Bike haters organize in Cambridge

Cambridge Day reports Cambridge residents and business owners pissed off by bicyclists and their bike lanes have started strategizing how to take over transportation planning in the city.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

The Last Gasp

By on

Of a dying urban paradigm.

Are they going to demand that freeway get put through, too?

Cars are old tech. Cars are not modern. Cars are dysfunctional transport. Car culture cannot die soon enough, even when yelling "I'm not dead yet!"

up
Voting is closed. 0

Wait a minute

By on

Don't tell us that Markk has moved to Cambridge now.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Bike = 2 wheeled car/church

Not surprised

When you take a tool and give users the right to be assholes and self-righteous on top of it you're going to attract the worst .

up
Voting is closed. 0

Conventional

That would be a Convent, not a church.

I'm more the lay minister type. I spread the good news that changing your flat tire is easy once you know what to do.

up
Voting is closed. 0

God no, not back to Cambridge

By on

I got out 30 years ago and never looked back!

I am pleased to see motorists and businesses starting to organize and defend themselves. Cyclists have been well organized, networked, and turning up at public meetings and flooding politicians with emails. Motorists have been too lazy and complacent too long.

I do think GOOD data is needed. Does putting bike lanes on a road mean more cyclists or just more using that road instead of other parallel routes. Traffic on other roads needs to be counted at the same time to know what is actually going on.

Cambridge doesn't seem to be putting protected bike lanes with the greatest danger - that's how safety problems are usually addressed, putting fixes where problems exist. Instead protected lanes are going where cyclists want them, and even if just for a couple blocks as on Brattle, so its not even creating much of a bike route. What's the point then given no safety problem and no created bike route?

Businesses can respond by leaving, giving cyclists nowhere to bike to, which is a shame because the whole community loses due to a few greedy cyclists who want to build a bike city as a political platform more than specific safety problems. If cyclists actually wanted safety, they would try to ban MBTA buses which kill more than their fair share of cyclists. But safety isn't their politics, its being anti-car.

up
Voting is closed. 0

"How dare you cyclists get

By on

"How dare you cyclists get mad when us drivers kill you! We just think our parking is more important than your lives is all."

up
Voting is closed. 0

No stats allowed

By on

Skenderian began the meeting by saying he didn’t want the meeting to get into “data and statistics,”

Yes, we'd hate for actual facts to get in the way of our vendetta.

up
Voting is closed. 0

And then there is this quote:

By on

And then there is this quote: (He explained later that the bicyclists’ agenda was “bike lanes on every street, overwhelming everything else we’ve got.”)

Cars take up billions of dollars worth of property in the Boston area. They are obviously the thing "on every street, overwhelming everything else we've got." Look how much more room cars get than cyclists and pedestrians combined! . Another moronic driver who thinks he owns the world.

up
Voting is closed. 0

These people are unreal. They

By on

These people are unreal. They're creating some kind of extra-governmental entity to complain about bike lanes? When you read the article, it's pretty clear there has been ample planning and public discourse but these business owners and residents apparently didn't choose to partake. And the name of their group here is basically an "All Lives Matter" move. Good grief.

up
Voting is closed. 0

No facts wanted

But Skenderian began the meeting by saying he didn’t want the meeting to get into “data and statistics,” supported by audience members who felt safety data were incomplete or just not a “magic bullet.” Jillson wrapped up the meeting by asking participants to send in their transportation anecdotes.

up
Voting is closed. 1

Did he add?

Did he add that anecdotes from anyone who isn't a daily driver would be ignored? Sounds like that's his intent.

Note: I'm a daily cyclist who doesn't like the changes in Harvard Sq but making changes based on anecdotes is idiotic. Show verifiable data or STFU.

up
Voting is closed. 1

Also a daily cyclist, and an

Also a daily cyclist, and an occasional driver (well, a frequent driver, just occasional in Cambridge), also HATE the changes to Harvard Square, and I'm just so frustrated at this resistance to data. Yeah, it's not a panacea and it's incomplete, so let's just toss it out and use anecdotes instead, sounds like a really solid plan :-/

The biggest problem with data is that it sometimes tells us things we'd rather not know, and we have a hard time coming to terms with them. If we could all admit that and work on it, we might actually be able to get to someplace useful.

The second biggest problem with data is that people confuse it with information. You have to actually do work and use your brain to get from one to the other, so I guess I can see where the resistance is on this one....

up
Voting is closed. 0

If you're biking into Harvard

By on

If you're biking into Harvard Sq from the west, you no longer have to go down to Mt. Auburn St, which has no bike lane and lots of trucks.

If you're biking from the east, out of the Sq to West Cambridge and beyond, you no longer have to avoid cyclists traveling against traffic.

There is enough of a buffer at the right hand turns that visibility is clear for all bikes and cars

In both directions bike travel is safer because you're out of the car lane, in the previous two lane arrangement I was regularly tailgated, buzzed, afraid of opening doors, and honked at all while trying to bike. None of that ever happens now.

Why all the hate?

up
Voting is closed. 0

A couple of reasons. For one

A couple of reasons. For one, when I'm a pedestrian there, I don't find it intuitive to look for two-way traffic, then one-way traffic on the other side of that. I forget about it routinely even though I know it's there, likely because there's nowhere else that has a traffic configuration that's like this.

When I drive there, I personally do NOT find there to be enough clearance to be sure I see bicyclists. Also, the same situation as above applies - I don't find it intuitive and I worry constantly that I'll forget or miss a spot when I look.

When I bike there, well, I'm coming out of the Square down Church, taking a right on Brattle and then an immediate left on Story, so I can't even use the damn thing because I would have no good egress to make that left, and where I never had trouble before, I now DO get honked at and yelled at because I'm somewhere drivers don't expect. Also, again, same situation as above - I find this right turn exponentially harder to make now, and several times have come very close to missing something I really needed to see.

And those bicyclists you had to deal with going the wrong way up Brattle should have been stopped and ticketed. It always drove me crazy that it was one of those "everybody does it" situations where the law apparently didn't apply. One good thing to come out of this configuration is that since people were apparently going to do it unchecked anyway, at least they have a real, legitimate place to be.

I should be clear that it's specifically this implementation that I dislike. I love the bikes-only lane to proceed straight when you cross the BU Bridge and Comm Ave (though I do wish it was marked and signed more clearly), and I definitely love the separated bike lanes on Mass Ave in the Back Bay. It's really just this one that I find nerve-wracking from all perspectives.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Its on the cyclist to either

By on

Its on the cyclist to either yield or let you, as the pedestrian, know that there's a cyclist near the cross walk. Bells are great for this, all urban cyclists should have one. This is mainly a courtesy thing, and I don't really see it as a flaw in design, perhaps the city could add better signage at the crosswalks?

There's only one right hand turn of any consequence, onto James st. (I'm not counting the alley that goes to that church thrift store, or the intersection with Church st. because that's so wide open) Prior to the turn onto James, there's more than a parking space worth of barrier, if not two parking spaces worth. I've driven this way and never had an issue, I bike this way too, and have had people cut in front of me to turn right, but it was never close. Again, road users should be aware each other, cyclists should be singnaling or making themselves visible, and cars should be aware of the bike lane.

As for access to Story st, I'm on Brattle St. all the time and maybe 15 or 20% of the bikes in the path seem to be trying to access this turn. If you don't want to take the car lane for part of a block you could always use the bike lane until Story st., get off your bike in the buffer zone adjacent to your turn, and walk your bike across Brattle. I realize both of these scenarios are compromises, but sometimes that's what happens, changes are made to benefit as many people as possible, with some having to compromise for the greater good.

up
Voting is closed. 1

finally

By on

I'd visited Central Square for the first time in a bit and it seemed like the traffic layout with regards to bike lanes was too Cambridge 2030 and forward-thinking. Thankfully there are some fighting for the Eisenhower heydays when I could drive my Packard around without worrying about these anti-auto squares on their velocipedes.

up
Voting is closed. 1

this sums it up

By on

Several people also complained about the speed with which the Cambridge Street bike lane had been installed, seemingly unaware its planning included a stakeholders group that met three times over several months, as well as two public meetings; others were confused to hear that the lane installation had been voted in by the public during the Participatory Budgeting process, which they hadn’t heard of despite four years of attempts by the city to publicize it.

up
Voting is closed. 0

I'm confused

By on

I read the article. Twice. And I still don't see how the title and the actual reporting are related, except that bicycle lanes are involved.

I mean, the meeting noted that there were people who opposed the lanes, but the meeting also noted support for bike lanes and had speakers who noted that the pain businesses are feeling might not be related to the loss of parking but rather from national retail trends. In short, this was not a "let's get rid of bike lanes" meeting per se.

The meeting was about the bike lanes, and had people who didn't like them, but there also (per my reading of the reporting) was a sense that the planning process should be better.

Just my 2 cents. Everyone can get back to expounding on their opinions on bicycling, bicyclists, and bicycle lanes.

up
Voting is closed. 1

The meeting was indeed not

By on

The meeting was indeed not explicitly anti-bike lane, though it's clear that they were not huge fans of them. But it also seems like they really wanted to relitigate all the city's planning process, and they wanted to do this primarily because the results that came out of it are not ones they like. They're used to being listened to and the city doing what they want, and not having that all of a sudden has bewildered them somewhat. As mentioned, there were plans, they were well publicized, there was participatory budgeting and voting and so on, and if they didn't read their mail and didn't care to participate, well, that's kind of on them. It's also interesting that they chose to meet at a time that conflicts with the City Council meeting, and only publicize their meeting the Friday before, possibly in hopes that nobody but them would show up.

up
Voting is closed. 0

The origin of the meeting was

The origin of the meeting was to complain about the bike lanes in Cambridge especially on Brattle Street. The meeting creators are a handful of business people in Harvard Square. I follow some of the bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups around here and they shared the initial flyers and messaging from the meeting proponents that made that clear. The reason the meeting itself was not completely one-sided was that some of these cycling and pedestrian safety advocates and residents showed up.

up
Voting is closed. 1

More than a handful of business people

By on

There are also many residents of the area, and more than a handful of business owners that object to the Brattle bike lane. It creates more problems than it solves.

up
Voting is closed. 0

citations please

By on

It creates more problems than it solves

Facts and stats needed.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Problems like...?

By on

I’m trying to imagine. Does it keep people out of the always-empty expensive lotion store, the still-under-construction corner bank, the shuttered City Sports, the shuttered pizza place, the shuttered candy store, the suddenly “SEIZED” corner market, the shuttered EMS right around the corner? Because yes—clearly bikes are the main trouble with businesses on Brattle Street.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Thanks for the info

By on

Now things make sense.

To be honest, I think that if done right getting 2 sides of an issue together for a meeting could be productive.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Two sides of an issue

By on

That might work if both sides are valid and bring valid arguments.

"I don't like data and facts" is not valid.

up
Voting is closed. 1

Look at who planned/ran the meeting

By on

The Harvard Square Business Association and Skendarian.

This was not supposed to be fair and balanced. It would have been all about how much everyone hated the cyclists except that the majority of people there were cyclists, so they couldn't just yell about how they once saw a cyclist roll a stop sign or something.

If I had to do it again, I would have gone up to the dais before the meeting and said "this was billed as a community meeting, but it is being led by business leaders. I propose that we take a vote as to who should lead the meeting." That would have been fun.

Some highlights were when people said that the participatory budgeting process, which involved a citizen proposal, a citizen committee to vet proposals, and a citizen voting process, was "top-down" yet something led by the business community is "grassroots"?

Give me a fucking break.

up
Voting is closed. 0

The guy from the Pharmacy is

By on

The guy from the Pharmacy is delusional. Why is he not interested in facts? The city included him in the development process, bent over backwards to meet his demands, and added more metered parking when he wouldn't stop complaining. He also owns a parking lot that he could let customers use, but he reserves it for employees.

The Harvard Sq Business association is crazy. They preferred a street that had no business being two lanes, with cyclists riding against traffic and on sidewalks all day long. The current arrangement is so so much safer for all users of the road. I say this as someone who's on it everyday. The unspoken thing about all these business "complaints" about the 2 way lane on Brattle is that they are mostly based on the fact that it's harder to double park. Double parking is dangerous, illegal, and causes major traffic problems.

Also, cyclists are "taking advantage" of deaths. People are dead bro, what is wrong with you??

In the recent City Council election the city as a whole overwhelmingly voted for candidates that support cycling. 30 people yelling at each other in a church on the other side of town isn't helping anyone and isn't going to change anything. Cyclists are here to stay, and protected bike lanes are the safest thing for them and for driver and pedestrians

up
Voting is closed. 0

I grew up rding bikes all over the city

By on

I was a bike courier in Manhattan for 2 years. I spend a lot of time in Cambridge, and my experiences as a pedestrian and sometime car driver is there are a large number of smug, arrogant bike riders, not to mention people in general. It wasn't always like this, but is today.

up
Voting is closed. 0

It could just be you

By on

That's an interesting viewpoint you have. "People in general" in Cambridge used to be nice and modest, but today a bunch of them have switched to being smug and arrogant.

And what is your criteria for judging a bicyclist to be smug and arrogant? I should remind you that in the past Manhattan bike couriers had a notorious reputation for being reckless. Were you the safe, courteous one trying to set an example for everyone else?

up
Voting is closed. 0

Brattle Street reconfiguration is a real problem for everyone

By on

Despite the headline, this is not about bike haters. The Brattle Street reconfiguration was done with zero input from residents and businesses. The reconfiguration makes Brattle St more dangerous for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars. If you really care about the issue, check out the facts and even visit the site. The current situation is not sustainable. It was done wrong and needs to be corrected

up
Voting is closed. 1

Not what happened, swirly

By on

The promoters of the bike lane claim there was involvement from residents and businesses. But if you ask the residents and businesses, they were not consulted, and not invited to meetings. To put it simply, the bike lane people lied. This is one of the main issues of the anti bike lane people in the Brattle neighborhood. Just because some report claims that something happened, doesn't mean it happened. The people who are promoting the bike lane claim they knocked on every residential and commercial door in the neighborhood. They didnt .They lied. There has been an extensive search in the neighborhood for anyone who was actually contacted. Funny, not one person has been found.

The reconfiguration of Brattle St is dangerous for bicyclists, pedestrians, and cars. It needs to be fixed.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Public meetings aren't invite-only events

By on

But if you ask the residents and businesses, they were not consulted, and not invited to meetings.

Or they weren't paying attention. From the article:

Several people also complained about the speed with which the Cambridge Street bike lane had been installed, seemingly unaware its planning included a stakeholders group that met three times over several months, as well as two public meetings; others were confused to hear that the lane installation had been voted in by the public during the Participatory Budgeting process, which they hadn’t heard of despite four years of attempts by the city to publicize it.

Democracy is participatory, if you don't go to the meetings and raise your concerns, you don't have much to stand on after the fact when you begin to complain after changes are made.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Nope, not true

By on

Just because someone states that meetings were publicized doesnt mean that in fact they were. Find me one resident or business owner in the reconfigured area of Brattle that was aware of these "meetings" . I know several of them, they are honest people, and they are all very politically aware and engaged in local issues. But the city made the changes without public input.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Half of the businesses on Brattle are shut.

By on

See my other post. From a business standpoint, Brattle Street seems to be in free-fall so I’d be really curious about who was or wasn’t consulted. The notion that reconfiguring the street to make it safer for cyclists has somehow had a devastating impact on businesses that are clearly already struggling with rent and other troubles is flat-out ridiculous.

up
Voting is closed. 0

The current arrangement is

By on

The current arrangement is safer for everyone.

The car lane is narrower, so cars drive slower, making the road safer for all pedestrians and cyclists.

Cyclists no longer ride on the sidewalks, or against traffic in the car lane, which is safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists.

There are buffers at all right hand turns, so the cycling lane is clear to drivers.

There are buffers next to all the parked cars so car contents can be easily unloaded without blocking a car lane or a bike lane.

The current arrangement was approved by the local police and fire departments as safe, they were involved in the planning process, and believe that the current arrangement is safe for all users and emergency vehicles.

The lanes were suggested by Cambridge residents, supported by Cambridge residents, publicly planned, and rolled out quickly because that's how participatory budgeting works.

Sorry...

Change is hard...

up
Voting is closed. 0

Not Surprised

By on

Well... not surprised here. Many of the bike lanes in Boston were not fully vetted with residents or business that were impacted. That said, many bike lanes are outside of the parking lanes on most streets. This is a prime example of city hall caving in to a small vocal lobby under the guise of safety. To-MAY-to... To-MAH-to.

Now, bike lanes are a great idea and may work on SOME streets, but not all.

And let's face some serious reality here... it's the bad bicyclists that people remember, and not the ones who are conscientious. Same is true of bad auto drivers. Those are held up as the example of all rather than the select few. I see cyclists DAILY that zip along, weave through traffic, and fail ... miserably fail... at following some simple rules of the road like giving hand signals (not that 1-second wave that no one understands), or actually stopping for a red light in traffic rather than just blowing through it causing side street entering traffic to jam on their brakes. This quasi-state that exists somewhere between auto rules and pedestrian rules is not acceptable, and those that take up making excuses for bad cycling side with walkers or autos depending on who you are talking to. No one seems to have it right. Consistency matters so that EVERYONE can co-exist.

Where is the education on safe and proper biking, and where is the genre's self-policing to correct their own?

My take... if you want to ride in traffic with autos, you need to have a Cyclists "Blue Book" that explains the rules and expectations. Sit a test like an auto driver must and get a certificate, and maybe even a sticker or license plate for your bike. Skip the RMV. Do it at the local police station. Token fee of $5. Create an inspection: Tires properly inflated, reflectors, lights, hand signals, helmet, etc. Rental bikes? Make them comply with safety expectations as well.

And... maybe that fee for a test can go to offset the cost of paint and labor to create and maintain these bike lanes? It's an added cost not already factored in most -- if any -- cities. I challenge anyone to find it as a line item in any city or town budget.

There are compromises to be made, but right now both side of this equation are just saying "ME ME ME" rather than sitting down and coming up with a workable solution.

This whole bike vs. auto thing in Cambridge and certainly Boston is a microcosm of what the nation has become. We need only look at Washington DC for the broader picture of what is happening.

And just to add a little jet fuel to this rant, BOTH SIDES have their "Trumpies" in this dialogue; (... I'm right, It's THEIR fault, Media fake news, etc... ). The responses will clearly demonstrate that. LOL!

up
Voting is closed. 0

Quick Response

By on

I don't have the time to rebut your "ideas" point by point, but I didn't want to leave without saying something.

This is one of the dumbest posts I've read on a message board in a long time. May God have mercy on your soul.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Par for the course

By on

With Mr. Intheknow.

Electronic TP scanning has been perfected!

up
Voting is closed. 1

FYI

By on

simple rules of the road like giving hand signals (not that 1-second wave that no one understands)

Here's the relevant MGL (85.11b)

the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle

up
Voting is closed. 0

Yes. There's a genuine paradox.

By on

Signals make cycling safer, but taking one's hands off the handlebars (and brakes in many cases) is more dangerous.

There are no easy answers to a lot of these problems. I applaud the efforts for infrastructure, but it's inevitable that some attempts will misfire. Patience is required from all sides -- and that's the one thing that probably won't happen.

up
Voting is closed. 1

Bullying?

Try riding a bike for a month and enviably you'll hear a few people yell "Get off the road" from a car or kids who try to scare a bicyclist into riding off the road by screaming as they're next to the rider. And this is when the cyclist is doing nothing wrong and just riding legally.

The only time I've ever seen any bicyclist yell at a driver is when the driver does something illegal or unsafe like cut them off or park in a bike lane.

up
Voting is closed. 0

See, this is funny:

By on

I've been cycling for 45 years now and I've never had one of these conflicts.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Then you are lying

By on

Or you are deaf or only ride off-road.

up
Voting is closed. 1

A few? Try at least one

By on

A few? Try at least one person every day! The real kicker is the people who yell "get on the f-ing sidewalk!" when it would be illegal for me to do so.

I've also gotten multiple death threats screamed out windows. Not to mention the honking, the passing so close you narrowly miss my shoulder with your mirror, and the swerving into the bike lane right in front of me.

Maybe if drivers were actually capable of sharing the road, cyclists wouldn't be so adamant about the need for protected, separated facilities.

[note, I'm concurring with you, not arguing, in case that isn't clear]

up
Voting is closed. 0

Maybe if bicycles could

By on

Maybe if bicycles could actually ride at the speed of traffic, then drivers wouldn't be so annoyed by them blocking the travel lane for everybody else behind them.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Tough

Schlitz.

Cyclists do ride at the speed of traffic as cyclists are traffic. In fact, cyclists get where they are going hell of a lot faster than oversize soundproof personal transporters a lot of the time.

It is the people travelling in vehicles the size of ten bikes who clog the roads and should get out of the way at rush hour, by your "logic"?

up
Voting is closed. 0

Or maybe we're riding at a

By on

Or maybe we're riding at a speed more suitable to an urban environment?

Look, I get that it's not a good idea to take the lane on a 40+ mph arterial, but on city streets in Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville, a bike going 15 mph should not hold you up enough to make you angry enough to threaten them.

The place I encounter the most driver aggression as a result of taking the lane is on the Charlestown Bridge. The posted speed limit is 25, and I'm usually going about 20 by the time I'm halfway across the bridge (I have a speedometer). Someone going 5 under the speed limit is not "blocking" the travel lane. You don't honk at and threaten the driver of a car going 5 under the speed limit. It's just an excuse to harass cyclists.

up
Voting is closed. 0

You sure about this?

> You don't honk at and threaten the driver of a car going 5 under the speed limit.

I've seen drivers exhibit rage symptoms towards cars actually going the posted speed limit. ;-)

up
Voting is closed. 1

True, but never to the same

By on

True, but never to the same degree. You might tailgate, you might flash your lights, you might hurriedly pass them at the first opportunity.

But you're probably not going to honk at them, scream obscenities and death threats out the window, and then fly past them dangerously and illegally almost taking off their mirror.

Unless they're on a bike.

up
Voting is closed. 1

I've seen that too, on occasion, and

By on

the cyclist(s) had every reason to yell, scream and holler at the driver(s) of an automobile or other such vehicle who either parks in a bike lane, or cuts them off.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Road rage massholes are a

By on

Road rage massholes are a detriment to the car driving movement!

up
Voting is closed. 0

Also

Why is it when some nut in a car screams at pedestrians and honks incessantly at other drivers you don't complain about them being a "detriment to the driving movement". Yet if a cyclist yells at someone suddenly they represent all bicyclists everywhere?

up
Voting is closed. 1

Cyclists need horns

By on

Loud ones. Then we won't have to yell when The Zak steps off the curb into the bike lane against the light or to cross mid-block.

BEEEEEP!

up
Voting is closed. 0

Sheepedestrians

By on

If you stop wandering into the lane mid-block or when you want to hang out until you can cross against the light, cyclists won't yell at you to get out of the way.

Simple.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Don?

By on

Aren't there some ankles over at the Boston Public Library for you to gnaw on?

up
Voting is closed. 1

This is an interesting part

By on

This is an interesting part of the article:

Fully separated lanes would be hard to achieve without costing parking on many of Cambridge’s narrow roads, though, and the idea of keeping bicyclists off streets where there are businesses was presented as another virtue of Montreal’s approach, but also might be beyond local reach.

So you have a bunch of local business "leaders" who wants to keep a population who are more likely to live closer to their business (cyclists) away in favor of a population in cars who may live further away and have other shopping choices.

Harvard Square parking sucked before the bike lanes. I never considered shopping there when I had to drive and there's not enough parking they can put in to change that. They'd be far better off attracting more local business.

This is a pound-foolish approach but it may hasten the demise of these businesses in favor of national chains that won't participate in future such nonsense.

up
Voting is closed. 1

ok then

By on

Bike lanes are important and they also present the problem that motorists see them and think that cyclists are not allowed turn left, changes lanes, or even be allowed on the streets at all.

You can do away with bike lanes, I say, but you must develop a new driving test and require all motorists to take it in order to keep their license. Develop the test on the habits of daily cycle commuters and see how much the motorists know about roads and how to keep them safe.

With privilege comes responsibility.

up
Voting is closed. 1

When I lived in Cambridge, I

By on

When I lived in Cambridge, I had some dude on a bicycle fly off the BU Bridge, bat out of hell style, and smash right into me as I walked in a crosswalk at a red light with cars stopped at the red light, you know ,like you are suppose to. How he did not knock down- he hit me hard enough to knock the 500$ glasses off my face ( I caught them mid air). Gutless puke scrambled out of there even though I said nothing to him ( would have been totally justified in telling him off.) People in the stopped cars at least checked if I was ok. Hell of a bruise on my arm from that. Entitled aholes are entitled aholes. Also had a bicyclist clip me again in the crosswalk in Central square walking on a walk light. I hissed real loud and he road his bike up on the side walk and proceeded to follow and scream at me. Because I dared question his right to run anyone he'd like to down. So, yeah, there are long standing problems in the People's Republic with jerks on bikes... They're so special.

up
Voting is closed. 0

And ...

Had you been hit by an entitled motorist? You would have been dead.

Cyclists aren't any worse than the motorists around here or any better - in fact, they are pretty much the same population. Ditto for pedestrians. I would have no objection to enforcing the laws equally on all road users - except there are a lot of cops out there who don't know what those laws are and a lot of people who think cyclists should be singled out because motorist misbehavior is "normal".

But we all know which group and which mode produces the largest body count and takes up the most space and wastes the most resources and produces the most pollution.

Face it: its massholes all the way up and down. The problem is that some massholes are riding bikes with great arrogance, some massholes are jaywalking with entitlement, and others are killing people with heavy machinery.

up
Voting is closed. 0

well said, Swirly

This is the core of it right here. So much time spent arguing about "who's worse."

Everyone's bad! Drivers speed and don't yield on turns. Cyclists blow through lights and salmon up the wrong way on one-way streets. Pedestrians don't wait for the walk signal and occasionally dash out mid-block. I'm sure I've personally been guilty of every one of these things at some point (very few people exclusively use one mode of transport in a city like Boston).

The point is that only one of them is operating a very heavy machine that moves very fast and can easily kill the other two. So that's where the focus should be.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Hear hear!

By on

Hear hear!

I know we disagree on a lot Swirly, but I wish I could still upvote this.

I especially like that you mentioned singling out cyclists because motorist misbehavior is normal. I think it's pretty telling that despite me driving 20,000 miles a year and only biking a tiny fraction of that amount, I've gotten a ticket on my bike but not in my car. From a Cambridge cop no less.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Does anybody know the name of

By on

Does anybody know the name of the apothecary that Mr. Skendarian owns ? I wouldn't want to offend him by making the mistake of taking my business there and arriving there by bicycle. Or, you know, at all.

up
Voting is closed. 0

That's OK.

By on

Skenderian Apothecary has been around for many years and will most likely still be around well after you leave Cambridge.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Cambridge St changes

By on

I want to comment on the Cambridge St lane changes. Bona fides: I live in N. Cambridge, and bike most everywhere, including to work (at offices on Cambridge St, HSq, and Davis Sq). I often ride with kids on board, and have become more of a rule stickler in middle age -- I stop at red lights (although will jump the green sometimes when there's clearly no cross traffic or pedestrian in sight), I signal turns, I wear reflectors and bright lights, I give way to motorized traffic whenever possible. I hate cyclists who roll through lights and weave through pedestrians, or wobble along with their phones in one hand, or wear all black at night. I hate idiot motorists too, naturally - they can kill you without even noticing. (The only civilized way to travel is to walk, or take the T, when it works.)

Anyway. I'm ambivalent about the Brattle St changes, but I really dislike the new Cambridge St lanelayout. On my bike, I feel less visible at intersections because of parked cars to my left (often towering utes), and when I took the car down there recently for a meeting at CRLS, the narrow, serpentine driving lane made road features AND merging cyclists more difficult to pick out. It's a more crowded visual field on both modes of transportation. I support the idea of separated cycle tracks in general, but don't think the implementation works well on that particular road.

up
Voting is closed. 0

Bike lanes should be

By on

Bike lanes should be abolished to give more room to buses and delivery trucks.

up
Voting is closed. 1