Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#31

Post by dsfyu404ed »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #18
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #13

As much as I hate Cambridge I'm having a hard time finding fault with this. Bike lanes fit their needs really well.

Are there scooter companies in Cambridge? I've been hoping they would spur some major cities to invest in bike lanes but I'm not sure if that's the case here. Either way, solid win all around.

The entire state of MA is highly unwelcoming to anything with two wheels and a motor that is less than a motorcycle (and even then it kinda sucks for them too). You say "scooter" or "moped" and suburban soccer moms and uptight politicians get images of New Dehli in their heads and that's too low class for MA so any organized attempt at doing that gets blocked by the power of arbitrary enforcement.

As another commenters mentioned they were there briefly before the .gov told them to get lost. The other thing about MA is that it's highly totalitarian. The government is mostly benign and the single party nature of the state means it doesn't cause too much discontent but trying to pull an Uber and provide a service that has popular support before the regulators can kick you out doesn't really work in MA because the people have little choice in the manner, the .gov can just say "this isn't good for you" and that's the end of it.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#32

Post by king_panic »

I used to bike every morning from my house on Morrison Ave in Somerville to Riverside Boat Club, then from RBC to Central Square. I would then bike the reverse in the evenings.

Rides could be treacherous because the tension between drivers and cyclists when they share the road. There is a hard division established for commuting by foot (sidewalks) and drivers (roads), but none for cyclists. Both cyclists and drivers feel entitled to roads, but there are few parameters around how they interoperate with one another.

I think designating a division for cyclists is a great idea in a city with a high volume of cyclists.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#33

Post by duxup »

throwawaysea wrote: post #12

Asking for anyone who might know: how is it that this article is at the #1 spot on the front page already. It was submitted by an account created 21 minutes ago, and it seems unusual that it would displace things like the Assange story, which has over 800 comments.

I've wondered the same. I've seen very short lived and ... really questionable articles that rise to the top with no comments very fast.

Not implying anything is inherently wrong with that, but it is interesting.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#34

Post by alistairSH »

est31 wrote: post #3
cure wrote: post #2

It is funny to see Cambridge labelled a 'Boston suburb'. That was clearly written by someone who has never visited Cambridge, MA or even the Boston area.

Never been there, could you explain?

Slightly more direct answer than the others... If you look at the map, most of Cambridge is as close to downtown/historic Boston as much of Boston itself.

Also, outside the immediate Boston-area, MIT and Harvard are usually thought of as being in Boston. But, they're actually in Cambridge.

For most people, Cambridge is "the side of Boston to the north of the Charles River" - for many, it's just a neighborhood in Boston (no offense meant to any Cambridge natives).

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boston,+MA/@42.3145182,-71...

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#35

Post by close04 »

chadash wrote: post #27

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for better bike lanes, but it seems kind of extreme to require this for all new roads [0]. I used to live in Cambridge and rode my bike quite a bit. I never felt like I needed a dedicated lane on every side street, just on the main drags (where some of the new prote…

It's the perfect time to do it. Building the protected bike lane in the road design from the get go is the most effective way to make both cyclists and drivers happy and safe.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#36

Post by souterrain »

While Baltimore is reversing protected a bike lane implementation as a result of pressure from retail business and constituents who prefer cars. (The neighborhood in question is one of the most affluent in the city.)

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs...

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#37

Post by wahlrus »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #16
throwawaysea wrote: post #12

Asking for anyone who might know: how is it that this article is at the #1 spot on the front page already. It was submitted by an account created 21 minutes ago, and it seems unusual that it would displace things like the Assange story, which has over 800 comments.

Up-vote rate over time is highly weighted and it's east coast business hours right now so there's a lot of people from MA mashing the upvote button.

Can confirm--in Cambridge and smashing the up-vote because I like bikes!

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#39

Post by mhb »

chadash wrote: post #27

> "Local law now requires the city to erect vertical barriers between cyclists and cars on any roadway that’s rebuilt, expanded, or reconfigured" I'm all for better bike lanes, but it seems kind of extreme to require this for all new roads [0]. I used to live in Cambridge and rode my bike quite a bit. I never felt like I needed a dedicated lane on every side street, just on the main drags (where some of the new prote…

On a lot of streets, won't the only way to do this be to eliminate parking on one side of the street? Should be interesting.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#40

Post by ummonk »

est31 wrote: post #3
cure wrote: post #2

It is funny to see Cambridge labelled a 'Boston suburb'. That was clearly written by someone who has never visited Cambridge, MA or even the Boston area.

Never been there, could you explain?

If you're in the Bay Area, it's Boston's equivalent of Oakland (but with different socioeconomic demographics). More urban than suburban, and a city in its own right, but somewhat subsumed in the larger city's shadow.
Post reply on HN