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

201–210 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#201

Post by rconti »

viburnum wrote: post #123
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…

The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. In places where cycling dominates people only ride as fast as a quick jogger (10 mph is a 6 minute mile). The correct model for cycling isn’t space on the road, it’s an extra sidewalk with an accommodating turning radius. This is what you actually see in The Netherlands. People think of public spaces as roads and as roads as places for cars to drive and par…

and it's so much less ugly than these protective barriers

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#202

Post by toby »

abstractbarista wrote: post #124
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…

Sounds good to me, as long as cyclists follow the same rules drivers do . Just yesterday I had a cyclist blatantly roll a stop sign on a side street, entering the main road I was on. If I was an inattentive driver I would have creamed him! He even looked to the left, saw me, and just kept rolling through!

Rolling a stop sign (slowly, if there's no one at the intersection) is safer on a bike than stopping. In SF the Board of Supervisors voted to make it legal, but the mayor vetoed it.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#203

Post by antisthenes »

radicalbyte wrote: post #182
CydeWeys wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just in Amsterdam this past autumn. It was awesome how most streets have bike lanes that are at-grade with the sidewalk instead of at-grade with the street, and that everyone respects as being for cyclists and does not block. You're underestimating some of the speeds involved though. People will bike at speeds that feel safe to them. There's bike lanes there that are long, straight, and that have people going m…

I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. It's way faster for me to cycle to the supermarket, the gym and the kids daycare compared to driving. It beats being lazy in a car and I'm very thankful that the infrastructure here in NL supports it.

> I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes.

This makes no sense. You can pedal an electric bike at least as fast if not faster than a regular bike.

Some e-bikes are speed limited to cut out the assist at a certain speed, but it doesn't mean it also removes your ability to pedal hard and achieve the same speed.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#204

Post by rayiner »

zymhan wrote: post #158
viburnum wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. In places where cycling dominates people only ride as fast as a quick jogger (10 mph is a 6 minute mile). The correct model for cycling isn’t space on the road, it’s an extra sidewalk with an accommodating turning radius. This is what you actually see in The Netherlands. People think of public spaces as roads and as roads as places for cars to drive and par…

You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. It is almost always the car drivers who don't want to sacrifice the single lane required to make a two way, protected bike lane. Case in point, Peachtree St in Atlanta ~3 years ago. https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtre... https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for...

Atlanta is a great example of where it makes no sense to have bike lines. I lived in Atlanta for eight years. It’s a commuter city. The only people biking are relatively privileged yuppies living in the fancy new apartments and condos that have sprung up recently. Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake?

If we’re going to use up a lane, let’s do it in a socially responsible way and make it a dedicated bus lane, which is what most people in need in Atlanta use to get around.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#205

Post by rconti »

abstractbarista wrote: post #124
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…

Sounds good to me, as long as cyclists follow the same rules drivers do . Just yesterday I had a cyclist blatantly roll a stop sign on a side street, entering the main road I was on. If I was an inattentive driver I would have creamed him! He even looked to the left, saw me, and just kept rolling through!

Sounds like the cyclist properly judged the danger for himself, and his judgement was correct, because he's still alive.

When riding a bicycle, you often choose to endanger your own life and break the law in order to be less of an obstacle to motorists -- motorists, who in turn, almost certainly curse under their breath about how you should just obey the rules. Aggro assholes are gonna be aggro assholes.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#206

Post by emanuensis »

philamonster wrote: post #162
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…

I lived in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville/JP/Brighton etc etc for nearly a decade from mid 90's to early 2000's, half of it as a bike messenger and lived all you describe daily, 365. Hundreds of accounts in that time that do not paint a very warm picture of American "city" living during this era. For every stupid thing someone has done to or near me in a car I have seen an equally shocking occurrence on a bike. Maybe no…

>I have seen an equally shocking occurrence on a bike.

Yes, as a pedestrian in C in the 60's i was hit by a Cliffe on a bike ... going the wrong way on a one-way street, mind you. We, as a species, need to integrate more with others: We are not our bodies etc, we are the world

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#208

Post by snazz »

rayiner wrote: post #197
bluejekyll wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've experienced this same anecdote in similar situations for the past 20 years as well. There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. For example, see the history of Jaywalking laws: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . Starting around 1920's the auto-industry encouraged laws around the US to make crossing the stree…

> We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc. Is that the most efficient use of the roads? Especially in a place like Boston, where most people in the metro area don’t live in (and can’t afford to live in) the city itself. At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestri…

It might not be as efficient, but it sure is better for the environment, for traffic, and for health, among others. In most of the US, the wealthier people live in suburbs, though your point still stands.

Many European cities are nicer places to live as a result of better cycling infrastructure and a culture of road-sharing.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#209

Post by acomjean »

gugagore wrote: post #132
btrettel wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples like this are exactly why bike lanes are not the only change needed to make cycling more accessible. What stops drivers from doing any of these if there were protected bike lanes? Generally "protected" bike lines are not protected at intersections, which is where most problems occur. I live in Austin right now and I tend to avoid the protected bike lanes because drivers frequently turn across them without yi…

There's a certain burden to being vigilant and self-defensive on the road. Even if I'm not protected in intersections, a protected bike lane means that there's a lot less time I need to be worried that a car will hit me. However, you're bringing up the point that protected bike lanes may make intersections even more dangerous for cyclists. While your reasoning makes sense, do you know if there's anything to corrobora…

I live in Cambridge and agree with the reasoning as a driver and a cyclist. They put a bike lane inside the car parking area along the main drag (Cambridge street) i live on. It’s hard as a driver to make sure the lane is clear before turning, and when cycling through you still have to be careful and look before crossing the side streets.

It’s still better and it’s been a year since I saw a bicyclist and a driver have words when the car failed to yield.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#210

Post by stefan_ »

rayiner wrote: post #197
bluejekyll wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've experienced this same anecdote in similar situations for the past 20 years as well. There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. For example, see the history of Jaywalking laws: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . Starting around 1920's the auto-industry encouraged laws around the US to make crossing the stree…

> We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc. Is that the most efficient use of the roads? Especially in a place like Boston, where most people in the metro area don’t live in (and can’t afford to live in) the city itself. At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestri…

You mean the roads downtown should be inaccessible to people living downtown so suburban people can commute in on 2 ton steel boxes that they then store for the day in downtown?

No, that is indeed not the most efficient use of the roads. The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport.

(Bus transport is also not slowed down by cyclists, or of all things, skateboarders.)

Post reply on HN