Bike Share brooklyn

In theory, bicycling is a good idea.

In practice, however, it's good only for recreation and exercise, and not really a viable alternative to cars or mass transit, unless you don't mind arriving at your destination (work, client meetings, etc.) hot, sweaty, and disheveled, and you don't have a single thing to carry that wouldn't fit in a backpack.

Here it'll probably be the permatourists. Nonetheless, I hope the bicycles have streamers and banana seats with sparkly glittered neon-hued Naugahyde covers. Otherwise, get rid of them. (I mean the bicycles, but help yourself to the permatourists all you want.)

They have this in Montreal and it is amazing. Loads of people use them, which is evident by the spread throughout the city. And yes tourists use in tourist areas. I think will be less useful in Manhattan, but incredible in Brooklyn.

If you go slowly enough you can bike to work without breaking a sweat. I work the overnight shift but live in a city where the trains don't run from midnight to 05:00, so I ride a bike. If my average speed is under about 18 km/h, I don't sweat. On the way home I'm free to sweat all I like, so I go faster.

In the summer everybody sweats no matter how they get to work, so I commute in a T-shirt and then change into my real clothes when I arrive.

As for the backpack thing, maybe they could add front baskets to the bicycles so that people can carry stuff more easily.

Five thousand annual memberships in two days: http://gothamist.com/2013/04/16/citibike_sells_5000_annual_membersh.php

I'm a founding member and can't wait to start riding!

Don't need more cars here. Bikes are clean, they aren't noisy, they take up less space than a car, and they can get you places quickly. This system will be a rip roaring success and I'm so glad to see this city taking a cue from other places like Paris rather than taking a cue from Houston and doubling down on cars.

"Bikes are clean, they aren't noisy, they take up less space than a car, and they can get you places quickly."

But they are worlds more dangerous to pedestrians than cars.

the problem with bikes in manhattan is that 90% of the riders do not follow the traffic rules. and i actually agree on something with matt "more dangerous to pedestrians than cars"

** If you go slowly enough you can bike to work without breaking a sweat. I work the overnight shift but live in a city where the trains don't run from midnight to 05:00, so I ride a bike. If my average speed is under about 18 km/h, I don't sweat. On the way home I'm free to sweat all I like, so I go faster. **

How old are you? Are you physically disabled? How far away do you live from work? What are your work hours? The list is of questions endless.

Older people and the physically disabled are unlikely to bike to work. There are people in this city who live 20 or more miles from work. Do you think they will be biking to and from work every day? This is the pipe dream of an elitist few.

And, as has been mentioned here many many times-- those elitist few bike riders think they own the world and the roads and don't have to follow any laws or rules. I won't be in favor of any of this until those bike riders are held to the same standards as vehicle drivers. I've almost been killed by bike riders flying down the street going the wrong way and not stopping for traffic lights. They don't deserve to take up space with bike lanes.

"But they are worlds more dangerous to pedestrians than cars."

... Duh! How dangerous could a 20-pound bicycle possibly be to cars? A few scratches at worst.

"Duh! How dangerous could a 20-pound bicycle possibly be to cars? A few scratches at worst."

WRONG.

First of all, cars can brake much more sharply than bicyclists ever can, if a pedestrian crosses their path.

Second, getting hit by essentially a flat wall of steel at 20 miles an hour might break some bones, but you're unlikely to get killed. But getting hit and IMPALED by a projectile at 20 miles an hour that has no flat surface but numerous sharp points of entry almost certainly will result in death.

I almost got hit by a bicyclist as I was rollerblading around times square. I really don't recommend rollerblading around midtown or central park for that matter.

I don't even recommend WALKING through Central Park anymore. These Lance Armstrong wanna-bes willfully ignore speed limits (yes, they apply to you, too), and come flying around bends -- SILENTLY -- and then they're right on top of you. Worse, they often travel in packs.

Totally missed that one Matt.

Matt - can you back up that assertion on stopping distance? Doesn't seem consistent with my experience as a biker or a driver.

Also, any evidence on your second point? I would think the bigger issue with cars is that hitting a pedestrian doesn't slow momentum so you can get run over. On a bike, if you hit a ped, you're not going to just keep driving over him. Also the "all things equal" 20 MPH vs. 20 MPH comparison isn't fair. Very few bikers are going that fast in NYC on regularly trafficked streets... while driving less than 20MPH in a car is nearly impossible. I would guess if you could look at the stats, the average pedestrian in NYC is hit by a car around 30 MPH and a biker at 12 MPH.

"Matt - can you back up that assertion on stopping distance? Doesn't seem consistent with my experience as a biker or a driver."

You're apparently a very inexperienced driver AND bicyclist. It's a known fact that cars can brake much more sharply than bicycles. It's been in every state driver's manual for decades.

Matt you are flat wrong. A bike doesn't present nearly the danger as a car. Actual evidence is hard to come by (because its an absurd contention) but see:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/04/09/advocates-despite-bike-ped-death-cars-still-greatest-danger-to-peds/ ("As the SF Bay Guardian pointed out, from 2000 to 2009, 220 pedestrians were killed in San Francisco, mostly by car drivers who rarely face criminal charges. None of those deaths are known to have involved bicycles.")

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/factsheet.html ("Motor vehicle crashes killed almost 5,000 pedestrians in 2005 in the United States")

And:

http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/facts.cfm

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/study-finds-higher-number-of-pedestrians-hurt-by-bikes/ ("More than 500 New York City residents are injured badly enough to be treated in hospitals after being struck by bicyclists each year, according to an analysis by Hunter College professors. The number, while small compared with the number of pedestrians injured by cars. . . ." and "There are nearly 10,000 people who visit the hospital citywide each year after being struck by cars, so this is actually a pretty low number")

now quantify that the 500 people who go hurt by bikes when there are maybe 1K bikers in the city. while 10K people are hurt by 500K cars.

math, such an interesting subject gator can't grasp. must have used the same math for OBBP

Matt is like a fish without a bicycle

gatornyc--I agree with you that MattNYC is almost certainly wrong (he often makes stuff up), but none of the data points you're using makes that case since they don't normalize for the number of bikes versus the number of cars. There's definitely a lot more cars than bikes, so it's entirely unsurprising that less pedestrians would be killed/hit by them, even if they were more dangerous on average.

There is much anecdotal evidence of people, particularly seniors, being mowed down and injured by bicyclists ignoring the law. I know half a dozen personally, two of whom suffered serious injuries that required hospitalization.

A few years ago, I was pushing my 1-year-old grandchild in a stroller. I stopped for the light at the corner of Park Avenue and 56th Street. When the light changed, I stepped off the curb. A jerk on a bike came flying out of nowhere, riding on the wrong side of the street and went through the red light. A young man next to me pushed the stroller out of the way of the bike just in time. Had he not, my grandson might not be alive today.

Some of you don't wish to see reality as it is. Until bike riders are held accountable for following traffic laws, I will not support any of these measures. I vote against them every time they come up at a community board meeting.

WOW lots of bike haters on here....

yes there are crazy delivery guys and messengers...BUT we need more bike trails lanes safe storage.

such a heathy activity, great way to get around town if people would just open there minds a bit

Since this is a real estate board, I'll bring it up. I have thought since they announced it that the bike share will raise the value of rentals to the 20-30s set that are more than a few avenues from a train. From personal experience there is much of the east side in the 20s-50s as well as east village that I wouldn't touch because it is just too much walking. If the system proves reliable enough and has decent capacity you can grab a bike to/from the nearest express stop. It might even help the far west side.

generalogoun:

I witnessed the incident you comented about in your post above.
It was just a block away from where I was living in my Manhattan condo at the time.
I was walking to the Sony Building on Madison Ave. and East 56th Street.
A few people stopped to help you and I was one of them.
Good to know that you and your grandson were/are O.K.

pier45
36 minutes ago
Posts: 134
Member since: May 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
>Since this is a real estate board, I'll bring it up. I have thought since they announced it that the bike share will raise the value of rentals to the 20-30s set that are more than a few avenues from a train. From personal experience there is much of the east side in the 20s-50s as well as east village that I wouldn't touch because it is just too much walking. If the system proves reliable enough and has decent capacity you can grab a bike to/from the nearest express stop. It might even help the far west side.

Bikes are only good for good weather. When its snowing, windy, rainy, cold, hot and humid ... you don't want to be on a bike, and those are the days anyway when you are miserable being in the remote locations.

If you can't manage to walk from the distance between subway stops on the East Side (let's say E23th street to E42nd street, or East59th street, East 72nd street) then you will have a problem trying to ride a bike to and from those distances.

Which subway stops on 72nd on the east side?

The mad Avenue loco!

^^More trolling from alanhart, within minutes of my posting a comment here, not in reference nor response to him^^

There is no Madison Ave. local subway stop. Only the subway/ bus stop on Lexington Ave. at East 68th Street.
The cross-town buses also run on East 72nd street.
If you can't walk from East 23rd Street to East 68th/72nd Street, biking that distance will be difficult.

How often do any of you bike? We are not talking Tour de France. These are omafiets. Very leisurely, about a much effort as a brisk walk. Pier is partially right, but more like it will make it slightly more attractive. In the mornings the crews will have to go retrieve bikes from subway stations and redistribute them, as occurs in montreal.

I bike often during good weather (in Brooklyn and in Europe.)

Biking short distances through Brooklyn, as I biked from Bay Ridge, when I lived there, to Park Slope
( or, let's say from Gator's place at OBBP to Atlantic Ave.) would not be that difficult, as biking around Manhattan.
I prefer "a brisk walk".

Matt is correct that bikes stop more slowly than cars. Or at least bikes stop more slowly than you'd think.

But he is still on the wrong side of this argument.

So much nonsense fear out there. Give me a break.

I am an avid cyclist. Don't own a car. Used to. Believe me there is much more danger to the cyclist from cars than to pedestrians from bikes.

Bikes will raise real estate values as another poster said, it will cheaply extend transportation across our city. Think of how much it costs to build a new subway line. And yet we can build a massive, green bike share at a fraction of the cost and time and you idiots will still complain.

Tomnevers:
No, I will not complain. Not ever, never.
I'm not complaining now, I won't complain then.

However, not everyone can be a good biker. Gotta be in shape. Can't shleppa' around on a bike.

”Until bike riders are held accountable for following traffic laws, I will not support any of these measures. I vote against them every time they come up at a community board meeting.”

You should be doing the exact opposite: agitating for bicycle lanes and proper bicycle infrastructure so that cyclists aren't forced into dangerous situations where they're right alongside automobiles, and jostling for position among pedestrians.

I understand how much you love your grandchild, but I think you're overreacting to that incident.

***You should be doing the exact opposite: agitating for bicycle lanes and proper bicycle infrastructure so that cyclists aren't forced into dangerous situations where they're right alongside automobiles, and jostling for position among pedestrians.****

or perhaps, first, bike riders need to start obeying traffic laws. Not every street will ever have a bike lane and, evne if they did, you still have to stop for the red lights. You have to stop for traffic lights, you have to ride on the correct side of the street, you have to ride with traffic and not against it, you can't be pretending you're in the Tour de France when you're on Broadway.

Anyone who has the gall to say I was overreacting when a young asshole (not BTW a "crazy messenger or deliveryman") almost wiped out a child, really and truly needs to have their priorities reexamined. A comment like that shows that you bike folks don't give a crap about other people in the street. That is evidenced daily and very plainly by how you treat everyone else when you're on a bike.

I don't hate bikes. I have ridden across the country on my bike -- and back -- and gone through Europe on my bike. I hate narcissistic entitled elitist bike riders in NYC. And I shall continue to vote against all their precious entitlement projects until their behavior changes.

We need cars, and pedestrians always get priority, so bikes have to be third in all respects.

Generalogoun, you propose to punish *all* bicyclists because *one* imbecile ignored basic safety principles and put your grandchild in danger. Is this -- punishing all for the actions of one -- not the very definition of overreaction? Bike riders need to "start" obeying traffic laws? The vast majority of them do, and that majority can't prevent the young asshole you're talking about from being himself any more than the average motorist can stop reckless motorists from driving the way they do.

Yes, cars are more dangerous than bikes but bikes can be just as dangerous too (see the story below which caused death of a senior). Bikes work great for European cities which are not as dense as NYC or fast paced where everyone is in a hurry.

These stupid bikes lanes on 1st avenue on upper east side create more traffic and pollution as it makes one valuable car lane out of service thereby clogging the roads. Also, a vast majority of bike riders do not follow traffic laws - jumping lights, trying to cut in front of a car, etc.

Bikers who bike outside of parks should be registered and insured just like motorists and should pay a yearly road tax of at least $500 a year just like motorists pay through gasoline tax (used to maintain roads).

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-attorney-suing-four-year-olds-parents-bicycle-accident-injured-elderly-mother-article-1.192778

"math, such an interesting subject gator can't grasp. must have used the same math for OBBP"

ab__11218, you're going to have to go to summer school. My math worked out REALLY well at OBBP as the value of my apt is up more than 55% in only three years. It's called vision something you are sorely lacking. Time to admit you were wrong and save ourselves from this tiresome and pointless argument.

But back to the topic at hand, you and jordyn are certainly correct that the numbers aren't normalized to account for the number of cyclists and autos respectively. But let's be real; no one is going to do that calculation because its not even close. I am by no means saying that bikes do not present a danger to pedestrians. They do and especially as the number of bikes on the road increases enforcement must also increase. But any argument that bikes are as dangerous as cars is absurd. Indeed, why would an organization like PBIC represent the interests of pedestrians AND cyclists is cyclists presented anything close to a similar danger to pedestrians as autos do?

"The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) is a national clearinghouse for information about health and safety, engineering, advocacy, education, enforcement, access, and mobility for pedestrians (including transit users) and bicyclists. The PBIC serves anyone interested in pedestrian and bicycle issues, including planners, engineers, private citizens, advocates, educators, police enforcement, and the health community."

P.S. ab_, do you really think there are only 1000 bikers currently? You're math would be way off there as well. See: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bike-counts.shtml

Of course I may have to go to summer school for grammar as "You're" should be "your." Really wish we could edit posts on this board.

Bike share seems more appropriate for Brooklyn than Manhattan, but they have sprouted up all over the place in Manhattan in the past week or two.

"But they are worlds more dangerous to pedestrians than cars."

Not much for credibility...

"First of all, cars can brake much more sharply than bicyclists ever can, if a pedestrian crosses their path."
Pretend that's true for a given speed. You 1) still have to pretend they go the same speed to begin with.
2) completely ignore, well, physics. The mass of a car is a wee bit greater.

Just awful, awful logic.

Somebody is just pissed at bikes.

"Pretend that's true for a given speed. You 1) still have to pretend they go the same speed to begin with.
2) completely ignore, well, physics. The mass of a car is a wee bit greater. Just awful, awful logic."

No, it's SCIENCE.

Look it up.

>Bikers who bike outside of parks should be registered and insured just like motorists and should pay a yearly road tax of at least $500 a year just like motorists pay through gasoline tax (used to maintain roads).

Seems a bit extreme.

SE why?