Skip to content

Because Bikes

February 21, 2017

During a recent trip through my neighborhood, I noticed this new traffic configuration near the intersection of 3rd Street and Prospect Park West.


Here’s the old configuration:


Most people on bikes who come up 3rd Street cross PPW to either pick up the bike lane or head straight into the park, so the new traffic pattern keeps them out of the way of drivers making right turns. It also makes things more convenient for drivers, who can turn right without having to wait for people on bikes to get out of the way. While the safety of this change is debatable — 3rd Street is uphill, so the right-hook risk has now been replaced with a move that places slow riders directly in the path of possibly angry drivers trying to make the light — one thing is clear:

This change did not require community board approval.

The new striping went in late last year after DOT repaved 3rd Street as part of its routine maintenance program. There was no presentation to the transportation committee, no vote, nor any notification to the board whatsoever.


Now before I continue, let me be clear: Even as a member of the Transportation and Public Safety Committee of Community Board 6, I don’t think that such changes should require community board approval. DOT saw a chance to change the street to make it safer and they did it. If it winds up not working out, DOT can always switch it back. It’s just paint.

This new traffic configuration grabbed my attention a bit more than such a change normally might since I happened to notice it just a few days after a rather contentious meeting of the Community Board 6’s Transportation and Public Safety Committee.

The big topic of the night was the Amity Wiggle, a proposal to improve the bike connectivity between Amity Street and Dean Street. Streetsblog breaks it down:

The street network has no good, officially-sanctioned bike connection from points west of Court Street onto the Dean Street bike lane. But hundreds of cyclists each day make their own route, taking Amity Street, then doing a short jog against traffic on Court Street to hit Dean. That maneuver… is technically illegal, and there’s no infrastructure to formalize it.

The legal way to the bike lane on Dean Street from Amity takes people 4/10 of a mile out of their way and involves a short hop on Court Street, which is nobody’s idea of a pleasant biking street. You can see why people opt to take this short cut:

DOT’s solution to making this already common practice legal is pretty simple, boiling down to just a few new signs at the intersection, as well as a class-2 bike lane on the overly wide Amity street. Simple, right?


Not so fast. The meeting, which was actually DOT’s second presentation on the subject to the committee, quickly descended into a game of Bikelash Bingo. At least three of the people who were against the proposal began their comments by pointing out that they were generally supportive of cycling, before going on to list the ways in which they felt that this proposal wasn’t safe, a rhetorical tactic that’s familiar to longtime readers of this blog. There was a small amount of concern trolling, as some justified their opposition based on a sense of duty to protecting cyclists, even though the people in the room who biked attested, one after the other, that this proposal would protect them. There were anecdotes about scofflaw cyclists and admonishments that bikes need to follow the same rules as cars before cyclists can get special treatment. Others opposed the Wiggle based on the fact that they didn’t personally understand it or see the need. And in one of my favorite but perhaps least explored anti-bike tactics, one person suggested that the Amity Wiggle should be shelved in favor of a more comprehensive plan to improve the overall bike network on a neighborhood or even district-wide level.


As is often the case, most of these arguments seemed to serve as cover for the kind of status-quo bias that permeates so many community board discussions surrounding bikes. This isn’t 2010, so there’s no need to counter each one.

Unfortunately, the overall effect of the discussion was that the Amity Wiggle only mustered enough support on the committee to get six yea votes. Five people opposed and one abstained. Since that’s as good as a tie it means that getting the full board to approve the proposal will be an uphill battle. It might involve a letter-writing campaign by advocates or the intervention of a City Council member. All for a proposal that merely involves legally codifying what people are doing anyway by putting up a few signs and painting some lines on the ground.

Again, sigh.

Last week’s drama and my observation up near Prospect Park West led me to ask a simple question: Why did the Amity Wiggle have to go before a committee when the new traffic configuration at 3rd Street and PPW was installed without community notification or approval?

The Wiggle may seem like a small example, but it’s indicative of a larger trend, one that’s been holding New York City back for far too long. When things that expand convenience and safety for people on bikes require DOT to jump through multiple hoops, while things that expand the convenience of people in cars can be installed without any sort of notification to the affected community, that’s a recipe for stagnation. It means that anything bike-related, which already faces fierce opposition from parking- and driving-obsessed community board members, is often destined to fail or be watered down to the point of uselessness.

The Amity Wiggle was not invented by the DOT. It grew from a bottom-up proposal by Ian Dutton and other community activists. It’s a minor tweak to the traffic law that doesn’t actually change what’s already happening at this intersection. No concrete has to be poured. It enhances safety for people on bikes at no expense to the safety of other street users and makes bicycling a more convenient transportation option in a neighborhood that certainly doesn’t need more car traffic. It doesn’t even take parking, for goodness’ sake.

In a vacuum, community boards’ preference for the status quo is not necessarily a bad thing. But we don’t live in a vacuum. New York City’s transportation challenges and the looming threat of global climate change that many of us will live to see require the rapid implementation of innovative solutions at every conceivable level. If the city can’t make minor tweaks to the transportation network without coming hat in hand to a dozen people on committee, what hope is there when the solutions need to be far bigger and implemented at a much faster pace to stave off disaster?

For these reasons and more, regardless of what happens at the full board level DOT should go ahead and install the signage to make the Amity Wiggle legal. There’s a chance here for the agency to use this small tweak to start a citywide revolution of innovation. DOT shouldn’t miss it.

Dershowitz v. #BikeNYC

December 8, 2016

I don’t want to give too much oxygen to Alan Dershowitz’ opinion piece in the Daily News in which he laments the law-breaking “culture of cycling in NYC.” Much of it is well-worn, bikelash-era material that has been easily swatted down countless times before. After I read it, my first reaction was that it felt as if it had been written in 2010 but had just dusted off after sitting in an editor’s inbox for six years.

But Dershowitz does take on a more modern development: Intro 1072, otherwise known as the LPI Bill. Here’s his take on it:

There’s also a City Council bill that would allow cyclists to ignore the stop lights for vehicles that under law they’re supposed to obey — and instead let them go through lights at more than 1,000 intersections with a “leading pedestrian interval,” when the walk signal comes first. Bad, bad idea.

Some rebuttals:

The bill would not “allow cyclists to ignore the stop lights for vehicles that under law they’re supposed to obey.” The very nature of changing the law means that the law will no longer requires people to obey those lights; they’ll have to obey different lights. (Dershowitz might have meant that current law requires people on bikes to obey “stop lights for vehicles,” but any lawyer knows that imprecise language can sink an argument very quickly.) The LPI bill is not a license for cyclists to blow through intersections. It’s a safety measure meant to give people on bikes a head start so they are not at risk of being hit by turning cars and trucks.

Dershowitz claims that allowing cyclists to go on LPIs is a “bad, bad idea” but has no evidence to support his claim. In reality, it’s a good, good idea that people are already using to stay safe.

I understand and am sensitive to the almost instinctive reaction among some New Yorkers that this bill will put pedestrians at risk of being hit by cyclists. But consider the video above. When the walk signal goes on, the people on bikes travel in a parallel direction as the people on foot. No cyclists turn, so there’s no conflict with pedestrians. It doesn’t seem bad at all.

Dershowitz goes on to do a sort of twisted version of “This isn’t Amsterdam,” in which he points to European bike riders’ lawfulness without answering his own question about what makes European bike riders obey the law:

People who love to ride bikes in New York often hold up Europe as a model. Well, my experience in Europe has been different. Bike riders — and there are many more of them in most European cities — seem to be more respectful of red lights. What are Europeans doing that we aren’t?

So what are Europeans doing that we aren’t? Among other things, they’re allowing people on bikes to get head starts on motor vehicles. Jump to 16 seconds in this video — via Copenhagenize — and you’ll see some examples of advance signals for bicyclists in action:


At the end of his opinion piece, Dershowitz encourages readers to “Put on your thinking caps and try to come up with some realistic, constructive solutions to this problem.” Bike advocates have done that. And one of the things we came up with is the LPI bill.






The Advice I Gave My Daughter this Morning

November 9, 2016

This morning during our walk to school, I talked to my seven-year-old daughter about the election. That kid worked her butt off; over the last month she came with me to two volunteer shifts and was my data-entry assistant when we made calls from home. She deserved to feel like her work mattered, and part of feeling like one’s work mattered is in making sense of the outcome, win or lose. I asked her what she thought about the news. She said, “It was unexpected.” Characteristically to the point, if you know my kid.

We talked a little bit about how — just as we did a lot of work before Election Day — we still had work to do. Perhaps even more. She asked what she can do and I told her, “Ask questions.” She asked me what I meant and I said that just because someone is the President — or a teacher, or a mom, or a dad, or a really any adult — it doesn’t mean that person always does the right thing. I told her it’s always our job as people to question someone when we think they’re not being nice or not making the right choice, even if that person is “in charge.”

I know a lot of people are wondering what they can say to their kids or do for them that will make things feel alright, which right now may be more of a need to assure ourselves than them. My advice was what I figured an independent, intelligent, compassionate, and sometimes stubborn seven-year-old kid would be able to get. Your kid may need something else. Results may vary.

Our children are going to hear a lot of crazy stuff in the coming weeks, months, and years, and I want mine to be ready. I want my daughter to know that it’s okay ask questions and that people aren’t right just because they’re “grown ups.” I want her to know that she must always start from a place of respecting other people, but that respect also has to be earned. I want her to grow up and know that questioning authority is okay. And being a bit of a rabble-rouser is okay, too. It’s what makes her an American.

Also: this advice could totally backfire and she might wind up questioning everything her mother and I tell her, like not getting a tattoo, at least not until she’s out of the house, but no matter what those giant earrings that stretch out your earlobes are totally out of the question.

Is Your City’s Public Education Campaign Worth It?

October 27, 2016

All movies tell their stories in three acts. Act one begins with some sort of status quo. Then something comes along that changes that status quo and moves the story into act two. By the time the story gets to act three, the person or people affected by that change in that status quo — the small-town sherriff, the band of rebels, or the private investigator taking on powerful government interests – do something specific to either adapt to or fight that change.

The same holds true in advertising. Ads are stories with a purpose: to get people to buy a product or service. I’m vastly oversimplifying it, but for an ad to get people to motivate people to spend their money, it also has to have three acts, or parts:

  1. Define the status quo.
  2. Introduce something new that disrupts that status quo.
  3. Motivate a specific behavior or action.

Using the above framework, think of an ad for a new soft drink:

  1. You’re thirsty, right? (Status quo.)
  2. Awesome Water is here to quench your thirst! (Something new.)
  3. So if you’re thirsty, drink Awesome Water! (Specific action.)

Now, this isn’t the only way ads can motivate people to part with their hard-earned cash. They can tug at people’s heartstrings. (“When you care enough to send the very best.”) They can prey on insecurities or fears. (“You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”) Or they can include a catchphrase or slogan that’s so memorable that there’s no way to not think of the brand or product when one hears it. (“Just do it.” “Think Different.”) Regardless of the tactic, the purpose is the same: get people to buy stuff.

Public awareness campaigns don’t always have the same goals as consumer products. For starters, they’re not usually trying to get people to buy something. But for them to be effective, the tactics should more or less be the same.

One of NYC DOT’s most effective public awareness campaigns had to do with the 2014 reduction of the citywide speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph. The messaging followed the same steps outlined above:

  1. The New York City speed limit used to be 30 mph. (Status quo.)
  2. It’s been lowered to 25 mph. (Something new.)
  3. So drive 25 mph. (Specific action.)

That’s a simple takeaway: drive five miles per hour slower than before. The concept is easy to explain in a thirty-second radio ad, Facebook post, or during a quick interaction between a Vision Zero Street Team member and a motorist. It can be understood in the amount of time it takes to drive by a billboard or walk by a bus shelter. (It’s hard to measure the exact effectiveness of DOT’s  “Your Choices” campaign, but at least it was easy to understand. Drivers – not kids on bikes or people crossing with the light in a crosswalk – have the biggest responsibility to move through the city safely.)

But what to make of the city’s current campaign to remind people to be careful as the clocks change and it gets darker earlier? What should any individual person do about that? Following the basic framework at the beginning of this post, you can see how this breaks down by step three:

  1. It’s been light out during the evening commute for a while. (Status quo.)
  2. When the clocks change, it will be dark. (Something new.)
  3. ???

So what’s the third step? What’s the specific action to follow once someone has the not exactly surprising information that it gets dark early when daylight saving time ends? Be careful? Most drivers think they are. (Like the children of Lake Wobegon, all drivers are above average.) Is the takeaway that drivers should take turns slowly? Define slow. Should they look out for pedestrians? That doesn’t necessarily jibe with the excuse a lot of drivers give when they hit someone: “He came out of nowhere!”

I’m not even sure such a campaign could contain all the information needed to change driver’s behavior in just three steps. “What does darkness have to do with driving? My car has lights! It’s those pedestrians buried in their phones who need to be careful!” Even if one can defend this campaign by saying that it’s mostly about raising awareness about a serious public health problem – Did you know that the earlier sunset and darkness are linked to an increase in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured by drivers? – what is anyone supposed to do with that awareness? It’s an open-ended question that can lead to all kinds of misguided initiatives, from NYPD crackdowns on cyclists to taping reflective tape on seniors’ canes.

$1.5 million is less than a rounding error in the city’s budget. This campaign will come and go. Maybe more people will choose to drive safely. Maybe they won’t. But the next time the city thinks about sending its a public service campaign, I hope it asks a simple question: What specific behavior do we want people to change? If there isn’t a simple answer, then go back to the drawing board.


Mayor de Blasio: Get Out of Your Car

October 7, 2016

Here we go again.

Yesterday, during another appearance on the Brian Lehrer show, Mayor de Blasio repeated the idea that stopping in a bike lane isn’t always worthy of a ticket, so long as the driver has what I might call a relatable reason.

…if you’re just getting out to drop off a child or, you know, bring some groceries into a home — that should not be a ticket. So, that’s something we have to work on. Our enforcement agents of course need to show some sensitivity to when people are very, very briefly doing something like that. So, that’s something we will try and work on to improve because that’s not the kind of enforcement we’re looking for.

I’ve already articulated why the mayor’s philosophy is dangerous, wrong, insensitive, and antithetical to Vision Zero. Dorothee Benz at, offers a similar perspective in this great piece on the reality of biking in New York:

It’s illegal to stop or park in a bike lane, yet Mayor de Blasio himself recently signaled that stopping in a bike lane isn’t really that bad. A car that blocks a bike lane to “let someone off at an appointment or something like that, or just drop off kids at home or something quickly” is “different” than someone who leaves their car parked in a bike lane, he told Brian Lehrer.

Not to the cyclist who has to dodge the car and the kids it’s dropping off.

More fundamentally, if the mayor who initiated Vision Zero doesn’t get that a cyclist’s safety is more important than a motorist’s convenience, how will the other eight million New Yorkers?

The first time Mayor de Blasio excused away bike lane blocking, I was willing to give him a little bit of a break. As I wrote before, “To a lot of drivers, stopping in a bike lane for just a minute or two to let someone out feels a heck of a lot less harmful—and therefore less deserving of a ticket—than leaving a car in a bike lane for an extended period of time.” On its surface, this is not an unreasonable point of view. But when you dig just beneath a surface into the laws of physics—which tend to be neutral on the subject of groceries, kids, and driver intent—the mayor’s excuses fall apart.

I don’t think the mayor understands how much law-breaking his words excused. If stopping in a bike lane for a second is okay so long as a driver is unloading groceries, surely it’s okay for Fresh Direct to do it all over the city, right? What about UPS? Some parents send their kids to school in taxis. Is it okay for taxi drivers to block bike lanes to pick them up and let them out? If all one needs is a good reason to break a law, why observe it?

Discussing the finer points of multi-modal transporation policy is never going to be Bill de Blasio’s forte. This is a man who, during the 2013 campaign, used his “I’m a motorist” schtick as a way to curry favor with car-obsessed tabloids and outer-borough voters. In February 2014, just days after the then-new mayor announced a slew of Vision-Zero-related initiatives, his caravan was caught speeding and rolling through stop signs. In 2015, he floated the idea of ripping out the Times Sqaure pedestrian plazas. For goodness sake, he’s driven to a gym twelve miles from his house nearly every day.

Nobody is expecting perfection, but politicians should be expected to evolve, especially on issues of life and death. When they introduce a major policy, they should be expected to bone up on its key points. And when they make a mistake, they shouldn’t come back two weeks later and repeat it to a radio-listening audience.

I’m also not expecting the mayor to suddenly ditch his caravan of SUVs and hop on a Citi Bike to get to City Hall. But it would serve the mayor of New York well to see how the majority of New Yorkers live. Walk with us. Bike with us. And stop making excuses.

The More Streets Change, the More Some People Stay the Same

September 22, 2016
A commuter rides a Citi Bike on Prospect Park West.

A commuter rides a Citi Bike on Prospect Park West.

This is how the bikelash ends, not with a bang but with a press release.

I launched Brooklyn Spoke in late 2010, shortly before the fight over the Prospect Park West bike lane was really heating up. (The lawsuit was filed in March 2011, the winter of our discontent and perhaps the height of the New York City bikelash.) For the most part, my early posts focused on biking in general; they’re clearly written by a newbie who was just dipping in his toes in the larger social and political words of bikes, activism, and progressive transportation planning.

My first mention of the Prospect Park West bike lane was in a post from December 16, 2010: “The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Change Itself.” It wasn’t specifically about PPW, but was a general reflection on the fight over bike lanes in general.

I believe that some of the biggest bike lane opponents, such as Marty Markowitz and those who live on Prospect Park West, have that fear. This is not the Brooklyn they know, the Brooklyn they have lived in for the past many decades. To them, the city has always been a city of cars, the roads have always been designed to accommodate them, and what looks like a sudden change–even if it is the result of multi-year conversations with community boards and intense, data-driven studies–is a shock to the system. Carol Linn, of Neighbors For Better Bike Lanes (which is actually against the PPW bike lane) testified to this very point during the City Council hearing on bikes. She mentioned going away last summer only to come back to see that the street had been radically changed. Years of requests from the local community board and conversations with the DOT were invisible as far as she was concerned; all that mattered was that the street had changed without her knowing it.

There is also another fear that comes with change: the fear of being wrong and having to admit it.

That last idea — that being wrong about bike lanes means never having to say you’re sorry — is very evident in the statement Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes and Seniors released yesterday. Ben Fried at Streetsblog artfully describes it not as an apology, but as “a longwinded attempt to save face and maintain the fiction that they sued to erase a perfectly safe and functional bike lane out of a sense of civic duty, not selfishness.” It was written, as Ben implied, with what must have been the knowledge that most journalists would offer little more than “he said/she said” coverage of the lawsuit’s end. If that was the calculation, they were right. Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes and Seniors for Safety may never have known much about bike lanes or safety, but they always seemed to know a lot about the press.

I began to find my voice as an advocate responding to a lot of the nonsense that NBBL managed to get into print. In the spirit of those early days, I wanted to single out two parts of NBBL’s full statement [PDF].

Here’s the first one:

Back in June 2010, the City installed a bike lane on Prospect Park West on a trial basis, for the dual purpose of facilitating “traffic calming” goals and providing a public recreational amenity.

But wait! In 2010, NBBL acknowledged that one of the bike lane’s original purposes was to facilitate bicycle commuting. Here’s what Norman Steisel, Louise Hainline, and Iris Weinshall wrote in a letter to the editor of the New York Times:

Furthermore, the D.O.T. data’s lack of credibility is reinforced by our own videotapes. These show that the Prospect Park West bike lanes are used by half the number of riders the D.O.T. says, and that cyclists are not riding to commute as originally contemplated but are recreational users who could be better served by enhancing the existing lane 100 yards away in Prospect Park.

So, in 2010 NBBL acknowledged that one of the goals of the redesign was to accommodate cyclists who were “riding to commute,” even if they felt that it wasn’t living up to that promise. Yet yesterday they said that one of the two original purposes was to provide “a public recreational amenity.” If this swtich was intention, it sure is a subtle way of positioning people who use bicycles as less than people who drive. It reminded me of Louise Hainline’s dig at people who bike from this March 2011 New York Magazine feature:

“Bikers really think they’re doing work for the environment if, instead of taking the car a block, they take the bike to the food co-op. That’s touching. But it’s silly.”

See? I told you the winter of 2011 was really bad.

Here’s the second part that caught my attention. Again, emphasis is mine.

From the outset we have believed that bikes must be effectively introduced as a critical feature of the City’s evolving public transportation infrastructure. In fact, some of our groups’ members are civic leaders who participated in the formulation of the City’s transportation policy and plans well before this bike lane’s installation. However, we believe the evidentiary record and recent court decision in our favor confirm our view that the previous administration was purposely misleading with regard to the temporary nature of the original project.

Shorter NBBL: “We like bike lanes, but…”




It’s Hard to See Vision Zero When You’re Looking Through a Windshield.

September 18, 2016

On Friday morning, while appearing on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC, Mayor Bill de Blasio heard from “Chris from Soho” on the subject of biking in New York City. “You can’t go five minutes in a bike lane without running into somebody illegally parked,” Chris said, expressing a frustration that’s shared by people who bike across the five boroughs. There was a brief exchange about enforcement — of both the police and citizen kind — before the mayor offered a sort of taxonomy of bike lane blocking.

Via WNYC’s Kate Hinds:

“There are people stop in a bike lane to, you know, let someone off at an appointment or something like that, or just drop off kids at home or something quickly,” de Blasio said. “That’s a different matter than someone who double-parks and leaves their car there.”

Now, I understand what the mayor was trying to express. To a lot of drivers, stopping in a bike lane for just a minute or two to let someone out feels a heck of a lot less harmful — and therefore less deserving of a ticket — than leaving a car in a bike lane for an extended period of time. But there are lots of things wrong with the mayor’s response. Here are four:

1. To a person riding a bike, it makes no difference how long a driver intends to stay in a bike lane, nor does it matter why the driver is stopped in it. Such details are as relevant to the cyclist’s safety as what the driver had for breakfast. The danger is the same no matter the duration or reason for the obstruction. While merging with fast-moving motor vehicle traffic to get around a car parked in a bike lane, no person on a bike thinks, “I wonder how long the driver will be there or what he’s doing.”

2. Stopping or parking in a bike lane is illegal.



Chris from Soho said this clearly. “You can’t go five minutes in a bike lane without running into somebody illegally parked.” The mayor missed an opportunity to explain the law to drivers and, in an advocate’s dream world, express the need for New York City to fix its dysfunctional curb-management policies in ways that might improve things for cyclists and drivers alike.

3. His response positioned people who bike as worth less than people who drive. Did the mayor ever consider what people on bikes are doing when they find their legal right of way suddenly blocked? Did it not occur to him that they too might be going to an appointment or dropping their children off at home? Without explicitly saying so, here’s what the mayor said: “Drivers do Important Things. Cyclists ride bikes.” This is the root sentiment behind countless horrible interactions people on bikes have with motorists every day.

4. It’s the polar opposite of Vision Zero. The fundamental philosophy behind Vision Zero is simple: “Human life and health are paramount and take priority over mobility and other objectives of the road traffic system.” In other words, your need to stop your car for a minute does not take priority over my need to not be killed. Only someone who drives or is driven everywhere could believe that stopping in a bike lane is a harmless activity so long as it’s quick and for an important reason.

I give the mayor a lot of credit for standing up to obstructionist community boards on specific projects such as Queens Boulevard or, when pressed by New York’s motoring-obsessed media, putting the onus for traffic safety on drivers. But with a disturbing increase in the number of people on bikes killed in 2016 so far, we need the mayor to educate himself about the day-to-day reality for the many New Yorkers who do not rely on cars. Three years in, Mayor de Blasio is still struggling to understand the vision behind Vision Zero.

I’m running for safe streets… and need your support!

May 26, 2016

I’m honored and humbled to join Team TransAlt in the 2016 New York City Marathon this November. Casual readers of this blog know how important safe streets are to my experience as a dad, husband, and New Yorker. Longtime readers may also know that Marathon Sunday is my favorite day in the city each year, largely because of how it connects people in all five boroughs to their neighborhood streets like no other day. I’ve spent years cheering on runners from behind the blue tape as they stride down Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn, and have even used the early-morning street closures to have a little fun with my daughter and call attention to the need for more space for kids of all ages to roam — and ride — freely.

My daughter takes a pre-marathon spin on Fourth Avenue in 2013.

My daughter takes a pre-marathon spin on Fourth Avenue in 2013.

This fall, I’ll be on the other side of that blue tape, running in my first marathon (!) and I’m asking for your help.

In order to run I need to raise money, all of which will support the kind of advocacy work that makes this city better every day. Your tax-deductible donations will help an organization near and dear to my heart, Transportation Alternatives, which is filled with dedicated employees, passionate volunteers, and all-around amazing people, all working to make this city we love safe for people on two feet or two wheels. If you’ve ever walked around and suddenly stumbled across a new pedestrian plaza, TA probably had something to do with it. If you’ve ever biked to work and suddenly discovered your route now has a protected bike lane, there’s a good chance TA was involved. Even if you drive now and then — It’s okay! Don’t be ashamed! — that new 25 mph speed limit that’s keeping you and everyone else around you safe happened because of a lot of great people associated with Transportation Alternatives.

You can donate by following this link.

To sweeten the pot, anyone who donates $50 or more will be invited to join me on a group ride through Brooklyn. We’ll take some of the best bike infrastructure in the city to tour some of my favorite spots and perhaps stop for some snacks and beverages. I’m hoping to turn this into quite the social affair, so the more people who donate, the bigger and better we can make this ride. More details to follow, but the unofficial Brooklyn Spoke Tour de Brooklyn will happen in November after my legs have had a chance to recover.

Thanks in advance for your generosity and support! I will carry the message of safe streets with me from Staten Island all the way to the finish line.

Finishing the Brooklyn Half while sporting a little #bikenyc flair.

Finishing the Brooklyn Half while sporting a little #bikenyc flair.

On Clinton Ave

May 12, 2016

Opponents of a potential two-way bicycle lane on Clinton Avenue here in Brooklyn are circulating a petition in which the list a number of concerns with the Department of Transportation’s plan. While I certainly respect that the scope of the change may feel big – DOT will convert Clinton from two-ways for cars to one-way while adding a two-way bicycle lane – a lot of their concerns have easy answers, if the opponents are willing to compromise and think differently about how streets work, the future of our city, and the nature of history.

Here are their concerns:

– The street can be completely blocked by one vehicle causing traffic delays and lack of access for emergency vehicles

– Poor access for residents to load and unload; also dangerous, as passing cars will have no room

– Poor access for delivery services- UPS, Fedex, USPS which deliver several times a day

The elephant in the room here — and with nearly every potential street transformation — is the free storage of private automobiles. Throw in a handful of loading zones on Clinton Avenue and the first three concerns on the opponents’ list simply evaporate. This involves losing a handful of parking spaces, and opponents should be asked if they believe such a trade-off is worth it.

– Loss of parking spaces in an area that continues to see tremendous population growth. Loss of parking spaces leads to greater traffic congestion as vehicles continue to circle the neighborhood in search of parking spaces.

This is a losing battle. Those residents are coming whether or not Clinton Ave gets its bike lane. Better to offer them streets that make getting around without a car possible. As journalist Ezra Klein explained at the Washington Post during the height of the 2011 bikelash here in New York, for driving to remain as pleasant as some bike lane opponents want it to be — or to at least remain as awful as it already is without getting worse — “it will only be because most New Yorkers decide against purchasing cars. And they’re only going to do that if the other options seem attractive.”

– Studies show one-way streets lead to speeding, increasing danger to pedestrians, bikes and cars alike.

I have some sympathy for this concern, as it’s not entirely wrong. However, this can be addressed, at least a little, with speed bumps. Chicanes and other design features — some of which would mean losing one or two parking spaces — would help pedestrians and drivers even more. As for people on bikes, the risk of getting hit by a car will more or less be eliminated since a parking-protected bike lane means they won’t be riding next to moving vehicles.

– The destruction of the beautifully designated and historic nature of Clinton Avenue by placing traffic islands in the middle of our beautiful street – and thus taking even more space from the road.

Longtime readers of this blog will know that questions about a neighborhood’s “historic nature” are, in my opinion, highly subjective. They can’t be answered without answering a different question first: Which historic nature?

This one?


Leading down to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, c. 1840 – 1845. Image via Flickr user sjcny.

Or how about this one?


Clinton Avenue c. 1910. Image via Flickr user sjcny.

This looks pretty historic to me:


Clinton Avenue, Looking North from Lafayette Avenue. Date unknown. Image via Flickr user sjcny.

Then there’s this history:


This history began sometime in the middle of the last century. If this is what bike lane opponents are trying to preserve, that’s certainly their right. But they should know that this “beautifully designated” area is currently filled with late-model automobiles which some might argue are even more anachronistic than bicycles.


Helmets and Vision Zero Go Together Like Helmets and Vision Zero

May 5, 2016

What is Vision Zero?

Vision Zero is a set of defined principles that guide the effort to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries. One of those principles is, of course, the moral imperative of ending this kind of suffering. Another is that crashes are preventable. Still another is that humans, being human, tend to make mistakes. But perhaps the biggest guiding principle is that the responsibility for reducing the severity and frequency of traffic crashes falls not on individual road users but on the people who design those roads and write the rules that govern them. While there may be ways in which one city’s approach to Vision Zero differs from another’s, this specific principle should always remain the same.

In one sense, Vision Zero is like a religion. Any organized spiritual movement is guided by a core set of tenets that define the behavior and beliefs of everyone from clergy members to the most causal layperson. Not that everyone has to adhere to every rule, of course. There are plenty of people who may identify as Jewish but who don’t keep kosher, for example. (I’m one of them!) But it’s quite easy to identify practices which might automatically disqualify a person from claiming membership in a particular faith. It would be hard for a person who goes to church and receives Communion to call himself a rabbi, no matter how many Woody Allen movies he’s seen.

Keep all that in mind as you read on.


This morning, the New York City Department of Transportation held an event on the steps of the Brooklyn Public Library at which they debuted a Vision-Zero-branded bicycle helmet. You read that right: a Vision Zero helmet. Now consider the basic principles of Vision Zero and match them up against the capabilities of bicycle helmets and you can immediately see how absurd this is. Can helmets eliminate serious fatalities and injuries? Possibly, though the research is all over the map. Can helmets prevent crashes? Of course not, no more than a bullet-proof vest can prevent gunfire. Do helmets place the responsibility for reducing the severity and frequency of crashes on traffic engineers and policy makers? No way.

Before you race to the comments to explain how a helmet once saved your life, please understand that this post is not about whether you or I as individuals should wear helmets. It is about a simple fact:

Helmet promotion and Vision Zero are fundamentally incompatible.

Linking helmets to a Vision Zero effort, to use another religion analogy, is like arguing about the health benefits of the glazed ham, dinner rolls, and butter you’re about to eat at your Passover seder. In both cases, something big is being fundamentally ignored.

To be fair, DOT’s free helmet program isn’t bad all by itself. I picked up two helmets for my kids at a giveaway during Summer Streets a couple of years ago, and there are plenty of communities around the city where the events are also combined with bike skills classes, appearances by elected officials, and other things that help promote bicycling in NYC.

But Vision Zero helmets? Come on.

In early 2014, Matt Flegenheimer of the New York Times wrote a pair of articles in which he looked to Sweden, the country which originated the idea of Vision Zero, to help define it for Americans, who were typically used to hearing about the three E’s — education, enforcement, and engineering – in, as Flegenheimer put it, “roughly equal emphasis.”

…Swedish authorities have generally dismissed the effects of education or enforcement on pedestrian safety. They were critical of the blitz of jaywalking tickets during Mr. de Blasio’s early months in office and efforts by the New York Police Department to distribute cards with safety tips in areas with a recent history of fatal crashes.

Ylva Berg, the national coordinator of road safety for the Swedish Transport Administration, chafed at these kinds of campaigns. “It’s actually quite horrible,” she said. “Those being victimized in those crashes are those being told to do better.”

Promoting helmet use at the same time as an active Vision Zero campaign is, to use Berg’s words, “actually quite horrible.” It puts the onus on victims to protect themselves, instead of on traffic engineers to fix the system that’s killing people in the first place.

This month’s Momentum Magazine (big download, beware!) has a feature by Shaun Lopez-Murphy titled, “Are Bicycle Helmets Holding Us Back?” Here’s what Lopez-Murphy has to say:

When it comes to bicycle safety however, progress slows when the center of attention becomes the bicycle helmet. Much like whether or not a motorist in an accident was wearing a seatbelt, one of the first questions we ask when a bicyclist is involved in a crash is, “Were they wearing a helmet?” The media and police reflect the public’s pro-helmet sentiment by implying that its role in any major crash is highly significant.

Emphasis mine. This knee-jerk instinct by reporters and cops to ask whether or not a cyclist was wearing a helmet when he or she was killed is a cultural problem that the New York City Department of Transportation and City Hall ought to be trying to correct in every way possible. That can’t happen if DOT is stamping Vision Zero logos on helmets and sending pictures like the one below to the same media outlets that will report on the next cycling fatality.


Today’s helmet promotion was all the more horrible when one considers that the past few weeks have been particularly bloody for people who get around by bicycle. Lauren Davis was killed by a turning driver on Classon Street in Brooklyn on April 15th. James Gregg was hit by an off-route semi truck driver on 6th Avenue in Brooklyn on April 20th. Heather Lough was hit by an allegedly distracted truck driver in the Bronx on April 27th and then died from her injuries on May 2nd. (There are conflicting reports as to whether she was walking or riding her bike when the driver hit her, but she did have the legal right of way.)

A witness who saw Davis before she was killed said the young woman had been wearing a helmet. In Lough’s case, her memorial page says, “She was wearing her helmet, followed the signs, and did everything right.” While the Daily News reported that “No bicycle helmet was found” at the scene of Gregg’s death, it’s highly unlikely it would have made a difference against a massive truck on a narrow residential street. Safe streets, not plastic hats, would have saved these people. Vision Zero tells us exactly that.

Want proof of how pernicious helmet promotion is, especially in the context of Vision Zero? Look no further than the Daily News’ coverage of today’s DOT Vision Zero helmet giveaway:

A few blocks away from the helmet giveaway, 33-year-old James Gregg died after he fell under the wheels of a truck driving alongside him at Sixth Ave. near Sterling Pl on April 20.

“We want to make sure as people cycle around the city that they do it safely,” Trottenberg said. “We know that there have recently been some tragedies and we certainly mourn those — and it certainly makes us want to redouble our efforts.”

In this coverage, there’s no mention that the truck driver who killed James Gregg shouldn’t have been on 6th Avenue in the first place. There isn’t even a mention of the fact that the truck was an 18-wheeler. Gregg simply “fell under the wheels of a truck driving alongside him” as if it was all going so pleasantly until that fall. All that readers can infer is that James Gregg probably wasn’t wearing a helmet. Why else would DOT be doing the helmet giveaway so close to where he was killed? And thus the hope of preventing the next tragedy — to be more specific: placing the onus on traffic engineers to prevent it — remains as elusive as ever.

Helmet promotions water down the core principles of Vision Zero to the point where they become worse than meaningless. They feed into a victim-blaming mentality that is anathema to what the entire philosophy is about. If culture eats policy for breakfast, what does it say that the very agency that has the most responsibility for ending traffic deaths in New York City served up a heaping pile of styrofoam this morning?