Biking in Boston

[sm89]

The City has flex posts on Mt Vernon St near UMass. They're tweaking the lane markings over there to fix some issues that came up after they striped the roadway.

 

[jass]

Regarding this phenomenon though, they need to put up plastic bollards to keep cars out of the super wide bike lane on Beacon St near Mass Ave and the Charlesgate. Cars CONSTANTLY use that as a travel lane, which is not just really dangerous for cyclists, but for cars trying to make a right onto Storrow from the actual right turn lane. My girlfriend has almost been hit twice driving there by people flying up in the bike lane.

If youre talking about here

http://goo.gl/maps/DydsM

Then your GF would be at fault. Right turns are to be made from the rightmost lane - which means driving in the bike lane.

Its safer and its required by law.

 

[fattony]

If youre talking about here

http://goo.gl/maps/DydsM

Then your GF would be at fault. Right turns are to be made from the rightmost lane - which means driving in the bike lane.

Its safer and its required by law.

It is never appropriate, let alone required by law, to drive in a painted bike lane nor through parking spaces. You turn from the rightmost lane, not the rightmost inch of asphalt. If you move google maps a little closer to the intersection, you can see where the righthand solid white line becomes a broken white line, indicating the appropriate place that right-turning cars have a right to occupy the lane.

 

[Matthew]

She's not at fault. Even in places where cars are allowed into the bike lane to make a turn, they must yield to people already in the lane.

 

[sm89]

It is never appropriate, let alone required by law, to drive in a painted bike lane nor through parking spaces. You turn from the rightmost lane, not the rightmost inch of asphalt. If you move google maps a little closer to the intersection, you can see where the righthand solid white line becomes a broken white line, indicating the appropriate place that right-turning cars have a right to occupy the lane.

Also, the "right hook" is 'illegal'. Turning vehicles are required by law to yield to bikes on their right who are going straight.

 

[JumboBuc]

It is never appropriate, let alone required by law, to drive in a painted bike lane nor through parking spaces. You turn from the rightmost lane, not the rightmost inch of asphalt. If you move google maps a little closer to the intersection, you can see where the righthand solid white line becomes a broken white line, indicating the appropriate place that right-turning cars have a right to occupy the lane.

I'm pretty sure the Google StreetView car is driving in the bike lane as it approaches the intersection there...

 

[rinserepeat]

Regarding this phenomenon though, they need to put up plastic bollards to keep cars out of the super wide bike lane on Beacon St near Mass Ave and the Charlesgate. Cars CONSTANTLY use that as a travel lane, which is not just really dangerous for cyclists, but for cars trying to make a right onto Storrow from the actual right turn lane. My girlfriend has almost been hit twice driving there by people flying up in the bike lane.
.

If it's the area I think you're referring to - it's really confusing - it becomes a shared right turn lane so cars can get onto storrow, then it's a weird non-standard bike lane with a shoulder under the bridge, which you're supposed to cut across again - this doesn't just need bollards - it needs some real thought and physical improvements.

problem is that BTD doesn't take bike or pedestrian infrastructure very seriously - I'm not sure how many traffic engineers there are out there who can design for non-car modes.

 

[fattony]

Also, the "right hook" is 'illegal'. Turning vehicles are required by law to yield to bikes on their right who are going straight.

Good point - right-turning cars must always yield to bicycles regardless of the presence or absence of a bike lane.

 

[matredsoxfan]

Oh but don't you know, we can't have flexposts here because we HAVE SNOW!!!

Where's Quebec? That's some wicked sinful foreign land that cannot possibly have any relevance to our special and unique BOSTON conditions!!

...

Running through red lights at a bad time has its own self-enforcement mechanism (splat).

Doing that is pretty obviously stupid. But, most of the complaints I see don't have to do with that scenario. Instead, they center around driver resentment: "oh it's not fair, the cyclist got the head-start in an empty intersection when there's no cross traffic, but drivers aren't allowed to do that". Nevermind that a biker has a much better field of vision than a driver, this is purely about envy.

Big fucking whoop, honestly. There's enough safety issues to go around to worry about, beyond red light pedantry, to care about satisfying some sadistic impulses. Same goes for worries about so-called "jaywalking" (a slur invented by resentful drivers, again). It's not something that's appropriate to persecute.

You really just hate cars don't you? Why should a pedestrian not cross at a crosswalk? I slow down at all crosswalks and let people across every time because that is a designated crossing area where I expect someone crossing. Not when they jump out from between two parked cars and walk infront of me thinking I can stop on a dime. How is that right in your mind? And before you say anything I am for bike paths and bike lanes as well as improved sidewalks (I walk a lot) but some roads just are not wide enough for bike lanes or cycle tracks. There is also a reason areas do not have crosswalks or areas where "jaywalking" happens. These issues can be anything from too far to cross (something like 100 Feet), sight distance (trees, fences, bushes or around turns), lighting and the big one is ADA compliance.

 

[rinserepeat]

You really just hate cars don't you? Why should a pedestrian not cross at a crosswalk? I slow down at all crosswalks and let people across every time because that is a designated crossing area where I expect someone crossing. Not when they jump out from between two parked cars and walk infront of me thinking I can stop on a dime. How is that right in your mind? And before you say anything I am for bike paths and bike lanes as well as improved sidewalks (I walk a lot) but some roads just are not wide enough for bike lanes or cycle tracks. There is also a reason areas do not have crosswalks or areas where "jaywalking" happens. These issues can be anything from too far to cross (something like 100 Feet), sight distance (trees, fences, bushes or around turns), lighting and the big one is ADA compliance.

most roads around here are wide enough if we removed on-street parking just on one side - IMO - if businesses want parking on both sides and there isn't enough space for bike lanes, then speed limits should be reduced to 15 mph.

 

[Matthew]

You really just hate cars don't you? Why should a pedestrian not cross at a crosswalk? I slow down at all crosswalks and let people across every time because that is a designated crossing area where I expect someone crossing. Not when they jump out from between two parked cars and walk infront of me thinking I can stop on a dime. How is that right in your mind? And before you say anything I am for bike paths and bike lanes as well as improved sidewalks (I walk a lot) but some roads just are not wide enough for bike lanes or cycle tracks. There is also a reason areas do not have crosswalks or areas where "jaywalking" happens. These issues can be anything from too far to cross (something like 100 Feet), sight distance (trees, fences, bushes or around turns), lighting and the big one is ADA compliance.

Whoa, there, cool it.

First of all, thank you for thinking about pedestrians at crosswalks. You are part of the 1% (in a good way).

Second, the term "jaywalker" is a slur that was invented by drivers in the 1920s as something to yell at pedestrians. That's historical fact.

Third, I don't advocate that anyone "jump out and surprise" anyone. However, usually the problem is that cars are travelling too fast for conditions, and that results in the "surprise." Yes, they may be following the speed limit, legally, but it is well known by now that 30 mph is way too high for many city streets.

All these topics that you bring up: sight distance, obstructions, crosswalks, motorway width, even traffic lights ... these are all features of the road designed to make driving faster possible. These features are to the detriment of people just trying to cross the street, or use the public right of way on foot. All these contentious issues fade away if motorists just go more slowly on a city street in a populated area. If drivers weren't barreling down our streets at 30+ mph (probably 40+ mph) then it wouldn't be such a high stakes game for a person at each crosswalk.

I don't think it is "anti-car" to ask people to drive more slowly, at a reasonable rate that is not too shocking to people on foot, and to accept that highly regimented streets are unfriendly and dangerous to urban neighborhoods.

And yes, persecuting someone for "jaywalking" is wrong because in an urban neighborhood, streets are not limited access motorways, and treating them as such is the root of many of our ills. Maybe you find going slower to be annoying, but just keep in mind that the small streets, that everyone shares, are part of what makes Boston great and keeps you coming back.

 

[fattony]

... then speed limits should be reduced to 15 mph.

I agree with your sentiment, but that is not realistic which means it is not good design. The single biggest challenges to road/street design is to make it feel natural for users (drivers, bikers, and peds) to travel at safe speeds and make safe movements. I doubt there has ever been a 15 mph limit anywhere that is respected by automobile drivers. It really is an awkward and uncomfortably low speed and trying to force drivers to do it will just be ignored. Its the same thing as wanting to put a fence on Cambridge Street to prevent jaywalking. The correct solution is to put a signalized crosswalk at a safe place nearest where jaywalking is prevalent, not to pretend that people don't want to cross there and try to bend them to your will.

 

[rinserepeat]

I agree with your sentiment, but that is not realistic which means it is not good design. The single biggest challenges to road/street design is to make it feel natural for users (drivers, bikers, and peds) to travel at safe speeds and make safe movements. I doubt there has ever been a 15 mph limit anywhere that is respected by automobile drivers. It really is an awkward and uncomfortably low speed and trying to force drivers to do it will just be ignored. Its the same thing as wanting to put a fence on Cambridge Street to prevent jaywalking. The correct solution is to put a signalized crosswalk at a safe place nearest where jaywalking is prevalent, not to pretend that people don't want to cross there and try to bend them to your will.

yeah... I guess you're right take this street for example - speed limit is 20 (there's even a short section that's now 15 mph) - but people regularly drive 35+ through there. If they want people driving slower they need physical traffic calming. Boston's solution is to just plaster signs everywhere to placate people.


I guess the only real solution to too narrow streets is to reduce the volume of cars or remove one side of street parking - although, I think that when removing street parking, there probably needs to be physical barriers that cars once provided...

 

[jass]

It is never appropriate, let alone required by law, to drive in a painted bike lane nor through parking spaces. You turn from the rightmost lane, not the rightmost inch of asphalt. If you move google maps a little closer to the intersection, you can see where the righthand solid white line becomes a broken white line, indicating the appropriate place that right-turning cars have a right to occupy the lane.

You turn from the rightmost lane.

Guess what? The bike lane is a lane. You merge into it, and then turn.

The striping? it's wrong. You shouldn't be surprised, about that. That parking meter? Also looks to be illegally placed. Law is no parking within 20 feet of the crosswalk, and it doesnt look like 20 feet to me.

Mind you, the striping actually doesnt mean anything, its informative only. A single white solid line has no legal definition or standing (unless it is a stop bar). It doesnt restrict you from crossing it, ever.

Making the right turn from the bike lane is the safest for everyone because it completely eliminated the right hook. Drivers are supposed to merge into the bike lane. That means doing what they do when changing ANY lane - yielding if theres a car or bike there, and merging behind that vehicle.

If your gf was going to turn right, and had a car able to fit to the right of her, she broke the law, plain and simple.

This page has a small graphic showing how to turn

http://blog.oregonlive.com/multimedia/2007/10/right_of_way_animation.html

Note that "California Law" is that law in every state except Oregon. Oregon is the right-hook capital of the country because they have the only different law.

Finally, the google streetview car is driving in the bike lane, correctly.

 

[Matthew]

Relevant situation today:

Funny thing is that the guy had plenty of room to actually get in the right lane, he just chose not to.

 

[fattony]

Why not use speed enforcement camera boxes? People are free to speed but they're also guaranteed to get a ticket. Consistent and fair.

The optimist in me says that you don't need anything so draconian to make a street work, but the pessimist says that there is nothing people value more than cash money. It might just work. Though I recall reports of those things causing a lot of accidents or something like that.

 

[Downburst]

It's been tough to sit on this one... but Secretary Davey and MassDOT has backed and gone ahead with 25% design plans for pedestrian/cycling underpasses at Anderson Bridge, and will go forward with construction if permitted. They will also support underpasses at the River Street and Western Avenue bridges, if the Anderson Bridge shows the process is feasible. (Which it should!)

Article below! I helped write the press release.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/08/04/massdot-pledging-support-for-building-underpass-for-anderson-memorial-bridge/nxlzrOE7uEkekKt67mEj1H/story.html

 

[davem]

I was mistaken, and was talking about people driving here, after the sorrow entrance. People use the entire right side as a lane, making the right turn onto bay state road a pain. A driver expects a cyclist to be there, not a car roaring up at 40mph

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It's been tough to sit on this one... but Secretary Davey and MassDOT has backed and gone ahead with 25% design plans for pedestrian/cycling underpasses at Anderson Bridge, and will go forward with construction if permitted. They will also support underpasses at the River Street and Western Avenue bridges, if the Anderson Bridge shows the process is feasible. (Which it should!)

Article below! I helped write the press release.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...rial-bridge/nxlzrOE7uEkekKt67mEj1H/story.html

Having a hard time picturing how it'll be possible to underpass River St. with there being absolute zero lateral room around the retaining walls and narrow sidewalk, but 2 out of 3 would be outstanding.

 

[cden4]

Yup. If it's wide enough for a car, people will drive in it. Gotta love it.