4 ms·

Look, DoorDashers on mopeds on sidewalks are annoying, but drivers in NYC kill hundreds, maim thousands, and hit tens of thousands every year. Add to that the f

by sagarm 1y ago

Look, DoorDashers on mopeds on sidewalks are annoying, but drivers in NYC kill hundreds, maim thousands, and hit tens of thousands every year. Add to that the fact that NYPD is NOT focusing on dangerous behaviors or mopeds, and it's clear that NYPD enforcement priorities are misplaced. The equivalent to ticketing a cyclist proceeding safely through an intersection without the light would be ticketing drivers for blocking the box, rolling through stop signs, making a right on red without coming to a complete stop, double parking or parking in bike lanes, or going 1mph over the posted limit.

haswell 1y ago
> DoorDashers on mopeds on sidewalks are annoying No, they’re dangerous. > but drivers in NYC kill hundreds, maim thousands, and hit tens of thousands every year. This strikes me as an argument from whataboutism. I don’t have the stats, but I strongly suspect that the volume of cars is also significantly higher than the volume of bikes on top of the size/weight difference, so it is not surprising that the numbers are significantly higher. This doesn’t make the status quo with dangerous behavior on bikes ok to ignore. Here in Chicago, I’ve been clipped by a bike while walking on the sidewalk, hit by a drunk cyclist while riding my bike, causing me to crash, and witness stupid close calls and ridiculous behavior on a daily basis. I’ve had more close encounters with bikes as a pedestrian than I’ve ever had with cars. Clearly the stats show that vehicle deaths are far greater, but again, this is a numbers thing, and not a valid reason to ignore bike safety. > Add to that the fact that NYPD is NOT focusing on dangerous behaviors or mopeds Running red lights is dangerous. Period. The fact that many cyclists do it without causing an accident doesn’t make it less dangerous. And I disagree that the police aren’t targeting dangerous behaviors here. If the goal is to stop rule violations by people who are doing dangerous things, that necessarily involves going after the people engaged in obvious rule violations. Think about this from an enforcement perspective: if I see someone run a red that causes an oncoming driver with the right of way to slow down to avoid a collision, that’s pretty obviously a problem and worth citing. But the line between “dangerous” and “safe” is often not clear cut, and so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to target rule violations across the board if the goal is to achieve a major behavior change among cyclists. > The equivalent to ticketing a cyclist proceeding safely through an intersection without the light Except most cyclists who run red lights do not do so safely, and I think this is a poor characterization of the issue and risk. To reiterate an earlier point, I’m not sure I’m a fan of the how here, i.e. threatening people with an arrest warrant feels heavy handed. But I also understand why to some degree. I’m tempted to say I’d prefer some kind of law change such that riders have similar legal responsibility to respond to citations as drivers, but I also am not a fan of some of the potential implications of that, e.g. I don’t want bicycle licenses to become a thing. I’m curious how you’d address the issue, if you can acknowledge for a moment that there is indeed a real issue that needs to be addressed.
- sagarm 1y ago
  It's not whataboutism, because NYPD has limited resources to enforce traffic laws. The way they've chosen to allocate their resources here is ridiculous. > Running red lights is dangerous, period. Do you feel the same way about pedestrians crossing without the light? Because if you do, you obviously do not live in a city. Cyclists are far closer to pedestrians than drivers, in the sense that they move relatively slowly, are agile, have less mass and therefore pose a lesser danger, and have an unobstructed field of view. This demand for cyclists to follow rules designed for drivers -- which drivers also pick and choose from, see previous list of routine violations -- is really your typical strategy of using selective enforcement to punish an outgroup. > Except most cyclists who run red lights do not do so safely, and I think this is a poor characterization of the issue and risk. Come on, how many collisions do we actually see? Further, if we accept the premise that the majority of cyclists have a death wish, why would ticketing them change their behavior? The reality is that drivers hitting and crushing pedestrians and cyclists to death don't even get a ticket. There are no consequences for obscured or deliberately damaged plates; unpaid tickets, including dangerous ones; and for many drivers wealthy enough to drive in Manhattan the cost of tickets are hardly a deterrent. In the exceedingly rare situation where licenses do get taken away, drivers will still drive anyway! As for dashers engaging in actual unsafe behavior, sure, ticket them. But given the scourge that is Uber and Lyft drivers, I'm not holding my breath.

by sagarm 1y ago

haswell 1y ago

> DoorDashers on mopeds on sidewalks are annoying No, they’re dangerous. > but drivers in NYC kill hundreds, maim thousands, and hit tens of thousands every year. This strikes me as an argument from whataboutism. I don’t have the stats, but I strongly suspect that the volume of cars is also significantly higher than the volume of bikes on top of the size/weight difference, so it is not surprising that the numbers are significantly higher. This doesn’t make the status quo with dangerous behavior on bikes ok to ignore. Here in Chicago, I’ve been clipped by a bike while walking on the sidewalk, hit by a drunk cyclist while riding my bike, causing me to crash, and witness stupid close calls and ridiculous behavior on a daily basis. I’ve had more close encounters with bikes as a pedestrian than I’ve ever had with cars. Clearly the stats show that vehicle deaths are far greater, but again, this is a numbers thing, and not a valid reason to ignore bike safety. > Add to that the fact that NYPD is NOT focusing on dangerous behaviors or mopeds Running red lights is dangerous. Period. The fact that many cyclists do it without causing an accident doesn’t make it less dangerous. And I disagree that the police aren’t targeting dangerous behaviors here. If the goal is to stop rule violations by people who are doing dangerous things, that necessarily involves going after the people engaged in obvious rule violations. Think about this from an enforcement perspective: if I see someone run a red that causes an oncoming driver with the right of way to slow down to avoid a collision, that’s pretty obviously a problem and worth citing. But the line between “dangerous” and “safe” is often not clear cut, and so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to target rule violations across the board if the goal is to achieve a major behavior change among cyclists. > The equivalent to ticketing a cyclist proceeding safely through an intersection without the light Except most cyclists who run red lights do not do so safely, and I think this is a poor characterization of the issue and risk. To reiterate an earlier point, I’m not sure I’m a fan of the how here, i.e. threatening people with an arrest warrant feels heavy handed. But I also understand why to some degree. I’m tempted to say I’d prefer some kind of law change such that riders have similar legal responsibility to respond to citations as drivers, but I also am not a fan of some of the potential implications of that, e.g. I don’t want bicycle licenses to become a thing. I’m curious how you’d address the issue, if you can acknowledge for a moment that there is indeed a real issue that needs to be addressed.

sagarm 1y ago
It's not whataboutism, because NYPD has limited resources to enforce traffic laws. The way they've chosen to allocate their resources here is ridiculous. > Running red lights is dangerous, period. Do you feel the same way about pedestrians crossing without the light? Because if you do, you obviously do not live in a city. Cyclists are far closer to pedestrians than drivers, in the sense that they move relatively slowly, are agile, have less mass and therefore pose a lesser danger, and have an unobstructed field of view. This demand for cyclists to follow rules designed for drivers -- which drivers also pick and choose from, see previous list of routine violations -- is really your typical strategy of using selective enforcement to punish an outgroup. > Except most cyclists who run red lights do not do so safely, and I think this is a poor characterization of the issue and risk. Come on, how many collisions do we actually see? Further, if we accept the premise that the majority of cyclists have a death wish, why would ticketing them change their behavior? The reality is that drivers hitting and crushing pedestrians and cyclists to death don't even get a ticket. There are no consequences for obscured or deliberately damaged plates; unpaid tickets, including dangerous ones; and for many drivers wealthy enough to drive in Manhattan the cost of tickets are hardly a deterrent. In the exceedingly rare situation where licenses do get taken away, drivers will still drive anyway! As for dashers engaging in actual unsafe behavior, sure, ticket them. But given the scourge that is Uber and Lyft drivers, I'm not holding my breath.