Cyclists strategized Thursday around one of the most polarizing issues driving the upcoming City Council election: the Cycling Safety Ordinance.
The event that packed the Harvard Square Patagonia store was organized by the Cambridge Bicycle Safety Group, marking a renewed effort to hold the city to its 2019 commitment to build approximately 26 miles of protected bike lanes, followed by an amendment the next year that set timelines.
In elections two years ago, the group asked city councillors and challengers to sign a pledge to uphold and see the CSO through to completion. The same is true now as the November election looms – though the group is more concerned this time, as three supporting council members (Dennis Carlone, Alanna Mallon and Quinton Zondervan) are leaving, and some candidates running to fill those slots are against completing the project or want to “hit the pause button” to reevaluate.
Council challengers John Hanratty and Joan Pickett are part of a group who sued the city to have bike lanes removed in Porter Square and North Cambridge, CBSG organizer Chris Cassa said.
The presentation was brief but pointed, homing in on the critical nature of the moment and detailing the formal launch of a campaign strategy to make voters aware of the 10 of 24 candidates who have signed the pledge to date, including five incumbents.
Besides Cassa, long-term Cambridge Bicycle Committee member Randy Stern spoke. Then the mic was passed to Sarah O’Connor, who is in charge of a get-out-the-vote campaign. (“A powerhouse,” Cassa called her.)
Yard signs, buttons and cards were handed out as O’Connor signed volunteers up for canvassing and phone bank outreach efforts.
“The energy at our campaign launch was truly inspiring,” O’Connor said, “We’re going to mobilize the power in that room to ensure a win for bike safety on the ballot in November.”
Cassa, a lecturer at MIT, reminded the audience to use a grassroots approach: “When I’m stopped at a light, I pass out a few cards to other people biking, and no matter how goofy I may look, I wear my button into shops to let the store owners and staff know that I biked there to give them my business.”
The group is preparing a booklet to help guide residents to candidates supporting bike lane and safe-street measures, though voters sympathetic to bike lanes do not have to choose a candidate on that singular cause, Cassa said. “If you are about affordable housing or green spaces, there are candidates on our list that support that cause and bike lanes.”
The gathering, hosted by the outdoor apparel outlet, was well attended by a diverse group of people, and had to be capped at the storefront’s 130-person limit. “This is the most people we’ve had in here,” an employee said.
“I was so impressed with how packed the event was,” said Sandra Fairbank, of Mount Auburn Street. “I’m 76 and love biking in Cambridge. I feel super safe when I use the new Brattle Street bike lanes.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
“ahhh look at all the lonely WiPiPo…..”
Bono has to confess he’s a bit mystified… Is this a news story? or a pep talk? “Promotions” are fine, but shouldn’t they be labeled as such? Meek is known to be an aggressive bicycling advocate who contributes regularly to neighborhood email lists arguing strenuously against any restraint or common sense when it comes to the rapidly expanding bicycle infrastructure in Cambridge. And a little disclosure here would be nice: Does Mr. Meek know Chris Cassa? Is he a member of this organization or affiliated with it in any way? Is this really just a fair and relatively objective news report?? Or is it little more than a heavily biased advocacy piece?? If truly the former, all Meek would have had to do is walk outside and ask anyone walking by how they feel about the bizarre two-way bike lane that dead ends dangerously into Battle Square, is hell for pedestrians to cross, and has turned what was once a rather lovely and pedestrian-friendly block of Brattle Street into a horrendous eye-sore. Bono suspects it would not have taken long to find someone – especially if they lived anywhere nearby – who would not be ecstatic about it, whether they ever ride a bike or not. Cambridge Day can and should do better on this important issue, which Meek himself at least admits is “controversial.”
Definitely more bike lanes. But, bikers need to be more responsible and orderly. The other day two bikers rushed by on the sidewalk practically hitting a pedestrian (and there was a bike lane on the street) – and they weren’t wearing a helmet. Then crossing at a nearby intersection when there was a walk light two bikers raced through also nearly hitting a pedestrian.
Poor Bono Publico, is there anything in the actual piece that you object to? To me it reads as an informative and pertinent report. Some think parked cars are an “eye sore,” you think bike lanes are an “eye sore.” Neither of those opinions should count for much. As for your description of that block as “hell for pedestrians to cross,” LOL. It is much safer for everyone now. And yes we would all like bikers to be on their best behavior, but let’s keep in perspective how much more dangerous cars are.
@poor bono publico. In your opinion anything remotely pro-bicycling is obviously biased while anything against biking is just assumed to be universal and objective.
“ask anyone walking by how they feel” Your dogmatic hatred of anything that makes life better for people on bikes isn’t actually shared by everyone, no matter how much your cognitive biases lead you to believe it is.
My thanks to Chris Cassa for subtly pointing out that he stops at red lights. I have noticed more cyclists doing that of late, including a whole phalanx of Cambridge police on bikes heading to the Caribbean Festival. I am not opposed to considering whether Cambridge should adopt the Idaho stop, but, just like right on red, it needs to include the stopping part, along with looking to make sure you’re not going to hit anybody.
Thank you Poor Bono for pointing out Tom Meek’s obvious bias. He is a strong and true bike advocate — and that is fine as an individual posting a opinion — which is where his article belongs — not as a lead “story” in Cambridge Day.
With an election coming up, Cambridge Day, our only local paper, must provide a balanced accounts of the issues. We need our local paper to present all sides, evenly.
We need to know where all candidates stand without the kind of fear-mongering and gaslighting that went on in the last election.
Don’t believe everything you hear — NO candidate would propose to rip up all the bike lanes — there are those who want an evaluation of the CSO, modification of the plans in some neighborhoods, better access for service providers, and mitigation of problems created by the changed traffic patterns — but no one is advocating for the removal of all the bike lanes. That is simply NOT happening and NOT advocated for by ANY candidates.
If the bike lanes have become an issue in the 2023 City Council elections it is because bike lanes have become so politicized. We all support bike safety and must stop polarizing this issue.
“Don’t believe everything you hear — NO candidate would propose to rip up all the bike lanes “
this claim is what shouldn’t be believed. Joan Pickett and John Hanratty are on the public record suing the city with the specific demand to remove all existing bike lanes and stop the installation of any further ones. This is a fact. Vicky Bestor, who was also involved in the lawsuit, is outright lying when she claims otherwise.
If you believed her and her complete misrepresentation of their actual intentions you should read this, which illustrates them clearly: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22077340/070122-injunction-decisions.pdf
“no one is advocating for the removal of all the bike lanes. That is simply NOT happening and NOT advocated for by ANY candidates.”
Not sure if you actually believe this or are lying too.
“We all support bike safety and must stop polarizing this issue.”
The candidates lying about their intentions and who sued the city to remove all bike lanes absolutely do not care abou bike safety. If they did they wouldn’t have sued the city to remove bike lanes that the federal highway administration has shown improve safety for all road users. It is their bad faith and astroterfed movement that has led to polarization over this, not the people who want to not die while riding their bikes.
@NC Walker: John Hanratty and Joan Pickett sued the city and literally asked the judge to remove every quickbuild separated bike lane in the city.
Here’s a photo of the judge’s ruling against this, which lists both their names as being on the lawsuit, and notes exactly that goal: https://ibb.co/55kkC1j
(Joan Pickett has lied and claimed this wasn’t part of the lawsuit, but it’s all in the court records online.)
@Heather, thank you for the kind words.
Modeling good behavior is really important — we need young people and people who are new to cycling to see the right way to get around (in all modes). I appreciate you mentioning the Idaho stop too. Anne Lusk (a public health expert from Harvard) just wrote to the Globe citing how the Idaho stop can reduce crash rates, because people biking can avoid cars that are turning.
Thanks for reporting on the meeting. As someone who attended and is strongly in support of safe streets for my son to bike and for myself to get around – every voter should be knowledgeable about candidates positions before casting their vote in November. Any candidate opposed to safe transportation and giving us non-car options has zero common sense and is not a serious candidate in my opinion. We have too many cars, too much traffic gridlock, and too urgent of the global climate crisis caused by burning fossil fuels. Biking is safe (on protected lanes), fun, and fast way to get around.
Yes it is Vickey, aka NC Walker, I write often with both names. I am proud to self-identify either way.
And, Yes I was part of the suit which was brought in an attempt to get the city to pay attention to the harm caused by the quick build installation to residents and businesses along Mass Ave. After the damage to North Mass Ave many of us tried to get the city to take a pause in the installation before Porter Square went in. TPT might have called them “listening” sessions, but no one in the city was “hearing” the problems of residents and they still are not.
We need safe bike lanes in Cambridge — no one disagrees. We also need better traffic flow for all vehicles and according to the Cambridge Police Department’s data the Quick Build has not made things safer. There has to be a better way to make cycling safer, ensure pedestrian safety, and to cut emissions. So far the CSO appears to have failed in all of those areas. Of course the CSO has never been evaluated, nor has a real survey of their economic impact been accomplished. Is it any wonder there are 24 candidates running for City Council.
@NC Walker So wait, you were _personally_ part of a lawsuit to remove all quickbuild bike lanes and then you you keep repeating no one wants to remove them?
I am speechless. Is this like, performance art?
Thanks Vickey, I’m so glad you came to explain why the gang had no choice but to defy democracy with the lawsuits. Those pesky voters just didn’t understand what they were doing when they voted for a council that pledged to improve the streets. Dummies! You guys had no other choice but to file multiple lawsuits, because the voters didn’t know best.
Luckily, everyone supports bike lanes, especially Joan Pickett, John Hanratty, and Vickey Knows Bestor. But you have to follow their plan: first they have to sue to stop and remove the bike lanes, and THEN we can do whatever they want instead. That must be why Joan and John have not provided a single good design idea or piece of meaningful dialogue. Because they are saving all of the good ideas for council, that’s when they’ll get constructive, right?
I’m sure that’s what the puppet group to “promote civility and civic engagement” is all about too, and not just to funneling dark money to these radical bozos.
Again I say … “ahhhhh look at all the lonely WiPiPo”
Champagne problems while multiple areas of Cambridge struggle with issues brought on by a lack of mental health and housing services. If only those posts would have such a multiple of passionate responses.
But please, continue bickering about civility and common sense while swerving both car and bike around Two-finger Joey and his long-term partner Angry Angie.
The city can and should address multiple problems at once. Ensuring people don’t die on the streets is a valid thing to make a priority though regardless, hardly “Champaign problems.”
Also plenty of non-white faces in there too but easier to smear than address that people who bike are a broad group. That being said statistics bear out that people who bike are less likely to be wealthy and are more likely to be immigrants.
Also “ Between 2001 and 2009, the growth in percent of all trips taken by bike was 100 percent among African Americans; 80 percent among Asians; 50 percent among Hispanics; and 22 percent among whites.”
And “ Seventy-one percent of people of color surveyed said that safer cycling would make their community better.”
@ Slaw
Yup, let’s keep playing that race card. What does race have to do with riding a bicycle?
And Champaign (sic) problems.
Im not the one playing the “race card” Sam Noubert Is, several times, I am responding to their claims with actual facts.
@Slaw
Between 2001 and 2009. That’s a bit dated.
Nonetheless, Where do these stats come from? Show us the credible source.
“Between 2001 and 2009, the growth in percent of all trips taken by bike was 100 percent among African Americans; 80 percent among Asians; 50 percent among Hispanics; and 22 percent among whites.”
It says a lot about you that you have no problem with anti-bike obstructionists outright lying that they don’t want to remove bike infrastructure when they sued the city to do exactly that or claiming biking is somehow just a rich white thing but do take issue with bringing up actual statistics that show biking infrastructure factually serves diverse populations and those with greater needs.
I think you really overstepped with the race card again.
You said “claiming biking is somehow just a rich white thing ”
I was born deep in Harlem, 124th st. and Malcolm X Boulevard. So… be very, very careful about what you say.
Back to the statistics.
Where do these stats come from? Show us the credible source.
“Between 2001 and 2009, the growth in percent of all trips taken by bike was 100 percent among African Americans; 80 percent among Asians; 50 percent among Hispanics; and 22 percent among whites.”
Those statistics are useless without the context. What is the base number of people? For example, an increase from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase. What is the percentage of the entire population each group represents, both in terms of the entire population using the streets and in terms of the bicycling population? For example, if a given group represents 30% of the entire population using the streets but only 2% of the bicycling population, then any given increase represents fewer people. In fact, depending on how the overall population has changed, it may represent a drop in the percentage of group members bicycling.
There are probably other questions about the context that would have to be answered in order for these statistics to be in any way meaningful. As it stands so far, however, they are useless.
Yet another instance of lies, damn lies and statistics. We ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I’ve seen little of that in the decisionmaking process in Cambridge.
You realize I am responding to something right? Look up what WiPiPo means. NC Walker/ Vicky Bestor has explicitly claimed that biking is a rich white thing.
I am explicitly saying that biking is not a thing only rich white people do to push back against the people claiming it is. Why do I need to be careful? You seem to be completely misrepresenting who is “playing the race card” here. That phrase btw is one most people understand as a dogwhistle.
The source for those stats is from a report called “The New Majority: Pedaling Towards Equity”it is covered here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-29/the-surprising-diversity-of-the-american-cycling-community
Claiming only white people bike is erasing thousands of Black people and other people of color who rely on bikes to get around. It is an attempt to poison debate and invert the actual relationship of privilege between car drivers and people on bikes.
“Yet another instance of lies, damn lies and statistics. We ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard, but I’ve seen little of that in the decisionmaking process in Cambridge.”
Again you say a lot about yourself by calling these statistics lies without bothering to do any research to see if your dismissal of them is even valid. If you do that basic research you will see it isn’t.
Also telling both of you ignore this: “ Seventy-one percent of people of color surveyed said that safer cycling would make their community better.”
Meanwhile you dont care at all that Vicky Bestor, who is party to the lawsuit calling to remove all bike lanes, is outright lying by claiming that “NO candidate would propose to rip up all the bike lanes.” Shows how much you care about the truth.
Simply astounding.
A group of surveys, from many different places,
at least 14 years old, are presented as “statistics.”
Have fun in your dream world. And be very careful about riding your bike on Brattle St. It’s a maze that is going to lead to problems for bikers and cars.
“Don’t believe everything you hear — NO candidate would propose to rip up all the bike lanes”
What I find most interesting about this duplicity of the anti-bike crowd is the implicit acknowledgment that bike lanes are popular and anyone who opposes them will have a difficult time being elected to the council. These people have been ranting for years that this policy is being rammed down our throats by a vocal minority. Why don’t they run against these deeply unpopular bike lanes then? Why cloak their platforms with trojan horse tactics?
Meanwhile, these same people lambast other candidates for stating their positions clearly and aligning themselves with advocacy groups.
Next, they complain about a lack of government transparency??? If this is indeed performance art, it must be inspired by absurdism.
It is 100% absurdist performance art. Hey Levy how about requiring people use their real names to post here? These topics are hyper local and people throw around threats and BS around while hiding behind phony bologna monickers. I think the conversations would be way more productive and less hyperbolic if people were required to verify who they are. To those that do this already you have my thanks and respect.
Here’s what the Cambridge Streets for All lawsuit actually said:
“remove the constructed separated bike lanes that eliminated existing on-strect parking, and restore parking meters and loading zones that were removed”.
The judge’s summary in the denial of the motion says “remove the bike lanes already in place”, which isn’t exactly the same thing.
That’s a difference without distinction considering it would require removing existing bike lanes.
You would never accept similar language games from a bike activist.