I think David Filipov is trying to prove me wrong, and I couldn’t be happier. I am glad he followed through on his insinuation that he would cover other road users groups. His recent article about pedestrians highlights the problem with j-walking in Boston, and by it existence (not that it implicitly says this in the article) seems to highlight that not ONLY bikers are to blame for the problems on our streets.

Shortly after 11 a.m. on a sunny Thursday, a most astounding thing happened on the busy intersection of the Boston University Bridge and Commonwealth Avenue. Alexandra Slender, a BU sophomore, stopped at a crosswalk, waited for the white gleam of the “Walk’’ sign, and crossed.

It was a rare act of civil obedience for a pedestrian in Boston, repeated by almost no one else on this day at this intersection. Throngs of iPod-wearing, cellphone-texting walkers blew through the red “Don’t walk’’ signs, barely acknowledging the flustered drivers who slammed on the brakes and banged on their dashboards in futility.

He also seems to avoid the things that I thought he was guilty of in his first article. He makes it clear that the pedestrians j-walking are mostly endangering themselves, and stays away from junk statistics. He still makes it seem like only pedestrians are breaking the law, but in the context of the two articles together a grander picture is emerging. I doubt that people will look at both together, but at least both are there. I can only hope that the next group he tackles are motorists.

Thanks David, and if you do come out with an article highlighting the problem with motorists, or even better yet an article about motorists and then a follow up about ALL user groups and how they are ALL to blame, I would gladly eat crow and offer a public apology that I ever got snippy with you. Highlighting all of these problems will go a long way towards changing the culture of road use in the city, and allowing us all to get around safer and quicker.

Walking in Boston is awesome. You can see the city as it was meant to be seen (on foot). You can get around very easily, combined with public transportation is can be a healthy and enjoyable way to live play and work in Boston. But I have noticed that some people don’t seem to understand some simple and very useful tips that will make their walking experience here in Boston much more enjoyable (AKA: they have no fear of death). The following guide should be read as “cyclist illuminates some best practices for dealing with walkers” it should not be taken as some sort of road bible that will teach you everything you need to know. Your brain is your most important piece of safety equipment, use it.

Before this turns into an Us vs Them kind of rant I want to say a couple things:
1. I love pedestrians, every person walking is one less person in a car, if you have a choice between cars and walking, WALK!
2. Bikers need to be very careful not to hit pedestrians, just because the pedestrian is doing something silly doesn’t mean that it wont hurt a lot if you run into them with your bike.
3. I honestly want more people out walking, I just want them to not get hurt, or hurt me.

I ride in this town a lot. I ride in the financial district, Dot, Allston-Brighton, points south north and west (sorry east Boston I almost never get over to you on my bike). And I see the same silly things over and over again. I am not going to advocate strict adherence to the walk signs, or think for a moment that everyone is going to walk to the end of the block and get in the crosswalk, these observations and suggestions are based on practical things I think people will actually do. The solution to a lot of these problems is “build better infrastructure” but because that is HIGHLY unlikely to happen quickly (or cheaply) my solutions are mostly ones that don’t cost any money.

The following is written from a cyclists point of view, but if you are a pedestrian and you find yourself doing any of the following the solution is simple, STOP DOING IT. I have ranted about peoples behavior being a major problem before so please don’t think I am singling you (the pedestrian) out for special treatment. We all have things we need to change. I recently returned from the west coast where I witnessed a completly different culture when it comes to walking. Everyone (and I mean everyone) pushes the button, waits for the signal and then crosses. I saw groups of people sitting at an empty street and none of them set foot into the road until the little walk guy showed up. Just something to think about…so without further delay…

Dealing with Pedestrians: a Helpful Guide.

The Plant

‘The Plant’ is when a person stands off the curb waiting for a chance to cross. They can be a couple inches from the curb, or in some cases several feet. This is very popular at busy crosswalks, and corners. Strange variations of this move include the ‘talking on the cell phone plant’ and ‘having a chat with your buddies plant.’

Why this sucks for a cyclist: The cyclist must do several things to avoid the plant. One they have to move further over to the left, this often puts them into conflict with moving cars. Two if you are doing ‘the plant’ on a corner, the cyclist must do a sort of over around and back move that makes for a very awkward turn, that at the same time potentially pushing the cyclist into turning cars.

How to fix this problem: People doing ‘the plant’ do so for several reasons, they are in a hurry, they want better viability, or are being absent minded. First off, get a bell for your bike, you would be surprised how many plants will pull up roots and take a step back if you give them a polite little “ding ding.” Second don’t be afraid to scream “hey back up!” or “Need a little space” or “MOVE!” none of which are polite, but if they help you avoid a crash it is worth it. Third pay attention to your route, certain spots are more likely to grow plants than others, slow down through these sections and keep your eyes up and forward looking to see people entering the road from the side walk, it is good to know where potential plants are coming from.

The Sneak

The Sneak is someone who creeps between two parked cars and then (often at the worst possible moment) walks out into traffic.

Why this sucks for a cyclist: This shouldn’t suck for you at all, in fact if you are riding 4-5 feet away from parked cars you often have plenty of time to react to the sneak. However as we all know some roads in Boston are narrow, and combined with “assertive” drivers who don’t believe in your right to take up a full lane you can often find yourself in situations where you don’t have enough room to react safely to this. Collisions of this nature can be particularly dangerous due to the fact there is often no warning and no time to reduce speed.

How to fix this problem: If you are riding a bike and are being forced next to parked cars sloooow down. This can avoid doorings as well as sneaks. Remember that bell, if you are approaching parked cars and you have to be close to them for any reason, give that bell a workout. While it wont stop everyone, at least some people might hear it and stop their sneaking. Look for shadows under parked cars, if there is a light source peoples shadows will often enter the street before they do, and unless they are walking on the parked cars bumpers you will often be able to see feet moving under parked cars. Look through windows, you can often see people sneaking through these helpful clear portals. If the worst happens and you are confronted with a sneak walking right out in front of you, you have two choices, cut left and pray to the bike gods no one is right there to crush the life out of you, or hit them. This is not a good choice, so remember treat parked cars like the door sprouting, sneak producing, toxic hell pit’s that they are, and give them a wide wide berth.

The Trust Fail:

The trust fail is when a pedestrian looks you right in the eye, sees you are barreling through the intersection (on the green light) and then walks out in front of you anyway.

Why this sucks for a cyclist: This most often results in you having to dramatically alter your path or pull some sort of mega stop, neither make the cars behind you or next to you happy, and both can result in you getting run over. In some horrible instances this can result in an endo (over the handlebars crash) as you valiantly attempt to stop, which can then be combo’ed with getting run over for more awesomeness. The real danger of a trust fail is that in your mind you might think that you and the walker have come to an agreement “I have the green light, you have the red hand, we have made eye contact so you know I am going” and then like that girl in highschool they leave you crying and bloody in the middle of the street…(don’t ask).

How to fix this problem:Trust fails often start off as plants, that bell strategy works on them as well. You should also be looking down the street several hundred feet to anticipate what is going to be popping out, if you see someone making eye contact with you point straight ahead and scream “going straight” or “move please” or “make a hole” or “NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!” use whatever level of politeness you feel will work. I find that the closer I get to the intersection/the faster I am going the less polite I am.

The Stampede:

The stampede is when a whole bunch of pedestrians break the law all at once. They will often flood into an intersection even if they don’t have the walk signal, even if lots of cars and bikers are coming right at them. The stampede is a very effective strategy by pedestrians and one I can admire for its effectiveness (even if it drives me crazy). They control the street out of sheer numbers.

Why this sucks for a cyclist: Mostly the stampede sucks because it slows you down. It is hard to work up a good stampede if there is heavy traffic so stampede situations often occur when there is spotty traffic and people feel safe all pouring into an intersection at once. The risk of injury from a stampede is low, but can be raised if you ride like a jerk.

How to fix this problem: There is very little you can do here, ever heard of critical mass, they has it too. Your best bet is to slow to a crawl and either wait for the heard to pass, or wait for the honking of the horns behind you to open up a slot for you (because trust me, they will honk). What you should NOT do is try and weave through the herd at high speed, this will only result in “random chaos” from the group. (see below)

Random Chaos:
Random chaos is (redundant I know) when a pedestrian is crossing the street (this happens most often in “non sanctioned” crossing areas) and they are preceding in one direction and then at some point the notice that you are coming and radically change direction. Which way will they go?! It’s America’s newest and most popular game show! Random chaos can be made worse if you correct your path to go around what you think is going to be their path, or it could be made better, thats the nature of chaos.

Why this sucks for a cyclist:They go left when you go left and WHAM! Their is also a small but very real possibility of tearing a hole in the fabric of time and space killing us all as our atoms turn inside out and up becomes down.

How to fix this problem: Basically you have two options, once someone is already in the street. You can yield to them, which technically is what you are supposed to do, but then again they technically have no business crossing the street at random outside of a cross walk, oh discoridia! Or you can try and slow down enough that it wont matter which way they go and you will be safely able to go around. Your worst enemy here is speed, your best friend is your eyes, look waaaay down the road for people who look like they are going to cross. If you see any of them walk into the street stay straight and slow down, this will allow them to know what you are going to do, and hopefully give them enough time to get out of your way. If that fails, stop get off your bike and bow (with a flourish) while you allow them to cross. Incidentally screaming anything, and/or ringing your bell might actually cause more Random Chaos…so if you have 3 or more feet (about as much space as a person could cover in one big step) and you are pretty sure you are going to pass safely consider doing so quietly. Tip to pedestrians, once you have committed to running out into the street, stick to your guns! Nothing is worse than someone who races out into the street only to slam on the foot breaks and randomly change course.

Don’t Give a Fuck!:

Don’t give a fuck is when someone simply walks out into the road, if only to revel in the honks and screams. This is most often young bullish males, who have been drinking, or are looking to start some shit. (although I have seen young women/and older guys do this as well).

Why this sucks for a cyclist: Um they don’t give a fuck…at all. They just walk out, cars who cares, buses who cares, person on a bike who cares! These people are crash magnets, and will often sneak out from between cars, or cross “wherever they fucking feel like it.”

How to fix this problem: Your only weapon against these crazy people is early detection. If you see someone not giving a fuck, either slow to a stop, or attempt to pass them without causing random chaos (see above). I can not stress enough, that bells will not work for these idiots, and may in fact cause you to become embroiled in fisticuffs with these ruffians. Again you should be scanning well down the street for maximum detection time.

Baby Armor:

Baby armor is a subset of don’t give a fuck, only worse because they often lead with a child in a stroller or held in their arms. People who use baby armor will often plant the stroller with junior in it out into the street until traffic comes to a halt and then cross.

Why this sucks for a cyclist: Baby armor is adorable, but highly dangerous. How bad would you feel if you killed a kid because mom was too stupid to wait till the little man flashed before crossing the street? Also new strollers are built like brick shit houses, it is very likely that you would go sailing right over them to break your collar bone while junior continued to suck on his binky as if nothing had happened.

How to fix this problem: As much as it kills me to say this, just stop. Come to a complete stop. It is so wrong that the flash of a baby can bring the entire system to a halt but it does. It doesn’t matter if the mother (and it is almost always the mother) crosses in the cross walk against the light, or leaps out from behind a cloaking device in the middle of Mass Ave, you just got to stop. Luckily baby armor is easy to spot at a distance, strollers are often huge ostentatious contraptions that take up a lot of room and people with babies strapped to their chest present a distinct profile. Stop and let these people pass, even though they have no business being in the street, even though they are using a child like a speed bump to slow traffic, even though you have every legal right to be riding through that green light, just stop. Coo at junior as they pass and hope that he grows up smarter than his parents.

In general most problems with pedestrians can be solved by, slowing down, ringing your bell, or stopping. Sometimes screaming is fun, but not really effective. When people get to walking in a good rhythm their brains can just turn right off, same goes for people staring at buildings, talking on the phone, listening to music, staring right at you, etc. Always assume they will not stop, and in as many cases as you can, yield to pedestrians it really is the best policy.

It may seem that people do their best to put themselves into as many dangerous situations as possible, but almost always it is just that they are not paying attention. A ‘ding ding’ from a bell, or any loud unfamiliar sound (I often make a sort of ‘chick chick’ sound with my mouth, like the sound you make if you want a horse to go faster) is enough to get them to perk up and fly right. Pedestrians are a lovely member of the city ecosystem and one that we want more of, so do your part in not hitting them by following the rules above, and always paying attention yourself.

Do you have any kinds of pedestrians I didn’t cover here? Got good tips? Share them in the comments.

I read David Filipov’s newest article at the Globe with some amount of disgust this morning. For those who have yet to glance upon this masterwork of investigative journalism let me serve up some tasty snippets.

Boston has launched a high-profile campaign to become a friendlier city for cyclists. Now the question is whether bicyclists will become friendlier to Boston. On any hour of any day, Boston bicyclists routinely run red lights, ride the wrong way on one-way streets, zip along sidewalks, and cut off pedestrians crossing streets legally – even though bike riders are supposed to obey the same traffic laws as motorists. Sometimes, a bicyclist will do all of these things in one two-wheeled swoop. The city seems unable to stop it.

(emphasis mine)

Ahh yes, Boston cyclists scourge of the streets. I don’t actually disagree with the authors claims of wrong doing by cyclists. In fact I am just as annoyed and pissed off when I see cyclists running red lights (news flash, running red lights doesn’t make you faster…being faster makes you faster), mostly because I then have to pass their stupid asses as I take off after waiting at the red light, but also because I see them regularly muck up traffic, almost get run over, or fail to yield to pedestrians. In short the same numskulls who run red lights on their bikes, are the same people I worry about when in cars. So why might you ask was I so disgusted with this article?

In short the article is guilty of two things. One, it insinuated that only cyclists are breaking the law, and two, it tries very hard to neglect that different user groups produce different consequences when they break the law.

So to the first point, ‘only cyclists are bad’, lets take a look at some of the crack statistics work that the author did.

At that particular intersection, 12 out of 28 cyclists were observed ignoring the red light over the course of 45 minutes. Some cruised right through; others paused and then went forward. A dozen more rode along the narrow sidewalk, weaving their ways among joggers, people walking to work, and students toting instruments toward the Berklee College of Music. Four more cyclists rode the wrong way on Newbury Street, dodging oncoming vehicles.

…

On Wednesday, over the course of 40 minutes, 20 cyclists ran the light at Charles and Beacon streets; only one did not. Monday morning, over the course of 35 minutes at Copley Square, 12 cyclists sailed through red lights (five waited for green). Monday, during a half-hour at lunch time, 10 out of 23 cyclists ran the red light on Tremont Street at the beginning of Beacon Street, where tourists commingled with hurried business people. Ten more rode the wrong way on Tremont. Dozens more took the sidewalk, scattering walkers.

Nice, random sampling times, no methodology, no sampling of other user groups, tiny samples, in short these numbers mean nothing. They also fail to capture the entire picture. How many pedestrians walked out against the signal, how many cars failed to yield, how many cars failed to use turn signals, how many were speeding? I feel that a detailed multi-user group study of any intersection would show that every user group in Boston has a problem, and that problem is that they simply don’t give a fuck about anyone else.

If you are a pedestrian and you want to be “over there” and the little walk man isn’t showing what do you do? You look both ways (sometimes), if no one is coming (or often even if they are, cause ‘hey fuck it’ they will stop) and you step out into the street. You don’t care if you force the cyclist to move into heavy traffic to avoid you, you also don’t care if a bunch of cars have to suddenly stop to let you cross when you have absolutely no business being in the road at that time.

If you are a cyclist and you want to go through a red light, well ‘hey fuck it’, off you go. You have no regard for the fact that you might get run over, that you might hold up traffic, that you might strike a pedestrian that is crossing the street, that you might hit another cyclist that is following the law, that you might then cause a headache for the cyclists behind you who then have to deal with you when the light does turn green.

If you are a motorist and you feel like getting from point A to point B as fast as possible and you don’t feel like signaling, checking your mirrors, obeying the speed limit, looking before you open your door, yielding to pedestrians, giving cyclists room on the road, well ‘hey fuck it’ it’s your car and you will do what you want.

In short no user group is any more or less lawful than any other. They each break different laws in different frequency, but they are ALL breaking the law with great regularity and mostly because of the “hey fuck it” attitude that so many have in this city.

That brings me to point two. The consequences for different user groups breaking the law are not the same. When a car decides to run a red light, it carries a much greater risk than when a bike does. Similarly the danger to pedestrians who cross against the light are predominantly to themselves, with cyclists a close second, most motorists will not be physically harmed if they strike a pedestrian. All of these actions are illegal, and stupid, but the risk vs reward for each is different. If you are going to write an entire article about how unruly cyclists are, well then you should have lots of facts about how this behavior is dangerous to the public. Statistics showing the hundreds of deaths caused each year by cyclists running red lights, and the carnage caused by sidewalk riding. Don’t get me wrong, I think running red lights and riding on the side walk are stupid and shouldn’t be done, but in all honestly they don’t pose a major threat to public safety. However literally thousands of people are killed each year by or in cars. When a 4000 pound box of metal and glass gets going fast and doesn’t signal it’s turns, people die.

Publishing an entire article about one user group without putting it in context is disingenuous, and dishonest. There is already a strong pubic opinion that you “have to be crazy to ride a bike in Boston” or “bike riders are assholes.” Which is a horrible thing, biking in Boston can be a fun and relaxing activity. Bikers are not crazy, and biking doesn’t have to be a war of US v Them. The car lifestyle has brought us a lot of things, but the most obvious is obesity, congestion, pollution, sprawl , global warming, wars for oil, and as of late an economic crisis. People could do a fair amount of good by simply leaving the car in the driveway and taking the bike out for a spin.

This article was a simple attempt to get some ad revenue for the Globe, shallow sensational journalism lacking context or good research. But the fact still remains: Cyclists break the law, a lot. What can we do about that? The article itself, and the user comments are long on “this is the problem” and lacking completely the “this is the solution.” The solution seems to be two fold.

Education: You need to know what the laws are. This goes for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. You should have a deep understanding of what exactly you are supposed to be doing out there (check out MassBike’s website for a good run down of cycling laws if you are rusty, they just passed some new laws so it might be time for a refresher).

Attitude: Boston must put aside it’s “hey fuck it” (or even worse “hey fuck you”) attitude. What really keeps us all safe and happy out there is not the law, but the social trust. That little white line, or that little red/green/yellow light, isn’t what keeps you from getting run over by that truck. The trust you put into that truck driver to treat that light like it means something, or stay on one side of that white line is what keeps you safe. When you break the law what you are really doing is breaking the social trust that someone else put in you. You are saying to them “everything is chaotic you can’t count on anything” and that makes them mad, afraid and unsafe. If you are a cyclist you count on cars coming to a stop at red lights, otherwise you would never cross an intersection (imagine if cars ran reds with the frequency that bikes do). The entire system is based from the ground up on trust of strangers. Every time a cyclist runs a red light they are eroding that trust.

If each use group continues to erode the trust (by doing all the things mentioned above and more) then eventually the streets will be nothing more than a war zone, and whoever is fastest and toughest will get around, and everyone else will be road kill. Not a happy scenario, but also far from a likely one if some simple things are changed. But hey, at least we can count on the Boston Globe to provide us with poorly thought out, and poorly researched articles so that we can scape goat one group while ignoring the bigger problem. Thanks Boston Globe.

Save The Date…
October 14, 2008
Courtyard by Marriott Tremont Hotel
275 Tremont St
Boston, MA

Moving Together 2008. Bicycling and walking are becoming increasingly visible and important across the country as well as across the Commonwealth. The invited keynote speaker, Gabe Rousseau, Ph.D, National Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager for the Federal Highway Administration, will provide his timely perspective on current initiatives and trends. Based in Washington DC, Rousseau draws upon his extensive experience with the Federal government as well as work with the States. Moving Together’s workshops and exhibits feature up-to-date information that help you to improve bicycling and walking conditions locally, regionally and statewide.

The $40 conference registration fee includes a continental breakfast, refreshments, lunch, and conference materials. For registration information contact: Baystate Roads Program, tel: (413) 545-2604, or register on-line. Please note that registration is limited, so register early to secure your place.

More info here.

We all know that pedestrians like to just walk out into the middle of the street without a care in the world.

Over at bostonfixed (which you should for sure check out if you like fixed gear stuff and live in Boston) they have a great thread about what you scream when pedestrians jump out in front of you. Here is a selection of some of the better ones.

“hut”
“whoooop whooop”
“yo”
“heads up”
“no brakes”
“fuuuuuuuuuuck”
“Usually I yell a stream of obscenities. I have riding Tourette’s.”
“Bitch please”
“CHECK YO’SELF BEFORE I WRECK YO’SELF!”
“Oi!”
“Really, just yell insane shit. Pretend like you’re a little, hairless sasquatch.”
“OYYYYYYYY” or “EHHHHHH”
“PLEASE DON”T CROSS RIGHT NOW THANK YOU”
“Watchoutwatchoutwatchoutwatchoutwatchoutwatchout”
“Heyheyheyheyheyheyheyhey.”
“SHARK!”
“Hot Soup!”
YO!, HEY!, or SHITFACE!
“Mother-Bitches!”
“Ki ki ki”
“Yip Yip!”
“MEAT SLED!”

I tend to go for eye contact, predictability, and in many cases I simply stop and let them pass even if they are j-walking.

So what do you yell if you yell anything?

 

This past Wednesday my rear tire went flat on the way to a LiveableStreets Alliance lecture. My innertube needed to be replaced (the presta valve tip broke off) but the lecture lightened my mood with some interesting information on how roads are engineered.

Backtracking for just a moment, I have had some brushes with LiveableStreets folks before at some other bike events. The group seems pretty solid despite their small size, dedicating themselves to presenting a fresh vision of street design engineered to meet human needs as much as motor vehicular ones. Basically, they’re working to change Boston.

The talk was entitled “Dirty Little Engineering Secrets Revealed,” and it was a powerpoint presentation given by former LiveableStreets Alliance co-founder and president Jeffrey Rosenblum. (Jeff now works for the City of Cambridge, helping their street planning.)

The talk spanned elements of psychology, engineering and design. The dirty secrets revealed were completely expected: there was a whole generation of engineering that devoted itself to the car and that is reflected in street design. This extends into the urban areas and the purpose of the street as a functioning place of commerce and burgeoning life has been replaced with one of traffic and single-minded transport.

When a street is designed there are studies done, stages of planning and review, lots of referencing to standards guides, and usually after all of that is there any public involvement. (Then, of course the street is constructed with whatever variance, no construction job ever goes 100% to plan.)

The studies are generally car-centric. Traffic numbers, connections, types of vehicles and their purposes, types of streets connected, etc. The result of a study is a report a few inches thick. How much of that for bikes? Nil.

The street gets planned following guidelines. The guidelines used were printed with some degree of flexibility which in practice is never used. When challenged why lane widths can’t be made more narrow to accommodate a bike lane they often reference the Green Book, but neglect the flexibility it allows for.

LiveableStreets works to draw attention to that flexibility factor. The current generation of engineers are still following the idea that streets need to be designed to achieve maximum throughput, with multi-lane highways often considered the pinnacle. In urban arenas this does not make sense. The next generation of engineers may have a more modern view but it will take a while for their designs to become commonplace. Political pressure and general public knowledge can help to advance this progress.

Bikes aren’t the only things that lose out to the current models of street design. Pedestrians and anyone with a permanent or temporary handicap are often considered only in the later design revisions. Engineers understand that at any one time a certain percentage of the population will have their mobility hindered and may require more time for crossing, ramps, adequate sidewalk conditions for wheels, and usually as short of a distance between entering and exiting the road as possible. That doesn’t mean design works all of this in all the time.

Highlighting the lapse in thinking with pedestrians in mind was a series of photos of the Longfellow Bridge. On one end there are no crosswalks to get someone walking from one area to the sidewalk that spans the bridge. The sidewalk itself is less than the normal width, and is peppered with obstructions. One argument states there aren’t enough pedestrians using the bridge to warrant improving the sidewalks. This is a backwards argument – if it was a better medium there would be more usage. Realistically the issue here is the same issue with any redevelopment: money.

Along with more flexible engineering there was also an example of a more radical approach which plays much more with social engineering aspects: naked streets (in large part due to late Hans Monderman. The idea here being that you should treat motorists like adults, they’ll know how to react with people walking all around them even with no signs regulating them to be courteous and yield. Intersections with no signs, which makes motorists behave differently. The result: rational decisions are made by all street users.

There was more in the talk and the discussion that followed. Time was up and I was left wanting more so I hope there will be other presentations in the future. The more we know about the limitations, the more we can maneuver within them.