New York City has sent over 6000 cyclists to criminal court. Some say they are being treated unfairly.
Citywide crackdown on cyclists causes divide on accountability
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.
"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:
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)
a red light is a stop sign for cars
I assume you mean “…for cyclists”?
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.
In my experience cyclists are more likely to run red-lights in pedestrian crossings than in junctions and intersections, so they're not endangering themselves, they're endangering pedestrians.
Cool except for the person who hits the cyclist and surfers emotional damage.
I've commuted by bicycle regularly for almost 2 decades in 3 different countries and whenever I bought a new bicycle (well, I usually got them used), I would always make sure to have a forward and a back facing light as well as a bell.
The lights are almost self-explanatory, as you pointed out, but the bell is for the kind of pedestrians who don't properly look to both sides before crossing a road (they rely on hearing and peripheral vision, both of which don't work with bicycles which are silent and have a far narrower profile than a car), as well as drivers who will do the same in intersections (these are people who literally don't turn their heads fully to look at possible incoming traffic but instead only turn it just enough to have the intersecting road on the corner of their eye) - they're to warn then when I notice they're not looking suspect they might be about to just cross in front of me.
My ass has been saved multiple times by keeping a weary eye on people on sidewalks that looked like they were about to turn and cross the street and warning them of my presence with the bell.
Also works well in places were the cycle path and the footpath are shared (like often in Berlin) to notify pedestrians that you're coming to avoid situations were they do sudden moves to the side without looking.
Even in places with proper infrastructure (like The Netherlands), it pays to be defensive in your cycling, but that's even more the case in places like Berlin (were the infrastructures is mainly decent and people are used to cyclists, but sometimes it's kinda crap) and more so in places with almost no cycling infrastructure like London.
Right on. But I gotta say those strobe lights on bikes blind the sh*t out of all who see them. You can’t see anything else but that light. And I’m speaking as someone walking on the sidewalk.
Keep riding your ebikes. Please slow down and make noise when you ride past me on the sidewalk. I swear somebody almost hits every day In out walking around. A simple "Honk honk, coming through", please.
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.
Cyclist are pedestrians.
Unless you mean this in some very unconventional way — absolutely not. Bicycles are vehicles.
Which is why some of those 6k citations are for riding on the sidewalk
I would agree any item that is used to transport goods or people in any way is considered a vehicle, but i would add the term "vehicle" is somewhat loose in meaning or interpretation.
There are two distinct classes of vehicles though. Self-powered and Human-powered.
Self-powered vehicles. Example, an aircraft, car, tank, truck, motorcycle, scooter.
Human-powered vehicles. Example, a bicycle, unicycle, balance bicycles, scooter, dandy horse, handcar, draisine, shoping cart, and maybe even shoes?
Now the reason I believe classifying cyclists as pedestrians, is because it would require a "shift" in how infrastructure is designed within our towns and cities.
The city "strode" is a unsafe place for a pedestrian or people in general to be (as it's currently designed). Classifying a cyclist as a pedestrian would highlight the need that the equivalent of "sidewalk infrastructure" is required for the well-being of people on a bicycle.
Now imagine yourself walking (in your shoes) on a city "strode" in the middle of a lane, it feels "wrong". So why do we force all ages of people on a bicycle to do this?
When was the last time you road a bicycle on a busy roadway ? Bikes are not vehicles.
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?
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.
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 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
Fair enough.
This article, however, is about New York, were none of that applies.
here in the west, they lobbied/bullied enough to the governments now they act like douches all the time. its a double edeged sword. most of them have no respect for pedestrians.
Yeah, should be an option to pay the fine online. No court summons needed (waste of taxpayer money).
"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..." A 60lb bicycle with a 120-190lb adult meat crayon riding it. That's 250lbs of meat and metal getting slammed by a 4000lb SUV that had the green.
"You stop and double park while you're doing DoorDash or Uber, and you get a ticket for double parking, and there is no consideration for a working man who's trying to do his living,"
Peak NYC... "Yeah, uh, I broke a well known and established law, but I'm working here! Gimme a break!"
"It's because the design and the infrastructure is not there to protect the people who are the most vulnerable..."
Pedestrian and traffic laws exist as a deterrent to keep people from doing stupid and dangerous things. Bike lanes and greenways exist. That's the infrastructure! You're a pedestrian breaking a law that's been implemented because it makes something unsafe for everyone. Maybe don't do the thing that makes things unsafe!?
I bike a lot in San Diego, which has a decent amount of bike lanes. Not a ride goes by without me having to leave the bike lane to go around someone parked in the bike lane. A law is only effective if it is enforced.
Parking in a designated bike lane should be treated like the equivalent of mounting the curb and parking on a sidewalk.
All ages of people use bike-lanes just like all ages of people use sidewalks.
Forcing people onto a full lane of potential deadly traffic should not be taken so lightly.
Being keyed every time they park in a bike lane might change their habbits.
You're not wrong, but I wonder how many people are stopping to actually take a pic and notify the police so they can enforce the law. I've never seen it done in my area. I'm sure it happens, but any time I see a cyclist pull into traffic from a bike lane because some idiot's parked illegally, they just go around and ride on. That's part of the problem of enforcement too...
What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that we have a established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles that bicyclists don't use. Tickets for bikes isn't something that can be tacked on to the existing infrastructure easily so of course they have to be processed differently.
Now if bikes/riders were licensed too, that may be easier to include just like vehicles, but good luck trying to push that law through.
This comment seems to be suggesting that because enforcing traffic laws against people riding bikes is more difficult than it is against people driving cars, people should be punished more harshly when they violate traffic laws on bikes.
What that argument ignores is the vast difference in risk to others. The car is a couple orders of magnitude more dangerous, which is a major reason the law requires a license and registration to operate one on public roads. The idea of balancing the difficulty of enforcing traffic laws against people on bikes with harsher penalties only makes sense ignoring the difference in danger to others between bikes and cars.
Their first sentence explains their premise.
What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that we have an established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles that bicyclists don't use.
They’re saying the infrastructure around vehicles has established process which doesn’t exist for cyclists. They’re positing, from my reading, that this is contributing to the disparity in how infractions are handled; that if bicycles had license plates, registration etc. similar to vehicles the current system could be equally applied.
Wow, swing and a miss, bud. That is so, so not what I said at all.
In no way did I imply "people should be punished more harshly". Nor did I address anything about weight.
Jeez, stop making stuff up.
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.
I've been the car driver in a bike versus car crash and I'm glad that wasn't the law where it happened. It was 100% the cyclist's fault; he ran a red light on a fairly fast road and was obscured by a box truck until he was in my lane.
I do think car drivers should be held to a higher standard because cars are more dangerous, but automatic fault based on vehicle size takes it a bit too far.
Dat is wel een serieuze oversimplificatie. Ik denk niet dat een vrachtwagen meer of minder aansprakelijk is in een ongeval.
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.
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"
They said assumed, which makes me think it’s a general predisposition, but open to additional evidence. We assume a car that rear-ends another is at fault, but that doesn’t make that if car A pushes car B into car C, the operator of car B is necessarily liable for car C’s damages. It’s just the going theory before additional evidence comes into play.
Actually, yea, kinda.
One of the things you're taught early on in driving school in Japan is to "close the gap" and pull to the side that you're turning into in order to prevent bicycles and mopeds from fitting between the sidewalk and your car and tboning you if you pull into a right or left turn.
If you pull into a left turn (left handed driving so similar to a US right turn) without checking that a cyclist is coming up behind you on your left side and they slam into your car you are 100% at fault.
[Edit]
The thing you gotta know about japanese roads and the law is that all roads unless explicitly marked otherwise are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists. As a car driver you are borrowing their roads. The law explicitly states that you are not allowed, while operating a motor vehicle, under any circumstances to impede the progress of pedestrians or cyclists.
The only time the law says otherwise is on highways and roads marked exclusively for motor vehicles.
Old lady walks in the middle of a four-lane street, shutting down traffic? Yea man too bad, you gotta wait, the most the police will do is set up a road barrier to help her cross easier and ask her nicely to use the pedestrian crosswalk.
America is run by car lobbyist. They're trying to get rid of kei cars and because the kei trucks are taking sales away from the giant American trucks with the same bed size. Trains and street cars were killed by GM to make room for their cars.
Cyclists also have a lot more rules and are required to have liability insurance in Japan
No, they're not.
Not sure where you heard this, at most you need to register your bike with the police so they know who to fine if you leave it overnight somewhere it's not supposed to be
I agree with this mentality, but it goes both ways. If a cyclist rode with consideration of the fact that they will lose every battle with a motor vehicle of any size they would also ride more cautiously. There are tons of bad drivers, and they are driving both motor vehicles and bicycles.
In America the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the poorer person. It's on them to spend exorbitant legal fees to prove their innocence.
Where do you see that? I see if both vehicles are moving both are at fault even if one runs a stop sign.