Hey, there! Log in / Register
Masshole mayhem on Cambridge Street: Motorists vs. bicyclists, again
By adamg on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:06pm
Marjorie Arons-Barron reports on an incident near Charles Circle yesterday involving ten kids on bicycles riding abreast on Cambridge Street, and an increasingly impatient driver who finally had enough:
It didn't work out too well. The white car sideswiped a weaving cyclist, who flew in one direction, his bike in the other. The car never stopped or pulled over. Fortunately, the bicycle rider picked himself up, retrieved his bike and his helmet and, somewhat shakily, rode to rejoin the other riders in the pack, who had stopped not far from the Liberty Hotel.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Not surprising
If you read the comments on Boston.com about the bike sharing program, many of the troglodyte commenters bragged about there being more bicyclists on the road for them to run over. This behavior is unacceptable and makes me want to join the next Crit Mass. I hope the city takes this seriosuly, and that their move towards a bike friendly city is more than just lip service.
the only masshole...
...is the one who justifies a bunch of kids on bikes taking up the lane as an excuse to hit one and never stop, doesn't report the hit-and-run to police after watching it happen right in front of her, etc. And then preaches about following the law, yet doesn't understand it herself.
There is no requirement in MA law that cyclists ride single-file. They (like other vehicles) are required to facilitate passing and they are legally allowed to ride two-wide, as well as take the lane when necessary.
An angel got his wings today.
An angel got his wings today. ;-)
Well, MA General Laws: Chapter 85, Section 11B says....
"Bicyclists riding together shall not ride more than 2 abreast but, on a roadway with more than 1 lane in the direction of travel, bicyclists shall ride within a single lane. Nothing in this clause shall relieve a bicyclist of the duty to facilitate overtaking as required by section 2 of chapter 89."
So riding 10 abreast is breaking the law*. I also can't find anything in the law that says it is OK to "take the lane when necessary."
*This does not mean, however, that it is OK for the driver to break the law by smacking into one of them and driving off.
Bicycles may take full lane
As seen on traffic signs through-out the city.
This is the second hit and run this week inside Boston City limits.
Yes, bikes may take the full lane..
"to avoid car doors, debris, bad pavement, or other hazards."
no.
Any time. We're the same as any other vehicle, both in that there's no "side" of the lane we have to be on, and we're required to facilitate passing (which in a car means you can't gun the engine when someone tries to pass you. When you're on a bike, it means you can't block the pass. The overtaking driver still has the responsibility to pass safely.)
so basically anywhere in the
so basically anywhere in the city.....
also what are you quoting?
Riding 10 abreast is breaking the law
But she's harping about the cyclists not understanding "the law" and claiming that they should have been "riding single file."
I also can't find anything in the law that says it is OK to "take the lane when necessary."
I actually misspoke. Bicycles are classified as "vehicles" and thus we're not only allowed to take the lane when necessary, but use it any time we damn well please, as long as we facilitate passing.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Part...
http://massbike.org/srsr/2009/10/give-yourself-som...
http://massbike.org/srsr/tips/car-tips/
Brett,
"But she's harping about the cyclists not understanding "the law" and claiming that they should have been "riding single file."
Right. The kids should of been riding single file! That is the law! They can ride two abreast at the most, not ten abreast like they were doing.
"I actually misspoke. Bicycles are classified as "vehicles" and thus we're not only allowed to take the lane when necessary, but use it any time we damn well please, as long as we facilitate passing."
Right. Ok. Yes, you can take the lane to avoid a car door or a road hazard, like a pot hole. But were these kids doing that? They were creating a hazard to themselves as well as others by riding 10 abreast and not allowing car traffic to pass by.
In fact, this is from one of the articles that you listed the link for:
"Two bicyclists can even ride side-by-side when it doesn’t interfere with safe passing, especially when cars can safely move into another lane to pass."
This driver could not move anywhere. He/she tried to zip through a gap in the kids and smacked one that was swerving from side to side!
NO.
Right. The kids should of been riding single file! That is the law!
CYCLISTS IN MASSACHUSETTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RIDE SINGLE FILE. THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED TO RIDE TWO-WIDE.
How many times does that have to be explained to you? Should I make it blink, be underlined, and in red too?
Right. Ok. Yes, you can take the lane to avoid a car door or a road hazard, like a pot hole. But were these kids doing that? They were creating a hazard to themselves as well as others by riding 10 abreast and not allowing car traffic to pass by.
I was calling her on her complaints that "cyclists don't know the law" when SHE DOES NOT EITHER. I have never said that what the kids were doing was legal.
Brett
I'm sure you'll take heat from the usual suspects on here, but I agree wholeheartedly. Seems like obstruction of justice to me.
The actions of the drivers are akin to being stuck on the sidewalk behind a slow cluster of tourists, and striking one of them with a pipe, and running off. There is NO excuse for this type of violence.
Agreed.
Agree. A car is a deadly weapon when used in such a manner.
Bikes have the right to use any part of the road they want.
Even if the bikers were taking the whole road, curb to centerline, ( unlikely as that is) they are within the law.
Having to drive slower or around someone is at worst an inconvenience. And The Beer Guy's analogy is perfectly apt.
See, this is why people hate cyclists
Avid rider here.
10 bikes riding aimlessly in a street making it difficult if not impossible to pass is just plain rude and is one of many reasons why you get typical boston.com comments. If there is a way they could have ridden to allow cars to pass, then they should have done that. "Share the road" means share the road. You can quote all the laws you want, but that type of action by the cyclists just pisses off other road users and makes them want to pick off the next cyclist they see - and, most importantly, that cyclist may be me.
Saying that, there is no justification at all for some car to pick off a cyclist. None at all, regardless of whatever some cyclist did.
My point is, don't ride your bike like you own the road. Think of other users. If you can let cars pass safely - safely for both you and the car - do it.
not cyclists, teenagers
I think what's being missed is that these weren't normal cyclists, and this is hardly normal cyclist behavior. they were teenagers being bratty teenagers, as many of us were wont to do when we were that age. I dyed my hair, and cut it funny- ya'll may have acted bratty in a different way.
Does this justify a car endangering this kid's life in their impatience to get where they're going? Hardly.
Some swearing, a little honking, certainly!
Of course there's a big leap between this kind of obnoxious juvenile behaviour and taking a lane because of the danger of getting doored, or close-passed. Unfortunately drivers don't see the difference, and too often behave dangerously in either case.
cyclists AND teenagers
For all you know, the driver who sideswiped the cyclist could have been a teenager as well. Does that mean he or she is NOT a driver, a TEENAGER? That's about the dumbest thing I've read on this thread. Kids riding bikes on busy city streets weaving on the road 10 abreast = dangerous. Only a Masshole cyclist would advocate this kind of reckless riding just because it's 'legal.' Would you tell your kid to ride like that in Boston? If so, shame on you. There has to be surveillance video of the crash. I sincerely hope they track down the driver and he or she is punished accordingly. ALSO, I hope they track down every single one of these cyclists and teach them how to ride responsibly and safely on city streets.
Cambridge Street
Cambridge street should have had bike lanes.
It doesn't.
Cambridge street is a nightmare if you DO NOT take the lane BECAUSE it is narrow AND cars will RIGHT HOOK you if you are all the way over to "let them pass nicely".
As for "impatient", well IF you drive that road designed by idiots with no sense of proper standards of safe road design THEN you WILL be delayed REGARDLESS of bikes BECAUSE of the other drivers (even on the rare occasion that some one isn't double parking, sitting there on the phone trying to decide to turn or not, etc.). That's called traffic.
You know, I'm inconvenienced, delayed, and endangered by the stupidity of the fools who thought that putting a brick fucking wall in the middle of the street was a "nice" idea. I think I'll use the logic of the driver and witness and go find a nice musket to borrow ...
someone just wrote a rebuttal to her in the comments
Substituting "cyclist" for "rape victim'. Kinda puts the victim-blaming Marjorie Arons-Barron did into perspective.
She also hasn't responded to the person who pointed out that she stole photos for her blog post from someone on flickr and elsewhere...apparently Marjorie, who worked at a TV station, thinks it's perfectly OK to lift a copyrighted, all-rights-reserved image off flickr.
rape victims? Really...
I know it was a rhetorical point, but applauding someone who equated this situation to that of a rape victim? Really? No one in the story here comes off looking good. The driver was wrong and an idiot and I wish there was some prosecution to be had. But the bicyclists were idiots as well (though far less so). The bicyclists DID NOT deserve this madman to endanger them, but they were nonetheless provocateurs.
But, yet, once again, bicyclists are noble martyrs and now, even compared to rape victims. Even as an argumentative device that is just way beyond the boundaries of taste.
mayhem? Really?
technically, "mayhem" is the intentional and wanton removal of a body part that would handicap a person's ability to defend himself...
I believe he meant
Definition 3. a state of rowdy disorder.
I always loved the Jerry Lewis crack about the woman who was hit in the fracas.