... please do.

BTW, doesn't Cambridge THEORETICALLY have 20 mph speed limit ? ... be nice if that was enforced.

It’s 25.

Traffic cameras please

Are there any good example intersections?

Traffic cameras are not conducive. The concept that tax payers are coerced into paying for surveillance system to be used against themselves, by fear mongers that have nothing better to do than invoke squabble, is asinine.

I support it, right on red is not safe for anyone really.

https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcl2.1091 “Red light cameras reduce injuries”. Study is listed right on the Wikipedia for red light cameras along with several others.

If I remember correctly, right on red came about during the oil crisis of the 1970s, probably during the Carter years, as a way to reduce consumption (less idling at the light).

[removed]

Are there intersections where you can right on red? I feel like every light I care about already is.

Side note: every Brit I know is jealous of our right on red lol

I am so sick of having the walk sign and then having some idiot turning almost hit me while I’m crossing the street. Please do this Cambridge.

I’d argue that people should just pay attention to road as a pedestrian as well by picking their heads up from their phones and or devices. The timeline of this study alone is indicative of the change in times. The solution is not more cameras and screens on the streets but more eyes and ears. The increase of ‘mishaps’ are no coincidence to decline of people’s attention spans when moving about outside their comforts.

Do it, do it now.

We pay for surveillance against ourselves all the time. A system that makes cars slow down sounds great.

Why? Just put a sign up on dangerous/busy intersections, that’s what they’re for.

> The concept that tax payers are coerced into paying for surveillance system to be used against themselves

"Taxation is theft!" -You, a libertarian

i’m still gonna do it

As far as I know, only on streets owned by the state like Mem Drive.

They’re not legal in the state

How would banning turning on red prevent this? Pedestrian light goes white; a few seconds later, the traffic light turns green. Drivers are "turning on green" into you.

Doesn't always. Some intersections, rather than having pedestrians get the Walk when drivers get the Green (thus having the crosswalks alternate), instead have the green light one way, green light the other way, and then have a segment of All-Walk, where the walk signals everywhere go on (and thus, there's a red light everywhere, which perfectly opens the door to the scenario described above).

Sounds outdated then given the prevalence of electric cars which don't idle, and even most combustion cars now shut down the engine when stopped and restart it when you use the accelerator.

>I’d argue that people should just pay attention to road as a pedestrian as well by picking their heads up from their phones and or devices

So pretty much ask people nicely to be better drivers? This does nothing and we know that. And yeah pedestrians and drivers should both pay attention. But when pedestrians don't pay attention they put themselves at risk while drivers not paying attention put others at risk. The point of traffic cameras, no right turns on red, and actual enforcement of traffic laws is to prevent people from getting hurt of killed

>The solution is not more cameras and screens on the streets but more eyes and ears

Cameras, not screens, not sure where you got the adding screens idea. If drivers never have accountability for breaking laws then they will keep doing it, just look at speed limits. We can't have a cop on every corner making sure cars are doing the right thing so cameras can help in certain places

Nothing to do with political ideology, and I do believe taxes are important. Just believe that this problems is solved by human interdiction and not another unnecessary tech. better yet.. the drivers that are speeding should be appropriately ticketed by an officer that lives and serves (preferably in that community) and either way it still goes down to both the driver and pedestrian obsession with the device in hand versus the just paying attention to the road it is what we’re taught when we get our license… if people approached driving with the caution we should than would there any cause for concern for the pedestrian outside of unruly drivers that will perpetually exist despite what imaginary line you draw for them… cameras are the lazy solution. People just need to pay closer attention to the task at hand and driving is one of the privileged responsibilities we have.

The distractions in driving have increased with the scaled adoption of smart devices… cars are now and increasingly becoming rolling computers …

Better road construction has proven to be more the more sustainable solution.

Yeah the whole screens in cars is such a bad idea. Switching from physical buttons makes it harder for drivers to keep their eyes on the road since you need to look for controls instead of feel them. Didn't realize that's what you were talking about in your comment. Sounded like you were saying traffic cameras have to come with more screens that will distract people

No worries. Just highlighting that the scope of the problem is larger than what is being addressed by this myopic solution.

They can make all the laws they want, but if they don’t bother to enforce them, it won’t make a difference. People blow through red lights like crazy around here.

But it's already illegal to turn right on red into a pedestrian. How does this change anything? Local laws that dont match the rest of the country don't help anyone. Better to add traffic easing at all major turns instead

The default for larger streets/main arteries is 25 if there are no signs saying otherwise. It's 20 everywhere else.

>When in doubt, go 20mph.

Yeah absolutely not a single silver bullet, but I think no turn on red and camera enforcement can be part of the solution

As I recall, way back (1979’s?) the state implemented a ban on turning right on red. It was sort of overturned when a court said there has to be a sign preventing it, otherwise it has to be allowed. If this is indeed the case, then Cambridge can only do this by placing signs at what few / if any intersections don’t already have them.

Wikipedia supports this claim with a few sources in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#North_America

Of course we did this at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist safety, as the same Wikipedia page has some sources for significant increases in motor vehicle crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists after adoption of right turn on red: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red#Pedestrian_and_bicyclist_safety

It's also a trade off we made against pedestrian/cycling safety:

> The report findings show large percentage increases in right-turn accidents at signalized locations after RTOR (e.g., increases ranging from 43% to 107% for pedestrians, and increases ranging from 72% to 123% for bicyclists in the three states studied.)

People in the article linked to in this post can try to have it both ways, but ultimately I'd rather be stuck in a traffic jam than see people hit more frequently because someone wanted a few seconds of times savings on their commute.

Maybe a minority view, but I disagree with this idea. It will only contribute to more congestion on already crowded roads. The problem here is not the lights, its lack of enforcement of drivers cutting off pedestrians.

1. Drivers turning right during the leading pedestrian interval. LPI is far less effective at increasing safety where right on red is allowed.
2. Pedestrian scrambles/all walk phases, as mentioned.
3. Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians who are crossing the right turn lane.

Doesn't matter unless the Cambridge PD actually started enforcing traffic laws. Blocking the box, driving like a total asshole, running red lights, parking in no stopping zones, jumping the curb.

There is no end to you fellow Cambridge residents disregard for traffic laws no matter their mode of transportation.

It can… without dialogue this though we wouldn’t come to better mutual solutions. Cameras have proven their utility, they shouldn’t be the replacement for the onus.

I see a lot of "no turn on red" signs, which might as well be invisible for all the good they do.

NYC doesn't allow right on red anywhere, citywide. I hope Cambridge will follow suit.

Every. Single. Day.

And then they complain about cyclists. LOL.

Slightly unrelated but there are so many blind turns in Cambridgeport with the grid layout and people parked right up to every corner

What? If it's a side street and there's no one else anywhere at the intersection, how is it “not safe for anyone”?

I understand that. You might find it interesting to look up traffic lights in The Netherlands: they are installing smart lights, super sensitive to approaching traffic (thus reducing wait times at lights) as a part of a light system that separates various traffic types (vehicular, pedestrian and cycles). A lot can be done with technology when there is a will—and some funding.

I also support this!

This has nothing to do with no turn on red. Plenty of lights have been changed so that when the right crosswalk has a walk sign, I have a green light to turn but yield to pedestrian. On busy streets (intersection between memorial drive and n Harvard st comes to mind), you’re basically being put in danger by the city who’s decides cars should time their way through pedestrians or not get through the light as only one person usually does along with holding up people behind them who want to go straight… this is instead of just giving cars a full green and THEN give pedestrians the walk. It used to be like that and then they changed it to the current stupid timing.

There’s examples of TONS of this across Cambridge along with no turn on red signs put up for literally no reason. I’ve seen so many intersections with these signs and there’s never a reason why. Not a blind corner, not a protected bike lane on the right, plenty of opportunity from other lights to allow drivers to turn right safely, etc. The people coming up with this are just stupid. So many nonsensical intersections in this city.

Right turn on red isn’t just “go on red”. It means you are allowed to turn right if you have a clear turn without interfering with someone else’s right of way.

Cyclists ignore / break (take your pick) just as many traffic laws as drivers, there are just less of them and they (usually) can't hurt the other classes of people on the road, with pedestrians at the mercy of everyone. Everyone transits like an asshole these days.

I feel like you don’t really know the meaning of right on red. It’s not, ignore the red light… it’s, if there’s no pedestrian on the right and you have a clear opportunity to make that right turn without interfering with another vehicle’s right of way, you may do so. Safety is built into the meaning. People run reds all the time, people jaywalk all the time, bikers don’t stop at reds. Nothing is safe for anyone

All of them, since the cops don’t enforce traffic laws here

Oh great. These are great arguments everyone enjoys.

Whats the argument? Everyone ignores traffic laws in Cambridge because CPD doesn't enforce anything.

It's actually safer for everyone if cyclists treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

Idaho stop

>The Idaho stop is the common name for laws that allow cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. It first became law in Idaho in 1982, but was not adopted elsewhere until Delaware adopted a limited stop-as-yield law, the "Delaware Yield", in 2017. Arkansas was the second state to legalize both stop-as-yield and red light-as-stop in April 2019. Studies in Delaware and Idaho have shown significant decreases in crashes at stop-controlled intersections.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

Yeah, why can't dose dam cyclist follow every law to the kine that's in the Driving License booklet!!

If you want it to be a law then get it on the ballot. Until then, you're unpredictable on the road and makes it less safe for everyone. Just because you disagree with current laws on stop signs and stop lights doesn't give you free reign to bypass them.

I just posted a link showing it's safer for everyone and you're telling me it's less safe for everyone?

We have stats available to say this would help everyone. See DC, NYC, and Montreal. Compliance for no turn on red is much higher than compliance for stopping/yielding to pedestrians before a turn on red.

Yes, being unpredictable on the road makes it less safe. Do you enjoy people changing lanes without turn signals? What about turning on red when there is a no turn on red?

And your argument is beside the point when it's not legal in Mass. If it's safer, then make it a traffic law and then it can be taught and properly enforced when a car fucks up and hits a biker who practices it.

Those people are in cars and can kill me. Bikes can't do that. If you want to go against the evidence I posted that it's safer, you're going to have to provide counter evidence of some sort.

Cambridge is installing video sensors at many intersections now. Wherever they pop up, waiting time is greatly reduced.

Counter evidence: I've been hit twice (once resulting in physical therapy) by bikes while crossing in a crosswalk while I have the right of way. Once in Boston near BU, and once in Central Square. Despite that, I still support bike lanes, I still support bus lanes, I still support all of it.

It doesn't change the fact that everyone is an asshole when transiting in this state and if you want the Idaho Stop to be a thing here then get it passed and in the books.

And just to be clear, for whatever reason, my primary and preferred mode of transit is the T

Anecdotes aren't evidence. But even if they were, that anecdote wouldn't be - if you're treating the red light like a stop sign, you still wouldn't go while people are crossing. So that behavior would be illegal even if Idaho Stop was legal.

I agree that everyone is an asshole while transiting in this state. I don't agree that the law trumps safety.

Great to hear. Any examples to point out for us?

Legit question (not trying to troll) but is the data for pedestrian/cyclist safety based purely on accidents at lights or specific to red light behavior. I ask because Cambridge has a ton of anti-car intersection where the pedestrian lights are only green when the traffic lights are also green, but the only direction for traffic is a turn (aka you are forcing cars into pedestrians due to lights). I'd be curious what the effects of safety are with these setups as well

Mass Ave and Churchill in North Cambridge was the first one I found out about. The left turn arrow phase doesn't activate unless someone is actually turning.

"I don't care what the law says I'm doing my own thing" really sums up every discussion about bikes/cars around here.

I'm not going to sacrifice my safety (or others safety) at the altar of the law. I'm just not. The law isn't some sacred thing that's worth dying for.

Right on red (in my experience) is treated as a right of the driver to make that turn by many. I have more often been killed by a driver in a crosswalk trying to make a right on red then any other traffic maneuver. It often involves drivers whipping around corners, barely stopping in my observation. Not to mention the incessant beeping that drivers farther down the queue make to bully drivers at the front into doing the right in red.

I shouldn’t have to worry about getting plastered if the driver at the stop looks, doesn’t see me or notice me, sees no cars, and guns it to get to their destination a tiny bit faster. That’s just me though.

This is one of the big problems with this argument. Right on red is only unsafe if people are driving badly and failing to check their mirrors/blind spot before turning. It’s true that people will always drive badly to some degree, but it’s not clear what the limits of that line of reasoning are. Cars are dangerous-we accept this because of the level of convenience they afford. You decrease their convenience, then you decrease their danger, yes, but at a certain point you’re just preventing them from carrying out their function. I feel like the priority ought to be on finding ways to improve people’s driving ability, because at least in Cambridge it’s often pretty scary (source: I drive a truck around Cambridge most days of the week).

That’s doesn’t change with a no turn on red sign. People do it anyways and often lights are not timed to account for this. We trust drivers to drive 65/70 mph next to each other stacked 4 across on a highway, we’ve been turning right on red here for decades and the rate of accidents isn’t very high from specifically this I would imagine. I pretty much never see right on red drivers not stop or roll down to an incredibly slow roll while checking.

That’s fine, but doesn’t change the fact that right on red doesn’t make me feel safe and just because we’ve always done it doesn’t mean we should always do it.

You trust drivers to always obey “no turn on red” signs but not to check before they turn?

Pedestrians and drivers still need to look, if right on red is allowed or not.

That's not what the law currently says though, and not what drivers expect.

In fact this is already the case. There are hardly any intersections where it's not already posted, as far as I've seen.

More surveillance tech? No thanks.

Let’s just bypass these incremental safety obsessed laws and just mandate than no one be allowed to leave the house without their bubble wrap suit and safety helmet.

Saying people accept it is a bit extreme. 40,000 people die every year in the US and over 1 million are sent to the hospital. My mom was rear ended (she was in a car) over a decade ago by a car going 30mph and had neck pain that lasts to this day from the whiplash.

Their convenience inside a dense city like Cambridge is questionable at best.

Finally, I appreciate that you are proposing a solution, but I don’t see any plausible way that is going to happen. Everything in our society follows a bell curve — and driving is no different. There is always going to be shitty drivers and in a city that means there are hundreds or thousands of shitty drivers.

Not what the law currently says, sure. My safety trumps the law though.

Not what drivers expect? Only if you're not following the spirit of an Idaho Stop. At a stop sign, you're supposed to stop and only proceed if and when it's safe to do so. Going out in front of moving cars wouldn't be safe, so you shouldn't do that, even if it's legal.

Please. My whole family was almost run over by a guy who turned right on red into us after coming to a stop, after we were already in a crosswalk. Car drivers are fundamentally incapable of safely coexisting with the city.

“I would imagine”

The city provided statistics in their presentation demonstrating reductions in accidents following posting no turn on red signs, and an increase in compliance (not turning into pedestrians) following the signs being posted.

Probably because these accidents happen all over the city and not just at dangerous/busy intersections.

If cars were operating in a way that was safe for pedestrians, in some sort of utopia where everyone behaves nicely, it would likely congest the roads just as much as requiring no turn on red. The “lack” of congestion is caused by allowing cars to do things that are statistically proven to be unsafe for pedestrians.

Because every last square foot of public land has to be used for cars, and if you try to re-allocate that space you’re evil. I honestly think the only reason we still have sidewalks after the 60-70s is because car drivers still had to walk a few dozen feet from their parking spot to the store/house.

Turning right on red is incredibly dangerous and allowing it to be normalized into society should never have been done. You will be hard pressed to find a person who frequently walks around the city who would disagree with this.

My whole family was almost hit by an SUV that came to a perfunctory rolling stop and then immediately gunned the right turn without looking, while we were already in the middle of the crosswalk.

I believe MA law also empowers cyclists to do what they need to do to preserve their safety — and frequently getting out ahead of parked cars to get around an obstacle i.e. an uber car parked in the bike lane, makes things safer for everyone.

Fair enough. There are people trying to get it on the books but MA has a very car obsessed culture. I always stop and stay stopped at red lights because I don’t want to be “that cyclist”, but that is really the only reason. I have frequently had to deal with very unsafe scenarios (an uber car blocking the bike lane) that would have been much safer if I had been able to get out ahead of the stopped cars.

Well, in other parts of the world that isn’t allowed. Pedestrian cycles are separate from car cycles. But in the US we place cars above everything, and so we have this system.

Yeah I'm glad we're improving our infrastructure to make things safer. Still a ways to go though and I wish we'd spend more on our public transit infrastructure to meet the goal of getting the ever increasing number of cars off the road.

People don't expect anyone to jump the light. I have no idea why you think it's safer for you to break traffic laws while being sanctimonious at everyone.

Jeez that’s so scary :(

There is no law that gives you general license to routinely break traffic rules on your perception of safety. Sorry bout that.

Its fucking awful. This city and Boston are so hostile pedestrians its not even funny.

Ok, but are we expecting all of the out of towners who drive through, plus locals who don’t keep track of local happenings, to know about the law change?

Seems like if anything it would make it more dangerous.

I’m all about sustainability and the desire to make neighborhoods more livable, but the idea that cars aren’t still needed in a place like Cambridge requires a pretty extreme ignorance of what many people’s daily lives are like. Setting aside contractors and the need for trucks to get in and out to make deliveries, it’s also just the case that many of the people who work in the Cambridge area don’t live there or anywhere near it, because we can’t afford to. There’s lots of demand for manual labor of various kinds in the city, but nobody seems to consider that if those laborers want to be able to afford a family and a house, that requires moving 25+ miles away, and a schedule that totally rules out relying on the commuter rail. I grew up in Somerville and I work as an arborist out of Malden-most of our clients are in Cambridge. If I ever want to buy a house in the MA area, I’ll be forced to do what basically everyone else at my company has done past a certain age: move to NH or RI and commute every day. I’m fairly confident the same can be said for quite a few people who work in Cambridge. That’s obviously a broader problem and not one that can be solved at the municipal level, but at any rate I suppose that’s why I suspect this will remain an ongoing problem for the rest of our lives, or at least so long as Cambridge is a desirable and thereby unaffordable area and cars don’t fly.

That’s not how it’s practiced though. Cars roll right up into the crosswalk and get in everyone’s way.

[deleted]

I think it's safe because of that study cited in the Wikipedia article I linked. Do you have any counter-evidence?

> People don't expect anyone to jump the light.

I think you missed the key point. You wouldn't jump a stop sign when people are moving, so you don't jump the light in front of people who are moving. If you do, you're not doing an Idaho Stop. You're just being an idiot. The whole point is you only jump the light when there's nobody coming, and therefore nobody to surprise.

It seems like we're talking past each other. Drivers don't expect anyone to jump a light because that's illegal. Your perception of the safety of doing so is irrelevant. You don't see every car in every situation, so the expectation of drivers is important to your safety too. In general, drivers rely on the predictability of what's around them because of the inertia of a vehicle. Decisions have to be made in advance to keep everyone alive, and having the expectation that people are following the rules of the road is an important part of making those predictions. If you ever drove, I think this would be pretty intuitive to you.

You're correct that my perception that an Idaho Stop is safer is irrelevant. However, the linked study showing that it is safer is definitely relevant. I don't understand what you're missing here. The Wikipedia article is right there in my original comment, and the study is cited with a link in that article.

It's irrelevant because it isn't legal here. If you're doing it and nobody else knows, then it can't possibly be safer than following the law is.

I strongly disagree with the idea that whether it is legal or not actually matters. All it changes is whether people do it or not. I doubt most drivers in the states where it is legal actually know about it.

That said, this is conjecture that I don't have direct evidence for. I searched and can't find evidence for or against. So in the interest of not arguing in circles, I'm going to leave it at that and stop replying here.

The only other one I can think of right now is Matignon rd -> Alewife Brook Parkway.

Cyclists have full authority to be in an auto lane on a street.
Bike lanes are suggested but not mandatory for bikes.

Edit:

Mass General Laws Chapter 85, Section 11B.
Link:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B

The published data does not back up this claim. The accident rate is actually nearly zero. Honestly, that surprises me as well given how many drivers simply run reds even after the first couple of cars in cross traffic have already cleared the intersection.

Until Cambridge hires a functioning police department, what's the point? If we compare driver behavior against Cambridge's Professional Sleeping Department's published citation data, it's already legal to go straight on red, do a 360 on red, drive drunk on red, drive in any direction you want on one-way streets, use the sidewalk as a driving surface, park in bike lanes, drive in separated bike lanes, etc etc. If these things were illegal, then we would see some citation data to back it up.

Without a police department, nothing is illegal. In fact, the police have even been driving in the wrong direction on Garden St's new one-way section when they think nobody's watching.

As long as there isn't an obstructed view, turning right on red is perfectly safe as long as you follow the law. But, again, until Cambridge hires a police department, why would anyone bother following the law?

Bikers don’t stop at red or stay in their bikes lanes and they’ve got earbuds in both ears. Pedestrians jaywalk. Plenty of examples of things not working in practice but right turn on red atleast allows smooth flow of traffic.

What was the reduction and where are those statistics?

Maybe if every right turn on red involved pedestrians crossing then perhaps the congestion would be the same regardless of what enforcemment mechanism used, but that premise is pretty clearly false. More broadly, there are numerous street designs within and immediately adjacent to cambridge that require drivers to use careful judgement, often while being in motion, so why would we deprive drivers the ability to use that discretion here?

There are a large number of drivers who would never blatantly run a red light, but who routinely fail to yield to pedestrians. Drivers legally have to stop for pedestrians at all crosswalks, but how often does that happen? Studies show less than half the time.

Banning right on red turns "failing to yield" into "running a red light". That's why it makes people safer.

Don’t just say “studies” without citing them.

No problem, I was just trying for brevity, but are you really disputing that cars fail to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks? Have you been outside?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457598000268?via%3Dihub

springfieldmo.gov/4921/Crosswalk-Compliance-Studies

You have a reasonable hypothesis - unpredictable behavior is the key factor driving safety and bikes should always follow laws designed around cars.

The next step is to look at data.

Data shows that cyclists need to yield at busy intersections, but if it is safe to cross at a point in time, they should - red light or not. Less fatalities that way.

Green lights are still very dangerous and depending on the traffic at an intersection, red lights can be safer than green lights. Crossing an empty intersection at red or away from an intersection is safer for bikes and pedestrians than crossing a busy green light.

Unfortunately, when you are at a red light, you just don't know how busy the next green light will be.

Drivers can't follow the same logic because cars are the reason roads are dangerous. If you are in a car at a red light, there is at least one weapon at that red light (your car).

It sucks for drivers who are patient and willing to wait for the light to change to green. Often I don't feel comfortable turning right on red (typically due to not having a full view of oncoming traffic), so I'll wait. I get honked at by cars behind me for doing this. It's nerve-wracking to have horns blaring at you when waiting for the light to change.

It’s not really that unpredictable though, is it? It’s already pretty common practice, enforcing stops would actually be seen as the change in policy.

Cambridge Street has a lot of those signs

If the driver is facing North at a red light, trying to turn right to go East, the East-West crossing will likely tell pedestrians to go. A pedestrian on the Southeast corner of the intersection will attempt to go West, crossing in front of the driver attempting a Right Turn On Red. The driver is looking for Eastbound traffic coming from their left, and doesn’t notice the pedestrian crossing in front of them. I have been hit by drivers multiple times in this exact manner.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

How many people have bicycles killed? Does your brain even work lmao

So you'd rather they kill someone? You're a clown lmao wtf

They are not right to honk. Right turn on red is always optional. Maybe don’t drive if you don’t know the law.

I suggest you read my other comments in this thread. I've actually been very consistent. I don't give a single shit what is legal, either for cars or for bikes. I only care about what is safe.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Then don't complain when cars are limited in Cambridge for noise pollution. You can wait the extra 1 minute it's not a big deal. Like you're not that important lmfao

why is not turning on red safer? there are lots of times you're stopped at a red light and no one is around. this is dumb and feels like some trying to be Nyc envy.

how is it less safe if you, y'know, look to see if you're going to hit anyone?

that's an enforcement issue.

I hope they pass this, it's really the only safe and sensible way for things to be in cities.

One of the studies covers this:

> Although RTOR laws require the motorist both to stop and to yield to any pedestrian or approaching vehicle in the intersection before turning on red, it had been postulated that pedestrians and bicyclists might be at increased risk under Western RTOR because of the inherent attention conflict for the turning driver. In particular, since the driver preparing for a RTOR is typically watching for traffic from his left, he may not see a pedestrian or bicyclist coming from his right.

I see some drivers break traffic laws. I see most bicyclists break them. A bike running into a pedestrian won't kill them but has the potential to cause a good chunk of damage. A car would do worse, but I haven't seen a car drive the wrong way down a one way street or barrel down a sidewalk, things I can't say the same for bikes.

Here's my issue with the argument that too much space is dedicated to cars. What do you want there, homes? Clearly you don't want more people coming in to Cambridge if you you're actively making it harder to get here. Businesses? Maybe, but again, less available customers. I think these people just want to keep everyone out so they can have their giant bike paths and farmers markets all to themselves.

Good luck with that. We don’t do much traffic enforcement here. The city has explicitly focused on street design and regulations in place of enforcement. I think both are important. What we also need to do is move the traffic signals back to the stop line so that cars can’t see it if they go past it and into the crosswalk. That’s standard in Europe.

No it doesn’t allow smoother traffic. They just cut off the car going straight and there’s still a big line. Or they can’t go anywhere so they just block the crosswalk. P.s. a lot of bike lanes are dangerous so yes sometimes people can’t use them. Every biker I’ve ever known wishes they could use the bike lanes all the time.

I know it’s really dumb when you see idiots on memorial drive though 🤡

Have you ever been hit by an idiot on a bike? My fear of stopping at a red light is being hit by another cyclist.

This is completely true

Unpopular opinion -If you bike safe and defensive you won’t get hit. I’ve only seen idiots get hit.

Just assume someone in a car is taking a right and you’ll be safe 🤷🏼‍♂️

Interesting. I'll have to check that out. I had thought Cambridge had a policy to have no sensors and have everything run on a fixed timer.

Because drivers have proven themselves to be incapable of discretion

It's only 20 where the city has posted "Safety Zone Speed Limit 20" signs. Everywhere else it's 25 unless otherwise posted. That's what state law allows.

It's unclear if the city is going to post No Turn On Red at every intersection, or if they'll just pass the law and make it the driver's problem to do their legal research in advance.

And we all know they’re not going to. So we have a city full of intersections where pedestrians think they’re safe to cross, and drivers think they’re fine to turn on red.

Passed last night!

They voted to have the City Manager investigate the issue, and start discussions with the DCR and MassDOT.

"ORDERED: That the City Manager is directed to work with the Law Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to investigate how to ban turns on red Citywide; and be it further ORDERED: That the City Manager is directed to contact the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to begin discussions of banning turns on red movements on roadways in Cambridge controlled by those state entities; and be it further ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner."

I'm not sure if this text reflects the amendments they passed.

there are a bunch of intersections I can think of off the top of my head where the light is long and the sightlines from where you're sitting at the red light are excellent. you have time to look and see if anyone is coming from any given direction, assuming you haven't lost your rearview and sideview mirrors.

Just city council kowtowing to the bike community yet again . . . This is a fuckin joke

And you are REQUIRED BY LAW to move over when there is space to do so. City spends ungodly amounts of money to build you people bikes lanes to ride in and you want to be everywhere else but them. They take away parking and left and right turning and all sorts of shit and you wanna ride in the middle of the street anyway. You people are insufferable

Cite the statute.

Here is my citation. Mass General Laws Chapter 85, section 11B

> Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section...

LINK. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11B

I stand corrected. I misread the law and I apologize for that.

However, for all of the laws that your insufferable community break on a literal daily basis see Ch. 85 sec. 11b

"When riding on public ways, bicyclists must obey the same basic traffic laws and regulations that apply to motor vehicle operators."

You want to ride in front of cars or however you want and act like the world revolves around you, its on you whatever happens. In all Seriousness though, stay safe out there. Contrary to popular belief noone wants to see anyone hurt

Yes, the same statute states that bicyclists must obey the rules of the road.

this is correct. 25 mph is the city wide default. No idea why the upvotes are going to the misinformation being peddled...

I don't agree with the city's recent widespread removals of on-street parking. But removing one space at corners with visibility problems is worth it in my opinion.

But they're not talking about doing that. They're talking about a city wide ban that would add to congestion. To solve visibility problems, you don't need legislation. You can either remove those corner parking spots like you said, or have city works drive through Cambridge, identify turns with visibility issues, and put "No Turn on Red" signs there.

[deleted]

Why don’t you losers go back to where you came from…Cambridge was a great city before you morons fucked it up. None of your ideas are good, you make everything worse.

What statistics?