You can count on Jeff Jacoby to be a lagging indicator of cranky-old-man conservative thought in the Globe. But I have to say that today’s column, an anti-bicycle diatribe (Boston’s roads aren’t meant for bicycles – The Boston Globe), is not 100% wrong … only about 90%.
I’ll get the good thing out of the way first. Here’s the true part:
Busy thoroughfares aren’t meant for cyclists. They are meant for the cars, trucks, and buses that transport the vast majority of people moving through the nation’s cities. Those vehicles weigh thousands of pounds, operate at 300-plus horsepower, and are indispensable to the economic and social well-being of virtually every American community. Bicycles can be an enjoyable, even exhilarating, way to get around.
It is true that our roads in Greater Boston were not designed for bicycles. (You can make a strong case that they weren’t even designed for cars, either.)
But here’s where Jacoby reaches a logical Mobius strip: On one hand, he cites statistics saying that bikes are trivial in number. On the other hand, What are all these @#$%@ing bikes doing in my way!!! Welp, these two things just don’t go together.
People want to bike in Boston. Contra Jacoby, For many routes, it’s by far the fastest way to get to where you’re going — even obeying red lights and stop signs. (By the way, I have been stopped and ticketed for running a stop sign in Cambridge. Don’t pile on! My conscience — and family — have dutifully chastened me.)
It’s also healthy. It’s non-polluting. It takes cars off the road, actually making the apparently-sedentary Jacoby’s ride faster, not slower. Would he prefer that we all be in our cars, competing for parking, spewing pollution, clogging up rush hour even more?
We agree that the current arrangement is unacceptably dangerous. The human toll has been high. But those accidents are not caused by bikes; they’re caused by cars and (especially) trucks hitting bikes. The Walsh administration has acted with some urgency to remake the intersection at Comm Ave and Mass Ave. Protected cycle tracks are now planned for the bewildering stretch of Comm Ave by BU.
The Dutch have been thinking about this for a while. You’ve got to include and protect bikers. It’s not rocket science, just kind of clever:
Boston’s a pretty clever place, isn’t it? Shouldn’t we be able to make even our own irregular intersections a bit more congenial to various modes of getting around?
There are bikes. At this point, this is a part of our culture. We’re here; get used to it.
johntmay says
Which is all the more reason for the drivers of these vehicles to act accordingly. I am an avid cyclist and I used to have a Class B truck driver’s license. Whenever I hear someone try to make the argument that they weigh more than me so I better watch out, I would remind them that if I took that attitude when I was a truck driver, I doubt they would take kindly to that idea in their little cars.
Christopher says
…basic physics says that smaller vehicles can manuever more quickly if necessary.
SomervilleTom says
I was just contemplating a very similar diary after my wife and I spent a frustrating afternoon getting our bikes from Long Wharf (where we had just arrived on the fast ferry from Provincetown) to South Station. My impatience is more pronounced because we also spent a week in Berlin last June. Berlin is just as urban as Boston (maybe more so), and many times more bicycle-friendly than Boston.
When the Central Artery was torn down, Boston had a rare opportunity to do the right thing with the lovely new surface area created by its removal. After years of “planning”, the city blew it.
What we have now is stupid and dangerous “bike lanes” painted at the edge of multiple lanes of busy surface traffic of a brand new “Commercial Street”. Meanwhile, the harbor side is flanked by a wide sidewalk beautified by a row of new trees.
What could have been done is common-place in Berlin. Plant the trees about two feet further from the street, and keep the various poles and obstructions at the curb. Install a narrow (4 inch) line of contrasting brick or stone just street-side of the new trees. The result could have been a 4-5 foot separate bike lane — plenty of room for bikes to pass in opposite directions, plenty of room for pedestrians, and separating bicycle traffic altogether.
Boston has made the same dreadful decisions in the brand new Fort Point district. New trees, new streets, new sidewalks — and life-threatening hazards for bikes.
There really is no excuse for this.
Patrick says
I started this post earlier today: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2015/09/jeff-jacoby-is-an-ass/
You beat me to it! But I too couldn’t believe Jeff Jacoby on this topic.
gmoke says
He’s been a tool since the day he was born. He’ll be a tool until the day he dies.
When I still read the Glob, I had a couple of email exchanges with him. A more self-satisfied willful ignoramus would be hard to find. However, on this particular issue, Dorothy Rabinowitz’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal about NYC’s bikeshare program may just top him.
Denmark’s planned transition to bicycle transport is also very much worth studying and copying where applicable in Boston and environs.
Peter Porcupine says
Please advise – how many intersections in Boston are nice, clean 45 degree angles with clear visibility all around? Instead of cobblestone 30 degree angles, five roads intersecting, blind corners at historical monuments….
SomervilleTom says
Berlin is older than Boston. It has just as many historical monuments. It has just as many rotaries, squares, odd angles, and everything else.
It also has bicycle lanes separated from motor vehicles pretty much everywhere. It has plenty of room for pedestrians — walking is more common in Berlin than Boston. It has plenty of room for bicycles. Where parking lanes for cars exist, they are on the street side of the separated bicycle areas.
Not to mention that every transit station (and there are many) has a double-ended elevator more than adequate for moving bicycles up and down, as well as wide stairs for those who prefer not to wait.
The notion that Boston is somehow too “special” for bicycles to be accommodated is a self-serving rationalization. Boston is well on its way towards becoming an urban backwater with a third-world transportation system — all while we proudly shout “Boston Strong” and squander our cash on the Kibuki Theater of professional sports.
rcmauro says
However, the Berliners don’t realize how good they have it — there is just as active a movement there to improve bike safety. Here’ s what they consider “particularly dangerous” …
Hier ist Radfahren in Berlin besonders gefährlich
rcmauro says
Click on “Fahrrad fahren in Berlin” at the link above.
SomervilleTom says
There are no 45 degree angles, clean or otherwise, in the Dutch picture.
Frankly, your objections sound more like knee-jerk automobile-centric canards then actual responses to a solution that is actually deployed throughout Europe.
drikeo says
I own a car. Been driving for 32 years. Baffled by what possible problem motorists could have with cyclists. Yes, there’s some jerks on bikes, but I prefer them to the jerks in cars. Can’t recall once getting stuck in vicious traffic, thinking “if only all these bikes would get off the road.”
I also bike. Given how poorly designed greater Boston is, I have a simple rule: do what’s safe for me. Red lights for cross traffic don’t make me safe. I see cars/trucks blow through those all the time. A green light for my lane doesn’t make me safe. I’ve got cars cutting right in front of me or veering toward me all the time. The “rules of the road” weren’t designed with my safety in mind. I watch out for myself and minimize my risks (yes, sometimes by going through red lights when an intersection is clear). Not really sure why it frosts anyone’s britches when I’m peddling along without incident. I’m not shaking my fist at every car that passes on the left, screaming “Hey! This is MY lane!”
Ultimately I take Jacoby’s column like most of his drivel. The world isn’t the same as it used to be and he’s going to gripe about it. You’d think conservatives would love cycling in that it’s largely unpoliced and unregulated and people mostly get around just fine.
Charley on the MTA says
Isn’t the paternalism of Jacoby’s column rich? FREEDOM! except not for you bikers.
You and Roark make a very important point — that the “rules of the road” were also *not* made with bikes in mind, and that there are several situations where a bicyclist strictly obeying them will actually be in more danger. For instance, if I’m biking NW on Mass Ave. just at Walden St in Cambridge (as I often do), there’s a light at a 3-way intersection. If I’m on the right, why should I not be allowed to simply treat the intersection as a stop sign, ie. stop and continue?
And furthermore, if I’m going to turn left onto Rindge (as I often do), it would be much safer to go ahead of traffic, and get into the left turn lane early, instead of crossing two lanes of car traffic to do so.
You can quibble with specifics — I’m not even sure I’m right — but it seems clear to me that different rules *ought* to apply — for common sense, convenience, and safety.
centralmassdad says
No one wants to kill someone. And there are just enough cyclists who give themselves an exemption from things like riding on the right side of the road rather than the left, obeying a one-way sign, or stopping at red lights or stop signs, that one must treat all cyclists as if they are deranged and intend use you as the instrument of their own suicide.
The problem is more acute than defensive driving vis a vis other cars, as something that is a minor fender bender with a car is a gruesome, fatal accident with a cyclist, and even if it isn’t your fault, it is your fault.
And once you have has the experience of nearly creaming a cyclist who just zoomed out of a one-way street, the wrong way, in order to drive down the road you are on, the wrong way, in order to avoid a later left turn across traffic– with earbuds in, you find that once the adrenaline shakes are replaced with anger that is easy to transfer to cyclists, generally.
SomervilleTom says
If you’re not joking, then I encourage you to read the link posted by roarkarchitect below. Your comment exemplifies the phenomenon it describes.
Bicycles and bicyclists are real and we aren’t all deranged.
While not defending the practice, I fail to see how a bike traveling on the wrong side of the road threatens you in any way. So long as the cyclist doesn’t cut you off, how does pedaling through a red light or stop sign hurt you in any way other than macho pride?
Do sailboats also terrify you because they occasionally force you to slow or stop your inboard motorboat?
centralmassdad says
There are already comments here explaining why cyclists shouldn’t have to obey traffic rules if it makes them “feel safer.” There is a sufficiently large subset of riders who act like this that cyclists, as a group, are completely unpredictable. Traffic rules are designed to produce predictability. Drivers expect, at a 4-way stop, that the one that stopped first goes first. They expect that they won’t find another car coming the wrong way down a one-way street. With cyclists, you can’t really have any of that because there are enough who feel entitled to do their own thing. When you are moving a multi-thousand pound thing around, that kind of unpredictability is scary.
And no, I don’t mean that cyclists pose a physical threat to me, I mean that I would prefer not to kill someone, even if it would technically be that someone’s fault.
I don’t mind if a cyclist “takes the lane” in order to avoid doors, or sand, etc., even if it means I slow down for awhile. Eventually I will be able to move over and pass them giving them a wide berth. If I can’t then the traffic isn’t moving anyway so who cares. I do mind it when cyclists appear suddenly and randomly in places where one does not expect another vehicle to be– on the wrong side of the road; popping off a sidewalk, zooming through a stop, or out the entrance to a one-way street. That happens far more often than it should.
SomervilleTom says
Perhaps it’s a difference in our communities.
Here in Somerville, I don’t often experience the kind of behavior you describe. At a 4-way stop, bikes accelerate so much more slowly than cars that it’s never been an issue for me. I rarely see a bicyclist blowing through a stop sign without slowing here.
The most egregious behavior I see around here is bicyclists booking down a street at night wearing black with no lights and no reflectors.
We have so many one-way streets, and residents pay so little attention to them, that I always check both ways when crossing a one-way street. I frequently break for (and honk at) wrong-way drivers. I can’t remember ever having even a near-miss with a cyclist.
drikeo says
Waiting through red lights when there’s no cross traffic does nothing to protect me. My rule is pretty simple. If I’d jaywalk, then I peddle through. Don’t hear any hue and cry about the menace of jaywalking.
I agree about predictability to an extent. I think riding on the left and heading the wrong way down a street (that doesn’t have a contraflow bike lane) is pretty stupid because you’re in a spot where cars aren’t looking for you. Hand signaling on a bike also helps gives motorists some predictability. Yet the red light/stop sign complaint is silly. I see cyclists who blow through them in front of moving traffic and, yes, those people are idiots. I see cars do it more often, which is why I go when it’s clear not when I think the signals/signs are protecting me. Biggest threat to me when I’m on a bike is the cars moving in the same direction I’m peddling, not cross traffic. I can negotiate intersections just fine, same as I do when I’m walking. The goofballs trying to take right hand turns essentially through me are the major menace, and clearing an intersection before the cars do actually increases my personal safety.
Charley on the MTA says
Common sense and safety require *different treatment* for bikes than for cars.
That is certainly not at all to excuse those who disdain both common sense and safety. (We’ve all seen that … yes, even in bike-accustomed places like Somerville and Cambridge.) And it’s not even an endorsement of a do-what-you-like free-for-all. But the “rules of the road” for bikes ought to be re-examined.
drikeo says
Almost every cyclist does this via intuition and we really need to acknowledge expecting bikes to operate like tiny does not make cyclists safer, nor does it make any particular sense.
The case for the Idaho stop is pretty straightforward.
For those unfamiliar with it (I’m assuming charley is), the Idaho stop is a law that allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light like a stop sign. As I said above, it’s generally the default setting for cyclists. Most of all, it would inject some common sense into the mix.
Christopher says
Especially at 4-way stops I can easily imagine a bicyclist rolling through an intersection that a driver thought he was going to get to first and thus have right of way.
SomervilleTom says
A driver approaching a four-way stop intersection is supposed to stop. A cyclist coming from the left or right strikes me as easy to see and react to if the driver is aware of his or her surroundings. It’s easy to stop a car that has just started to roll.
This already happens, frequently. Cars don’t always stop at stop signs. Kids often pay no attention to stop signs.
I don’t think it’s that big a change for a driver, and I think it makes life much safer for cyclists (as described upthread).
stomv says
Don’t forget the Idaho stop doesn’t make a stop sign disappear for a cyclist. The cyclist is still obligated to yield — just not required to come to a complete stop if no other cars are there.
On a pragmatic basis, I find that in the vast majority of stop signed intersections, motorists want the cyclist to go first. It’s rational — less stressful for the driver if the cyclist goes first, making the cyclist’s direction and intent clear. It’s to the point when sometimes the motorist clearly should proceed before me, but rather than get stuck in the “you” “no you” “no you” (both) “OK” nonsense, I just accept the motorist’s invitation to proceed when I’m on my bike, my personal preference be dammed.
drikeo says
Car gets to an intersection before a bike, bike stops, car goes.
Bike gets to an intersection and it’s, bike rolls through.
It would just catch the “rules of the road” up to where the reality of the road already is.
scott12mass says
I won’t ride a bike out here in the sticks, winding country roads are scary enough in a car. I like watching the Pan Mass challenge when it goes by (a couple miles away), but bike riders can press their luck when they assume they have the same “rights” as drivers. When they ride two across and “own” the road because in some stretches they can approach the speed limit, I always wonder why they don’t have to register and pay excise taxes. My boat trailer “uses” the road, and I have to register and pay taxes on it.
Someone has to pay for the “bike lane” signs etc.
johntmay says
Well, yeah, they do. A bicycle is a vehicle, not a pedestrian.
scott12mass says
Then they should be ticketed, in proportion to other vehicles. And pay their fair share in excise taxes, as do tractor trailers, motorcycles, etc.
johntmay says
First, I would think that the lion’s share of adults who ride bikes on public roads are paying taxes and fees via their cars and so on. Second, a cyclist does not have all the rights of a motor vehicle, just many of them and many of the same responsibilities. Finally, what about people who walk on public roads? They are allowed to do so, have rights and responsibilities. Do we head all the way down that slippery slope and demand something of all pedestrians?
SomervilleTom says
Of all your arguments, this is far and away the weakest.
If you want to make a fair share argument, I encourage you to focus on the overall tax burden of the average Mercedez or Rolls Royce owner. Of the multitude of tax equity issues facing our state right now, the absence of excise taxes on bicycles is surely near the bottom.
When a bicycle rider commits a “moving violation” significant enough to matter, they should be ticketed. Here in the Boston metro region, many of them are. If your local police are negligent, take it up with them.
What’s next, a “fair share” argument for ticketing pedestrians and excise taxes on walking shoes?
drikeo says
First off, what’s the excise tax on a $100 bicycle? Maybe 25 cents? Should pedestrians be made to pay for sidewalks? Maybe we could issue everyone a pedometer and charge them based on their mileage. Also, I’m paying for those roads with my auto excise tax and every other tax I pay. Now I should pay extra because I have the temerity to ride a bike too? Bugger off.
Bikes do get ticketed. Do something reckless on a bike in front of a cop and you will get a ticket, same as you would if you were in a car.
Trickle up says
This is to pay for wear and tear on public roads. Of course it does not do so well; a well-designed excise tax would be based on vehicle weight.
The impact is not linear but exponential, and the tax should be too.
The idea that there is some equity issue involved for a 200-lb. vehicle (most of which is the vehicle operator) versus a 4k-lb one is idiotic.
SomervilleTom says
Bike riders have the same rights as drivers. A bike causes far less wear and tear than a car (I don’t know the rationale for boat trailers). If those bike riders you whine about drove their car instead, it would cost far more.
Those of us who live in the Boston metropolitan area fund — directly or indirectly — much of the cost of your rural roads. We do that because some of believe that our roads are a common resource that all of us have a right to use.
The attitude of entitlement that your comment expresses is uncalled for.
scott12mass says
to John’s comment that they are a vehicle and have the same “rights”. And centralmassdad’s that often bikes don’t follow the rules. If a car hits a bike who gets hurt, the bike. Who gets sued, the car.
Bikers are vulnerable on the road and should behave with that in mind. The excise on my trailer which I use twice a year, I resign myself to paying. Some cycles $1000, could be paying more excise than some cars.
The funding of the roads is a longer argument, but you’re welcome to come out here anytime and use them. I really don’t think there should be an excise on bikes, but then again we shouldn’t have them on cars either.
Christopher says
I don’t ride because I never got comfortable (I suspect CP is to blame.), but we were taught growing up that the rules of the road were exactly the same for bikes and cars regarding such things as lights and one-ways so when I drive I expect those rules to be followed by all. If safety suggests that something else makes sense we can change the law – it’s not holy writ – but people would need to be educated about the changes. Of course we were also taught you are supposed to walk your bike across intersections, but I’m not sure of the rationale for that and almost never see it.
stomv says
1. Bikes can pass on the right. Cars can’t.
2. Bikes can ride on sidewalks unless explicitly prohibited by the jurisdiction. The state prohibits cycling on the sidewalk in a “business district” but doesn’t define it — it’s up to the community.
3. Cyclists aren’t allowed on limited access highways, like the Mass Pike. Cyclists are allowed on roads like Storrow Drive, though I don’t recommend any do so.
Some other differences — cyclists aren’t required to have a license to operate a bicycle, nor is their bicycle requried to be registered. Cyclists don’t need to provide ID to a police officer who pulls the cyclist over — though if the police officer doesn’t believe the cyclist’s claim of name and address, the officer can bring the cyclsit downtown for further investigation.
But if you’re focused on law, you’re missing the forest for the trees. For example, you may not cross a double yellow line except to make a left turn. Let’s think that one through. You think motorists ever cross the double yellow to get around a cyclist? They do — all the time — and do so safely nearly all the time. It’s not just for cyclists either… autos cross the double yellow to get around a right turning vehicle, parked cars that have encroched on the lane, and 100 other things. It’s the kind of lawbreaking that we don’t worry about, because we recognize that vehicle operators can make good decisions that skirt the tight interpretation of the rules.
Same goes for a complete stop at a stop sign when visibility is perfect, for doing 33 mph in a 30, for peds who jaywalk when no autos are coming or who cross against the light at an intersection when it’s safe to do so, and for cyclists who are behaving predictibly and at a reasonable speed doing things for which the roads weren’t striped and signed, like going the wrong way down a neighborhood street or treating a traffic light exactly the same way a pedestrian does.
The fact is, you don’t expect motorists to follow all the rules. If you’re like most, you grow impatient when the person in front of you drives at exactly the speed limit. You grow frustrated when the auto in front of you comes to a 3 second stop at the stop sign when obviously nobody is coming. You don’t really sweat it when folks juice the gas to “make a yellow” or fail to use a turn signal. Those kinds of rules are broken all the time by motorists, and we don’t get frustrated because we’ve gotten used to the idea that those ideas are flauntable most of the time without causing harm. Same goes for jaywalking and crossing against the light. We just haven’t gotten used to the idea with cyclists yet, so we hypocritically shout “follow the rulez!!!” to them when the rest of us only do so when we see a cop.
We’re Massholes. We’re Masshole drivers and Masshole pedestrians. Why wouldn’t you expect Masshole cyclists?
Christopher says
…which is why I try very hard not to be one. When I’m walking I find the nearest corner to cross at because as a driver it drives me nuts when a pedestrian jumps out in front of me rather than out of laziness not walking ten yards to the corner. FWIW I have in fact been stopped for not quite stopping at a stop sign and I for one am extremely reluctant to cross a solid yellow line. Red lights are pretty absolute for me and I’m even pretty careful with speed. I’m not suggesting draconian enforcement, but I also on principle hate deliberately cavalier attitudes toward the rules. I actually don’t get that annoyed with people in front of me stopping at signs or following the speed limit, and if my concern about time tests my patience in those situations it was probably my fault for not leaving enough time anyway.
stomv says
you’re pretty exceptional.
Christopher says
…you’ve struck me as having almost an ideological opposition, so there!:)
SomervilleTom says
This reminds of a joke I heard years ago about a Massachusetts driver resolutely driving at 55 mph in the middle lane of I-93. The drivers of the cars that made him brake were “morons”. The drivers of the cars who passed him on the left and right were “maniacs”.
I’ve been telling that one on myself ever since.
roarkarchitect says
Interesting figures on bike deaths per country.
I won’t ride my road bike anywhere near Boston – and in the suburbs only on – off hours. I will say in the suburbs – bike riders should NOT ride 2 across – it just creates animosity towards bikers.
I do blow through red lights on my bike – when there is no traffic coming the other direction – it’s much safer then contending with cars turning through an intersection.
Christopher says
…are supposed to look for bicyclists just as they look for pedestrians and yield to them.
roarkarchitect says
Busy intersection near my house speed limit is 40+ I feel much safer stopping and riding through the red light when then are no cars coming the other direction – vs. not stopping and riding through without looking when the light is green. While cars may have to look for me – if they don’t I’m the individual who has to live with the consequences of being hit by a 5000lb vehicle – same thing goes for walking in a cross walk – I’m amazed how many people don’t look – you might be legally correct – but you will be dead.
BTW – while some commenter’s have mentioned worrying about hitting a bike – I’m more worried about hitting a motorcycle – they can sneak up in your blind spot.
SomervilleTom says
The motorcycle that attempts to pass on your right is likely doing 60 MPH, in comparison to a bicycle that might get to 10MPH.
johntmay says
I was on my bicycle, going 25 MPH on a slight downhill slope and I had a guy on a motorcycle pull out of a side street and cut me off! Fortunately, I was ready for it. When one is riding a bike, it’s safe to assume that no one sees you and they are all going to cut you off. I’ve had bottles, cans, and stones thrown at me, had cars veer into me on purpose…you name it.
However, most drivers are very courteous, at least in my area.
SomervilleTom says
When I lived in Coolidge Corner, I frequently walked to Cambridge across the BU bridge.
I watched a motorcyclist be badly injured on Amory Street, headed towards Comm. Ave. A car was driving slowly (about 15 MPH), and signalling to turn right onto Dummer Street. The motorcyclist was impatient, gunned his bike, and attempted to blow by the car on the right. The driver didn’t see him, and began her turn as the motorcycle was beside him. The motorcycle went down, and slid with its rider about a block. At least the rider didn’t hit his head on anything, and was wearing a helmet. His leg and torso was pretty torn up, though.
The driver, a middle-aged woman, was in shock. I waited for the police to come, and gave them and the driver my contact information as a witness. I never heard any more about it.
centralmassdad says
The cost of a mistake are very high indeed. It seems to me that, for the most part, motorcycle riders behave in a generally predictable way on city streets– but on a limited access highway, not so much.
It isn’t much fun to have a motorcycle roar by like you aren’t even moving, when you are moving at 70mph. They are on you before you even see them in the rear view mirror. Same thing when they drive between lanes when traffic is slowed or stopped.
No one likes surprises when driving.
petr says
… when I learned to ride motorcycles (well before I learned to drive a car… and, BTW, isn’t it interesting how we say “ride” cycles yet “drive” cars?) I was taught that motorcycles are safer than cars. This seems like an absurd statement but if you think about it, motorcycles have greater agility, they accelerate and decelerate faster than automobiles, and they have greater visibility. The difference, for lack of a better term, is ‘context’. I was taught that if you use the different abilities of the bike to be safe, you will be safe. And I believe that. However, I was also taught that if you use those differences for your convenience, or even pleasure, eschewing safety, then they can work against you. This, too, I believe. Most accidents involving motorcycles that I have seen or heard of involved excess speed or some form of impatience and/or attempts to use the agility of the bike to get past some annoyance. S’vileToms example, from above, of the motorcyclist trying to get around a turning car is a textbook example of this dynamic.
Even less so when riding…
centralmassdad says
I think that this is roughly accurate. This is certainly the dyamic that leads to mutual hostility. The question above, to which I responded, was “why must motorists ‘act so oppressed'”? I think I have described the dynamics that drive the hostility. I don’t necessarily have any good suggestions on how to fix it.
drikeo says
At some point we’re going to adapt a third arm just so we can give the finger to everyone else while we’re driving. My suggestion is if you see a cyclist do something outside the strict letter of the law and it doesn’t endanger anyone, that you let it slide.
And what I typed above was “majorities” not “motorists,” though in this case motorists are the majority. Same phenomenon occurs with white people and Christians. Boil down Jacoby’s article and it’s “all mine, none for you.” That always irks me.
petr says
…purely a typo. No offense intended (today has been one of those weeks…)
SomervilleTom says
n/m
roarkarchitect says
I’ve learned – and like everything I think there is a study on this (I think on pedestrians) – look at the driver if they are waiting to turn onto the road – you usually get some non-verbal acknowledgement that they see you. I always assume they don’t.
drikeo says
First thing you learn from experience when cycling is cars taking right hand turns frequently do not see you. Take that for granted and you’re going to get hit.
Most cars also don’t stop to let pedestrians through marked crossings.
johntmay says
Why are we all in a hurry? Why do we have to have cup holders in our cars and drive up windows to get out coffee? Why can’t we just enjoy a quiet table at a cafe and a warm cup of coffee and then enjoy driving our car to its destination? Why are we all pushed to improve “productivity” and and produce more wealth that we will not share? I’m 60 years old. I’m done with this bullshit. I’m done with meeting quotas and goals that only mean more work for me and another luxury home for my master. I’m going to ride my bike and enjoy the view. I’m going to drive my car and respect others. I’m going to enjoy my coffee only when sitting at a table….and I’m not going to be in a hurry anymore.
Trickle up says
OUR STREETS!
MOOve off my roads!
I have to disagree that Jacoby got it right.
Those streets that Jacoby would claim excursively for motor vehicles by right of ancient custom and primogeniture were not designed for cars.
They were made by and for cows.
They are actually not well suited for automobiles and less so for the light trucks that so many people are driving these days.