tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446330500314261009.post6250615394590286561..comments2023-10-30T07:28:38.074-05:00Comments on Newton Streets and Sidewalks: Should bicyclists be ticketed in Newton?Sean Rochehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07571094913250906385noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446330500314261009.post-36096352375165280402010-06-15T15:25:01.766-05:002010-06-15T15:25:01.766-05:00You start off with a premise that isn't really...You start off with a premise that isn't really good, and the attitude of entitlement just tends to shine brighter the more you talk. If people took you seriously, you're going to get someone killed. But I'm sure you'll be right there to point the finger at the driver. Regarding :"But, it ought to be safe enough to survive less than 100% attentiveness." So, a cyclist should be permitted to be less attentive because he can do less harm, but a driver must be 110% more attentive because they can kill someone. On the other end of the spectrum, a pedestrian should be able to not pay attention at all. That kind of thinking is just irresponsible. Whatever happened to taking some responsibility for your own safety?<br />A driver should be attentive, but a cyclist should clearly understand their vulnerability, and should be 120% attentive. So, should a pedestrian. How many people should walk into a crosswalk before they see the cars actually stopping? How many bicyclists should zip through an intersection when there are gaps, and cars could be turning? Both would be totally within their rights according to the law. Should a car stop in both cases, sure, but it just doesn't always happen. The cyclist has to be ready to stop too. Even more ready, because he/she can be killed. Your argument is absurdly one-sided. The aldermen should know better, but I can now understand the reaction if you were trying to do the convincing. You need education on both sides. Would you ever suggest that your child cross a street aggressively to avoid an accident? It's a ticket to disaster.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446330500314261009.post-5139518520175820482010-06-15T13:58:33.757-05:002010-06-15T13:58:33.757-05:00I ride in Cambridge, and after twice seeing ticket...I ride in Cambridge, and after twice seeing ticketing blitzes for bikers on Hampshire Street, I became more attuned to red-light running. That is, I had already noticed (in Cambridge), that you don't get anywhere faster by blowing through lights, but did it anyway -- afterward, even though I was not ticketed, I was much more cautious.<br /><br />On the other hand, bicycle misbehavior is almost exclusively an issue of perception, not of personal safety. Cyclists know they lose, and lose big, in collisions with cars, and therefore run lights only when they know they can get away with it (safety-wise). Like others, I'd rather see better education and enforcement of laws protecting cyclists and other road users from cars (such as entering the bike lane; cutting off bikes; making illegal turns; speeding, etc).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446330500314261009.post-5655162631348661042010-06-15T10:23:20.094-05:002010-06-15T10:23:20.094-05:00Absolutely. A more attentive bicyclist would have ...Absolutely. A more attentive bicyclist would have avoided the accident. Indeed, a more <i>aggressive</i> bicyclist might have also avoided the accident.<br /><br />One of our goals, however, is to make roads not only safer, but more forgiving to cyclists. Bikers should be alert at all times. But, it ought to be safe enough to survive less than 100% attentiveness.Sean Rochehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571094913250906385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446330500314261009.post-65062957428799749012010-06-15T09:38:02.584-05:002010-06-15T09:38:02.584-05:00Never give up an opportunity to repeat your mantra...Never give up an opportunity to repeat your mantra. And a more attentive cyclist would have likely avoided the accident too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446330500314261009.post-50796828243130969272010-06-15T04:43:12.069-05:002010-06-15T04:43:12.069-05:00Anonymous, you're exactly right. The rules on ...Anonymous, you're exactly right. The rules on the water don't create a force field around smaller boats. Smaller boats need to exercise care and avoid putting themselves in harm's way. But, the rules of the sea recognize that larger boats, because of the harm they can inflict, have a duty to look out for smaller craft. <br /><br />In two out of the three recent serious accidents, based on the information in the police reports, it appears that the bikers bear the responsibility for the crash.* In the incident where the cyclist was run over (on Comm. Ave.), the cyclist was behaving as the law allows him. A more attentive driver might very well have avoided the accident.<br /><br />*I wouldn't rule out equipment failure in the case of Andy von Guerard. There's something that just doesn't add up about his crash.Sean Rochehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571094913250906385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6446330500314261009.post-63783041959222406412010-06-14T20:53:32.857-05:002010-06-14T20:53:32.857-05:00I think the boat analogy is tiresome and inappropr...I think the boat analogy is tiresome and inappropriate. Boats can't turn on a dime, and the smaller boats must know that they just can't get in front of a larger vessel whenever they feel like it, otherwise there would be a lot more accidents. You can demand the right of way, all you want, it doesn't mean you get to be reckless, and it doesn't mean that the cyclist won't be at fault. As you've seen from recent accidents. Cambridge gives out tickets, see that other post on your other comment. Anyone ride in Cambridge, has it affected your riding, or wallet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com