Hey, there! Log in / Register

At least they're unlikely to hit the underside of a bridge

Around 3:35 p.m., Devin Cole spotted three Hubway riders going against traffic inbound on Storrow Drive, near the River Street Bridge.

Neighborhoods: 
Ad:

Comments

The tweet says hubway ; headline says segway

up
Voting closed 0

Hubway, as in the bicycles, not the motorized thingamabobs. Fixed.

up
Voting closed 0

Also the tweet is from Devin Cole, not David.

Still, who could look Storrow and even think about entering that mess on a bike? Worse than the idiots who biked on the Mass Pike, at least that has a shoulder to ride in. Darwin Award contenders to be sure.

up
Voting closed 0

... Hubclueless or Hubwayward are mere adjectives. Words like Hubidiots, are too generic, and could describe a multitude of common-sensically-challenged Boston behavior.

Surely, there must be a Boston-themed noun to describe patrons of Hubway who demonstrate bicycle riding skills and/or knowledge that leave normal people wondering: "What were they thinking?!".

up
Voting closed 0

HubSchlubs!

up
Voting closed 0

Filthy casuals that give a bad name to cyclists who take the time to not only know the rules of the road but also how to safely operate and maintain their machine. I'd rather someone take an urbanadventours bike that at least looks more discrete than a 45lb hunk of steel that screams "I don't know what I'm doing so proceed with caution when I'm around."

up
Voting closed 0

Hubtards anyone?

Assuming the PC crowd don't get their panties in a bunch.

up
Voting closed 0

It's not about being PC, it's about being respectful of people with intellectual disabilities. A dear friend of mine wrote the note below, because she was and is tired of having to explain again and again why it is not okay.
___________________________________________________________________

So when you encounter a person on the Internet using the "R" word as an insult (see, e.g., "that is so retarded") or defending its use, here are the rebuttals to all of the common defenses of the use.

It is a Medical Term.

No, it is not. It WAS a medical term. It is no longer used for medical purposes. If you don't believe that to be the case, read the history of Rosa's law: http://www.specialolympics.org/Regions/north-america/News-and-Stories/St....

Because the term was misappropriated as an insult, it no longer has a medial use.

It is a Verb!

Yes, it is a verb, but you are not using it as a verb.

But I Wouldn't Say to a Person With Disabilities!

Let's unpack this, shall we? This statement appears to acknowledge that it would be offensive to insult a person with a mental disability by describing him or her directly as such. Somehow, however, when the word is used as a comparison, it suddenly and magically loses its insulting nature. No. It does not. It is as offensive to call a person with disabilities the "R" word as it is to compare a person who is acting in a manner you find deficient in some way to a person with disabilities.

It's a Joke!

No, it's not. It is not at all funny or humorous. It is an offensive insult and if you find it funny you should go back and read the link on Rosa's law again.

The PC Police Want to Take Away All of My Insults!

That is simply untrue. There is an international effort to eliminate ONE word from your arsenal of insults: https://www.facebook.com/EndtheWord Just one. You can still use "stupid" or "moron" or whatever other insult you feel you cannot live without. Surely a person in a position to mock the intelligence of another has at his disposal a myriad of insults that he can use. Be creative.

It's Like Using the Word "Niggardly"

Actually it is nothing like that.

Well, I Don't Use It, I Just Don't Say Anything if Someone Else Does.

Why not? If you understand how hurtful it is, why not say something? Some folks really aren't aware of how poisoned the word has become or how their use of it makes them appear to be uncaring. You may be doing a good thing. Be brave. Stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

You're Just Being Sensitive

Well, maybe, but I have a right to be. Attached to this note is a picture of my beautiful children. And I will protect them at all costs. Parents are like that. Autism affects one in 58 families. Do the math on that. Perhaps I am sensitive, but there are lots of families out there who are similarly situated and share my particular sensitivities. Maybe you don't care about me or my kids or my feelings, but some day you will come across a person who you do care about and you will hurt them with your "joke" or casual remark. Do you want run that risk? Isn't it better now that you know how hurtful that word is to just stop using it?

up
Voting closed 0

It's the wrong way.

And I like the user name. Related to CoreDump?

up
Voting closed 0

.

up
Voting closed 0

If I were to use a bicycle in a major city, I would want to avoid throughways, highways, any "ways" where there isn't any room for a bicycle.
What could they be thinking?

up
Voting closed 0

It's not called "Storrow Highway". Still a pretty dumb move, but I guess one could see "Storrow Drive" on a map and not think it's a major thoroughfare.

up
Voting closed 0

...it's not called Storrow Drive there either. River St intersects with Soldiers Field Road (Soldiers Field Rd becomes Storrow Drive at the BU Bridge).

up
Voting closed 0

It's not like there's a bike path anywhere near Storrow Drive. Oh, wait...

up
Voting closed 0

At least with dumb truck and bus drivers on Storrow, the risk of death is quite small.

up
Voting closed 0

There was that storrowing on Soldiers Field Road a couple of years ago where 39 bus passengers got hurt. And there was a similar low-bridge crash on a parkway near Syracuse, NY where four people were killed. Bus in that case drove into a 10'9" bridge at 35mph--not dissimilar to the situation on Storrow.

up
Voting closed 0

How did they enter? At the BU Bridge?

up
Voting closed 0

All those students and their parents doing crazy $h1t like biking on Storrow Drive. The best time of year for people watching!

up
Voting closed 0

More likely, they are part of the massive European diaspora this time of year.

up
Voting closed 0

The European diaspora knows how and where to ride a bike.

up
Voting closed 0

Who ya got?

up
Voting closed 0

Zipcar requires a license and a clean driving record. Hubway doesn't require anything, not even a helmet. Hubway will always lose.

up
Voting closed 0

Helmets don't seem to matter much in bike share cycling safety (23 million rides says so!) Also, when was the last time a Hubway damaged something enough to make headlines? But you don't seem to be able to factor basic physics into your haterade rants at anything you don't see as "normal" or "conforming".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/12/us-usa-transportation-bikes-id...

up
Voting closed 0

There's that millions of rides defense thing again. Still says nothing about daily encounters of riding on the sidewalk, riding against traffic, riding without a helmet, improper or nonuse of hand signals, inability to share roads or bike lanes properly and other nonsense that casual rental riders exhibit when I'm out daily trying to avoid them.

up
Voting closed 0

Systematically collected information, please.

23 Million rides is a lot of data ... even for someone with absolutely no grasp of statistics.

I mean, I too am boggled by the lack of head injuries with any of the programs given low helmet use. However, being well versed in scientific inquiry with surveillance statistics, I take it to mean that my theory was off, not that I need new data to "prove" what I "just know".

up
Voting closed 0

Sure in 30 years of riding a bike I've never had an injury either, but I still wear a helmet each time. Guess via these statistics it's pointless to wear one, even for people who rent bikes and only ride on occasion!

up
Voting closed 0

Except I did have an accident where, if I wasn't wearing one, I'd be dead.

Our Hubway key is attached to a semi-retired helmet, too.

That said, my mishaps have not occurred in the sort of environment where one would encounter a Hubway, or in the realm of Hubway operation (road cycling).

When creating policies, it is very important to understand what is going on in the population. If, for example, more cyclists means fewer injuries and deaths (noted in the bike share cities), then imposing a constraint such as a helmet mandate will result in more injuries and deaths if it limits the number of cyclists using the system. Therefore, that countervailing trend must be justified in terms of the safety benefits of wearing helmets - and the safety benefit, within the realm of the type of cycling and bikes inherent in the bike share systems, appears to be marginal and consistent across cities.

This is how science and statistics are used to inform policy. I'll continue to protect my head and my living, thank you, but the fact is that the low helmet use in the bike share environment does not have the expected impact on safety. Understanding why that is may be very important when designing safety mandates.

up
Voting closed 0

"No Assholes" signs at the entrance to Storrow Drive.

up
Voting closed 0

If this sign did exist, and it was enforced, Storrow Drive would become the least driven road in our great commonwealth.

up
Voting closed 0

It's perfectly legal to ride a bicycle on Storrow Drive.

From Section 11B:

Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted

Storrow Drive is not designated a limited access nor express state highway.Biking on Storrow is not very smart and dangerous, but it's not illegal.

up
Voting closed 0

maybe the ones at Charlesgate? They're pretty recent and may not show up on Google Street View.

I'll admit to sometimes using the westbound on-ramp from Charlesgate to reach the Esplanade bike path -- it enters Storrrow Drive from the right, and there's a convenient curb-cut onto the bike path just before it merges with Storrow.

up
Voting closed 0

More and more signage is now needed because people lack common sense. All those signs have another cost. Visual overload such that a cluster of them is often too much information at one time in one place. "Cars Only" signs by themselves are too often missed, without adding no pedestrians, cyclists, dogs, or horses.

up
Voting closed 0

n/t

up
Voting closed 0

Bikes riding in traffic ride with traffic. Runners should run against traffic.

up
Voting closed 0

And bikes aren't allowed on Storrow anyway.

When I take the ped bridge over by MGH, it's the only time I ever ride on the sidewalk.

up
Voting closed 0

runners shouldn't be running in traffic at all. And if they feel they're entitled/lazy/stupid enough to run in traffic anyway, they should run with traffic - not against it.

up
Voting closed 0

720 CMR 9.09 (4)

(d) Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon an undivided highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the left side of the roadway on its unfinished shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.

Note that this only applies to undivided highways, e.g. not Soldier's Field Road or Storrow Drive. But it generally applies to where people would normally be found jogging.

Walking or jogging against traffic is also widely accepted as a safety principle. From the Federal Highway Administration Non-motorized User Safety Manual:

Cyclists must travel in the same direction as other vehicular traffic, while pedestrians should typically walk against traffic

And, I think it is wise for you to refrain from whining about non-motorized road users, especially in a city where drivers regularly speed at dangerous rates, ram oversize vehicles into bridges, flip their cars, kill pedestrians, and generally act like complete Massholes.

up
Voting closed 0

As a pedestrian, you have a lot more ability to see traffic and do something about it (like jump out of the way) if you're facing it than if it's bearing down on you from behind.

A cyclist doesn't have those options and can move at a speed more comparable with traffic. So they should go with traffic and take the lane (preferably in line with the driver) in order to be seen. If there is no passing lane, then they should move over once they realize they're blocking traffic. Riding along the edge of the road is a good way to go unseen and run over.

These are both in situations where there is no bike lane (for cyclists) or sidewalks (for pedestrians).

up
Voting closed 0

Yes it does, actually- if you look at the items in the 'no' slash/ circle on sign at Beacon Street

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.35018,-71.091946,3a,75y,277.29h,92.52t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smmCZmLMyiK2g7lw-CtpHrQ!2e0

up
Voting closed 0

I was walking down Essex Street in Chinatown on Saturday afternoon, and two of them almost ran me down as they were pedaling aimlessly on the sidewalk. They deserved my Angry Tourist Stare...

up
Voting closed 0

They deserved my Angry Tourist Stare...

Wow, you just don't care who you piss off, do you?

up
Voting closed 0

This is why the sign says CARS ONLY, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Yet SUVs and pickup trips are never ticketed?

up
Voting closed 0