Why no help on bike thefts?
Stuyvesant Town is the “idyllic” place to live, but with a little secret. Bicycles are stored in the terrace level but some are being stolen without any concern from management, who state that it is not their responsibility if things are stolen. Noticeably there are no security cameras in or near the laundry rooms.
I had two Trek bicycles stolen about four weeks after I moved in. There was hardly a response other than to claim it under my insurance! This despite the room requiring a key to get in (which suggests an “inside” job of either a contractor or someone with key access).
Recently a friend had their $1,100 bicycle stolen, even though it had three locks including a U-lock and no peddles. The thieves knew which bicycle(s) to take, as they left the spouses bicycle, which is old. The two bicycles were locked together.
They had left for an 8 day vacation to Europe and when they came back, poof, gone (they had checked it the day they left). When they investigated, they found other cut locks in a corner together with theirs. They reported it to security but again their response was that there were no cameras to check. So someone just waltzed out carrying an expensive bicycle without any notice? Seems rather fishy to me (and them).
Additionally, now if a bike is not “registered” with the security office, their locks are cut and after six months are disposed of.
With all the “wonderful” improvements, it’s time to put cameras in the basement where the bicycles are stored.
Name withheld, ST
The root cause of bike fears
Both Sophie Maerowitz (“Bikes still a primary concern for ST/PCV residents,” T&V, June 6) and David Dartley (“Bikes not the only danger to pedestrians,” T&V, June 20) argued that as a practice bicycling is not a danger to pedestrians. Admittedly, Mr. Dartley found merely “48 instances involving… bikes… in which at least one pedestrian was at least injured,” to which he added, “There were no fatalities.” He compared that 48 to 1,400 injuries from “other types of vehicles.” By that 48:1,400 ratio, he concluded that the focus on bicycles is “a woefully inefficient way of pursuing (pedestrian safety)”. Apparently then, if we want pedestrian safety, we need to look elsewhere—not at bikes!
My reaction to Mr. Dartley’s opinion, and my reaction to Ms. Maerowitz’s, is that injuries and fatalities to pedestrians by bicyclists deflects the issue. Pedestrian fears have nothing to do with actual fatalities and injuries. That data is irrelevant. Fears are caused by bicyclists’ behavior at lights and walkways, and not by hits and kills. The issue is not “How many people have been killed/injured?” nor is it the one Ms. Maerowitz raised in her letter, “Have bike lanes made biking safer?” These questions do not bear on the cause of pedestrian fear. For that we need to look at bicyclists’ behavior at a red light and on walkways: can we cross on a green, or walk on our oval with the same level of confidence as we have had?
My pedestrian concern is my right to cross at my green and to do it without more than the customary glance to see that traffic has stopped. That split-second pause is not an interrogative. It is not meant to imply, “May I cross, or are you going to run the light?”
Since numbers show that there are not enough fatalities or injuries or both to explain fears, then we owe it to civilized life to drop those criteria and look elsewhere for the cause of fear. What is actually going on in civil life that causes people to be afraid of bikes?
John M. Giannone