Roving UHub photographer Tim Murphy reports that as he was getting on the Expressway northbound at Neponset Circle, so was this woman on a bike. She then managed to "claim" the right lane at 10 to 15 m.p.h.
In a rational transportation world, some part of that hideous scar through Dorchester would be devoted to bicycle commuters. Can you imagine the joy of living in Neponset or, really, anywhere in Dorchester and being able to make it to Boston in less than half the time than currently? And, ten times as safe.
Now, this particular bicyclist is probably a lunatic, but he may be pointing us in the right direction.
This is my neighborhood. Neponset to Adams to Dot ave is a straight away to downtown. There is new (kind of twisty) bike trail under the viaduct at Broadway. The fourth street bridge is where I cross over the train tracks. It can be unsafe because driver's pretend it is four lanes. Unfortunately, the is no bike lane either, and the sidewalk is quite narrow. The Traveler St bridge is marked for four lanes but the sidewalk is much wider. But Dot and Broadway is a much worse place to make a left turn than Dot Ave and 4th. (PS many bridges and ramps are marked to direct cyclists onto the sidewalk).
The commute takes 25 to 35 minutes which is equal to taking the bus and subway. Driving would only be shorter if know where you are going to park when you arrive.
The easiest way to fix this would be allowing bikes and pedestrians on Dot Ave past the Fort Point Post Office.
There's no legitimate reason for the ban. In fact, much of it even has even been built as a part of the Harborwalk sidewalk, except it's fenced off: https://goo.gl/maps/8DZsAMWqxYR2
Now that the Independence Avenue entrance to Quincy Adams has finally reopened, this should be our next big pedestrian/bike access campaign.
especially because by himself. for at least a couple more years we can tolerate the negativism and psychosis of motorists who are slow to join the human race; however time is short, and in a few short years we will all have to take over the street with our bicycles, in civil *obedience*, quite frankly, because WE CAN take the whole lane on most streets, and help car drivers achieve their final Darwinian aim: to make travel by car impossible in artery-clogged Boston. you, as a psychotic motorist, might die hating this joking on gall, but that doesn't matter at all. not at all.
but we aren't there just quite yet.
Mechanized transport freed Man from a great deal of the tyranny of the genetic crapshoot. No longer necessary to be the strongest or the fastest, merely the smartest. Good to see that BikeSIS wants to reinstitute the supremacy of the strong.
One less reason to call cyclists nazis.
People are far healthier when they get out of cars and save the machines for those unable to manage otherwise.
This is where cars are supposed to be. This is their rail trail.
It is illegal to bike on the freeways in MA.
There are some places in Iowa, etc. where the freeway is the only roadway and cycling is specifically permitted.
Something something cyclists are a menace or whatever.
But don't worry, I'm sure our photographer was totally not driving at the same time as scoring this pic.
For every one cyclist on the interstate there are 5 drivers who get suck when they drive onto green line tracks. (Both groups are idiots.)
And much could be added to your statement. For every driver that gets their car stuck on the Green Line tracks there are 20 cyclists on any given rush hour bombing through red lights on Comm and on Huntington Aves. The photo wasn’t posted as an attack on cyclists. More of a general, “OMG, look at this idiot!”
At least a bike running a red light won't cause gridlock like what happens at 100s of intersections daily when car drivers decide to proceed when there isn't space on the opposite side.
There's idiots driving and cycling (and walking) but only one group actually causes big delays to others with their selfishness.
Plenty of cyclists who play "chicken" with the cars and other motor vehicles by running red lights end up dead or permanently maimed, as well.
Which is what the previous comment was about.
Traffic had stopped and I noticed her going by. So I snapped this photo using my phone mounted on my dash. I merely snapped this pic to highlight the dangers of doing what this person decided to do. So take a deep breath and relax.
Thats great that you think it was safe, pardon me if I don't agree.
Edit: Hey also you never said when you posted the pic. Did you send it from your phone while your car was actually, legally stopped?
I busted one asshole for emissions already - belching black smoke directly onto people on the UMass Amherst campus. Removing your entire emissions control system ain't allowed in these parts!
Also got good evidence of a nutjob motorist on the MassPike who was harassing another motorist for unknown reasons (but in extremely dangerous ways).
Camera went in when Junior started driving. Was recommended by the Driver's Ed people because older drivers pull shit and then try to blame the young ones, apparently.
I can totally maniuplate a phone and a speeding 2,000 pound metal box at the same time, I don't know what's wrong with you, I just don't want to drop my coffee while I'm doi
in person. Love the velophiles who rail against the four wheel internal combustion menaces. If you can do the minimum highway speed then good luck. Other than that, stay over by the curb.
You would be hard pressed to find a cycling advocate who thinks this is a good idea.
If anything, cars should just all stay on the road that was built for them all the time!
There’s a cycling advocate that is more concerned that a motorist took a photo than the cyclist on the Expressway.
But of course, he’s an outlier.
Yes ... and?
That is not the same as advocating for cyclist use of an interstate freeway.
Sorry, but, BZZZZT
He looks at it a different way than the rest of us do.
If you're going to intentionally miss the original point about distracted driving to score a few points, you do you.
Fact is, driver showed up in the thread to confirm that they were in fact driving distracted. This thread has only further confirmed the other half of my point, which was a single cyclist on the express way will spark more faux outrage than distracted driving does from the car apologist community.
A cyclist riding in an area clearly marked off limits to bicycles (and pedestrians and horses) is not the issue here at all. It’s the motorists, as always.
His comment is about the faux outrage of driver's and your comments are the perfect example.
People shouldn’t be outraged that a bicycle traveling 10 to 15 MPH was traveling on a high speed limited access highway where bicycles are not allowed?
Just don't go fooling yourself that its a recurring epidemic to worry about, like for instance, distracted driving.
As your comments illustrate, outrage is not equally distributed. No one expects cars to be banned from roads when they operate unsafely. No one complains that driver's are constantly running red lights and texting, so why do they get a new lane added to the highway.
One does expect unsafe cars to be banned from roads, evidenced by laws on vehicle safety and inspections on an annual basis to ensure cars are safe. People also complain constantly about red lights being run, but there are no red lights on this road. Also, this driver was not texting. He was kind of aware of what was occurring on the road.
As far as added lanes, since this is a story about cycles on roads where cycles are banned, I’ll just take your comment to mean you’re okay with cars driving in lanes that were once okay for vehicles but given over to bicycles. I mean, I object to cars doing that, but you all seem down with traffic being mixed.
Oh well that sort of distinction makes me feel so much safer, golly gee can you bend over any further in your worship of cars?
Your response here is really poorly written, I'm really not sure what you are getting at. Its illegal for bikes to be on limited access roads, ok we all agree. Its illegal for motor vehicles to park in a bike lane and only legal for them to travel in a bike lane when turning on or off the road. We all agree there. Like what are you getting at here?
But regardless the last part of that comment is very interesting, almost like you're grasping at straws here.
When one cyclist does something wrong, drivers say cyclists should be be banned. The reverse is never true. If someone dies in a car accident, no one says "Well, its not safe to drive on that road or next to that truck". When the state or city wants to add a lane to a roadway, no one says that cars don't deserve a lane because it makes it harder for people to cross the street.
When a cyclist does something boneheaded, non-cyclists make a note of it, but the next step you note ("ban bicycles") does not happen. Rather, it is noted that cyclists tend to note that they are much better than drivers, whereas they have the same mindset as those in motor vehicles. Conversely, well, I don't know if Kinopio rides a bicycle, but check out any article Adam has run on a crash involving a motor vehicle, even one that only involves a motor vehicle. And he's just the ultimate on the issue. I would say that if either one of us truly had spare time on our hands, we could survey the comments here. My bet is that those comments wanting cars banned would greatly outweigh those saying the same for bicycles.
Most people, and this goes for whatever mode of transportation they use (which of course also includes people who use multiple modes) look at drivers, cyclists, and even pedestrians who do boneheaded things and refer to it as just that. They want all modes to be able to get along. For me, a cyclist on the expressway is no different than a car parked in a bike lane. Spin couldn't handle the idea that someone on a bicycle was doing something dangerous, so he deflected so he could show that a driver, rather than a cyclist, was in the wrong. For some, it's 2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad.
When cars are no longer an option due to their unsustainable nature.
First, I think we should both wish to be around in 50 years, but since I'm younger and doubt it for me, we'll look to our kids (or grandkids) who will be tooling around in hydrogen vehicles. Or electrics that suck from the teet of the humble atom (from power plants via charging, not individual nuclear reactors.) At the end of the day, personal vehicles represent freedom, be it 4 wheels or 2.
Still, kind of off topic.
I know dispensaries are open now, but that's cute.
Hydrogen is very carbon intensive to produce.
The idea that you would bother doing a survey of anything is laughable. Your presentation of facts are superficial. If you have failed to notice that general reaction to a car crashing into a bicycle is "cyclist should avoid that road" or "cyclists should not ride next to that vehicle" then your reading is superficial too. Perhaps you do believe that you are outnumbered, as indicated by resorting to marginalizing your opponents when you have no facts.
The point you willfully ignore is that distracted driving (as in taking a picture while driving) happens constantly without comment. Nobody snaps a picture of a bad driver on their phone, posts it and gets any notice. But keep pretending that everyone here is anti car.
Noting that someone should use care when they travel is very different than saying that they should be banned.
By the way, lines like
resorting to marginalizing your opponents when you have no facts
is indicative of how much you distain people pointing out holes in your arguments. It's subtle bullying. I mean, we could have a discussion without getting personal, but one of us certainly does love going in that direction.
Using labels like agenda, outlier is marginalization of your opponent. Cue playing the victim, next sea lion trick.
I might disagree with people's agendas, but if someone were to accuse me of having an agenda, I would feel that my goal would be to either agree or refute.
And once again, I notice that when you cannot counter an argument, you start with the name calling. I often hope you would rise about such tactics, but here we are, yet another time.
who called you a name?
You don't even know when you do it.
I described a stage of sea lion trolling and and you picked it up and wore it like a glove. Do you have opinions or information related to this thread?
Read what I fucking wrote that caused you to reply.
You, on the other hand, only have opinions on what I wrote. How do you size up in this scenario? Way to be you.
I made several comments in this thread. in only one part I replied to you misrepresent ing and nitpicking spin 's comment. Do you really not see the irony of taking your hands off the wheel to use your phone's camera and internet to pay a picture of a bad cyclist?
I don't know what your opinion is. every time some one responds to your "questions" you find another nit to pick. Trolling should be a choice. Now you are upset. Do you want to be ignored? Why are you complaining about my responses to your comments?
And your obsession might not be healthy.
But you have to be you.
By that same "logic", you are also obsessed.
Do you have any opinions or facts relating to this thread?
I'll no longer comment on this thread, but the next time you start censoring me, I'll make sure to note it, because by putting conditions on my opinion as to whether or nor someone once posted something that could be seen as saying that a bicycle on the Southeast Expressway is no big deal, that's what you are doing.
Happy New Year.
Playing the victim is dishonest. Are you claiming to express an opinion on this subject? Why would you misrepresent that anyone thought it was ok to ride a bicycle on the expressway?
Recall that you didn't think that was a valid argument in a previous debate we had but if thats back on the table, look no further than the recent thread about a car hitting a light post, which has 7 comments. Also you'll notice that Kinopio didn't post there, so theres that.
Again, you are intentionally missing the point is a desperate attempt to make a point. As you've seen, I haven't defended the cyclist and have acknowledged that its super illegal. The motorist was also in the wrong but like I said, watch as people try to conflate the two as equally dangerous.
Each comment you add to this thread just re-enforces my original point. I'm also really glad you mentioned that a bike driving on the expressway is no different from a bike in the car lane. I mean it is different, in that one happens magnitudes of times more than the other but lets forget that for a moment. I'm so glad you acknowledged that blocking the bike lane with a car is dangerous because the usual knee jerk reaction to cyclist complaints is "whats the big deal, go around." It just happens to neatly fit into your narrative here so it gets mentioned.
Honestly at this point, I don't know what you are arguing, I think you're doing it for the sake of argument because I dunno, you don't like when people point out the obvious double standards that come with road safety?
That's my argument.
But accusing one of deflecting while deflecting yourself, well yeah I really didn't expect a middle school response but here we are. After your deflection points get shut down of course.
Once again, thanks for helping to prove my point :)
I mean, you definitely felt that the outrage with a cyclist on the Southeast Expressway was a bit much compare to the crime of someone whipping out a phone to photograph it.
Your words, not mine. (Well, okay, I'm paraphrasing, but seriously look at your words.)
OP: you would find it hard to find anyone who thinks biking on an interstate is a good idea
Argumentboy: scroll up - there is one who doesn't like people using phones while driving!
(many replies and logical fallacies later)
Argumentboy: YOU"RE DEFLECTING
It's not, actually. Texting while driving is illegal, bu you can use a hand-held cell phone in Mass while driving.
If you can do the minimum highway speed then good luck.
The cyclist was passing vehicles.
What is this minimum highway speed, again? If there is one in MA, then a whole lot of vehicles need to be forced off the roads so that vehicles can travel that speed, right?
Generally, "minimum" is supposed to be 10 mph below the posted limit. So, if the posted limit is 55 and your '63 Newport is breathing on only one lung and can't reach 45 - you shouldn't be on that road.
Of course, that goes with the consideration of the actual limit maybe being lower based on what is safe for existing conditions.
Also, someone going "the minimum" or shall we say 'slower that the rest of free-flowing traffic" has the obligation to keep right (rightmost through-lane (or second lane when needed to get around dangerous entry/exit traffic)). Obstructing the passing lane (even if the traffic in it is (trying to) move at an illegal high speed) is a form of aggressive driving - dangerous and illegal (in most states) the same as tailgating or speeding.
This kind of behavior needs to be curtailed by severe penalties and quickly or copycats will lead to widespread carnage as happens regularly on India's Highways.
Drive or preferably ride with someone experienced and experience multi-lane [sometimes more lanes of traffic then there are marked lanes] -- this is from a personal observation on the National Highway from Delhi to Agra in 2011 -- the road was sprinkled with:
all moving at various speeds of slow
and then you have to try to coexist with with loose animals -- sometimes with human minders leading them--
and you are in the midst of roaring, smokey motor scooters -- sometime with passengers as well as the driver
and then the majority of the vehicles -- all sizes of trucks, buses and cars -- many often driving without headlights at night and /or making up lanes as they see fit
a semi-worst case scenario in the heart of the Bengaluro -- the "Indian Silicon Valley"http://www.fakingnews.com/fnimages/1002x564/proportional/jpeg/uploads/20...
Carnage is common as there is no enforcement of minimum speeds -- it there are any
The only reason the death toll is not as high as you might expect -- often times the multi-hour traffic jams are barely moving
Bicycles and people just can not coexist at highway speed with tons of fast moving metal without there being a lot of death a destruction or else everything has to move as slow as the slowest non-motorized vehicle -- might as well have people pushing baby carriages and walkers with their packs of dogs
In short follow this path and you are at the beginning of the 'Road to Insanity"
With very few exceptions, no one wants to ride on major highways or thinks they should be able to. A few times a year some wack job rides up a ramp but they are the bike equivalent of people who ignore the low clearance signs on the river roads.
I thought the road to insanity is not punishing anything that motorists do, including killing people while driving a truck that was legally required to have a pilot car.
Us cyclists ain't got nothing on the insane, entitled, and completely enabled shitty motorists around here when it comes to "road to insanity". Sorry.
The automobile industry lobby hasn't made it to India. The death toll would be lower if you remove the cars, however there isn't much profit in that.
This is it. The freeway.
Google does have bike directions ... ugh.
if the cyclist is going 10-15 mph and *passing* the cars, she's probably not doing much harm to either herself or the drivers.
That is the hard part of navigating any quasi highway for me (morrisey) Because of the angle and speed of the cars, it is next to impossible to cross safely.
Off ramps are also tough but mostly because Massholes never use their turn signal.
The safety problem with traffic jams is that the cyclists are hidden from most driver's line of sight (and people think its safe to text in jams). Driver's can be very aggressive in Jam's as well. They run more reds, and block bicycle lanes.
What was this woman's state of mind doing something so dangerous and foolish? She needs psychiatric help.
for the "highways should be for bikes anyway" comments. Don't disappoint me, Universal Hub.
Do tell us when you find one - I hear they look like this:
There are places where on-ramps blend into bike-accessible roads, and it's understandable to accidentally ride onto them, and once that happens bicyclists don't have a lot of great options for gracefully exiting. Neponset circle REALLY isn't that. Although the non-limited-access roads there aren't the most comfortable options available, the ramp is still a pretty obvious break between the ground level roads and the expressway.
Now this, this is world class . . .
That would mean that few would need to travel by car - like in the Netherlands.
is far different than Boston and the United States, generally. Many of the European countries, including the Netherlands, especially in the cities, are even more densely populated than here in the United States, and have even bigger traffic problems. That's why there are fewer cars in Holland.
Boston is far more like a European city than it is like a western US city founded in the last century.
I've biked around enough Euro cities (Paris to Chinon via Tours; Barcelona, Munich, Berlin, Ireland) and US cities (particularly LA, SFO, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Chicago etc.) to recognize where Boston falls on the spectrum of city design. Like the Euro cities, Boston is old school city planning. Boston's population density is more comparable with a mid-size euro city (including most cities in the Netherlands) than it is with most US cities.
Boston should be taking its cue from compact and dense cities in Europe, since it is both compact and dense and similarly medieval in layout.
in general, is true, but that's also true of many, if not most of the older cities here in the United States, as well.
That, in a nutshell, is what makes the fact that so many people are trying to make Boston into a so-called world-class city so weird.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy