Bicyclists (and Pedestrians): On the Virtues of Stopping

[desireearmfeldt]

Riding my bicycle from Harvard to Davis at rush hour, I observed the following:

1) While I was stopped at a red light, three separate cyclists passed me from behind, in order to run the light. While this is both illegal and foolish, at least they had decent visibility and could presumably see (as I could) that there were not actually cars about to squish them flat.

2) I then passed a cyclist wearing earbuds but no helmet (on Mass Ave at rush hour).

3) Coming out of Porter, I nearly ran into a car pulling some sort of U-turn shennanigans because the visibility was poor and I couldn't see the car until I was almost on top of it. I stopped to wait for the car to finish its shennanigans. I heard two cyclists approaching to pass me from behind, simultaneously, one from either side. Since I was pretty sure they couldn't see the car, I put out a hand to gesture Stop. The left-hand cyclist stopped; the right-hand cyclist kept going. No actual collision, but I bet both he and the driver were pretty surprised.

4) Heading into Davis, I saw a pedestrian enter a crosswalk and stopped for him. The cyclist behind me kept going, nearly ran him over, and pulled up short at the last minute.

5) We then both tried to pass a van that was stopped at an intersection where it should have had the right of way, only to discover that in fact it was stopped to allow pedestrians to cross in a crosswalk (in this case, against the lights, right after the right-arrow turn onto College Ave) -- again, there was pulling up short but no actual squishing of pedestrians. (Minus points to me for disobeying my own rules.)

There are two morals to this story:

1) The rules of the road are there to let everyone have their turn to go without smacking into each other. Ignore them, not only at your own peril, but that of everyone around you. This goes for cars, bikes, and pedestrians too -- if you cross against the lights at College ave, you're impeding the flow of traffic from the right-arrow, and you're risking a driver/cyclist not seeing you in time to stop.

2) If someone has stopped in front of you (either your vehicle type or a different one), they have most likely stopped for a good reason. Possibly to avoid running into something that you cannot yet see because you are behind them. It is not a good idea to pass someone who has stopped for a reason, because you are likely to run into the thing they have stopped to avoid running into.

(Also, though not a moral of this story, I can't help but mention another fellow-cyclist peeve of mine: if I'm stopped at a red light, and you come up behind me to stop at the light too, you should fall into line behind me, rather than jumping the queue. This is understood for cars, mostly because it's usually not possible to do otherwise. Why do cyclists not consider it impolite to queue-jump? It seems quite rude to me.)

Comments

[jere7my.livejournal.com]

Honest question: Is it legal for cyclists to take advantage of a WALK signal, provided they slow down and yield to pedestrians? My sense is that a cyclist could hop off their bike and walk it across; if they stay seated and ride their bike at a walking pace, there's no real difference. But I don't know what the law says.

(I know bikes should basically follow all the rules cars do, but there are exceptions. It's legal, for instance, for a cyclist to pass a row of stopped cars on the right, provided there's room to do so safely, and to ride on the sidewalk unless prohibited by community laws. http://www.massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/ )

[barumonkey.livejournal.com]

Technically, if a cyclist were to use the walk signal, they would have to dismount and walk the bike. That is the letter of the law; I tend to follow the spirit of it.

SW corridor park?

[mfinnigan.livejournal.com]

Along the SW corridor park, there is a specified walk lane, and a specified bike lane. Both of them merge into a crosswalk at every street crossing. Are bikes supposed to always dismount every block? If so, that's fairly annoying, and I'd rather just ride on the road if that's the case.

Re: SW corridor park?

[barumonkey.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting question. I don't have the legal answer, but I'm sure nobody would argue with you for biking across it.

Re: SW corridor park?

[boblothrope.livejournal.com]

The Southwest Corridor bike path is a textbook example of how not to design a facility for bikes.

The only worse example that comes to mind is the sorry excuse for a bike sidepath between the Fresh Pond rotaries. Painting two-way bike symbols and lines on the sidewalk, and posting bike stop signs every 8 feet at every driveway, is not the way to help people get anywhere safely or efficiently.

it is called a cross WALK, not a cross BIKE

[firepail.livejournal.com]

I have to cross Mass Ave and/or Elm every day, and inevitably a bicyclist nearly takes me out multiple times per week--and it has gotten really dicey lately as I am pregnant and can not jump out of the way. Cyclists should walk their bike across the crosswalk, or if they want to ride--then they must stay in the bike lane and obey the traffic lights.

Re: it is called a cross WALK, not a cross BIKE

[jere7my.livejournal.com]

It sounds like your problematic bicyclists aren't slowing down. If they slowed to walking speed and rolled across, yielding to pedestrians, would you have a problem with them? I tried it both ways on Mass Ave tonight — hopping off to walk my bike, and rolling through at the same speed — and I honestly couldn't see much difference.

(I also got bumped at Porter tonight by a road-rager in a tan SUV who tried to merge rightward into me, saw me about to be squished against the curb, heard my shouted "Watch out!" and chose to accelerate his lane-change into me. I half-fell onto the sidewalk, too incredulous to do anything as he zoomed off down Somerville.)

Re: it is called a cross WALK, not a cross BIKE

[firepail.livejournal.com]

Nope, I feel that bicyclists can't have it both ways, either walk the bike in a cross walk if making use of the Walk sign or stay on the bike in the road and ride according to traffic laws. It is especially irritating on Mass Ave when not only am I nearly getting creamed in cross walks, but also on the sidewalk where there are clearly painted 'no bicyclist' symbols.

Re: it is called a cross WALK, not a cross BIKE

[jere7my.livejournal.com]

You know it is legal to ride on the sidewalks (outside business districts) where there is not a no-bike symbol, right? "(3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian." http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm

This is true in Cambridge as well: "Cambridge traffic regulations require that bicyclists on sidewalks travel at a walking speed and yield to pedestrians." http://www.cambridgema.gov/~cdd/et/bike/bike_faq.html#sidewalk

So, in the eyes of the law, cyclists can indeed "have it both ways" in some circumstances. Since a crossing zone with a walk signal is, in a way, part street and part sidewalk, I might argue that a reasonable interpretation of the law would be that it is legal for cyclists to take advantage of them, outside business districts.

Re: it is called a cross WALK, not a cross BIKE

[jere7my.livejournal.com]

(I will point out that this doesn't apply to Mass Ave. between Harvard and Porter, Harvard Square, Central Square, Inman Square, and Huron Ave., where sidewalk biking is specifically disallowed. You are correct to complain about it on Mass Ave. However, it is legal anywhere else you see it in Cambridge, though street riding is the better option.)

Re: it is called a cross WALK, not a cross BIKE

[firepail.livejournal.com]

yep, I knew that, which is why I was specific in my example. I wouldn't be complaining if bicyclists weren't running me over.