Dare ya! (Getty)

It is clear by now, if it has not always been, that the opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane do not trust the city's Department of Tranportation.

They have insisted the project was "trial" with virtually no proof that this was ever the city's position. They have dismissed city-run studies of traffic data that show the lane has improved traffic flows and reduced injuries. And they have sneered at the considerable majority of their neighbors who have voted time and again in favor of the project. Still, the efforts of Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes persist, especially now that their lawsuit against the lane has been returned to court on a technicality. The group's response has been to offer the city a settlement that essentially amounts to little more than a barroom dare.

In a letter to the city Law Department shared with The Observer, attorneys for the Neighbors group offer to drop all charges if a "fully independent, mutually-agreed-upon expert," paid for by DOT, will produce an "objective study" of the bike lane's traffic and safety impacts, and this expert finds, through "scientifically accepted standards and the resulting raw data," that conditions have indeed improved. Because clearly the city's own study was not objection.

But here's the kicker. "If, however, the study demonstrates that traffic or safety conditions have not improved, or have worsened, then DOT will concede that the Bike Lane has failed to achieve its stated objective (calming traffic) and will remove it."

In the annals of transportation chest thumping, this is almost as good as the time MTA chief Joe Lhota got in a fight with one of his fellow board members and told him to "be a man" and stand up to him.

The greenway gauntlet has been thrown.

"My clients have offered a completely reasonable mechanism to resolve the claims in the lawsuit, about which DOT has so bitterly complained," Neighbors attornewy Jim Walden said in an email. "Hundreds of community members earnestly believe the bike lane has compromised safety, so the Independent safety study my clients propose represents sound public policy."

He said that paying for the study would be cheaper than continuing litigation. But what would be even cheaper would be just dropping the suit outright.

The city said the so-called settlement is nothing more than yet another media blitz from the bike lane opponents, and they could not take it anyway, as it would cede all legal authority, which the city not only must maintain for reasons of responsibility, but the city also fully believes it will prevail in the case.

"This offer—designed to maximize press coverage by rehashing their prior distortions—is rejected," Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo said in a statement to The Observer. "The Prospect Park West bike lane has already been subjected to the most thorough analysis and review of any bike lane in history. The petitioners simply reject and misrepresent the results of these reviews, and are now seeking to move the goal posts yet again."

The Department of Transportation study in dispute found that the lane, which cut traffic lanes on Prospect Park West down from three to two while eliminating some parking spots along the mile-long stretch, found that traffic accidents had gone down 63 percent and speeding had been reduced by 74 percent. Bicyclists riding on the sidewalk had fallen by 46 percent, while the vehicular throughput, or amount of cars traveling the stretch without traffic, remained unchanged. Meanwhile both a poll by the city and local Council Man Brad Lander found that more than 70 percent support the new lane.

Opponents counter that there is data from the local precincts that demonstrate an increase in accidents as a result of the lane. Perhaps they should bring it with them when they are next in court.

"We remain confident that, just as was the case with the three other claims in this lawsuit, the court will see through the petitioners' one remaining claim and again dismiss the remnants of this lawsuit," Mr. Cardozo said.

Not so fast. (Getty)

While it seemed like the bicycle backlash of a year ago had finally cooled off, and those larcenous lanes were here to say—won't someone think of the motorists!—the cold war is back this winter. The Columbus Avenue bike lane expansion was rebuffed by the local community board, bike share has been delayed a few extra month, Steve Cuozzo thinks bikes are a cancer on the city (O.K., so what else is new?), and now opponents of the Prospect Park West bike lane have finally won a court case.

After complaints over the lane were ignored in court in the spring, Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes appealed the results to a higher court, which today ruled that the lower court had to reconsider the case on technical grounds. The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that judge Burt Bunyon erred in dismissing the case as lacking merit, and now a hearing must be held over the lane (you can read the one-page decision here).

The politically connected Neighbors group, which counts Iris Weinshal, Chuck Schumer's wife and the former DOT commissioner, and Borough President Marty Markowitz among its backers, argued that the lane was a trial until last year, and thus there was time for the group to file a challenge to the lane. Judge Bunyon, however, found that the statute of limitations for the suit had lapsed. The appellate court found that time was not up for a legal challenge, but neither did the judges rule that the lane was wrong, simply that hearings as to its appropriateness had to be heard.

Indeed, the city's Department of Transportation is holding today's decision up as much as a victory for itself. "We’'re confident that the Prospect Park West bike lane is here to stay," spokesman Seth Solomonow said in an email. "We'’re very pleased that three of the four causes of action were dismissed by the Appellate Court, which also returned to the trial court one claim for a limited finding on a technical issue. We are fully confident that the trial court will decide that there is absolutely no merit to what is left of this case."

Opponents of the lane have been calling for legal discovering all along, insisting the city was hiding something—without any proof, but the suggest that something was being hidden creates an implication that is hard to deny. Now, they may get their day in court, but it still does not ensure a victory.

Still, the group remains undeterred.

“We are gratified by the Court’s decision, and we look forward to finally forcing the truth from the Department of Transportation,” Jim Walden, the Neighbors' attorney, said in a statement. “As we have maintained all along, DOT broke the rules, fudged the data, and orchestrated actual harassment against people who disagreed with its tactics. It is just shameful."

Or delightful, if you're a cyclist. "In the meantime, local residents will continue to enjoy the safety that this community-requested and supported lane has provided every day for the last two and a half years," Mr. Solomonow said.

Repeatedly, the lane has been overwhelmingly supported in local surveys and community board votes.

This is not to suggest that unsafe cycling is ever acceptable, but as more people take to bikes, and the city's population continues to grow, park pathways are bound to get busier. Action by users is important, but also be operators.

As it has done with Prospect Park, following another spate of high-profile injuries, the city's Department of Transporation and Parks Department have reached an agreement to change the arrangement of traffic lanes to make more room for bikes and runners and less for vehicles. The measure is meant to make everyone safer.

“Central Park is New York City’s recreational oasis and this redesign will provide park visitors with safer and wider paths to walk, jog or bike,” Parks Commissioner Veronica White said in a release.

"Central Park's signature drives will now have even clearer markings to help every park user have the best and safest experience possible," echoed DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan.

In almost every place, the number of vehicle lanes will be reduced to make for wider lanes for bikes and joggers. The one exception is in the lower loop, where a defacto carriage lane exists and one must remain for cars. There, new dividers will be put in to try and separate bikers and joggers, keeping everyone separate and safe.

Will this prevent all injuries? Of course not. People need to pay attention and respect everyone. But as we see time and again, the power of the paint can be quite powerful.

Ford motors on. (Vanessa Rieger)

Former mayoral hopeful and social media lothario Anthony Weiner once infamously declared to Mayor Bloomberg over dinner that his first year in City Hall would be spent "tearing out your fucking bike lanes."

It is a prospect that terrifies urban planners and bike advocates, who worship the public space rejiggering championed by current DOT commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Mr. Weiner is obviously out of the running, but some other mayoral candidates have expressed concern about these streetscape changes, as well, most recently Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who called the commish a "radical" recently. But would he really go through with it?

Streetsblog wonders aloud about the prospect of Mr. de Blasio, a former streets advocacy ally, changing course: "In a way, supporters of livable streets should be thanking de Blasio for this eye-opener ... the 2013 race is wide open and there’s just no telling, at the moment, how the next mayor will align on these issues."

Yet what was most striking was the evidence Streetsblog gave that these reversals are real. Case in point: Toronto. There, Mayor Rob Ford has reversed countless programs of his predecessor.

It was in Jane Jacobs’ adopted home town that a progressive mayor, David Miller, laid plans to prioritize pedestrian safety, surface transit, and bicycling, only to see his successor Rob Ford assume office, declare an end to “the war on the car,” and proceed to reverse much of the previous administration’s initiatives.

Mayor Ford's first day in office, he killed plans for a new light rail system and, yes, ripped up certain bike lanes. Streetsblog has a post from last year that explores his other transportation indiscretions further.

Following recent polls showing support for the new bike lanes, Commissioner Sadik-Khan sent The Observer a message praising the growing support for her programs: "After five years of careful planning, community consultation and implementation, New Yorkers have spoken, and they like their bike lanes. New York today has the biggest and best bike network in the United States. It’s satisfying to see the support and demand for a bike-friendly New York that has allowed us to get here."

The open question is just how demanding the electorate will be next year to keep it that way. If they do not speak up, or worse, if it becomes a wedge issue, the changes that seem so increasingly permanent—pavers, benches, bike lanes, plazas—might just disappear. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

How about some rainbow colored lanes? (Getty)

Well, that ought to end the debate about bike lanes, even if former defender Bill de Blasio has become a skeptic. That would put him in the minority, as that numbers continue to climb in favor of the new bike byways crisscrossing the city. Last time we checked, it was a supermajority who liked bike lanes. Now, two out of three New Yorkers like bike lanes, according to The Times, no less, which has not always been a fan. And the gray lady makes a pretty emphatic point about it, too.

When asked simply whether the bike lanes were a good idea or a bad idea, 66 percent of New Yorkers said they were a good idea, according to a new poll by The New York Times. A majority in all boroughs said they thought the lanes were a good idea, with support highest in Manhattan.

Twenty-seven percent of residents called the lanes a bad idea, and 7 percent had no opinion or did not answer.

The poll results suggest that residents have gradually become accustomed to bike lanes, which have been frequent targets of tabloid ire and are already emerging as a flash point in the 2013 mayoral race.

Those tabloid schmucks! Isn't it fun to pretend like you're not a guilty party?

No wonder everybody is bitching about bike share, too. It would appear people are actually eager to get out there and ride. And now that we have the perfect helmet, what more do you need?

We first noticed it a week or two earlier, as the old lanes, on the outside of the parked cars, were ground off the asphalt, but it took a bit of time for the new parking lane to be painted, then that bright green strip. The lane used to stop south of 40th Street, but now would run all the way to Columbus Circle, with a sister lane headed south on Ninth Avenue.

Already, cars had moved into position, even though many of the markings still remained to be installed. Bikers would be zipping along the route any day now. Or not. When we saw the lane in day light, an unusual thing happened.

It is nothing new for an intrepid New Yorker, maddened by the insanity and inanity of Times Square, to walk in the bike lane. Even when it ran alongside the traffic lane, people would do it, especially at rush hour. It was a bit disconcerting, too, for it would only drive cyclists out into the onrushing cabs and cars to their right.

Still, at least there was forward progress. Protected bike lanes have been a boon everywhere, where they separate bike riders from cars, thereby providing added protection. Well, anywhere but here. On numerous occasions, The Observer witnessed dozens of pedestrians clogging the new bike lanes, making them virtually impassable. In more than one instance, a cyclist had to come to a stop, cease pedaling and do that slow walk astride their bike as people passed, the lane theirs.

Seth Solomonow, a spokesman for the city's Department of Transportation, noted that the little white bicyclists have yet to be added to the thoroughfare, so people not yet be aware of their actions. "There can be an adjustment period while we implement new projects and in this case we have yet to sign and stencil the new lane," he said in an email.

Yet these were clearly outta-my-way New Yorkers in too much of  a hurry to be slowed down by the line outside Shake Shack and the barkers handing out free passes to Lace next door (what a wholesome stretch). Will they really obey the rules of the road when the time comes?

Mr. Solomonow points out, quite rightly, that the lane is still a boon for bikers. "Protected paths elsewhere on 8th and 9th avenues have reduced injuries upwards of 40 percent," he said.

We have seen this before, on the fight for busy Grand Street and its bike lane, where once a baby was left, and people, or at least diplomats, still park in the lane. But mostly it works, so there is hope here, too. But at the same time, this is Time Square, one of the busiest corners of the planet. Every experienced rider knows it is a fools errand to try and bike down Broadway between 48th Street and Herald Square. Both Five Borough blowhards and tittering tourists use the bike lane as an extension of the sidewalk.

And maybe they should. This whole ordeal reminds us yet again of something Mitchell Moss is fond of saying, that what the city really needs to do is not implement congestion pricing or add more bike lanes but just extend the sidewalks. It will aid New Yorker's largest transportation constituency, the pedestrian (by far the majority of road users) as well as cutting down on road congestion because the conversion of traffic lanes into sidewalks will mean less room for vehicles, and therefore, less vehicles.

Eighth Avenue, one of the city's main transportation corridors, has already sacrificed a lane to bikes, so the odds that another will go to walkers seems impossible. Still, look at the transformation of Times Square when it was totally shut to cars. When the situation gets bad enough, it seems anything is possible.

With $14 million in funding, secured by Congresswoman Nydia M. Velazquez, the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative and the Regional Plan Association, the borough will finally see the completion of the Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway, a 14-mile foot and bike path running from Greenpoint to Bay Ridge. Some segments of the greenway already exist on some streets and riverside parks, but these funds will help stitch the entire thing together.

The greenway's implementation plan, which was finalized today by the city's Department of Transportation, details plans of a finalized route, implementation framework and funding options for 23 capital projects to connect the neighborhoods. Congresswoman Velazquez represents many of these waterfront communities, hence her support for the project.

The document arrives after a three-year planning stint with the first phase finally coming to fruition. If all goes well, it is projected to enhance access to the borough’s waterfront as well as to improve safety and boost the area’s social allure.

“This plan was designed by Brooklynites for Brooklynites, and it charts a course for a reimagined waterfront stretching from Newtown Creek to Owls Head Park,” DOT Commish Janette Sadik-Khan said in a release. “This document marks both the end of the planning stage and the start of a new era, as these dynamic neighborhoods embrace the waterfront as New York’s sixth borough.”

For a visual, imagine a repaved and freshly painted Flushing avenue, accompanied by a foot and bike path extending the length of the road.

Unfortunately the folks in Manhattan will still have it a bit nicer. Because long stretches of the Brooklyn waterfront remain intermittently industrial, much of the greewnway will run near but not on the water, as it does along the East River in Manhattan and in Hudson River Park.

Still, this lets Brooklynites continue to nurse their superiority/inferiority complex while clinging to what little grittiness in the borough remains.

Watch your head. (Edward Reed/Mayor's Office)

Is it possible that requiring every New Yorker to wear a helmet while cycling might actually be more dangerous for bicyclists than letting them continue on their merry way—cranium at the mercy of crazed drivers, hapless pedestrians, flying rats and their own personal incompetence?

That is exactly the argument made by every cycling enthusiast from Mayor Bloomberg to Joe Twowheels after Brooklyn City Councilman David Greenfield proposed a bill last week that would mandate cyclists don a Styrofoam dome before hitting the streets. Right now, that applies to children under 14, who also have the right to ride on the sidewalk, and delivery cyclists, who believe it or not, do not.

Mr. Greenfield wants to charge cyclists $25 for their first helmetless offense, $50 for the second and $100 thereafter. He points out that a good bike helmet does not cost much more than that first ticket, so what’s the excuse? “It’s basically common sense,” he said of his bill.

But bike advocates argue that the bill will have the opposite effect, making the city less safe for cyclists because it will depress ridership—after all, most New Yorkers are more worried about suffering helmet head than head trauma.

“There is safety in numbers,” said Michael Murphy, communications director for Transportation Alternatives. He pointed to the fact that as the number of cyclists has quadrupled in recent years in the five boroughs, the number of accidents and deaths has concurrently fallen despite the greater number of bikes. "The more bikers, the more awareness, the better off we all are," Mr. Murphy said.

But, it is those numbers that have Councilman Greenfield worried, especially with the city rolling out 6,000 new bike-share bikes this summer and a total of 10,000 by next year. “We’re talking about thousands of tourists and new bikers,” he said. “New York is a unique city, and it’s one of the most challenging places to bike on the planet. I think it’s incumbent upon us to make sure our cyclists are safe. This isn’t Topeka, Kansas.”

Backers of the helmet law have pointed to the fact that the administration once supported such a plan, five years ago, under then-Commissioner Iris Weinshal. They also tend to ignore the fact that she has been leading an anti-bike campaign ever since a protected lane appeared outside her Prospect Park West doorstep.

Still, the timing of this proposal seems to be what has so many bike bigs bothered. If helmets mean fewer riders, that will be doubly the case where bike share is concerned. The entire point of the new Citi Bike program is to encourage hop-on, hop-off convenience. A helmet requirement makes it almost impossible to do that unless one carries a helmet hooked through a belt loop at all times.

“This is a huge canard,” one DOT insider said. “If you want to do something about safety, this is not the problem. No world class bike-sharing city has this law.”

Councilman Greenfield, who said it is not his intention to curb the bike-share program, says no matter, just build a kiosk beside bike stations with helmets inside. “They’re adjustable,” he said. Well, only so much.

And DOT counters that any bike share user gets a coupon for a discounted helmet at local bike shops and can even call 311 for a free helmet, something the department has done for the past five years, handing out thousands in the process. To claim the city is anti-helmet is not exactly correct.

“I think everything is a balance,” Councilman Greenfield said. “But public safety has to come first.” Whether a bike helmet does that, is the question.

Freedom from the tyranny of helmets! (Gucci Little Piggy)

The Observer got an alarmed email from a reader, whose thoughtful daughter sent her our article on the proposed bike helmet legislation, which the reader does not like one bit. Her email, cleverly titled "Will mom opt for civil disobedience?," expresses some serious concerns about the possibilities of being forced to wear a helmet, and the reason such legislation does not make sense.

I am a life long liberal who has been riding bikes, without a helmet, since before you were born. I have been riding my bike in NYC for years and now ride more than ever, thanks to the wonderful new bike lanes.

A helmet law would interfere with my riding and is just one more intrusion of unnecessary government regulation into personal life. Don't give me free emergency room care if I have an accident but don't make me wear a helmet. 99% of bike accidents do not involve head injuries and most bike helmets fit so badly they would not help anyway. Wearing a bike helmet is uncomfortable, hot, irksome, cuts off hearing, and discourages biking, which is what should be encouraged.

You young fogies are such wimps, and it is this type of unnecessary regulation that drives people to Ron Paul, god forbid.

It is true that all on-the-record bike riders at The Observer wear bike helmets 99 percent of the time, namby pambies that we are, but we also respect the freedom of others to do as they choose with their safety and well being.

Meanwhile, the folks at Streetsblog dug up an interesting study showing that cities that require bike helmets also tend to be less safe for bikers. That does not mean that bike laws make things less safe, though. It could be the counter, in fact, where these laws are implemented to try and make already more dangerous streets safer.

Still, the fact remains, bike helmets may save lives, but they do not prevent accidents, which are the real problem, and which have been in decline, even as bike ridership has quintupled.

As for Ron Paul, we doubt cyclists would run into his arms considering the city's growing bike network was overwhelmingly financed (roughly 80 percent) through federal funds. Try and find a private contractor who would pony up for that.

Sorry, South Brooklyn, Uptown. You'll have to wait. (Google Maps/NYC DOT)

Despite nascent fears of out-of-control teens and flying Dutchmen, New Yorkers are eagerly awaiting the city's bike share program according to a new Quinnipiac poll, which found that 64 percent of city dweller favor bike share compared to 30 percent opposed.

Now, Gothamites can find out if there will be a Citi Bike station on their corner, as the city's Department of Transportation has just unveiled the preliminary map for its new 600-station, 10,000-bike strong bike sharing network.

The Observer cannot quite walk out our door and hop on one of the new bright blue rigs, but there is a station one block north and south of our offices, an arrangement that seems to be the norm for a system stretching from 60th Street to Atlantic Avenue. These bikes will be everywhere.

Well, unless you're a townhouse dweller.In the first phase of the project, set to go live this summer, there will be no bikes on the Upper East or West Sides, Harlem, or Brooklyn's brownstone belt, as DOT's map shows. Sorry Park Slope, there will be no rides through Prospect Park. These neighborhoods will have to wait until the spring, when a full roll out of the system commences.

The first phase will consist of 420 locations, which the Department of Transportation stresses were created in close consultation with local community boards. Queens sees a number of stations, as well as Manhattan and Brooklyn, which was not initially part of the plan, but local demand led to the Long Island City and Astoria being included. The project will cost nothing to tax payers, thanks to a sponsorship through Citibank (that is, if you ignore the multi-billion-dollar bailout of the Wall Street firm).

"I'm extremely proud to release this plan for the Citi Bike network," Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said in an email. "New Yorkers created this plan during the past six months, contributing time and expertise in workshops, on-line and in dozens of meetings to discuss and plan the City's newest transportation system."

While New Yorkers may favor the new bikes, they do not want anymore lanes to convey themselves and others on. According to the Quinnipiac poll, 51 percent of New York City voters said they do not want any more bike lanes in their neighborhood, compared to 45 percent who do. Not suprisingly, Manhattan wants lanes more than any other borough, with 52 percent in favor and 42 percent against. The Bronx follows 51 percent to 46 percent in favor.

Brooklyn, despite it's burgeoning bohemian character, comes in last, behind Queens and Staten Island, with 54 percent against and 42 percent for. Maybe this is just because hipsters never register to vote, and that is the base upon which the Q-poll was conducted. Whatever the case, not only will they hurt the president's chances but also those who want to see Citi Bikes in their neighborhood, no doubt. Talk about irony!

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC