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

421–430 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#421

Post by amanaplanacanal »

teddyh wrote: post #329
novok wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your elderly or disabled. Although if you that level of elderly, you might not be able to use a car either, and the disabled often have motorized wheelchairs that could go as fast as bikes. For people who say 'but the disabled need cars', I want to offer some ancedata: I know a retired couple that bought a house in SF years ago because they wanted a working transit system when they can't drive cars anymore.

But rayiner said “most people”. Most people are not elderly or disabled.

A third of people in the US can't (or can't afford to) drive. Bicycling seems much more democratic.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#422

Post by jessaustin »

sgarman wrote: post #284
aeternus wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A well-placed U-lock makes a satisfying dent in a roof or quarter panel.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#423

Post by jessaustin »

bsder wrote: post #414
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…

> This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. Maybe, but if you have ever tried to get around in Cambridge, MA, you would understand that it is a disaster for everybody . Pedestrians walk into intersections when they shouldn't and block traffic, sometimes indefinitely. Bicyclists ignore signs, lights, people, etc. and cut off cars randomly. And cars have to shove their way thro…

Why is anyone driving in Cambridge? This reminds me of a relative who insisted on renting a car in Bali. Just... why?

Note: I have driven in Cambridge, and will do again, when there is a compelling reason to do so. Commuting during rush hour is not a compelling reason.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#424

Post by amanaplanacanal »

btrettel wrote: post #381
TulliusCicero wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? Well, for biking numbers, there are infrastructure-oriented places like the Netherlands with very high rates of biking. I'm not aware of anywhere comparable for vehicular cycling, at least in the developed world. > Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? Places where vehicular cycling is more common like the US seem to have worse safety num…

As I said, I can't recall vehicular cyclists claiming that vehicular cycling will increase the number of cyclists. So don't judge them on that. I think increasing the number of cyclists is important, however. Also, I don't know any place where vehicular cycling is particularly common. It seems to be enthusiastically practiced by a relatively small group of people. As I said, though, those people are the safest cyclis…

Getting more bikes on the road makes bicycling safer. Drivers in cars are much more careful when they see bikes everywhere than when they only see them once in a blue moon.

Unfortunately most people are not going to ride when they have to mix with cars. I'm willing to do it on low speed city streets, and in unprotected bike lanes at up to highway (55MPH) speeds when I have to, but the great majority of people won't, and won't allow their kids to do it either. Protected bike lanes are the gold standard, and that's what we should be aiming for.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#425

Post by amanaplanacanal »

zymhan wrote: post #282
rayiner wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Poor people ride bikes at much higher rates than rich people. Keeping a car is expensive, and especially expensive for the poor.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#426

Post by jessaustin »

wtetzner wrote: post #379
atoav wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why you have park & ride concepts and trains. In many european cities you have places just outside the city where you can park your car or hop of and take your bike and take the last mile by bike or public transport. Having all your commuters drive their car into the city is not at all a good idea. I lived for years at one heavy intersection in one of Germanys biggest cities and I can tell you, if you watch t…

Park & ride is a fine idea, but Massachusetts needs to invest in that sort of infrastructure before it will become viable for commuters. Currently there's the commuter rail, which is hard to get to from many areas, is quite expensive, and doesn't run very frequently. It's not good enough to get people to stop driving.

If the commuter rail is not convenient they could park at the end of the T, e.g. Alewife, BC etc.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#427

Post by dropofwill »

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…

I think you've got it backwards, cars aren't easy to see, they're hard to see out of. There is no blindspot for a cyclist or pedestrian.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#428

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ben7799 wrote: post #165
mhb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a lot of streets, won't the only way to do this be to eliminate parking on one side of the street? Should be interesting.

This is Cambridge, MA.. it is incredibly hard to go most places in Cambridge and ever find a parking space on the side of the street. If you are not a resident the majority of non-metered parking is not legal for you to park in. The metered parking has strict maximum time limits and they enforce parking aggressively. It can be very hard to find a parking space at all. If you need to travel in for business/pleasure in…

> It can be very hard to find a parking space at all.

It sounds like they are not charging enough for parking, if that's the case.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#429

Post by sokoloff »

jessaustin wrote: post #423
bsder wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. Maybe, but if you have ever tried to get around in Cambridge, MA, you would understand that it is a disaster for everybody . Pedestrians walk into intersections when they shouldn't and block traffic, sometimes indefinitely. Bicyclists ignore signs, lights, people, etc. and cut off cars randomly. And cars have to shove their way thro…

Why is anyone driving in Cambridge? This reminds me of a relative who insisted on renting a car in Bali . Just... why? Note: I have driven in Cambridge, and will do again, when there is a compelling reason to do so. Commuting during rush hour is not a compelling reason.

> Why is anyone driving in Cambridge?

Mostly because they have somewhere to be on a schedule.

I've lived in Cambridge for ~20 years. For about 1/4 of that time, I walked to my office in Kendall about half the time and drove the other half. Bus service was completely impractical and trying to take the subway one stop took vastly longer than walking or driving.

The other 3/4 of the time, I had a job outside Cambridge -> driving to/from work everyday -> driving in/across/around parts of Cambridge everyday.

Now, with kids in elementary school (start time 8:15 sharp, pickup 2:25 sharp), we drive to/from school 8-10x a week. Before they were in school, to/from daycare (can't dropoff before 8:30; must pickup by 5:30 sharp; can't push a stroller on a bike) and work meant plenty of car trips as well. Before kids, to/from work and then to after-work team sports often meant needing to drive as well. Public transport in Cambridge, except directly red line T stop to T stop, is not for those who are on any kind of schedule. The bus service is a disaster, IMO.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#430

Post by amanaplanacanal »

tosser0001 wrote: post #183

It will be interesting to see what effect this has. A few things I predict: 1. The price of housing with off-street parking will rise even faster now. 2. A lot of off-street parking in the neighborhoods will be eliminated, forcing some people who have to drive to work outside the city to move. 3. The speeds of cars will increase because the roads will feel wider

How wide are the typical lanes there now? I believe the newest best practice is for 10 ft wide lanes, though many cities have been making them 12 ft for a while. Narrower lanes are great for slowing traffic down.
Post reply on HN