Submitted by superfakesuperfake t3_ynojgg in CambridgeMA
Comments
broke_cap t1_ivaf7vv wrote
How would banning turning on red prevent this? Pedestrian light goes white; a few seconds later, the traffic light turns green. Drivers are "turning on green" into you.
nonitalic t1_ivamavt wrote
- Drivers turning right during the leading pedestrian interval. LPI is far less effective at increasing safety where right on red is allowed.
- Pedestrian scrambles/all walk phases, as mentioned.
- Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians who are crossing the right turn lane.
ThePremiumOrange t1_ivb46k2 wrote
Right turn on red isn’t just “go on red”. It means you are allowed to turn right if you have a clear turn without interfering with someone else’s right of way.
CriticalTransit t1_ivc5ols wrote
That’s not how it’s practiced though. Cars roll right up into the crosswalk and get in everyone’s way.
coweatman t1_ivffbjc wrote
that's an enforcement issue.
CriticalTransit t1_ivgboaq wrote
Good luck with that. We don’t do much traffic enforcement here. The city has explicitly focused on street design and regulations in place of enforcement. I think both are important. What we also need to do is move the traffic signals back to the stop line so that cars can’t see it if they go past it and into the crosswalk. That’s standard in Europe.
ThePremiumOrange t1_ivdaepc wrote
Bikers don’t stop at red or stay in their bikes lanes and they’ve got earbuds in both ears. Pedestrians jaywalk. Plenty of examples of things not working in practice but right turn on red atleast allows smooth flow of traffic.
CriticalTransit t1_ivgbyee wrote
No it doesn’t allow smoother traffic. They just cut off the car going straight and there’s still a big line. Or they can’t go anywhere so they just block the crosswalk. P.s. a lot of bike lanes are dangerous so yes sometimes people can’t use them. Every biker I’ve ever known wishes they could use the bike lanes all the time.
crazicus t1_ivy9zu4 wrote
It’s fully legal to ride a bike in a travel lane, even when a bike lane exists.
nonitalic t1_ivdgydr wrote
There are a large number of drivers who would never blatantly run a red light, but who routinely fail to yield to pedestrians. Drivers legally have to stop for pedestrians at all crosswalks, but how often does that happen? Studies show less than half the time.
Banning right on red turns "failing to yield" into "running a red light". That's why it makes people safer.
ThePremiumOrange t1_ivdh7kx wrote
Don’t just say “studies” without citing them.
nonitalic t1_ivdhp0y wrote
No problem, I was just trying for brevity, but are you really disputing that cars fail to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks? Have you been outside?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457598000268?via%3Dihub
slimeyamerican t1_ivbj745 wrote
This is one of the big problems with this argument. Right on red is only unsafe if people are driving badly and failing to check their mirrors/blind spot before turning. It’s true that people will always drive badly to some degree, but it’s not clear what the limits of that line of reasoning are. Cars are dangerous-we accept this because of the level of convenience they afford. You decrease their convenience, then you decrease their danger, yes, but at a certain point you’re just preventing them from carrying out their function. I feel like the priority ought to be on finding ways to improve people’s driving ability, because at least in Cambridge it’s often pretty scary (source: I drive a truck around Cambridge most days of the week).
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbwqw5 wrote
Saying people accept it is a bit extreme. 40,000 people die every year in the US and over 1 million are sent to the hospital. My mom was rear ended (she was in a car) over a decade ago by a car going 30mph and had neck pain that lasts to this day from the whiplash.
Their convenience inside a dense city like Cambridge is questionable at best.
Finally, I appreciate that you are proposing a solution, but I don’t see any plausible way that is going to happen. Everything in our society follows a bell curve — and driving is no different. There is always going to be shitty drivers and in a city that means there are hundreds or thousands of shitty drivers.
slimeyamerican t1_ivc5luy wrote
I’m all about sustainability and the desire to make neighborhoods more livable, but the idea that cars aren’t still needed in a place like Cambridge requires a pretty extreme ignorance of what many people’s daily lives are like. Setting aside contractors and the need for trucks to get in and out to make deliveries, it’s also just the case that many of the people who work in the Cambridge area don’t live there or anywhere near it, because we can’t afford to. There’s lots of demand for manual labor of various kinds in the city, but nobody seems to consider that if those laborers want to be able to afford a family and a house, that requires moving 25+ miles away, and a schedule that totally rules out relying on the commuter rail. I grew up in Somerville and I work as an arborist out of Malden-most of our clients are in Cambridge. If I ever want to buy a house in the MA area, I’ll be forced to do what basically everyone else at my company has done past a certain age: move to NH or RI and commute every day. I’m fairly confident the same can be said for quite a few people who work in Cambridge. That’s obviously a broader problem and not one that can be solved at the municipal level, but at any rate I suppose that’s why I suspect this will remain an ongoing problem for the rest of our lives, or at least so long as Cambridge is a desirable and thereby unaffordable area and cars don’t fly.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivycry5 wrote
Honest to god I appreciate what you are saying and how it affects you, but then you are only for sustainability and livable neighborhoods in theory and not in practice.
You mention multiple times that you want to buy a house, which I presume means a SFH. That is a choice that you make, but inherently imposes your car and its associated pollution and deadliness on the population of the city whose housing isn't acceptable and/or affordable to you. This is a systemic problem over the entire region -- and fighting Cambridge over making its municipal roads safer for its local residents isn't the way to change things.
slimeyamerican t1_ivze841 wrote
Assuming you’re actually responding to my comment and not the general noises you perceive me making, you’re not talking about making municipal roads safer, you’re talking about completely eliminating cars and trucks lol. Not only would that destroy Cambridge’s economy, it would remove the livelihoods of everyone who depends on those roads to make a living. I get the problem, but part of living in a complex society is compromise.
I’m not only for sustainability and livable neighborhoods in theory; the problem is always one of implementation in a complex and multifaceted reality in which things are already operating a certain way. If what you really mean is I’m only for sustainability and livable neighborhoods for overpaid tech workers and college students, and not for anybody who’s been priced out of the area by said people, then no, I’m not even for that in theory, nor should you be. It stuns me how quickly self-proclaimed progressive people will all but tell working class folks to go fuck themselves as soon as tolerating their existence becomes even slightly inconvenient. If one wanted to reduce cars, the answer is not merely changing infrastructure-you have to totally restructure the economy such that those cars aren’t necessary, not just pretend they’re already unnecessary and willfully ignore anyone for whom that isn’t already true. This is sort of like trying to end police violence by defunding or disbanding police departments without doing any of the other things necessary to prevent the obvious bad consequences of taking such a step. Changes like these aren’t simple, and trying to skip to the end goal from day one always results in disaster.
crazicus t1_ivyacg8 wrote
Cars became king decades before RTOR was allowed nationwide. Removing RTOR in an extremely dense city for pedestrian safety makes sense, and if that alone can make driving not worth it, I’d argue it already wasn’t.
WaitForItTheMongols t1_ivagb45 wrote
Doesn't always. Some intersections, rather than having pedestrians get the Walk when drivers get the Green (thus having the crosswalks alternate), instead have the green light one way, green light the other way, and then have a segment of All-Walk, where the walk signals everywhere go on (and thus, there's a red light everywhere, which perfectly opens the door to the scenario described above).
crazicus t1_ive0yf4 wrote
If the driver is facing North at a red light, trying to turn right to go East, the East-West crossing will likely tell pedestrians to go. A pedestrian on the Southeast corner of the intersection will attempt to go West, crossing in front of the driver attempting a Right Turn On Red. The driver is looking for Eastbound traffic coming from their left, and doesn’t notice the pedestrian crossing in front of them. I have been hit by drivers multiple times in this exact manner.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivc0yvc wrote
Well, in other parts of the world that isn’t allowed. Pedestrian cycles are separate from car cycles. But in the US we place cars above everything, and so we have this system.
noob_tube03 t1_ivaik4q wrote
But it's already illegal to turn right on red into a pedestrian. How does this change anything? Local laws that dont match the rest of the country don't help anyone. Better to add traffic easing at all major turns instead
ik1nky t1_ivbadqi wrote
We have stats available to say this would help everyone. See DC, NYC, and Montreal. Compliance for no turn on red is much higher than compliance for stopping/yielding to pedestrians before a turn on red.
noob_tube03 t1_ivbdtrv wrote
Legit question (not trying to troll) but is the data for pedestrian/cyclist safety based purely on accidents at lights or specific to red light behavior. I ask because Cambridge has a ton of anti-car intersection where the pedestrian lights are only green when the traffic lights are also green, but the only direction for traffic is a turn (aka you are forcing cars into pedestrians due to lights). I'd be curious what the effects of safety are with these setups as well
crazicus t1_ivyal2c wrote
Nobody is really choosing to drive into pedestrians when they’re turning right on red. They’re just not paying attention to all directions, only to the direction that traffic is coming from
grameno t1_ivc48hq wrote
Its fucking awful. This city and Boston are so hostile pedestrians its not even funny.
Pristine-Craft-2253 t1_iw2ovz5 wrote
Look both ways before you cross the street
ThePremiumOrange t1_ivb3jhs wrote
This has nothing to do with no turn on red. Plenty of lights have been changed so that when the right crosswalk has a walk sign, I have a green light to turn but yield to pedestrian. On busy streets (intersection between memorial drive and n Harvard st comes to mind), you’re basically being put in danger by the city who’s decides cars should time their way through pedestrians or not get through the light as only one person usually does along with holding up people behind them who want to go straight… this is instead of just giving cars a full green and THEN give pedestrians the walk. It used to be like that and then they changed it to the current stupid timing.
There’s examples of TONS of this across Cambridge along with no turn on red signs put up for literally no reason. I’ve seen so many intersections with these signs and there’s never a reason why. Not a blind corner, not a protected bike lane on the right, plenty of opportunity from other lights to allow drivers to turn right safely, etc. The people coming up with this are just stupid. So many nonsensical intersections in this city.
This_Cantabrigian t1_ivai8ut wrote
They can make all the laws they want, but if they don’t bother to enforce them, it won’t make a difference. People blow through red lights like crazy around here.
holly_hoots t1_ivasp31 wrote
Every. Single. Day.
And then they complain about cyclists. LOL.
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivb4boq wrote
Cyclists ignore / break (take your pick) just as many traffic laws as drivers, there are just less of them and they (usually) can't hurt the other classes of people on the road, with pedestrians at the mercy of everyone. Everyone transits like an asshole these days.
CJYP t1_ivb9a7t wrote
It's actually safer for everyone if cyclists treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_ivb9cw3 wrote
>The Idaho stop is the common name for laws that allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. It first became law in Idaho in 1982, but was not adopted elsewhere until Delaware adopted a limited stop-as-yield law, the "Delaware Yield", in 2017. Arkansas was the second state to legalize both stop-as-yield and red light-as-stop in April 2019. Studies in Delaware and Idaho have shown significant decreases in crashes at stop-controlled intersections.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivbp6wo wrote
That's not what the law currently says though, and not what drivers expect.
CJYP t1_ivbwzko wrote
Not what the law currently says, sure. My safety trumps the law though.
Not what drivers expect? Only if you're not following the spirit of an Idaho Stop. At a stop sign, you're supposed to stop and only proceed if and when it's safe to do so. Going out in front of moving cars wouldn't be safe, so you shouldn't do that, even if it's legal.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivc2h6g wrote
People don't expect anyone to jump the light. I have no idea why you think it's safer for you to break traffic laws while being sanctimonious at everyone.
CJYP t1_ivcguhi wrote
I think it's safe because of that study cited in the Wikipedia article I linked. Do you have any counter-evidence?
> People don't expect anyone to jump the light.
I think you missed the key point. You wouldn't jump a stop sign when people are moving, so you don't jump the light in front of people who are moving. If you do, you're not doing an Idaho Stop. You're just being an idiot. The whole point is you only jump the light when there's nobody coming, and therefore nobody to surprise.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivcn9xr wrote
It seems like we're talking past each other. Drivers don't expect anyone to jump a light because that's illegal. Your perception of the safety of doing so is irrelevant. You don't see every car in every situation, so the expectation of drivers is important to your safety too. In general, drivers rely on the predictability of what's around them because of the inertia of a vehicle. Decisions have to be made in advance to keep everyone alive, and having the expectation that people are following the rules of the road is an important part of making those predictions. If you ever drove, I think this would be pretty intuitive to you.
CJYP t1_ivcomlz wrote
You're correct that my perception that an Idaho Stop is safer is irrelevant. However, the linked study showing that it is safer is definitely relevant. I don't understand what you're missing here. The Wikipedia article is right there in my original comment, and the study is cited with a link in that article.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivcoxmv wrote
It's irrelevant because it isn't legal here. If you're doing it and nobody else knows, then it can't possibly be safer than following the law is.
CJYP t1_ivcq50d wrote
I strongly disagree with the idea that whether it is legal or not actually matters. All it changes is whether people do it or not. I doubt most drivers in the states where it is legal actually know about it.
That said, this is conjecture that I don't have direct evidence for. I searched and can't find evidence for or against. So in the interest of not arguing in circles, I'm going to leave it at that and stop replying here.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbzvnm wrote
I believe MA law also empowers cyclists to do what they need to do to preserve their safety — and frequently getting out ahead of parked cars to get around an obstacle i.e. an uber car parked in the bike lane, makes things safer for everyone.
wittgensteins-boat t1_ivd4gs9 wrote
Cyclists have full authority to be in an auto lane on a street.
Bike lanes are suggested but not mandatory for bikes.
Edit:
Mass General Laws Chapter 85, Section 11B.
Link:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B
devmac1221 t1_ivmi9x7 wrote
And you are REQUIRED BY LAW to move over when there is space to do so. City spends ungodly amounts of money to build you people bikes lanes to ride in and you want to be everywhere else but them. They take away parking and left and right turning and all sorts of shit and you wanna ride in the middle of the street anyway. You people are insufferable
wittgensteins-boat t1_ivmmecj wrote
Cite the statute.
Here is my citation. Mass General Laws Chapter 85, section 11B
> Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section...
LINK. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B
devmac1221 t1_ivmvled wrote
I stand corrected. I misread the law and I apologize for that.
However, for all of the laws that your insufferable community break on a literal daily basis see Ch. 85 sec. 11b
"When riding on public ways, bicyclists must obey the same basic traffic laws and regulations that apply to motor vehicle operators."
You want to ride in front of cars or however you want and act like the world revolves around you, its on you whatever happens. In all Seriousness though, stay safe out there. Contrary to popular belief noone wants to see anyone hurt
wittgensteins-boat t1_ivmy1pq wrote
Yes, the same statute states that bicyclists must obey the rules of the road.
FirstLastDeposit t1_ivgndfl wrote
I know it’s really dumb when you see idiots on memorial drive though 🤡
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivc2uu9 wrote
There is no law that gives you general license to routinely break traffic rules on your perception of safety. Sorry bout that.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwdk5gl wrote
And there’s nothing that says motorists are allowed to routinely break the law in myriad accepted ways, yet we know these things are fully normalized:
- Going 5–10 MPH over the speed limit
- Rolling through stop signs
- Making right turns on red even when it is clearly posted to be illegal
- Using a handheld device (e.g. phone) while driving
- “Punish passing” a cyclist (i.e. passing closer than 3 feet)
Compared to the above, the traffic violations that a cyclist can commit aren’t even close in terms of potential and actual harm done.
So if anything, general license to routinely break traffic rules is not only common, but well accepted in the US.
Since my breaking some laws as a cyclist keeps me safe, while others breaking the law as a driver leads to people being hurt and killed, we need to recognize that these two kinds of law-breaking are not the same.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwdl39y wrote
Please. There's no mob on the internet arguing that drivers are right to break traffic laws, or that tax cheats are right to lie on their returns, or that landlords are right to do construction without permits, etc., etc. There are many self-interested behaviors in society that are prevalent, but nobody is standing up claiming to be righteous in breaking the law for selfish purpose... Except one guy who lives in Florida and won't STFU.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwdxcbd wrote
The difference is when I break the law while cycling, I’m increasing my safety. If it isn’t making me safer, I’m not doing it.
Until we fix the normalization of scofflaw driving (it’s not enforced many times b/c the enforcers consider those behaviors normal & act the same way, even when they’re working a shift doing enforcement).
I’ve had folks scream at me for obeying the law while cycling, punish pass me b/c I’m going to the speed limit (20 MPH) and am in front of them, and lots more antisocial, dangerous, & sometimes illegal behavior.
Pointing at scofflaw cyclists is a distraction & takes away from the need to solve the much more pressing and more dangerous illegal & antisocial behavior most drivers exhibit.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwdz4b5 wrote
If you're blocking a car lane with your bicycle on a road, you're making a huge mistake. That's not safe or smart, and I'm not surprised you run into conflicts with drivers if you cycle around with that competitive attitude about space on the road. This conflict you're having with heavy moving objects makes very little sense.
jeffbyrnes t1_iweqvf0 wrote
Are you aware that there’s no such thing as “blocking the road with your bicycle”? It’s been mentioned elsewhere in the comments, but if there’s no bike lane, cyclists are legally entitled to the entire main travel lane.
So your point here is invalid. Also, if I’m going 20 MPH, there shouldn’t be any conflicts, since I’m going the speed limit.
So I can’t be “blocking a car lane” since I’m traveling at the legal speed limit.
If a car is going faster than me, they’re breaking the law, which is the very thing you’re railing against, and doing so in a fashion that’s far more dangerous & deadlier than if I break the law on my bike.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwew0jw wrote
I can't really debate you on the speed limits on particular roads on which you've experienced this, not knowing really anything other than what you claim. I just think what you're doing is wildly not-smart and your misdirection into this little vignette makes clear that safety is not what you've really optimized on when cycling. You're having a game of chicken with a two ton object, which seems unwise. I can see how this is causing you conflicts on the road and how you would get upset, but I fear you're just being quite immature about the whole thing.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwg9ur2 wrote
You can absolutely speak to the speed in Cambridge: the citywide speed limit is 25, but most roads are 20 MPH.
The whole point of my actions is to be safer. If there’s no bike lane, I need to take the main lane to be safe from being doored by drivers getting out of parked cars, which is a far greater risk than moving traffic behind me.
I’m also legally entitled to the entire lane.
Drivers speeding is a near-constant. So again: it doesn’t matter if I take the lane and am going 20 MPH myself, nobody driving should be conflicting with me b/c they shouldn’t be going faster than me.
Said another way: being directly in front of a car is the safest place I can be if there’s no bike lane. I’m at my most visible directly in front of a driver. If I’m to the side? Less visible, and in the door zone for parked cars.
It’s not a game of chicken when we’re all going the same direction.
You’re misunderstanding my point, which is that I can obey every law to a T, and I will endure drivers flagrantly breaking laws in ways that society has decided are completely acceptable.
So if we’ve all decided road laws are optional as a society, why am I being held to a higher standard as a cyclist, even though my behavior is far less risky than a driver?
jeffbyrnes t1_iwgcfeo wrote
Y’know, lemme ask this another way: would any of the behaviors I’ve described be acceptable if I were driving my car?
Would someone speeding around me, crossing the double yellow, b/c I was driving the speed limit, be acceptable, much less legal?
Would someone speeding at all, just because, be acceptable or legal?
Because that’s my issue here.
I obey far more moving vehicle laws than most drivers. I never speed (because I can’t! I can’t go that fast) and only rarely disobey a red light to cross when I deem it safer than waiting for cars to be allowed to move.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwhet63 wrote
Hey, it's your life. I'm not a two ton object that needs to be convinced. I'm sometimes on a bike but not trying to get into a pissing contest with cars, as you seem to be. I yield and let them go. Why would you want to be an obstacle? Just sounds like you're making things unsafe for yourself to prove a point. That's not going to help much if you get hurt. Please stay safe. Your bike is an ancient technology with no safety features of any kind.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwhugnf wrote
Your entire argument was “cyclists should obey the law”.
So why do drivers get a pass?
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwi2w78 wrote
Who's giving them a pass? But if you think you're some kind of bicycle vigilante Batman who we need to enforce the law through daily conflict while straddling your 19th century contraption, I can assure you that this scenario is not something the public demands. Just give it a rest, man.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwixyb1 wrote
I mean, you’re giving them a pass.
You’ve been hot all over this set of comments, lambasting folks sharing that they break some laws in an attempt to be safer while cycling.
Saying “ugh scofflaw cyclists” while not even once acknowledging the reality of driver behavior as far worse is disingenuous.
Also, you keep referring to a bicycle as something antiquated & unsafe, which has its own negative connotations.
I’m hardly a vigilante; I ride a step-through & wear street clothes when I bike places.
Nobody, no matter how they get around, should be punish-passed or otherwise deal with abuse for going places, and yet this regularly happens to many. Hell, I’ve been punish-passed while driving a car.
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iwj21vz wrote
OK, I think you're speaking a slightly different language here with terms and accusations I don't really understand -- or I don't understand how they're pertinent. I think maybe it's gotten too unhinged to continue onward with this conversation really. Good luck with your bicycles.
[deleted] t1_ive56te wrote
[deleted]
CJYP t1_ives3st wrote
I suggest you read my other comments in this thread. I've actually been very consistent. I don't give a single shit what is legal, either for cars or for bikes. I only care about what is safe.
vimgod t1_ivejxtl wrote
How many people have bicycles killed? Does your brain even work lmao
FirstLastDeposit t1_ivgnpi8 wrote
Have you ever been hit by an idiot on a bike? My fear of stopping at a red light is being hit by another cyclist.
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivba810 wrote
If you want it to be a law then get it on the ballot. Until then, you're unpredictable on the road and makes it less safe for everyone. Just because you disagree with current laws on stop signs and stop lights doesn't give you free reign to bypass them.
CJYP t1_ivbabwz wrote
I just posted a link showing it's safer for everyone and you're telling me it's less safe for everyone?
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivbar8h wrote
Yes, being unpredictable on the road makes it less safe. Do you enjoy people changing lanes without turn signals? What about turning on red when there is a no turn on red?
And your argument is beside the point when it's not legal in Mass. If it's safer, then make it a traffic law and then it can be taught and properly enforced when a car fucks up and hits a biker who practices it.
CJYP t1_ivbaxlj wrote
Those people are in cars and can kill me. Bikes can't do that. If you want to go against the evidence I posted that it's safer, you're going to have to provide counter evidence of some sort.
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivbbb3q wrote
Counter evidence: I've been hit twice (once resulting in physical therapy) by bikes while crossing in a crosswalk while I have the right of way. Once in Boston near BU, and once in Central Square. Despite that, I still support bike lanes, I still support bus lanes, I still support all of it.
It doesn't change the fact that everyone is an asshole when transiting in this state and if you want the Idaho Stop to be a thing here then get it passed and in the books.
And just to be clear, for whatever reason, my primary and preferred mode of transit is the T
CJYP t1_ivbbqpf wrote
Anecdotes aren't evidence. But even if they were, that anecdote wouldn't be - if you're treating the red light like a stop sign, you still wouldn't go while people are crossing. So that behavior would be illegal even if Idaho Stop was legal.
I agree that everyone is an asshole while transiting in this state. I don't agree that the law trumps safety.
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivbebav wrote
"I don't care what the law says I'm doing my own thing" really sums up every discussion about bikes/cars around here.
CJYP t1_ivbextf wrote
I'm not going to sacrifice my safety (or others safety) at the altar of the law. I'm just not. The law isn't some sacred thing that's worth dying for.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivc0nv6 wrote
Fair enough. There are people trying to get it on the books but MA has a very car obsessed culture. I always stop and stay stopped at red lights because I don’t want to be “that cyclist”, but that is really the only reason. I have frequently had to deal with very unsafe scenarios (an uber car blocking the bike lane) that would have been much safer if I had been able to get out ahead of the stopped cars.
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivc209b wrote
Yeah I'm glad we're improving our infrastructure to make things safer. Still a ways to go though and I wish we'd spend more on our public transit infrastructure to meet the goal of getting the ever increasing number of cars off the road.
brucesloose t1_ivdkc3v wrote
You have a reasonable hypothesis - unpredictable behavior is the key factor driving safety and bikes should always follow laws designed around cars.
The next step is to look at data.
Data shows that cyclists need to yield at busy intersections, but if it is safe to cross at a point in time, they should - red light or not. Less fatalities that way.
Green lights are still very dangerous and depending on the traffic at an intersection, red lights can be safer than green lights. Crossing an empty intersection at red or away from an intersection is safer for bikes and pedestrians than crossing a busy green light.
Unfortunately, when you are at a red light, you just don't know how busy the next green light will be.
Drivers can't follow the same logic because cars are the reason roads are dangerous. If you are in a car at a red light, there is at least one weapon at that red light (your car).
crazicus t1_ive0p0g wrote
It’s not really that unpredictable though, is it? It’s already pretty common practice, enforcing stops would actually be seen as the change in policy.
Shapen361 t1_ivg7s5o wrote
I see some drivers break traffic laws. I see most bicyclists break them. A bike running into a pedestrian won't kill them but has the potential to cause a good chunk of damage. A car would do worse, but I haven't seen a car drive the wrong way down a one way street or barrel down a sidewalk, things I can't say the same for bikes.
FirstLastDeposit t1_ivgnrjt wrote
This is completely true
Zealousideal_Baker84 t1_ivb79tz wrote
Oh great. These are great arguments everyone enjoys.
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivb8dmg wrote
Whats the argument? Everyone ignores traffic laws in Cambridge because CPD doesn't enforce anything.
theWora t1_ivba6zm wrote
Yeah, why can't dose dam cyclist follow every law to the kine that's in the Driving License booklet!!
[deleted] t1_ive411w wrote
[deleted]
jeffbyrnes t1_iwdl8te wrote
Because thanks to how cars are constructed, you can’t see if nobody is coming in all directions, all the time.
I’ve nearly been right-hooked plenty of times while crossing a street on foot by a driver who didn’t even bother looking to the right while waiting to turn.
That happened just this past weekend while I was walking up Cedar St to Highland Ave with my pregnant wife. Had they been a little harder on the gas pedal we’d be injured or dead right now.
I see folks blow the crossing at Cedar & the Community Path daily, and they can very clearly see folks on the Path coming up to the crossing.
Common sense quite simply doesn’t exist when driving for a host of reasons, so the smartest thing is to heavily regulate the most dangerous behaviors, even if it seems foolish sometimes.
superfakesuperfake OP t1_iv9vfxy wrote
... please do.
BTW, doesn't Cambridge THEORETICALLY have 20 mph speed limit ? ... be nice if that was enforced.
Objective-Ad4009 t1_iv9xu2r wrote
It’s 25.
becausefrog t1_ivajsed wrote
The default for larger streets/main arteries is 25 if there are no signs saying otherwise. It's 20 everywhere else.
j_parkour t1_ivk9j8d wrote
It's only 20 where the city has posted "Safety Zone Speed Limit 20" signs. Everywhere else it's 25 unless otherwise posted. That's what state law allows.
taxratesarevariable t1_ivo5zlk wrote
this is correct. 25 mph is the city wide default. No idea why the upvotes are going to the misinformation being peddled...
brianmcg9 t1_ivastc1 wrote
Slightly unrelated but there are so many blind turns in Cambridgeport with the grid layout and people parked right up to every corner
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbyvny wrote
Because every last square foot of public land has to be used for cars, and if you try to re-allocate that space you’re evil. I honestly think the only reason we still have sidewalks after the 60-70s is because car drivers still had to walk a few dozen feet from their parking spot to the store/house.
Shapen361 t1_ivg8afx wrote
Here's my issue with the argument that too much space is dedicated to cars. What do you want there, homes? Clearly you don't want more people coming in to Cambridge if you you're actively making it harder to get here. Businesses? Maybe, but again, less available customers. I think these people just want to keep everyone out so they can have their giant bike paths and farmers markets all to themselves.
j_parkour t1_ivq5j5q wrote
I don't agree with the city's recent widespread removals of on-street parking. But removing one space at corners with visibility problems is worth it in my opinion.
Shapen361 t1_ivqpgmt wrote
But they're not talking about doing that. They're talking about a city wide ban that would add to congestion. To solve visibility problems, you don't need legislation. You can either remove those corner parking spots like you said, or have city works drive through Cambridge, identify turns with visibility issues, and put "No Turn on Red" signs there.
[deleted] t1_ivqrb0g wrote
[deleted]
jeffbyrnes t1_iwdh3zq wrote
Geometry alone dictates that replacing car use with other ways of getting around is how we welcome more people to Cambridge & nearby.
You can provide for more people if they walk, roll, ride a bus, or ride a train, than if they drive, simply because you need far less space per person for those non-car ways of getting around.
Removing car infrastructure in favor of other modes means providing for more people, not fewer.
[deleted] t1_ivf294h wrote
[deleted]
berlage1856 t1_iva53o1 wrote
If I remember correctly, right on red came about during the oil crisis of the 1970s, probably during the Carter years, as a way to reduce consumption (less idling at the light).
Master_Dogs t1_ival3pw wrote
Wikipedia supports this claim with a few sources in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#North_America
Of course we did this at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist safety, as the same Wikipedia page has some sources for significant increases in motor vehicle crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists after adoption of right turn on red: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#Pedestrian_and_bicyclist_safety
coweatman t1_ivff54n wrote
how is it less safe if you, y'know, look to see if you're going to hit anyone?
Master_Dogs t1_ivfhsnp wrote
One of the studies covers this:
> Although RTOR laws require the motorist both to stop and to yield to any pedestrian or approaching vehicle in the intersection before turning on red, it had been postulated that pedestrians and bicyclists might be at increased risk under Western RTOR because of the inherent attention conflict for the turning driver. In particular, since the driver preparing for a RTOR is typically watching for traffic from his left, he may not see a pedestrian or bicyclist coming from his right.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwdlcl1 wrote
This very thing happened to me this past weekend on Cedar St walking up to Highland Ave.
coweatman t1_ivltwt9 wrote
there are a bunch of intersections I can think of off the top of my head where the light is long and the sightlines from where you're sitting at the red light are excellent. you have time to look and see if anyone is coming from any given direction, assuming you haven't lost your rearview and sideview mirrors.
WaitForItTheMongols t1_ivagfop wrote
Sounds outdated then given the prevalence of electric cars which don't idle, and even most combustion cars now shut down the engine when stopped and restart it when you use the accelerator.
Master_Dogs t1_ivalnm5 wrote
It's also a trade off we made against pedestrian/cycling safety:
> The report findings show large percentage increases in right-turn accidents at signalized locations after RTOR (e.g., increases ranging from 43% to 107% for pedestrians, and increases ranging from 72% to 123% for bicyclists in the three states studied.)
People in the article linked to in this post can try to have it both ways, but ultimately I'd rather be stuck in a traffic jam than see people hit more frequently because someone wanted a few seconds of times savings on their commute.
berlage1856 t1_ivazh3j wrote
I understand that. You might find it interesting to look up traffic lights in The Netherlands: they are installing smart lights, super sensitive to approaching traffic (thus reducing wait times at lights) as a part of a light system that separates various traffic types (vehicular, pedestrian and cycles). A lot can be done with technology when there is a will—and some funding.
ik1nky t1_ivbb68f wrote
Cambridge is installing video sensors at many intersections now. Wherever they pop up, waiting time is greatly reduced.
berlage1856 t1_ivbcqzt wrote
Great to hear. Any examples to point out for us?
ik1nky t1_ivbe2wu wrote
Mass Ave and Churchill in North Cambridge was the first one I found out about. The left turn arrow phase doesn't activate unless someone is actually turning.
j_parkour t1_ivh19cl wrote
Interesting. I'll have to check that out. I had thought Cambridge had a policy to have no sensors and have everything run on a fixed timer.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwdljgs wrote
The policy is that there are no “beg buttons” for pedestrian crossings, except at mid-block crossings, to ensure pedestrians always get an opportunity to cross during each light cycle.
j_parkour t1_iwmiqlo wrote
That's true. But vehicle sensors can still be useful. Shortening a left arrow based on a sensor will allow a pedestrian light to come on sooner. And a side street sensor can cause the pedestrian light to change to flashing don't walk once traffic has cleared and pedestrians have been given adequate time.
jeffbyrnes t1_iwmx57n wrote
Agreed! I’m not aware of any sensor usage, but also don’t know if there’s any policy against sensor usage. Enforcement cameras remain illegal in MA however.
fendent t1_iva5tbs wrote
Are there intersections where you can right on red? I feel like every light I care about already is.
Side note: every Brit I know is jealous of our right on red lol
holly_hoots t1_ivasj9c wrote
I see a lot of "no turn on red" signs, which might as well be invisible for all the good they do.
NYC doesn't allow right on red anywhere, citywide. I hope Cambridge will follow suit.
blackdynomitesnewbag t1_ivaeo80 wrote
As far as I know, only on streets owned by the state like Mem Drive.
ADarwinAward t1_ivcspga wrote
The only other one I can think of right now is Matignon rd -> Alewife Brook Parkway.
crazicus t1_ive0rs6 wrote
Cambridge Street has a lot of those signs
Moomoomoo1 t1_ivb6t09 wrote
All of them, since the cops don’t enforce traffic laws here
bananasorcerer t1_iva47av wrote
I support it, right on red is not safe for anyone really.
ThePremiumOrange t1_ivb4m7k wrote
I feel like you don’t really know the meaning of right on red. It’s not, ignore the red light… it’s, if there’s no pedestrian on the right and you have a clear opportunity to make that right turn without interfering with another vehicle’s right of way, you may do so. Safety is built into the meaning. People run reds all the time, people jaywalk all the time, bikers don’t stop at reds. Nothing is safe for anyone
bananasorcerer t1_ivbi8b0 wrote
Right on red (in my experience) is treated as a right of the driver to make that turn by many. I have more often been killed by a driver in a crosswalk trying to make a right on red then any other traffic maneuver. It often involves drivers whipping around corners, barely stopping in my observation. Not to mention the incessant beeping that drivers farther down the queue make to bully drivers at the front into doing the right in red.
ThePremiumOrange t1_ivbk9xy wrote
That’s doesn’t change with a no turn on red sign. People do it anyways and often lights are not timed to account for this. We trust drivers to drive 65/70 mph next to each other stacked 4 across on a highway, we’ve been turning right on red here for decades and the rate of accidents isn’t very high from specifically this I would imagine. I pretty much never see right on red drivers not stop or roll down to an incredibly slow roll while checking.
bananasorcerer t1_ivbmate wrote
That’s fine, but doesn’t change the fact that right on red doesn’t make me feel safe and just because we’ve always done it doesn’t mean we should always do it.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbxu3q wrote
“I would imagine”
The city provided statistics in their presentation demonstrating reductions in accidents following posting no turn on red signs, and an increase in compliance (not turning into pedestrians) following the signs being posted.
ThePremiumOrange t1_ivdahtj wrote
What was the reduction and where are those statistics?
InfiniteState t1_ivaz3se wrote
What? If it's a side street and there's no one else anywhere at the intersection, how is it “not safe for anyone”?
bananasorcerer t1_ivbihyu wrote
I shouldn’t have to worry about getting plastered if the driver at the stop looks, doesn’t see me or notice me, sees no cars, and guns it to get to their destination a tiny bit faster. That’s just me though.
InfiniteState t1_ivbnh4c wrote
You trust drivers to always obey “no turn on red” signs but not to check before they turn?
Pedestrians and drivers still need to look, if right on red is allowed or not.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbxj7a wrote
Please. My whole family was almost run over by a guy who turned right on red into us after coming to a stop, after we were already in a crosswalk. Car drivers are fundamentally incapable of safely coexisting with the city.
bananasorcerer t1_ivc2ttn wrote
Jeez that’s so scary :(
[deleted] t1_ivc74my wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ive7ujw wrote
[deleted]
Optimal_Pineapple_41 t1_iva7tph wrote
Why? Just put a sign up on dangerous/busy intersections, that’s what they’re for.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbxx6s wrote
Probably because these accidents happen all over the city and not just at dangerous/busy intersections.
cptninc t1_ivd8xcg wrote
The published data does not back up this claim. The accident rate is actually nearly zero. Honestly, that surprises me as well given how many drivers simply run reds even after the first couple of cars in cross traffic have already cleared the intersection.
zeratul98 t1_ix2b3qh wrote
It's a little trickier than accident rates though. If drivers make pedestrians feel unsafe, then some amount of pedestrians will stay home or choose to drive. This is a notoriously difficult effect to measure, but an important one
Banning turns on red is an important step to making pedestrians the top priority for streets instead of cars.
cptninc t1_ix8i69s wrote
The actions which would make reasonable pedestrians feel unsafe are already illegal. Making them illegaler isn't going to change anything when CPD's own published citation data shows that they are unwilling to enforce traffic rules.
We don't need any new laws. We just need to get rid of this lazy limp dick so-called police department and replace it with something functional.
Optimal_Pineapple_41 t1_ivc4fdt wrote
Ok, but are we expecting all of the out of towners who drive through, plus locals who don’t keep track of local happenings, to know about the law change?
Seems like if anything it would make it more dangerous.
j_parkour t1_ivka0zv wrote
It's unclear if the city is going to post No Turn On Red at every intersection, or if they'll just pass the law and make it the driver's problem to do their legal research in advance.
Optimal_Pineapple_41 t1_ivl0a3i wrote
And we all know they’re not going to. So we have a city full of intersections where pedestrians think they’re safe to cross, and drivers think they’re fine to turn on red.
[deleted] t1_ive7wei wrote
[deleted]
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivbpjn6 wrote
In fact this is already the case. There are hardly any intersections where it's not already posted, as far as I've seen.
Donchaknow t1_ivalv67 wrote
Maybe a minority view, but I disagree with this idea. It will only contribute to more congestion on already crowded roads. The problem here is not the lights, its lack of enforcement of drivers cutting off pedestrians.
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbyb1d wrote
If cars were operating in a way that was safe for pedestrians, in some sort of utopia where everyone behaves nicely, it would likely congest the roads just as much as requiring no turn on red. The “lack” of congestion is caused by allowing cars to do things that are statistically proven to be unsafe for pedestrians.
Donchaknow t1_ivdfvpp wrote
Maybe if every right turn on red involved pedestrians crossing then perhaps the congestion would be the same regardless of what enforcemment mechanism used, but that premise is pretty clearly false. More broadly, there are numerous street designs within and immediately adjacent to cambridge that require drivers to use careful judgement, often while being in motion, so why would we deprive drivers the ability to use that discretion here?
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivjnb9y wrote
Because drivers have proven themselves to be incapable of discretion
Mountain_Resolve1407 t1_ivt1rfy wrote
What statistics?
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivamvbw wrote
Doesn't matter unless the Cambridge PD actually started enforcing traffic laws. Blocking the box, driving like a total asshole, running red lights, parking in no stopping zones, jumping the curb.
There is no end to you fellow Cambridge residents disregard for traffic laws no matter their mode of transportation.
coweatman t1_ivfex57 wrote
why is not turning on red safer? there are lots of times you're stopped at a red light and no one is around. this is dumb and feels like some trying to be Nyc envy.
dny6 t1_iv9yyaq wrote
Traffic cameras please
blackdynomitesnewbag t1_ivaerjt wrote
They’re not legal in the state
Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_ivbplbp wrote
More surveillance tech? No thanks.
Commercial_Oven9386 t1_iva346w wrote
Traffic cameras are not conducive. The concept that tax payers are coerced into paying for surveillance system to be used against themselves, by fear mongers that have nothing better to do than invoke squabble, is asinine.
thompsontwenty t1_iva7rx7 wrote
We pay for surveillance against ourselves all the time. A system that makes cars slow down sounds great.
Commercial_Oven9386 t1_ivahhz4 wrote
Better road construction has proven to be more the more sustainable solution.
thompsontwenty t1_ivb32su wrote
I also support this!
Kobeashis_Son t1_iva4v1w wrote
https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcl2.1091 “Red light cameras reduce injuries”. Study is listed right on the Wikipedia for red light cameras along with several others.
Commercial_Oven9386 t1_iva792h wrote
I’d argue that people should just pay attention to road as a pedestrian as well by picking their heads up from their phones and or devices. The timeline of this study alone is indicative of the change in times. The solution is not more cameras and screens on the streets but more eyes and ears. The increase of ‘mishaps’ are no coincidence to decline of people’s attention spans when moving about outside their comforts.
rmbryla t1_ivagtz8 wrote
>I’d argue that people should just pay attention to road as a pedestrian as well by picking their heads up from their phones and or devices
So pretty much ask people nicely to be better drivers? This does nothing and we know that. And yeah pedestrians and drivers should both pay attention. But when pedestrians don't pay attention they put themselves at risk while drivers not paying attention put others at risk. The point of traffic cameras, no right turns on red, and actual enforcement of traffic laws is to prevent people from getting hurt of killed
>The solution is not more cameras and screens on the streets but more eyes and ears
Cameras, not screens, not sure where you got the adding screens idea. If drivers never have accountability for breaking laws then they will keep doing it, just look at speed limits. We can't have a cop on every corner making sure cars are doing the right thing so cameras can help in certain places
Commercial_Oven9386 t1_ivah9br wrote
The distractions in driving have increased with the scaled adoption of smart devices… cars are now and increasingly becoming rolling computers …
rmbryla t1_ivahrfj wrote
Yeah the whole screens in cars is such a bad idea. Switching from physical buttons makes it harder for drivers to keep their eyes on the road since you need to look for controls instead of feel them. Didn't realize that's what you were talking about in your comment. Sounded like you were saying traffic cameras have to come with more screens that will distract people
Commercial_Oven9386 t1_ivai50m wrote
No worries. Just highlighting that the scope of the problem is larger than what is being addressed by this myopic solution.
rmbryla t1_ivak0pj wrote
Yeah absolutely not a single silver bullet, but I think no turn on red and camera enforcement can be part of the solution
Commercial_Oven9386 t1_ivar4iw wrote
It can… without dialogue this though we wouldn’t come to better mutual solutions. Cameras have proven their utility, they shouldn’t be the replacement for the onus.
sckuzzle t1_iva85c1 wrote
> The concept that tax payers are coerced into paying for surveillance system to be used against themselves
"Taxation is theft!" -You, a libertarian
Commercial_Oven9386 t1_ivah137 wrote
Nothing to do with political ideology, and I do believe taxes are important. Just believe that this problems is solved by human interdiction and not another unnecessary tech. better yet.. the drivers that are speeding should be appropriately ticketed by an officer that lives and serves (preferably in that community) and either way it still goes down to both the driver and pedestrian obsession with the device in hand versus the just paying attention to the road it is what we’re taught when we get our license… if people approached driving with the caution we should than would there any cause for concern for the pedestrian outside of unruly drivers that will perpetually exist despite what imaginary line you draw for them… cameras are the lazy solution. People just need to pay closer attention to the task at hand and driving is one of the privileged responsibilities we have.
ClarkFable t1_iva1sju wrote
Are there any good example intersections?
enriquedelcastillo t1_ivakke2 wrote
As I recall, way back (1979’s?) the state implemented a ban on turning right on red. It was sort of overturned when a court said there has to be a sign preventing it, otherwise it has to be allowed. If this is indeed the case, then Cambridge can only do this by placing signs at what few / if any intersections don’t already have them.
cptninc t1_ivda0l7 wrote
Until Cambridge hires a functioning police department, what's the point? If we compare driver behavior against Cambridge's Professional Sleeping Department's published citation data, it's already legal to go straight on red, do a 360 on red, drive drunk on red, drive in any direction you want on one-way streets, use the sidewalk as a driving surface, park in bike lanes, drive in separated bike lanes, etc etc. If these things were illegal, then we would see some citation data to back it up.
Without a police department, nothing is illegal. In fact, the police have even been driving in the wrong direction on Garden St's new one-way section when they think nobody's watching.
As long as there isn't an obstructed view, turning right on red is perfectly safe as long as you follow the law. But, again, until Cambridge hires a police department, why would anyone bother following the law?
RebelWithoutASauce t1_ivfh8hx wrote
I hope they pass this, it's really the only safe and sensible way for things to be in cities.
devmac1221 t1_ivmhwhz wrote
Just city council kowtowing to the bike community yet again . . . This is a fuckin joke
IntelligentCicada363 t1_ivbzmbz wrote
Turning right on red is incredibly dangerous and allowing it to be normalized into society should never have been done. You will be hard pressed to find a person who frequently walks around the city who would disagree with this.
My whole family was almost hit by an SUV that came to a perfunctory rolling stop and then immediately gunned the right turn without looking, while we were already in the middle of the crosswalk.
KayakerMel t1_ivdkn9t wrote
It sucks for drivers who are patient and willing to wait for the light to change to green. Often I don't feel comfortable turning right on red (typically due to not having a full view of oncoming traffic), so I'll wait. I get honked at by cars behind me for doing this. It's nerve-wracking to have horns blaring at you when waiting for the light to change.
ik1nky t1_ivl0xet wrote
Passed last night!
j_parkour t1_ivl9myd wrote
They voted to have the City Manager investigate the issue, and start discussions with the DCR and MassDOT.
"ORDERED: That the City Manager is directed to work with the Law Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to investigate how to ban turns on red Citywide; and be it further ORDERED: That the City Manager is directed to contact the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to begin discussions of banning turns on red movements on roadways in Cambridge controlled by those state entities; and be it further ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner."
I'm not sure if this text reflects the amendments they passed.
FirstLastDeposit t1_ivgoi92 wrote
Unpopular opinion -If you bike safe and defensive you won’t get hit. I’ve only seen idiots get hit.
Just assume someone in a car is taking a right and you’ll be safe 🤷🏼♂️
zeratul98 t1_ix2alps wrote
Earlier in the year I saw a car on the sidewalk crashed into a mailbox. Last week I saw a car turn left and go the wrong direction up the road. There's no way to be totally safe from a car massively fucking up
FirstLastDeposit t1_ix2b55m wrote
Then go hide under your mom’s skirt and leave biking to the bold.
Pristine-Craft-2253 t1_ivt113v wrote
Why don’t you losers go back to where you came from…Cambridge was a great city before you morons fucked it up. None of your ideas are good, you make everything worse.
[deleted] t1_ive50bw wrote
[deleted]
AcademicMuffin2883 t1_iva7eoz wrote
Do it, do it now.
coldsnap123 t1_ivbv1ek wrote
Let’s just bypass these incremental safety obsessed laws and just mandate than no one be allowed to leave the house without their bubble wrap suit and safety helmet.
y3nr3it t1_ivaakkj wrote
i’m still gonna do it
[deleted] t1_ive87iz wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iva5k2l wrote
[removed]
chmtastic t1_iva6jbi wrote
I am so sick of having the walk sign and then having some idiot turning almost hit me while I’m crossing the street. Please do this Cambridge.