i just have to respond to these comments i didn't notice were there:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/nevayl/8038217514024016585/
and those comments were generated from my post here:
http://escapekey.blogspot.com/2008/12/anger-then-discomfort-then-laughter.html
first, my thoughts on biking in new york - yes it's dangerous. you have to be a defensive AND an offensive rider. people here can be pretty aggressive on the street. i am well aware that cyclists are not allowed onto the sidewalk. i am also well aware that cyclists are supposed to follow the rules of the road, but you will be hard pressed to find a new yorker that actually follows these rules. for most cyclists, we adapt the rules to suit riding a bike. two big rule breakers: we treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yellow lights, and use the space around cars to overtake and ride in (either on the double yellows or - even more dangerous - on the other side between stationary and moving cars).
these two major violators may give rise to some arguments, but let me explain - to stop at every red light and stop sign at every block in this city when on a bike is retarded. literally. half of the reason of riding a bike is to move faster than a pedestrian (it would take me over an hour to walk to work but it takes half an hour to ride to it) but you can't do this if you have to stop every other minute and lose your momentum. here is an example of how people ride in this city - a cautious rider approaches a light/sign, looks both ways, and adjusts their behavior to each intersection according to the current circumstances of the vehicles/pedestrians that are there at that moment. lights and signs are secondary information, used to understand the probable behavior of those vehicles/pedestrians. if there is no one there, you pass through regardless of the light. if you see someone coming, you gauge their speed and "body" language to determine if the way is clear or if you should wait.
since the streets here are very narrow, riding to the left of a moving car in this city usually puts you on the double yellows and (if it's a two way) very close to oncoming traffic. you'd think this is dangerous, but the other alternative is to ride behind/in front of cars and antagonize drivers for not going fast enough or to potentially get hit by those not paying attention. the other option (in my opinion worse) is to ride on the right of the car stream and get stopped by double parked cars or risk potential injury by getting doored. bike lanes are often contradictory as to which side is proper to ride on as they exist on both the right and left side of the street, depending on whether it's a one way and where there was space to paint them. each street has its own circumstances and you judge as best you can which side is safest for you. personally, i prefer streets with bike lanes and try to ride those the most.
the reason i explain these informal but commonly practiced adjustments to the system is this - bikes are not cars. we are not as large as cars, we are not as visible as cars, we do not have the speed of cars, we do not maneuver the same as cars, we are fragile and not protected with hundreds of pounds of metal like cars. we cannot kill like cars. so while it is easy to stuff us into the category of "behave like cars", you have to realize you are asking an entire group of people to behave in a vehicular category where they do not belong. laws are just an initial guide on how to behave. i have always grumbled that we need our own system, one in conjunction with the car system and the pedestrian system - but it does not exist. we are in between, though there are bits and pieces of progress such as bike lanes, bike racks, bike awareness. yet signals and signs are not made for us or how we move. the law may say as it does, but that doesn't mean it works well for us or that people will follow it. this is the reason we continue to adjust the category that we are thrust in. sure, you can ticket and sue people for not behaving according to law, but isn't it better to create rule systems that suit everyone instead of penalizing one specific group because they operate differently? i'd love to see how a traffic system could actually incorporate all three systems safely without compromising on what we need to move efficiently.
when i griped in my last post about the pedestrian jaywalking, i did not care that they jaywalked. what i cared about is that they were not keeping themselves aware (ie looking, listening) when placing themselves on a dangerous street where something could hit them. jaywalk all you want, but watch the fuck out for ANY kind of moving thing. it's not about giving one system priority over the other - it's about having the systems keep in check with the other systems, so that accidents do not occur. (i was doing my part by watching for peds and yelling caution but she failed on her part because she had headphones on and wasn't looking both ways.) you can make rules to protect peds til the cows come home, but if they go jumping into traffic because they assume their fragile bodies are protected by laws then eventually someone is gunna die. laws are words on a page that do not physically at the moment protect you - keeping yourself aware at all times is what protects you. everyone is responsible, everyone has to be defensive and awake to all that is going on around them.
for your consideration - bike laws of nyc.
also to note - i have never been pulled over or ticketed nor have i heard of anyone getting in trouble with any new york cops other than one friend who got yelled at for riding on the sidewalk. i don't even know if delivery guys on bikes ever get ticketed for all the riding in the wrong way and on sidewalks (they are well known for this.) i think nyc cops have better things to do anyway.
also another note, unrelated to the subject of this post - i'm probably not going to realize or respond to comments in posts more than ten days after i've posted it. it was random coincidence that i noticed these comments at all.
