Hey, there! Log in / Register

Police in Brookline ponder letting bicyclists treat stop signs like yield signs

Brookline Police tweeted this morning:

Feedback welcome, should we allow cyclists to use Idaho Stop's? Not at all? Perhaps during heavy commuter hours? Certain roads?

Idaho Stop.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 

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

Comments

GET LICENSE
PAY ROAD TAXES
I TECHNICALLY HAVE TO STOP AT STOP SIGNS
ONCE A BIKE CUT ME OFF
REGISTER YOUR BIKE
CITY BUILT FOR CARS

...maybe that saves everyone some time?

up
Voting closed 0

Hmm... I don't see any cars in these historic photos, but of course Brookline predates cars, rail, bicycles, photographs, etc.

up
Voting closed 0

my current working theory is that as the level of one's competence operating a motor vehicle declines relative to one's perception of said competence, the amount of "vulnerable road user animosity" increases. Of course I currently do not have any way of testing this empirically, but the evidence I have is that during these discussions it appears that there is immobility of viewpoint in spite increasing one's knowledge of legal rights and responsibilities and situational-behavioral awareness - which would indicate a belief discomfirmation paradigm that likely stems from lack of some kind of self-awareness.

up
Voting closed 0

Very few drivers stop entirely at them ... and most cities, even without the laws, don't cite cyclists or motorists if they slow way down, look, then continue.

If you doubt that drivers outright ignore them or slow and "boulevard stop" instead, I can show you several locations and you can do your own counting.

up
Voting closed 0

As long as they aren't ticketing drivers for the same thing sounds fine. Also there should be a 5,000 dollar fine for bicyclists traveling on the right that pass vehicles that are halted at the stop line and signaling right.

up
Voting closed 0

If youre making a right turn, you need to be as far right as possible. if a bike can pass you, you failed as a driver and youre at fault

Exception: Trucks that need to make wide turns.

up
Voting closed 0

Or there are vehicles parked on the right. As a motorist you should always try to take bike lane before turning but it is not always possible (and may result in uninformed cyclists banking on your trunk if you DO take the lane.)

up
Voting closed 0

If I made a right from the let lane and cut you off, it is your fault, not mine.

Got it.

/masshole logic

up
Voting closed 0

I might see the public health perspective.

In other words, the big killer is still motorists not following the rules, so let's get that sorted first.

Otherwise, no. Read the law, please. oh, and explain the part about "passing on the left"' to that piece of police work in Somerville who thought that "cyclists are permitted to pass on the right" means that they have to wait until an illegally parked motorist in the bike lane returns and moves instead of going around their car in a legal passing maneuver.

up
Voting closed 0

In Boston at least, I believe most of the fatal bicycle accidents were determined to be the cylist's fault, not the driver's. Maybe instead of making new rules for them, they should learn to follow the ones we already have.

up
Voting closed 0

"I believe" is not going to cut it, sorry. Do identify some real sources if possible.

up
Voting closed 0

.. or a wish for it to be so.

Wishful thinking without hope of a fact or a stat anywhere in sight.

up
Voting closed 0

Similarly, I *believe* that my dog is going to shit gold bricks soon.

up
Voting closed 0

The next time you drive to work (or anywhere), do this: keep count of every motor vehicle that you see breaking a traffic regulation. Including but not necessarily limited to:

  • Speeding
  • Failure to yield right of way
  • Failure to come to a complete stop
  • Crossing over the center line
  • Crossing over the fog line
  • Failure to stop at the stop line
  • Failure to signal when changing lanes
  • Failure to signal when turning
  • Following too closely

Oh, and while you're at it, note how many tickets you see being handed out for these violations. If you see anyone being ticketed, make a reasonable estimate of the total number of vehicles in violation that you saw during your drive, then calculate what percentage are ticketed. Then report back.

up
Voting closed 0

Im not sure I follow your logic or beef....most drivers AND cyclists break traffic laws constantly. I was observing that if a rolling stop on a bike is safe at an intersection then doing so in a car is likely safe as well. What's good for the goose etc.

up
Voting closed 0

are disregarding stop signs at one or more specific locations, then perhaps we need to re-evaluate the need for said stop sign to be there. If the stop sign is not warranted, then removing it benefits everyone - not just cyclists.

Since the mid-1980s, when local cities and towns were allowed by Legislative Act to install most traffic control devices, including stop and yield signs, without a permit issued by the MassDPW (now MassDOT Highway Division), the 'stop sign fairy' has been most prolific in planting them on local streets. This is because most politicans and average people remain under the misconception that speed is the enemy, and that forcing people to stop at every intersection will improve safety. The reality is the opposite of this - placing stop signs everywhere only breeds disrespect towards ALL stop signs by most drivers - even those that were placed for a legitimate reason.

As for the Idaho Stop, I would consider supporting the idea if a) it were passed as a statewide law, and not just on a community by community basis, b) if a condition of the law was that any cyclist who collides with a vehicle, cyclist, or other after executing an Idaho Stop is presumed to be 100% at least 50% at fault for the crash (the same standard as used for drivers), and c) if any adult cyclist involved in said crash who is a licensed driver has the circumstances of said crash placed on their driving record.

For that matter, point (c) should apply to ALL traffic violations a cyclist is cited for.

up
Voting closed 0

Including the bizarre and completely bogus and ignorant ones, of course.

Also, we have right of way laws about how and when vehicles enter an intersection, so your fantasy rant would have to include changing those laws for a solid "lets blame cyclists when drivers are reckless and feel like murder" Disneyland.

If a cyclist entered a clear intersection after an "Idaho Stop" and some murderous motorist wanted a freebee, you'd have to change the laws that give precedence to vehicles already in an intersection before handing out your free license to kill.

up
Voting closed 0

about giving drivers free reign for murder? I just believe that, as an Idaho Stop is a special situation, the fault in a crash for failure to yield should lie squarely with the cyclist AND that facti should be squarely stated in any law authorizing Idaho Stops.

Oh, but as a cyclist, I guess you want any penalities and assignment of blame associated with an Idaho Stop gone wrong to be as ambigious and as difficult for someone to figure out as possible without needing the services of an attorney. Personally, I prefer a cut and dried "the fault is presumed to be with A' approach instead of "well, according to Section X of the law, and you also need to see Subsection Y and Part 3, etc. ect." which you are advocating.

Unless you still believe that a driver who has right of way should be found at fault for a crash caused by a cyclist who doesn't have the right of way.

up
Voting closed 0

"presumed at fault". That's where you said it, so own it.

up
Voting closed 0

You want a cut and dried "the fault is presumed to be with A' approach?

Ok, how about when a truck a right-hooks a cyclist with the right of way, are you comfortable with finding the driver 100% at fault? What if the cyclist is killed? 100% at fault of voluntary manslaughter?

See the thing is, you don't want 100% faults laws. I swear you've even argued against the Dutch-style bike laws that protect vulnerable road users but I just don't have them time to plow through your history of mental gymnastics.

placing stop signs everywhere only breeds disrespect towards ALL stop signs by most drivers

Just admit it, you don't like driving slow and want the roads to accommodate your need for speed. I mean look at the hoops you just jumped through, trying to demonize the installation of stops signs on side streets throughout the city. Why have speed limit signs all over the place? They only breed disrespect towards ALL speed limit signs.

Please. You're just grasping at straws. Buy a race track so you can drive as fast as you want whenever you want.

up
Voting closed 0

100% at fault is an unreasonable standard. I've changed my previous post to indicate at least 50% at fault - which is the common benchmark used for auto insurance "standards of fault".

As for stop signs, what I indicated is not "grasping at straws". It's based on what multiple studies over the years have confirmed. Unwarranted stop signs are not effective at reducing overall speed, do not improve safety at the location, and encourage most drivers to disregard most other stop signs.

As for speed limits, the biggest problem with speeding is when speed limits are arbitrairly set lower than the speed that most drivers (know as the 85th percentile) can safely drive the road. Again, this is not just my "grasping at straws", it's been shown in multiple studies over the years.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't understand "encourage most drivers to disregard most other stop signs." I've never intentionally ignored a stop sign just because I didn't see the necessity of it. Even with all the crazy drivers around here, I don't believe that most drivers who disagree with the placement of one stop sign will discontinue stopping at most other ones.

up
Voting closed 0

Speed limits are not created based upon average driver abilities. They are based upon levels of damage caused by accidents and probability of such accidents happening on a given road. City street speed limits (and calming measures) are designed to lessen the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities.

At 20 MPH, fatality rate is 5%
At 30 MPH, fatality rate is 40%
At 40 MPH, fatality rate is 85&

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

up
Voting closed 0

"b) if a condition of the law was that any cyclist who collides with a vehicle, cyclist, or other after executing an Idaho Stop is presumed to be 100% at fault for the crash"

That's a stupid presumption. Just think about it for a minute.

up
Voting closed 0

Say a driver is approaching an intersection and has the right of way. A person (driver or cyclist) on the side street who doesn't have the right of way (due to a stop or yield sign) decides to enter the intersection anyway. Whatever the outcome, the driver on the main street LEGALLY has the right of way, not the person who blew the stop or yield sign. So, let's make that apparent in the law - especially as the "standards of fault" apply to drivers, and NOT cyclists - who aren't required to carry insurance to operate on public streets

Particularlly when the law being proposed is both contrary to basic right of way rules and is merely for the cyclists's convenience, and has very little to do with improving traffic flow or safety (and the "but cyclists do this anyway so let's make it legal for them" is NOT a vaild safety argument).

But, by your logic, a driver is considered to be at fault just because they collided with the other person who, per established right of way laws and traffic control devices, was clearly in the wrong. Sounds like typical cyclist "all drivers are evil and need to be severly punished" mentality.

PS - I agree that 100% at fault is unreasonable - see my other posts.

up
Voting closed 0

and bike lanes. Most bikes don't use either.

up
Voting closed 0

by safety or engineering reasons and require that cyclists ride ONLY in the bike lanes (excepting emergency situations like illegally parked cars, debris, and the like).

up
Voting closed 0

Again, like last time, how.do.i.turn.left?

up
Voting closed 0

End the bike lane X number of feet before an intersection to allow left turns to be made. The issue I have is when cyclists decide to weave into or out of a marked bike lane between intersections for NO legitimate reason.

up
Voting closed 0

Some of the reasons I personally ride outside the bike lane from time to time:

1. There is glass (or other debris) in the bike lane (you might not be able to see this from your car).
2. There are potholes that could blow my tire and throw me into traffic.
3. The car next to me is riding too closely/dangerously to me. Maybe this isn't you, but it could be the person in front of you. I might pull in behind that car to let them pass safely. This often happens on narrow roads.
4. I'm anticipating a turn that maybe isn't obvious to you. If I'm riding down Somerville Ave and want to make a left at Central Street, I'm going to take the lane before the turn is imminent and I'm giving a turn signal.
5. I see a car/truck ahead in the bike lane. I'm not going to wait until the last second to go around it; I'm going to signal that I'm entering the non-bike lane to do it smoothly. I would also do this if I see a cab ahead of me that's pulling over—I don't want to get doored, so I'm going to give them a wide berth.

There are a lot of reasons for a bike to enter and leave a non-bike lane. I'd be very surprised if you just constantly see deranged cyclists that feel the need to 'weave' for no reason.

up
Voting closed 0

Also, if someone ahead of you is moving slowly. I don't want to be late to my destination because of grandpa pedaling or some punk on a BMX is cruising

up
Voting closed 0

We have laws that currently tell automobiles to stick within their designated lanes but that doesn't stop them from weaving into other traffic lanes or even the bike lane. Hell, we have signs on the road that tell cars where they should and should not go but doesn't stop the rampant running of reds, speeding, illegal u-turns, right/left hooks, etc.

This new law would only work if the BPD starts enforcing it rigorously. So where are we going to redirect our police resources from? How about paying for it? Maybe we can raise the gas tax!

And your going to yield to me during those x number of feet so I can make the left turn? What about on Comm. Ave, I'm going to be able to safely merge over two lanes of traffic just a short distance from the turn? Doubt it. So I think I'll play things safer and merge into the left lane well before I need to make the turn.

Again, its not your concern for safety but rather your insatiable need to drive fast that is directing your baseless points here. Just find a race track somewhere and give it a rest.

up
Voting closed 0

And then paint a green field across every lane of traffic, and move the automobile stop line back ten feet behind the bike stop line. It's called a bike box. It's exactly what is needed at intersections with bike lanes.

up
Voting closed 0

"No legitimate reason" according to whom?

Bike lanes aren't some kind of two-wheeled ghetto. How could they be, when half the time they're taken up by double-parked motor vehicles?

up
Voting closed 0

Often bike lanes are built in the door zone. There bike lanes that are mostly or entirely in the door zone. Never safe to bike in the door zone and I have no idea why city engineers continue to put bike lanes in door zones.

up
Voting closed 0

Folks I know from other cities are appalled at our strategically placed bike lanes that are entirely within the doorzone. It's awful but I think it helps me keep a steady level of anxiety-induced preparedness for living here.

up
Voting closed 0

99% of bicyclists in Boston ignore stop signs and red lights already. And it's not safe, for the bikes or the vehicles. I don't spend much time in Brookline. Maybe things are different there.
Bad idea to just give up and let them do what they want to do.

up
Voting closed 0

You might want to wipe that off before passing it around - e coli can kill.

up
Voting closed 0

Move to the city of Boston and then you can 'pretend' your an authority on the daily happenings of the city, mini-driving suburbanite swrrly.

up
Voting closed 0

Wow, I guess you told her. Living in the suburbs, there's no way she could possibly invalidate your obviously made-up statistic.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, and Medford is fucking Mayberry.

up
Voting closed 0

..Opie took pot shots at me with his bb gun and Aunt Bea threatened to get Barney Fife.

https://flic.kr/p/paBz7p

up
Voting closed 0

Wasn't she in Goodwill Hunting?

up
Voting closed 0

In Boston, Southie, Dot, Roxbury, JP . It's 100% on Dot Ave.

up
Voting closed 0

Cite? Put up or shut up.

up
Voting closed 0

How old are you LBB? 16, I'm going to guess. How about you prove that I am wrong LBB. I don't have to cite nuthin and I wont shut up just cuz you say so. I drive every day in Dorchester, Southie, and Boston, and often in Roxbury and JP. and that's my experience. Sometimes on Centre in the center of JP, I will admit I've seen bikes stop for a stop sign. But never, I mean never ever ever have I seen it in Dorchester or Southie. Never. Ever.

up
Voting closed 0

While I think the Idaho Stop is a decent idea, deciding this on a city-by-city basis is a bad idea. Brookline isn't a huge place. I imagine this will just confuse cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike.

/cyclist-who-stops-and-unclips-at-every-stop-sign

up
Voting closed 0

Absolutely. It's like when you have right-on-red exceptions.

up
Voting closed 0

Car/truck drivers already do treat stop signs like yield signs in Brookline and all over Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

Use Idaho Stop's what? That seems like an incomplete thought. Well, it is Twitter after all.

up
Voting closed 0

It's an interesting thought to remember that only a few years ago how few bikes or related infrastructure. And thus that also means norms and expectations are still developing including how different modes react to each other.

My personal thought is biking, due to its hybrid nature of flexible speed and size that it should be able to have a hybrid of cars and pedestrian norms (thought not necessarily laws, specifically the jaywalking law in context of an empty street). Sometimes this means the bike have to act like a car and take the left full left turn lane to make a left turn. Sometimes it means going to the right and joining the pedestrians to cross the street. It also means - and I'm going to use a specific example - that bikes should be able to keep going at the intersection of West Bound Comm Ave and Cummington while cars should stay stopped even when all the pedestrians and cars have crossed.

Basically the rule of thumb to me is if I can go to "pedestrian mode" and cross it, then I can stay on the bike and cross it (this means with a stop/yield, not blasting at full speed through the red). I think that's the natural action and I and pretty sure many others been doing it before I just learned this name to call it.

The real game is then everyone to be aware and used to it. Then things become predictable and thus workable.

up
Voting closed 0

I agree with most of what you say, but disagree about "pedestrian mode", if this means a mingling of pedestrians and bikes. I think that's a bad idea for all concerned.

up
Voting closed 0

It means... well let's give a scenario: Let's say I am at an intersection and trying to cross the street. There are norms to street crossing that cars and pedestrians adhere to even though laws doesn't state it specifically (or even technically illegal - the old unenforced jaywalking law).

So this means if I would have cross the street if I was just on foot, then I will cross that same street and scenario if I was on a bike.

up
Voting closed 0

Since when is that called an "Idaho Stop?"

up
Voting closed 0

Since Idaho's law allowed it.

up
Voting closed 0

Right?? I thought it was a rolling stop.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd say no on this even as a cyclist. It'd create even more confusion and irresponsible drivers won't know what the hell is going on.

The full Idaho stop also involves treating red lights like stop signs, which can be problematic.

But this is Brookline, I'd love to be able to sail down past Coolidge in a breeze but, eh.

up
Voting closed 0

I'd say the potential for confusion is very problematic, especially if Boston doesn't adopt a similar measure.

Also, this being reality, we unfortunately have to consider the issue of public perception (what do they call it now, "visuals"?). After all the noise that various cities have made recently about getting cyclists to obey the existing laws (e.g. ticketing them if they run a red light), making a change like this isn't going to sit well with the thousands of steakheads who resent the fact that bicycles are allowed on the road in the first place (Mark, this is your cue to chime in).

up
Voting closed 0

the law has to be applicable on a statewide basis, and not just town by town.

up
Voting closed 0

Agreed. But even then, it's going to further enrage boneheads like Mark. It would have to be accompanied by a massive public-education campaign and a massive traffic-enforcement campaign which pretty much ensures that the whole idea would be DOA.

up
Voting closed 0

not dense urban communities.

I am a frequent cyclist, motorist, pedestrian, and I live in Brookline. My answer is "no, and certainly not without a long and very deep education campaign".

First off, I presume that the BrPD (which I respect a lot) is talking only about enforcement (or non-enforcement w/r/t traffic rules and bicyclists) because they are not empowered to change state law, which does not allow for this.

Second, to do this would create a situation where most road users (many or most of whom are not from Brookline, and would likely have no idea about this) would encounter behavior that is inconsistent with their expectations (i.e., the expectation that users will follow the law). That is a recipe for disaster (that the expectation is sometimes not met currently is no reason to ratify such conduct).

I could go on, but perhaps an example is better. Just think about how something like this would (not) work in Coolidge Corner - two lanes of traffic in each direction, the T, tons of pedestrians, the ever-present demonstrators, poor sight lines. Oh. Dear. God.

I would prefer that the Town "improve" cycling through other means. For example, a MARKED counter-flow bike lane (such as that on Essex St. by BU) on Middlesex Road between Circuit and the Reservoir Rd. foot/bike bridge would go a very long way toward improving and making bike transit in that area much safer.

up
Voting closed 0

While I agree with most of what you're saying, I'm afraid you have an invalid assumption:

i.e., the expectation that users will follow the law

I mean, really? Who expects that, from bicyclists or motorists or pedestrians?

up
Voting closed 0

Other possible places for contraflow in Brookline, in order of places where bikers routinely go wrong-way anyway:

1. St. Mary's overpass from Mountfort to Comm. Ave. (although the exact location of such a lane might actually be on the Boston side)

2. Green St. from Dwight to John, if enough space (John to Harvard is probably too narrow and too dangerous)

3. Any of the one-way streets between Winchester/Centre/Harvard Sts.

4. Fairbanks St., all

5. Hawes St. from Beacon to Monmouth, then Monmouth up to Carlton, then Boston chipping in with Medfield St. from the city line to Park Dr. I don't actually see bikers doing this often, but it would be a great way to bypass Audubon Circle for riders headed for points south and east.

up
Voting closed 0

Brookline has approved plans to add a contraflow lane to St Mary's, but they're waiting for MassDOT to finish some work on the overpass before painting the contraflow lane. No idea what the timeline is.

I'm not sure about the other specific locations, but I know that Brookline's done an excellent job lately rolling out strategically placed contraflow lanes.

up
Voting closed 0

Or are you making some unvalidated assumptions here?

up
Voting closed 0

Hahahaha.

I get the sense some relatives of yours probably helped Meriwether Lewis figure out that neighborhood.

I wonder if they can pronounce Coeur D'Alene and Pend Oreille and or tell us anything useful whatever about these places based on direct personal experience.

I passed through a few times in an Amtrak and a bus but still.

up
Voting closed 0

Hang on a sec, Swirly, am I to understand that you are seriously contending that there is anywhere in Idaho, even in the central-most of central Boise or Idaho Falls that has the traffic volume, number of disparate users and late 19th Century way dimensions of Coolidge Corner or Washington Sq.?

You've been basking in the glorious sunshine since you posted a link to James's Sometimes a few weeks ago (I think that was you!), but things might have just clouded up!

up
Voting closed 0

Where are all the stop signs in those areas and intersections that you list?

In more heavily trafficked environs, urban areas use signals.

We are talking about stop signs, remember - and those tend to get put in similar circumstances no matter where in the country you are - i.e. low traffic intersections. Actually, as Roadman has noted, local communities and Boston seem to be rather stop-sign happy and drop them in places that many other areas of the country would just leave unsigned intersections. If anything, places like Idaho will put stop signs where places around Boston would put lights, and not put stop signs at all where we would see them here.

(p.s. I was in Idaho two weeks ago ...)

up
Voting closed 0

I'm serious about old relatives helping Clark. Lotta good it did em.

up
Voting closed 0

Ok, so I wrote that a little too fast. Here are some better examples.

The busy 4 way stop at Dean Rd. and Clinton Rd. (limited sight distance with the rise in the road to go over the D-line, combined with a long downhill on Dean approaching the intersection, along with bad intersection geometry leading to poor sight lines);

The intersection of Clinton Rd. and Buckminster St. (many of the same attributes but only a two way stop and no T);

the intersection of Buckminster and Sumner (same);

The stop sign on Aspinwall Ave. at St. Paul St. (on a curve with heavy traffic on St. Paul and a vegetated median on the curve);

The intersection of Clark Rd. and Sumner (hill, two way stop, with the T); and

Nearly every stop-signed intersection on the Olmstead curvilinear layouts of Aspinwall Hill, Corey Hill or Fisher Hill (poor sight lines, hills, lots of vegetation and buildings to further reduce visibility).

This list is not exhaustive. Here is the bottom line: I live here and have cycled and driven on these roads (and walked the sidewalks) nearly everyday for well over a decade. I have absolutely no doubt that (more) people will be injured and killed (and as you always point out, these people will be pedestrians and cyclists) if this plan is put into effect. We will hear silly statements like "I thought I didn't have to stop at stop signs in Brookline when I'm on my bike" coming out of the back of ambulances.

I want to increase the number of people cycling and enhance safety for all of those doing so. Many of the other things you have spoken of (e.g., cycletracks) would do both. This is absolutely not the way to do either.

up
Voting closed 0

These really aren't much different than the kinds of intersections and environments where you will find stop signs in pretty much any state.

I agree that it may not be best to formalize "rolling stops" in various locations (having biked them a fair bit, too, when I worked over that way), even if such are rarely enforced, but that doesn't mean that Boston or Brookline is different than other places with regard to where stop signs are used, including Idaho.

up
Voting closed 0

No!!! Cyclists are getting ever more aggressive at crosswalks when it comes to yielding to pedestrians. This is such a TERRIBLE idea, not to mention incredibly dangerous to ALL cyclists!

up
Voting closed 0

Your third exclamation point convinced me.

up
Voting closed 0

rolling stops occur everywhere by everyone (pedestrians included!)...i would like to see those little traffic signals that they use in the netherlands and montreal to signal that bikes can leave early at major intersection...those are nifty!

up
Voting closed 0

Go check out Western Ave in Cambridge at Putnam.

up
Voting closed 0

I've seen people driving cars run stop signs and red lights in front of Boston police with no action from the BPD.

up
Voting closed 0

Also, in the same rule change stipulate that all liability is on the bicyclist and not on the driver should a collision occur because the cyclist was crossing a red or yielding at a stop sign (which is pretty much the default anyways so at least we can codify it).

If cyclists don't like that spelled out as such, well, then, they're welcome to stand still at red lights and come to a full stop at stop signs still.

up
Voting closed 0

Stop means Stop ! Just Stop already , stop the convoluting and obfuscating. Sheesh....

up
Voting closed 0

As it is, very few people (whether they drive cars or not, and whether they ride bikes or not) know about changes to statewide traffic laws when they are made. Those who pay attention to transportation policy or bike politics know, but most people don't. Most people know the basic statewide traffic laws, but not all of the minor details in all cases - the state traffic code is a fairly long and dry bit of reading.
I can understand a town choosing to make a particular effort to enforce those particular things that are causing problems, even when neighboring towns have different priorities. But when every town has different rules, it just means that no one will know what they are. Many (most?) commuters in the Boston area commute through multiple cities; you can go through five in five miles easily. No one is going to keep track of five different minor variations in traffic laws.
If there are particular intersections in Brookline where it makes sense to allow bicycles to treat it like a Yield and cars to treat it like a Stop, they should put up signs to that effect in those intersections (including cross streets). That way there's no question, and everyone knows what to expect even if they are just passing through.

As a bicyclist who does stop at red lights and stop signs, I hate being blamed for every bicyclist who does not. I hate it when drivers use the fact that they saw someone else run a red light as an excuse for cutting me off, passing too close, or screaming invective at me.
Another problem I envision if Idaho stops are allowed in Brookline is that when drivers who don't live in Brookline see bicyclists going through stop signs that way, it will just reinforce the notion that bicyclists don't follow the rules even though in this case they're perfectly legit.

up
Voting closed 0

they are not lawful. The political subdivisions of the Commonwealth are not permitted to derogate from state law unless expressly permitted to do so by said laws (and I do not believe any such derogation is permitted in Chapter 89).

up
Voting closed 0

Inspired by the Idaho Stop (and likely other things I've encountered over the years), I've been pondering the following...

As someone mentioned below, bikes exist somewhere in-between autos and pedestrians when it comes to road use, so I *think* this balances them reasonably well.

Below refers to intersections mostly, but I imagine the idea could be expanded

1) In the presence of any bicycle-specific markings/signage/lights, bicyclists *must* follow those rules

2) In the absence of 1), at a signalized intersection, bicyclists may use either the appropriate automobile OR pedestrian phase giving right of way to any pedestrians.

3) In the absence of 2), at a signalized intersection bicyclists may treat a red light as a stop sign, proceeding through the intersection ONLY if it is safe. {This is designed to handle intersections where a green phase may not be triggered due to loops or other detectors not kicking in when a bicycle is awaiting a green and/or a pedestrian green only being activated by a call button or with no pedestrian signal/phase}.

4) At a stop sign, bicyclists may use an Idaho Stop.

This is something I've never really worked through with others (nor does it reflect the official opinion of any entity anywhere), but I (hubristically, perhaps) think it's worth considering.

up
Voting closed 0

Just look around as you travel around the Boston area. All of these traffic suggestions like stop lights, stop signs, yield, don't walk are all regularly ignored by the locals whether they're on foot, on a bike, in a car, driving a T bus, you name it. With the lack of enforcement we have for traffic violations, behavior doesn't get changed just the laws. Relax and cruise through the next stop light. Any self respecting local knows not to go charging through an intersection on a fresh green light, helpful in recognizing someone from out of town.

up
Voting closed 0

all intersections, all times. No reason why it should be restricted if people are doing it right. And if they're doing it wrong, feel free to ticket!

up
Voting closed 0