Artist's rendering of the black-helicopter markings on Longwood Avenue
By adamg - 3/2/10 - 6:33 pm
Eeka sketches them out.
Actual explanation (read down a bit).
Hey, there! Log in / Register
Eeka sketches them out.
Actual explanation (read down a bit).
Comments
Bicycle priority?
So are the cars supposed to follow the bikes? If there are cars parked on the sides of the road and you have to yield to the bikes and there is only one lane the bike has the right of way? I could see this on a two lane road maybe - but on a single lane?
This is currently the law
If there is not room to pass a cyclist, you have to wait until it is safe to pass. Period. Cyclists do not have to stop or pull over to let cars by if it is not safe to do so. Cyclists are vehicles in traffic - when the road gets narrow, cyclists can move into the "door death" zone or pull over out of courtesy, but it isn't required and usually isn't safe anyway.
This has been the law for at least 20 years and is covered in the driver's handbook. You should already know these laws if you drive.
In this situation....
what I usually do is wave the cars around me. Enough waves and they will partially cross the double yellow line at a safe distance from me in order to pass me. I much prefer this to having the cars crawl along behind me.
Hear hear!
Hear hear!
Perhaps I wasn't clear
These markings make it look like it's a bike path - not a road. I can see a lot of cyclists thinking this means they are within their rights to drive 10 mph down the middle of the road because they are "in the bike lane" - I believe they still have the same rights and responsibilities as a driver not to impede the reasonable flow of traffic. Even if they technically can legally ride at a snail's pace down the middle of the road, I have a feeling your local constable won't be too happy with the practice. All speculation at this point - will be curious to see what happens.
Local Constables Have Been Sued for That
It doesn't matter what they think. Wilmington paid out a large judgement, and the MDC got nailed repeatedly with lawsuits for that very reason - cyclists have a right to use the road, and use as much of it as they need to safely pass vehicles and obstacles and not be smashed by impatient motorists.
Again Stevil, with the
Again Stevil, with the exception of highways and storrow drive every road IS a bike path. They are entitled to drive at 10mph, even if the speed limit is 50.
The sharrows are to remind drivers, such as yourself, that this is the case, and so a driver hitting the horn because they're annoyed is the one breaking the law.
If you want more sharrow action, the BU bridge and the dam bridge have them as well, and there are many to be found north of the charles. Boston only recently joined the fun on 2 or 3 roads.
Rights
Yes, we cyclists have the right to take the full lane, and we have the right to go as slow as we please. If you're a driver and you're frustrated by not being able to pass me, then perhaps you should consider getting a smaller vehicle. Or maybe move to another state.
But it isn't illegal for you to lay on your horn out of frustration. You're exercising your First Amendment rights, and I respect that.
"But it isn't illegal for you
"But it isn't illegal for you to lay on your horn out of frustration. You're exercising your First Amendment rights, and I respect that."
How illegal it is depends on local ordinance. NYC is full of signs reminding drivers of the $250 fine for using the horn in residential areas. I think laying on your horn is disturbing the peace, and thus could be found illegal in all areas. Boston cops love enforcing noise violations (parties), perhaps they should extend that love to our streets.
No
Every road is a road - and bikes and cars (according to Swirly's comments) have EQUAL standing as vehicles entitled to use the road. However, while a cyclist can use the road, they must obey ALL the traffic rules and it is illegal in most states (I'm assuming in Mass also) to impede traffic. Thus it appears that the correct answer to my original question is that neither bikes nor cars have priority - however, the cars must allow the bikes to ride anywhere in the road as long as they are not impeding traffic (not that I'm going to run you over - although you might get a polite toot followed by a long loud one if you don't pull over). A bike traveling down Longwood at 10-15 mph can probably legally get pulled over by the constable if they are impeding the flow of traffic. Safety Officer Swirly?
Wrong again, Stevil
"Impeding traffic" has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. If I have nowhere to ride but the lane, the lane is mine. It doesn't matter what speed or who feels entitled to throw a tantrum. Wilmington got their tail ends sued, as did the old MDC, for their cops harassing cyclists with nowhere to ride but the road under the guise of "impeding traffic". It simply does not matter. Bikes ARE traffic, and moving vehicles are moving. Simple. Speed limits are not a minimum!
Impeding traffic - that applies to stopped vehicles, not moving ones.
Bikes are also prohibited from limited access roadways and have been as long as the statute has been around.
Why don't you look it up - start with massbike.org. http://www.massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/ They have the relevant information available for you to read. Updates, including the answers to your persistent denial question about "impeding traffic" despite evidence to the contrary are here: http://www.massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/bike-law-update/ Sorry the world doesn't conform to your ideal driving space, but, then again, most roads in the Commonwealth weren't designed for cars, either.
Doesn't really bother me
Personally I only drive in the city about once a week on Wednesday evenings in the winter and additionally on weekends in the summer - but not in the city so this doesn't really affect my ideal driving space. Just seems like the Green/PC police have gone a bit far if they are encouraging people to ride their bikes in the middle of the road (Rozzie square is another great example of the stick bike painters run amok - I get dizzy driving through there with all the lines)- somebody's going to get hurt because some bureaucrat thinks putting a 40 lb vehicle going 12 mph in the middle of a road filled with 3000 lb vehicles going 40 mph is somehow a good idea. Kind of like putting your pet mouse in the middle of a herd of stampeding elephants. Your mouse will make a very good game of it - but he's still going to get flattened even if the elephant doesn't want to step on him.
As a fairly disinterested observer who's spent plenty of time in the bike saddle and the driver's seat, I have come to the conclusion that bikes and urban traffic are simply a very bad mix. Forget the aggravation of slow drivers, somebody's going to get seriously hurt or killed - maybe not here on Longwood - but in one of the crazy places downtown they are encouraging people to ride their bicycles. Do your families and the rest of us a favor - stop arguing about your rights to use the middle of the road and take the T.
Nice
So, we get to the crux of your complaint: Drop dead or take the T. Roads are for cars.
That puts you in the same boat as Captain Caps Lock down below...just with fancier words and less screaming. Congrats.
not exactly
It's "Congested city roads are not safe for bikes - they are too dangerous. Use the side roads and if you can't take the T you might get killed for partaking in an inherently dangerous action." What part of "The road is so narrow and so congested that there is only room for bikes in the middle of the road" sounds like a good idea? One thing if traffic is slow - but the video in the link shows cars whizzing by. Couple that with the college age kids I saw on Huntington last night riding with no lights and just a couple of reflectors and you are asking for trouble. I didn't come to this conclusion randomly - had a couple of bicyclists almost run into me last summer (changing lanes without looking) then give me the finger because "They had the right to be there" and then attended a seminar the city gave on some plans for bike lanes on Comm Ave. Again, walked away with the impression that if it's that hard to do and involves so many moves to obey the rules it's just not a good idea. Between Kenmore and Arlington there were at least 6 kill zones. Two that involved multiple lane changes and four that involved cars turning left over a left bike lane that probably won't expect a bike there. And that's just one mile of road. In my opinion this whole "ride a bike downtown" thing is going to end tragically - either through an act of road rage or repeated accidents, especially in a town full of college kids. And I don't want to be the driver that has to live with it either.
Which part?
The part where I'm in line of sight of the driver and he has to deal with me doing 15 mph in his 30 mph zone. If the road is too narrow for you to think it's safe for a bicyclist...then it's obviously also too narrow for a car to be doing more than about 25 mph anyways. I don't care if I'm the only guy on a bicycle in an entire city full of H3's and Escalades, they don't have ANY more right to the road/lane than I do.
This is pretty black and white. You're just completely wrong-headed on this and I hope everywhere you go driving in the city from now on includes driving behind a bike for miles. This city more than nearly every other in the US is perfectly suited for bikes because of its compact nature and extremely old road network. If you are driving a vehicle capable of killing pedestrians and bicyclists, then it's *your* responsibility not to abuse the privilege. You can't put the onus on the rest of the world to stay out of your way.
political correctness
If it's true that bicycles and cars are a bad mix, it does not necessarily follow that the bikes, not the cars, are the ones that don't belong on the roads. Wouldn't it be just as valid to say that the cars ought to be banned?
Of course you could argue that it's not at all realistic to expect our representatives in government to banish automobiles from public ways, but that would be appealing to political correctness, no?
Dangerous
Many Boston roads are too dangerous for me to ride a bike on them. As you point out, a bicyclist is inevitably going to die.
Of course, a motorist is going to die too. And a pedestrian. And a child.
Automobile crashes are the number one preventable cause of deaths of children worldwide. They are the sixth largest preventable cause of death in the United States. About 50,000 people die every year from car crashes in America. Car crashes are likely going to kill more people in Boston this year than murders are, although murders will get more headlines.
I think we agree on that. Where we seem to disagree is in the response to this huge problem.
It seems like your preferred response is to throw up your hands and tell other residents of Boston to cede city streets to dangerous drivers. I think the response should be to make the streets safer, as a matter of public policy and personal action. Making the streets safer for bicyclists will also make the streets safer for automobile drivers. And pedestrians.
Whereas many Boston residents may not drive on a daily basis (I don't), almost all Boston residents walk on a daily basis. Automobiles pose one of the greatest dangers to your and my life in this city, whether you are a bicyclist, a driver, or a pedestrian. Putting more bikes on the road will make you and me safer, by slowing cars down. Think of bikes as rolling speed bumps if it helps.
NOT HELPING!
I think that's the problem.
3000 lb vehicles going 40 mph
There's your problem right there: they'd be breaking the law in Rozzie Square. The speed limit is 30, and even that would be an unsafe speed there. If you're going 40 through the South Street curve, you're a danger to humanity.
Any other lawbreaking you'd like to encourage, Stevil? Any other innocent people you'd like to berate? How about the little old ladies who cross the street there? Tell them it's their own fault if they get hit in the pedestrian crosswalk, because nobody stops for that red light?
Not Rozzie Sq
the 40 mph reference was to my estimate of car speed in the videos of longwood ave.
In case we didn't already know
Now we really know that you don't know what you are talking about. I can't think of a stretch of Longwood Ave. where you could even safely drive 40mph, let alone practically acheive that speed. Read some of the comments from people who actually do that, below.
And, hey, do us all a favor and put your keys away and learn the laws before you go out again. The roads weren't built for cars in most cases, and one could make the case that the cars should be limited far more than the bikes, as the roads were designed for horses and actually paved because cyclists lobbied hard for that!
There is no such thing as Car Privilege. Get over yourself.
Check the link
There's a video clip - 3 cars go by in the middle of the day at what looks to be about 40 mph.
Roads have come a long way since the days of horses and early bicycles - and you may not like it - but you are outnumbered about 1000-1. It would be nice to live in a bicycle utopia. Unfortunately we live in an automobile reality - and that's not changing in our lifetime.
Swirly - face it - if you polled 1000 people on the new bike law - you'd probably be lucky to find one that had any idea what you were talking about - and that person probably rides a bike. I'm too busy getting held up in traffic by cyclists going 10 mph in 35 mph to read the traffic code for kicks.
40 MPH?
Why is traffic going through a residential neighborhood at 40 MPH at any time of day? That's illegal and unsafe for all concerned, not just cyclists.
By car or by bike
It isn't the bikes that are holding me up in traffic. It is solo drivers in vehicles that are many times the size of the people they are transporting that are jamming up the roadways and impeding progress of both cars and bikes. One bike has nowhere near the traffic-impeding value that rush hour shows us that too many cars do.
If you can't see all those large obstructions in your way because OMFG BIKE?!? and you can't be arsed to keep up with the laws, stay off the roads.
"Take the T" or ride a bike?
Depends where you're going. If I'm going from Davis Square to Quincy or Dorchester, the T wins. If I'm going to downtown Boston, it's usually a draw. But if I have to transfer downtown and head out some distance on another line, the bike is a clear win.
Let's take a trip form Davis Square to Ruggles station.
By MBTA, Google gives me various time estimates from 30 to 35 minutes. That includes time to wait for the Orange LIne transfer, but not time to wait for the Red Line at the trip's start, nor time to walk into Davis station from where I actually live.
Google doesn't have bicycle directions, but walking directions usually work fine for biking. The map says the distance is 5.1 miles. At my fairly pokey bicycle speed of 12 mph, that gets me from Davis to Ruggles in a little over 25 minutes. If I've eaten enough beforehand, or there's a tail wind, I can do better.
This isn't a criticism of the T -- it's just what happens when you need to take a crosstown trip.
Another example
To get to work by public transit, my husband used to have to take three buses or two buses to the subway to a 15 minute walk. This took well over an hour - often an hour and a half.
By bike: 30 minutes.
Bikes, like horse drawn
Bikes, like horse drawn carriages are not considered to be impeding traffic when they're moving at the best speed they can.
You really need to review the state traffic laws. When I studied for my license, I remember a section on how to properly pass a bicycle. Honking your horn and expecting the bike to pull over is NOT what the traffic book says. What it says is that you must wait until it is safe to pass and then do so with a 3 foot clearance. If the street had a double yellow line, then enjoy your air conditioning and radio and chill out until it is safe for you to pass.
I do believe that the law also states that if the slow moving vehicle is holding up more than 5 cars, then yes, they should pull aside. I've never heard of that law being enforced, and I believe it is written for narrow rural roads, not the city.
Here's a helpful point of reference
Most bike safety courses will tell you that the safest place to drive is left of center in the lane, directly behind (and in front of) the driver's seat of a car. This is to put you in the most obvious position to someone approaching you from behind. There is no law, suggestion, or otherwise that says that you must pull to the side of the lane to allow faster moving vehicles to pass you on the left. The only thing you're required to do is stay in the right lane if there is more than 1 lane in your direction and you are not turning left or passing a slower moving vehicle. AND yet bikes are ALSO given the permission to pass on the right within the lane at any time (such as to "jump the line" at a line of cars waiting at a red light. So, a bike can both take control of a lane if it wants AND pass on the right within the lane to skip ahead of the cars if it wants.
In fact, as a biking friend of mine pointed out, the signs on the BU Bridge that say "bikes may take whole lane" are *really, really* BAD. They're there to remind cyclists that it's entirely legal to do so...but the implicit suggestion of the sign is that the opposite ("when you're not on the BU Bridge, you may NOT take the whole lane") is implied by a sign like that...and it's not true and further endangers cyclists when car drivers are not surrounded by signs reminding them that bikes might want to take a whole lane.
I don't think the signs are
I don't think the signs are bad. Most people are so ignorant about bike laws that those signs (placed with sharrows on the bridge) are necessary. They're more forceful than "share the road". I think of them like the "stop here on red" signs that point at a white stop line. They don't dilute the fact that you must always stop before a white stop line, but it's pretty sad that drivers need a reminder. Another example is "do not block the intersection" which is the case at EVERY intersection. How much signage money could be saved if people had to retake the written test every 10 years?
I hoped they saved some paint
I hoped they saved some paint for the crosses.
As swirly said, yes thats the
As swirly said, yes thats the law in every state and has always been the case. The paint on the ground is a recent fad because many drivers, apparently including you, do not understand the law.
The sharrow is meant to indicate two things:
1) To the cyclist, where to position themselves to avoid doors. Many novice bikers try to ride as close to the parked cars as possible, that's extremely dangerous.
2) To the driver, to remind them that the cyclist is positioned legally in the safest place and that no, they shouldn't be on the sidewalk.
Brookline is going beyond the basic sharrow by adding lane markings around them. Long Beach went even further and painted it green.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VLjJ1Eg40aM/S18n5FJsQhI/AAAAAAAAAtM/QoC4lYF9W7w/s400/bike+sharrow.jpg
Not the law in every state
It is, however, the law in many states, including Massachusetts. If you are cycling elsewhere, best to check what the rules are.
That said, I <3 sharrows! It really makes it clear that "bikes go here". Since they put them on Elm in Somerville and Park Ave too, I have much less issue with fighting for space away from the Daily Elementary School Drop Off Door Opening Event. Drivers see the bike and arrows, see the bike, and give up the space almost automatically.
But there are no sharrows
If there were, it would be great. Currently, they are just mystery lines which only serve to confuse drivers.
They are going to put in the
They are going to put in the sharrows soon, supposedly. Even with just the lines, though, I like it - it helps define the edge of the door zone for cyclists.
When I ride my bike on this
When I ride my bike on this section of Longwood, I find I get stuck behind cars at least as often as they get stuck behind me (we end up doing that annoying thing where you pass each other at every light). The speed limit is 25mph, I think, but the street's so full of traffic lights, school crossings, and busy driveways that I think you'd be lucky to get up much above 20, and average speeds (taking stops for lights and traffic into account) are probably 10-15mph. I'm no bike-lane planner, but this seems like almost an ideal place to use sharrows.
The offical term for "sharrows" is Shared Lane Markings
This is the relevant text from the current (2009) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices:
Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking
Option:
The Shared Lane Marking shown in Figure 9C-9 may be used to:
A. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking in order to reduce the chance of a bicyclist’s impacting the open door of a parked vehicle,
B. Assist bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane,
C. Alert road users of the lateral location bicyclists are likely to occupy within the traveled way,
D. Encourage safe passing of bicyclists by motorists, and
E. Reduce the incidence of wrong-way bicycling.
Guidance:
The Shared Lane Marking should not be placed on roadways that have a speed limit above 35 mph.
Standard:
Shared Lane Markings shall not be used on shoulders or in designated bicycle lanes.
Guidance:
If used in a shared lane with on-street parallel parking, Shared Lane Markings should be placed so that the centers of the markings are at least 11 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where thereis no curb.
If used on a street without on-street parking that has an outside travel lane that is less than 14 feet wide, the centers of the Shared Lane Markings should be at least 4 feet from the face of the curb, or from the edge of the pavement where there is no curb.
If used, the Shared Lane Marking should be placed immediately after an intersection and spaced at intervals not greater than 250 feet thereafter.
Option:
Section 9B.06 describes a Bicycles May Use Full Lane sign that may be used in addition to or instead of the Shared Lane Marking to inform road users that bicyclists might occupy the travel lane.
Now the big question: Will most drivers from this area actually KNOW what these new markings mean?
Globe updates the story on the markings
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/brookline/2010/06/on_biking_a_ride_on_a_bicycle.html
Complete with Stevil like stignorance from commenters.
Poll?
If you asked 1000 drivers (non-cyclists) what those arrows mean - what percentage do you think would have the slightest clue - my guess is about 1% (have asked a few people and they all just think it's a bike lane and then ask why it's in the middle of the road). Call it stignorance if you will - but the opinion of the majority seems to be that this is another example of the PC police and the bike lobby run amok when nobody was looking.
Beer guy - how many obscure laws that have no impact on your life do you keep track of? Want to take a test? I'll even ask you a couple that you should know but have no clue about. Does that mean you are ignorant or that you have a life that doesn't involve looking up legal minutia that has no impact on said life?
As a cyclist
Who biked just yesterday on roads with those markings, I didn't know what they purport to mean until I read that article. I figured they meant something on the order of "We wish we could put a bike lane here, but there really isn't room for one, so keep on biking in traffic, little dude!" or "Hey driver, you know there might be a bike around here somewhere, so drive carefully, ok?"
Bicycle Priority Lane? That makes no damn sense. All lanes are already bicycle priority lanes if a bicyclist needs them to be. You can bet I'm at least two feet from the doors, and if I need to take the lane I do, as current law for all open roads dictates. On that tiny road it would be hard to safely pass a safe bicyclist without crossing the double yellow. This "Priority" isn't really anything that doesn't already exist there. At worst, these markings give the false impression that a bicyclist's right to use the lane doesn't already exist on other roads as well. At best, they just make more explicit a right that already exists.
But I don't think most people go down the road nit-picking symbols, and to most people they probably give a simple, helpful impression: "Here there might be bikes." So I'm for them.