mugwump said:

JohnMalcolmson said:

The Post writes about how the cyclist was in the wrong, quoting the park rule on the centraparknyc website: 

"Pedestrians have the right of way at all times. At crosswalks, cyclists must slow down, yield to pedestrians and then proceed cautiously." 

If state laws trump park rule, it's state law to obey walk signals, just as it is for cyclists to yield at zebra crossings and stop at red lights. The challenge is a pedestrian is "entitled" by park rule to be crossing against the light, but how can you expect all park users coming from all around the country/world to know the nuances of park rules found on a park website and a few signs (signs not designed for cyclists to read)? Most cyclists are 99.9% likely to ride into the park without encountering any of the rules, then are confronted by local "rule entitled" pedestrians or oblivious tourists cutting them off when they have a green light — pedestrians are perceived to be jaywalking, thus the "get out of the way!" and the near misses. 

The rules function only if everyone knows what the rules are, it's an information design/UX problem currently being communicated only when there's death/maiming via shit reporting.

I don't see how park rules, which are pretty much only enumerated on the CP Conservancy site, can possibly trump city or state laws for roads.  Park police aren't giving the tickets, city police are, so even enforcement demonstrates whose rules count.

Not that Peyser or the Post gives a shit.

Central Park Conservancy doesn't set those rules - NYC Parks and Recreation does (i.e., it's a City regulation)

dstearns said:

mugwump said:

JohnMalcolmson said:

Also, you just can't get riled up by Peyser. She does this about everything - she's an hysterical nitwit gasbag writing for a paper that depends on shock and fear to keep the lights on.  

This more than anything.

Nobody is a worse offender than me on that front...

Duh
On Sep 30, 2014 10:17 AM, "Phillip Maronilla" <

Honestly....no
I think you Did s really good job.

No cars in CP? Yes please
Increased presence of
5-0 trying to crack down on 25 mph violators? No thanks

( its incredibly refreshing to me to see our local government act in what
is so clearly not a knee jerk reaction)

No real crime to fight?

Sadly the truth of the matter is everyone in Central Park is a fucktard.
Cyclist and pedestrian alike. There is no real way to ensure safety of
anyone, there are way too many people in too small a space doing exactly
whatever they want whenever they want with no regard for other people .

What would really help? If I had to guess a row of that crappy fencing the
used to keep people off the grass surrounding the roadway. Which would
only let people cross at the actual crosswalks. Stick some fat jelly
donut eating cops in the area directing traffic and helping people instead
of writing tickets and spraying crowded streets with semi automatic handgun
fire in an effort to control the squirrel population.

But that's just my thoughts
http://columbiaspectator.com/news/2014/09/28/council-member-advocates-lower-speed-limit-citys-parks


I'm quoted in the article:




“The fear is responding to a crisis that doesn’t exist,” Partland said.
“We don’t know how fast the cyclist was going when the cyclist hit Jill
Tarlov. So, to suggest that dropping the speed limit would somehow make
anyone safer is beyond speculative—there is absolutely nothing to suggest
that that is the case, that it would make a difference.”





I hate how this reads. Is there a better way to get the same point across?

Incredibly, Myles is on point. Right down to the squirrels.

I'm off my meds....its freaking me the hell out

JP, minimizing the speeding issue rubs me the wrong way as well. To say that speed is irrelevant in the context of fatal pedestrian accidents lacks credibility. Common sense and experience works against us in that regard. I think I would aim to emphasize ways to harmonize competing use scenarios (Prospect has done this to some extent by limiting car traffic and painting in dedicated bike lanes in the middle of the road) or maybe note how incredibly rare serious accidents are (and that they are just that - accidents). Finally, to be consistent with our goal of greater accountability with respect to dangerous motorists, maybe note that criminally negligent cycling (which may or may not be involved in this most recent death) should carry criminal consequences, same as all other criminally negligent driving?

But in this incident all the facts are not know.

Yes speed increases potential of an accidents severity or injury. But again a knee jerk reaction to lower overall speed effectively naming excessive speed as the culprit is not warranted at this time.

I'm not saying a lower speed limit (as knee jerk reaction) is warranted. In fact, I'm trying to get the focus off of speed entirely. Facts are not known in this case, but in the abstract cyclists shouldn't get a pass for hitting and hurting people any more than drivers should.

I agree; it sounds both self serving and intuitively false that lower speed limits don't make the park safer.

Of course without any relevant data nobody can say HOW much safer, but the issue is the gut reactions people have to the incident and commentary.

Don't get me wrong. They should stuff his saxomophone where the sun don't shine and let him try to set a strava PR then.

But lowering the speed limit isn't penalizing him it is penalizing everyone. Including guys like you and me that will have to contend with 5-0 doing tj hooker rolls out of bushes on saturday mornings in march when its 5degrees out to collar us for going 27 in a 25

Well...OK let's be real. Guys like you. I'll be curled up in bed or making waffles or some shit when its 5 degrees out in march.

The "gut reaction" factor is where cyclists can lose big.  

Suggest PEDs at all time wear helmets n bubble wrap.

Boom
On Sep 30, 2014 3:40 PM, "mugwump" <

mugwump said:

But back to Joaquin and Jules, how could I have presented the point better, now that you have my statement and time on your hands to formulate something?

I think about trying to avoid a head on confrontation and stress the things both sides agree on; it's not us vs them - it's all of us together against the impossibility of managing the crowding in this city. This accident is tragic but it's unfair to assume malice on the part of the rider, or negligence on the part of the deceased.

Jules said:

mugwump said:

But back to Joaquin and Jules, how could I have presented the point better, now that you have my statement and time on your hands to formulate something?

I think about trying to avoid a head on confrontation and stress the things both sides agree on; it's not us vs them - it's all of us together against the impossibility of managing the crowding in this city. This accident is tragic but it's unfair to assume malice on the part of the rider, or negligence on the part of the deceased.

Cyclists are #familypeople - when they aren't riding they are taking their kids and their elderly parents to the same parks. Nobody with an once of sense feels invulnerable on a bike in this city - but if they do the same laws and penalties apply to them as to unsafe drivers.

We can all agree that there is room to be and do better as a community to keep everyone safe - but with cars killing people more than 100 times (almost 150 times) more often than bikes the activism to protect against bikes is well intentioned and it's worth doing - but in order for it to be effective it has to be done in the context of bigger risks.

mugwump said:

Jules said:

mugwump said:

In the aggregate of the past 20 years in NYC, it's probably in the range of 500 times.  In the USA as a whole, last year it was 5333 times.  

I think "100x" is plenty for a talking point. To your point we just don't have the data to make it relevant to this particular small patch of land called Central Park.

But we do, no one in Manhattan cares about national data. Its all about
me me me!
On Sep 30, 2014 10:39 PM, "Jules" <

Ha, Konrad mentioned to me earlier this year that one of the things about power meters is that training becomes sort of like a video game.

^ Charlie Issendorf is with Zwift, marketing/publicity. I wonder what the best trainer setup would be to buy for this — Wahoo KICKR?

David Yang said:

Ha, Konrad mentioned to me earlier this year that one of the things about power meters is that training becomes sort of like a video game.

I tried it yesterday.  The "dumb" way, with a stages powermeter on a Pinarello F8 clamped to a Kinetic trainer.  it's hard to lose yourself in the Matrix when you can't feel the resistance on your wheel changing.  (BTW, Owens, got a Rapha mussette and bottle for attending).  They didn't do a great job of explaining all the metrics on the screen and the power reading at the arm didn't correlate with what I was feeling--it was adjusted, and got better, but still off.  

BTW, my InterBike roundup on RedKitePrayer

Oooh Watteam PowerBeat is at a very, very attractive pricepoint and works with pretty much any crank.  The design doesn't seem as elegant as Stages though.

David Yang said:

Oooh Watteam PowerBeat is at a very, very attractive pricepoint and works with pretty much any crank.  The design doesn't seem as elegant as Stages though.

you also have to glue the strain gauge on yourself, get it in the right spot with a ruler, and calibrate it with a 2kg weight.