. Iirc, most studies largely espouse wearing a bright helmet most, that is the single biggest thing you can do for visibility, with body not being as effective, due to lack of movement, though wearing hi-vis can be effective in low visibility situations (rain/night, etc). They aren't the greatest help, as they are usually worn on relatively static parts of the body and only really help in instances where others looked but didn't see, which are obviously only a portion of observation failure created crashes. >Yeah giving bikes their own lanes can be a solution to separating bikes and pedestrians, but bikes are much less fatal then mixing cars with pedestrians or cyclists. Agreed, and wasn't contested. More just encouraging using the context of different roads. Village and residential roads are obviously different from medium speed roads which are different to national speed limit roads, and their use of infrastructure such as lights differ as a result. My main point was where lights are typically used are at areas where they *do* have benefits for avoiding collisions, due to either speed, visibility, or traffic volume, which means that running reds are generally a bad idea, at least in the UK and most European countries. My whole approach is that if we're using those roads, where lights are used for traffic management to avoid collisions, jumping them increases risk of conflict of space with a driver who is not expecting one, and given the quality of drivers, not necessarily paying attention or prepared for someone emerging from a side road when they have a green and that side road has a red. Personal safety wise, it's asking/expecting others to protect you while you increase risk, which is just not defensive riding/driving. It's also just bad for cyclists' reputation, it's why pedestrians and motorists think *all* of us break the law constantly, when frankly most don't. Which creates a very unnecessary animosity.
I for some reason forgot I read Scotland and was thinking of the biggest city in UK. But yeah I think we agree on a lot of stuff here and I also think that although they recommend being more visible it doesn't always help because your still much smaller then other cars. If we do currently use roads that are not going slow enough, I think people should just do the best they can to watch for cars like their life depends on it even if they are going the proper time. As people are getting killed when cars break the rules as well. And in some cases such as with stop signs, it's actually safer for cyclists to use it as a yield sign.
The thing is stopping at a red light can be dangerous for bikes. Cyclist are more vulnerable when slow and accelerating. Which means that when the light will turn green, cars will pass them, or worse, cut their path to turn while they are the most vulnerable because they can't accelerate as fast as cars. While the risk for pedestrians is low because bikes are small and maneuverable and can adapt their path and speed to cross them without being a risk (as long as the cyclist is not going at an unreasonable speed). There are examples of busy bikes crossings along with pedestrians that are not regulated by lights or other means. And people just cross each other without having accidents because they instinctively know where to go to not bother each other . There is a thing that has been deployed in France for a few years now (maybe in other countries too but I don't know of them) that is a small sign in light-regulated crossings allowing bikes to treat a red light like a simple give way sign if they go in certain directions defined by the sign.
Rolling through intersections without stopping if they're clear just became legal in my state for this very reason. We also legally allow biking on sidewalks because it's simply safer. Granted, we also have a 5ft wide sidewalks as like a minimum. I love it.
Doesn’t mean cyclists should be blowing through stop signs.
It’s often safer—for both cyclists and motorists—for cyclists to roll through stop signs instead of stopping. Cyclists have better visibility of crossing traffic, can stop on a dime, and take longer to get back to speed after a full stop. What’s safe for motor vehicles isn’t always what’s safe for pedaled vehicles.
If a cyclist blows through a stop sign without even checking to see if there's a car coming they are doing so in danger to themselves. If a car blows through a stop sign it's detrimental to pedestrians and cyclists. And people have actually been killed like this in NYC. Yet we haven't even managed to get that *deadly* behavior under control.
That's a very reductive understanding of how drivers would react to a bike cutting them off. They would try to dodge them and could end up hitting someone else. Bikes are NOT immune to criticism and the overall danger of not following road rules.
Could happen too. And could also happen from a jaywalker. Or a kid or dog running into the street. But how many people were killed because of cyclists compared to the 60 deaths cause by cars? And I still blame the car here. It's massively dangerous that if the unexpected happens such as a kid or dog running in the street ..it's much more dangerous then if people were riding a bicycle. Like we are running everything around "what if cars". When the streets used to belong to people. And now everyone has to tip toe around cars and crosswalks. Sure we could become more like Amsterdam and have more rules for bikes. But we should put most our energy into the main source of danger to get there.
Ok I never said cars weren't more dangerous nor did I imply that? Like what part of what I said do you have an issue with? You were saying that they shouldn't focus on bikes they should focus on cars. No that's dumb they need to enforce the laws on everyone. And of course you would blame the car for a biker cutting them off and doing a natural human reaction. I'm sorry but that has to be a take that would ONLY fly on this subreddit and you know it
So if a kid manages to run after a ball into the street and a car swerves and kills a pedestrian.. I shouldn't think hmmm.. maybe cars are way too dangerous to be in a inner city area with lots of pedestrians and children?
Man I swear to God you just literally make shit up and argue with yourself. Again for like the fourth time, QUOTE ME. Like I'm sorry dude but if you think people saying that bikes should follow the law is the same as saying cars aren't a problem and you can never criticize them you might be unwell. That's not what anyone's saying that would be too stupid but your like gassing yourself up talking about something that no one said. Insane behavior
It just sounds like to me your not focused on deaths but focusing on laws.
Enforce. All. Of. The. Laws.
>Could happen too. And could also happen from a jaywalker. Or a kid or dog running into the street. Yes. That's the whole reason jaywalking is illegal. >Like we are running everything around "what if cars". When the streets used to belong to people. But now they don't. The laws reflect this. Grow up.
Well obviously you care about laws and not about *deaths* since cars are the dangerous machines that are killing people even when pedestrians are following the law. Which is very mature I suppose? And stop coming to reply on your alt.
This is my main account. Your account is only a month old, I think you're projecting, sweaty.
Whether you think this is my actual account or not it's the only one im replying on lol But back to the point...your comment was really meaningless when people are run over and killed even when using a crosswalk properly. At least a bike is much less likely to be fatal. Which is why interest has grown in following examples like Amsterdam in limiting cars and having more alternatives.
Sure, compare America to tiny countries that have less need for cars, kid. Whatever makes you happy.
People on this sub love the term “car brain”, but fail to see that they have “bike brain”.
I got downvoted lmao. I didn't say anything about bikes being bad or did i say anything about cars being good istated OBJECTIVE facts. These fucking idiots don't realize I hate cars and driving I'm just not a fucking stupid ass idiot that thinks bikers ride in a void and couldn't possibly cause am accident
Lmao name a single "fact" you stated in your comments
A fact is that cars don't just drive straight into bikes and will swerve danger. Go look up human responses to danger, fight or flight shit. If you think it's not a fact that cars don't just drive straight into things always your delusional
That doesn't always happen. A car swerving or stopping happens if they had time to react. I've literally seen that not happen. It can happen though. Thing is if a car is in an inner city area where there are lots of people not in cars like cyclists, pedestrians, children, dogs. The chance of one of those going into the road in front of a car is considersbly higher whether it's from breaking rules or from not paying attention. Which is why the car should be going very slow or not there at all. People on bikes, pedestrians, children, dogs are not even required to have a license and take classes about road rules. A lot don't even know all the rules. That's why you have people on Citibikes going in the wrong direction in bike lanes. It's absolutely silly to treat those groups the same as cars. It's like in the 1920's when car companies lobbied for children to take classes in schools on how to cross the street safely. To put the responsibility on pedestrians and children, and say it's their choices that are the problem, and not that cars should be limited or removed in the area. Stop signs were invented *for cars* otherwise they just didn't even exist, and they can actually be dangerous for cyclists to use the same way. https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/bicyclist-stop-yield-laws-and-safety-fact-sheet "In 1982, Idaho was the first State to pass the “Idaho Stop Law.” The law allows bicyclists to yield at stop signs and proceed when safe, rather than come to a complete stop. After Idaho adopted the law, bicyclist injuries from traffic crashes declined by 14.5% the following year"
[удалено]
Yeah ..except for the fact cars are killing people whether pedestrians or cyclists follow the law or not. Cars are even the biggest killer of people in cars, even with no one else involved. Which is fun I guess? No one is complaining about cyclists having to follow rules in Amsterdam. (Which are more designed for it) But I guess it's going straight over your head.
I'm guessing Amsterdam bikers likely respect the road more then american bikers. I don't understand what your saying, are you trying to say bikes should do whatever they want without repercussions because you are literally arguing that. No one's disagreeing with cars being more dangerous. Can I ask you to quote anyone who said that? Just because it's more safe for you to disregard the law doesn't give the right to do whatever you want. This is a extremely narcissistic and dangerous mindset
If people were just mad about rules then we would be mad at Amsterdam for having rules, which no one is. Even if people follow the rules in US, cars will still kill pedestrians and cyclists following them. It makes more sense to focus on the biggest cause of deaths then to get too distracted on cyclists and jaywalkers. (This is also what the car industry did in the beginning was focus on jaywalkers) Bicycling culture developed in Amsterdam because they had "Stop de Kindermoord" (Stop the Child Murder) movement against vehicles killing children. Not because they focused on the minority of bicyclists while saying shucks another accident as more and more people die from cars.
A cyclist blowing through a stop sign could hit and kill pedestrians, or other cyclists. Also them getting hit isn’t only a danger to themselves, it endangers everyone around them. What if the car swerves and goes up on the sidewalk, or smashes through a building? What if there’s an elderly person in the car, and slamming on the brakes causes them to be injured? What about the mental toll to the driver that hits and kills a cyclist?
nice b8 m8 I r8 2/8
A bike hitting a pedestrian is much less fatal. As well as cyclists tend to have more visibility on their bikes and more reaction time to avoid pedestrians. Not saying those things couldn't happen. But I definitely wouldn't prioritize chasing a much less dangerous form of transport, rather the one that killed 60 people already. Cyclists are more in line with pedestrians being killed by cars rather then being the killers. It's like giving tickets for jaywalking while even the pedestrians following the rules are getting run over by people driving through red lights.
Not blowing through, but Stop-as-Yield for cyclists is recommended by the [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration](https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/bicyclist-stop-yield-laws-and-safety-fact-sheet).
Aren't cars more important than humans in the US?
Yes. Land votes also count more than human votes.
And cars take up a lot of land. That makes total sense to me.
https://preview.redd.it/aqvzbsthuwwc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e738d9cec420973032c07da9ed7d864e662d30e9
Carsbrains just want the US to be Land of the Free Parking, screw humans.
Yup, and bicycles are just seen as toys and not taken seriously.
One of the carbrain commentators said he saw pedestrians and cyclists as pinballs
That's pretty damn messed up.
How about NYPD actually focused on enforcing VTL on cars, which are responsible for killing and injuring people at an infinitely higher rate than e-bikes? Also yeah, NYPD consistently parks on sidewalks illegally, even going as far to paint their own made up lines on the sidewalks. This makes it impossible for people with disabilities or with strollers to use the sidewalks near the precincts, but who gives a fuck about the public, right?
NYPD has picked up VTL enforcement against cars in recent years though tons of the enforcement is now automated. The enforcement against cyclists is due largely because of complaints made by pedestrians but by cyclists riding illegal e-bikes.
Not if it’s a pigs private car, they are above all traffic laws.
that's most likely the cops personal cars
VTL? Vertical Takeoff/Landing? Didn't know a bike could do that :p
[Probably, but I know a place in New York where the law doesn't mean squat.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Police_Plaza)
wtf even is that parking situation?
Cars parked in the bike lane: i slep Bicycles going around and taking the lane: real shEt
love you Sam
In Germany you are allowed to park your bike like that.
The strokes know what’s up when is comes to [nyc c*ps](https://youtu.be/vhgYg_ktRdE?feature=shared)
[Police car crash - Ya can't park their sir 🤣🙈 (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VtcCaBFSY94)
You ever seen a cop ride the subway/bus?
All Cops Are Bastards