Nearly plowed into by a bicyclist near Kenmore Square - on the sidewalk
By adamg - 11/9/10 - 10:23 am
Dave Daniels reports on a recent incident in Kenmore Square - and posts a photo of the bowlegged bicyclist who nearly hit him:
He was weaving back and forth from one side of the sidewalk to the other. I don't know if he had "issues", was on some sort of mind-altering substance, or just an idiot.
Comments
Kenmore Square
is definitely not a place where cyclists should be on the sidewalk.
[edit]
Although the picture shows the bike in a location I would not consider to be Kenmore Square.
[/edit]
"walking to Kenmore Square to mail some packages"
is what the original post said. Looks like Brookline Ave. south of Fenway Park. Still not a good place to ride on the sidewalk.
Yep, the blogger gets it
Yep, the blogger gets it right, but this headline is misleading. And I agree, though I'm kind of militant about riding on sidewalks everywhere, not just busy ones. I consider the law that allows it anywhere outside of business districts to lack clarity and leads specifically to this type of incident. In general, cyclists need to develop the skills and awareness to ride on streets, not sidewalks.
Changed "in" to "near."
Changed "in" to "near."
Kenmore is the place I most
Kenmore is the place I most expect to die as a cyclist. There is just no good way to get through there, especially going westbound.
Try Baystate Road
Usual sheep not looking contingent crossing the streets, but you can bang a left before the BU Campus entry and cut back up to Comm Ave. Then you can use the left turn light or Ped light to get across to side streets leading to Beacon further up.
I know about Bay State, it's
I know about Bay State, it's just very bumpy and what you said about the sheep not looking contingent (and some of the sheep here are in cars:). I've come up from there by the post office to turn right onto Beacon (cutting through the ped area, mercy!), among other ways, but it's still not really my favorite option (actually, I like taking the back way through the Fens better, but some days you just want to get the hell home).
Maybe if they repave it BS will be a better option (PLEASE REPAVE IT).
Another Brilliant comment!
Another Brilliant comment! Just amazing!
You're Active Today
Somebody forget your ADHD cocktail this morning?
Of did you just realize that mommy will let you wear your SuperTroll underoos anytime now that Halloween is over?
I expect this post to go over quite well!
Surprise, surprise; it's a crappy hybrid bike, the vehicle championed by fat, slow cyclists, homeless guys who pedal around collecting cans, and cyclists who only cycle because they're legally unable to drive after that pesky 7th DUI.
My scientific opinion is that tire sizes of larger than 28mm* make you stupid.
*Cross bikes are an exception to this rule, since cx bikes do indeed rule
I'm not fat and I love my hybrid bike
Anyone who has met me knows I'm not fat. I wouldn't say that I'm fast but I'm not slow either. I enjoy having a Trek 730 hybrid because it lets me ride on unpaved trails like the Reformatory Branch in Bedford and Concord, or Track Road in Stow, which would be uncomfortable on a narrow-tired road bike.
(None of which means that hybrid bikes should be ridden on crowded city sidewalks.)
By the way, how can you tell what kind of bike it is, when the picture is almost directly from the back?
btw
Flat handlebars, wide tires, platform pedals, retarded guy on it. It's a hybrid.
Here Here
Real cyclists ride track bikes. While part of the draw is the fixed gear, what matters as much is the short wheel base that makes them so damn agile. That and the fact that any bike that can't be readily lifted on one's pinky is TOO HEAVY.
No, unwashed delivery boys ride rack bikes
Real cyclists ride whatever they're most comfortable riding.
Gonna have to disagree with you snob
There is no best bike or "real" bike. Everybody has their own requirements, and there are many bikes designed for a variety of purposes. I ride a hybrid for the same reasons cited by Ron Newman -- much greater flexibility of riding conditions. I use it on gravel, on the street, and I enjoy the way it handles the many potholes strewn about Boston's bike lanes. I too am not fat (though not completely lean), and I'm generally one of the faster cyclists.
I pass hipsters on fixters, and spandex on racers. There is no one true bike.
An adjustable wrench is not as good as a full set of wrenches
It's not about snobbery. It's about using the best vehicle for the right conditions. You wouldn't drive a Formula One car in the Dakar Rally nor try to win the Monaco GP in a Subaru WRX rally car.
If you ride on the street you should use a bike made for that. If you ride off road you should get a nice mountain bike. If you do both then you should have two bikes (they're cheap enough that you could have a whole stable of potential rides).
The problem with hybrids is they are neither as lean as they need to be for road use, and lack proper structure for off road use. "Jack of all trades and master of none" and all that.
Plus they are typically cheaply made so are just too damn heavy.
If you can ride faster than other people on other bikes that is great for you. But you are riding with an anchor tied to you and could do the same with much less effort with a better bike.
Advocating for the steel frame
If you can't ride a heavy, steel-framed hybrid at a proper pace through city streets (but not necessarily like Kevin Bacon in Quicksilver), then there's no way you should be on something lighter. Cross bikes are similarly heavy, and there are plenty of folks on my route who use them to great effect. Plus, they're way more durable... which is far more important in a pockmarked, salt-laden Northeast city.
Again, every circumstance is different, pay attention
My commute involves both street riding and a gravel path. A hybrid is the best bike for that purpose. You are, quite simply, wrong to opine that there is no circumstance that calls for a hybrid.
"If you do both then you should have two bikes "
If I ride from Somerville to Lowell, my route includes 3+ miles of unpaved Narrow Gauge Rail Trail in Bedford. If I ride to Concord, the route includes 4 miles of unpaved Reformatory Branch Trail in Bedford and Concord, or, alternatively, about the same distance of unpaved Battle Road Trail in Lexington and Lincoln.
Do you want me to carry one bike on the back of the other one, and switch off when I go from paved road to unpaved path?
Narrow Gauge Rail Trail
A hybrid for those paths sounds reasonable to me. I thought about taking my hybrid on this route for a while when I biked up there, but I've ended up using my road bike instead, so I took Springs Road (Hartford/Bacon/Hillside). It parallels the Narrow Gauge, and works as a decent alternative.
the lycra line is so tired
I pass hipsters on fixters, and spandex on racers. There is no one true bike.
1)Cyclists wear bike shorts because they're necessary when you're riding a long distance or pedaling at a high cadence, which is necessary to keep from blowing your knees out (among other things.) Wear non-bike shorts and you end up with something called chafing, in areas where chafing can be both uncomfortable and a potential serious health problem.
Lycra is necessary because it stretches as you move your legs, and wicks sweat but doesn't retain lots of it, which is what you need if you don't want to end your ride drenched in sweat (and quickly freezing). And yes, reasonably-form-fitting clothing does help with wind resistance, which, when you're powering yourself for several dozen miles at speeds in the vicinity of 20MPH, is not insignificant.
Cycling clothing is expensive and wears pretty quickly, so when someone gives you some for free or cheap, you use it. Or maybe you're proud of your accomplishment (like doing a charity ride, or finishing a big, long organized ride, etc. Or they're on a race team and they are proud of the accomplishment of getting on said team.
Also: if we're in the city on a nice road bike in lycra, we're either at the start of our ride and still warming up, or returning and cooling down (or exhausted.) I'd like to see your ass do 50 miles at an average of 16-17mph, and see how fast you are then, Mr. Hero.
no one is going to bother to
no one is going to bother to read such a long comment, Brett with two T's
So...
if the same setup was on a Surly Crosscheck instead of a mass-market Schwinn, that would pass your litmus test? You're exactly the kind of cyclist that makes people hate cyclists: A classist ideological zealot who doesn't care as much about getting others to ride as you do about getting them to ride to your standard or clearing them from your own path through the city.
I ride a Surly Long Haul Trucker but, before that, I rode a steel-framed National manufactured in Passaic, N.J., and sold in tri-state area suprmarkets. It didn't rust, its parts held up well and needed only occasional maintenance or replacement for the 20 years I rode it. It's still in use today, only now as some kid's new bike from Bikes Not Bombs. For the $80 it cost at the time, it was a tremendous value and frequently sailed by riders on Specialized and Bianchi rides several levels above its pay grade.
It shouldn't matter if someone buys their bike at a Target or International or if they've ever inflated a tire with a Presta valve. Let them ride and build a love of it and they may just come around to your logic on their own.
That said, get the hell off the sidewalk. You're on a vehicle, act like it.
28cm?
I actually run 35 on my city bike because BOSTON ROADS SUCK. My son has 28 cm and I'm already rethinking that because he's had three flats already. The extra size lends reliability in my 20+ years of experience on Boston roads.
I don't have all the time in the world to continually change tires on nearly every ride. When I ran 25cm on my Bianchi Eros I was constantly changing flats, even with Kevlar. 28s solved the problem. My husband will not take his 22s into the city - he takes the elderly cannofale touring bike with the 38s. He finally replaced his conti top tourings about 10 years and thousands of miles in ... with no flats ever.
doing it wrong
You're either riding shitty tires, getting crappy tubes from your shop, or tubes that are the wrong size, or underinflating your tires and getting pinch flats. Or failing to clear debris from the tire/rim, or damaging the tubes installing them.
I've had TWO flats in 5 years and thousands of miles, one of which was a large nail.
I don't think so
I don't ride where you ride, how you ride. Apparently, neither does my husband. Considering the two of us have been commuting by bike for over 50 years put together, it probably is that simple. We know how to change tires, wipe out the glass and debris, etc. and are instructing offspring in said art.
Size = reliability makes some sense if you think about the higher forces involved on skinnier tires are more able to push debris through to the tubes.
Could be the tire itself
As a daily commuter, I used to get tons of flats (sometimes 3 in a month). I got a set of Gatorskins from Continental (excuse the product placement) and I have not had a flat in 2 years. They cost more, but you save on tubes.
Learn how to write
one of your miles was a large nail?
ho hum
ho hum
You insensitive clod! [1]
I have spine problems that cause me great discomfort when I'm bent forward - i.e. clutching the handles of a "proper" bike. What should I trade my hybrid for if I want the cool kids to like me?
[1] It's a meme. You're not actually being an insensitive clod.
Oh, it was my grandpa's
If you want the cool kids to like you, you'll trade your hybrid for a used Raleigh.
No Wake Zone?
I think there needs to be some sort of rule/law for cyclists on approved sidewalks. There needs to a 'No Wake Zone' or something similar.
Walking through the Boston Common is dangerous--not for the fear of getting jumped but rather getting bumped. The bikes zip along and zigzag dangerously. I think the same way bikes argue cars should share the road the bikes need to share the roads with the pedestrians.
Someone on a bike smacked my umbrella and yelled at me to get out of his way. He came flying up behind me as I walked in a straight line. Its far too dangerous for walkers with these bikes going 10-20mph down the hills. Its the same logic as drivers, if you are going to fast to slow down to avoid a person in your way, you need to slow down.
No bikes on sidewalks in Boston, period -- that's the law
There's already a city ordinance on the books: bikes banned on sidewalks everywhere in the city of Boston.
wrong.
And you can find the ordinance to prove me wrong, or sit down.
The other poster's wrong
But the state still advises against riding bikes on the sidewalk and bans it in business distrcts:
http://massbike.org/srsr/myths-vs-reality/cyclists-myths/
http://www.cityofboston.gov/bikes/laws.asp
You're on a vehicle and protected as such. Start riding that way.
True, there's no law aside
True, there's no law aside from the one cited, although somebody should really work to change that (tie it to mandatory bike lanes).
But it's still incredibly rude, especially in areas with narrow sidewalks or high pedestrian traffic.
there already is
I think there needs to be some sort of rule/law for cyclists on approved sidewalks. There needs to a 'No Wake Zone' or something similar.
There is. Bicycles aren't allowed on sidewalks in "business districts". And all the standard laws against injuring someone else (remember those?)
People shouldn't ride on sidewalks anyway- both for their own safety (traffic entering/exiting side streets doesn't expect them) and pedestrian safety (people getting out of cars, coming out of buildings, etc don't expect a bike.) Nevermind that it's a pretty dog-slow way to get around, because you have to ride so slowly.
By the way, do you know how many assholes yell "get on the sidewalk!" to me in the course of a week or two?
Walking through the Boston Common is dangerous--not for the fear of getting jumped but rather getting bumped. The bikes zip along and zigzag dangerously. I think the same way bikes argue cars should share the road the bikes need to share the roads with the pedestrians.
As someone who used to bike through Boston Common on a regular basis, the problem is that everyone is selfish and self-centered. Pedestrians will wander all over the place, often with one group blocking the entire path (despite the sidewalks being enormously wide), and leaving little room to squeeze by. Those of us used to it call out "on your left", but pedestrians manage to fuck even that up- 75% of the time people understand what those three so very fucking simple words mean, and the other 25% of the time, they shift over to the left...into the spot you were hoping to clear. If there's a little kid in the group anywhere near the space you want to pass through, you can't pass until the parents realize you're there.
By your logic, by the way, paths like the Esplanade would be a bloodbath. They're narrow, highly trafficked, and runners like to run in packs with their buddies, and they'll do so taking up more than half of the path. Couple that with oncoming packs, oncoming bikes trying to pass them, unleashed dogs, LEASHES, homeless bums with fishing poles and fishing line and LURES(!) and shopping carts...yeah, it's a wonder, but everyone seems to make it happen.
Did I mention that the joggers are often listening to music so loud they can't hear you when you call out a request to move over or a warning? And that groups often refuse to budge to let bikes pass?
Brett, Brett, Brett...
You know why we shift over to the left? Because in spite of what you imagine, we CAN'T FUCKING HEAR ALL THREE OF YOUR FUCKING SIMPLE WORDS. 90% of the time when some cyclist comes barreling down the sidewalk behind me yelling out that supposedly simple phrase, all I manage catch is "LEFT!" And you know what? That does indeed make me move to the left.
Get a bell. Use the bell. And stop riding so fast on the sidewalk.
idiot, idiot, idiot
We would not have to yell anything at all if you a)shared the path b)stayed to the right, as slower traffic does everywhere else.
I also find it difficult to believe that there should have been any confusion past your first day or two on a shared path as to what somethingsomethingleft means.
Traffic
I do stay to the right. Some sidewalks, however, are narrow enough that that doesn't mean all that much. There are often other impediments as well - sidewalk tree blocks, other foot traffic, and so on.
Also, you're still not clear on the difference between what you say and what an unsuspecting person actually hears - it's NOT "somethingsomethingLEFT!" It's "LEFT!" Just that. Out of the blue.
I repeat - if you insist on bicycling on the sidewalk, slow way the hell down, and get a bell.
we're talking about PATHS, not sidewalks
Christ, reading comprehension? I've been talking about riding in the common and on paths. Did you read my other posts, where I explain why cyclists shouldn't be on sidewalks?
Paths vs. sidewalks
Reading comprehension indeed. Where in any of my posts above did I say anything about paths? I'm talking about cyclists overtaking me from behind, way too fast, ON SIDEWALKS, and thinking they make it all good by yelling something incomprehensible as they overtake me. Because the Boston laws, as you yourself mention above, unfortunately DON'T prohibit riding on sidewalks except in the nebulously defined "business districts," and there are consequently tons of idiots riding their bikes on the sidewalk, in and out of business districts.
And yes, on park paths (such as, for instance, the path around Jamaica Pond where bicycles are explicitly prohibited) I stay to the right whenever I can. Still doesn't change the fact that when someone yells "LEFT" directly behind me, that's the direction I'm going to move.
he was talking about paths, and you responded
You're the one with the problem, chief. Brett was clearly talking about paths and you said "slow down on the damn sidewalk."
Also, bikes are allowed on the path closest to the Jamaicaway. They're only prohibited from the path along the water.
Jamaica Pond
Yes, I know that bikes are allowed on the path closest to the Jamaicaway. I also know that there are plenty of riders ignoring the prohibition against using the path around the pond, which is where I walk.
I'll also say that I can't
I'll also say that I can't tell you how many ass hat bikers ride their bikes over the foot bridges to the esplanade despite the fact that all clearly have posted signs saying to walk bikes on them.
Also IIRC the Esplanade wants bikes to keep the back trail closer to Storrow, but many of them don't. The problem is that bicyclists want to behave in the anarchic mode of pedestrians but they're really closer to cars in how they impact other people.
YOU'RE talking about paths...
Everyone else is talking about sidewalks, like the one the actual incident under discussion took place on. Try to keep up, Brett.
you slower a-hole bikers do
you slower a-hole bikers do not stay to the right on the roads. again, it's double standard time with the (m)asshole bikers.
you're really full of crap, most of the time, biker
it's funny that when it's car vs. bike, most the biking (m)assholes insist that the car is always at fault. And when it's pedestrian vs. bike, the same a-hole bikers insist that it's always the pedestrian at fault.
selfish pedestrians in Boston Common...
Boston Common is not designed for high speed cycling. Too bad for you if pedestrians are walking along at a leisurely pace in small groups, engaged in conversation and not ready to leap out of your way the moment you speed through yelling at them to MOVE IT!
Amen - neither is the
Amen - neither is the Esplanade, Memorial Drive, the Public Garden, or the Jamaicaway. City planners from the late 19th century had pedestrians in mind when they landscaped these areas, not high-speed bikes. Pedestrians walking in groups within cities have existed thousands of years before your 10-speed came along. In my opinion, if you want to bike for speed, find yourself an enclosed track. If you bike to work, stay on the roads and obey all traffic laws that apply to cyclists as well as automobiles.
let me school you
Amen - neither is the Esplanade, Memorial Drive, the Public Garden, or the Jamaicaway
Except that many were planned during the time of the Good Roads Movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
Also, the city seems to feel all the places you mentioned are legitimate places to bicycle:
http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/bostonbikesmap_tcm3-14074.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bike_Path
Also, the Esplanade was reshaped several times, including taking over most of the park's original land for Storrow drive; the park was pushed out quite a bit artificially.
Boston Common not for bikes? ORLY? Then why has it been the site of numerous bike rallies? http://www.masspaths.net/history/babc/
And here's a historical account of a Boston Police officer who attacked a bicyclist and tried to arrest him for riding on the Common, but was stopped by bystanders: http://books.google.com/books?id=VDlaT0KxJfAC&lpg=PA194&ots=SK1_zyZzjf&dq=bicycles%20boston%20common&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q=bicycles%20boston%20common&f=false
Okay, so now the Jamaicaway. Curious, as there are three separate paths, and one of them has signs which have a picture of a bike followed by the words "ONLY"?
How about a map from the Emerald Necklace conservancy, showing "suggested bike routes"? http://www.emeraldnecklace.org/filelibrary/map/
By the way, pedestrians are equally a problem on the Minuteman BIKEway. Or would you like to argue about whether bicycles are allowed on a BIKEway, too?
ALL the places?
Bretty-poo, be a dear and show us on this document you so thoughtfully provide:
http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/bostonbikesmap_tcm3-14074.pdf
...where the marked bike trails are through Boston Common and the Public Garden?
Yes, there are marked trails AROUND both, but show us where this document says people are allowed to bike THROUGH Boston Common and the Public Garden.
For extra credit, explain why there are multiple signs prohibiting bike riding through the Public Garden if, as you say, the city thinks biking through the Public Garden is hunky-dory.
We'll wait.
exCUSE me
I know about the Public Garden. I'm more aware of where bikes are/aren't allowed than you or most everyone else in this thread. I was rushed, and thought you'd said Boston Common, not the Garden.
Bikes are not only allowed but encouraged everywhere else you mentioned.
This is why you lose, Brett
You have no basis for this claim. And in fact, so far, everything you've said about where bikes are allowed has either agreed with my understanding, or been wrong (ie the public garden). Does that mean I know more than you? Who can say? You may well know more than me or Swirley or Ron Newman (all long time bikers in and around Boston), but you might not. I wouldn't deem myself capable of reading their comprehensive knowledge base from a few comments on a blog. Neither should you. Such statements render you unworthy of adding to the discussion.
Bikes are not allowed in the Public Garden
and there are many signs and painted 'no bikes' symbols on the walkways to reinforce this rule.
Actually Brett, let me school you
First off these parks were mostly also designed during the height of anarchist terrorism in the US, but you'd be hard pressed to argue that these were designed as temples to the Haymarket Martyrs. Remember Brett, correlation is not causation.
The Common itself dates back to the founding of the city and the current usage as an area given over almost completely to pastoral recreation dates from the middle of the 19th century prior to the Good Roads Movement.
The Good Roads Movement was also just that: about ROADS. And the focus was mainly on rural and suburban roads which were often in terrible shape, as opposed to urban roads which suffered their own problems but were much more likely to be paved.
The previous comment was entirely correct that the idea behind the Emerald Necklace is basically one for pedestrian enjoyment where people can walk around and have their spirits restored by contemplating "nature". The idea behind their design is NOT for energetic bicycling. Indeed, if we assume that speedy bicycling is meant mostly to transport the cyclist from here to there then it might qualify as work and the current version of Boston Common was created explicitly to EXCLUDE work from its environs. The whole purpose of the current version of it is for people to wander slowly around it and soak in the revivifying spirit of nature.
Similar arguments are true about the other parks in the city. Now the original purposes of them have been expanded to include more use for bicyclists but the bikers don't own these parks, they're granted the use of some portion of them as a privilege. You as a cyclist need to accomodate yourself to pedestrians not vice versa. If you want to bike in the Commons for example, slow the hell down.
LOL !!!! You must have zero
LOL !!!! You must have zero friends, Brett with two T's.
This comment adds nothing to the discussion
.
Well...
it does add a bit of levity. No one should take themselves too seriously on the internet after all.
Srsly?
1) The interwebs is srs business.
2) There are better ways to disagree with a statement or critique it than using standalone schoolyard insults. Make a coherent point, THEN follow it up with a Beavisesque remark.
Well that's fine and dandy if Brett's not involved
but look through the thread -- any time anybody made a reasonable statement of counterpoint, he has ignored it.
My point is simply that these
My point is simply that these areas were not design specifically for 'high-speed' modern biking. Perhaps for more leisurely biking yes, (Public Garden excluded) but not the kind that warrants coming up behind large groups of pedestrians at a high rate of speed from behind, shouting 'on your left' with the expectation that pedestrians will jump out of your way. More like old-timey biking - you know the kind with a big wheel that goes great with a handlebar mustache and a name like Phineas.
Um, if you read through Parks
Um, if you read through Parks Commission reports from the time there WAS CONSIDERATION for bicyclists when Olmsted was designing the Emerald Necklace. The city passed an ordinance requiring lanterns to be used for night riding along the park system because of pedestrian and bridle conflicts!
The Mass Ave bridge to Cambridge had bike lanes on it around 1894! The original layout of Beacon Street from Kenmore Square AND Commonwealth Avenue from Kenmore Square, as designed by Olmsted, had bicycle lanes sharing a wide grassy median with bicycles.
Between 1880-1900 bicycles were the new hot thing for personal transport. A personal horse, one could keep inside one's home, without the need for a stable or the stench/horse crap. City and park planners took them into account as much as carts and trolleys.
who said anything about high speed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You were bitching about
You were bitching about selfish pedestrians walking in groups in Boston Common who don't get out of your way fast enough when you yell at them. If you slow down, they'll have more time to react to your demands.
again, who said anything about speed?
Read the post I wrote and stop putting words in my mouth. I said that they block the entire path (and they're incredibly wide, so there's no excuse- not even approaching pedestrians can get by), and then when you call out and warn them you're approaching AND on what side, they can't seem to parse three simple words:
on
your
left
...putting everyone at risk.
I said something about Speed.
I wrote the post you replied to about the 'No Wake Zone.'
http://www.boatingwithdawsons.com/boating-articles/no-wake-zone.html
I have no problems with bikes in the Common... but I think it needs to be a No Wake Zone for bikes. Please do not speed up behind me and shout. There are intersecting pathways and who is to say who has the right of way at each intersection? The loudest?
Stand by the fields and see the bikes come down the hill towards the tennis courts. Its frightening the speed they get. Its patchy cobblestone and difficult to maneuver in in high heels. I hug as far to the right as I can--but where are the pedestrians to go????
As I said, if you are going too fast to stop for a person walking (they may be disabled or hard of hearing) then you are going too fast.
shut up
"Its patchy cobblestone and difficult to maneuver in in high heels."
Seriously? You wear impractical footwear, and that's my problem?
"Please do not speed up behind me and shout. "
Nobody "speeds up and shouts". People on bicycles IN GENERAL want to maintain a particular speed because:
-the slower a bicycle is moving, the LESS stable it is (you'd know this if you actually rode a bike.) It is far more difficult to ride a bike at 1mph than it is to ride it at 3-4 because there is no gyroscopic stability from the wheels.
-most of the mechanical advantages of riding a bike are lost when you have to change speeds constantly. Such as when trying to ride down a shared-use path which is wide enough to accommodate everyone, but which is hogged by pedestrians.
The problem is really simple to solve. When you are on a shared-use path, keep your high-heeled ass over to the right. Just like on the road, just like on the escalator, corridors in buildings, staircases, etc.
The call of "on your left" is the bicycle-rider equivalent of "EXCUSE ME" when you park your ass on the left side of the escalator during rush hour. If your high-heeled ass was where it belonged in the first place, it wouldn't even be necessary. It's also used by many of us as a simple courtesy to LET YOU KNOW SO YOU'RE NOT STARTLED BY US.
Of course, you'd understand all this if you actually rode a bike regularly in the city, but you don't.
Brett
You really really suck.
Michael
You really really can go take a long walk off a short pier.
And apparently Adam isn't bothering to enforce any of his commenting rules...
If Adam was strictly enforcing his rules....
... you would be ancient history here.
OK, the lot of you
Everybody sucks.
Do try to stick to the arguments instead of the ad-hominem attacks while I'm off gallivanting around.
Thanks.
Oh dear.
Poor Sweet Little Brett's feeling ganged up upon. Alas.
Where should I go?
Yep, I wear impractical footwear! I do I do I do. I go to the theater and to restaurants. I spend my money at downtown establishments. (And I buy my expensive shoes on Newbury Street!) I am not lazy so I walk place to place. I often walk from Beacon Hill to other parts of downtown.
I can probably guarantee that cobblestones are difficult for bicycles to drive on. I have difficulty on loose stones in flats.
Please explain to me where I am supposed to go. I am NOT a gazelle who can leap out of the way because you need to maintain speed on a walking path. If you 'need' speed, go on the street. If you can be a gracious human being to the other human beings, please join me in the Common.
...you can't maintain your speed? My heart bleeds for you!
Why don't you get your self-righteous ass off your precious bike... YOU ARE IN THE WAY of those of us walking!
Of course, if you walked in
Of course, if you walked in the park listening to music with headphones on, you may not hear 'on your left'. So apart from expecting groups of people to march single-file through public parks, turning their heads occasionally to make themselves understood to their companions while speaking, we should also do away with the listening of music while outdoors, if I anticipate you correctly? And by the way, I would agree with everything you say if it involved a dedicated bike path, like Minuteman.
As a pedestrian I agree that
As a pedestrian I agree that a lot of pedestrians have no sense that there's anyone around them and get in other people's way. That said I have zero sympathy for bicyclists. If you want to zip around get in the street. That's what it's there for. People on bikes have no right to complain that pedestrians don't allow them to race like a bat out of hell around parks and down pedestrian paths and don't leap out of the way when a bicyclist comes up from behind.
I'm sorry but bicyclists are the most entitled people in the city. Massholes at least realize things like, hey a red light means stop.
with irony?
I hope that was said with irony, because frankly, every traffic regulation seems optional here. Bikes, cars, and pedestrians.
Seconded
> every traffic regulation seems optional here
Sadly all too true.
Being aware of how bikes maneuver
I like to direct douche cyclists on sidewalks into the nearest non-human obstacle. It isn't hard if you aren't scared and they aren't as good at riding as they think they are. Just plant yerself, stare hard, and stand your ground. Most will think you will move. Then they will seriously misjudge their skills ... and learn a hard, embarrassing lesson. (see that little no bikes sign there?).
I did this in Harvard Square recently. Little twits yelled "get out of our way you (blah blah). Cop came over and wrote them tickets on the spot. Welcome to Cambridge "ladies". They rode right past a sign - a METAL sign - saying no bikes.
If I feel I have to use a sidewalk on a bike, which is very rare, I consider myself a pedestrian. I don't necessarily dismount, but I ride at the speed people walk and consider this the habitat of pedestrians first and foremost. I don't belong there, they do. I've even startled people who don't even realize that there has been a person slowly riding a bike just behind them for over a block - which is sad in and of itself.
Only in Boston would bicyclists become snobs
There was a time when bicycles were used for transportation and pleasure. Now they are idealized objects used by bike connoisseurs to lecture to the inferior unwashed riding masses of what sort of bike to ride for each hour of the day. If one is riding in two different environments such as road and trails one should buy two bikes? Sure, at only a $1,000 a bike it's easy to buy a bike for each day of each season.
For those folks who believe they have a right to get up on their hind pedals and lecture to the rest of us go ahead and put your wallet where your mouth is and buy all these extra bikes for us lowly bikers. Otherwise stuff your self-importance into your spandex pants and pedal along in your own little la-la land.
My hybrid is 6 years and still riding. It rides smoothly on paved roads, handles very nicely on trails, allows me to go on short and long trips. My pinky can't pick it up but it will haul two bags of groceries on the attached sidebags. Could not count the tons of carbon that this bike DOES NOT use, or the health the bike supports via exercise - even if it is a cheap hybrid.
But if one of the connoisseurs of bicycles wants to buy me a skinny 8 oz. racing bike that goes at light speed - and buy a building needed to store it so it is not contaminated by proxmity to a lowly hybrid - then please provide me with your credit card information. Thanks in advance.
only anonymous posters make sweeping generalizations
I ride a 5 year old, $400 hybrid(transportation, and some pleasure). And it has yet to contaminate my 1 year old, bought-used, $1k road bike(pleasure) that leans against the wall 6 inches from the hybrid.
Sorry to burst your Snob Bubble. And I'm sorry, but body position on a hybrid sucks for any sort of distance- try a road bike some time, even a cheap one, and you'll come to appreciate the things I do: a natural hand/wrist position, closer ratio gears, and much less wind resistance.
You can still have your racks/bags, too...plenty of road-geometry bikes have rack mounts.
Glad my sarcasm was appreciated.
Sorry if my remarks sounded like a sweeping generalization. I will try to use the following statement as a guide to not making sweeping generalizations: "As someone who used to bike through Boston Common on a regular basis, the problem is that everyone is selfish and self-centered."
Seriously, biking is a wonderfully popular, democratic, low cost, environmentally respectful activity. Putting down anyone (whoops, another generalization) because they do not ride the "right" bike is mean (and adolescent at its worst).
For sidewalk riding the sidewalk is the wrong place to ride. But plenty of folks use the T as there personal phone booth, or as their personal sound room; car drivers use sidewalks for parking, speed up when they are supposed to slow down; so folks riding (and sometimes fast) on sidewalks is not surprising. When I am on the sidewalk I know (and honestly don't always respect this) that my job is to walk the bike.
I did learn recently that when I do not pay attention I could hurt a person. I ran a red light at a tiny intersection assuming that there would be no one crossing. WRONG. Almost ran into a man.
The pedestrian was fortunate that my arrogance and idiocy did not result in his harm. I am lucky I did not hit him because I would otherwise be indebted to him for a long time.
Here is a fantasy: that the majority of bikers treat biking as a pleasure and privilege, and are a positive example to car and truck drivers that have forgotten that the road is not their personal property.
Brett, you're a jackass
Just cashing in on that whole anonymous poster/sweeping generalizations thing.
P.S. If you can't ride a hybrid for distance, you just don't know how to ride. Don't go spouting nonsense about "natural position," either. A human's natural position is one that doesn't involve a vehicle.
and you're ignorant
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/deakins/handlebars.html
No one cares, Brett with two
No one cares, Brett with two T's
I care
That's an amazing string of foam at the mouth comments. This guy is crazier than S********L.
Wow
So, just like every other zealot, you're taking a Sheldon Brown preference -- which is exactly what Deakins is expressing here when telling people how he prefers to ride -- and making it dogma. Deakins doesn't seem to have a big issue with straight bars, moustache bars or any other gear. He PREFERS drops so he can change hand positions, but isn't exactly going to war over that position.
I have a hard time taking you seriously, especially when the "proof" of your hard-line stance comes from the site of a man who rode a recumbent bike in his final days. You ride what works, not what some jagweed tells you to.
So the guy I know who went cross country on a hybrid
Was doing it wrong.
Twice?
Weight: gear outweighs the bike by factor of two, rider lost more weight during ride than the difference between the aluminum frame and a carbon fiber frame.
Bars: ergo flats with bar ends - provided a couple different holds.
Reliability and Reparability: Try finding a presta valve tube in the middle of the country. Farmer kid helped with a weld repair to get him to the next bike shop - 450 miles away.
Bicycles?
Here's all I know: They've got two wheels, and two pedals, something to grab onto and a chain-thing that rips up your jeans. This 28 vs. 35, hybrid vs. mutant vs. ninja argument is lost on me.
I've never seen a bicycle on which I could keep a Romeo y Julieta Cedros No. 2 fully lit and properly ashed, and that's unacceptable.
But it does say something broadly fascinating about UHubbers that one reliable way to spur a long discussion is to post something about bikes. Eh, to me, we're all Massholes, just differently mobile.
I thought this was a biker against biker thread,
but then I realized it was just another Brett against the world thread. Your perspective on the matter is the perfect antidote to what he serves up.
Thanks
I'm striving for equanimity, and bicyclists don't disturb it any more than anyone else - but those GODDAMN RATBASTARD UNICYCLISTS, think they're so special, with their fire-eating and fat tires and light frames and spandex toques ... STAY OFF THE RAIL LINES, UNI-SCUMBAGS!
Nothing says "lotsa comments"
More than a bike post.
Or cops
:o)