A concerned citizen minces no words:
GET THESE VALET JERKS OUT OF THE BIKE LANES.THESE CARS DO NOT BELONG HERE EVER EVER EVER! Enforce the law before somebody gets killed.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Dutch and German cities are old, too
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:39pm
This is also the seaport, which was newly rebuilt.
Berlin, Munich, Utrecht, etc. are older than Boston and don't have these problems.
Thanks for playing, though.
All of those locations
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:47pm
were rebuilt after WWII. So no, Boston is older.
Yeah, as anon said, I hate to
By tcf098
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:29pm
Yeah, as anon said, I hate to nitpick, but German cities are among the most modern large cities in the world, thanks to them being leveled in WWII. I see your point, but you picked a bad example.
Not exactly
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 6:28pm
Dutch cities weren't much touched, and German cities didn't much change their street plans.
Somehow, they manage to train their drivers to NOT PARK IN BIKE LANES. That's the major difference, not when a city was built or rebuilt.
But, please, let me know what you think when you visit these places.
Seaport Boulevard is neither
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:54pm
Seaport Boulevard is neither old nor narrow.
The difference being
By spin o rama
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 11:48am
That parking in the bike lane is illegal and cyclists are legally allowed to ride as far into the lane as they need to.
So one is an example of illegal activity that puts a road operator at risk and the other is just a matter of inconvenience.
Are the valets parking cars
By whyaduck
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 12:01pm
in the bike lane, which is illegal. Or are they just temporarily waiting for the car owner to pick the car up? The original complaint does not make this distinction so I am not sure how you, personally, can say it is one over the other without more information.
Again, you are technically correct, the car should not be in the lane, parked or not. But if the hotel is offering valet service to its customers, the customer has to pick up his or her car somewhere, correct? And usually, because the hotel is offering valet service, that means in front of the hotel.
If the valets are parking the cars, then why not try contacting hotel management to get their take and to alert them to the issue?
Whether the car is parked
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 12:22pm
Whether the car is parked there or temporary waiting is irrelevant, its illegal in Boston either way, and it blocks the bike lane for people cycling in that lane either way. They could have a legal area where cars waiting for the customers to pick them up can be put, like the legal spaces along the street many places rent from the city to use for valet. Many valets, however, also double park, park in the bike lane, or park in bus stops to save money on putting the cars in garage spaces the whole time or to save time. But thats illegal.
Ok, you are correct...
By whyaduck
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:05pm
but, it is not not irrelevant!! The reality of the situation is that valet parking is valet parking and that usually means that valet's pick up and drop off the hotel customer's vehicles in front of the hotel.
Creating additional valet parking spaces may not be an option depending, again, how much space is available. For example, on some streets, parking spaces have been given up to create the bike lanes! I am not aruging that this is a bad thing, but it is reality. Boston has limited parking space as it is and your suggestion may not be a viable one.
I am sure some valets double park, as do some car drivers. It is not correct from them to do so, but, again, if you have to drop someone off and there is no other way to do it, you double park. And as I am not a valet, nor do I personally know one, I can't comment on your broad assumption that "many valets" do all those those in order to save time.
Temporary, but a constant stream of "temporary"
By Sarcastic Sam
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:50pm
Each car is "temporarily" parked in the bike lane, for a minute or two until the car is picked up. Then almost immediately, another car "temporarily"does the same thing. Repeat a few dozen times and you get the idea.
inconvenient vs illegal
By KellyJMF
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 12:25pm
It may be inconvenient for a bike to be in the travel lane but it is PERFECTLY LEGAL. Double parking is not legal. Not for an hour, not for "just a minute".
Double parking
By whyaduck
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:04pm
while illegal is nevetheless a reality and being a city commuter, either by bike or by car, you will run into double park vehicles.
We agree then
By KellyJMF
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:47pm
Which is why the original request was for the authorities to enforce the existing law. I see people run red lights too. Should I just give up on the dream that they will get a ticket?
Am I the only one wondering
By tcf098
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 11:35am
Am I the only one wondering where SwirlyGrrl is with her 2 cents?
Earning her 2 cents
By BlackKat
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 11:48am
She is probably busy working unlike you.
Good one! I took an early
By tcf098
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 11:50am
Good one! I took an early lunch. Is it alright with you that I check UHub on my lunch break? I assume you took an early lunch too since you're "not working"?
Just Teasing
By BlackKat
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 7:21pm
Just being cheeky. I work on a computer in a job with highly variable levels of work that range from "Master of Facebook" to "Needs Catheter So Don't Have to Leave Chair". So sometime I have nothing better to do than poke around the web.
Some Lunchbreak Thoughts
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:35pm
1. this isn't just using the bike lane - they are also partially blocking the car lane, too.
2. Most cyclists have driving licenses.
3. This isn't the only bike lane problem - there is regular attack and takeover of bike lanes on Congress and Seaport by aggressive drivers who then have the gall to honk at and scream at the legal users of the lane - and the city does nothing about it, either.
4. Where is Roadman and his usual bs about 'make cyclists use these lanes blah blah fart blah"? Oh, sorry, reality again.
5. How is it that cyclists are entitled and whiny when we are looking at a prime example of car entitlement, and have numerous "but JEFFREY STOMPS IN PUDDLES" and other off topic whines by entitled drivers that have nothing to do with this massive taking of public property by private business?
who needs bike lanes anyway...
By Jessica
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 12:47pm
There are countless studies that indicate bike lanes with solid white lines are more dangerous than sharing the road with vehicles. It gives novice cyclists a false sense of security thinking they are untouchable and therefore are riding with their headphones on blaring music and not watching out for the environment. Lets not blame the valets for not being able to get the vehicles out of queue fast enough. The city does not have the proper infrastructure to accomodate all the yuppies in the area. There will be vast improvements to public transportation, however none of the South Boston yuppies care, they will just drive their cars and get it valeted.
And how many VC cyclists die
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:04pm
And how many VC cyclists die each year compared to cyclists in bike lanes?
There are countless studies
By Scratchie
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:16pm
Please provide links to some of them.
I'd be interested in seeing those, too
By Nonymouse
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:33pm
My perception about bike lanes is that I don't feel any safer in them and often feel more marginalized. I don't like moving outside the traffic patterns of the vehicles around me - I feel much more invisible and vulnerable when I'm off to the side by myself or with a handful of cyclists. I've thankfully never had an incident but I've often felt like I'm courting danger when I zip along in a bike lane while two lanes of traffic to my left are stopped or creeping along. I much prefer riding with traffic, and I'd be really interested to see if my perception is accurate.
Good thing...
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:11pm
...someone thought to bring the Southie yuppies into this argument. I was starting to think that they were no longer a problem. Turns out, they're also responsible for cars blocking the bike lanes at Del Friscos. When will their terror end?
Yuppies don't own bikes
By King Yuppie
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:57pm
they "share" them from Hubway. You can tell them from actual bike riders because they don't know how to ride them. Most Hubway bike operators ride around recklessly, and until one of them cracks their unhelmeted noggin on the street, they will think this is the hip way to get around.
Valet parkers
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:00pm
often [not all, but MANY] think they're The Shit because they park vehicles for 'rich' people. Same goes for many restaurant staff from top to bottom in 'hot' locations. Even the illegals from central America in the kitchen and busing tables have attitudes. It's true, any anyone familiar with The Scene knows it's true. Substance abuse among staff in high end places is also rampant.
Advocacy for double parking?
By Markk02474
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:17pm
What would cyclists like valets to do? Park these vehicles in the travel lane so cyclists can ride the gauntlet between the double parked cars and the parking lane where they have little time to react when a pedestrian crosses the bike lane?
Research is lacking on the safety issues of having bike lanes on busy arterial roads with commercial traffic, bus stops, parking, and double parking. A study might be done and published in the next year or two (Transportation Research Board NCHRP 03-112): http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.a...
Here's an idea
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:24pm
They can hire enough people to get these cars from this area to the garage.
They could turn away business so that they would only use the space that they are paying for.
But that would cost money ... as would actually using whatever garage they are supposed to. much better to scam and illegally use public resources for exhorbitant parking profits!
So how much are cyclists covering?
By Markk02474
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:54pm
So for the added expenses and/or lost revenue for the hotel, how much is being made up for by cyclists? That would be zero, the same amount they pay to license, insure, inspect, and register their bicycles.
Lost revenue?
By tblade
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:31pm
Yours is truly a bizarre comment.
If valets can't operate their business legally, then they need to raise their costs or change their business plan; it's not the cyclists' responsibility to make up for "lost revenue" and subsidize a private business.
How much to you pay to license, insure, inspect, and register your shoes? Nothing, yet you are free to walk the sidewalks and cross streets. Maybe cyclists who use the street should pay a license/registration fee to use public roads - I would vehemently disagree - but that is not what the current law says. The current law says that cyclists have rights to the road like any vehicle.
If you don't like that bicycles have the same legal rights, then work to change the law. If you think the city should subsidize the business model of valet parking companies at the expense of public space that could be used by citizens, many of whom pay taxes in the city, then work to change the law. Until then, the laws should be enforced as currently written.
Um ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:34pm
Obey the law and stop taking public property for private profits.
They are stealing all of our tax dollars here.
They already have spaces for cars to pull up - they can hire more guys or turn people away.
Simple.
Park them in a garage
By tblade
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:29pm
Valets should park the cars in any number of public garages in the area, as is the requirement.
Any time a valet doesn't park in a garage, the money is pocketed, so they are profiting by parking illegally.
Are people on bikes just happier?
By Sally
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:23pm
I had a couple of occasions this past week to drive in and around Boston during rush hour and it was so stressful and miserable. Unbelievable traffic, tedious waiting, hyper-aggressive or incompetent drivers...mostly just endless stop and go traffic. It kind of made my jaw drop and at some point I actually said "no wonder they're so angry." If you do this every day, you may have become desensitized but it's a miserable, barely human way to live--being stuck in a moving box on a featureless highway for three hours a day. The nicest, most luxe car on earth couldn't make up for the frustration and tedium and wasted time. How we ever came to arrange it so that a majority of Americans spend so much time sitting in traffic is beyond me. After just a few hours I was so glad to get back out in the open air and walk...and bike.
Are people on bikes just happier?
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:29pm
From the looks of this thread their rather disgruntled!
Don't know about that
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:52pm
What I do know is that we are leaner, even if we are meaner. Cycle commuters lose about 13lbs their first year, while most Americans gain a couple pounds each year.
Oh, and I'm not disgruntled - just allergic to entitled motorist BS..
So what your saying
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:14pm
I'm fat because i don't prance around on my bike. Also, " entitled motorist BS.." by the view of most "Cyclist" (which you are not) on this thread you seem rather entitled.
Sincerely,
Walker and MBTA Customer
I'm so sorry
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 6:43pm
... that measured reality personally offends you and hurts your feelings. Then again, this is population science - it isn't about you personally but about what is healthy for society.
But, hey, the epidemiology and statistics don't change whether you act all butthurt about them because you can't seem to process them in a way that does not make them all about you.
Sorry.
Yes swirrly
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:42pm
Everyone who cycles is a fit ubermensch, while those of us who have to drive are fat slobs. God could be ANY more self reassuring about your cycling?
Do you have any data?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:29pm
13 lbs is a lot of reduction in the risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc. Especially when we have an epidemic of health care utilization due to excess adiposity.
I'm not self-reassuring - I'm scientifically validated, All you have to do is go to pubmed, type in some keywords, and find a wealth of data on both health, activity, and weight-related disease - far too many links to post here. You?
Check the OP
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 1:57pm
All-caps, foot-stamping, catastrophizing petulance. Doesn't sound like a very happy person to me, or one I'd want to hang around with.
Um....
By Sally
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:31pm
That's someone on Citizen Connect not a UHub poster. For their pissed-off car-driving counterpart, see last week's thread about Hubways in front of Dunkin Donuts on Broadway. Pretty much confirms my theory--most cyclists are only pissy when they feel their safety is threatened whereas a lot of Boston drivers take the "we own the road! F**k off!" attitude towards anyone on a bike or on foot...and in most other cars that are going either faster or slower than they are.
Yeah But
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 8:59pm
No one's safety is threatened by a stationary car in a bike lane. You just steer around it. The complaint isn't that valets are dooring cyclists or hitting them, it's that THEY DON'T BELONG THERE EVER EVER. Look, I ride a bike. I thought the Dunkin' complaint was absurd, too. But when I was a kid I was taught that the world doesn't revolve around me and that it's often easier to go around an inconvenience than pitch a tantrum about it.
Cars have to park. Pedestrians have to cross the street. Things will block the bike lane. It sucks, but it's four seconds out of your ride. Life goes on, man.
No one's safety?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 10:26pm
Cyclists have to push into a travel lane full of cars.
Cars have to merge left into a moving lane of cars.
Each of these situations is a situation which is known to cause accidents.
All of it is avoidable if laws are properly enforced and certain parties are not allowed to endanger others (including their own staff!) while they effectively steal public property.
Tell that to Dana Laird
By BlackKat
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 11:01pm
Oh wait you can't.
No, actually...
By Sally
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:01pm
Most people who bike also have cars or drive cars or ride in cars. We also walk. Most of us save our disgruntlement for the careless, hostile or clueless people who do things behind the wheel that endanger us.
I highly doubt most avid
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:29pm
I highly doubt most avid cyclists spend much time walking to get where they need to go. If that were the case, I'd think they'd stop for us in crosswalks and not play obstacle course with us on sidewalks. Though, as you claim, I do believe most cyclists do drive a car to get places... the disdain for us city dwellers who walk is quite evident. If you don't stop at red lights, stop signs or for us at crosswalks on a bike then you obviously couldn't bother to do it behind the wheel. Reckless arrogance on two wheels and four.
More bike lanes are needed so we can finally ban bikes from sidewalks. Cyclists have legal right to the road and now tax paying residents are spending tens of thousands to paint bike lanes per cyclists' demand, so now it's time to use them and get off the sidewalks that us lowly walkers use to get to work, buy groceries, run errands, etc.
yep.
By neuroboy
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:45pm
+1
I only get the hairs up on my back when I get put at risk for bodily harm because someone is being lazy. Maybe it seems nit-picky when someone on a bike scolds a driver or parking in a bike lane. . . it only seems nit-picky until it results in a person finally getting hit by a car while rounding that car parked in their travel lane. It boils down to someone choosing their convenience (whether it's a valet or someone dropping off groceries) over the safety of every rider that has to round that car. That's why folks get pissed. If they'd just find a legit (or at least a less dangerous) place to put the car they'd never have to hear a biker complain about them parking in the bike lane.
You make a point
By Markk02474
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:58pm
I am happier on a nice day with the top down on my convertible, even if waiting in traffic. On cold, rainy, and snowy days I have the top up and pretty comfy while cyclists don't look too happy.
Trust me
By Sally
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 9:59pm
Even on a bad day, we're happier.
Screw Cars and Bikes
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 2:18pm
I DEMAND my roller-skate lane and my entitlement that accompany them.
ROLLER-SKATERS STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHT.
share the bike lane
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:22pm
In all seriousness, it shouldn't be just be a bike lane for bikes. It would make more sense and be more fair to open up the bike lane for joggers and those on segways, rollerblades and skateboards. Why should only people who cycle get special benefits if bike lanes could also serve others who aren't walking or driving autos? I already regularly see joggers and the occasional segway tour using the bike lane already. More bang for the bike lane buck!
Not sure where you ride ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 6:46pm
But bike lanes ARE where the segways go ... and skateboarders ... and rollerbladers ... and some joggers ... I see all of this on a daily basis downtown.
The main issue
By Matthew
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 3:17pm
What we have here is an example of exploitation of public property for private profit. This is an issue which dates back over a century to when cars began to flow into cities in higher numbers, and started parking all over the streets. It got so bad that Boston actually tried out a city-wide curb parking time-limit of 20 minutes back in 1920.
Over time, judges have repeatedly upheld the principle that the public ways are intended for traveling (all modes), and that the public interest is served by enforcing regulations limiting or forbidding parking. The same notion of "public interest" also protects public spaces like the Common, and other parks, from being used as vehicle storage facilities.
In short, the city needs to start enforcing the law against double-parking, or it needs to start charging rent to this establishment which is squatting on public land.
More generally, Boston really needs to think about parking reform. Charging the correct, market price for curb space can ensure that there is always availability when you need it. Programs like SFPark have successfully eliminated cruising for parking by making it highly likely that there will be at least one open space per block. They have also integrated smart-technology that lets you see open spaces on a digital map. What's even more amazing is that the average price for parking in SF did not go up, it actually declined by 1% over the course of the program so far. Imagine how much headache could be eliminated just by setting prices smartly.
I'd prefer free or cheap on
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:02pm
I'd prefer free or cheap on-street parking that anyone can use, versus reserving the streets for the high-end restaurant and hotel valet services that can afford an expensive rent charge from the city.
You prefer that valets monopolize space, for free?
By Matthew
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:38pm
Depends. Is it right when a small number of people get to monopolize public street space all day, at the expense of everyone else? Underpriced curb space causes an artificial shortage, much like underpriced anything-else would create a shortage. The Soviet Union insisted that everyone should be able to get free or cheap bread. The result was bread lines.
Free or cheap parking is not free nor cheap unless you happen to be one of the lucky few who get there first.
I don't like to see high-end restaurant or hotel valet services monopolizing the street either, but if they are going to do it, at least make them pay. The current situation is that they get to monopolize our streets for free. And for some reason, it seems that you prefer that they get this freebie at taxpayer expense?
I'd prefer if there weren't
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 6:34pm
I'd prefer if there weren't so many valets.
Way older than cars
By Markk02474
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 4:07pm
Horse and wagon used roads long before cars, transported goods and double parked loading and unloading, though diagonal parking was much more available then. Public land for private gain also included livestock grazing on the common and other public land.
For people who don't know, SF uses all the parking revenue including tickets to fund public transportation. They are constantly reducing the supply of on street parking, creating more scarcity, and raising prices. Increasingly, they are putting parking meters in purely residential neighborhoods to expand their coffers. There are various posts on the topic here: http://district5diary.blogspot.com/
So le me get this straight,
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 5:41pm
So le me get this straight, if a family drops their car off with a valet at a hotel and their car is in the bike lane because there is nowhere else to get the luggage out and the baby out of the carseat, you would smash their car with a u-lock? You shouldn't be riding a bike if your skills are so crappy that you can't ride around mom, dad and baby without resorting to physical violence. Lots of activity in a city... and it's not all about you riding a bicycle. You're not that good at riding a bike? That's why we have public transportation.
Strawfamily
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 6:40pm
That theoretical strawfamily could pull all the way to the goddamn curb if the valet is properly and legally run - i.e. enough people to take the cars to the legally mandated garage spots as soon as the owners drop the keys.
But God forbid someone fling a ciggy while they do all this tedious unloading that you describe - the poor children will all catch fire!
Seriously - these are not "drop offs" happening in the bike lane - this is the valet company using the bike lane to make profits illegally instead of hiring more people and/or using the garage they are legally obligated to.
Smiles-By-The-Mile!
By plt3012
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 5:59pm
It's nice to see everyone getting along!
Boston Transportation Dept
By Anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 6:44pm
Should make the whole Seaport area perpendicular parking. You'd get more parking spaces. More spaces = more happier people.
Speaking of blocking the bike
By anon
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 7:05pm
Speaking of blocking the bike lane....The MBTA needs to better train its drivers; buses regularly block the bike lane to let on/let off passengers.
They block the traffic lane,
By Scratchie
Fri, 10/04/2013 - 9:44am
They block the traffic lane, too. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to change.
A couple of legal questions for any lawyers out there
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 10/03/2013 - 8:41pm
1. A drunk patron of one of these valet establishments collects his or her car and procedes to sideswipe the entire line of illegally parked valeted vehicles that are partially obstructing the car travel lane. Which parties are liable and who pays for this?
2. A cyclist is hit when forced into traffic when someone impatient about merging over (due to the partially obstructed travel lane) roars ahead and plows into them. Now that the city has been repeatedly notified of the ongoing issue with valet vehicles obstructing the bike and travel lanes and has chosen to do nothing about it, can the cyclist sue the city for negligence?
A foreginer's persepctive...
By Freehugsguy
Fri, 10/04/2013 - 7:21pm
... as compared with his home country, the Netherlands.
http://www.upworthy.com/a-dutch-guy-is-disgusted-b...
Interesting ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/04/2013 - 8:19pm
But he probably should have talked with the local cyclists a bit more.
I don't wear cycling clothes because I'm "racing" - I wear them because the climate in the US is much warmer and sweatier much of the year than it is in Europe. I didn't use the bike clothing when I did city tours in August in Northern Europe and didn't need it.
Pages
Add comment