Bike lanes = nothing but problems (Boston, Boylston: taxes, bus, safer)

[MKTwet]

I used to bike a lot but I never ride the bike like cyclist today who act so entitled on the road. Whenever I biked I'm always defensive on the look out for other bikers and cabbies are the worst at driving on the roads. Today I see cyclists are super entitled, some don't yield to pedestrians nor cars. They don't obey traffic lights nor signs. They just go and snake around cars and trucks thinking they won't get hit. If you bike with that entitled attitude, you won't be alive for long and it doesn't matter how slow cars and trucks go. Most dump trucks and garbage trucks are going super slow but one turn or pulling over they can crush you like a tin can. Those moron politicians can keep reducing the speed limits of cars it won't make any difference just to save a few entitled biker's lives.

[OneServant]

Construction zones with some of these bike paths they do not close is nothing but a death wish.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by MKTwet

I used to bike a lot but I never ride the bike like cyclist today who act so entitled on the road. Today I see cyclists are super entitled, some don't yield to pedestrians nor cars. They don't obey traffic lights nor signs. They just go and snake around cars and trucks thinking they won't get hit. If you bike with that entitled attitude, you won't be alive for long and it doesn't matter how slow cars and trucks go.

People were saying the same thing in the 80's and 90's. Let me clue you in on something, you're not the only biker who doesn't act entitled on the roads. So stop applying your judgements to everyone who rides a bike. There are obnoxious entitled bikers just as there are even MORE obnoxious and entitled motor vehicle drivers, and I'm no fan of either group. It's interesting that when people want to paint a negative picture of people on bikes they refer to them as cyclists, but when they refer to themselves on a bike, well, they're just riding a bike and everyone else is the problem because they're "cyclists."

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by H8t3rs

I've been on those bike paths. It's amazing the bullying I've witnessed; the itty-bitty cyclists are oddly very aggressive.

I think those bike paths are a great idea to cut down on traffic. Still, it's confusing for everyone and cyclists run those stop signs, as depicted.

I've been hit twice, only nicked, still I took that as warning signs for something bigger, so I cut back my cycling on public roads

I don't know how a bike lane "cuts down on traffic." The only way that could happen is if it jails up traffic so much that people choose not to go into a city. Basically it's a virtue signal. Boston weather is not reliably good at any time of the year, especially between November and March. City Council members should remember who they work for. They are not there to make a better world; they are there to make a better city for its residents and visitors. Their job is not to try to solve the problems of "climate change."

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

all you do is btch and moan, brother. really.

We get secondhand embarrassment for how you conduct yourself with guests in the forum because youdon't know how to act.

Most of my arguments are based on the very, very obvious (and at times uncomfortable), and you get exhausted trying to play devil's advocate and then try to curry favor with people-- who don't really like you-- when you deem it advantageous. Pathetic, if I'm keeping it a buck.

I have no problem with him at all. What problems do you see?

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

I don't know how a bike lane "cuts down on traffic." The only way that could happen is if it jails up traffic so much that people choose not to go into a city. Basically it's a virtue signal. Boston weather is not reliably good at any time of the year, especially between November and March. City Council members should remember who they work for. They are not there to make a better world; they are there to make a better city for its residents and visitors. Their job is not to try to solve the problems of "climate change."

Oh, it's definitely founded in politics and an underlying desire to eliminate cars for the urban proletariat over time. Just look at all the parking spaces they have forfeited over time, and the bus lanes. The politics are intended to divide unsuspecting people, and that's exactly what they do.

As I mentioned, I think some improvements for bikes could me made that would be far less disruptive. My biggest concern with the debate is how much anger and road rage is directed toward bikes as if bikes have no legal right of way on the roads, and the blanket unfounded generalizations about people who ride bikes. It's remarkable to me that I see very little outrage about the plethora of motorized scooters and other vehicles on the roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes. I see at least one a day that blows through a traffic signal. I see multi-ton vehicles doing some of the most reckless driving, and yet that's not the concern. You don't really see it up close and personal until you start peddling a bicycle around the city during rush hour traffic on a regular basis.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Oh, it's definitely founded in politics and an underlying desire to eliminate cars for the urban proletariat over time. Just look at all the parking spaces they have forfeited over time, and the bus lanes. The politics are intended to divide unsuspecting people, and that's exactly what they do.

As I mentioned, I think some improvements for bikes could me made that would be far less disruptive. My biggest concern with the debate is how much anger and road rage is directed toward bikes as if bikes have no legal right of way on the roads, and the blanket unfounded generalizations about people who ride bikes. It's remarkable to me that I see very little outrage about the plethora of motorized scooters and other vehicles on the roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes. I see at least one a day that blows through a traffic signal. I see multi-ton vehicles doing some of the most reckless driving, and yet that's not the concern. You don't really see it up close and personal until you start peddling a bicycle around the city during rush hour traffic on a regular basis.

During my law school days, 1979-82 I used to bike around Boston all the time, with no problem.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

During my law school days, 1979-82 I used to bike around Boston all the time, with no problem.

Different city back then. Much less congestion. Driving was aggressive but people paid much closer attention to their driving, and to the roads. Riding a bike through some city neighborhoods has never really been a cake walk in my view. I've been struck by cars a number of times over the years, and was not doing anything unlawful.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Different city back then. Much less congestion. Driving was aggressive but people paid much closer attention to their driving, and to the roads. Riding a bike through some city neighborhoods has never really been a cake walk in my view. I've been struck by cars a number of times over the years, and was not doing anything unlawful.

I found the automobile traffic and conduct abysmal even then. If the weather was clement and I wanted to visit a friend on the Cambridge side I almost always biked rather than drove or used the T.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

I found the automobile traffic and conduct abysmal even then. If the weather was clement and I wanted to visit a friend on the Cambridge side I almost always biked rather than drove or used the T.

If you did that jaunt over the Harvard Bridge today, you'd have a bike lane at your disposal the width of an entire freaking highway lane. And yes, that's ridiculous. lol