NYC DOT, NYC PARKS DEPARTMENT, NYPD, AND CENTRAL PARK CONSERVANCY ANNOUNCE SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS ON CENTRAL PARK LOOP DRIVE

New items include park-wide speed limit reduction from 25mph to 20mph, barricades further separating pedestrians from cyclists and enhancements to key crosswalks

                     By Geoffrey Croft  New York City Park Advocates Nov 18, 2014

The New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation, NYPD, and the Central Park Conservancy today announced immediate safety enhancements along the Central Park Drives. In addition to a reduction of the speed limit inside Central Park from 25 to 20 MPH for all modes of transportation, four key crossings across the park will receive substantial enhancements, including highly prominent “Pedestrian Crossing” warning signs at the intersections, advisory 10 MPH speed signs, and advance pedestrian crossing signs before each intersection.  The advance signs will be reinforced with roadway markings near the sign locations, refurbished crosswalks and clearer lane use markings.

Barricades will also be installed to shorten pedestrian crossing distance on the West Drive at two crossings (at Sheep Meadow, near W. 68th Street, and at Heckscher Ballfields, near E. 63rd Street) where the drive is significantly wider than typical. The barricades will be placed in the west-most motor vehicle lane during car-free hours. At Delacorte Theater (near W. 81st Street), a barricade will be installed between the pedestrian and bicycle lanes to better guide pedestrians to the crosswalk and to improve their sightlines to cyclists.

           

The Central Park Precinct will continue its public awareness campaign in the park to inform every one of the rules and regulations as it relates to traffic and pedestrian safety.  Individuals found in violation of the rules will be cited accordingly. 

        “Central Park is for all to enjoy in a safe and enjoyable manner, no matter how you choose to experience it,” said DOT Commissioner Polly Trottenberg. “These immediate safety enhancements, worked out in partnership with our sister agencies, augments that experience by calming traffic, improving crosswalks and further reinforcing the appropriate lane assignments for all users.”

“Public safety is our highest priority and the new safety enhancement measures being implemented in Central Park will surely provide its millions of visitors with a safer experience,” said NYC Parks Commissioner Mitchell J. Silver.  “I commend the NYC Department of Transportation, the NYPD, and the Central Park Conservancy for partnering with us to ensure enhanced safety conditions for all of the park's pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.”

Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said, “The New York City Police Department is committed to ensuring the safety of all those who use Central Park as a means of transportation and recreation.  We will continue to collaborate with our partners from the Central Park Conservancy, NYC Department of Transportation and the Parks Department to make our streets safer for all New Yorkers and visitors alike.” 

                                                           

“There’s no question; slower traffic will mean a safer park” said Doug Blonsky, President and CEO of Central Park Conservancy. “We applaud the DOT’s leadership role in lowering speed limits and adding signs and barricades, and we urge all  park users to know the new rules of the road.”

The four locations to receive these treatments include:

•       West Drive at Delacorte Theater (near W. 81st Street)

•       West Drive at Sheep Meadow (near W. 68th Street)

•       West Drive at Heckscher Ballfields Crossing (near E. 63rd Street)

•       East Drive at Terrace Drive (near E. 72nd Street)

The agencies will follow up the enhancements with stakeholder outreach and will be distributing DOT’s Bike Smart Brochures and Central Park-specific brochure geared toward cyclists and pedestrians.

Read/View More:

 City cuts Central Park speed limit to 20 mph after fatal collision

 New York Daily News  - November 19, 2014 -  BY Erin Durkin

City Unveils Plan To Lower Speed Limit For Bicyclists In Central Park

CBS - November 18, 2014 - By Dave Carlin 

Central Park speed limit cut to 20 miles per hour

New York Daily News  - November 18, 2014 -  BY Erin Durkin

Central Park speed limit cut to 20 miles per hour

WCBS 880 -  November 18, 2014 -  by  Alex Silverman

City to reduce Central Park speed limit to 20 mph

New York Post  - November 19, 2014 - By Amber Sutherland and Yoav Gonen 

Central Park's Speed Limit Will Fall To 20 MPH

gothamist -  November 18, 2014 - Christopher Robbins

Central Park Speed Limit To Be Lowered

The speed limit in Central Park will be reduced to 20 miles per hour and new barricades will be installed in four areas.  (photo: NYC Park Advocates) click on image to enlarge

Manhattan

By Geoffrey Croft

The De Blasio administration will lower the speed limit in Central Park as part of the Vision Zero plan NYC Park Advocates has learned.

The speed limit will be reduced by 5 miles per hour to 20mph.

The move comes after two people were killed and three suffered fractured skulls this year alone as a result of being struck by cyclists in the park. 

Police in the park have dramatically increased bike enforcement and education.

The Central Park Pct. has so far issued 865 tickets to cyclists this year compared to 212 over the same period last year as of November 12th.  

The top four categories for tickets issued: 386 for Failure To Yield To Pedestrians,  164 wearing head phones,  117  biking on pathways, and 94 summons for running red lights. 

Some people were stopped for multiple infractions but given only on summons according to police.

Last week two off-leash dogs were run over and killed in the park by motor vehicles.  

Starting on November 7th the speed limit on all New York City streets was lowered to 25 MPH unless otherwise posted as part of Mayor De blasio's Vision Zero plan in an effort to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries in the city.  

In the early 90's police briefly enforced a separate speed limit for cyclists in Central Park under then parks commissioner Betsy Gotbaum, who instituted a 15 m.p.h. limit.  Issues involving speeding go back to when the park first opened in the 19th Century as horse-drawn carriages accidents were prevalent.

Husband begs city to stop speeding cyclists after wife dies

By Lia Eustachewich

November 27, 2014 | 10:59pm

The bike with which Jason Marshall fatally struck Jill Tarlov.

The heartbroken husband of the Connecticut mom fatally struck by a speeding bicyclist in Central Park is calling on the city to crack down on cyclists who have turned the urban oasis into a dangerous racetrack.

Calling the situation a “time bomb,” Michael Wittman said it’s not a matter of if, but when someone else gets hit by a speeding biker.

“It’s too little, too late,” a still-grieving Wittman told The Post, referring to the city’s plan to reduce the speed limit from 25 to 20 mph for cars and bikes.

“You can certainly ride your bike through Central Park — you just can’t weave in and out of mothers and strollers at 30 mph. It’s pretty clear that these guys race each other through the park every day,” the CBS exec said.

His wife, Jill Tarlov, a 58-year-old mother of two, was in the crosswalk at West Drive and 63rd Street on Sept. 18 and about to step onto the curb when cyclist Jason Marshall plowed into her.

Tarlov, who was out shopping for her daughter Anna’s birthday, was left brain dead. She died three days later.

“I suspect she was hit from behind and thrown a good distance and hit with pretty good force,” said Wittman, who has reviewed the accident report but can’t bear to see the autopsy findings. “Doctors told me they’ve never seen an accident that bad from a bike.”

Modal Trigger

Jason MarshallPhoto: Facebook

Witnesses told cops that Marshall, 31, was speeding the wrong way down West Drive, yelled at Tarlov to get out of the way, and then tried to swerve around her instead of braking.

I assume if he were driving a car, he’d be arrested on the spot,” Wittman said.

So far, investigators haven’t been able to determine how fast Marshall was traveling, even though the avid cyclist obsessively tracked his more than 700 rides this year online — and clocked a top speed of 35.6 mph in Central Park hours before he hit Tarlov.

He told cops at the time he was going only 8 or 9 mph, sources said.

“His statement that he hit her at 8 or 9 mph is highly questionable to me,” Wittman said. “I just don’t see how that could’ve happened. He never applied the brakes.”

Marshall hasn’t been criminally charged, but the Manhattan DA’s Office is still investigating.

At the time of the incident, the biker, a studio jazz saxophonist, dismissed it as “an unavoidable accident,” and stopped just short of apologizing.

“Since the day of the accident, I and my family have been in constant prayer for her and her family. This is the deepest of pain. It is the deepest of tragedies,” Marshall said in a statement.

THE INVESTIGATORS: THE DANGER OF SPEEDING BICYCLISTS IN CENTRAL PARK

The Danger of Speeding Bicyclists in Central Park Investigators: Speeding cyclists in Central Park Investigative reporter Jim Hoffer looks into whether a police crackdown is making a difference. . WABCBy Jim Hoffer Thursday, November 06, 2014 NEW YORK (WABC) -- The Eyewitness News Investigators are looking into a growing problem in Central Park: Speeding bicyclists. The problem has led to pedestrian injuries and even some fatalities, and the NYPD is out to slow people down. Police have beefed up patrols ever since the death of pedestrian Jill Tarlov, who was struck and killed by cyclist Jason Marshall. After that incident, in September, the Investigators set out to test the speeds of cyclists in the park. And despite an almost daily crackdown by the NYPD, we found many bikers routinely surpassing the 25-mile-per-hour speed limit. We clocked them with a radar gun all over the park during busy times of the day. One of those we tagged speeding is Jason Colon. We asked if he thought he needed to slow down. "If you're aware of your surroundings, go for it," he said. "Something pops up, like a kid, it is time to dial back." Collisions are up 52 percent, according to the Central Park precinct. Authorities say 35 people have been struck by bikes in the park so far this year, while only one person has been hit by a car. The death toll in the bike-pedestrian accidents is two, and three suffered head fractures. Yet all throughout the park, on different weekdays at different times, our radar gun clocked bicyclists speeding, some topping 30 miles per hour. From the west side to the east side, we found dozens of cyclist zipping by joggers, walkers and baby carriages and doing it above the speed limit. It's a worry for many people who like to walk in the park. "They go so fast," pedestrian Martha Diprete said. "They go so fast." There are others, though, mostly cyclists, who blame distracted pedestrians. "You've got pedestrians on their cell phones, you've got people walking with baby strollers and babies right into the street," cyclist Terra Cardwell said. "I've almost nicked a few." The chaotic mix of Central Park is what makes it unique, and this year, it provides another distinction, the only place in the city where bikes pose a greater danger to people than cars. As to who is more to blame when bikes and walkers collide, cyclist James Rosa thinks he knows. "Often in these situations, both sides are wrong," he said. We caught up with Jason Marshall, asking him what can be done to minimize these collisions and if he had any thoughts. He just shook his head. He responded to a follow-up question with a polite "Good day, sir," ending the interview. We also spoke on the phone with the surviving spouses of the two victims killed by Central Park cyclists. One says giving more safe space to people walking and biking will bring down the accidents. Meanwhile, the husband of the woman killed in September takes a much harder line, saying his wife was killed in a senseless accident while in a crosswalk in broad daylight, adding that the park is no place to combine speeding cyclists and pedestrians. http://7online.com/news/the-investigators-the-danger-of-speeding-bicyclists-in-central-park/383591/

Should Bicyclists and Pedestrians Start Paying a Toll on the Golden Gate Bridge?

• by Tex Dworkin
• November 8, 2014
• 5:30 pm

Read more:http://www.care2.com/causes/should-bicyclists-and-pedestrians-start-paying-a-toll-on-the-golden-gate-bridge.html#ixzz3JGqD81hc

​​​Texting, talking on phone while biking would be illegal under new City Council bill

Councilman Mark Treyger (D-Brooklyn) will sponsor the legislation, which would apply the same rules to cyclists that already apply to drivers. Tickets for texting or talking on the phone while biking will carry a $50 fine, which could rise to $200 for repeat violations.

​

Councilman Treyger phone numbers    District 718-373-9673     Legislative 212-788-7045

see full article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-city-bill-texting-biking-illegal-article-1.2006297

Quinnipiac's Queer Study

CARR note** The methodology of this study is suspect."Stinky" Howard Wolfson defends. SNAFU Situation Normal All F***** Up CARR note**



March 31, 2011 06:37 am EST
Quinnipiac’s "Unbelievable" Poll on NYC Bike Lanes
by David W. Moore

10 MINUTES ON GRAND STREET: One third of the bike rider observed on Grand Street, Soho, New York City within 10 minutes violated the one-way street signage and rode the wrong way. Numerous arrows that point the safe direction are ignored. (Credit: Rhonda Roland Shearer) In response to the current controversy over the expansion of bike lanes in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg’s senior advisor, Howard Wolfson, recently issued a statement defending the policy. The first defense he cited was the popularity of the program: "The majority of New Yorkers support bike lanes. According to the most recent Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of New York City voters say more bike lanes are good 'because it's greener and healthier for people to ride their bicycles,' while 39 percent say bike lanes are bad 'because it leaves less room for cars which increases traffic.'" Given that a recent article in the Wall Street Journal reports that the mayor and his administration may have been spinning safety data to support the bike lane policy, you might think that Mayor Bloomberg himself had conducted the Quinnipiac poll, or commissioned it, or at the very least influenced its results in some way or another. How else could you account for the finding that a majority of New York City voters actually said increasing bike lanes is good because it’s “healthier for people to ride their bicycles”? Is that the first thing New Yorkers really think about when asked about bike lanes – how healthy it is for the bike riders? If so, kudos to them, for thinking of others. I live in New Hampshire, and when I asked a whole bunch of friends (admittedly not a representative sample of anything, not even of all my friends) whether they would want an expansion of bike lanes around our area, not one person said “yes” because they felt it was healthier for other people to ride bikes. Well, as it turns out, most New Yorkers probably wouldn’t give that reason either, if they were allowed to express their opinions in their own words. It was Quinnipiac that actually formulated the response, which in legal terms might be called “leading the witness.” Stacking the Deck Even before asking the loaded question, however, the Quinnipiac University Poll stacked the deck in favor of bike lanes. They did so by first informing respondents that “there has been an expansion of bicycle lanes in New York City.” How does that stack the deck? For almost all issues, even the most contentious, there is always a significant segment of the population that is not engaged – people who couldn’t care less one way or the other what happens. But once the pollster pretends as though everybody is informed (and makes that appear to be the case, by actually informing the respondents in the sample), and then asks all respondents to opine about the issue, the sample is fatally contaminated. It no longer represents the general public, many of whom are simply uninformed or otherwise unengaged in the issue. A more objective approach would have been to ask whether the respondents even knew of the expansion. After all, Bloomberg’s senior advisor Wolfson noted that in the past four years, the city has added 255 miles of bike lanes, while the city has over 6,000 miles of streets. This would suggest that probably a lot of residents were not even aware of the expansion – perhaps especially people who travel mostly by subway, or others who are generally clueless about anything. WATCH OUT! Within the same 10 minutes, New York City's Grand Street bike lane is awash in bike riders violating one-way-street traffic rules--like this woman and child riding a tandem bike the wrong direction. (Credit: Rhonda Roland Shearer) How many city residents are not engaged in the issue? Based on polling I’ve done and seen on jillions of other issues over the years, I would estimate about a third to a half of New York City voters don’t really care one way or the other, either because they don’t see bike lanes as affecting them, or because they simply haven’t been paying attention to the issue. (Of course, this is only a guess. What we need is for the pollster to ask the question, rather than taint the sample by giving respondents information.) Nevertheless, Quinnipiac asked all sample respondents – regardless of their knowledge or engagement in the issue – the following question: As you may know, there has been an expansion of bicycle lanes in New York City. Which comes closer to your point of view: A) This is a good thing because it's greener and healthier for people to ride their bicycle [sic], or B) This is a bad thing because it leaves less room for cars which increases traffic. There are two major problems with this question. First, it is a “forced choice” question, which means that there is no explicit option for a person to say they have “no opinion.” This format is used by pollsters when they want to suppress the percentage of people who are classified as “unsure.” (One reason pollsters do this is that they feel it’s not newsworthy if, say, 30% to 40% or more of the public has no opinion.) How do people with “no opinion” choose an option when an interviewer pressures them to come up with one? Typically, they succumb to the phenomenon of “response acquiescence” – a term which means they usually respond in a positive, rather than negative, manner. If that happened here, and I’d be surprised if it didn’t, that would mean an overestimate of the percentage who support the expansion of bike lanes. Second, the question could have asked whether the respondents supported or opposed the policy (or had no opinion). But instead, the pollster put words into the respondents’ mouths, by giving reasons for each choice. That’s how Wolfson could say that a majority of New York City voters believed bike lanes were “healthier for people to ride their bicycles,” though it’s highly unlikely many people would have made that statement on their own. The net result of the question phrasing, I believe, is to lead the respondents toward selecting option A, because it sounds good to have a policy that is “green” and “healthy” – even though there is the minor inconvenience of increased traffic. On New York City's Grand Street, 2/3 of the bike riders observed within 10 minutes correctly followed traffic rules, like man depicted above. Note the arrows. (Credit: Rhonda Roland Shearer) Of course, I could be wrong on this – it’s a matter of opinion which of the two alternatives sounds more positive to someone who otherwise doesn’t know anything about the issue. But that’s the point – rather than ask a tendentious question, Quinnipiac researchers could have asked an objective one. They did not. So, can we believe the finding that a majority of New York City voters support the Mayor’s policy? Not so, I would argue, if the only source is the Quinnipiac poll. It’s possible that even a majority don’t have an opinion one way or the other – though a good poll would let us know.