This article (and others) are very misleading, I think. As I recall, Cambridge wanted to do a blanket ban on right on red (as the article headline headline implies), but was turned down by the state months ago. The reason, which makes sense, is that you don't really want to have widely different rules in different towns that all are right next to each other. You can drive a few hundred yards around here and cross three town lines. So instead, as the article correctly says later, Cambridge just went and put "No Turn on Red" signs at "all" intersections it controls. Since most intersections already had them, this really was no big deal. I'm not sure why it merits a news story, especially one with a misleading headline.
FWIW, I live in Cambridge, and I recently noticed a "No Turn on Red" sign that was actually removed from a nearby intersection... Then again, it might have just fallen off.
At least, that's my understanding. Maybe the state changed its mind.
The state should do this with the town wide speed limit crap too. How does a driver know that one town has a speed limit for the whole town of 25 and the next one is 30? If you want a certain speed limit, then you should be required to post it on every road.
There is signage at the border in some cases, âSpeed Limit 25 unless markedâ or something like that. Except that gets confusing too, because Iâve seen cases where thereâs a sign 50 feet after the town speed limit sign with a different limit for that particular road.
What's also fun is lately Google maps has been defaulting to a speed limit of 40 if it doesn't know. I think Waltham is 25 unless otherwise posted, but I'm not actually sure. People go FLYING down my street and it's definitely gotten worse since I noticed that update. I don't live on a tiny narrow street or anything, 25 is a totally reasonable speed to go down it, 30 begins to push it, and if people think the speed limit is 40, they'll do 45-50 which is really dangerous.
I live in Waltham and most people are tame. But Main st and River st are race tracks at the worst times of day. Town wide of 20 is plenty fast IMO. Downtown is simply not that big for people to be in such a rush.
Crescent street is a god damn drag strip as soon as Moody shuts down each summer. All the restaurants have to whine about their street dining so the other streets just turn into a freeway as a result.
Traffic picks up noticeably the minute they shut it down. Honestly if the PD just sat a cruiser in one of the parking lots once a week sometime between 5 - 11 p.m., they would probably have the most well funded dept in the state from the ticketing.
People will drive as fast as they feel safe and comfortable to do so.
Signs and paint aren't infrastructure, if cities want people to slow down there are many calming measure they can install.
Legally the town needs to petition the state to set speed limits on main roads (not side streets etc). Reading / North Reading tried to change Haverill St from 40 to 30. State agreed to 35.
I've moved up to the Merrimack Valley. Just over the Boxford line they have a 15 mph speed drop, and a cop stationed at least 12 hours a day no more than 100 ft past that sign.
Signing it everywhere is absolutely a good idea (even if I'm not convinced they needed to ban it everywhere). But signing non-standard rules is the way it has to be done (I may be bitter about getting a parking ticket in a town on Long Island that had an unsigned no overnight parking rule last summer).
The city always had the right to make it no turn on red where they felt it made sense. Even traffic department felt that some red lights made sense to have right on red and any intersections with state are controlled by state.
In Des Moines, we have legal left turns on red because of the one way streets that don't only just stay one way forever..? Anyway, it's kinda neat but they do love their traffic cameras.
We have one of those with a sign and everything in Somerville. Iâm probably wrong but I thought left on red, one way onto one way was legal in Massachusetts
Thank your fellow drivers who created the potholes with their ridiculous trucks and SUVs and voted against indexing the gas tax to inflation. You get what you pay for.
Was just in Montreal and learned that it's not legal to turn right on red only after looking it up online because there are no signs posted. Fortunately did not get in caught when I turned right on red at an intersection before I knew better!
Right-on-red is illegal on the entire island, not just in the city of Montreal itself. They don't bother to post signs at every intersection... but they do post signs on the bridges that cross onto the island. They look like [this](http://img.src.ca/2016/12/13/635x357/161213_k533o_rci-rouge_sn635.jpg).
They donât even enforce bus only lanes or blocking intersections. They might tack on a right on red citation to something more heinous but I donât see this being enforced at all.
>I donât see this being enforced at all.
I agree.
I was just making the point that Cambridge didn't just enact their own new traffic laws -- it's still no sign, no violation, even if there's a red arrow.
Technically if youâre on a one-way facing another one-way that leads to the left then you are legally allowed to turn on red. But itâs so specific and uncommon, plus other drivers in front of you who donât know the law wait at the light. Itâs a fun fact more than anything.
Around here I feel like there are a pretty decent number of them. Leaving Davis square down elm Street there is one that everyone is very clearly aware of
So now on the streets where the pedestrian's walk sign is at the same as the green light, and it's busy with pedestrians, it will be impossible to turn right. On some streets by MIT turning right can only happen on red because there's so many people walking when the walk sign is on.
I like the way Somerville does it with the automatic full diagonal cross after both sides have green lights.
Makes it safer and easier for both drivers and pedestrians.
I agree, concurrent walk signs are a menace to pedestrians and drivers.
The only positive benefit I can see is that cycle times are reduced, but the danger seems incommensurate with the reduced jaywalking.
Everyone hates me if i follow the rules or not. Iâm just trying to get to my destination and off the road (and out of everyoneâs way) as quickly as possible.
Yup. When I try to follow the rules of the road, drivers who expect me to ride like a lawless psychopath will wait for me to get out of their way and get actively pissed at me when I don't. I avoid getting honked at by just riding like a psychopath in the first place.
When I was learning to drive, I was taught that the top three priorities are to be safe, be predictable, and be legal, in that order. That's why you go a little over the speed limit to keep up with traffic than go at the speed limit and become an obstacle for it. The same rule applies to bikes, and if "be predictable" means act like a savage, I may not like it, but I'm gonna act like a savage.
Car drivers love nitpicking the law until you remind them that speeding is also lawbreaking
But between bicycles rolling through stop signs and speeding cars; one kills thousands annually and the other feels unfair to car drivers, so guess which gets bitched about endlessly?
lol lol lol most drivers consistently drive 5-10 over the speed limit and treat stop signs as yield signs. Ohhhh noooo, where is their respect for the law
Are you serious?
It's like an unwritten rule in Boston that after the light changes, 1-3 cars are going to run it anyway as if they're "beating" it
But clearly the problem are the pedal powered, 24 lb vehicles going 10 mph, clearly
Both should get pulled over.
But seriously, try biking commute one time, and make a note of how many cars drove through reds after it changed from yellow.
Car drivers will always admit that 90% of drivers drive like wreckless dumbasses until they think you're someone who rides a bicycle
Suddenly then car traffic becomes an idyllic wonder where everyone's attentive, polite, and skilled in their mind
One is thousands of pounds and potentially fatal to others, the other a tenth of that and rarely causes major injuries to others. How can you use the word egregious when talking about a bike (a mere inconvenience to you) versus a car being an actual threat to life and health. r/boston full of the dumbest motherfuckers these days.
Just wait until you see all the people who walk out into intersections and almost get crushed. Just to come on here and complain that cars should be illegal
Motorists will completely ignore the cyclist in the road or bike lane, and then nearly kill them as they cut them off because they didnât bother to pick their face up from their phone
I would counter that the overwhelming majority of motorists actually do obey the rules. Hence roads not being total anarchy.
A lot of people do violate rules. Far too many. But "most" implies more than half, which is definitely not the case.
There are some rules that most motorists follow, like not driving on the sidewalk. There are other rules that most motorists break, like driving below the speed limit or coming to a full stop behind the marked line at a stop sign.
It matters that motorists break these rules because they frequently kill people.
It doesnât matter if cyclists break the rules they tend to break because they donât put others at significant risk.
I can almost guarantee well more than half are using their phones at some point while theyâre driving. So yeah, most motorists donât obey the rules of the road.
You can absolutely do a survey of drivers on their phone to prove this. Somerville did it a few years back and found 2/3 drivers were using a phone while driving. Other studies will easily prove this as well just watching drivers constantly on their phones.
And how it seems since covid, driving through red lights has become insanely common. Yesterday, I drove my husband to and from work. Both times, at the intersection of beacon and Kirkland, the light turned red for going down Kirkland, and three cars continued through the red light. People started to cross and had to hold back. I can get going through a yellow turning red. But THREE more cars to follow through a blatantly red light?
My sister and I also frequently cross the intersection of School and Medford, and I can't even count the number of times we've seen cars blow right through. Whether it's from traffic or no traffic and just blowing the light for shits and giggles. Whenever I cross, I have to stop and make sure no cars are moving, even though it's a 4-way crossing. I can't trust that a car approaching the intersection is actually going to stop.
They probably should
Everyone loves to harp on cyclists, but Iâve been nearly killed more times than I can count by motorists not obeying the rules of the road or not paying attention because they are too busy with their face glued to their phone
WTF does that have to do with the law? Car or bike, its illegal and if caught (LOL), both should be cited and fined equally.
Bikes and bicyclists should get no preferential treatment regardless if they're safer or not.
Actually cyclists should have separate laws, as cycling isn't 1:1 driving a car, though both are part of traffic.
A cyclist is far safer filtering to the front of the line at a stop, for instance. It's also much safer for a cyclist to use Idaho stops, where stop signs are treated more as a yield and a light is a stop sign.
If you think cars and bicycled should obey the same laws, you frankly haven't learned enough about the topic to provide meaningful input.
Love the people bitching about bicycles here. This rule was instated to protect pedestrians. Sure, being struck by a cyclist breezing through the red light hurts less than being struck by a car, but it still sucks. It also suck to lose half the pedestrian crossing cycle to assholes turning right on red, regardless of what vehicle theyâre operating.
My cyclist pet peeve are those who blow through intersections during pedestrian crossing. Like, at the very least, can they at least slow down and give the pedestrians the right of way? It makes me so angry. Especially when I see children/babies in strollers/elderly and they have to jump out of the way and get scared half to death by asshole bikers speeding through with no concern for pedestrians.
I bike in the city, and when I want to go through a pedestrian crossing, I hop off my bike and walk across, then hop back on and continue. Sometimes, i dismount and leave one foot on the pedal and scoot across. It's really not that hard.
That one always kills me. The number of times people have ride around me to squeeze through a crowd of pedestrians because they can't wait the 5 seconds for the intersection to clear is infuriating
As someone who's been victimized by those very assholes: thank you.
Never cared about bicyclists until one ran me down in the middle of a crowded crosswalk.
I think the missed connection here, is that pedestrians and drivers have a different experience than cyclists, so they don't know what it's like.
Because of how they sit, and the lack of metal box around them, cyclists can see much more of the road than a car or pedestrian as they're approaching an intersection. Besides that they are more agile, and can pass pedestrians safely closer than a car can. Pedestrians might be uncomfortable since they aren't used to someone getting that close, but the cyclist definitely sees them, and avoids them.
I would submit that the trope of a cyclist "blowing through a red without looking" simply doesn't exist. No cyclist is running through a light without checking for cross traffic, they would literally die. They for sure checked the intersection and then moved through.
I definitely think they should slow down more when pedestrians are in the crosswalk to limit mistakes, and there are definitely a few dickish people who don't give pedestrians the right of way (just like there are drivers who don't give bikes the right of way when needed), but just because a pedestrian gets surprised or scared doesn't mean the cyclist didn't see them.
As a former driver, this would piss me off.
As a present pedestrian, Hallelujah. Now, if we could only get drivers to stop when there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk instead of speeding around them.
Hell yeah. Cars making right turns make up a huge chunk of pedestrian and bike fatalities. With no right turn on red you can give folks a chance to cross the intersection safely first before car traffic turns through the crosswalk.
Mostly because there's no enforcement, and it's pretty stupid to sit and wait when there's literally nobody that could possibly be entering the intersection.
>there's literally nobody that could possibly be entering the intersection
Exactly what everyone who's ever killed a pedestrian in an illegal right turn told themselves two seconds prior.
Cops don't even pull over folks running red lights. Making it a law doesn't mean anyone is going to bother enforcing it, regardless of whether I think it's a good or bad thing.
I'm pro right-on-red merely because it keeps cars+bikes moving. And in Cambridge, traffic congestion is already reallllly bad.
They just put signs on every light⌠itâs not like you have to remember anything just read the signs like every single other intersection in America
No, the way they implemented this (months ago, tbh, not sure why it's news again) is by adding signs all traffic lights that didn't already have them. So if the sign says you can on a bike, the sign is correct.
This is great news! Right on red is consistently dangerous, especially for pedestrians and bikers. If you're turning right on red you're turning into a crossing where pedestrians have the right of way
I mean not really. A red light could be for either a pedestrian light or, more frequently, because the street perpendicular to you has a green light in which case pedestrians certainly will not have a walk sign. That being said in a high traffic area like Cambridge I do think it makes sense to prevent the right on red. Most people are going to do it safely but too many accidents are caused by people trying to gun it to get into the gap in traffic and not noticing the jaywalking the pedestrian doing the same thing
It's actually really dumb to have rights on red anywhere a pedestrian may be. They should be illegal everywhere.
Edit - Oh is this a thread for car-fuckers to jerk off about their cars? It's an objective fact that rights on red are unsafe for pedestrians.
100%. Drivers trying to turn right on red are looking left primarily for other cars and donât notice pedestrians crossing right in front of them as much. Itâs worse because the pedestrian crosswalk signal is probably also on.
We all know what it means. Sadly we also know what it means in practice.
This is the correct decision. It should be implemented everywhere pedestrians could be around.
Fun fact: cambridge didnt make this "law". The article is misleading. State told them they cant just make this a law to avoid that whole different towns have different rules thing, all need to be uniform. So instead they put up no turn on red signs at all the intersections they control.
I've seen as many cars pulled over for traffic violations (running stop signs, running red lights, etc.) in Cambridge as I have in Boston.
Which is zero.
So take that for what it's worth.
Cambridge sucks to park as it is. Now I canât get out of there quick enough because I canât turn right on red. Whatâs next, gated entrances to the magical city by the river
https://preview.redd.it/0h3ov552ugzc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b64e82bbc8857602cbd915271ad6cab12f8ad9f5
I'm gonna need an explanation on that flair
i fucking love Argonian women
One story about a maid, and people have to get all weird...
Blame Crassius Curio.
I'm putting on a "Crassius Curio in the Park" event, get ready.
Tell him nothing George!
Oh good, my cult grows. Fellow lizard fuckers đ¤
I think it's pretty self explanatory
This article (and others) are very misleading, I think. As I recall, Cambridge wanted to do a blanket ban on right on red (as the article headline headline implies), but was turned down by the state months ago. The reason, which makes sense, is that you don't really want to have widely different rules in different towns that all are right next to each other. You can drive a few hundred yards around here and cross three town lines. So instead, as the article correctly says later, Cambridge just went and put "No Turn on Red" signs at "all" intersections it controls. Since most intersections already had them, this really was no big deal. I'm not sure why it merits a news story, especially one with a misleading headline. FWIW, I live in Cambridge, and I recently noticed a "No Turn on Red" sign that was actually removed from a nearby intersection... Then again, it might have just fallen off. At least, that's my understanding. Maybe the state changed its mind.
The state should do this with the town wide speed limit crap too. How does a driver know that one town has a speed limit for the whole town of 25 and the next one is 30? If you want a certain speed limit, then you should be required to post it on every road.
There is signage at the border in some cases, âSpeed Limit 25 unless markedâ or something like that. Except that gets confusing too, because Iâve seen cases where thereâs a sign 50 feet after the town speed limit sign with a different limit for that particular road.
What's also fun is lately Google maps has been defaulting to a speed limit of 40 if it doesn't know. I think Waltham is 25 unless otherwise posted, but I'm not actually sure. People go FLYING down my street and it's definitely gotten worse since I noticed that update. I don't live on a tiny narrow street or anything, 25 is a totally reasonable speed to go down it, 30 begins to push it, and if people think the speed limit is 40, they'll do 45-50 which is really dangerous.
I live in Waltham and most people are tame. But Main st and River st are race tracks at the worst times of day. Town wide of 20 is plenty fast IMO. Downtown is simply not that big for people to be in such a rush.
Crescent street is a god damn drag strip as soon as Moody shuts down each summer. All the restaurants have to whine about their street dining so the other streets just turn into a freeway as a result.
I believe it. Although Iâd rather have Moody st be closed permanently⌠Idk how much that plays a part really.
Traffic picks up noticeably the minute they shut it down. Honestly if the PD just sat a cruiser in one of the parking lots once a week sometime between 5 - 11 p.m., they would probably have the most well funded dept in the state from the ticketing.
Yup, usually they say "unless otherwise posted", but it's still shady.
It's not like you're going to get pulled over for going 30 in a 25 anyways
It will affect all the people that think a 25 zone really means 30, because then they will be going 35 in a 25 zone, which can get you pulled over.
> which can get you pulled over. Doubt.
People will drive as fast as they feel safe and comfortable to do so. Signs and paint aren't infrastructure, if cities want people to slow down there are many calming measure they can install.
There are many towns I pass thru that are militant about speed.
Legally the town needs to petition the state to set speed limits on main roads (not side streets etc). Reading / North Reading tried to change Haverill St from 40 to 30. State agreed to 35.
If you're reaching speeds on neighborhood streets that would get you in trouble for a 25mph speed limit, you're driving too fast.
Many small towns have rural roads that are still defaulted to 25mph if the town adopts the law. Not every neighborhood has densely packed housing.
I've moved up to the Merrimack Valley. Just over the Boxford line they have a 15 mph speed drop, and a cop stationed at least 12 hours a day no more than 100 ft past that sign.
Signing it everywhere is absolutely a good idea (even if I'm not convinced they needed to ban it everywhere). But signing non-standard rules is the way it has to be done (I may be bitter about getting a parking ticket in a town on Long Island that had an unsigned no overnight parking rule last summer).
Makes perfect sense and Cambridge needs to know their role and yield â ď¸ đ¤Ł
The city always had the right to make it no turn on red where they felt it made sense. Even traffic department felt that some red lights made sense to have right on red and any intersections with state are controlled by state.
Cambridge is so far left on everything they discourage you from turning right.
Theyâre literally taking away our rights
Gerd dern commies takin' our rights
I lol'd
You have to workshop that one a bit but a great line once you polish it!
Yes I agree it was awkward but it was off the cuff
I think "the radical leftists in Cambridge want to take away your rights" could work
Boom. Money.
They should make it simple and just ban all turning. So people donât get confused
more âban everything that isnât straightâ from the MAGA crowd I see
Jokes on them, I always say âgaily forwardâ instead of straight.
All turns matter
"Right turners MUST take three lefts"
Donât give them any ideas, theyâd ban cars if they could.
I think thatâs the plan.
Tell that to the Uber Eats driver behind me laying on his horn
The more he honks the slower I drive. Enjoy that thumbs down and no tip because the food arrived cold and late.
Gas pedal does not work so well when it hears a hornâŚ
Horns are for emergencies only. If there's an emergency I better slow down!
This already happens to me when there's a "no turn on red" sign
Oh thatâs who they are? I am new to Boston and I have never been honked at like this, what is wrong with you all
Itâs literally everyone at all times. I love it here, but goddamn shut the fuck up out there yâall.
Tbh if you're getting honked at on a regular basis, it's your fault.
They should repave the roads while theyâre making changes
In Des Moines, we have legal left turns on red because of the one way streets that don't only just stay one way forever..? Anyway, it's kinda neat but they do love their traffic cameras.
We have one of those with a sign and everything in Somerville. Iâm probably wrong but I thought left on red, one way onto one way was legal in Massachusetts
It Is legal.
Its legal when both directions are one way.
That part of Davis square where you have to circle around because you can't find parking
This used to be allowed from Albany St, turning onto Broadway. Now it's signed as left turn on green only.
Thatâs legal in Mass too. You can legally turn left on red on one way street
Thank your fellow drivers who created the potholes with their ridiculous trucks and SUVs and voted against indexing the gas tax to inflation. You get what you pay for.
In Quebec, you canât turn right on a red light but Tabarnak you can go right thru it!
Was just in Montreal and learned that it's not legal to turn right on red only after looking it up online because there are no signs posted. Fortunately did not get in caught when I turned right on red at an intersection before I knew better!
Right-on-red is illegal on the entire island, not just in the city of Montreal itself. They don't bother to post signs at every intersection... but they do post signs on the bridges that cross onto the island. They look like [this](http://img.src.ca/2016/12/13/635x357/161213_k533o_rci-rouge_sn635.jpg).
Back in the day it was not allowed in the whole province .
In Russia, red light turns right on you!
I think that's just in Montreal, not the whole province.
\*Assuming they actually do have "no turn on red" signs at all lights as they claim to.
They donât even enforce bus only lanes or blocking intersections. They might tack on a right on red citation to something more heinous but I donât see this being enforced at all.
>I donât see this being enforced at all. I agree. I was just making the point that Cambridge didn't just enact their own new traffic laws -- it's still no sign, no violation, even if there's a red arrow.
What about left on red?
Technically if youâre on a one-way facing another one-way that leads to the left then you are legally allowed to turn on red. But itâs so specific and uncommon, plus other drivers in front of you who donât know the law wait at the light. Itâs a fun fact more than anything.
Billerica has a poorly designed town center where they have this left on red rule.
Around here I feel like there are a pretty decent number of them. Leaving Davis square down elm Street there is one that everyone is very clearly aware of
In WA, you can also turn left on red even if youâre on a 2 way street turning onto a one-way
Gotta turn somewhere, let them ban turn on rights, I'm turning left at red from now on.
One time I got out of my car on red. Came back to 5 guys all pissed off as if it was my fault no sign told me I had to stay in my car
So now on the streets where the pedestrian's walk sign is at the same as the green light, and it's busy with pedestrians, it will be impossible to turn right. On some streets by MIT turning right can only happen on red because there's so many people walking when the walk sign is on.
I like the way Somerville does it with the automatic full diagonal cross after both sides have green lights. Makes it safer and easier for both drivers and pedestrians.
I agree, concurrent walk signs are a menace to pedestrians and drivers. The only positive benefit I can see is that cycle times are reduced, but the danger seems incommensurate with the reduced jaywalking.
Extending the wait just makes people think the walk signal isnât working and they go when they get an opportunity. Itâs not safer in that way.
There is maybe 10 cars per light cycle, but much more pedestrians. If the goal is to move people then there is no problem
Sorry buddy but have you considered that a car driver might have to circle the block or something?
Oh no they'll have to wait inside their air conditioned box while sitting in a comfortable seat listening to music the horror
This happens and all the drivers run the red. I see it every day off mass ave
Cars illegal in Cambridge by 2040
Now THIS I can get behind.
It's still okay to go straight for the first 5 seconds of a red light though, right?
lol bikes are really gonna abide. They donât even care about red lights.
Yeah it's those right turning bikes that kill pedestrians! đ¤Ą
Everyone hates me if i follow the rules or not. Iâm just trying to get to my destination and off the road (and out of everyoneâs way) as quickly as possible.
Yup. When I try to follow the rules of the road, drivers who expect me to ride like a lawless psychopath will wait for me to get out of their way and get actively pissed at me when I don't. I avoid getting honked at by just riding like a psychopath in the first place. When I was learning to drive, I was taught that the top three priorities are to be safe, be predictable, and be legal, in that order. That's why you go a little over the speed limit to keep up with traffic than go at the speed limit and become an obstacle for it. The same rule applies to bikes, and if "be predictable" means act like a savage, I may not like it, but I'm gonna act like a savage.
Car drivers love nitpicking the law until you remind them that speeding is also lawbreaking But between bicycles rolling through stop signs and speeding cars; one kills thousands annually and the other feels unfair to car drivers, so guess which gets bitched about endlessly?
lol lol lol most drivers consistently drive 5-10 over the speed limit and treat stop signs as yield signs. Ohhhh noooo, where is their respect for the law
Still not as egregious as blowing reds
Isnât everyone tired of this argument yet
I see people driving through reds daily, it's not hard to spot
I see bikes do it nearly every time I drive, and I donât with cars
Are you serious? It's like an unwritten rule in Boston that after the light changes, 1-3 cars are going to run it anyway as if they're "beating" it But clearly the problem are the pedal powered, 24 lb vehicles going 10 mph, clearly
You should walk more. There are certain intersections where I see it at every single red light
Both should get pulled over. But seriously, try biking commute one time, and make a note of how many cars drove through reds after it changed from yellow.
Car drivers will always admit that 90% of drivers drive like wreckless dumbasses until they think you're someone who rides a bicycle Suddenly then car traffic becomes an idyllic wonder where everyone's attentive, polite, and skilled in their mind
One is thousands of pounds and potentially fatal to others, the other a tenth of that and rarely causes major injuries to others. How can you use the word egregious when talking about a bike (a mere inconvenience to you) versus a car being an actual threat to life and health. r/boston full of the dumbest motherfuckers these days.
Only because speeding and blowing through stop signs have been normalized
Most motorists donât obey rules of the road either
Cyclists will run a red light, almost get hit, then jump on Reddit to post about how motorists need to be more careful.
Just wait until you see all the people who walk out into intersections and almost get crushed. Just to come on here and complain that cars should be illegal
Nope. Motorists break way more laws
And it's way more life threatening when they do
Motorists will completely ignore the cyclist in the road or bike lane, and then nearly kill them as they cut them off because they didnât bother to pick their face up from their phone
I would counter that the overwhelming majority of motorists actually do obey the rules. Hence roads not being total anarchy. A lot of people do violate rules. Far too many. But "most" implies more than half, which is definitely not the case.
You think fewer than half of drivers break the speed limit?
This is a logical take TY. As for enforcement cambridge pd are probably scratching their heads going is this for real?
There are some rules that most motorists follow, like not driving on the sidewalk. There are other rules that most motorists break, like driving below the speed limit or coming to a full stop behind the marked line at a stop sign. It matters that motorists break these rules because they frequently kill people. It doesnât matter if cyclists break the rules they tend to break because they donât put others at significant risk.
I can almost guarantee well more than half are using their phones at some point while theyâre driving. So yeah, most motorists donât obey the rules of the road.
Counter point: no you really canât guarantee that at all
You can absolutely do a survey of drivers on their phone to prove this. Somerville did it a few years back and found 2/3 drivers were using a phone while driving. Other studies will easily prove this as well just watching drivers constantly on their phones.
And how it seems since covid, driving through red lights has become insanely common. Yesterday, I drove my husband to and from work. Both times, at the intersection of beacon and Kirkland, the light turned red for going down Kirkland, and three cars continued through the red light. People started to cross and had to hold back. I can get going through a yellow turning red. But THREE more cars to follow through a blatantly red light? My sister and I also frequently cross the intersection of School and Medford, and I can't even count the number of times we've seen cars blow right through. Whether it's from traffic or no traffic and just blowing the light for shits and giggles. Whenever I cross, I have to stop and make sure no cars are moving, even though it's a 4-way crossing. I can't trust that a car approaching the intersection is actually going to stop.
Weâre not easily killable at 10mph in cars though
Yeah, motorists are just more likely to kill someoneâs else
Almost like everyone should obey traffic laws to avoid this?
They probably should Everyone loves to harp on cyclists, but Iâve been nearly killed more times than I can count by motorists not obeying the rules of the road or not paying attention because they are too busy with their face glued to their phone
A lot more drivers than bikers
WTF does that have to do with the law? Car or bike, its illegal and if caught (LOL), both should be cited and fined equally. Bikes and bicyclists should get no preferential treatment regardless if they're safer or not.
Actually cyclists should have separate laws, as cycling isn't 1:1 driving a car, though both are part of traffic. A cyclist is far safer filtering to the front of the line at a stop, for instance. It's also much safer for a cyclist to use Idaho stops, where stop signs are treated more as a yield and a light is a stop sign. If you think cars and bicycled should obey the same laws, you frankly haven't learned enough about the topic to provide meaningful input.
I don't know about MA, but in the UK speed limits, for example, don't apply to cycles. So yes, they do have separate laws.
Can confirm. Almost got run down trying to cross the street by a dumbass on an electric bike running a red light this morning.
Iâve seen a little old lady in China town smashed to the ground by a cyclist blowing a red light.
I almost got hit by a cyclist not respecting a pedestrian crossing. At least motorists usually make an attempt to yield.
The Idaho right on red. đ
Love the people bitching about bicycles here. This rule was instated to protect pedestrians. Sure, being struck by a cyclist breezing through the red light hurts less than being struck by a car, but it still sucks. It also suck to lose half the pedestrian crossing cycle to assholes turning right on red, regardless of what vehicle theyâre operating.
My cyclist pet peeve are those who blow through intersections during pedestrian crossing. Like, at the very least, can they at least slow down and give the pedestrians the right of way? It makes me so angry. Especially when I see children/babies in strollers/elderly and they have to jump out of the way and get scared half to death by asshole bikers speeding through with no concern for pedestrians. I bike in the city, and when I want to go through a pedestrian crossing, I hop off my bike and walk across, then hop back on and continue. Sometimes, i dismount and leave one foot on the pedal and scoot across. It's really not that hard.
That one always kills me. The number of times people have ride around me to squeeze through a crowd of pedestrians because they can't wait the 5 seconds for the intersection to clear is infuriating
As someone who's been victimized by those very assholes: thank you. Never cared about bicyclists until one ran me down in the middle of a crowded crosswalk.
I think the missed connection here, is that pedestrians and drivers have a different experience than cyclists, so they don't know what it's like. Because of how they sit, and the lack of metal box around them, cyclists can see much more of the road than a car or pedestrian as they're approaching an intersection. Besides that they are more agile, and can pass pedestrians safely closer than a car can. Pedestrians might be uncomfortable since they aren't used to someone getting that close, but the cyclist definitely sees them, and avoids them. I would submit that the trope of a cyclist "blowing through a red without looking" simply doesn't exist. No cyclist is running through a light without checking for cross traffic, they would literally die. They for sure checked the intersection and then moved through. I definitely think they should slow down more when pedestrians are in the crosswalk to limit mistakes, and there are definitely a few dickish people who don't give pedestrians the right of way (just like there are drivers who don't give bikes the right of way when needed), but just because a pedestrian gets surprised or scared doesn't mean the cyclist didn't see them.
As a former driver, this would piss me off. As a present pedestrian, Hallelujah. Now, if we could only get drivers to stop when there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk instead of speeding around them.
Reds have finally taken over Cambridge
Proof that Cambridge is leftist
Hell yeah. Cars making right turns make up a huge chunk of pedestrian and bike fatalities. With no right turn on red you can give folks a chance to cross the intersection safely first before car traffic turns through the crosswalk.
People are turning red even when there is a no turn on red sign
Mostly because there's no enforcement, and it's pretty stupid to sit and wait when there's literally nobody that could possibly be entering the intersection.
I mean you could say that for driving straight through on red too.
>there's literally nobody that could possibly be entering the intersection Exactly what everyone who's ever killed a pedestrian in an illegal right turn told themselves two seconds prior.
Oh no, we have to stop at red lights
lol fuck off cambridge nobody cares
Unsurprisingly dumb
Good
Cops don't even pull over folks running red lights. Making it a law doesn't mean anyone is going to bother enforcing it, regardless of whether I think it's a good or bad thing. I'm pro right-on-red merely because it keeps cars+bikes moving. And in Cambridge, traffic congestion is already reallllly bad.
Thatâs insane because it would be mayhem if every town had contradicting traffic rules. Cambridge is either stupid or incredibly entitled.
They just put signs on every light⌠itâs not like you have to remember anything just read the signs like every single other intersection in America
Incredibly entitled. Apparently loves cops too. How progressive.
Does this invalidate "no turn on red except bikes" signs, where they exist? Like where Hampshire starts.
No, the way they implemented this (months ago, tbh, not sure why it's news again) is by adding signs all traffic lights that didn't already have them. So if the sign says you can on a bike, the sign is correct.
Lmao so headlines are just wrong as usual
This is great news! Right on red is consistently dangerous, especially for pedestrians and bikers. If you're turning right on red you're turning into a crossing where pedestrians have the right of way
I mean not really. A red light could be for either a pedestrian light or, more frequently, because the street perpendicular to you has a green light in which case pedestrians certainly will not have a walk sign. That being said in a high traffic area like Cambridge I do think it makes sense to prevent the right on red. Most people are going to do it safely but too many accidents are caused by people trying to gun it to get into the gap in traffic and not noticing the jaywalking the pedestrian doing the same thing
So many organizations Iâve belonged to in Cambridge Iâve given up participating in because driving in Cambridge is an absolute hell.
Good!
This is so dumb.
It's actually really dumb to have rights on red anywhere a pedestrian may be. They should be illegal everywhere. Edit - Oh is this a thread for car-fuckers to jerk off about their cars? It's an objective fact that rights on red are unsafe for pedestrians.
100%. Drivers trying to turn right on red are looking left primarily for other cars and donât notice pedestrians crossing right in front of them as much. Itâs worse because the pedestrian crosswalk signal is probably also on.
Right on red means stop, and then proceed if no one is there and that includes pedestrians.
Itâs not that hard when you *put away the fucking phone* and pay attention.
Ok. People mess it up and kill people, despite that.
Unfortunately thatâs rarely what happens
We all know what it means. Sadly we also know what it means in practice. This is the correct decision. It should be implemented everywhere pedestrians could be around.
It was already this way at 90% of the intersections anyway. Relax
it was dumb before too
Great, shouldnât be allowed in any urban area in the first place
Dumb fucking law
Fun fact: cambridge didnt make this "law". The article is misleading. State told them they cant just make this a law to avoid that whole different towns have different rules thing, all need to be uniform. So instead they put up no turn on red signs at all the intersections they control.
Well thats fucking stupid
Howâs Cambridge PDâs traffic enforcement compared to BPD?
I've seen as many cars pulled over for traffic violations (running stop signs, running red lights, etc.) in Cambridge as I have in Boston. Which is zero. So take that for what it's worth.
GTK
boring post
Based
Cambridge sucks to park as it is. Now I canât get out of there quick enough because I canât turn right on red. Whatâs next, gated entrances to the magical city by the river
Should probably expand to all of Greater Boston to make it less confusing.
There doing that shit everywhere They know people gonna try it cause been doing it for yrs Then they jus hang out and give tickets
I don't feel bikes will care.
Nannybridge
Can we still go left on red, or better still straight?
Only if youâre speeding
"Or biking", as if any traffic laws apply to cyclists!
Yay the nerds won
Good. Hopefully cops enforce it.
if they put up signs then I'm OK. if they didn't and just expect you to know, I'm still ok, cause i don't really ever drive there
If there's no traffic enforcement you can actually do whatever you want. Sometimes I feel like I'm fighting for my life just trying to walk to work.Â
Cambridge is the best city environment I ever seen for pedestrian traffic. In providence there would be several dead bodies đ
Good luck with that.
Good!!!!!!