Turlach MacDonagh was kind of amazed to see a Hubway user riding down Storrow Drive this afternoon (no, they're not supposed to do that).
Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
With people agreeing with your comment it gives tacit concent for people to take the VW up the Minuteman! Thanks folks.
Just remember anarchy is a two way street.
One way streets are only one way for motor vehicles.
From MGL Chapter 85, Section 11B:
Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth (emphasis added) and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, (2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle, and (3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.
Going the wrong way down a one way street violates a traffic regulation.
But hey, really really REALLY stupid seems to be a thing nowadays.
Regulations are made to be broken.
One way only makes sense for 4 or more wheeled motor vehicles. If cops don’t enforce the one way rule on cyclists, and no good reason why they should, then it’s basically a defunct regulation.
You are saying cyclists are above the law?
The argument could be made that some laws applied to motor vehicles don't make sense when applied to bicycles, however that doesn't change the current state of the MGLs. If cycling advocates want that amend, petition to Beacon Hill.
But lets remember that motorists also act like they are above the law too, just with more of a threat to public safety.
But I challenge you to find a driver that would say that a motor vehicle law is not valid because the police don't enforce it. If bicyclists want to be treated the same as other modes on public roads, the attitude that cyclists can disregard laws does not help the cause.
Honestly, the laws could be modernized, and in a way that would help all modes of transport. It's not being done, so we are where we are.
I mean doesn't the very act of defying speed limit laws kinda say that they don't care, unless they get caught? That behavior points to an attitude of disregarding the law.
I've heard friends say pretty much that, they know certain laws aren't enforced like texting and driving and believe they are not valid, so they openly defy them.
But yeah the bigger point is, obeying the law and modernizing laws to be more respective of the differences in some modes of the transit, which aren't always happening.
Edit: Also, I dunno about the point of cyclists wanting to be treated the same as other users of the road, I think its more about accommodating cyclists needs for safety and infrastructure. But I do agree that the attitudes of disregarding law doesn't help their cause, for cyclists and motorists. Its just that one group gets crucified for it while another gets hand waved away.
I’ve been known to exceed the speed limit, and I’ve even been ticketed for it (on a rural non-interstate in North Dakota). But I’d never say that speed limits were made to be broken or even gripe about getting a speeding ticket. On the other hand, I always stop at red lights. Should I just start driving through them if there are no cars coming?
There’s also a good reason not to text and drive. It’s like drunk driving. We as a society decided that it shouldn’t be done.
You haven't seen other motorists do that?
Also for the record, I'm a cyclist and motorist that follows the law so this isn't an argument about that, I think we're on the same page there. But you know the original point is people openly defying the law because they don't think to applies to them or they disagree with its intent, I think both groups are equally bad about that.
First, the most common thing you see is cars failing to beat the light changing. As for the cars that literally sail through lights that have been red for, say, 30 seconds, or stop then go, that is a rarity, and I bet if a cop saw it and pulled them over, the driver would most likely be "known to police" for something or would make it into one of the bpdnews writeups for "one less gun" or maybe just outstanding warrants.
Alas, if you talk to the average driver, you'd find that even if they admit guilt to a motor vehicle infraction, they'd also cop to the fact the law is right.
Failing to beat the light change? You mean running through a red light, just worded differently? But yeah, I see cars run reds every week, I never see the police anywhere nearby to pull them over and this is happening on major roads like Comm Ave.
And I've heard plenty of drivers say they think texting and driving laws are not right, they think the speed limits are set to low and hate the laws allowing cyclists to take the full lane, pass on the right, etc.
Again I think the very act of speeding or flaunting any road law kinda indicates that they don't care. Just take the current UHUB front page post about a car that crashed into a building. Sounds like a reckless driver but I bet it doesn't get nearly as many comments and debate as this fairly innocuous post about a cyclist has.
There's an effective speed limit, and there's a posted speed limit, and they're rarely the same thing.
If you've driven interstate, I'm sure you've made the calculation "hereabouts they ticket for X over the limit." Some states it's 16, some states 10, some 6... I don't think many drivers really believe they have to go no faster the number posted on the sign. What do you put your cruise control at on the Pike? 65? I don't think so!
Because they don't enforce anything around here (except riding on a highway. Maybe.
To what other laws does the “they haven’t arrested me yet so it must be okay” principle apply?
At one point, wrong way cyclists were the biggest cause of cycling accidents because those of us who have good sense don't always have room to get around idiots like you.
You are on a vehicle that travels 10+ mph. Don't be a lazy fool - ride that extra block to get to the street going the right direction.
If cops don’t enforce the one way rule on cyclists, and no good reason why they should, then it’s basically a defunct regulation.
Do you regard the laws of physics as also "defunct"? Because those are the laws that will put you in the hurt locker as a wrong-way cyclist.
Wrong-way cycling is an incredibly stupid thing to do. I ride a bike in Boston, I drive in Boston, I walk in Boston. You may not realize this, but in congested traffic, accidents are avoided mostly because people behave predictably. "Predictably" is not the same thing as "lawfully", but drivers on a one-way street DO NOT expect a vehicle (and that includes a bicycle) to come at them. The result is a momentary "what the?", and that's when accidents happen.
Wrong-way riding is a deeply stupid thing to do. Stop advocating it. You are putting yourself and others in danger.
"Regulations are made to be broken." No, regulations are made to be followed.
"One way only makes sense for 4 or more wheeled motor vehicles." No, they make sense for 2-wheeled motor- and human-powered vehicles too. Many one-way streets in Boston and other towns are one way because they're narrow and have parking on one side, so a bike going the wrong way down one of these roads will eventually come into direct conflict with a car.
"...and no good reason why they should..." As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, wrong-way cyclists are a big problem. I almost got creamed by one at night while going down North Beacon Street through Watertown into Brighton. I was in the bike lane and so was the other guy--COMING RIGHT AT ME!! So there is ample good reason why they should. The cops DON'T enforce it, and that's a big problem. But the answer isn't to ignore the regulations; it's to get them enforced.
Motor vehicles are explicitly prohibited from bike paths like the Minuteman. Bicycles, on the other hand, are explicitly allowed on all public ways (with exceptions blah blah and Storrow Drive is NOT one of them). Your statement is a textbook example of false equivalence.
At least she's not riding against the traffic, I suppose....
probably goes to Harvard too
Only one of those things is actually illegal.
A Helmet requirement is a Hubway policy, not a law. If wearing headphones is illegal, why are cars equipped with windows and radios? As for Storrow, shame on her.
"No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing headphones, unless said headphones are used for communication in connection with controlling the course or movement of said vehicle."
Radios and windows aren't quite in the same ballpark as plugging your ears with headphones.
I thought everyone knew headphones/ earbuds were a no-no while driving... bike cop, you might want to review that kiddo.
Bicycles aren't motor vehicles.
Right, it's not like people have built in motor control.
... and keep the top down year-round and don't use the stereo?
Because that's the only possible way that you could ever see or hear as much as a cyclist does.
As someone who bikes and drives (and doesn't use headphones), I know damn well that being in a car with the windows up and noise deadening windows, and insulation AND all the framing around you is MUCH MUCH MUCH more restrictive of seeing and hearing what is around you than using headphones on a bike could possibly be.
Pretty clear that you have no basis of comparison.
I wish I had a dollar for every driver with illegal tint on their windows - and a fiver for an illegal tint impaired driver with the stereo jacked so high that it makes the car vibrate. I could just quit my job and ride around collecting money.
on how loud the ear devices are in an individual instance, no?
(I also voice my support your new means of income, and suggest 50 cents for every turn without a signal.)
No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing headphones, unless said headphones are used for communication in connection with controlling the course or movement of said vehicle.
That's for motor vehicles, not bicycles. There was a push to make it illegal to wear earbuds while riding a bicycle a few years back but it failed to pass in the legislature.
Show me where the motor is on that bike. The law doesn't apply to bicycles. Otherwise earmuffs would be outlawed too.
Even for cars it's a stupid law. Modern cars make it almost impossible to hear what's happening outside the car and deaf people are allowed to drive. And good motorcycle helmets tightly cover the ears blocking about as much as headphones.
to deliberately block their hearing through headphones or earbuds while driving OR riding a bicycle (even though the current law doesn't cover those - a STUPID oversight), other than the exceptions called out in the current law.
And blasting music into your ears through headphones or earbuds is not the same as driving with your windows up or driving while deaf. The audio going directly into your ear canal is a far bigger distraction than either of those, and will drown out the limited outside sounds you could otherwise hear.
I listen to music on the train or subway with headphones from time to time, and I do find it distracts my attention from what's going on around me. The last thing we need is to encourage this behavior from people operating their vehicles (and yes, a bicycle is legally a vehicle) on the streets.
Until and unless you are required to drive around at all times in a convertable with no stereo, you simply have no idea or understanding about what the hell you are talking about here.
Cyclists can hear and see an enormous amount more than motorists can. Period. I know this because I bike AND drive.
Are you going to ban deaf people from driving or biking? Hmmmm?
You have no clue here about what the comparisons are. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Clearly there are many very safe drivers with hearing impairment. But I would never ride my bike with headphones on.
Over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, we developed a sense of hearing, and the brain capacity to process that aural information into cues about the dangers in the world around us. It helped our species thrive.
Unfortunately, many of us did NOT develop the brain capacity to understand how this wonderful sensory/intelligence combination actually functions on our behalf. Thus, we are free to defeat this wonderful survival mechanism with our technology, should we choose.
Why we volunteer to do so remains, to this observer, a mystery. Perhaps it is merely that Darwin works in mysterious ways.
In other words, what is lawful really hardly matters when the thing is so gawd-awful stupid to begin with.
Yes, only one of those things is illegal, but perhaps not the one you realized?
No helmet: Only against the law for those under 13 years of age.
Storrow: As noted on the Twitter thread, Storrow is "a parkway, not a limited-access highway." So that's not illegal, either. (Though I don't think I'd want to ride my bike on Storrow except for the 4th, when it's closed to cars.)
Headphones: The photo is in profile. One earbud is kosher under MA state law. Two are not. This is the law she may be violating. While we can see the right side of her head (and accompanying earbud), it's hard to tell if her left earbud is in. If it isn't: She's not breaking a law. (But odds are good that it is in, and she is breaking the law.)
Helmets are required up to age 16 - aka driving age.
Thanks for the correction!
- Original anon
everywhere except the eastbound section next to Beacon Hill and the West End, where several cross streets meet it at T intersections. There are properly signs prohibiting bicycles next to at least some of the on-ramps.
By virtue of Storrow not being an entirely limited access highway, it is not a limited access highway. And, some entrances fail to have a NO BICYCLES sign (I can't think of any that do, but I do know plenty that don't).
Bicycling is a legally stupid thing one can do on Storrow.
For instance, the last two miles of Route 128 in Gloucester pass through two rotaries and two traffic lights. That part of Route 128 is not limited access. The rest of it is.
according to Professor Wiki:
Storrow is indeed a "high speed limited access road".
So, you be incorrect.
You would also be incorrect regarding MA law and driving with earbuds. Earbuds, one or two, are not allowed when driving a vehicle:
So, aside from this idiot breaking the law, she is endangering herself and others by her actions.
I wasn't commenting on her apparent disregard for the law.
I was commenting on her apparent disregard for her own safety and life.
the cyclist is allowed to do anything at all, and everyone else is responsible for any hazard the cyclist suffers.
All you have to do is read the comments on Universal Hub on a regular basis to understand this basic reality.
I reminded one cyclist just last week that she should not be blowing through red lights and weaving through pedestrians who were trying to cross the street on the walk signal and she said "Thank you."
The amount of times I've almost been hit by a bike while crossing on the walk signal - 6.
The amount of times I've almost been hit by a car while crossing on the walk signal - 0
... safe and sound to wherever she was headed. Otherwise, it would be all over the news.
I think they're adorable!
It's entirely possible that she's using the earbuds to listen to directions from her navigation app, which would explain how she ended up on Storrow.
I offer this as an explanation, not an endorsement.
and technology taketh away.
Can't remember how I did it, but many years ago, I accidentally ended up on the Pike behind BU somewhere. But at least it dawned on me after a couple of hundred yards that something was definitely not right. Once I realized that I was on the Pike and there was no off-ramp in sight, I stopped at the first place the roadway came back down to grade and somehow climbed over a guardrail with my bike and hiked with it through the bushes back to regular pavement. I didn't have the whatever that this girl does, to just keep going.
It looks like there's some sort of private entrance or exit leading to a BU parking lot or driveway around here. I'm not sure what its purpose is.
It has to do with the Comm Ave Bridge Replacement
It's a place where equipment and materials are staged for construction projects on the Mass Pike and BU Bridge.
Note: In the lower-right of the above image, there's a roadway going under the viaduct. As it also goes into the middle of the train-yard, it can be used only by official vehicles, but would be an important point-of-access for construction equipment or during an emergency.
for the shot of this nitwit ending up as street pizza.
this doesn't make it any easier for those of us trying to avoid becoming "street pizza' while riding legally in the full lane in 30 mph zones like Comm Ave or Beacon st. Car Dweebs see something like this and they just salivate
Storrow Drive is NOT a limited access highway, and signs prohibiting bicycles are not installed.
In fact, there are side streets entering and exiting Storrow between Berkeley and Charles Circle, and despite few drivers obeying the speed limits and continually breaking the law with no enforcement, riding a bicycle on Storrow is NOT illegal.
Ill advised, perhaps. And not for the inexperienced or faint of heart.
But that one stretch has worked for me (including the underpass) well.
I had surprised motorists honking, but NEVER even a close call, because there was plenty of room to pass, although at rush hour, I was usually passing slowed auto traffic. It beat taking the other streets both in time and risk exposure as there were fewer intersections and riding time was less.
The Rowinsky case (riding on Memorial Drive) allowed cyclists their right to that roadway.
Affirmed that right, and told State Police to stop telling people not to and arresting them for it.
Many of the neighbirs would love to see storrow turned into a local road. We should all get on our bikes and occupy one or both lanes making tbe road impassable. Then they'll make it just like Mem drive with traffic lights etc.
But then the suburbsn legislators will put up no bike signs (right after killing the gas tax for the gazillionth time).
How dumb do you have to be to ride on Storrow when there is A DEDICATED BIKE PATH A MERE 50 FEET TO THE NORTH?!? Not to mention hardly used Back Street to the south?
That bike path doesn't have enough places to enter and exit. There's a 1.5 mile stretch near BU with no way to get on and off. Sorrow has way more.
The BU bridge and Arlington Street, plus a ramp at the Mass Ave Bridge.
In that same stretch there are four automobile access points.
I have no idea where you get your 1.5 mile idea. There is a 1 mile stretch from Western Avenue to the overpass to the East of the BU bridge. There are no automobile access points in that very same stretch.
This is the only comment worth reading on this entire thread. Alas it was this far down
The bike path is slower, longer, full of idiots on foot and bikes, and is more laden with hazards (blissfully unaware lateral drifters) than Storrow, and Back Street doesn't go to Charles Circle and the river crossing. It is better than wrong-waying on Charles Street too, Ron Newman's habits notwithstanding.
Not illegal, not unsafe, just mildly uncomfortable.
Not for incompetent paranoids.
If you don't like it, don't drive your car on that part of Storrow. No cars need to swerve or even slow down. There is adequate space.
You can't be dumb. You have to be smart, attentive, confident and--most of all--well-trained to bike on Storrow Drive. Bike paths are fine if you want to use them but it's not mandatory. If I really want to get down Storrow Drive quickly, I'm taking the road itself. I can spin up to at least 25mph comfortably and even get it up to near 30mph if I need to. Even if I don't need to get down that road quickly, I still have the option. I'm skilled enough so that either option is open to me. Not every cyclist is. I certainly don't want every cyclist in the city to start careening down Storrow Drive just because it's legal because the grand majority of them wouldn't know what they're doing. Fortunately those people tend to stay off roads like that.
I will admit that there's another reason some of us bike on Storrow Drive: It's FUN!! It's really fun to "run with the big dogs" but in order to do that, you have to follow the "big dog" rules, i.e. The Law. Biking lawfully and confidently diminishes everybody's stress levels.
The Storrow bequest to the city mandated that only a parkway (carriageway) was supposed to be installed, but despite the fires from the coffins underground caused by friction of spinning corpses, the city built a multi-lane divided highway instead.
Thanks. Eff you too, Boston.
Don't leave gifts to politicians.
Or to hospitals (Prouty Garden), or to foundations (Barnes Collection).
It seems no matter what you want to happen with your stuff, as soon as you're dead, all bets are off.
I thought the people who try to cross all lanes of Storrow Drive on foot were crazy - especially when there's a foot bridge just a few hundred feet away. But this girl clearly has a death wish.
through the O'Neill Tunnel (I-93). At least with I-93, that behavior IS illegal.
A death wish?
Honestly, the odds are not that stacked against her.
Of course, riding in the bike lane and being doored and tossed in front of moving traffic has killed at least two cyclists and right turning trucks have killed two cyclists on the trucks' right.
So, despite not having death wishes, they were killed.
First off, if she's renting a bike, she's not a seasoned cyclist nor local to Boston. If you live in Boston and are an avid cyclist, then you would never rent hubway / blue bikes and you would most certainly know that riding on Storrow is crazy. Give her a break she's either not local and/or not a cyclist.
I am a resident of Boston for a few decades. I am a seasoned bicyclist. I also use Hubway bikes. My guess, based on observation of Hubway use at their various docks, is that the majority of Hubway users are residents, not tourists.
You provided no evidence that she is either not local. You also contradict yourself: she is riding a bike. Hence she is a cyclist.
She's on Storrow and not on the roads with bike lanes to one side or the separate track to the other.
Hence we can assume that she really didn't know any better or did some sort of nav thing and didn't ask for the bike directions.
This is why so many conscientious bicyclists get a bad rap -- clueless newbies like this.
Storrow Drive - not allowed
No helmet - sure not required but conscientious operators wear them.
Earplugs - Geez... I mean... It's Storrow Drive. Will she hear a horn or siren?
This is a nomination for a Darwin Award for sure.
.... are contested by conscientious cyclists. Many do not wear them. Research has shown them not to be as effective as the helmet industry would like you to think. They can even increase a cyclist’s chances of being struck by a motorist.
They can even increase a cyclist’s chances of being struck by a motorist.
Oh, please, stop spreading this bull. Did you read this on the internet?
I can't tell you how many people I know had crashes and the helmet took the brunt of it. They work.
How do helmets increase the chances of a cyclist being struck by a motorist. Please proceed.
... 4 feet closer to cyclists wearing helmets thus increasing the chances of a collision.
Cyclists wearing helmets sometimes have a false sense of security because they believe helmets can protect them from more than helmets actually can and they sometimes ride more recklessly as a result.
When I drive, I don't differentiate between cyclists with helmets and those without. Road conditions dictate things like clearances.
It's the same study that proves that loud motorcycles are safer. There's a conspiracy of Big Helmet and Big Muffler that suppresses this important scientific work.
That's some serious gay frogs territory right there, and I love it!
You got a study to back up the motorist claim?
A psychologist at The University of Bath (in the UK) did a study on this a little over 10 years ago, though a follow-up study differed with his conclusions.
Original study (paywall):
Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender (Ian Walker, Phd; Accident Analysis & Prevention, Elsevier Press, Volume 39, Issue 2, March 2007, Pages 417-425)
Pop-science press coverage of the study:
ScienceDaily: Wearing A Helmet Puts Cyclists At Risk, Suggests Research
Scientific American: Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists
I thought I remembered a larger study out of Australia that showed even larger deltas in passing distance, but didn't find it during a quick web search, so I may be mis-remembering.
Did they control for the possibility that helmet-wearing cyclists rode farther from the edge of the road?
The roads are so narrow you have to drive within 2 feet of cyclists. If I drove 4 feet closer to a cyclist they would be IN my car.
That's the standard. Two is too close.
Which is why I take the lane on a road that narrow, and make motorists wait their turn to pass. I do the same when I'm driving: If I don't have three feet, I don't pass.
The standard, according to the bureau of weights and measures, is actually 3.14 feet.
There is legislation pending that we all carry tape measures when driving, cycling or horseback riding.
Fines are doubled every March 14th.
They were metal ball-tipped wire devices that attached to the front fenders of cars, and made a noise when they scraped a curb, so the driver would know how close it was. I can picture some genius advocating for 3-foot-long ones to tell drivers how close they are to bikes.
Until people start to sharpen them! :-)
It's popular in cargo biking and family cycling communities to attach a pool noodle to one's rear deck or rear rack, extending three feet out to the left of the bike. Motorists generally will give the cyclist enough room, since they can't tell for sure at car speeds that it's something harmless to brush up against.
My limited imagination was putting metal things on the cars, which would be a bad idea.
The research on helmets for adults is mixed at best. But the bull about "makes accidents worse" or "causes accidents" is completely unsubstantiated.
For children it is unequivocal - helmets prevent head injuries. Period. Canadian experience has demonstrated this over millions of children and decades.
The difference probably has to do with the crash modes differing between adults and kids.
My helmet use has saved my life. I had a concussion and a warped and split helmet instead of a hematoma in an area without a lot of impact protection.. I will continue to wear one.
Despite my desire to be riding helmetless, I appreciate not being distracted at by citizens of the Deep Nanny State, so I wear a foam hat and suffer the reduced vision from extra sweat in my eyes, reduced peripheral vision from the top of the helmet, and interference with eyeglasses from the straps. Because while it will do nearly bupkis in a collision with a car moving more than 20mph, the more common rider-only crashes are assisted in being orbiting-stars-and-twittering-canaries-free, and I like that.
I get knocked down!
But .I get back up again!
(Then I sue.)
When a cyclist is hit by a car, the whole body is at risk. It just isn't going to help if you get run over. However, there are many mishaps that don't involve being struck or run over by a large metal vehicle. In such cases a helmet makes a huge difference.
A lot of motorcyclists believe this. They think that DOT approved motorcycle helmets reduce visibility so much, that they make it more dangerous.
Of course, if you're in a crash, having a helmet on makes you safer. But if the helmet increases the likelihood of an accident, then that can result in a net increase in risk.
I doubt that's true of bicycle helmets, though. Motorcycle helmets are crazy heavy and obstructive.
You've offered no evidence that Motorcycle helmets impede vision, beyond saying that a lot of motorcyclists believe it. No evidence for that, either. Have you not seen the hog riders wearing a little half-helmet perched on the back of their head? How does that thing impede their vision? Not much use in a crash, of course, but you can't make a blanket assertion about all MC helmets with no qualification or evidence.
girl has balls, respect
This is nothing compared to the True Genius who was riding along the Riverway on a bike, no helmet, and talking on a cellphone. I encountered the daredevil on the curve after the intersection with Brookline Ave where drivers start really picking up speed.
Texting with both hands is where it's at. That Riverway amateur should study with some of the true masters who ride along the Mass Ave bridge during the evening rush when the sun has already set.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO USE THE FULL LANE!!1!
Cyclists are allowed to use the full lane.
Your point is???
Yip, it's dumb to ride a bicycle on Storrow. But it's legal. Storrow isn't a limited access highway, and it doesn't have signs at every entrance prohibiting bicycling.
Given the closeness of the two autos going the same direction -- nobody is moving very quickly in that photo.
When you rent a Hubway bike, you're not supposed to take it on a highway.
Storrow isn't a highway. You're not supposed to take it on the Pike, or I-93, or Route 1, or I guess the Sumner/Callahan tunnels (but I'm not sure they're officially signed limited access) which are the only highways within striking distance on Hubway which are designated as limited access.
Storrow certainly isn't. It's not bike-friendly by any means, but not bike-illegal, either.
Why respect non-existent rules that Adam makes up when existing ones like a 40mph speed limit (and lower in some short stretches with side streets) are regularly exceeded by about 10-12mph by automobilists? Why aren't they considered dangerous scofflaws, as they have destructive capacity orders of magnitude greater than cyclists and the legal obligation to follow traffic rules that actually exist?
Because the police won't take the risks (can't really blame them) to enforce the law here, so drivers don't give a flying eff about being stool samples.
Not that many cyclists do either, but they aren't a big threat. Try riding a bike into someone's house and setting the bike ablaze.
"Given the closeness of the two autos going the same direction -- nobody is moving very quickly in that photo."
You should drive on Storrow more often.. *smirk*
That's probably the following distance for 40 MPH :)
Biking down Storrow Drive is legal. There are no signs forbidding bicycles and until the state post them state 33police have no power to stop it.
There are 2 no ped, bike or horses signs on the Storrow ramps near Kenmore. One near Charlesgate East, the other on Charlesgate West. Regardless on whether or not it's legal, the signs are there.
The first link you posted is of Do Not Enter signs at the outlet of the Charlesgate exit ramps. Yes, there's also a no ped/bike/horse sign below one of the Do Not Enter signs, but since one would only violate those signs by going the wrong way up a one-way exit ramp, traveling head-on towards vehicles exiting Storrow, it doesn't strike me as particularly objectionable or noteworthy. It seems sensible (and moot for this conversation, since - whatever her other flawed decisions - the cyclist wasn't going the wrong way on Storrow; she was traveling in the same direction as the cars with whom she was sharing the road).
The second link is surprising. It's presence would seem to be contrary to established law on the use of Storrow. Perhaps its addition was an uninformed oversight on the part of whomever (sensibly) posted the No Trucks sign below which the no ped/bike/horse is posted.
In Google Maps, if you pick a starting location on Storrow Drive and a destination somewhere else (say the Mass Ave bridge going to MIT), you can generate a bike route that keeps you on Storrow Drive. Initially it will divert you onto the bike path (which Google Maps likes to do if it can) but you can pull the route back onto Storrow Drive and it will hold. By comparison, you can't do the same thing to try to generate a bike route that will put you on I-95. No matter how hard you try to pull the route onto I-95, it will recalculate the route with wacky loop-the-loops and bend over backwards to keep you off I-95. Google Maps knows where bikes can go and where they can't.
Honestly, it doesn't really matter much to the extreme pro-biking crowd. They'll just argue the law is stupid and unecessary and harms the ability of bikers to be "safe" by doing whatever they feel is "safe", or not slowing them down, or whatever goalpost-moving reply they can come up with this time.
I e-mailed these pictures to the Boston Transportation Department and am waiting for a reply. I said that my understanding is that Storrow Drive is legal for bicycles and I want to know if these signs represent a new local ordinance (and if we can expect more such signs) or if perhaps they are just meant to keep bikes off those particular ramps, and not Storrow Drive itself. I will share my findings as soon as they respond.
I got a response from the BTD. They said that Storrow Drive is outside the city's jurisdiction. Storrow Drive is maintained by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. But the signs in question are posted on the local Boston streets so I don't know if the DCR would have anything to do with them. In any case, only one of those signs has any relevance because the other (as previously pointed out) would require driving the wrong way up a one-way ramp in order to run afoul of the sign. Since there are no other bicycle prohibition signs posted at any other entrance ramps, I'm going to assume that biking on Storrow Drive is perfectly legal and just keep in mind that I can't take that particular on-ramp at Beacon and Charlesgate.
Hey, I tried.
prohibiting bike riding on Storrow Drive, something is seriously wrong; common-sense should rear it's ugly head well before that.
There are these people called "tourists" and this thing called "google maps". Combine them with a Hubway, and it might be a good idea to put those signs up to prevent strays.
If it is even illegal to be on Storrow with a bike - I've been hearing both sides argue this for years.
Of course, it might help if there were signs in the area directing cyclists to the appropriate facilities.
Common sense when it comes to cycling is replete with advice advocating dangerous behavior.
Why? Most people have no idea how to cycle legally, properly, and safely and revert to childhood instructions. So, no thank you.
If I took motorist advice I'd have been killed by one decades ago, and they'd never even get an increase in their insurance.
"Common sense" used to inform us that the earth is flat. The law is clear--if the state wants to prohibit bikes on a road, they have to put up signs. Biking on Storrow Drive is just fine if you're confident and well-trained, like...like...well drivers. I wouldn't want a newbie nervous Nellie driver on Storrow Drive anymore than a scared newbie cyclist weaving around and not knowing what they're doing.
That seat is way too low
Honestly, aside from the headphones, others have pointed out that shes allowed to bike there and isn't required to wear a helmet, so whats the big deal?
Shes putting her safety at risk, sure. But its such selective faux outrage over this single image, we could post pictures/videos of the countless safety issues motorists in Boston subject others to and the response would be crickets.
Its an easy target to dunk on and feel superior.
Not only is she putting her own safety at risk, she's also screwing all the drivers who now have to divert their attention away from their direction of travel, waste time going slower than they might otherwise, and are now at higher risk of being in a car accident trying to avoid hitting her by swerving into the next lane or having to stop suddenly if she does something stupid.
I might add that this holds true for all cyclists who are using the full lane and/or swerving in and out of the shoulder or bike lane as they see fit without yielding to traffic in the lane they swerve into.
How fast are people going on Storrow that it would be that much of a risk? Those are some very outlandish situations you conjured up but it really sounds like a solid argument for slowing down traffic on Storrow, if a little bicycle could cause that much havok, which it of course can't and didn't.
But heres a better question. Where are you finding all these cyclists who have zero concern for self-preservation? Cause I'm not seeing them around town, defying physics like you've described too. Like do you think we hop on our bikes, looking to get hit? Yeah I know you see some do risky things, again, do you think they lack self preservation? Hell I bet some are adrenaline junkies that love the thrill but again, do you think they are trying to get killed?
Lets try another complaint, cyclists using the full lane. I often do this, I've yet to see it cause a dangerous safety situation for motorists. Swerving is a fun word you use, as if we can turn on a dime 90 degrees and change direction. You seem to have some issues with physics, which is rather telling in how you've framed most of your argument.
like to not kill you.
We find it very very frustrating that you are oblivious to our desires.
...we take the lane. We're much less likely to get hit when we're right in with the traffic. Wanna see a cyclist run a huge risk of getting hit? Put him all the way at the right edge, right up against the curb and/or parked cars, and invite the otherwise nice folks in the travel lane to squeeze by him. The odds of a collision go up dramatically that way.
Don't equate full lane cyclists with those that swerve in and out. These are cyclists with two very different skill sets. The full lane cyclists are predictable--they go in a straight line, signal lane changes, make eye contact with drivers, and follow the traffic laws. They are visible from pretty far back and give car drivers plenty of time to decide what they want to do. It's the curb-huggers who pose the greatest risk for accidents because they're the ones most likely to swerve into the traffic lane. Their far-right position also invites unsafe passing by motorists who think they can "thread the needle." My problem with the woman in the picture isn't that she's on Storrow Drive; it's that she seems to be all the way at the right edge. On that road, you either hold the middle of the lane or forget it.
Waste time going slower than they might otherwise? Maintaining traffic flow is one thing, but allowing car drivers to go as fast as they want, unimpeded forever and ever, isn't high on anyone's priority list. We are delayed routinely by school buses, crossing pedestrians, construction and emergency vehicles, left-turning vehicles, parallel parkers, etc. The law informs you essentially to suck it up and proceed in a safe and responsible manner until you can pass safely and at a reasonable speed.
It takes a little more effort to pay attention to bicyclists on the road. For example, checking the bike lanes to make sure you don't turn in front of someone.
Yes, there's that Massachusetts law about not overtaking a bicycle when you're about to turn, but it's too much trouble for some drivers to worry about.
It would be easier for them if bicycles and pedestrians were not allowed anywhere, so that's what they want.
if bicycles were not allowed to go in places where they are harder to see.
It's a self-evident fact that it's a whole hell of a lot harder to refrain from running people over when they quickly move in and out of somewhere where they are both vulnerable to being run over and hard to spot by virtue of simultaneously being small and moving fast relative to their size and changing direction quickly.
Automobiles move fast but they're big, don't change direction rapidly, and don't fit where you can't see them. Pedestrians are small but move slowly and tend not to jump in and out of your blind spot. When they jump out from behind a parked car or other obstruction is when they tend to have problems.
What I don't understand is why when faced with these facts, the automatic response from the bike crowd is to place all of the responsibility for their safety on motorists and categorically refuse to accept any responsibility for their own safety. But then in the same breath blame pedestrians whenever they nearly get run over by cyclists on the sidewalk or in a crosswalk.
There's a word for when it's everyone else's fault whenever something bad happens, regardless of who caused it. The word is narcissism.
Again, when you drive it is your responsibility to look for people and things and not hit them.
If that's too hard, slow down or don't drive.
When you go out in public it is your responsibility to not deliberately place your life in danger and then blame the other guy for not knowing ahead of time that you were going to wig out so that he could alter his perfectly reasonable and lawful behavior enable your crazy.
I love it when people get judgey about other people doing things efficiently, and calling them "lazy".
( like the hit-and-run trucker who killed Dr. Anita Kurmann? )
Anita Kurmann violated the first four cardinal rules of the road whether you're in a car, on foot, or on a bicycle:
1. Watch out for big trucks
2. Be aware of what they're doing
3. Anticipate what they might do next
4. Don't loiter alongside them
It's tragic, it's horrible, but it's still 100% her fault. No amount of yelling and screaming and accusations is going to change the fact that it was her mistake that cost her her life.
what she was. On that day she was careless and unlucky enough for that to matter.
Tell me Elmer, do you only have to modes: disgust and adoration, with nothing in between? Critters: adorable; motorists disgusting...do I have that right?
In a just universe, you will someday need the services of a person such as the one whose murder you just mansplained and fuckfacesplained away so casually.
Lets hope nobody helps you when you do.
Fuck off and die.
but then it would be 100% my fault if I got run over by a truck after sneaking into its blindspot, so no tears shed by the likes of you...yes?
Not 100% her fault, only partly her fault.
The driver had JUST passed her and knew she was there on the right.
And this dubious "common sense" tells cyclists to keep to the right even when it is dangerous. It is a learned skill to stay behind or to the left of trucks and buses slowing down, and possibly turning right.
Many accidents are the result of several concurrent minor mistakes.
As the truck driver has a license demanding higher skills and responsibility, and the driver also blew it, I think 100% her fault is a piss-poor assessment.
It is a learned skill to stay behind or to the left of trucks and buses slowing down, and possibly turning right.
Yes...it's a skill my dad tought me when I was around seven and old enough to understand what he was saying when was driving a car and making conversation with his kid. The corpus of basic life skills and behaviors you're taught early in life are "common sense."
And there is video to prove it.
But you knew that.
Saw the exact same video you did. I just didn't automatically "know" that it was the trucker's fault even before I found out about the accident.
Crash analysis was biased. Blamed Anita for her legal choices like passing on the right, and decided that because the truck passed a safety inspection it doesn’t have to yield to crossing traffic. Is it normal for truck to weave to the left before turning right? Yes. Does that give you the right of way? No. Outright lied about previously passing Anita on Mass ave.
Is this report online somewhere? I'd like to read it.
Even right here in this thread.
But I've seen the video of that accident, and I am at a loss to understand how any sane person can see that as exclusively the cyclist's fault. Hell, I were in a car, I would have called that truck driver a maniac for that maneuver at that speed.
Her death was tragic, but what I took away from it is a confirmation of a basic truth: Bike lanes don't solve the problem. If she had been biking in the normal travel lane and in line with the traffic, this never would have happened. This intersection has now been reconfigured so that bikes can approach the intersection via a separated bike lane. This doesn't solve the problem either and in fact could worsen things if someone is riding in that lane and decides that they need to move over to the travel lane. The separation posts make that more difficult. Since that side of the road is wide enough for three lanes, the only solution that makes sense is to take out the bike lane, make the right-most lane a right turn only lane, and make the middle lane a right turn and straight through lane. Then if you're on a bike and want to go straight, you get in that middle travel lane and stay away from the right turn only lane.
Ironically at the start of the video, you can see the traffic stopped at the red light and right at the head of the middle travel lane is...a cyclist!! Positioned correctly at the front and to the left side of the middle lane and who waits for the red light to turn green before proceeding. Much of what you need to know about safe urban cycling is in that 3-minute video.
I once came upon a bicyclist in the driver's lane when I was driving down Memorial Drive. I like to allow enough space for a bicyclist to fall over without hitting my car, but those river-road lanes are too narrow for both a bike and a car. It was infuriating to be put in an unsafe position when she could have used the bike lane.
That Memorial Drive has two lanes in each direction? Did you also know that your vehicle comes equipped with brakes, so that you won't be in an unsafe position?
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2020 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy