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

281–290 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#281

Post by btrettel »

CydeWeys wrote: post #218
btrettel wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if the increase in the number of cyclists outweighs the problems with the intersections. I get the impression from your various comments here that you have never rode a bike in the US, so perhaps our experience differs. On my daily commute in Austin I cross I-35 via a bike lane that is sometimes semi-protected. I think many inexperienced cyclists think that this is "safe" because it's sometimes protected…

I don't know how your impression could be more wrong; I ride my bike to work in NYC every day. I've literally said as much in many of my comments here, and talked about my personal experiences. You have responded to some of these comments.

Sorry, I must have missed that in my haste. Your experience nonetheless differs from mine and from that of most US cyclists, I believe.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#282

Post by zymhan »

rayiner wrote: post #204
zymhan wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

Assuming people who bike to work are rich is ridiculous, you will see plenty of working class folks using a bike to get to their destination in this city.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#283

Post by justtopost »

mkoryak wrote: post #233

I found a "simple trick that makes all drivers around me nice". I put a pigeon on my helmet 8 years ago[1]. Everywhere I go I see smiles. I really makes every ride fun. One of my friends recently started also doing it, so its starting to catch on. Pigeonriding transforms me from an awkward software engineer into an interesting person who people want to talk to. I have only had a handful of bad experiences[2] with dri…

For those less outgoing, anything that differentiates you, or stands out (from both the environment and other cyclists) seems to help. A sea of loud colors is just a din, and all spandex looks the same to a cager.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#284

Post by sgarman »

aeternus wrote: post #271
callinyouin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

I think that's reasonable and sometimes find myself in that group. Instead of yelling what do you think the is the best way to handle a driver intentionally running you off the road?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#285

Post by btrettel »

madhadron wrote: post #227
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…

You put up separate lights, where there is a red turn arrow for the cars and a light for the bicycles, just like Europe. It's taken a couple of years for drivers to figure them out, but at this point you almost never see someone turn against them, and when you do, it's usually someone with grey hair and an out of state plate who has no idea what to do. Another side of this puzzle is that we don't require drivers to u…

I think this a needed change, but as I've said in the other comments, I am yet to encounter one of those sorts of intersections in the US. Though I have been told today on HN that they do exist in the US.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#286

Post by justtopost »

tosser0001 wrote: post #216
chadash wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with you. If you are re-doing a road, that's the best time to build a bike lane. But I'm personally not convinced that it's necessary on every new road. I lived on a side street in Cambridge that saw maybe one car every twenty minutes. I was lucky to have a private driveway, but my neighbors would have been pretty angry if you took away their street parking to put in a bike lane on a street with very…

This is going to get ugly in Cambridge because a lot of parking is going to be eliminated and people who used to be able to park near their homes will be parking on the side streets. People who live on those side streets are going to suddenly find it more difficult to find parking. I'm for adding bike lanes, but there are plenty of people who work far outside the city and who need to drive are going to find it intole…

And counter-productively, many of those who will move will now just have to commute further, no matter the infrastructure. Cars are no pancea, but they are far from obsolete outside dense city centers.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#287

Post by chefandy »

ocschwar wrote: post #278
chefandy wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And as I know from when the state stopped sending out registration expiration reminders to 'save money,' Cambridge Police do not hesitate to impound everybody they possibly can.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#288

Post by CydeWeys »

dsabanin wrote: post #274
CydeWeys wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On-street parking isn't limited to property owners. Anyone can use it.

And no, not everyone can make the choice to use it. There simply isn't enough space, and if everyone drove then traffic would be horrendous. In Manhattan only 1 in 5 people even own cars, for example, and yet on-street parking is always completely full everywhere. So it doesn't make sense to offer it for free given that most people cannot use it. People who don't use it should not be paying for it and people who do use it should be paying their fair share.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#289

Post by framebit »

I really appreciate the mental model expressed here: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/2/15/how-to-turn-a-...

The TL;DR is that a street is in a dense area that's slow speed and welcoming to all forms of transit, A road gets cars at a fast speed from point A to point B, and a "stroad" is the worst of both worlds and a common anti-pattern in many sprawly areas.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#290

Post by CydeWeys »

btrettel wrote: post #281
CydeWeys wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how your impression could be more wrong; I ride my bike to work in NYC every day. I've literally said as much in many of my comments here, and talked about my personal experiences. You have responded to some of these comments.

Sorry, I must have missed that in my haste. Your experience nonetheless differs from mine and from that of most US cyclists, I believe.

Most of the US doesn't have protected bike lanes, but that's what we're talking about here. I'm talking about my experience with one of the better protected bike lane setups in the US, and the advantages it grants.

Come visit some time. I'll show you the bike lanes myself.

Post reply on HN