Hey, there! Log in / Register
One bus driver sent back to driver's ed for nearly flattening bicylist, but others continue to ignore red lights
By adamg on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 9:01am
Grimlocke, who was nearly pancaked by a 66 bus last week reports swfit action by the MBTA:
I apologize for reckless driving exhibited by one of our employees. MBTA Bus operators must complete a comprehensive Defensive Drivers Course prior to being certified to operate an MBTA vehicle in passenger service. This operator has been identified and will be re-instructed on her duties and responsibilities as a professional driver
So that's one down, because she also reports watching another 66 driver blast through the very same intersection:
... As I watched the light turn red, my body exhibiting the intent to scoot out into the intersection at a moment's notice, I became aware of a growing roar from my left, west on Cambridge Street. And then a sharp honk. Route 66 Bus #2294 (or 2293, it was going over 30 MPH so it was difficult to catch the number) not only roared through the intersection against a red light, but gave me warning that it had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF SLOWING OR STOPPING. ...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Sounds like you might have
Sounds like you might have too much time on your hands. Buses blow through red lights constantly; so do green line trains. This is not new and there's probably not much we can do to stop it because the police aren't going to pull over a bus for running a red.
Too much time on their hands
Too much time on their hands to worry about dying? Let me guess--you drive to get around town. This mix of condescension, apathy and fatalism is typical of the Masshole.
This driver should not be reinstructed or whatever the T term is. They should lose their license for six months.
Walk, bike, and drive. I've
Walk, bike, and drive. I've lived here my whole life. This is how it is. Writing blog entries every time is not going to change it.
But the argument is so fun
But the argument is so fun and interesting! (I'll admit I also have absolutely nothing to do today)
I agree sounds like my stupid
I agree sounds like my stupid sister commenting on folks in crosswalks and drivers getting fined for not stopping for them..
"too much time"?
So someone almost gets killed by a reckless bus driver, and their calling attention to it indicates to you that they might have too much time on their hands? Sounds like _you_ have too much time on your hands, and maybe _you_ should spend more time in front of speeding T vehicles.
Just to pick some nits, the
Just to pick some nits, the green line trolleys are in no way obligated to follow any traffic laws, the only thing they are governed by are internal MBTA policies.
Not quite
MGL Chapter 89 Section 6 states that street railway cars can ignore sections 1-5. The section dealing with obeying traffic signals and intersections is Section 8.
There are still MA right of way rules that street railway cars have to follow.
video recorders
Isn't the 66 one of the buses that is now loaded with video recorders?
It's not just the MBTA Buses
I saw a school bus with young kids on it blast through a stop sign near Newton Centre this morning.
Not trying to troll, but I'm
Not trying to troll, but I'm gonna have to go against the pack here. These buses, which are carrying up to about 40 commuters are trying to keep on schedule. If anything, that should be respected on the 66 route, which is abhorrent schedule-wise most of the time. Even the 55 bus, when turning onto Ipswich Street from Boylston in the Fenway, at times must cut off oncoming traffic because it doesn't have a protected left—either that or it turns immediately after the light turns red or right before it turns green. There's only one person on a bicycle as opposed to the many on the bus who are hoping that it keeps to its schedule. Be the better person and be aware that a bus will try to pull such maneuvers to keep on its schedule. And let them do it. It's a lot easier for a bicyclist to hear the bus coming and to stop in time than for the bus to identify a bicyclist and stop safely.
This is a long way of saying
This is a long way of saying you think a bus keeping a schedule it never meets anyway is more important than people's lives. You need help.
try reading the original article
Grimlocke had a green light- the bus ran a red light.
If you knew that- then are you seriously smoking crack, or is this just some bad troll attempt?
Um, WTF?
If I'm on a bus where the driver thinks that he or she can blow through signals to stay on time, THAT DRIVER IS ENDANGERING MY LIFE TOO! Bus drivers and passengers don't get special force-fields that prevent injury when the driver causes an accident. Nor do they get special free passage through signals because they are trying to stay on time.
Buses get off schedule because the schedules are created by people who don't give a shit about things like, oh, rush hour traffic and real driving conditions? Or, even, iterative changes to reflect actual runtime experience? Not because drivers don't get special privileges to kill cyclists, other motorists, and passengers.
Changes based on actual
Changes based on actual runtime experience are made often. Do you think "schedule change" is written on the top of some of the cards randomly for people's health? The 66 runtimes were changed based on actual runtime experience most recently on November 7, 2009, and many other times over the past few years. Does it make everything perfect? Of course not, but that isn't because no one is trying or no one is giving a shit. Boston commuting traffic is not a solved problem that people are just ignoring the solution to, and it changes all the time.
I'll believe that ...
When I see an actual 93, 94, 95, or 96 bus schedule that accounts for added traffic during rush hours. Adding 3 to 5 minutes to the schedule for an 8:10 bus (compared to a 5:40 am bus) indicates some pretty fundamental scheduling fail.
Har D Har Har
The 47 Bus schedule claims that it can make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs (Go from Mass & Pearl to Mountfort & Lenox, crossing south on the BU Bridge, in 5-8 minutes) no matter what time of day!
The BU bridge construction is NOT new and at rush hour the 47 bus can wait 5-8 minutes just to get into the bridge rotary sometimes! There is absolutely NO attempt to measure reality in the MBTA bus schedules.
Don't even begin to tell me the 66 schedule is met with any regularity during regular hours...or on weekends with the way Harvard St and Harvard Ave get.
As both a frequent bus
As both a frequent bus commuter and bicyclist I'm going to take the opposite side and agree with you here. The buses I've been on that go through lights tend to do it a second after they turn red, and the drivers are usually pretty cautious about it. I'm usually silently cheering them along too, as maybe now I will have a chance of getting to my destination almost on time.
As a bicyclist you should be aware of the fact that most people in boston don't obey traffic laws (cars, trucks, buses, bikes and pedestrians), and really if you can't pay attention to the gigantic loud bus you shouldn't be biking anyway, there are much faster and greater threats out there to get you.
edit: looking back at the original article the OP KNEW this was a terrible intersection and yet still was ready to kick off the instant the light turned without even looking to see traffic was truly stopped (and then did it AGAIN after nearly getting creamed by a bus four days earlier). One of the first things you learn to get a license is that you should never assume that just because youre signaled the right of way there isnt a threat coming from another direction. I'm not saying blowing through lights isn't wrong, but not even bothering to look both ways at a KNOWN deadly intersection on a bicycle is just as blatant a disregard for safety as the person cruising through the red.
Seriously, Dave?
Obviously the only reason I am still alive is that I DO know this is a LITERALLY deadly intersection, and I never ever cut the light or push out preemptively. What really fucking gets me is that EVEN when I'm being cautious, I'm seeing bus drivers WARN ME FROM 60 YARDS OUT OF THE INTERSECTION that they're approaching at 30+MPH and have no intention of stopping. This is not only against the law, it is a blatant abuse of the position they hold as drivers of a gigantic vehicle that is expected to keep a schedule. If the light is -just- turning red as they are IN the intersection, I would have no expectation of danger would I? There is a pause between the turn of the red and my green signal. This is absolutely not the case. You're rooting for the wrong team here, buddy.
Obviously I assumed wrong, however
I'm rooting for some type of change of law to give buses (and the massive amount of people who depend on them to get around vs a single car or bicycle) signal prioritization, or something similar. The fact that drivers have to routinely blow through lights to keep some semblance of a schedule is a sign of a much, much greater problem. Yes, it is illegal and needs to be stopped but a larger solution needs to be developed then just "quit doing this". (The same argument can be applied to cyclists blowing through red lights. I mean this in a general sense, I'm not implying you are one of them.)
Buses going through red lights
If the bus makes a left turn 3 seconds after the light turns red, that's not a problem -- everyone does this.
If the bus STOPS and then proceeds through the red light after ascertaining that there is no conflicting traffic (including pedestrians), that's not much of a problem. One could argue that this would be a reasonable change to current traffic law.
But neither of these is what's being described here.
The way I read it was that
The way I read it was that the bus did in fact stop to let passengers off, and then proceed (illegally) the moment the light turned red. One could argue that the honk of the second driver was a reasonable warning that the bus was about to conduct this maneuver, and the "roar" and assumed speed (I've often found people think you are going much faster then you actually are if there is much noise and acceleration) were to proceed through the intersection before the other drivers got a green signal and reacted to it. The reason traffic lights are designed the way they are is partially to discourage other drivers from seeing what the opposing traffic is signaled to do, as this leads to preemptive action and accidents, as almost occurred to the OP watching the Cambridge street light instead of their own.
I would be curious to see if anyone has been injured by a bus going through a red light in this manner. (A bus specifically, I'm well aware normal drivers cause accidents doing this all the time)
holy fucking mother of god
If the bus STOPS and then proceeds through the red light after ascertaining that there is no conflicting traffic (including pedestrians), that's not much of a problem. One could argue that this would be a reasonable change to current traffic law.
Sure. Let's also change the traffic law to allow parents late to daycare, people who make over $100k (or drive a car worth more than $50k). Plumbers and other tradesmen late to their next appointment, pizza delivery guys who are in danger of not meeting their delivery guarantee.
Jesus christ on a stick, you're a fucking idiot.
By the way, let's get this straight: it's not OK for a bicyclist to stop and proceed through a red light (legal in many states), and they deserve everything they get...
...but it's perfectly OK for a bus driver to run a red light, and furthermore it's the fault of the cyclist for not watching out for the bus running that red light, when the bus nearly hits the cyclist, because the bus driver didn't see them, which is the whole point behind traffic lights?
Did someone spike my coffee today? Have you all gone fucking nuts?
brett's offensive language
dude, take it down a notch, my mother reads this stuff.
Bostnkid
Chill dude, it's just words!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yflhe35tyZs
Dear Brett.
I owe you a coffee, or a beer. Your choice.
You missed where I said...
that this is NOT what happened here. (The bus went through the red light at full speed, endangering the cyclist.)
I didn't miss a goddamn thing
You said:
If the bus STOPS and then proceeds through the red light after ascertaining that there is no conflicting traffic (including pedestrians), that's not much of a problem. One could argue that this would be a reasonable change to current traffic law.
That's completely unambiguous. "It's not a problem if bus drivers run red lights after looking for traffic" and "let's make it legal for busses to run red lights."
Red lights
Over the 18 years that I've lived in the Boston area, I've observed that a red light is not considered to really be in effect until it's been red for at least three seconds. That's just the way people behave around here, and it won't change unless the police step up enforcement big time. In the mean time, don't count entering the intersection the second the opposing light turns red.
Video
If this is clearly a safety issue - that is blowing through a light long
after a reasonable person should be able to enter the intersection from
another direction, wouldn't it make sense to take videos (with sound off)?
Why doesn't the MBTA
Just move Bus stops to the other side of the light? Specifically on the 66, there are a few stops (Coolidge Corner, Harvard Ave and Comm Ave, though I'm sure with a little looking more could be found, both on this line and on others) that the bus frequently gets stuck in light-related back up and has to stop 40 feet short of the stop in line waiting for green, then pull forward, pick-up/drop-off passengers, then get stuck at the red light, and go again on the next green. If they went through the intersection, then stopped, once the passengers were all on or off the bus could just leave. There is already no parking in these spots, so no spaces would be lost to this switch. The only place it could get hairy is going towards Dudley Station at Coolidge Corner. Harvard St is split here to allow for a left turn lane and a straight lane.
I never understood this
Every bus line I've been on always stations the stops BEFORE the light instead of after. Why not after the light? I don't know if it results in more red lights for the bus per trip, but it certainly is demoralizing sitting at a green while passengers slowly board the bus.
Because then the bus would
Because then the bus would have to wait for a red light, just to cross the intersection and stop again. In rush hour nothing works, but when the streets aren't completely packed the current way works much better.
Stops after the light are
Stops after the light are totally preferred by the MBTA, but moving bus stops is a political nightmare. The T is currently in the midst of a bunch of series of public meetings for a couple of different routes to get agreement on moving or consolidating some stops, including moving some to after a light. Route 23 and 39 I've heard about, maybe others.
Two reasons why buses stop before lights..
from what I heard anyway.
1. Buses cannot see cars that take a right turn onto the street the buses are on if that bus is pulling out of a stop. this leads to more crashes.
2. If the bus is unable to pull all the way into the stop (both right wheels 1 foot from the curb), then the back of the bus sticks out and no vehicles can travel through that intersection.
Some intersections have better visibility than others and those interections often times have stops after the intersection. And as someone else pointed out, local transportation departments have to approve moving bus stops back or forth and often times have to move parking meters, signs etc.
This makes total sense
"2. If the bus is unable to pull all the way into the stop (both right wheels 1 foot from the curb), then the back of the bus sticks out and no vehicles can travel through that intersection."
I hadn't thought about that, but considering how many drivers seem to think bus stop = parking space, this absolutely makes sense. I've been thinking that the MBTA ought to have its own fleet of tow trucks; I've seen cars parked and left unattended in bus stops for 15-20 minutes (at least), and the bus has to stop in the middle of the road, impeding traffic and making pedestrians climb over mountains of snow in winter, through no fault of the bus driver's.
But that's probably its own 57-comment thread.
Blindly "pushing off" the instant the light turns green without
insuring cross traffic has completely stopped is just plain stupid.
But I guess the need to get "a head start on all those evil cars" is more important than waiting an extra few seconds to insure you won't get sideswiped by a vehicle several hundred times larger than your bike.
And for all the cyclists out there who defend the necessity of the "head start", and also propose that it be legal for bikes to blow through stop signs and red lights, perhaps you shouldn't be on a public street to begin with, as these behaviors indicate to me that you can't properly control your vehicle in the first place.
Grow up
Instead of blathering incandescently and repeatedly about EVILE LAW FLOUTING StrawCyclists getting in yer personally entitled way, perhaps you should get on a bike and show us all how it is supposed to be done? But then you might see exactly how law-abiding your fellow motorists are. Reality! The horror!
Remember folks: the vast majority of cyclists have that same cracker-jack box MA license and drive cars too. Statistically, it isn't any different a population.
If most cyclists have said
If most cyclists have said license then shouldn't they be aware of the part of the drivers manual that says to make sure opposing traffic is in fact stopped before proceeding into an intersection, even if you have the right of way?
Excerpts from the MA drivers manual (http://www.mass.gov/rmv/dmanual/chapter3.pdf):
"Even the most experienced drivers make mistakes. Regardless of how many years you’ve been driving, at some point you will have to face equipment failures, bad weather conditions, unskilled drivers on the road, unpredictable pedestrians, and drivers who ignore traffic regulations.
The best way to prepare yourself for unpredictable events is to drive defensively.
•Stay alert and be prepared to react to the unexpected.
As a defensive driver, you should constantly look ahead of and around you, and frequently check your mirrors. Be aware of the road conditions or possible hazards that lie in front, to the sides and behind you.
•Pay close attention to crosswalks. Don’t rely on traffic signals alone to alert you to your driving environment. Motorists and pedestrians may ignore traffic signals."
(just as a disclaimer, I bike through this intersection almost daily)
"•Stay alert and be prepared
"•Stay alert and be prepared to react to the unexpected."
Yes, unexpected. Stray dogs, things in the roadway. Not "Other drivers who have decided to completely disregard laws."
According to your own post, drivers shouldn't complain about bikers, they should just be prepared for the unexpected.
"Motorists and pedestrians
"Motorists and pedestrians may ignore traffic signals."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same as "Other drivers who have decided to completely disregard laws."
And yes, I am saying that everyone should stop complaining, and just be aware of their surroundings, and the fact that we do live in an imperfect world where people blatantly ignore traffic laws
I'm not anti-bike, and I'm not implying that all bicyclists out
there are reckless and irresponsible. Unfortuantely, increasingly close calls I've had with cyclists over the past few years have caused me to lose much of the respect I had for both cyclists and the concept of bicycling in general.
I also take serious exception to the "mixed message" whereby cyclists claim they want equal treatment as other road users (with a few exceptions, this is EXACTLY how the Massachusetts traffic laws read), and then turn around and demand numerous special exceptions to the laws just because they ride bikes.
Among other things, the bike lobby in this state has developed an entitlement mentality. Consider traffic control and roadway improvements. It has been accepted engineering practice for decades that installation of traffic signals or adding lanes to roads, or similar work, requires a justification study based on the volume of cars and trucks using the roads. Yet, installation of bicycle accommodations is a MANDATE. As such, NO such studies of existing or potential bike travel need to be done beforehand to justify installation of the lane. NOT EQUAL TREATMENT!
Also consider what's happened to Standard of Fault rules. It had been long been established that if a vehicle collides with another vehicle in front of them, that person is at fault. Then along comes the bike lobby, and suddenly now in a bike/car collision, the driver of the car is now almost always automatically at fault even if the bike hits the car from behind (like J hooks and "dooring"). NOT EQUAL TREATMENT!
And if cyclists are truly in control of their vehicles, then perhaps you can explain why I see them constantally swerving around pedestrians instead of stopping for them, blowing through red lights instead of stopping (and yes, they do this FAR more frequently than vehicle drivers do), or blindly swerving into traffic (or sometime opposing lanes) to pass stopped or turning traffic, or to avoid hitting parked cars, instead of USING THEIR BRAKES to slow down or stop. After all, most vehicle drivers know to stop in these situations, and I doubt most drivers would attempt to cross into opposing traffic to pass cars waiting at a red light.
For the record - I have never commuted by bike, but in my mid to late 20s, I was an avid recreational biker and used major streets and roads within and between cities and towns on the North Shore. So I consider myself reasonably experienced in biking in moderate to heavy traffic. And, with very rare exceptions, I also do not commute by car into the city, rather, I use a combination of the T and walking to get between my house and the office every day (BTW that's been for over twenty years now).
+1
I agree with almost everything you said in there. I would have added a paragraph about keeping the sidewalks for pedestrians (yes, I'm old enough to remember when you could walk the Mass Ave bridge on a sunny day without playing Dodge'em, and there are frigging bike lanes right there), but I applaud you and wish you well against the torrent of "FOUR WHEELS BAD! TWO WHEELS GOOD!" I suspect you will receive.
Excellent point. That's one "bicycle exception" to the
traffic laws we can do without.
Standard of Fault? Not true
My coworker rear-ended somebody, breaking his teeth and her rear window in the rear process. Apparently he was at fault and that's how it's playing out. The best case scenario is he only has to pay his own damages, the worst case is that the insurance company may try to get him to pay for the damages.
I hear you about crappy bikers, I'm a biker sometimes and I hate bad bikers almost worse than good bikers. There's nothing worse than playing chicken with a biker going the wrong way on a one-way street. You should already be aware that while bike may not have a high top speed it can rapidly accelerate from a stop due to it's light weight. That means bikers are out in front of the light a lot, but that doesn't mean they broke the law. Why are you backing the bus driver who clearly blasted through a red light? It's a danger to everybody else on the road.
I'm not backing the bus driver. But the OP put themselves in
the situation because they weren't more prudent in checking to make sure cross traffic was stopped before proceeding. If the OP had been in a car instead of on a bike, I would have made a similar comment about looking before procceding.
As for "standard of fault", it's the driver who rear-ends the other driver who is presumed to be at fault (that's why your co-worker is now apparently SOL regarding their crash) Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in my other post.
Interesting reading on
Interesting reading on "standards of fault":
"Standards of Fault" defined
here:
http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/doi/Legal_Hearings/2...
On foot, I've most definitely
On foot, I've most definitely nearly been taken out far more often by bicycles than cars/busses/trains. So I definitely agree with everything you said.
Faulty Understanding
In most places in this country, and I know this as my dad is a retired traffic engineer, facilities are located FOR ALL MODES in order to steer traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, martian invaders, etc. toward appropriate places for them to be. Thus you build bike lanes where you want bikes to go (not where they are already), widen and improve roads where you want traffic to head (not where traffic is already if the road can't take the volume), etc. You don't just go count cars and then put a signal up on a piecemeal basis. To do else is considered reactive, rather than proactive in designing your roadway SYSTEM.
Just because we deal with Massbackwardness, selectmen deciding signal timing and location in some communities, and flagrant disregard of international standards as a founding principle of not designing things properly, doesn't mean that the rest of the world operates that way.
your hatred of Massachusetts is tiresome
Wait, I thought your Dad was an airplane de-icing consultant!?? Give me a break. Please stop citing your uncle's cousins' neighbor from Portland, OR as your source of expertise!
No one should be allowed to run a red light, including self-entitled precious snowflake cyclists who swerve in an out of traffic and nearly run down grannies on the sidewalk. As for those cyclists who are not the above-mentioned and actually obey the rules of the road and ride like they know what they're doing, I applaud you!
Interesting
Complaining about accommodations for cyclists and cyclists riding in traffic at the same time.
Last I checked, deicers are used on roads and on planes too. If they are the same chemical, they even have the same smell!
Obviously you are not
Obviously you are not directing your comment about 'complaining about accommodations for cyclists' to me, (anon), since I did not complain about that. I'm complaining about those particular cyclists who have the audacity and arrogance to claim a dangerous sense of entitlement that it is in some way inconvenient for them to stop at red light and so therefore they blow through them thus endangering all around them. If you want to claim that cyclists and drivers are not equally responsible for using the roads safely and responsibly, then by all means, declare that idiotic philosophy.
As to your last comment: I don't sniff deicing chemicals... but thanks for sharing.
Very true. However, it's not just a case of accommodating
all road users by constructing an improvement because "we feel like doing it" or "we THINK traffic may use it. To install a traffic signal or put in a left turn storage lane or similar work, you have to justify the improvement beforehand, let alone a major project like building a totally new roadway, based on certain criteria such as delays and traffic volumes - vehicles, bikes, and pedestrains combined (ask your dad to discuss traffic signal warrants with you sometime). You can't just say Oh, We'd like a traffic signal here so we'll put it in even though there aren't enough cars or bikes or pedestrians to justify it."
Unfortuantely, bike lanes are usually installed just to satisfy the bike lobby, and NOT because there are throngs of cyclists who will use the lanes to every day. This is because not only are there no established warrants to determine whether bike lanes are justified, but in Massachusetts the LAW mandates that bicycle accommodations be provided as part of roadway projects as much as possible.
As I stated previously, I'm not anti-bike, and I'm not against accommodating the needs of other transportation users like pedestrians and cyclists where it is reasonable and JUSTIFIED to do so. But I still have a serious problem with "we want to be treated equal but we also demand special treatment" concept the bike lobby has perpetuated.
Try this
Ride in wheel-to-wheel traffic on Hampshire St., Cambridge. Every Morning and Evening Rush Hour.
Of course it helps if the lanes are plowed and maintained, if taxis are ticketed for sitting in them, etc.
I do share your frustration when it comes to Boston's "Random Bike Lanes to Nowhere" campaign. Thinking about where people come from and need to get to and how to connect with other lane systems should be part of the process ... but prior traffic in an area that has no place to ride need not be required given the demonstrated ability of properly designed and routed bike lane systems to attract cyclists.
As for "special rights", spare me. When cities and towns start plowing bike lanes and sidewalks too, I'll buy that the car lobby has lost ground. Acknowledging the rights and needs of taxpaying road users may make certain motorists feel less extra super special, but it costs very little compared to the capacity it generates for taxpaying road users. Two key ideas: don't agonize, organize - like cyclists have. And the Billy Bragg quote: if noone seems to understand, start your own revolution and cut out the middle man. Like cyclists have.
I think all the bike haters
I think all the bike haters are missing the point. I don't care what kind of vehicle you're in- a multi-ton bus running a red light at speed is going to kill someone.
Pedestrians and bikers are probably safer because they can hear the bus coming better, but no one should have to be endangered by that kind of reckless driver.
The biker was more frightened because they didn't have a steel cage and airbags, but those are of limited use when hit by something that big.
And I'd like to see all the bike haters grow some stones and try biking the tough streets of boston before they blather on scofflaw cyclists.
In my ride home yesterday, I saw one driver blow a completely red light, nearly got creamed from behind by a woman who didn't believe in not entering an intersection on yellow, and missed two right hooks only because my intuition told me the guy who sped past me was going to turn right just as he passed me. Oh, and I had a cell phone zombie pedestrian step out in front of me when I was entering an intersection on a green light.
And just for your info- I stop at every light, every stop sign, I signal, I never ride on the sidewalk, ring my bell when passing pedestrians, and go blocks out of my way in order not to ride the wrong way.
I don't even lane split by riding up to the side of stopped traffic. And studies show I'm actually in the majority. You've probably even seen me, you just don't remember because the only thing that sticks in your head is the idiot who did the wrong thing, and annoyed or scared you.
What I love the most is..
everyone assumes they know exactly how I ride my bicycle. I am not shy - I posted a picture of my self and the bike I ride on my blog because ... guess what? I stop at red lights! I ride in the correct lane! I stop for peds, too! AMAZING. I'm a fucking freak when it comes to being safe. Why.. I even wear a helmet. If you want me to wear a big neon number on my back so I can be held ACCOUNTABLE, I fucking will. Just as long as everyone else is held accountable, too. Stop at red lights, whether you are a bus or a car or a bike, or a fucking flying carpet. You know what, I don't mean if you're at the intersection of a prairie road and there's nobody coming for miles around - god forbid you wait for THAT red light. I mean at these horrible intersections along Harvard Ave., Mass Ave., Comm Ave., and in the squares, etc. Don't be a dick. Yes, I see cyclists riding like dicks quite often but I personally can't be held responsible for them. The MBTA CAN be held responsible for it's reckless drivers, and I will HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE. Because I really don't want to die under a bus. That is all I ask out of my daily commute - keep me safe, guys. It's your goddam job.
Tip jar
If buses and green line trains had a tip jar, I would add a dollar every time we ran a light. Until buses get their own lane (or the ability to control signals) I prefer the driver use their enormous vehicle carrying 65 people to make their way across an intersection before suzzie in her suv.
As someone else mentioned, the 55 bus has to make a left on red to Ipswitch street. If the driver didnt, theyd be stuck there forever. And note that the 55 is essentially a school bus.
And the green line has to take extra liberties when making their way over the BU bridge, because of how badly that thing is timed.
Don't blame the drivers for doing their jobs and getting us home. Blame the state for not giving them technology found in most cities, a simple transponder that holds the green a couple of extra seconds so the bus doesn't have to run the red.
In the case of the bus stops found before a corner, I prefer them. WHat about those cases where a bus cant reach the stop because of traffic, and has to wait through 2 signal phases? Again, this is the fault of the government. A bus stop shouldnt be 45 feet long, it should be long enough that the bus can pull into it two car lengths early.
Green line
If the Green Line had a tip jar, I would add a HUNDRED dollars every time the green line made its way across the BU bridge.
That would be one hell of a left turn.
MBTA
railroads are governed by an entirely different set of operating rules. The speeding, red light running buses are probably just the drivers need to make it back to the station in time for break or to get more coffee and donuts from somewhere along the route.
PEOPLE ON BIKES REALLY THINK
PEOPLE ON BIKES REALLY THINK THEY ARE CARS. ONLY IN CAMBRIDGE BIKES CANT RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK. SO USE YOUR HEAD CARS AND BUSES BELONG ON THE STREETS. BIKES ARE NOT CARS SO GET OUT THE WAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!
If you think that you are a car ...
you got problems. Cars don't have rights. Bikes don't have rights. People in cars and on bikes have the same rights. Simple.
BTW, you do realize, don't you, that the only reason roads are paved is because cyclists lobbied for it? If anything, cars should go away - they take up far too much space anyway ...
Yoohoo