Hey, there! Log in / Register
Biker down in Cambridge
By adamg on Mon, 06/27/2011 - 12:17pm
John Pouliot captured the scene around noon today at Mass. Ave. and Essex Street in Central Square. He reports:
Moving but being put on a stretcher. Witness-"Why bike lanes don't work."
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Was a car involved?
Is there more of a story to what happened? Was it a jerk rider, jerk driver, or some moron opening their car door without looking?
what about the biker? is he
what about the biker?
is he OK?!
the most amazing thing about this photo...
...is that the cambridge police cruiser is not blocking the bike lane on the opposite side of the street. It's virtually impossible to bike through Central Square without being forced out of the lane by a CPD cruiser.
The witness' comment
Is a bit like seeing an accident on the freeway and saying "yeah, that's why freeways don't work"
Is there even a bike lane on
Is there even a bike lane on that side of Mass Ave? I don't see it in the picture but don't know if the paint may have worn off, or if they stop painting them through intersections or what.
yes, there is a bike lane
yes, there is a bike lane
Absolutely!
The fact is, the world is changing, and many more people are going to have to bike or take public transit. Gasoline will rise to prices that are unimaginable today. Owning a car will not be commonplace but be a luxury. Drivers must start to share the road. And I write this as both a driver and a bicyclist.
Car Infestations
While we don't know if this was the result of dooring, or just another little hipster loser thinking the lane is his very own speedway and smacking into a car, the fact is that bikes work way better in cities than cars do. Always will.
But
Bike lanes don't work.
They should be separated from the street with a curb to keep cars form using them as parking lanes, fines need to go up for both cyclists and drivers misusing them, and when possible they should be put to the RIGHT of metered parking spots, to the left of sidewalks.
As it is now, they're usually just thrown on a road as a new paint scheme to a breakdown lane and all but forgot about.
Worse
Separated bike lanes will be worse.
1) Not likely to be cleared of snow.
2) Fill with trash and garbage during none snow periods.
3) Little room for evasive maneuvers if something happens ahead of you.
4) Requires shower speeds.
5) Riders hidden by parked cars run the risk of getting hit by turning vehicles.
shower speeds?
Do you have any data that backs this up? I rode separated bike lanes for three years in Madison, Wisconsin (nine months in varying depths of snow) and never encountered any of what you describe (well, the snow issue could be daunting, but climate change is taking care of that). Caveat: no Boston drivers, but slightly offset by way more beer and gin (on my part not the drivers, necessarily).
A bike sidepath causes a
A bike sidepath causes a dangerous situation at every intersection and driveway. Unless you bike below about 8 mph, so you can stop in time, you'd be safer biking in the street a safe distance away from parked car doors.
Sidepaths are also dangerous when people walk on them, and I don't blame them, since they're basically sidewalks. I blame the people in charge who think they're a good design.
Yeah...
I too am perplexed by the witness comment. The more people ride bikes, the more cars get used to navigating around them. Bike lanes work, drivers just need to learn how to honor them (ie, don't double-park in them, don't overtake a bike just to turn right in front of them, don't hug the white line, don't talk/text while driving... most of these are common sense whether or not a bike is in the picture). And cyclists need to try to behave predictably. I can agree that, having biked this stretch of Mass Ave frequently, the double parking is the problem, not the bike lanes. Maybe if police could enforce the double parking problem, instead of contributing to it, this stretch of road would be a lot safer for everyone (pedestrians, car, and cyclists).
Predictability is the key - and it's not looking good.
And that goes for both both cycling and driving. If people would signal all turns (i.e., not make unpredictable turns), not stop or slow down rapidly without cause, etc., many of the accidents we all see could be avoided.
Unfortunately, since drivers and cyclists alike around here take pride in minimizing predictability ("that's like giving away your plans to the enemy!" I was told over a decade and a half ago), it's not is not looking very good for any of us.
Hence my exceedingly defensive (yet undesirable) mindset every time I click into the pedals or click the seatbelt: everyone else will act like a complete imbecile at all times and will have no regard whatsoever for my well-being or that of anyone else.
It seems to have worked out alright so far (knocking on wood).
Those bike lanes don't work
Last September, I was badly hurt riding in the bike lane on Mass Ave. as I approached Central Sq. from the south. A jaywalker stepped out from between two cars right into my path. I was thrown off my bike into the back of a parked SUV, breaking three ribs and suffering internal bleeding. The jaywalker was just fine. The cops and the small-claims court believed that the jaywalker did nothing wrong.
Since then, I stopped using the bike lanes on Mass Ave. Instead, I take the "car lane," and it feels much safer. No more worrying about doors, right hooks, or jaywalkers.
My only concern now are aggressive motorists who tailgate, honk at, and deliberately buzz me because they believe that they have priority on our roads. But ever since I started carrying a Molotov cocktail in my water bottle cage and a lighter in my pocket, I've ridden that stretch with confidence.
Small claims?
Happy to hear you seem to be alright and "back in the saddle".
Just out of curiosity, how did you end up in small claims court? Amongst other reasons for asking, the injuries you describe would seem to amount to a total way over the threshold for that venue.
I'm not entirely alright. Ten
I'm not entirely alright. Ten months later, it still hurts.
I initially looked up Andrew Fischer, a prominent bicycle attorney in Boston. He declined to take my case, saying that he probably couldn't get more than a judgment of more than $10,000 or so, and that it would be difficult to collect. He advised me to sue in small claims instead. So I did, for $7,000, the maximum allowable amount.
We had a hearing, in which I argued that the jaywalker failed to exercise reasonable caution when stepping into the roadway. The jaywalker claimed that he was hurt too, and that I wasn't very nice to him after the collision before I was taken away in an ambulance. I won't dispute that. He also added that the police officer who arrived on the scene promised to shred the police report.
A few days later, I received a ruling in favor of the defendant. No explanation, no chance of appeal.
So, I've since given up on the police and the courts, and now I ride with a Molotov cocktail.
That sucks Eoin
I don't blame you.
Waiting for Pete Nice's defense of this. I could use a good laugh!
That freakin sucks.
That freakin sucks. Jaywalking here is a serious problem. It's terrible around Central (where I live). As both a biker and a driver I can't tell you how many times morons step right in front of moving vehicles. In a similar move, the other day in back bay I saw someone cross against the light in front of a fire engine with its siren on. I hope it was their house that was on fire. They didn't even flinch as the firetruck blared its horn. Unbelievable. Sadly, that's not the first time I've seen that either.
So whats the plan with the
So whats the plan with the m.c.? Just throw it blindly at a car in traffic if a car did something you didn't like? Faaantastic idea. Sounds like you are going to win the Darwin award any day now.
Cars do have priority. Deal with it.
Cars don't have priority.
Deal with it.
Better yet, go turn in that license the commonwealth gave you as a crackerjack box booby prize, and read your fracking driver's handbook and learn the laws before you even attempt to drive again.
adjusting for conditoins
We have no way of knowing from the original post whether the cyclist and/or the motorist were acting responsibly. We do know that the cyclist was injured, and hope that he recovers quickly.
As someone who bike commuted decades ago and is now primarily a car person, I am very conscious of how some cyclist I see seem to fly along in the bike lane, treating it like they're auto drivers in the high-speed lane on an interstate. This is fine in some circumstances, but just like car drivers circumstances like dense traffic, pedestrians and obstructed views dictate that the cyclist adjust for those conditions.
If you're pedaling along in an area with many cars entering and exiting parking spaces, you have to assume that those drivers won't see you - bike lane, or not. Back in the stone age when I rode, there were few SUV's and minivans. As I pedaled in urban areas, I could keep an eye through the back windows of cars to see if there was a possibility that the driver would open a door in front of me.
If I couldn't do that, and there wasn't room for me to safely pull to the left, i.e. out into the lane of traffic, I prepared myself by slowing down to suit my limited situational awareness.
More bikers in more bike
More bikers in more bike lanes equals more dead bikers.
wrong.
There are a dozen or so examples of how you're wrong.
http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/et/bike/bike_safet...
Also, it's been well proven that the more cyclists use a particular stretch of road, the safer that stretch of road becomes for everyone: both pedestrians and cyclists.
Respect..
It all comes down to one word. Respect by drivers, pedestrians and cyclists for each other. If we all respect each other, truly, then we would get along all the better. Is this really too much to ask?
I think he was just
I think he was just expressing cynicism on bike lanes in general, or that particular lane, being safer for cyclists than the road itself. As you know it is notorious for being one of the worst bike lanes in the city for bike safety.
I'm amazed
Seriously, I've been living in that area for almost a year now, and I am surprised that more bikers are not hurt like this as often. Every time I head to work and come home, I see more bikers who run the red lights, who bike in the wrong direction of said bike lanes, and who don't slow down when approaching intersections.
I feel bad for the guy, but IF this was b/c he ran the red light, or was going the opposite direction in the lane, then I'm not surprised by the result.
let's play the substitution game here, shall we?
I feel bad for the guy, but IF this was b/c he ran the red light, or was going the opposite direction in the lane, then I'm not surprised by the result.
"I feel bad for that woman, but IF she was drunk, or was dressed in a short skirt, then I'm not surprised she was raped."
Oh, also: cyclists have no more responsibility to "slow" at an intersection than a driver would. In fact, we're usually safest going as close to the same speed as everyone else.
Incorrect analogy
Being drunk or wearing a short skirt aren't illegal.
If you do things that are against the rules of the road, it's less surprising when that ends up being a proximal cause to your involvement in an accident. That's not really all that controversial, is it?
A more appropriate substitution/analogy would be: "I feel bad for that gang member, but IF this was because he was carrying an illegal weapon or robbing liquor stores, then I'm not surprised he was shot."
Ass-umptions
The problem is the previous poster made an assumption that the cyclist was running a red light or on the wrong side of the street. That's called "blaming the victim" just as much as the rape victim analogy Brett used is.
And it's even worse because it is a completely blind assumption with no reason to think such. In fact just looking at the picture included would lead one to think the person on the bike who was injured was traveling in the correct direction and not going through a red light (if you're familiar with the area).
neither is riding your bicycle
...yet a major segment of the population feels that riding one's bicycle in the road where *they* don't think it's safe (or at all) means you're deserving of anything that happens to you. I had someone tell me this, to my face, while I stood there in a cast. He basically said: you knew it was dangerous to ride your bike, it's your fault you were hit by a car.
Same goes for helmets. The media obsessively covers whether a cyclist was wearing a helmet or not. Do we ask raped women why they weren't wearing female condoms? Of course not.
People (police, EMTs, witnesses, bystanders) automatically assume the cyclist was at fault while they're still lying on the pavement. I know, because I've been there- twice.
Brett, as far as I know,
assuming your substitution argument, it's not against the law to wear short skirts or be drunk.
Brett said, ""I feel bad for that woman, but IF she was drunk, or was dressed in a short skirt, then I'm not surprised she was raped."
But it *is* against the law to run a red light or ride the wrong way on the street (or bike lane). I drive, and I sure slow down at intersection for all kinds of reasons including cyclists and pedestrians.
are you really going to argue...
...that the example would have been better if our mythical rape victim was doing cocaine?
Interesting set of morals, there.
Brett you aren't getting it.
If the bike ran a red light and got hit by a car driving through a green light, then the biker would be at fault. Running a red light is against the law, and running the red light is dangerous and is an easy way to get hurt if you are riding a bike.
Pete you never got it.
Brett said:
cyclists have no more responsibility to "slow" at an intersection than a driver would.
You (and others) are saying he said something he did not say.
Never was running a red light mentioned by Brett. The reference is to cars and bicycles going through an intersection with traffic, not against the light.
A vast majority of asshat car drivers think cyclists in the bike lane should slow down when they have the light at intersections in case a car wants to make a right turn in front of them. That is wrong as the car making the turn must stay out of the bike lane until it is clear of any bike lane traffic approaching the car from behind (or right next to the turning car).
He wasn't originally talking about that
And I never was. Follow the thread.
He first responded to this quote by Lifestar:
I feel bad for the guy, but IF this was b/c he ran the red light, or was going the opposite direction in the lane, then I'm not surprised by the result.
Now I take this quote by Lifestar as meaning IF (since Lifestar actually capitalized the word if) the cyclist broke the law, then we shouldn't be surprised by the result. This makes sense to me, since anyone running a red light shouldn't be surprised if they get hit.
Lifestar didn't say they "probably" ran the red light, or "deserved" to get hit if they did run the red light. Lifestar even added more information by adding that he/she sees bikers breaking the law there often.
Now we have no idea whether or not the biker broke the law here, from my experience, I'd say about 10% of bikers who get injured in crashes are actually at fault, but that doesn't matter here. Brett tried to compare this victim to a rape victim, and that comparison makes no sense, even if the biker ran the red light, or if a rape victim did cocaine or wore skimpy clothing.
And as a rape victim...
I would truly appreciate, Brett, that you and others truly think before using us as an example, especially in a car v bike debate. Yikes. It really trivializes our experience.
Not Trivial In Either Case
I'm not sure why comparing the "Blame the victim" phenom that occurs in both cases is really that inappropriate.
Being hit and injured or killed by a car is pretty traumatic in and of itself. But there is not a comparison of the crimes that occurred being made but rather the attitude of many commentators from the sidelines in both types of events.
Couldn't agree more. Rape has
Couldn't agree more. Rape has nothing to do with a cyclist getting hit. Bringing up the whole 'short skirt / slut,' 'victim deserved it' line of BS is offensive. Have some respect and compassion please.
there is a huge difference...
...between an accident and an intentional violent crime. when a man or woman is raped, it's not as if the perpetrators body part becomes accidentally lodged in the body part of the victim. it is intentional, it is violent, and it is criminal.
when somebody gets into a bike accident, assuming that they weren't deliberately gunned down, it is not the result of an intentional act. it is usually unintentional. so it's often violent. and it's sometimes criminal. but it is rarely intentional.
and many accidents are things we can take small steps to make ourselves safer from. it's not the same as blaming a rape victim for the way she or he acted prior to the assault.
it is really not the same thing as rape, in any way.
Piloting heavy machinery
People are allowed to do this when they are either too impaired or don't deem the matter worthy of their attention - and the world has lots of ready made excuses for their negligence ... as in "oh, its just an accident - he didn't mean to do it don't give him consequences blahblahblah".
Shoot a gun into a crowd and its somehow different - even though, in both cases, it involves a potentially lethal item handled in a highly irresponsible matter.
Discuss.
accident, huh?
...between an accident and an intentional violent crime. when a man or woman is raped, it's not as if the perpetrators body part becomes accidentally lodged in the body part of the victim. it is intentional, it is violent, and it is criminal.
First off, there's no such thing as an "accident". They're referred to as "motor vehicle collisions", and they almost always have a cause or were foreseeable, which is why they shouldn't be called "accidents". It's not an accident if you spill your coffee in your lap and swerve your car into me and kill me. You were negligent.
Second, I'm not sure people like Eric Hunt would appreciate someone arguing that being struck by a vehicle isn't violent. Oh wait: he's dead, crushed to death by an articulated MBTA bus that ran him over from behind. So's the woman who was struck by a driver on Longwood Avenue and left for dead by a guy who later came forward, confessed he hit her, and was for some odd reason completely cleared by Brookline PD.
How about the cyclist who was legally passing traffic on the right shoulder when a driver ran him over because she hadn't checked her mirrors, and as bystanders tried to save him she floored the gas?
How about the cyclist who was dragged for a thousand feet underneath a car after being hit by someone turning in front of him? (he was wearing a reflective vest, helmet, and front/rear lights.) The woman who did so had a driving record a mile long.
That violent enough for you?
Actually they are called crashes
in Massachusetts.
And I'll admit that in my opinion, bikes are responsible for about 10% of the crashes they are involved in, but how do you know Brett that they aren't responsible for all these crashes you always talk about?
It's still called an accident
It's still called an accident in common speech.
There's nobody in charge of the English language.
Wrong dumbass.
Brett is in charge of the English language.
But officially they are called crashes.
No, there's no way to
No, there's no way to officially change the English language.
People in the road transportation industry have attempted to change the term, because they somehow think that calling a car accident a car accident implies that it wasn't preventable. But that doesn't change common use.
Brett, please re-read
Brett, please re-read bandit's post. He said:
(emphasis mine).
As for the term "accident", I'm not sure why you think that the term implies that there's no negligence. The way almost everyone uses the word "accident", it means that the results were not intentional, but there usually is the implication that there's at least some negligence, that the person could have prevented it by being more careful.
E.g:
My three-year-old had an "accident" (because he waited too long to get up and go to the bathroom).
Sorry, I didn't mean to bump into you. It was an accident (which wouldn't have happened if I had been paying more attention).
I accidentally spilled coffee all over my term paper (because I was sleep-deprived and wasn't alert when I put the cup down).
Why would anyone be surpised?
If you got hit when you went through a red light? There is nothing wrong with that statement.
I'm Amazed too
Seriously, I've been living in this area for almost 10 years now, and I'm surprised that more cars don't crash or kill people all the time. Every time I head to work and come home, I see more cars that run red lights (3 this morning at Charles circle), who go faster than the speed limit, turn right on red, and who don't slow down and yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
I do actually feel bad for the guy, no matter what happened.
I'm amazed
... that you don't also see all the jaywalking fools, people standing halfway into interesections looking to cross, all the cars running red lights, vehicles blocking the box and taking mass left turns well after the red, all the cars making illegal turns, making their own lanes, double-parked taxis in the bike lanes, etc.
MASSively stupid road behavior isn't "just" a cyclist problem.
I'm amazed
that a photo of an unfortunate soul, without any facts to provide context, turned into a cycling/driving flamewar and an indictment of the entire population of the metropolitan area.
Oh, wait...what's the complete opposite of amazed? That's the word I wanted.
..chuckle...
Adam..we don't need 'like' buttons, just a 'chuckle-button.' Michael just pressed mine...uhhh that doesn't sound right...
Mass Ave is pretty bad...
I got creamed by a guy going inbound with a green light in the bike lane on Mass Ave down by Albany Street. Let me reiterate, I was doing nothing wrong. Guy made a left turn directly into me, I went over the hood and onto the street. Totaled my vintage cruiser, but luckily I was alright.
Without traffic calming measures Mass Ave is a deathtrap. Instead of the bike lanes they should have signs directing cyclists to one of the many parallel streets to use (as I now do). Alternatively they could close Mass Ave a'la Broadway in Manhattan. Someone did a study showing it would improve or have a negligible effect on traffic anyway.
Not radical enough.
Traffic avoidance is too passive. I like my solution to car on bike violence better.
Arm all cyclists with nuclear land torpedoes and a dead man's switch. If they so much as go unconscious their thumb releases the button and boom!
Who says nuclear deterrence was obsoleted with the end of the Cold War.
I'm amazed anyone thinks
that closing Mass. Ave. to car traffic would have a "negligible effect" on traffic. It's busy all the time. My office faces Mass. Ave. near MIT and the traffic is constant.
One thing that would make it better for the ongoing pedestrian vs. wheeled conveyances issue would be to re-establish walk lights that stop traffic in all directions. While it slows down the movement of cars, it would ensure the safety of pedestrians who are trying to cross at a red light while cars are simultaneously trying to make turns.
As a pedestrian, I'd much
As a pedestrian, I'd much rather have the entire green light to cross the street, instead of having to wait 90 seconds for my 15 seconds of exclusive walk light.
If you're actually interested in improving the situation
Central Square is currently the subject of a city of Cambridge task force on redesigning the area, and I'm sure that they'd be interested in your thoughts.
However, it's a commercial district and a thoroughfare, and people in bikes need access, even if it's just a bike lane in order to shop at the stores there.
They made a huge
mistake several years back when they eliminated two lanes of traffic going in both directions and put in lots of crosswalks without traffic lights. People jaywalk on a regular basis now because they think they can just wander out in the street. Bumping the sidewalks out into what was one lane of traffic also just slow down the movement of bikes and cars.
Really? That's a mistake? I
Really? That's a mistake? I think all the random crosswalks are a good idea. They slow down traffic in the area and people would otherwise be jaywalking the crap out of Mass Ave a lot more often.
Uh, disagree that slowing
Uh, disagree that slowing down cars is a mistake. And without all the crosswalks between the traffic lights, people would be jaywalking even more. And if you want to high tail it from the Harvard Bridge to Harvard Square you're better off taking Mem Drive anyway.
Slower yet smoothly flowing
Slower yet smoothly flowing traffic might be a good thing, but stop and go with long backups doesn't help anyone.
Agreed. There is nothing
about current Central Sq. traffic that is efficient and smooth.