Biking in Boston

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Of course, they're also subject to all the traffic laws by which auto drivers must abide. Drivers may misunderstand that bikers have equal rights to the roadway, but lots of bikers misunderstand that they in turn have to obey the rules of that road.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a wholeeeeeeeeeeeeee other can of worms. I actually was not aware until recently that bikes are required to have operable head and tail lights during the evening. I've had them ever since I started riding frequently at night, but most cyclists don't. Then again, I see a horrific number of cars going around in the middle of the night with either no lights at all or only running lights. That to me is simply unbelievable.

(As an aside, if you have a bike and you ride at night at all, GO BUY A LIGHT!!! Bikes are practically invisible in even the best of conditions after dusk, add in rain or fog and you are as good as dead. A good working light will make you more safe then a helmet, brakes, or good tires. Go do it now! Seriously!)

As for bikes going through lights, its a touchy subject. Cyclists are far more aware of their surroundings simply because they have perfect peripheral vision, as well as superior hearing to cars (unless you're one of those retards biking with headphones... don't do that).
I think Idaho (or another midwestern state) has a pretty good law on this. Essentially, conditions permitting, traffic control devices are downgraded by one step for cyclists. So a stop sign becomes a slow yield, and a red light becomes a stop sign. This is how most cyclists that don't have a death wish tend to operate, because its logical.
Cars have to come to a full stop because a drivers senses are numbed and you can't see very well other then straight. Cyclists are not crippled in this respect, so it makes sense for them to not have to full stop at every intersection.
In addition, it is harder to start back up on a bike, and being able to get out ahead of cars into an intersection is also safer, as you avoid the chance of being right hooked and can also get into position to make a left if need be. It also helps to level the playing field, since cars have superior acceleration to bikes.
 
^ That sounds very reasonable. I try not to complain about the asshole cyclist subset because there's infinitely more asshole drivers out there. One problem with bikes and cycle lanes/tracks is the HUGE speed disparity at which cyclists operate compared to one another. When a car driver is going too fast and tailing those in front of them, they're forced to slow down to safer speeds by lane dimensions/the speed of the cars around them; bike speedsters fly out into traffic when they encounter a slower cyclist often suddenly with no signal to the drivers in the adjacent traffic lane. It's dangerous for the drivers, and both fast and slow cyclists.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ That sounds very reasonable. I try not to complain about the asshole cyclist subset because there's infinitely more asshole drivers out there. One problem with bikes and cycle lanes/tracks is the HUGE speed disparity at which cyclists operate compared to one another. When a car driver is going too fast and tailing those in front of them, they're forced to slow down to safer speeds by lane dimensions/the speed of the cars around them; bike speedsters fly out into traffic when they encounter a slower cyclist often suddenly with no signal to the drivers in the adjacent traffic lane. It's dangerous for the drivers, and both fast and slow cyclists.
Click to expand...

The speed differential is definitely something I consider to be the greatest hazard. I commented on this earlier, but I'll reiterate that a skilled cyclist is often safer riding with cars than on a crowded cycle track. In heavy Boston traffic, my speed is closer to that of the cars than it is to a lot of casual cyclists. Add to this the number of pedestrians, joggers, and skaters using the bike path, and I find the car lanes to be safer and more predictable.
 
davem said:
Yeah, that's a wholeeeeeeeeeeeeee other can of worms. I actually was not aware until recently that bikes are required to have operable head and tail lights during the evening. I've had them ever since I started riding frequently at night, but most cyclists don't. Then again, I see a horrific number of cars going around in the middle of the night with either no lights at all or only running lights. That to me is simply unbelievable..
Click to expand...

I dont understand why lights arent required to be sold with bikes, as they are with cars.

Imagine if lights on cars were an optional extra?
 
davem said:
Because MGL Ch85 Sec11b or plain english.

Bikes are not segregated traffic other then on limited access highways. They are classified as vehicles under the MGL. They have full use of any lane designated for general traffic PLUS exclusive use of bike facilities. They may also ride on the sidewalk outside of "commercial districts" however that is generally frowned upon by the community at large.
Click to expand...

The question really isn't what is legally allowable. The question is why have separate lanes when bikers will also be riding in the street with the cars. Why not just have a non-separated bike lane. If people were only going to ride in the physically separated lanes it would make more sense (without regard to what current law says).
 
TallIsGood said:
The question really isn't what is legally allowable. The question is why have separate lanes when bikers will also be riding in the street with the cars. Why not just have a non-separated bike lane. If people were only going to ride in the physically separated lanes it would make more sense (without regard to what current law says).
Click to expand...

The majority will ride in the cycle track. Without it, you either get a lot more bikes in traffic (potentially dangerous, and definitely frustrating for drivers) or you just get fewer bikes. We want to encourage cycling, and this is the way to do it. At the same time, there are some who will be a better fit for riding in traffic. You might as well say, why have multiple lanes on an interstate, if some slow moving vehicles will drive in the left lane. In each case, the additional infrastructure isn't so much about mandating traffic behavior as much as it is about expanding capacity.
 
One of the biggest things that needs to be done is to EDUCATE drivers that bikes are in fact classified by the general law as vehicles and have the rights to the road. Most drivers assume that bikes are meant to be restricted to bike lanes and, unless otherwise marked, should not be in the road. This is a matter of public knowledge. The people haven't caught up with the realities of the law.
 
HenryAlan said:
The majority will ride in the cycle track. Without it, you either get a lot more bikes in traffic (potentially dangerous, and definitely frustrating for drivers) or you just get fewer bikes. We want to encourage cycling, and this is the way to do it. At the same time, there are some who will be a better fit for riding in traffic. You might as well say, why have multiple lanes on an interstate, if some slow moving vehicles will drive in the left lane. In each case, the additional infrastructure isn't so much about mandating traffic behavior as much as it is about expanding capacity.
Click to expand...

Makes sense - thanks
 
jass said:
I dont understand why lights arent required to be sold with bikes, as they are with cars.

Imagine if lights on cars were an optional extra?
Click to expand...

This would be even better if it were easy to find bikes in the US that came with built-in headlights with a hub generator. They're common in Europe and Asia, but somehow not here.
 
I got stopped by a cop in amsterdam years ago for riding my bike without a headlight after dusk, and got a 60 euro ticket
 
metasyntactic said:
This would be even better if it were easy to find bikes in the US that came with built-in headlights with a hub generator. They're common in Europe and Asia, but somehow not here.
Click to expand...

I think germany requires those be installed with all new bikes.
 
The US bike market is geared towards this:
11356214.jpg


Instead something at least like this, which still requires lights:
13-green-m-black-1000.jpg


Or more properly equipped from the start this:
EuropeanCityBikeSilver.jpg


The fact fenders are almost always a separate accessory and one cannot easily find a chain guard let alone a full chaincase speaks volumes. US retailers do not expect any riders to wear street clothes!
 
It is March and all is quiet at Hubway. The facebook page has had no official replies in ages, and the website says nothing.
 
The Twitter page is active. One of the last Tweets as of this moment says there will be a 2-3 week installation period. But there's not much in the way of clues as to when they will start that installation period.
 
From Hubway's Facebook just now:

Hubway
Stations are going on each day this week. Have you seen one yet? Are you ready to get back out there later this month?
 
I'm taking a screen shot of the current system map so we can check back later and see what they shorted us out of. :rolleyes: For my own future reference: there are three in Somerville which got cropped out (Davis Sq, Powderhouse Sq, and Ball Sq).




I can't wait for them to eventually get a station down to the Heath St loop and all along the former E Line. Admittedly, I really just want this so I will be able to bike from the VA to Boloco on Longwood Ave for lunch everyday. :)
 
Stations are going on each day this week. Have you seen one yet? Are you ready to get back out there later this month?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw them installing a Hubway station in front of the Landmark Center during my morning commute today.
 
HenryAlan said:
We don't need cycle tracks all over the place, just a few corridors in to which we can funnel most of the traffic. The Southwest Corridor bike path is a good example of the concept, albeit about twice as long. It is heavily utilized by cyclists coming from all over Rozzie, Hyde Park, JP, and Roxbury, and probably quite a few from West Roxbury, Mattapan, and even Dorchester. If you live roughly Southwest of the city, your bike commute consists of three parts:

  1. Getting to the corridor
  2. Riding in the corridor
  3. The final stretch downtown
Very few people consider any alternative option for the middle part of the ride, so for that 4 mile stretch, there really doesn't need to be another protected path within a fairly wide distance.
Click to expand...

roslindale/JP people who work in cambridge also ride along the emerald necklace - another very heavily used bike corridor. Getting to the southwest corridor from roslindale is a bit of a challenge because of the area around forest hills - I think this will be fixed as part of the casey overhall.

anyway - I think cycle tracks are also very important on routes where the only way to get from one area to another is along a busy road - esp. with fast moving traffic.
 
The Emerald Necklace route is badly screwed up in a few spots and therefore a lot trickier than anything at Forest Hills (IMO), but you're right, the Casey Bridge project is supposed to fix that problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top