Well, at least she won't storrow herself

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.

Not to mention it's really really REALLY stupid and unsafe.

By UHub-fan
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 8:55pm

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.

So, in short

By Waquiot
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 9:49pm

You are saying cyclists are above the law?

I don't agree with it but yes, I believe Lee is saying that

By spin_o_rama
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 12:36pm

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.

Drivers might be bad

By Waquiot
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 2:26pm

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.

Speeding? Texting?

By spin_o_rama
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 9:45pm

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.

Um, nope

By Waquiot
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 10:02pm

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.

Sure you can drive through those red lights

By spin_o_rama
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 10:16pm

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.

Nope

By Waquiot
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 11:04pm

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.

Funny choice of words

By spin_o_rama
Sun, 05/13/2018 - 10:34am

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.

I think he's got a point about speeding

By Sock_Puppet
Sun, 05/13/2018 - 5:47am

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!

It's Very Easy To Catch And Ticket Texting Drivers

By Elmer
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 10:18pm

[youtube]yuJf8ZyjVVg[/youtube]
[youtube]uFBO7II2wxw[/youtube]

Then they should get rid of all bike regulations

By Stevil
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 10:56pm

Because they don't enforce anything around here (except riding on a highway. Maybe.

I can’t see any way to disprove

By Sock_Puppet
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 12:29pm

That theory.

To what other laws does the “they haven’t arrested me yet so it must be okay” principle apply?

Hazard to other cyclists

By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 3:01pm

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.

Interesting point of view

By lbb
Mon, 05/14/2018 - 10:53am

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.

How many times can you be wrong in a single post?

By Ian Whiting
Tue, 07/24/2018 - 4:02pm

"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.

Uh...no

By Ian Whiting
Wed, 07/25/2018 - 11:08am

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.

Bad biking bingo?

By Lecil
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 4:49pm

-On Storrow
-No helmet
-earpods

At least she's not riding against the traffic, I suppose....

wicked smahht

By anon
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 4:58pm

probably goes to Harvard too

Correction:

By anon
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 6:04pm

Hahvid.

Storrow

By Bike Cop
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:02pm

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.

https://malegislature.gov

By tofu
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:25pm

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T...

"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

By anon
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 7:41pm

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

By anon
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 8:59am

Bicycles aren't motor vehicles.

Right, it's not like people

By anon
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 11:38am

Right, it's not like people have built in [i]motor control[/i].

So you drive a convertable

By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 3:12pm

... 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.

It rather depends

By UHub-fan
Mon, 05/14/2018 - 6:46am

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.)

MA GL Chapter 90 Section 13

By perruptor
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:28pm

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.

Relevance?

By SteveE
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:30pm

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.

Look again, Motor Man

By BostonDog
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 6:25pm

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.

Give us a legitimate reason why a person should be allowed

By roadman
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 6:45pm

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.

Roadman wants to ban deaf people from driving or biking, too?

By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 3:13pm

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.

your logic is correct but...

By cinnamngrl
Tue, 05/15/2018 - 12:45pm

Clearly there are many very safe drivers with hearing impairment. But I would never ride my bike with headphones on.

OK, let's explain something here:

By UHub-fan
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 9:02pm

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

By anon
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:31pm

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.)

Correction

By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 3:10pm

Helmets are required up to age 16 - aka driving age.

Thanks for the correction!

By anon
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 5:01pm

Thanks for the correction!

- Original anon

Storrow Drive is a limited access highway

By Ron Newman
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 6:35pm

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.

neg

By anon
Sun, 05/13/2018 - 3:51pm

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.

Part of a highway can be limited access and the rest not

By Ron Newman
Sun, 05/13/2018 - 8:47pm

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.

Actually,

By whyaduck
Mon, 05/14/2018 - 8:29am

according to Professor Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storrow_Drive

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:

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/headsets/

So, aside from this idiot breaking the law, she is endangering herself and others by her actions.

So?

By Lecil
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 8:11pm

I wasn't commenting on her apparent disregard for the law.

I was commenting on her apparent disregard for her own safety and life.

No, no, no, you don't understand cycling:

By UHub-fan
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 9:05pm

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.

At least they're polite.

By Bev
Sun, 05/13/2018 - 7:15pm

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

Apparently she made it ....

By Lee
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 9:09pm

... safe and sound to wherever she was headed. Otherwise, it would be all over the news.

Those Shoes! — They Must Be Worth A Few Extra Points

By Elmer
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:05pm

Aww, c'mon elmer

By Stevil
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 8:02pm

I think they're adorable!

GPS Navigation

By Ben_Quahog
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 8:36am

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.

Technology giveth

By UHub-fan
Mon, 05/14/2018 - 6:38am

and technology taketh away.

Mass Pike

By Oscar Worthy
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:28pm

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.

Private Masspike entrance near BU?

By Ron Newman
Tue, 05/15/2018 - 4:17pm

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.

https://goo.gl/maps/AFm8oT9PUQG2

Pure Guess

By blues_lead
Tue, 05/15/2018 - 4:36pm

It has to do with the Comm Ave Bridge Replacement

Staging Area / Construction Vehicle Access

By Elmer
Tue, 05/15/2018 - 5:18pm

[img]https://elmercatdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/bu.png[/img]
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.

I'll just wait....

By Brian Riccio
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:45pm

for the shot of this nitwit ending up as street pizza.

maybe she's a tourist among other things

By Luke Warm
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 5:52pm

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

Storrowed

By Devil's Advocate
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 6:25pm

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.

Rowinsky case

By Ari O
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 12:09am

Affirmed that right, and told State Police to stop telling people not to and arresting them for it.

Brilliant

By Stevil
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 8:41am

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).

Let me ask a pointed question:

By UHub-fan
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 9:43am

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

By Matt
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 11:25am

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.

I count four pedestrian/cycle overpasses between

By UHub-fan
Mon, 05/14/2018 - 6:32am

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.

Bingo

By G
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 12:45pm

This is the only comment worth reading on this entire thread. Alas it was this far down

The bike path is slower,

By Pointed Trident
Sat, 05/12/2018 - 2:50pm

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.

Let me answer your pointed question

By Ian Whiting
Wed, 07/25/2018 - 11:03am

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.

Storrow

By Pippin
Fri, 05/11/2018 - 6:31pm

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.

Well, at least she won't storrow herself

Comments

Pages

Add comment

Plain text

Support Universal Hub

In other Back Bay news