Talk about ironic.
This morning, GA read Peter Kim's harrowing Facebook post and watched his video - scary!
Peter was riding his bicycle back home after attending last night's Council meeting, when a car ran the stop sign and almost made pizza out of him! That's not the ironic part.
The ironic part was the reason Peter attended the meeting: to plea for the safety of bicyclists who, sometimes are 'forced' to use sidewalks due to circumstances beyond their control and/or for their own personal safety.
The ironic part was the reason Peter attended the meeting: to plea for the safety of bicyclists who, sometimes are 'forced' to use sidewalks due to circumstances beyond their control and/or for their own personal safety.
Kim asked the Council to vote "no" on the First Reading of this Resolution:
The problem with this resolution is that it is predicated on "solutions" that Hoboken does't have for bicyclists, like "physically separated bicycle lanes" or "buffered bike lanes."
As you can see from Peter Kim's video, the "perception" of danger to bicyclists sharing the road with cars is real.
Aren't you all glad that Peter didn't get squashed? I am! I'll bet his wife and two kids are!
GA's TWO CENTS
I don't ride a bike, I don't own one, I don't want one. I am one of those cranks that gets annoyed by bicyclists on the sidewalk.
The problem is that this resolution only seems to address cranks like me, and not the welfare and safety of the bicyclists. Why should anyone get hurt, killed or even a boo-boo because people like me can't be inconvenienced. This resolution needs tweaking.
Amendment (2) seems reasonable:
"Persons riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian
and shall provide a minimum four foot buffer and give an audible signal before
overtaking and passing any pedestrian. Persons riding a bicycle on a sidewalk shall
dismount when encountering a pedestrian and the sidewalk width does not allow enough
space to overtake a pedestrian with a four foot buffer zone."
Amendment (4) is not. In my opinion, 13 year-olds should not be sharing Hoboken roads with cars even where there is a bicycle lane. Our roads are narrow, congested, sight lines at corners suck- who wants a kid riding on those roads? Not me. Uh-uh. Definitely not without an adult. And this amendment doesn't address children, teens, adults with mental disabilities.
More...
The resolution needs to address conditions ("exceptions") that are unsafe for a bicyclist, which may make the sidewalk the only safe choice. Such as (1) poor visibility (darkness, rain, fog, etc.),(2) unforeseen road conditions (construction, blockages, double-parked car, etc.) and/or (3) the rider's perception of danger (sharing the road with a drunk driver, a driver on a cell phone or not paying attention, etc.).
Council people, you really really need to reconsider this one. Peter, I am glad you are okay!
Bicyclists riding on the sidewalk are a hazard just like cars riding on the road are a hazard. If the operator of the bike or the car are twits, bad things happen. We should punish the twits, not the people who bike or drive responsibly.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Amendment 2 is reasonable. If there isn't a 4 foot "buffer" between the pedestrian and the rider, then the rider needs to dismount when passing the pedestrian. I think that's fair.
Delete4 foot buffer makes riding a bike on most sidewalks impossible from a practical standpoint (and that is why that was inserted in there). I'd rather see an amendment banning land yacht strollers and walking while staring at your cell phone. Quite honestly, those sorts of slow walking sidewalk hogs annoy me a hell of a lot more than any bicyclist on a sidewalk ever did.
DeleteWas this guy's bike visible? Does he have a front headlight? I'm asking because if the answer is "yes" then this car may have done the same thing if a car (not bike) was on the road. The driver would have blown the stop sign. So the point is moot.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if his bike wasn't visible, that's a different scenario - in that scenario a driver may have driven through a stop sign (still illegal) because the driver didn't see anyone and thought "no harm, no foul."
I just found the facebook video - that driver was blowing the stopsign. I don't think the driver saw the stop sign (or was just ignoring it). The driver didn't slow down at all.
DeleteI wonder why the council, which never seems to tire of sending things to committee and asking for more information, doesn't seem to see the need for that with this Ordinance or the one to bring back run-offs.
ReplyDeleteAre bycycles on sidewalks an actual public safety problem (ie are people getting hurt) or just an annoyance problem. Data on this certainly exists. Shouldn't both the council and the public have it before passing a law that might create a public safety problem?
My guess is this is a solution in search of a problem that will create a real problem. But I could be persuaded otherwise bay data. Shouldn't we be making data based decisions when public safety is at stake?
On the runoff issue, Jen Giattino made a snide sarcastic remark when Mayor Elect Bhalla asked corporation council whether the council had to act now to get this on the 2018 ballot, and Corp counsel knew the answer. Apparently Giattino saw some kind of conspiracy in corporation Counsel being prepared to provide the answer to an important question that every Councilpeople ought to have wanted to know.
Ramming stuff through a lame duck council at year end without any consideration of the merits when there is no need for immediate action is simply bad government.
Who was the genius who wants 13 year old kids to ride on a road without protected bike lanes? Have they got one at home?
DeleteIt depends on the 13 year old. My kids at that age were experienced bike riders and were fine on the road. But a law that says 13 year olds must ride on the street without a protected bike lane or not at all is a bad law.
DeleteBut the council isn't trying to pass a good law here. If they wanted to do that they would have run this through committee and received and followed the advice of traffic engineers. They are trying to make the point that the days of giving a damn about bikers are over with the departure of the" bike crazy" Mayor Zimmer.
They should think long and hard about how they will escape responsibility if a 13 year old on a bike gets hit by a car. Blaming the parents for letting their child ride a bike in the only manner legally permitted ain't gonna cut it. The responsibility will be theirs.
Actually, the "spite" motivation makes complete sense considering the childishness we have seen from some CC members. Probably best to scrap any such idea. Legislating based such base and selfish motivations is just a bad idea - and I am one of the people who thought Zimmer's protect bike lanes was just a bad idea all around.
DeleteWhy are kids today so different than 25 years ago? At 13 I was not only riding in the street, but I was also babysitting my neighbors' almost 3 year old and 6 month old children all day long during my summer break. I can't imagine asking any of my neighbors' kids to watch mine. They all seem so immature and incapable.
DeleteI had my first part time job at 14 and I worked 20 hours a week. It just seems like kids today are not encouraged to grow up and take responsibility for themselves (there are exceptions to this, like Numbers kids who ride in the street).
It all depends on where you grew up. Hoboken streets are not comparable to the neighborhood I grew up in, and yes I rode my bike in the street. Low density, private homes, wide streets, no traffic. I assume you grew up before cell phones, texting and numerous other devices that distract drivers from the road. Sorry, I don't think your analogy applies here.
DeleteI rode on a street with speed limits of 35 mph, but where people regularly traveled 50+ mph. There were not cell phones, sure, but there was traffic & blind spots and everything else you'd expect on a road that connected two thoroughfares. I grew up on a street just off of that main road & to get anywhere had to ride on it.. Something I started doing at 10.
DeleteWhile it didn't have the constant flow of traffic you see in Hoboken, it was not some safe area that I could goof off and live to tell the tale. So, yea, I think it does apply.
FTR: I rode a bike around Hoboken & even into other cities in Hudson County for many years until it was stolen OUT OF MY GARAGE! So I am aware of the treachery on Hoboken roadways.
DeleteI commented on their FB bike group page . I don't agree that every street in Hoboken should have a protected bike lane unless deeper issues such as lack of inexpensive parking garages are taken into consideration . It's nice that they want to achieve what cities like Amsterdam have but I don't think that's realistic yet for an American city in New Jersey with a New York-like driving mentality .
ReplyDeleteTheir group brings safety as their main concern however they seem not to care about the use of helmets .. I think it should be mandatory to wear a helmet no matter the age .. their argument is that it discourages bike use .. my argument is , if you are not responsible at all .. maybe you shouldn't ride a bike .. you can always walk anywhere in Hoboken .
In regards of cyclists on the sidewalks I often need to get on the streets or hide behind a tree so people riding a bike on side walks can go by .. especially in narrow , tree and garbage can crowded streets such as 1 and 2nd av ... asking them to ride at walking speed when close to pedestrians is unrealistic.. if you go at that speed on a bike , it becomes very unsteady and people tend to waddle and create confusion as to which way they will end up leaning to .
Great concept overall but requires more planning , a well defined step wise project and a multidisciplinary conversation with other boards than what they have so far .
Glad Peter is ok .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo much to unpack here...
ReplyDeleteFirst, it's hard to ignore the strong sense that a lot of people just don't like bicyclists. If they don't ride, then bikes just make their lives less pleasant. (Nevermind that they decrease traffic and parking problems, and improve our transport system in other ways.)
The four foot rule is ridiculous. It would make it impossible for any bike rider to legally pass anyone on a sidewalk without dismounting almost everywhere in town, with the possible exception of bump outs on Washington. The sidewalks aren't much wider than four feet and few people walk on the very side of the sidewalk. Also, as a rider, I can say there is absolutely no need for that much space to safely pass someone. It just doesn't take four feet.
Having to give an audible signal before overtaking also isn't helpful. It's more likely to startle a pedestrian- whether done by voice or a horn- which may make the pedestrian more likely to move in an unpredictable way and increase the chance of an accident. (It also seems likely to make pedestrian-bicyclist relations more annoying for everyone, creating more hostility to bike riders among pedestrians, and discouraging bicyclists from bothering to ride.)
Regarding Section 4, banning riding on sidewalks altogether:
First, every person begins and ends their rides someplace that is not the street. This would mean that people couldn't ride the first and last 10-50 feet of their ride, discouraging the use of bicycles, often in situations in which there is no danger and may be no pedestrians at all. (This resolution applies to the entire City, not just Washington St.- residential sidewalks often have nobody walking on them.)
Next, many bicyclists feel safer riding on the sidewalks, especially beginners, and especially in situations in which there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk but there are cars on the road.
Next, our roads are often terrible. Some will eventually be resurfaced, like Washington Street (though all roads continually deteriorate), but others are brick/cobblestone and there is no plan at this time to ever convert them to pavement. If you haven't tried riding a bike on Newark Street between Hudson and Washington, give it a try.
Next, the striped bicycle lanes are barely better than useless. Cars routinely double park everywhere in Hoboken, often for long periods of time, with the driver not present and no one around the parked vehicles, with no apparent enforcement to discourage this. When cars double park on a bike lain, bike riders have to swerve over into the car portion of the street, and when cars are double parked on the other side, cars have to drive on the bike lane to get around them. This problem isn't rare, either. On a typical bike ride from uptown to downtown, it's not unusual to see multiple double parked cars on a given one-block stretch.
Bike riders who actually engage in dangerous practices, or hurt someone, should be stringently punished. That's not what this proposed ordinance does. It just penalizes a lot of non-dangerous common behavior, apparently due to a "get those bikes off our sidewalks" attitude. To the extent the ordinance would be enforced- and I would hope not at all- this ordinance would endanger bike riders for no safety benefit whatsoever.
(continued...)
It's also worth pointing out that cars pose a far greater danger to everyone- especially bicyclists- than bicyclists pose to pedestrians. I'm not saying that I'd want a bike rider to hit anyone, but the bikes themselves typically weigh far less than the riders. Getting hit by a bike rider, even at full speed, is not likely to be a deadly or even crippling incident, as terrible as it is. And bike riders are far more likely to be paying attention to what's all around them than drivers, because they feel like they have to be, to preserve their own lives. In fact, a bike rider who hits a pedestrian may be more likely to be more badly injured than the pedestrian. I'm not aware of any reports of serious injuries or deaths due to a bike rider hitting someone in Hoboken- how many pedestrians have been killed by cars here in the last ten years? And contrast necessary bike rider behavior with that of drivers, who are often distracted and can effortlessly drive with just one hand on the wheel.
DeleteThere ought to be clear laws stating that if a pedestrian is hit by a bike rider, the rider is presumed responsible. The penalties for causing an accident ought to be severe. There ought to be a law against riders leaving the scene of an accident, if there isn't one already. Police officers should also have a right to issue tickets for "reckless riding", and what that constitutes should be left to the discretion of the officers and the courts (with the accused having the opportunity to defend the reasonableness of their behavior should they contest the ticket.) This ordinance does none of this. Nothing here would improve safety.
Finally, for the people who comment that bike riders should wear helmets: I haven't seen any reasonable argument explaining how that would protect pedestrians. It seems to be more that those commentors are annoyed by how other people are behaving and would like to control the behavior of others, to make others behave how they imagine they would behave, even though in their cases, they aren't actually bike riders, so they don't know what they're talking about. Not wearing a helmet may marginally increase the risk to a rider, but that's their choice. The evidence that helmets promote bike safety is actually slim, and European cities that have bikes everywhere typically do not require helmets. There are real, legitimate reasons why many bike riders sometimes do not want to wear helmets, and riders who choose not to wear a helmet have made a choice regarding their own safety, not the safety of others. Mandating helmets would have the effect of strongly discouraging bicycle riding. But for the anti-bike whiners, that often seems to be the whole point.
Also, I'm not getting off your lawn.
The topic is bikers safety .. isn't it ?
DeleteWearing a helmet is protective .. have you seen , dealt and managed the consequences of a cranial injury that could have been less because of wearing a helmet ? .. I thought so .. again the issue is safety ... the reason why you want protected bike lanes is safety .. my argument for helmets is due to safety .. studies have shown that wearing a helmet decreases brain injury .. I'm also aware that some studies in EUROPE report that people drive closer to those who wear a helmet .. it's hard to conclude with an observational study with few bikers .
Do you tell your children to wear a helmet ? If yes , then why not offering that to 70 year-old gramma on aspirin / Coumadin or God knows what other blood thinners .
All else being equal, wearing a helmet does improve bike rider safety. But somehow I suspect you aren't a rider- at all.
DeleteIf you actually care about bicyclists, the first thing you should do is listen to what we actually say, rather than just ignoring us. Believe it or not, bike riders are the ones who care most about bike rider safety.
There are legitimate reasons why some riders at some times do not wear helmets. Yes, teach your kids to wear helmets. Of course. But for adults, they're sometimes allowed to do things that endanger them and no one else- particularly when there may be rational reasons for their individual decisions, and we do not (or should not) want to disincentive a behavior that is otherwise socially beneficially (bike riding).
https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/toolstemplates/entertainmented/tips/HeadInjuries.html
DeleteA little reading never hurt anyone :)
Because I disputed that helmets had any effect on safety.
DeleteAlso, more reading can't hurt:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/do-bike-helmet-laws-really-save-people/2013/06/03/6a6532b4-c6df-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html?utm_term=.f5bb29684845
Unlike politics , in medicine you learn to read an article and then go to the original sources .. just quickly read the Canadian study : http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada-helmet-assessment.doc
DeleteIt seems like global warming and wetter conditions over the years (these studies are from the 90s) could be the culprit more than helmet use .. also , people in the 90s were more outdoorsy than nowadays .. I'll check the other article later .. and I'll throw my two cents
HobOut, I popped a chain on the Hudson Greenway this summer doing about 20mph. There's a 6ft stripe on the pavement where I dragged my helmet. I don't get the pushback on the issue.
DeleteBiking at walking speed until there is a safe opportunity to pass is not particularly challenging. Bikers "waddling" is not a public safety problem. And occasionally stepping aside so a biker, or a faster walker for that matter, can pass is simple common courtesy. It doesn't even constitute an inconvenience much less a public safety problem.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware of any data supporting the idea that bikes on sidewalks under the current rules are an actual problem? Has the council familiarized itself with the existing studies as to whether banning bikes on sidewalks without making the streets safe for them creates a public safety problem vs solving one?
That's the issue on the table not protected bike lanes on every street. We can all agree that in an ideal world having streets safe for bikes is better than having bikers sometimes ride on sidewalks.
Many of our streets are not currently safe for bikers, especially less experienced ones. That is the real world context in which the council is proposing banning 13 year olds and older from ever riding bikes on sidewalks. And they are doing it without showing any interest in knowing whether there is a problem that needs addressing or whether the experts who study this stuff think their "solution" will make things safer or more dangerous.
And that is simply irresponsible.
Please ride a bike on 2nd street between park and Bloomfield from 7-9 am ..
DeleteHow exactly does that support banning bikes on sidewalks? Bottom line - our streets are not safe enough for everyone to feel safe biking on them. Banning bikes on sidewalks means telling people either ride on dangerous streets or don't ride. And the council has sought no data and heard from no experts.
ReplyDeleteIt's beyond irresponsible. It borders on criminal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePeople on a sidewalk are having a pedestrian experience. They are thinking like pedestrians. Their "guard" is lowered to that level, ie, that they only need concern themselves with pedestrians and are otherwise safe. They can gaze at their phones like little delphic oracles and their children can act like, well, children.
ReplyDeleteCyclists moving among them need to preserve that experience and those expectations. If it means walking their bikes then plan accordingly to allow enough time to get where they're going walking at least part of the time. It's Hoboken, not Wyoming. How far are you ever from where you need to go? In most cases this should just mean "portages" which all cyclists become familiar with. Just to get from places where riding isn't allowed or isn't safe/practical to places where it is.
Conditional rules for when the sidewalk can function as an auxiliary bikelane will only create conditional enforcement headaches.
With that said, there seems to be an undertone of resentment in the crafting of this resolution, particularly the expectation that 13-yearolds should get off my lawn and take their chances in the street. That can be considered under one condition. That all cars and trucks double-parked in the bikelane will immediately be summonsed and towed so no one's hormone-besieged pride and joy has to suddenly veer out into traffic where everyone is expecting to have his vehicular experience and expectations preserved.
Are the anonymous sponsors on board for that or just for implementing the anti-cyclist resentment aspects of their resolution?
Any thoughts about requiring front and back running lights on bicycles in the street after sundown?
Yes, exactly who are the sponsors and drafters of this gem? And what is with the anonymity? They afraid of the backlash they may face from voters when it is discovered someone drafter a blatantly anti-Zimmer resolution? It really is a shame nobody had the guts to affix their name to this massive stink bomb of a trial balloon.
DeleteDang - no one is proposing making sidewalks into bikelanes. There is an existing law creating parameters that to the extent followed preserve both the safety of pedestrians and their "experience."
DeleteThe only coherent justification for an actual ban is that anything short of that is impossible to enforce.
I would find that rationale more convincing if there was data showing bikers violating the existing rules were truly creating a real problem. But I fear this is more about catering to a small group of people with an anti-bike chip on their shoulders.
According to TIFF on her FB: "Thank you to Councilmen Cunningham and Russo for sponsoring this".
DeleteThe new normal. Cunningham and Russo sponsor spite-driven garbage and Tiff compliments them on a job well done.
Deleteand don't forget who will vote for Tony?
DeleteNumbers - agree on the lack of data. More than anything, that tells you that resentment was the driver here. It's astonishing to me that a mother of three would make this choice for her own children without something to base it on. Maybe Ravi should offer to become a co-sponsor and see if that kills it.
DeleteTBR, Tony will have Defusco and Falco for certain. Russo and Mello are strong maybes. Tiff and Jen make all decisions based on resentment of Ravi and Dawn these days. So it looks like a layup for the the man of many gates.
I still don't understand why anyone would think Tony would be good on the NHSA. For crying out loud, he helped to deliver that absolutely mind bogglingly stupid Suez contract. Who would be dumb enough to want him near the sewer authority when he already helped to screw up the drinking water side of things? On that alone I would permanently disqualify him from any board that had any financial impact on the city or city residents.
DeleteAbout the only thing that would get me to change my mind on this is if he stood up at a CC meeting and made an unequivocal apology and completely fessed up that the Suez contract was the fault of him and every person who signed on to that contract. No excuses, no deflections, no blaming anyone but himself, his peers on the CC and so forth. If he can't acknowledge the mess he helped create, then let us not give him an opportunity to make another big fat smelly mess.
Numbers @12:33 .. check Ron Bautista's FB page , he said "All streets in hoboken should have protected bike lanes " . I say some should but not all .. and that if safety is a concern for them , wearing a helmet should be mandatory , however I keep getting a pushback because they quote a news article without reading the original papers from the 90's stating that wearing helmets decreases bike use in some Canadian towns in the 90's . To me it's like using a seatbelt , it is mandatory yet some choose not to use it , if they don't , they are risking getting ticketed, points and lose their driving privileges. Same thing should happen with bike riders , if they are not responsible enough to ride maybe they shouldn't .. hoboken is not that big of a city that you can't walk to wherever you want to go (or take the bus ) . I feel like bikers are in this law limbo where they can do whatever they want , miss red lights , ride against traffic .. etc
Deletewell @Dangcatfish and @DaOjoRojo Jen's party does seem to not care who they endorse so even with Tony's amazingly and obvious bad track record she will bring on the vote for sure.
DeleteWe are having a YUGE laugh over at Team giaFISHco HQ.
ReplyDeleteWho told you idiots the purpose of a blog was spirited debate of quality of life issues? Do you all live under a rock?
The purpose of a blog is to allow as many as four people to agree without qualification that Unelectable is the anti-Christ and you're all his lying propagandists. Blogs have literally NO other function.
Wow, freakin' amateur hour.
I just looked up state law on this and learned that each city can determine sidewalk riding by ordinance. So I looked up our neighbors in Jersey City and they have a rule that prohibits riding on sidewalks:
ReplyDelete§ 239-7. - Use of bicycles. [ ]
No person in a park shall:
A. Ride a bicycle on other than a paved vehicular road or path designated for that purpose. A bicyclist shall be permitted to wheel or push a bicycle by hand over any grassy area or wooded trail or on any paved area reserved for pedestrian use.
emphasis is mine.
Several kids have also been killed by cars in Jersey City in the last few months so they are not exactly the model of safe streets.
Delete@Funny Momster: True, but a quick google search showed it was 3 pedestrians (not bike riders) that were hit.
DeleteYes, you are correct. The point is that if kids are not safe in JC streets as pedestrians then how safe would they be as bikers in the streets? JC clearly has its own problems with traffic safety and so we shouldn't be citing its ordinance as a model for Hoboken.
DeleteIf you read how bike culture came to be in Amsterdam, the genesis was when traffic congestion became so severe it led to the death of children in the streets. At that point, the city and some brave cycling advocates pushed for some radical changes in urban street design and that has led to the Amsterdam we know it as today. I'm not asking that Hoboken become like Amsterdam but I would like to see City Councilpersons use their brains, do research, and craft public policies that weigh public safety realities against the loud complaints of cranks (and really, they are very effective at getting what they want even if they are not right). If there are City Councilpersons who view their role as echoing the complaints of their constituents then so be it. But when those complaints put kids and adults in danger then those CC persons are clearly lacking the intelligence to do their job and they need to go.
Pushing out such a thoughtless resolution, putting 13 year olds in the street with cars, is legislative malpractice- more about sticking it to Zimmer than caring about the safety of Hoboken residents, including children.
DeleteRemind you of another political faction that put screwing Zimmer (soon to be Bhalla) over the welfare of Hoboken residents? Will they reverse course? Always drama.