The Patch has details on the hit and run, and over at the Bike Newton Blog, Steve Runge deconstructs the anatomy of a dangerous intersection. The new bike lane was not enough to prevent this hit and run. Something more is needed. Sean Roche called for a roundabout after the last casuality, and while the city approved a traffic signal long ago, it still hasn’t been installed. What kind of solution is needed here?
Another cyclist hit at Grant at Beacon
by Allison Sharma | Aug 7, 2013 | Newton | 88 comments
The other side of the story. I saw 2 separate instances of bikers pulling boneheaded moves on my way back to the Highlands from the Newton Y this morning. Two middle aged bicyclists traveling at high speed on Church Street ran a red light across Center Street and almost got hit by a car trying to make a right turn from Center Street onto the side of Church Street where the Eliot Church is located. About 5 minutes later, I had to hit the brakes hard on Mill Street to avoid colliding with a young kid on a mountain bike who was traveling in his left lane directly at me. I also had to hit my horn because he was looking to his left side, not straight ahead in the direction where I was approaching him.
Sean is a bicycle fanatic who thinks that the whole world should be restructured to suit his personal needs, as he tried to do on his own street. He thinks bicycles are more important than cars. I don’t want to be forced to use a stupid bicycle as a normal form of transportation. It’s awful in bad weather, it can only hold one person, you can’t carry much, like groceries, it’s slow compared to a car, it’s dirty, and it’s just plain dangerous, regardless of bicycle lanes.
BOB BURKE correctly points out that often bicyclists do not obey the law and, worse, take chances assuming they have the right of way even though they are confronting 3000-lb vehicles who very well may not see their small profile, especially if they are looking at other things on the road (or even texting). When I cross on foot at a cross-walk, I don’t assume the driver of a a car will stop for me. I wait until the car stops before walking in front of it. I care more about my bodily integrity than making a statement about pedestrian rights.
By the way, years ago I was on a bicycle on Lexington Street in Waltham and a car did the same thing, turning left in front of me, causing me to bang into the side of the car. Only damage was my front wheel being disoriented a bit.
Don’t assume they see you, either as a pedestrian or as a bicyclist.
It’s clear there are issues on both sides- as we have seen with the cyclist being pulled over for running a red light, and now with a car illegally cutting off a cyclist and causing injury. Neither is right, and both “sides” (many of us play for both sides). It’s a dual responsibility, and there are/will be scofflaws on both sides.
Waiting for a car to stop is wise and safe, and I do that, but that is not the same as ceding the right of way.
I’ll leave it with this anecdote: I decided to ride my bike to Saugus from Newton to my son’s baseball game 2 weeks ago. The route concerned me, as it took me through Cambridge, Somerville, Medford and Malden. As it turned out, the roads (for the most part) were accommodating to cyclists – even Route 60 through Malden Center – and not once did I have a negative encounter with a car, even through a rotary.
I was amazed at a much more positive experience than I expected, but I think much of it came down to using wide roads (with clear intersections), making clear my intentions (turn, stop, etc), and a trend towards driver/cyclist safety awareness.
Plus, as dense as they are, Cambridge and Somerville are ridiculously bike-friendly.
So is the solution, better education for both sides??
I find it appalling that Mr Cohen has used a public forum to slander someone on the Bicycle Advisory Committee for his advocacy for alternative transportation. The notion that anyone is being forced to ride a bike, or take the T, or buy a Prius, for that matter, is absurd. There are many individuals and groups in Newton working to make our city bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Part of that process involves educating motorists and cyclists to obey safety laws and to coexist.
It is easy to point the finger at bicyclists who sometimes put themselves or others at risk on our roads and to assume that that is the essence of the problem. We all see how badly people can behave at times, no matter what form of transportation they choose. There are proven ways to change the behavior of motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, through engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement. The posting by Mr Haslam makes it very clear that neighboring communities have done this and done it well. Newton can do it, too, and we will.
Our streets, which were created before motor vehicles became popular and could travel at great speeds, belong to all of us. Most bicyclists are also motorists. No more talk as if they were two species, please.
This one doesn’t feel rules of the road were the major factor. The driver was going east at 6:45am into a rising sun on a tree-lined street. She turned left at a flashing yellow light. If she saw the bike, she should not have expected he would stop as a matter of routine. It feels like she didn’t see him. The shocking aspect is the damage to the car (smashed windshield) and that she didn’t stop.
Lois,
It’s “appalling” to me when someone thinks only about the issues that affect him. I was referring to Sean wanting to restructure his street, to the detriment of his neighbors (he knows what I mean), and showing how he cares only about his needs.
I’m not opposed to bicycles, per se, but I very nearly hit them often as the disobey laws, veer out of the bicycle lanes and assume everyone will see them and give them the right of way. The bicycle lanes themselves are often an annoyance because of where they are placed.
I also think that the major form of transportation, automobiles, should not have to bend and inconvenience themselves as much as people like Sean think they should, because it’s what they want to do. He has pretty much no respect for cars. Bicycles are interesting, but I don’t want to become Hanoi or Delhi or another 3rd world city where people clog the streets with bicycles. This is America in the 21st century.
This is so unfortunate. I fear these types of situations will continue unless @Tom there is significant education offered and executed on a regular basis. Bike lanes and traffic stops and hiring more officers to assist in education is great, but a concerted effort and a commitment to safety on our roads, for all users, is critical. Undoubtably, how to allocate resources to education and how to execute will be a question for the Mayoral campaign, as I see it as a huge opportunity for our City.
@Lois – Thanks for the work you and your team do on advocating for complete streets and education. One question – I wonder if bicycle education is included in “Driver Training” classes. I assume so, but can you confirm?
David, what “education” do you think is needed? It sounds like code for “whip those damned car drivers who don’t like bicycles into shape”.
@Barry – I think drivers need to be more aware (myself included) of what the bike lanes mean, signals bikers use, and simply to be aware that they are sharing the road. Conversely, bikers need to understand that there is a learning curve for drivers and that many simply aren’t used to changes taking place. Bikers also need to better know the rules of the road apply to them as well. So, it’s needed for everyone.
Bob (and others),
Following up on points by Doug, Lois, and David, there are countless law followers and law breakers amongst both the cycling and motorist communities; my hope is that drivers won’t impulsively negate the seriousness of a bike/car incident with anecdotes of how careless “most bikers” are.
An incident like this one flows through and horrifies the cyclist community because of the imbalance between care taken and risk assumed. A very careful cyclist can experience serious injury or death from simple inattention by a motorist travelling at 10 mph, while the motorist is nearly invariably unharmed. Cyclists, whether careful or not, always assume the greater risk when sharing the road with cars.
But both cyclists and motorists share equivalent rights to use our city streets. The rules of the road are explicit and clear regarding the rights and responsibilities of all users. MassBike’s website links to applicable state bike laws, and has a reader-friendly summary of the rights and responsibilities of bikes and the responsibilities of cars relative to bikes. I think that being educated about these is what David is talking about.
How many of you motorist readers are aware of these laws? How many of you cyclist readers?
To all: Be considerate and careful out there!
Regards, Steve
I bike to work in Boston every day and just wrote a long post and hit “submit” and then it vanished! But it was basically along the lines of what Steve wrote. Driver experiences annoyance by bikes, bikers experience death or grave injury from cars. Education is important but physical changes are needed to Newton’s roads that make it safer for cyclists. Yes, naughty bikers are out there. But do they deserve to die? For every misbehaving biker on the streets there are people like my neighbor on Homer Street who wrote, in a letter to the TAB, that yes bikers do deserve the death penalty for annoying drivers.
To be honest, I don’t get too saddened when I read of another biker getting hit while riding with “attitude.”
–Leonard W. Wolfe, Homer Street
Steve,
The “laws” are made by people who have a position that they want enacted into law. Motorists don’t know, and have no advocates for this. So the bicycle lobby, like the people on this blog, like Sean, who have an avid interest in creating laws and lanes that favor bicycles, pressure governments to make regulations that benefit them. And the motorists are affected detrimentally.
And then we have people like David and Steve essentially blaming motorists for not learning about these laws, that make no sense in the first place.
It’s really getting me pissed off, and I think you are all extremely selfish. I don’t need an “education”. You need an education in accepting that the world may not be what you think it should be.
Bicycling is pretty stupid in Newton, but, if you want to do it, you need to accept that the roads weren’t built for you, and that you don’t have a right to do anything you want on those roads.
I hope there’s room in this education process to talk about what types of bikes are appropriate for a busy road. Riding a featherweight bike at a certain speed w your shoes locked-in and no ability to come to a reasonable stop in a short distance is extremely problematic in my view. There are plenty of areas nearby to use that type of bike – why are they on our busy streets?
I agree that more care needs to be taken by both sides. In this situation, it sounds like driving into the sun may have been a contributing factor (I used to have a commute where I was terrified that I’d hit someone some day because there was one spot where I’d be blinded a few weeks each year due to the angle of the sun). That said, there’s absolutely no excuse for hit-and-runs.
@Shawn. I’m glad that Leonard Wolfe is your neighbor and not mine.
@Steve. My comment wasn’t directed at bicyclists as such. Over the years, I’ve posted several critical comments about what I see car drivers doing in Newton. This is the first time I can recall coming down on bicyclists. The main reason I don’t ride a bicycle is because my reflexes have gone way down in recent years, so I always give cyclists a lot more room and leeway for their benefit as well as mine. I empathize and give deference because I know my own limitations; but I don’t always know if they comprehend the rules of the road or not. I also wait a few seconds, at least, before moving forward at a green light because there is always some clown trying to beat a red light on the other roadway. There’s more to this morning’s first incident at Center and Church streets. I froze in place when I saw the two bikes come close to colliding with the car turning right onto Church which I think is a pretty natural reaction. Just then, my light turned green. A woman right in back of me in a huge black Lexux SUV immediately leaned on her horn for me to get moving even though she must have seen what was happening. I took my sweet time in putting the car into gear.
Barry, actually the roads WERE built for cyclists:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
Nice, Barry. I like how you take neutral comments and twist them so it looks like Steve and I are “blaming motorists”. I actually find your comment amusing because its so far from what either of us said, that its incredible how you made the leap. But, go ahead, attack.
What I said was that both sides have blame, both sides can learn, and both sides can benefit. Pretty straightforward and not difficult to understand. I look forward to you making it seem like I am anti-drivers.
Barry –
While I find cycling to be a very pleasurable and rewarding activity, I don’t see the selfishness in commuting by bicycle. Rather, it’s a mode of transportation that benefits society by reducing pollution, decreasing automobile traffic, and improving people’s overall health. It is selfish to expect that the world is always going to stay the same, and that people should not have to adapt to changing times and behaviors.
Nathan,
The roads that are built today were not built for bicycles. Most roads in Newton have one lane wide enough for a car in each direction (or two if that’s what they were built for) and room for parking. No allowance for bicycles.
David, you call it neutral, because your position is unreasonable, but you want to use it as one side of a “compromise”. Again, I say, the cyclists are selfish and are depending upon a stupid mode of transportation for their normal needs. They need to bend. Had the roads been planned for bicycle traffic, and should the bicyclists understand both their limitations and their risks, maybe things would be different.
Almost every comment here, regardless of what David says, are expecting the motorists to give in to the bicyclists, even where it’s totally ridiculous. And the bicyclists are a very small minority on the road, and will continue to be until we become Hanoi, which I hope never happens.
Tom (and all) – I feel the education has long-term benefits- based on my experience in Medford and Malden, I’d say it has already started. Same with road markings. They all contribute to a more proper “share the road” mentality.
I’m not going to get into types of bikes and who should/shouldn’t ride, because that doesn’t seem to matter so much. Despite the wide opinion swings in this thread, what I see overall even in this small forum is more constructive talk than we might have seen even a few years ago (next step would be seeing more civil comments in BostonGlobe.com stories ;P)
Barry, I’d love to see Newton become a little more like Hanoi (we could use more Vietnamese restaurants, for starters):
http://hanoi.travel/wiki/images/7/7e/Cyclo_carrying_used_bicycles.jpg
http://hanoi.travel/wiki/images/9/92/Hanoi_cyclos.jpg
Nathan,
QED
Unfortunately, this backwards-thinking mentality is what I’m up against. Give me my heated and air-conditioned car with all the amenities. If the climate in the Boston area were more pleasant and more predictable, perhaps some bicycle commuting would make sense.
Doug,
How do you make sure all people get educated?
I know the information is out there.
I am sure the active people will get or are already educated, how do you make it so that all bikeriders/motorists get the necessary education where incidents like this don’t happen as often?
@Barry – The logical conclusion to your argument regarding the design and use of the roadways is that all travel in Newton should take place in automobiles at all times. Is that your position? If so, it would be a shameful waste of Newton’s form as a community.
Newton’s history as a dense, closely arranged community actually favors less of a automobile-based environment (witness our common debates on parking for example), and a more conscious effort to re-accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
By no means do I think we can our should strive to eliminate any of these. Instead each can be part of the local environment, but each needs to at least be aware of each other and operate with common courtesy and safety.
Chris,
One more time, the principal mode of transportation is a car. Cars do have to stop for pedestrians in cross-walks and for pedestrian lights. Understood. A pedestrian HAS to get to the other side of the street, and we need to be sure he can do it safely.
Bicycles don’t HAVE to be on the street. It’s personal choice to use a bicycle in place of a car. So, if you want to do so, then it behooves the cyclist to accommodate the most common vehicles on the road. I’m not saying that bicycles don’t ever belong on the road, or that car drivers should be disdainful of them.
I’m just annoyed by the arrogance and extremism of the advocates who maintain that they see bicycles and cars as equals on the road, which I don’t anyway, and who, in fact, really want cars to be greatly inconvenienced by bicycles.
Many of those who are arrogant and extreme about this issue are like that on other issues, and I find myself in disagreement on these blogs a lot. It’s a certain syndrome or mentality that sees the world in a specific way, a way I don’t agree with, and they think everyone must accept their outlook or they are not good people.
Bicycles are a secondary form of transportation that is inferior to cars except in certain cities where traffic is very dense and slow and/or where people are very poor.
Barry,
I’ve biked in Italy, on narrow roads filled with traffic. Motorists and cyclists share roads that are less “accommodating” than many roads in Newton. The operators of both vehicle types are considerate of each other, behaving this way as a cultural norm.
For me, as someone who has grown up spending plenty of time within a car and astride a bike seat, this is a model that appeals to me, fits within my world view, and is something I believe deserves my advocacy.
Is advocating for and educating about one’s world view selfish?
Actually, in most cases bikes are legally obligated to be on the streets rather than the sidewalks. From the link Steve Siegel copies in above, but apparently needs to be pasted again: http://massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/
“- You may ride your bicycle on any public road, street, or bikeway in the Commonwealth, except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bikes have been posted.
– You may ride on sidewalks outside business districts, unless local laws prohibit sidewalk riding.”
In general, it’s not an option- it’s the law. Share the road, period.
I’m not going to buy into the “primary/secondary form of transportation” from either side of the debate.
Steve,
It isn’t necessarily selfish, but it can be. In this case, I think it often is. I also advocate for my world view, which is what puts me in conflict with people here. But, I try to sway minds, not sneak in laws that I know will annoy others who don’t know that I am doing this.
@Barry
Just an ancillary thought. You describe riding a bike as inferior to the choice of driving a car. What advice do you have for those who do not have that option, such as children and teens?
My advice is, first, that a child or a teen should never use a bicycle in the way that is being advocated here. It’s much too dangerous, even with bicycle lanes, and I’d never want my child in that kind of danger. I never, I repeat never see kids in those lanes. It’s always adults, usually diehards with bicycle togs on. Most kids go short distances at times when traffic is light, and usually on the sidewalks, which in Newton don’t actually get a lot of use, outside of Newton Center, and are pretty clear. My kids in Newton either walked to friends’ houses or activities, or we drove them.
We each see what we see. My office is on Walnut Street near Whole Foods and I can see the northbound and southbound bike lanes from my window. They are in steady use, all day, by old and young, commuters and recreational cyclists, folks appearing on errands or out for play.
I wont jinx us by stating that the four cyclists who make up my nuclear family have not been injured on the streets of Newton, but my circle of family and friends have had countless hours of incident-free cycling in Newton. Sure I’ve known a few to have bike/car incidents, but I’ve known a few to have car/car and car/pedestrian incidents too. It goes with lots of people coexisting in shared space, and we all make the best of it.
And fortunately, the prevailing view is that cars and bikes can and should be able to coexist on our roads.
Barry, you laid the ad hominem hammer on Sean, but can you address the merit of his idea regarding a roundabout at Grant @ Beacon?
I was actually thinking about that one too.
As a cyclist, rotaries (assuming “roundabouts” refers to the same thing) scare the stuffing out of me. They should work well, but the concept of merging seems to be lost on people (I’m thinking drivers, but will include cyclists to be fair) around here (witness the intersection of Centre St northbound into the Newton Corner Circle of Death)
I’ll paraphrase a cynical observation from another board: The driver of the car is going to be prosecuted because it was a hit & run. Had the driver stayed at the scene of the accident and just kept insisting that it was the cyclist’s fault, she probably would have gotten off scot-free.
Doug, that is not a rotary, but a swirling caldron of metalic madness. Make your case based upon, say Putterham Circle. At least that seems somewhat of a typical rotary!
Putterham as an example does not make me feel better – but it is more typical of what I was thinking.
didn’t mean to hold up Newton Corner as an exemplar of safe Rotary design
Dulles, that cynical observation is likely rooted in stories like that of Wellesley cyclist Alexander Motsenigos, who was run down and killed by a truck driver last year. The grand jury ultimately failed to indict the truck driver in spite of strong video, eyewitness, and circumstantial evidence indicating criminal acts by the driver. A lack of education about the law as well as embedded attitudes of who “should” and “should not” be on the road appear to be factors in this and other legal responses to bike/car incidents.
Nathan,
I don’t like to use ad hominem methods in debate. But, Sean’s blog was the source of this discussion, and it was on his bicycle advocacy blog site. I know from a past incident that I mentioned that he seemed inclined to press government for things that benefited him at the expense of others. If we’re all equals here and co-existing, it shouldn’t require me in a car to drive 6 mph on Longwood Avenue because there’s a shallow there, or to sit in a lane in front of Appetito in Newton Centre because someone is waiting to make a left turn and I can’t bypass him because of the bicycle lane, and on and on. These are the things that the bicycle fanatics cause.
I’m completely sympathetic to people who choose to ride a bike, and it’s a good thing in certain respects. But there’s a limit to what people in cars should have to endure in order to accommodate this minority. Advocates like Sean don’t care.
We discussed roundabouts already on another blog. In general I don’t like them. I don’t understand how one would fit or benefit anyone at Beacon and Grant. Maybe a traffic light, not a blinking light, is required. It’s a pretty dangerous intersection at times, even for just cars, and pedestrians.
Nathan,
Is that a “sharrow”? I’m new to this terminology.
Yes, sharrow.
Barry’s ad hominem attack and ignorant interpretation of past events are beyond obnoxious and have no place in this discussion, and it certainly doesn’t make for a persuasive argument. Hyperbole doesn’t help either. 6mph is jogging speed. Last time the complaint cited a speed of 8mph. Average bicycle speed is probably twice that, with many cyclists approaching or passing automobile speed in slow moving traffic. Sharrow markings, over short distances at safe road locations, are perfectly reasonable. They shouldn’t be placed in the middle of the road going up hill, for example. Traffic engineers do not use them indiscriminately. If a bicycle is going at a jogging speed where sharrows are in the middle of the road, rules of the road suggest the bike (and maybe the sharrow) doesn’t belong there, any more than a motorist driving at a ridiculously slow speed. Cars and bicycles are both vehicles and the law says they must share the road. Jerry summed it up well.
Doug, rotaries are not the same thing as modern roundabouts. There’s a recent V14 thread on this, but I can’t find it. Hated circles like Putterham and Horace James circle are examples of the former. The Circle of Death is in a class of its own, a configuration that is probably there because of the former “A” line trolley. There aren’t many good examples of roundabouts in the northeast US. The best ones you’ll find around here are in shopping centers like the Natick Mall and Ikea. The only ones nearby I know of on public streets are along Needham Street in Dedham and on South Street at Intervale Road in Brookline. The main difference with rotaries being the size of the circle (usually with a single lane of traffic) and the slower speeds required to negotiate them, with sharper curves at the merge. I know Nathan cited a really cool Dutch variant with bicycle accommodations. Maybe he can help me reference the discussion. It would take a lot of space to implement something like that, however.
I had thought that a roundabout or “mini” roundabout might be a nice alternative to a traffic light at Nahanton and Winchester, but I was told by the traffic engineer that it’s more difficult to implement at T-style intersections, due to the geometry. To get the proper deflection, you’d have to acquire property along the straight portion of the road. Not something that’s likely to happen at Beacon & Grant.
Doug, Adam, here is a bike & ped friendly roundabout:
http://newtonstreets.blogspot.com/2009/12/riverside-roundabouts.html?m=1
More roundabout examples from the pros across the pond:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en§ion=Voorbeeldenbank&mode=list&ontwerpvoorbeeldPage=Rotondes
Adam,
Don’t use the word “ignorant”, and your other derision, as in “ignorant interpretation of past events”. I’m not ignorant of what happened. Maybe you’re Sean’s biking buddy and are defending him, but the neighborhood was in an uproar. I hear the word “ignorant” used in the GLBT debates also, as if I don’t know what that’s about also. It’s a weak way to deflect criticism. It is truly an ad hominem argument, and it’s an “ignorant” way to debate an issue.
I stick by what I said. We can argue a lot of the details, but many of the bike fanatics are totally inconsiderate of automobiles, both in how they drive the bike and in the alterations they want to the laws and roads for their benefit. When I drive and there are bicycles along my side, I am constantly taking my eyes off the road to watch them, because often they do stupid things like swerve out of the bicycle lane or cut into traffic or go through red lights, and I honestly don’t want to hit them like the lady in the story did.
By Barry’s safety logic, the streets aren’t safe for cars: there are many times more serious injuries of car drivers in Newton than bicyclists.
And if I were to use Barry’s annoyance logic from my vantage on a bike seat, I’d wish the cars away: they are often in my way and slow me down. If it weren’t for a few traffic lights and stop signs where I get delayed by car congestion, I could get to work about 20% faster than I do, which is already a few minutes faster than driving. (And all that exhaust when I get stuck behind them. Bleah!)
But I don’t use Barry’s logic, because I think there’s a place for all of us on the streets, and I find the number of injuries and deaths of car drivers appalling and unacceptable (30,000+ deaths last year in the US, and 200,000+ serious injuries), and I’d like to help all the users of roads be safer, whether that’s through engineering, education, or enforcement of laws or making new laws.
Barry, we’re all in this together – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians. We’re your neighbors, your co-workers, perhaps even some of your friends. We’re not demanding you change much: just look out for us, and as laws and roadways change (as they always have, for better or worse), do what you can to keep abreast of them. That’s all. Nobody’s asking you to get on a bike; nobody’s asking you to love bikes or bikers.
Go ahead and be irritated at bikers who do stupid things. In fact, I give you carte blanche to educate them. Riding on the wrong side of the road is really, really unsafe, I agree. You can tell them your biker friend said so.
OK, that’s a lie, I don’t give you carte blanche; you’re liable to tell off a cyclist when they’re being perfectly annoying but safe, because you aren’t a bicyclist yourself, and probably don’t entirely know what’s safe and what’s not.
But at any rate, you get my gist, right? On the unsafe scale of walking across a field (0) to sky-diving from a skyscraper (10) or the annoyance scale of chirping birds (0) to loud drunken teenager party at 1 am (10), are we really that bad?
I was very skeptical about roundabouts until I visited a friend in MD and we went through an intersection with one. It was better than a 4-way stop sign, because it forces you to stop before entering the intersection. I don’t see them working at intersections that have more than one lane in each directon.
mgwa, my understanding is that a roundabout should not force traffic to stop under normal conditions. The continuous traffic flow is one of the benefits. I agree, it doesn’t seem as good with multiple lanes, but sometimes they have “slip” lanes (see the one at the Natick Mall)
I imagine they can be designed to slow traffic to an almost-stop (as the one I saw did) or just slow down, depending on the site and what’s most effective. At the one I was in, the car didn’t come to a full stop but it did get quite slow, which was appropriate for that particular intersection.
Steve,
I’ve made my points enough in this debate. It’s not worth adding more. But, I have to say that, given what I consider your usual intelligent comments, even when I disagree with you, I am surprised at the kind of distorted logic you used in your last post. Obviously, you are a bike advocate and it has skewed your thinking to believe that somehow bicycles, which are in small numbers and are no match for motor vehicles in a collision, should somehow be treated as equals on roads designed with only automobiles in mind.
Thanks all for adding the details about roundabouts. I know what you mean (and the European examples) and that makes a lot more sense. What frightens me in rotaries is the multiple lanes, which proper roundabouts wouldn’t have.
That doesn’t make it a good idea for Grant and Beacon necessarily, but I get it.
And SteveR, touche on the “annoyance logic.” Those things are true but as you say, things we live with to share the road.
Most of the real annoyances we endure have more to do with scofflaws, bad driving/riding or mistakes in road design.
Barry,
Are you addressing “Steve R” or “Steve Siegel”?
Sorry,
Didn’t notice the R. My apologies to you, although your posts might suggest a similar thinking. So SteveR is a new poster and, yes, my comments were directed there.
Barry, your last comment represents a pretty clear philosophy that “might makes right”, or that majority rights ought to be supported as a priority over minority rights. This seems consistent with your stated views on other issues. Would you agree with my assessment of your general philosophy or perspective?
Nathan,
No. Not exactly.
I believe that honest logic makes right. And the bicycle advocates are not using honest logic. They are so anxious to ride, for reasons I can’t comprehend, that they throw logic to the wind and insist on what is unreasonable.
Bicycles on roads that are meant for cars, as opposed to designed to accommodate both, is to me like the running of the bulls at Pamplona. Why anyone would put himself in that danger is incomprehensible to me.
I do believe that in a democracy majority rights trump, as long as its not harming the minority. But in general minority desires need to yield to the needs of the majority and figure out how to live in the world of the majority. It’s not impossible unless the minority is extremely stubborn, as the bicycle advocates are, in my humble opinion.
Seems to me that flashing yellow lights where the motorist makes quick decisions to cross a bike lane is the crux of this matter. Shouldn’t we review all similar situations and make sure each of them is eliminated? In this situation, an operating signal, red-green-yellow, seems to the the cheapest if not best solution.
Hoss,
Since Grant and Beacon already has the flashing lights, I’d assume they can be re-programmed to be traffic control lights. My distant memory, which could be wrong, says that there was a time when they were.
I’d use them as traffic signals and not as blinking lights. With a turn arrow on the east-bound Beacon Street direction allowing turning into Grant only when the westbound is red along with Grant. Today the intersection is treacherous when there is any appreciable traffic.
Hoss,
Perhaps during light traffic hours they could revert to blinkers, like at night, as many intersections do.
In 30+ years, I don’t remember a full signal there. You’d think there would be some savings, but it requires at least an equipment upgrade. This old copy of the CIP estimates the cost at $200K (see page 74), about the same other old documents estimated for a new full signal at Cypress & Centre. By contrast, the pedestrian signal at Parker and Theodore, which hardly ever seems to get used, was streamlined with $75K of chapter 90 money. We need to look more carefully at how we set these priorities. Maybe the funding source is part of the problem? Anyone know why this signal would be bonded rather than use Chapter 90 money?
$200K?? Shouldn’t that have been part of the cost of adding a bike lane? I don’t know what immunity the City has — although I’d guess it’s significant — but isn’t adding a bike lane across a flashing yellow on a busy road baiting the city for claims?
I’m so sorry to hear that another cyclist has been seriously injured, and I wish him a speedy recovery. Whatever the circumstances, there’s simply no justification to leave the scene of an accident. This subject strikes a chord close to home with me because my husband often commutes to work by bike to the financial center. At the same time, I find all too often that as a motorist I am terrified by the behavior of cyclists that varies from simple incompetence to reckless risk taking. I learned to ride a bike in an era when I was taught that a bike is like a pedestrian: when I crossed a street I got off of my bike and I walked it across a street. I don’t know whether this is now considered a quaint notion or not, but I do know that changes to the law (i.e. permitting bicyclists to ride abreast, requiring motorists to be aware of cyclists location before making a right hand turn) have NOT been well publicized by the Commonwealth. There is a learning curve for motorists and it takes time for the learning and behavior to catch up with the changes that have been implemented. In the meantime, I urge my own husband and all other cyclists to be diligent and aware: trust me – the last place you want your rights vindicated is in a court of law AFTER you have sustained injuries. Keep safe y’all.
Lisap — Amen! When I first saw a bike route in the South End, I thought I was on a street I shouldn’t be on. I had no idea of the concept. Back when cable television was granted licensing, they were required to broadcast area public service announcements. This is a perfect such education — show the lanes and give the rules in 30 seconds. Newton should assert a right to do that.
If a town puts a bike lane in a situation like I described in my last post, is it open for claims?
Thank you, Alderman Kalis, for asking about Driver Education, a subject the Bicycle Advisory Committee will be taking up up this fall. That curriculum is regulated by the RMV, so we will need to work with our state representatives and MassBIKE to improve it.
Thanks to Bike Newton, we have been making headway in Newton’s Middle Schools; bicycling safety education is now part of the curriculum. We hope to expand it soon. One idea is to develop a traffic safety garden where young people not only learn to ride bicycles safely, but can also learn how to drive cars with bicycles. I don’t know if the link below will work, but it shows a small roundabout in a traffic park in Holland with some kids on bikes and another kid in a toy car. I will email the photo on request. [email protected].
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/11/dutch-traffic-garden-02.jpg.492x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/dutch-traffic-garden-teaches-children-about-road-safety.html&h=279&w=492&sz=118&tbnid=LliFVqqOGTgZuM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__gi_qCVkZ-mL2Ijlf2KRpORpYDCU=&docid=mSvh_aUOfxajzM&sa=X&ei=tiEIUsuiBsfh4AO5joHgDw&ved=0CFUQ9QEwBA&dur=40
Here’s a link to the article that goes with Lisa’s picture:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/dutch-traffic-garden-teaches-children-about-road-safety.html
Steve Runge’s insightful commentary on this thread, on the Bike Newton blog:
http://bikenewton.org/a-recurring-argument/
lisap, Thank you for your voice of concern. As Nathan P has pointed out, you can read some of my reflections on these issues over on the bike newton blog. I am sympathetic with your concern: a disheartening number of bikers do unpredictable things while biking, making many drivers universally nervous around cyclists. The two most dangerous things cyclists can do, according to a recent review of hundreds of collision records in Boston, is run red lights or stop signs, or “salmon”–ride in the opposite direction of traffic (combined, these are involved in 24% of bike-car collisions). The most dangerous things drivers do to cyclists is open doors in their path or fail to see the cyclist (involved in 40% of bike-car collisions). Obviously, cyclists need to be predictable–following traffic laws and conventions–and visible. Likewise, drivers need to be vigilant, and get used to the customary behaviors of cyclists. As I argue in my blog entry, though, drivers need to be vigilant anyway: as drivers (I log many more miles driving than biking), we are much more likely to hit and injure another driver than a cyclist, but many of us are perhaps a little too complacent about piloting a 2-ton vehicle at high speed, and perhaps overestimate the armor of a car body when assessing the risks of road users.
I agree that the Commonwealth and local communities could & should do a better job of communicating the new laws & potential for more bike-car interactions, as biking continues to get more popular. Ultimately, though, the one thing that’s been shown unequivocally to improve safety is more bikers. As more bikers become part of road traffic, drivers come to expect them, take them into account, and look for them. Basically, bikes become more a norm than an exception. In the shorter term, traffic engineering solutions have been shown to increase safety (reduce conflicts and collisions) in quite a number of studies and circumstances.
But apparently, since I’m a “bike advocate,” everything I say about bikes on the road is prima facie a fallacy, according to Barry, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
I apologize if I am repeating any comments that have already been made. I have quickly read through the comments and clearly needed to skip some that made as much sense as when my teenagers argue. This intersection is in my neighborhood. While it has been the scene of several bike accidents and a couple of pedestrian accidents, it has been the scene of many, many more car v. car accidents, most of which happened just the way this happened, someone turning from Beacon onto Grant or Grant onto Beacon failing to yield to the oncoming traffic. Would the people who favor eliminating bikes from this intersection also vote to remove cars from here as well?
It is time to look at this intersection to determine what can be done to make it safer for all road users.
StevewR,
No, everything you say is not a “fallacy”, when it’s based upon real facts. But, when it’s based upon a desire to push bicycles into a place that’s inherently dangerous, and then to blame the motorists for the problems created, then I question it. The streets are made for cars and cars are superior as a form of transportation in most respects, year round. As was said, I get nervous when I pass bicycles at times because I don’t want to hurt them. They act as if they have absolute rights.
Barry,
I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. Cars are not “superior” they are simply one of several transit alternatives. Owning a car is not required by law and, as most new motorists are reminded repeatedly, driving is a privilege that can be revoked. What’s more, for many of us driving is not all that enjoyable. Sitting in traffic in an old minivan isn’t all that fun or enjoyable. It’s utilitarian.
Riding a bike in the winter isn’t all that difficult either. No, I’d rather not ride in a freezing rain, but I don’t want to drive in that weather either. Buying some clothing to put on in order to keep warm when jumping on my two-wheeler to do some food shopping isn’t all that expensive. I’m sure that many people own the necessary equipment and store it along with their skis. For others, it’s cheaper than getting the “adaptive cruise control” option on the next car.
As for the roads, it was pointed out earlier that the roads weren’t designed for cars but retrofitted to accommodate them. We made the change once, we can change again. And if the argument is that traffic is just too intense to adjust the streets, then you should love the influx of cyclists. Each utility cyclist represents one less car.
In my experience, part of the misunderstanding about cycling stems from how people perceive the activity. Most see cycling as a fun recreation. And yes, I often go out for fun rides. But for many of us cycling is a way to do run errands, do food shopping, get to work and school, etc. It’s a very different type of biking, one in which dedicated “bike paths” can only do so much.
This idea of utility cycling is not only about professionals on expensive bikes with lots of bags and equipment, but for low-income people whose only way to work is on an old, beat-up bike. Take a look at the bike rack at Russo’s and you’ll see the bikes of shoppers along side the bikes of the employees. Ride over the Blue Heron bridge at 6am and you’ll see the riders headed to work.
Our infrastructure must work for everyone, not just a privileged few.
Sorry, Chuck,
When you make a statement like this
“Cars are not “superior” they are simply one of several transit alternatives.”
it’s really difficult to take you seriously. I agree that are situations where a bicycle can be a benefit, but I don’t want to bicycle to New York, nor do I want to bicycle with snow on the ground. But, if by this,
“Our infrastructure must work for everyone, not just a privileged few.”
you mean to say that the motorists are the “privileged few”, then it is even less difficult to take you seriously.
Unless bicyclists begin understanding the situation for what it is, and not for the enthusiasm they have for biking, this will continue to be a problematic issue.
“even more difficult to take you seriously”
A driving experience that is pleasurable all the time thanks to expensive vehicles is, in fact, for the privileged few.
In his book Power Broker, Robert Caro pondered why Robert Moses favored cars over other forms of transit. His conclusion was that for Moses cars were pleasurable. He always had a driver, rode in expensive vehicles and got work done. But for most of us, that’s not what driving is. It’s a traffic-bound, frustrating, necessary evil.
Driving has its place. I own two cars, I use them. I would love to use them less.
Cyclists do, in fact, understand the situation very well. The situation is that society is shifting away from private ownership of cars and toward a much different system. That’s why car sharing services and other alternatives have cropped up. Yes, you may need to drive to NY, but you can also fly or take the train.
For trips of 2 to 3 miles, however, why not the bike? For most of us, these lengths constitute the majority of our travel activities. Why does an individual need a car to carry a yoga mat to a workout or to pick up a couple of items from CVS?
Well, not to get to far astray, but while cyclists can take credit for starting road improvements, it was really introduction of a reasonably priced automobile that was the impetus for the federal government to become involved in the creation of the federal highway program. A tip o’ the hat to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause for helping to spur on the creation of interstate highways for commerce.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm
Chuck,
The arguments posed by cyclists, as demonstrated by the things you are saying, just don’t pass the logic test. Again, if you want to do it, it’s your choice. But, if in order for you, a small minority outside of the inner city,, where you are a slightly larger minority, to be able to do this, all the majority of motorists on the road need to be relegated to much less space on the roads, to have to add watching arrogant bicyclists to watching other cars and pedestrians, and to be blamed for not being sensitive enough to these few bikers, then it’s the work of a few “bike advocates”, who I would classify as extremists. The roads should have been designed to be inherently safe for both from the start, and in some newer towns they are, but they weren’t here.
“For trips of 2 to 3 miles, however, why not the bike? For most of us, these lengths constitute the majority of our travel activities. Why does an individual need a car to carry a yoga mat to a workout or to pick up a couple of items from CVS?”
Bad knees, foot surgery, lots of kids/stuff/animals to transport, lack of time, rain, snow, ice, sleet, etc., etc. Need I go on? And there are actually quite a lot of us who really love the experience of driving. No I don’t like sitting in traffic, but it doesn’t flip me out either when I can put on my favorite “driving music” and just enjoy a good jam.
We’re going way off topic, and I’m generally not a fan of conspiracy theories, but some have made the case that the US is one of the most car-friendly and oil-dependent nations because of
an evil plotmisguided plans, not freedoms or market forces at work. Nevermind the irreparable harm the Interstates and Urban Renewal have done to our cities. Restoring some balance doesn’t mean everyone has to ride a bike.@Adam. I think you are absolutely correct on this. When I worked at EPA, we went to Dallas Texas to help put together several transportation measures to reduce air pollution. This was before much of the emission control equipment on motor vehicles came on line and we weren’t always certain what we were doing. But one thing that the Regional EPA folks stressed was that under no circumstances were we to mention or recommend measures that Europeans were adopting at the time to curb motor vehicle travel and promote innovative bike and public transportation. Texans wanted to expand their motor vehicle options and didn’t want anything from “ferreners.”
When Dallas shut down its streetcars in 1956, it sold some (originally built in Worcester) back to Boston.
I agree this incident seems very likely a case of sun blinding. And very bad driving. If you can’t see the traffic you are supposed to yield to before making a left turn, you stop and wait until you make sure you can see. And if you collide with something making a bang and cracks on your windshield, you stop and investigate. Fortunately this incident was witnessed — and by a police officer. Fortunately the driver was caught and charged. Fortunately the cyclist’s injuries are not life-threatening, just very painful.
Unfortunately, we are much too lenient on bad drivers — “it was just an accident.” Of course she didn’t intend to hit him, but she deliberately did not yield the right of way, because you can’t yield when you can’t see. And then didn’t stop. In my opinion, this type of behavior should require re-education and a loss of driver’s license at least until the re-training is complete and she has been retested.
That’s right, folks, driving a MOTOR vehicle on the public streets is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked. Walking and bicycling are parts of the basic common law rights of freedom of movement that can’t be revoked.
We bicycle advocates have lots more work to do when there still are the Barry Cohens of the world around. The law says that bicyclists and motorists have equal rights to use the road and equal responsibility to follow the rules of the road. It’s fine to not want to bike, or not want to bike on “busy” or “congested” roads, or to grumble because you think bicyclists are slowing you down (but do you really think you would get there faster if there were no bikes on the road?). But motorists need to know that it is not acceptable to honk, yell, pass closely, fail to yield when required, deliberately pull in front, drive sleepy or drunk, or shoot a bicyclist (it has happened).
And there needs to be a reasonable chance that motorists will get stopped for harassing behaviors, that they will get a significant punishment when they CAUSE a collision (as in this case), and that bicyclists will be stopped for violations such as riding facing traffic, at night without lights, or failing to yield when required. All of these changes would be MUCH more effective than bike lanes, which do nothing to stop the most common types of collisions (which are much more likely to be at intersections or driveways, like this one), and which make the Barry Cohens of the world think that bicyclists MUST be in the bike lane and that the remaining, largest portion of the road (and possibly ALL of it that is not in the door zone) is CARS ONLY.
Paul Schimek,
Barry Cohen. Barry Cohen. Barry Cohen. The poster boy for the anti-bike movement.
Paul, the fact is that until bicyclists understand the truth of this situation and not think that they are entitled to endanger and impose upon other people, we will have problems. My guess is that the woman didn’t see the bicycle because the profile is small, they approach much more quickly than a pedestrian and are upon you before you see them, they assume they have the right of way even at a dangerous intersection where she had to look in multiple directions with other cars aroound her, and they are annoying in their attitude, as you are.
Next will be like the GLBT’s asserting their “rights”. You’ll be standing in parking lots yelling “shame, shame” at all the people who can’t comprehend your stupid attitude, and who wrongfully would rather be in a car than on a stupid bicycle. Or, like PETA advocates, will be dumping paint on those nasty motor vehicles. As I’ve said, if someone wants to ride a bike, it’s fine. Until you assume that the world has to change to accommodate you. That’s not fine. I mean, just who do you really think you are to demand that?
Ah, I should have known. Another bicycle fanatic.
http://bicycledriving.org/author/schimek
“That’s right, folks, driving a MOTOR vehicle on the public streets is a PRIVILEGE that can be revoked. Walking and bicycling are parts of the basic common law rights of freedom of movement that can’t be revoked.” – Paul Schimek
What an absurd and self-righteous statement! There are roadways where pedestrians are prohibited and, on narrow or congested roadways, cyclists could and perhaps should be banned. Your right to ride your bike does not supercede my right to drive, sir. If we both do it carefully, considerately and without the sort of attitude that you exude, we could all share. You are not – I repeat NOT – better than me just cuz you have the time and physical condition to bike. Don’t act as though you are morally superior…that is how cyclists get injured and killed. And hated.
This is an interesting on-line affadavit in a bike case in which Paul was involved. I think it’s easy to see the arrogance in his attitude and the fact that the police were mainly concerned with his safety, which he didn’t comprehend.
http://www.jasonandfischer.com/c_rowinsky5_affidavit.php
comments by others here would be interesting.
Barry, what’s your position on gay people riding bicycles?
@Adam
Some of those old trolleys are still in service on the feeder line that goes from Ashmont Station to Mattapan. I rode that line a few years back and the conductor told me they are generally low maintenance vehicles. Although there’s no source that still makes parts for these vehicles, the T is able to craft duplicates at their main marshaling yards near Sullivan Station.
Barry, sweating is no longer an excuse:
http://inhabitat.com/vanmoofs-new-electric-bike-will-be-the-most-intelligent-commuter-bike-in-the-world/