Hey, there! Log in / Register

Red cups in the morning ...

Red cups in Newton

Red cups in Newton. Photo by Bike Newton.

Bicycle activists placed red cups along bike lanes this morning to honor Dave Salovesh, a Washington, DC bicyclist who died this week when a man in a stolen mini-van ran a red light and hit him.

Peter Cheung reports he placed a string of the cups along Mass. Ave. southbound past Melnea Cass Boulevard, because it heads into Dorchester, which he says is way underserved when it comes to bike lanes:

After 15 minutes, all my red paper cups were flattened by cars.

Don't worry, haters already lurching for the Add New Comment link: Cheung reports he picked up all the paper cups and recyled them.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Rock on. Keep it going. And condolences to the family of a person who was killed through no fault of his own, before the haters get in here per usual.

up
Voting closed 0

What a sad story. Thanks to Peter for the memorial, sharing the word and highlighting the risk to Boston cyclists. And thanks to Dave for being a fearless outspoken advocate for the safety of all of us moving about our respective cities.

I'm a lifelong cyclist and bike commuter but I rarely ride in Boston because both the streetscape and the drivers are far too hostile.

up
Voting closed 1

The Walsh administrations record on traffic enforcement is pathetic. It’s pretty simple - have the police start enforcing the traffic laws. The tickets will provide all the necessary funding and likely much more. I had a guy make a right hand turn in front of me from the left lane through a red light the other day. It’s disgusting. I’m staring to favor the idea of traffic cameras with auto ticketing software in them city wide until people can grow up and drive safely.

up
Voting closed 6

I’m staring to favor the idea of traffic cameras with auto ticketing software in them city wide until people can grow up and drive safely.

Yup. It's time. People have had ample chances to make these unnecessary but refuse to clean up their driving act around here.

up
Voting closed 4

as the more common straight on red... but becoming more frequent

up
Voting closed 3

you wouldn't believe the bike behavior I see daily in my neighborhood

it's not safe for anybody to have a city where nobody, including cyclists, obeys the traffic laws

up
Voting closed 0

Do me a favor. Collect some stats some day. Just, when you're going to work or whatever.

Count of motor vehicle violations, and count of cyclist violations.

up
Voting closed 2

lol this was part of my job two years ago and sit anywhere on mass ave past symphony for twenty minutes and count the amount of vehicle moving violations vs cyclist moving violations.

also its a super weird coincidence that all the ghost bike memorials are on streets where motorists blatantly speed. try sitting there for a while and watch how the traffic there behaves.

up
Voting closed 0

It takes a ton of discipline not to violate the traffic laws because you can be either a vehicle or pedestrian. There is more opportunity on a bike. You ride through red lights when there is a walk sign, hop the curb, weave in and out of lanes through traffic, and not use turn signals. This happens all the time. When I ride a bike I almost feel weird stopping at a red light and waiting with all the cars or throwing up my arm to signal a turn because nobody else does. Sometimes I stop and other riders behind me get annoyed especially when the intersection is empty. You hardly ever see a vehicle do such things because they can’t (not that they wouldn’t if they could).

Good grief lbb

up
Voting closed 0

Rolling through stop signs? Blowing through red lights? Not signaling turns? Where do you live that you "hardly ever" see a motor vehicle doing these things?

up
Voting closed 2

Brush up on your MGLs if you're gonna make claims about traffic violations.

(2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle

(3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.

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

up
Voting closed 0

Your statutory citation of “traffic violation” may have won you this particular internet argument. I will check your citation later but it looks bad for me.

It’s very very very rare for me to lose any argument over the internet. Many posters often change handles after the humiliation I cause them. Most posters just avoid me whenever I make a post.

up
Voting closed 3

Perfectly understandable.

up
Voting closed 0

I just like to bring receipts :)

EDIT: Also small note not expanded on in the MGLs but "business distrct" as I understand it covers a lot of downtown Boston, so while yes, I can ride my bike on the sidewalk in Needham legally, it would be illegal for me to do the same on Newbury St.

up
Voting closed 3

Nicole Freedman, former Boston Bike Czar, verified that there is not a single block in downtown Boston which is zoned exclusively as a business district. You are legally entitled to ride on all sidewalks in Boston, not that you should.

up
Voting closed 0

I stand corrected, for years that was my understanding but guess not so much. So really its only an issue in exclusively zoned business districts?

up
Voting closed 3

"business distrct" as I understand it covers a lot of downtown Boston

Actually, "business district" gets to be defined by cities/municipalities. The City of Boston doesn't actually define anywhere as a business district; it says you can bike anywhere where there isn't clearly marked "no bikes allowed" signage. I don't think Newbury is included in that, although I still wouldn't recommend biking on the sidwalk there for other reasons...

See here:

You are allowed ride your bike on the sidewalk in Boston, but we encourage you to use the street. If you choose to ride on the sidewalk, you should ride slowly and carefully and always yield to pedestrians.

Compare this to Cambridge, where "business districts" are specifically labeled as such here.

up
Voting closed 0

Remember the point being made that cities/towns get to define what it is but I agree with Boston saying "hey you can but maybe don't" Just safer that way.

But hey it is good to know thats one more anti-cycling talking point we can put to bed.

up
Voting closed 0

I see many bikers ignore traffic laws. Instead of following laws as a general principle they base their actions on the likelihood of being hit. That's find if they want to die early. But the behavior leads to ignoring laws that favor pedestrians. Result is that walking or riding becomes another unnecessary source of stress.

It's as though many bycyclists, but also motorcyclists and car drivers work at creating a crappy environment by adding noise, near hits and a generally sucky environment for just getting around.

up
Voting closed 4

I've actually done this in Somerville and bikes violate way more traffic laws than cars and it's not even close.

up
Voting closed 3

lol no

up
Voting closed 0

A bike can pretty much always get to an intersection and run a red light if the opportunity is there. A car driver who wants to run a red light but is behind a car that stops when it is yellow loses the opportunity to do so. That means that any statistics comparing the amount of violations like that are heavily skewed because of the physical nature of the two modes of travel. Nice try though.

up
Voting closed 2

"Lots of other people would have robbed the bank if they'd had the opportunity" is not generally an effective defense.

up
Voting closed 4

However, the risk and potential damage of the vast majority of these bicycle violations is negligible.

That's why bikes can run red lights every day. Because it's perfectly safe for everyone involved.

Of course a tiny percentage of cyclists do stuff that actually is dangerous, like blasting through groups of pedestrians, or barging out into traffic making other people do a panic stop.

But that doesn't change the fact that running a red light after slowing down and checking for other traffic and pedestrians is fine, and is sometimes safer if it lets you get through a tricky area before the stream of cars.

up
Voting closed 0

Literally almost every cyclist i saw was either breaking the law or some basic safety rule. Running red lights most common. Also no helmets (not illegal, just dangerous.) On sidewalk in commercial district, check. Riding where prohibited in parks, check. Riding wrong wrong way down streets, not in bike lanes and more check and double check.no signaling? More like never signaling.

I'll take the cars any day over the bikes.

up
Voting closed 5

And most are quite correct.

Red lights should be Idaho stopped unless there is steady cross traffic.
Helmets are actually bad for you in all but one rare type of accident.
Helmets also make you more likely to get in accidents.
Boston has no designated areas where cyclists can not use the sidewalk - this is discussed thoroughly, elsewhere in this thread.
The only open park that tries [wrongly] to prevent cyclists from using the paths is the Common.
Cyclists can ride against vehicular traffic as needed for short distances.
Cyclists do NOT have to use bicycle lanes if they don't want to, they are purely optional and do not disallow normal lane use.
Signaling on a bicycle is nigh suicidal as it means taking ones hands off the handlebars, making one unable to control or brake the vehicle.

up
Voting closed 1

Let's start with the most important - https://firstaidforlife.org.uk/cycle-helmets-do-they-really-save-lives/

There is much evidence to support the wearing of helmets and the crucial safety role they play for the wearer.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) view helmets as: “the single most effective way to reduce head injuries and fatalities from bicycle crashes.”
Both Transport for London and the Highway Code both currently recommend wearing a helmet when cycling too.
And although The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) doesn’t call for compulsory cycle helmet laws, it strongly recommends cyclists wear a cycle helmet. Helmets might not prevent crashes or guarantee survival, but they are an important secondary safety feature and can reduce the risk of a serious brain or head injury in an accident. Read more here: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists...
Figures compiled by RoSPA show head injuries are very common injuries to cyclists: data from hospitals show 40% of cyclists and 45% of child cyclists suffer head injuries and three quarters of cyclist fatalities have major head injuries.
Meanwhile, a Cochrane review suggested helmets reduced the risk of injury to the head and the brain by a substantial 65%-88%; and the upper and mid-face by 65%.

Or maybe you think this is all fake news?

As for the rest - some are indeed illegal (like riding on a sidewalk in a commercial area) and some just plain stupid. But then again, you could win a Darwin award by engaging in some of these behaviors. And most of this should be made illegal - especially downtown. Plus, you should be licensed and insured to ride a bike downtown. You might not kill someone, but you could maim them.

up
Voting closed 5

https://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html

Focusing on helmets distracts people from what's more likely to actually save their lives: Safe-riding skills. I'm not against helmets, I'm against all the attention placed on helmets at the expense of learning how to not get hit by cars. Helmets are not the most important aspect of bike safety. Not by a long shot.

Research has failed to show any net protective value of bike helmets. That's because while helmets help in some ways, they hurt in other ways. The problems cancel out the benefits, and so there's no overall safety effect. Probably the main negative impact of helmets is that drivers pass helmeted cyclists more closely than unhelmeted cyclists (because unhelmeted cyclists seem more vulnerable), and so helmeted cyclists are more likely to get hit. (Univ. of Bath)

The importance placed on helmets has negative social effects.
It paints cycling as a horribly dangerous activity, and is it any wonder why few Americans choose to ride bikes in that kind of climate?
Cyclists who choose not to wear helmets get demonized as "stupid", even though the research shows that they're not at any greater overall risk than helmeted cyclists.
Governments get motivated to pass mandatory helmet laws, which always have the effect of decreasing the number of cyclists. This is ironic, since the thing that's most correlated with cycling safety is the number of cyclists on the road, but helmet laws result in fewer cyclists, making it more dangerous for those who remain.

Also

While helmets obviously decrease some injuries, they actually promote other kinds of injuries. The net result is that the protective value is erased by the added risks. The net result is no overall protection, and possibly even an overall negative effect. Because surprisingly, as helmet use goes up, so do head injuries among cyclists. In the 1990s when helmet use in the U.S. went up, head injuries among cyclists skyrocketed by a whopping 51%. (NY Times) If helmets were so amazingly effective, we'd expect head injuries to go down, not up.

Most of us have heard that "bicycle helmets can prevent up to 85% of head injuries". But in the study that figure came from, not a single helmeted cyclist had a collision with a motor vehicle! The study was roundly criticized in the Helmet FAQ by Vehicular Cyclist and by CycleHelmets.org, which states:

This paper is by far the most frequently cited research paper in support of the promotion of cycle helmets. It is referred to by most other papers on helmets, to the extent that some other papers, and most helmet promotion policies, rely fundamentally upon the validity of its conclusions.
The claims that helmets reduce head injuries by 85% and brain injuries by 88% come only from this source, yet are quoted widely as gospel by people who know nothing more about cycle helmets. The prospect of achieving such massive reductions in injuries to cyclists lies at the root of helmet promotion and mandatory helmet laws around the world.

Those who have taken the trouble to analyse the paper in detail, however, have found it to be seriously flawed and its conclusions untenable. (more...)

Full Disclousure: I wear a helmet when cycling but only in North America, never an issue in Europe when the infra is safer and motorists are held to a higher standard of safety and responsibility. Out of the 5 times I've been hit by a car, the helmet was need once when a motorist ran a stop sign and hit my back wheel.

You know what would've been better? If those 5 cars never acted illegally and hit me.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you stand in a field holding lightning rods too? You've been hit 5 times and keep going (makes me wonder what YOU are doing on a bike).

As for your internet search - yeah - I'll listen to some random dude ranting in Austin on his own bike oriented website over the NTSB all the time.

c'mon already.

up
Voting closed 0

The day I see you out of your car yelling at every Uber/Lyft/delivery truck parked in a bike lane is the day I give a fuck what you think about cyclists.

up
Voting closed 0

Mostly the same ones that try to run me down when crossing at a red light because somehow red lights don't apply to cyclists in their own minds.

up
Voting closed 0

I don’t think that means what you think it means.

If there were enough, the drivers would get the message.

up
Voting closed 0

It'd be great if they could ticket each and every infraction but its just not realistic. I did read about the NYPDs sting operations ticketing cyclists and someone on Twitter was going through stats and noticed this:

30k bicycle citations per year and about a million traffic citations overall (minus 20% for seat belt, insurance, etc). Bikes have about 1% mode share. Ticketed at 4x rate.....But cars now kill over 300ppl a year; bicycles kill 2-3 people a DECADE.

https://twitter.com/brianvan/status/999265742867566597

Please focus on where the actual dangers are coming from so we can prevent those 300 deaths. Ticket the dangerous cyclists too but don't pull resources away from enforcement of car violations.

Also realizing that automated enforcement will have to mean some way of identifying cyclists right? So were gonna build a brand new bureaucracy to license and register each and every bicycle on the road, even the ones driven by children? Wonderful.

up
Voting closed 0

I believe that. Massachusetts doesn't bother ticketing cyclists because they don't have to pay (except sometimes in Cambridge).

up
Voting closed 0

Nothing in there about what violations those tickets covered, NYPD is notorious for harassing cyclists with very letter-of-the-law crackdowns (like this past weekend confiscating bikes without bells) but don't push the same scrutiny on motorist crackdowns.

But also pay attention to the mode share, we are constantly told that we only represent 1% of road users, right? Ok so then that gets factored into the argument of "who breaks the law more" in terms of sheer numbers, its motorists that make up a far greater number and as a result will have "more" violations than cyclists.

But more to the point, cyclists and motorists pretty much break the law at the same rates, there is just a higher volume of cars compared to bikes.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic...

up
Voting closed 4

Cyclists shouldn't be held to the same traffic laws as motor vehicles. These laws are designed to prevent people from killing other people with cars. Having cyclists follow them doesn't prevent cyclists from killing people with their bikes, and in some cases, the laws make it more dangerous for cyclists.

Cyclists are actually safer if they can run a red light (not blow through it -- treat it like a stop sign and proceed once it's safe) and get across the intersection and up ahead of the motor vehicle traffic so they're more visible and won't get right hooked in the intersection. Also, the law requires that cyclists who want to use the pedestrian signal to do this should dismount, walk across the crosswalk, and get back on. This is actually less safe -- it's unpredictable behavior when the cyclist uses the bike lane/travel lane, then moves to the crosswalk, then moves back to the travel lane, and it takes longer to get across the intersection. Cyclists should be able to use pedestrian signals to get out of and away from intersections. Ideally, we should have cycle signals at every intersection, but in the meantime, cyclists should be allowed to make maneuvers that make them safer.

up
Voting closed 2

Yeah I struggle to get people to understand this, the road laws were not designed to keep us safe, they were designed to keep society safe from the menace of cars and as a result, they don't accommodate the safety needs of cyclists and other vulnerable road users.

Like I need to make a left hand turn that requires me to merge over 2 lanes of motor vehicle traffic? Yeah fuck that, I'm (illegally) running the red and getting ahead of traffic or I'll (illegally) maneuver into the cross street and wait for that signal to go.

Either way some motorist will see it and its example #1,232,321 of why they feel we are less than human.

up
Voting closed 0

I never blew a red light. How to be seen? Make contact with the driver and get out in front of the car at the intersection. Soon as the light turns green, you move to the side of the road. Visible and no right hook chance.

I do not understand this "unpredictable behavior" and how it "takes longer" for a dismounted cyclists to walk his/her bike across the intersection in a crosswalk. Seems pretty simple to me. You get off. Make sure it safe to cross. Move at a reasonable pace with your bike and then get back on.

up
Voting closed 0

common sense just makes you weak.

up
Voting closed 1

Making death the only metric is crazy. Deaths do not account for the daily misses of bicyclists against pedestrians. Focusing solely on deaths means to ignore the destructive stresses created when transportation is a game of avoiding being hit.

On the road and on bike paths vehicular laws apply. Pedestrians come first. No Exceptions. Putting devices that can kill, cause pedestrians to have to dodge is a selfish and self-centered mentality.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh this one is easy, asshole motorist = asshole bicyclist, asshole bicyclist = asshole motorist.

up
Voting closed 0

They don't and they can't be bothered with ticketing violations on the road. They also poorly tracked crash statistics and couldn't answer some questions to Boston City Council.

Having trouble finding the previous UHub post that covered that hearing but you're right about traffic cameras. Just set em up and have do the job the police won't do, I don't care about the weak excuses against it or privacy on the road, it doesn't supersede our safety.

up
Voting closed 2

Good thing you didn't fill a couple of them with nitroglycerin or anything!

up
Voting closed 2

That bike lane is too wide. They use the portion from the first line to the curb and open a second lane of traffic.

up
Voting closed 2

Lol. 5-car, that u?

up
Voting closed 4

The photo is from Newton. It looks like the curb lane is for parking, and one general lane is enough. The only thing I'd change is flipping the bike lane and the buffer, since bikes should be encouraged to stay 3 feet away from parked cars.

As far as Mass Ave at Melnea Cass, there's no reason why cars shouldn't flatten the cups. They were in a general travel lane, not a bike buffer that cars weren't supposed to cross. Drivers are not expected to avoid small trash in the road.

While I'm sorry for the loss of the cyclist in DC, and I support cycling infrastructure and often am on a bike myself, I have to say making a guerrilla bike lane out of paper cups is a really bad idea. And getting angry when the cups are flattened is a misdirected use of emotional energy. There are better ways to advocate for safe streets.

up
Voting closed 4

So, looking at his photo and at Google...

He placed his cups in what used to be a through lane but now looks like a bus stop and parking further along. Why wouldn't they get hit?

The other locations usefully illustrate reasonable questions about the effectiveness and safety of marked separations.

Sticking little markers exactly where traffic is allowed and expected to be - so they can (unsurprisingly) get flattened - does not illustrate anything useful.

up
Voting closed 0

It perfectly illustrates how weak painted bike infrastructure is when motorists can just drive over it.

up
Voting closed 4

Mass Avenue, Spinny - where there wasn't any painted bike infrastructure. He put the cups in what is either (a) an active lane through which cars/trucks/etc... are expected to drive, or (b) a bus stop and on-street parking, where motor vehicles are expected to be pulling in and out! That he put some trash in those spots on the road and it got flattened by motor vehicles illustrates NOTHING about painted bike infrastructure!!!

up
Voting closed 4

Those cups are actually raised and look like something that could be potentially dangerous to the vehicle, yet people just run over them. Perhaps they should have used something that looks more like white or green raised pavement markers, but still, these were bright red and placed in a line along where people should be looking for cyclists, and where there is often a line prohibiting car traffic, but people ran right over them.

up
Voting closed 2

But go off

up
Voting closed 1

...Here's The Land Mines

Seriously They need to put something up to keep drivers from double parking and driving in the bicycle lane. I'd like to see more separated lanes but not the Berlin style where they make the bicycle lane part of the side walk - but rather as part of the street. Just put up a yellow, painted curb or something to keep cars out. If that means a road needs to have curbside parking removed entirely, that's fine.

But we also need to educate drivers that even IF there is a bicycle lane, bicycles can still take a regular traffic lane if they so wish. Whether because about to turn left, because they feel safer, or just on a whimsy. It's important that car drivers realize their personal vehicles are all the way on the bottom of the right of way hierarchy, superseding only people on dumb, electric scooters.

up
Voting closed 0

Cambridge has some of those, with the bike lane taking up what appears to be a part of the sidewalk. Pedestrians just don't notice them, or understand what they are. I almost got hit by a bike when I strayed into one, and then saw another person almost get run over as well.

up
Voting closed 0

You mean the ones with a different material and a big painted bike on it?

Seen plenty of them in Europe, they work great, pedestrians don't seem to have an issue.

up
Voting closed 0

First, we do not live in Berlin or Denmark or any other country.

Second, usually (the norm) when a car or a delivery truck pulls over to side, it is because 1) they have to drop something off 2) they have to pick something or someone up. So, Black, do you drive? And do you ever pull over? Or do you stay in the traffic lane to let someone off? Or do you expect, say a FEDEX delivery driver (who is probably on a schedule to begin with) to drive around for X amount of time, trying to find a parking space? And then expect he/she to pack up his/her dolly and walk X about of minutes/miles to delivery the package(s)? (Hey, why don't you and your fellow zealots ask to drive around with a delivery company as they make their deliveries in the city as you clearly have little knowledge of what they do on a daily basis.)

Third, Double parking happens in they city. Call the cops when you see someone double parking .

Fourth, as a driver, I understand a bike rider can take the lane, but not to do so just to be a prick and slow down the traffic (which I have witnessed) Usually, you take the lane because there is something dangerous on the side of the road but you don't stay in the traffic lane.

Fifth, LOL. I see. "Car divers realize their personal vehicles are all the way on the bottom of the right of way hierarchy?" What in a flying F*uck does this mean? And who the heck are you to pronounce judgement? Just. Incredible.

Sixth, Seriously? Land Mines? So you want to blow cars and drivers up? Well, that tells me all I need to know about you.

up
Voting closed 1

1. You're right. We live in "America's walking city" which was mostly laid out before cars and would work great for bikes if we hadn't given all of the pavement over to cars. Seriously, can someone ELI5 why there are streets downtown with three or four lanes of traffic? Do people from Lynnfield and Dover really need to get to their parking garages that quickly?

2. If a vehicle needs to access a location on a road with a bike lane, they have plenty of options. They can find a legal parking space and park there and (wait for it) walk to their destination. They can stop in a loading zone or go to a street which does not have a no stopping prohibition. If they need longer-term access to the curb, or to deliver something which is not able to be moved by hand, they can get a police detail to allow safe passage for other users. Apparently "the norm" for you is breaking the law. So a few people can save a buck or a minute, everyone else has to be put in danger? Please.

3. It's illegal. But BPD/BTD/whoever doesn't care. Maybe vote for someone who does?

4. If you are a driver you are required to keep to the right (89§4B) and if you are passing someone you are required to do so only when safe (90§14), no matter what vehicle you are driving. If a bicyclist has taken the lane and it isn't safe to pass, you have to wait. So apparently it's fine when cars beak the law (see point 2) but if a bicycle acts entirely within the law, it's not okay.

5. They should be. They require the most resources and cause the most damage. We really should base this on externalities, I think.

6. I mean, that's a bit much. But maybe next time the red cups will be filled with nails …

up
Voting closed 0

re #4...

Yes, cyclists can use the full "regular" lane
- even when there's an adjacent bike lane
- even if they're not immediately moving into position for a left turn
- even if they don't have a specific reason to "justify" it

However - that doesn't exempt them from other sections of traffic law about aggressive driving, which includes obstructing another driver from passing legally when you have a safe lane to move to on the right, such as a bike lane (even if the passing driver is being an aggressive jerk or driving faster than posted and/or safe for conditions)

up
Voting closed 0

1. Well that sucks, we can't look to other cities for inspiration because no city ever in the history of world has done the same thing that another city has done. Nope. Never.

2. You just made a solid argument for removing parking spots and creating loading/dropoff zones on major roads and business areas. Can double as a space for TNCs to drop of, so hey great we're getting two birds stoned at once.

3. Hey look, if we free up temporary parking, no one needs to double park. yay!

4. Yeah I totally do this, def have taken the lane to get in a motorists way when I can. Now interestingly thats usually if you buzz or tailgate me, plenty of instances of me seeing curtious drivers and maybe I give them space to pass. But its also mainly because that law says I can ride in the middle of the road, so deal with it I guess.

5. Every hear of workplace safety hierarchy? Its used in industry to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards. The same concept easily applies to road users and guess what Charlie, cars are right at the bottom of that hierarchy: https://www.streets-alive-yarra.org/wp-content/uploads/Modal-hierarchy-C...

6. I'd rather key and/or smash car mirrors but thats just me. Too much issues with cleanup and smoke if we start blowing up cars.

up
Voting closed 4

i think im in love with you spin

up
Voting closed 3

what does #4 say about your regard for your own well-being?

up
Voting closed 3

Clearly I'm taking the lane mainly because A) I can and B) its safer for me. I recognize that some drivers will be too aggressive and if you give em an inch, they will take a foot.

But sometimes you can see a car approach very cautiously and I can see them trying to pass safely, thats when I try to move over a little more. When I see someone fly up on my ass, honks, tailgates, whatever, well then I'm not doing that for them and honestly I get a little pleasure out of it.

If despite all that I'm in an unsafe position, well you can blame our infrastructure and inability to keep motorists from being reckless and aggressive.

Next.

up
Voting closed 0

a bike lane is available:

* They're suicidal
* They have complete disregard for their own well-being
* BECAUSE, MOFO!

I'm sure we could come up with a lot more. Because, you know, any reason, even whimsical reasons, are perfectly valid when it comes to sound decision making!

up
Voting closed 4

Well how about this. There is a bike lane available and it's about a foot wider than my handlebars on either side, with parked cars on the right, and it's narrowing into a sharrowed right lane a block ahead. Should I be halfway in the bike lane, near car doors and leaving a tempting amount of space on my left hand side, or should my ass be up in the lane, where you can see me and won't try and overtake me and knock me into a car?

BTW, I do this every single day on my bike, on my commute, and no one has a problem. At rush hour, my biking in front of your car can barely store you down. My pact, make the roads safe for bikes and I won't complain when you block a bike lane. Maybe bike lane blockage is indicative of a lack of something else - short term live park only space. Carve that space out of the abundance of two hour parking.

up
Voting closed 1

Live parking zones aren't the full answer.

All the time I see Ubers double park in the bike lane or general lane...when there's a frickin EMPTY PARKING SPACE right next to them!

I really don't get it. Are they really so lazy that they can't turn the steering wheel to the right before they come to a stop?

up
Voting closed 0

First, sorry for the late reply in a dead thread.

You've come up with some *good* reasons to not adhere to established lane markings. "Just because" is not a good reason, and that was the target of my sarcasm.

And people may not know if from my comments, but my primary objection is when cyclists (and I do cycle myself) put themselves in more danger *voluntarily* and unnecessarily. You describe unfortunate situations that do not fit that description.

Creating good, functional, and most of all SAFE bike-friendly infrastructure and systems is an ongoing challenge. If we could start from scratch we clearly wouldn't come up with what we have now. We need to be patient and sane while we figure all this out. In the meantime I really hope cyclists start to think about their choices a lot harder -- your right to the road, no matter how emphatically expressed, is not something that will keep you out of the hospital, nor the grave.

up
Voting closed 0

Many drivers in crappy cars are idiots. They have IQs of 80 and below. Someone with that level of intelligence has a hard time understanding the world around them. Still other drivers, some in nicer vehicles, have no hand eye coordination or poor eyesight despite higher intelligence, my mother for instance. It’s amazing she doesn’t crash her car every time she drives.

Bike riders have higher intelligence and decent coordination. The problem is that they suck. I don’t know whether it’s the abhorrence of the idiot, polluting drivers, the envy of people comfortable in nice cars, the resentment of low testosterone and decreased virility from the bicycle seat inhibiting proper function of reproductive organs, or what..... but bike riders are bad tempered and cowardly. It’s not just a safety thing because you don’t see that same attitude carrying over to motorcycle riders.

up
Voting closed 2

My mother for instance. It’s amazing she doesn’t crash her car every time she drives.

Kind of a weird flex to call cyclists cowards while doing nothing about about your mothers dangerous driving.

up
Voting closed 0

thank you sir but i ride bikes and i am very virile and full of testosterone

up
Voting closed 1

I wasn’t talking about you, Locke.

What are your T numbers?

up
Voting closed 0

570 ng/dL which my doctor tells me is right where I need to be. not to mention with all that bike riding i'm in great physical shape AND my prostate gets stimulated all the time so I feel great!

up
Voting closed 0

Post of the day!

up
Voting closed 4

use disability as an insult?

up
Voting closed 2

Hmm..Low T makes men effeminate,, makes them whiny, causes them to lose ambition and avoid risk... but I think it’s going a little far calling it a disability. Anyway, I will think about it for next time.

up
Voting closed 0

Please stop.

up
Voting closed 8

Did you let him back in?

up
Voting closed 4

That was totally uncalled for. Just a terrible post by me. I would delete my post but it probably makes sense to keep it up there as an example of what not to do. Adam, you are an excellent host and the best (and smartest) poster here. I will do whatever you need me to do. I want to be a fine contributor to Universal Hub, like uhub-fan.

One other time you called me “markk” and this time you called me “Mark.” I am not that former poster but if you want to call me either of those that is fine by me.

up
Voting closed 0

n/t

up
Voting closed 0

Envy of drivers? lol. I'm sure cyclists wish they could be tremendously out of shape and stuck in traffic every day on their fat behind while cyclists cruise by them. I'm sure they wish they could hand over their paychecks to Exxon Mobil like a sucker.

up
Voting closed 0

You're slipping, K, you never forget to include "lazy" in your description of drivers.

up
Voting closed 0

Driving to the gym is a thing, in case you forgot. Their parking lots are usually packed

up
Voting closed 0

there's six to ten feet of extra safety available to the right of where that cyclist is, as far down the road as can been seen. But does it get used? No, because apparently strict adherence to the location of white paint will keep people safe!

up
Voting closed 3

This morning I saw a car driver rush down the wrong way on a one way street. They wanted to get to the section of the street that is 2 way. It's shorter than actually following the streets. The driver rushed through the intersection. Literally sped far faster than the 25 MPH limit.

If a biker or another car was making a legal turn there would have been a head on collision. Someone probably would be dead.

This is frequent at the intersection. The city can fix this. Make the two portion of the street one way as well. This is death waiting on the basis of poor street design. Besides the selfishness of the driver.

If a cop was there on detail would the cop do anything? Good question. Probably not. Detail cops are there to earn easy money, not to do actual work.

There are some serious street problems in Boston. Problems that are can be solved. But only if the money and threats of not being reelected - and letting cops know that they are employed to enforce laws, not to spend half their time as cops standing around construction sites doing nothing. If they insist on their extortion racket called details, then they could do a lot of good work by pulling over the speeding drivers that pass by them instead of ignoring them.

up
Voting closed 0