New York pedestrians completely ignore the traffic laws and would be outraged to hear that someone had gotten a ticket for anything they did in the street on foot, no matter how crazy or dangerous. If you haven’t ridden a bike in the city, you have no idea what it’s like. When you’re on a bike and have the right of way, at each intersection you have to figure out how to safely get around the hordes of idiots standing in the bike lane looking alternately at their iphone and for a break in between the cars to shoot out into. Often they think bikes don’t count, so will walk right in front of you (when the bike has the right of way). Also in no danger from the cops are people leaving their parked cars, who open their doors right in the paths of bikers, often killing them.

Many people bike safely in New York, by being very careful and attentive to both cars and pedestrians. Those who aren’t don’t last long before they end up in the ER. If an intersection is clear, whether or not it has a red light, it’s exactly as safe to bike through it at reasonable speed as to walk through it, except the bikers are paying a lot more attention to what they are doing.

Police have always been free to ticket dangerous bicycling and have always done so. What’s new now is a campaign to go after safe bicyclists, ticketing them for safely going through empty intersections or for pointless technical violations. Even bicycling in Central Park is a target, with people getting ticketed for going down a hill at 15mph. Not just regular traffic cops are being told to do this, the undercover force is out on the anti-bike campaign too. This is an organized campaign of harassment coming from the top levels of the NYPD. I’m interested to hear that delivery people are just given warnings, that’s good, but those like myself who use a bike to get to work or ride in the Park are being forced to stop doing this. That seems to be one goal of the campaign, with the NYPD police chief deciding to go after two things he hates: bicyclists and the Transportation commissioner. Bicycling in the city is going to be very effectively suppressed, with lots of shiny new bike lanes empty. Pedestrians may cheer this along, but just wait, you may be next…

”

— comment posted in response to Cops Also Ticketing Cyclists For Ignoring Stop Signs At Empty Intersections

"Bike etiquette: What do you do when what's polite isn't safe, what's safe isn't legal, and what's legal isn't polite?" »

Driver arrested in bicycle accident is back in jail »

Posted on Mon, Aug. 23, 2010

by Tim Potter
The Wichita Eagle

WICHITA — A man who was arrested and then released in an accident that critically injured a bicyclist in Wichita last month is being held in a previous, separate traffic case.

Demauria Stephens, 29, of Wichita is being held in the Sedgwick County Jail in lieu of $50,000 bond for a misdemeanor charge of driving while a habitual violator, court records show.

District Court records from 2008 and 2009 show Stephens having convictions for driving with a suspended license, driving without a license and no proof of insurance. In January, the state revoked his driver’s license for three years.

The habitual violator charge against Stephens stems from a May 10 arrest.

On July 24, officers arrested Stephens following an accident on Central near Woodlawn — where police said a vehicle struck 68-year-old bicyclist Robert Hughes. Hughes suffered critical injuries.

After the accident, Stephens was booked into jail on suspicion of felony hit-and-run and driving with a revoked license, then was released after a couple of days. It’s not known whether he will be charged in that case.

NYC: August 10: Hearing on the "Proposed Rules Governing the Removal and Disposal of Derelict Bicycles" »

from ghostbikes.org:

Please note the change in date and location of this event due to amended proposed rules. 

The NYC Department of Sanitation proposes to adopt a new rule called “Proposed Rules Governing the Removal and Disposal of Derelict Bicycles”. This rule would add a new section numbered 1-05.1 of Chapter 1, Title 16 of the Rules of the City of New York and delete other rules shown in brackets in their proposed rules.

On page two, section (2) the rules state:

“Ghost rider” shall mean a derelict bicycle that has been placed on public property and apparently intended as a memorial for someone who is deceased and which may be painted white or have a sign posted on or near it, or flowers or other mementos in the basket.”

Page three states:

“…in the event that a ghost rider is affixed to public property, a notice shall be affixed to the ghost rider advising the owner that such ghost rider must be removed within thirty days from the date of notice. This notice shall also state that the failure to remove such ghost rider within the designated time period will result in the removal and disposal of the ghost rider by the department of sanitation.”

If you are concerned that NYC Ghost Bikes will be removed within 30 days, please submit your written comments and/or present your comments at the public hearing.

Written comments regarding this proposed rule may be sent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs, New York City Department of Sanitation, 125 Worth Street, Room 710, New York, NY 10013 or comments may be submitted electronically through NYC RULES at www.nyc.gov/nycrules on or before August 10, 2010.  Seehttp://nyc.gov/html/nycrules/html/proposed/proposed.shtmland click “comment.”

Here are some suggestions of issues with the rules as proposed to include in your response:

1. Ghost bikes (referred to as “ghost riders” in the document) are regarded as inherently derelict when they are first described.  This means that any ghost bike may be subject to removal.  We do not believe that all ghost bikes fall under the criteria that determine derelict bikes, and we strongly oppose removal of all ghost bikes.

2. Several of the derelict bike criteria are vague and unhelpful in removing abandoned bikes, and should be further explained or removed.

The first listed characteristic of a derelict bike describes it as “unusable.”  This description is too vague, as it does not explain what the bike might be used for and what makes it unable to be used.  Additionally, the ghost bikes are used as functioning memorials, so we wish that this characteristic not be applied to any ghost bikes.

The second characteristic states that a derelict bike may be missing parts.  It specifies some parts with the exception of the seatpost, saddle, and front wheel, which may beremoved by a rider for security reasons, but does not include a comprehensive list of parts.  Given that some ghost bikes are stripped of unnecessary parts, we wish that the rules more specifically describe exactly which parts must be missing to categorize a bike as derelict, and whether the bike must be missing merely one part, or several.

The third characteristic specifies that a derelict bike may have flat or missing tires.  Many ghost bikes have flat tires, though this does not make them an eyesore or a public hazard.  Additionally, a completely functioning bike is equally at risk of being locked up with flat tires, due to vandalism, road debris, an unexpected slow leak, or other common bike commuting hazards.  We wish that the rules be modified to remove the criterium of flat tires.

3. If ghost bikes are their own category, given that they are removed after a time period of 30 days rather than five, they should be able to have their own criteria to determine which bikes would be considered derelict.

4. The City should create a public database or set up a notification procedure so that interested groups can easily track if any bikes are slated for removal and respond appropriately.  A public database would also help bike owners who have left their bikes locked outside and are not able to retrieve them in the five day period to coordinate a way to get their bikes.

5. The rules as proposed do not include an appeals process if any person wishes to challenge a bike’s designation as derelict.  The City should create and implement a policy that would allow interested parties to repair a bike determined to be derelict or challenge this designation if it is inappropriately assigned.   Additionally, when a bike is tagged for removal, the City should include a document that specifies which criteria the bike has fulfilled to be designated as derelict.

6. You may wish to include in your response the value you see in ghost bikes and other street memorials, as well as any personal stories of your experiences with these memorials.

For related news articles see:

http://www.ghostbikes.org/press/city-could-make-memorial-ghost-bikes-vanish-memorial-bikes-could-go-away-under-plan-remove-der

http://www.ghostbikes.org/press/sanitation-department-wants-remove-eyesore-bike-death-memorials

Aug 10 2010 - 11:30am

125 Worth Street, Third Floor Boardroom (Room 330)

We're thrilled that New York is making progress on new legislation to hold reckless drivers responsible for injury or loss of life as a result of their actions. Check it out on Transportation Alternatives's blog. »

“but as of right now cyclists are subject to same laws as autos”

Yeah except that autos are rarely subject to the same laws as anybody. Cops need to stop picking on bikes, period. Cars are more dangerous, cars kill more people, and drivers are rarely ticketed for, as other posters pointed out, KILLING PEOPLE.

NYPD we are losing our faith in you completely, if we ever had any faith in you to lose.

”

— Erin, comment posted to article, Brooklyn Cop Dishes Out Disorderly Conduct Charge to Cyclist Who Ran Red, on streetsblog.org, February 4th, 2010

NYPD Slams Doored Cyclist with Two Summonses, Lets Driver Off the Hook »

via streetsblog.org:

While riding home from work on the morning of March 22, Rodney Seymour was doored by a truck driver. When the police responded to his 911 call, instead of ticketing the doorer, they hit Seymour with two summonses for improperly equipping his bike.