Submitted by superfakesuperfake t3_ynojgg in CambridgeMA
CostcoBrandDinosaur t1_ivbar8h wrote
Reply to comment by CJYP in Cambridge City Council to consider citywide ban on ‘turning on red’ by superfakesuperfake
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments