And we suspect what was going through the mind of that truck driver on the Expressway southbound by South Bay this afternoon could be abbreviated "WTF?!?"
Jeremy Yan, who photographed the furiously pedaling Hubway rider, couldn't believe it, either (note to curmudgeons: As you'll see in the next photo, Yan was not driving):
UPDATE: And we were right. Hubway replies:
No cyclists should be riding on 93 or 95. Hubway riders obligated 2 follow road rules.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
At least ride on the shoulder if you're going to do this?
By Ron Newman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 5:48pm
Not way out in the second-from-right lane?
Good advice except for one thing.
By roadman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 7:04pm
The Southeast Expressway doesn't have shoulders. The existing shoulders were initially used as peak-hour travel lanes in the late 1970s (as I recall), were converted to travel lanes during the 1984-1985 total reconstruction, and then were permanently changed to travel lanes as part of the Savin Hill to Braintree contra-flow HOV lanes implementation in the mid-1990s.
Behavior like this is another good reason why bikes should have registration plates.
Those are fighting words
By cybah
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 7:14pm
Those are fighting words.. :-)
Okay
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:20pm
You pay for them, and justify the expense.
Oblivious morons on bicycles endanger themselves far more than anybody else. I challenge you to even demonstrate that it is enough of a problem to care about.
Oblivious morons behind the wheel kill tens of thousands of people each year.
I'll translate: "This is another reason that I would love to harass cyclists with meaningless regulations that have absolutely no public health value, just because I'm having a tantrum!"
FFS woman
By JimGaffigan
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:28pm
Chris is on your side.
My bad
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:39pm
I know - clicked on the wrong reply. Sorry, Kris - that was meant for Old Choadman.
Jim/Swirls
By cybah
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:37pm
Thanks Jim. I knew it wasn't for me :-) I was just pointing out that what Roadman said is fighting words on here :-)
And it's Kris btw..
(Still trying to rack my brain who you are Jim LOL.. you obviously know me..)
Bikes run red lights constantly downtown
By anon
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 3:01am
I think we all know and understand Masshole drivers. I've been rear-ended, hit when I was in a rotary and also recently hit as a pedestrian while not jay-walking. I get it and I think almost everyone else does.
(I very rarely drive in Boston proper. I walk and occasionally use Hubway but prefer to do so along the Esplanade precisely b/c I feel unsafe biking in Boston. Trust me, I'm no car or driver apologist.)
And yes, pedestrians jaywalk although I also have to say I don't see much of the blatant walking without even looking arrogance you'll see on Dot Ave, for example. Most pedestrian commuters know they need to watch their own ass and don't walk into traffic.
However, I don't see the relevance to always bring up bad drivers or pedestrians to somehow excuse the bad bike riders.
Most bicyclists downtown run red lights as policy.
I see this every damn day at every light at State and Congress during evening rush hour. Also on Atlantic Ave. If there is a bike there they run the light and make me watch out for them.
I also see them ride the wrong way against traffic as well and otherwise behave unpredictably.
Honestly, at rush hour when I'm walking with a light in Boston I'm more worried about the chance of bike coming out of nowhere than I am a car doing so. ( Note I said the chance of, not the actual fact of: obviously a car impact is more worrisome than a bike impact but I see the chances of a bike impact as greater.)
Again, I get that cars weigh a couple tons and kill people proportionally. But bikes do hit people too and make pedestrians feel unsafe. We should just absolve them of responsibility b/c some Masshole somewhere is blocking the box or driving drunk?
Sounds like me just kid kid trying to get out of something by saying his older brother did it too. Argument fails there too, by the way.
Most bicyclists downtown run
By eherot
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 11:35am
I definitely run this light as policy. Starting out here and crossing the intersection at the same time as the 5 (!) lanes of cars in each direction does not feel safe at all.
Crossing any intersection here with or without the light and expecting drivers to look out for you would definitely get you killed in your first 30 seconds. I'm sure even biking to and from the Esplanade you've discovered this.
I suspect this is because, as a frequent walker in the city, you have become so accustomed to drivers not yielding to you in certain circumstances that you don't even think about what is happening. For example, step into a crosswalk on any two lane road with no traffic signal (e.g. Seaport Blvd) and count how many cars have to go by before someone stops. In my observation on that particular road, no one will stop at all, and the pedestrians will only start walking when all of the traffic has passed. This is a blatant violation of the crosswalk law, and yet most pedestrians I've talked to don't even seem to notice.
No excuse
By KellyJMF
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 1:03pm
If that intersection is too dangerous to follow the traffic rules, get off the bike, walk it across as a pedestrian, then remount on the other side.
For those keeping score, I'm neither a driver nor a cyclist.
And what exactly would that
By eherot
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 4:35pm
And what exactly would that accomplish other than making a few drivers made to wait at the red light feel better about being inconvenienced?
Rule of law and all that
By Roman
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 8:30pm
Besides lowering your chances of sending a pedestrian to the doctor or yourself to the morgue. I'm more keen on the first one.
Um, we're not talking about
By eherot
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 9:37pm
Um, we're not talking about Tour de France speeds here. More like "barely above walking pace" when I'm traversing the crosswalks. I don't want to end up in a morgue, either.
I know you don't,
By Roman
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 9:43pm
any more than I want to be the unlucky bastard that runs you over. Difference is, you people think (as judged by the comments on this very forum) that it's everyone else's responsibility to make that happen when you're breaking traffic laws.
I don't run red lights in my car and profess how badly I don't want to end up in the emergency room or whine about how annoying it would be to have to take my car to the body shop. And I sure as shit don't play frogger IRL while lamenting how harrowing it is to cross the street.
3 bikes rode full speed thru crosswalk today
By anon
Tue, 09/20/2016 - 8:34pm
At Tremont and Winter.
100+ pedestrians waiting for the walk. 2 jaywalked (stupidly) when there was a break in traffic.
Walk light came and 3 out of 3 bikes I saw came thru at full speed. No consideration for pedestrians only for maintaining their speed.
Note, the autos were all back at Park Street light. Nothing unsafe about cyclists stopping at pedestrian light and then going after peds.
Complete douche scofflaw reckless behavior. I'm stiff-arming or kicking away the next bike that buzzes me. Self defense.
Oh, and here are the stats everyone is talking about:
Douchebags at this crossing:
Pedestrians: 2%
Drivers: 0%
Cyclists: 100%
It's important to consider
By eherot
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 9:50pm
It's important to consider that stop lights and walk signals are 100% a product of the automobile age, and were never needed or designed to prevent accidents between bikes and pedestrians. In fact, in Amsterdam (and elsewhere) there are many very high traffic bike/pedestrian intersections with no traffic signals at all and injury rates are substantially lower than anything you'll find at a similarly popular intersection in Boston. Traffic lights were designed mainly with two things in mind: To give pedestrians an opportunity to cross a street where drivers would otherwise ignore the law requiring them to yield at crosswalks, and to improve the flow of motorized vehicle traffic by allowing cars to flow non-stop through an intersection where they would otherwise have to talk turns. By and large their effect on safety (for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians) has been almost entirely negative.
Sorry. No.
By Roman
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 10:02pm
You've got to be a special kind of special to blame your inability to [b]follow traffic laws[/b] on the "fact" that traffic lights cause more fatalities than they prevent.
Here's an exercise: There are plenty of roads in Boston (like Rt 9) that have both signalized and unsignalized pedestrian-only crosswalks without an intersection. There are also low speed roads with both intersections and unsignalized crosswalks. Tell me please, O Muses Of Traffic, which ones (historically) are safer?
You've got to be a special
By eherot
Tue, 09/20/2016 - 12:45pm
It's not that I can't follow them, it's that I choose not to because they make me feel less safe. You're making the implicit assumption that because a certain behavior is codified in law, it must be the ideal behavior from a safety perspective, but this is not supported by the data.
http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/UnsigI...
"There is increasing demand for signalization of urban and suburban intersections, and, even in rural areas, signalized intersections are becoming more common. However, experience shows that intersection crash rates frequently increase with signal installation, although the crashes may be less severe. Signalization usually leads to a shift in crash types, with fewer angle and turning collisions and more rear-end collisions. "
Note that this doesn't specifically account for car-bike or car-pedestrian collisions, which are obviously much more deadly in general. However I do know that one particularly fatal type of crash, where a person with a green light makes a left turn across a crosswalk with a walk signal, tends to be very common at signalized intersections.
And the answer of course
By Roman
Tue, 09/20/2016 - 8:05pm
is to make a new law that says
1. Intersections must be outfitted with traffic lights with enough indicators on them so that can be programmed to individually control, for example, left turns vs pedestrian green during periods of high traffic volume
2. Intersections with a persistently high traffic volume at any point in the day must be built with sufficient lanes to accommodate such signals
3. The signals must be programmed by competent traffic engineers (and not somebody's cousin who reports to somebody's brother) to maximize safety and pedestrian/vehicle throughput at a socially acceptable operating point
and best of all
4. Outfitted with cameras which can be legally used to fine violators.
Lack of professionalism will not be cured by more lack of professionalism.
Incidentally, you'll find I'm first in line to call BS on stupid laws (coughguncontrol...coughcoughmandatorybottledeposit...ahemahemdcrinchargeofmajorthoroughfares...excuse me, must be the pollen). I just happen to disagree one hundred percent that there should be one set of rules for drivers and a whole different set of rules for cyclists.
I just happen to disagree one
By eherot
Tue, 09/20/2016 - 11:16pm
Can you defend this position, given the vastly different consequences of hitting someone or something with a car vs. with a bicycle?
If the rules are followed
By Roman
Wed, 09/21/2016 - 8:34pm
then no one gets hit. That's what makes a good set of rules.
Another property that makes a set of rules good is how easy they are to remember and to follow. Not just for you, but for everyone else, so you don't have any questions about whether the guy with red is going to move or not.
"No Turn On Red" signs at traffic lights are good. Everyone can see the sign. Everyone can understand that a car with or without his right blinker on stopped at a red light probably won't dart into the ped crossing to try to make a right turn.
Red and green lights are also good. Because you can see the red light for crossing traffic or the green light for crossing traffic. It's big, it's right there, and it's visible to everyone. Pedestrians know when it is that the cars that could hit them have a red or have a green. So they know that if a car is stopped and has red, he's (nominally) not about to dart into the ped crossing to go through.
Now if I as a pedestrian (or a motorist) have to guess at what some damn fool on two wheels feels like doing when he has red and I see that he has red, that's not safe. That's fucking China (for those of you who've been and did have the unique experience of playing frogger IRL).
If you as one of those damn fools on two wheels can't get the simple fact that I have eyes, I have ears, but I don't have psychic powers of precognition, then you honest to God deserve those vastly different consequences. Lastly,
I'll tell you again (as other posters have done) that getting hit by a cyclist at full speed may not kill you the way getting hit by a car at full speed, but it's no picnic and it could very well leave you crippled for a short or a long time. Who the fuck are you to insist that your ability to keep on living in bicycle fantasy land (when you should be living in the adult real world) trumps my ability to not get run over [b]when I have the right of way as a pedestrian in a crosswalk with the walk sign on[/b]?
I would love to live in this
By eherot
Thu, 09/22/2016 - 1:37am
I would love to live in this idealized universe where everyone always stays inside the lines and drivers always behaved in a completely predictable manner. In this world, there would be no need for bike lanes, cycle tracks, or curb extensions because drivers would always know to check first before changing lanes or turning.
Sadly, we do not live in that world, and pedestrians and bicyclists are often hit by cars while using the road in a completely legal way. Consequently I, as a bicyclist, will sometimes choose to take the law into my own hands in a way that, I feel, makes me less likely to be maimed or killed. This does not mean forcing pedestrians to jump out of my way so that I can cross an intersection whenever I feel like it (since their safety or comfort is no more important than my own), but it does sometimes mean crossing against the light after pedestrians have cleared the crosswalk. Boston's poorly timed traffic lights often make crossing against the light without cutting anyone off not only possible, but easy. Lights are very often red with no one waiting to go the other way OR waiting at the crosswalk. Sure, I could wait, and put myself at risk of being right hooked, or creamed by some teenager that decides they want to drag race with someone else at the light, but what's the point?
Well
By BostonDog
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 7:28pm
It is a hubway which already has indicating marks on it. The newer ones have numbering on the side.
But regardless, It's not like the police care much when vehicles with registration plates do crazy and asshole things.
I can dig up about a thousand photos of cars driving in pedestrian/bike only areas if you're interested in the opposing asshole move. (And unlike a car barreling down a sidewalk, the bike isn't going to hurt a car.)
But regardless, It's not like
By roadman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 7:54pm
Which has NOTHING to do whatsoever with the question of bicycle registration. Not to mention that every argument against bicycle registration equally applies to motor vehicles. Unless you're suggesting that we should abolish the requirements to register motor vehicles as well.
Bicycles are legally vehicles - if cyclists want to use their vehicles on the public roads, they should be required to follow the same rules of ownership. Perhaps if cyclists acknowledged that they would get far more respect than the others on the road.
I don't know why I'm arguing this
By BostonDog
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:16pm
Registration and regulation is mostly a factor of the harm that can come to the general public if the activity in question is done incorrectly. Examples: An airline pilot can kill hundreds of people so they need extensive certification and training. A restaurant could give food poisoning the unsuspecting patrons so they have health inspections to help prevent that. A car can crash into people or property causing tremendous amounts of damage so car drivers need licenses & registration.
In contrast, a sky driver is unlikely to hurt anyone beyond themselves. A home cook might make their friends ill but isn't going to make a town sick. A bicycle rider can hurt themselves but (with rare exceptions) is unlikely to hurt others or cause property damage to objects apart from the bike.
Furthermore, roads are damaged based on the weight of the vehicle. A 30lb bike causes almost no wear and tear. A car causes a small amount of wear and a truck causes a larger amount. Hence it makes sense for fees to partially cover the cost of repaving roads and filling potholes. If people only rode bikes (I'm not suggesting that), then roads wouldn't need to be paved nearly as often nor as large and expensive to build.
The people arguing for bike registration are doing so out of jealously and not rational arguments. If a car weighed 30 pounds and could cause little damage to people beyond the driver your "public roads" argument would be sensible.
FTFY
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:32pm
SOMEONE ON A BIKE DID SOMETHING STUPID SO I HAVE AN EXCUSE TO HARASS CYCLISTS WITH MEANINGLESS AND UNJUSTIFIED REGULATION.
Tell you what: I'll register my bike, but only if I get complete carte blanche to explodify motor vehicles in bike lanes and take out loud mouths who pass me too close when I'm riding over a goddamn sharrow next to a CYCLISTS IN ROAD sign.
One extremely stupid idea deserves an equally extreme and stupid one, right?
About 50 percent
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:50pm
of bicyclists I see in the city do extremely stupid things like running red lights, weaving in and out of traffic and sidewalk, riding without lights or reflectors, riding in the opposite direction of traffic, and cutting off pedestrians who have the right of way. I nearly got run over by a bike when I stepped off the bus just last week.
The percentage of such reckless behavior is much lower for cars. MUCH lower. If drivers drove their cars the way that half of cyclists ride their bikes, we wouldn't have one of the lowest per-mile traffic fatality rates in the country. Period.
I'll speculate that this is because drivers understand the consequences of riding around in a 2 ton piece of moving machinery. Bicyclists don't. And they get themselves killed for it.
Ah, yes
By BostonDog
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:10pm
I love this bogus argument. How many people where killed in the past year in Boston at the hands of someone riding a bike? How many by cars? When was the last time you saw gridlock due to a bike who tried running a red and got stuck in the middle of the intersection?
That's because Eastern MA has some of the lowest average vehicle speeds, not because of wicked awesome drivers.
Oh, well
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:31pm
if the threshold for giving a shit is a dead body, then I guess nothing is worth getting excited about.
Ok, seriously injured then?
By eherot
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 11:36am
Ok, seriously injured then? Moderately injured? Had to go to the hospital? How benign does a behavior have to be before you acknowledge that it isn't a real problem?
I'm not touching you
By Roman
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 6:15pm
How's about not inches away from leaving a mark or sending one or both of us to the ground? Does that sound reasonable?
We didn't invent traffic laws
By eherot
Tue, 09/20/2016 - 11:21pm
We didn't invent traffic laws and signals because cars were "inches away from leaving a mark," we did it because they were literally maiming people nearly every day in every city.
City of Cambridge has crash data
By Ari O
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 11:04pm
For 2010-2015.
Out of 9168 accidents with two parties involved, 5 involved a cyclists hitting a pedestrian, 2 involved a cyclist hitting another cyclist.
1400 involved a car hitting bicyclist or a pedestrian.
In other words: a car hits a cyclist or pedestrian in Cambridge about once a day. A bicycle hits a cyclist or pedestrian in Cambridge about once a year. And generally causes a lot less of an injury.
But, yes, let's address the real problem: bikes.
Oh, stop it with the facts already
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 09/18/2016 - 6:27am
Don't you know reality has a well-known liberal bias?
Only to liberals
By Roman
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 8:33pm
I'd say they all skew King of Pointland, but what they'd hear is that it's a small, interconnected, multiculturalificated world that only they are smart enough to fully understand.
Do you walk around with a jester hat?
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 8:38pm
That would be the equivalent of your comment.
When you're king, it all looks like your court
By Roman
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 9:08pm
You bestow great honor by conferring upon me the title Jester, Your Highness.
If the don't walk sign is lit
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:20pm
No right of way for you!
Ditto if you aren't in a crosswalk at all.
The more you learn!
(I really despise pedestrians who jaywalk into my path when I a proceding on a green light).
Meanwhile, about 50% of motorists don't know the laws, are texting, and can't drive straight in their lane and don't know what a red light or blocking the box means or drive in bike lanes.(I pulled that out of my ass, just like you pulled your 50% out of yours). They kill vastly more pedestrians each year than cyclists do. Like 10,000 to 1.
And I really despise
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:29pm
cyclists who assume the red light doesn't apply to them and run through a cross walk (or a sidewalk) when I'm walking across the street.
You aren't alone in that
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:43pm
But that cyclist is far less likely to hit you than the motorists who refuse to yield.
But there must be a special place in hell for morons who whine about "bikes red lights blah blah poop" when they are buzzed for jaywalking by a cyclist with a green light.
And when you find that special place
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:51pm
you'll have to tell me if there's actually anyone in it, because you did not hear a single peep out of me about getting nearly run over by anyone or anything when jaywalking.
Hell is hot and strawmen are flammable. You might find ashes though.
Roman's 50% was percentage of the bicyclists hehas seen
By anon
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 9:15am
He didn't pull a number out of his ass, like you did. He noted his observation. There's a difference.
I don't pay enough attention to bicyclists in general to offer a percentage on all behavior but I have noted something downtown at evening rush hour.
In the past 2 years I've never noticed a bicyclist waiting thru the 4-way pedestrian lights at State and Congress during rush hour.
100% of bicyclists I've noticed cross that intersection on the pedestrian light. Same goes with Atlantic Ave between Faneuil Hall and Long Wharf.
That's what I've observed.
Percentage of motorists I've seen run either of those lights in the same time period? 0%
I certainly have seen drivers block the box and not yield right of way to pedestrians when turning. Way too often.
Again, just my observations.
In the past 2 years I've
By eherot
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 11:39am
I fail to see how this is not, in fact, the smart and reasonable thing to do when you are on a bike crossing this intersection. Once the light turns green, drivers treat it like a goddamned highway.
I never said it wasn't smart for the bike riders to do so
By anon
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 12:44pm
My whole point is some posters here continually deny that bike riders do this and in the process cause near misses with pedestrians. And then point out how bad drivers and pedestrians are as if that absolves the riders. It doesn't and I'm glad you admit it.
I'm in now way saying riders are worse than drivers or jaywalking behaviors. I'm saying it's bullshit to claim they're any better.
I am very prudent around all automobile traffic at all times. I'm not a fool. I do watch and wait for clear streets regardless of the lights.. And I've had asshole drivers not know the rules and try to drive thru crosswalks while turning.
But I've never seen one downtown during rush hour come out of nowhere and thru the red light at speed. Which can happen with bikes b/c they're trying to maintain speed and get thru the light. I get it.
I think we're on the same page b/c you're willing to admin you do it and that you've had close calls close to pedestrians. Many other posters seem to just want to blame the other groups.
Safe riding.
I think we're on the same
By eherot
Tue, 09/20/2016 - 11:26pm
To be clear, I do run red lights when I think it's appropriate, but I will never ride my bike in front of a pedestrian in such a way so as to force them to slow down or flinch, with or without the light. In particular, at the many unsignalized crosswalks all along Columbus Ave near Mass Ave, I try to be vigilant about stopping for every pedestrian I see aiming to cross the street. I am frequently buzzed by other cyclists and drivers (often several in a row) while doing this.
Good to hear, eherot
By anon
Wed, 09/21/2016 - 10:24am
You seem like a considerate and very reasonable fellow. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for most of your cohort.
My "cohort" is an extremely
By eherot
Wed, 09/21/2016 - 4:58pm
My "cohort" is an extremely diverse group (some very involved in the local bike scene, some not involved at all). I would be extremely hesitant to generalize about them. What I can tell you is that biking on the streets of Boston can be anxiety-inducing for all but the most experienced cyclists, and people who are feeling anxious are much less likely to pay attention to things like the pedestrians standing on the side of the road waiting patiently to cross the street. I can virtually guarantee that if cyclists were given a relaxing, separated facility where they didn't have to worry about being doored or T-boned, they'd be paying a lot more attention to things like stopping for pedestrians waiting to cross the street. Not all of them, I'm sure, but a lot of them.
Sorry, eherot, I conflated your post
By anon again
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 1:01pm
With the one from Trevor when I just responded. You're both making sense to me and he mentioned almost hitting a pedestrian once.
Didn't mean to put any words you didn't write on you.
If 50% of motorists are so
By Refugee
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 1:38pm
If 50% of motorists are so horrible, then 100% of cyclists are idiots for opting to use the road with so many dangerous motorists out there, while moving 20 mph slower, protected by nothing more than a plastic hat. If you value your life, put away the bicycle and drive a car.
If motorists are as dangerous as you say
By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 09/18/2016 - 6:30am
Then surface roads in Boston should be closed to motor vehicle traffic.
Some of us live here, we're not just passing through at maximum feasible speed to get somewhere else. Our safety overrides your convenience.
Then maybe you should live somewhere else
By Roman
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 8:37pm
Some of us don't think your right to plunk yourself down in any old inconvenient place and declare it home sweet sentimental home shouldn't trump our right to get where we need to go in order to earn a living.
Something you don't get
By SwirlyGrrl
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 8:49pm
People live in cities, not cars.
Cities are built for people, not for cars.
People have rights.
Cars do not have rights. They have NO SOUL. They need to be kept under control.
You make the same mistake that Ford Prefect made when he first arrived on Earth.
I think you are the one who needs to move if you can't get the difference between humans and cars.
Bikes have no souls
By Roman
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 9:07pm
Who is it that's using the cars, Dr. Knowitall? Are they just metallic shells careening about with blood in their dreams?
The people (sans cars) were
By eherot
Tue, 09/20/2016 - 11:32pm
The people (sans cars) were here first, as were the bikers. Not that this matters. If your only defense for why we should all be driving is the danger created by other drivers, I'd call that a pretty narrow minded transportation policy.
And I'll put to you this counterpoint: Boston already has about as much car traffic as it can plausibly handle. If you want to be able to continue using your car to get around, it is imperative to you (the incumbent drivers) that any newcomers to the city get around using some other method, like biking, walking, and taking public transportation.
Is there a cut-and-paste response...
By Sally
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:22pm
that you guys just go to every time you want it? Because it's always the same:
1. "Fifty percent of bicyclists are running reds, doing this, that, and the other thing..." Um...no they're not. I bike, I walk, I drive. I see bicyclists all day, every day. There are plenty of dumb, reckless careless bikers but fifty percent? Nope. Maybe one in fifteen is doing something where I think "dude--I'm glad you're not driving a car.".
2. Drivers are not driving recklessly at all. No sirree. Because they're so responsible and stuff with their gas-powered vehicles. Again...nope. There is no way you live and drive in Boston and don't see people driving like jackasses every day--texting, speeding, passing, weaving, failing to signal. It is CONSTANT.
3. " I almost got run over by a guy on a bike..." It is always "almost." Always. If I logged the close calls I notch up on a daily basis--and I bike with extreme caution-- because of drivers in cars not paying attention, texting, speeding, etc there would be no end to it. Seriously. Quit your bitching. "I almost got hit by a bike once" means zero. Zero.
No, it means everything
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:28pm
Because I almost got hit by a bike yesterday because the bike was in the pedestrian right of way and failing to yield. Which is typical behavior. In the crosswalk. When the walk sign is on.
Drop the act, bike nuts. You're not fooling anyone.
This from the guy ..
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:44pm
Who just learned that pedestrians don't have unconditional right of way everywhere, all of the time?
Get your story straight
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:48pm
if it's possible for you to do that on a Friday night.
Either we have traffic laws or its bikes and everything else that's in the way.
A pedestrian in a bus stop getting on the bus has precedence over a cyclist in a bus stop.
About 50% of drivers I see in
By Dot net
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 4:30am
About 50% of drivers I see in the city do extremely stupid things like run red lights, make u-turns randomly without even signaling, block both sides of a street completely through combinations of delivery double parking, taxi and Uber type biz, cutting off pedestrians who have the right-of-way, and fail to understand and give right-of-way, period. 50%! Or whatever other percentage I deem it to be.
My so-called evidence: I watched at least 5 cars run the red iperpendicular to me onto Freeport St while the cars in front of me had the green on Morrissey Blvd, yesterday night. No, there wasn't even gridlock in the intersection to blame it on. They just didn't feel like waiting through the admittedly long light cycle there. It's anecdotal, but not worse evidence than your observational bias of this basket of deplorable bicyclists.
Your fifty percent number is
By Kinopio
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 11:43pm
Your fifty percent number is bullshit. Here is a real number: 35000. That's how many deaths per year American drivers are responsible for. Pretty messed up how you get more worked up over a cyclist going through a red light* than you do over car drivers killing thousands.
*google Idaho stop and educate yourself. It's safer to bike through an empty intersection than to wait for a green light and go through a crowded intersection.
It's not bullshit and it's not zero sum
By anon
Sun, 09/18/2016 - 2:33am
That stat in no way changes the fact that cyclists are in fact scofflaws and are menacing to pedestrians in Boston.
The fact that Masshole drivers in 2000 lb steel cages are more dangerous has no bearing on the former. It's not either or.
I understand the Idaho stop and why cyclists do it. Doesn't change the fact that it's illegal in MA and actually only part of the scofflaw behavior of cyclists.
When I'm driving it's definitely safer for me, in my car, to run a right turn on red light, as long as there are no cars coming. Even if I have to force pedestrians out of the way. As long as I don't hit a pedestrian this is statistically safer that waiting at the light and taking the chance of being rear-ended by someone texting.
But I don't do this nor would I try to justify it b/c I realize how it effects pedestrians.
According to cyclist logic I should be able to do this as policy as long as there are only near misses and "almost" accidents. As long as I don't ever hit a pedestrian startling them or almost hitting them simply doesn't matter. Has "zero" impact I think one poster said.
Also most rational adults have the ability to "get worked up" over more than one thing at a time. This too is not zero sum.
35k vehicular deaths is way too many. Sorry if I don't wait until that number comes down before pointing out a problem I deal with daily as a pedestrian in Boston.
This thread is actually about shitty cyclist behavior.
I'll be sure to post how worked up I am (and I will be) the next time Adam posts about a driver's shitty behavior.
Hope that makes you feel better.
According to cyclist logic I
By DTP
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 9:16am
That's not what's being argued here at all. As has been pointed out numerous times, if that near miss or almost accident actually became an accident, the chance of it sending anyone to the hospital is minimal, and the odds of it killing someone are astronomically low. This is not true for cars.
Forget about cars and focus on bikes
By anon
Mon, 09/19/2016 - 12:43pm
This is my whole point.
Yes, cars are bigger and more dangerous. Doesn't mean bikes aren't menacing to pedestrians. I'm telling you, as a pedestrian, that they are. I've had a cyclist come inches from me while running thru a red light at full speed on Atlantic Ave.
I'm over 50. I need to get hit by a bike like I need a whole in the head. Speaking of my head, I could have easily been knocked down and hit my head. Who knows where that leads.
Also, these bikes that don't brake at all are certainly as dangerous as a car trying to creep thru a crosswalk on a right turn after stopping. That's the worst car behavior I see the most often (and it's wrong too.)
People certainly are arguing my point that you quoted. From an earlier post:
" I almost got run over by a guy on a bike..." It is always "almost." Always. If I logged the close calls I notch up on a daily basis--and I bike with extreme caution-- because of drivers in cars not paying attention, texting, speeding, etc there would be no end to it. Seriously. Quit your bitching. "I almost got hit by a bike once" means zero. Zero.
A cyclists words, not mine and there are similar sentiments on other posts.
There's exactly half the equation for ya
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 8:07pm
So this means there's no problem with mixing bike and car traffic then?
No problem, if done right
By BostonDog
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:00pm
The solution to deaths at the hands of careless car drivers isn't to eliminate bikes anymore then the solution to preventing salmonella is ban chicken.
Any more than
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 9:55pm
the solution to death by stupidity of careless cyclists isn't to eliminate cars from the road, I take it?
Yeah
By BostonDog
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:13pm
Where do you see me arguing that cars should be eliminated? I drive. Cars are safe if used correctly.
The number of cyclists killed due to their own stupidity is far lower then you'd like to admit. (The above photo notwithstanding.)
Speaking for myself
By Roman
Fri, 09/16/2016 - 10:37pm
I've had maybe a half dozen near misses with a cyclist when I was driving over the last ten years in Mass. Maybe (*maybe*) one of them was my own fault for not paying attention to the side of the road instead of the direction of forward travel.
The rest were a hundred percent the fault of the people on bikes assuming (correctly for their sake) that I saw them and then deciding unannounced to execute a rapid change in direction without indicating with their hands or even turning their heads to indicate their intention.
You really can't make a car turn on a dime like that, making such car-on-car scenarios rarer. And even then, you can see the front wheels turning, you can see the driver moving his head or his hands. Sometime people even use their blinkers. And the distances are larger and accelerations slower so there's more notice. When walking, I've never been surprised by a car, because I look and I wait. I've been surprised by a cyclist.
And what would that accomplish?
By merlinmurph
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 9:04am
People love to say this, but they never explain exactly what it would accomplish.
Wait, but there's clearly a
By ZachAndTired
Sat, 09/17/2016 - 10:42am
Wait, but there's clearly a shoulder in those pictures. Am I hallucinating?
Pages
Add comment