Hey, there! Log in / Register

Bike crackdown rolls into Harvard Square


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Instead of fighting a losing battle to change bicyclist behavior to fit laws that don’t really make sense, a better approach would be to change the law to more closely match observed behavior.

Idaho has adopted the “stop and roll” law, allowing bicyclists to proceed from a red light as if it were a stop sign. San Francisco is about to adopt this as well. Why not Cambridge?

up
Voting closed 0

First, I'm an avid cyclist.

This is just a guess, but I think that if "stop and roll" were implemented, it would just be abused and the situation wouldn't be any better than it is now.

The problem is that you would be introducing a gray area. Right now, you go thru a red light, it's illegal - period. Stop and roll introduces judgement which be taken advantage of. First, people would stop, then go sometime even though some car has to hit its brakes. That graduates to the oxymoronic "rolling stop" where the rider really doesn't stop, takes a quick look, and blasts thru. The end result is you have what you have now which doesn't seem to work too well unless you're one of the arrogant cyclists that doesn't give a shit anyway.

The main reason I care about all this is because I don't want some pissed of motorist to take it out on me as I'm behaving myself.

Saying all that, I'd be willing to give "stop and roll" a shot and see what happens, and I'll bet my Merlin that the above scenario happens.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not huge on stop and roll, but allowing bikes to proceed when all streets have red and pedestrians have walk is a good idea. Of course, theyd have to yield to pedestrians.

Another idea is specialized bike signals. Theyre all over europe, and NYC is getting in on it. Its safer for a bike to start rolling before a car, so a green for bike before the cars is a good idea.

One problem with he current law is that alot of people dont understand that bikes are allowed on sidewalks (unless marked as illegal). That's a big source of conflict.

up
Voting closed 0

Bicycles are NOT supposed to be ridden on sidewalks in business districts such as Harvard Square and Davis Square. I'm all for enforcing this law. It is disconcerting to stroll casually along a sidewalk only to have a bike coming at you at 15 mph.

up
Voting closed 0

Harvard and Davis are NOT business districts. HOWEVER, Cambridge has a policy of making sidewalks no-bike zones when there's a bike lane, which is fine.

All other sidewalks, unless posted otherwise, are legal.

up
Voting closed 0

Somerville law specifically prohibits bicycle riding on sidewalks in business districts, which are defined in the zoning code. Davis Square is most definitely zoned for business, as is Union Square.

I'm pretty sure Cambridge has a similar law, and I don't know why anyone would say that Harvard Square is not a business district.

up
Voting closed 0

Im also quite certain that Harvard, Davis, and Central Square are all business districts.

Anyone who rides their bikes on any of those sidewalks are crazy anyway, they are teeming with people .

up
Voting closed 0

Change the law to match behavior? That's on interesting legal concept.

up
Voting closed 0

for another example of "change the law to match observed behavior".

up
Voting closed 0

Its hard enough to drive in this city, and now you want to let bike riders go through red lights legally? I stand by my earlier statements in other threads, why them and not me. I dont buy this stuff about having better viewing angles and what not, if that were true there wouldnt be so many accidents involving bikes. Riding a bike is inherantly dangerous, and what your advocating will just encourage bike riders to take even more risks by blowing through red lights (many bike riders choose to follow the law and stop for the light.)

up
Voting closed 0

...like when people hit or door bicyclists, don't have licenses, and the Cambridge cops show up and say "hey, whaddya want us to do?"

Also, what's with the nutjob that keeps proposing licensing bicyclists? Yeah, that's working so well for cars...

up
Voting closed 0

The door issue is kind of thorny because the car isnt moving in that situation. Do I need a license to open a car door? Im not saying they shouldnt be held responsible, but its hard because opening a door and hitting a bike is not the same as hitting a bike in your moving car.

Im not the nutjob you mention, but I would agree with him/her. I think having license system for fast moving objects that share the roads with cars would be logical. Bikes are expected to follow the rules that cars follow in many cases, but how can we expect them to know all the rules if some of them dont have normal driving licenses.

As for licenses not working wel for cars, Im sure you must be joking right? Imagine how chaotic it would be with no licenses. Minor changes in rules lead to lower death rates for a reason, most people listen. Drunk driving laws, seat belt laws, they have all lowered death rates. It seems like this is just part of your campaign to demonize the car driving public.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm sorry, but you "license" people really are fucked. In every bike/car thread, some idiot brings this up, then other lemmings line up behind him/her and say "Yes, cyclists need licenses".

Have you really thought this thru? I didn't think so. Face it, 99.9% of cyclists on the road already have a license to drive. So, please inform us what this bright idea will accomplish besides add to the payroll of the state.

up
Voting closed 0

I propose licensing pedestrians. They seem to spend as much time in the road as cars

up
Voting closed 0

We dont know which was has one and which one doesnt. Id like to see you come up with proof for the 99 percent number...

They move at speeds faster then most people walk, I dont see the problem with some sort of structure to control them. I feel the same way about segways.

up
Voting closed 0

Let's put it this way - I don't know anybody without a license. You are talking about a very insignificant number of people, and it's not worth arguing about. For those very few people without licenses, why do you need a license to control them? Just fine them, which I endorse.

up
Voting closed 0

The door issue is kind of thorny because the car isnt moving in that situation.

Battery is kind of thorny because when someone punches you in the face, they're not in a car...

Riding a bike is inherantly dangerous,

Now let's sit down and think for a second why that is...

I've been hit once by a car. Twice I've come really close to getting hit- #1 was a cabby driving straight at me making a left turn, despite a blinking front light, reflectors on the bike, and reflective ankle bands (who then screamed at me), #2 was a valet parking guy at the Brigham who looked straight at me and pulled out from a side road (daytime, bright front light on the bike which was turned on.) I fell off the bike trying to avoid ending up on the hood.

In all cases, I was riding my bicycle fully legally and with due caution, and it was the driver either breaking the law or simply not looking.

up
Voting closed 0

The point is you dont need a license to open a car door, so when you make arguemnts about cracking down on people without licenses opening doors and not being cracked down on by police it just doesnt make any sense. I can understand your allegations of assault but that has nothing to do with someone without a license opening a door.

One of my comments was that riding a bike is dangerous, Im assuming theres no disagreement there. I havent been in an accident in 10 years, you seem to have been in many. I think that proves riding a bike is dangerous, which is even more the reason why we should be teaching people bike safety because your the ones at risk.

up
Voting closed 0

The point is you dont need a license to open a car door, so when you make arguemnts about cracking down on people without licenses opening doors and not being cracked down on by police it just doesnt make any sense.

I was referring to the guy who got hit by a car driven by someone who had a suspended license, who the Cambridge cops let go with a citation, instead of throwing in jail.

The "argument" was pretty clearly for increased enforcement by Cambridge PD against DRIVERS, at least equally or FIRST.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm having a hard time understanding why bikes can't just follow traffic laws? Drivers of cars don't sit around complaining that they should be allowed to run red lights. Nobody LIKES to wait 30 seconds at a light, but is it really that big of a deal?

up
Voting closed 0

Oh, they can, and I don't think there's a reasonable argument as to why bikes should not follow traffic laws.

That said, the traffic laws themselves could use change. Most things could be changed to yield to improve traffic flow, with little to no consequences.

(The whole licensing talk is a bit disappointing. What a waste of time and money that would be...)

up
Voting closed 0

Since they are not encased in a ton of glass and metal, and can pull further forward into the intersection (to stop beyond the crosswalk instead of behind it), they can easily see whether there is conficting traffic. There is no good reason to wait if there isn't any.

up
Voting closed 0

I dont buy that "I can see better" argument. That may depend on the person and the location. Ive been in red lights in parts of Back Bay (right before you hit Storrow Drive) where you can see the two main roads clearly from your traffic light and yet you still have to sit there and wait because its a red light. Ive also almost been hit by bikes running red lights in dense urban areas while I was driving through an intersection with the green light.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again: Feel free to jump off the bike and walk it across the street. At that point your a pedestrian and traffic , in Massacusetts at least, is supposed to yield to you...

up
Voting closed 0

I dont buy that "I can see better" argument.

Like most cyclists, I own a car and drive, too.
I tend to cycle many of the same streets that I drive on. There is no comparison.

On a bike you get completely unobstructed view from a nearly standing position, due in part to the greater range of motion (ability to turn around). You can hear a lot more of what is going on, too, since you are not in a sound-proof booth with a radio in it.

Add in that cyclists are travelling at lower speeds than cars can reach and are not driving a 2-ton vehicle (and thus not able to cause the kind of mayhem that a 2-ton vehicle can cause) and your view that driving and cycling and cars and bikes are equivalent just doesn't hold here.

up
Voting closed 0

OK silly question time...

Whos fault is it when I am driving at 45, assuming thats the speed limit, and I ram into a bike that happened to be running a red light killing him on the spot. Is it my fault? Even if its not my fault wouldnt I still feel aweful about that for the rest of my life?

up
Voting closed 0

any more than if he had run a stop sign with the same result.

up
Voting closed 0

My point being that we have this really nice protocol where vehicles stop on red lights. For the most part, it works pretty well until someone breaks that protocol, then you have havoc. I really think that if you start letting cyclists run red lights, some of them are going to start pushing the limits for what's safe ("I think I can beat this car"), which just defeats the whole purpose of having lights.

up
Voting closed 0

I can already see the argument...

"but um a motorcycle makes noise and my bike doesnt make noise so therefor its safer for me to run the light but not for him. "

I could make an argument that as a driver of a car Im more in tune and capable of making decisions because I am protected from the elements (more comfortable), have a greater sense of safety, and dont have to keep my balence on a thin piece of metal and tubes of rubber. It wouldnt make sense, but neither does the "greater ability to see the intersection" argument.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd put forth a different argument - it is easier for a motorcyclist to take the lane at the stoplight without getting into an altercation or a shouting match with drivers.

What do you do when you pull up to an intersection and there is a bicycle in front of you blocking the entire lane? How about a motorcycle?

I know that a lot of bicyclists are just idiots - I see them zipping through red lights all the time, and figure they're just in a hurry to remove themselves from the gene pool. But sometimes treating a red light like a stop sign is safer for a bicyclist.

up
Voting closed 0

As a guy who does all his riding out here in I-495 land and never in the city, I admit I'm clueless about some of the dynamics of city riding. With apologies to Bill Belichick, let's call it "Situational riding". ;-) My altercations are few (though I had a good one last week) and have never had an issue at a stoplight. At least I understand some of the reasoning behind 'roll on red'. Thanks.

up
Voting closed 0

Usually the argument goes:

"When a bike hits me, I might fall over. When a motorcycle hits me, I might be conscious"

It has to do with probability and severity of harm, I'd reckon.

That's why guns are regulated more than knives. Et cetera.

up
Voting closed 0

Here's a partial explanation:

If you're following the standard rules of the road on a bicycle, you are usually keeping to the right of the lane.

When you get to a red light, a car may pull up to your left. When the light turns green and you go straight, this car may make a right turn and run you over. From your position, you can't see their turn signal (in the rare occasion they use one), and many drivers are unaware of bicycles parallel with the passenger side of their car. It's a moment of inattention on the part of a driver that can easily cause you injury or death.

This is the number one reason that some bicyclists would like to get a jump on the cars at the red light - to avoid getting run over.

up
Voting closed 0