wild how anti cop this website is until it’s directed at a group of people that personally annoys them. read the fucking article, cyclists court summons higher than they ever have been in 7 years should be a HUGE red flag, and the punishment, again if anyone actually read the article, is far more strict than if you were in a vehicle doing the same thing. this is bullshit to pad out NYC’s court docket
New Yorker here.
It’s to target the immigrate population of delivery cyclists, thus triggering deportation due to “criminal conviction”
It has nothing to do with court docket numbers, everything to do with Trump’s crackdown.
Adams golfs with the Mustard Mussolini, they’re tight. Share a background in shady political shit.
In Japan the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the larger vehicle. If a truck hits a car it’s on the onus of the truck driver to prove he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and if a car hits a cyclist, the car driver has to prove their innocence etc.
I think to most Americans that seems appalling (what if the stupid cyclist was doing something reckless?! Etc.), but it definitely makes people in Japan drive much safer in areas where there are potential cyclists, and thus makes it safer to cycle places easily.
It’s the same in the Netherlands. The most vulnerable traffic participant is always protected. Bicycle gets hit by a car? Cars fault. Pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle? Cyclists fault. And so on.
Blind pedestrian gets hit by sighted pedestrian? Sighted pedestrian’s fault and also a total dick move.
Some of those citations are cyclists on sidewalks endangering pedestrians…
Others is cyclists running red lights.
So, cyclists hitting a pedestrian, I feel like we’d agree who’s at fault.
But say a cyclists runs a red light and tbones a SUV, you’re saying the SUV is at fault?
They’re saying it’s on the SUV driver to prove they didn’t do illegal things that resulted in the accident, assuming normal police requests don’t do it first (security camera footage of the intersection) because nobody knows for sure who ran a red light except the people involved, unless there’s proof.
Not “someone said the SUV ran a red light and everyone believed them instantly without proof and the SUV was found at fault”
It feels a lot safer to be a pedestrian in Japan. I never saw a driver take precedence for themselves.
The general traffic rule is that unless indicated otherwise, roads are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists, so you’re the one borrowing their roads, not the other way around.
I’ve regularly commuted by bicycle for almost 2 decade in 3 different countries.
I’m sorry but if you’re cycling (or using an e-bike) on the sidewalk you deserved to get punished for it. Same if you cross a red-light when pedestrians are crossing. (I’m so so about crossing a red-light when there are no traffic or pedestrians crossing: I won’t do it myself but if you’re not endangering others it’s no big deal in my book if other cyclists do it).
Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.
the sidewalk things applies to proper cities where sidewalks are actually used by pedestrians and the road can be used by cyclists. actual streets
there are lots of suburbs where that’s not the case - 80km/h traffic on a two lane each way, separated center, grass boulevard between the pavement and the sidewalk etc, and a sidewalk used by nobody because it doesn’t connect to anything for over a km.
that’s the one time sidewalks are okay to cycle on. and even then, better not be going the wrong way at intersections or going too fast at intersections, nobody expects that
Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.
100% but then cars and trucks parked on the cycling lanes, road work without a new bike lane, etc (impossible to have an exhaustive list but I bet you’ve seen countless video of cyclists everywhere unable to have a single ride on the actual cycling lane) ALSO must get punished because they are the ones prompting dangerous cycling too. There is no justification for putting others in danger but then it has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.
There is no justification for putting others in danger
but then. It has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.Fixed it for ya.
There is no justification to put others in danger, period. That applies as much to drivers as to cyclists.
The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.
I’ve cycled in places like London, back when few people did it and the cycling infrastructure was basically non-existent and what little there was, were mostly tiny lanes painted blue on the side of the road with no actual safety from the cars and which tended to have cars parked on top.
People still didn’t cycle on the sidewalk there back then, even in places without cycling lanes.
The sidewalk is not a place for cyclists: it’s filled with people who don’t expect cyclists and fragile and highly unpredictable pedestrians like children and dogs.
The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.
Well then you didn’t fix anything for me as that was precisely my point. You might not understand or agree with what I wrote but based on upvotes, others do.
PS: FWIW and to step back a bit cyclists actually rarely do put others and themselves in actual danger even when they do break the law https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists-reckless-lawbreakers/
Look up the psychology of using “but” - in that sentence structure you were justifying the former with the latter, hence why felt the need to emphasized that those two things are separate and one does not justify the other.
As for cyclists being or not reckless lawbreakers, my experience of almost 2 decades in 3 different countries and about 5 cities is that most are not. However there are a few cunts out there spreading a bad impression on the general population about the rest of us by being reckless, so I am totally in favor that those cunts get cracked-down on hard, even if they’re not as dangerous as equally reckless drivers because they’re not riding anywhere near the same weight of metal at anywhere near the same speed - simple Physics dictates that a reckless cyclist is much less likely to kill somebody than a reckless driver.
Besides, cyclists who couldn’t care less about endangering others behave exactly the same behind the wheel of a car and at least in the West most cyclists are also drivers (and we’re all pedestrians too) so in general, that kind of person needs to be convinced to behave differently.
This isn’t the fucking “thin blue line” and frankly any moron supporting those cunts just because “we’re all cyclists” needs to sit down and have a really hard think about what they’re actually achieving with it.
Imagine being ticketed for walking the wrong way down a sidewalk or crossing the street. At intersections pedestrians generally have the right of way unless it’s signalized (or a car is already inside the intersection).
Cyclist are pedestrians.
These kind of stories almost read as “car is king” and all other modes of travel (walking, running, cycling) are required to conform around the car. Next thing you know grandma will get a ticket for riding her mobility scooter the wrong way down a sidewalk.
The main issue is improper Infrastructure. Streets are destinations and Roads are throughways. Street are multi-use and should be designed as such.
This is a street. It’s a destination where local pedestrians have the right of way.
This is a “strode” its a neither a street or a road. Car rule and use these as throughways.
This is a road. It’s a proper throughway with no street parking or driveways. Reduced conflict zones such as no intersections or left turn.
Also obligatory:
Emotos, ie. “Self powered” high speed electric motorcycles should be treated similar to regular motorcycles or cars.
Ebikes ie. “Pedal assist” or “human-powered” bicycles are low speed and similar in nature to regular bicycles or in some cases “mobility devices” like grandmas mobility scooter.
Down voted for this:
Cyclist are pedestrians.
But want to say thanks for the explanations. Regardless of whether I agree with your opinions.
not even close, people are pedestrians, ive encountered more often than not that bicycles ignore pedestratians when they are crossing the streets, or if they are behind a person, sorry but they act like they are in cars themselves.
What about a person on rollerblades?
By definition they are a vehicle, but are they a car?
Cyclist are pedestrians.
Unless you mean this in some very unconventional way — absolutely not. Bicycles are vehicles.
When was the last time you road a bicycle on a busy roadway ? Bikes are not vehicles.
Bikes are very much vehicles legally.
“If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You’re done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons, which means you have to take a day off of work, go to court, probably you should hire a lawyer. And if you are an immigrant, then that can put you at risk of deportation,” Berlanga said.
I’m in California, not in New York City, but I have to say that while I have seen cars run red lights, it is exceedingly rare, whereas I see bicyclists doing it all the time. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if New York City has a similar situation. Whether-or-not the current situation is a good one, I do think that there’s a lack of deterrence as things stand.
EDIT: And while that’s the most egregious issue, I also see:
-
People riding their bikes on the street at night without a light, which they are required to have here. This one boggles me, because I’ve almost been hit on a number of occasions while bicycling with a light at night, and now use both a regular headlight and a flashing headlight and a flashing taillight to increase visibility. People who bicycle in black clothes with no lights at night are crazy, even issues of illegality aside, and I see those every night.
-
Not nearly as common, but bicyclists cycling the wrong way down roads. Automobiles don’t do this.
Alright, I hear you, but I think the point is that a cyclist running a red light mostly endangers themselves, while a car running a red light endangers others. Here in Colorado, we changed the laws such that a red light is a stop sign for bicycles, and a stop sign a yield, in recognition of the differences in risk. (Edit: cars -> bicycles)
That’s assuming that an oncoming car wouldn’t swerve at all if a cyclist entered their path. Dangerous or unpredictable behavior by anyone on a road puts everyone in the area at risk.
Yes, and nobody disputes that some bicyclists put everyone at risk. The point of the article, though, is that drivers are handed a fine, while bicyclists are handed criminal charges. Pointing out that bicyclists are given harsher treatment for a less dangerous offense is, I think, fair in this case.
-
