UniChris

The thing is that removing or yellow flashing the traffic lights might work for 95% of people, but it can't be done on account of the small percentage that needs an assisted crossing.

That they currently don't get one given the widespread dishonoring of the lights is a bit beside the point - legally they still do, which is quite different than removing the mechanism that is supposed to give that opportunity.

What I think *would* work is push button activated lights, though they'd likely need some anti-abuse features that limit how often they will activate (at worst defaulting to the current cycle).

The lights would then also need to be actively enforced; but if activations outside congested hours are rare, that should be an acceptable burden on cycling.

Also the out-of-control salmoning, especially in the pedestrian lane needs to be enforced. Maybe redesign in a bidirectional way could work, though given the current "business" of the park eliminating service vehicles seems unlikely.

Steve B.

So a case of no follow thru by DOT when they made Prospect car free, they left the traffic lights, that really serve no function.

They kind of did this on a designated AND separated 2 way bike lane along Shore Front Pkwy, in the Rockaways, where there are 8 or 9 lights between B73 and 108 (1.5 miles). The lights are needed for auto traffic calming as much as anything, not really much use for folks in the bike lanes as any cars on what are mostly one-way side streets that has green isn't moving into the bike lane. I assume maybe useful for pedestrian crossing traffic, which typically crosses outside the designated crosswalks in any event.

dendawg

Some of the lights in CP have been converted to activate on demand. The problem I have found is that as a pedestrian when I activate one, most cyclists ignore it, or if I'm cycling most tourists cross without activating it. FWIW some towns on the east end of LI have pedesrian activated cross walks that many motorists ignore as well

UniChris

Some of us stop at all red lights. Some will not stop at any.

Most would probably stop if the light being red was infrequent and seemed to have a purpose.

That's where the improvement - for everyone - could be realized.

Minimize the frequency of red lights. And the enforce the heck out of them.

Last time I rode in the park I watched a light go red again only 15 or so seconds after turning green, without a pedestrian in sight. I stopped of course, but the whole thing seemed absurd. If there are presently button activated lights, they are presently lost in such noise.

eja_ bottecchia

Not to worry.

Hizzoner has a plan:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...s-bike-riders/

UniChris

Don't be absurd. Someone asked him off-the-cuff questions, and like a smart politician he acknowledged concerns but made no hasty decisions.

There's no actual policy plan presented there.

eja_ bottecchia

Don’t be so gullible.

The Nanny State is gonna get you, sooner or later.

Have fun with that.

UniChris

Indeed, don't be.

Recognize when you've been trolled by so-called media with a political agenda.

Recognize also, when an alarmist headline is unsupported by the actual content of the article, which slanted as it is, doesn't contain the same blatant distortion of fact, but merely sets a trap for your mind to fill in the desired falsehood.

eja_ bottecchia

You don’t follow the news much, do you?

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...zze-story.html

Or this...

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/09/...-for-cyclists/

Seriously man, Hizzoner is an empty vessel.

eja_ bottecchia

You really need to pay more attention.

You seem to be one of the many Kool-Aid drinkers that blindly follow Hizzoner.

Are you a staffer?

UniChris

One verbal interchange took place. Multiple people republishing the original biased distortion of that does not create new facts.

You need to learn to distinguish what the interviewee said, from what the interviewer asked, and discussion from policy decision.

Or, like many of those involved in this media charade, you may just hear what you want to hear, regardless of the facts.

StanSeven

Ok, guys. Enough with the political stuff. Let’s get back to the topic or move it to P&R

bipedalconsumer

With regard to button-activated lights, the issue of tourists (and others...) crossing without activating the light would be very hard to address without perhaps some prominent signs and warnings... it seems that tourists immediately pick up on and imitate the wider NYC phenomenon of pedestrians crossing streets at will and largely ignoring the relevant traffic lights.

UniChris

Actually, pedestrians ignoring the buttons would be the goal.

Since the odds are better than even that another party (on foot or on wheels) is going to ignore the light, it's already basically devolved to a situation of look and be careful. As a result the lights fail to serve anyone's interest, because they are either an annoyance if against you, or an absurdly false promise if in your favor.

But putting the lights on buttons not only preserves the possibility that someone mobility challenged who really needs a protected crossing (and is willing to wait for it) could in legal theory get one, if having the lights activate becomes a rarity, then enforcing them becomes much more socially tenable enough that they might actually get a protected crossing.

(I stop at deserted park lights; it feels downright silly to do so, but it is what they mean. I express my objection mostly by avoiding the park... and for that matter, the street grid, unless I'm in a mood to deal with that.)

Giant321

I'd have to say pedestrians are less dangerous than the casual rent a biker who doesn't ride straight, takes selfies, and doesn't pay attention at all.

CliffordK

Ok, a bit late here, but the news seems to be everything but a Central Park Cyclist.

But, I do see notes of a Central Park Cyclist that recently was killed after hitting a pedestrian.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/08/...al-park-crash/

And, of course, a cyclist that killed a pedestrian a couple of years ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/n...k-cyclist.html
https://gothamist.com/news/cyclist-w...dable-accident

Too many people and too little space.

I have enjoyed STRAVA a bit, but I refuse to slam most segments on the local bike paths. Just too stupid. (although I have 2 straight, flat, wide bike path segments that I like, but won't overdo it). There are plenty of other places where one can safely go fast on the roads. Nonetheless, I can imagine options being more limited in New York.

What I'd like to see with STRAVA is a blackout feature where city officials could black-out all challenge segments from certain bike paths & parks. Not necessarily everywhere, but target a few trouble spots.

CliffordK

What is Governors Island like?

I could imagine cyclists lobbying to make a "Race Track" around the outer perimeter of the island.

Perhaps add pedestrian sidewalks, and pedestrian bridges from the ferries to the internal park area.

bipedalconsumer

I'm sure you do, but it's also hard to imagine that without the fear of enforcement many cyclists who ignore lights when there are more of them wouldn't do the same when there are fewer of them

bipedalconsumer

Although the total number of crashes increased by 2, It would appear that removing (most) cars from the park has resulted in a 50% reduction in individual cyclists injured, a 400% increase in the number of pedestrians injured, and an overall 24% reduction in individuals injured (including motorists, although since the NYPD classifies e-bikes as motorcycles for accident statistics, it's not clear that the 300% increase from 1 to 3 motorists injured wasn't all or partly accounted for by e-bikes) during the first year or so over the previous period.

While these are small numbers for drawing large conclusions, assuming the data is meaningful, and regardless of which category of road-user is more responsible for accidents, removing most regular auto traffic from CP would appear to have made the road safer for (non-motorized) cyclists, and more dangerous for pedestrians and possibly for e-bike riders, although since the number of cyclists injured dropped by 11 vs an increase of 3 for pedestrians and 2 for "motorists", the overall reduction in cyclist injuries (and in total injuries) were arguably more meaningful, presumably because cyclists simply suffer a lot more injuries than pedestrians, in general.

Nevertheless, whatever behavioural reasons exist behind the accidents, if this data is meaningful, then it would seem reasonable to conclude that it would be appropriate for the MUT to be configured such that the jogging lane is protected from cyclists by some sort of physical barrier such as the ones that were installed this summer in Riverside park after a collision between a cyclist and a child, and the occasional / surprise enforcement of some very stiff fines for bikes that ignore stoplights.

Are the existing stoplights poorly designed for a road dominated by cyclists? Yes, and ultimately, there should probably be walkways over the road for pedestrian crossing, but the current setup is simply chaotic, and there are so many bikes that a pedestrian crossing the road often feels in the precarious position of "dodging" one speeding bicycle after another, and I just can't see how this can be considered appropriate in CP.

UniChris

It seems like you are saying the lack of obvious danger from cars has made everyone less careful. That could well be true.

Have you actually been to riverside park since then? It sure does not sound like you have. No linear barrier was installed, what happened was cycling was outright banned on a key section of the greenway, with cyclist diverted onto a hilly path with even more potential for pedestrian conflict, and car conflict too. There is no model there applicable to Central Park.

The thing about enforcement is that to modify behavior (and especially to modify popular behavior), it has to be constant enough to create an expectation that violations will be caught. If it's a rare thing, the reality is that most consider it a tax on being unlucky. I stop at lights, but I don't know anyone else who does.

It's actually quite simple for able bodied people to cross the central park drive: treat it like a suburban road, wait for a gap in traffic, and cross.

The lights probably have to remain for the mobility challenged, but at present they are a danger to all, since they are mostly disregarded by users of all sorts. Pushbuttons could hardly make things worse, with luck they might make them better, especially in not creating a conflict between practical behavior and the law.

bipedalconsumer

Yeah, that seems undoubtedly true for all types of users.

Cyclist deaths from traffic accidents rose by 10% last year, but pedestrian deaths have risen 40% in the past 10 years, since smartphones became commonplace, probably due to distracted driving, but I would have to imagine that distracted walking also plays a major role.

Another viable conclusion would be that that the road is safer for cyclists because the primary threat to cyclists who often share space with cars has been removed, while the road is less safe for pedestrians because without regular motorist traffic, cyclists are less apt to observe stoplights at crosswalks, and in many cases don't ever slow down.

Yes, I don't know what the terminology is, but there are or were flexible dividers on a small segment where the bike path is diverted. I was just referring to that type of divider, not the general solution.

If the fine were $1,000, bike impounded, and it happened 30 times a day, I think you would start to see compliance.

The timed lights don't belong on the loop, but they probably can't go away as long as some cars still use the park, and at least until an alternate crossing scheme is in place (such as raised crosswalks or overpasses), there should be some way or other to cause cyclists to stop or slow down around pedestrians, and a way for the elderly and disabled to cross without fear.

For now, button activated lights make sense if they were obeyed. That seems unlikely without enforcement, but considering the amount of traffic day in and day out and thus the potential revenue from fines, it wouldn't be hard for the NYPD to justify full time enforcement while the park is open.

Will CP be a less attractive track for training? Yes... but even if "practical behaviour" means it's unreasonable to expect bikes to ever stop for pedestrians, somehow it still just doesn't seem reasonable for a "mixed use" road to be in some ways less safe or accessible to pedestrians than a regular street.

UniChris

I've never seen the book, but I am 100% sure that Rule #1 of flexible divider installation is "Plant flexible dividers between the lanes, not exactly in the middle of the northbound bike arrorws". So I stand by my early summary of there being no applicable lesson from the riverside disaster, except for what not to do.

Given stunts like following someone through three lights before turning on the siren and writing a ticket compounding repeat offender penalties, it comes close to that. But again, it's so sporadic that most dismiss it as unfairly bad luck, rather than being willing to modify behavior. You don't modify behavior with a rare chance of a $1000 fine, you modify it with a certainty of a $50 any day you decide to ignore the lights on the loop.


It isn't. It's actually quite safe, especially if you treat it like the suburban street it is most directly comparable to.

The biggest hazard is probably the salmoning in the pedestrian lane. The next, the "lights that lie" in giving a false sense of safety. But the reality is that if you look for a break in traffic, it's pretty safe to cross.

To an extent, it almost doesn't matter what the rules are - people can adjust to that, though of course there will be winners and losers. The actual hazard (to wallet and life), is that there's a huge difference between the theoretical rules, and the usual majority behavior.