wild how anti cop this website is until it’s directed at a group of people that personally annoys them. read the fucking article, cyclists court summons higher than they ever have been in 7 years should be a HUGE red flag, and the punishment, again if anyone actually read the article, is far more strict than if you were in a vehicle doing the same thing. this is bullshit to pad out NYC’s court docket
New Yorker here.
It’s to target the immigrate population of delivery cyclists, thus triggering deportation due to “criminal conviction”
It has nothing to do with court docket numbers, everything to do with Trump’s crackdown.
Adams golfs with the Mustard Mussolini, they’re tight. Share a background in shady political shit.
I’ve regularly commuted by bicycle for almost 2 decade in 3 different countries.
I’m sorry but if you’re cycling (or using an e-bike) on the sidewalk you deserved to get punished for it. Same if you cross a red-light when pedestrians are crossing. (I’m so so about crossing a red-light when there are no traffic or pedestrians crossing: I won’t do it myself but if you’re not endangering others it’s no big deal in my book if other cyclists do it).
Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.
the sidewalk things applies to proper cities where sidewalks are actually used by pedestrians and the road can be used by cyclists. actual streets
there are lots of suburbs where that’s not the case - 80km/h traffic on a two lane each way, separated center, grass boulevard between the pavement and the sidewalk etc, and a sidewalk used by nobody because it doesn’t connect to anything for over a km.
that’s the one time sidewalks are okay to cycle on. and even then, better not be going the wrong way at intersections or going too fast at intersections, nobody expects that
Lack of infrastructure as cited by cyclists in the article is no excuse to put pedestrians at risk for the convenience of the cyclist.
100% but then cars and trucks parked on the cycling lanes, road work without a new bike lane, etc (impossible to have an exhaustive list but I bet you’ve seen countless video of cyclists everywhere unable to have a single ride on the actual cycling lane) ALSO must get punished because they are the ones prompting dangerous cycling too. There is no justification for putting others in danger but then it has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.
There is no justification for putting others in danger
but then. It has to actually be applied to all otherwise it feels arbitrary.Fixed it for ya.
There is no justification to put others in danger, period. That applies as much to drivers as to cyclists.
The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.
I’ve cycled in places like London, back when few people did it and the cycling infrastructure was basically non-existent and what little there was, were mostly tiny lanes painted blue on the side of the road with no actual safety from the cars and which tended to have cars parked on top.
People still didn’t cycle on the sidewalk there back then, even in places without cycling lanes.
The sidewalk is not a place for cyclists: it’s filled with people who don’t expect cyclists and fragile and highly unpredictable pedestrians like children and dogs.
The unjust and an uneven application of the Law is an unrelated affair.
Well then you didn’t fix anything for me as that was precisely my point. You might not understand or agree with what I wrote but based on upvotes, others do.
PS: FWIW and to step back a bit cyclists actually rarely do put others and themselves in actual danger even when they do break the law https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists-reckless-lawbreakers/
here in the west, they lobbied/bullied enough to the governments now they act like douches all the time. its a double edeged sword. most of them have no respect for pedestrians.
Keep riding your ebikes. Please slow down and make noise when you ride past me on the sidewalk. I swear somebody almost hits every day In out walking around. A simple “Honk honk, coming through”, please.
In Japan the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the larger vehicle. If a truck hits a car it’s on the onus of the truck driver to prove he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and if a car hits a cyclist, the car driver has to prove their innocence etc.
I think to most Americans that seems appalling (what if the stupid cyclist was doing something reckless?! Etc.), but it definitely makes people in Japan drive much safer in areas where there are potential cyclists, and thus makes it safer to cycle places easily.
I agree with this mentality, but it goes both ways. If a cyclist rode with consideration of the fact that they will lose every battle with a motor vehicle of any size they would also ride more cautiously. There are tons of bad drivers, and they are driving both motor vehicles and bicycles.
America is run by car lobbyist. They’re trying to get rid of kei cars and because the kei trucks are taking sales away from the giant American trucks with the same bed size. Trains and street cars were killed by GM to make room for their cars.
Where do you see that? I see if both vehicles are moving both are at fault even if one runs a stop sign.
Some of those citations are cyclists on sidewalks endangering pedestrians…
Others is cyclists running red lights.
So, cyclists hitting a pedestrian, I feel like we’d agree who’s at fault.
But say a cyclists runs a red light and tbones a SUV, you’re saying the SUV is at fault?
Actually, yea, kinda.
One of the things you’re taught early on in driving school in Japan is to “close the gap” and pull to the side that you’re turning into in order to prevent bicycles and mopeds from fitting between the sidewalk and your car and tboning you if you pull into a right or left turn.
If you pull into a left turn (left handed driving so similar to a US right turn) without checking that a cyclist is coming up behind you on your left side and they slam into your car you are 100% at fault.
The thing you gotta know about japanese roads and the law is that all roads unless explicitly marked otherwise are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists. As a car driver you are borrowing their roads. The law explicitly states that you are not allowed, while operating a motor vehicle, under any circumstances to impede the progress of pedestrians or cyclists.
The only time the law says otherwise is on highways and roads marked exclusively for motor vehicles.
Old lady walks in the middle of a four-lane highway, shutting down traffic? Yea man too bad, you gotta wait, the most the police will do is set up a road barrier to help her cross easier and ask her nicely to use the pedestrian crosswalk.
Assuming there’s a bike lane.
Which I’m assuming is more common in Japan.
With no bike lane the cyclist should be acting as a vehicle and not cutting off a turning lane at an intersection, although that is common behavior in my experience.
They said assumed, which makes me think it’s a general predisposition, but open to additional evidence. We assume a car that rear-ends another is at fault, but that doesn’t make that if car A pushes car B into car C, the operator of car B is necessarily liable for car C’s damages. It’s just the going theory before additional evidence comes into play.
They’re saying it’s on the SUV driver to prove they didn’t do illegal things that resulted in the accident, assuming normal police requests don’t do it first (security camera footage of the intersection) because nobody knows for sure who ran a red light except the people involved, unless there’s proof.
Not “someone said the SUV ran a red light and everyone believed them instantly without proof and the SUV was found at fault”
It feels a lot safer to be a pedestrian in Japan. I never saw a driver take precedence for themselves.
The general traffic rule is that unless indicated otherwise, roads are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists, so you’re the one borrowing their roads, not the other way around.
Cyclists also have a lot more rules and are required to have liability insurance in Japan
No, they’re not.
Not sure where you heard this, at most you need to register your bike with the police so they know who to fine if you leave it overnight somewhere it’s not supposed to be
I lived in Japan for a few months
“All Bicycle Riders Must Enroll in Bicycle Liability Insurance in Tokyo (and some other prefectures in Japan)
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government requires all bicycle riders (including children) to purchase Bicycle Liability Insurance in Tokyo.”
https://www.japanlivingguide.com/expatinfo/transportation/cycling-rules/
That law is unenforced.
No, that’s covered by the “TS Mark” that you get when you buy and register the bike.
It’s an annual insurance, it’s ¥2-5000 a year which is around $20.
Are you talking about the TS-mark? You get it when your bike is registered and inspected. If your bike is registered and inspected the inspection fee covers the TS-Mark, you don’t need anything else.
I don’t know who sold you that crap but it sounds like you got scammed.
The US doesn’t need to do that because a left bike will be stolen before it’s been there long enough to bother anyone.
It’s the same in the Netherlands. The most vulnerable traffic participant is always protected. Bicycle gets hit by a car? Cars fault. Pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle? Cyclists fault. And so on.
Dat is wel een serieuze oversimplificatie. Ik denk niet dat een vrachtwagen meer of minder aansprakelijk is in een ongeval.
I’ve been the car driver in a bike versus car crash and I’m glad that wasn’t the law where it happened. It was 100% the cyclist’s fault; he ran a red light on a fairly fast road and was obscured by a box truck until he was in my lane.
I do think car drivers should be held to a higher standard because cars are more dangerous, but automatic fault based on vehicle size takes it a bit too far.
But they’re not claiming the car driver is always at fault, only the presumption of fault. Clearly demonstrating the other person ran a red light has a good chance of changing the judgement
The comment about Japan said there’s a presumption. The comment about the Netherlands suggests it’s always the car driver’s fault (I think this may be technically incorrect).
It is complicated. It is not technically always, but in practice is may very well be. As this page (in Dutch) notes that, unless the driver can show that ‘overmacht’ applies (they couldn’t have performed any action that would have avoided or reduced bodily harm), they are (at least in part) responsible for damages. For example, not engaging the brakes as soon as it is clear that you would hit them, would still result in them being (partially) liable for costs, even if the cyclist made an error themselves (crossing a red light).
Because the burden of proof is on the driver, it may be hard to prove that this is the case, resulting in their insurance having to pay up even if they did not do anything wrong.
Blind pedestrian gets hit by sighted pedestrian? Sighted pedestrian’s fault and also a total dick move.
I lived in a town with a huge seeing impaired population and it did take a little getting used to, but you adapt to being more aware of your surroundings pretty quickly. I didn’t ever actually collide with any person, but I’ve bumped into a couple of canes when the angle was such that I couldn’t tell they were coming towards me. I did feel like a huge dick though.
The cane is there to detect obstacles. They are used to it hitting things, it’s part of their life.
You don’t have to feel bad about it even though it is something you should try to avoid. It’s hard to see that cane when it is poking out in front of the person all the way at the ground if you turn around or things like that.
If I had to guess you both apologized when it happened, and both of you should be able to walk away satisfied after a random friendly interaction like that.
What I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that we have a established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles that bicyclists don’t use. Tickets for bikes isn’t something that can be tacked on to the existing infrastructure easily.
Now if bikes/riders were licensed, that may be easier to include, but good luck trying to push that law through.
This comment seems to be suggesting that because enforcing traffic laws against people riding bikes is more difficult than it is against people driving cars, people should be punished more harshly when they violate traffic laws on bikes.
What that argument ignores is the vast difference in risk to others. The car is a couple orders of magnitude more dangerous, which is a major reason the law requires a license and registration to operate one on public roads. The idea of balancing the difficulty of enforcing traffic laws against people on bikes with harsher penalties only makes sense ignoring the difference in danger to others between bikes and cars.
Their first sentence explains their premise.
What I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that we have an established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles that bicyclists don’t use.
They’re saying the infrastructure around vehicles has established process which doesn’t exist for cyclists. They’re positing, from my reading, that this is contributing to the disparity in how infractions are handled; that if bicycles had license plates, registration etc. similar to vehicles the current system could be equally applied.
In the USA, traffic tickets are usually issued by a police officer stopping the violator and physically handing them a citation. This is the same process for a misdemeanor summons, but the latter requires the person to come to court rather than pay a fine online or by mail, and can involve harsher penalties.
There’s no difference in that process when there’s a license plate and driver’s license involved; the license plate just makes it easier to track down someone who flees.
I understand that. You were the one struggling to understand the original commenter and getting hostile because of your misunderstanding.
I was attempting to clarify for you. Frankly, I don’t care what the situation is since I don’t live there and was informed by someone who does that “laws don’t really apply”.
getting hostile
Where was I hostile? I never intended to express hostility to anyone here, just disagreement with NYC traffic enforcement practices.
Wow, swing and a miss, bud. That is so, so not what I said at all.
In no way did I imply “people should be punished more harshly”. Nor did I address anything about weight.
Jeez, stop making stuff up.
The comment appears to be a defense or justification of the current practice. Apologies for the confusion if that’s not what you meant.
Imagine being ticketed for walking the wrong way down a sidewalk or crossing the street. At intersections pedestrians generally have the right of way unless it’s signalized (or a car is already inside the intersection).
Cyclist are pedestrians.
These kind of stories almost read as “car is king” and all other modes of travel (walking, running, cycling) are required to conform around the car. Next thing you know grandma will get a ticket for riding her mobility scooter the wrong way down a sidewalk.
The main issue is improper Infrastructure. Streets are destinations and Roads are throughways. Street are multi-use and should be designed as such.
This is a street. It’s a destination where local pedestrians have the right of way.
This is a “strode” its a neither a street or a road. Car rule and use these as throughways.
This is a road. It’s a proper throughway with no street parking or driveways. Reduced conflict zones such as no intersections or left turn.
Also obligatory:
Emotos, ie. electric motorcycles that are high speed are vehicles and should be treated as such.
Ebikes ie. pedal assist bicycles are low speed and similar in nature to “mobility devices”
Down voted for this:
Cyclist are pedestrians.
But want to say thanks for the explanations. Regardless of whether I agree with your opinions.
not even close, people are pedestrians, ive encountered more often than not that bicycles ignore pedestratians when they are crossing the streets, or if they are behind a person, sorry but they act like they are in cars themselves.
What about a person on rollerblades?
By definition they are a vehicle, but are they a car?
Cyclist are pedestrians.
Unless you mean this in some very unconventional way — absolutely not. Bicycles are vehicles.
When was the last time you road a bicycle on a busy roadway ? Bikes are not vehicles.
I think the question has become, are bikes cars?
From the definition of a vehicle it’s something that is used to transport people or goods, and a vehicle can be “self power” or “human powered”.
By definition rollerblades are vehicles.
Now I think the question becomes (for people that see bikes as cars)
Are people on bikes allowed to use the full lane of a roadway, just as any vehicle that is classified as a car would?
Are people on bikes allowed to use the full lane of a roadway, just as any vehicle that is classified as a car would?
Basically every place in the US, the answer is emphatically “yes”.
Bikes are very much vehicles legally.
I suppose most of us seem to agree on the following:
Bikes are vehicles, and Cars are vehicles.
But we seem to be divided on, are bikes cars.
Uh… yesterday?
Bikes absolutely are vehicles.
Cars are dangerous weapons
Which is why some of those 6k citations are for riding on the sidewalk
I would agree any item that is used to transport goods or people in any way is considered a vehicle, but i would add the term “vehicle” is somewhat loose in meaning or interpretation.
There are two distinct classes of vehicles though. Self-powered and Human-powered.
Self-powered vehicles. Example, an aircraft, car, tank, truck, motorcycle, scooter.
Human-powered vehicles. Example, a bicycle, unicycle, balance bicycles, scooter, dandy horse, handcar, draisine, shoping cart, and maybe even shoes?
Now the reason I believe classifying cyclists as pedestrians, is because it would require a “shift” in how infrastructure is designed within our towns and cities.
The city “strode” is a unsafe place for a pedestrian or people in general to be (as it’s currently designed). Classifying a cyclist as a pedestrian would highlight the need that the equivalent of “sidewalk infrastructure” is required for the well-being of people on a bicycle.
Now imagine yourself walking (in your shoes) on a city “strode” in the middle of a lane, it feels “wrong”. So why do we force all ages of people on a bicycle to do this?
Now the reason I believe classifying cyclists as pedestrians, is because it would require a “shift” in how infrastructure is designed within our towns and cities.
Nah, classifying bicycles as pedestrians would be the worst of all worlds and result in the elimination of all considerations for bicycles just like we’ve been working on for pedestrians over the past hundred years.
I saw this same story from another source in a different post (https://archive.is/sZYDO).
There’s one specific paragraph in that article that is not covered in this one:
New York City has begun a crackdown on e-bikes and scooters riders. It follows actions by city officials from Paris to Honolulu to Hoboken, N.J., who are responding to residents angry about zippy vehicles with silent electric motors zooming down sidewalks and streets, often startling people, and occasionally hitting pedestrians.
“If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You’re done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons…” A 60lb bicycle with a 120-190lb adult meat crayon riding it.
“You stop and double park while you’re doing DoorDash or Uber, and you get a ticket for double parking, and there is no consideration for a working man who’s trying to do his living,”
Peak NYC… “Yeah, uh, I broke a well known and established law, but I’m working here! Gimme a break!”
“It’s because the design and the infrastructure is not there to protect the people who are the most vulnerable…”
Pedestrian and traffic laws exist as a deterrent to keep people from doing unsafe things. Bike lanes and greenways exist. That’s the infrastructure! You’re a pedestrian breaking a law that’s been implemented because you’re doing something unsafe for everyone. Maybe don’t do the thing that makes things unsafe!?
I bike a lot in San Diego, which has a decent amount of bike lanes. Not a ride goes by without me having to leave the bike lane to go around someone parked in the bike lane. A law is only effective if it is enforced.
Parking in a designated bike lane should be treated like the equivalent of mounting the curb and parking on a sidewalk.
All ages of people use bike-lanes just like all ages of people use sidewalks.
Forcing people onto a full lane of potential deadly traffic should not be taken so lightly.
You’re not wrong, and that why but I wonder how many people are stopping to actually take a pic and notify the police so they can enforce the law. I’ve never seen it done in my area. I’m sure it happens, but any time I see a cyclist pull into traffic from a bike lane because some idiot’s parked illegally, they just go around and ride on. That’s part of the problem of enforcement too…
Being keyed every time they park in a bike lane might change their habbits.
wont that make things worst, since it will cause increased resentment and road rage against bikers.
*Hobbits
“If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You’re done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons, which means you have to take a day off of work, go to court, probably you should hire a lawyer. And if you are an immigrant, then that can put you at risk of deportation,” Berlanga said.
I’m in California, not in New York City, but I have to say that while I have seen cars run red lights, it is exceedingly rare, whereas I see bicyclists doing it all the time. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if New York City has a similar situation. Whether-or-not the current situation is a good one, I do think that there’s a lack of deterrence as things stand.
I’ve commuted by bicycle regularly for almost 2 decades in 3 different countries and whenever I bought a new bicycle (well, I usually got them used), I would always make sure to have a forward and a back facing light as well as a bell.
The lights are almost self-explanatory, as you pointed out, but the bell is for the kind of pedestrians who don’t properly look to both sides before crossing a road (they rely on hearing and peripheral vision, both of which don’t work with bicycles which are silent and have a far narrower profile than a car), as well as drivers who will do the same in intersections (these are people who literally don’t turn their heads fully to look at possible incoming traffic but instead only turn it just enough to have the intersecting road on the corner of their eye) - they’re to warn then when I notice they’re not looking suspect they might be about to just cross in front of me.
My ass has been saved multiple times by keeping a weary eye on people on sidewalks that looked like they were about to turn and cross the street and warning them of my presence with the bell.
Also works well in places were the cycle path and the footpath are shared (like often in Berlin) to notify pedestrians that you’re coming to avoid situations were they do sudden moves to the side without looking.
Even in places with proper infrastructure (like The Netherlands), it pays to be defensive in your cycling, but that’s even more the case in places like Berlin (were the infrastructures is mainly decent and people are used to cyclists, but sometimes it’s kinda crap) and more so in places with almost no cycling infrastructure like London.
Alright, I hear you, but I think the point is that a cyclist running a red light mostly endangers themselves, while a car running a red light endangers others. Here in Colorado, we changed the laws such that a red light is a stop sign for cars, and a stop sign a yield, in recognition of the differences in risk.
In my experience cyclists are more likely to run red-lights in pedestrian crossings than in junctions and intersections, so they’re not endangering themselves, they’re endangering pedestrians.
Cool except for the person who hits the cyclist and surfers emotional damage.
That’s assuming that an oncoming car wouldn’t swerve at all if a cyclist entered their path. Dangerous or unpredictable behavior by anyone on a road puts everyone in the area at risk.
Yes, and nobody disputes that some bicyclists put everyone at risk. The point of the article, though, is that drivers are handed a fine, while bicyclists are handed criminal charges. Pointing out that bicyclists are given harsher treatment for a less dangerous offense is, I think, fair in this case.
a red light is a stop sign for cars
I assume you mean “…for cyclists”?
I would argue a stop sign is car infrastructure.
Did we have stop signs before cars started to fill up our city streets?
I would agree but the parent is talking about how the rules for driving apply to bicycles differently from cars.
Yes, that is correct. Thanks for pointing out, I’ll edit to avoid confusion.
Right on. But I gotta say those strobe lights on bikes blind the sh*t out of all who see them. You can’t see anything else but that light. And I’m speaking as someone walking on the sidewalk.
