I know he doesn't go that fast.

Well, if you read the article, it doesn't claim that this particular rider is going that fast. They said that they "clocked riders going as fast as 31 mph". That is very plausible if one stands at the bottom of the downhill. It looks to me that you guys have a BIG problem . . . Maybe we should start a pool based on how many tickets Kissena members will get by the end of it.

this looks like a case for Gridlock Sam -- or his traffic engineering firm, more likely. i wonder if the city has considered bringing in someone who can bring some actual expertise into the discussion - rather than just emotion.

they do have experience in this stuff, and i used to work with one of his VP's, FWIW....i could reach out if there's any interest: http://www.samschwartz.com/Services/BicyclePlanningEngineering.aspx

@dstearns: there was one wild haired fellow at the meeting who claimed to be an engineer that specialized in such issues. at the end of the day it appears they are looking for zero-to-low cost way of mitigating legal risk associated with accidents. that is the only context in which the barrels make sense (to me)

So...what are we going to do about this? Venting on our own forum is not going to get us anywhere. We need a road bike advocacy group ASAP. We are already half way to getting screwed.

There are thousands of road bikers. We're relatively affluent, educated and many (majority) of us have families. We vote. Many of us know "people in high places." Etc. This shouldn't be playing out like this.

I understand there's a Kissena get-together tomorrow nite to talk about training issues for the winter. I don't know about the rest of you, but my number one training issue is that if things continue on their current trajectory, my training will be limited to Sundays on 9W and evenings on the trainer in my basement. So it's kind of hard for me to think about how many times a week I'm going to do intervals of what length, and what my optimal recovery meal will be.

I think Kissena needs to get an advocacy group going, we need to get CRCA and everyone else we can think of involved, and then we need to properly framing the issue. I think this should be issue no. 2, if not issue no. 1, at the meeting tomorrow.

Thoughts?

Posted By: mitchSo...what are we going to do about this? Venting on our own forum is not going to get us anywhere. We need a road bike advocacy group ASAP. We are already half way to getting screwed.

There are thousands of road bikers. We're relatively affluent, educated and many (majority) of us have families. We vote. Many of us know "people in high places." Etc. This shouldn't be playing out like this.

I understand there's a Kissena get-together tomorrow nite to talk about training issues for the winter. I don't know about the rest of you, but my number one training issue is that if things continue on their current trajectory, my training will be limited to Sundays on 9W and evenings on the trainer in my basement. So it's kind of hard for me to think about how many times a week I'm going to do intervals of what length, and what my optimal recovery meal will be.

I think Kissena needs to get an advocacy group going, we need to get CRCA and everyone else we can think of involved, and then we need to properly framing the issue. I think this should be issue no. 2, if not issue no. 1, at the meeting tomorrow.

Thoughts?

I can't speak for JP but I think his talk tomorrow will be about setting up how you should structure your season and other various training techniques he's found worthwhile. Perhaps if others are interested in talking about PP they can all get together after the meeting is over in a bar or coffee shop.

Mitch,
I agree that we need more people involved in this. there is certainly a case to be made that keeping access to Prospect Park for both training and racing is a core part of Kissena's mission. and, as a club, we have been doing something about it. Charlie I has been involved, as has Mike Perlberg and others. Maybe it isn't enough, but it seems that people are mobilizing. Maybe we aren't mobilizing fast enough.

no, tomorrow night's talk isn't the time. But I can mention it then, and it can be brought up again at the dinner Sunday. And we can move from there.

@mugwump: "tomorrow night's talk isn't the time"

Agreed...that was mainly rhetorical. But I think we can have a before/after sidebar discussion about how to mobilize with anyone there who's interested.

And yeah, I do think we have to move faster. The park safety initiative was going great. Now, with lawsuits and press coverage popping up and everyone jumping in or running for cover, things could easily go off the rails. We could wake up one day and find we're stuck with a 15 mph speed limit.

BTW, I've been reaching out to some local pols/officials who to see what they think, but if they know anything about the issue their first question is always "so what is Kissena doing?" Which is good news/bad news. Good in that it shows we can have influence, but bad if we're not out there already.

@mitch I agree with with the need to intensify the response but - why don't you start a separate thread to organize some kind of brainstorming session?

Whatever happens, or whatever committee or group is formed, I think that board oversight of its actions is critical so that we are truly projecting one powerful voice with a cohesive message, and not a bunch disparate individual voices.

@ryan - why don't you start a separate thread to organize some kind of brainstorming session?

Good idea...but before I hit "new discussion", should we just say it's about "Prospect Park Road Sharing Task Force" and use this discussion? Or should we frame it as a larger topic like "Advocacy Initiative" and start a new one?

Not sure what's most appropriate...whatever you think works for me.

@ryan...Yes...I didn't want to just clutter up the forum. So it sounds like it makes sense to talk after Sunday? If you're at the mtg tomorrow, we could also share notes afterward. In the meantime, I have some feelers out to people who can be helpful, and should know a bit more by next week.

Glad to know you and others are motivated!

Just saw this. The saga continues.

http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2011/11/closing-bell-free-ride-ending-in-prospect-park/?stream=true

I hope this all blows over. The road sharing task force has not met since the last meeting. I hope we can straighten some stuff out, but I like Mitch's idea of getting an active stance from the club on it, along with other clubs. The new board should tackle this issue immediately.

My gut feeling is that the police felt offended and were put on the defensive after the last public meeting. This is their way of flexing their muscles a bit, and slowly it will fade away.

Mike

I encourage everyone out in the park make friendly eye contact with the police they see, and make sure any interaction with them is one of support and cooperation for improved park safety. I think that if we racers took this posture with the police and got some rapport with them, our outcomes would be much better. I think the worst thing we could do would be to engender a hostile relationship with the guys who write the tickets.

While I agree that being nice is usually the best way to get what you want, I do think a firmer stance is needed - we're being treated like pinatas right now and we can't smile our way out of it. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

This is not the sort of thing that happens one-on-one - so I'm *not* disagreeing with Jeff's suggestion. But outside those personal interactions, our approach needs to be sharpened.

I find it very hard to feel sorry for NYPD who feel offended that people think they are not doing their job. If their job is to protect the public safety, then they are not doing it, period. Check out the link below. I wonder how many crackdowns have occurred to help prevent things like this.

http://www.transalt.org/newsroom/releases/5533

This anti-bike stuff is political low-hanging fruit, its a bunch of bullshit, and it needs to be fought. I agree 100% with Mike that the new board must tackle this issue immediately.

Clearly our board needs to define the club's official response to these issues as soon as possible. However, in our daily interactions with NYPD, we should strive to be liked, as opposed to the alternative. Aside from our club's official behind-the-scenes politicking with the community, we may be able to smile our way out of a lot.

A couple of thoughts...

I only have anecdotal info on this, but it seemed to me that many of the tickets issued in Central Park during the blitz there were written in such a way that they were guaranteed to be thrown out if the cyclist bothered to go to court. Whether this is rightfully termed "defective," "spoiled," or "contaminated" I don't know. This suggests to me that the police on the street were told to write tickets by superior officers and the cops did it, but only to inconvenience. Perhaps a sign that there is disagreement between the brass and the street. Might be something to watch for when a ticket blitz occurs.

I don't think TA will support this, but I wonder if it would be of benefit to cyclists to demonstrate how "out of control" non-cycling park users are. And if we had some people parked at crosswalks and other high non-cyclist traffic areas of the park and observed how many people ignored lights, ignored crosswalks, runners in the bike lane, dogs off leash, that sort of thing, we could provide "proof" that cyclists aren't the problem. And armed with this information if we could take some pressure off cyclists and put it on the people who are complaining about cyclists.

I also think we should look into the dynamics of cyclist-ped crashes, as I think cyclists are probably the worse off in most collisions

There a book that could be of value:
Pedestrian and Cyclist Impact
http://books.google.com/books/about/Pedestrian_and_Cyclist_Impact.html?id=vqL_hK9vjHsC

And this article starts to address the complexity of cyclist-ped collisions for police
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MBtMismkrW4J:www.ipmba.org/newsletters/Bicycle_Crash_Investigation_Part_I.pdf+the+physics+of+a+cyclist+pedestrian+collision&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgpETkPeGU5ywKjvlgCx7XczqyQW9zMsBCWDx9SPPvabXA2a3zG2mRHq1Snv0kM3ahH2h8345Hi_4l8x1ql_3WX26QGkiOeCz1-vAg3t2xhASLVCwQ9VAEkJP-QB0jellI0K8ir&sig=AHIEtbR6OHmzJ-tqWXnbyyZ_wupdNn8TMg

I just read something a friend of mine wrote about the current situation in Prospect. Even though this was written for the Prospect Peloton group, I think it's important to read for those of us not on that yahoo group who ride in the park. He spoke to someone he knows who is very high up in the parks hierarchy and this is what was gleaned. What you read below I directly cut and pasted from his message:

· What’s happening in PP is almost identical to what happened in Central Park four years ago. At that time, there were some bike/pedestrian accidents around 79th Street and the West Side as cyclists got a lot of speed coming down the long descent from the North.

· The issue in PP, if you haven’t been paying attention, is near the base of the hill on the South end, where there is a playground on the right-hand side of the road—hence the orange barrels as an attempt slow people down and make them more aware.

· The Parks Dept. says that two bike/pedestrian accidents is the trigger. That, and of course, being sued by one of the women who was hit.

A couple of other things. Much as you and I will argue this until we are blue in the face, bikes are considered vehicles and we are subject to vehicular laws even if cars and other vehicles are prevented from being in the park. We are vehicles. So, the speed limit in the park is 25 mph. Go faster than that, and you can get a ticket.

Vehicle laws also say that the vehicle must ALWAYS yield to pedestrians. Even if the pedestrian is wearing headphones, walking forward while looking backward, darting out from behind a trash barrel or tree, playing touch football in the road, whatever—WE MUST YIELD. As vehicles we will NEVER be in the right.

To that end, the enforcement is going to be very harsh on all crosswalks. It will be up to the individual police whether they issue summonses for going through the red lights, but the red lights will remain “a tool” (as my friend said) that they can use if they want to crack down. The summonses we/you will see will most likely be “failure to yield” and “running a red light” summonses.

What does this mean? Essentially, if you are riding and there is ANYONE in a crosswalk, even if you are in the right lane and they are all the way over the in the left lane, you can and will be summonsed for “failure to yield.” Read this sentence again. The crosswalks are the flash points—period!

• In particular, the police are going to be very, very observant of those wearing full racing kits—the more they match, the more you will stand out. I might behoove everyone to buy a couple pair of black tights, black jackets, or whatever, so that you blend in. Wanna wear your kits? Fine. But just know that you are going to be a moving target.

• Ultimately, according to my buddy, the PD and Parks are going to be looking for this to go away. No more close calls, no more yelling “get the f… out of the way!,” no more speeds over 25 mph, and hopefully, no more bike/pedestrian clashes.

Posted By: Nathaniel MillerVehicle laws also say that the vehicle must ALWAYS yield to pedestrians. Even if the pedestrian is wearing headphones, walking forward while looking backward, darting out from behind a trash barrel or tree, playing touch football in the road, whatever—WE MUST YIELD. As vehicles we will NEVER be in the right.

This is an extremely common misconception. The actual law (not to mention the NYPD's history of not charging drivers for failure to yield) actually requires pedestrians to yield to vehicles, with the only exception being inside a crosswalk.

From the New York vehicle law:

Section 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks.

     (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
     (b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
     (c) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements.
 
Even so, your friend is correct that the police can get us whenever they feel like it for red light infractions. So, we're at their complete mercy and it's in our direct best interest that this blows over as quickly as possible.

Jeff,
Thanks for posting the specifics of the law.

What gets confusing is the park being closed to motorized traffic. If the road is closed, then is it a road any more? Is it a path? If bikes are allowed in, then why should they be expected to heed the lights, when their purpose, control car traffic, is no longer present?

I think in one of the links I shared above, there was a discussion that in many places, cyclists and pedestrians are lumped into the same group, so distinguishing who should follow what law can be difficult.

Posted By: mitchBTW, I've been reaching out to some local pols/officials who to see what they think, but if they know anything about the issue their first question is always "so what is Kissena doing?" Which is good news/bad news. Good in that it shows we can have influence, but bad if we're not out there already.

Honestly, just a web presence would be useful. Safe Cycling Advocates or something like that, with a statement about how racing cyclists have no illusions that while training, we are racing. Training 10-15hrs a week, we may be the cyclists who use the parks most frequently, and we ride our bikes way more than other people, and thus are most cognizant of the need for safety. We encourage the rest of us to ride courteously and respectfully and we ask that the media not paint us with a spandex-clad speed-demon brush.

Something like that.

So Liz Robbins from the New York Times wants to get in touch with me.

Her email is a bit off putting, but maybe speaks volumes about the general perception of cyclists.

.......

Thank you, Michael. I did not hear from Dan, so I would like to speak to you this afternoon. There has been a lot of talk about "packs of riders" shouting at pedestrians and slower cyclists. Do you ride in the PP Peloton? Or do you know who organizes that? Maybe if they built a velodrome, this would not be an issue!

.......

Guess you know what angle she's looking for in the article...

Hopefully you can inject some sense into what looks to be another slanted column. Not that your reasoned words won't be edited out for cherry picked bytes.

But yeah, tell "them" to go build a velodrome.

aha of course. Check your email re: the open letter. if the NYT wants a story we could use the open letter/multiple team forum as an opportunity to communicate our commitment to safe, courteous riding.

I also think we need to do something drastic - like set up a table and serve hot tea & cookies in the park.

Well here is her article on the bike lane "controversy" (AKA a few really wealthy people pouring money into a NIMBY lawsuit). Sounds somewhat "fair and balanced" to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/nyregion/09bike.html?ref=lizrobbins

mike,
Keep notes on your conversation with Robbins. What she asks, that sort of thing.

Yeah, that wasn't a sensational piece. Hopefully her lycra-racer-shouting-pack article will be as even toned.

And I'm not defending all "racer" types in the park. There are rude, obnoxious ones for sure. Some of the Prospect Peloton guys fit that description.

Good luck, Mike. I'm sure your level-headed approach will at least present her with a more nuanced, clear side of the story.

When the pack of Freds coagulates on the loop, I do my best to avoid them. They're really bad for our image.

I actually really like the tea and cookies idea. Very civilized.