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

41–50 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#41

Post by bluejekyll »

dominotw wrote: post #23
pselbert wrote: post #11

Every person I know that bikes in Chicago has been hit at least once. Fortunately none of them have been seriously injured, but it is a constant danger. There are lots of bike lanes downtown but they aren’t protected or respected. We have a long way to go to make biking a safe form of transport like it is in the Netherlands.

I personally know 3 ppl that died in chicago. Two of them were my coworkers, died in the same year. :/ Sorry but if you have kids and family you are fucking stupid to ride bikes on the street in chicago. White bikes on sidewalks are not street art. Go to lakeshore path/606 if you are dying to ride bikes. I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist.

Then I assume you would support a similar law in Chicago as Cambridge passed?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#42

Post by ar-nelson »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #31
jdgoesmarching wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commente…

Eastern MA is like this, but Western MA is surprisingly bike-friendly. The Amherst/Northampton/Easthampton area is wonderful for biking.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#44

Post by hirundo »

This is long term controversial issue. If you think the right answer is obvious you probably haven't dove down to the details, where it's much murkier. See in particular John Forester's _Effective_Cycling_. Forester believes that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" and are not segregated from them. There are studies in this area pointing in both directions. One such concluded that putting bikes on multi-use trails makes cyclists less safe. A lot depends on the design of the bike paths, and a badly designed one can increase the risk over none at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Cycling

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#45

Post by theseadroid »

crushcrashcrush wrote: post #28
dominotw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally know 3 ppl that died in chicago. Two of them were my coworkers, died in the same year. :/ Sorry but if you have kids and family you are fucking stupid to ride bikes on the street in chicago. White bikes on sidewalks are not street art. Go to lakeshore path/606 if you are dying to ride bikes. I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist.

Replace Chicago with nearly every city. It’s a death wish.

Have you been to cities in Netherlands or Danmark?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#46

Post by souterrain »

souterrain wrote: post #36

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...

Also note: this same road was the location of a cyclist killed by a drunk bishop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/us/baltimore-bishop-charg...

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#47

Post by strictnein »

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…

Don't they get snow? With vertical barriers I'm confused how a plow will be able to properly clear the street.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#48

Post by xxpor »

hirundo wrote: post #44

This is long term controversial issue. If you think the right answer is obvious you probably haven't dove down to the details, where it's much murkier. See in particular John Forester's _Effective_Cycling_. Forester believes that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" and are not segregated from them. There are studies in this area pointing in both directions. One such concluded tha…

Vehicular cycling is, to put it lightly, controversial.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#49

Post by biswaroop »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #19
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.

I lived in Boston/Cambridge about eight years ago and found it to be the most bicyclist-unfriendly city I had ever lived in (there are certainly worse, I just haven’t had that misfortune). I’ve been honked at by obnoxious drivers before, but only in Boston would drivers routinely slow down to call me a “f----ing f-gg--t” for being on the road. NYC drivers might be jerks, but I never got the impression that they were…

It's gotten far better. As a grad student who races for MIT and trains on the roads around Boston's suburbs, I've found most drivers to be surprisingly patient with us cyclists. There's the fair fraction of drivers who turn without signaling, but the only anger I've gotten from drivers is when I've run a red light (deserved it). The suburbs to the west are packed with road cyclists, and good weather weekends mean the roads are full of cyclists. The protected bike lanes have helped road commuters, and prevent angry interactions. The stereotype of Boston drivers being extraordinarily unfriendly to cyclists is outdated by now.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#50

Post by fyfy18 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #24
larrymyers wrote: post #14

I'm a huge fan of protected bike lanes. Chicago has a few of them, and they are far less stressful to ride on compared to just basic striping on the road. By far the biggest issue I have with striped bike lanes is trying guess when an Uber driver is going to do something crazy when picking up or dropping off a passenger.

My biggest problem with unprotected bike lanes here in Manhattan is that they are so frequently illegally blocked, not just by Taxis/FHVs but also by people parking in them. And a lot of the unprotected bike lanes are basically just the door zone of a line of parked cars, so you need to ride to the far outside of it to avoid getting doored. There's entire block-long stretches that I'll stay out of the unprotected bik…

It's the same in London too. Outside the city center nearly all of the 'Cycle Superhighways' are just bus/taxi lanes. And someone driving a 15m long vehicle who has spent the last 10 hours dealing with stupid drivers isn't going to pay as much attention to cyclists as they should.
Post reply on HN