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

61–70 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#61

Post by just_steve_h »

I've lived in Cambridge or neighboring Somerville every year but one since 1989. The cycling infrastructure is much improved and still deadly.

Just yesterday, I approached an arterial Street from a side street at 6pm. Cars on the arterial were moving about 8 MPH. I dismounted my bike, and began walking across the arterial in the crosswalk. As I re-mounted on the other side and resumed riding, a white man in a mid-size SUV leaned out his window and said loudly to me, "I hope you get hit!"

This morning on my way to work, a driver popped out of a side street from my left side directly in front of me. As I was along side of him, he swerved hard to the right and into a parking lot (no signal of course).

I've been a daily bike commuter in Cambridge for 12 years. We desperately need infrastructure that forces drivers to respect cyclists as equal road users. There is hardly a day that I don't almost get hit by car while cycling.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#62

Post by ahoy »

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…

Better bike infrastructure will encourage groups of people who don't currently bike to start. More protected lanes means more kids, more old folks, more women of all ages, will start cycling. And more cycling is a good thing!

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#63

Post by addicted »

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…

You’re not in the group of people who do not bike due to the lack of barriers.

It’s possible that this group is extremely tiny, in which case it may not make sense, but whether existing bikers feel they needed it is not really the relevant question.

But that’s only considering the “get more people biking” aspect. The truth is that protected bike lanes are statistically safer than ones that are not, so there is good reason to require it just to reduce injury or death even if it does not lead to an uptick in biking.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#64

Post by tomcam »

just_steve_h wrote: post #61

I've lived in Cambridge or neighboring Somerville every year but one since 1989. The cycling infrastructure is much improved and still deadly. Just yesterday, I approached an arterial Street from a side street at 6pm. Cars on the arterial were moving about 8 MPH. I dismounted my bike, and began walking across the arterial in the crosswalk. As I re-mounted on the other side and resumed riding, a white man in a mid-siz…

What does the fact that he was white have to do with it?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#65

Post by amalcon »

strictnein wrote: post #47
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.

Most of the existing separated bike lanes are incorporated into the sidewalk, and therefore protected by the curb. There are a few that are "protected" by rows of parked cars or bolted-down pylons, but this would seem to not be legal under the new law.

I'm actually not sure how they manage to get those bike lanes cleared, seeing as how the sidewalks are always covered in snow, but there seems to be some method.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#66

Post by bluejekyll »

dominotw wrote: post #51
bluejekyll wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes but aren't you back on the street with no protection where there are no bike lanes( most of chicago)?

I don't know Chicago, but I do know what's happened in San Francisco over the last 20 years. It's taken a long time, but the city is finally starting to take protected bike lanes seriously, sadly much of that is in response to lives lost.

When I first got here, it was just a fight for standard bike lanes. For either to happen, more people need to get on their bikes and ride. Contributing to your local bike coalition is also great way to help push these issues forward.

If everyone follows your advice and chooses to not ride because of the danger, then nothing will change, and the lives lost to poor road infrastructure and poor driver education will have been for nothing.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#67

Post by coleca »

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…

MA already had laws statewide mandating bike lanes on new construction and renovation. This has led to the situation near my house where a highway intersection (Route 1 and 495) was rebuilt and a bike lane added for about 1000 feet on a road that has a 55mph speed limit. There is no bike lane on the rest of Route 1, just around the intersection where the construction happened. Now we have a bike lane that will never be used confusing the drivers trying to figure out where they should be when taking the entrance ramp onto the highway. This is a suburb around 40 miles outside of the city.

I’m all in favor of bike lanes but these types of blanket mandates aren’t the solution because it eliminates the community’s ability to use common sense and apply the law logically. So you wouldn’t be encouraging biking across a ramp with no signals and cars going from 55 mph to 65 mph for example.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#69

Post by just_steve_h »

tomcam wrote: post #64
just_steve_h wrote: post #61

I've lived in Cambridge or neighboring Somerville every year but one since 1989. The cycling infrastructure is much improved and still deadly. Just yesterday, I approached an arterial Street from a side street at 6pm. Cars on the arterial were moving about 8 MPH. I dismounted my bike, and began walking across the arterial in the crosswalk. As I re-mounted on the other side and resumed riding, a white man in a mid-siz…

What does the fact that he was white have to do with it?

What does the fact that he was white NOT have to do with it?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#70

Post by dsfyu404ed »

tsmarsh wrote: post #52
biswaroop wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, why do you hate Cambridge so much? I find it a reasonably great place, but I'm just a graduate student here.

Here is my list: * Its ridiculously ugly. * The layout seems designed to amplify the wind and somehow manages to do it in all directions. * Building restrictions that prevent affordable housing from being built. * They're happy to hike prices on parking to reduce cars, but the Red Line is unreliable which forces people to use cars. * Central * They managed to make bike lanes that are more dangerous than roads * North…

All that plus the ivory tower politics the people of the wealthy parts of the Boston ares push at the state (I have no problem with them sinking their own ship) is why I don't like it. The greater Boston area in general thinks the world revolves around it and they're a) wrong and b) entitled jerks for thinking that in the first place.
Post reply on HN