Seems some bicyclists are e-mailing the city Parks and Recreation Department all huffy about the new no-bicycling stencils applied to walkways on the Common last week.
But the ban is actually nothing new - it's just that, unlike in the Public Garden, where bicyclists are also warned to stay out, the previous stencils had faded away, Parks spokeswoman Jacquelyn Goddard says. "This is not a new policy prohibiting cycling on Boston Common. New paint was applied on top of faded paint stencils."
Goddard says her department is referring verklempt bicyclists upset at being told they can't use paths meant for pedestrians to city Bike Program Director Nicole Freedman, who "plans to work with the riders to help them find optional routes for the Beacon/Boylston/Tremont street area."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Vehicles aren't
By Kathode
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 7:18pm
allowed on the Common or Public Garden, either.
irresponsible
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 10:55pm
Yes, but "vehicles" are fully accommodated on the surrounding streets. Charles Street is a 60-foot wide one-way street. That's wider than the Southeast Expressway. It is irresponsible of the Mayor to ban bikes from the Common before improving cycling conditions on the surrounding streets. After there are two-way cycle-tracks around both the Common and the Public Garden, then I couldn't care less about bikes inside the Common.
Boo Hoo
By GTCvDeimos
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 1:49pm
Boo Hoo, I'm a poor widdle bicyclist who can't have it both ways! I want to be a ped and a legit vehicle! boo hoo! This is going right on my pinterest! that'll show you! that'll show everyone!
God I hate this city.
By anon
Wed, 07/10/2013 - 2:49pm
God I hate this city.
No bicycling
By adamg
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 11:24pm
Arturo Gossage took this photo of a typical no-bike stencil (in the Public Garden).
Copyright Arturo Gossage.
Kewl, where do I get one?
By Markk02474
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 6:06am
More cities and towns need those stencils to help protect pedestrians! Is there one for no skateboarding too?
Welcome to 1989 Markk
By BlackKat
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:14am
Skateboarding Is Not a Crime
While you are at it
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:23am
I'd like some big spiked strips for the bike lane on Congress St.
Something that could be placed so that cyclists can make it between spikes, but drivers would learn a hard lession.
C'mon - it would be fun!
really? Tell that to all the park employees
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 2:10am
...who park their personal vehicles all over the paths.
Perfectly good parking garage underneath the park, and they have to park on the paths.
As an avid cyclist and frequent rider in the downtown area
By Greene
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 7:20pm
that makes sense. I'm surprised I wasn't aware of this earlier. Huh.
It's still a park.
By cybah
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 7:24pm
Wow..
As vocal as I am about bikes on here (usually bitchin about bike lanes), I disagree with this.
I mean, I get it. If you can't ride your bike on the sidewalk, then yeah it does apply because the walkways in the common are a sidewalk in essence. But unlike most sidewalks, the ones in the common are in a park too. I thought the idea of a park was for recreation. And Yeah I know Boston Common is very pedestrian heavy, but it's still a park, and a large one at that. You'd think you'd *want* bikes there.
Boston never ceases to amaze me in its silly laws..
No bikes
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 7:56pm
I am very happy to be able to walk without the fear of side stepping into a wheel.
put your big boy pants on
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 2:09am
Seriously: this whole "pedestrians getting mowed down by bicyclists" thing is NOT A THING, especially in a park where the paths are 20+ feet wide. It DOES NOT HAPPEN. The city's own stats show it. Pedestrian injures are overwhelmingly from motor vehicles.
Every story I hear about some pedestrian complaining contains the phrase "nearly" or "almost." You do realize that a cyclist, moving faster than you, and falling from a higher distance, is going to be more injured than you if they hit you, right?
Also, if the city is going to enforce this, maybe it can enforce chasing off the thousands of commuters who feel it necessary to walk on the BIKE side of the Southwest Corridor? Funny how bicycles are such a menace and a danger to pedestrians that they prefer to walk on the bike path instead of the dedicated pedestrian path.
Gotten so bad, I feel like all the bicycles should switch to using the pedestrian-only path, since nobody else does.
Bad cyclists
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 6:30am
Sounds like you are likely a good cyclist who is aware of walkers and thoughtful of others. Just the other day, a biker coming behind me didn't stop until she was six inches from my legs. Scared me to death so I screamed. No two ways about it, many cycists ignore the rules of the road and lack courtesy, giving everyone else a bad reputation. I would like to add that a broken bone for me would be a serious matter so this is serious conversation, not just blather.
A broken bone
By Sally
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:12am
would be a serious matter for anyone. I am all for good and polite cycling and loathe the cyclists who bomb by me on the bike paths or bike lanes without a simple ding of their bell or an "on your left." But seriously...the number of six-inch close calls I've had with cars far, far outnumber the ones I've had with cyclists, either as a pedestrian or on my bike. I am a crazy-cautious, law-abiding cyclist and still I've had countless incidents that make me shudder to think about. So please, let's stop acting as if ignorant jerks on bikes present anything like the dangers of ignorant jerks in cars.
With all due respect, Sally:
By whyaduck
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:21am
I have had the opposite issue. I have had more close calls with bikes than with cars in Boston and Cambridge. So where does that leave us?
I am in the city on a daily basis, walk through downtown Boston on a regular basis and work in Kendall Square which is congested with cars and bikes.
While I agree with your statement about ignorant jerks, I have a colleague who was smashed into by a cyclist who whipped around a corner as she was doing nothing wrong except crossing the street. He was fine, she had to go to the hospital with a mild concussion.
You can't discount the amount of damage a cyclist traveling at say 15-20 miles per hour may do to a pedestrian.
By way of two examples, by boss was hit by a car last month and walked away with no major injuries. Many years ago, I was riding my bike and was side swiped by a car. Aside from a nasty road rash, I was fine. So, to me, it is an apples and oranges argument.
I'm not discounting anything...
By Sally
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:13am
only pointing out that in forums like this it is widely, widely exaggerated and no one ever offers facts to backup their arguments. Are you seriously telling me that you've had more "close calls" with bikes that with cars in this city? We're talking about Boston, Mass., right? And then you're backing up this statement with your two examples of people being hit by cars who were barely injured...proving what exactly? Are you seriously trying to claim that cyclists hurt more people more seriously than people in cars? I can offer a dozen personal anecdotes to the contrary but I think any casual Google of traffic statistics will prove you wildly wrong.
Wrong
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 7:37am
"Seriously: this whole "pedestrians getting mowed down by bicyclists" thing is NOT A THING, especially in a park where the paths are 20+ feet wide. It DOES NOT HAPPEN....You do realize that a cyclist, moving faster than you, and falling from a higher distance, is going to be more injured than you if they hit you, right?"
Wrong. When a fast moving bike messenger ran a red light and nailed me when I'd stepped into a crosswalk at the walk signal, I was the one whose head hit the curb without a helmet. To his credit, the messenger stopped to help me. He walked away while I got a trip to the hospital via EMS. Luckily no life threatening injuries but I wouldn't wish the following months of dr visits and physical therapy on anyone. Medical personal told me they saw bike-ped accidents with some frequency and that the ped almost always got the worst of it.
I'm not anti-bike, I actually ride now. But not on the Common. I know what a bike can do to a pedestrian, I don't want to be that cyclist.
Statistics say ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:42am
Well. I'm sorry you were hit by an idiot, but that's your one single personal story.
Fortunately, it is a rare one. Unfortunately, it happens far more frequently with drivers hitting people. I nearly got mowed in a bike lane the other day while crossing with the light - but it was by a driver driving a car in the bike lane with the intent of taking a right ignoring the red light.
Are you planning to put up a citation with a comparison of injuries to pedestrians from cyclists versus cars? So far, everything I've seen puts that ratio at around 1 serious injury to peds by cyclists for every 100 or so by cars. I think that would be more relevant for public policy purposes than a stochastic event.
I was brushed by a cyclist
By Josev
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:39am
I was brushed by a cyclist while crossing Columbus Avenue in a crosswalk. Also, when I used to walk to my office on the edge of the common I would often have to dodge cyclists on the common. It's a real concern. I'm going to guess that these type of incidents (and accidents) are under reported.
The statistics don't collect
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:44am
The statistics don't collect info on close calls between cyclists & pedestrians. But this doesn't mean that it isn't scary for a pedestrian to be almost hit by a bike and doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
Because statistics show less injuries for cyclists hitting a pedestrian doesn't mean the problem should be completely ignored.
I didn't make any claim about bikes v cars
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:51pm
I didn't make any claim about bikes v cars so don't feel obliged to provide citations. Yes, it's only my personal stochastic event and I offered it only as a response to the equally citationless claim that such things don't happen. Unless you consider capital letters to be reliable data.
Had I been able to pick myself up and move on, I don't imagine that I would have reported it.
as a pedestrian I've collided
By spanks!
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:48am
as a pedestrian I've collided with joggers and someone running to catch the T. I even had a run-in with a turkey once. cyclists - mostly just close calls. but I have been hit by a car who didn't stop at a stop sign.
really it's just not safe to leave the house.
Curious why you would think
By tenfortyseven
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 9:08pm
Curious why you would think bikes are wanted in the common
It's a park
By cybah
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 8:08am
It's a park, that's why. Um parks are for recreation. biking is a recreational sport. See the correlation?
No
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:09am
It's a lifestyle mannnn!
Actually it's a "common"
By John-W
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:32am
we should be grazing our livestock and drilling our militia in it.
...and humping in the bushes....they leave that part out on the historic markers.
Guerilla historical commission
By Nonymouse
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 12:09pm
Now I really want to start a trend where history geeks sneak around in the dead of night and plant accurate historical markers - I think we start with prostitution in the common and a more informative account General Hooker on his statue at the Statehouse.
If biking is a recreational sport...
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 12:29pm
Then they should ride on the sidewalks and stop fighting to be in the street with cars. Driving cars in the street isn't recreational on a daily basis and even when people do it for fun they still can't ride in the Common so bikes should stay out too.
You are exactly right,
By Pierce not logged in
Sun, 06/16/2013 - 1:04pm
You are exactly right, everything is either black or white. Also I saw a NASCAR race flipping through the channels this weekend, people driving cars at 150mph. I don't think the city is the place for that, and cars should be banned from city streets unless you are a little old lady out for a sunday drive--these drivers want it both ways!
Hm?
By eeka
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 9:14pm
I like bikes and I like cars. I also like buses and trains. Oh, and humpback whales.
I don't want any of these in a park where I want to just hang out and not have to watch out for traffic.
Time and place for everything.
I don't think that it's a silly law at all, cybah.
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 5:04am
The paths going through the Boston Common are clearly not meant for bicycling, but for pedestrians walking through the Common. It's not going to hurt bicyclists to chain their bicycles to a rack or meter somewhere on one of the surrounding streets and walk through the Common like other people do. Bicycles can be very disruptive in the Boston Common, because the paths are so narrow. Leave the Common for pedestrians! The no-bicycling in the Boston Common law makes sense and should be rigidly enforced, possibly with a hefty fine for bicylists who violate it.
I also think it's for the best, but FYI...
By anon
Mon, 06/17/2013 - 1:30pm
I think you're not understanding why someone would want to bike in the Common in the first place. I am a cyclist who commutes to work from JP to downtown. I am VERY strict in following traffic laws (e.g., I don't go through red lights, even if no cars are around) but I had been going through the Common because I didn't know it was illegal. The reason I stayed off the street is because all of the surrounding streets are extremely inhospitable to bikes and are downright dangerous. My only options now are to ride down Tremont (very dangerous), find another route that would probably make my commute about a mile longer, or walk through the Common with my bike. I'll walk through the Common and hope one day bike lanes are added to Tremont.
JP to Downtown?
By FellowJPcommuter
Mon, 06/17/2013 - 7:02pm
Try the Southwest Corridor to Columbus! Bike lanes almost all the way, I've never had a problem (so far)!
Park Wars in NYC
By Markk02474
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 6:37am
Boston is small potatoes. If you want to read or experience pedestrian-cyclist conflict in parks, read NYC press or go to Central Park and others in NYC, where cyclists ARE seriously injuring pedestrians. Note, pedestrians seldom wear helmets, so are at high risk for head injuries when struck by bikes, cars, skateboarders etc.
Thankfully, the Boston Common doesn't have the Lance wannabes of Central Park, who pose the most risk. Still, there are lessons from reading about park issues in other cities.
Really?
By Sally
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:14am
Link? Or are you thinking perhaps of falling tree branches which seem to be the most lethal weapon in Cenal Park these days. Or maybe this is just what your auntie Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ told you?
Links: http://awalkintheparkn
By anon
Mon, 06/17/2013 - 10:37pm
Links:
http://awalkintheparknyc.blogspot.com/2012/03/anot...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/nyregion/after-c...
Several pedestrians have been struck and seriously injured by cyclists in Brooklyn's Prospect Park. I have not heard anything about the condition of the cyclists, who must have been injured as well.
The majority of cyclists in the park are just out for a nice ride, but there are a few who use it as a velodrome--their speeds have been a problem. If I recall, a few ideas were put forth (establishing specific, fast-riding hours in the park, or creating separate lanes, for example.) There is even a proposal to build a velodrome in another part of Brooklyn:
http://www.brooklynvelodrome.com/
This, of course, depends on funding.
Pedestrians walking wrong way in the bike lanes
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:28am
I have some nice go pro footage of pedestrian stupidity in NYC lanes clearly marked for cyclists only - many next to identical pedestrian only lanes - if you have dramamine for the go pro effect.
Stuff like people with strollers and dogs walking wrong way on the bike lanes through central park and then yelling at cyclists who "rush at them out of nowhere". People just stepping off into cycle tracks without looking. Etc.
Although I wouldn't call that "cyclists injuring pedestrians" but "pedestrians who can't read getting injured when causing collisions with cyclists operating properly and legally".
You
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:55am
just can't admit when you're wrong. Bikes do NOT belong in the Common.
It is much the same way in the Southwest Corridor
By HenryAlan
Wed, 06/19/2013 - 4:11pm
Pedestrians wander aimlessly on and off the bike path, often shouting at cyclists who barely manage to avoid the unexpected hazard.
Make downtown streets safer, then
By downtown cyclist
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 7:47pm
Regardless of whether this is a new policy or an old policy, it's a dumb policy. The streets around the Common and the Public Garden are among the most dangerous ones for cyclists in the downtown area. You want us not to ride on the Common or in the Public Garden? Fine, how about some cycle tracks on the streets that surround them then?
Comment backed hard!!
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 9:35pm
Comment backed hard!!
The Parks and Recreation Department has a spokeswoman?
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 7:51pm
No offense to Jackie Goddard whose anchor work at WBZ-AM I've enjoyed in the past, but does the Parks and Recreation Department really need a spokeswoman? Couldn't the Parks Commissioner, Deputy Parks Commissioner, Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner or somebody handle the press? How busy is the Parks press office? My God. I have to hand it to Menino, stacking the city payroll with spokespersons galore who are almost all former reporters for one Boston news outlet or another. Who needs Owens-Corning when you can buy insulation like this?
+1
By John-W
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 9:42pm
good (and valid) one-liner at the end.
Mayor's press office is
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 10:05pm
Mayor's press office is wicked touchy about city employees talking to the press directly, and as far as I know, the Parks Dept. doesn't have its own press department. I'm wondering if Ms. Goddard will soon show up as the spokesperson for other departments and agencies.
Yes, Parks and Rec has a PR person
By adamg
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 10:22pm
I.e., Ms. Goddard, whose title is "director of marketing, communication, and external affairs for the City of Boston Parks and Recreation Department" (source).
The larger city agencies all have at least one dedicated PR person (public health, the school department, police - which has an entire department - and fire spring to mind).
Those PR departments
By Kathode
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 8:22am
also seem to be full of former or laid-off TV reporters/media folks.
Which makes sense, for both sides
By adamg
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:30am
The departments get people who know how to deal with the press (having once been members of the Fourth Estate themselves); the former reporters get jobs that have a bit more job security and, for many of them, probably higher pay.
of course they're touchy
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 2:03am
"Mayor's press office is wicked touchy about city employees talking to the press directly"
Of course they're touchy - because otherwise the press office wouldn't get so many chances to brag about how Mayor Menino personally made _______ happen or was instrumental to ____________.
If that's true that paint
By Anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 8:04pm
If that's true that paint faded before I moved to boston 9 years ago
But really kid space for bike lanes can be found in a 40' street why can't it be found in a huge ass park?
Faded paint? Hah?
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 8:48pm
I've lived here since 1976. Never ever saw the alleged painted symbols painted on the pathways. Never. Invisible paint?
Maybe you are not perceptive
By JohnCostello
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 9:20pm
I was a office mail boy in high school and college in the 80's. Walked all over downtown every weekday for years. I saw the stencils at the entrances to the Public Garden all the time, especially at the entrances that lead over the bridge. The Common, not so much.
No Bikes has always been the rule in the Public Garden. I worked on the Swan Boats as well and the Rangers always asked us to keep an eye out and ask people to get off bikes as well. People generally complied.
about the Common...
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 10:59pm
Nobody is disputing the ban in the public garden. This post is about the Common.
Exactly the point
By Sock_Puppet
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 6:51am
Those stencils have always been very noticeable at the entrances to the Garden. One of the reasons they have always stood out in the Garden is that they have never existed in the Common.
It may have always been the law on the books that bicyclists are prohibited from riding on the paths in the Common. Per parks rules, it is prohibited - along with playing any sport or game in the Common, having a dog off-leash, walking on a bridle path, anybody over 12 using the waters in the Frog Pond, or galloping your horse. However, I am certain the prohibition of bicycles in the Common has not been enforced in the last two decades at least, and there have never been anti-bike stencils in the Common.
It is unfortunate that the first visible act of this spokesperson is to lie in this fashion. People might support this change more if it didn't begin with a lie. Lying to people tells them they shouldn't respect you.
Parks are refuges
By Markk02474
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 6:51am
Would you want a park turned into a highway (or Turkish shopping mall)? No. Its supposed to be a refuge from the hustle, bustle, and not having to focus on not getting hit by anything faster moving than another person strolling. Hence, not for transportation, not even bike transportation.
Its a better discussion to propose a few major paths for joggers and cyclists, rather than have them on every path. That way, pedestrians can know to beware near them and/or avoid them. The argument is then about whether to lose park area to transportation.
For once I agree with you (kind of)
By Sally
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:54am
It would be so, so easy to designate certain paths for joggers, runners and cyclists--the wider avenues that are the ones that most of these folks use anyway. Then you could add appropriate signage for everyone, telling them to--duh--watch out for each other. Problem solved.
This is a reverse of policy.
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 8:09pm
This is a reverse of policy. It used to be that bikes were banned from the Public and allowed IN WRITING to be ridden on the common.
Maybe cyclists are upset
By anon
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 8:12pm
Maybe cyclists are upset because more and more joggers are running in their bike lanes so this their silly way of proving a point? Walk your bike through the Common instead of riding.
Unless you're a young child riding a bike, please have the courtesy to respect the rules and leave the Common for the use of walkers, parents with strollers, those in wheelchairs and people with limited mobility who may not be able to dash out of your way quickly enough, thanks.
Here's the Problem
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 8:31pm
If you work downtown or toward the Channel and south, and cross in from Cambridge via the Longfellow, there really isn't any other safe choice at rush hour for getting from one to the other.
And, gee, since the paths that come all the way from the Arlington Line to Boston all connect via that bridge, I can't possibly imagine why anybody who is commuting might actually, you know, want to get that last mile to where all the jobs are (be that Back Bay or Downtown)?
I gave up on Cambridge St. after they put in that Giant Stupid Ass Waste Of Space Brick Wall Flowerpot Thingy and left no room for anything other than cars speeding like it was a freeway and frogger-playing jaywalkers. It is very sketchy. The cars turning near the State office buildings tend not to notice those inconvenient red lights, either, and I've nearly been wiped out several time for having the temerity to actually attempt to make a turn on a green arrow near the Police station.
So I join the legions of other commuters who take Charles St. - which rarely has much traffic and has three lanes - and make my way to the common, cross the common, cross Tremont, and scoot down a side street to Washington. My husband takes a different route to get to the other side of the Channel on Summer St. I rarely encounter any difficulty with pedestrians in the morning rush.
Note that it is nearly impossible to get to the Back Bay in any direct way without using the common if you are coming from the Financial District or Downtown Crossing. Again, start marking where we SHOULD go rather than assuming we are just "out for a little sunday ride in circles!" and we will go there. I know it involves maps and thinking and planning, but ...
Unless and until Boston gets serious about understanding that cyclists are part of the commuter mix and ACCOMODATING THE COMMUTING PATTERNS, people will improvise. Personally? I think one lane of Charles would make a great bi-directional cycletrack. Nobody seems to ever use that left lane, save double parked vehicles.
Sounds like
By Kathode
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 8:47pm
the bike czar's job is to help cyclists find ways to navigate downtown without using the pedestrian paths in the parks.
Might help
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/13/2013 - 9:33pm
If they let her do it.
Agreed.
By Kathode
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 8:25am
In the meantime, it doesn't justify cycling on the pedestrian paths on the Common.
Never been banned
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 9:44am
Note the discussion by people who actually use the place and have for years - no bikes in the Garden, bikes allowed on the Common.
Well
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 10:59am
it has changed, deal with it. NO BIKES IN THE COMMON!
Okay, then
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:48am
When do they ALSO start enforcing the "no cars driving or parking in the bike lanes"?
Or, better yet, just go stand in the bike lane on Congress between Franklin and High St. at 5:15 pm and see what happens.
"no cars driving or parking in the bike lanes"?
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 11:59am
So by your logic we need to ban all right-hand turns for cars.
Only where permitted by law
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 12:47pm
Those three blocks of congress have one right turn, but cars using the bike lane as an extra lane for three blocks.
If you bothered to read your driver's manual sometime, you would know that it is only legal for a driver to pilot their car through the bike lane where the lane is dashed, not solid.
But, that dashed line thing happened in the last 20 years so we can't expect people like you to know that rule and blah blah blah.
"Only where permitted by law"
By anon
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 2:19pm
Ya so dont fu*king bike in the Common. Thank You!
Nope. I haven't seen *any*
By anon
Wed, 06/19/2013 - 12:55pm
Nope.
I haven't seen *any* dashed bike lane lines approaching intersections in Massachusetts in the last 15 years. Cambridge used to have some, but not any more.
Therefore, if the law you refer to actually existed, it would mean that right turns were never allowed on any street with a bike lane. Which is clearly not the case.
Here's what MGL 90-14 actually says:
"When turning to the right, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic nearest to the right-hand side of the roadway and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway. No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper."
Nothing about not crossing a solid bike lane line to turn right.
Nothing about that in the driver's manual either -- http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/dmanual/Drivers_Manual.pdf pages 106-107.
Nothing would happen....
By bosguy22
Fri, 06/14/2013 - 12:06pm
Because most of the bikes are on the sidewalk anyway.
Pages