Biking in Boston

I agree, I'd much rather have it feel natural to do the right thing. Enforcement brings a lot of problems with it.

I don't know about 4-way stop signs though. In some places they make sense. Not in others.

By the way, I experienced quite a bit of bicycle traffic going down Comm Ave today... I must have rode in a pack of 6-7 others in the bike lane close to me. There were a few faster riders who passed us all as well. It was pretty neat all-in-all. Are we turning into Allsterdam finally? That Comm Ave bike lane is going to need to get better, pronto.

Good week to be doing bicycle counts.
 
I'm really annoyed at that article because Paul twists words to fit a vehicular cycling agenda. The data does not match his conclusion.

The report basically says something like this: "The majority of crashes are due to dooring and right-turns. A cycle track can help with those problems. But it is possible to treat both of those issues without building a cycle track, so, 'therefore' we should not build a cycle track, and instead install a buffered bike lane." And he adds a healthy scoop of standard Vehicular Cycling anti-cycle-track propaganda, as well, the usual complaints about avoiding "de-legitimization" on the street and wanting to go fast on a bike/mix it up with cars.

The problem is that he never considers what happens to a buffered bike lane: it becomes yet-another travel and/or parking lane to be used by car drivers whenever they feel like it. That oversight is, of course, intentional.

edit: After looking over the article again, I'm now almost completely certain that this is a planned and intentional strike by the old guard of Vehicular Cycling advocates against cycle track advocacy on Comm Ave. The hatchet job is too obvious. Must mean that we're getting somewhere...
 
Last edited:
cden4 said:
I would be in favor of Idaho stop if I felt like bicyclists would actually obey it. Based on how many people blow through red lights at full speed during all-walk phases, NOT yielding to pedestrians, I'm skeptical. (I bike every day BTW.)
Click to expand...

Hopefully, those people will eventually win Darwin awards. In the mean time, an Idaho stop law for those of us who ride with an eye toward safety and prefer not to brake the law is a good idea.
 
Try standing at the intersection of Boylston St/Tremont St or Columbus Ave/Arlington St/Stuart St. I am usually the only one who waits for the actual green light rather than going through on the walk signal.
 
I usually walk my bike through such intersections. But does it really matter if someone bikes through it, so long as they yield to pedestrians? What harm is done?

I just can't get resentful about it, and I don't understand why you are.
 
The problem is a large number of the bicyclists who go through on the walk sign DON'T yield to pedestrians, or buzz them very closely. Both of these intersections have long waits to cross the street and a lot of pedestrians crossing (especially Tremont/Boylston). It's very rude to buzz through the crowd of pedestrians, especially when they waited a long time to be able to cross in the first place. Is it really such a big deal to wait another 15-20 seconds for a green light?
 
The issue with cycle tracks, IMO, is to do them safely you need a dedicated, signalized right turn lane to keep drivers from hooking cyclists proceeding straight. This eats up 100' or so of parking (not really an issue I care about, but an issue nontheless), and adds another phase to the signal cycle. A cycle track also makes it impossible to make a left from the left turn lane, instead requiring a "copenhagen left" (slows cyclists down, you need to wait two signal phases to get through an intersection). Not to mention, Boston doesn't seem to ever plow them. The western ave cycle track is typically full of snow for weeks before they send a bobcat over, which leaves a big sheet of ice.

I think a good solution would be a cycle track on the westbound portion of comm ave (fewer turning cars, wider right of way, uphill is harder to cycle on in the first place), and a buffered bike lane inbound.


---I believe the crux of the issue is thus; for beginner cyclists, a cycle track is undoubtedly preferable because it offers a substantially higher feeling of security. If properly designed, it can be safer as well. BUT, once you "graduate" to feeling comfortable mixing with cars on a regular basis, a cycle track becomes a major hindrance. Passing can be more difficult to outright impossible, left turns take for ever (as above), and the greater speed a more seasoned cyclist goes also increases the possibility of right turn conflicts, as they aren't seen/are ignored by drivers*. Ideally, the city would lay down sharrows on any street with a parallel cycle track.


*I've almost been right hooked a couple of times by cars turning into Genzyme and Rotterdam Street. A sign that says "Bicyclists watch for turning vehicles" and not "Turning traffic yield to Bicyclists" isn't helping the issue.
 
The problem is a large number of the bicyclists who go through on the walk sign DON'T yield to pedestrians, or buzz them very closely.
Click to expand...

And again, the Idaho Stop law still makes that kind of behavior illegal. So what's the problem?

I would much rather have the police focus on stopping dangerous behavior instead of sitting back and handing out tickets to docile, well-behaved cyclists who yield to pedestrians and therefore are easy targets for enforcement. Because that is what currently happens. To the police, it's all equal, and for them it's much easier to track down a slow moving cyclist who is willing to stop rather than track down a speeding cyclist who refuses to stop.

Current law leads to perverse incentives for law enforcement, and perverse incentives for bicyclists. The current law actually rewards you for acting more dangerously. That's why I think it should be changed.
 
davem said:
---I believe the crux of the issue is thus; for beginner cyclists, a cycle track is undoubtedly preferable because it offers a substantially higher feeling of security. If properly designed, it can be safer as well. BUT, once you "graduate" to feeling comfortable mixing with cars on a regular basis, a cycle track becomes a major hindrance. Passing can be more difficult to outright impossible, left turns take for ever (as above), and the greater speed a more seasoned cyclist goes also increases the possibility of right turn conflicts, as they aren't seen/are ignored by drivers*. Ideally, the city would lay down sharrows on any street with a parallel cycle track.
Click to expand...

I've been bike commuting around here for almost 15 years now - I'd prefer to briefly get stuck behind someone going 2mph on a cycletrack than ride in the middle of traffic. What bothers me is getting stuck behind someone going 2 mph in a bike lane - because then I have to merge with traffic to pass (and people around here don't like to let you merge) - plus I feel like I have to ride faster when I'm next to cars. I'd much rather happily ride along at a leisurely pace - especially since it means I can more easily bike places with my family.
 
Matthew said:
And again, the Idaho Stop law still makes that kind of behavior illegal. So what's the problem?

I would much rather have the police focus on stopping dangerous behavior instead of sitting back and handing out tickets to docile, well-behaved cyclists who yield to pedestrians and therefore are easy targets for enforcement. Because that is what currently happens. To the police, it's all equal, and for them it's much easier to track down a slow moving cyclist who is willing to stop rather than track down a speeding cyclist who refuses to stop.

Current law leads to perverse incentives for law enforcement, and perverse incentives for bicyclists. The current law actually rewards you for acting more dangerously. That's why I think it should be changed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was stopped at the right-on-red from Somerville Ave to Bow St in Union square, a popular stakeout for the Somerville police. After coming to a full stop in the bike lane, I watched a pedestrian cross the street. With no other pedestrians in site, and no other car or bike interactions even possible at that intersection, I proceeded right on red through the light and was promptly pulled over.

I know that cars do occasional get stopped for illegal right turns on red, but I've personally never seen it happen - never mind a stakeout of an intersection. They don't need to, as there are plenty of drivers to catch doing egregious things like going 20 over the limit or driving drunk.
 
rinserepeat said:
daily bike commuter here... I usually only see this kind of insane deathwish behavior where the stupid teenagers are
Click to expand...

I walk my son to school from Back Bay to Beacon Hill every day. At least once a week we have to stop in the middle of a crosswalk on Comm. Ave for a biker that doesn't even slow down for the red light if there are no cars crossing. The bikers are old, young, etc. but the older (40's or older) men in full biking gear are the worst. They rarely, if ever, stop. The younger types seem much more likely to stop. Obiviously anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...
 
Yes. Westland is a stupidly wide strip of asphalt as it is now.
 
fatnoah said:
I walk my son to school from Back Bay to Beacon Hill every day. At least once a week we have to stop in the middle of a crosswalk on Comm. Ave for a biker that doesn't even slow down for the red light if there are no cars crossing. The bikers are old, young, etc. but the older (40's or older) men in full biking gear are the worst. They rarely, if ever, stop. The younger types seem much more likely to stop. Obiviously anecdotal evidence is anecdotal...
Click to expand...

I have a similar experience with bikers blowing through the crosswalk light at Tufts Medical Center. For the past two months, I have been counting, and I have yet to see a single biker stop for the red light on Washington Street -- all blow through pedestrians crossing at the hospital at full speed. This is particularly oblivious biker behavior, because a lot of the people crossing have limited mobility (yet are expected to get out of the bikers' way).
 
It's not necessarily right, or legal, but I'm not so concerned about bikes yielding to peds in the crosswalk. As someone who bikes myself, it's a completely different feeling when you approach a crosswalk with a pedestrian in it than when you're driving a car. Most times I just pass behind them. It may make the pedestrian a little uneasy, but it's not a car. Cyclists have good control of their bikes and can pretty much stop or turn on a dime if necessary.
 
I agree. For example: the other day I was biking through Belmont and an older (60ish) woman crosses the street in front of me where there is no crosswalk. I slowed, but didn't stop, and safely passed behind her (by about three feet). She audibly yells, "oh Jesus!" as if I were about to kill her. It reminded me of how F-Line always paints Belmont residents as "pearl-clutchers" so I got a chuckle out of it.

(I know, cool story bro. Whatever.)

Given the mix of traffic that exists in small spaces on mixed-use trails, completely unsignalized and mostly without incident, there should be little problem with this behavior on roads, as long as the pedestrian is given the right-of-way.
 
If cyclists are going to go through a ped xing with peds in it, my first test is: is the cyclist willing to communicate with the pedestrians, such as by saying "I'll go behind you" or, at least, ringing a bell. I think the core objection to this practice is not that it is a violation of the law, but that it seems to show a disregard for the humanity of the pedestrians.

I believe there are some very selfish, entitled bikers, pedestrians, and motorists out there, but the way to show you're not one of "those guys" (regardless of mode) is to be willing to make eye contact, say something or signal when overtaking or turning, or otherwise acknowledge by word or action that "we" are sharing a street and that to do so safely takes communal effort and being "social".

We may differ on how hard to apply "the law" but the need to communicate and coordinate should be innate and universal.

Sorry, introverts and egotists, but you're sharing a road, and that's going to take sympathy and coordination.
 
Arlington said:
If cyclists are going to go through a ped xing with peds in it, my first test is: is the cyclist willing to communicate with the pedestrians, such as by saying "I'll go behind you" or, at least, ringing a bell. I think the core objection to this practice is not that it is a violation of the law, but that it seems to show a disregard for the humanity of the pedestrians.

I believe there are some very selfish, entitled bikers, pedestrians, and motorists out there, but the way to show you're not one of "those guys" (regardless of mode) is to be willing to make eye contact, say something or signal when overtaking or turning, or otherwise acknowledge by word or action that "we" are sharing a street and that to do so safely takes communal effort and being "social".

We may differ on how hard to apply "the law" but the need to communicate and coordinate should be innate and universal.

Sorry, introverts and egotists, but you're sharing a road, and that's going to take sympathy and coordination.
Click to expand...

Oh, and by the way, I rang a bell as I was approaching and made eye contact. The "Oh jesus" was so unexpected in a very safe and calm interaction that it absolutely fell in line with F-Line Belmont stereotypes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top