A concerned citizen minces no words:
GET THESE VALET JERKS OUT OF THE BIKE LANES.THESE CARS DO NOT BELONG HERE EVER EVER EVER! Enforce the law before somebody gets killed.
Ah valets and cab drivers. If only there was some sort of way to ensure people knew the rules of the road before they were allowed to have a driver's license... oh wait there is. It's just that the written portion is only 10 questions. Driver's License, written tests should be harder than SATs, and the driving portion should be held on a track that looks like the Nurburgring.
Hmm. Do people on bikes take any test? They want to share the road but they don't want to adhere to the rules of the road.
Hmm...a flat generalization about "people on bikes"...and how "they" don't want to adhere to the rules of the road. Every. Last. One. Of. "Them".
You sound like a first rate thinker.
Yeah. I think we should test all of the cyclists, especially the ones on training wheels.
about cab drivers and valets not knowing the rules of the road.
They know the rules, they just choose not to follow them. Same can be said for anyone illegally operating a vehicle on the road, be it a cyclist, cab or driver. They know what they are doing.
at least most of the cars do manage to stay on the road where they belong rather than flying down the occasional sidewalk.
Really? "Cars" (I think you mean drivers...) manage to stay off sidewalks? Not from what I see:
Funny how on a regular basis someone screams out their window "GET ON THE SIDEWALK!" to me...
Also funny how nobody seems to have noticed that the post came from someone riding in a car...
Because all drivers follow all the rules of the road too. This is Boston, after all.
Drivers who complain about bikes not following the rules is like Yankee fans bitching about Baltimore's payroll.
That the car is in the bike lane. This is not a picture of a cyclist speeding through a red light or riding on the sidewalk. But really--your "But Billy was playing ball in the house tooooooo!" line of argument is super effective.
Although in MA that isn't exactly anything much of an achievement.
I have to bike by this all the time back and forth for work. Seems like the only way to rectify the problem is to enact some u-lock justice. I'm sure the valet will stop putting cars there if the side mirrors of their clients keep getting smashed.
and this is why drivers and pedestrians alike hate many cyclists - because they think vandalism and destruction of property are reasonable responses to anything that irks them. My apologies to the 5% of cyclists in Boston who actually stop at crosswalks as required (the rules are the same for bikes as they are for cars, buses, trucks and motorcycles).
Generalizations are fun, eh?! Please don't lump us into the very sparsely populated category of road operators that resort to vandalism and violence.
To the 5% of drivers who aren't on their cellphones, eating, doing their makeup while stopped in the middle of the crosswalk, ignoring their signals, speeding, parked in the bike lane, opening their car door into the bike lane four feet in front of me...shall I go on?
Seriously. I have plenty of words for bikers who act like jerks but it is NOT 95% of them or anywhere near it. Nor does my list above actually apply to 95% of drivers but boy--sometimes it seems like it. The difference? Most of the time the biker who runs the red is endangering himself. The drivers who drive like idiots are much more likely to hurt or kill me or someone else.
You make it sound like I do this to innocent people who are driving.
-If you are a cab/private car service and you're blocking the bike lane in traffic or cut me off, your side mirror is coming off.
-If you are in a car and turn left without looking while I'm in the bike lane next to you and you don't see me because you're staring at your phone, doing your makeup, or eating...your side mirror is coming off
-If you're one of those morons on the Mass Ave bridge that when you reach the end and try to turn without looking to see if anyone in the bike lane is coming...your mirror is coming off.
It's simple, really. There's a reason why it's called u-lock justice. If you drive like a moron and it puts me in danger, your car is going to pay.
put you in such danger that you feel the need to resort to a criminal act (i.e. willful destruction of property)?
If the lane is blocked, move around the obstruction. After all, wasn't that the rationale the bike lobby used to prevent the Legislature from making it a legal requirement for cyclists to use bike lanes where they are provided?
When there is a steady stream of traffic, and you are going full speed, and someone is blocking the bike lane, it is extremely dangerous trying to move around the 'obstruction' as it's highly possible to get clipped by a car in the next lane.
The point is, the lane shouldn't be blocked in the first place.
That is why liability insurance and license plate id should be required. There are cameras all over the place,eventually you will be caught smacking mirrors. Then it will be time to pay the piper. Leaving the scene after causing property damage ect, ect.
-If you are a cab/private car service and you're blocking the bike lane in traffic or cut me off, your side mirror is coming off.
Could you 'splain how it is that I can back into a parking space without stopping in the bike lane?
Use common sense, if I see that you're trying to back into a parking space, you're cool with me. I'm talking about the people who just double park in the bike lanes since there is no other parking spot.
You sound like the douchebag who decided that he should be able to ride his bike across Park Ave in the crosswalk (when I had a green light) and then broke my side-view mirror when I honked at him and didn't slam on my brakes.
Good generalization, but that wasn't me. I don't know any cyclist who know what they're doing that would bike across the crosswalk.
I send my condolences to you and your side mirror.
Yet the sense of righteous anger and entitlement seems exactly the same. I'm sure he felt every bit as justified in breaking my mirror as you do.
Witnessed a cyclists flying through the Comm. Ave Mall run over a dog's paw last week. The lady walking her dog was horrified as was everyone else who saw it. Poor dog was in serious pain. The guy never stopped or apologized. He wasn't supposed to be riding there and he didn't care that it was crowded with little kids playing -- it's cyclists like this guy and like you who don't give a f*ck about anyone else and who are a menace on the road that make so many pedestrians like me sick and tired of your constant bitching and moaning. Don't ride in the city if it makes you such a wretched person prone to angry violent outbursts. Don't advocate violence you idiot. Walk or take the T like the rest of us.
This is so totally related to valets using bike lanes.
A cyclists. Okay.
I got bitten by a dog once outside of Whole Foods. Boy--dogs suck. Clearly they're all prone to violent outbursts and should be banned. Mine included. And yeah--Whole Foods sucks too. Arrghhh!!
Seriously. What does your Comm Ave jerk cyclist have to do with jerk valets in South Boston?
How would you like it if there was random damage to bikes locked up with this u-lock you mention?
Where are the road decals for the drivers of this city? We plastered "Wear a helmet, No excuses" to let bikers know that they should wear helmets for safety and are solely responsible for any injuries they suffer. Personally, I wear a helmet but its not required by law. I think encouraging helmet use is part of creating safer streets, even if the campaign reeks of victim blaming and fails to address the real issue, which is adherence to the actual laws of the road by both cyclists and drivers alike.
Why aren't we plastering the road with "Put your phone down, No excuses" or "Signal, check your blind spots and mirrors, No excuses." There are examples of things that are illegal under Mass. law because they create unsafe driver conditions and there are examples of things that are not illegal but still create unsafe driving conditions.
Why are we focusing on temporary enforcement of some laws but not other laws? I rode by one of the BPDs cyclist helmet/lights check points near Packard Corner, no less then two blocks back there was a delivery truck blocking the bike lane entirely. BPD couldn't be bothered to ticket them.
Local governments are getting conditioned to do little in many areas unless they get a grant for it. For police, they get state grants for bike safety, speed traps, and DUI checkpoints with quotas for high visibility stops. If a police officer is distracted by another type of violation, he could lose the funding for that hour of his pay under the grant terms.
Wasn't there a recent campaign against texting and driving? I remember seeing a profusion of TV commercials and billboards very recently. And there's nearly always an anti-drunk driving commercial in rotation. And those click-it or ticket spots are still pretty frequent. It's perception - you're going to notice spots aimed at you more than those aimed at other demographics. Personally, I can't remember seeing the helmet stickers recently but it's probably because my bike is in my part-time living place in the Midwest right now. Where, incidentally, biking to my white collar job at an arts organization is apparently a radical, possibly insane idea that I probably have because I'm from the radical, possibly insane Northeast. Or so I've been told. They don't seem to care whether you wear a helmet there or not - if your brains get scrambled, it's just one less commie pinko environmentalist to protest concealed carry permits.
Reason #73,802 why BPD / City of Boston should have jurisdiction over their jodhpur clad friends in the Seaport. You think Massport has a complaint line or at least one that will get answered? Good luck with that one. Try asking an on duty Statie in the Seaport a question and try not to get an answer that makes you think they have been watching Dale Carnegie videos read by R. Lee Ermey.
As the seaport area grows and with Eastie waterfront in development the Massport and BPD really need to work these jurisdiction issues. Massport should focus on the actual transportation aspect of safety and security and simply supplement the BPD. Just because they control a whole bunch of land does not mean BDP should give up control to them. As more residents move in they are going to start to demand more than massport can provide.
Massachusetts loves fiefdoms more than anything.
If you get mugged on a sidewalk on a bridge by a parkway, near the interstate in the City of Boston alongside a MassPort-owned lot, you might as well create an interagency task force to coordinate who gets to respond to your 911 call.
bike lanes are no better enforced when BPD is in charge.
Are nothing but a nuisance. Cars are king and are here to stay.
You're a nuisance.
Do you thing your stupid bike parts get into the city, via unicycle?
Probably not by a car parked by a valet.
are nothing but an idiot.
People do. Deal with it.
Enjoy sitting in traffic ... maybe we'll send a crane to extract you when you get there, obese as you must be.
The BPD should have full jurisdiction of the area. As others have said, the valet parking, is a major safety issue. Bicycles are forced to weave in and out of traffic. In addition, many motorcycles do the same thing.
unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the city actually cares about the bike lanes they've installed. it's almost like they just painted some lines on the ground to try to appease cyclists and make it look like they're doing something to make boston "a world-class biking city." the bike lane on Mass Ave by Huntington is often full of buses or trucks, and repeated complaints to the city have returned responses of "yeah, we told them to park there. ride in the street."
only a small group of crying bikers. Get over yourselves.
Go Suck A Railroad Spike
If I pounded a metal pole into the middle of a traffic lane on Atlantic Ave and locked my bike to it you can bet car drivers would be pissed and vocal.
There is so much whining whenever a bike lane is put in and makes people drive straight.
creating bike lanes, which is normally done by converting a street with two general purpose lanes into a street with one travel lane and one bike lane, actually reduces the effective capacity of that street for everyone without a significant improvement in safety. And the worst part is that, unlike proposed improvements for drivers, the cycling lobby doesn't even have to prove that the bike lanes are justified by the number of cyclists, will make a marked improvement in overall safety (unless you think permitting cyclists to travel even closer to parked cars than before or pass stopped or turning traffic on the right somehow improves safety).
IMHO, objecting to the imposition of bike lanes everywhere is not whining - it's a common sense reaction to an idiotic mandate that the bike lobby forced through the Legislature.
creating bike lanes, which is normally done by converting a street with two general purpose lanes into a street with one travel lane and one bike lane
Not in the Boston area, not in any city I can think of, has this been the case. I used to ride on the streets in Someville that now have bike lanes because they had unusually wide single car lanes (but not wide enough for a second lane) and they went somewhere I needed to go. The bike lanes have not obliterated a general travel lane on any street that I know of (and I've been cycling similar routes for 20+ years). The just formally declared a space for bikes and a space for cars.
Do you have any examples of a general travel lane being taken for a bike lane that you can share here? In any case, that is absolutely not the case on Seaport, which has two lanes AND a bike lane on each side by design.
Or do you just have a 3' wide car?
I suppose that I don't have to explain to you that the number of lanes doesn't govern the capacity of a roadway anyway if other rate controlling situations result in traffic that is held up for other reasons (like, with Mass Ave in Central Square, the road was already only one lane further down). This is one reason the Casey Overpass is coming down: it is an expensive high speed flyover between bottlenecks at either end that govern the true capacity of the road system.
(also note: when I lived in Arlington, I asked the town why they didn't stripe the lanes on Mass Ave. in East Arlington. The response was that the space available was too narrow for two full lanes along the full run of the section. I got this answer no matter who I asked - Mass Ave in East Arlington, during the 90s at least, was officially one lane wide in each direction. So they aren't even taking a legal travel lane there to put in a bike lane, even if drivers like to make and fake an unofficial second lane.)
I lead bike tours through here in the evenings, and the valets are always polite and considerate to cyclists and cars when we ride through. Traffic is usually moving so slow that if you just stay in line with the cars instead of splitting lanes, you can get through just fine.
Is it ideal? No. Should each and every car be ticketed? absolutely. Is the clientele that comes to this area snooty and uptight? You bet. But I say, whatever. This problem will likely go away when the development in the area is completed and opens up more parking facilities.
Do I have a better idea? Valet parking at the hubway station at the courthouse, ride a hubway down the street instead of driving right to the restaurant.
This problem will likely go away when the development in the area is completed and opens up more parking facilities.
Right. Because the seaport area is surely lacking parking options today.
Everyone that goes to the Seaport is snooty and uptight? I should have stopped reading your post there, as it's ignorant and moronic, but assuming that people who drive to the seaport are going to bike from their car to the restaurants is even dumber. How will that ride work in January?
So the elderly and disabled that are unable to ride a bike can't go to the Seaport? Doesn't sound fair to me.
Not everyone is capable of riding a bike.
Because the elderly and disabled really have a valet double park illegally to allow them to exit into a travel lane. Real safe!
Shows the blatant arrogance and entitled attitude of bikers in Boston! Look at the site that get said on here, most of you have an elitist demeanor.
... also use proper grammar and most of us have drivers licenses.
Also, WE ARE ENTITLED TO USE THE ROAD!
Sorry if your arrogant, pea brain can't deal with that.
Not until we make bike registration equivalent to car registration, institute a license to operate a bike, and charge you nitwits a tax to use the roads.
I'll be happy to pay my $10 a year, less the rebate for having healthy habits that keep my medical and social safety net costs down.
I'll take my $500 in small bills, thanks.
Oh, and nobody here cares what people in Kansas think ;-)
The point is most cyclists are also drivers, and have state issued drivers licenses, and also pay taxes for the road. My car registration is my car registration, my bike registration shouldn't be the equivalent. P.S. I also have a city issued license on my bike. Does that blow your tiny little pea brained mind?
Motorcycle riders own a car, however they also go through a separate licensing process. But the entitle bikers of UHub are above that right! In fact you should be made to proof you carry liability coverage.
What part of the word Motor is lost on you?
get my lawnmower, leafblow and snowblower registed
Jesus H--the level of idiocy is really unbelievable.
Commercial cyclists do have liability insurance. But that is mostly due to a myopic law passed after an influential jaywalker was hit by a courier when he stepped out into the street [in the middle of a block] and when he fell hit his head on the curb.
The reason cyclists don't need liability insurance and cars do is because a car can do more damage when it hits something than a bike can. Generally if a car was to hit another vehicle or pedestrian there would be thousands of dollars in damages and injuries. Generally if a bicycle was to hit another vehicle or pedestrian the cyclist would be worst off than what or whom was hit. Also bicycles hit things a lot less often than motor vehicles do.
Also calling cyclists entitled is not that dissimilar from the Republican tactics used to attack affirmative action.
entitled attitude of bikers
It's the law.
11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth..
Cyclists are, in fact, entitled and this entitlement is codified by law. Sorry if you feel abiding by the law is "elitist".
Yes, it's occasionally inconvenient when a car or truck is in the bike lane. We have to slow down, stop, and/or ride around them. It's also occassionally inconvenient when a bike is in the travel lane going significantly slower than the cars behind it. Cars have to stop, slow, down, and/or drive around us. No one has an absolute right to go as fast as they want, everywhere, all the time, and everyone needs to come to grips with this simple fact that shouldn't even have to be made explicit.
If the example at hand is valet parking for the restaurants at Liberty Wharf (if I'm not mistaken), then it's not "occasional" that a car pulls into the bike lane. I'm willing to bet it's constant during all dining hours.
to conduct legitimate business, then perhaps we ought to rethink the need for the bike lanes, or at least put a time restriction on when the bikes can use the lane and when the valets can (akin to the peak-hour breakdown lane travel on some highways). Too bad providing valet spaces that benefit the business customers isn't mandated under law, but providing bike lanes that provide a sight convenience to cyclists (who should really learn now to ride in general purpose lanes with others) while reducing the overall capacity of streets are.
In a perfect world, nothing but bikes would be in a bike lane. The city of Boston is old, small with narrow streets and, like many cities, chock full of traffic: taxi's delivering passengers, trucks making deliveries, city worker's making repairs to the city's infrastructure. All of these vehicles need to pull over to deposit humans, food to restaurants, et.al. And, at times, this means that they will be in a bike lane, albeit temporarily.
There is a an idea, held by some members of the bike community, that bike lane's, just because of the virture of being a bike lane, should be free of anything but bikes. They don't seem to understand that the lanes were created by taking a section of the road, generally used by cars, trucks and busses. They don't seem to understand that some vehicles will still need to pull over, and that usually means into a bike lane, whether to drop off a fare, et. al.
As the world is far from perfect, just go with the flow. You can type IN ALL CAPS all you want but that will not change the fact that Boston is what it is, small winding roads and all. Valet's and the rest are just trying to do their job. Most of the time, you on your bike will have smooth and clear sailing in a bike lane. And this also means, at times, you might run into an obstacle or obstacles because you are riding in a city and not upstate Vermont.
This is also the seaport, which was newly rebuilt.
Berlin, Munich, Utrecht, etc. are older than Boston and don't have these problems.
Thanks for playing, though.
were rebuilt after WWII. So no, Boston is older.
Yeah, as anon said, I hate to nitpick, but German cities are among the most modern large cities in the world, thanks to them being leveled in WWII. I see your point, but you picked a bad example.
Dutch cities weren't much touched, and German cities didn't much change their street plans.
Somehow, they manage to train their drivers to NOT PARK IN BIKE LANES. That's the major difference, not when a city was built or rebuilt.
But, please, let me know what you think when you visit these places.
Seaport Boulevard is neither old nor narrow.
That parking in the bike lane is illegal and cyclists are legally allowed to ride as far into the lane as they need to.
So one is an example of illegal activity that puts a road operator at risk and the other is just a matter of inconvenience.
in the bike lane, which is illegal. Or are they just temporarily waiting for the car owner to pick the car up? The original complaint does not make this distinction so I am not sure how you, personally, can say it is one over the other without more information.
Again, you are technically correct, the car should not be in the lane, parked or not. But if the hotel is offering valet service to its customers, the customer has to pick up his or her car somewhere, correct? And usually, because the hotel is offering valet service, that means in front of the hotel.
If the valets are parking the cars, then why not try contacting hotel management to get their take and to alert them to the issue?
Whether the car is parked there or temporary waiting is irrelevant, its illegal in Boston either way, and it blocks the bike lane for people cycling in that lane either way. They could have a legal area where cars waiting for the customers to pick them up can be put, like the legal spaces along the street many places rent from the city to use for valet. Many valets, however, also double park, park in the bike lane, or park in bus stops to save money on putting the cars in garage spaces the whole time or to save time. But thats illegal.
but, it is not not irrelevant!! The reality of the situation is that valet parking is valet parking and that usually means that valet's pick up and drop off the hotel customer's vehicles in front of the hotel.
Creating additional valet parking spaces may not be an option depending, again, how much space is available. For example, on some streets, parking spaces have been given up to create the bike lanes! I am not aruging that this is a bad thing, but it is reality. Boston has limited parking space as it is and your suggestion may not be a viable one.
I am sure some valets double park, as do some car drivers. It is not correct from them to do so, but, again, if you have to drop someone off and there is no other way to do it, you double park. And as I am not a valet, nor do I personally know one, I can't comment on your broad assumption that "many valets" do all those those in order to save time.
Each car is "temporarily" parked in the bike lane, for a minute or two until the car is picked up. Then almost immediately, another car "temporarily"does the same thing. Repeat a few dozen times and you get the idea.
It may be inconvenient for a bike to be in the travel lane but it is PERFECTLY LEGAL. Double parking is not legal. Not for an hour, not for "just a minute".
while illegal is nevetheless a reality and being a city commuter, either by bike or by car, you will run into double park vehicles.
Which is why the original request was for the authorities to enforce the existing law. I see people run red lights too. Should I just give up on the dream that they will get a ticket?
Am I the only one wondering where SwirlyGrrl is with her 2 cents?
She is probably busy working unlike you.
Good one! I took an early lunch. Is it alright with you that I check UHub on my lunch break? I assume you took an early lunch too since you're "not working"?
Just being cheeky. I work on a computer in a job with highly variable levels of work that range from "Master of Facebook" to "Needs Catheter So Don't Have to Leave Chair". So sometime I have nothing better to do than poke around the web.
1. this isn't just using the bike lane - they are also partially blocking the car lane, too.
2. Most cyclists have driving licenses.
3. This isn't the only bike lane problem - there is regular attack and takeover of bike lanes on Congress and Seaport by aggressive drivers who then have the gall to honk at and scream at the legal users of the lane - and the city does nothing about it, either.
4. Where is Roadman and his usual bs about 'make cyclists use these lanes blah blah fart blah"? Oh, sorry, reality again.
5. How is it that cyclists are entitled and whiny when we are looking at a prime example of car entitlement, and have numerous "but JEFFREY STOMPS IN PUDDLES" and other off topic whines by entitled drivers that have nothing to do with this massive taking of public property by private business?
There are countless studies that indicate bike lanes with solid white lines are more dangerous than sharing the road with vehicles. It gives novice cyclists a false sense of security thinking they are untouchable and therefore are riding with their headphones on blaring music and not watching out for the environment. Lets not blame the valets for not being able to get the vehicles out of queue fast enough. The city does not have the proper infrastructure to accomodate all the yuppies in the area. There will be vast improvements to public transportation, however none of the South Boston yuppies care, they will just drive their cars and get it valeted.
And how many VC cyclists die each year compared to cyclists in bike lanes?
There are countless studies that indicate bike lanes with solid white lines are more dangerous than sharing the road with vehicles.
Please provide links to some of them.
My perception about bike lanes is that I don't feel any safer in them and often feel more marginalized. I don't like moving outside the traffic patterns of the vehicles around me - I feel much more invisible and vulnerable when I'm off to the side by myself or with a handful of cyclists. I've thankfully never had an incident but I've often felt like I'm courting danger when I zip along in a bike lane while two lanes of traffic to my left are stopped or creeping along. I much prefer riding with traffic, and I'd be really interested to see if my perception is accurate.
...someone thought to bring the Southie yuppies into this argument. I was starting to think that they were no longer a problem. Turns out, they're also responsible for cars blocking the bike lanes at Del Friscos. When will their terror end?
they "share" them from Hubway. You can tell them from actual bike riders because they don't know how to ride them. Most Hubway bike operators ride around recklessly, and until one of them cracks their unhelmeted noggin on the street, they will think this is the hip way to get around.
often [not all, but MANY] think they're The Shit because they park vehicles for 'rich' people. Same goes for many restaurant staff from top to bottom in 'hot' locations. Even the illegals from central America in the kitchen and busing tables have attitudes. It's true, any anyone familiar with The Scene knows it's true. Substance abuse among staff in high end places is also rampant.
What would cyclists like valets to do? Park these vehicles in the travel lane so cyclists can ride the gauntlet between the double parked cars and the parking lane where they have little time to react when a pedestrian crosses the bike lane?
Research is lacking on the safety issues of having bike lanes on busy arterial roads with commercial traffic, bus stops, parking, and double parking. A study might be done and published in the next year or two (Transportation Research Board NCHRP 03-112): http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/trbnetprojectdisplay.a...
They can hire enough people to get these cars from this area to the garage.
They could turn away business so that they would only use the space that they are paying for.
But that would cost money ... as would actually using whatever garage they are supposed to. much better to scam and illegally use public resources for exhorbitant parking profits!
So for the added expenses and/or lost revenue for the hotel, how much is being made up for by cyclists? That would be zero, the same amount they pay to license, insure, inspect, and register their bicycles.
Yours is truly a bizarre comment.
If valets can't operate their business legally, then they need to raise their costs or change their business plan; it's not the cyclists' responsibility to make up for "lost revenue" and subsidize a private business.
How much to you pay to license, insure, inspect, and register your shoes? Nothing, yet you are free to walk the sidewalks and cross streets. Maybe cyclists who use the street should pay a license/registration fee to use public roads - I would vehemently disagree - but that is not what the current law says. The current law says that cyclists have rights to the road like any vehicle.
If you don't like that bicycles have the same legal rights, then work to change the law. If you think the city should subsidize the business model of valet parking companies at the expense of public space that could be used by citizens, many of whom pay taxes in the city, then work to change the law. Until then, the laws should be enforced as currently written.
What would cyclists like valets to do?
Obey the law and stop taking public property for private profits.
They are stealing all of our tax dollars here.
They already have spaces for cars to pull up - they can hire more guys or turn people away.
What would cyclists like valets to do?
Valets should park the cars in any number of public garages in the area, as is the requirement.
Any time a valet doesn't park in a garage, the money is pocketed, so they are profiting by parking illegally.
I had a couple of occasions this past week to drive in and around Boston during rush hour and it was so stressful and miserable. Unbelievable traffic, tedious waiting, hyper-aggressive or incompetent drivers...mostly just endless stop and go traffic. It kind of made my jaw drop and at some point I actually said "no wonder they're so angry." If you do this every day, you may have become desensitized but it's a miserable, barely human way to live--being stuck in a moving box on a featureless highway for three hours a day. The nicest, most luxe car on earth couldn't make up for the frustration and tedium and wasted time. How we ever came to arrange it so that a majority of Americans spend so much time sitting in traffic is beyond me. After just a few hours I was so glad to get back out in the open air and walk...and bike.
From the looks of this thread their rather disgruntled!
What I do know is that we are leaner, even if we are meaner. Cycle commuters lose about 13lbs their first year, while most Americans gain a couple pounds each year.
Oh, and I'm not disgruntled - just allergic to entitled motorist BS..
I'm fat because i don't prance around on my bike. Also, " entitled motorist BS.." by the view of most "Cyclist" (which you are not) on this thread you seem rather entitled.
Walker and MBTA Customer
... that measured reality personally offends you and hurts your feelings. Then again, this is population science - it isn't about you personally but about what is healthy for society.
But, hey, the epidemiology and statistics don't change whether you act all butthurt about them because you can't seem to process them in a way that does not make them all about you.
Everyone who cycles is a fit ubermensch, while those of us who have to drive are fat slobs. God could be ANY more self reassuring about your cycling?
13 lbs is a lot of reduction in the risk of diabetes, heart disease, etc. Especially when we have an epidemic of health care utilization due to excess adiposity.
I'm not self-reassuring - I'm scientifically validated, All you have to do is go to pubmed, type in some keywords, and find a wealth of data on both health, activity, and weight-related disease - far too many links to post here. You?
All-caps, foot-stamping, catastrophizing petulance. Doesn't sound like a very happy person to me, or one I'd want to hang around with.
That's someone on Citizen Connect not a UHub poster. For their pissed-off car-driving counterpart, see last week's thread about Hubways in front of Dunkin Donuts on Broadway. Pretty much confirms my theory--most cyclists are only pissy when they feel their safety is threatened whereas a lot of Boston drivers take the "we own the road! F**k off!" attitude towards anyone on a bike or on foot...and in most other cars that are going either faster or slower than they are.
No one's safety is threatened by a stationary car in a bike lane. You just steer around it. The complaint isn't that valets are dooring cyclists or hitting them, it's that THEY DON'T BELONG THERE EVER EVER. Look, I ride a bike. I thought the Dunkin' complaint was absurd, too. But when I was a kid I was taught that the world doesn't revolve around me and that it's often easier to go around an inconvenience than pitch a tantrum about it.
Cars have to park. Pedestrians have to cross the street. Things will block the bike lane. It sucks, but it's four seconds out of your ride. Life goes on, man.
Cyclists have to push into a travel lane full of cars.
Cars have to merge left into a moving lane of cars.
Each of these situations is a situation which is known to cause accidents.
All of it is avoidable if laws are properly enforced and certain parties are not allowed to endanger others (including their own staff!) while they effectively steal public property.
Oh wait you can't.
Most people who bike also have cars or drive cars or ride in cars. We also walk. Most of us save our disgruntlement for the careless, hostile or clueless people who do things behind the wheel that endanger us.
I highly doubt most avid cyclists spend much time walking to get where they need to go. If that were the case, I'd think they'd stop for us in crosswalks and not play obstacle course with us on sidewalks. Though, as you claim, I do believe most cyclists do drive a car to get places... the disdain for us city dwellers who walk is quite evident. If you don't stop at red lights, stop signs or for us at crosswalks on a bike then you obviously couldn't bother to do it behind the wheel. Reckless arrogance on two wheels and four.
More bike lanes are needed so we can finally ban bikes from sidewalks. Cyclists have legal right to the road and now tax paying residents are spending tens of thousands to paint bike lanes per cyclists' demand, so now it's time to use them and get off the sidewalks that us lowly walkers use to get to work, buy groceries, run errands, etc.
I only get the hairs up on my back when I get put at risk for bodily harm because someone is being lazy. Maybe it seems nit-picky when someone on a bike scolds a driver or parking in a bike lane. . . it only seems nit-picky until it results in a person finally getting hit by a car while rounding that car parked in their travel lane. It boils down to someone choosing their convenience (whether it's a valet or someone dropping off groceries) over the safety of every rider that has to round that car. That's why folks get pissed. If they'd just find a legit (or at least a less dangerous) place to put the car they'd never have to hear a biker complain about them parking in the bike lane.
I am happier on a nice day with the top down on my convertible, even if waiting in traffic. On cold, rainy, and snowy days I have the top up and pretty comfy while cyclists don't look too happy.
Even on a bad day, we're happier.
I DEMAND my roller-skate lane and my entitlement that accompany them.
ROLLER-SKATERS STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHT.
In all seriousness, it shouldn't be just be a bike lane for bikes. It would make more sense and be more fair to open up the bike lane for joggers and those on segways, rollerblades and skateboards. Why should only people who cycle get special benefits if bike lanes could also serve others who aren't walking or driving autos? I already regularly see joggers and the occasional segway tour using the bike lane already. More bang for the bike lane buck!
But bike lanes ARE where the segways go ... and skateboarders ... and rollerbladers ... and some joggers ... I see all of this on a daily basis downtown.
What we have here is an example of exploitation of public property for private profit. This is an issue which dates back over a century to when cars began to flow into cities in higher numbers, and started parking all over the streets. It got so bad that Boston actually tried out a city-wide curb parking time-limit of 20 minutes back in 1920.
Over time, judges have repeatedly upheld the principle that the public ways are intended for traveling (all modes), and that the public interest is served by enforcing regulations limiting or forbidding parking. The same notion of "public interest" also protects public spaces like the Common, and other parks, from being used as vehicle storage facilities.
In short, the city needs to start enforcing the law against double-parking, or it needs to start charging rent to this establishment which is squatting on public land.
More generally, Boston really needs to think about parking reform. Charging the correct, market price for curb space can ensure that there is always availability when you need it. Programs like SFPark have successfully eliminated cruising for parking by making it highly likely that there will be at least one open space per block. They have also integrated smart-technology that lets you see open spaces on a digital map. What's even more amazing is that the average price for parking in SF did not go up, it actually declined by 1% over the course of the program so far. Imagine how much headache could be eliminated just by setting prices smartly.
I'd prefer free or cheap on-street parking that anyone can use, versus reserving the streets for the high-end restaurant and hotel valet services that can afford an expensive rent charge from the city.
I'd prefer free or cheap on-street parking that anyone can use
Depends. Is it right when a small number of people get to monopolize public street space all day, at the expense of everyone else? Underpriced curb space causes an artificial shortage, much like underpriced anything-else would create a shortage. The Soviet Union insisted that everyone should be able to get free or cheap bread. The result was bread lines.
Free or cheap parking is not free nor cheap unless you happen to be one of the lucky few who get there first.
I don't like to see high-end restaurant or hotel valet services monopolizing the street either, but if they are going to do it, at least make them pay. The current situation is that they get to monopolize our streets for free. And for some reason, it seems that you prefer that they get this freebie at taxpayer expense?
I'd prefer if there weren't so many valets.
Horse and wagon used roads long before cars, transported goods and double parked loading and unloading, though diagonal parking was much more available then. Public land for private gain also included livestock grazing on the common and other public land.
For people who don't know, SF uses all the parking revenue including tickets to fund public transportation. They are constantly reducing the supply of on street parking, creating more scarcity, and raising prices. Increasingly, they are putting parking meters in purely residential neighborhoods to expand their coffers. There are various posts on the topic here: http://district5diary.blogspot.com/
So le me get this straight, if a family drops their car off with a valet at a hotel and their car is in the bike lane because there is nowhere else to get the luggage out and the baby out of the carseat, you would smash their car with a u-lock? You shouldn't be riding a bike if your skills are so crappy that you can't ride around mom, dad and baby without resorting to physical violence. Lots of activity in a city... and it's not all about you riding a bicycle. You're not that good at riding a bike? That's why we have public transportation.
That theoretical strawfamily could pull all the way to the goddamn curb if the valet is properly and legally run - i.e. enough people to take the cars to the legally mandated garage spots as soon as the owners drop the keys.
But God forbid someone fling a ciggy while they do all this tedious unloading that you describe - the poor children will all catch fire!
Seriously - these are not "drop offs" happening in the bike lane - this is the valet company using the bike lane to make profits illegally instead of hiring more people and/or using the garage they are legally obligated to.
It's nice to see everyone getting along!
Should make the whole Seaport area perpendicular parking. You'd get more parking spaces. More spaces = more happier people.
Speaking of blocking the bike lane....The MBTA needs to better train its drivers; buses regularly block the bike lane to let on/let off passengers.
They block the traffic lane, too. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to change.
1. A drunk patron of one of these valet establishments collects his or her car and procedes to sideswipe the entire line of illegally parked valeted vehicles that are partially obstructing the car travel lane. Which parties are liable and who pays for this?
2. A cyclist is hit when forced into traffic when someone impatient about merging over (due to the partially obstructed travel lane) roars ahead and plows into them. Now that the city has been repeatedly notified of the ongoing issue with valet vehicles obstructing the bike and travel lanes and has chosen to do nothing about it, can the cyclist sue the city for negligence?
... as compared with his home country, the Netherlands.
But he probably should have talked with the local cyclists a bit more.
I don't wear cycling clothes because I'm "racing" - I wear them because the climate in the US is much warmer and sweatier much of the year than it is in Europe. I didn't use the bike clothing when I did city tours in August in Northern Europe and didn't need it.
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