Hey, there! Log in / Register
City proposes protected bike lanes along part of Comm. Ave.
By adamg on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 7:35am
The Globe reports on the plans for rebuilding Comm. Ave. between the BU Bridge and Packards Corner with "cycle tracks" that would use barriers to keep motorists out of the bike lanes.
The Herald froths about the goddamn tree-hugging dirty hippie socialists in Spandex destroying America thanks Obama.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Retarded! All for 0.0005% of the population.
I see the anti-bike crowd is up early today, and displaying their unique combination of intelligence, thoughtfulness and factual accuracy.
Say whatever you want but
Say whatever you want but leave outdated and insulting terms for a segment of the population out of it.
Western Ave, Brighton.
There's a section of Western Ave, at the Harvard end that has a curb/bike/parking/traffic setup. After about three seconds it sunk in just how bike-friendly the setup was. No reduction of MV lanes, bike protected, more or less. Win/win.
Protected from what?
Protected from what?
Rear-ending accidents are very rare. And bike lanes on the wrong side of parked cars increase intersection and driveway accidents. And make it harder for the elderly and young children to get out of the parked cars.
If you're that afraid of getting hit by a big bad bicycle when exiting the left side of the car (even considering the 3' curb), you can always exit the right... I hear rear-ending collisions from a car are very rare...
so, say whatever you want,
so, say whatever you want, except for what I don't want you to say?
say whatever you want
Obviously, you can say whatever you want. But if you insist on using offensive terms like "retarded," you might get some pushback. Is that really so unreasonable?
Herald & Flaherty - Misinformed & Misleading
Bike lanes are not the reason for the changes mentioned. Almost all of these changes were going to take place regardless of the bike lanes- many of the 73 spots were going to go away for more than 1 reason & the left turn lanes were being shortened- they're not eliminated. It would help if people understood an entire plan prior to bashing a couple of small pieces of a grander plan. The grander plan will have a positive impact on the city.
Similar to you, the reporter and councilman did not take the time and effort to involve themselves in the process. If they cared this much they should have. They just freaked out when the final plan was presented following years of planning and various designs. The public rose up and spoke out to ask for things they wanted. Mostly to make Comm Ave safer for people including drivers. As a result the design was impacted. It should be noted that accidents are expensive for the city. Reducing accidents will save the city money. Also, study after study have shown that business revenue increases in areas where pedestrians and cyclists are more comfortable (ie: safer) moving through an area.
Plus wouldn't it be less "retarded" for more than ".0005%" to get on bikes to move around the city. How many people do you know that would get on a bike more if they didn't fear for their lives when doing so? This is a dense city with a traffic problem. It's not going to get any better if we don't reduce the number of cars. We need more options.
Not on Comm Ave. Bike:car
Not on Comm Ave. Bike:car ratio is at least 1:10 there, considering the sheer magnitude of BU students biking through West Campus and between Allston and West Campus.
It's spelled "retahded".
I was 10 feet from crossing
I was 10 feet from crossing Clarendon St yesterday morning. I had a walk signal and the cars had the red light. A biker decided to disregard the red right and went up on the sidewalk (to avoid traffic backup) and almost mowed me down. Bikers like this give the good ones a bad name.
I also can't tell you the number of times a pedestrian has stepped out from in between two parked cars in front of my bike (usually with a cellphone clapped to their ear) almost causing an accident. And don't get me started on drivers who give drivers a bad name. So can we start with the premise that there are idiots on foot, on bikes, and in cars? This smart redesign will make this area safer for everyone.
Cyclist ALWAYS try and play the victim. From my office window in a matter of 1 min i could see a cyclist run a red light, cant say that about cars.
PS Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way jerk!
It's awesome you went caps
It's awesome you went caps lock when you are entirely wrong.
Entitled you sounds like you
Entitled you sounds like you step out into the roadway a lot, while blabbing on your phone and expect the traffic to come to a halt no matter what. Also, you sound like you don't drive, otherwise you'd shut your mouth about drivers.
Anti bike posters always have an extremely limited grasp of spelling and English grammar?
It makes them see red,
The topic makes them see red, literally. Spell checkers and grammar suggestions then blend in to the background, ignored.
I see cars blow through red lights all the time! Not stopping for yellow lights, illegal turns on red where signs are clearly posted forbidding it, not stopping at a red light before making a right turn when the light is red, and just straight up running a red light. I see people doing this literally multiple times a day. You must be near a pretty nice intersection!
PS Pedestrians have the right of way when in a crosswalk where there is no light controlling traffic. Not just whenever they're walking in the street. And I say this as a pedestrian. We need to obey traffic laws too!
Wrong Wrong Wrong
Pedestrians only have the right of way when they're already within a marked crosswalk that is not at a signalized intersection.
They do NOT have the right of way if they are disregarding a red light or don't walk signal, nor do they have the right of way if they blindly walk into the street (blind persons with canes excepted).
Pedestrians do not have the right of way when crossing against a "don't walk" sign or within 300' (I think that's the number) of a marked crosswalk. That of course doesn't absolve others from doing all they can to prevent a collision.
Ya, those wimpy cyclists
Ya, those wimpy cyclists should like getting brutally killed by drivers. How dare they question the car drivers of America who kill 35000 people per year!
Pedestrians have to obey lights, too. Only in a crosswalk without a signal do you have the right of way.
Red hand means don't walk. So don't walk. When you do, don't yell at that cyclist riding on the green light - that cyclist and the cars have the right of way.
Please watch Barney and Sesame Street reruns until you get that straight.
From my office window in a
Interesting. If I looked out my office window right now, I would definitely see at least 1 car run a red light in the next minute.
Agreed. I don't ride a
Agreed. I don't ride a bicycle on city roads. And I have seen all manner of people - drivers, cyclists, pedestrians - disobeying basic laws and creating dangerous situations. But most people just tend to notice and remember more the actions by those with whom they do not identify and cannot relate, hence these blanket statements made all the time on all sides. It's exhausting, time to move towards solutions. This one on Comm Ave seems like a good one to me for all parties involved.
Yes and no Sally
Yes there are idiots everywhere, on foot, using bicycles and cars, or even texting while driving a trolley. But in my humble opinion, and based on what I have seen every day living in this city since 1975, bicyclists are the worst.
Yes, cars run red lights sometimes. But bicyclists in this city run red lights very close to all the time.
Last fall, on this same subject, I posted here that bicyclists run red lights 99% of the time. Of course I was attacked by all the Uhubbers. But since that posting, last fall, I have been paying very close attention seen exactly one bicyclist stop at a red light. All the rest, and there have been plenty, run the red light. If it makes a difference to all you critics, most of my encounters with bikes are in Dorchester, South Boston, and the South End. Maybe bicyclists behave differently in other parts of the city.
On the separate subject of any attempt to fix that totally screwed up part of Comm Ave, I am in favor of trying anything, including a dedicated bike lane.
Ok all you Uhubbers, commence the attack about how my 99% figure is wrong.
I'm not going to "attack" a premise that, as a lifelong resident of Boston, a pedestrian, cyclist and even occasional driver, I know to be factually, provably, ridiculously untrue. It's like if I said 99% of drivers were texting while they drive--sometimes it seems like that but uh--it's just not the case.
If you want to go hang out on Comm. Ave. and Babcock St. for a few hours with a camera and try to prove your case, feel free. You might want to note the number of drivers who don't slow down or stop when people are in a crosswalk (as a mom this was always my personal favorite) and the number of jaywalkers and dangerous pedestrians. As I said, fools and scofflaws travel in every mode. But stats will show that it's mostly cars that kill people when they transgress.
Nah. Sally and anon are both wrong
Anon said 99% of bicyclists blow through red lights. Sally said this is ridiculously untrue.
The fact is that 100% of bicyclists blow through red lights. Anyone who says this is untrue is just plain dishonest. Seriously , when's the last time any of you saw a cyclist waiting at a red light?
And Sally , you're apparently a cyclist. Have you ever blown through a red light? Of course you have.
Sorry, you're wrong
I have seen bicyclists stop for red lights. Granted, it's relatively rare, but please don't throw absolutes around without actual data.
No, I'm not a bicyclist.
I'm stopped with five other cyclists at a red light on Broadway in Cambridge.
I've got my bottle in hand. Guys next to me have their coffee, and two other people are checking their phones.
Car pulls into the intersection from the side street with the green, taking a right, and yells loudly at all of us about "cyclists have to stop for red lights, too".
Five cyclists, all five with feet down, all doing things while we wait at the red light and have been since well before he comes by ... okay. We all look up and just laugh at him.
He proceeds down Broadway, as we get the green light and close in on him. There is a trash truck in the travel lane. Mr. Rules R. Rules swerves abruptly around the truck onto the wrong side of the road, without looking, and nearly goes head on with a motoscooter coming the other way.
Of course I have!! I'm a cyclist!!
Red lights don't slow me down! I bust through intersections on my sick brakeless fixie, stopping only to tweak my gauges and adjust my spandex bodysuit. Then I pick up a copy of the Daily Worker, grab a triple mocha-choka-latte, pick up my welfare check, and head home, stopping momentarily to run over your Great-Aunt Millie and dent your rear bumper.
I was getting sick of that broad anyway.
I thought skinsuits were only
I thought skinsuits were only for cyclocrossers and maybe team time-trialists.
So you were really out-of-uniform for a brakeless fixie, and a few years past trend.
Got honked at today, waiting at a red
Driver wanted to make an illegal right on red but I was stopped. So.......
A few years back
I'm in a bike lane on Hampshire St., waiting at a red light that I barely missed. The side street has a construction detail.
Mr. Bigass NH Trucknuts pulls into the bike lane behind me, lays on the horn. "NO TURN ON RED" sign right in front of us.
I look back, point at the bike lane symbol, point at the sign. Trucknuts revvs his engine and lays on the horn even more, using that special entitled driver sign language as he raves in his truck.
Cop on detail comes up to the corner, but not visible to NH Trucknuts due to all the construction stuff. Asks me to read him the plate number. Then directs me to proceed against the light.
Trucknuts bangs a right ... on the still red light ... right into the waiting arms of the cop.
I don't think all (or even the majority of) cyclists run red lights 99 percent of the time or even close to all the time.
I walk near Kendall Square on a regular basis and there are many, many cyclists (you know, MIT and all that). Most (the majority) that I encounter, either as a bike rider or pedestrian, stop at red lights.
So I think you need to do some stronger statistical analysis to justify the 99 percent figure you cite.
That was me stopping!
Yep. I stop for reds then pass the scofflaw riders 75% of the time.
If they stop and go, I'm okay with that as long as they don't cause anybody to have to hit the brakes, even out of mere caution, the those that just blow through are not going to get much of my sympathy should things go wrong.
Last night I saw cyclist blow
Last night I saw cyclist blow a red light at about 15mph well after the light turned. He was almost hit by an Audi driver who actually seemed to speed up to try and hit the cyclist. We need to educate people. Sociopath cyclists like that should be ticketed and forced to take a safety class. Drivers need to get it drilled into their heads that they are driving 2-ton death machines and that in no circumstances should they make contact with a cyclist or a pedestrian.
I see plenty of cyclists driving safely, using hand signals, and trying to stay way the hell out of the way of the cars. They are the least of my problems here in Boston, there are plenty of stupid, aggressive drivers on the road to make me hate driving.
Would you rather the Audi
driver stop suddenly and get rear ended? The cyclist ran the red light and rode into the path of somebody who legally had the right of way. So save your sympathy for someone more deserving.
Calling him a "sociopath cyclist"
isn't exactly sympathy. Just pointing out though that yes--the car is going to "win" here and drivers still have responsibility to drive carefully and not play chicken or speed up.
Can't read, can you?
Emphasis mine. You're an idiot.
Yes, I'd rather see a car get
Yes, I'd rather see a car get rear-ended, than a car hit a cyclist.
Rear-ended versus striking
Rear-ended versus striking someone? Yes.
If I were just an insurance adjuster and didn't make a differentiation between injuring a human and damaging a machine, I'd go for the rear-ending as it would likely cost my insurance company less.
Even if the cyclist were at fault, it's still much better to dent a car than smash a person.
interesting that you referred
interesting that you referred to the cyclist as a "sociopath" immediately after not describing the "driver who actually seemed to speed up to try and hit the cyclist" as a sociopath.
Yesterday morning you saw one cyclist break a traffic rule?
Try this: tomorrow, when you're out and about, count the number of motor vehicles that you see violating traffic laws. This includes, but is not limited to:
Try it. Really. Then go back and look at your little anecdote of the scofflaw cyclist, and see how it compares. The pot is calling the kettle black.
You got it wrong
The barriers are to keep the bikes off the streets and out of the vehicular traffic lanes.
you only got it like 5% right
well, bikes are vehicles, so it makes sense that they would be in vehicular traffic lanes.
the bigger reason for bike lanes isn't so much to keep bikes out of the way of oh-so-precious cars, but rather to keep cars from killing people who are travelling via a non-car method.
Protected lanes are for
Protected lanes are for people to FEEL safer, especially those who cannot manage safe cycling behavior due to ignorance, primarily, and irrational fear.
It is similar to security theatre.
Expensive, barely effective, but has the effect of making people think something that is a genuine safety improvement is occurring.
All you need to be is...
So you're saying... All a cyclists needs in order to simply ride in the traffic lane on Comm Ave (or Storrow Drive, for that matter) is to be Strong and Fearless?
Curb extensions also only to FEEL safer
There is no data showing bulb outs and curb extensions reduce pedestrian accidents. This is in stark contrast to very effective raised medians and extremely effective pedestrian activated, high intensity crossing signals installed at crosswalks where no signals previously existed.
Bump outs do make it LOOK like money is being spent on making roads safer, so good for politicians, road designers, and road (re)constructors. That's considered valuable enough for government endorsement, even if they are sometimes dangerous for cyclists. I'm thinking of the helmetless cyclist killed in 2012 who got squeezed between a MBTA bus and a bulb out .
Your data here is a little
Your data here is a little skewed. The bump-outs do not directly impact pedestrian safety, what they do is make the road feel more "crowded" for the drivers, which encourages them to drive more cautiously (read: slowly). Slower drivers are less likely to kill someone that they hit. THAT is the safety impact of curb bump-outs.
Actual accident reduction, though?
Yes speeds may drop a couple mph for a few feet near a bump out, but that has not seemed to translate into fewer accidents.
The problem is that bump out advocates are stretching really deep into indirect effects to try and justify something with little to no actual benefit, yet real cost. Again, the biggest benefit is looking like something is being done.
Read the NYC data
You know, the stuff that has been added to this discussion numerous times now, but drew only a "OMG TERRORISTS" response from you.
If you can't argue in good faith, don't pretend by asking stupid questions.
I'll be at every meeting to denounce this crap. I'm still annoyed at the changes made to Cambridge Street in Allston. The city needs to stop pandering to a school that doesn't want to be in a city. Make the cycle tracks part of the sidewalk so they don't need road space.
you didn't even read the article or look at the pictures did ya.
This has nothing to do with any school except its near one.
Secondly, it's going to run between cars and the sidewalk (and probably take up part of the sidewalk)
I'm far from a cheer leader for bikers, but I saw pictures of the presentation last night (via TransitMatters) and I think it's actually pretty nifty. Makes me want to get a bike and use it. (and I may just do that)
Check out http://massbike.org/education/bike-safety-education/ for their regular classes on riding in the city and other courses intended to build basic skills and confidence on the roads.
I was gonna ask ya (or the bikers on here.. or have adam make a post for me) for bike tips.
Just waiting for more snow to melt and I think I'm gonna get a bike in April for my bday..
Thank ya, Swirls.
rather not say.. but its coming up next week :) (that should narrow it down to one of three days)
BU was against the bike lanes
BU was against the bike lanes, so you got your wish: Boston is ignoring the wishes of that school that doesn't even want to be in the city.
If we could get rid of BU, it would truly be win-win.
Indeed and also go a lot
Indeed and also go a lot further to improve the image of cyclists, that we're not just dumbass college kids
As a BU Kid, Fuck you.
As a BU Kid, Fuck you.
Edit: Adam can the remove the expletives if he needs to, I'm not going to edit that.
The reason why Comm Ave was one of the first to get bike lanes and now cycle tracks is because of BU. The first Comm Ave project did not include any bike stuff until BU push for the modifications with all the dealing behind it. BU has stuff you or anyone can criticize, but that's entirely different than just blindly hating.
And BTW, your "not want to be in the city" that you're likely referring to. BU likely has it own ideas and plans for decades. I recognize that's the greater good is not BU. But it is still understandable that no faction wants to give up its own plans. And why should BU give money to give up on top of that?
Aw, poor baby.
Do you need a hanky to cry into?
Sure, I'll take 5.
Sure, I'll take 5.
spoken like a true BU student or grad!
Sometimes being diplomatic
Sometimes being diplomatic just won't do anything anyways. It's one thing when there's an actual topic like West Station. Another when it's just a "let's hate BU" pot shot to get high fives. I could go write some multiparagraph essay listing BU's actions with bikes have been positive. But not today, no one's is listening anyways.
Who said anything about bikes
Who said anything about bikes?
Ummm because this entire
Ummm because this entire thread's context have been about bikes?
I'm just sick of BU in
I'm just sick of BU in general, and I moved out of Allston 15 years ago.
Wow. Really, they were
Wow. Really, they were against this? WHY? It is their students who stand to benefit from it the most.
The whole time I was working in that area I wished BU would give more of a crap about public safety of their students and for people in the area in general. It is disappointing to hear they don't support this.
How about asking for a source
How about asking for a source. BU was part of the pressure that got bike lanes for the first half of Comm Ave. The student groups have not been held back at all in their advocacy by BU's officials. The BU news mouthpiece have not show signs in being hesitant on the cycle tracks. I found no articles or even comments saying some kind of "I can't believe that BU official dissented".
Virtually every other Anon post get the 3rd degree to back themselves. But this time let's just take his word?
Why should pedestrians lose
Why should pedestrians lose space because car drivers keep parking in bike lanes and killing people?
Well, actually, pedestrians
Well, actually, pedestrians are losing space so that people driving to BU can have a left-turn lane onto Agganis Way.
The bike lanes take relatively little space in comparison.
There have been a lot of meetings and apparently
You missed them, bro.
Somerville is also planning a bike path. However, at one of the meetings, after all the contentious arguing one biking advocate said "but after the cycle path is built, we can still ride in the street, right?"
Was it Spike from Portlandia?
Was it Spike from Portlandia?
Well, if you can...
...keep the dog-walkers, rollerbladers, hopscotchers, joggers, parents with strollers, people walking and talking on cellphones, etc. off the CYCLE PATH, then maybe you'll have an argument worth making. But you won't be able to do those things, and in fact, nobody will try. As a result, the CYCLE PATH will be useless for cyclists, and cyclists will have gained nothing by it.
sounds like a good idea to me
I don't think I've ridden my bike in 2 or 3 years, but everybody I know who rides regularly has been hit by a car at least once. This makes it safer for bikers and less annoying for drivers who won't have to deal with passing bikers on that stretch anymore. I wish they'd put more of these cycle tracks in.
This is why I thought it was nifty. I sold my bike because I was getting tired of getting hit by cars and being 'door'd.
I loved the esplande but getting to the esplande to bike was too much (and tried my nerves too many times going down Mass Ave)
" I was getting tired of getting hit by cars"
Ding Ding Ding!!!!! Well you just won the award for the most melodramatic. over exaggerated lie of the day.
It's a lie?
How do you know? How many times was Cybah hit by cars?
Go fold it in four corners
You weren't there. You don't know.
And yes I was.
In all fairness, I imagine it
In all fairness, I imagine it only takes one time being hit/doored before you get tired of it. Whether it was once or 10x, glad you weren't seriously injured.
I was doored and hit by a car
I was doored and hit by a car in the past year. Why should that stop me from cycling? (In fact I spent the insurance money on a new cog and crankset) If someone is on a car accident and walks away do they stop driving?
but not to argue with you.. but you're a seasoned biker, I was a novice. Three times was enough for me at that time in my life. It's scary to say the lease to be throw several feet without warning..
But I'm willing to try again..
That "and walks away"...
...is far from given if you're on a bike and you get hit by a car, and you know it perfectly well. Stop being disingenuous; the tough pose does not impress.
Ride on Bro
If I were a prudent and responsible rider and was hit by an object that was a few thousand pounds (more than once), I may just stick to bike trails. I would not judge someone for not wanting to ride after being hit. I couldn't compare someone on a bicycle getting hit by a car, to a car vs car collision.
You can do a couple basic
You can do a couple basic thigns to prevent being doored, but as nobody is taught these things and drivers find them irritating, it doesn't happen as often as it should.
Oh well, if one thinks driver convenience is more important than one's own safety, then one gets what they deserve.
Having been hit by a car in
Having been hit by a car in this exact stretch of road I definitely welcome this.
I travel through that area on a Bike, on Foot, and driving a Car, this will likely help all of the above.
The only concern I have is that unlike Western Avenue where a similar plan is used, there are MANY right turns off of the inbound side of Com Ave which do not have lights. I would worry that these places are more likely to have a car take a right without looking for a cyclist. Thats where I got hit. Car Sped past me and then took a quick right before I could stop.
I've been working on this stretch of Comm Ave for the past 10 years. The amount of bicycle traffic has grown exponentially in that time period. I'm even seeing less of a dip than I used to see during the winter. The narrowing of the road lanes should do a lot to slow down the cars that treat this section of road like a highway instead of a major bicycle, pedestrian thoroughfare.
I guess I'm supposed to be complaining about the time I saw this person on a bike do a dumb thing though.
thanks barack HUSSEIN obama
thanks barack HUSSEIN obama
I'm starting to wonder if
I'm starting to wonder if Adam has some sort of secret pro-bike agenda. There's no way he could just be letting every comment through--he must be screening for the real gems like this guy, and the various misspelled, incoherent, or generally sociopathic rants that are posted in here. He must be trying to give the anti-bike people a bad name.
Because the only other alternative is that you, o legion of anonymous trolls, are all actually this breathtakingly idiotic, and you drive cars on the regular. Which is something I'd rather not even contemplate.
people are just that idiotic.. don't you read the herald comment sections? Hell, even BDC's brings my IQ down some when I read them.
To be fair, from being on this site for years... yes he does approve all anon comments, but mostly to filter out spam. Plus I know he does it at random times because you'll see 5-10 anon posts all appear at once.
I don't even look at the
I don't even look at the comments on the Herald. I'm afraid they'll cause permanent brain damage.
You think this comment is serious?
I didn't. It seems to be a joke on the birther crowd that drags its knuckles across the Herald's comment sections.
Yeah, the detector might have been miscalibrated for this one. But I'm pretty sure the 20+ other "cyclists are mean and terrible and are stealing our precious bodily fluids" posts upthread are serious. And those are frankly just as worrisome.
Without a czar, how will anyone know to use these new bike tracks??
The article doesn't actually explain or show how the new bike lanes would prevent a collision like the one that killed Weigl. I don't recall the details of that incident, but presumably it will still be possible for trucks to turn right off of Comm Ave, and if there is a bicycle in the way, they will still hit it.
In any case, though, I do like the way the diagram at the bottom shows one of the pedestrians (presumably Kaepplein) shaking his fist at the cyclist.
PS: In any case, I hope this plan goes through, since it will apparently give Howie Carr an embolism.
Yes it does, there will be protected intersections.
Yes it does, right after the paragraph talking about the truck driver that killed him, there is this:
And why should anyone care what Howard Carr, who lives in Wellesley, think about what we in Boston do?
Yes, there is a paragraph
Yes, there is a paragraph that purports to explain the configuration of intersections under this plan, but absent a diagram, it's hard to see how this will work.
The bike lane is to the right of the motor vehicle lane. At some point, motor vehicles turning right will have to cross the bike lane, at a point that presumably does not include a "physical barrier". How this is actually accomplished is left purely to the reader's imagination.
Because he's a hateful liar who writes for a Boston paper and, presumably, influences public opinion in the City of Boston.
Usually a "physical barrier" means a raised crossing for the bikes. This makes drivers drive up over the hump and often onto a different driving material (like a paving stone). That gives them awareness that something special is going on so they should pay more attention.
That certainly sounds like a
That certainly sounds like a possible option. It would have been nice if the professional journalist who wrote the article had explained exactly what it meant so we didn't have to guess.
Check out this site
It's the design of safe intersections in the Netherlands and will be the basis for the design here on Comm Ave.
No it doesn't
When a bicyclist riding down a hill won't stop for a tractor trailer in his path, how does a "protected" bike track fix that? Its still not protecting from idiot bicyclists who fail to notice a 40+ foot trailer crossing their path and apply his brakes, if he had any.
Its not like that tractor trailer made a quick right hook in front of the cyclist. They don't turn on a dime, and in this case, the driver had to swing to the left lane on Comm. Ave. to make the right turn.
A big problem are cyclists who ride too fast for their brakes and/or don't use them in order to slow down when caution is needed. When there is a motor to do the work, there is no effort in speeding back up, so drivers and motorcyclists are more likely to slow down ahead of potential problems.
I'm blocked by the paywall, so have not read the Globe Article, yet saw some materials elsewhere, though they really didn't actually analyze the crashes and what ones might have been prevented by the proposed design. I imagine doorings are the most solved crash types.
I imagine doorings are the
Which are, anecdotally, the most prevalent type of car/bike incident. So it sounds like you agree that this plan should provide a huge benefit, even if it doesn't prevent 100% of car/bike collisions.
That means the truck passes the cyclist and the driver forgets about them half way through the pass and bangs a turn across a travel lane without yielding.
Which is what happened. Stop with this fantasy of "bike riding down hill hits truck". That's a bunch of shit and you know it.
Damn Pedestrians slowed the truck turn
The semi driver didn't forget about having passed the the cyclist, he had to stop mid-turn for pedestrians crossing on the side street - something that the cyclist and you obviously didn't think about. What do you want the truck driver to do, run over the pedestrians so the unaware, speeding cyclist won't run into the trailer? The cyclist had loads of time to stop for a tractor trailer if the cab had already made the turn and only the trailer remained in the cyclist's path.
of you to call a dead kid an idiot, Mark.
I can see you clearly have never biked this stretch of road before as I did every day for four years. Have you ever considered that cyclists often have to fly down this stretch of Comm Ave because they're trying to ride with the flow of car traffic to avoid the bike lane all together? Every single day people double parked in it, swung their doors open without looking, pulled out of or into parking spots without looking, etc. I often rode in the vehicle lane next to the bike lane to avoid all of these things.
This cycle track takes care of all of those problems on that stretch and will keep 99% of cyclists out of the way of cars on Comm Ave.
I conducted an observational study of cyclists on this stretch of Comm Ave at morning and evening rush hour for a paper while in school and found that most cyclists observed did not violate red lights. The ones who did, around 10%, stopped to wait for all car traffic to pass and proceeded through the light only when it was safe for them to do so. I observed for about 10 hours in total and saw only one cyclist blow through a light at top speed. I see cars do this frequently so I'm not sure why you're disproportionately singling out speeding bicyclists as a "big problem."
Now don't bring actual local knowledge into this
That stretch of road has more double-parked vehicles than any I commonly use. Rare would be the day you could actually ride down the entirety of the bike lane.
Yes it does.
"Under the plan, officials will place physical barriers between bikes and vehicles at intersections, which will force drivers to slow down before turning. The change would help prevent the sort of “right-hook” collisions that killed Weigl."
Everybody will slow down a little at intersections
Trucks (and cars) will still have to turn right across the protected bike lane at intersections, but the design encourages both drivers and cyclists to move slowly at these conflict points.
To make sure drivers move slowly, the crosswalk and bike lane is raised up to sidewalk level at most intersections. This encourages drivers to yield to pedestrians and cyclists, who have the right of way. In addition, some intersections will have curved barriers around part of the intersections, effectively acting as curb extensions to protect the bike lane and enforce slow turning speeds from drivers.
At the same time, some intersections slow down cyclists by curving the bike lane as it approaches the intersection, and/or by raising the elevation of the bike lane by a few inches.
They're also removing a handful of parking spaces before each intersection to ensure good visibility.
Has this been tested in the USA?
US bicyclists seem different from European bicyclists. Here, its the "enthusiast" class doing more of the cycling than in Europe, hence riders here go faster than those in Europe. That also means they don't like getting slowed down by amateur cyclists on narrow bike paths and tracks, so they take to the street.
Are there any studies of US cyclist behavior on these "traffic calming" measures for cyclists?
I'm afraid healthy, fearless cyclists won't even use the tracks and instead ride in the street where its faster, then produce more traffic congestion by taking the (narrowed) lane.
Yes. See also NYC several years now.
I've also seen cycle tracks in a number of other US cities - they work just fine.
NYC's cycle tracks are full
NYC's cycle tracks are full of trash, pedestrians, and illegally parked cop cars. And hardly any cyclists.
I think I saw one cyclist once, and he was going the wrong way.
Here, its the "enthusiast"
For a guy who hates bikes with a burning passion, you sure seem to know a lot about them. Can you post a link to your source for these facts?
Got his source right here!
(warning: kind of graphic unless you are an anatomy geek)
Not gonna click
I really don't think
I really don't think Americans in protected bike lanes bike any faster than Europeans in protected bike lanes. I think everyone bikes quickly when they have to mix with car traffic or when they're enjoying some rural scenery, and most people bike at a slower, more comfortable pace when they're in a protected bike lane in a city.
The "traffic calming" for an on-road protected bike lane is relatively new in the US, so I doubt there's any research. It is a common design element when an offroad bike path crosses a street.
The vast majority of cyclists will use the protected bike lane, but a handful may ride in the road. But most of them are probably riding in the road already to avoid the door-zone bike lane, so that certainly won't increase congestion. And the general travel lanes won't be any narrower than they already are.
Thanks for actual answers
In Arlington, bicyclists have been opposed to every effort to add traffic calming on the Minuteman path. They don't want chicanes approaching dangerous at-grade street crossings. They don't want traffic lights they might have to obey at Lake Street, and they sure don't want any sort of rumble strip or pavement sipes to notify them of upcoming intersections.
Lexington has had more success with having installed a traffic light at a Minuteman crossing. Reportedly it has 75% compliance by path users.
blah blah blah
Funny how you pointed to this person's opinion, rather than the actual research and experience in the US that has been cited here already.
Actual answer. HAHAHAHA ... more like "only answer mark wanted to see".
Short-sighted Herald Article
Ugh, that Herald article gets me all riled up. 73 parking meters are more important than the lives and safety of Boston's citizens?
And what about the 134 meters that BU purchased in 2012? No outrage on that? Oh, right, they paid $11 million for those streets..
Michael Flaherty can't figure out how to come up with $341 grand per year? Maybe start ticketing the daily violations that both cars and bikes are making along that stretch of Comm Ave everyday. Maybe put up red-light cameras across the city that would simultaneously earn money and increase safety. Maybe stop selling out the city to overpriced contractors. Maybe take a pay cut.. I dunno, figure it out!!
Or why don't you go down there on foot right now and look at how many cars around Kenmore Square are parked IN THE STREET. Don't bring up the money you spent on snow removal when the job isn't even finished.
Short-sighted Herald Article?
In other news, water wet, fire hot.
This is my daily route for the past 4 years and there is a desperate need to change along Comm Ave.
This is a major route that has its own issues beyond cycling infrastructure. The nightmare that is the BU Bridge intersection was at its absolute worst this winter with the snow and traffic jamming up the streets. Some police details would have helped but we never got that and its only a band-aid for the days they would be there.
Daily route question
So how do you get from inbound Comm Ave onto the BU Bridge on a bicycle?
Standard procedure for any tricky left turn: ride past, pull over, wait for light to change.
Or you could go thru the loop around with the cars, but no point, really.
Yeah, that's what I do - if it's not stop at the red, go left over the crosswalks short of the intersection…
I was wondering if you'd figured out anything better than that. Given how popular a commuting route that is, it'd be nice if something easier were figured out.
Putting bike lanes behind parked cars actually makes sense - cars are separated from bikes, and all the potential cutlets on fixies will be forced to slow down and look around when they get to an intersection instead of jumping right into the meatgrinder. However, there's absolutely no reason to make them six feet wide and add a physical barrier. Keep them the same width and just repaint the markings instead of spending millions to rebuild the whole damn street.
Because if there's one thing Boston motorists respect, it's painted markings!
because it's worked out so well for the Silver Line washington street and the multitude of bike lanes we have throughout the city.
How about we ticket the peckerheads who park in bike lanes, and ticket the peckerheads who ride in traffic instead of their very own bike lanes? Say what you want, but bikes were not designed to be ridden in traffic where cars move twice or three times as fast and weigh 20 times as much (or 200 times if we're talking about a heavy truck.) Keep bikes between parked cars and curbs, away from traffic, and have them make left turns (cross the street) with pedestrians instead of playing frogger. Sure, that will slow you down, but getting to your destination a few minutes late won't kill you. Getting run over by a 20 ton garbage truck, on the other hand, certainly will.
You can't ticket someone who is doing what they are legally allowed to do, you know, under the law. Cyclists are entitled to take a full lane of traffic if biking safely demands it. Unfortunately, drivers either don't know that or don't care.
Rights belong to people
They don't belong to machinery.
Think about that for a moment. These roads existed before cars did. Drivers don't even pay the full cost of them.
It goes both ways
If you can't have cars in bike lanes, you shouldn't have bikes in car lanes, simple as that. Either stay in your dedicated lanes, or quit whining and keep playing frogger. And, just in case you didn't know, roads existed before bikes did.
So you drive on the sidewalk
You really need some basic understanding of how the laws work, and how cars have no rights and using one conveys no rights, only responsibilities.
There is a right for people to use the public ways. There is no right to drive.
And, just in case you didn't
The scales have fallen from my eyes. From here on out, public roadways in Boston shall be used only by horsedrawn carriage, rickshaw cart, or the Roman Praetorian Guard.
And just in case YOU didn't know
Bikes existed before cars did. So neener neener. And yes please--if you're suggesting that every street in Boston have a marked bike lane free from snow, ice, trash, double-parked cars, moving cars, etc. I agree with you completely! Let's build them and I absolutely promise to ride in them. K??
Campaign for Good Roads
It wasn't about cars. It was cyclists organizing to get the roads properly graded, paved, and maintained.
Actually, was it Huntington or Comm Ave that was originally designed with dedicated cycling lanes (but no motor vehicle lanes)?
They're redoing the street anyway
They were already planning to rebuild the entire street practically from scratch anyway, so the cost is more or less the same regardless of how the bike lane is configured. Major streets like Comm Ave usually undergo a complete rebuild like this every 30-40 years. The difference is just that BTD decided to move the bike lanes to a safer location rather than just rebuilding the current configuration.
Brighton Ave., Comm. Ave., What's the Diff, right Globe?
Did anyone else notice that the Globe labeled Brighton Ave. as Comm. Ave?
(Sorry, I can't get the image to embed here)
Another fault in the image is it says "bike lines" will be "installed". However, there are already "bike lines" painted there. The article is about bike LANES (specifically physically separated bike tracks) being added.
The Bikes are "NOT REQUIRED" to use the bike lane. They can still travel in vehicle lanes.
Not a problem
It will force the city to plow and maintain those lanes.
The only people who won't use them are people who are traveling at traffic speed anyway (and, yes, there are cyclists who can do 25 mph on a long haul).
I mean, it just took 5 weeks for bike lanes on Dot Ave. to get plowed. I suspect it only happened at all because there were unplowed parking spots on the sidewalk-facing side of them.
Sounds good to me!
I would love to get a bike since I live in Allston and work in Kenmore. But taking the b-line frays my nerves less than the thought of biking down Comm Ave. Bike fanatics always talk about Holland and it's great that the city plans to take a page from the Dutch and put up dedicated lanes. But, like others have alluded, the city should also enforce the rules of the road. Running red lights is a give in for most Boston bicyclists and that definitely doesn't fly in the Low Countries.
I've been commuting down comm ave several days a week for the past 3 years and I think this is a fantastic idea. I've been hit twice so far in the section that is being discussed. I've been hit by a door and right hooked, both times by BU students while I was riding in the bike lane.
This plan won't stop all those pesky cyclists going through red lights that everyone seems to hate so much. But cross walk signals don't stop jay walkers nor do speed limit signs stop cars from speeding. What it will do is protect cyclists and drivers in a very dangerous and busy section of the city.
Will somebody please ask Michael Flaherty
What goddamn year is this?
Between this asinine last minute jump in and his "we don't have no pot in our citayyyyy" bullshit grandstanding, he seems to be the chair of Boston 1980 or something.
Sorry, Ray Flynn may be moving in with you Michael ... but it ain't 1980.
Hopefully it will also keep
Hopefully it will also keep the cyclists* from riding around like they are still back home in the burbs. When I worked down there for a few years that mostly what it was like. Between that, the green line, on street parking, the terrible driving, pedestrians darting out in the middle of the street and not paying attention, and the lights set way back from some intersections that stretch is a deathtrap for anyone not surrounded by a couple tons of steel (and plastic). I'd love to see protected bike lanes in this area.
*Mostly students on bicycles oblivious to traffic rules and occasionally texting/checking ipods /facepalm
Actual pros and cons of the plan?
Sorry to interrupt driver and cyclist bashing, but what are the pros and cons of the plan?
Bicycling infrastructure near a college is one of the places it makes sense to have some, even if it robs fares from public transit in this specific area, so its worth serious consideration.
What I've not seen is an analysis of costs and benefits. How many fewer accidents are predicted? How much actual meter revenue loss is projected, and more importantly, how much patronage loss to businesses because customers can't park? Will teachers and students be late to class if they can't find parking after a slower slog through traffic? What will be the impact if a lane is lost on travel times with how much increased CO2 production? How much extra CO2 and traffic will be produced from drivers circling the area in search of parking?
Then snow removal. How will that go seeing how poorly streets wider than bike tracks were cleared?