Hey, there! Log in / Register

We're going to guess Hubway frowns on its riders pedaling down an Interstate

Bicyclist on I-93

And we suspect what was going through the mind of that truck driver on the Expressway southbound by South Bay this afternoon could be abbreviated "WTF?!?"

Jeremy Yan, who photographed the furiously pedaling Hubway rider, couldn't believe it, either (note to curmudgeons: As you'll see in the next photo, Yan was not driving):

Hubway bicyclist on I-93 south in Dorchester

UPDATE: And we were right. Hubway replies:

No cyclists should be riding on 93 or 95. Hubway riders obligated 2 follow road rules.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Ad:

Comments

Not way out in the second-from-right lane?

up
Voting closed 0

The Southeast Expressway doesn't have shoulders. The existing shoulders were initially used as peak-hour travel lanes in the late 1970s (as I recall), were converted to travel lanes during the 1984-1985 total reconstruction, and then were permanently changed to travel lanes as part of the Savin Hill to Braintree contra-flow HOV lanes implementation in the mid-1990s.

Behavior like this is another good reason why bikes should have registration plates.

up
Voting closed 0

Behavior like this is another good reason why bikes should have registration plates.

Those are fighting words.. :-)

up
Voting closed 0

You pay for them, and justify the expense.

Oblivious morons on bicycles endanger themselves far more than anybody else. I challenge you to even demonstrate that it is enough of a problem to care about.

Oblivious morons behind the wheel kill tens of thousands of people each year.

I'll translate: "This is another reason that I would love to harass cyclists with meaningless regulations that have absolutely no public health value, just because I'm having a tantrum!"

up
Voting closed 0

Chris is on your side.

up
Voting closed 0

I know - clicked on the wrong reply. Sorry, Kris - that was meant for Old Choadman.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks Jim. I knew it wasn't for me :-) I was just pointing out that what Roadman said is fighting words on here :-)

And it's Kris btw..

(Still trying to rack my brain who you are Jim LOL.. you obviously know me..)

up
Voting closed 0

I think we all know and understand Masshole drivers. I've been rear-ended, hit when I was in a rotary and also recently hit as a pedestrian while not jay-walking. I get it and I think almost everyone else does.

(I very rarely drive in Boston proper. I walk and occasionally use Hubway but prefer to do so along the Esplanade precisely b/c I feel unsafe biking in Boston. Trust me, I'm no car or driver apologist.)

And yes, pedestrians jaywalk although I also have to say I don't see much of the blatant walking without even looking arrogance you'll see on Dot Ave, for example. Most pedestrian commuters know they need to watch their own ass and don't walk into traffic.

However, I don't see the relevance to always bring up bad drivers or pedestrians to somehow excuse the bad bike riders.

Most bicyclists downtown run red lights as policy.

I see this every damn day at every light at State and Congress during evening rush hour. Also on Atlantic Ave. If there is a bike there they run the light and make me watch out for them.
I also see them ride the wrong way against traffic as well and otherwise behave unpredictably.

Honestly, at rush hour when I'm walking with a light in Boston I'm more worried about the chance of bike coming out of nowhere than I am a car doing so. ( Note I said the chance of, not the actual fact of: obviously a car impact is more worrisome than a bike impact but I see the chances of a bike impact as greater.)

Again, I get that cars weigh a couple tons and kill people proportionally. But bikes do hit people too and make pedestrians feel unsafe. We should just absolve them of responsibility b/c some Masshole somewhere is blocking the box or driving drunk?

Sounds like me just kid kid trying to get out of something by saying his older brother did it too. Argument fails there too, by the way.

up
Voting closed 0

Most bicyclists downtown run red lights as policy.

I see this every damn day at every light at State and Congress during evening rush hour.

I definitely run this light as policy. Starting out here and crossing the intersection at the same time as the 5 (!) lanes of cars in each direction does not feel safe at all.

If there is a bike there they run the light and make me watch out for them.

Crossing any intersection here with or without the light and expecting drivers to look out for you would definitely get you killed in your first 30 seconds. I'm sure even biking to and from the Esplanade you've discovered this.

Honestly, at rush hour when I'm walking with a light in Boston I'm more worried about the chance of bike coming out of nowhere than I am a car doing so.

I suspect this is because, as a frequent walker in the city, you have become so accustomed to drivers not yielding to you in certain circumstances that you don't even think about what is happening. For example, step into a crosswalk on any two lane road with no traffic signal (e.g. Seaport Blvd) and count how many cars have to go by before someone stops. In my observation on that particular road, no one will stop at all, and the pedestrians will only start walking when all of the traffic has passed. This is a blatant violation of the crosswalk law, and yet most pedestrians I've talked to don't even seem to notice.

up
Voting closed 0

If that intersection is too dangerous to follow the traffic rules, get off the bike, walk it across as a pedestrian, then remount on the other side.

For those keeping score, I'm neither a driver nor a cyclist.

up
Voting closed 0

And what exactly would that accomplish other than making a few drivers made to wait at the red light feel better about being inconvenienced?

up
Voting closed 0

Besides lowering your chances of sending a pedestrian to the doctor or yourself to the morgue. I'm more keen on the first one.

up
Voting closed 0

Um, we're not talking about Tour de France speeds here. More like "barely above walking pace" when I'm traversing the crosswalks. I don't want to end up in a morgue, either.

up
Voting closed 0

any more than I want to be the unlucky bastard that runs you over. Difference is, you people think (as judged by the comments on this very forum) that it's everyone else's responsibility to make that happen when you're breaking traffic laws.

I don't run red lights in my car and profess how badly I don't want to end up in the emergency room or whine about how annoying it would be to have to take my car to the body shop. And I sure as shit don't play frogger IRL while lamenting how harrowing it is to cross the street.

up
Voting closed 0

At Tremont and Winter.

100+ pedestrians waiting for the walk. 2 jaywalked (stupidly) when there was a break in traffic.

Walk light came and 3 out of 3 bikes I saw came thru at full speed. No consideration for pedestrians only for maintaining their speed.

Note, the autos were all back at Park Street light. Nothing unsafe about cyclists stopping at pedestrian light and then going after peds.

Complete douche scofflaw reckless behavior. I'm stiff-arming or kicking away the next bike that buzzes me. Self defense.

Oh, and here are the stats everyone is talking about:

Douchebags at this crossing:

Pedestrians: 2%
Drivers: 0%
Cyclists: 100%

up
Voting closed 0

It's important to consider that stop lights and walk signals are 100% a product of the automobile age, and were never needed or designed to prevent accidents between bikes and pedestrians. In fact, in Amsterdam (and elsewhere) there are many very high traffic bike/pedestrian intersections with no traffic signals at all and injury rates are substantially lower than anything you'll find at a similarly popular intersection in Boston. Traffic lights were designed mainly with two things in mind: To give pedestrians an opportunity to cross a street where drivers would otherwise ignore the law requiring them to yield at crosswalks, and to improve the flow of motorized vehicle traffic by allowing cars to flow non-stop through an intersection where they would otherwise have to talk turns. By and large their effect on safety (for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians) has been almost entirely negative.

up
Voting closed 0

You've got to be a special kind of special to blame your inability to follow traffic laws on the "fact" that traffic lights cause more fatalities than they prevent.

Here's an exercise: There are plenty of roads in Boston (like Rt 9) that have both signalized and unsignalized pedestrian-only crosswalks without an intersection. There are also low speed roads with both intersections and unsignalized crosswalks. Tell me please, O Muses Of Traffic, which ones (historically) are safer?

up
Voting closed 0

You've got to be a special kind of special to blame your inability to follow traffic laws on the "fact" that traffic lights cause more fatalities than they prevent.

It's not that I can't follow them, it's that I choose not to because they make me feel less safe. You're making the implicit assumption that because a certain behavior is codified in law, it must be the ideal behavior from a safety perspective, but this is not supported by the data.

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/UnsigInter/exec_sum.htm

"There is increasing demand for signalization of urban and suburban intersections, and, even in rural areas, signalized intersections are becoming more common. However, experience shows that intersection crash rates frequently increase with signal installation, although the crashes may be less severe. Signalization usually leads to a shift in crash types, with fewer angle and turning collisions and more rear-end collisions. "

Note that this doesn't specifically account for car-bike or car-pedestrian collisions, which are obviously much more deadly in general. However I do know that one particularly fatal type of crash, where a person with a green light makes a left turn across a crosswalk with a walk signal, tends to be very common at signalized intersections.

up
Voting closed 0

is to make a new law that says

1. Intersections must be outfitted with traffic lights with enough indicators on them so that can be programmed to individually control, for example, left turns vs pedestrian green during periods of high traffic volume
2. Intersections with a persistently high traffic volume at any point in the day must be built with sufficient lanes to accommodate such signals
3. The signals must be programmed by competent traffic engineers (and not somebody's cousin who reports to somebody's brother) to maximize safety and pedestrian/vehicle throughput at a socially acceptable operating point

and best of all

4. Outfitted with cameras which can be legally used to fine violators.

Lack of professionalism will not be cured by more lack of professionalism.

Incidentally, you'll find I'm first in line to call BS on stupid laws (coughguncontrol...coughcoughmandatorybottledeposit...ahemahemdcrinchargeofmajorthoroughfares...excuse me, must be the pollen). I just happen to disagree one hundred percent that there should be one set of rules for drivers and a whole different set of rules for cyclists.

up
Voting closed 0

I just happen to disagree one hundred percent that there should be one set of rules for drivers and a whole different set of rules for cyclists.

Can you defend this position, given the vastly different consequences of hitting someone or something with a car vs. with a bicycle?

up
Voting closed 0

then no one gets hit. That's what makes a good set of rules.

Another property that makes a set of rules good is how easy they are to remember and to follow. Not just for you, but for everyone else, so you don't have any questions about whether the guy with red is going to move or not.

"No Turn On Red" signs at traffic lights are good. Everyone can see the sign. Everyone can understand that a car with or without his right blinker on stopped at a red light probably won't dart into the ped crossing to try to make a right turn.

Red and green lights are also good. Because you can see the red light for crossing traffic or the green light for crossing traffic. It's big, it's right there, and it's visible to everyone. Pedestrians know when it is that the cars that could hit them have a red or have a green. So they know that if a car is stopped and has red, he's (nominally) not about to dart into the ped crossing to go through.

Now if I as a pedestrian (or a motorist) have to guess at what some damn fool on two wheels feels like doing when he has red and I see that he has red, that's not safe. That's fucking China (for those of you who've been and did have the unique experience of playing frogger IRL).

If you as one of those damn fools on two wheels can't get the simple fact that I have eyes, I have ears, but I don't have psychic powers of precognition, then you honest to God deserve those vastly different consequences. Lastly,

I'll tell you again (as other posters have done) that getting hit by a cyclist at full speed may not kill you the way getting hit by a car at full speed, but it's no picnic and it could very well leave you crippled for a short or a long time. Who the fuck are you to insist that your ability to keep on living in bicycle fantasy land (when you should be living in the adult real world) trumps my ability to not get run over when I have the right of way as a pedestrian in a crosswalk with the walk sign on?

up
Voting closed 0

I would love to live in this idealized universe where everyone always stays inside the lines and drivers always behaved in a completely predictable manner. In this world, there would be no need for bike lanes, cycle tracks, or curb extensions because drivers would always know to check first before changing lanes or turning.

Sadly, we do not live in that world, and pedestrians and bicyclists are often hit by cars while using the road in a completely legal way. Consequently I, as a bicyclist, will sometimes choose to take the law into my own hands in a way that, I feel, makes me less likely to be maimed or killed. This does not mean forcing pedestrians to jump out of my way so that I can cross an intersection whenever I feel like it (since their safety or comfort is no more important than my own), but it does sometimes mean crossing against the light after pedestrians have cleared the crosswalk. Boston's poorly timed traffic lights often make crossing against the light without cutting anyone off not only possible, but easy. Lights are very often red with no one waiting to go the other way OR waiting at the crosswalk. Sure, I could wait, and put myself at risk of being right hooked, or creamed by some teenager that decides they want to drag race with someone else at the light, but what's the point?

up
Voting closed 0

It is a hubway which already has indicating marks on it. The newer ones have numbering on the side.

But regardless, It's not like the police care much when vehicles with registration plates do crazy and asshole things.

I can dig up about a thousand photos of cars driving in pedestrian/bike only areas if you're interested in the opposing asshole move. (And unlike a car barreling down a sidewalk, the bike isn't going to hurt a car.)

up
Voting closed 0

But regardless, It's not like the police care much when vehicles with registration plates do crazy and asshole things.

Which has NOTHING to do whatsoever with the question of bicycle registration. Not to mention that every argument against bicycle registration equally applies to motor vehicles. Unless you're suggesting that we should abolish the requirements to register motor vehicles as well.

Bicycles are legally vehicles - if cyclists want to use their vehicles on the public roads, they should be required to follow the same rules of ownership. Perhaps if cyclists acknowledged that they would get far more respect than the others on the road.

up
Voting closed 0

Registration and regulation is mostly a factor of the harm that can come to the general public if the activity in question is done incorrectly. Examples: An airline pilot can kill hundreds of people so they need extensive certification and training. A restaurant could give food poisoning the unsuspecting patrons so they have health inspections to help prevent that. A car can crash into people or property causing tremendous amounts of damage so car drivers need licenses & registration.

In contrast, a sky driver is unlikely to hurt anyone beyond themselves. A home cook might make their friends ill but isn't going to make a town sick. A bicycle rider can hurt themselves but (with rare exceptions) is unlikely to hurt others or cause property damage to objects apart from the bike.

Furthermore, roads are damaged based on the weight of the vehicle. A 30lb bike causes almost no wear and tear. A car causes a small amount of wear and a truck causes a larger amount. Hence it makes sense for fees to partially cover the cost of repaving roads and filling potholes. If people only rode bikes (I'm not suggesting that), then roads wouldn't need to be paved nearly as often nor as large and expensive to build.

The people arguing for bike registration are doing so out of jealously and not rational arguments. If a car weighed 30 pounds and could cause little damage to people beyond the driver your "public roads" argument would be sensible.

up
Voting closed 0

SOMEONE ON A BIKE DID SOMETHING STUPID SO I HAVE AN EXCUSE TO HARASS CYCLISTS WITH MEANINGLESS AND UNJUSTIFIED REGULATION.

Tell you what: I'll register my bike, but only if I get complete carte blanche to explodify motor vehicles in bike lanes and take out loud mouths who pass me too close when I'm riding over a goddamn sharrow next to a CYCLISTS IN ROAD sign.

One extremely stupid idea deserves an equally extreme and stupid one, right?

up
Voting closed 0

of bicyclists I see in the city do extremely stupid things like running red lights, weaving in and out of traffic and sidewalk, riding without lights or reflectors, riding in the opposite direction of traffic, and cutting off pedestrians who have the right of way. I nearly got run over by a bike when I stepped off the bus just last week.

The percentage of such reckless behavior is much lower for cars. MUCH lower. If drivers drove their cars the way that half of cyclists ride their bikes, we wouldn't have one of the lowest per-mile traffic fatality rates in the country. Period.

I'll speculate that this is because drivers understand the consequences of riding around in a 2 ton piece of moving machinery. Bicyclists don't. And they get themselves killed for it.

up
Voting closed 0

pedestrians who have the right of way. I nearly got run over by a bike when I stepped off the bus just last week.

I love this bogus argument. How many people where killed in the past year in Boston at the hands of someone riding a bike? How many by cars? When was the last time you saw gridlock due to a bike who tried running a red and got stuck in the middle of the intersection?

If drivers drove their cars the way that half of cyclists ride their bikes, we wouldn't have one of the lowest per-mile traffic fatality rates in the country. Period.

That's because Eastern MA has some of the lowest average vehicle speeds, not because of wicked awesome drivers.

up
Voting closed 0

How many people where killed in the past year in Boston at the hands of someone riding a bike?

if the threshold for giving a shit is a dead body, then I guess nothing is worth getting excited about.

up
Voting closed 0

Ok, seriously injured then? Moderately injured? Had to go to the hospital? How benign does a behavior have to be before you acknowledge that it isn't a real problem?

up
Voting closed 2

How's about not inches away from leaving a mark or sending one or both of us to the ground? Does that sound reasonable?

up
Voting closed 0

We didn't invent traffic laws and signals because cars were "inches away from leaving a mark," we did it because they were literally maiming people nearly every day in every city.

up
Voting closed 0

For 2010-2015.

Out of 9168 accidents with two parties involved, 5 involved a cyclists hitting a pedestrian, 2 involved a cyclist hitting another cyclist.

1400 involved a car hitting bicyclist or a pedestrian.

In other words: a car hits a cyclist or pedestrian in Cambridge about once a day. A bicycle hits a cyclist or pedestrian in Cambridge about once a year. And generally causes a lot less of an injury.

But, yes, let's address the real problem: bikes.

up
Voting closed 0

Don't you know reality has a well-known liberal bias?

up
Voting closed 0

I'd say they all skew King of Pointland, but what they'd hear is that it's a small, interconnected, multiculturalificated world that only they are smart enough to fully understand.

up
Voting closed 0

That would be the equivalent of your comment.

up
Voting closed 0

You bestow great honor by conferring upon me the title Jester, Your Highness.

up
Voting closed 0

No right of way for you!

Ditto if you aren't in a crosswalk at all.

The more you learn!

(I really despise pedestrians who jaywalk into my path when I a proceding on a green light).

Meanwhile, about 50% of motorists don't know the laws, are texting, and can't drive straight in their lane and don't know what a red light or blocking the box means or drive in bike lanes.(I pulled that out of my ass, just like you pulled your 50% out of yours). They kill vastly more pedestrians each year than cyclists do. Like 10,000 to 1.

up
Voting closed 0

cyclists who assume the red light doesn't apply to them and run through a cross walk (or a sidewalk) when I'm walking across the street.

up
Voting closed 0

But that cyclist is far less likely to hit you than the motorists who refuse to yield.

But there must be a special place in hell for morons who whine about "bikes red lights blah blah poop" when they are buzzed for jaywalking by a cyclist with a green light.

up
Voting closed 0

you'll have to tell me if there's actually anyone in it, because you did not hear a single peep out of me about getting nearly run over by anyone or anything when jaywalking.

Hell is hot and strawmen are flammable. You might find ashes though.

up
Voting closed 0

He didn't pull a number out of his ass, like you did. He noted his observation. There's a difference.

I don't pay enough attention to bicyclists in general to offer a percentage on all behavior but I have noted something downtown at evening rush hour.

In the past 2 years I've never noticed a bicyclist waiting thru the 4-way pedestrian lights at State and Congress during rush hour.
100% of bicyclists I've noticed cross that intersection on the pedestrian light. Same goes with Atlantic Ave between Faneuil Hall and Long Wharf.

That's what I've observed.

Percentage of motorists I've seen run either of those lights in the same time period? 0%
I certainly have seen drivers block the box and not yield right of way to pedestrians when turning. Way too often.

Again, just my observations.

up
Voting closed 0

In the past 2 years I've never noticed a bicyclist waiting thru the 4-way pedestrian lights at State and Congress during rush hour.
100% of bicyclists I've noticed cross that intersection on the pedestrian light. Same goes with Atlantic Ave between Faneuil Hall and Long Wharf.

I fail to see how this is not, in fact, the smart and reasonable thing to do when you are on a bike crossing this intersection. Once the light turns green, drivers treat it like a goddamned highway.

up
Voting closed 0

My whole point is some posters here continually deny that bike riders do this and in the process cause near misses with pedestrians. And then point out how bad drivers and pedestrians are as if that absolves the riders. It doesn't and I'm glad you admit it.

I'm in now way saying riders are worse than drivers or jaywalking behaviors. I'm saying it's bullshit to claim they're any better.

I am very prudent around all automobile traffic at all times. I'm not a fool. I do watch and wait for clear streets regardless of the lights.. And I've had asshole drivers not know the rules and try to drive thru crosswalks while turning.

But I've never seen one downtown during rush hour come out of nowhere and thru the red light at speed. Which can happen with bikes b/c they're trying to maintain speed and get thru the light. I get it.

I think we're on the same page b/c you're willing to admin you do it and that you've had close calls close to pedestrians. Many other posters seem to just want to blame the other groups.
Safe riding.

up
Voting closed 0

I think we're on the same page b/c you're willing to admin you do it and that you've had close calls close to pedestrians

To be clear, I do run red lights when I think it's appropriate, but I will never ride my bike in front of a pedestrian in such a way so as to force them to slow down or flinch, with or without the light. In particular, at the many unsignalized crosswalks all along Columbus Ave near Mass Ave, I try to be vigilant about stopping for every pedestrian I see aiming to cross the street. I am frequently buzzed by other cyclists and drivers (often several in a row) while doing this.

up
Voting closed 0

You seem like a considerate and very reasonable fellow. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for most of your cohort.

up
Voting closed 0

My "cohort" is an extremely diverse group (some very involved in the local bike scene, some not involved at all). I would be extremely hesitant to generalize about them. What I can tell you is that biking on the streets of Boston can be anxiety-inducing for all but the most experienced cyclists, and people who are feeling anxious are much less likely to pay attention to things like the pedestrians standing on the side of the road waiting patiently to cross the street. I can virtually guarantee that if cyclists were given a relaxing, separated facility where they didn't have to worry about being doored or T-boned, they'd be paying a lot more attention to things like stopping for pedestrians waiting to cross the street. Not all of them, I'm sure, but a lot of them.

up
Voting closed 0

With the one from Trevor when I just responded. You're both making sense to me and he mentioned almost hitting a pedestrian once.

Didn't mean to put any words you didn't write on you.

up
Voting closed 0

If 50% of motorists are so horrible, then 100% of cyclists are idiots for opting to use the road with so many dangerous motorists out there, while moving 20 mph slower, protected by nothing more than a plastic hat. If you value your life, put away the bicycle and drive a car.

up
Voting closed 0

Then surface roads in Boston should be closed to motor vehicle traffic.

Some of us live here, we're not just passing through at maximum feasible speed to get somewhere else. Our safety overrides your convenience.

up
Voting closed 0

Some of us don't think your right to plunk yourself down in any old inconvenient place and declare it home sweet sentimental home shouldn't trump our right to get where we need to go in order to earn a living.

up
Voting closed 0

People live in cities, not cars.

Cities are built for people, not for cars.

People have rights.

Cars do not have rights. They have NO SOUL. They need to be kept under control.

You make the same mistake that Ford Prefect made when he first arrived on Earth.

I think you are the one who needs to move if you can't get the difference between humans and cars.

up
Voting closed 0

Who is it that's using the cars, Dr. Knowitall? Are they just metallic shells careening about with blood in their dreams?

up
Voting closed 0

The people (sans cars) were here first, as were the bikers. Not that this matters. If your only defense for why we should all be driving is the danger created by other drivers, I'd call that a pretty narrow minded transportation policy.

And I'll put to you this counterpoint: Boston already has about as much car traffic as it can plausibly handle. If you want to be able to continue using your car to get around, it is imperative to you (the incumbent drivers) that any newcomers to the city get around using some other method, like biking, walking, and taking public transportation.

up
Voting closed 0

that you guys just go to every time you want it? Because it's always the same:

1. "Fifty percent of bicyclists are running reds, doing this, that, and the other thing..." Um...no they're not. I bike, I walk, I drive. I see bicyclists all day, every day. There are plenty of dumb, reckless careless bikers but fifty percent? Nope. Maybe one in fifteen is doing something where I think "dude--I'm glad you're not driving a car.".

2. Drivers are not driving recklessly at all. No sirree. Because they're so responsible and stuff with their gas-powered vehicles. Again...nope. There is no way you live and drive in Boston and don't see people driving like jackasses every day--texting, speeding, passing, weaving, failing to signal. It is CONSTANT.

3. " I almost got run over by a guy on a bike..." It is always "almost." Always. If I logged the close calls I notch up on a daily basis--and I bike with extreme caution-- because of drivers in cars not paying attention, texting, speeding, etc there would be no end to it. Seriously. Quit your bitching. "I almost got hit by a bike once" means zero. Zero.

up
Voting closed 0

"I almost got hit by a bike once" means zero. Zero.

Because I almost got hit by a bike yesterday because the bike was in the pedestrian right of way and failing to yield. Which is typical behavior. In the crosswalk. When the walk sign is on.

Drop the act, bike nuts. You're not fooling anyone.

up
Voting closed 0

Who just learned that pedestrians don't have unconditional right of way everywhere, all of the time?

up
Voting closed 0

if it's possible for you to do that on a Friday night.

Either we have traffic laws or its bikes and everything else that's in the way.

A pedestrian in a bus stop getting on the bus has precedence over a cyclist in a bus stop.

up
Voting closed 0

About 50% of drivers I see in the city do extremely stupid things like run red lights, make u-turns randomly without even signaling, block both sides of a street completely through combinations of delivery double parking, taxi and Uber type biz, cutting off pedestrians who have the right-of-way, and fail to understand and give right-of-way, period. 50%! Or whatever other percentage I deem it to be.

My so-called evidence: I watched at least 5 cars run the red iperpendicular to me onto Freeport St while the cars in front of me had the green on Morrissey Blvd, yesterday night. No, there wasn't even gridlock in the intersection to blame it on. They just didn't feel like waiting through the admittedly long light cycle there. It's anecdotal, but not worse evidence than your observational bias of this basket of deplorable bicyclists.

up
Voting closed 0

Your fifty percent number is bullshit. Here is a real number: 35000. That's how many deaths per year American drivers are responsible for. Pretty messed up how you get more worked up over a cyclist going through a red light* than you do over car drivers killing thousands.

*google Idaho stop and educate yourself. It's safer to bike through an empty intersection than to wait for a green light and go through a crowded intersection.

up
Voting closed 0

That stat in no way changes the fact that cyclists are in fact scofflaws and are menacing to pedestrians in Boston.

The fact that Masshole drivers in 2000 lb steel cages are more dangerous has no bearing on the former. It's not either or.

I understand the Idaho stop and why cyclists do it. Doesn't change the fact that it's illegal in MA and actually only part of the scofflaw behavior of cyclists.

When I'm driving it's definitely safer for me, in my car, to run a right turn on red light, as long as there are no cars coming. Even if I have to force pedestrians out of the way. As long as I don't hit a pedestrian this is statistically safer that waiting at the light and taking the chance of being rear-ended by someone texting.

But I don't do this nor would I try to justify it b/c I realize how it effects pedestrians.

According to cyclist logic I should be able to do this as policy as long as there are only near misses and "almost" accidents. As long as I don't ever hit a pedestrian startling them or almost hitting them simply doesn't matter. Has "zero" impact I think one poster said.

Also most rational adults have the ability to "get worked up" over more than one thing at a time. This too is not zero sum.

35k vehicular deaths is way too many. Sorry if I don't wait until that number comes down before pointing out a problem I deal with daily as a pedestrian in Boston.

This thread is actually about shitty cyclist behavior.
I'll be sure to post how worked up I am (and I will be) the next time Adam posts about a driver's shitty behavior.
Hope that makes you feel better.

up
Voting closed 0

According to cyclist logic I should be able to do this as policy as long as there are only near misses and "almost" accidents.

That's not what's being argued here at all. As has been pointed out numerous times, if that near miss or almost accident actually became an accident, the chance of it sending anyone to the hospital is minimal, and the odds of it killing someone are astronomically low. This is not true for cars.

up
Voting closed 0

This is my whole point.

Yes, cars are bigger and more dangerous. Doesn't mean bikes aren't menacing to pedestrians. I'm telling you, as a pedestrian, that they are. I've had a cyclist come inches from me while running thru a red light at full speed on Atlantic Ave.

I'm over 50. I need to get hit by a bike like I need a whole in the head. Speaking of my head, I could have easily been knocked down and hit my head. Who knows where that leads.

Also, these bikes that don't brake at all are certainly as dangerous as a car trying to creep thru a crosswalk on a right turn after stopping. That's the worst car behavior I see the most often (and it's wrong too.)

People certainly are arguing my point that you quoted. From an earlier post:

" I almost got run over by a guy on a bike..." It is always "almost." Always. If I logged the close calls I notch up on a daily basis--and I bike with extreme caution-- because of drivers in cars not paying attention, texting, speeding, etc there would be no end to it. Seriously. Quit your bitching. "I almost got hit by a bike once" means zero. Zero.

A cyclists words, not mine and there are similar sentiments on other posts.

up
Voting closed 0

(And unlike a car barreling down a sidewalk, the bike isn't going to hurt a car.)

So this means there's no problem with mixing bike and car traffic then?

up
Voting closed 0

The solution to deaths at the hands of careless car drivers isn't to eliminate bikes anymore then the solution to preventing salmonella is ban chicken.

up
Voting closed 0

the solution to death by stupidity of careless cyclists isn't to eliminate cars from the road, I take it?

up
Voting closed 0

Where do you see me arguing that cars should be eliminated? I drive. Cars are safe if used correctly.

The number of cyclists killed due to their own stupidity is far lower then you'd like to admit. (The above photo notwithstanding.)

up
Voting closed 0

I've had maybe a half dozen near misses with a cyclist when I was driving over the last ten years in Mass. Maybe (*maybe*) one of them was my own fault for not paying attention to the side of the road instead of the direction of forward travel.

The rest were a hundred percent the fault of the people on bikes assuming (correctly for their sake) that I saw them and then deciding unannounced to execute a rapid change in direction without indicating with their hands or even turning their heads to indicate their intention.

You really can't make a car turn on a dime like that, making such car-on-car scenarios rarer. And even then, you can see the front wheels turning, you can see the driver moving his head or his hands. Sometime people even use their blinkers. And the distances are larger and accelerations slower so there's more notice. When walking, I've never been surprised by a car, because I look and I wait. I've been surprised by a cyclist.

up
Voting closed 0

Behavior like this is another good reason why bikes should have registration plates.

People love to say this, but they never explain exactly what it would accomplish.

up
Voting closed 10

Wait, but there's clearly a shoulder in those pictures. Am I hallucinating?

up
Voting closed 0

There's a bit of pavement to the right of the white line, which randomly varies from about 2 feet to less than a foot. I wouldn't call it a shoulder.

up
Voting closed 0

Is this the 1960s 1970s all over again do what you want on our highways. Hitchhiking will be back soon.

up
Voting closed 0

Now people use their thumbs on the their phones and instead of offering a few bucks for gas they pay with a credit card.

Uber is modern hitchhiking.

up
Voting closed 0

It runs parellel to 93 along this section.
I have to think this guy was drunk or drugged or something.

I'm nervous as a passenger in a car along that stretch sometimes. Drivers are f-ing clueless of course and there's a lot of merging and exiting going on.

It would be beyond terrifying to me on a bike.

up
Voting closed 0

In all likelihood a tourist who took a wrong turn... typically hubway renters aren't city cyclists.

up
Voting closed 0

Where would a tourist be going on the SE Expressway?

What would be the drop off location for the bike?

Do tourists pack dust/surgical masks for riding around town? Its not exactly Beijing we live in.

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe not a tourist, but almost certainly a visitor from Asia, because yes, they do pack them. As to where, that could be anywhere a person would drive to along the expressway. Reason: GPS directions.

up
Voting closed 0

So I guess the dozen + folks who take the Hubways from a nearby residential rental kiosk every weekday morning between 7am and 9am are tourists?

up
Voting closed 0

I find that surprising. I generally see very few hubway bikes on my way to work in the morning, and the few I do see usually don't have a helmet or proper footwear or anything, which strongly implies that they are not a regular rider.

Also, I doubt anyone who has ridden a hubway bike would willingly subject themselves to that twice a day, every day. They're heavy, slow, and uncomfortable.

The 30 minute limit also discourages actual commuting (and discourages use in general for me), because if you can guarantee that your commute will only take 20 minutes (which is what I would want in order to have a buffer in case there was difficulty returning it, like a full kiosk) including waiting a signals, and the slow speed of the bikes, then you might was well just walk. Almost everyone I know who bikes to work has a longer commute than that.

Finally, the fact that hubway coverage is greatly reduced in the winter means that anyone intending on commuting via hubway needs to have another means of getting around for half the year - again discouraging its use.

I'm not trying to discredit your observation, I would just be very surprised if anyone actually used hubway to commute every day.

up
Voting closed 0

My commute to work is 20-25 minutes by bike (closer to 30 if I use a Hubway). Walking takes about an hour and 15 minutes.

I don't think a huge number of people commute by Hubway, but I know it must be some significant amount because the Hubway station near my house (Jackson Square) is always empty by 10 am and the one near my office (Congress St in Fort Point) is always full by 10:30.

up
Voting closed 0

My 20-25 min threshold was based on Hubway times, not regular bike times. So your commute would likely be too long for Hubway without getting charged a fee.

up
Voting closed 0

I've done it. It's not (partly because the Hubway station is a few blocks from my house, so the Hubway ride is a minute or two shorter than the bike ride).

up
Voting closed 0

At Aquarium. These aren't tourists. And your bike doesn't turn into pumpkin you'll just get charged more:

Ride Length
Usage Fee
0-30 minutes Included
31-60 minutes $1.50
61-90 minutes + $3
91+ minutes + extra $6 per each additional 30 min

I occasionally use them to commute as well. I don't think they'd be a sustainable biz w/o daily users.

They reallocate bikes (and docks) nightly to account for people using them at beginning and end of days at different locations, i.e commuting.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes I am aware of how the pricing structure works. I never claimed your bike "turns into a pumpkin". But if your commute is just over 30 minutes long, you'll be charged $3 every day in addition to your monthly or annual membership cost. Which is about the cost of a T pass. One of the main reasons I bike rather than take the T every day is to save money. If I still have to pay the same amount of money, that's one less reason to ride.

Finally, reallocating bikes nightly has nothing to do with people using them to commute, because bikes used to commute are largely returned to the same dock at the end of the day. Bikes needing to be reallocated between docks overnight is evidence that the majority of people do not use them to commute.

up
Voting closed 0

You can avoid the fee if you dock a bike at minute 25 and then take a new one and be on your way.

This really works.

up
Voting closed 0

Well, within reason...

I don't use Hubway to save money. I use it to save time and avoid the T and to get exercise.

The annual fee is so low at $85 bucks that I'd gladly pay 3 bucks more a day for a 40 minute bike ride that kept me off the T.

My rides usually come in under 30 mins but honestly the additional fees are barely a consideration if I go over. I've bumped into people and grabbed coffee or taken another lap on the Esplanade and haven't sweated the fees at all.

Having bikes at the ready is still an amazing concept to me.

I wouldn't want to keep one all day but even then its short money and extremely convenient compared to renting a bike.

up
Voting closed 0

Jesus, Mary and all the saints!

up
Voting closed 0

Is priceless.

up
Voting closed 0

Feeneys are in Dot and there are some new Hubway stations there.

Note to cyclist:

Next time you Google directions be sure to use the non-highway option.

Good Lord.

up
Voting closed 0

Is your friend.

up
Voting closed 0

How many consecutive bad decisions did this guy have to make to put him in that spot at that time?

He had to bike along a ramp and decide not to turn back the whole way. He had to merge onto the highway during rush hour. He had to cross over into the other lane.

Mind-boggling when you think about it.

Only good decision may have made was not to take the Red Line. At least the way we went he had a slight chance of getting to his destination on time.

up
Voting closed 0

Since we haven't heard any recent reports of dead or injured Asian bicyclists, we can assume he safely reached his destination, most likely in record time, since he bypassed all those traffic signals.

up
Voting closed 0

At all.

When it's Your Life/Save 15 minutes that's a no brainier. Which this guy could have been to if that Feeney truck or another didnt see him.

up
Voting closed 0

Traffic related air pollutants of most concern are either gases or particles too small for that mask.

up
Voting closed 0

Feeney brothers driver looks like a younger version of Archie Bunker
He is saying to himself geez Edith, look at what we have here..

up
Voting closed 0

What great characters!

up
Voting closed 0

"It's a baby fuckin wheel, kid!"

up
Voting closed 0

Bike or car?

up
Voting closed 0

Brilliant on the part of the rider.

And the ever-growing militant bike movement people in this city wonder why some people, drivers as well as pedestrians, don't support their interests.

If they nut case was hit the driver of a car or truck would get cited, and might also face a civil suit for injury when in fact the moron was clearly in the wrong. So much for responsible bicycling.

Friend of mine was crossing the street recently, in a cross walk mind you, and almost got wipes out by a bike rider, who clearly didn't know the "rules of the road."

I can only begin to hear the rants - from both sides.

Our society is failing.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously people--hasn't SOMEONE actually been hit by a bike? Because it would make a much better story.

If all of the cyclists here--and pedestrians for that matter--start posting about *every* time they "almost" got hit by a car then we'll never have time to talk about anything else. Ever.

up
Voting closed 0

I hit a pedestrian once. I had dodged out of traffic onto a sidewalk, then dodged around another pedestrian. She was walking out of an office building, and I was too close to the entrance. I hit her before I could even see her. I knocked a handful of papers out of her hands and (sorry this was years ago so my memory isn't 100%) I believe she fell to the ground.

I immediately stopped, helped her pick up her papers, and apologized what must have been a dozen times. She didn't seem upset, mostly stunned. I felt awful. I hope she didn't have any pain afterward, but I'm sure she was wary of cyclists after that.

It does happen, however seldom. I'm a much safer cyclist than I was then. I will still sometimes jump onto a sidewalk, but only when it's clear, and only far from building entrances.

(For full disclosure, this was in Seattle, where it is permitted for cyclists to use sidewalks. It's generally not a good idea regardless, but stopping on roads can be very unsafe, so approaching a destination it can be necessary for safely ending a ride.)

up
Voting closed 0

1. There's many potential collision because most bicyclists run red lights every day downtown at rush hour.

They usually stop for the light and then also go when the pedestrians get the light.
I see this every evening at State and Congress. I can honestly say I've never noticed a bike actually stay at a red light when all lights are for pedestrians. I never seen it. Ever. It might happen and I may notice the bikes riding past me rather than stopped but I'm pretty observant.

On the other hand I've never seen a car do this at that intersection. (They block the box and definitely run reds on right turns elsewhere but I haven't seen it here.)

2. There aren't actually accidents b/c bikes are smaller and more easily avoided by pedestrians. And of course the riders are in general much more nimble and in tune with their environment than car drivers.

I'm not against bikes at all but to deny this behavior is ludicrous. And to say cars are worse doesn't mean the bike riders aren't scofflaws as well.

An acquaintance drove drunk for decades. Never got in an accident and never got arrested but I'm sure he "almost" did many, many times. I guess it's OK since he never actually hit anyone? And pedestrians jaywalk so he can do whatever he wants because, why...

This argument makes no sense to me.

Cars are dangerous and big and frequently driven by Massholes. Bikes are smaller and less dangerous to pedestrians but frequently ridden by scofflaws downtown.
Everybody happy?

up
Voting closed 0

Note all the jaywalkers flooding out across water street when there is a green light for those going straight through.

I'm on that damn bell from the time that light turns green and I start across and still get stupid bastards going "mooooo" and "RED LIGHT".

up
Voting closed 0

Do you see any "militant bike movement people" here defending this idiot? No. No you don't.

up
Voting closed 0

They'd all come out of the woodwork, put up one of them ghost bikes, and scream to the heavens about how drivers on the f'ing highway should check their mirrors and crane their necks at 55mph to make sure there isn't some poor innocent cyclist there.

up
Voting closed 0

Saw a guy doing this on Rt. 2 west-bound from the Alewife rotary... granted, there are no signs prohibiting cyclists (though they did put up a no pedestrians sign after they added the Alewife lane)

Also saw another cyclist heading east on Rt. 2 right before the 95 overpass. Understand if he was confused and came from one of the tiny side-streets in Lincoln, right before the Cambridge Reservoir... in either case, common sense did not apply.

up
Voting closed 0

I've biked on Route 2 eastbound from Old County Road in Lincoln, through the 128 cloverleaf, to the next exit at Concord Avenue. Shoulders are pretty wide through there.

up
Voting closed 0

Most of Route 2 *could* be fine for biking, if they made sure there was a continuous shoulder, even a narrow one. And it would be very useful -- just look at a map of Lincoln and Concord and notice the lack of other through routes.

But the shoulder randomly disappears for no reason. Sometimes for very short stretches, which ruin the whole segment for biking.

up
Voting closed 0

The real problem with Route 2 in Lincoln is the high concrete barrier between the opposing lanes of traffic. That seriously reduces its usefulness for either cyclists or pedestrians (and even for some drivers). The state should reopen some of these intersections, adding median breaks and crosswalks.

up
Voting closed 0

Route 2 is a highway with highway sightlines and people drive it at highway speeds. I happen to have driven on it just a few hours ago. Putting (unsignalized) crosswalks on there is just asking for fatalities.

You want to put bridges over it for bikes or pedestrians? Sure. Crosswalks?! Get real.

up
Voting closed 0

This road was never terribly useful for cyclists and pedestrians. There are far better roadways in the area that actually go to things.

up
Voting closed 0

but the median barrier prevents it. That would be a very useful connection for cyclists and pedestrians (also to Page Road).

up
Voting closed 0

I once saw a guy trying to get on 93 at that same stretch, but on the NB side. He was promptly stopped by a state trooper. Another time, there was a cyclist on 93S right where the leverett splits before the tunnel. It definitely is something that makes you do a double take.

up
Voting closed 0

This rider has the same mindset found in people (millennials) who put their bare feet up on the table at Starbucks, who talk loudly into their phones or earpieces at the register when paying for groceries, despite the presence of a cashier trying to conduct business with them, who wear pajamas in public, and who just generally think that the world is their living room and no one else matters. I'm surprised he didn't have some hipster accoutrement like an old-timey typewriter strapped onto his back.

My guess is this idiot was raised by parents who told him he was "special" and that he "could do anything." Maybe he got one too many participation ribbons in school.

He endangered his own life, and possibly those of the other drivers. He could have been roadkill.

up
Voting closed 0

God, is there nothing Millennials can't ruin and despoil?

Not like our generation. We weren't mollycoddled; why, we rode around in back seats without seatbelts, and we smoked cigarettes when we were 10, and our parents thought nothing of slapping us upside the head if we sassed off. And we liked it! Well, those of who weren't killed in horrible crashes or died of lung cancer or whatever. But kids, these days! Jesus Christ, get off my lawn, you bums!

up
Voting closed 0

No one is suggesting that other generations don't have faults, but at least with other generations you could find redeeming qualities.

But just look at millennials... yeeesh!

up
Voting closed 0

And enough of them to condemn millions of people?

up
Voting closed 0

Let me guess - the "now it is MY turn to hate on young people" generation.

How trite.

up
Voting closed 0

You know, the one that caused crime rates to explode vastly beyond anything we have seen before or since?

"The Baby Boom" was a massive disaster of violent crime unparalleled by any other in recorded history. Maybe it was because they were slapped around a lot and huffed a lot of lead exhaust? The ones who also exploded the teen birth rate and the drug abuse rate and other impulse-control related metrics. OH BUT MILLENNIALS WEAR PYJAMAS IN PUBLIC! CLUTCH THOSE PEARLS!

No matter - baby boomers don't get to lecture anyone about self control, given the history of their lack of it.

up
Voting closed 0

sloth

up
Voting closed 0

Granted, this guy is a complete ignoramus. No one will deny that.

However: what are you, a Baby Boomer? Generation X? If you're a Baby Boomer, thanks so much for fucking up the economy and the country so horrifically that no one can go to college or to the hospital without potentially taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt. If you're Gen X, thanks so much for raising millennials to be this way.

Good luck getting anyone younger than you to take care of you when you're old and enfeebled, honey.

up
Voting closed 0

when they're old and enfeebled, hopefully millenials recognize what is best for the world and let them die as quick as possible

up
Voting closed 0

As a millennial who worked in retail for a few years, the ONLY people who talk on the phone through earpieces at supermarket checkouts are soccer moms and middle aged business-types.

up
Voting closed 0

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Sect...

If there is a sign prohibiting a bicycle on the Southeast Expressway, then the bicyclist violated this law.

up
Voting closed 0

NOT ONE BICYCLIST HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS MORON HE SHOULD BE riding on a vehicle that he drive by blowing through a straw on his wheel chair.Cause he knew what he was doing .As bad as it sounds if he got himself killed GREAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR IT

up
Voting closed 0

NOT ONE BICYCLIST HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS MORON HE SHOULD BE riding on a vehicle that he drive by blowing through a straw on his wheel chair.Cause he knew what he was doing .As bad as it sounds if he got himself killed GREAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR IT

up
Voting closed 0

NOT ONE BICYCLIST HAS ANYTHING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS MORON HE SHOULD BE riding on a vehicle that he drive by blowing through a straw on his wheel chair.Cause he knew what he was doing .As bad as it sounds if he got himself killed GREAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR IT

up
Voting closed 0