Hey, there! Log in / Register
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.
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
A high-speed bicycle crash shouldn't happen at that intersection
Did one or both cyclists run the red light at that intersection without first slowing down and looking?
This is why nobody should be
This is why nobody should be running red lights. If he crashed into another bike at an intersection as big as that someone was doing something wrong. As much as it hurt him, imagine if that was a a pedestrian or someone with a baby stroller.
People who ride bikes insist they have the right to use streets as much as people in cars. If people who ride bikes want to be treated like cars then they should stop running red lights. A red light is red for a reason, I could just as easily driven my car into the middle of an intersection and looked back and forth to make sure someone wasnt coming.
do you jaywalk?
do you jaywalk?
Thats a silly comparison and
Thats a silly comparison and you know it, come on. People who ride bikes want to be treated as if they belong on the roadways next to cars, people on foot rarely want to be in the street any longer than is needed to get across it. Most people on foot do not walk down the street, on the street , between cars for blocks at a time. If you are riding a bike you need to be following the rules of the road because you are not a pedestrian. People on bikes are not hybrids, they cant just be following rules like cars one second, then acting like people the next. If your on a bike and you want to cross on red , get off yer bike and walk it across, then jump back on.
To answer the question fairly I try not to, its dangerous, especially in the city, specificly on Memorial Drive , which is where this happened. There is a reason why wehave cross walks, mainly because that is the "best way" to cross the street.
two issues
"people on foot rarely want to be in the street any longer than is needed to get across it"
This is Boston. People hunt that best line down with aggression, even if it means spending 2 minutes crossing the road at a 15 degree angle.
"People on bikes are not hybrids, they cant just be following rules like cars one second, then acting like people the next"
I would argue that in a strictly factual sense, they are. Yes, it's illegal. But enforcement is a practical impossibility.
-Cosmo
http://boston.redfin.com/blog/author/cosmo.catalano
I think the disagreement
I think the disagreement between pro and anti running stop signs and lights goes beyong enforcement and into wheter or not its a smart/responsible thing to do.
I say its not a responsible thing to do, and we should scowl at people who run red lights on bikes. I would rather have them get a ticket, but I will take what I can get.
Fair Enough
But it is only fair if the scowling is not targeted toward cyclists alone. Some drivers whine incandescently about what people on bikes do, but they likely don't follow or even know what the rules are themselves.
I'd be happy to stay put at all red lights - if the intersections were properly designed, if the cars followed the rules, if the rules were uniformly enforced. Whether you like it or not, there are times where it is safer for a cyclist to clear an intersection ahead of the traffic because of stupid intersection and signalling design. Do you even realize that some intersections give one direction a green light turn arrow while the other direction has a green light? With all of this conflicting with a crosswalk?
I have cycled in several other cities where traffic enforcement is a given, and where intersections are designed properly and signals are maintained properly. I find that cyclists and drivers and pedestrians are far more likely to actually follow the rules in those places.
You can't single out cyclists for scorn when the problems are fundamental, infrastructural, and cultural and transcend any given mode of transportation. It is too easy to invoke "car privilege" in such matters, and entirely miss the true solutions to the true problems.
Everyone breaks the rules,
Everyone breaks the rules, but somehow people on bikes seem to break them the most blatantly and when confronted about it get indignent and claim that when they break the rules its because of safety and its everyone elses fault.
I would aim the scowl at others who break the rules, those who park in bike lanes ect as well. I just feel that when a driver breaks the rules most people, even those that do the same thing themselves, look at them and shake their heads. The rule gets broken and if something happens the person who gets caught is kind of shamed. When the same thing happens with a bike, the bike community rallies around them and blame everybody but the person who ran the red light. When your right your right, when your wrong your right, and when its iffy your right.
bullshit
Everyone breaks the rules, but somehow people on bikes seem to break them the most blatantly and when confronted about it get indignent and claim that when they break the rules its because of safety and its everyone elses fault.
Sit at an intersection with two tally counters for 15 minutes. Count the number of motor vehicle infractions: running red lights, blocking the intersection, failure to yield to oncoming traffic, not yielding to pedestrians.
Now. Count the number of infractions by bikes on your other tally meter. Not yielding to pedestrians, running red lights.
Now, borrow a brain and think about this little puzzle: which is more dangerous, a 1.5 ton car whose driver is mashing the gas pedal to get through the light which has already changed red, is doing at least 30MPH (resulting in a stopping distance of about 100 feet or more)... or a cyclist who is looking both ways, doing about 5-10mph, and can stop in about 10 feet?
My only "close call" at an intersection in almost 6 months of biking has been when I was going through an intersection on a green light and a cabbie making a left turn, came straight at me and nearly put me through his windshield. I was wearing reflective leg bands and had a blinking headlight.
nope
roads were paved for bicycles, traffic lights were made for cars. If I coast up to a light, look around and see the coast is clear (of cars, bikes, and pedestrians) I go for it. Unlike a driver, I have:
-an unencumbered 360 degree view
-a full faculty of senses. I don't have a glass shell, humming engine, or radio to distract my ability to hear things at a distance
-a greater range of movement, sharper turning radius, and the ability to stop within a few feet
That said, the law is the law, if I see officers or if there is any question, I follow it. But if its a choice between wasting time or not in an empty intersection, I follow my sense rather than the law (hence the jaywalking comparison, which I'd say is apt). If you're honest and you study history, you'll agree that if there were no cars, we'd still have asphalt roads (granted thinner, and in better condition) but we'd have no traffic lights (among other things we wouldn't have, good and bad)
In your world can
In your world can Motorcycles and people with old military grade jeeps (the ones where you can take off the roof and fold down the windshield) go through the red lights as well?
no, rather not. Too loud.
no, rather not. Too loud.
You can dismiss it as "my world", but guess what, it is reality, and you're living in it. I will run 15 lights on my bike ride to work tomorrow, and get there in less time than you in your car, and I will have zero repercussion for it. My fuel costs will be what I pay for breakfast, and I will park for free in some city owned, driver funded infrastructure (parking meter, street sign, etc)
I'm going to run a whole lotta lights on my way to work tomorrow
There will be cops there, too, and guess what? They will be corking the intersections so all of us registered riders for the Bike Friday event can blow through every last one of them!
Oh so not only are you
Oh so not only are you breaking the laws, your the guy who chains your bike to the street sign in front of my office making the street look like some sort of ghetto paradise when there is a bike rack the next block over. Kudos to you. Hope you didnt mind that I dumped the cold half of my coffee on your bike.
Bike Rack the Next Block Over
There is a bike rack the next block over from where I work, too.
Too bad it is completely full up, along with all the lamp posts, by 7:15am.
If you really want bikes off the lamp posts, meters, and street signs then call the city and demand enough racks for the traffic and special fittings like Cambridge and Somerville have on meters. I myself just spoke to somebody from the city about requiring them in private garages. That's democracy, and solving the problem rather than the standard Oldeee Bostone methode of hectoring individuals who are well within their rights for the bizarre reason that they are "breaking MY (totally unwritten) rules" that simply do not exist in any truly statutory context while doing nothing about the fundamental infrastructure problems. Otherwise, you are simply outing yourself as yet another highly-rationalized (but not rational) hater of people who do things differently from the narrowly parochial way you were raised in whatever tiny little Boston vacuum you came from.
The bike racks I pass in the
The bike racks I pass in the morning are mostly empty, so thats a different story from your overflowing bike racks.
"MY" rules about things like this are that bikes chained to "Gas" style and Acorn topped styled lamp posts ruin the asthetic that was being aimed for when an area bought the posts. Why go through all the expense of taking out the cobra head lamps and putting in flowers if some rusty old bike is going to chain itself to the post all day. Some areas have bike rack problems, others do not, where I work we do not have a problem with rack space so I feel people should stop being lazy and stop parking their bike as close to their office as they can get them.
Highly rationalized irrational has to be one of the best describers of something I have heard all day...
U-locks (what I and probably
U-locks (what I and probably the majority of city bikers use) typically only fit around the standard issue perforated steel street signs, bike racks, and parking meters. Any of the black, fluted, decorative "acorn tops" are far too wide--I've never locked to one.
Sorry if a simple, sparse bicycle (which I happen to find a beautiful piece of design, an extension of the human body that has largely gone unchanged over the last 100 years) is fouling up your view of rusting scrap metal poles and the bulky, ugly pieces of plastic that Detroit is pumping out...
Oh and the coffee trick is cute, just let me find your pouring cold coffee on my bike. The humor will be that while that can be washed off in a few seconds, whatever I pour on your cheap Men's Wearhouse suit will be with you all afternoon!
What an aggressive "biker"
What an aggressive "biker" you are, very scary. Im actually a fan of the mens wearhouse, and really do enjoy their new stain repellent suits, shirts, and ties. They did a demo of them, and they were great, coffee/juice/water all slid right off. Its only available in lighter colors at the moment, but it sounds like darker shades are only right around the corner. They will be in stock I trust just in time for the great bike versus pedestrian coffee splash off.
Today is a cheap jeans, boots, and polo day for me. Why is it anytime someone expresses a concern that isnt 100 percent liberal or expousing anarchy in the streets it is assumed that they are some Brookes Brothers suit wearing corporate drone, or Mens Wear House suit wearing wannabe?
Damn hippies
Sorry, pierce, but unless you're being snarky here,
A bicycle's considered a vehicle too, so, like it or not, when one is on a bicycle, s/he is also subject to the rules of the road, just as much as cars and other motor vehicles are. Running red lights and STOP signs, as well as riding the wrong way down one-way streets, etc. on one's bicycle are also violations of the law. In some places, if a cyclist is caught doing any of those things, they'll be booked and their bikes taken away from them for awhile. That being said, being on a bike doesn't justify breaking the laws. All a bicyclist does by breaking the laws is risk their own lives, and give bicyclists in general a bad name.
Thought experiment
What if there wasn't a curb? That's the question posed by the Institute for Human Centered Design in this Boston.com article from 2 weeks ago. We act as if cars are the almighty in our nation, but that's hardly the case everywhere in the world. There are parts of Europe that I've been to that are interesting in that cars and pedestrians share the same alleys to get to everything. A lot of Boston used to be the way it is because people *walked* to stores and between buildings. We paved those places, added ADA sized sidewalks and curbs and now it's barely wide enough for a single lane in some areas to get through.
I bring it up because a lot of the bike vs car discussion is whether bikers see themselves as cars, pedestrians on wheels, something better than both, or just something different altogether. If the ideas of this Institute were to gain some traction, I think the argument of how to treat a biker compared to a car driver would suddenly be moot since we'd all just be travelers.
Sounds like a pretty good
Sounds like a pretty good way to get ones self killed pretty quickly. Ive been in situations where cars and people mingle in the streets and the result is very slow moving cars that speed up as soon as they can. Boston is already congested enough without tossing people into the street.
I wouldnt argue with you about rethinking sidewalks. Im all for ADA compliance but there must be a way to still allow disabled people to travel without creating wide sidewalks on both sides of the street, squeezing the street considerably. This seems even crazier when you get away from the Urban core and you see streets with no major doorways with long wide unused sidewalks.
Wide sidewalks are a good thing
To see why, try walking down Hanover Street at just about any hour when the weather is good. If you want to get anywhere fast, you'll probably end up leaving the sidewalk and walk down the street instead. Hanover might be a good candidate for the 'shared space' idea, since it's pretty much impossible to drive there any faster than you can walk.
Church Street in Harvard Square used to be another good example. The city finally noticed the problem here and has widened the sidewalk so there is room for both walkers and people waiting in line for the Loews cinema.
If Boston didn't have sidewalks ...
the utility and public works folks wouldn't know have any idea where they should put their poles in order to maximally obstruct pedestrian traffic and prevent actual ADA use!
Where my kids go to school, they constructed ADA sidewalks. Then the next crew came along and put poles off center to smack in the middle of them. Then they gerrymandered some sections around the poles by pouring some more concrete because the chair-using kids were out in the street.
Much of the Boston area exhibits similar poor planning when it comes to pole placement. Cambridge and Somerville seem to be doing much better with new projects - I noticed several places where they were planned for in advance and set inside of the sidewalks, instead of just inside of the curb.
gerrymandered?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder particular constituents, such as members of a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group.
I know what it originally meant
But I think an inappropriate adjustment of boundaries to maintain a connection, no matter how tortuous, still qualifies.
Such as adding two feet of concrete to the side of a sidewalk for a three foot stretch so that a chair can make it around a pole that should never have been put there ...
Another example of wise use
Another example of wise use of this concept in Harvard Square is Palmer Street and Winthrop Street in Harvard Square where the two streets are closed to cars most of the time, and open when needed for deliveries or when other streets are closed. Also there seem to be lots of little events happening on these streets that are quite fun.
Also,
Bike lanes have been painted on main thoroughfares, or are in the process of being painted on main thoroughfares, on the streets themselves, which can and does also help a great deal. As someone who does a considerable amount of bicycling around the city as well as outside, that's something I 'm happy to see.
Fenway Park before and after a regular game
Number of deaths due to car vs pedestrian that I've ever heard of: 0.
Landsdowne St is still open to car use before a game even if it's completely overrun with vendor carts and pedestrians. Cars try to exit towards Kenmore (and from Kenmore) on Brookline Ave before and after a game with sidewalks swelling well past overflow and we all survive at least 81 times a summer/fall.
In the beginning of the linked article, the whole point was that they were standing in the middle of the rightmost lane of traffic and didn't even get honked at. It may *seem* crazy but in a lot of downtown, cars are hit with multiple chokepoints that keeps most aggression in check and drivers never get out of 2nd or 3rd gear, at most. It's why I prefer to drive on Huntington and Mass Ave in my scooter than Melnea Cass. The cars are kept to ~30 mph because of the road conditions unlike the wide, unhindered, and synchronized light system on Melnea Cass where cars often pass the speed limit and try to reach highway speeds.
Here's another recent article on how traffic functions around town. I got the link from Liveable Streets which is a great resource for anyone truly interested in this sort of discussion on cars, bikes, pedestrians, and Boston traffic in general.
Are bicyclists supposed to
Are bicyclists supposed to call the police in the event of a crash, like people in cars? What's the general protocol?
bikes are vehicles...
...so if there is property damage or injury, I sure as hell would call the cops and stay put.
Civil Damages
You have a much greater chance of collecting civil damages, if you are not at fault, if you file a police report at the bare minimum.
I know people who have done this when a cyclist was riding wrong way, blew a stop sign, etc. and hit another cyclist.
I think it's absolutely
I think it's absolutely crazy the people think they should be able to ride their bike through a red light! I am a triathelete with a very good race time, and even through my rigorous, long bike rides, I have never run a red light. It is just not worth it! Maybe I am extremely cautious, but I ride as if I am a vehicle. In a cautious situation, I get off my bike and WALK, or WAIT. It hasn't affected my race time. If I really want to go through a red light, I get off my bike and cross the street. Seriously.
I have read some posts where bicyclists believe that they have a right to run a red light even if they hit a pedestrian!
GET OFF YOUR BIKE TO CROSS THE STREET IF IT IS THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU TO MOVE DURING A RED LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, many bikers are only thinking about themselves and their commute, training, adnauseum... come on, don't be a moron, take a moment, get off your bike, enjoy the scenery, and walk your bike across the street if it is really that important to you to keep going. Or just wait until it is safe the drive through during a green light.
Right on, sfred45!! Your post says it all, in a nutshell.
Your post is so totally spot-on that it's fantastic!