The Shell Game

The Shell Game

More times than I could count in my career I responded to a person in need of extrication, be it from a machine, an automobile, or from under a train. It is far more common than people in this city realize.

On one particular morning the dispatcher sent us to an auto extrication on 5th Avenue and 59th street. The report was a possible extrication involving a city bus. It was a spring morning and there was no weather to speak of, or make note of, one of the many factors that go through your head when responding to an above ground extrication.

After fighting the crushing traffic going cross town, the rig turned onto the avenue bobbing and weaving just to get around the corner. I got out of the rig and hurried over to a bus stopped just in front of me.

The first thing I noticed was the bus was surrounded by cops, all very busy. The ambulance had not pulled up to the scene yet. I hurried around to the side door and saw one of the cops kneeling by a victim. She was lying in the street. A bicycle was laying in the street next to her and a cop was going through her personal belongings to find identification. I got closer and realized that there was nothing to do. As the clock struck 8 am a cop came around the back of the bus with a sheet.

It appeared that she had driven her bicycle close to the curb in the bus lane, and at some point the city bus passed by her. I can only imagine what transpired. I don’t know if she hit a patch of transmission fluid, or some other slippery spot in the road and possibly lost control, perhaps a pothole, I will never know. Investigation was not part of my job. All I was able to do is remember the outcome on that clear spring morning. I looked at the cop and he looked at me, “How old?”, I asked, “21” he replied looking down at the license. We just looked at each other. I turned to walk away. Jesus Christ was all I could think. 21 and there was nothing to be done.

Driving a bicycle in the bus lane by the curb is dangerous. Buses have numerous blind spots and because of the size and weight of these vehicles it can take a considerable number of feet to stop, and that is after the bus driver realizes there has been a problem. Tragedy can happen so suddenly and there is no time for correction.

I felt for the woman who had just had her last morning on earth. I felt for the bus driver involved, and I felt for the person that had to make that call to her family, and those that would receive the call.

I got back into the rig and thought about the city’s irresponsible implementation of installing bicycle lanes, and street restructuring. How this could have been possibly avoided? There are many variables to consider. The one thing I did know at the time was those responsible for the decisions that created this tragedy would never see the results of their grand plans. They will continue to live in their safe little bubble, creating statistics to suit their agenda, chaperoned through the city in their SUV’s.

Many factors can contribute to an incident or tragedy. That is why there are accident investigation teams to investigate the entire scene factoring in all of the variables to arrive at an objective and educated conclusion. One factor still at play in 2024 is that automobiles are designed for and tested by models (crash test dummies) representing the “average male”. There has been some research regarding size and gender differences during crash test scenarios but this is still the go to model. Women are at a decided disadvantage in the construction of cars, as are the elderly.

The size of the vehicle, the turning radius of the vehicle all factor in. There are blind spots which obstruct a truck or automobile drivers view. A, B, and C posts, the attachment points that hold the roof of the car to the body, can completely obstruct a drivers view. Beyond car construction there is also weather, time of day, road surface, the actions of those outside the automobile and the actions of those inside the automobile, just to name a few.

An investigation aims to examine all of the variables and draw a conclusion to try to hold those responsible accountable, if that is the case, and to try to prevent future incidents, and tragedies.

The NYC Department of Transportation is a city agency that answers to the mayor, the city council and to the people of this city until the Bloomberg Administration. Then the DOT seemed to become its own Authority. All opposing or studied points to the contrary of creating a bicycle super highway in NYC were all but ignored at the expense of those driving a bike, crossing on foot, or using the street in any vehicle.

To redesign streets and actively encourage citizens to use alternate means of transportation without any safety study’s, or properly preparing those citizens is not only unprofessional but dangerous. A city agency cannot knowingly put its citizens in harms way. It cannot send people en masse on bicycles out onto the street without requesting the state license them and the city take the responsibility to train and inform them of the enormity of driving a vehicle, or operating any machinery on city streets.

A commissioner cannot choose to ignore procedures that have been put in place to try to address all of the aforementioned issues. A commissioner cannot simply create a new “normal” that denies all evidence to the contrary and be allowed to continue that, “new normal” without any repercussions, tin ear and all. NYC is not a cul-de-sac in the suburbs. The Bloomberg Administration put New York City into the cookie cutter of the modern European City, Paris, London etc., rent-a-bikes, Ferris Wheels (NYC was to build a Ferris Wheel in Staten Island just off the ferry landing but eventually it was scrapped), and plaza’s abound. There was a complete disregard for how a city on this side of the Atlantic works.

It appeared Janette Sadik Khan made no bones about having a close relationship with the lobby group Transportation Alternatives in her plan to rid the city of cars all but guaranteeing this effort was going to be business, and lobby driven.

In the DOT’s efforts to indoctrinate the public into this new reality it held “community workshops”. These workshops were open to the public but not open to anyone outside the urban planners of the new DOT. There was no counter to the narrative, no studied opinion, no expertise on the broader picture. The new DOT now had the ability to throw away the existing street grid and reimagine it without any guidelines .

Ms. Khan’s DOT also went to community board meetings, showing vague power points of the nirvana that was to come. Pictures of children playing in the street. A bliss filled Currier and Ives rendition of the new tech driven NYC was the theme of the day. The power points did nothing to address serious concerns about access for residents as well as access for emergency and essential vehicles, or the overall affect on the east coast supply chain. The DOT, in effect, sold their plan,” and then put a check in the box and considered that due diligence.

Why is a city agency able to work in concert with a lobby group? How is that legal? How is a government agency allowed to proceed with a major reconfiguration of access and egress roads without any checks or balances on the procedures, tactics, and partnerships that that agency engages in to achieve its goals? Pushback from emergency and essential services was ignored.

This restructuring was all supposed to be fast. It had to be, there was no guarantee of another electoral win. Ms. Khan had an answer for that as well. She was hell bent to protect the infrastructure she installed from subsequent administrations who might actually listen to experts and try to amend poor planning and implementation. This plan, for the inexperienced Ms. Khan, was a done deal.

The all encompassing solution was to remove cars from the equation entirely. No cars, no carnage, it works as a slogan not as a solution. Vilify cars and their owners, intimidate them publicly, and squeeze space from them. Make it impossible for them to park or move efficiently throughout the city and you drive them out of existence. The takeover will then be complete.

When you start to take the plan apart the realization is, this “solution” is not going to eradicate vehicular collisions, pedestrian injuries or fatalities. The vehicles that will supposedly “take over” the road ways ( bicycles, e-bikes, scooters etc) when automobiles are “removed” will take over that task unfortunately, especially if they have no legal constraints put on them like licensing.

Human beings are not elevated by driving a bicycle, that is evident by the behavior of bicycle drivers in this city, flagrantly ignoring the most basic traffic laws. Tragedies and fatalities will continue no matter what form of transportation people choose, because human behavior is universal, people have accidents, people make mistakes, there are things beyond peoples control, and people can be uncaring, malicious, and can do great harm no matter what they choose to drive.

The extreme rationale of removing all cars from the city would be akin to banning solid food for everyone in the United States because 5,000 people a year in this country choke and die eating solid food. Should the answer be everyone go on a liquid diet? It is also akin to the extreme abortion measures just taken in Arizona. These examples are an all or nothing approach. Extremism has never worked for humanity. This approach only serves to give total control to those who wield power or wish to monopolize it. Extreme control of any factor of life is dangerous for a government to engage in. There is no room for extremism in a democracy, not when it is cloaked in religion, politics and not when it is cloaked in environmentalism.

I am certainly not making light of any tragedy with my previous comments on deaths by chocking, I have responded to more tragedy than I care to remember, but to assign a theory that is not substantiated, just to implement an agenda that has not been properly vetted does nothing to address or stem the tide of tragedy.

It is the city, state’s, and federal government’s responsibility to implement safety measures and laws that address short falls, glaring errors, and new unforeseen issues in order to protect everyone. It is the peoples responsibility to adhere to those laws.

Automobile drivers must go through a battery of tests, pay fees and fill out government paperwork to own and operate a vehicle in this city. Automobile drivers also risk losing that vehicle and their license if they are responsible for a traffic fatality, for not having insurance, for having too many summonses, the list goes on. Bicycle drivers, scooter drivers, and e bike drivers are not required to be licensed. They are not required to have insurance. How were modes of transportation introduced, and a major overhaul of a system rolled out without requiring basic protections for all?

The “wisdom” that any regulation put on bicycle drivers will lead to a decline in usage of bicycles and scooters is a lobbyist approach not a government one. If a group is considered not responsible or mature enough to be able to handle the registration and learning process of owning and operating a vehicle in NY State, they should not be allowed to use the roadways. That is not negotiable. No one gets a pass if we are truly trying to stop needless tragedies. I would like to believe that most bicycle drivers would certainly apply for a license and get insurance if required to do so.

Traffic laws are not only for you, but also so that the people around you know what to expect of your behavior when operating a vehicle or walking in the street. The problem of allowing one group total freedom from responsibility, while requiring another group to shoulder the brunt of the responsibility creates a serious and unhealthy divide. The inevitable thought becomes, “if they don’t have to be licensed and obey the law why should I?” It also creates a good, better, best scenario which can lead to a feeling of entitlement for those who are not required to comply with regulations. That is the beginning of a serious fracture in societal thinking and is also detrimental to a working society.

In March of 2018 in Brooklyn there was a horrific tragedy involving a driver who was reported to have run a red light and plowed into a mother and her children. Both of the children were killed, and the mother put in the hospital. A tragedy well beyond words. It was reported that the driver had a medical issue behind the wheel. The DOT’s answer, at that time, under the leadership of Polly Trottenberg, was to install a bike lane on 9th street where this took place. How did that address this situation?

The car in question, from reports, was the first car at the traffic light impeded by no other vehicle. How is the installation of a bike lane going to impede any driver in that position? If that driver is having a medical issue and there are no vehicles in front of them, there is nothing impeding them from going forward if their foot engages the gas pedal.

Ms Trottenberg publicly admitted that this solution did not address the problem. She did not, however, then go to Albany seeking legislation to try to address the issue of seriously impaired drivers being able to apply for a license without greater checks and balances. It would have been a time consuming and difficult fight, but an attempt should have been made.

Decisions on who should be granted a license to operate a vehicle should be made by the state under the guidance of law enforcement, medical professionals, etc. The problem of serious impairment when driving is still very present and not on the radar of the state or the city that I know of. How is that protecting the citizens of this city both on the street and behind the wheel in lieu of this tragedy?

Is all this street restructuring truly about safety for all or is that just the sales pitch? Is the NYC DOT hiring people who have no experience in city government, or traffic safety to even know what questions to ask? Are any of them qualified to hold the positions they hold? Are they traffic engineers or urban planners? Why is the Department of Design and Construction involved with street redesign? Why have three mayors chosen commissioners who clearly did not have operational experience to run one of the largest operational transit hubs in the nation?

“Traffic engineering decisions are no longer made by licensed traffic engineers but instead by city planners in violation of NYS Education Law,” according to Alan Rosen former director of MTA Bus Planning, see, http://solutionsny.nyc/edlaw.html.

The DOT still seems firmly in lock step with the lobby group Transportation Alternatives despite a new administration. Instead of solving problems, the lobby chooses to continue to exploit issues only when those issues become a tragedy to further their own agenda.

A lobby’s sole purpose is to represent their clients with extreme prejudice. They are not in it for the full picture, consider “big pharma,” or “big tobacco”. Both entities pushed harmful products knowing that there were serious consequences and health issues including death for consumers. The lobbies continued their practices for decades denying reality and turning a blind eye to research before being finally brought to heel by massive law suits which ended with massive settlements.

The moment a government whether it be city, state, or federal, adopts the narrative of a lobby group it is the beginning of the erosion of democracy, and government structure. The goal then becomes not to solve an issue, but to use the issue as a wedge to pit people against each other which forwards the lobbies agenda while not addressing real issues. All of a sudden the lobby group is allowed to dictate the message, and the solution.

The counter to any lobby is a strong well informed administration that has the best intentions for all its citizens. City streets can certainly be made safer. We have more traffic then we have ever had before. The rise of e-commerce means more trucks, more trucks mean more deliveries, which means larger vehicles, with even more blind spots, using the roads.

Recent zoning changes have pushed residential building into once industrial areas and along coastal evacuation routes. Trucks that used these routes as a way to get around the city without having to go through residential neighborhoods to deliver, now must navigate areas that have become residential. How did city government rezone manufacturing areas for residential high rises, knowing that truck traffic was an ongoing variable? Kent Avenue in Brooklyn is a perfect example.

Commissioner of the NYC Department of Transportation is a very difficult job. The commissioner is in charge of one of the largest operational transportation hubs in the country. A hub that encompasses not only business and manufacturing but a very densely populated city with limited space. A city that is, and will always be, an arm of a major supply route for the country. This job should be vetted very carefully and given to someone with not only intellectual expertise but also operational experience.

They must deal with what the city is before trying to implement what is popular somewhere else. You cannot up end a system that was decades in the making just to suit a now popular agenda. No two cities are alike and to think that there is a template that can simply be applied to all is a clear indication of a lack of experience, and expertise. If large scale change is planned then everyone must be at the table not just those who have the same “vision”.

NYC is not a show piece. This city and its citizens do not exist just to expand the wealth of hedge fund managers and billionaire business executives. Investment is a very important component of making this city run and succeed, but it does not, and should not, eclipse everything else, especially safety.

The lives of the people in this city matter. They matter whether they are driving a car, walking, driving a scooter, driving an e-bike, or driving a bicycle, and lives matter when they are in trouble and need emergency services. If the goal of the NYC DOT is to encourage bicycle drivers to use the roads and ignore all other responsibilities, than it is time to disband the existing department, and start anew with professionals that not only know the law but abide by it.