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

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#441

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:33 AM 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 biked to work for several years. I see both sides somewhat. Cyclists are their own worst enemies, as many are a bunch of idiots that flaunt traffic laws, put pedestrians at risk and behave poorly.

Engineering practices don’t account for cyclists well. That’s getting better where i live, but more need to be done there as well as educating folks on what to do in difficult car/bike/pedestrian scenarios.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#442

Post by rlue » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 2:38 AM 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…

It should be noted that the perpetrator in the murder case you referenced was on methamphetamine, muscle relaxers, and pain medication at the time of the incident.

There truly is a lot of hostility for cyclists out there, and I think it would be wiser to cite cases that don't have complicating factors like this, such as:

* https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/cyclist-sente...

* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/31/why-so-hard-...

* https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/08/11/video-cyclist-survive...

* https://www.narcity.com/news/this-ontario-driver-has-been-ch...

* https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7502828-181/chp-hit-and-r...

* https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/must-reads/video-motorist-...

* https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/22/smirking-driver-records-braki...

* https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/11/03/police-bicyclist-ki...

* https://www.ldnews.com/story/news/local/2018/05/16/cyclist-h...

* https://ggwash.org/view/34715/driver-assaults-bicyclist-poli...

* https://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/news/20170505/police-drive...

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#443

Post by megaremote » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:20 AM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #313

bobwaycott wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake? Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that public money is solely sourced from automobile drivers. Many people I know who live and work and pay taxes in Atlanta cycle and drive, depending on where they're going. Are you really suggesting auto-drivers are more important citizens whose convenience matters more…

Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that public money is solely sourced from automobile drivers. Then, would you be not opposed to requiring bicycles to be registered, bicyclists to be licensed & taxed just like cars & vehicular traffic does? If you want a lane all to yourself isn't only fair that you pay your fair share toward the building, maintenance and repair of the lanes? Why should…

You are delusional, as a car driver you are using trillions of dollars of infrastructure paid for by cyclists. When are you going to start paying for what you use? That is why I love toll roads so much, for once car drivers almost pay their way. You still don't pay for the pollution you cause, or the damage to do killing people.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#444

Post by megaremote » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:22 AM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #23

pselbert wrote: post #11

Every person I know that bikes in Chicago has been hit at least once. Fortunately none of them have been seriously injured, but it is a constant danger. There are lots of bike lanes downtown but they aren’t protected or respected. We have a long way to go to make biking a safe form of transport like it is in the Netherlands.

I personally know 3 ppl that died in chicago. Two of them were my coworkers, died in the same year. :/ Sorry but if you have kids and family you are fucking stupid to ride bikes on the street in chicago. White bikes on sidewalks are not street art. Go to lakeshore path/606 if you are dying to ride bikes. I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist.

Yes, you are stupid and should become part of the problem. Be part of the industry of drivers, that are responsible for 40,000 deaths every year in the US.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#445

Post by seminole » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 3:24 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #440

noir_lord wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same boat, I could go buy a car in cash tomorrow but I don’t have a drivers license. People react with incredulity when I tell them I don’t have a car. I live a 15 minute walk from the center of town and work and the UK has reasonable bus service in most towns so why would I spend thousands on a car and hundreds a month to park a vehicle I never use outside my house. I cycle for fitness and pleasure though and most c…

Do you have children? I've noticed having a family had impacted my cycling lifestyle tremendously.

Not the OP, but I have 7yo and 3yo kids and don't have a license. For as long as we lived in Europe (UK, Belgium and Czech Republic) I felt little need for it - bikes + child trailer served us well most of the time, and we took trains for longer journeys. Now that we moved to New Zealand I'm working on getting a license because while public transport is passable (but far from great) in Auckland, you really do need a car to get the most out of the rest of this beautiful country.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#446

Post by adrianN » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 4:43 AM UTC

cannonedhamster wrote: post #364

adrianN wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just building protected bikelanes is not enough for cities that were build over decades with a car-centric layout. You need to drastically reduce parking and increase the density. This is a process that will take a long time. Changing cities is hard.

Boston/Cambridge were built for horses not cars. A car centric layout would actually create way more space to accommodate the bicycles.

More space for traffic is generally bad for everybody since it increases the number of miles between the places where you want to be.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#447

Post by sarajenooka » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 5:03 AM UTC

mruts wrote: post #256

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…

Is being white a relavent factor here? What if you had said black instead?

Question one: No, Massachusetts is very white. I can’t imagine any reason this information would be relevant or adds to the story in anyway. Someone please advise me how I may be wrong.

Question two: That would anger many people and cause much defensiveness.

It blows my mind that this is the reality I live in and that you are the only person to bring this up in this heavily commented thread.

As someone who grew up in left wing (espoused more than practiced) Boston but chose the search for truth over this hateful leftist religion I’ve spent my whole life trying to understand political and religious motives (really one and the same). One of the things I’ve come to understand is that it is human nature to find an easy enemy to fight even if there is none or you are too cowardly to fight a real enemy. White men have become this easy and compliant enemy for the left. Nevermind reality it’s too uncomfortable.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#448

Post by noir_lord » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:49 AM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #403

noir_lord wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some roads around me are positively lethal on a bike, I sometimes jump off and walk across because it’s not worth the risk to me or anyone else, annoying but worth it.

I consider this one of the big advantages to riding a bike: I can dismount and become a pedestrian almost instantly!

Bit harder for me as I ride with clipless pedals so I waddle like a duck when using cycling shoes.

I think next time I'll look at MTB style where the clip is recessed so you can walk normally off the bike.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#449

Post by rmcpherson » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 9:54 AM UTC

u801e wrote: post #433

dominotw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally know 3 ppl that died in chicago. Two of them were my coworkers, died in the same year. :/ Sorry but if you have kids and family you are fucking stupid to ride bikes on the street in chicago. White bikes on sidewalks are not street art. Go to lakeshore path/606 if you are dying to ride bikes. I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist.

> I got doored 2 yrs ago escaped only with broken wrist. The best way to avoid getting doored is to not ride so close to parked cars. You should maintain a distance of at least 6 feet from parked cars while riding.

This is often impossible when bike lanes are adjacent to parked cars.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#450

Post by TulliusCicero » Fri, Apr 12, 2019, 11:41 AM UTC

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…

> The infrastructure approach seems to implicitly assume that most crashes (or perhaps the most severe crashes) are due to cars rear-ending cyclists, but that's not true.

It does? I've never assumed that. When I got hit, once was being t-boned, the other was a right hook.

> I'm not opposed to all bike infrastructure, just bad infrastructure, which is the vast majority of what I've seen. Given the choice between no infrastructure, bad infrastructure, and good infrastructure, my choice is good infrastructure. Most people can't tell the difference between good and bad infrastructure.

> Edit: I can see from your other posts that you live in Germany. The infrastructure you see is probably biased towards good. I live in the southern US, and the infrastructure I see (if it exists) is biased towards bad. Keep this in mind.

I live in Germany right now, but I've lived in a handful of different parts of the US, most of which I biked in, including Alabama (not entirely by choice). You're right, biking in the South sucks. It sucks bad.

As you say, a lot of bike infrastructure is bad, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion. If a city really half-asses its bus program so that it's nearly useless, we don't declare that the fault of public transportation generally. You get what you pay for and all.