Nearly 10 years ago, after cyclists Bernard Lavins and Amanda Phillips died within three months of each other, I wrote about the vulnerability of cyclists as road users and hoped to see lowered speed limits, fewer trucks in areas where cyclists and pedestrians were common and a shift from car-centric urban planning to equitable, safer-for-all streets. Much has changed. Cambridge’s Cycling Safety Ordinance went through, then-governor Charlie Baker enacted a “safe passing” law, Bluebike stations have blossomed around Greater Boston and e-bikes have made two wheels a more accessible alternative form of commuting for more people. Yet in that time, three more cyclists have been killed by trucks on Cambridge streets, including a 55-year-old woman June 7 at Mount Auburn and DeWolfe streets in Harvard Square; and lawsuits for a time sought to halt and reverse the CSO by returning the slim slivers of safe haven to trucks and other carbon-emitting vehicles – all as unchecked temperatures continue to rise globally. We are allegedly making progress, but trending backward and people are dying.
As a cyclist who’s been riding the streets of Cambridge and Boston some 4,000 miles a year for nearly 40 years, the need to bike defensively hasn’t changed much: There’s still a lack of deference to the safety of vulnerable street users by motor vehicles who don’t look for them, zipping past before making a hard right or blasting their horn because they don’t think they belong on the road.
Nearly all cyclists are multimodal – they also walk and drive – but most will tell you that when on a bike, they have to have their senses engaged more keenly. “Head on a swivel,” as many say. To put it another way, as a pedestrian you don’t regularly assume a car is going to come up on the sidewalk; in a car, if you have a green, you don’t yield for fear that another car will blast through a red and hit you, since you have the right of way. And in both scenarios you have a designated safe place on a sidewalk or a 2-ton encasement should any of that happen, unlikely as it is. On a bike, one ding and you’re out in the road and at the mercy of a six-seat SUV going twice your speed, with nothing to protect you.
This is documented easily by crash data from the state Department of Transportation and Cambridge police open portals. Over a 10-year period, six cyclists have died on our streets and 11 pedestrians; as a percent of population (approximately 105,000 and 9,000), bike riders are six times more likely to die via a motor vehicle strike than a pedestrian. More telling is that at least five of the six fatal crashes involved a truck.
Friday’s tragedy occurred shortly after the CSO took a blow in a recent City Council vote, with deadlines potentially extended in places unless the city laws are adjusted to find more car parking. But a bike-lane backlash has been going on for years – “They run red lights”; “They don’t wear helmets”; “Their bikes don’t have lights” – in addition to resentment over the loss of parking, with spaces for people with disabilities being the emotional ante often laid down. Reckless behavior is never acceptable, and cyclists can be their own best ambassadors by showing courtesy and respect to other road users; that said, motor vehicles pose the far bigger public risk and are the sole agent of road deaths. Meanwhile, in the recent makeover of Porter Square, when separated bike lanes were installed, the number of accessible parking spaces available more than doubled as part of the project.
An important aspect about that June 7 crash is that it happened where there were separated bike lanes. Whether the box truck made an illegal right (rights are allowed only on a green arrow) or the cyclist proceeded through a red light or some other factor was at play has yet to be determined. It may be some time before we know the results of an investigation, but one thing that should be considered in the interim is street design. This section of Mount Auburn is an opening-up point, which adds to its complexity. For traffic heading east on Mount Auburn, there are five traffic lights and three signs. That’s a lot to take in; if you sit at the intersection and observe for a few signal cycles, you will see confusion from users. And, of course, there are those who push through illegally. We try out traffic pattern designs to hopefully improve road safety, but must balance the needs of businesses and those who need to get around. It’s a challenge, and one with impacts.
The long and short is, traffic flows need to be simple and intuitive. Are cyclists from other states familiar with Boston bike signals, are the signals and signs at Mount Auburn and DeWolfe in the best location for each type of road user? These are nagging questions that should have been answered by post-installation use and review by those who came up with them, as well as those who enforce traffic. We’re a world-class city with revered universities that draw people from all corners of the globe; there are going to be new-to-Boston people in the streets every day. Our rotaries are infamous for their WTF factor to those newly entering Massachusetts; intersections in Harvard Square don’t need to be.
The victim, who hailed from Florida, was on a Bluebike, eliciting on social media boards sentiments that those who ride the rentals “don’t know what they’re doing.” Bluebikes are designed to be a simple walk-up-and-use transportation; it’s the violence of the streets that’s the real factor here, and we should acknowledge that. If we applied this same logic of “needing to know how to navigate the streets of Boston before getting on a bike” and extend it to cars, would anyone deplaning from Italy, the U.K. or Japan be able to rent a car at Logan?
The intersection will change. The city will act. The sad reality is that it took a life to do it. We’re one of three area cities with Boston and Somerville that have adopted Vision Zero goals – to eliminate traffic fatalities through engineering – but we’ve struggled to meet checkpoints. Potentially extending CSO deadlines only addles those efforts.
There is a sprig of hope, however, as on Monday the council gets a policy order asking the city to undertake a review of intersections where crashes have resulted in a serious injury. It’s a decade late, but something that could have real results. And getting measurable results is the only way to evaluate downstream efforts: ink is cheap, blood is not. Furthermore, as we become a denser city, we need to rethink how we use our streetscapes and who uses them. It’s not just about safety. It’s also about equity.
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.
“An important aspect about that June 7 crash is that it happened where there were separated bike lanes.” This isn’t exactly true. If the bicyclist was turning right from Mount Auburn to DeWolfe as is suggested there is no separated bike lane in the southbound direction on DeWolfe. That actually is a relevant issue too because if you aren’t familiar with it an assumed the separated bike lane continues around the corner you will not be prepared to suddenly have to share space with cars and trucks. Another thing to evaluate and consider.
Otherwise I fully agree.
Tell the city council to improve intersections: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/prevent-bicyclist-deaths-before-they-happen-both-in-and-out-of-intersections?source=direct_link&
You said,
“Whether the box truck made an illegal right (rights are allowed only on a green arrow) or the cyclist proceeded through a red light or some other factor was at play has yet to be determined.
It would be easier to determine what happened and who was at fault, if there had been a CCTV camera at Mount Auburn and DeWolfe.
What seems to be the problem? Why isn’t the bike lobby, lobbying for CCTV?
And, if you want to see a disaster waiting to happen, go to Mount Auburn and Aberdeen.
Someone screwed up in designing that intersection. It is so bad that many of the few bikes coming east on Mount Auburn are using the south side of the street (yes, in the street), rather than the separated two way bike lane on the north side. The bikers seem to know what is in store for them if they use the bike lane at that intersection.
Because the traffic light sequence there is so screwed up, many cars make a right hand turn against the light and can’t see a bike going west,
similar to what probably happened at DeWolfe and Mount Auburn.
That bike lane should have been on the south side of Mount Auburn. On the north side there are three dangerous intersections. On the south side there is only the cemetery.
This is exactly the kind of exaggerated rhetoric that is fueling the heated resentment in this city, which isn’t helpful and mostly isn’t true.
Incredulous that Meek tries to pin the resentments on those who asked for more study and better planning, as he then goes on to advocate for more study,
calling for the city to “conduct safety audits” and “develop a plan to implement needed safety improvements on an ongoing basis across other intersections”.
Is he insinuating our recently installed bike infrastructure, such as the scene of this most recent accident, is not safe? Are we to believe that despite spending millions on realigning our infrastructure this type of study has not already been done?
And what’s really interesting is what the BSG will say if the City says such additional study needs more time and may even delay the next BSO project.
“ What seems to be the problem? Why isn’t the bike lobby, lobbying for CCTV?”
@concerned43 because CCTV doesn’t really gain us anything here. At the most, we’d find a criminally reckless driver, but that doesn’t change the fact that a person was killed in an unsafe intersection.
Nuance is possible here. The protected bike lanes are absolutely an improvement over what came before them, but they are not the be-all, end-all of safe infrastructure. For one, we should be implementing protected intersections when we are implementing protected lanes, because intersections are the most dangerous place to be on a bike.
If this intersection had been protected, the tightened turning radius may have increased visibility of the person on the bike for the driver of the truck, and a deadly crash may have been prevented, regardless of fault.
Hi @Slaw, technically DeWolfe does have a separated bike lane, counterflow going the other way. My understanding from the reports and witnesses on the scene was that the rider was right hooked on Mount Auburn and taken down DeWolfe.
Your scenario is also possible. In that case, where the bike would have a Right on Red, becomes more complicated. We’ll have to wait for the investigation report.
Thanks for chiming in.
@concerned43 “What seems to be the problem? Why isn’t the bike lobby, lobbying for CCTV?”
Why are you always asking other people to advocate for things you want. The best this is going to offer is determining individual fault after the fact. I am personally much more interested in changing infrastructure in ways that prevent these things from happening. I agree with the vision zero framework in that.
“many of the few bikes”
What a tortured and bizarre way to say that. Simultaneously trying to exaggerate the problem and downplay the number of bicyclists.
“are using the south side of the street (yes, in the street), rather than the separated two way bike lane on the north side”
That is fine. Bikes are allowed to use the full lane of any street in MA, except where there is signage explicitly preventing them from doing so. Some riders never use bike lanes and that is their right, Some exit them to do movements that they find easier outside of the lane. Again that is fine. This in itself is not a problem at all. I don’t think this is an indication that the bike lane is dangerous, more likely that it doesn’t optimize for a certain moment or is difficult to access from a particular side street. Those would be things to investigate and try to fix to see if it reduces that behavior.
In the case of Mt auburn st. this is pretty obviously because the two way bike lane doesn’t extend all the way to the intersection with Belmont and the greenway. People coming from the west are directed onto the other side of the street then either need to get back across or will stay in the general travel lane. That is the problem with the design likely causing the issue you care about here but when Ive pointed it out to you… crickets, seemingly because fixing it would require actually taking more space from parked cars (despite the massive parking lot).
I will also say in general, two way bike routes on one side of the street are ok if you are going a long way on it but aren’t ideal if you need to get to a destination or turn onto a side street on the other side of the street. People doing either are likely to ride in the street. One way bike lanes on both sides of the street make that less of a thing, but in this case probably would have required removing more parking. Seems like bike lane opponents would complain either way.
As for putting the bike lane on the south side. Most people are coming from the north side and the path connection is on the north side meaning that would force pretty much all users to cross the street. That’s not great either.
@kdolan “This is exactly the kind of exaggerated rhetoric that is fueling the heated resentment in this city”
How is this not simply victim blaming?
I would say the “exaggerated rhetoric,” which is “isn’t helpful and mostly isn’t true,” and is “fueling the heated resentment” are the claims that bike lanes are forcing businesses to close even when the stated reason for the closure has nothing to do with it, or claiming over and over that bike lanes hurt businesses despite the evidence saying the opposite. But maybe that’s just me.
“pin the resentments on those who asked for more study and better planning”
This would be a lot easier to take seriously if the people doing that didn’t also sue the city to block all bike lanes and remove existing ones. It would also be easier to take seriously if they seemed to take into account any of the studies that have been done which have demonstrated increased rates of cycling, increased cycling safety, and broad support for improvements to bike infrastructure.
“calling for the city to “conduct safety audits” and “develop a plan to implement needed safety improvements on an ongoing basis across other intersections”
This is very different from what you are attempting to do. Asking the city to make specific investigations with the goal of making specific improvements to address specific issues is very different than what people pushing for study for study sake are trying to do. Constantly studying whether bike lanes are worth it or not helps no one. That is clearly an attempt to block projects by miring them in endless process. We have more than enough results to know bike lanes are worth it. Studying persistent and specific issue areas to address them in a timely fashion on the other hand is absolutely crucial.
“Is he insinuating our recently installed bike infrastructure, such as the scene of this most recent accident, is not safe? Are we to believe that despite spending millions on realigning our infrastructure this type of study has not already been done?”
Half measures are better than nothing but they are half measures. Recognizing the limits of those measures should call for improvements like this, to go further and make greater improvements. Even if you would prefer to go backwards instead that would only make our streets less safe.
“And what’s really interesting is what the BSG will say if the City says such additional study needs more time and may even delay the next BSO project.”
If making improvements to keep bicyclists alive delays the installation of bike lanes I would personally be fine with that. It is better to make these improvements all at once if possible, if only to reduce the likelihood of pushback from people like you to endless street work. There is a very real difference between delaying a project in order to better deliver upon its goals and delaying a project because you disagree with its goals and see this as a way to potentially buy enough time until you can block it. That is what at least 4 city councilors did. Completely different thing from what is proposed here.
@”Hi @Slaw, technically DeWolfe does have a separated bike lane, counterflow going the other way.” yes but if the cyclist was turning right onto Dewolfe as I have seen suggested (but agree we should wait to see the result of the investigation) that is irrelevant to their movement and they would have been turning into a block of shared street in order to preserve parking on the west side of the street before southbound bikes join the bike lane.
“My understanding from the reports and witnesses on the scene was that the rider was right hooked on Mount Auburn and taken down DeWolfe.”
This suggestion isn’t in contradiction to that a bike can be right hooked going straight or also turning right.
“In that case, where the bike would have a Right on Red, becomes more complicated.”
I agree especially someone not from here who might not be familiar with bike lights or assumed it was red for going straight but saw the green turn arrow and thought it was for them too.
@cwec
You said” CCTV doesn’t really gain us anything here. At the most, we’d find a criminally reckless driver, but that doesn’t change the fact that a person was killed in an unsafe intersection.”
Of course it gains something. Why wouldn’t we want to know what happened?
The author claims:. “Meanwhile, in the recent makeover of Porter Square, when separated bike lanes were installed, the number of accessible parking spaces available more than doubled as part of the project.” This is false.
This author has been exposed on social media about the actual impact of his claim, and, at this point, might just be intentionally misleading people.
My partner has a disability placard. When we search for a spot, there are two types of spots, generally: placard spots and timed/metered spots. She can apply her placard in either, turning either type of spot into a no-cost, unlimited time placard spot.
What does it mean?
Suppose you have 20 spots near a Dr’s office: 2 are placard spots and 18 are timed/metered. Even if 2 people with disabilities park in the 2 placard spots, she still can use the other 18 spots near the Dr’s office as an accessible spot with her placard, at no cost.
However, if someone like the author petitions the municipality to remove 18 timed/metered spots and add 1 more placard spot– bingo! Now the number of placard spots has gone up by an impressive 50%, but the number of spaces she can park in using her placard– spaces near the Dr’s office has decreased by 85%.
The author doesn’t seem to want to admit this in his piece, but it is the lived truth of people bearing disability placards.
The fact that he uses sleight of hand to mislead people on this critical fact betrays the movement and its “thought leaders” as willing to dismiss, ignore, and not learn about the lived experience of the most vulnerable people impacted by their policies: the disabled and the low-income folks.
I ask Cambridge Day to issue a correction to this piece because the author has been personally exposed to this truth via social media many times before publishing this piece, but decided to elide the much higher percentage loss of accessibility in favor of a percentage more appealing to his motives.
@ Tom Meek
Re: “Friday’s tragedy occurred shortly after the CSO took a blow in a recent City Council vote, with deadlines potentially extended in places unless the city laws are adjusted to find more car parking.”–I listened to much of this meeting (it ran to around 12:30 a.m.) and don’t recall hearing anything about “adjust[ing] city laws to find[ing] more car parking.” Rather, the extension was to provide time to evaluate unanticipated adverse impacts to businesses and residents, some (but not all) of which had to do with parking, and to consider various mitigation measures. If I’m wrong about this, feel free to provide sections of the meeting transcript that support your contention.
Maybe I can help, since I edited Tom’s story and wrote or edited stories to which it refers. You could consult https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/04/16/work-on-reusing-private-parking-lots-has-started-if-it-can-delay-bike-lane-deadline-yet-to-be-decided/ and https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/04/30/whether-called-bike-lane-extension-or-delay-order-passes-5-4-after-5-5-hours-of-comment/. The council voted on a policy order you can find at https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=4475&MediaPosition=&ID=22558&CssClass= which says in part that some lane installation can be delayed …
“Until after July 1, 2025, or until after passage of amendments to the Parking and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance allowing for the sharing of off-site parking with nearby properties, if necessary, to mitigate the loss of parking resulting from the installation of separated bicycle facilities due to implementation of the Cycling Safety Ordinance.”
I’m not sure how what the essay says is different from “consider[ing] various mitigation measures,” but this is what it’s referring to: finding more places for cars via city law by “allowing for the sharing of off-site parking with nearby properties.”
Marc Levy
@admin Thanks; this does indeed comport with what was discussed at the meeting. It ran so late into the night that some of the details got obscured by brain freeze.🥶
@GrumpyMcGrumpyface The claim that all parking is disabled parking is such a stretch and really feels to me like tokenizing disabled people to defend parking. The author doesn’t need to correct anything for pointing out the number of dedicated handicapped parking spots increased, that is true.
Additionally, many disabled people cannot drive. Many disabled people cannot afford cars. Many disabled people don’t have someone to drive them around. They also need safer streets, crossings, and accessible sidewalks. These improvements typically happen alongside the bike improvements but get completely ignored by people who equate disability accessibility entirely with the automobile.
It is also true that if more able bodied people ride bikes instead of driving to local businesses there will be more spots available for those who do need them. You won’t get that result if you preserve parking instead of safe bike infrastructure.
And yeah many disabled people bike: https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jan/02/cambridge-disabled-people-cycling-rolling-walking-stick
@Admin why do you respond directly to these concerns but not the people expressing concerns with the data manipulation in this piece? https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/05/18/look-at-crash-data-where-bike-lanes-went-in-before-installing-more-with-the-same-design/
@GrumpyMcGrumpyface
1. Bike lanes reduce accidents by 50%, preventing disabilities.
2. Other cars, not bike lanes, prevent you from parking. Cars cause traffic and take up parking spots.
As the population rises, so do the number of cars. The solution is to reduce car use by promoting alternative transportation, like bike lanes. They are effective: bicycle use soars with separated bike lanes, as shown in this study. https://momentummag.com/bicycle-use-soars-following-installation-of-separated-bike-lanes-according-to-cambridge-study/
If you want less traffic and more parking, support bike lanes. Most importantly, they protect people from death and serious injuries. Shouldn’t that be a priority over parking?
@ Slaw
There is so much wrong and incorrect with this, I wouldn’t know where to begin, so I won’t. You’re really off the wall. Whatever!
many of the few bikes”
What a tortured and bizarre way to say that. Simultaneously trying to exaggerate the problem and downplay the number of bicyclists.
“are using the south side of the street (yes, in the street), rather than the separated two way bike lane on the north side”
That is fine. Bikes are allowed to use the full lane of any street in MA, except where there is signage explicitly preventing them from doing so. Some riders never use bike lanes and that is their right, Some exit them to do movements that they find easier outside of the lane. Again that is fine. This in itself is not a problem at all. I don’t think this is an indication that the bike lane is dangerous, more likely that it doesn’t optimize for a certain moment or is difficult to access from a particular side street. Those would be things to investigate and try to fix to see if it reduces that behavior.
In the case of Mt auburn st. this is pretty obviously because the two way bike lane doesn’t extend all the way to the intersection with Belmont and the greenway. People coming from the west are directed onto the other side of the street then either need to get back across or will stay in the general travel lane. That is the problem with the design likely causing the issue you care about here but when Ive pointed it out to you… crickets, seemingly because fixing it would require actually taking more space from parked cars (despite the massive parking lot).
I will also say in general, two way bike routes on one side of the street are ok if you are going a long way on it but aren’t ideal if you need to get to a destination or turn onto a side street on the other side of the street. People doing either are likely to ride in the street. One way bike lanes on both sides of the street make that less of a thing, but in this case probably would have required removing more parking. Seems like bike lane opponents would complain either way.
As for putting the bike lane on the south side. Most people are coming from the north side and the path connection is on the north side meaning that would force pretty much all users to cross the street. That’s not great either.
I think I was very reasonable despite your perpetual rudeness.
Thanks for simply repeating my debunking of your “wrong and incorrect” assertions without arguing. Really helps get the word out there about the word out there about the real improvements needed.
“It’s also about equity.” If that were true, then we’d have built motorcycle lanes long ago, no? Since they do have the highest fatality rate on the road. The answers to these questions of safety & public assets are more complex than simple sound bites, sorry to say.
Bike traffic is a relatively small proportion of Cambridge traffic. It’s very dangerous to ride a bike here, to drive here, and to walk here. The simplest way to increase safety would be to ban all bikes in Cambridge. That way they can’t be hurt and motorists have one less thing to keep track of which will further increase the safety of pedestrians.
@Nimbus Not true. On major roads, bike riders can outnumber drivers, as confirmed by Cambridge traffic counts.
Reports on bike commuter rates undercount students on bikes, who are not classified as “commuters.”
To reduce increasing traffic, we need safe alternatives to driving, which bike lanes provide. It’s not just about current bikers; it’s about reducing future traffic.
@nimbus how about we ban cars instead?
@AvgJoe Bike lanes actually DO prevent people from parking, since many hundreds of parking spaces throughout Cambridge and Somerville have been (and continue to be) eliminated to accommodate them.
No, @AllisS, *cars* cause traffic. Cars take up parking spots. Bike and bus lanes reduce traffic by encouraging alternatives to driving. They are effective at reducing traffic.
Just look at Paris. They replaced roads with bike lanes, and despite complaints about potential traffic jams and parking issues, the opposite happened. Traffic and parking improved significantly, and even drivers are happy.
The bike lanes have removed <1% of parking spots. Get real. That can't possibly make a big difference re: parking. In fact, studies show that bike lanes improve parking by reducing car use. They help more than they hurt.
There is data available on this issue; one doesn't have to rely solely on personal opinions and biases.
@Alliss I want to point out the article starts with a conversation about improvements to keep people from dying and now you have shifted it to one of convenience for drivers. This is how this conversation goes. The loss of parking is treated more seriously than the loss of life. There really needs to be a reevaluation of priorities.
@FrankD The percentage is meaningless without providing any context as to where spaces have been eliminated and what the total number is, which is in the many hundreds. And it has made “a big difference”: to residents without off-street, parking, their service providers and visitors; to seniors and disabled; and to businesses that are losing a sizable segment of their customer base who rely on accessible parking.
@Slaw What really needs to be “re-evaluated” is the lack of civility (and
decency) in accusing people of disregard for human life, simply because they disagree with your POV.
When you disregard the discussion of keeping people alive and turn it to keeping your parking space it does suggest a set of priorities that are quite different from my own.
There is no *my* parking space to “keep”-only an ongoing struggle: to transport items such as heavy grocery bags from car to house at increasing distances; to strategize all activity involving car use a day and a half before the four monthly street-cleanings because all spaces are claimed a full day and a half before the actual cleanings; and concerns (which, depending on your age/physical status, you may not be able to relate to) over the safety of returning to a blocks-away parked car, e.g., from a restaurant or other destination, or to home in darkness and/or on treacherous sidewalks in winter. Is it OK, by your exacting moral compass, to have concerns about one’s own safety? And does your home have a driveway, which (if you own a car) would spare you from these considerations that you consider so ignominious?
I do not own a car.
Cambridge is an incredibly safe city in that way. I don’t think that it is unreasonable for people who are able to walk a couple blocks to their car. Handicapped accessible parking is one thing, and should be expanded when possible, but the idea that everyone should be able to park literally in front is impossible to accommodate without demolishing half the city. Making it easier for people to get around by other modes will put less demand on the remaining spots too.
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
@Slaw neither I nor anyone I know of who has criticized infrastructure “improvements” has entertained the notion of being “able to park literally in front” (of wherever). This notion is simply an attempt, by you and others, to dismiss valid concerns by ridiculing them.
It’s good to see Somerville taking the lead in improving streets. The Somerville City Council unanimously voted to surpass Cambridge in creating a safer, sustainable city.
New Somerville Safe Streets Ordinance Mandates 30-Mile Protected Bike Lane Network By 2030:
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2024/06/18/new-somerville-safe-streets-ordinance-mandates-30-mile-protected-bike-lane-network-by-2030
A tragic accident. Mandatory seat belts in cars, so why not mandatory helmets for bike riders? This simple rule change should be a “no brainer” that we can all get behind. Time for the city council and the safe bicycle lobby and car drivers and those who desire more parking etc. to take action. Let’s unite on this one!
@AllisS You and the anti-bike lobby don’t need anyone else to dismiss your concerns. You’re doing that on your own.
Those who have complained about the bike lanes’ design have yet to name a single flaw or suggest any improvements.
The fact is that the bike lanes are working: they have reduced accidents, increased cycling, and have not harmed businesses.
Your only complaint is the loss of some parking. I believe that people’s safety, pollution, congestion, and global warming are more important than the inconvenience of parking slightly further away.
The anti-bike lane lobby can celebrate the bike lane “pause” in Cambridge, but Somerville and Boston are moving forward with even more extensive street infrastructure improvements.
Cities worldwide have seen significant improvements in city life with bike lanes.
So, enjoy the Cambridge NIMBY island while you can. The status quo cannot be maintained.
Eventually, Cambridge will come around. Instead of being seen as forward-thinking progressives, Cambridge looks like selfish, entitled people holding back progress for their own short-sighted self-interest.
@Gerald Bergman: https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safety/
No helmet, no bike!!!!!
Slaw, really? Citing an article from a “Bicycling.com” website which is hardly an independent arbiter of the issue. Read the article. Very heavy on opinion and light on facts.
@maddmann1 Look up why Seattle repealed its helmet mandate or the reduction in cycling safety after Australia implemented it then.
“No helmet, no bike!!!!!”
This isn’t the law nor should it be.
Why not?
I’d like to know if bluebikes get hit more often than the proportion that they make up, not because of inexperienced riders, but because the bikes themselves have such a bad gear ratio that riding them is extra difficult next to other, much faster vehicles. Most 10-speeds and mountain bikes can go much faster than these pedal-your-heart-out-and-go-nowhere pieces of junk. Citibikes in NYC are honestly far better.