Biking in Boston

Funny, I actually avoid the Boston side of the river because, as bad as Memorial Drive "shared use path" is, it's better IMO. Also you can't get from BU Bridge to the Esplanade, without going around the long, long way, and that's what I usually need.

Regarding taking the lane, what cden4 said. Generally, the biggest danger comes from lack of visibility. Hugging the side hurts you in two ways: it gives you no chance when someone opens a door in your path because you can't see them and they might not look for/see you; it is more difficult for someone coming up behind you to see you and they also might not give you much passing space.

Fact is, as long as you have a rear-light or it's daylight outside, your chances of being outright rear-ended are minimal. The biggest dangers come from right-hooks, door openings, and dangerous passing. Taking the lane is a way to mitigate all three of those dangers at once. Hugging the side exacerbates all three of those dangers instead. I know that you don't want to be "that guy" holding up everyone, but, do yourself a favor, on city streets -- take the lane, save your own life.

Wait until you find a safe stretch and then you can pull over to let people go by, if you really feel it is needed.
 
cden4 said:
And if you're taking the lane, you force drivers to change lanes to pass you rather than try to squeeze by when there isn't enough room to safely do so.
Click to expand...

I take the lane every time I commute, but I've found that drivers will just drive on the lane divider and squeeze by me anyway. I still think it's safer than hugging the side (and drivers can't complain about me not following traffic rules) but it's not great either.
 
Balerion said:
Vox makes the case for the Idaho stop.
Click to expand...

This should pass as a law: the current lawlessness does neither bikes nor cars favors and thwarts a cooperative look at how modes (incl pedestrians) should share intersections.

either that or they should put little "bike signs" under the "car signs" (the same way that "trolley signs" live alongside regular traffic signs on Beacon St in Brookline)

(I find the "it takes bikes too much energy to start up again" argument lame--it also takes too much for cars and trucks too. For both cars and bikes stopping and starting is a huge waste of "energy" (whether fossil power or muscle power)) Lots of stops and lights should be replaced with calming and slow, continuous intersections https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vzDDMzq7d0
 
Wasting energy is probably the least important part of why coming to a complete stop on a bike sucks. Most even moderately serious riders ride with pedal clips, so not only is coming to a complete stop a pain because you have to dismount and then use energy to start again, but having to clip back in takes a second away from time you could be accelerating. The first three or four cranks from a dead stop are also the hardest and slowest, meaning traffic behind gets feisty and may try to dangerously pass. This is why you see so many bikers going in circles at lights, or attempting a track stand. There is also always the potential for something stupid to happen and you fall off your bike during the mount/dismount.

While getting up to speed in a car/motorcycle takes up more energy, its a simple matter of pushing your toe an inch forward or twisting your wrist.


The article touched on cyclists having a wider field of view at intersections, but it really should have gone into more detail. A driver seated, enclosed in a steel and glass box that dulls their senses. Your field of view is largely compromised, and your hearing is all but null. I'm pretty sure just sitting in a comfortable chair also effects your senses, but I don't have any evidence to back it up.

Cyclists on the other hand have full use of their hearing, and more importantly a complete field of view. If standing on pedals, as many do at intersections, you have probably the best field of view since you are taller than pedestrians and most cars. This, more than the "waste of energy" argument, is why coming to a complete stop at stop signs and waiting an entire light cycle is absurd on a bicycle. As the article mentions, stop signs and other traffic control measures were invented for cars, and the dangers inherent in operating them. Cyclists have enough use of their senses, and operate slow and nimble enough vehicles that they really do not need signage to figure out how to safely yield. It would be comparable to having traffic control devices for pedestrians in a mall.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
(I find the "it takes bikes too much energy to start up again" argument lame--it also takes too much for cars and trucks too. For both cars and bikes stopping and starting is a huge waste of "energy" (whether fossil power or muscle power))
Click to expand...

Fossil power is an abstract thing you feel at a later time (if at all). Muscle power is real, tangible and immediate. Let's not pretend it's even close to the same thing. I know if I was expected to always stop at every light and stop sign (ie if expensive tickets were common leaving me with no choice) I'd never ride a bike. Even if it didn't slow me down too much it'd be such an awkward, unpleasant experience that I'd much rather drive or take transit. I imagine many would feel similar, which is counter to the goal of getting more people to cycle.
 
The purpose of traffic control devices is not strictly safety but rather to enable "high speed travel with safety." And by high speed, I mean, beyond the ability of human beings to sense and negotiate in a contentious situation.

In a hypothetical world where everyone went slow then we we wouldn't need all those signs and lights. That's why roundabouts work, for instance.

People on bikes and on foot go slow enough and have enough of their senses that for the most part, they do not need signal assistance to sort out navigation at intersections. That's why most people who actually go riding on a bike or walking on the street tend to recognize the ridiculousness of traffic signals when no cars are around.

It's the mixing with motor vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of 15-20 mph that is the issue.
 
In regards to taking the lane: I don't have a problem taking the lane for safety. But my policy found that sidewalk is an acceptable or better alternative. Yes, a big motivating reason is not be "that guy" creating a line of cars behind me. But I find it a big difference to view as not wanting to make other people day a little harder than being afraid. When the sidewalk next to me is empty, clean, and wide enough ride down - why do I want to take a whole lane?

Meanwhile when a street does have a lot of people. Most of those streets those don't have a bike lane doesn't go that fast in the first place with traffic lights and everything. So being "that guy" isn't a real probability.

----

But here's another question. I asked how many people use a sidewalk. Now I ask how many do the Idaho Stop? Or more fittingly, do people get mad (that much) at the Idaho Stop?

I find it perfectly understandable to criticize a cyclist blasting through a red without a hint of slowing down. But, what about one do does slow-down/stop, look, then go? Matthew encapsulates the reasoning that I kinda view a cyclist as a hybrid of a car and a pedestrian (though I can definately see many not agreeing with that - but the point is a cyclist can view things like a pedestrians whom don't need any lights)

----

Also in regards to Storrow from BU bridge. Storrow from BU have a problem that getting on it is not close. But fortunately there's a way to still simulate riding in Storrow then get on and thus keep its convenience. Use Bay State Rd to the bridge at Silber Way. There's still that little stretch in front of BU Academy, but close enough (though yes, it's a one way - this many reflects my view on rules and bikes)
 
Unless it is an empty sidewalk is in a suburban development of some sort, it is usually not a good idea to ride on them because people aren't expecting a bike to come barreling along and they can make sudden stops and turns, leading to accidents. You could ride on the sidewalk really slow, but then what is the point? You could also ride along and be "that guy" ringing a bell and shouting "on your left", but then you might as well kill yourself because what's the point of life if you're going to be "that guy".

I do the Idaho Stop because it is common sense for a cyclist to behave this way. My friend bikes in Cambridge a lot to go to work and has gotten tickets for doing that, so I guess it is a bad idea to do it there though.
 
I also have been doing the Idaho Stop long before knowing it had a name. Like gooseberry says, it is a common sense balance of safety, speed, and energy expenditure.

I've never understood the "same road, same rules" people. They must think the only way bikes will be respected is if they are on par with motor vehicles is all ways. But that is so so wrongheaded - bikes are fundamentally different from cars. Attempting to force cyclists to follow rules designed for cars will never work because we all have common sense and we all choose to break traffic rules when it is safe to do so (like jaywalking on a residential street or speeding on the interstate).

We need rules for bikes that make sense to follow or they will continue to be ignored.
 
Related to the Idaho Stop, there seems to be a growingly confusing etiquette surrounding walk signals and bikes. Now that I see more cyclists out, it is becoming more noticeable: Some folks bike hard through intersections when there's a walk signal, while others stand still and abide by the mentality that they, like cars, are governed by traffic lights.

Generally it looks like a "I'll go if you go" mentality, with only a few stolid, upstanding citizens never budging til the light turns green.

What I do is, coming up to a red light with a walk, I stop, check are directions, then scooter through (or walk through) with one foot in contact with the road. If there are no people anywhere about, I just bike through.

My argument, I can walk my bike so it is a light that is in my favor. Since law allows bikes on the sidewalk it seems like it has the rights of sidewalk users.
 
gooseberry said:
Unless it is an empty sidewalk is in a suburban development of some sort, it is usually not a good idea to ride on them because people aren't expecting a bike to come barreling along and they can make sudden stops and turns, leading to accidents. You could ride on the sidewalk really slow, but then what is the point? You could also ride along and be "that guy" ringing a bell and shouting "on your left", but then you might as well kill yourself because what's the point of life if you're going to be "that guy".
Click to expand...

Plenty of places in and around Boston where it is still useful. One example I would give is MIT side of Memorial Drive. That's not the perfect example as there are times where it is crowded, there's a huge amount of time it is just empty. And between taking a lane on Memorial or going on the sidewalk, I'm taking the sidewalk.

To qualify a little more: Sometimes there could be a small number of pedestrians. Courtesy would mean going slow around them, but slow down of a few seconds to not scare 1-3 pedestrians down MIT still preferable over starting a queue of cars on Memorial.

Idaho Stop long before knowing it had a name
Click to expand...

I didn't know there's a name to it until that link in this thread just came.

bike hard through intersections when there's a walk signal
Click to expand...

Our walk signals suck to the point we are conditioned to ignore it. Thus using that to determine decisions risk making false predictions. Though I do have to spare some note that some voice in my head told me I might have used walk signals before (though pretty sure not to bust right through a light).
 
I strongly disagree that walk signals suck or that anyone ignores them. I think they are an indispensable part of our signalling infrastructure. Especially the signals with countdown clocks. I look at walk signals all the time, even when I'm driving my car. Can you make a case for what is wrong with them?

On my bike, I ride (vigilant and prepared to yield) through a walk signal and I launch from a stop when the walk signal changes, I don't wait for the green light. However, I am always cautious of pedestrians as sometimes an intersection will give an all-way walk and you have to yield to peds crossings your path.
 
fattony said:
I strongly disagree that walk signals suck or that anyone ignores them. I think they are an indispensable part of our signalling infrastructure. Especially the signals with countdown clocks. I look at walk signals all the time, even when I'm driving my car. Can you make a case for what is wrong with them?

On my bike, I ride (vigilant and prepared to yield) through a walk signal and I launch from a stop when the walk signal changes, I don't wait for the green light. However, I am always cautious of pedestrians as sometimes an intersection will give an all-way walk and you have to yield to peds crossings your path.
Click to expand...

I linked before and I link now: http://radioboston.wbur.org/2010/05/10/walk-buttons

To note, the fact you mentioned countdown clocks, I presume you thinking about Cambridge more. Then yes, Cambridge is leagues more competent than Boston. But Boston is the lionshare of the signals and the people, making plenty who are conditioned to ignore and carry that over when navigating in Cambridge. Which means making prediction of behavior more erratic, which means the scenario of continuing forward on the walk signal without slowing down to check still bring elevated risk. Though it sounds like you make through scan of the intersection and not just look at the signal. It would say it really get problematic when relying on the signal without scanning the surrounding - so we're kinda arguing different things here
 
ant8904 said:
I linked before and I link now: http://radioboston.wbur.org/2010/05/10/walk-buttons

To note, the fact you mentioned countdown clocks, I presume you thinking about Cambridge more. Then yes, Cambridge is leagues more competent than Boston. But Boston is the lionshare of the signals and the people, making plenty who are conditioned to ignore and carry that over when navigating in Cambridge. Which means making prediction of behavior more erratic, which means the scenario of continuing forward on the walk signal without slowing down to check still bring elevated risk. Though it sounds like you make through scan of the intersection and not just look at the signal. It would say it really get problematic when relying on the signal without scanning the surrounding - so we're kinda arguing different things here
Click to expand...

True, I do spend more time in Cambridge than Boston proper. I never noticed a major discrepancy between the two, but I guess I never thought much about noticing a difference.
 
ant8904 said:
I linked before and I link now: http://radioboston.wbur.org/2010/05/10/walk-buttons
Click to expand...

Sort of a different topic but related to this there are certain intersections that I dread as a pedestrian because of what seems like the absurdly long time it takes for a walk signal to appear, and the difficulty in crossing without one.

A couple come to mind - Route 16 and Mass Ave, where the issue isn't so much the walk signal but how much time you get when it happens. It's ok if you just want to cross one street but to do diagonal across that massive intersection in 30 seconds is cutting it very close. For somebody who is young and fit it might not seem like a big deal but there are lots of elderly people in the area who use this intersection. It's completely unacceptable to force a pedestrian to wait for two walk signals, which seems to be the idea. The walking time needs to be increased by at least 10 seconds.

The other one that I despise is the "T" intersection at Somerville Ave and Beacon, just south of Porter Sq. Unlike 16 and Mass ave which feature two main thoroughfares crossing, I truly have no idea why the walk signal takes for ever to come up. It's a freakin' "T" intersection, and not even that much of a main one. What is so hard about giving more pedestrian signals? I see people blatantly ignoring "don't walk" signals here all the time, but it's sketchy with all the green arrows cars have. It's hard to know exactly when/where a turning car might plow into you.

Maybe there already is but there should be a thread here for shitty pedestrian intersections, as there are plenty others that I hate. It boggles the mind how you are often expected to wait up to two minutes to cross so many streets in a so called "walking city".
 
Re: proceeding through on walk signals, it really depends on the intersection and where I'm headed. My general rule of thumb is that if I'm going straight ahead I will wait for the green light even if there is an all-walk signal. However, if I'm making a left and it's a street where a vehicular left turn would force me to merge over multiple lanes and sit in the middle of the intersection to wait for incoming traffic during a green light (i.e. not a protected left), then I will proceed to make my turn during the walk signal. BUT, I always stop or slow down a lot, check for pedestrians and put my foot down to wait for them if necessary, and then proceed slowly. I have noticed quite a few other bicyclists proceeding through a walk signal at full speed. This is really obnoxious IMO. I actually had a bike messenger (or someone who certainly looked like one yell at me "hey a**hole" when I was proceeding slowly on the walk signal in one direction as he came blasting through the other direction at full speed).

Re: Somerville and Beacon, totally agree. That walk signal takes FOREVER to come up. The worst part is you have to press the button, so if you get there at just the wrong part of the cycle, you really end up waiting a long time. It's not such a simple T because Cedar St is part of the intersection too. So instead of 2 vehicular phases, it's 3, followed by the all-walk phase. If anything, I just wish they would make the cycle length shorter. It seems like Somerville Ave gets WAYYYY too much time, especially outside of rush hour when traffic is really not that heavy.
 
The only walk signal I obey as a pedestrian is Harvard and Comm in Allston, because its a mechanical light that comes up at a predictable cycle. Even better, it's an all stop, so you can cross diagonally. Other than that I watch traffic and the traffic lights, and cross at will. The walk signals, at least in Boston, either are too short, too infrequent, don't work, or never seem to come up.

As for proceeding through walk signals on a bike, I do it. My method is I come to either a complete or near complete stop, and then proceed at the pace of a pedestrian, and make as much eye contact as possible. I've found that last part helps a lot.
The way I see it is pedestrians and cyclists mingle quite well on the Charles River path and associated pedestrian bridges, so as long as you're careful and respectful it's not really a problem. No one has ever said anything to me.
It's partially a safety issue too, getting ahead of cars at lights gives you a bit of breathing room, and also avoids any unpleasantness if GOD FORBID you don't get off the line like its a drag race. Because no drivers ever sit there texting after the light turns green.

Regarding the Idaho stop, I also was doing it wayyyy before I ever learned it was an actual thing. It just.makes.sense. I can't believe it hasn't been adopted more widely, or been pushed harder by cycling advocates around here, considering all the bad press we get for "running lights".
 
davem said:
Regarding the Idaho stop, I also was doing it wayyyy before I ever learned it was an actual thing. It just.makes.sense. I can't believe it hasn't been adopted more widely, or been pushed harder by cycling advocates around here, considering all the bad press we get for "running lights".
Click to expand...

I think the established cycling community has always been too afraid of alienating drivers to advocate for a separate set of road rules. It sends a message that "bikes don't belong on the same roads" and thus don't deserve respect. For the hard core types that bike at traffic speeds maybe this makes sense. They are the "pioneers" of urban cycling I suppose, who did it before it was fashionable. Times have changed however, and now cycling is becoming more safer and accessible to a larger population. The infrastructure reflects this already, now it's time for the laws to follow suit.

I would assume too that some of the hard core types might be upset at losing some status seeing that it no longer makes you a "pioneer" to ride a bike in the city - it's hard to be smug and elitist about your human pedalled travel mode when parents can now put kids in trailers and get around in a similar fashion. If these types have power in cycling advocacy communities it might explain why more sensible laws haven't come into effect. Of course this is all conjecture on my part but it's the only way I can explain the idiocy of the "vehicular cycling" movement ever gaining such legitimacy.

As for cycling through walk signals, it seems like comment sense. Treat it like sidewalk riding - go slow and basically just act like a pedestrian, while always yielding the right of way to them. Of course this is too complicated for many, I've almost been hit by cyclists treating walk signals as green lights. This is worse than cars because I can see them easily if they are about to mow me down, bikes are small and tend to come of nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top