[*BCM*] bike lanes, new bridge plans

[Peter]

I have never seen a better solution than the neutral zone in the middle of Columbus Ave in the South End.  The cyclist can use the full travel lane staying out of the door zone, the motorist has room to go around and the cobbles provide an audible warning. 

--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Anne Wolfe <goannego at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Anne Wolfe <goannego at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [*BCM*] bike lanes, new bridge plans
To: "Boston Critical Mass" <list at bostoncriticalmass.org>
Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 5:39 PM


To address the practical problems in your suggestion (which in theory I like, but practicalites tend to be something that has to be addressed)
1) Having a lane/law that marks where car parking ends or depends on the distance of the driver's side mirror from the curb totally ignores the fact that cars are different widths.  Substantially different widths.  A Smart car is narrower than a Cadillac is narrower than a delivery truck.  

2) To have a parking lane, then a red door lane and THEN a bike lane on most streets would start to run out of street width.  Particularly if the parking lane would be wide enough to accommodate large delivery trucks as needed in your first point.

3) If you go paint a white line and put a bike in it, people will figure out that it is a lane for bicycles. Particularly if (as I suspect) there were bike lanes in the country/world prior to some guy in Cambridge deciding to paint his own. If you suddenly paint another white line, or as you suggest a red line, and put a car door in it, people will just be confused as they won't know what it means.  And as red is generally not used for traffic lane marking (generally parking or forbidden zones), people will either cause other accidents (car v. car or v. bike or v. pedestrian) or snarl ups or else (and sigh, I think this is most likely) ignore it altogether.  

4) You could file a lawsuit against the City of Cambridge for being doored.  Heck, you can sue the Pope for paternity.  But you are unlikely to win, and it is likely to be one expensive loss.  The reason why is that you would have to prove that the City of Cambridge was negligent and that negligence caused you to be doored by this driver.  Now, proving the negligence of the driver is generally easy.  If the didn't look for you (which is usually the case) and doored you, they were negligent.  If they did look for you and doored you anyway, they were negligent.  But what did the City of Cambridge do that was negligent?  What would it be reasonable for the City of Cambridge have done to prevent you getting doored by people who don't look?  How contributorily negligent will you be found for riding too close to the cars and riding in the door zone, and not looking to see if people are sitting in the driver's seat.  From a legal standpoint, the
 negligence is going to be shared (before a lot of people start screaming how it is never the cyclists fault, shared doesn't have to mean equally.  And it usually isn't.  It is much more on the cyclist's side.  But there is often a proportion, even if less than 10% to the cyclist.)  It is going to be a hard case to prove against the City of Cambridge.



2009/1/30 Charvak Karpe <charvak at alum.mit.edu>


Hi,
 
I went to a DCR meeting on Tuesday night where they unveiled revised plans for the BU bridge and Craigie Dam bridge.  The presentation is available here: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/projects/pdf/BU%20Craigie%20Follow%20Up.pdf  found at http://www.mass.gov/dcr/projects/charlesriverbasin.htm  I thought BCMers might be interested in it.
 
I was happy to see the work of the new consultants the DCR brought in to address bicycle and pedestrian issues.  I agreed with most of the improvements proposed, like traffic calming by making the BU bridge rotary less wide (although I'll miss drifting around it in the rain in my car).  However, there was much criticism voiced by the audience about various things.  The consultant representative and DCR politely took the comments and complaints and then clearly explained the reasoning behind their designs.  I was the only one who said anything positive about their "share the road" signs and sharrows painted onto lanes vs. other types of bike lanes.
 
I wanted to see if there are people on this list who share my view that the only types of bike lanes practical on Boston bridges are either shared use lanes or raised lanes like the one here http://www.paulhillsdon.com/blog/2008/03/27/richmonds-raised-bike-lane/ .  If so, it would be nice to let the designers know.
 
Another interesting moment at the meeting was when Secretary Fred Salvucci pointed out that we could cheaply test the new traffic patterns on the bridges using sandbags and paint before finalizing the designs.  He recounted a story of how the first bike lanes in Cambridge were painted by some college student and they remained on the road.  That story has inspired me to consider painting red circles with lines over the bike pictures in the Cambridge door zones, maybe along with graphics depicting a door opening into a cyclist and a warning "door zone: do not ride".
 
The whole system seems poorly designed.  Why is there a rule against vehicles parking over 1 foot from the curb as opposed to a law about the distance of the driver's side mirror from the curb?  Shouldn't there simply be a line marking where car parking ends, a red zone for opening doors, and a bike lane outside of that?  Drivers of narrow cars wouldn't have to weave back and forth to squeeze up against the curb, it would be easy to ensure you're parked within the parking zone, and cyclists would not drift too close to doors.
 
I'm too lame to actually go out and try re-painting the streets to indicate dangerous door zones, but if anyone wants funding for supplies, I'd be happy to be the sponsor and risk being charged with being an accessory to this http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/266-94.htm.  I can deal with cars honking at me for riding at a safe distance from parked cars or road hazards, but I cringe when I see cyclists ride too far to the right.  I should try talking to Craig Kelley first to see his opinion on what is the proper process for communicating safe practices to both drivers and cyclists.  Or maybe it's easier to wait until someone gets doored and encourage him or her to file a lawsuit against the City of Cambridge.  Has anyone been doored in Cambridge recently?  Did you have suffer pain or damage to your bicycle that was not reimbursed by the driver?
 
_______________________________________________
Boston Critical Mass mailing list
list at bostoncriticalmass.org
http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org



-- 
Anne M. Wolfe, LL.M.
Mobile: ( 07805) 456901

Be well, do good work, and keep in touch. - Garrison Keillor
_______________________________________________
Boston Critical Mass mailing list
list at bostoncriticalmass.org
http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20090131/58b8ab70/attachment-0001.htm