Biking in Boston

omaja said:
Yeah, I don't get it. If anything, I feel like it's just reinforcing common sense. There will always be a clear victor in accidents: T > truck/bus/car > bike. If you're on a bike, why wouldn't you want to protect a very delicate area of your body from harm?

Every day when I see probably 70+ percent of bicyclists riding down Comm Ave without helmets, I just can't help but think how dumb they are. You sure as hell couldn't even pay me to ride a bike down Comm Ave after seeing so many near-misses and actual car-bike accidents on a relatively frequent basis.
Click to expand...

With slight resentment of being indirectly called dumb, I did it for four years. It's my risk I take. I repeatedly joke that if I die anytime soon, it will probably invoke a bike and looking at something pretty. It is probably still the most likely way for me to die young.
 
resisttheist said:
I saw these riding in to the city from Allston today. It wasn't until I hit Kenmore Square that I could slow down enough to make out the writing, and then I was just confused.

My guess is that the intention is to say something like, "I shouldn't have to wear a helmet, it's the absent-minded and terrible drivers of Boston that ought to be more conscientious and courteous to cyclists and then there wouldn't be an issue." If a biker gets hit and suffers a head injury, then it's his fault for not being properly outfitted. Of course even if the only way for a cyclist to sustain a head injury (it obviously is not) was in a car-bike accident, the key word is accident so this line of thought is all wrong. I may be wrong, but people usually don't refer to a "victim of an accident" as victim usually implies some sort of malicious intent was wrought upon you. Though in my own cycling I've occasionally been suspect, I've never seen or heard of anyone being intentionally mowed down by a car.

Accidents happen, and will always happen, even if you want to argue that the effort ought to be spent getting drivers to improve their behaviours towards bikers (which, incidentally, I would). People who don't wear helmets are dumb; it's just a potential risk for which there's no real reason not to be prepared.
Click to expand...
I think the idea that the helmet "no excuses" signs are victim blaming comes from comparative situations- I mean, I'm a pedestrian (I rode a bike often when I lived in the suburbs, but stopped when I moved into the city), and if I get hit by a car in a crosswalk or even if I'm walking in the street for whatever reason, nobody says I should wear a helmet, the fault is on the driver.

Of course, a lot of other types of accidents aren't equivalent between pedestrians and bicyclists in terms of risk- if I walk into a wall I'm a lot better off than if I hit that wall on a bicycle, and in either case there's no driver to blame.
 
I have to say though, there are other ways to have accidents on a bike where a helmet could save you, more so than with a car accident.

I have a friend who stopped riding bicycles after one day a front wheel seized up (with a branch perhaps?) and sent her flying forward.

My father is an avid and accomplished bicyclist but one day he just slipped on some leaves and fell, breaking his hip. Went down sideways. Could have been worse.

So I definitely prefer wearing a helmet but I don't want to carry one around all day on the off chance that I might use Hubway. So if I do use Hubway, I go slow and easy.
 
Folding helmets would be an elegant solution to the problem. However they aren't sold domestically due to not complying with US CPSC standards. No company wants to be a lawsuit magnet because of that.
 
ant8904 said:
With slight resentment of being indirectly called dumb, I did it for four years. It's my risk I take. I repeatedly joke that if I die anytime soon, it will probably invoke a bike and looking at something pretty. It is probably still the most likely way for me to die young.
Click to expand...

Again, that's your prerogative. I don't think it's 'victim blaming' or anything of the sort to remind bicyclists how important it is to wear a helmet. Doesn't change my outlook on the situation one darn bit whether you've done it all your life because, for every one of you, there is a larger percentage that will be impacted negatively by not wearing a helmet. Whether or not one chooses to adhere is -- at this time -- entirely individual choice.
 
Lurker said:
Folding helmets would be an elegant solution to the problem. However they aren't sold domestically due to not complying with US CPSC standards. No company wants to be a lawsuit magnet because of that.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the helmet that you basically wear like a scarf? It detects when you're falling and will instantly pop open like an airbag into this helmet shaped airbag. I think it's only in Europe right now, or maybe it's only still in testing, not sure. But the idea was genius.
 
You know, this morning, I went to a café near South Station that I like to eat breakfast at, ordered my usual, and set off to walk to the Common. And as I was making this walk, I was thinking... "Maybe I'm not being fair to cyclists. Maybe I'm allowing a few bad experiences to color my judgment, and cyclists in Boston really aren't as bad as I think they are."

And, as if on cue, as I was thinking this I (and several other pedestrians) walking in the crosswalk during a dedicated pedestrian phase (i.e., walk signals and all lights red) were buzzed by some jackass who decided that he was above waiting for crossing pedestrians. He came in from my left, cut straight through the stream of people (and in hindsight, I really regret moving out of his way) and continued on his merry way down the street that was to my right.

As he was wearing his helmet and not riding a rent-a-bike, I'm going to chalk it up to that guy just being an asshole of exceptional quality. But I figured I'd share this anecdote with you guys since AmericanFolkLegend reminded me that this thread exists.

And you know, when I advocate for things like forcing bicyclists to get licenses, I'm not motivated by malice... well, okay, I'm motivated by a little malice, but it's mostly a desire to keep things like this from happening.
 
Please end this stupid ass bike/car/pedestrian culture war. The idea that one group has a lockdown on good or bad behavior is idiotic. You saw a biker do something stupid? Awesome. I saw 20 pedestrians and 5 drivers. There outta be a law!!!!
 
omaja said:
Again, that's your prerogative. I don't think it's 'victim blaming' or anything of the sort to remind bicyclists how important it is to wear a helmet. Doesn't change my outlook on the situation one darn bit whether you've done it all your life because, for every one of you, there is a larger percentage that will be impacted negatively by not wearing a helmet. Whether or not one chooses to adhere is -- at this time -- entirely individual choice.
Click to expand...

I never argued anything about victim blaming. I find that argument annoying after seeing people yell that on many subject matters.

What I do care is condescension. When I read that "No Excuses -Wear a Helmet", from the choice of wording, it reeks of condescension. It gives me no motivation to wear it, actually anti-motivation.

That sense also plays many times in articles too. When a biker get run over by a truck and somehow it is mentions the person was or was not wearing a helmet. Despite the fact that a truck hit and ran over means the biker was screwed regardless.

Your view won't change from this post. I don't expect that. Just don't expect anyone to bawl for forgiveness for being helmetless that the implicit tone of "no excuses" or many other comments out there either.
 
To start off, the penalties for bike and pedestrian violations needs to be increased. Jaywalking should always be a trivial violation (maybe $40), but the current $1 fine makes it useless to enforce even egregious violations.

Bike offenses should be the same fines as vehicular offenses, it would simplify the structure of the law.
 
massmotorist said:
To start off, the penalties for bike and pedestrian violations needs to be increased. Jaywalking should always be a trivial violation (maybe $40), but the current $1 fine makes it useless to enforce even egregious violations.

Bike offenses should be the same fines as vehicular offenses, it would simplify the structure of the law.
Click to expand...

And why should jaywalking, a "crime" invented by the auto lobby to shift the burden of traffic fatalities from drivers to pedestrians even be on the books, much less enforced?


edit: woops, saw your name, youre a troll.
 
Second bike share station added to Kendall, 19 docks, adding to the existing 15 docks.

Looks like they may actually finish their promised expansion before closing up for winter. Theyre now at 103 stations, are supposed to hit 110-115.

System also now has over 700 bikes.

Predicatively, none of these new stations ever get mentioned by their facebook pr team. You have to check the website every day to see if you spot a new one.

Edit: One was added in Boston too, Dudley and Blue Hill.
 
jass said:
And why should jaywalking, a "crime" invented by the auto lobby to shift the burden of traffic fatalities from drivers to pedestrians even be on the books, much less enforced?


edit: woops, saw your name, youre a troll.
Click to expand...

Should pedestrians just be able to cross any road, anywhere, any time, with no regard to street traffic?
 
massmotorist said:
Should pedestrians just be able to cross any road, anywhere, any time, with no regard to street traffic?
Click to expand...

In the city, streets are public spaces. (Normal city streets, that is. Not talking about limited-access highways.)

When the streets of Boston were originally created hundreds of years ago, they were intended to be spaces for everyone. They were not intended to be exclusive to vehicles. That notion is a post-1930s mentality -- a radical departure from the past that the automakers gladly promoted in order to make way for their products.

As a result, nowadays, people seem to forget that cities were originally built for human beings; instead, we seem to have it ingrained that cities are places where enormous numbers of cars circulate at dangerous speeds.

I think we should return to the traditional idea of city streets as public spaces.
 
Matthew said:
In the city, streets are public spaces. (Normal city streets, that is. Not talking about limited-access highways.)

When the streets of Boston were originally created hundreds of years ago, they were intended to be spaces for everyone. They were not intended to be exclusive to vehicles. That notion is a post-1930s mentality -- a radical departure from the past that the automakers gladly promoted in order to make way for their products.

As a result, nowadays, people seem to forget that cities were originally built for human beings; instead, we seem to have it ingrained that cities are places where enormous numbers of cars circulate at dangerous speeds.

I think we should return to the traditional idea of city streets as public spaces.
Click to expand...

I don't think the clock can be turned back on this. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for complete streets - but, I also think that consideration needs to be given to mixing vastly differing speeds of traffic.

I mean, if you are driving a bus or streetcar down a road where pedestrians are explicitly allowed to wander freely, you're going to need to slow way down and you're going to need to be on constant lookout for people in the street.

Mind you, that doesn't mean we should crack down on jaywalking in an unfair system designed to prioritize vehicles and punish pedestrians. Having it be a $1 violation is fine.
 
I think that we should try to return to a more traditional balance at least.

Keep in mind that the city was designed with the idea being that the streets were public open spaces. Dedicating them to motor vehicles means taking away a huge amount of public open space from people. It's no wonder that folks these days wonder why there's a shortage of "open space" in cities: the streets were originally intended to be a major part of that open space, and now they're gone.

And secondly, in any real city, people are going to walk where and when they please. It's only natural. So, why fight it? What's the benefit of fighting the natural paths of people walking? What does it gain for the city? And is it worth the cost? Maybe in some cases it is. But nobody in BTD even considers the trade-off at all, right now. It's just cars first, all the time, everywhere.
 
To add on the avalanche, look at cities where jaywalking is a crime thats enforced.

LA. Phoenix. Houston.

Seeing a pattern? It kills walkability. It kills vitality.

You know what standing a corner, looking at a steady red hand for 60 seconds when theres not a single vehicle in sight says? It says youre being punished for being a pedestrian. That even the non-existent vehicles are a notch above you in the importance scale.

Its not the pedestrian that are in the way.

boston_postcard_08.jpg
 
Matthew said:
I think that we should try to return to a more traditional balance at least.

Keep in mind that the city was designed with the idea being that the streets were public open spaces. Dedicating them to motor vehicles means taking away a huge amount of public open space from people. It's no wonder that folks these days wonder why there's a shortage of "open space" in cities: the streets were originally intended to be a major part of that open space, and now they're gone.

And secondly, in any real city, people are going to walk where and when they please. It's only natural. So, why fight it? What's the benefit of fighting the natural paths of people walking? What does it gain for the city? And is it worth the cost? Maybe in some cases it is. But nobody in BTD even considers the trade-off at all, right now. It's just cars first, all the time, everywhere.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. All I'm really asking for is that some consideration be given to the impact that a city-wide pedestrian zone would have on transit, and I'll I'm trying to say is that there is a benefit to the city to bar pedestrians from freely walking up, over, and down bus lanes and Green Line tracks.

I think the ideal utopian downtown street is a high-speed lane in the center for buses/streetcars, a narrow bike reservation separating the high-speed lane from everything else (25~35 mph bicycle speed limit), then one or two low speed (5~15 mph, STRICTLY enforced, goes for bicyclists as well) general traffic lanes, and finally an extra-wide sidewalk. There would be no on-street parking.

Pedestrians would be free to walk up and down the sidewalk and in the street as they please, but would not be allowed to enter the transit lane nor the bicycle reservation except at transit stations, which would double as the points where you cross the street.

Now, just in case my use of the word utopian was not enough of a tip-off, I don't think that we're ever going to get even close to that... but it'd be nice to dream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top