Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#351

Post by baron_harkonnen » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #215

stefan_ wrote: post #210

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?

lower income people in nearly all major cities tend not live in the suburbs since that require owning an maintaining a car (or two), usually they live in high density housing in areas adjacent to larger metro areas and accessible by public transportation. These people would benefit tremendously if urban areas where restructure to have better, more efficient public transportation.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#352

Post by u801e » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:24 PM UTC

lostphilosopher wrote: post #277

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…

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 int…

> They can enter the car plane from places I don't expect and didn't even realize existed

That's a problem with cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. When I cycle, I will check my mirror and signal prior to changing lanes. I'll only make left turns from the left lane and right turns from the right lane. I won't pass right turning cars on the right or left turning cars on the left.

> and can stop in inches

Not really. The contact patch is much smaller and most of the weight shifts to the front under hard braking. Cars, with their suspensions and ABS systems can stop as fast or even faster than a cyclist with excellent bike handling skills. The average cyclist will take longer to come to a stop from the same speed when compared to a motorist.

> They don't generally obey traffic lights, stop signs, one ways, or any of the other rules that lend predictability to car behavior.

That's a problem with the cyclists. There are cyclists who do obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

> They don't have brake lights or signals

You can get them aftermarket and good ones at that if you're willing to spend the money. It's unfortunate that headlamps and taillamps are not mandated as standard equipment on bicycles. You can thank the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) which advocated for an all reflector standard over a combination standard of reflectors and lights.

> They also have no protection.

Car drivers don't have much protection relative to tractor-trailers and buses, yet people drive their cars amongst those much heavier vehicles all the time.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#353

Post by u801e » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #108

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'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…

> Cyclists and other non-car users of roads have a deep hole to climb out of to change these laws, and to change the perception that streets are only for cars. Infrastructure is probably the only real mechanism we have that can make tangible changes, that don't allow the personal feelings of car drivers to get angry at being inconvenienced by cyclists and other road users.

The problem is that the infrastructure is often inferior compared to the actual road due to bad intersection management, bad surface conditions, significantly longer routes, or routes that don't take you where you need to go. Another approach would be to repeal the keep as far right as practicable laws and allow cyclists the right to use an entire traffic lane when riding and require faster vehicles to change lanes to pass.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#354

Post by microtherion » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #108

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'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…

The next round of laws that criminalize non-cars at the expense of cars might be impending with the rise of autonomous cars. Cf this recent tweet where zoox called a law abiding pedestrian a "Jaywalker": https://twitter.com/zoox/status/1115622929192980480

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#355

Post by u801e » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #345

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…

> Generally "protected" bike lines are not protected at intersections, which is where most problems occur. Then also build protected intersections? These are common in truly bike-friendly cities. I see them frequently here in Munich (admittedly not as bike-friendly as Dutch cities, but much better than any US city).

Those are either actual interchanges (like how a highway/motorway interacts with a surface street), or a traffic light controlled intersection. Most protected infrastructure out there do not do either.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#356

Post by apeace » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

callinyouin wrote: post #235

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 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…

I would never yell at a bicyclist, and certainly would never hope one got hit. But I have to say, as an NYC pedestrian, I actively hate bicyclists.

They don't follow the rules of the road--at all. Red lights? Stop signs? Ignored. Pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk? Probably fine to whiz past them with 6 inches to spare.

I almost get hit by fast-moving bikes once or twice a year. A car has never even come close to hitting me in eight years. Not even those crazy taxi drivers.

I have no idea what possesses these people to blast through a red light, into a busy intersection, without slowing down or even looking, but they do it!

It has always seemed to me that bicyclists see something "different" about their mode of transportation that exempts them from most traffic laws. And the crazy thing is that they keep asking for more bike lanes.

(I'm not accusing you of being this way. But I think this may be the reason lots of people have a hatred of bicyclists. I know many people in the city who feel the same way I do.)

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#357

Post by asavadatti » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

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…

It's not though. 10mph is on the slow side for a bike. Also a 6 minute mile is an accomplishment not a quick jog.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#358

Post by Fricken » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #338

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...

Interestingly enough there has been some evidence that driving on the street is safer than using the bicycle lanes in cities that have a flawed integration of these lanes. It all boils down to the parts where these lanes intersect with car traffic. There is no use in adding a few lanes here and there, you need to have a concept and micromanage every intersection between cars and cyclists to get something that really…

My city has been doing half-ass cycling infrastructure implementations going back to the late 70s. Which each different era there were different designs and concepts. The network is patchwork and lanes stop and start arbitrarily. Intersections are more hazardous because drivers don't know what to expect. Road construction when bike lanes seems to get more hazardous. Often it's not clear what rules you should be obeying, like it's not clear if you should be acting like a pedestrian, a bicycle, or if you're vehicular traffic.

Our city implemented a pretty solid network of dedicated lanes downtown a couple years ago, much to the chagrin of angry drivers and the main benefit isn't the real estate that was given to cyclists so much as it is the real estate that was taken from cars. There's just less traffic, drivers are more attentive because they have more hazards to deal with, and they're moving slower. The traffic calming effect is, for me, the main benefit to having dedicated bike lanes.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#359

Post by ocschwar » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

oldjokes wrote: post #159

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…

What this means is the rich get new roads, the poor don't. The cost of adding these lanes will be enormous, especially in tight areas where you may need to seize property or realign streets. Nobody will advocate for the poor areas to ever be redeveloped at these cost levels. The cycle continues.

Massachusetts has a de facto policy of no road expansions, and especially not land appropriations for road expansions, anywhere in the state.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#360

Post by cannonedhamster » Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #234

rayiner wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that graphic a lot, but it's not a very useful one, because it ignores residential patterns. Most people can't use a bike. So if you displace one car, you're not going to replace it with one bike, much less than 5 that would otherwise fit in the same space. The efficiency question is: what minimizes the amount of collective time people spend getting where they need to go. Bike infrastructure might actually make…

> it ignores residential patterns I would argue that what we need to discuss more, is how do we make transit more efficient for the different residential patterns. Is driving to a parking lot, and then getting on a bike, scooter, skateboard, a more efficient option? Or transferring to a train/bus? Do we really want people driving into city centers? > Most people can't use a bike. I don't think you mean that exactly,…

Doesn't sound like you know Cambridge at all. There aren't many under capacity roads, especially when winter snow comes down. What this is going to do is make traffic slower, encourage more bikers who will ignore traffic rules and act unpredictably, and generally muck things up. Cambridge is actually probably a really great candidate for bike lanes with multiple colleges nearby, but let's not pretend this isn't going to absolutelymake commuting worse. Biking into work isn't an option for me. When I come into the Cambridge office it's 5 hours in the car round trip. Nevermind the jerk motorcycles who drive down center lanes, cut cars off, pop wheelies in the highway, etc. I can definitely say the animus bicyclists receive is undue. My wife and daughter have been threatened with vehicles, I've been hit in a crosswalk walking by a car, and I can't even get into how bad it is trying to follow the rules in Boston with pedestrians crossing against the signal while you've got a short green.