Jonathan Berks came upon what could have been an awful Storrowing involving a bike today.
Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
He actually knows what hes doing.
To understand this is a really dumb idea.
However, I would put the blame here on the people at MassDot. Why replace a stolen sign? C'mon, they're really busy.
DCR. And we all know how much DCR cares about installing and replacing traffic signs that actually conform to the MUTCD.
Not sure that DCR has their own Sign Shop. They might order them from the current DOT Sign Shop on Mystic Ave in Medford (which is moving to Braintree, I believe, in the future), or, I think BTD has their own Sign Shop as well.
MassDOT is currently doing a sign data collection effort, however. I believe District 6 (Boston area, ...ish. E.g. Somerville and Medford are District 4, D6/D3 line is at Weston/Waltham...if you want to see the district areas, turn to google for better delineation than I can put into words) is currently underway. When that data is usable is up in the air, and furthermore, having a better picture of where signs should be is another effort in and of itself, as is replacing signs with poor retroreflectivity.
... so the DCR probably has their own sign shop.
Jokes aside, I doubt they have their own. Between Boston's Sign Shop and the DOT's, they can create custom signs that aren't typically stocked for roadway operations, but can otherwise be printed on blank sign sheets.
But, it might not be as wasteful as you might think, given the amount of signs that they need that don't fit BTD or DOT ops (DCR logo is on some ferries, for example). Which makes me wonder where Boston Parks turns to for their signs... Which, in turn, might make you wonder....just what kind of dork are you dealing with, here?
Are you saying that this is a poor idea because those driving near him in cars often don't know how to control their 2 ton vehicle, and are thus to cause him bodily harm his actions being perfectly in accord with traffic rules?
I mean, I agree, but I think that reflects a bit more on the drivers than the cyclist.
It's extremely dangerous and only antagonizes people.
That said, I saw a woman driving on the sidewalk on Mem Drive yesterday. She drove on it for a few blocks to bypass traffic on that road. Thankfully she saw me as I was walking. Arrogance knows no bounds.
It's not for me either, given the speeds at which people drive there. But if it's not legally prohibited, why would it "antagonize" other road users?
I think they're jealous that bike riders are in better physical condition, and also that bicyclists aren't stuck sitting in the same miserable traffic jams they are.
We like to be in climate controlled environments, with music, conversation, and the ability to get somewhere farther than a few miles and without becoming disgustingly sweaty.
So what you're saying is you have never ridden a bike, thus have no clue, rendering anything you post invalid.
How did you come to this conclusion? Would you please explain?
That he thinks that being on a bike excludes conversation, music, or going more than a few miles. OR that biking anywhere renders you "disgustingly sweaty." And climate-controlled? Sheesh...I know it's summer but we're not in Alabama.
that people on bicycles never drive cars, and people in cars never ride bicycles.
... many motorists will never ride a bicycle.
Citation please. The most avid cyclists I know, who also bike competitively fwiw, drive SUV's to work, to do their grocery shopping, drive their kids around, go skiing in the White Mountains, etc.
Also, you mentioned that cyclists are fit as opposed to car drivers -- again, not true. Pay attention to the world around you. There are just as many overweight people riding bikes as there are walking or driving cars. No need to fat shame. Grow up.
Adam won't let me post what I really think, but no, honey, we don't envy you.
Guess what... people who drive cars also bike, run, swim, kayak, climb mountains, and so on and so forth! Stop thinking it's you against the world. It's juvenile and baseless. If you want to bike through the tunnel then you're a reckless idiot.
Because now a million people will tweet that photo with the caption, "Bikers are stupid kids who deserve nothing and should die." The people who do this are dipshits but why give them the opening.
I'm a huge cycle rights advocate. I bike everywhere. Yet legal or not I'm not about to ride on one of a few roads that really are best left for cars, especially in that area where there are fine ways of bypassing that underpass if you're on a bike.
It's an easy loop above ground around towards Beacon and then back towards Charles St Station. I'd never dream of going into that underpass on a bike, especially given the poor lighting and often muddled tourist/student drivers.
The enlightened people who are going to share that photo with their thoughts are already saying bikes don't belong on Mass Ave either. So are we really worried about "antagonizing" them? I'd say by taking a bike off a dedicated bike path, you are crossing the line with them.
If there is a spot that has proven particularly dangerous for cyclists, why not ban them, as long as there is an alternate route? I would rather travel a little longer distance on safer side streets. The most direct route may not be the safest one.
You say: Mass Ave is dangerous for bikes so let's ban them. Bikes are not causing the danger. Poor street design and maintenance and irresponsible drivers are causing the danger, so why not focus on THEM? And I'd love to hear more about this "alternate route" to the Mass Ave bridge--what is that exactly? Does it involve swimming?
As soon as cars are banned from the most dangerous intersections for drivers. Right?
that needs to be addressed. Specifically, the part of MGL Section 85, 11B that states
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 (emphasis added).
The disclaimer about posting signs should be eliminated - Massachusetts is not Wyoming or other western states where there are areas with no alternative to limited-access highways for cyclists. And, like it or not, Storrow Drive is a limited-access highway.
Although I agree that "antagonized" is too strong a reaction to the situation, I note that the larger issue here is driver expectancy. I for one wouldn't (or shouldn't) be expecting to encounter a cyclist on a limited access highway, even with the "excuse" of "gee, there were no signs, so I'm legal to do this."
Otherwise, a cyclist actually has no idea whether or not s/he is entering a prohibited road.
which allows cyclists to bike on sidewalks unless there's a local ordinance (which is normally not enforced anyway) to the contrary. We expend all this effort to give cyclists special lanes and other facilities along streets and roads. They should legally be required to use those facilities and stay off of other facilities that are designed and built for pedestrian use.
Why is that concept so difficult for cyclists to accept? Answer - because a number of entitled cyclists (but not ALL cyclists) consider it too inconvenient to stay on the streets they insist they have a right to use. Guess what - SUCK IT UP and learn to cooperate with everyone else by staying on the road where you belong. Instead, we get a gazillion "justifications" as to why these "equal rights to use the road" cyclists believe they need special exceptions to the law.
Two can play at this game, eh?
Why? Road's fairly wide, all things considered, and you can get fairly close to traffic speed. For city riding, it's nothing special.
We tend to sign the exceptions.
Most roads and underpasses are level for cycling.
I can't think of a single sidewalk where driving is legal.
We don't know why or how this guy ended up in this circumstance, perhaps it was intentional, but maybe it was by mistake. All we know is that he was on the ramp and the most important thing to do if you ever encounter a situation like this when you are driving in your car is to follow the cyclist at their pace & at a safe distance with your flashers on until they can safely exit the highway (this has actually happened on the Tobin before) or limited-access road. You can help save someone's life.
of their own on the back especially since its dark in the tunnel and takes a moment for drivers eyes to adjust. Having motorized escorts for cyclists kind of defeats many of the purposes of cycling, no?
The daylight use of running lights has been proven to decrease accident rates for both bikes and cars, so lights are a general good plan.
Are you allowed to do that?
I get what you're saying, but all I can imagine is this: irate driver blows past slow-moving car and then quickly swerves back into lane without looking carefully, hitting cyclist. But perhaps I am overly paranoid about aggressive drivers. I mean, maybe they would see the cyclist. One can hope?
I don't get how people are calling this section of Storrow/Mugar Way limited access. It is 30mph speed limit, most times of the day it is hard to drive much faster than that. It has 3 entrances in a quarter mile (Berkley, Arlington, Pinkney), plus a residential street in as an exit. If people are driving in such a way that they can't handle a residential speeds then maybe they should rethink their ability to drive.
That's the point where Storrow Drive acquires a sidewalk and starts to have T-intersections with side streets. But before that, at Clarendon Berkeley Street where this photo is taken, it sure feels like a semi-freeway.
of Berkley, so there's no access westbound from those T intersections. Sure sounds like limited access to me, even if it has sidewalks.
I'm amazed a biker would do this (I was a bicycle commuter for many years). You can't see much in a tunnel, even when it's just cars. Someone on a bike, especially with no lights?
Plenty of bikes use the Cambridge Street/Broadway tunnel near Harvard Square. A couple of years ago, the city even restriped it with bike lanes.
I've gone through that tunnel on a bike a few times. I'd really rather not. I feel safer with some space on my right side and not having to deal with a sudden change in light level.
I did twice a day for four years. It's perfectly fine.
it is free of the hazards of many other places.
No parked cars for dooring or suddenly moving out of the space,
no entrances to create opportunity for a right or left hook.
Because if is not a straight road, you are also less like to encounter a driver distracted by a looking at a phone.
And light enters at both ends. This tunnel curves, is poorly lit and often the sides are full of debris. Terrible place to be on a bike.
I expect the usual commenters to come out and critize this, but I am a bit surprised to hear experienced cyclist to come out so hard against this. It is much safer place to bicycle than near by intersections such as Charles Circle, or say the intersection of Mass Ave in Beacon (slow speed, wide lanes, no turns). Gee, even the protected bike path crossing of the Charles Dudley Bike Path at Cambridge street is much more dangerous place to bike.
Much ado about nothing.
Nobody has mentioned Berkie's visible ticket...
He's clearly the passenger.
Now the driver, he needs to learn how to park.
It's not a parking ticket, its a ticket for an expired inspection sticker.
I read the sticker as 8 - 2016. And it appears to have the proper color. So, not expired.
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 2020 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy