"Smart" Traffic Lights Will Spot Bikes

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

“Smart” Traffic Lights Will Spot Bikes

by Melissa Bailey | Nov 19, 2010 8:33 am

(49) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Transportation

Melissa Bailey Photo When a bicycle or car rolls up to this intersection late at night, there’s no system to trigger a green light—yet.

The city plans to install overhead cameras at this downtown intersection and eight others as part of a $3 million state project to improve local roads before the Gateway Community College relocates downtown.

The cameras will detect any bike or car that’s stuck at a red light and trigger a green signal so it can safely cross. The change will be part of a major rethinking of intersections—the first of its kind in the state—that uses “bike boxes” to give cyclists first priority at red lights, according to city traffic engineer Bijan Notghi (pictured above).

The project, which still needs final approval from the state Department of Transportation, is slated to be complete in the spring of 2011, in time for the new Gateway campus to open to students in the fall of 2012.

Meanwhile, the city is making more modest improvements at other intersections around town—including one at Middletown and Clinton avenues, and near the Southern Connecticut State University campus—so that traffic signals can “see” bicycles in addition to cars. When another 14 intersections the State and Ferry Street corridors are revamped with federal funds, eight will have video detection, too.

Notghi shared the news in an interview at the intersection of George and Church streets, where workers were climbing through the fast-rising framework of the new Gateway campus.

The traffic lights there are not equipped to react to changes in traffic demand, Notghi said. The traffic light cycle caters to the main stream of traffic that flows down Church Street into town. When a car comes down George Street late at night, there’s nothing to trip the system so that the car gets a green.

That means lights just cycle through a pattern, without regard to on-the-ground conditions. The traffic department can monitor the traffic patterns from its central office, but Notghi said the system is inefficient. “If there is no demand, the light shouldn’t change.”

The system can be dangerous, he said: Late at night, a car may give up waiting for a red light when no other traffic is in sight. The driver may run the red light. If a cyclist is coming the other way, “the poor little biker might get hit.”

Melissa Bailey Photo At other places around town, the lights change for cars, but not for bicycles. Many traffic signals, including ones along Whitney, Orange and Whalley, use a “loop detector” that can perceive when cars are approaching the light. It’s done through wires embedded in the road surface. They’re laid out in a series of 6-by-6-foot squares. The wires form an electrically conducting loop, which essentially acts as a metal detector. When a car drives over them, the large amount of metal in the cars disturbs the magnetic field, which triggers the lights.

Not so for dinky bicycles.

When a bicycle rolls up with no cars in sight, most loop detectors don’t take notice, Notghi said. (Click here for tips on how a cyclist can try to trigger them.)

“It won’t detect you, because there is no car,” Notghi explained.

He called that system one of “the olden days.”

“Smart” Traffic Lights

On a large white paper on the hood of his city-issued Chevy Cavaliere, Notghi laid out the plan for the future.

At George and Church, a 45-foot arm will extend over George Street, holding three traffic signals. A tube-like camera will sit on the middle of the bar with its eye fixed on the starting line for the red light on George. When a bicycle pulls into the “bike box,” the camera will see it, triggering the light to turn green. The same will go for cars.

“These are going to be smart traffic lights,” Notghi said.

The system is called “video detection.” It will be used on all nine intersections that are being redone as part of the Gateway project.

Of those, seven will also be equipped with a “bike box,” the first of its kind in the state, according to Notghi.

City of New Haven Here’s how it works: On these streets (Church, Temple, George, College), there’s no regular lane designated just for bikes. Instead, there will be a mini-bike lane, about 4 to 5 feet wide, for at least 100 feet leading up to each intersection. Cars will pull up to the “stop bar,” the fat white line painted on the road at the red light. Bikes will be allowed to use the bike lane to scoot past that “stop bar” to a special “bike box” painted on the pavement in front of where the cars stop (pictured at center in photo, labeled BD1). When the light turns green, bikes will be the first vehicles out of the starting gate.

“You become Number One. The cars become Number Two,” Notghi explained. “You are a priority.”

Notghi said the new system may slow down traffic, because cars will have to wait for bikes to move ahead of them, but “there is no safer way.”

“We want to make sure you are safe,” he said. Letting bikes go first gives them a chance to “clear the intersection.” “If you are in front of everybody, they can see you up front.”

Notghi said the city doesn’t have good numbers on how many bikes travel through city streets. Human beings have tried to count them during limited times of the day. The new cameras will automatically count how many cars and bikes there are, 24-7, Notghi said.

Notghi said the city plans to equip all new intersections with cameras to detect bicycles and cars, moving away from the “olden days.”

For example, the city is preparing to redo 14 traffic signals around State and Ferry streets through a federal grant. Of the 14, eight will use the more efficient video detection system that perceives both bicycles and cars. The other six will use the loop detectors embedded in the road, he said.

Notghi said the reason not all intersections are using the new system is because the plans were drawn about two years ago, before the city started making the switch.

“On every new project starting now, every project will have video detection,” he said. The new detection system is slightly more expensive, but its benefits—including not having to worry when a gas company tears up the road, disrupting the magnetic loops there—outweigh the costs, he said.

The topic came up at a recent meeting of the aldermanic City Services and Environmental Policy meeting, said East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker.

Elicker said the topic hit home to him: About three years ago, he was given a traffic ticket for turning right at a red light on his bicycle. Elicker said he waited for the light to trigger green, but it never did, so he went through it.

He said the current setup, where lights can’t perceive bicycles, sets a “double-standard” where cyclists are required to obey the law, but also forced to break it.

“Cyclist should obey the traffic laws, and I feel strongly about that,” he said. The city should allow bikers to pull up to a light and go through it when it turns green.

“If you don’t make all the signals around town sensitive to cyclists,” he said, “then cyclists have to break the law.”

He urged the city to include video detection on all future projects.

Paul Bass File Photo Since the city already has cameras on many intersections (like the one pictured), it could start using those to trigger the traffic lights. Notghi said that’s easy to do when there’s a bike lane, because the camera knows where to look for a cyclist.

But without a bike lane, it’s trickier, because the cyclist could pull up anywhere along the road.

“In order for us to do it, I have to know where you’re going to be,” he said.

Comments

posted by: anon on November 19, 2010 8:43am

Bike boxes are great.

posted by: streever on November 19, 2010 8:59am

This is really good news. I know that Justin Elicker has been working hard on seeing these improvements, and he has a dedicated partner in traffic and parking. Both TT&P and city engineering have really proven themselves dedicated to infrastructure improvements that impact all city users.

posted by: Walt on November 19, 2010 9:25am

Seems OK, but what bikist will hang around for the few seconds it takes for the light to change?

Most will have already jumped the light and be a half-block away before the light changes.

Should incorporate a system of identifying and fining the bikists who scorn the law.

posted by: robn on November 19, 2010 9:56am

Although seldom as Haley’s Comet, I agree with Walt. Cyclists have to stop rolling through lights; day or night. If not to support the general principal that bikes are vehicles and must lawfully share the road with cars, then at least to protect oneself from the inevitable oncoming car one may not have seen.

posted by: Erin on November 19, 2010 10:39am

If you’re still confused about the concept of the bike box, Portland, Oregon instituted them two years ago. Just below is a link to their educational brochure with a good picture. From the article above, it looks like New Haven is going for a box across all lanes, while Portland keeps bikers to the right; the PDX boxes feed them back into the bike lane on the other side of the intersection. This works very well in Portland, but that could be because bicyclists already follow the rules of the road there…

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=185112

One comment about the traffic sensors: please spread them CITY-WIDE! Just one exasperating example: at 5:30am this summer I drove from Wooster Square to the West Haven beach to see the sunrise. It took twice as long to go from Chapel and Olive through the intersections on Sargent Drive to get on I-95 than it did when I got off I-95 and went through the same number of lights in West Haven, where each light was also red but changed to green as soon as I rolled up to the intersection. I had a particularly long wait at the Sargent Drive/IKEA intersection. With no one else there for FOUR MINUTES, I’ve never been so tempted to run a red light in my life! I no longer wonder why people run red lights so consistently here.

posted by: downtown on November 19, 2010 11:06am

i think employing an “idaho stop” law would be also a good way to change the system to bring bikers in line with the law (or more accurately the law in line with bikers).

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on November 19, 2010 11:22am

I would prefer smart bicyclists, of which I’ve not seen too many. With few exceptions: they do not stop at red lights and wait with the cars. They don’t signal turns. They don’t wear helmets. And many, many, many ride on the sidewalk in New Haven. It is difficult to swallow all the positive pap coming from radical bikists and their supporters, when they ride as badly as they complain drivers drive.

posted by: Bill on November 19, 2010 11:46am

I don’t need the ‘poor little biker’ BS. I was hit on Veteran’s Day by an older fellow who hooked me with his rearrear-viewror. I was sore as hell for a couple days, but I didn’t press the complaint. He was decent to stop and say all the right words (apologize), so I let it go at that and went to work.

‘Poor little biker’ is rather patronizing. When was the last time this urban planner on a bike every day in city traffic?

I’ve stopped counting the number of times I’ve been hit and/or ‘doored.’ And that’s after ten years of riding in New Haven.

posted by: robn on November 19, 2010 12:00pm

DOWNTOWN,

The “Idaho Stop” (rolling stops allowed for bicycles) makes sense in terms of momentum and conservation of energy, but makes no sense whatsoever in a dense urban environment with a lot of cars on the road. It would be a downright dangerous proposal even if CT drivers behaved themselves (which they don’t).

posted by: HMS on November 19, 2010 12:13pm

This is a great idea.

However, as others (i.e., Walt) have said, most cyclists in New Haven just cycle straight through red lights and stop signs.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to sharply brake when going through a green light because some moronic cyclist has ridden through a red light and is going across my path. Naturally, those cyclists hardly ever wear a cycle helmet, have lights, or high-visibility clothing.

I’m a cyclist and I’ve never had any problems on New Haven’s roads because I obey all the road laws and ordinances (i.e., indicating turns; having front and rear lights; stopping at red lights/ stop signs; wearing a helmet and high visibility-clothing). However, I’m consistently embarrassed and angry when I see other cyclists flagrantly disregard every road law and their own (and others’) safety.

I wish New Haven could implement a policy that heavily punishes cyclists for riding through red lights (i.e., minimum $100 fine).
Also, I hope there’s a law in place (or one that will be put in place) that ensures that if a cyclist does not have front and rear lights, if they are involved in an accident they automatically waive their right to sue for damages. The same applies to not wearing a helmet if they suffer a head injury.

New Haven cyclists: be more responsible.

posted by: robn on November 19, 2010 12:53pm

Its time for lawful New Haven cyclists to widen their repetoir…that of yelling at offending motorists….to include loud verbal derision directed at unlawful cyclists.

posted by: anon on November 19, 2010 1:16pm

“If not to support the general principal that bikes are vehicles and must lawfully share the road with cars, then at least to protect oneself from the inevitable oncoming car one may not have seen.”

Nice thought, but in many cases, cyclists are actually safer running the red lights (or stopping, and then proceeding, which is actually legal in many states).

Doing so takes them farther away from other vehicles, which may contain distracted drivers and are the primary source of danger.

Until you understand exactly what does and what does not make people safe within each specific situation, please don’t generalize about or criticize an entire group of people’s behavior.

Your first responsibility, as a human being and a contributing member of society, is to protect your own personal safety. This is actually cited as one of the main reasons why female cyclists are more likely to be injured by vehicles - because they are more likely than men to put the “law” before their own safety.

The only way to really correct this behavior is to install proper infrastructure, which keeps all road users safe. The U.S. is woefully behind in that regard, spending less than a dollar per person on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, versus up to 50 times that spent in other parts of the world.

posted by: robn on November 19, 2010 2:01pm

ANON,

I believe that I know what I’m talking about. Boise City is the only large (New Haven large) city in their state and it has HALF the population density. In other words we have twice as many people per square mile, more structures per square mile (obscuring views) and more cars per square mile. Since rolling stops aren’t legal in any comparably dense place (in fact nowhere else), I base my judgment that rolling stops are more dangerous on common sense.

And this isn’t even bringing up the issue of perception. How are drivers supposed to respect cyclists if they run red lights and stop signs?

posted by: nfjanette on November 19, 2010 2:10pm

Nice thought, but in many cases, cyclists are actually safer running the red lights (or stopping, and then proceeding, which is actually legal in many states).

...but not in Connecticut. Obey the law.

Until you understand exactly what does and what does not make people safe within each specific situation, please don’t generalize about or criticize an entire group of people’s behavior.

The use of a bicycle is voluntary behavior, just as is the operation of a motor vehicle. As such, you enter an agreement to obey the laws that govern such operations. It’s almost a competition in New Haven to see which group can spurn safety and compliance with those laws, and everyone doing so should be actively and harshly ticketed until the message is understood. Everyone’s safety depends upon everyone following the rules - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

posted by: anon on November 19, 2010 2:26pm

robn and nfjanette: You are generally correct that laws are in place to promote the safety and equity of road users, but you also need to recognize the limitations of your arguments when it comes to specific cases.

If you want to live in a hyper-idealized world with no sense of reality, that’s fine, but I challenge you to walk down Whalley Avenue any weekday at 3 PM and try to get the hundreds of people riding bikes on the sidewalks, in order to get around their own neighborhoods, to ride on the 50 mile per hour adjacent roads.

posted by: akb8a on November 19, 2010 2:31pm

I love the idea of bike boxes! Seems like it will be a bit tricky to be out of the way when there is a right turn on red (which apparently in New Haven is legal at every intersection, despite the signage.)

posted by: HewNaven?? on November 19, 2010 2:48pm

Articles about bikes + red lights + laws = a chance for the legally priggish and fastidious to speak to one other. May you all find joy in your obsessions.

posted by: downtown on November 19, 2010 3:16pm

nfjanette

sure - everyone should follow the law. but when the laws don’t make sense, or aren’t actually creating the safest environment, we should work to change them.

posted by: Madison on November 19, 2010 3:22pm

Why is it that certain towns in CT have traffic laws that are respected, like Madison and Old Saybrook? There aren’t more cops- but pedestrians magically have the right of way, motorists actually respect crosswalks, etc.

The affliction in New Haven isn’t traffic law, it’s driver negligence and indifference.

Bicycle lanes aren’t a focus of this article, but one must mention bicycle lanes don’t allow bicyclists the same rights as other road users, especially when they teach drivers to not be alert to a cyclist turning left, which places their body & bike outside the lane, in the path of vehicles moving in the same direction.

Note to author: “Late at night, a car may give up waiting for a red light when no other traffic is in sight.” should be edited to reflect that “cars do not get impatient, drivers do.”

The width of the shoulder painted on city & suburban streets is also misleading, as these do not take into consideration bicyclists who must navigate through storm drain grates that are sunken below the road surface, broken glass, and other road debris pushed to the side by fast-moving cars. The shoulder is a guide-line, not a lane.

posted by: nfjanette on November 19, 2010 3:31pm

While any general argument have have its limitations in specific cases, it is telling that you characterize the general statement that traffic laws should be enforced so that people will obey them and obtain safer travel as a “hyper-idealized world”. You are mistaken. That is, in fact, very much the way law and order was perceived and implemented by the general public merely a few decades ago: respect for the law and understanding of its critical nature regulating civil interaction in a good society.

Bike riding on the sidewalks by kids, in general, isn’t as much an issue as the action that happens in the streets. When it becomes a safety issue, it should be handled by law enforcement - and with good cops, it is. I simply want them to increase enforcement of existing, reasonable laws.

posted by: streever on November 19, 2010 4:03pm

Madison:
Well said.

posted by: robn on November 19, 2010 4:11pm

ANON,

I commented about the real, unchangeable situation of population density (ours is twice Idaho’s) and the potential danger of rolling stops in New Haven. I did not comment about riding on sidewalks. FYI, I ride and want safety for everyone. No matter how sensible you think it is to break the law (if you do), every time you do you lessen drivers respect for me and put me in more danger. Obey the law or work to change it.

posted by: M on November 19, 2010 5:04pm

I don’t really mind the cyclists that roll through red lights because they clearly stop and see that there is no traffic coming before proceeding. What REALLY bothers me are the ones that ride against traffic on one way streets!!! I come down Grove St. every morning and I swear I see at least 4 of them EVERYDAY. It’s amazing that I haven’t heard about one of them getting hit & killed yet. It’s stupid, lazy, down right dangerous and it annoys the life out of me!!!

posted by: MK on November 19, 2010 5:35pm

This is a really interesting article!

posted by: Pedro Soto on November 19, 2010 5:56pm

A bike stopping, then advancing through a red light does not pose nearly the same danger as a car running a red light. At best it is the same as a pedestrian jaywalking.

They are risking a huge danger to themselves and are also imposing a large psychological burden on a driver if they, while legally driving the speed limit and having the right of way, hit them- which I think is what most of the motorists are reacting to in this thread.

That is a very large imposition indeed and I don’t want to minimize it, but it is not the same as being struck and possibly killed by a driver doing the same thing. A bike rider is not going to kill a driver.

Drivers freak out mostly because they don’t want to hit or kill a cyclist. Cyclists definitely need to understand where this is coming from, because it is definitely something that should be a part of the debate.

Making roads safer for cyclists also has the dual benefit of making drivers more aware of them and lowers the risk to all.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on November 19, 2010 6:58pm

Bike boxes are a good way to allow cyclists to make left turns, but only if they have to get over one lane. A bike box on a four lane-one way road isn’t safe. Every singe street downtown should be two-way except Center Street and Wall Street. Many of the streets, like George, can easily accommodate a lane of on-street parking on each side, a bike lane on each side and one travel lane going each direction. That is the most effective way to make downtown easier to navigate for all street users. The imposition of one-way streets in New Haven was done in an attempt to make the city for cars. That action destroyed retail, made it unpleasant to live on many streets, brought down property values, forced more parking off-street, killed people, and left drivers with a sense of entitlement to our streets.
Tower Parkway once had a lane of on-street parking on each side, a travel lane in each direction and a green median running up the center.
The sidewalk around the lower Green and along Chapel Street used to have two rows of street trees flanking them, but the planters on the street side were removed to make the surrounding streets wider.
State Street used to connect the east side of the city to downtown, now it is a dividing point because the east side of the State Street was demolished for more travel lanes.
Traffic laws and road design standards were created when most American’s were either first or second generation drivers. Times have changed, we need to update design standards and traffic laws. Some of the work has already been done with the Complete Streets manual, and we need to continue forward to ensure that New Haven is a place for all people, not just those traveling through at high speeds.

posted by: A Little Perspective on November 19, 2010 11:49pm

@ Madison: New Haven is not its own little world of drivers and cyclists in CT. Traffic POURS into the city every morning, from where? From the towns surrounding it, dare I say Madison, Old Saybrook, Branford and so on. People trying to commute in New Haven are some of the worst offenders when it comes to obeying the traffic laws. I’ve watched it happen for 11 years as they come off the highways. So why do some drivers change their habits when driving in New Haven? I have to think that light timing and traffic flow have something to do with it. It’s simply SO frustrating to navigate the streets of New Haven, by foot, bike, or car, that people choose to break laws that they would otherwise follow. The improvements outlined in this article are encouraging and I hope that the sensors will bring a little sanity to the streets, if not to these posts.

posted by: Bill on November 20, 2010 2:17am

>I wish New Haven could implement a policy >that heavily punishes cyclists for riding >through red lights (i.e., minimum $100 fine).
>Also, I hope there’s a law in place (or one >that will be put in place) that ensures that >if a cyclist does not have front and rear >lights, if they are involved in an accident >they automatically waive their right to sue >for damages. The same applies to not wearing >a helmet if they suffer a head injury.

Do you think it’s ridiculous to ride without a helmet? Me, too! Want to punish those cyclists?
Your choice. Next time you get in your car , wear your helmet. If you want to save more lives than you can count, helmets inside cars will do that. You can set the example. If cyclists are required to wear helmets, or lose the right to sue, same goes for the car/truck driver without a helmet.

As for the ‘obey the law’ types, you ride as you wish. I want to be as far away from motorized vehicles as possible, and will break the law, if necessary, to do so. The first four words after an accident are, ‘I didn’t see you.’

When riding on sidewalks, I stay very slow, calling out to those with their backs to me that I’m going to pass left/right.

You want to ‘obey the law’? Bet with your own body. I will ride to keep myself safe.

posted by: Walt on November 20, 2010 8:27am

Surprising and encouraging that so many posters, including quite a few cyclists, recognize the problem of broad disregard for the laws by careless bikists who seem such a large percentage of bike riders in the area.

Even Elm City Cyclists which posts sensible, law-abiding guidelines on its site, seems, in reality, to be controlled by a Board of Directors whose members so often post here in favor of bikists ignoring the law.

If they followed the guidelines on their own website, safety would improve.

posted by: Whitney Cyclist on November 20, 2010 8:55am

Hey, why not use the cameras to make everyone happy? Instead of just checking on traffic conditions, perhaps we could have the cameras record who is running the red lights.

Since the major problem at intersections seems to the bikists, we’ll get the evidence we need to prove it. On those rare occasions when a motor vehicle runs a red light, we’ll be able to levy a fine and pay for the system. Everyone wins!

The only problem might be if so few cars are found to run red lights, the program might not pay for itself, but a subsidy might be in order, so that the scourge of light-running bikists can be exposed.

Before people start raising privacy objections, remember that driver behavior at red lights is unlikely to be found to be unsafe, since that issue is not really raised in discussions like this one. And besides, who could be against this issue?

Well, who aside from our legislature: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/03/post_133.php

posted by: robn on November 20, 2010 9:31am

PEDRO,

Well put.

posted by: Marshall on November 20, 2010 1:11pm

The sensors are a good idea, and the bike box idea is a GREAT one. Erin, thanks for sharing that brochure from Portland, OR. It helps explain it. it also contains some other ideas that the City should consider. One is painting the bike lanes and bike boxes a solid green color to make them more visible. Many drivers don’t pay attention to the white lines on the road. The second is allowing bikes to turn right on red when cars are not allowed to do so, and having signs explicitly state this.

Congrats on the city for making the roads more bike friendly. People complain about bikes not following the rules for cars, but we need to recognize that in an accident between a bicycle and a car, it the bike rider who will be hurt or killed. Yes, sometimes bicyclists are needlessly skirting the rules, but usually they are simply trying to give themselves the proper margin of safety. Infrastructure changes like this help solve these problems.

posted by: Ellis Copeland on November 21, 2010 5:48am

I have yet to ever see a bicycle stop for a red light anywhere anytime

posted by: Walt on November 22, 2010 8:19am

Whitney Cyclist

Although I note your facetiousness, you may have a good idea, but bikists here would be clamoring for an exemption.

NOTE: Are the useless words and numbers we were required to copy after each post now gone for good.?

Hope so.

posted by: streever on November 22, 2010 10:17am

Walt:
they aren’t useless. On one site I administer, those “useless” words and numbers prevent about 2800 automated sign-ups a month. The automated sign-ups are spam, hacker attempts, and other garbage.
...

posted by: Bill on November 22, 2010 10:48am

ROBN,
When cyclists start killing motorists, you can start yelling at them.

posted by: HMS on November 22, 2010 12:21pm

BILL
“When cyclists start killing motorists, you can start yelling at them.”

Your comment hides the fact that unsafe cycling can put other people’s lives in danger, not just the cyclist’s own life.
When a cyclist runs a red light, going into the path of an oncoming car - especially if it’s dark and the cyclist doesn’t have any lights or high visibility clothing - the car would only see the cyclist at the last moment and likely swerve to avoid hitting the cyclist.

That swerving car could then plow into pedestrians, or another (law-abiding) cyclist, or another car, or into a lamppost.

Your irresponsible actions as a cyclist (i.e., running red lights and stop signs, not having front and rear lights at night, etc.,) puts more people’s lives in danger than just your own.

Be more responsible.

posted by: Steve Ross, Human on November 22, 2010 2:05pm

Bike boxes make me happy. Thanks for the article.

The cars vs. bikes argument on NHI is so absurd, so overwrought, that I feel a little silly even mentioning this, but don’t those of you who are so riled up about cyclists running lights see that this change in infrastructure will help limit these terrible crimes?

Is it that hard to deduce that a culture changes only when the tools are in place to change it?

Get over it.

Incidentally, I ride and I do stop at lights (mainly because of the public perception issue, which is a valid point that Robn makes). Even still, I’ve been beeped at by motorists specifically TO run the light so they wouldn’t have wait for me to change lanes once the light turns green. I never budge, but I could see that as being intimidating to a novice rider.

posted by: Walt on November 22, 2010 6:15pm

Streever

Good points. I thought their only purpose was to eliminate long posts I had prepared just because my heavy fingers had hit one wrong character as they have done several times I believe.

Glad they have another purpose, and I see they have returned.

posted by: streever on November 23, 2010 11:05am

Thanks Walt. I had tried to relay your quick judgement of the captcha feature to your judgement on bicycling and bicyclists as well, but was a little too snarky for the NHI and saw it censored.

I’m trying to say this in a way that isn’t mean-spirited or personal. I hope that you realize that to most of us (bicyclists) who are generally law-abiding, many of your posts seem to be uninformed and a bit zealous.

You describe us “demanding” things, but ignore completely that we advocate for ALL road users.

It is perfectly reasonable that we want traffic improvements that don’t just reward one group. We want to see safer roads for walkers, bikers, drivers, and children. Many of the things we advocate for will improve safety for all 4 of those groups.

So while you may continue to try to push our buttons and post mean-spirited things about us, please do understand that we still continue to work to make the streets safer for you and EVERY other road user.

posted by: Walt on November 23, 2010 5:52pm

Streever

No quick judgment re captcha, as you state.

I have lost several posts because of this feature since it started as I recall. Usually if not always, it seems,it just erases my complete post if one simple character is messed up instead of giving a second chance.

Seems better to me now that I know it also has a beneficial side too

“Pushing your buttons” occasionally as you claim,—- sure.

Mean- spirited you may call my posts if you wish.

I would say, my posts point out the whining, looking for favors with tax money,and occasionally misleading or untrue statements which prevail in many bikists’ statements

That most bikists here continually plea for special signs, regulations and tax -
spending but , as bikists, pay no property or other taxes (except one time sales taxes) , no registration fees to the City or State, is sometimes irksome.

Do I sometimes go overboard? Probably.

Are my posts untrue? Not intentionally

I think it is good that someone points out the fallacies in some bikists’ posts

Some months ago I felt that the many bikists who post on the Independent were overdoing it in their pleas and began contradicting some of the most blatant baloney the bikists post here

Now quite a few others, often, including several bike riders do so too.

I think it is an improvement.

That you do not agree is OK, and if I post something untrue , of course, object and I will correct..

Meanwhile I will post my opinions when needed, and expect that they will be edited , as yours apparently were, if I go over the line

posted by: Bill on November 24, 2010 8:59am

They must have changed the red light law for cyclists, on my way to Union Station this morning about 6am, a cyclist went threw two red lights with a police car waiting at the light. The cruiser had “Supervisor” on the side.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on November 24, 2010 12:34pm

Walt,
You’d have a point if the only costs associated with a car centric society were that of infrastructure. Everyone, whether or not they drive, shares the costs of making vehicles a viable device for mass transit and cargo transport. In the early 20th century, the US had the best transportation system in the world made up of private trolley companies, and private rail companies that carried passengers and cargo all over this country and generated all the wealth that we’ve managed to squander over the last 60 years. And no, imaginary money in the banking system and arbitrary Federal Reserve printing of money does not count as wealth.
Trucking is only viable as a transport device because of massive tax payer funded subsidies. Highways are only able to be constructed, maintained and updated thanks to public funding. Car companies bought up trolley lines and dismantled them in the mid 20th century and replaced them with less desirable and efficient buses, which eventually had to be subsidized by the public thanks to corporate lobbying for car centricity at the expense of the public. The public funds emergency response and police work that spend a disproportionate amount of time responding to vehicle-related accidents.
Then there are all the issues that resulted from the massive suburban exodus from cities in the mid 20th century fueled by the automobile.
The smaller point being made about biking, transit, and walking infrastructure is that it will make things safer and more efficient. The larger point being made it that it will shift our society to becoming more financially, economically, and socially stable. We cannot afford our current living arrangement and lifestyles, which revolve around vehicles.

posted by: Walt on November 24, 2010 1:57pm

Jonathan

Agree with most of your stuff here (Agree with lots of stuff Streever says too.IMHO opinion he is one of the less -far -out bikists who post here.

While as you say, other forms of transportation may be partially subsidized, despite all your comments, the bikists , as bikists, contribute nothing it seems other than to ask for quite expensive projects to help bikists but not financially supported in any way by the bikists. .

If you want major spending on your behalf, find a way to register bikes(smaller rate of course..) Then, if one of the anti-law folks in the bikists group runs over a kid on the sidewalk,or causes an accident with another bike rider or Car he can be traced, and fined and punished as a car driver might.

Put tiny meters on parking meter posts in big biking areas so that a lesser rate may be paid by the bikists, and they can be prevented from their all=day free parking at 20 minute meters.

On non-bike matters,despite your wishes, we are not going to return to the 40’s.50’s and before.

Most of us have heard your story of the forced retirement of the trolley systems and I do not question it.

Nevertheless, folks welcomed the new buses.

I know. I was there and I gather you weren’t.

My travel time was reduced because the Ferry Street trolley could then slip down Humphrey Street rather than go all the way around via State and James, following the tracks, saving time and travel.

If an accident or a fire occurred on the bus route, the route could quickly be changed and we, the riders, would not have our commute time suddenly extended an hour or two because of the emergency.

Sure we missed the great open-trolley rides to the Yale Bowl or the Shoreline but most folks, I think, welcomed the buses, at least I certainly did

It was not the buses , as I infer you imply, which changed the Transit System from a cash- cow in the early 1900’s to a subsidy-needer in the latter part of the century as I see it (and I was there, and assume you were not)

Rather,we had more money , and could have, if we saved enough. our own little transportation system which went where we wanted, whenever we wanted to go.(and the number of riders and the cash for the transit system dived, leading to subsidy- needs).

While you apparently abhor the systems’ changes, most folk who used the old stuff thought, and probably still do, that the newer changes were great.

posted by: streever on November 24, 2010 2:11pm

Walt, most of the money that goes into transportation is from home property tax—which whiny bikists, as a demographic, pay a greater amount into than they take out.

Car taxes do not go to highways or roads, but to plugging other budget holes in municipalities in the few states that allow them.

Freeways are paid for with income taxes AND gas taxes. I-95? I subsidize that, every month, and I do not own a car nor do I use it. I get to pay for it, and then not use it. Granted, I pay less than a driver, but still. I do have to pay for that.

Local roads? Those are primarily funded through taxes on houses. I use them, and I pay for them. I get less use out of them than most drivers, so it’s a bit odd that I have to pay the same amount, but there you have it. I do it and I don’t complain.

We aren’t unreasonable to ask for a more equal allocation of the money. We are simply asking for you carists to step up and support us as we have supported you for so long.

Your position is similar to someone in Alaska railing against the Federal Tax while receiving 5$ for every 1$ they have paid in. Car users get more benefit per dollar than a bike rider does. Unless a bike rider lives in some commune structure home with government subsidized rent, we pay the same property taxes (either in mortgage or rental payments) that everyone else does.

As a demographic, the most whiny bicyclists pay more in property tax and income tax than the heavy motorists (road cyclists tend to be affluent).

So, again, please understand that our request for parity is in no way a “whiny demand” for anything more than what we already pay for.

posted by: Walt on November 24, 2010 2:38pm

To Bikists

Just “Pushing your buttons” as Streever correctly accuses.

Not really that excited about all this stuff.

Happy Thanksgiving!!

posted by: Walt on November 24, 2010 8:33pm

To repeat—Bikists, as bikists, pay no fees and no taxes .
...

Not wanting to be near their road-hogging activities, I usually switch to a less crowded route, so their compliance with other traffic rules while in the groups is unknown to me. I assume somewhat- sensible cyclists lead, and hope they try not to guide the cyclists the bikists into added law-breaking such as proceeding through area red lights carelessly as so many of the individual tight-pants bikists do.

The other individual cyclists who head out State St. toward jobs in the Sackett Point/ Universal Drive areas of North Haven seem more law-abiding than the tight-pants folks except for lack of lights or reflectors when they head out State Street in the dark early on winter mornings.

posted by: juli on November 25, 2010 2:31pm

walt,
...

are your eyes ever once set on the terrifying behaviors of motorists?

i see those in exponentially higher numbers, with many more lives at stake, every single day.

where are these roads with perfectly courteous drivers that you frequent? i’d love to (tight-spandex-brandishing-law-abidingly) bike there!

posted by: Walt on November 25, 2010 9:08pm

Juli

Of course, but the percentage of law-breakers- riders is much higher for the bikists, and you folks are usually excusing the bikists and accusing the drivers,

Someone should try to being some balance to the postings here. Fortunately, now several folks as well as I are doing so, including several bike riders who oppose the lawless behavior…

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form