Another Freep Article
mook
I just wanted to point out yet another Freep opinion that articulates
concerns over biking on campus. A good point is made here - a problem
is identified, and solution is suggested, and examples are cited.
Basically, it deals with how messed up the bike lanes are crossing the
BU Bridge. I especially like the use of the word "deathtrap" in the
lead paragraph. More awareness needs to be spread to facilitate
discussion on bike safety on campus, and hopefully it may just lead to
appropriate actions taken by everyone concerned (admins and lane-users
alike). They also published my response to the article (thanks!),
which is a bit wordy, but points out that the curb at the BU Bridge is
not demarcated with yellow paint but looks just like regular asphalt.
I don't know how the construction team or BU oversight allowed the
curb not to be painted.... That's just crazy dangerous and recklessly
irresponsible.
http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2008/09/29/Opinion/Staff.Edit.Red.Light.For.Cyclists-3457775.shtml
thanks!
Bret Fortenberry
I don't want to have to wait light that will probably never be green.
It is not the safest intersection but with the traffic I can cross on
a bike almost immediately every time. I am sure we can figure out a
better solution than a cyclist specific light.
The other issue that needs to be addressed is the offramp for storrow
drive. Cars can never get out because of a combination of the
pedestrians and traffic. WE NEED TO ENFORCE PEDESTRIANS TO GIVE UP
THE RIGHT AWAY at points. In Boston pedestrians think they can go
when every they want and that that just causes an unsafe situation for
everybody. What happens is that cars have to move as soon as there is
just a little bit of space and that makes it very likely that they
will not see a cyclist or pedestrians. If I had to drive at that exit
I am sure I would hit a cyclist and I am more aware than most.
mook
I'd have to say, we should stress "safety" before "speed" with bikes.
I mean, it's ok to hit the brakes and wait for a minute or two,
whether it be for pedestrians in crosswalks (they DO have the right of
way), for red lights (it IS that law for a reason, if the
intersection's clear do you think cars should be allowed to run the
light?), and for impediments in the road (such as cars that you don't
want to hit going full speed). Biking does provide a sense of freedom
from the rules of the road, but it's a false sense of freedom, because
when you ignore the common rules you endanger yourself and others.
The lanes and the rules are there so we can all use the road, and they
must be followed properly so that we all remain unharmed. The other
day my friend was hit by a biker going the wrong way down a bike
lane. It was a needless accident - The biker should have waited to
cross the street so that he was going with traffic, then he can cruise
in his lane. But because of ignorance or insolence, he figured it was
ok for him to take the shortest and fastest route, and he caused an
accident (this was at the Storrow Off-Ramp intersection). But we must
remember, it's safety first on these issues, because it's literally a
matter of life and death. And waiting for a stoplight is a sacrifice
I'm willing to make, especially at such a dangerous intersection like
the BU Bridge.
The real issue is - are the lanes designed properly so that they
actually provide a safe environment for bikers? For the case of the
BU Bridge, I'd say "no".
Bret Fortenberry
for. We can ask for a reform to help education and get no child left
behind. I just think we need to think about the situation on all
fronts, such that we should try to make improvements for drivers and
pedestrians as well as cyclist.
My concern with the light is not that I have to wait at a red light.
I am concerned that they will be worried about traffic and never let
the cyclist go. If many cyclist are like me they will not stop at a
light if they have to wait forever. If the the light is reasonable
then we can convince the cyclist that are currently used to not
waiting for a red light to actually wait.
With the pedestrians having the right away... I am all for them
having the right away when they have a green. The issue I have is
that they have the right away when it is red. Most pedestrians are
respectable and don't follow the rule but I noticed on the BU campus
the pedestrians (and cyclist) tend to take up the crosswalk rule that
they have the right away even when they have the red. I know I fall
in the group and I am the first that says it needs to stop for
everybody's safety.
I do like your suggestion of designing a better lane marking. I just
wanted to make sure that these things get thought out first. It
sounds like that is what you are doing.
cheers,
Bret
Alex Storer
to predict traffic, and then planning my decisions accordingly. If
I'm crossing a new intersection, that means I follow the traffic laws,
because at the bare minimum, I know when a green light comes, I can
go, and there won't be any cars or pedestrians. But with
intersections I bike past every day, I know when a red light means
"there are a bunch of cars!" and when a red light means "this is a red
light because once in a hundred times, there will be a pedestrian
here". I don't really care if cars run red lights, as long as I know
when it's going to happen. The trick is consistency. A rogue car
running a red light is way more dangerous than no light being there at
all. It's the same with pedestrians and wrong-way cyclists. If a
dangerous thing takes you by surprised, you're pretty hosed.
If we're going to get on the case of cars who unload in the bike lane,
then we're actually agitating for a strict interpretation of the laws.
Don't run red lights, always signal, have both a front and rear
light, stop at stop signs, don't bike too fast, wait in traffic -
rules I know all of us have bent every once in a while (if not quite
frequently). Are we honestly going to follow a bicycles only signal?
The truth is, yes, if it aligns with our preconceived notions of when
we should be stopping or going. I've been cycling in Boston for long
enough to learn the actual rules of the road, as opposed to the laws
that were not only not designed for us, but are never enforced. I'd
rather have more resources for bikes and a friendly atmosphere towards
cycling than new rules that don't align with what I feel is the safest
way for me to bike.
Everyone who bikes enough at BU knows what the real hazards are. It's
the 57 accelerating to pass you and then stopping directly in front of
you on comm ave, it's pedestrians unpredictably crossing the BU
bridge, it's drunk SUV drivers after a Sox game. And everyone who
bikes enough at BU also knows that the most hazardous bikers aren't
the ones with years of experience, they're the ones on mountain bikes
with their seats way too low biking the wrong way in the bike lane and
listening to their iPods or talking on their cell phones.
I'm no anarchist, but I think rules are not the answer here. We have
to increase the number of cyclists on the road, and we have to educate
the cyclists that we have. I'm not sure what the best approach to
this is, but strict enforcement of bike lanes is way less important to
me than keeping the roads safe and predictable. More bikes, smarter
bikers, smarter pedestrians, and safer drivers. Everything is
interrelated - a pedestrian in the wrong place can cause a devastating
chain reaction. A car stops short, a bike swerves - things get
unpredictable, and thens when the danger happens.
I think at our meeting tomorrow we have to really focus on what we
want to achieve, and how we want to achieve it. Like Bret says, be
careful what you wish for. Ask yourself if you deserve a ticket every
time you do something that's technically illegal on your bike, because
ticketing offending cyclists is not unheard of in the Boston area! We
need goals that are sensible and clearly articulated, and from my
standpoint, that has more to do with education and resources than
traffic enforcement, but I could be convinced otherwise. :)
Hope to see lots of you tomorrow!
Riding Dirty,
~Alex