Newbury(port) Mass. bicycle lanes
John F. Carr
Tree Swallow in the world, and not much else). I noticed
bike lanes between Newbury/Newburyport and the island. But
I didn't think they looked very helpful. The main example
I'm thinking of is around the north end of Plum Island Turnpike
westbound. What looked at first like a narrow poorly maintained
shoulder was proclaimed by signs and pavement markings to be a
bicycle lane. As a driver, I certainly wouldn't have blamed a
bicyclist for ignoring the invitation to ride on the three feet
of scattered sand patches at the edge of the road. Is the
regional bike lane program actually helpful, or merely a failed
attempt to appear helpful?
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Marc Dashevsky
As far as I know these particular bike lanes were an afterthought
at the end of the PI Turnpike repaving after water and sewer
service were brought out to the island. My daughter and I used
the lanes a week ago and I felt safer this year within the lanes
than in the past, so narrow as they are, they are an improvement.
--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.
Dan...@gmail.com
The bike lanes in Newburyport are a joke, and in many cases
dangerous. Some drivers (and even some law enforcement!) get the
impression that if the lane is there, the cyclist has to use it. A
good example of this is High St by State St, where many cyclists can
easily pace traffic from the RT-1 crossing past downtown. The bike
lane is too close to the parked cars and the traffic lane to maintain
any speed, so the logical choice is to get into the lane and keep up
with traffic. Unfortunately, this can sometimes infuriate motorists
and result in threats from the local PD. Once you get to the Federal
St area, there tends to be a little room on the shoulder and the bike
lane makes more sense. Traffic also picks up to 30+ around there, so
the bike lane becomes useful at a rather convenient location, which is
nice.
I'm not sure about the Plum Island bike lanes, maybe I'll go out that
way for lunch and take a look.
As for this part: "I certainly wouldn't have blamed a bicyclist for
ignoring the invitation to ride on the three feet of scattered sand
patches at the edge of the road", that sadly reflects many "bike
lanes" in the area. Many cyclists believe the concept of a "bike
lane" is merely a failed attempt to appear helpful, and the more of
them I ride the more that perspective makes sense.
The Dover/Portsmouth/Newington area has a nice setup for bicycle
routes. They designate routes as opposed to just a lane on the edge
of a road, and those "routes" tend to have the basics for safe riding:
a) clean shoulders
b) wide shoulders
c) good pavement
d) decent enforcement of speed limits
e) signs notifying cars they're on a "bike route", which hopefully
inclines people to pay a little more attention.
By the way, to see the real wildlife gems at Plum Island, it's best to
go into the reservation area where they charge admission, go down
about as far as you can drive, park and then hit the little side
trails and paths. Weekdays are best, weekends have too many people
and all the little critters seem to get to hiding.
David Z Maze
> I went to Plum Island today (where I saw what must be every
> Tree Swallow in the world, and not much else).
(It must not be mosquito season...Plum Island is *terrible* biking if
you get nibbled to death if you ever drop below 10 mph.)
> I noticed bike lanes between Newbury/Newburyport and the island. But
> I didn't think they looked very helpful. The main example I'm
> thinking of is around the north end of Plum Island Turnpike westbound.
> What looked at first like a narrow poorly maintained shoulder was
> proclaimed by signs and pavement markings to be a bicycle lane. As a
> driver, I certainly wouldn't have blamed a bicyclist for ignoring the
> invitation to ride on the three feet of scattered sand patches at the
> edge of the road.
The last time I was out that way (which admittedly has been a couple of
years) I remember the pavement on Plum Island Turnpike as being, let us
say, not among the better instances of Massachusetts road maintenance.
If they've taken a pothole-ridden generally decaying shoulder and signed
it as a bike lane, I'd probably take my chances in traffic too.
--dzm [who does actually generally seem to get automobile respect on a bike]
John F. Carr
Dan...@gmail.com <Dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The bike lanes in Newburyport are a joke, and in many cases
>dangerous. Some drivers (and even some law enforcement!) get the
>impression that if the lane is there, the cyclist has to use it.
Massachusetts law says drive in the right lane. If you're on a
bicycle and the right lane is a bike lane, you have to use it.
Except that law applies only "when such lane is available for
travel", offering lots of room for argument about how nasty a
bike lane has to be before it is legally considered unavailable.
>A good example of this is High St by State St, where many cyclists can
>easily pace traffic from the RT-1 crossing past downtown. The bike
>lane is too close to the parked cars and the traffic lane to maintain
>any speed, so the logical choice is to get into the lane and keep up
>with traffic.
I passed a couple bicyclists there yesterday who, it turned out
after a confusing few seconds, wanted to get from the bike lane
on my right to the left lane on my left to make a turn. In that
particular situation it would have been safer for them to have
signaled left from within a unified right travel lane. Assuming
bicylists around there know how to use arm signals. Almost none
of them do in the Boston area. I see a signal every year or two,
mostly in Newton where car traffic is faster.
>The Dover/Portsmouth/Newington area has a nice setup for bicycle
>routes. They designate routes as opposed to just a lane on the edge
>of a road, and those "routes" tend to have the basics for safe riding:
>a) clean shoulders
>b) wide shoulders
>c) good pavement
>d) decent enforcement of speed limits
I noticed a lot of people in Newbury driving slowly, and I don't
mean just obeying the speed limit out of fear of a ticket.
>By the way, to see the real wildlife gems at Plum Island, it's best to
>go into the reservation area where they charge admission, go down
>about as far as you can drive, park and then hit the little side
>trails and paths. Weekdays are best, weekends have too many people
>and all the little critters seem to get to hiding.
That's where I was, in the wildlife refuge, but the wildlife I
could see was basically all Tree Swallows. The only thing I
identified there that I hadn't seen before was a Tiger Bee Fly
(insect). A woman with a telescope on one of the observation
towers was able to identify some shorebirds in the distance to
species level. With another $10,000 worth of camera equipment
I could have gotten some decent pictures of them.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F. Carr
David Z Maze <dm...@mit.edu> wrote:
>j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) writes:
>
>> I went to Plum Island today (where I saw what must be every
>> Tree Swallow in the world, and not much else).
>
>(It must not be mosquito season...Plum Island is *terrible* biking if
>you get nibbled to death if you ever drop below 10 mph.)
A few spots had a lot of mosquitoes and some deerflies. After
the first serious attack I applied bug spray and they mostly left
me alone.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Dan...@gmail.com
> In article <1187185397.673438.51...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DanK...@gmail.com <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The bike lanes in Newburyport are a joke, and in many cases
> >dangerous. Some drivers (and even some law enforcement!) get the
> >impression that if the lane is there, the cyclist has to use it.
>
> Massachusetts law says drive in the right lane. If you're on a
> bicycle and the right lane is a bike lane, you have to use it.
> Except that law applies only "when such lane is available for
> travel", offering lots of room for argument about how nasty a
> bike lane has to be before it is legally considered unavailable.
Could you provide a cite for this? Unless the laws have changed
recently, I'm rather certain this statement is inaccurate. If I rode
to work today I'd have my pack with my references from mass.gov, but
my camelback is with my bikes. If I can find the time I'll see what I
can pull up.
>From memory, Mass law recognizes bikes as vehicles, and if they are
not obstructing traffic they have as much right to the lane as any
other vehicle. Once you can't keep up and start to hold traffic
(legally 3 cars if memory serves, but 1 is enough for me) you have an
obligation to move right as far as is practicable. Riding on broken,
sandy glass-ridden shoulders or in door zones downtown is not
practicable.
Understand I do the vast majority of my riding (excluding mountain
biking) on the edge of the road, sometimes in bike lanes. When this
is not safe or practicable, however, I don't do it.
> >A good example of this is High St by State St, where many cyclists can
> >easily pace traffic from the RT-1 crossing past downtown. The bike
> >lane is too close to the parked cars and the traffic lane to maintain
> >any speed, so the logical choice is to get into the lane and keep up
> >with traffic.
>
> I passed a couple bicyclists there yesterday who, it turned out
> after a confusing few seconds, wanted to get from the bike lane
> on my right to the left lane on my left to make a turn. In that
> particular situation it would have been safer for them to have
> signaled left from within a unified right travel lane.
I agree. I'd have done what you suggested.
> Assuming
> bicylists around there know how to use arm signals. Almost none
> of them do in the Boston area. I see a signal every year or two,
> mostly in Newton where car traffic is faster.
IME most cyclists do understand hand signals, but sometimes use a
modified version. I find that if I give a proper (left handed) "right
turn hand signal" when on my bike, many people (some of whom are
driving cars) do not understand what I mean. That signal is intended
for a car anyway, where the right hand is not visible to other
traffic. On a bicycle I point right with my right hand to turn right,
and I point left with my left hand to turn left. It's extremely clear
as to my intentions, and makes misunderstandings all but impossible.
> >The Dover/Portsmouth/Newington area has a nice setup for bicycle
> >routes. They designate routes as opposed to just a lane on the edge
> >of a road, and those "routes" tend to have the basics for safe riding:
> >a) clean shoulders
> >b) wide shoulders
> >c) good pavement
> >d) decent enforcement of speed limits
>
> I noticed a lot of people in Newbury driving slowly, and I don't
> mean just obeying the speed limit out of fear of a ticket.
I agree, and it can be frustrating. I'm a motorist, motorcyclist and
a pedal-cyclist and regardless of my vehicle on a given day I don't
hold up traffic without reason. I don't like to be held up, so I
don't hold others up. If conditions cause traffic to be held up
behind me, I pull over and let them by. This could be because I'm
pulling a trailer with my truck, because I got caught in a torrential
downpour on my motorcycle or because I can't keep up with traffic on
my pedal bike. However, when I can keep up, I use the lane. It's
safer. On the bicycle if I can keep up it's usually around traffic
lights and in downtown-ish areas, where riding on the edge has a whole
set of dangers I don't care to contend with.
> >By the way, to see the real wildlife gems at Plum Island, it's best to
> >go into the reservation area where they charge admission, go down
> >about as far as you can drive, park and then hit the little side
> >trails and paths. Weekdays are best, weekends have too many people
> >and all the little critters seem to get to hiding.
>
> That's where I was, in the wildlife refuge, but the wildlife I
> could see was basically all Tree Swallows. The only thing I
> identified there that I hadn't seen before was a Tiger Bee Fly
> (insect). A woman with a telescope on one of the observation
> towers was able to identify some shorebirds in the distance to
> species level. With another $10,000 worth of camera equipment
> I could have gotten some decent pictures of them.
That's too bad. Was this a weekend? Were there lots of people
around? I've had great luck viewing wildlife there, though I have not
been yet this year. I prefer the off-season, when there are few
people and no admission fee.
John F. Carr
Dan...@gmail.com <Dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 15, 11:13 am, j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>
>> In article <1187185397.673438.51...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> DanK...@gmail.com <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >The bike lanes in Newburyport are a joke, and in many cases
>> >dangerous. Some drivers (and even some law enforcement!) get the
>> >impression that if the lane is there, the cyclist has to use it.
>>
>> Massachusetts law says drive in the right lane. If you're on a
>> bicycle and the right lane is a bike lane, you have to use it.
>> Except that law applies only "when such lane is available for
>> travel", offering lots of room for argument about how nasty a
>> bike lane has to be before it is legally considered unavailable.
>
>Could you provide a cite for this? Unless the laws have changed
>recently, I'm rather certain this statement is inaccurate. If I rode
>to work today I'd have my pack with my references from mass.gov, but
>my camelback is with my bikes. If I can find the time I'll see what I
>can pull up.
General Laws chapter 89 section 4B.
In some other states which do not require traffic to use the right
lane as a general rule there is a law requiring bicyclists to use a
bike lane when present.
>>From memory, Mass law recognizes bikes as vehicles, and if they are
>not obstructing traffic they have as much right to the lane as any
>other vehicle.
As far as is relevant here, bicycles differ from other slow moving
vehicles by being smaller than cars and entitled to use of a bicycle
lane. Because they can legally and physically do some things that a
car can't they are not treated precisely the same as cars.
> Once you can't keep up and start to hold traffic
>(legally 3 cars if memory serves, but 1 is enough for me) you have an
>obligation to move right as far as is practicable.
My city's ordinances, which generally follow state requirements,
state "No person shall drive in such a manner as to obstruct
unnecessarily the normal movement of traffic upon any street
or highway." Some Western states with more hills have a five
vehicle limit and then you have to pull over to let them pass.
Another Massachusetts law (chapter 89 section 2) requires drivers
to move to the right to let faster traffic pass.
>Riding on broken, sandy glass-ridden shoulders or in door zones
>downtown is not practicable.
The word "practicable" is found in many states' lane use or bicycle
laws but not in Massachusetts'. The key words here are "available"
as applicable to use of lanes and "unnecessarily" as applicable to
the act of obstruction (city ordinance and chapter 85 section 2).
>IME most cyclists do understand hand signals, but sometimes use a
>modified version. I find that if I give a proper (left handed) "right
>turn hand signal" when on my bike, many people (some of whom are
>driving cars) do not understand what I mean. That signal is intended
>for a car anyway, where the right hand is not visible to other
>traffic. On a bicycle I point right with my right hand to turn right,
>and I point left with my left hand to turn left. It's extremely clear
>as to my intentions, and makes misunderstandings all but impossible.
That is an officially allowed hand signal as per the first sentence of
General Laws chapter 85 section 11B* and I'd count it among the rare
observations of signaling if I saw it.
* "the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention
to stop or turn"
>> >By the way, to see the real wildlife gems at Plum Island, it's best to
>> >go into the reservation area where they charge admission, go down
>> >about as far as you can drive, park and then hit the little side
>> >trails and paths. Weekdays are best, weekends have too many people
>> >and all the little critters seem to get to hiding.
>>
>> That's where I was, in the wildlife refuge, but the wildlife I
>> could see was basically all Tree Swallows. The only thing I
>> identified there that I hadn't seen before was a Tiger Bee Fly
>> (insect). A woman with a telescope on one of the observation
>> towers was able to identify some shorebirds in the distance to
>> species level. With another $10,000 worth of camera equipment
>> I could have gotten some decent pictures of them.
>
>That's too bad. Was this a weekend? Were there lots of people
>around? I've had great luck viewing wildlife there, though I have not
>been yet this year. I prefer the off-season, when there are few
>people and no admission fee.
There weren't a lot of people around me most of the time. The
state park lot at the south tip of the island was full by the
time I reached it around 11:00. I spent a couple hours around
parking lot four first.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Dan...@gmail.com
> DanK...@gmail.com <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 15, 11:13 am, j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
>
> >> In article <1187185397.673438.51...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> DanK...@gmail.com <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The bike lanes in Newburyport are a joke, and in many cases
> >> >dangerous. Some drivers (and even some law enforcement!) get the
> >> >impression that if the lane is there, the cyclist has to use it.
>
> >> Massachusetts law says drive in the right lane. If you're on a
> >> bicycle and the right lane is a bike lane, you have to use it.
> >> Except that law applies only "when such lane is available for
> >> travel", offering lots of room for argument about how nasty a
> >> bike lane has to be before it is legally considered unavailable.
>
> >Could you provide a cite for this? Unless the laws have changed
> >recently, I'm rather certain this statement is inaccurate. If I rode
> >to work today I'd have my pack with my references from mass.gov, but
> >my camelback is with my bikes. If I can find the time I'll see what I
> >can pull up.
>
> General Laws chapter 89 section 4B.
>
> In some other states which do not require traffic to use the right
> lane as a general rule there is a law requiring bicyclists to use a
> bike lane when present.
Interesting. Thanks for the cite. I tend to see these things from
the cyclist perspective, though I am a motorist also. I have seen
many a pamphlet stating bicycles having a right to the road same as
any other vehicle, with the exception of limited access highways. In
fact, page 99 of the drivers manual states that "Except on limited-
access or express state highways where prohibited by posted signs,
bicyclists and moped riders have the same rights to use the public
roadways as any other drivers."
> >>From memory, Mass law recognizes bikes as vehicles, and if they are
> >not obstructing traffic they have as much right to the lane as any
> >other vehicle.
>
> As far as is relevant here, bicycles differ from other slow moving
> vehicles by being smaller than cars and entitled to use of a bicycle
> lane. Because they can legally and physically do some things that a
> car can't they are not treated precisely the same as cars.
>
> > Once you can't keep up and start to hold traffic
> >(legally 3 cars if memory serves, but 1 is enough for me) you have an
> >obligation to move right as far as is practicable.
>
> My city's ordinances, which generally follow state requirements,
> state "No person shall drive in such a manner as to obstruct
> unnecessarily the normal movement of traffic upon any street
> or highway." Some Western states with more hills have a five
> vehicle limit and then you have to pull over to let them pass.
>
> Another Massachusetts law (chapter 89 section 2) requires drivers
> to move to the right to let faster traffic pass.
>
> >Riding on broken, sandy glass-ridden shoulders or in door zones
> >downtown is not practicable.
>
> The word "practicable" is found in many states' lane use or bicycle
> laws but not in Massachusetts'. The key words here are "available"
> as applicable to use of lanes and "unnecessarily" as applicable to
> the act of obstruction (city ordinance and chapter 85 section 2).
I wonder why MA did that differently. I'm afraid that regardless of
the law, I'm not riding where it's not practicable to ride. If riding
in the bike lane is not practicable, I'm not going to do it.
Available or not, I'm more concerned about staying safe. I'll post up
here if I ever have to make the case in court. Perhaps there's a case
the lane was not available, as it would not have been safe to use
it?
What's interesting about bike lanes is that if they're done right, my
riding will put me in them by chance. I don't look to follow them, I
just look to hold a safe line as far to the right as I can find.
Often times, there's a bike lane painted there. Anyway, after reading
up on the MA laws, it appears you are right. Somehow I don't think
that the slight risk of a $20 fine is going to inspire many cyclists
to endanger themselves, however.
> >IME most cyclists do understand hand signals, but sometimes use a
> >modified version. I find that if I give a proper (left handed) "right
> >turn hand signal" when on my bike, many people (some of whom are
> >driving cars) do not understand what I mean. That signal is intended
> >for a car anyway, where the right hand is not visible to other
> >traffic. On a bicycle I point right with my right hand to turn right,
> >and I point left with my left hand to turn left. It's extremely clear
> >as to my intentions, and makes misunderstandings all but impossible.
>
> That is an officially allowed hand signal as per the first sentence of
> General Laws chapter 85 section 11B* and I'd count it among the rare
> observations of signaling if I saw it.
>
> * "the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention
> to stop or turn"
It seems you come across more discourteous riders than I do. Perhaps
I just don't notice. Also, I believe that (unless I'm confusing NH
law again, since I live and usually ride in NH) the rider is required
to signal if it is safe to do so. If braking on uneven pavement, it's
often not safe to signal. Even if required, it would be foolish to
deposit oneself onto ones face trying to signal and brake on a poor
surface.
> >> >By the way, to see the real wildlife gems at Plum Island, it's best to
> >> >go into the reservation area where they charge admission, go down
> >> >about as far as you can drive, park and then hit the little side
> >> >trails and paths. Weekdays are best, weekends have too many people
> >> >and all the little critters seem to get to hiding.
>
> >> That's where I was, in the wildlife refuge, but the wildlife I
> >> could see was basically all Tree Swallows. The only thing I
> >> identified there that I hadn't seen before was a Tiger Bee Fly
> >> (insect). A woman with a telescope on one of the observation
> >> towers was able to identify some shorebirds in the distance to
> >> species level. With another $10,000 worth of camera equipment
> >> I could have gotten some decent pictures of them.
>
> >That's too bad. Was this a weekend? Were there lots of people
> >around? I've had great luck viewing wildlife there, though I have not
> >been yet this year. I prefer the off-season, when there are few
> >people and no admission fee.
>
> There weren't a lot of people around me most of the time. The
> state park lot at the south tip of the island was full by the
> time I reached it around 11:00. I spent a couple hours around
> parking lot four first.
It's nice when you can get the park to yourself. There's nothing like
that place at sunrise on a weekday, you can sometimes go an hour or
two without seeing anyone. That's my favorite time to be there.
John F. Carr
Marc Dashevsky <use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>As far as I know these particular bike lanes were an afterthought
>at the end of the PI Turnpike repaving after water and sewer
>service were brought out to the island. My daughter and I used
>the lanes a week ago and I felt safer this year within the lanes
>than in the past, so narrow as they are, they are an improvement.
That answers a third of the question. The three subquestions are
1. Do they make the traveling experience less stressful?
2. Do they improve operations?
3. Do they improve safety?
You answered the first part "yes." Did you mean in the rural section
of road? A couple of us answered the second and third parts "no" with
respect to the lanes in downtown Newburyport, without addressing the
rural part of the Plum Island Turnpike.
Crosswalks provide an example of a conflict between the first and
third questions. Crosswalks on high speed roads may make residents
or pedestrians feel better (yes to 1) but often increase the
accident rate (no to 3).
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Marc Dashevsky
> In article <MPG.212c3e92...@news.supernews.com>,
> Marc Dashevsky <use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
> >As far as I know these particular bike lanes were an afterthought
> >at the end of the PI Turnpike repaving after water and sewer
> >service were brought out to the island. My daughter and I used
> >the lanes a week ago and I felt safer this year within the lanes
> >than in the past, so narrow as they are, they are an improvement.
>
> That answers a third of the question. The three subquestions are
> 1. Do they make the traveling experience less stressful?
> 2. Do they improve operations?
> 3. Do they improve safety?
>
> You answered the first part "yes." Did you mean in the rural section
> of road?
Yes. I was referring only to Plum Isalnd Turnpike, between Ocean Ave.
and the bridge over the channel/river that separates Plum Island from
the mainland.
> A couple of us answered the second and third parts "no" with
> respect to the lanes in downtown Newburyport, without addressing the
> rural part of the Plum Island Turnpike.
I'm not aware of any lanes in downtown per se, but I suppose you are
talking about the bike lanes on High Street (Rt. 113). I look at them
also as incremental progress, but as substantially less than ideal.
My perspective is not that of an avid bicyclist, but rather as a
Newburyport resident who bicycles to/from town on High St. and out
to the island or elsewhere around the salt marsh on occasion. I'm
much more comfortable on the rural roads in Newbury and Rowley than
I am on the busier roads of Newburyport, bike lanes or no bike lanes.
John F. Carr
Dan...@gmail.com <Dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What's interesting about bike lanes is that if they're done right, my
>riding will put me in them by chance. I don't look to follow them, I
>just look to hold a safe line as far to the right as I can find.
>Often times, there's a bike lane painted there.
That's a general principle of traffic control. Fighting human
nature is a losing proposition. Post all the stop signs and
speed limit signs you want, and watch as people do what comes
naturally rather than what their betters think they ought to do.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F. Carr
possible bike lanes in Peabody;
<http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_261003336.html?keyword=topstory>
>Newburyport has had bike lanes since 2004. One, which was happily
>approved by the city, is on well-traveled High Street.
>
>"I have to admit," Mayor John Moak said, "it's been controversial."
Among the complaints is that providing the lane has cost parking spaces.
>
>"There are places where the bike lane just stops," Moak said.
>
>Residents also complain that it's made backing out of driveways a
>trial. And, like Osborne, the Newburyport mayor worries that bicyclists
>develop a false sense of security.
>
>So far, however, Moak could recall only one bike accident on High
>Street. "And I think it would have happened anyway." Meanwhile, bike
>riders love the lane. "They tell me it's great." The lane gets
>"occasional" use, he said.
>
>A bike lane also exists on the road to Plum Island that was mandated
>by the state, Moak said. But he raises no complaints about it
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Marc Dashevsky
> Newburyport's lanes are mentioned in a story about
> possible bike lanes in Peabody;
> <http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_261003336.html?keyword=topstory>
>
> >Newburyport has had bike lanes since 2004. One, which was happily
> >approved by the city, is on well-traveled High Street.
> >
> >"I have to admit," Mayor John Moak said, "it's been controversial."
> Among the complaints is that providing the lane has cost parking spaces.
> >
> >"There are places where the bike lane just stops," Moak said.
> >
> >Residents also complain that it's made backing out of driveways a trial.
Backing out of driveways on to High Street was a breeze until the bike
lanes appeared. Bullshit. Backing out into traffic exceeding the 30mph
speed limit by 50% is difficult, bike lanes or no bike lanes.
> >And, like Osborne, the Newburyport mayor worries that bicyclists
> >develop a false sense of security.
I tend to have a realistic sense about how vulnerable I am to 45mph
cars passing by me.
> >So far, however, Moak could recall only one bike accident on High
> >Street. "And I think it would have happened anyway." Meanwhile, bike
> >riders love the lane. "They tell me it's great." The lane gets
> >"occasional" use, he said.
> >
> >A bike lane also exists on the road to Plum Island that was mandated
> >by the state, Moak said. But he raises no complaints about it
--
Charlie Denison
> In article <46eff75d$0$490$b45e6...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>, j...@mit.edu says...
>
> > Newburyport's lanes are mentioned in a story about
> > possible bike lanes in Peabody;
>
> > >Newburyport has had bike lanes since 2004. One, which was happily
> > >approved by the city, is on well-traveled High Street.
>
> > >"I have to admit," Mayor John Moak said, "it's been controversial."
> > Among the complaints is that providing the lane has cost parking spaces.
>
> > >"There are places where the bike lane just stops," Moak said.
>
> > >Residents also complain that it's made backing out of driveways a trial.
>
> Backing out of driveways on to High Street was a breeze until the bike
> lanes appeared. Bullshit. Backing out into traffic exceeding the 30mph
> speed limit by 50% is difficult, bike lanes or no bike lanes.
>
> > >And, like Osborne, the Newburyport mayor worries that bicyclists
> > >develop a false sense of security.
>
> I tend to have a realistic sense about how vulnerable I am to 45mph
> cars passing by me.
>
> > >So far, however, Moak could recall only one bike accident on High
> > >Street. "And I think it would have happened anyway." Meanwhile, bike
> > >riders love the lane. "They tell me it's great." The lane gets
> > >"occasional" use, he said.
>
> > >A bike lane also exists on the road to Plum Island that was mandated
> > >by the state, Moak said. But he raises no complaints about it
>
> --
> Go tohttp://MarcDashevsky.comto send me e-mail.
[Start generic bike lane article]
Bike lanes have been added to a busy stretch of road in one town, to
mixed reactions. Joe Cyclist says "I think these lanes are really
great. Motorists tend to drive aggressively through here, but the
bike lanes make it clear that they should drive more cautiously and
not pass too closely." Jane Resident disagrees. "We are used to
double parking through here and backing out of our driveways without
looking. It's become very inconvenient to look out for these pesky
bicyclists now. One of them almost ran right into me when I was
turning in front of him to enter my driveway!"
[End sarcasm]