
Is the NYPD About to Start Ticketing More Cyclists Due to a Mathematical Error? - vermontdevil
http://iquantny.tumblr.com/post/103635652409/is-the-nypd-about-to-start-ticketing-more-cyclists
======
shittyanalogy
I'm going to attempt to rationalize why cyclists don't obey traffic laws in
cities.

The short answer is that bicycle riding in cities sucks.

It's loud, slippery, uneven, blocked, takes a lot of physical effort, is full
of unpredictable giant metal things that can kill you, teeming with large
moving meat pillars that will jump in front of you at any moment, you're
completely exposed to the weather and can't safely look at a map while you
navigate. They've created a few strips of pot-hole ridden, double parked green
pavement that they say is just for you but it's not safe even if you're being
safe and extremely uncomfortable. Bicycle riding also happens though to be the
fastest, most liberating way to get around and is good exercise so you put up
with it, but you put up with it while annoying a few people yourself. You
block lanes when you feel like it's safer to do so, cross red lights when you
think it's safe so you save some time and so you can stay in front of the same
wave of traffic as they already know you're there. Some times you make a bad
decision that results in a honk but you've also been splashed, cut-off,
bumped, blocked and almost doored and you don't have a horn of your own for
when that happens. You're up against a torment of danger and uncomfortable
that can kill you and the most you can ever do is make someone annoyed or
maybe flip a mirror back. You start to realize that the cards aren't in your
favor and that annoying drivers in their crash cages, with AC, maps, surround
sound, horns, gas pedals and bucket seats really isn't that big of a deal. You
just don't equate your presence on the road with theirs and don't think the
same laws should apply. Not because you're magically above the law but because
through years of experience you can see that the situations are completely
different and require completely different attention. You think to yourself,
the day cars weight 40lbs and go 15mph is the day you obey all the same laws
as them.

~~~
lavamantis
Thanks for articulating this, although you may have just started a religious
war.

My only addition is why cyclists don't completely stop at stop signs. It's a
LOT of work to get up to speed from a dead stop, so it seems a bit pointless
to do it when you can clearly see that no one is in the intersection. Also, as
you are trying to accelerate from a dead stop, it takes a while to get through
the intersection. If there does happen to be a motorist there, they have to
sit and wait while you (slowly) go by. It isn't necessarily legal, but
cyclists not completely stopping probably helps everyone.

~~~
jasonjei
I think the biggest concern about cyclists is the I-don't-give-a-damn attitude
(entitlement). I understand the reasons to run a red-light when safely clear
to do, but when the action affects other users of the road, such as on a busy
road, that's when it's a no-no (for example, I almost got sidelined by a
cyclist running the bike downhill on a sidewalk as I was pulling out of the
garage on my motorcycle). Take my opinion with a grain of salt as a fixed gear
cyclist and motorcyclist. (And I do try to observe the law on my pedal bike.)

Cyclist red light running does affect pedestrians. Consider this guy who was
killed in NYC. [1]

We all have to share the road. For cyclists, motorists, motorcyclists, and
pedestrians in no order.

[1] [http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/new-yorks-cycles-of-death-
our-a...](http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/new-yorks-cycles-of-death-our-arrogant-
biker-nightmare/)

~~~
gburt
Please demonstrate that there is any such "entitlement" attitude among
cyclists that does not exist among drivers. It is dangerous for cyclists and
other road users for cyclists to "complete stop" at stop signs. It's not
entitlement, it's an evaluation of risk.

------
jff
I wish all police everywhere started ticketing for more traffic violations.
When everyone on the road--cyclist, motorist, and pedestrian--follows the
rules precisely, traffic is predictable and safe. When morons wave you through
at a 4-way stop, or turn without signaling (yay California), or blow red
lights on their bicycle, you have to go into extra-defensive mode because the
road is no longer predictable.

~~~
Strang
I see people complain about waving at a four-way stop all the time, and I
really don't get it. I wave people through at four-way stops all the time, for
the simple reason that it can be hard to tell who arrived first. Especially
with rolling stops and the like.

So rather than assume that the other drivers have come to the same conclusion
that I have, I make it explicit by waving. Sometimes it's a little confusing
if they try to wave you at the same time, but that's life.

~~~
rcthompson
No, I think you're talking about a situation where two cars are pulling up to
an empty intersection simultaneously. That's a low-traffic situation. The
problem comes when you're at a 4-way stop and people are coming from every
direction. Anyone who wants to go through the intersection needs the cars from
at least _two_ other directions to let them through. So you, as one person,
waving them through is pointless because at least one other person would also
have to independently decide to let them through as well. If that doesn't
happen, then either the other car listens to you and goes through the
intersection and crashes into the third person who didn't wave them through,
or you and the other car both end up waiting when only one of you needs to be.
Either way, you're being rude to the people behind you, whose trip you have
lengthened by the same amount you might have shortened someone else's trip,
all the while making the intersection less predictable. Of course, there's
always a race condition and potential for deadlock when two cars arrive
simultaneously at an empty intersection, and waving people through is a safe
and necessary way to solve that. But that's not an issue here, because if an
intersection already has cars waiting to go from all four directions, there's
a defined order in which they take turns according to the rules.

~~~
lutorm
At 4-way stops in heavy traffic, it's difficult at best to tell the order in
which people should go. If there's more than one lane in each direction, it
becomes practically impossible.

Imho, 4-way stops are terrible no matter how you slice it: in heavy traffic
they're really inefficient not to mention difficult to navigate, and should be
replaced with a traffic light. In light traffic they're also inefficient, and
should be replaced with a yield from the non-dominant direction.

In Sweden the default rule at an unsigned intersection is that you yield to
the right. This means there's a well-defined algorithm for conflict resolution
without putting stop signs at every little intersection. Apparently the idea
that you could possibly navigate an intersection without signage is absurd to
Americans, though.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Actually I'm impressed at how people negotiate when the signs break down. A
few days ago, the traffic signals at a major intersection (a heavily
trafficked US route and a Minnesota route) on my way to work went completely
dark, both roads normally having 55mph speed limits. The intersection had two
lanes of traffic on each road plus left turn lanes. Somehow traffic kept
flowing. Traffic slowed way down and there were a few hairy moments, but by
and large people treated the lights out situation as a stop sign and responded
appropriately.

------
dead10ck
Even if the numbers are completely made up, I'm not going to be outraged that
police decided to enforce laws that cyclists need to be abiding by anyway.

~~~
thrownaway2424
It's about the opportunity cost. What other thing could the police be doing
instead of giving traffic tickets to cyclists? After all, the best case
outcome of doing so is to reduce pedestrian injuries from 1 per year to 0 per
year, which isn't much of a benefit. 16000 people were injured and 178 killed
by cars in NYC in 2013. That's a much richer hunting ground for police
activity.

~~~
tedunangst
"Stop turning a blind eye" doesn't require that many new resources to enforce.
The only opportunity cost is the time it takes the officer to write the
ticket, which isn't much.

~~~
thrownaway2424
NYPD says they don't even have the resources to investigate fatal car crashes.
They didn't bother investigating the death of a three year old girl in a
crosswalk this year. The driver didn't even get so much as a ticket. If
there's some cop standing around with nothing to do I'm sure they could be
assigned to look into the fifty pedestrian injury collisions that happen every
day in New York.

~~~
avn2109
>> "If there's some cop standing around with nothing to do..."

Honestly, I have (almost) only ever seen NYPD officers standing around with
nothing to do. I don't know if that's because they are drastically overmanned
or because they intentionally deploy loafing cops for the deterrent effect.

~~~
keithpeter
"Walking the beat" in the UK.

It is what uniformed police officers are supposed to do in popular
imagination. Many in evidence in most UK cities in the run up to Xmas.

------
jasonjei
As a motorcyclist, I think cyclists should be held to the same rules of the
law as other vehicles to make driving predictable and safe. As it stands right
now, I have to assume cyclists (via heuristics/profiling) as a wildcard--will
they run a red light? Will they weave in and out of traffic unsafely (this is
an acceptable practice, when done with ample buffer given their size and
speed)?

I think cycling is great (I'm also a cyclist as well). But the fact they don't
carry a vehicle registration shouldn't exempt them the rules of the public
road to make them predictable users (and unpredictable users, such as those
erratically lane splitting, jaywalking, reckless driving, under the influence,
speeding, etc, should be penalized to encourage predictable use).

~~~
PJDK
As a cyclist (and a pretty law abiding one at that) I absolutely want you to
treat me as a wildcard, one that you have to pay extra attention to since I'm
in a pretty vulnerable position on the road.

It's fine to put cars in a "probably won't do anything unpredictable" box, if
the worst comes to the worst there'll be some paperwork to fill in (might not
be true for you on a motorbike of course). A cyclist the worst thing that will
happen will be to the cyclist.

~~~
jghn
You're ignoring pedestrians in this equation, who are more vulnerable than
you.

~~~
lberlin
The main difference I see between bikes/pedestrians and cars/motorcycles is
that there is minimal cost/effort to reverse and change your mind. So, on a
bike or on foot, you can jaywalk or run a red light by slowly peeking out and
making sure it's safe. If someone with the right of way is coming, you can
simple stop and let them by. You absolutely can't do that with a car or
motorcycle.

My general rule, as both biker and pedestrian, is to not get in the way of
others who have the right of way. They shouldn't have to change course or
worry about you. Most pedestrians (and plenty bikers too) are absolutely
clueluess though. They don't look for bike lanes, they walk in the bikelanes,
they jaywalk without looking if a bike (or car) is coming, they open car doors
without looking, etc. I think this frustrates a lot of bikers, so they end up
not caring and trying to ride through a crosswalk full of pedestrians and
doing other asshole things, but I don't think that's the norm.

As a reasonable adult, I know I shouldn't jaywalk or run a red light because
they are rules, but I have confidence via my senses that I can do that with
absolute safety and respect for myself and others.

~~~
jghn
"is to not get in the way of others who have the right of way"

IMO that should be the rule for everyone :) The point I was trying to make was
that often in these sorts of debates I see a lot of finger pointing between
drivers & cyclists, with the cyclists saying, "Yeah, but we're more vulnerable
- you all need to be more careful and allow us to do XYZ". But then they
ignore that there's a third party who is even _more_ vulnerable and often the
behavior the cyclists propose increases danger to that third party.

"that I can do that with absolute safety and respect for myself and others."

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm AOK with people doing whatever they
like in terms of traffic rules as long as it has zero impact on other people.
Running red lights, jaywalking, etc - if no one is around, who cares? I
jaywalk multiple times a day around the corner from my house - I live just off
a busy main drag with very few crosswalks, so I just wait until there's a
massive gap in the traffic on both sides and run across. OTOH I see people
crossing that street all the time by just walking out and holding their hands
up to signal to drivers that they should stop ... sorry, but no.

~~~
crowding
Sorry, but yes. In my state, crosswalks are legally defined to exist at every
street corner whether or not they are painted lines. Furthermore, the
obligation of drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks starts when they
step into the street and not a moment before. (Standing on the sidewalk means
nothing even if there is a painted crosswalk). Stepping out into a safe gap in
the curbside lane and expecting traffic to stop is legally prescribed behavior
and is the behavior drivers should expect. And pedestrians should encourage
drivers to expect that behavior by actually behaving that way.

------
Disruptive_Dave
They actually started towards the end of the summer, at least here in
Brooklyn. Hadn't seen a biker get pulled over for things like not coming to a
complete halt at stops signs in 3 years I've been here. Witnessed about 5 of
them in the span of 3 weeks, heard about plenty more. I'm all for it. Casual
bikers around here are not exactly fun to deal with.

~~~
Brian-Puccio
I think one of the issues is that lots of people play fast and loose with the
rules when moving about ... whether it be walking, bicycling or driving. And
it's so easy to say "well I use this mode and I notice the people who use THAT
mode are constantly breaking the rules and that's not safe!".

If there's a demand to enforce the rules more stringently in the name of
safety, would those doing the demanding also want to see citations for
jaywalking?

~~~
ecopoesis
I for one would love to see more enforcement of jaywalking. I drive through
the intersection of Cambridge and First in Cambridge, MA by Lechmere almost
every day, and the jaywalkers who ignore their lights to run for the trolley
cause far more traffic problems and almost accidents and then cars or bikes.

~~~
judk
Sounds like we need longer light phases to keep cars out of the way of trolley
riders. People first.

------
shittyanalogy
I never really understood the value in ticketing cyclists, or jay walkers for
that matter in NYC. Very few people are getting hurt, even in the densest
metropolitan area in the country so why are we so worried about it? Because
cyclists can be annoying sometimes? Also the city speed limit went down to 25
mph. Isn't this supposed to take care of many of the collisions? Those of us
that are safe cyclists but run red lights are going to be discouraged from
riding as it just takes too damn long to cycle around smoggy, loud NYC
stopping at every goddamn light. But those of us that are aggressive ass-hole
riders are just going to be more likely to unsafely try to evade the police.
Which is not hard if you know what you're doing.

It doesn't appear to be about safety, as the statistics clearly indicate that
it's currently safe. It appears to be about making money and possibly
discourage cycling.

~~~
Arainach
> Those of us that are safe cyclists but run red lights

Speaking as someone who bikes/takes transit everywhere (in Seattle, not NYC),
what an oxymoron. I'm not saying that at every single stop sign you have to
come to a complete, foot-on-the-ground stop, but running lights is ridiculous
and will do nothing but increase the hatred for all cyclists held by drivers
by antagonizing them. Every OTHER form of transportation seems to do just fine
"stopping at every goddamn light". Get off your high horse - even if a bicycle
running a light isn't the same threat to public safety as a multi-ton steel
death machine doing so, claiming that you can do so and be a "safe cyclist"
will do nothing but hurt your credibility.

~~~
schrodinger
Eh, I'm a cyclist in NYC and when i come to a red light i slow way down and if
there are any pedestrians or cars, I stop. But if it's completely clear, I'll
roll through slowly and carefully. It feels pretty safe and I make sure that I
always come to complete stops far back if there are pedestrians because they
have the right away.

I've heard that some states legally treat red lights and stop signs as yield
signs for bicyclists, and I think that's reasonable. I view what I do as the
same as jay walking... Technically illegal, but no one is going to stand and
wait at a cross walk for 30 seconds for a light to change when it's clear
there's no one coming.

~~~
jghn
"if it's completely clear"

That's my philosophy. I primarily walk, but at times drive & bike.

My take is that _iff_ there is no one else who could possibly be impacted by
it that running stop signs and red lights is AOK.

The problem I often see with this is that most people only consider one of the
other two modes of transportation (no on cares about Segways, muahaha!) and
forgets the other one - often the pedestrians.

------
hoopism
Doesn't appear to be any flawed math here... just flawed PR. Not like somebody
missed a decimal point.

Based on my comprehensive understanding (watched The Wire and read articles),
made up stats and policing are old buddies.

------
gohrt
It's not a mathematical error when the number is completely fabricated to
justify a policy change. That's just lying.

~~~
thenmar
It's not really a policy change though is it? Aren't they enforcing laws that
cyclists previously were breaking with impunity? I would like them to show
their work too, but I don't really see the policy conspiracy angle to this.

~~~
dead10ck
Exactly. No policies are changing. They're just putting more resources into
enforcing existing laws.

~~~
thrownaway2424
They're rearranging the same resources from enforcing something else to
enforcing traffic laws against bicyclists.

~~~
seanp2k2
Because obviously, this is NYC's biggest problem. I can see the headlines now:
"Cyclist Moving Violation Crime Wave Hits as Snowfall Begins, but NYPD Strikes
Back"

------
arikrak
Whatever the official collisions stats, I often see reckless bikers in NYC, so
there should be some enforcement. E.g. bikers who zip by the wrong way against
a red light and almost hit a few pedestrians.

------
kazinator
What are the consequences of not paying a bicycle ticket in MY, if you don't
have a driver's license?

Anyway, the cops should be focused on those who are in tenuous control of two
tons of steel, going three times the speed of a bicycle.

------
Spooky23
I think that Twitter post was flawed, probably due to poor scoping and the
conclusions reached by iquantny were not very meaningful due that that poor
scoping and incomplete data.

There are lots of flaws in the NYPD's approach to investigating traffic
incidents:

10 cyclists were killed in 2013, 17 in 2012. In 2013 there were 4,000+ cyclist
injuries citywide. (
[http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrians...](http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/01/31/nypd-16059-pedestrians-
and-cyclists-injured-178-killed-in-traffic-in-2013//) )

The other issue is that that the NYPD does a very poor job investigating
traffic incidents... There are 19 investigators citywide (with a 40,000 member
police force) and patrol officers routinely screw up the recording of data. (
[http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/02/15/nypds-lax-crash-
invest...](http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/02/15/nypds-lax-crash-
investigations-may-violate-state-law/) )

Understanding the process in filling out reports and understanding what the
data means is critical to analysis. The type of data in this dataset and the
quality of the data make it difficult to draw conclusions. In a big city like
NYC minor stuff like bike accidents where someone doesn't die, the police
either won't get called or won't flush 20 minutes down the toilet filling out
reports.

------
coldcode
Big data does not mean big lies. If you make policy based on analyzing data
you should be required to show your work.

~~~
tedunangst
Obvious solution: they start (continue) making policy without analyzing the
data.

------
peapicker
Could also be that they are only looking at the subset of collisions involving
bicycles where the cyclist was determined to be at fault, which isn't data
available in the analysis given here.

------
noer
A great time to play "bicycles in the media" comment bingo:
[http://i.imgur.com/UUafNzZ.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/UUafNzZ.jpg)

------
madaxe_again
There are lies, damned lies, and... you know the rest.

It's not necessarily a mathematical error. You can make any set of stats show
pretty much anything you want. From that same data, one could conclude that
collisions on bicycles only ever occur on intersections, and therefore we need
to invest more in underpasses, which are completely safe, as this data shows
no collisions in underpasses. Underpasses save lives.

Magic, eh?

------
vinceguidry
More obvious rationale is that NYPD just made up the 115% number and is
deciding to change the policy for political reasons.

------
baldeagle
This is what gives me hope about our government; that as much as algorithms
will provide a troubling future (due to reduced emphasis on false positives in
seeking to minimize false negatives) there will be a way to check the work of
public pronouncements and perhaps affect change for the better.

------
hotgoldminer
Why enforcing some laws is impractical: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

Bike Lanes by Casey Neistat.

------
hotgoldminer
Revenues, revenues, revenues. More like bike ridership is up 115%. Selectively
enforcing strikes this reader as arbitrary at best.

------
uptown
The stats presented by the article are very myopic. Bikes are mobile objects
that frequently travel between areas covered by multiple precincts. Rather
than looking solely at the 5th precinct, they arguably should have presented a
wider view of the city's records on bicycle activity. When you do that, it
paints a very different picture of some of the statistics.

For instance - "cyclist accidents that caused deaths" : 2013: 0, 2014: 0

Jill Tarlov was killed by a biker in September:

[http://gothamist.com/2014/09/22/jill_tarlov_central_park.php](http://gothamist.com/2014/09/22/jill_tarlov_central_park.php)

Irving Schachter was killed by a biker in August:

[http://gothamist.com/2014/08/14/cyclist_kills_jogger.php](http://gothamist.com/2014/08/14/cyclist_kills_jogger.php)

~~~
lfuller
That's not relevant to the discussion. This article was disputing a claim that
"the 5th Pct. had a 115% increase in bicycle collisions this year", not that
NYC in general had an increase.

~~~
uptown
Understood.

But the premise of the article asks if the 5th Precinct plans to "start
ticketing more cyclists". The tweet didn't say that. It said they'll be
enforcing violations, which is what you expect police officers to do with laws
that are on the books.

You're right - maybe the stats are bad, and the post is right to ask for
clarification. But the post assumes the tweet means they'll change their
enforcement tactics, and I don't read that in this tweet.

