Biking in Boston

[rinserepeat]

I have a few questions for you more seasoned vets:

What's the most dangerous thing about biking in the winter relative to the summer, in Boston? Darkness? Cold? Ice? Snow banks narrowing the roads?

Also, if you were to use alternate transportation on the "worst" days of the year, what would those days be? Heaviest snowfall? Immediately following a flash freeze? Most bitterly cold days? Deepest snow depth - presence of huge snowbanks?

I used to be a year round commuter. The worst was riding in unprotected bike lanes or shared streets in rain after dark. People already have trouble seeing and you combine that with people messing around on their phones. I liked riding in snow. The cold wasn’t so bad, but you really need things like bar mitts and wind-proof boots and ski goggles for the super cold days.

 

[FK4]

The bike components of the Arborway project are complete! Full grade separated paths on both sides of Washington, Arborway, through both plazas and even the whimsical bike rotary are all rideable!

Nice. I wanted to bike today, but the weather is not permitting. Henry, do you (or does anyone else) know of any plans to take another look at Hyde Park Ave. as far as bike safety is concerned? The reconstruction from a few years ago was a big aesthetic improvement, but it’s incredibly unsafe to bike... which is unfortunate, because it’s a logical and direct conduit to all of the parks and parkways south of the city…

 

[jass]

The bike components of the Arborway project are complete! Full grade separated paths on both sides of Washington, Arborway, through both plazas and even the whimsical bike rotary are all rideable!

Id love to see photos

 

[Lrfox]

How do bikers feel about the electric scooters (re: Bird, Lime, etc.) that briefly took Somerville/Cambridge by storm and seem poised for a reintroduction, with the addition of Boston, once legislation allows for it?

Inevitably, these will share the same bike infrastructure, but they're slower than bikes and users will likely lack the experience and familiarity with the infrastructure and rules that most commuter cyclists have. I actually like them, but I see them as being a pain in the ass for cyclists.

 

[HenryAlan]

Lrfox:

Personally, I favor all forms of individualized, low carbon footprint mobility. That said, I agree with you that there is a risk that a new surge in users might be chaotic as first. I think the solution lies in advocacy and education.

Henry, do you (or does anyone else) know of any plans to take another look at Hyde Park Ave. as far as bike safety is concerned? The reconstruction from a few years ago was a big aesthetic improvement, but it’s incredibly unsafe to bike... which is unfortunate, because it’s a logical and direct conduit to all of the parks and parkways south of the city…

I haven't heard anything about that, although I know there are people trying to bring attention to the idea of a Washington St. style priority bus/bike lane. Hopefully that will get some traction.

Id love to see photos

Unfortunately, I don't have any, but here are some pictures I found on google:

Rotary, nearing completion

Bike path on Arborway, approaching Washington

This is basically accurate. Somewhat hidden on the rendering are off street paths on Washington approaching from the South

 

[jass]

Interesting that they want PEDS TO YIELD to bikes.




(Im taking a piss at them using standards intended for 65mph on a bikeway)

 

[HenryAlan]

No, you are reading the pavement markings wrong. Picture it from the cyclist's viewpoint. It reads "yield to peds," which I take to mean that if I'm on a bike, I am rightly instructed to yield to the slower, more vulnerable individual. That said, I'm already going a bit nuts with the number of people walking or worse, just milling about in the bike lanes, rather than the ample side walks and pedestrian plazas.

 

[jass]

No, you are reading the pavement markings wrong. Picture it from the cyclist's viewpoint. It reads "yield to peds," which I take to mean that if I'm on a bike, I am rightly instructed to yield to the slower, more vulnerable individual. That said, I'm already going a bit nuts with the number of people walking or worse, just milling about in the bike lanes, rather than the ample side walks and pedestrian plazas.

Im reading it how normal people (not highway engineers) read: from top to bottom.

PEDS
TO
YIELD

 

[FK4]

No, you are reading the pavement markings wrong. Picture it from the cyclist's viewpoint. It reads "yield to peds," which I take to mean that if I'm on a bike, I am rightly instructed to yield to the slower, more vulnerable individual. That said, I'm already going a bit nuts with the number of people walking or worse, just milling about in the bike lanes, rather than the ample side walks and pedestrian plazas.

I've beaten this drum for years, but Boston needs to be more aggressive with telling peds to stay out of the bike lanes. Not every single path is 'multi use' and in high traffic areas like here and around Ruggles, they should have painted the pavement red with big signs telling walkers to stay off. It's a problem that has a very easy solution.

 

[shmessy]

Im reading it how normal people (not highway engineers) read: from top to bottom.

PEDS
TO
YIELD

Normal people would note the large white arrow indicating the direction of movement and reading order.

 

[jass]

Normal people would note the large white arrow indicating the direction of movement and reading order.

You really think the arrow is there to indicate reading order?

Really?


Bad Feel Should You And Insane Is That <-

 

[TallIsGood]

I've beaten this drum for years, but Boston needs to be more aggressive with telling peds to stay out of the bike lanes. Not every single path is 'multi use' and in high traffic areas like here and around Ruggles, they should have painted the pavement red with big signs telling walkers to stay off. It's a problem that has a very easy solution.

So bikes don’t need to ride in the bike lane and can take a full traffic lane but pedestrians should stay out of the bike lanes that they are entitled to be in?

 

[shmessy]

You really think the arrow is there to indicate reading order?

Really?


Bad Feel Should You And Insane Is That <-

Remedial Life Skills 101; Progression occurs in the direction of the movement.

As has been shown in this thread, you are the only one having trouble with that.......For the sake of innocent lives, please don't drive.

But if you someday do, you will see things like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=sto...4eLfAhVOJt8KHUa0Bm8Q_AUIDigB&biw=1517&bih=730

and this:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...-img.......0i7i30j0i8i7i30j0i8i30.x92P4tN3tJc

You're welcome.

.

 

[FK4]

So bikes don’t need to ride in the bike lane and can take a full traffic lane but pedestrians should stay out of the bike lanes that they are entitled to be in?

Uh dude... it’s not about “entitlement” but about the law, which says bikes can use a full lane. Pedestrians aren’t “entitled“ to use a bike lane when there is a sidewalk right next to it; while that’s not illegal, it’s stupid and rude. Nor are bikes allowed on sidewalks in many places (such as Cambridge, and that IS the law). You sound like somebody with some sort of car versus bike axe to grind.

Transportation related behaviors in Boston generally need more regulating, because people drive, bike, and walk more inconsiderately than any city I have ever visited. That’s a whole different discussion, but other than being constitutionally against bikes I don’t see what gets your hackles up about demanding that peds and bikes actually be segregated in places where the government spent millions to design parallel paths. Jeez.

 

[shmessy]

Uh dude... it’s not about “entitlement” but about the law, which says bikes can use a full lane. Pedestrians aren’t “entitled“ to use a bike lane when there is a sidewalk right next to it; while that’s not illegal, it’s stupid and rude. Nor are bikes allowed on sidewalks in many places (such as Cambridge, and that IS the law). You sound like somebody with some sort of car versus bike axe to grind.

Transportation related behaviors in Boston generally need more regulating, because people drive, bike, and walk more inconsiderately than any city I have ever visited. That’s a whole different discussion, but other than being constitutionally against bikes I don’t see what gets your hackles up about demanding that peds and bikes actually be segregated in places where the government spent millions to design parallel paths. Jeez.

+1. It's about efficiency of movement. If everyone simply acts like an adult and stay in their lane, Boston can handle 5+ million residents and Odurandina can get all the supertalls he wants.

 

[Justin7]

Remedial Life Skills 101; Progression occurs in the direction of the movement.

As has been shown in this thread, you are the only one having trouble with that.......For the sake of innocent lives, please don't drive.

But if you someday do, you will see things like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=sto...4eLfAhVOJt8KHUa0Bm8Q_AUIDigB&biw=1517&bih=730

and this:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...-img.......0i7i30j0i8i7i30j0i8i30.x92P4tN3tJc

You're welcome.

.

Nope. Jass is correct. This is dumb and counter-intuitive.

Bikeway looks nice though.

 

[HenryAlan]

Im reading it how normal people (not highway engineers) read: from top to bottom.

PEDS
TO
YIELD

Yeah, but normal people are actually approaching it from the other direction. The photographer is facing the on-coming traffic, so he is giving you a reverse angle on the image.

 

[BKNA]

people will argue about anything.
pavement marking text is always supposed to be in the direction of movement.
https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/gallery/2012_conventionalbikelane/bl_delmar.jpg

its not a highway standard applied to a bike lane. even peds get the same treatment:
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/cm_images/34_1.jpg

the only thing that is allowed to change based on speed is the size of text and distance between each line.

 

[TallIsGood]

Uh dude... it’s not about “entitlement” but about the law, which says bikes can use a full lane. Pedestrians aren’t “entitled“ to use a bike lane when there is a sidewalk right next to it; while that’s not illegal, it’s stupid and rude. Nor are bikes allowed on sidewalks in many places (such as Cambridge, and that IS the law). You sound like somebody with some sort of car versus bike axe to grind.

Transportation related behaviors in Boston generally need more regulating, because people drive, bike, and walk more inconsiderately than any city I have ever visited. That’s a whole different discussion, but other than being constitutionally against bikes I don’t see what gets your hackles up about demanding that peds and bikes actually be segregated in places where the government spent millions to design parallel paths. Jeez.

And it literally says Yield to Peds. Cyclists are entitled. So why can’t cyclists stay in bike lane vs full traffic lane? Same argument you are making.

 

[HenryAlan]

And it literally says Yield to Peds. Cyclists are entitled. So why can’t cyclists stay in bike lane vs full traffic lane? Same argument you are making.

When there is a properly designed bike lane without any vehicular obstruction (no delivery vehicles, no ride sharing pick up/drop off, no illegally parked cars, and wide enough to prevent being doored, most cyclists will stay in the bike lane except to pass other, slower moving bikes. Give us space to pass, and we'll stay out of the other lane completely.

Where are these lanes that make it possible to never enter the so-called car lane? Sure, there are a few here and there, usually running for a hundred yards or so, no more. Contrast that with sidewalks, which are ubiquitous in Boston. Pedestrians do not have a usage requirement to be in the street or in a designated off street bike path. They always have adequate facilities. Now if you want to talk about street crossings, I'll be the first to argue that Boston doesn't do enough for pedestrians, but I have never once seen a pedestrian in a bike path because there is no alternative option for them to conveniently walk safely.

Your false equivalence is rejected.