Hey, there! Log in / Register
Bicyclist stops for red light - and gets rear ended by another bicyclist
By adamg on Thu, 03/08/2012 - 7:11am
Bikeyface illustrates getting hit by another bicyclist yesterday on Mass. Ave. in Cambridge.
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
21st century solutions
Shouldn't urban bikes have turn signals and brake lights? Taking the left hand off to signal all the time seems dangerous.
In Berlin, there are actually
In Berlin, there are actually a special traffic signals for bikers along most bike lanes. Everyone obeys them because Germans in general obey traffic signals (esp. walk/don't walk) like they are sacred.
Like this one
http://www.transportationissuesdaily.com/arttransp...
Lol, not like that one. That
Lol, not like that one. That really is ridiculous. The ones that are in Berlin for bikers are like 1/2 the size of the regular ones and they are lower to the ground.
It's not that ridiculous
...if you're from the German state of Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia), as pedestrian lights there have a double red over green, rather that the single red over green found in everywhere else in Germany. I remember asking my German friend (who I had been visiting for a month in the Heidelberg area of Baden-Württemberg, we were there on a long weekend visit to his aunt in Soest, near Dortmund) why the pedestrian lights were different there. He told me, tongue planted firmly in cheek, that, as opposed to the rest of Germany, they really don't want you crossing against the lights in Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Hmm, where have I heard of that double light system before?
Oh, yeah, right here in Massachusetts, where red and yellow used to mean motorists had to stop in all directions for pedestrians.
Naturally, the feds said nuh uh, so you rarely see them anymore (if you do want to see them in action, park in Dedham Center or by the Putterham library in Brookline and then hit a pedestrian crossing button).
Also
On Day Blvd at the M St. crossing in South Boston. Found that out when I walked over to vote on Tuesday.
What's that blinky light?
People don't pay attention to the indicators on motor vehicles as it is, and given how infrequently they're used, you'd think seeing a turn signal would be so novel that people might notice... Hand signals are more obvious, and a reasonably experienced (as in someone who has been doing it for more than, oh say, two hours or so) bicyclist is quite capable of managing speed and direction without having both hands glued to the handlebars at all time.
"I pulled you over because of
a problem with your right taillight. It started blinking when you made that right turn." - Chief Clancy Wiggim
Cyclist Turn Signals
They are called "arms".
You are supposed to use them - although a lot of drivers seem to have no idea what the standard right signal looks like (bent left arm, hand high for right turn, straight out left arm for left turn).
I do find it handy in some situations to indicate that I am going forward by pointing straight out in front of me.
There is also a slowing and stopping signal, but it doesn't work so well because you need hands on both brakes.
Not that many drivers know what a turn signal is anyway.
That...
...is just plain embarrassing...
The only surprise
...Is that anyone is surprised. At the risk of starting another bike-oriented flame war, bicyclists who run red lights still outnumber law-abiding cyclists by at least 4 or 5 (if not ten) to one in this town, based on my experience.
based on the experiences of
based on the experiences of many in this city, winter in Boston means no snow and temperatures in the mid-50s
And ...
Motorists who have absolutely no understanding that it is illegal to block an intersection - a form of running a red light - outnumber motorists who do by about 100 to 1.
Massholes, all.
This is the one that drives me crazy
It is by far the worst behavior of anybody using the roads. Blocking the box is more damaging to traffic flow and the rest of the road system than speeding, Masshole left turns, failure to yield, no blinkers, and yes, bikes running red lights.
Masshole school of driving
I keep wondering if there is form of training that says when making a left turn you should be in the right most lane and when making a right turn you should be in far left lane. It happens so frequently I fear I will get a ticket for turning right from the far right lane and left from the far left lane.
from one Masshole motorist to another
Do you have scientific data to back this up your claim?
I can make another ride-in video
I can also attest that I saw at least 25 cars blocking one of four intersections this morning, most of which rushed to enter the intersection on a yellow light with full knowledge of blocking.
Go see for yourself: Cedar and Elm in Somerville; Behind Faneiul Hall; Congress and State; Summer and anything near South Station ...
Speaking of anything near South Station...
I happened to take this picture yesterday, purely by coincidence:
Thanks, Matthew
I rest my case.
I hope you are not a lawyer...
'cause all I see here is normal Boston traffic moving through as it does, with all the starts and stops that go along with traffic as it weaves its way through the city.
SwirlyGrrl
bad traffic must naturally gravitate towards you because I walk many, many miles in this fine city (across both the Longfellow and Mass. Ave bridges), and around South Station, every day, during rush hour, mostly, and I can attest that I rarely see what you see so....
me thinks it must be you (or you like to take a worse case scenario to life (OH. MY. GOD. Look at those 25, 50, 100 cars blocking the intersection, on, and they all went through yellow, red, lights, OH. THE. HORROR. OF. IT. ALL!), which I believe, may be true.
But, in reality, THIS IS AN OLD CITY WITH AN OLD ROAD NETWORK and there will be certain areas of the city that will have bottlenecks due to a wide variety of road/traffic conditions, whether or not cars rush into intersections on yellow lights.
So take a chill pill. We all know you are anti-car and pro-bike. WE GET IT ALREADY.
Sixteen mile round trip
Both rush hours.
Been biking similar routes for around 20 years.
I have also biked in other cities that are much older and gnarlier than Boston - and the problems of following the most basic or road rules appear to be Boston's alone.
Why does it bother you that I and others point out that motorists are as bad as the cyclists? Why are you bothered that people might expect you, when driving, to wait your turn and follow the rules too - old city or no? *I* have no need to take a chill pill - plenty of low-country chocolate around here for that. There really isn't anything wrong with me, or with calling out the stupidity of baseless anti-cyclist memes as they arise. Sounds like you need one if you can't deal with reading about how treasured notions of motorist lore are actually wrong.
you are so cool, how can we
you are so cool, how can we be more like you?
Maybe get a #%$ screen name?
and stop being so spineless.
I also might add that
bicyclists who run red lights not only risk their own limb and life, but other people's as well. More bicyclists need to realize that a bicycle is a vehicle too, and therefore, subject to the rules of the road just as much as cars, motorcycles, trucks, and motorbikes.
I might also add ...
That drivers who blow through red lights, block intesections such that emergency vehicles cannot clear, turn right without yielding to cycle lanes, ignore no turn on red signs, etc. are far more likely to kill in a crash than an idiot cyclist. That's because two tons of mass going 30 mph is way more dangerous than 150lbs doing 15 mph.
Idiot cyclists can injure - but I challenge you to tally up the yearly instances where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and caused serious enough injuries to report WHEN that pedestrian was not jaywalking/at fault/caused the accident. Now tally up the carnage wrought by lazy/drunk/stupid/distracted/entitled drivers.
It won't be anything approximating a contest - guarenteed!
Hypothetical example
I'm in a car legally approaching an intersection on a green light. Idiot cyclist blows red light, causing me to suddenly brake and be rear-ended by car behind me.
Cyclist not involved in crash, thus uninjured. But their actions directly causes property damage and injury to others.
Only Partly True ...
However, the car behind you rear ended you because the driver of that vehicle was either distracted or was not observing proper following distance.
You should always be prepared for the car in front of you to stop suddenly - for any or no reason at all. That was what I was taught - rear end someone, your fault. Period.
Point taken. However,
while it's true that possible inattention/distraction of the following driver would have been the immediate cause of the crash, the cyclist's action was the proximate cause of the crash.
If the cyclist had obeyed the law and not run the red light in the first place, the crash wouldn't have occurred at all.
There have been plenty of
There have been plenty of times when I started crossing the crosswalk when the signal started (so, not jaywalking) only to be almost hit by a cyclist running a red light. One time in particular, I was on my way to the restaurant I work at. What if my leg had been broken in the fall and then I couldn't work until it healed? You can't just assume "Oh, well, cyclists don't injure people ALL THAT MUCH when they hit them." They very well might.
I agree that people being inattentive while maneuvering vehicles weighing several tons are far more dangerous, but I don't think that exonerates cyclists from the damage that they could do as well.
No exoneration
but really, the main safety issue is the inattentiveness of all. A cyclist should stop at a red light, but when I'm a pedestrian, I make sure to look for any approaching bikes before stepping in to a crosswalk, even when I have the walk sign. As a cyclist, I make sure to look for any cars in a position to cut me off on a right turn. As a driver, I make sure to watch for a car that might be able to merge into me when I'm in the blind spot. Etc., etc., etc. We all have responsibilities when using share space, especially when it is dangerous shared space. You can have the law on your side, but if you aren't also paying attention to potential recklessness in others, you may pay a price.
Regardless of mode, my goal is to make sure I am best able to see a hazard before it directly confronts me.
Well said, Henry
I don't want to be "right" and lying in a hospital bed
the myth of the pedestrian injury by bike
The following have been proven in study after study - Google is you friend.
1)The more bicyclists on a road, the safer it becomes for pedestrians because they're sort of like traffic calming devices - drivers usually pay more attention around bikes, and thus are more likely to see pedestrians. This seems to correlate with pedestrian injury data; while correlation is not causation, starting in 2002, injuries have been their lowest every year since 1996, and still dropping, despite a big upswing in the number of bicyclists.
So aside from the fact that a bicyclist has a serious personal interest in not hitting you because they run an equal or greater risk of injury than you do (they're falling from a greater height, and traveling at several times your speed), they're actually making the roads safer overall for you.
2)The number of pedestrian injuries from bikes are typically in the single-digit percentages. In the year of bicycle crash data collected a year or two back, the number of bicycle-ped collisions that required *EMS response* was countable on one or two hands. The number of motor-vehicle-pedestrian collisions requiring *hospital transport*? Typically around a THOUSAND. That means that bikes in Boston account for less than one percent of pedestrian injuries.
You want to do something for pedestrian safety? Tell Boston Police to get off their asses and do something about the source of 99% of pedestrian injuries and deaths: DRIVERS. Tell them to get off their asses and do something about DRIVERS who pilot their cars while staring at mobile devices which make them more impaired than drunk drivers.
Seriously: it absolutely baffles the shit out of me why I hear people ranting and raving about Those Damn Bicyclists...but some dipshit staring at his cell phone, with one hand on the wheel, blowing through the same light at twice the speed of the bicyclist, who has virtually no chance of personal injury, with a vehicle that's three times as wide and effectively has infinite mass compared to the pedestrian? THAT'S A O FUCKING KAY! CARRY ON GOOD CITIZEN.
PS:If you want to stand on a moral pillar, make sure it's not crumbling at the fucking base. Only 12% of you wait for a walk signal (which means 88% of you are jaywalking - if you're at an intersection with a crosswalk signal and you ignore it, you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY and YES YOU ARE JAYWALKING), one third of you don't even bother to use the crosswalks put down for you.
Oh, and PPS: Some of you seem to take joy in playing Peekaboo Pedestrian at non-signal crosswalks. These are the pedestrians who will walk straight out into a crosswalk no matter how close a car or bicyclist is to the crosswalk, forcing both to slam on the brakes. Here's a goddamn news flash: the laws of physics do not bend simply because you jump out into the crosswalk, and it'd be right-decent of you to look before you step into a crosswalk and if you see a biker coming, recognize that waiting TWO SECONDS until they've passed will let them avoid having to work to get back up to traveling speed again.
If we're going to throw around anecdotes: I was once biking through Brookline on a downhill road in the middle of the night and came up to a SIGNALED crosswalk. This BU bubblehead, yakking on her cell phone with her back to oncoming traffic, makes an abrupt left turn off the sidewalk and practically charges out into the crosswalk. We passed with inches to spare, and she screams "YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO STOP!"
What, because I'm fucking psychic? And the laws of physics are such that, even with my knowledge of how to stop my bike as quickly as possible, good tires, and well-maintained disc brakes - I'm going to stop from 15+MPH in the space of less than five or ten feet? Had we hit, it probably would have been the right side of my handlebar catching on her, and while she would have had a nasty bruise - I would have gone flying over my handlebars, possibly head-first into a parked car.
I really can't add a single word to that rant!
As a 50+ miles a week bicycle commuter, I haven't a word to add to your rant; my thoughts exactly.
yeah... you're right. Cars
yeah... you're right. Cars are the worst thing ever, literally nobody should ever drive a car, and everyone who rides a bike is a genius who never gets in an accident and for the most part all cyclists strictly follow the rules of the road. How could a bike be dangerous... it's not made out of 2,000 pounds of steel. So it's almost impossible to hurt anyone while you're on a bike (Source: Wikipedia)
http://bostoncyclistsunion.org/resources/crash-map/
Keep in mind that given the nature of a bike accident, most incidents are probably not witnessed/recorded and therefore this map probably doesn't even represent 50% of accidents that occur because of cyclists.
I love how you just don't listen to people's points and post the same flawed argument on every post concerning bikes on this website. Someone says they see a lot of bikers just blow through red lights (which is true... I rode my bike to work for the better part of a year and most people don't wait for red lights) and all you do is say "Well cars are heavier and more dangerous!!!" Not only are your opinions baseless, stupid and biased, but you don't even know how to argue or debate properly. Even if you were defending a valid point, you would still come off as a complete idiot just because of the way you write (you are also a really poor speller)
But you're not. You're trying to defend cyclists, the most annoying, self-righteous group of people in the entire country. Please stop posting on this site; every time I see your stupid name the entire discussion detracts into a senseless argument.
Fact Free Ranting about ??
Brett just ran down the reality: Between 0.1 and 1% of significant injury accidents to peds involve cyclists.
That map you put up has nothing to do with this discussion - bikes do get in accidents, but they are involved in a very small fraction of pedestrian injuries - as established, above.
I'm sorry you can't read. I'm sorry you can't handle reality or research. I'm sure that Hannity and Rush will continue to enjoy your listenership, as they cater to your "don't bother me with the the facts, I'm making them up as I go!" segment you clearly identify with.
did you count the number of ped-on-bike crashes?
I counted about 8 ped-on-bike crashes with injury where transport was provided (it's not clear if this is data from all incidents, or incidents where transport was provided.)
In the last 10 years, there have been between 1000 and 900 pedestrian injuries a year where transport was definitely provided.
So.
What's 8 divided by 1000? .8%
Now. Every person on a bike is a person potentially not in a car. Would you rather be hit by a car running a red light, or a bike running a red light?
Also, notice how every year the pedestrian injury numbers get lower?
http://www.bphc.org/programs/cib/healthyhomescommu...
Let's not talk about the reason a lot of bicyclists run red lights in the first place: it makes them feel safer because they don't have drivers zooming past them (to race to the next red light) when the light changes. Instead, they get to ride for a few blocks with less or virtually no traffic.
So, if you provide more facilities like roads that are wide enough and have bike lanes, and all you drivers start behaving a bit better...guess what happens? Bicyclists will feel it less necessary to "run" the red light for their safety!
If I spent as much time
totting up the truly dangerous transgressions of the drivers I see every day as many folks seem to spend observing cyclists, my head would explode. Honestly, I don't get it. I bike every day and yes, I see some bikers who don't obey the rules of the road but Lordy...it's nothing compared with the drivers. Nothing. There's a difference, btw, in "blowing through" a red light at top speed while cars screech to a halt on either side and doing what I see many bikers do and sometimes do myself which is to cautiously cross an empty intersection while the light is still red to get a head start on the cars alongside you. Most cyclists will tell you that the most dangerous moment is when the light turns green--sometimes it feels safer to get out ahead so they can see you.
Crazy bikers make me nuts, but the number that I see is so infinitesimal that these kind of comments just astound me. Most days in Boston, I spend so much time thinking "wow--that is NOT a good place to make a u-turn!" or "signal much?" or "DID YOU SEE THAT ESCALADE ALMOST TOOK OUT THAT STROLLER??" that I find it hard to believe that any driver is so focused on this alleged corps of rogue cyclists who are breaking all the rules.
On foot or on a bike it is
On foot or on a bike it is easier to notice motorist misbehavior. I don't think many drivers realize how many other drivers around them are horribly dangerous scofflaws. If this was more easily observed by drivers of other drivers, there likely would be more stringent retesting upon renewing licenses.
Perspective
In almost 20 years of living in the Boston area I know of (but didn't witness) one pedestrian fatality "caused" by a bicyclist, and in that case the pedestrian apparently stepped out into traffic in the middle of the block between parked cars into the path of the bicycle. Yet I've seen with my own eyes three pedestrians hit and killed by cars and in all three cases the pedestrians were in the middle of a crosswalk with the light in their favor.
Yes, there are stupid bicyclists, but people, please, have a little perspective. A bicyclist weighs 1/20th as much as the smallest car and generates 1/200th the horsepower. The consequences to everyone are orders of magnitude more severe when drivers are stupid and from what I see drivers are at least as likely to be stupid as bicyclists. Let me know when you see a bicyclist texting while riding.
A modest proposal...
Anyone over 18 and riding a bicycle on a public road should be required to take a basic safety course, register, display a license plate, and carry insurance.
Just like all the other vehicles that use the public roads...
By Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum's estimate
I'm probably somewhere between a socialist and a full-blown Commie, but even I reel at the thought of the paperwork and bureaucracy this would entail. When we have enough cyclists on the roads that this becomes a real problem, or there are suddenly a string of fatalities or serious accidents caused by reckless bikers, then I'll support it absolutely, but until then this is just silly. Spend the money on going after nutty drivers, speeding taxis, the drivers in my neighborhood who seem to think that headlights are optional...
We'll ignore the likelihood
That 95% of all bicyclists have driver's licenses which means they have completed a test of basic safety and the rules of the road.
AND we'll ignore the fact that the vast majority of those cyclists also have cars and therefore pay registration and carry insurance.
FInally, we'll ignore the facts of physics and the severity of collisions caused by bikes, and the fact that bikes cause something like 1/20,000'th of the wear and tear of a semi truck on the roads.
Given all that, what will pay for the immense costs of the infrastructure required for such a licensing and registration program? And what about little kids- will they be required to have such licenses? People who ride three times a year in a local park?
Personally, as one of the vast majority of bicyclists who do not have a car I would gladly buy liability insurance if it allowed me to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage to protect me if I were hit by a car. Unfortunately in the heavily regulated MA insurance market that product does not exist.
1/20000th?
Cut that factor by many orders of magnitude. Empirical testing shows that the damage caused to the road by vehicles is approximately proportional to axle-weight raised to the fourth power. Bicycles do nearly zero damage to the road compared to trucks.
Just a nitpick, carry on :)
Yeah, because that's worked out so well for motor vehicle safety
99% of pedestrian injuries and deaths are caused by people who are required to pass a test, register, display a license plate, and carry insurance.
The reason you have to pass a license exam and carry insurance when you drive a car is because we're so very good at causing massive property damage and injury/death with cars. They represent an enormous danger to the public - 40,000 deaths a year on highways alone, which are the more controlled environments (and lack those pesky pedestrians and bicyclists.)
Registrations, by the way, were originally intended as a way to prove you'd paid your taxes - not as a safety measure or ID.
Oh, and guess who the first victim of a motor vehicle crash in the US was? A NYC bicyclist.
Agreed Because...
This is common practice in European Cities where cycling is regarding with a high level of respect. And it works. The problem is that, culturally, we don't make cycling out to be a big deal. Any fool can get a beater for a bike and just starting toolin' down the road as though s/he knows what's expected.
I commute by bike everyday and see scores of stupid cyclists doing dumbshit that puts everyone at risk.
(And, of course, I see people driving their tanks while yakking on their cell phones - that makes me feel real safe too).
Pedal biking is so dangerous
Pedal biking is so dangerous in the city. My fiancé parked his car, looked in the rear view to see no one there and then opened the car door. With in seconds of opening the door- BOOM- Pedal biker took out his door! I think if pedal bikers looked up every once in a while, maybe things could be avoided. – Mea www.hertrainstories.blogspot.com
either that bicycle was
either that bicycle was traveling at 200mph or your fiance didn't do a thorough job of looking around
Putting bike lanes in door zones is dangerous.
I do my best to stay out of the bike lane when biking in door zone bike lanes. Regardless of attentiveness of person opening the door, they have worse visibility then the car driving in the travel lane.
Wow.
So... your fiancé failed to look closely before opening his door and threw it open into a bike lane, causing a biker to hit it hard enough that it caused damage to the door. And your response is to lament the damage to the car (without mention of what happened to the biker, naturally) and loudly demand that the entire biking community pay more attention.
My congratulations to you, madam. This is the single most impressive troll of this site that I have ever witnessed. Also, you are a wretched specimen of humanity.
Wow.
Where to you get off calling someone "a wretched specimen of humanity"?
Sheesh
Yeah. Clearly if the bikers looked where they're going more often, they could avoid people thoughtlessly opening their doors without looking so they could avoid damaging people's property? People here don't look for bikes. If you fiancé truly looked in the rear view mirror, why on earth wouldn't he have seen a bike approaching? In Holland, drivers are trained to open their door with their right hand, forcing them to turn around in the seat so they can see clearly. It's just common sense, but I find it strange that you blame the cyclist.
Chargeable At Fault Accident Right There
I know because some stiff-necked lazy joker like your fiance threw a door open in the path of my husband's CAR and PAID FOR THE ACCIDENT!
You have to turn your goddamn head and check the mirror BEFORE you open the door - got it? Good. (oh but it is just ... so ... hard ... to ... think!) Because you WILL be in the wrong and you CAN be SUED for your stupidity and laziness.
Hey, do you know Erik G?
You are he make quite a team.
domino effect
I've started noticing more potential safety conflicts caused bikes who don't follow the rules against those who do. Witnessed this the other day in the Back Bay on Comm. Ave. A cab traveling in the lane next to the parked cars swerved around a group of idiot cyclists riding 2 abreast (not in the bike lane) alongside the parked cars. This in turn forced the car traveling in the lane next to the cab to make a sudden move to its left into the bike lane. Honking and yelling ensued. The car couldn't hit the brakes since there was a line of traffic behind him. The cyclists who were doing the right thing by properly using the actual bike lane then had to hit their brakes which would have caused a mini pile up had all cyclists not been paying attention. Do you think the idiots riding in a pack next to the parked cars gave a shit about the cyclists in the bike lane? They didn't bother to even glance behind them, just kept pedaling along oblivious to the accident they almost triggered.
The cabbie was 100% the cause of this problem
It's not required that a cyclist ride in the bike lane just because it is there. I'm less certain about the "riding abreast" element, but they definitely have a right to use the same lane as the cab. This is the law in Massachusetts. The law further requires that a car moving to the left to pass a bike that has taken the lane must do so in a safe manner (ie not when another car occupies the lane already). The cab broke the law, endangering several. To blame it on the bikes that were not breaking the law is not the right approach for this situation.
just b/c it's legal doesn't mean it isn't stupid
So, what is the purpose of the bike lane then? Sorry, but I side with the cyclists in the bike lane in this instance. They were doing the right thing and almost got screwed. Had the 'pack' been riding in a responsible manner and not two abreast, the cab wouldn't have had to swerve into the other lane. I'm not saying the cab did the right thing either. Bottom line is that none of this would have happened if the pack were at least riding single file and sharing the road with the other vehicles AND the cyclists in the bike lane.
Please re-read and think about what you've said
The cab did not "have" to swerve as you put it. What it had to do was operate safely, which in this case would have meant staying in the lane, behind the bikes, and waiting for an opportunity to change to the left lane when it was no longer occupied. Had the cyclists in the bike lane been screwed, it would have been because a cab was in too much of a hurry to not drive recklessly. It's cut and dry. This would even be true in a situation involving an illegal obstruction, such as a double parked car. As it happens, there was no illegal obstruction, just an illegal lane change.
It is a reserved lane for cyclists who prefer the option of not mixing in traffic with other vehicles. It is not necessarily the safest or best lane for a bicycle, which is why utilization is left to the discretion of each individual cyclist.
Two abreast is OK
In January 2009, a new Massachusetts law took effect that specifically allows cyclists to ride two abreast. See excerpt of Chapter 85 Section 11B below or full text here: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/Part...
Wow, I'm surprised by that.
Wow, I'm surprised by that. What a dangerous regulation, especially given the fact that if a car makes a sudden Masshole move, there's less space for a cyclist to safely maneuver if s/he's blocked in by parked cars on one side and another bike on the other. Personally, I wouldn't ride that way, but to each his own.
Again, the problem is the Masshole
and not the bike. Please just drop this line, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Another Surprise?
The overarching law in play here is similar to the presumption of guilt for drivers who rear-end other vehicles. General Law 90:14 includes the key requirement "In approaching or passing a person on a bicycle the operator of a motor vehicle shall slow down and pass at a safe distance and at a reasonable and proper speed."
There really is no justification or excuse for buzzing or punishing cyclists by dangerous passing.
guess how many times?
nine, and its only 8pm.
Which intersection? A whole
Which intersection?
A whole lot of lights on Mass Ave in Cambridge stay red way longer than they should. Cyclists can easily see when there are no pedestrians during exclusive walk phases (which is the case most of the time), and no traffic during side street greens that are unnecessarily long.
If it's really true that the majority of cyclists run red lights, that proves how safe it is.
Respect for the law goes both ways. Install a lot of lights that waste people's time, and people will learn to ignore them.
Enforcement. Or lack thereof...
This afternoon I was crossing Boylston St at the crosswalk by the Walgreens, going towards the Pru. I had the light. I had registered that traffic had actually come to a stop before I started across, and then was distracted by the fact that the walk-light wasn't "counting down", which is why I wasn't still watching traffic (you never know when someone will get impatiently and decide that waiting for the light to turn green is for sissies). That is when I was darn near run down by a bike. All the way in the left lane. Running the red light.
And the real kicker; he was a cop!
Sigh.