City prevails again in second suit on bike lanes, ruled as markings, not regulations by a judge
A parent and child use a bike lane in North Cambridge in 2022. (Photo: Tyler Motes)
Middlesex Superior Court Judge Maureen B. Hogan ruled for the City of Cambridge and dismissed a second lawsuit against the city that had argued bicycle lanes were an improper use of taxpayer funds and broke the law. Her opinion was entered Monday, but was dated Feb. 22.
The plaintiffs, Madeleine Aster and 19 others, previously lost their bid for a preliminary injunction in the same case – to stop in-progress bike lanes from being installed – in March. The city’s motion to dismiss was filed in December 2022 (before the injunction was denied), and was argued in October.
This second bike lanes case against the city was brought by the same attorney as the first, Ira Zaleznik. Zaleznik lost the first case, Cambridge Streets for All v. Cambridge, but appealed to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, which has been waiting for the today’s decision.
The Aster plaintiffs argued that bike lanes were “rules and regulations” of the city, and so subject to an appeal to the city’s subsequently resurrected Traffic Board under the special state law governing Cambridge’s Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department.
But Hogan agreed with the city: “Application of the plain language of the Special Act to the traffic director’s actions demonstrates that the installation of bicycle lanes and the signs and markings relative thereto are not rules and regulations under §3(a), but rather are markings and other traffic control devices within §3(b).”
Hogan also dismissed the claim that the city’s then-traffic director, Joe Barr, was unauthorized to hold the position because he was not a licensed traffic engineer. Citing her decision in the Cambridge Streets for All case, Hogan noted the law merely requires that “the traffic director ‘possess[] the qualifications required for associate or full membership in the Institute of Traffic Engineers,’” which has fairly liberal membership requirements, and plaintiffs did not even allege that Barr lacked those qualifications.
Standing
Plaintiffs did win one technical legal point: the threshold question of “standing,” or whether they were allowed to litigate the case at all. Hogan ruled they were indeed allowed to litigate the case, just that they lost on the merits.
Specifically, the city had argued the Aster plaintiffs lacked standing under the “taxpayer” law, because the funds for bike lane installation had already been spent. But Hogan found that although that was true, “as the installation of further bicycle lanes in Cambridge is ongoing, and as the City approves funding for the Five-Year Plan on an annual basis … the Taxpayers have standing.”
Next up
With this case decided, the appeals court will likely schedule the Cambridge Streets for All appeal. The Aster plaintiffs can also appeal the decision in Monday’s case, although it is likely that the appeals court would handle the cases in tandem if that were to occur, as it has already delayed the appeal waiting for this resolution.
These people should be ashamed of themselves. What a waste of taxpayer resources these frivolous and baseless lawsuits are. There are so many real problems in this community and all these people do is fight efforts to make infrastructure safer for people outside of automobiles. Shameful.
It is also always so telling the way NIMBY groups try to represent themselves vs what they are actually doing. “Cambridge streets for all” should really be “Cambridge streets for cars.”
I can’t imagine spending any amount of my time on this planet suing my own city over bicycles.
The lawsuit against bike lanes, driven by selfish self-interest, undermines the city’s efforts to enhance street safety and squanders taxpayer funds. It’s shameful.
Their lawyer, benefiting financially, continually accepts their money despite losing multiple lawsuits.
@Slaw +100. “Cambridge Streets for All” is such a misnomer. It’s “Cambridge Streets for Me, Me, Me”. Even small children know how to share.
And I thought that the bike lanes themselves were driven by selfish (ableist) self-interest.
Perhaps there are different perspectives and data analyses that we should better consider when enagaging in urban planning.
What a selfish group of people. Using lawyers to filibuster the City of Cambridge on safety improvements.
I gather the critics above would likewise be nasty about every other case lodged against the city? A quick search solely in Middlesex Superior Court, not including cases filed with MCAD or federal Court, posts 200 cases in which the City of Cambridge is named Defendant. I applaud those who are willing to take their grievances to court. They protect us all and help insure honest process in the future. Note also, the case was handled by salaried attorneys in the City Legal Department and Amici got a free ride. This cost the city nada!!
I don’t have a problem with the concept of a lawsuit (although it is certainly a more privileged class of people who can generally take advantage of the option). My issue is with what they are suing the city for. Despite claiming to want “streets for all” they are suing to prevent making streets safer for people outside of cars because they see their supposed right to potentially be able to park right in front of their destination as more important than other people’s right to live. It’s shamefully selfish and entitled behavior and motivated by an absurd degree of misinformation. Nothing about this “protects us all and helps insure honest process in the future.” They are attempting to make people less safe through dishonest means.
Oh, Slaw, what a sad reply. Seniors and disabled and business owners have rights too. Did you not realize that?? Cambridge Street for All, not just cyclists.
@toby Sharing the road with people and helping them get home safely is selfish self-interest? It sounds like common decency to me.
Bike lanes are also good for seniors and disabled people. Plenty of elders already ride bikes and it should be made safer for them. Plenty of elders (including my own mother) wish they could ride more but don’t feel safe enough given existing infrastructure. And for those who don’t bike lanes make it less likely people will bike on sidewalks reducing conflicts with pedestrians. Americans also now outlive their ability to drive by ten years and are more likely than other groups to crash, and to be injured or die in said crashes.
With bike lanes that are adequately safe, wide, continuous, and well placed, they can not only provide mobility to people on bikes but also to people in wheelchairs, assisted mobility devices, and maybe even microcars like they have in Amsterdam. I do see people with such devices making use of some of the better bike lanes in Cambridge and Somerville already. Additionally, many disabled people benefit from bike lanes because they also bike and for them a bike is an assisted mobility device. “In fact, the majority of disabled cyclists (69% of our survey group) find cycling easier than walking and many use their cycle as a mobility aid. Cycling reduces strain on the joints, aids balance and alleviates breathing difficulties.”
Bike lanes help businesses. Plenty of research and writing on this: https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/02/121370-bike-lanes-are-good-business-why-dont-business-owners-believe-it
None of those groups have interests synonymous with maximizing automobile convenience. Seniors=/=cars, disabled people=/=cars, local business=/=cars. Your efforts don’t serve those groups the my serve the dominance of the automobile over urban life.
Spending 10’s of millions of dollars without proper data gathering and analysis, without clearly defining what problem(s) we are trying to solve, without taking the perspectives of all affected constituents into appropriate consideration is selfish self-interest, yes.
I would also add the need to consider other matters that compete for funding in our city budget. For example, while we were funding the bike lanes, we allocated a mere $1.6M to help those suffering from substance use disorder.
Sharing the road, sharing our resources, sharing views (including differing opinions) are all matters of common decency.
Not putting words into other peoples’ mouths (particularly those I might disagree with) is also common decency.
There’s a great deal of nuance in all of this and we do ourselves great disservice by knee-jerk and over-simplified reactions.
This is what I mean about misinformation.
“Spending 10’s of millions of dollars”
Cambridge, smartly, integrates bike lane projects with overall roadway projects and maintenance, therefore much of this cost isn’t really for the bike lane. Bike lanes themselves are actually really cheap and need far less maintenance than general travel lanes. Once they are in they immediately start saving the city money in maintenance costs. Cambridge has spent hundreds of millions if not billions on car infrastructure over decades. There are going to be costs associated with reducing the negative impact of that choice. It’s foolish to blame that on bikes and not the bad infrastructure choices of the past.
“without proper data gathering”
There has been so much data gathering. Not only are there decades of research showing bike lanes improve street safety for all road users, there are also specific studies done on Cambridge bike lanes. The federal highway administration studied them and found that they dramatically improved street safety for all road users: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf (up to a 50% reduction in crashes)
Cambridge has also done its own studies finding higher rates of biking: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Bike/bikereports/20231023bicyclingincambridgedatareport_final.pdf
That in addition to that crashes are down:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/10/29/bike-ridership-is-up-and-crashes-are-way-down-says-report-factoring-in-added-lanes-and-covid/
And that there is no negative impact on local businesses: City of Cambridge Website (.gov)https://www.cambridgema.gov › c…Cycling Safety Ordinance Economic Impact Study – CDD
You just don’t like what the data says.
“without clearly defining what problem(s) we are trying to solve”
The problems are dangerous streets on which people walking and biking die and get hurt, a transportation system built primarily around the least efficient mode in terms of space, resource, and emissions, and a lack of safe and continuous bike infrastructure. It’s not some great mystery why this is being done, it is being done to improve safety for people biking, so that people of all ages and abilities can feel safe doing it, and it becomes a viable alternative to driving. Early data indicates it is working.
“without taking the perspectives of all affected constituents into appropriate consideration”
To you this simply means not getting your way in fully blocking them. That’s not listening to everyone, you want to ignore the many more people asking for more bike lanes in favor of the privileged few calling to block them.
“I would also add the need to consider other matters that compete for funding in our city budget.“
Clearly that doesn’t include car infrastructure.
“For example, while we were funding the bike lanes, we allocated a mere $1.6M to help those suffering from substance use disorder”
That is a shame and should be raised. Let’s reduce the spending on automobile infrastructure to fund that better. Why can that money only come from bike lanes in your eyes? Real, “why not both?” moment.
“Sharing the road, sharing our resources, sharing views (including differing opinions) are all matters of common decency.”
Thats exactly what the bike lanes facilitate and what you are fighting against. Just incredibly ironic.
“Not putting words into other peoples’ mouths (particularly those I might disagree with) is also common decency.”
Direct quotes only here.
“There’s a great deal of nuance in all of this and we do ourselves great disservice by knee-jerk and over-simplified reactions.”
You are not interested in nuance you are interested in obfuscation. There is a major difference.
@Toby Data collected from cities worldwide, including Cambridge, has highlighted the effectiveness of bike lanes. These lanes not only reduce accidents by 50% or more but also enhance street safety for *everyone* through traffic calming.
A significant issue addressed by bike lanes is the alarming impact of cars: since their invention, cars have been responsible for 60-80 million deaths and have injured 2 billion people. Check out this study:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.103817
Does this explanation sufficiently define the problem?
As @Slaw points out, there is a wealth of data on bike lanes, including safety and impact studies right here in Cambridge.
@toby saying that they have installed “without proper data gathering and analysis” is objectively false.
Last year Stephen Conley, age 72, was killed while biking in Somerville (https://www.masslive.com/news/2022/08/stephen-conley-killed-by-open-car-door-while-biking-remembered-by-family-as-life-of-the-party.html).
He was “doored”: someone opened the door of a parked car and hit him. This kind of crash can be 99% prevented with the new separated bicycle lanes Cambridge and Somerville installing. He would alive today if that street had separated bike lanes.
Marcia Deihl was 65 when she was killed biking in Cambridgeport in 2015.
Paula Sharaga, a Cambridge resident, was 69 when she was killed while biking in Brookline.
When people cite seniors as a reason not to make safer biking infrastructure, what they are saying is that these victims are not _real_ people, or perhaps not _real_ seni0rs. If they were real people and real seniors they would be driving cars.
The reality is that there are seniors ride bikes, and there are people with disabilities who ride bikes (sometimes they have disabilities such that mean they can’t drive), and there are business owners who ride bikes. There are of course also people who can’t get around without parking, which is why the city adds new disability placard parking spots to every bike lane project where parking is otherwise reduced.
All of these people deserve to get home safely.
To be upfront: it’s not about the bike lanes for me. (I love bike riding and I have an old-school mountain bike. Once I even kayaked to work – in suit and tie no less!) It’s really the bus lanes that are creating the gridlock on Mass Ave and in my neighborhood.
That said, The Problem was not articulated when CSO was created / debated / implemented – despite comments here to the contrary. We don’t know if we are trying to save lives (far more people die of substance use disorder in Cambridge than bicycling), reduce carbon emissions (see previous comment on gridlock – which by the way extends to the streets running perpendicular to Mass Ave) or both.
The data wasn’t gathered here in Cambridge (Cambridge is not Portland, nor is it Amsterdam). We don’t know who is using our bike lanes or why (e.g. what % are Cambridge residents going to Cambridge locations – served / not served by buses? Residents of other communities passing through? Shopping? Going to work? Appointments of other types?) Given those use cases, what comprehensive approach would work best here? We don’t know – didn’t ask.
We don’t know – didn’t ask – about the impact of loss of parking on neighborhoods and local businesess specific to where the bike / bus lanes were installed here in Cambridge. We didn’t define / measure / consider the impacts on the streets abutting Mass Ave. We didn’t develop or review data with an eye to optimize bus routes and the timing / frequency of buses.
We didn’t consider a regional approach. For example, how will the traffic flow changes planned for Davis Sq. further influence traffic on northern Mass Ave?
We did not define success. By what criteria would we measure the effectiveness of the CSO?
The absence of data in these areas is a matter of public record (see various Cambridge City Council minutes).
Fortunately, the City has covened a committee that is tasked with planning the future of Mass Ave. Although their remit is much, much broader than the transportation issues, this committee will be reviewing the effectiveness of the CSO and has learned much from the operational difficulties which continue to plague it. I am pleased to report that thanks to their openness to input, next month there will be traffic counts conducted on our street and others nearby. We’ll know how many, when, which direction, and what % are trucks / cars. These data could have informed the planning, roll-out of the bike / bus lanes. We could have gathered base line and delta. We didn’t.
There are some billboards in Porter Square. You might think one of them would display ‘Look twice, save a life, bicycles are everywhere.’
@Itamar Turner-Trauring +100
Streets pose dangers, but safety measures can mitigate risks.
Evidence strongly supports that bike lanes enhance safety (for everyone, not just cyclists), can benefit (and don’t hurt) businesses, and alleviate traffic congestion. Recent studies reinforce these findings here in Cambridge.
Opposing life-saving measures for driver convenience is unethical.
“The data wasn’t gathered here in Cambridge”
I linked you several studies done in Cambridge here they are again:
The federal highway administration studied them and found that they dramatically improved street safety for all road users: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf (up to a 50% reduction in crashes)
Cambridge has also done its own studies finding higher rates of biking: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Bike/bikereports/20231023bicyclingincambridgedatareport_final.pdf
That in addition to that crashes are down:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/10/29/bike-ridership-is-up-and-crashes-are-way-down-says-report-factoring-in-added-lanes-and-covid/
And that there is no negative impact on local businesses: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/02/10/city-commissioned-study-shows-bike-lanes-have-no-impact-on-business/
Studies have been done about mode share in Cambridge: https://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/factsandmaps/transportationdata
Also studies have been done about how people get to local businesses. Only 17% do so by car: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Projects/cambridgestreet/CambridgeStreetInterceptSurveyResults.pdf
“We did not define success. By what criteria would we measure the effectiveness of the CSO?”
It is called a cycling safety ordinance. I would hazard a guess to say cycling safety is a good measure. Those studies above illustrate it has been successful at improving that.
“These data could have informed the planning, roll-out of the bike / bus lanes.” It is clear you aren’t actually interested in doing that you ignore being presented with some of the exact information you deny exists. This is obfuscation not a genuine concern for improvement. I am glad the CSO exists so these kinds of delay tactics don’t kill projects anymore.
“There are some billboards in Porter Square. You might think one of them would display ‘Look twice, save a life, bicycles are everywhere.’” genuinely what on earth are you even trying to say?
Personally, I don’t see why each bus rider shouldn’t be entitled to the same 30 feet of roadway that each motorist is apparently entitled to.
Slaw, I believe the FHWA study only reported a 50% reduction in crashes for people on bikes (they didn’t investigate impact on other modes of transportation, so no information was provided either way). But e.g. we know on Cambridge St the bike lanes significantly reduced speeding, which significantly improves outcomes for pedestrians if hit by cars (https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Projects/cambridgestreet/SpeedandCountDataCambridgeStreet.pdf).
@IT-T no one is suggesting that cyclists (and pedestrians) do not deserve safety, instead they are asking the city to do better to protect everyone while enabling small businesses to have access to the street for needed deliveries and access. You do know that anyone renting commercial property in this city pays that higher property tax that makes this all possible, right? Small business owners have often committed to long term leases and deserve some consideration in the planning of these enormous changes. Same for longterm residents and property owners. Cutting them off from the street is not fair to the commitment they have made and time they have been in the community. While you can extract certain data from these “surveys” you are missing the fact that even IF businesses can maintain the same amount of sales, the amount of extra effort costs both time and money. With very slim margins to start with, they are forced to add extra labor to work around the obstacles. So, you cannot conclude that business remains the same for all. The city owes these small businesses and services the right to continue to receive goods without extra delay and added staff to accommodate the bike lanes.
I am not a driver here and am not defending the amount and effect of cars, I am defending the rights of those still able and willing to provide us with services, accommodation and goods. They are the ones taking the brunt of these changes. I’m also defending the rights of residents to be able to access their properties as they have for decades. Cambridge needs to do a lot better or we will lose more of the sense of community that makes this a special place to live.
@Toby are we pretending that Cambridge was free of traffic congestion prior to installing bus lanes and protected bike lanes? The regional population continues to increase, if we hadn’t planned for the future with low-CO2 emission transport, we’d have even more congestion, and even more emissions choking us out.
@tccambridge, your claim that bike lanes harm local businesses is misinformation.
Multiple studies, including recent research in Cambridge, as well as nationwide studies in the US, consistently show that bike lanes not only do not harm local businesses but often contribute to their success.
For instance, in New York City, bike lanes have been found to increase local sales by 45% or more by bringing more foot traffic to an area.
The notion that bike lanes have a negative impact on businesses has been disproven over and over again.
@Toby Your dissemination of misinformation persists.
Cambridge conducted local impact studies prior to implementing bike lanes. Subsequent studies affirm the positive effects of bike lanes here, debunking any notion of negative consequences.
The myth that bike lanes escalate traffic has been consistently debunked. Cars constitute traffic; reducing car dependency mitigates congestion.
@tccambridge “no one is suggesting that cyclists (and pedestrians) do not deserve safety” is technically true.
However, many people are pursuing policies that will harm people who ride bikes. If the lawsuits had succeeded, bike lanes would have been removed all over the city, and many more people would get injured.
If one is pursuing a policy that one knows will result in many more people being injured, one needs to justify this to oneself. No one wants to think “are we the baddies?” And a common way to do that, as we’ve seen in this thread, is to dehumanize or erase people who ride bikes. So the seniors who were killed while biking aren’t real seniors and therefore don’t count when we discuss the needs of seniors.
So we have people pursuing policies that will harm people, and justifying it by erasing or dehumanizing those people.
While this approach may be good for self-justification, it’s not good for business! For example: a bunch of stores in my neighborhood put up signs talking about how bike lanes were being installed “without regard for our community”. Most everyone in my building rides a bike but we clearly weren’t part of how “our community” was defined by these business owners. Similarly their signs implied we weren’t real residents or real customers.
Among the neighbors these business owners were telling themselves didn’t exist was a NY Times bestselling author. Unsurprisingly she did not respond very well to the stores’ messaging, and shared this with her more than 100,000 followers: https://twitter.com/pronounced_ing/status/1496221957355880455
@Itamar Turner-Trauring +100
Bikes aren’t detrimental to businesses, as evidenced in various places, including Cambridge.
The real threat to local businesses stems from the owners themselves. They gripe about imagined issues while neglecting community safety.
Essentially, these owners imply, “You must drive to shop here,” ignoring that only a small minority of Cambridge customers rely on cars.
I now steer clear of businesses opposing bike lanes. If they disregard my safety, why should I support them?
Ultimately, these business owners sabotage themselves.
There are upsides for accessibility, and I think the downsides can be resolved pretty easily. Protected bike lanes greatly increase accessibility and safety for people travelling in mobility scooters. I remember seeing them zip all over the city in Amsterdam, which has a ubiquitous bike network. People who have to drive, take paratransit, or take the bus get the benefit of less congestion.
The only downside I can think of is finding a parking space close to one’s destination. It’s not possible to park *directly* in front most of the time on Mass Ave anyway, so it seems like people already need *some* way to travel along the sidewalk to get around town. But in Somerville, a similar outcry resulted in more of the remaining metered parking spaces getting reserved for cars displaying a disability tag or plate. If there are specific places on Mass Ave people feel have inadequate reserved parking, it would be extremely helpful to point them out. What’s not helpful is for people fighting for and against protected bike lanes to accuse each other of being ableist, which just makes everyone angry and doesn’t solve any problems.
“no one is suggesting that cyclists (and pedestrians) do not deserve safety”
Sure they are just rejecting the application of the mechanism proven to improve it.
“ while enabling small businesses to have access to the street”
Bike lanes do not block access to the street, if anything they improve access to the street for users of different modes. Bike lane projects in Cambridge have also consistently added dedicated loading zones which make loading and unloading easier not harder. Bike delivery is an option too and the more bike lanes there are the more realistic an option it becomes. Cities like Paris are increasingly relying on bike delivery massively reducing emissions in the delivery sector.
“ You do know that anyone renting commercial property in this city pays that higher property tax that makes this all possible, right?” who cares? Money should not buy you a greater voice, and it especially should not give you a veto over safety improvements. Again people over profit must be a fundamental principle of any truly democratic society.
“ While you can extract certain data from these “surveys” you are missing the fact that even IF businesses can maintain the same amount of sales, the amount of extra effort costs both time and money.” While you accuse others of cherry picking data there is no data at all that supports this. Bike lanes increase the likelihood of stop in business in every study ever done on that question. That should be obvious because it is inherently easier to stop and store a bike than a car. They literally decrease the amount of advertising and effort business owners have to do. Business owners may have shot them selves in the foot by coming out hard against their neighbors safety but that’s only their own fault.
“ The city owes these small businesses and services the right to continue to receive goods without extra delay and added staff to accommodate the bike lanes.” no evidence indicates either of these things is happening. You are just making up fake problems. Regardless even if this were true, and again there is no indication at all that it is, people’s lives come before profit. And there is evidence this helps save people’s lives.
“I am not a driver here and am not defending the amount and effect of cars, I am defending the rights of those still able and willing to provide us with services, accommodation and goods”
Then you should be happy to know that all available evidence shows bike lanes either have no impact on that or are actually beneficial to them. The fact that you continue to equate bike lanes with hardship for them is what makes this seem to be more about defending cars than anything else. Even if that isn’t your intention it is ultimately what you are doing in practice.
“They are the ones taking the brunt of these changes. I’m also defending the rights of residents to be able to access their properties as they have for decades.” Again the available evidence contradicts this claim. There is no indication of any negative impact at all, they are not bearing the brunt of anything. And the only thing they are defending the rights of residents to is to die from being hit by cars. Aka they are fighting against the safety of their neighbors.
“Cambridge needs to do a lot better or we will lose more of the sense of community that makes this a special place to live.”
Yeah, Cambridge business owners should really stop privileging a misguided idea about what is best for their profits over the safety of their neighbors and Cambridge should go even further in privileging livability over automobile access to every square inch of the city.
@beland That’s standard procedure in Cambridge too: they add more disability placard spots in all bike lane projects that reduce parking. I think they get the Commission for Persons with Disabilities to comment on design and placement of specific spots.
@Toby doth protest too much… methinks a smell a person who was one of the ones that hired the lawyer and is unhappy with the results.
@cambridgejoe lol I think you are right. There is a Toby among the litigants, Toby Leith.
This highlights why they continue to lose lawsuits.
Almost everything @toby claims is factually wrong and contradicted by evidence, some of it blatantly. It’s astonishing to claim that there have been no studies on bike lanes.
@FrankD I never made that claim, thank you. Please re-read my posts, you’ll find them a bit more nuanced (I hope).
It would help alot if bikes followed the rules of the road. Stop at red lights, go the correct way, use lights so cars can see you. I got hit by a biker not following the rules, 2 operations later..
It would help alot if bikes followed the rules of the road. I don’t see many seniors or disabled people riding bikes!
The rules of the road were not designed for biking. Following the existing rules of the road around red lights for example is proven to make bikes less safe. The rules of the road should be changed so that bikes can legally treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs, as many states have done (but generally referred to as the Idaho stop). This on the contrary has been proven to improve bike safety. Even the Federal Highway administration acknowledges this: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf
Similarly Cambridge has already changed traffic rules about going the “correct way.” Low traffic one way streets are explicitly also for bicycles in both directions in Cambridge. That is what the “do not enter except bicycles” signs you see all over are for. Again this has proven safety benefits, allowing bikes to get off busy streets and onto quiet neighborhood ones, and it also massively increases convenience. This also simply makes sense because bikes aren’t cars, they are much closer to pedestrians, and pedestrians are allowed to walk both directions on one way streets too.
As for lights, I actually agree with you. It makes me really nervous when I see other people riding without lights at night. I often even tell them they should get lights because I’m scared for their safety. Local bike groups also frequently give out lights. That being said the city could also make this less necessary by improving roadway lighting, especially at intersections, which would also improve night time safety for pedestrians, who are never going to carry around lights.
Im sorry to hear that you got hit and injured by a bike. I understand why that would make you have a visceral reaction to them. However I do think its important to say that people on bikes are hit by cars a lot more often than pedestrians are hit by bikes, and that the impacts are inherently more severe (because cars way tons and go faster and therefore have greater force). I have been hit by cars not following the rules on a bike twice, I have also had drivers get out of their cars and act aggressively towards me after they almost hit me because they were not following the rules on many occasions. I have never hit a pedestrian despite biking on shared use paths my whole life. I have also never been hit by a bike despite walking on shared use paths my whole life.
I really think we should have some perspective about this. The dangers posed by cars is so much greater. On top of that drivers also run red lights, go the wrong way down one ways, and drive without lights, pretty often. I see at least one of those every day. No one demands they start doing that before they are allowed to have infrastructure. Maybe we should? Their failure to do so certainly carries greater risk for others.
“I don’t see many seniors or disabled people riding bikes!”
I do, I really think you must not spend much time in Camberville if you don’t. Maybe part of the reason you don’t has to do with what Itamar Turner-Trauring said about Paula Sharaga, Stephen Conley, and Marcia Deihl and you don’t see them because they were killed by cars. That is all the more reason to improve bike infrastructure. Or maybe you don’t see them riding because like my mother they absolutely would like to but their balance is not what it used to be and sharing space with cars feels and is dangerous. Again that only demands more safe bike infrastructure.
@toby Here is what you said:
“The data wasn’t gathered here in Cambridge (Cambridge is not Portland, nor is it Amsterdam). We don’t know who is using our bike lanes or why (e.g. what % are Cambridge residents going to Cambridge locations – served / not served by buses? Residents of other communities passing through? Shopping? Going to work? Appointments of other types?)”
All demonstrably false. The city studied all this. We know who is commuting by car, by bike, by public transport. We know how many are Cambridge residents etc.
The info, going back years, is available on the Cambridge city website.
@pmadey Cars need to adhere to road rules. Daily, I witness drivers disregarding signals, speeding, and using cell phones.
This behavior contributes to the alarming statistics: 50,000 deaths annually in the US and 1 million worldwide due to cars.
Since their inception, cars have caused 60-80 *million* deaths.
For insights, refer to “Car harm: A global review of automobility’s harm to people and the environment” at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692324000267
Bikes aren’t the issue; they’re part of the solution.
Here’s the latest on Cambridge bike lanes:
1. They don’t harm businesses, as confirmed by recent studies.
2. Accidents have been halved with separated bike lanes, as reported by a government study in October 2023.
3. Bike ridership is on the rise, leading to reduced traffic, according to a Cambridge study released on March 6, 2024.
In essence, criticisms of bike lanes over the past years have been debunked by these findings.