Live data from Hacker News

Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

citylab.com

271–280 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#271

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 hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

My guess is that the driver had been yelled at by a biker in the past. I've seen bikers chew out drivers, or yell profanities many times in SF. They sometimes/usually have a good reason to do so, but that kind of behavior just breeds contempt and animosity between the two groups.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#273

I also wonder what all our resident PRIVATE PROPERTY enthusiasts think about on-street parking: what other of my 250 sq.ft. objects may I store on public property for free?

are you responding to a particular point in the article or just your own strawman?

The subject was the complaints of drivers about losing on-Street parking to a bike lane.

Not a straw man at all!

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"for free"? What about at least property taxes?

Huh? Property taxes are paid regardless of whether you store a vehicle on the street or not. They really have nothing to do with it at all.

You have an option to store it a vehicle, it's your choice not to use it. I was just calling out the "free" part of the argument, property owners are definitely not getting anything for free.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#275
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambridge also seems to have a disproportionate number of unsafe bicyclists (and pedestrians) for some reason. Maybe it's all the students. It's probably a net good thing that cycling lanes are being improved although there are certainly tradeoffs given the traffic and parking situation. However, whenever I'm driving home up Beacon Street after dark, there are invariably cyclists zipping around with no lights, going…

> Cambridge also seems to have a disproportionate number of unsafe bicyclists (and pedestrians) for some reason. There's a certain "vicious cycle" element to this. If bicycling generally appears unsafe, then mostly (over)confident, risk-tolerant people will do it. Those are the same people who are comfortable getting away with unwise things like running stoplights the wrong way at dusk on their no-brakes fixie with a…

Right. The argument "not that many bikes, why build bike lanes?" is a bit like "nobody crosses the river on a raft, so why build a bridge?"

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple answer is bikes and cars should never share the same infrastructure. They'll never get along with each other and the bike loses every time. It also doesn't help that bikers don't follow the laws properly. Bikers have to pay attention more than drivers, they should act like it

I don't know the statistics for the US, but here in Germany 75% of the accidents between cyclists are cars are caused by the car.

I drive a car now and then in Cambridge and Boston, and I have to be constantly on a lookout for misbehaving cyclists. It's like most of cyclists are not even familiar with basic traffic regulations. If I was not paying extra attention, and was simply following traffic regulations on my end, I would be involved in more that a few car/bicycle accident.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#277

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 hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

Ok, I'll say it - bicyclists tend to annoy me. Obviously, I don't shout at them, or try to hit them, or make them think I'm trying to hit them. That's nuts. That seems like a problem separate for bike/car relations. I doubt someone who behaves that way in a car gets out of it and suddenly becomes a calm and reasonable person.

But here's my assessment of why bikes annoy me. Not argument that they should, just some introspection.

* They make me nervous. Cars are easy to see, have lots of momentum to overcome, and generally exist on a predictable well defined plane. Bikes are different. They can enter the car plane from places I don't expect and didn't even realize existed. They can make 90 degree turns on a dime (relative to my sedan) and can stop in inches. They don't generally obey traffic lights, stop signs, one ways, or any of the other rules that lend predictability to car behavior. They don't have brake lights or signals. And in a complex driving environment, they're tiny and often poorly lit. They also have no protection. Slow moving car crashes aka "fender benders" are expensive and annoying, but rarely dangerous. Similar accidents involving a bike can end lives. Having a bike near me makes me worried I'm going to hit it. I don't want to live with that so I give it huge space and pay it lots of attention. If I could drive on roads that didn't have bikes I'd prefer it.

* Civic disagreement. The arguments in favor of making roads more bike friendly are generally: more healthy, more space efficient, more environmentally friendly. I agree on healthy and environmentally friendly. Though, it does seem odd when someone tells me biking is super healthy and super dangerous in the same sentence, but I cede the point. Space efficient? Yes and no. It is more space efficient for people whose options are bike vs car to ride a bike, but there's tons of people that doesn't apply to - people who live far away, people who need to haul things, people who have health issues, people who are too young etc. Also, lots of people don't want to bike in heat, rain, snow, etc. Also, not everyone has a place to change and shower when they get to work. The shower issue and the distance issue disproportionately impact people who are less well off. I get that biking can be part of the solution, but man does it get over hyped.

* Guilt/jealousy. I really enjoy biking! If I'm in my car and you're on your bike - I'm pretty sure you're having more fun than I am, and that makes me jealous. Then I start asking myself why I'm not biking, and sometimes the answer makes me feel guilty. Neither of those emotions often get followed up with - let's arrange it so I can experience more of this.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well at least you didn't get "coal rolled": https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/9b16vl/a_truck_c...

I don't think I've ever seen anyone 'rolling coal' in Cambridge. I can't imagine the cops around here would let anybody blow out that kind of smog under any circumstances without giving them a ticket.

Under the law, the cops have the authority to impound the truck. I would bet fair money that the first moron to try rolling coal in Boston or Cambridge will also be the last.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. More efficient for who? The software developer who lives in a condo downtown, or the lady who cleans his office that drives in from the suburbs?

She would benefit most from more bus only lanes going into the city. Or perhaps rip out the parking garages and replace them with affordable housing downtown.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#280

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…

a white man in a mid-size SUV leaned out his window and said loudly to me, "I hope you get hit!" My usual retort to this, as the cyclist: "I hope you find true Love!"

One only hurts for a while.
Post reply on HN