New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | March 7, 2008 8:39 AM

City Hall and NHPD have to take this seriously, immediately and make a radical change to enforcement. This comes not just from my desire for me and others to bicycle safely, but also from my desire as an overburdened taxpayer not to pay for lawsuits against the city when somebody gets killed as a result of lax enforcement.

Posted by: charlie | March 7, 2008 9:22 AM

The Police are "understaffed" only in the sense that they can't address every problem with 100% of their force all the time (in that sense, any police department in the country would claim to be understaffed). If traffic was the city's top priority, the issue of dangerous driving would be addressed. If neighbors keep making noise about this at meetings across the city, the police will begin to respond. The issue probably isn't the police, it is that everyday citizens don't complain enough about the problem. They complain about car theft,burglary, drugs, etc., instead, even though speeders are far more dangerous and kill a lot more people.

Posted by: dwightstreetrenter | March 7, 2008 9:51 AM

well you could make a citizen's arrest if you see a law being broken.

it's odd that in any other town in CT, if a traffic law is broken, there's a good chance you'll be caught and ticketed. Where are the radar traps in downtown? Where is the enforcement? WHY should I feel safe if speeders aren't ticketed, those who blow through red lights aren't targeted, and those who drive in an unsafe manner aren't stopped? Focusing on enforcement of laws IS THE DEFINING JOB of the police department.

If you speed in a small town in Vermont, you WILL be caught and ticketed. If you run a red light in NYC, you WILL be caught and ticketed. I think traffic cameras infringe upon my privacy and freedom of movement, and should not be considered as an enforcement tool. Only a police presence will curb these problems!

If traffic violation ticket money were retained by the local municipality, instead of going to the state, I think we'd see better enforcement!

Posted by: Bruce | March 7, 2008 10:03 AM

"Our streets are designed for [driving] 50 miles an hour and are posted at 25..."

Perhaps this was simply a poor choice of words, but New Haven streets were certainly not designed for people to drive 50 MPH. I believe most of the downtown streets were designed before automobiles were even invented. Many of streets are extra-wide because they were designed for streetcars (Elm st, Whitney) and when people see long straight open roads they tend to speed.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that roundabouts and bump-outs would help alleviate speeding problems.

I also agree that 25 MPH is perfectly reasonable for urban driving.

Posted by: robn | March 7, 2008 10:42 AM

I'm not sure if we want to go there, but private citizens who are frustrated with traffic incidents near their home are free to put a video or webcam in their window, aim it at the street, record whatever may happen and give it to the police. It may not record speeding, but it might record bad (illegal) behavior.

...Individual citizen empowerment or slippery slope to Orwellian society???? hmmmm ???

Posted by: on whalley | March 7, 2008 10:55 AM

No amount of ticketing is going to stop people who drive recklessly from driving recklessly. The only thing that will stop them is a tree.

And anybody cycling in New Haven in any other way but defensively is just an accident waiting to happen. The drivers can't judge your speed or distance very well. Sometimes they can't even see you in the field of signs, mailboxes, bus stop shelters, other cars, pedestrians yelling in the street...

I rode my bike by just after this happened. As soon as I saw the bike and this guy laying face down on the road I knew exactly what happened. He was riding straight probably faster than he should have been and not completely aware of his 360 degree environment and the vehicle that he hit was turning left frantically because on Whalley if you don't get that left turn at an intersection with no green arrow as soon as you can you may never get it.

He was decked out in his spandex and all and looked like he was just getting back into town after a distance ride outside of town. Once you get into an area you need to slow it way down and expect everyone around you is trying to kill you. That's the only way to prevent such a stupid accident. Save the speed and spinning intervals for Bethany or Woodbridge. Don't even go down into the drops in traffic as dense and stupid as city traffic.

My last accident happened when I was heading out of the city for a 60 mile loop. I wasn't hit by a car but by some drunk/addict with his bike carrying a dozen bags of cans. He slammed right into the back of me while I was sitting at a red light. I thought he put a gouge into my carbon but my leg absorbed all of the scratching and crushing. I would have been arrested for beating on of New Haven's prize residents to death had my carbon got gouged. His apology came slurred and confused. Who let all these vagrants out in the first place?

Posted by: DingDong | March 7, 2008 11:51 AM

"I think traffic cameras infringe upon my privacy and freedom of movement, and should not be considered as an enforcement tool. Only a police presence will curb these problems!"

Why do traffic cameras infringe upon your privacy and freedom of movement any more than a police presence? I should think they infringe upon your presence LESS since traffic cameras only take a picture when triggered by a car running a red light, while the police are always there observing.

Posted by: charlie | March 7, 2008 11:57 AM

"If you run a red light in NYC, you WILL be caught and ticketed."

Not really true. According to one website, New York City drivers run 29 red lights every single second. I don't think the cops are out there giving 29 traffic tickets per second.

Posted by: robn | March 7, 2008 5:17 PM

Charile,

I think you're right. If the 38,000 NYC cops had to ticket 29 traffic violations per second for a year (about 915 million violations) that would mean that each cop would have to issue about 24,000 tickets (about 66 per day, or about one every 8 minutes).

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | March 7, 2008 5:35 PM

Hey Charlie
How come a police commissioner from new haven who did not have his seat belt on and run a red light and was not given a ticket.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 8, 2008 7:40 AM

Ban bikes on streets. They should be on the sidewalk.

I have never seen bicyclists stop at red lights or stop signs. They ride right through the intersections as soon as they see they can make it. They think they are always in the right, even if they are riding in the middle of the lane, holding up several cars behind them.

The street is not made for them -- they should be off of it.

Posted by: Sarah28 | March 8, 2008 1:17 PM

CONFUSED FAIR HAVEN ALDERWOMAN: "Our streets are designed for [driving] 50 miles an hour and are posted at 25..."????? No Kidding?????

Yeah, that's it! She is confusing the The Merritt / Wilbur Cross Parkway with the streets of new haven.

Posted by: Matt Uva | March 8, 2008 10:08 PM

Ahh, Hartford Johnson, you are wrong. Paved roads were invented (and in use in New Haven) before the invention of the car and after the advent of the bicycle. Bicycles do belong on the road, as they are often traveling in the 15-25mph range -- sometimes slower, sometimes faster.
I believe you do have some merit in your complaints, however, as you are from Hartford. Hartford has a unique distinction in Connecticut as bicycle messengers are in use in that city. I believe this is where you get your dissatisfaction from -- Messengers are paid piece-work and therefore will do whatever it takes to get more stops done in less time.

As for riding in the middle of the lane, I can see where this would be frustrating as a motorist. On a street with little shoulder room, I can assure you it's more frustrating to be the cyclist who gets hit by an opening door from the right or a side-view mirror from the left. Cyclists are encouraged, both in "safe-practice" and by law, to take the full lane when it is unsafe to ride exclusively to the right.
Believe it or not, it is actually possible for bicycles and motor vehicles to share the streets, when both are attentive of each other.

Just a few ideas for motorists...
-it's probably not a good idea to speed up to pass a bicycle, only to then make an immediate right turn in front of them.
-when making a left turn across traffic, check the side of the road for bicycles.
-check your mirror before exiting a parked car.
-give a li'l room when you pass a bike (maybe even a li'l wave, too.
-slow down in town.

And some for cyclists...
-NEVER assume a car saw you.
-signal your turns (helps out other bikes, too).
-eye contact with motorists goes a long way.
-watch those doors!!!
-return that copy of Quicksilver to Netflix, and stop recreating the chase scene.
-Give a li'l wave of "thanks" to considerate motorists.

See y'all on the street!

Posted by: robn | March 9, 2008 11:51 AM

Heres some advice for bicyclists...observe traffic laws as much as possible and earn the respect of drivers. Shout out to other cyclists when they break the law so they don't squander the respect you earn.

Here's some advice for motorists...know the law and that bicyclists have a right to the road...and then beyond that, pretend that the cyclist is your son or daughter or spouse. A little bit of empathy goes a long way.

Posted by: greg | March 9, 2008 8:39 PM

does anyone know what time the meeting is on March.10?

Posted by: Ornesto | March 9, 2008 10:38 PM

The point remains that the officers in this city do not enforce traffic laws. WHY? It happens all the time. I believe firmly in the "broken window" theory and--let me tell you--that's ONE BIG WINDOW broken when it comes to public perceptions of law enforcement and respect for the law.

How much are we supposed to complain about this?

I've called and complained and talked to Lew (?) in the Mayor's office, and I get the usual lip service--I was actually told that, if I see someone run a red light in an officer's presence and the officer ignores it to go up to the officer and tell him. Now, how do you think that will go? The guy would probably book ME for threatening an officer (like, maybe I looked at his badge or something, like Commissioner Epstein did!)

So--what the heck is wrong in New Haven?
One thought crossed my mind after reading the article below a while back: are the cops afraid of being called racial profilers, as suggested in link #2 per below? I say just enforce the law, and do so fairly. That means don't let the commissioner or the mayor or lieberman or whoever "off the hook." Let the chips fall where they may. (Oh, and don't forget tow the jerks who park in front of handicapped spots and fire hydrants at the shaws and stop and shop, because they can't be bothered to walk a few extra steps -- whoever they are. where DO they get that sense of entitlement? must be yalies.)

But as for the alleged profiling, which is admittedly only an unsubstantiated theory as to why the cops aren't enforcing the traffic laws in new haven, when nearly 60% of the city population are "minorities" (see link 1, US Census data), doesn't it seem logical (and fair, honestly) that at least 60% of the traffic violations would fall into these categories, too? (Although you'd have to factor in auto ownership, which the census data don't do.) And what if you could find a correlation between certain levels of poverty and traffic violations in the city? (Not saying there is one.) But if there were, would that make it right NOT to enforce the law when public safety is involved?

Same way the Staties should pull over all the jerks in their Beamers going 100 mph down the Merrit. But then again, we wouldn't want to ruffle any Fairfield feathers, now, would we?

Link 1
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/09/0952000.html

Link 2
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E2D7123BF934A25754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Posted by: charlie | March 10, 2008 11:35 AM

"it's probably not a good idea to speed up to pass a bicycle, only to then make an immediate right turn in front of them."

Actually, this is not only not a good idea, it is illegal according to state law.

Posted by: DingDong | March 10, 2008 1:55 PM

ElmCityCycling has its meeting on Monday (today) at 6:00 in City Hall.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 10, 2008 4:54 PM

matt uva -- no, I'm not from Hartford.

Macadam was first paving roads in the 1820s and 30s, well before there were bikes. It has nothing to do with Scottish history, but with NOW.

I did see today -- for the first time! -- two bicyclists stopped at the side of the road waiting for the red light to change.

But they were positioned next to each other - not one behind the other taking up an entire lane - so cars had to wait quite a while before they could maneuver around them to pass them in the other lane.

of course, if the bikes had been on the sidewalk, where they should have been, the cars could have moved on rather a lot faster, during the morning rush.

keep bikes on the sidewalk!

Posted by: Joe | March 10, 2008 5:27 PM

Then where am I to walk?

Posted by: cyclist | March 10, 2008 5:31 PM

As much as I dislike posting things online, I feel compelled to respond to On Whalley's comments. Your account of what happened is very much incorrect. I'm the guy that you saw laying on the ground, and yes, I saw you too. Thanks for stopping. I was about a block away from my house, moving not much faster than you were at the time you cruised by, and I am generally very much aware of my surroundings, regardless of whether I'm riding to work, the grocery store, or just out for a bit of exercise. I assure you, my attire has nothing to do with my level of attention. My hands were on the tops of my brake hoods at the time, and I'm terribly sorry that you think my accident was stupid.

How did I not see it coming? Must have been a momentary lapse of concentration. Unfortunately, I am in fact human, and it happens to all of us from time to time. No one (not even you, On Whalley) can be aware of all things at all times. Statistically speaking, such a lapse (just a split second) does not usually involve getting leveled by a truck.

That said, I would agree that it is my responsibility as a cyclist to be constantly aware of impending doom. It may have been preventable if I had seen the truck in time, and I regret what happened to this day. It's just as likely, given the speed of the vehicle, that I'd have been hit anyway. Useless speculation. However, I believe the intent of the article is to draw attention to the fact that there is a traffic problem, and something needs to be done about it. It certainly should not be that the margin for error in riding down the street on a sunny afternoon is approximately zero.

Posted by: juli | March 10, 2008 7:37 PM

hartford johnson
it is ILLEGAL for bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk. it endangers pedestrians, and it increases the likelihood of an accident. think about this: when you are entering a road with a righthand turn you pull up, often over the sidewalk to see far enough down the street, and you are conditioned to look immediately to oncoming cars, not on the sidewalks for bicycles.

and the cyclists you mentioned side by side were also not breaking state law. cyclists are often killed while they are trying to travel straight through an intersection, even after they've stopped. drivers sometimes don't see them in the shoulder, don't have their blinker on, or get distracted as the light is red, and the driver turns right into the cyclist.

the safest way to travel through the intersection is to make yourself as visible as possible, signal the direction you are going, and make eye contact with the driver behind you so you know they understand where you are going. the extra few seconds it takes for the cyclist to travel through the intersection is worth it for their safety, don't you think?

the law also says that cyclists can "take the lane" meaning merge with traffic if there is dangerous debris or road conditions in the shoulder.

i understand that some cyclists are careless and have endangered you or themselves, but there are also many knowledgeable, empowered and law-abiding cyclists who want the roads to work for everyone.

Posted by: Esbe | March 10, 2008 8:16 PM

HartfordJ -- as a matter of law, you are wrong. It is illegal to ride bikes on the sidewalks, where they would pose a danger to pedestrians. Bikes legally belong in the street, where they are indeed supposed to obey all traffic laws (redlights, etc.). Dealing with bikes on the road is part of the legal responsibility of a motorist, just as you have to look for pedestrians on crosswalks and so forth. If you don't want those responsibilities, then you shouldn't be driving. (Same goes for the bicyclists and obeying the law.)

Posted by: Lisa Anamasi | March 10, 2008 8:41 PM

It was poor criticism on your part, Sarah28 & not at all constructive.
In response to [Posted by: Sarah28 | March 8, 2008 1:17 PM

CONFUSED FAIR HAVEN ALDERWOMAN: "Our streets are designed for [driving] 50 miles an hour and are posted at 25..."????? No Kidding?????

Yeah, that's it! She is confusing* the The Merritt / Wilbur Cross Parkway with the streets of new haven. ]

*You obviously didn't understand what alderwoman Sturgis-Pascale meant, nor did you read the link to the Complete Streets website to get information regarding the legislation that is being supported. If you had taken the whole idea in context, I think you would see who is truly confused.

Posted by: bill saunders | March 10, 2008 8:53 PM

Not to give NHPD a pat on the back, but has ANYBODY noticed that since the first of the year the cops have actually been pulling people over in a frequency I have never seen in my 18 years hear. Has anyone noticed all the flashing lights? It's xmas everyday now.

Posted by: Matt Uva | March 10, 2008 10:41 PM

Hartford J, if you really wanted to get around the city faster, you'd ride a bike!

Posted by: bill saunders | March 11, 2008 1:27 AM

Matt Uva,

Maybe some people aren't concerned about getting around town 'faster', they are concerned with casually (and safely) getting around. Given that we are the #19 walking city in america, let's have a rabid pedestrian lobby as well.

And Cyclist,

If you are only human, understand that accidents happen.

Posted by: David Streever | March 11, 2008 12:20 PM

Bill,
as someone who knows you, I find your comments to Taylor distasteful. You don't ride a bike that I've ever seen, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, when you call overtly negligent driving "understandable".

A yale student who was an experienced driver was hit in the same way recently--the driver admitted to seeing him & turning regardless, and was not ticketed. Yes, accidents do happen, and when they involve gross negligence & involve a heavy vehicle almost killing someone, then it's time for a ticket.

"Rabid" lobbying is not a part of Elm City Cycling. Fighting to protect the lives of our friends and fellows IS.

If you are interested in community building, please, do start your pedestrian lobby & do it! Don't just diminish all of our hard work--years of it--with a comment about how people should be "rabid"ly lobbying for pedestrian advancements. We've done a lot of good, and a lot of hard work, and it's dissapointing to see a local New Haven citizen just shut this down with no practical experience, knowledge, or information on the subject or the people involved.

Furthermore Bill, your response to Matt Uva is misleading as well.

Matt is responding to HartfordJohnson who is saying that bikes hold cars up, and saying a bicyclist can travel quicker around New Haven than a car. This is accurate, and can be demonstrated. He is not endorsing or claiming that he or anyone else wants to speed around town, and I think it's inappropriate of you to try and paint him into that corner. He's merely addressing someone who is saying that his car commute is slowed down, and letting him know a way he can make it across town quickly.

OnWhalley,
Though I don't know you, I also find your commentary distasteful.

Taylor is a VERY experienced bike handler despite your desire to paint him as a joke. He rides primarily in urban settings & is a cyclocross racer & really knows his stuff. I fully believe his view of the accident, and seriously question yours: Taylor has lived in that neighborhood for well over a year, rides there on a daily basis, and has done everything in his power to make himself into a safe rider.

The last thing he needs is some other guy on a bike trying to blame him for being mowed down, and misrepresenting him. I've ridden with Taylor down town, out of town, and around town, and in my experiences he has always ridden at the speed limit or considerably slower, ridden on his brakes, and not been doing "spinning intervals". I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a local road rider who does spinning intervals anywhere near Whalley, and it isn't appropriate for you to label all of us that way.

HartfordJohnson:
I'm sorry that you pay so little attention that you don't see the 400+ of us who actually do stop at red lights, stop signs, etc & practice safe riding techniques.

News to you: in a small city with a very low speed limit (25 mph) it is entirely appropriate (not to mention legal) for cyclists to ride side-by-side. If you research accident data, you will see few instances in which people riding in these patterns are hit by cars. Ultimately, we are going to do what is safe for us, because let's face it, most drivers are like you: unaware, uninformed, and uneducated.

Posted by: David Streever | March 11, 2008 12:27 PM

On the positive:
Charlie:
You are absolutely correct. Citizens don't complain enough about routine infractions that reduce quality of life for us all. We did meet with the police last night, and it was clear that they DO appreciate it when the subsection commanders & Community MAnagement Teams are informed about problems in traffic/intersections.

We've been asking for a dialogue for 3 years, and have one--the police have come to partner with us, & it looks like things are happening. Now is a great time for people to become involved in reporting, documenting, and asking for the police presence we need on some of our intersections. Captain Kearney & Lt. Witkowski are both very interested & happy to enforce traffic laws, but they do need people to report problems!
http://www.empowernewhaven.org/d/2006/04/26/834
this URI will take you to the meetings for the Community Management Teams, an excellent place to voice your concerns.

Greg:
Did you make it to the meeting? There was one visitor I didn't recognize... Please feel free to join us next month!

http://www.elmcitycycling.org/ is the website--please visit, and see what's going on!

Ornesto:
Recently, some yahoos tried to knock me off my bike in traffic: they ran into the street, and almost got me, but a car whizzing by scared them. I reported it to the first cop I saw, who tracked them down. Officers in my experience generally respond well when asked for help in a calm manner. I think it is unlikely that you saying to an officer, "Look, that man is running a red light!" will provoke anger toward you. IF you were to say, "Why don't you do your job and go arrest that guy", yes, that would be more an attempt to provoke, I think ;-)

Posted by: DAFeder | March 11, 2008 1:34 PM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this in all the free advice (and worth every penny, I'm sure):

HELMETS! Helmets, people. Your brain can keep you perched on two inches of rubber at 20 miles an hour -- you owe it a $25 helmet.

It won't protect you from the homicidally negligent drivers, but it will make it a lot easier to write in to the NH Independent afterward.

David

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 11, 2008 3:36 PM

Esbe -- The current law SHOULD change: bikes SHOULD be on the sidewalk and not on the street. It should not be my burden, as a driver, to avoid a vehicle which could easily be ridden -- or walked, where necessary -- on the sidewalk. Why are bike riders not saddled with the burden of walking their bikes across the street, from sidewalk corner to sidewalk corner, like it used to be -- presenting far less of a danger to themselves and others?

GET THE BIKES OFF THE STREETS.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 11, 2008 6:39 PM

Dave,

My guess is that you would have found my comments distasteful even if you didn't know me.

To deflect some wrath, I do ride my bike (a 21 year old univega vivasport), just not in crappy, cold, or rainy weather (a BIG DISTRACTION to any rider trying to be 'safe'). Living downtown, I do mostly walk, however, I will put on the ole saddlebags to go grocery shopping at Ferraro's in better climes, but I also have no problem walking the 1 1/2 miles in sub-freezing weather.

You know, I actually love riding my bike spring-fall, but I also have no delusions that my safety is in my hands. If that means getting up on an empty sidewalk in nasty traffic because I feel imperiled, I'll proudly take the ticket if there is a cop there to give me one.

And Dave, this may be a little off subject, but what is your opinion of fixed gear bikes with no braking mechanism -- I say get them off the street and into the velodrome where they belong. (Don't be mad at me, fixies, but you know, we are all entitled to our opinions)

Posted by: juli | March 11, 2008 10:02 PM

hartford johnson needs to read his or her drivers' manual.

your desire for cyclists to be on the sidewalks will not change the law prohibiting it.

have you ever asked yourself why you are in such a rush while you are travelling? maybe you are just conditioned to see everything as an obstacle and that is a mindset that endangers everyone you travel near, not only the ones without a metal cage protecting them?

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 12, 2008 9:45 AM

Juli -- why, if you are endangered riding a bike on the street, as you say in your post, do you demand to ride on the street? That is precisely my point -- go where it is safer for you: the sidewalks.

Posted by: david streever | March 12, 2008 10:10 AM

Bill:
Probably, but it's more upsetting when it's someone I know, who is involved in the community. When it's some guy like "OnWhalley", who responds to every NHI story and "gets the last word" spewing "blame the victim", it's one thing, but when it's a community member who is diminishing the work of the only bike advocacy group in the region, it's dissapointing.

As for the brakeless fix gear, I don't understand why people ride bikes without brakes in traffic. There is a lot of "information" out there saying it's safe, and I did try it because I thought that it was honest information, but it's really not safe, and basic science demonstrates that. I ride a fix gear (with a brake) and my braking power on the fix gear is equivalent to my braking power when I put on my spandex & ride my fancy road bike--without a brake, you have about 20% of the stopping power of a regular bike.

HartfordJohnson:
Sidewalks are for pedestrians & children. Not for transportation. Bikes easily travel at speed (25 mph) and belong in the street.

You are misrepresenting Juli by stating that it's safer to ride on sidewalks. Juli knows (as do the rest of us) that more cyclists are hit riding on the sidwalks than the streets--because eventually, unless your ride is 4 right turns, you'll have to go through a street.

On a sidewalk, you are invisible. Drivers do not see or expect to see you crossing streets & driveways.

HartfordJohnson: Why do you think you don't need to share the road? How do you handle slow-moving vehicles, pedestrians in cross-walks, and stop signs & red lights?

The reality is that as a driver of a very deadly vehicle, you do have responsibilities, you do have requirements incumbent upon you, and you must acknowledge that driving is not some inalienable right, but rather something that you are granted when you demonstrate your ability to handle it in a safe, responsible manner. Your postings do not suggest you are capable of that.

Posted by: Aldewoman Erin Sturgis-Pascale | March 12, 2008 2:10 PM

IF a road is designed for 50MPH, it is hardly fair to post it at 25MPH and expect the NHPD to police it. Clearly there are a multitude of different types of streets in New Haven, representing a range of design speeds. Court Street (between Wooster Square and Olive) and the stretch of E.G. Blvd near Legion are two extremes on which 25MPH is frankly inappropriate.

The single most important factor that governs design speed is the width, real or perceived, of a road. The mandated standard practice of traffic engineers for decades has been to design and build roads as wide as possible. This has maximized vehicle volume and speed, the later of which has been incredibly destructive to neighborhoods and has been one of the factors that has driven urban dwellers to the suburbs where they can live on dead-end streets.

This is not meant to be an indictment of traffic engineers, as they are simply doing their job. I am arguing that it is time to strike a balance between the users of the public streets by recognizing that designing streets for safe passage of cars radically decreases the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Redefining the objectives of street design will give engineers the direction to create streets that support everyone's needs. It's not that they can't do it, the tools are available and time-tested; it's that they haven't been trying because we haven't asked.

It's now time to ask.

Posted by: david streever | March 12, 2008 5:14 PM

Aldewoman Erin Sturgis-Pascale,
Well-said!

I do think that though it may not be fair to ask police to enforce the 25 mph speed limit, we must, as a short term solution until the more ambitious work of re-designing our streets can be finalized.

The only other option is for us to start asking cyclists to stop riding. These streets are incredibly dangerous, and I do think we need an immediate short term solution before the long term solution is implemented.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 12, 2008 8:52 PM

Streever,

Never look at opposing viewpoints as disappointments. They stir up important dialog.
There are always valid points on either side an argument.

Many of my postings here deliberately take an opposing position to challenge the cheerleaders riding around on the happy bandwagon. That we are able to have this conversation, without the veil of anonymity, is a positive. But don't dump on 'On Whalley', you could be accused of grandstanding as well.

One quick point on the neverending streets vs. sidewalks argument -- There is actually a sidewalk in NH that IS designed to handle bicycles, that being the multi-use path around IKEA (a European style solution to the problem). There is even a differently surfaced 'lane' on the normal sidewalk for bikers. It is solutions like this, that take into account the flexible nature of the bicycle, that are going to give riders the options they need to ride more safely. I would propose one of these lanes on the highway side of state street, where there are never pedestrians, and few real intersections.

Posted by: DingDong | March 12, 2008 10:26 PM

While I see no reason to enter the fray fully (my sympathies are likely clear from other posts), I will point out two things:

1. Traffic laws on bikes does not need to be changed 'back' to how it used to be (with bikes on the sidewalks) because, so far as I know, bikes have always been required to be in the road in Connecticut.

2. Many members of ElmCityCycling are concerned about pedestrian safety and if you look at much recent ECC correspondence with the city, it has touched on pedestrian safety issues as well. Only very rarely do bicycle and pedestrian design and enforcement issues conflict and, to be honest, many people in ElmCityCycling are just as pro-transit and pro-pedestrian as they are pro-cycling.

Posted by: DingDong | March 12, 2008 10:29 PM

Bill, you might be right about State Street (haven't really thought about it) but I would disagree that there are always two valid sides to an argument. Sometimes people are dead wrong.

I do appreciate the diplomacy and I am not implying anything anyone here said is dead wrong.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 13, 2008 3:36 AM

Ding Dong,

I may be a bit of a provacateur, but I believe, there are kernels of truth on both sides of all complicated matters. Sure, you might have to put some blinders on, and sift through some BS, but there are always underlying concerns that are real, though maybe not eloquently presented.

I must admit, I have learned a lot from people I have summarily discounted. It's a lesson you learn again and again.

And so I contend, if you are going to take some time to post some passion on this forum, there is some reality to it.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | March 13, 2008 6:23 AM

Alderwoman Sturgis-Pascale,

You might have some great ideas, but, realistically, our streets were designed a couple hundred years ago. We're resourceful New Englanders, baby, and damn good at living with the hand we're dealt. Let's not pretend we're somewhere else.

For example, roundabouts are appropriate in many locations, but nearly impossible as a "retrofit" in an established urban environment -- the cost of land acquisition alone would make it a rather pie-in-the-sky solution for most locations in New Haven.

Costly traffic calming exercises are unlikely to beat out the city's plans for increased traffic flow (Gateway, for instance). Unfortunately, the city is working against you at every step.

Like I said, these are great ideas, but since you are in a position of authority, it's your responsibility to ask for some REAL action. How about requiring City Planning to incorporate alternative transportation concerns into all new downtown development projects (including Yale and Gateway), rather than supporting City Hall's specious biking advocacy as a mechanism to reduce parking spaces for preferred developers without any giveback to the biking infrastructure (uh, Shartenburg comes to mind).

With all due respect, unless you are willing to fight the fight, your positions are nothing more than posturing and fluff.

Posted by: Ned | March 13, 2008 8:36 AM

I ride everyday, year round, rain or shine (maybe you've seen me in my day glo yellow jacket). Probably the biggest mistake I see other cyclists make is wearing black. Yes it makes you look slimmer, but it also makes you invisible. 40+ years of riding, one "accident" (my own fault). Do not rely on the kindness of strangers, or the goodwill of others - especially if they're driving a car - they will kill you, and no, they won't care - seen it happen. Is elmcitycycling another Yale club (or club for Yalies)? If you think bicycles "don't get no respect" try riding a motorcycle... My favorite kind of car is one that's flipped over, on the side of the road, on fire. LOL. $5/gallon gas might change things a little.

Posted by: david streever | March 13, 2008 12:35 PM

Ned:
Elm City Cycling is a non-yale affiliated club, mostly led by locals with decades of living here. I'm not saying that to be critical of any yale affiliated club, but only to be clear.

Many of us ride every day for basic transportation, rain or shine.

Bill:
I thought it was already clarified that Alderwoman Sturgis-Pascale is referring to the extremely wide streets we have. She is not claiming that the original city plan was for 50 mph speed limit, but she is saying that the current road design encourages that speed.

It's hard to debate ideas when one side chooses to misread and misinterpret statements, especially when they have been clarified & defined!

While it's certainly valid to say that there are differing views in everything, your shtick as an "anti bandwagon guy" is one of those things that just strike me as a poor choice of shtick. There is no "bandwagon" of cycling safety: we are a small minority achieving equality & recognition after several years of hard work. For you to dismiss us as rabid and to push a contrarian point of view for no other purpose but to foster debate seems like a poor usage of a news column's comments section.

When it comes to shticks, I much prefer russian accents.

Love & kisses from Siberia--I think this issue is laid to rest.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 13, 2008 2:25 PM

David, you said yourself that the auto is a "very deadly vehicle." But you, the bicyclist, still want to share the road with it. That doesn't make sense.

Neither does it make sense to claim that a bike is as deadly on the sidewalk as the car is on the street. The car weighs over 2000 pounds. The bike, 20.

The impact of a car or truck into a bike is far more injurious than a bike into a person.

Posted by: Carole | March 13, 2008 5:53 PM

Hartford Johnson: Is it your view that the road belongs to the person with the biggest vehicle? By that logic, if you drive a car or SUV, why would you want to share the road with the big rigs? In your words, that doesn't make sense.

Take your logic a step further and forget about what you're driving: the road belongs to the person with the biggest gun.

Fortunately, the rules of the road have not yet merged with the law of the jungle.

Posted by: Matt Uva | March 13, 2008 5:56 PM

This is obviously the argument-without-end, so all I ask is this:
Until the law is changed, prohibiting bicycles from the street, please make every attempt to share the road with them, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Thanks.

Posted by: david streever | March 13, 2008 9:36 PM

HartfordJohnson:
You drag me out of Siberia for this nonsense?

You clearly have a problem reading, comrade: Please re-read what I said. If you can't scroll up, I will make it really simple, da?

Sidewalks end.

Sidewalks.... end.

When they end, you are in the road.

I just want to be sure we are in the same spot, comrade. Well, metaphorically. You see comrade, I am in Siberia right now, in Gulag, with internet. So let's be clear.

Sidewalks are not these autonomous zones free of cars.

They have these fancy new things we call "driveways", and they "terminate", where they meet the road.

This is a source of MANY cyclist deaths, and you can google for those statistics on your own, comrade.

Let's talk to Melbourne Australia, which is having a big problem with cyclist versus pedestrian crashes:
http://www.woj.com.au/2006/09/24/melb-fears-as-bikes-put-walkers-in-danger/

It's amazing what you can learn, despite being a pretend russian living in Siberia, when you take a minute to unbury your head from the sand and wake up.

HartfordJohnson: are you going to respond to any of the people asking you how you view pedestrians, stop signs, and other "obstructions" in your otherwise "unobstructed" ride? Do you push slow moving cars off the road? Why the zell against bikes?

I know, as a Russian from communism, I probably learned more about sharing than you, but I am fairly certain your Amerikan style pre-schools teach it. Maybe you should take a trip back?

Posted by: Bruce | March 14, 2008 9:52 AM

There are not sidewalks on every street. I do not pass one single sidewalk on my commute to work. Where should I ride, HJ? Would you make an exception in this case?

Posted by: Devorah | March 14, 2008 11:50 AM

On the note of enforcing 25 mph -

The way the street lights are timed in New Haven, it's pretty difficult to go above 30mph. Even when cars do, it's that typical ridiculous pattern of start...speed...brake! all in the space of forty feet. The stop lights are designed to basically let people go only one-two blocks at a time, thereby somewhat regulating speed (at least during daytime hours). I think one of the true problems, as mentioned above, is that some people consistently run through red lights or turn with them when they should not. Last may I was completely 't-boned' by a local who plowed through a red light into my car. I couldn't move my neck for almost two weeks - I can't imagine what would have happened if I was riding a bike. Stricter regulation of these 'minor' infractions would definitely make our streets safer.

Posted by: East Rockette | March 14, 2008 10:32 PM

"Sidewalks are for pedestrians & children. Not for transportation. Bikes easily travel at speed (25 mph) and belong in the street."

Ah, but what if the cyclist IS a child? I regularly bike around town with a 6 year old sidekick and a 2 year old in a bike seat, all of us with helmets on. No way am I putting my little guys on the road. We ride slowly and carefully on the sidewalk, and we cross at the lights when the pedestrian walk sign says we can. Maybe it's illegal. But so far it's non-fatal, and we like it that way.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 15, 2008 12:08 PM

David,

Sidewalks end...and you walk your bike across the street. Inconvenience? or your own safety? Which do you favor? It is untrue that the law has always placed bikes on the street -- certainly not when I was a youth. All sidewalks, then.

Carole,

You wrote" Is it your view that the road belongs to the person with the biggest vehicle? By that logic, if you drive a car or SUV, why would you want to share the road with the big rigs? In your words, that doesn't make sense."

No. It is my view that bicyclists take their lives in their hands, contrary to common sense and the concerns of public safety in general, when they ride in traffic with no protection on an inherently unstable vehicle. I am somewhat better protected against trucks because I am encased in a metal shield designed to withstand significant impact. All bicyclists have is a helmet (if that).

It is precisely because the bigger vehicle produces the greater impact that the virtually unprotected bicyclist should be separated from the auto.

Posted by: juli | March 15, 2008 9:53 PM

hartford johnson:

how about this: name a time and a place that you can meet me for a bike ride. you can show me exactly how you expect cyclists to travel on sidewalks.

if you don't own a bike, i can find one for you.

i am making this gesture with complete sincerity.

let me know,
juli

Posted by: DingDong | March 16, 2008 9:20 PM

Hartford Johnson,

Do you have any data or personal experience to back this up, or is this just some intuition? Just about every expert and Department of Transportation in the country disagrees with you, hence the presence of bike lanes and sharrows on streets and laws forbidding cyclists on the sidewalks.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 17, 2008 1:01 PM

Juli -- thank you for your kind offer, but I would suggest you use your imagination. It really is self-evident.

Dingdong -- I assume you'd ask the same question of me if I were to state that pedestrians should be allowed to walk together with the autos...

Posted by: Bruce | March 17, 2008 6:02 PM

HJ: Pedestrians DO have to walk together with the autos! Everywhere there isn't a sidewalk, which is the vast majority of streets once you get outside of the city.

Posted by: Matt Uva | March 17, 2008 10:47 PM

It's amazing that this is still going on...
HJ, by your logic (metal-encasing, and all) motorcycles belong on sidewalks as well, eh?

Posted by: david streever | March 18, 2008 11:34 AM

Pedestrians, motorcyclists, bicyclists, children, & all others take their lives in their hand by existing, and we should actually encourage this, Johnson?

I've seen the light, you are correct!

The answer is to drive the biggest, heaviest, most indestructible vehicle. This way, you aren't stupidly taking your life in your hands.

HartfordJohnson, I hope you don't drive a compact, or walk. We both know now that it's just stupid.

I tried to out-silly you, but I lost :( I'll give up now. You win! Even the Russian shtick couldn't beat your darwinist view of the streets.

Posted by: david streever | March 18, 2008 11:35 AM

Dear Rockette:
Rock on on those sidewalks! Children are safer on sidewalks than on the road: they move very slowly on bikes, so they are less likely to be hit by accident by someone turning/crossing/entering/exiting a driveway. When you are riding with them, just make sure that you also are going at a slow speed, and keeping aware: I have seen far too many close calls at intersections/driveways between cyclists & cars for me to ever suggest you are safe there without constant vigilance!

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 18, 2008 2:40 PM

Satire doesn't become you.

Posted by: David Streever | March 18, 2008 9:22 PM

The real tragedy is that my satire isn't a dramatization of your inane commentary. As long as we have people like you, with darwinist views of the road, no one is safe, and the number one cause of preventable death (for drivers!) will continue to be the number one cause of preventable death.

You say WE'RE stupid for biking, but the reality is that, percentage-wise, a motor vehicle driver is at a much greater risk of death while driving.

So, keep campaigning to increase speed limits & reduce punishment for drivers who break them. You're only damning yourself.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | March 21, 2008 11:39 AM

I see. I am personally making the roads unsafe by attempting to keep the unprotected rider away from a rolling bomb weighing over a ton. Thanks for that cogent explanation.

I never said you (plural) were stupid.