Jake Stevens' wife was killed by a drunk driver who got off. (Matt Chaban)

Each year, there are upwards of 3,500 serious injuries resulting from traffic accidents. The NYPD has ten times as many officers, yet it only assigns 19 of them to look into such incidents and investigates less than 1 in 10 as a result. Even then, investigations take place only when those involved are dead or believed to be dying. Sometimes they die without an investigation because on the scene, officers believe the injured will make it.

Members of the City Council and families who have lost relatives on the road arrived on the steps of City Hall this morning to decry what they consider a lack of enforcement and announce the introduction of a set of bills and resolutions they hope will impel the police department and the Bloomberg administration to take action.

Brooklyn Councilman David Greenfield gave a succinct appraisal of the situation.

"It's actually a perverse system," he said. "In the city of New York, what we're telling you is you can be a reckless driver, you can be a drunk driver, you can be an unlicensed driver, you can mow people over and nothing is going to happen to you. The reason is, we don't have the proper people power to handle it. At some times in the night, in the entire city of New York of eight and a half million people, you have one officer on for the entire city who is in charge of doing these kinds of investigations. God forbid you should have two serious accidents."

The problem for the council is that it has little control over the police department, so the new proposals are more public requests than public demands.  There is the possibility to overwhelm Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly with a wave of favorable public opinion (see: stop and frisk) but that does not always work (see: stop and frisk).

"The mayor and Commissioner Kelly could do everything we're asking for today if they wanted," Brooklyn Councilman Brad Lander said. They also could have done it yesterday, or the day before, or years ago, when advocates started asking for it in the face of accidents. It is clear they do not want to, and may not ever, even as the council tries.

"Many like to criticize, but traffic fatalities are at the lowest level in city history and we now have 30,000 fewer injury crashes per year–30,000 fewer per year–than we did a decade ago," Bloomberg spokesman Marc LaVorgna said in an email. "Those results did not happen by accident–it’s due to the aggressive enforcement and safety work of the NYPD and the traffic engineering work the Department of Transportation."

The issue seems to be not whether or not the streets are safer—indeed they are, and the administration may now find itself a victim of its own success—so much as family's inability to get information, and thus solace, about their loved ones. At times, the department has been accused of obfuscation and obstruction. The NYPD public affairs department did not respond to numerous requests for comment.

The council believes the city can do more, and it has started with a package of legislation proposed by Brooklyn Councilman Steve Levin—this is a big issue in the borough it seems, not least because it is the most populous and straddles the line between lots of walkers and lots of drivers; Councilwoman Tish James was also on hand.

To begin with, Mr. Levin wants the number of officers trained in accident investigations way up, from the 19 currently assigned to the Accident Investigation Squad to at least five officers per precinct. He also wants the city to investigate all serious accidents, defined as those causing considerable injury to a limb—an issue outlined in state law. He would require officers to track the speed, sobriety and responsibility of the driver in an accident, a factor not always considered, as well as requiring officers to file a complete crash report and the department to publicly outline its crash response plan.

"The New York City Police Department is ignoring state law, and New Yorkers want to know why," Mr. Levin said.

Mr. Lander and Bronx Councilman James Vacca, chair of the council's Transportation Committee, are also proposing a task force made up of representatives from various city agency's and groups to come up with recommendations for the department in tackling traffic accidents.

"Our traffic investigation system is fatally flawed," said Queens Councilman Peter Vallone Jr, chair of the public safety committee. "If someone backs through an intersection at 50 miles an hour but doesn't kill anybody, right now, they're only facing a traffic ticket, and only if a police officer saw it. As a former prosecutor, I can tell you, that is reckless endangerment."

Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, said a survey his group did found no police departments in the U.S. or Europe that did not conduct an investigation of all serious accidents.

Two New Yorkers had join the politicians to share their story of roadside tragedy, a son who lost a father and a husband, his wife.

Jake Stevens recalled how a drunk driver ran over his wife. "This drunk driver who killed my wife last year is going to get away with a driving violation" for driving without a license, he said. Because no investigation was done, it is also difficult for families to seek civil damages.

Jay Deter lost his dad Ray last year, when he was hit by a 24-year-old driving a Jaguar, suspected of speeding down through Lower Manhattan, where Ray Deter was on his bike. "He was hit so hard, he shattered the windshield, shattered the moon roof, before landing on the ground," Jay Deter recounted, his hands shaking. His dad lived for six days in a coma before eventually succumbing to his injuries. By then, all signs of the accident had been erased. The only charges filed were for possession of marijuana.

"The message we are sending by doing nothing is that nothing is going to happen to you if you break the law," Mr. Greenfield said.

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.

Scofflaw? (Bridget Flemming/Downtown from Behind)

City Councilman David Greenfield is introducing a bill today to require every New York City cyclist to wear a bike helmet.

It is an intriguing proposal on a number of levels.

Currently, only children 13 and younger are required to wear a bike helmet. Think of the last time you saw a cyclist cruising by—were they wearing a helmet? Through highly unscientific personal observation, this reporter would say odds are evenly split for and against helmets. Maybe it's a little higher, hopefully, so this is simply a safety measure, and a warranted one, like seat belt laws.

This is to be the attitude of the councilman, who told The Observer, "This is the simplest thing a cyclist can do to protect themselves. To do anything else is frankly irresponsible." He pointed to federal statistics showing that 96 percent of bicycle fatalities involve people not wearing helmets (which may have as much to do with the cyclists attitude and actions as the presence of a helmet, but the numbers still speak volumes.)

Still, the best way not to get killed on your bike in the city is to keep from getting hit by a car. Which begs the question if this is not simply more anti-bike legislation masquerading as pro-bike legislation. Going back to the back-of-the-envelope assumption that half of city cyclists don't wear helmets, dumb if legal as that may be, how many of them might stop riding if it meant the choice between mussed hair and a $25 fine? With thousands of bike share bikes on the way, could this kill the program before it even gets off the ground?

There has been a rising current of such legislation amidst the bike backlash, some good, some bad. The call for bicycle registration has been widely viewed as a way to cut down ridership, while everyone can agree cracking down on bad delivery bikers is good for all New Yorkers—they can make life miserable for walkers, riders and drivers. Even the supposed NYPD crackdown on bikes is good if done right. Harassing riders safely traversing Central Park is one thing, but people going the wrong way down streets or blowing through stoplights not only present a safety risk but also create animosity among the ranks by giving the good cyclists a bad name. (Ditto angry drivers and jaywalkers, of course.)

With the exception of his complaints about the Ocean Parkway bike lane being shoveled while surrounding streets were not—a reasonable complaint, but one that also ignores that different machines for different jobs were used on the job—Councilman Greenfield is generally progressive when it comes to transportation issues, with the possible exception of leading the charge against those Department of Sanitation shame stickers, which proponents argue help enforce parking rules.

"It's basically common sense," the councilman said of his bill.

Perhaps bikers really should start wearing their helmets voluntarily. Maybe they should even be more diligent about following the laws, even when it's not convenient or entirely necessary. Sure, putting a foot down at an empty intersection where the light is nonetheless red might slow you down but it will also win you some respect. Even as a jaywalker next to you decides to cross since things are all clear.

This is what we were thinking when reading Justin Davidson's bracing defense of driving in the latest issue ofNew York magazine. Amazingly, he makes the practice sound appealing, rather than appalling.

Driving in the city is an extreme sport. Arriving from more placid places, you can feel the intensity spike as you home in on it. Lanes become notional, tailgating distances narrow, and you become more attuned to the body language of other cars. If you’re vigilant and blessed with good peripheral vision, you can often predict when another car will swing from the left to dart into a right turn.

Once you get into the lurching, irregular groove of city driving, it has a perverse adrenaline kick. Sharp as a forest beast, you process the crackle of random stimuli at a rate that would make a processor blanch. The other day, in the 30 seconds it took to drive one Manhattan block, I registered a double-parked SUV, a weaving bike messenger, a bus muscling abruptly into my lane, a jogger sprinting across the street as the light changed, an eighteen-wheeler filling the center lane, a massive pothole at my right wheel, and, at the corner, a walker gripping half a dozen dogs eager to bound into oncoming traffic. Somehow, my brain filtered those relevant observations from the streaming data of awnings and mailboxes and jackhammer noises and passersby. If mental exercise can slow the aging process, then driving in New York just might be the fountain of youth.

But for driving to work, so must every other mode of transportation—the more the merrier, and the merrier everyone will be:

Fulminating against drivers makes them feel beleaguered and resentful of changes that improve their lives. From behind the wheel, each new bike lane can look like an incursion into automotive territory, but it’s actually an amenity that gives us all more ways to travel and eases pressure on the roads. Streets designed solely as traffic conduits attract unsustainable amounts of traffic. For those who must—or choose to—drive, the best way to make the route more fluid is to help others ditch their cars.

[...]

If New York is to become a better habitat for automobiles, it should never be cheaper to drive than to take a less convenient form of transportation. To put it another way: Saving time should cost money, and vice versa. That way, car-­haters can stop spluttering about the ills of driving and let the rest of us whip around the city in ­motorized tranquility.

So long as a bike helmet law is done for the right reasons, to make the entire transportation system safer and smarter, it will be hard to argue with. But if it undermines these goals, then the whole debate is headed downhill faster than an out of control delivery bike.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Libya: Not helping Obama with his domestic agenda. [Jeff Zeleny]

Libya: Why not remove Khadafy? [Mike Lupica]

Libya: "Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war." [Ross Douthat]

NJ: Christie does things that may be unpopular locally, but appealing nationally. [Bob Jordan]

State Budget: $2.6 million spent defending Cuomo's plan. [Jimmy Vielkind]

State Budget: Administration source tells Fred Dicker "Shelly's vision doesn't extend beyond his conference and the people who give him the money to keep his conference in power." [NY Post]

State Budget: Dean Skelos' op-ed. [Buffalo News]

LIFO: "Bloomberg is in such a hurry to do away with seniority protections that he can't really answer how he'd go about determining which 4,600 or so teachers might have to be laid off in New York City this year due to budget cuts." [Times Union]

Medical Malpractice: GOP State Senator DeFrancisco may have a conflict. [Carl Campanile]

Taxes: Editors urge Cuomo to do more than stop the 'tax the rich' plans. [WSJ]

Rent NYC: Landlord group open to hiking $2,000 rent deregulation limit. [Eliot Brown]

Parking NYC: Allow it by broken hydrants, says Greenfield. [Sally Goldenberg and David Seifman]

City Council: Inez Dickens owns troubled property. [Barbara Ross and Tina More]

City Council: Four Council members get tax breaks for claiming property outside their districts as their primary residence. [Daily News]

City Council: Ruben Wills apologized for not addressing decade-old arrest warrant. [Javier Hernandez]

Privatization NYC: Deputy Mayor Goldsmith's plan. [Adam Lisberg]

Waterfronts: The Staten Island perspective. [SI Advance]

Drugs: Rep. Grimm wants an on-line database for prescription drugs. [John Annese]

Buffalo: Mayor wants to stay; turned down Cuomo job. [Bob McCarthy]

Local News: Jay Rosen not impressed after chat with Patch editor. [Twitter]

Pets: Get to know them, says Ruben Diaz Sr. [Candice Giove]

Embarrassments: "SUNY Albany cancels Fountain Day after street riots" [AP]

Predictions for how this race will turn out? Also, if you're voting in the district today, let me know what you're seeing out there.

Among the reason's given: his main rival didn't talk.

"Unfortunately, Lazar was unable to complete the questionnaire or schedule a meeting with Citizen Union within our timeframe," the organization wrote in a press release, announcing their support for Greenfield.

What would you ask them?

His opponent, David Greenfield, also has support from a bunch of elected officials, including Michael Bloomberg, and Ed Koch. They're competing for the seat vacated by Simcha Felder.

Felder, who represents a large community or Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn and has been known about the Council for his sense of humor, is considering taking one of two job offers, possibly with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, or with newly elected City Comptroller John Liu, according to this source.

Mr. Felder's spokesman did not deny the possibility of his boss's early resignation from the Council, and offered this non-denial late yesterday.

"Please call the mayor, the comptroller, the governor and the president and let me know what jobs Simcha is going to get," said spokesman Eric Kuo.

If Felder leaves, that creates an vacancy which could be sought after by two highly ambitious Council candidates: David Greenfield, who did an impressive job fund-raising, but declined to run against the incumbent once term limits were extended, and Noach Dear, a former Councilman with a less-progressive record who, despite some criticisms, was elected to a seat as a judge recently.

UPDATE: He's taking a job with John Liu, reports Michael Barbaro.