Brookline Police tweeted this morning:
Feedback welcome, should we allow cyclists to use Idaho Stop's? Not at all? Perhaps during heavy commuter hours? Certain roads?
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
WAAAAAH
By Michael
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 11:57am
GET LICENSE
PAY ROAD TAXES
I TECHNICALLY HAVE TO STOP AT STOP SIGNS
ONCE A BIKE CUT ME OFF
REGISTER YOUR BIKE
CITY BUILT FOR CARS
...maybe that saves everyone some time?
City built for cars???
By fietsdavid
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:38pm
Hmm... I don't see any cars in these historic photos, but of course Brookline predates cars, rail, bicycles, photographs, etc.
working theory
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:22pm
my current working theory is that as the level of one's competence operating a motor vehicle declines relative to one's perception of said competence, the amount of "vulnerable road user animosity" increases. Of course I currently do not have any way of testing this empirically, but the evidence I have is that during these discussions it appears that there is immobility of viewpoint in spite increasing one's knowledge of legal rights and responsibilities and situational-behavioral awareness - which would indicate a belief discomfirmation paradigm that likely stems from lack of some kind of self-awareness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:54pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruge...
Why not?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 11:58am
Very few drivers stop entirely at them ... and most cities, even without the laws, don't cite cyclists or motorists if they slow way down, look, then continue.
If you doubt that drivers outright ignore them or slow and "boulevard stop" instead, I can show you several locations and you can do your own counting.
As long as they aren't
By your dad
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:21pm
As long as they aren't ticketing drivers for the same thing sounds fine. Also there should be a 5,000 dollar fine for bicyclists traveling on the right that pass vehicles that are halted at the stop line and signaling right.
If youre making a right turn,
By J
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:10pm
If youre making a right turn, you need to be as far right as possible. if a bike can pass you, you failed as a driver and youre at fault
Exception: Trucks that need to make wide turns.
Or there are vehicles parked
By your dad
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:28pm
Or there are vehicles parked on the right. As a motorist you should always try to take bike lane before turning but it is not always possible (and may result in uninformed cyclists banking on your trunk if you DO take the lane.)
so.
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 11:54pm
If I made a right from the let lane and cut you off, it is your fault, not mine.
Got it.
/masshole logic
When cyclists kill others doing this
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:20pm
I might see the public health perspective.
In other words, the big killer is still motorists not following the rules, so let's get that sorted first.
Otherwise, no. Read the law, please. oh, and explain the part about "passing on the left"' to that piece of police work in Somerville who thought that "cyclists are permitted to pass on the right" means that they have to wait until an illegally parked motorist in the bike lane returns and moves instead of going around their car in a legal passing maneuver.
In Boston at least, I believe
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:21pm
In Boston at least, I believe most of the fatal bicycle accidents were determined to be the cylist's fault, not the driver's. Maybe instead of making new rules for them, they should learn to follow the ones we already have.
Sources?
By Belmont
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 7:52pm
"I believe" is not going to cut it, sorry. Do identify some real sources if possible.
I would as lief
By Chris Rich
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 9:35pm
.. or a wish for it to be so.
Wishful thinking without hope of a fact or a stat anywhere in sight.
Similarly, I *believe* that
By MikeA
Tue, 09/23/2014 - 3:09pm
Similarly, I *believe* that my dog is going to shit gold bricks soon.
The next time you drive to
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:11pm
The next time you drive to work (or anywhere), do this: keep count of every motor vehicle that you see breaking a traffic regulation. Including but not necessarily limited to:
Oh, and while you're at it, note how many tickets you see being handed out for these violations. If you see anyone being ticketed, make a reasonable estimate of the total number of vehicles in violation that you saw during your drive, then calculate what percentage are ticketed. Then report back.
Im not sure I follow your
By your dad
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:54pm
Im not sure I follow your logic or beef....most drivers AND cyclists break traffic laws constantly. I was observing that if a rolling stop on a bike is safe at an intersection then doing so in a car is likely safe as well. What's good for the goose etc.
If the majority of drivers
By roadman
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:06pm
are disregarding stop signs at one or more specific locations, then perhaps we need to re-evaluate the need for said stop sign to be there. If the stop sign is not warranted, then removing it benefits everyone - not just cyclists.
Since the mid-1980s, when local cities and towns were allowed by Legislative Act to install most traffic control devices, including stop and yield signs, without a permit issued by the MassDPW (now MassDOT Highway Division), the 'stop sign fairy' has been most prolific in planting them on local streets. This is because most politicans and average people remain under the misconception that speed is the enemy, and that forcing people to stop at every intersection will improve safety. The reality is the opposite of this - placing stop signs everywhere only breeds disrespect towards ALL stop signs by most drivers - even those that were placed for a legitimate reason.
As for the Idaho Stop, I would consider supporting the idea if a) it were passed as a statewide law, and not just on a community by community basis, b) if a condition of the law was that any cyclist who collides with a vehicle, cyclist, or other after executing an Idaho Stop is presumed to be
100%at least 50% at fault for the crash (the same standard as used for drivers), and c) if any adult cyclist involved in said crash who is a licensed driver has the circumstances of said crash placed on their driving record.For that matter, point (c) should apply to ALL traffic violations a cyclist is cited for.
Motorphillia Uberalles!
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:28pm
Including the bizarre and completely bogus and ignorant ones, of course.
Also, we have right of way laws about how and when vehicles enter an intersection, so your fantasy rant would have to include changing those laws for a solid "lets blame cyclists when drivers are reckless and feel like murder" Disneyland.
If a cyclist entered a clear intersection after an "Idaho Stop" and some murderous motorist wanted a freebee, you'd have to change the laws that give precedence to vehicles already in an intersection before handing out your free license to kill.
Where did I say anything
By roadman
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:02pm
about giving drivers free reign for murder? I just believe that, as an Idaho Stop is a special situation, the fault in a crash for failure to yield should lie squarely with the cyclist AND that facti should be squarely stated in any law authorizing Idaho Stops.
Oh, but as a cyclist, I guess you want any penalities and assignment of blame associated with an Idaho Stop gone wrong to be as ambigious and as difficult for someone to figure out as possible without needing the services of an attorney. Personally, I prefer a cut and dried "the fault is presumed to be with A' approach instead of "well, according to Section X of the law, and you also need to see Subsection Y and Part 3, etc. ect." which you are advocating.
Unless you still believe that a driver who has right of way should be found at fault for a crash caused by a cyclist who doesn't have the right of way.
"presumed at fault". That's
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:17pm
"presumed at fault". That's where you said it, so own it.
So lets play this game
By spin o rama
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:46pm
You want a cut and dried "the fault is presumed to be with A' approach?
Ok, how about when a truck a right-hooks a cyclist with the right of way, are you comfortable with finding the driver 100% at fault? What if the cyclist is killed? 100% at fault of voluntary manslaughter?
See the thing is, you don't want 100% faults laws. I swear you've even argued against the Dutch-style bike laws that protect vulnerable road users but I just don't have them time to plow through your history of mental gymnastics.
Just admit it, you don't like driving slow and want the roads to accommodate your need for speed. I mean look at the hoops you just jumped through, trying to demonize the installation of stops signs on side streets throughout the city. Why have speed limit signs all over the place? They only breed disrespect towards ALL speed limit signs.
Please. You're just grasping at straws. Buy a race track so you can drive as fast as you want whenever you want.
I agree that indicating
By roadman
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:13pm
100% at fault is an unreasonable standard. I've changed my previous post to indicate at least 50% at fault - which is the common benchmark used for auto insurance "standards of fault".
As for stop signs, what I indicated is not "grasping at straws". It's based on what multiple studies over the years have confirmed. Unwarranted stop signs are not effective at reducing overall speed, do not improve safety at the location, and encourage most drivers to disregard most other stop signs.
As for speed limits, the biggest problem with speeding is when speed limits are arbitrairly set lower than the speed that most drivers (know as the 85th percentile) can safely drive the road. Again, this is not just my "grasping at straws", it's been shown in multiple studies over the years.
I don't understand "encourage
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:29pm
I don't understand "encourage most drivers to disregard most other stop signs." I've never intentionally ignored a stop sign just because I didn't see the necessity of it. Even with all the crazy drivers around here, I don't believe that most drivers who disagree with the placement of one stop sign will discontinue stopping at most other ones.
Speed ≠ Safety
By HenryAlan
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Speed limits are not created based upon average driver abilities. They are based upon levels of damage caused by accidents and probability of such accidents happening on a given road. City street speed limits (and calming measures) are designed to lessen the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities.
At 20 MPH, fatality rate is 5%
At 30 MPH, fatality rate is 40%
At 40 MPH, fatality rate is 85&
http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm
"b) if a condition of the law
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:16pm
"b) if a condition of the law was that any cyclist who collides with a vehicle, cyclist, or other after executing an Idaho Stop is presumed to be 100% at fault for the crash"
That's a stupid presumption. Just think about it for a minute.
How is it a stupid presumption.
By roadman
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:13pm
Say a driver is approaching an intersection and has the right of way. A person (driver or cyclist) on the side street who doesn't have the right of way (due to a stop or yield sign) decides to enter the intersection anyway. Whatever the outcome, the driver on the main street LEGALLY has the right of way, not the person who blew the stop or yield sign. So, let's make that apparent in the law - especially as the "standards of fault" apply to drivers, and NOT cyclists - who aren't required to carry insurance to operate on public streets
Particularlly when the law being proposed is both contrary to basic right of way rules and is merely for the cyclists's convenience, and has very little to do with improving traffic flow or safety (and the "but cyclists do this anyway so let's make it legal for them" is NOT a vaild safety argument).
But, by your logic, a driver is considered to be at fault just because they collided with the other person who, per established right of way laws and traffic control devices, was clearly in the wrong. Sounds like typical cyclist "all drivers are evil and need to be severly punished" mentality.
PS - I agree that 100% at fault is unreasonable - see my other posts.
Get rid of top signs
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:27pm
and bike lanes. Most bikes don't use either.
Remove stop signs that are not justified
By roadman
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:43pm
by safety or engineering reasons and require that cyclists ride ONLY in the bike lanes (excepting emergency situations like illegally parked cars, debris, and the like).
Again, like last time, how.do
By gotdatwmd
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:05pm
Again, like last time, how.do.i.turn.left?
Simple
By roadman
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:15pm
End the bike lane X number of feet before an intersection to allow left turns to be made. The issue I have is when cyclists decide to weave into or out of a marked bike lane between intersections for NO legitimate reason.
Some of the reasons I
By K
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 4:37pm
Some of the reasons I personally ride outside the bike lane from time to time:
1. There is glass (or other debris) in the bike lane (you might not be able to see this from your car).
2. There are potholes that could blow my tire and throw me into traffic.
3. The car next to me is riding too closely/dangerously to me. Maybe this isn't you, but it could be the person in front of you. I might pull in behind that car to let them pass safely. This often happens on narrow roads.
4. I'm anticipating a turn that maybe isn't obvious to you. If I'm riding down Somerville Ave and want to make a left at Central Street, I'm going to take the lane before the turn is imminent and I'm giving a turn signal.
5. I see a car/truck ahead in the bike lane. I'm not going to wait until the last second to go around it; I'm going to signal that I'm entering the non-bike lane to do it smoothly. I would also do this if I see a cab ahead of me that's pulling over—I don't want to get doored, so I'm going to give them a wide berth.
There are a lot of reasons for a bike to enter and leave a non-bike lane. I'd be very surprised if you just constantly see deranged cyclists that feel the need to 'weave' for no reason.
Also, if someone ahead of you
By gotdatwmd
Thu, 09/18/2014 - 9:25am
Also, if someone ahead of you is moving slowly. I don't want to be late to my destination because of grandpa pedaling or some punk on a BMX is cruising
You think limiting bike travel to bike lanes will change what?
By spin o rama
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 4:42pm
We have laws that currently tell automobiles to stick within their designated lanes but that doesn't stop them from weaving into other traffic lanes or even the bike lane. Hell, we have signs on the road that tell cars where they should and should not go but doesn't stop the rampant running of reds, speeding, illegal u-turns, right/left hooks, etc.
This new law would only work if the BPD starts enforcing it rigorously. So where are we going to redirect our police resources from? How about paying for it? Maybe we can raise the gas tax!
And your going to yield to me during those x number of feet so I can make the left turn? What about on Comm. Ave, I'm going to be able to safely merge over two lanes of traffic just a short distance from the turn? Doubt it. So I think I'll play things safer and merge into the left lane well before I need to make the turn.
Again, its not your concern for safety but rather your insatiable need to drive fast that is directing your baseless points here. Just find a race track somewhere and give it a rest.
Exactly
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 5:51pm
And then paint a green field across every lane of traffic, and move the automobile stop line back ten feet behind the bike stop line. It's called a bike box. It's exactly what is needed at intersections with bike lanes.
"No legitimate reason"
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 8:58pm
"No legitimate reason" according to whom?
Bike lanes aren't some kind of two-wheeled ghetto. How could they be, when half the time they're taken up by double-parked motor vehicles?
door zone
By downtown-anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 10:12pm
Often bike lanes are built in the door zone. There bike lanes that are mostly or entirely in the door zone. Never safe to bike in the door zone and I have no idea why city engineers continue to put bike lanes in door zones.
Folks I know from other
By gotdatwmd
Thu, 09/18/2014 - 9:27am
Folks I know from other cities are appalled at our strategically placed bike lanes that are entirely within the doorzone. It's awful but I think it helps me keep a steady level of anxiety-induced preparedness for living here.
99%
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 11:58am
99% of bicyclists in Boston ignore stop signs and red lights already. And it's not safe, for the bikes or the vehicles. I don't spend much time in Brookline. Maybe things are different there.
Bad idea to just give up and let them do what they want to do.
Nice statistic
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:12pm
You might want to wipe that off before passing it around - e coli can kill.
Move to the city of Boston
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:41pm
Move to the city of Boston and then you can 'pretend' your an authority on the daily happenings of the city, mini-driving suburbanite swrrly.
Wow, I guess you told her.
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:18pm
Wow, I guess you told her. Living in the suburbs, there's no way she could possibly invalidate your obviously made-up statistic.
Yeah, and Medford is fucking
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:22pm
Yeah, and Medford is fucking Mayberry.
Oh man, the last time I was there
By Chris Rich
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:47pm
..Opie took pot shots at me with his bb gun and Aunt Bea threatened to get Barney Fife.
https://flic.kr/p/paBz7p
Mini Driver?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:07pm
Wasn't she in Goodwill Hunting?
99% is pretty darn accurate
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 5:19pm
In Boston, Southie, Dot, Roxbury, JP . It's 100% on Dot Ave.
Cite? Put up or shut up.
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 9:13pm
Cite? Put up or shut up.
Intelligent comment
By anon
Thu, 09/18/2014 - 5:11pm
How old are you LBB? 16, I'm going to guess. How about you prove that I am wrong LBB. I don't have to cite nuthin and I wont shut up just cuz you say so. I drive every day in Dorchester, Southie, and Boston, and often in Roxbury and JP. and that's my experience. Sometimes on Centre in the center of JP, I will admit I've seen bikes stop for a stop sign. But never, I mean never ever ever have I seen it in Dorchester or Southie. Never. Ever.
Not A City Issue
By Reporter
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 11:59am
While I think the Idaho Stop is a decent idea, deciding this on a city-by-city basis is a bad idea. Brookline isn't a huge place. I imagine this will just confuse cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike.
/cyclist-who-stops-and-unclips-at-every-stop-sign
Absolutely. It's like when
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:18pm
Absolutely. It's like when you have right-on-red exceptions.
Car/truck drivers already do
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:00pm
Car/truck drivers already do treat stop signs like yield signs in Brookline and all over Boston.
Use Idaho Stop's what? That
By Steeve
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:21pm
Use Idaho Stop's what? That seems like an incomplete thought. Well, it is Twitter after all.
Traffic Norms
By RhoninFire
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:25pm
It's an interesting thought to remember that only a few years ago how few bikes or related infrastructure. And thus that also means norms and expectations are still developing including how different modes react to each other.
My personal thought is biking, due to its hybrid nature of flexible speed and size that it should be able to have a hybrid of cars and pedestrian norms (thought not necessarily laws, specifically the jaywalking law in context of an empty street). Sometimes this means the bike have to act like a car and take the left full left turn lane to make a left turn. Sometimes it means going to the right and joining the pedestrians to cross the street. It also means - and I'm going to use a specific example - that bikes should be able to keep going at the intersection of West Bound Comm Ave and Cummington while cars should stay stopped even when all the pedestrians and cars have crossed.
Basically the rule of thumb to me is if I can go to "pedestrian mode" and cross it, then I can stay on the bike and cross it (this means with a stop/yield, not blasting at full speed through the red). I think that's the natural action and I and pretty sure many others been doing it before I just learned this name to call it.
The real game is then everyone to be aware and used to it. Then things become predictable and thus workable.
Have to disagree about the "pedestrian mode"
By lbb
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:20pm
I agree with most of what you say, but disagree about "pedestrian mode", if this means a mingling of pedestrians and bikes. I think that's a bad idea for all concerned.
It means...
By RhoninFire
Thu, 09/18/2014 - 12:37pm
It means... well let's give a scenario: Let's say I am at an intersection and trying to cross the street. There are norms to street crossing that cars and pedestrians adhere to even though laws doesn't state it specifically (or even technically illegal - the old unenforced jaywalking law).
So this means if I would have cross the street if I was just on foot, then I will cross that same street and scenario if I was on a bike.
Since when is that called an
By Hyde_Parker
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:32pm
Since when is that called an "Idaho Stop?"
Since Idaho's law allowed it.
By gotdatwmd
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:34pm
Since Idaho's law allowed it.
Right?? I thought it was a
By anon
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:37pm
Right?? I thought it was a rolling stop.
I'd say no on this even as a
By gotdatwmd
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:34pm
I'd say no on this even as a cyclist. It'd create even more confusion and irresponsible drivers won't know what the hell is going on.
The full Idaho stop also involves treating red lights like stop signs, which can be problematic.
But this is Brookline, I'd love to be able to sail down past Coolidge in a breeze but, eh.
I'd say the potential for
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:44pm
I'd say the potential for confusion is very problematic, especially if Boston doesn't adopt a similar measure.
Also, this being reality, we unfortunately have to consider the issue of public perception (what do they call it now, "visuals"?). After all the noise that various cities have made recently about getting cyclists to obey the existing laws (e.g. ticketing them if they run a red light), making a change like this isn't going to sit well with the thousands of steakheads who resent the fact that bicycles are allowed on the road in the first place (Mark, this is your cue to chime in).
Which is why, if this is decided,
By roadman
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:47pm
the law has to be applicable on a statewide basis, and not just town by town.
Agreed. But even then, it's
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:58pm
Agreed. But even then, it's going to further enrage boneheads like Mark. It would have to be accompanied by a massive public-education campaign and a massive traffic-enforcement campaign which pretty much ensures that the whole idea would be DOA.
Idaho Stops are for places like Idaho
By issacg
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:43pm
not dense urban communities.
I am a frequent cyclist, motorist, pedestrian, and I live in Brookline. My answer is "no, and certainly not without a long and very deep education campaign".
First off, I presume that the BrPD (which I respect a lot) is talking only about enforcement (or non-enforcement w/r/t traffic rules and bicyclists) because they are not empowered to change state law, which does not allow for this.
Second, to do this would create a situation where most road users (many or most of whom are not from Brookline, and would likely have no idea about this) would encounter behavior that is inconsistent with their expectations (i.e., the expectation that users will follow the law). That is a recipe for disaster (that the expectation is sometimes not met currently is no reason to ratify such conduct).
I could go on, but perhaps an example is better. Just think about how something like this would (not) work in Coolidge Corner - two lanes of traffic in each direction, the T, tons of pedestrians, the ever-present demonstrators, poor sight lines. Oh. Dear. God.
I would prefer that the Town "improve" cycling through other means. For example, a MARKED counter-flow bike lane (such as that on Essex St. by BU) on Middlesex Road between Circuit and the Reservoir Rd. foot/bike bridge would go a very long way toward improving and making bike transit in that area much safer.
While I agree with most of
By Scratchie
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 12:45pm
While I agree with most of what you're saying, I'm afraid you have an invalid assumption:
I mean, really? Who expects that, from bicyclists or motorists or pedestrians?
More contraflow please
By ErnieAdams
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:06pm
Other possible places for contraflow in Brookline, in order of places where bikers routinely go wrong-way anyway:
1. St. Mary's overpass from Mountfort to Comm. Ave. (although the exact location of such a lane might actually be on the Boston side)
2. Green St. from Dwight to John, if enough space (John to Harvard is probably too narrow and too dangerous)
3. Any of the one-way streets between Winchester/Centre/Harvard Sts.
4. Fairbanks St., all
5. Hawes St. from Beacon to Monmouth, then Monmouth up to Carlton, then Boston chipping in with Medfield St. from the city line to Park Dr. I don't actually see bikers doing this often, but it would be a great way to bypass Audubon Circle for riders headed for points south and east.
Brookline bike committee agrees
By jeffkinson
Thu, 09/18/2014 - 11:37am
Brookline has approved plans to add a contraflow lane to St Mary's, but they're waiting for MassDOT to finish some work on the overpass before painting the contraflow lane. No idea what the timeline is.
I'm not sure about the other specific locations, but I know that Brookline's done an excellent job lately rolling out strategically placed contraflow lanes.
You were in Idaho, when?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:26pm
Or are you making some unvalidated assumptions here?
They had to bring up Idaho.
By Chris Rich
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 1:47pm
Hahahaha.
I get the sense some relatives of yours probably helped Meriwether Lewis figure out that neighborhood.
I wonder if they can pronounce Coeur D'Alene and Pend Oreille and or tell us anything useful whatever about these places based on direct personal experience.
I passed through a few times in an Amtrak and a bus but still.
Idaho
By issacg
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 2:44pm
Hang on a sec, Swirly, am I to understand that you are seriously contending that there is anywhere in Idaho, even in the central-most of central Boise or Idaho Falls that has the traffic volume, number of disparate users and late 19th Century way dimensions of Coolidge Corner or Washington Sq.?
You've been basking in the glorious sunshine since you posted a link to James's Sometimes a few weeks ago (I think that was you!), but things might have just clouded up!
Where are the stop signs in Coolidge Corner?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:14pm
Where are all the stop signs in those areas and intersections that you list?
In more heavily trafficked environs, urban areas use signals.
We are talking about stop signs, remember - and those tend to get put in similar circumstances no matter where in the country you are - i.e. low traffic intersections. Actually, as Roadman has noted, local communities and Boston seem to be rather stop-sign happy and drop them in places that many other areas of the country would just leave unsigned intersections. If anything, places like Idaho will put stop signs where places around Boston would put lights, and not put stop signs at all where we would see them here.
(p.s. I was in Idaho two weeks ago ...)
They don't pay attention.
By Chris Rich
Wed, 09/17/2014 - 3:38pm
I'm serious about old relatives helping Clark. Lotta good it did em.
Pages
Add comment