Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

September 26, 2025

Seal It with a Kiss – September 29, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,Deaths,history — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 8:35 pm

Seal It with a Kiss – September 29, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

City SealAmong other things, this week brings a City Council order calling for a process to commence to change the official seal of the City of Cambridge. We’re actually on our 2nd version of of Official Seal since we became a city in 1846 – not even close to that memorable 1957 film by Ingmar Bergman. I can only hope that any new proposals for our Official Seal won’t mirror the sad choices now under consideration for the Massachusetts State Seal – designs that replace historical references with all the richness of a Doritos ad. [There were some more interesting submissions.] I can only guess what the politically acceptable choices for Cambridge may eventually turn out to be. Perhaps we can have Brian Hyland provide some motivation for the selection committee.

As for the full agenda, here are the items that leapt off the page:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a federal update including an update on relevant court cases. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, City Manager Yi-An Huang; Placed on File 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Preservation Restriction at 44 J.F. Kennedy Street. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Charles Sullivan, Nolan, McGovern; Order Adopted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

These Historical Commission reports are always top notch.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-05, regarding a report on the use of M.G.L Ch. 40U to determine which local statutes can be enforced by the Local-Option Procedure in order to better collect fines in violation of Cambridge Ordinances. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, City Solicitor Megan Bayer and other City staff, Zusy; Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

The legal memo indicates that this applies only to “three types of code violations that can be enforced through Chapter 40U: (1) short-term rental use; (2) housing and sanitary; and (3) snow and ice removal from sidewalks.” To be effective, the City Council need only vote to accept the statute. Also, if the City adopts Chapter 40U, it would need to adopt an ordinance that establishes a schedule of applicable fines. For more details and potential costs and consequences, read the memo.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the City Council to establish a Seal Review Committee with the charge of recommending an updated city seal and motto in time for adoption prior to the 400th anniversary of the City of Cambridge in 2030.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, McGovern; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

As I mentioned above, the current City Seal may have some extinct references on it, but it packs a fair amount of historical reference – which seems appropriate for a historically rich city like Cambridge. My greatest concern is that a review committee will choose to recommend something more like an advertising logo drenched in wokeness. In fact, I would almost bet on it.

Order #2. That the Housing Committee will be convened to discuss the concrete details of social housing; that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department, Finance Department, Law Department, and other relevant departments to explore all steps towards advancing social housing in Cambridge.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, McGovern, Melissa Peters (CDD), Zusy, Nolan, Azeem; Nolan, Azeem added as sponsors; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

So “social housing” is now the shiny new thing being bandied about by activists and municipal election candidates this year. In short, this is a scheme via which the local government would slowly but surely take over an increasing percentage of the housing stock in Cambridge – all under the theory (and sales pitch) that this would bring about a new era of affordability. It is, of course, just public housing by a different name and perhaps with different eligibility standards. I always like to raise the issue of what happens when the roof needs replacement or when the heating system or other part of the building needs a major overhaul. Inevitably, the residents will come running to the government to pay for it, and the bills will be ultimately be paid by the taxpayers. A somewhat more insidious aspect of all this is that deed-restricted properties have dramatically lower assessed values, so we should really say “paid by other taxpayers”. This socialist creep is a thing these days in other places such as New York City. Supporters will be quick to mention the “Vienna Housing Model” to prove the wonderfulness of their ideas, but I’ll simply say that neither New York City nor Cambridge are especially comparable to Vienna, Austria. I will also emphasize that I emphatically believe that private property ownership is a good thing. If tenants want to pool their resources to turn their housing into something like a limited equity coop, then more power to them – as long as they don’t one day come running to Mother Cambridge to cover their costs.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant departments to provide a recommendation on the site conditions of 25 Lowell Street and considerations and process for determining the future use of the property.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Zusy; Nolan, McGovern, Zusy; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

This is the lot that keeps reappearing as a kind of token. I even remember it being on the list over 30 years ago of properties for a “Land Bank” for affordable housing – basically a symbolic gesture by some councillors looking to get some love by going after a property in the tonier part of town. Not much has really changed in three decades.

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-32, regarding a request that the City engage in discussions with leadership from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA) regarding a proposal to explore the feasibility of repurposing the long-abandoned MBTA tunnel in Harvard Square into a commercial or cultural space. [Charter Right – Azeem, Sept 15, 2025]
comments by Azeem, Yi-An-Huang, Nolan, Zusy, Deputy City Manager Kathy Watkins, McGovern, Siddiqui, Wilson; After an excruciatingly long and repetitive discussion, Placed on File 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

I still believe there’s a great idea here lurking in the cavernous darkness (“The Cavern Club”?), but pulling it off will take the kind of drive and investment that’s not so likely to emerge from the depths of Cambridge.

Resolution #1. Condolences to the family of Red T. Mitchell.   Mayor Simmons
Charter Right – McGovern (to give Mayor Simmons and others an opportunity to speak to this resolution next week)

Red Mitchell has been one of my favorite Cambridge people ever since Denise Simmons introduced us. All three of us have a love of history, and Red knew a lot about history – especially about residents of African ancestry around the time of the Revolutionary War.

Resolution #2. Congratulation to Kevin Treanor and Joe McCabe on their 30 year anniversary of the Phoenix Landing.   Councillor Zusy, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson
pulled by McGovern; Add McGovern, Toner, Wilson as sponsors

Time flies. Great guys and good beer. They’ll also feed you pretty good as well. I never went there for the soccer broadcasts – just the camaraderie and the beer.

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Sept 9, 2025 to review and discuss ongoing work to mitigate and reduce Combined Sewer Overflows within Cambridge and the surrounding area and other mitigation efforts to address extreme weather events that affect city residents and future infrastructure projects. [text of report]
pulled early Nolan; comments by Nolan, Deputy City Manager Kathy Watkins, Toner, McGovern; Report Accepted, Placed on File, Order Adopted 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

Though I didn’t attend the meeting, I have had an interest in this subject (and really all things relating to infrastructure) for about four decades now. There has been a lot of progress on the CSOs during that time, but the progress never stops. Neither does the physics.

Committee Report #2. The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Sept 10, 2025 to discuss COF25#106, including questions that were submitted by City Council members regarding an incident at 243 Broadway on Aug 2, 2025 and the public safety response. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

I attended this meeting and offered testimony in support of the actions of the Cambridge Police in this incident. I was outnumbered during Public Comment but I did my best to counter some of the BS from those who would abolish the police if they could.

Committee Report #3. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Sept 16, 2025 to review and discuss solar impact analysis and zoning options to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems.[text of report]
pulled early by Nolan; comments by Zusy (with proposed Substitute Order), Azeem; Charter Right – Azeem

March 14, 2018

The Marcia Deihl bicycling fatality

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,Deaths — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 5:19 pm

Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley has obtained a copy of the crash reconstruction report in Marcia Deihl’s fatal collision with a truck on March 1, 2015, and posted the report online. I thank Mr. Kelley for performing this public service.

My understanding is that a Freedom of Information Act request was necessary to obtain a copy. That is not as it should be. The public needs to know the how and why of crashes, to avoid them and guide policy.

Quick summary: Deihl rode out of the driveway on Putnam Avenue from Whole Foods, collided with the front bumper of the truck, which was headed east in the lane closest to the driveway, and went under its front wheels. Here. You can see the ghost bike in the image. (It is before the driveway but the crash occurred at or after the driveway.)

Half-trigger warning: this post isn’t relaxing reading and neither is the report, but they don’t include any gruesome images, or except for the last few pages or the report, descriptions more graphic than what you have just read.

So, what about the report?

Unfortunately, the investigation leaves questions unanswered, which it might have answered. Only in the synopsis at the start of the report does the State Police investigator repeat part of the report of Cambridge Officer Sullivan who interviewed the truck driver at the scene. Sullivan’s report says that the driver “checked to his right but didn’t see anything but snow so he started to pull over. He stated as he was pulling over he started to put on his hazard lights. He felt a bump and thought he ran over a snow bank.” He also said that he was pulling over to park and then walk to a construction site to see if it was ready for the dumpster he was carrying.

The report doesn’t raise, or answer, the question whether the driver was looking ahead prior to pulling over, as he was approaching the driveway. There was also no discussion of the role that snowbanks might have played in blocking sight lines. You will probably recall that the winter of 2015 was the snowiest one ever recorded in the Boston area. 94.4 inches had fallen from Jan. 24 through Feb. 22, 2015.

Deihl pulled out of the driveway either just as the truck was passing, or she passed it. The initial point of impact was the front of the truck and — as identified by a GPS recorder in the truck — it was going only 5 mph at that point (slowing to a stop).

One thing that calls out to me in the report is the intensive examination of the truck but cursory examination of the bicycle (p. 12 of the PDF, p. 7 of the report). What if, for example, Deihl’s brakes had failed? Were the steel rims of Deihl’s old English three-speed bicycle wet? Steel rims are as slippery as ice when wet, and rim brakes barely work then. The temperature reached 30 F on the day of the crash, which occurred at 3 PM, but snowmelt might have wetted the rims. Or did the bicycle have a coaster brake, in which case wet rims wouldn’t have been an issue? Did Deihl skid on packed snow or ice? Also the autopsy report is rather perfunctory. Medical condition leading to loss of control? — last page of the PDF. “Bicyclist rideout” crashes like this one are rare after childhood, suggesting to me that something unusual went wrong.

The key to this crash would seem to be why Deihl came out of the driveway and collided with the truck, rather than stopping to let it pass. But the trucker also pulled over to the right — Deihl may have turned right assuming that the truck would clear her. — page 9 of the PDF.

Deihl was required under the law to yield to traffic in the street before entering it from a driveway. If she pulled out of the driveway ahead of the truck, the trucker could have prevented the crash as long as it was not too late for him to avoid the collision by braking or swerving. He was at fault if he failed to look. If Deihl was passing him on the right, she would have been close to the side of the truck and probably in its right-side blind spot. And sight lines may have been blocked by a snowbank.

It’s incredibly frustrating that:

  1. The investigator didn’t know what he is doing in a bicycle investigation (scenario repeated with the Anita Kurmann fatality in Boston later the same year);
  2. It took a FOIA request to see the report;
  3. Advocates use these tragedies to justify whatever pet projects they have. (Sideguards, says Alex Epstein. They would be irrelevant in this collision with the front of a truck: more about them here. Separate bike traffic from car traffic, says Pete Stidman. Just how would a sidepath have worked on a day when the street was lined with snowbanks is another valid question. Most likely, it would not have been usable. Comments by Epstein and Stidman are here. Neither of them had seen the report when they made their observations.)
  4. Advocates are avoiding adequately informing bicyclists about the hazards of trucks and how to avoid them.

Well, the advocates at the American Bicycling Education Association are an important exception. I am proud to be an instructor in its program. An animated graphic on safety around trucks is here and if you click on the title at the top of the page, you can find out how to sign up for a course (online or in person) which will cover that topic and much more.

I thank Paul Schimek for many of the observations in this post, and for drawing my attention to the availability of the crash report.

And again, I thank Craig Kelley for making the report available.

September 24, 2017

Not left, Felton

Filed under: Cambridge — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 8:39 pm

OK, I couldn’t resist the palindrome, but this is a serious post anyway.

Site of near-collision at Cambridge and Felton Streets.

I nearly left-crossed another cyclist today, on my bicycle, as I turned left from Cambridge Street onto Felton Street. It could have been a very serious collision. He came storming out of the shadows past the black parked SUV in the photo, on the new separated bikeway. I wasn’t looking in his direction at the right time to see him in time to yield. (I had to look in different directions to yield to street traffic, sidewalk traffic in both directions, crosswalk traffic — and now, this parking-screened conflict. “He came out of nowhere,” someone else might say but the Transporters in Star Trek are fiction: he came from where not visible in time reliably to allow yielding.) The short stretch where parking is prohibited before the intersection is supposed to make it possible for left-turning drivers to yield. The bikeway is really only designed for bicyclists riding slowly. It doesn’t work to yield to a cyclist going 20-25 mph.

Startled, I yelled WHOAH! as I crossed just in front of him. He yelled back “I have the right of way.”

His sense of entitlement doesn’t exactly reflect prudence, but if I’d collided with him, I would have been held at fault.

In 45 years bicycling in Boston-area urban traffic, I’ve never collided with a motor vehicle, but I’ve had a couple of near-collisions with other cyclists: both in Cambridge, both at night: a near head-on on the path along Memorial Drive in front of the MIT dorms — the other cyclist had no headlight; the other, I was riding westbound on Harvard Street and a cyclist traveling the wrong way on Dana Street or Ellery street crossed at speed a couple of feet in front of me — also, no headlight.

The new installation on Cambridge Street gives bicyclists the sense of entitlement to enter intersections from screened conflicts, at speed. Bicyclists and motorists turning left here need to be extra-cautious. I don’t see how it would be even possible for the driver of a long vehicle turning left to see a bicyclist in the bikeway in time to yield.

Bicyclists riding fast are much safer riding with the motor traffic, but now the travel lanes are too narrow for motorists to pass bicyclists, and only the very strongest bicyclists (or those with electrical assist) are able to ride fast enough that motorists won’t want to pass.

I was on my way to the Bow Tie Ride when this incident occurred. The Bow Tie Ride was a tame affair indeed, average speed around 5 miles per hour due to the large number of participants of varying abilities. Traffic management by the Cambridge Police and volunteers was very good, but I didn’t have time to finish the ride at that speed and left partway through.

April 20, 2017

Sheet of ice draws praise from bicycle advocates

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 12:32 pm
Snowmelt drains across "protected" bikeway on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

Snowmelt drains across “protected” bikeway on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

OK, spring is around the corner, so I’m a bit late with this post. But the issue I describe here will occur every year, at least until global warming puts an end to snows or converts central Cambridge into an extension of Boston Harbor.

The headline of the February 17 Boston Globe article with this picture is “Snowbank becomes accidental hero for area cyclists”.

The shiny area in the bikeway is meltwater from said snowbank. When the temperature drops below freezing, the meltwater becomes a sheet of black ice. This problem is unavoidable with a street-level barrier-separated bikeway. I discussed it at length years ago in connection with the 9th Avenue bikeway in Manhattan, a bikeway which, on the other hand, I have some nice things to say about.

Neither Steve Annear, author of the article, nor anyone quoted in it, makes any mention of the black-ice problem.

From the article: “’I like this snowbank-protected cycle track,’ Ari Ofsevit, a local cyclist, said on Twitter.” Ari usually ranges widely, imaginatively and thoughtfully in discussing transportation improvements his blog. I usually agree with him, but not in this case.

The article cites Joe Barr, of the City of Cambridge:

Barr acknowledged that the snow mound separating the bike lane and the road has offered a sense of protection to cyclists, but he said it could also be masking damage to the base of the flexible posts.

“We won’t know that until we get some more melting. But it certainly looks good on the street,” he said.

And Richard Fries, Executive Director of Massbike, commented: “It’s great. It won’t last that much longer, but it does help to hammer into people’s heads [road] patterns and driving habits,” he said. “Because it’s there, it makes the existing bike lane more visible to drivers and more prominent.”

Segregation promotes a sense of entitlement on the part of the majority group –in this case, motorists. How do I explain to horn-honking motorists that I have to ride in “their” travel lane, now narrowed to make room for the barrier, to avoid crashing on a sheet of black ice?

Or for that matter, to progress at my usual 15 miles per hour so I’m not stuck behind a cluster of bicyclists who are traveling at 8 miles per hour?

Or to avoid being right-hooked and crushed under the back wheels by a right-turning truck at Douglass Street?

Or that the rear-end collisions that this installation protects against are vanishingly rare on urban streets?

Or that parallel Harvard Street, Green Street and Franklin Street would serve admirably as low-stress through bicycle routes, if the city made the right kind of improvements?

February 21, 2017

Black ice blindness

Filed under: Cambridge — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 9:45 am
Snowmelt drains across "protected" bikeway on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

Snowmelt drains across “protected” bikeway on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge

The photo is of a stretch of barrier-separated bikeway recently installed on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue between Sidney Street and Douglass Street in Cambridge. The headline of the February 17, 2017 Boston Globe article with this picture is “Snowbank becomes accidental hero for area cyclists”.

But — the shiny area in the bikeway is meltwater from said snowbank. When the temperature drops, the water freezes into a sheet of black ice. The usual drainage techniques don’t work here because, if you will excuse me for belaboring the obvious, the “hero barrier’ is uphill and water runs downhill. I discussed bikeway drainage issues in more detail recently in a post on another blog and years ago in connection with the 9th Avenue bikeway in Manhattan. Just to make it clear, I do have  nice things to say about other features of the 9th Avenue bikeway.

Neither Steve Annear, author of the Globe article, nor anyone quoted in it, makes any mention of the black-ice problem. They are all enthusiastic about the snow-barrier.

From the article: “I like this snowbank-protected cycle track,” Ari Ofsevit, a local cyclist, said on Twitter.

Ari is more than just a “local cyclist”. He widely, imaginatively and thoughtfully discusses transportation improvements his blog. I usually agree with him, except when he turns a blind eye to problems with barrier-separated on-street bikeways.

The article cites Joe Barr. Director of Traffic, Parking, and Transportation for the City of Cambridge:

Barr acknowledged that the snow mound separating the bike lane and the road has offered a sense of protection to cyclists, but he said it could also be masking damage to the base of the flexible posts.

“We won’t know that until we get some more melting. But it certainly looks good on the street,” he said.

And Richard Fries, Executive Director of the massachusretts Bicycle Coalition, commented:

It’s great. It won’t last that much longer, but it does help to hammer into people’s heads [road] patterns and driving habits,” he said. “Because it’s there, it makes the existing bike lane more visible to drivers and more prominent.

Segregation promotes a sense of entitlement on the part of the majority group –in this case, motorists. How do I explain to horn-honking motorists that I have to ride my bicycle in “their” travel lane, now narrowed to make room for the barrier, to avoid crashing on a sheet of black ice?

Or for that matter, to travel at my usual 15 miles per hour so I’m not stuck behind a cluster of bicyclists who are traveling at 8 miles per hour?

Or to avoid being right-hooked and crushed under the back wheels by a right-turning truck where the bikeway ends at Douglass Street?

Just asking.

March 31, 2015

Web page includes two videos of Cambridge bicycle infrastructure

Filed under: Cambridge — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 11:00 pm

Please check out this Web page,with two of four videos illustrating exciting new developments in Cambridge bicycle infrastructure. Can you identify the locations?

Exciting new technology demonstrated at a Cambridge bicycle facility.

Exciting new technology demonstrated at a Cambridge bicycle facility.

Save

February 21, 2015

Plowing, or sweeping under the rug?

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 7:59 pm

The photo of the Western Avenue bikeway with this post has been making the rounds in bicycling advocacy circules, accompanied with praise for Cambridge’s plowing it.

You can praise the plowing all you like, but in terms of safety, it amounts to window dressing, distracting from problems which would not exist except for the segregated bikeway: with the snowbanks, bicyclists and motorists are both going to have to come nearly to a complete stop at every crossing to see each other in time to avoid collisions. Streets, on the other hand, even narrowed by snow, are wide enough that the cyclists can ride away from the edge, and motorists can poke out far enough to see approaching traffic without the risk of collisions.

The bikeway is also too narrow for one bicyclist safely to overtake another. The street is wide enough for anyone — bicyclist or motorist — to overtake a bicyclist, though maybe not always wide enough for one motorist to overtake another, what with the snow. It is narrower too because of the space that was taken out of it for the bikeway. The street also most likely is clear down to pavement within a day or two after a snowfall, and it is crowned so meltwater drains to the curbs. The bikeway is going to be a sheet of ice if there are thaw/freeze cycles, unless there is a very heavy application of road salt.

Bicycling is already difficult enough in winter without the added difficulties and hazards imposed by this bikeway.

western_avenue_winter

Save

June 24, 2014

Starts and Stops, mostly stops

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 11:17 am

I’m commenting on the “Starts and Stops” article which appeared in the Boston Globe on Sunday, June 22, 2014.

That’s behind a paywall. You may need to log in as a Globe subscriber to see it. (I’m one, but if I recall correctly, there’s a limited number of views till the paywall descends). You can also log in from home in the Boston area using a library card number.

The Globe article describes a bicycle-specific traffic signal on Western Avenue and makes the claim:

The Western Avenue signal is timed so that cyclists get a green light a few moments before their vehicular counterparts headed toward Memorial Drive; that way, cyclists have several seconds of a head start to get out ahead of the cars and become more visible to motorists, especially motorists turning right who may not think to look for cyclists approaching on their right side.

That only works if bicyclists happen to be waiting when the light changes. Otherwise, according to the description in the article, there is a right-hook conflict, with motor vehicles turning right across the path of bicyclists approaching in their right rear blindspot. I haven’t checked out the installation yet; I’ll be back in a couple of weeks with more detail.

The article goes on to say:

Additionally, signals like this one address one of the biggest gripes motorists have with bike riders: that they’re constantly running red lights. For cyclists, there can be no confusion whether they’re expected to stop at a red light when that light shows a little bicycle. Many engineers believe that when cyclists are assured that a traffic light is targeted at them and designed to protect their safety, they’re much more likely to wait for their rightful turn to proceed through the intersection.

Here’s the photo which the Globe posted with the article.

New bicycle-specific traffic light on Western Avenue

New bicycle-specific traffic light on Western Avenue

Wishful thinking. Normal traffic lights also apply to bicyclists. Do we need our own very special, and eexpensive, signal just so we will feel pampered? The traffic light shown in the photo, by the way, isn’t at Memorial Drive. It is at Putnam Avenue, a block earlier. Because the photo doesn’t show the installation which the article describes, I’m not entirely clear about the details.

It was previously possible for bicyclists to approach Memorial Drive in the through lane and enter on the normal green light — or sensibly, though in violation of the specifics of traffic law, at the left side of a right-turn lane lane, and also enter on the normal green. Now, bicyclists and right-turning motorists are, at least as described in the article, forced into a right-hook conflict.

Please, who are the unattributed “many engineers”? Opportunistic bicyclists and pedestrians, motorists too — commit traffic-signal violations because they get annoyed with waiting. Compliance improves if a traffic-light system is designed to minimize waiting time. This one doesn’t, and right-hook conflicts don’t protect anyone’s safety.

I am about to attend the summer meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), where I sit on its Bicycle Technical Committee. Two proposals currently before the Committee, in experimental status, are special bicycle traffic signals, and right-turn lanes with a bicycle lane inside their left side. I would have hoped that Cambridge had submitted a formal Request to Experiment from Cambridge for either of these proposals — which would add to the knowledge base, and confer immunity from legal liability — but I’ve seen none. I should have. The Federal Highway Administration calls on the NCUTCD to review them.

Oh, and also — in the Globe’s photo, it looks as though a car is sitting in the bikeway.

More to come.

Save

Save

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress