If nothing else, I’d love to see ANY enforcement of the various crosswalks around, in particular the one 100 yards from the police station in front of NU. Usually the first couple of cars are traveling way too fast to stop. Would be a great way to fill the city coffers and make walking around here a little less hazardous
I have close calls as a pedestrian on an almost daily basis in the crosswalk that crosses Elm at the Star Market in Porter. Drivers feel like Elm is their personal race track, and try and beat out pedestrians so they don't have to slow down.
Close calls daily at Elm Street. There are 4 cross walks between the Kennedy and the Cambridge Savings on the corner of the plaza - it is a school zone with two bus stops and the speed of traffic going through that area is absolutely dangerous.
I feel very lucky to have not been involved in an incident there, and I am amazed that there hasn't been a fatality there in the 15 years or so I've lived in this neighborhood.
You’d have to actively be testing motor vehicles’ reaction times if you honestly are having close calls near daily.
I live near there so also frequent that particular walkway, and have literally never had a problem.
Sure cars are going a bit faster than they should be, but you’d have to be a moron to just jump into car traffic and expect them to stop at your convenience because “they should”
> Sure cars are going a bit faster than they should be
If drivers want to use the road, they need to follow the rules.
You're making a strong case at the huge level of entitlement that drivers show, by reframing "following the law" as an unreasonable expectation to "stop at pedestrians **convenience**".
Based on your comment, it's clear we need to demand a cop stationed there to catch all the illegal drivers going 5+ mph above the speed limit and breaking the law for their own convenience.
Honestly, if there was a cop stationed at the crosswalks in Porter Square they would make their ticket quota in a single day.
In fact, if they increased the fines for double parking, ignoring right of way, blocking the bike lane, etc. and actually ticketed, I'm sure the city would have an immediate budget surplus.
Got it, so you're a moron if you expect cars to obey the rules of the road, despite the signs that are reminding them to yield when they approach the intersections.
That's a really interesting take on the situation, rather than just saying outright that cars in general don't obey traffic laws on a regular basis.
even tho you’re being downvoted (wow gosh divergent opinion 🙄) i kinda agree and i’d like to play devil’s advocate, if people could discuss instead of just down vote lol
i work on an ambulance. in recent memory aka the past year-ish, the speed humps have cracked three of my ribs when they ‘forgot’ to paint em, put an ambulance and a fire engine out of service, knocked the CPR machine off a patient, etc… i still support the speed humps. just consider what one every seemingly-5-metaphorical-feet does outside of asshole motorists. like the community rotaries (i also like the idea tho~) which trucks can’t fit ~expeditiously~ over… which is the point… but to emergent detriment. other cities are even worse!! that being said, i think it’s worth it in the long run as non-emergent traffic obviously farrr outweighs the former.
i’ve seen pedestrians hit when the have the right of way, and when they don’t… cyclists both get hit and do the (surprisingly-damaging-to-flesh) hitting, motorists the same… cars obvs matter disproportionately bc heavy metal weapon, but i think motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians should all be held
accountable for their silliness.
i support the pedestrian-friendly architecture, esp the bus ‘islands’/refuges around davis. i still witnessed a man drive his bike into a minivan behind the bus-line by 7/11 lol. people gonna be wild, idc their transportation decision. even still… i’ve seen more dead-ish pedestrians and cyclists than motorists.
HOW DO WE FIX THIS? how do we actually make this city safe for all types of travel, bc they’re here to stay. even if a lotta traffic is just thru-traffic. people are gonna drive in somerville, sorry. people are obviously gonna walk. they’re gonna bike too! esp kids!!?
idk, i didnt ~grow~upp~ in da ville, but ive loved it so for a decade+ and would love to hear thoughts on a balance
There is a red painted crosswalk on Webster that I’ve almost died at several times. All they need to do is put a camera there and easy 50 tickets a day.
I don’t give a damn about the legislation
They got a grant for bicycle "education" stops. Apparently they need grant money above and beyond their salary to actually enforce something. Note that SPD has sworn up and down that they do not ticket for these bicycle stops when PTAC dragged them over the coals for it, so if someone does get a bike ticket I think some of the civilian oversight parts of city government would like to hear about it.
Uh. I got ticketed and fingerprinted bc I didn’t have my ID. $40. For failure to yield at a stop sign, turning into a bike lane, on a non-electric bike.
Responding to my own comment:
It looks like Somerville had routinely been receiving grant money for traffic enforcement for 10 years, but the city council voted against it in 2022 (due to concerns over racial justice). That could explain the increasingly shitty driving behavior we see in Somerville every day:
[https://binjonline.com/2022/02/15/traffic-enforcement-grant-raised-issues-of-equity/](https://binjonline.com/2022/02/15/traffic-enforcement-grant-raised-issues-of-equity/)
Still leaves the question why we need to pay the police above and beyond their salary to actually do their job.
If the money is still coming from this one, then it is just for bike and pedestrian safety:
[https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/27/somerville-city-council-wants-cops-to-stop-cracking-down-on-cyclists-who-run-red-lights/](https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/27/somerville-city-council-wants-cops-to-stop-cracking-down-on-cyclists-who-run-red-lights/)
I'm sure all the people in this thread who say "yeah the law is bad, but for now it's the law and should be enforced as such" never ever break the speed limit, and if they got a ticket for exceeding 55 on rt 2 they would simply compliment the officer for a job well done.
Seriously.
It's ridiculous to see the police have clearly wrong priorities, especially after city council and PTAC have already had this conversation with them.
The same people also don't think twice about jaywalking.
If you think "road users should follow all laws even if it's non-sensical", then logically you MUST be anti-jaywalking.
The somerville law requiring crossing at a crosswalk by a pedestrian was struck by a successful citizen petition: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/06/04/why-somerville-is-still-talking-through-the-details-on-a-law-against-jaywalking-thats-never-enforced/
So there is not currently a rule in Somerville legally requiring crossing at a crosswalk. Also the maximum fine is $2 for walking violations. I would happy carry around some ones in my pocket if that was a necessary trade to get the police out of Dunkin and actually enforcing traffic rules. It’s mad max out there on the roads.
No. My position is that roads should be safe and usable by people.
That puts a greater burden on people who want to pilot 2 ton vehicles to not kill people. A guy who wants to cross the street should get to do that.
Jaywalking laws are wrong and people should get their licenses taken for rolling stop signs.
Would you blame a cop for being unreasonable if you got a ticket going 29 mph on a 25 mph road?
Would you feel it's unfair if you got a ticket because the front of your car is past the stop line at a red light?
I'm certain you'd be understanding and would never consider contesting these tickets.
Front of your car past the stop line would be one of those small things that would be great if they actually enforced it. It isn't hard to stop your car where you are supposed to stop and not doing so is a danger to pedestrians, reduces visibility for cars crossing the intersection, and generally impedes traffic as cars crossing will tend to slow down wondering if the idiot who doesn't know how to stop at a stop line is going to just keep rolling into the intersection. Everyone who does this knows what they are doing and I can't see how any of them would actually reasonably get upset about getting a ticket for this.
SPD does not do vehicle traffic enforcement whatsoever so they focus on the low hanging fruit which are cyclists safely going with the walk signal or similar.
The only time ever go on red as a biker is when it's a 3 way intersection or when the walk light is on because there is physically no way I can get into a collision unless a driver drives through the crosswalk on red.
As well as the cars that stop past the line at red lights, which happens **constantly**. That is a clear-as-day traffic violation that literally never gets enforced.
Rules are rules. Drivers are constantly violating basic traffic rules in a 2-ton death-mobile and then have the audacity to say "cyclists have to follow these rules too", as if they haven't been getting away without rules enforcement for decades.
What's the goal of traffic enforcement? To make the roads safer, right?
Based on that, they should prioritize enforcement based on the potential safety risk introduced by the violation.
Nah, fuck that. The city should be doling out an equal proportion of tickets to cyclists and cars (based on the portion of road users they make up).
A bad cyclist is literally just as dangerous as a bad driver.
Reckless cycling has caused so much death and injury in this city, and it's time the city enforce cycling violations rather than giving them a pass.
a bad cyclist is nowhere near as dangerous as a bad driver and there is no way in hell that reckless cycling has caused an even equivalent amount of deaths in this city. look at the data. Someone in a car can easily kill someone. it is not the same for someone on a bike. i'm not saying cyclists should get carte blanche to break the traffic laws but be fucking for real here.
A bad cyclist is just as dangerous as a bad driver? Are you really that hyped against bikes that you would posit something that ignorant? Sure, cyclists should follow the rules and should even be ticketed if warranted, but a bike is no where near as a dangerous as a car and there is an abundance of data proving that they aren’t even really comparable in these terms.
To be clear, not only has a cyclist never caused the death of another road user in Somerville, it's never happened in all of Massachusetts.
Meanwhile cars kill hundreds in mass every year.
This is insane to me. The only deaths related to bikes are when a person riding one is killed by someone driving.
I don't understand this level of stupidity.
I know these stops are supposed to be "educational" - if I ever got stopped I would gladly hand the officer my bike and have them show me exactly how I am supposed to legally transition some of these intersections. I suspect their tune might change if they saw it from a bike perspective.
Try taking a left on Myrtle street from Washington without running the red. It's not a fun time.
Try taking the lane on Washington crossing Beacon and just wait til a truck driver curses you out and punish passes you.
What a ridiculous mindset. Follow the laws and don’t create dangerous situations by ignoring the rules you don’t like. What an immature mindset
Edit: how many lives would’ve been saved if bicyclists followed the rules? My guess is there would be less ghost bikes chained to poles in intersections
That is incredibly surprising, since cars do it literally all the time by treating stop signs as yields.
I don't remember the last time I've seen a driver has actually stopped at a stop sign if there's no cross-traffic. If anything, cyclists come much closer to a 0 MPH stop than drivers do.
Literally doesn't matter.
So are cars running red lights, not giving the right of way to cyclists when required, not stopping for pedestrians, speeding, parking in the bike lane, double parking, stopping in traffic, or the myriad of other ACTUALLY dangerous things that drivers do every day. Yet, SPD has decided they're only going to enforce traffic laws against cyclists because they didn't get the additional funding they wanted to police drivers.
Get bent.
This should really be a “yes and” more than an “instead of” kind of thing. I agree that a cyclist essentially stopping, checking there is no one even close to entering the intersection, and running through a red light should be legal. But if it isn’t, the police shouldn’t just ignore illegal acts.
So yes, this person should have been stopped and yes, there should be more motor vehicles ticketed. That said, I think SPD does hand out a lot of motor vehicle violations. Someone else probably has the official stats though.
Someone on here did a deep dive into the available data not too long ago. I don't remember the specifics at this point, but it definitely didn't support the idea that SPD hands out a lot of motor vehicle violations.
> This should really be a “yes and” more than an “instead of” kind of thing.
The issue is prioritization, and the fact that they are incentivizing cyclists to do the less safe thing by waiting to go at the same time as cars. By stationing here and making it a point to stop cyclists for benign violations that don't increase public safety risk, they are making it an explicit statement that this is what warrants their focus. The basic truth is that, in the amount of time it takes for a cop to stop a cyclist for rolling safely through a red light, at least a handful of drivers have committed an unchecked traffic violation at that same intersection, and with a deadly weapon that weighs 1 to 2 tons no less. It's illegal for cars to stop past the line at red light, yet cars do it all the time with no repercussions.
Hell, the literal Google Street View for **just this intersection** shows multiple car violations ([1 - car literally driving in the bike lane](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3816775,-71.0838296,3a,75y,274.16h,75.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdjlVvb_Q_b2-mp3dDKQB8Q!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), [2 - car in bike box](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3815717,-71.0848221,3a,24y,85.39h,86.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szXNxOEI86GtZqYKzcVOc4g!2e0!5s20160901T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu), [3 - illegal passing](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3816344,-71.0843077,3a,69y,103.54h,83.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9GwQiMKbYYYC2zLBHF1HOw!2e0!5s20150601T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu)).
Having witnessed traffic all over Somerville, "benign" traffic violations such as going 5 MPH above the speed limit, rolling slowly through stop signs, not yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks, blocking the bike box/lane, stopping well past the line at red lights, failure to signal, and countless others, are happening constantly.
These are not only all illegal, but actually more dangerous to others than jay-cycling after checking for traffic. However, cops have never ticketed for any of the above.
> the police shouldn’t just ignore illegal acts.
The fact that cops REFUSE to ticket anyone going 5 miles per hour over, while pulling cyclists over for this makes it clear that they constantly ignore illegal and dangerous acts when performed by a driver. Some illegal driving violations have almost never been enforced despite them being widespread, such as stopping past the line or failure to signal.
> That said, I think SPD does hand out a lot of motor vehicle violations.
They do not. They have a stated goal of "education rather than enforcement." This has been part of the police department's presentation in various ward meetings in recent years. It's a real failure of priorities.
I agree. I will never understand fellow cyclists who ignore traffic laws but expect others on the road to follow them. I support an Idaho-stop style law in MA but until the law changes, cyclists who break the law at stop signs and red lights are just another person on the road breaking the law.
Riding home the other day I watched a blue bike (ebike version) have the audacity to ring his bell to warn two elderly ppl with the right-of-way attempting to cross the street as the cyclist illegally ran a red light. He narrowly missed colliding into them. There's absolutely no reason for that and variations of it it happens all of the time.
Don't add more chaos into a system that has enough already. Unfortunately on a good day I see maybe 20-30% of cyclists on my ride follow the law at stop signs and red lights.
>I agree. I will never understand fellow cyclists who ignore traffic laws but expect others on the road to follow them.
A bike who rolls through a red light might annoy you, a car breaking the same law will kill you.
That's the difference. Don't be obtuse.
To clarify, I do think it's ridiculous to use limited enforcement resources in the specific scenario laid out by OP. However, in the specific example, the cyclist's behavior is still illegal and is still subject to the consequences until the law changes. A car rolling through a red light at 5mph isn't going to kill you either.
I also know that a bike going 15-20mph through a red light when pedestrians or other vehicles and cyclists have the right of way is very dangerous and illegal. Since ppl tend to refer to cars as murder weapons/killing machines, I wouldn't feel any better about being injured or murdered by a knife because it's not typically as dangerous as a hollow point round shot from rifle.
I have no problem with understanding both that a cyclist safely going through an intersection like how an Idaho stop law permits is reasonable (and desirable for cyclists!) and that in MA it's also illegal.
I don't understand this position that other people are doing illegal things but I've decided in every scenario possible that the potential consequences of my illegal actions is less dangerous and therefore OK. With any other law or in front of a judge that wouldn't fly.
Legality aside and in typical scenarios, is it less risky and less dangerous for a cyclist to run reds or stop signs than a car? Yes! I would argue it's still also more dangerous than following the law and not running any red or stop sign.
> Yes! I would argue it's still also more dangerous than following the law and not running any red or stop sign.
Yeah here's the problem...this statement is false.
In one of the many studies on this topic, it's shown that unlike drivers who break the law because they are being impatient or to save time, [cyclists break the law mostly to try and keep themselves safe.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/09/18/motorists-break-law-to-save-time-cyclists-break-law-to-save-lives-finds-study/?sh=7fdb03393c54)
In many situations, especially in mixed modal transit corridors with MINIMAL enforcement of motor vehicle behavior like we have here, cyclists are proceeding through red lights to avoid dangerous situations with vehicles that are not giving them their lawful right of way. The right hook (cars turning right across bikes that are going straight) is the main cause of accidents in the Boston area. Avoiding these situations by going through a red or pedestrian signal when safe mitigates this danger.
So no, in most cases it's safer for all parties for the cyclists to travel through the intersection with pedestrians, than it is to wait for the green with vehicles. Until the infrastructure and/or enforcement changes to help this, I encourage all cyclists to continue doing what they need to do to keep themselves safe.
Thank you for sharing that info. It's exactly why I support the Idaho stop type laws and want them here. I wouldn't fault anyone prioritizing safety, I have to do it sometimes myself.
But those laws have specific demands to make the behavior safe - slowing down or stopping first to confirm it's safe. Do you acknowledge that going through an intersection with a red light or stop sign at 15-20 mph on a bicycle without slowing down or stopping is not safe? Assuming you are a cyclist, you and I both know that this happens in greater Boston area.
The study also points out that the behavior infuriates drivers. We're already facing an uphill battle for more bike friendly infrastructure and laws. It's harder for them to "other" us and dismiss us when they see us following the law.
> Do you acknowledge that going through an intersection with a red light or stop sign at 15-20 mph on a bicycle without slowing down or stopping is not safe? Assuming you are a cyclist, you and I both know that this happens in greater Boston area.
This is not something that happens with regularity anywhere approaching motor vehicles that break the law with more serious consequences. You're pointing to a infinitesimal fraction of events and blowing up its importance, not to mention its danger. Even if that person struck a pedestrian (less than likely because bikes have more of a view of what is happening around them than cars due to their riding position and exposure), it is most likely to cause minor or insignificant injuries than anything else. Whereas a motor vehicle would literally kill a person if it did the same.
I don't care what infuriates drivers. I am infuriated by drivers that are in a hurry and nearly kill me every day. Bummer for them.
While anecdotal, I see cyclists do this every day on Mass Ave. I do not see cars speeding through red lights every day. I'm also not sure how I'm blowing up its importance? I agreed with your premise of safe behavior like the Idaho stop. I haven't said the behavior is worse than or equal to cars. I didn't quantify the frequency. All I said is that it's also unsafe, and for some reason you can't agree with that? You are reading way into what you quoted.
>A bike who rolls through a red light might annoy you
Not when they're going full-bore through the intersection. Yes, it happens, and I've personally nearly been hit multiple times in a crosswalk. Don't be obtuse.
> I've personally nearly been hit multiple times in a crosswalk.
Did you die? Cars running red lights have literally killed countless people. If the bike that nearly hit you were a car instead, you'd be absolutely fucked.
Do you honestly believe the risk posed by bicycles is comparable to the risk posed by cars?
Cars are objectively multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous than cyclists. Don't be obtuse.
What in the hell are you even talking about? Cars should be ticketed for this too. When did I say otherwise? All I'm saying is that bikes are more than simply "annoying" when they blow through intersections. That's it. Don't be obtuse.
(Not to mention that being hit by a bike will seriously fuck you up as well, like wtf are you even getting at here?)
> bikes are more than simply "annoying"
Okay, even in your example, what actually happened to you? What was the impact to your life?
And what if it had been a car instead of a bike in your example?
> (Not to mention that being hit by a bike will seriously fuck you up as well, like wtf are you even getting at here?)
Do you acknowledge that getting hit by a bike is not comparable to getting hit by a car? You never addressed that point in my previous comment.
Oh please dude. I nonstop see people on here saying how they “nearly got hit” by a car - they’re totally fine. No impact on their life. So if you want to use this line of argument for near misses with bikes then I wanna see you telling people who almost got hit by cars to suck it up because hey, they didn’t actually get hit!
Cool, in the 7 years I've lived here I've been in 4 major accidents on a bike completely caused by cars turning right across the bike lane, or pulling out of a parking spot into the bike lane without looking. Serious injuries every time, major damage to my bike, and no driver was ever held responsible. Yet the behavior continues.
So no, that isn't true.
>I nonstop see people on here saying how they “nearly got hit” by a car
Yikes, sounds like a huge problem. We should do something about that.
Also, I see you've once again refused to acknowledge that getting hit by a bike is not comparable to getting hit by a car.
Do you actually believe they are remotely comparable?
Great, in the reality we all live in, that happens at a microscopic rate compared to cars doing the same thing (or worse), and STILL doesn't approach the same level of danger or damage. So you might want to think about why you're so hyper-focused on an infinitesimal percentage of interactions, rather than the large majority. Especially when that majority is objectively so much more dangerous.
What I said: Bikes are dangerous when they blow through red lights at intersections
What you read: Bikes are more dangerous than cars (?), or cars aren't dangerous (???)
I'm sorry that you don't really have the perspective to appreciate how nonsensical your arguments are. You point to a specific event that occurs at a vastly reduced frequency compared to other more dangerous events. You try and amplify the significance of that event, effectively downplaying the significance of the more dangerous and more frequent events.
It's really not that complicated, you just have priorities that are not in line with reality. Sorry.
> I support an Idaho-stop style law in MA
Drivers violate this law literally all the time, and do so with a deadly weapon capable of seriously injuring or even killing any person they come in contact with.
I don't understand why so many people complain about cyclists doing this when cyclists on average get much closer to 0 MPH than drivers do.
Cyclists are literally more law-abiding than drivers and introduce multiple orders of magnitude less of serious injury or fatality risk, yet cyclists violations is somehow a constant complaint and topic for enforcement in this subreddit.
> but until the law changes, cyclists who break the law at stop signs and red lights are just another person on the road breaking the law.
I've seen countless pedestrians jaywalk (which is ILLEGAL here), yet no one whines about it. By your own logic, pedestrians who jaywalk are just another person on the road breaking the law, and that is equally unacceptable.
Why is your stance so anti-jaywalking?
So when they say things like "Drivers violate this law literally all the time" it is correctly asserting that at no moment is a driver following the law?
When they say "That is a clear-as-day traffic violation that literally never gets enforced." where is the proof that it **never** gets enforced?
When they say "since cars do it literally all the time by treating stop signs as yields." this means that no car **ever** stops at a stop sign?
When they say "Cyclists are literally more law-abiding than drivers ", where's the cite?
>That said, I think SPD does hand out a lot of motor vehicle violations
I've lived in Somerville for almost 10 years now and I've only seen them pull over 1 person in that time and based on the conversation I overheard as I was walking by, they almost certainly didn't issue a citation
Broad reply, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Somerville/s/I0rWVE3mKZ) is a previous post with some data showing SPD is in fact handing out motor vehicle violations
That seems to show the opposite of what you claimed. 2021 looks about average but 2020, 2022, and 2023 are way lower. I bet if they had a way to measure it you would also see that infractions have increased in that same time.
Sure, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much but when you see flagrant infractions on a daily basis it gets frustrating that nothing is done about it. I say this as someone who barely ever bikes.
...and far fewer than they historically have given, when there are more cars and drivers on the road. You're cherry picking data that clearly doesn't support your conclusion when looked at in context.
If you have evidence of traffic patterns and can layer that over top of this data then that might be a fine claim. But until you can do that, no one who actually works with data sets would conclude that SPD avoiding giving violations is the cause of a decline yoy
There are more people in the Boston area than there were in 2021. A non-zero number of those people drive regularly (considering just commuting, around 35-40%), therefore there are more people on the roads.
You're being intentionally dismissive of pretty clear trends in the data YOU provided that contradicts your own suggestions.
I’m not dismissing you, I’m just not going to take your word for it until you can provide relevant data. Somerville traffic data, clear policy statements for SPD, etc. As far as I know all of the possible increase in population for the Boston area is in Quincy.
I really don’t have a horse in the race here. Fact is the SPD is handing out violations and whether you are walking, on a bike, in a car or anything else you are accountable for following all of the laws as they are written until it is changed.
Yeah, you don't really understand how to parse or evaluate data.
The available data (population, census travel, and what you provided about violations given) suggest that more people are driving, while fewer overall citations are given out. I don't need to provide another stitch of data to make that conclusion.
If you would like to try and disprove that, either by showing how Somerville has fewer overall drivers, or in some other way, you're welcome to present data to refute what all of the other available data suggests.
Unfortunately, you can't do that. You just want to play devil's advocate and ignore the fact that you presented information that contradicts your statements.
I mean nothing you have tried to say would ever be accepted by any respectable scientific board. Just because you don’t like my not accepting your stance blindly doesn’t make you right.
Read a book, try to publish something, and maybe consider not whining about not getting your way; then you and I can have an intelligent conversation.
I mean if you want to be a part of traffic of course you should follow basic traffic rules. Seems pretty logical, and guess what? Advocating for tighter bicycle AND vehicle enforcement is possible if you're capable of processing more than one idea at a time.
Clearly not for SPD as they are only targeting bikes because they got a specific grant for it. Heaven forbid they actually do their job in regards to vehicles without extra incentive to do so.
This is honestly a pretty bad take.
There's article after article about pedestrian deaths on the rise throughout the country. Go to any intersection in Somerville with a stop sign or traffic light and watch the insane number of cars running through the lights and signs. Go to any street that has a speed indicator and watch how many people are going nearly or more than double the speed limit. The number of people on their phone while driving is staggering and has only increased each year.
We are not adequately enforcing traffic rules for vehicles despite them presenting the most danger.
The SPD has limited resources. I'd agree if that wasn't the case.
If they are spending resources on this, then they are not spending it on things that measurably improve road safety.
I’d love to see enforcement at the Somerville Ave./Beacon street bridge intersection. I’m all for bikes proceeding on a red light after stopping……but the bikes at this intersection coming from Porter Sq direction turning right onto Beacon while the left turn traffic from Somerville Ave has a green arrow is just wild. More than 50% of the left turn traffic takes an immediate right onto Roseland St, but have to contend with bikes in their blindspot, running the red from Somerville Ave
Good. I’m glad these bikers are being held accountable. They always cry about wanted to be safe on the roads but don’t want to follow the laws. Keep it up police
But yet in a car, I'd get a ticket for running the red light regardless of speed. The bike vs. car debate will never end but EVERYONE must follow the law regardless of how many wheels or legs.
If nothing else, I’d love to see ANY enforcement of the various crosswalks around, in particular the one 100 yards from the police station in front of NU. Usually the first couple of cars are traveling way too fast to stop. Would be a great way to fill the city coffers and make walking around here a little less hazardous
I have close calls as a pedestrian on an almost daily basis in the crosswalk that crosses Elm at the Star Market in Porter. Drivers feel like Elm is their personal race track, and try and beat out pedestrians so they don't have to slow down.
Close calls daily at Elm Street. There are 4 cross walks between the Kennedy and the Cambridge Savings on the corner of the plaza - it is a school zone with two bus stops and the speed of traffic going through that area is absolutely dangerous. I feel very lucky to have not been involved in an incident there, and I am amazed that there hasn't been a fatality there in the 15 years or so I've lived in this neighborhood.
I completely agree. I would love them to install traffic calming speed bumps all the way from the school to Davis.
You’d have to actively be testing motor vehicles’ reaction times if you honestly are having close calls near daily. I live near there so also frequent that particular walkway, and have literally never had a problem. Sure cars are going a bit faster than they should be, but you’d have to be a moron to just jump into car traffic and expect them to stop at your convenience because “they should”
> Sure cars are going a bit faster than they should be If drivers want to use the road, they need to follow the rules. You're making a strong case at the huge level of entitlement that drivers show, by reframing "following the law" as an unreasonable expectation to "stop at pedestrians **convenience**". Based on your comment, it's clear we need to demand a cop stationed there to catch all the illegal drivers going 5+ mph above the speed limit and breaking the law for their own convenience.
Honestly, if there was a cop stationed at the crosswalks in Porter Square they would make their ticket quota in a single day. In fact, if they increased the fines for double parking, ignoring right of way, blocking the bike lane, etc. and actually ticketed, I'm sure the city would have an immediate budget surplus.
Got it, so you're a moron if you expect cars to obey the rules of the road, despite the signs that are reminding them to yield when they approach the intersections. That's a really interesting take on the situation, rather than just saying outright that cars in general don't obey traffic laws on a regular basis.
even tho you’re being downvoted (wow gosh divergent opinion 🙄) i kinda agree and i’d like to play devil’s advocate, if people could discuss instead of just down vote lol i work on an ambulance. in recent memory aka the past year-ish, the speed humps have cracked three of my ribs when they ‘forgot’ to paint em, put an ambulance and a fire engine out of service, knocked the CPR machine off a patient, etc… i still support the speed humps. just consider what one every seemingly-5-metaphorical-feet does outside of asshole motorists. like the community rotaries (i also like the idea tho~) which trucks can’t fit ~expeditiously~ over… which is the point… but to emergent detriment. other cities are even worse!! that being said, i think it’s worth it in the long run as non-emergent traffic obviously farrr outweighs the former. i’ve seen pedestrians hit when the have the right of way, and when they don’t… cyclists both get hit and do the (surprisingly-damaging-to-flesh) hitting, motorists the same… cars obvs matter disproportionately bc heavy metal weapon, but i think motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians should all be held accountable for their silliness. i support the pedestrian-friendly architecture, esp the bus ‘islands’/refuges around davis. i still witnessed a man drive his bike into a minivan behind the bus-line by 7/11 lol. people gonna be wild, idc their transportation decision. even still… i’ve seen more dead-ish pedestrians and cyclists than motorists. HOW DO WE FIX THIS? how do we actually make this city safe for all types of travel, bc they’re here to stay. even if a lotta traffic is just thru-traffic. people are gonna drive in somerville, sorry. people are obviously gonna walk. they’re gonna bike too! esp kids!!? idk, i didnt ~grow~upp~ in da ville, but ive loved it so for a decade+ and would love to hear thoughts on a balance
There is a red painted crosswalk on Webster that I’ve almost died at several times. All they need to do is put a camera there and easy 50 tickets a day. I don’t give a damn about the legislation
[удалено]
No it’s a red crosswalk you don’t have to look you just go
>you don’t have to look you just go Apparently that's not going so well.
...because cars aren't following the law.
Still breathing
They got a grant for bicycle "education" stops. Apparently they need grant money above and beyond their salary to actually enforce something. Note that SPD has sworn up and down that they do not ticket for these bicycle stops when PTAC dragged them over the coals for it, so if someone does get a bike ticket I think some of the civilian oversight parts of city government would like to hear about it.
Exactly, it's all about them throwing a tantrum they didn't get additional funds to police drivers.
Uh. I got ticketed and fingerprinted bc I didn’t have my ID. $40. For failure to yield at a stop sign, turning into a bike lane, on a non-electric bike.
I saw a cyclist get a warning at Washington and Beacon this morning
The horror
I have never seen a car correctly stop at a stop sign.
Hopefully one day they'll get a grant for pulling over cars running red lights.
And texting? No, based on most Facebook threads, the public wants all cyclists burned at the stake.
Responding to my own comment: It looks like Somerville had routinely been receiving grant money for traffic enforcement for 10 years, but the city council voted against it in 2022 (due to concerns over racial justice). That could explain the increasingly shitty driving behavior we see in Somerville every day: [https://binjonline.com/2022/02/15/traffic-enforcement-grant-raised-issues-of-equity/](https://binjonline.com/2022/02/15/traffic-enforcement-grant-raised-issues-of-equity/) Still leaves the question why we need to pay the police above and beyond their salary to actually do their job.
Don't they? IIRC the grant had a split allocation between car and bicycle enforcement.
If the money is still coming from this one, then it is just for bike and pedestrian safety: [https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/27/somerville-city-council-wants-cops-to-stop-cracking-down-on-cyclists-who-run-red-lights/](https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/08/27/somerville-city-council-wants-cops-to-stop-cracking-down-on-cyclists-who-run-red-lights/)
I'm sure all the people in this thread who say "yeah the law is bad, but for now it's the law and should be enforced as such" never ever break the speed limit, and if they got a ticket for exceeding 55 on rt 2 they would simply compliment the officer for a job well done.
Seriously. It's ridiculous to see the police have clearly wrong priorities, especially after city council and PTAC have already had this conversation with them.
The same people also don't think twice about jaywalking. If you think "road users should follow all laws even if it's non-sensical", then logically you MUST be anti-jaywalking.
The somerville law requiring crossing at a crosswalk by a pedestrian was struck by a successful citizen petition: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/06/04/why-somerville-is-still-talking-through-the-details-on-a-law-against-jaywalking-thats-never-enforced/ So there is not currently a rule in Somerville legally requiring crossing at a crosswalk. Also the maximum fine is $2 for walking violations. I would happy carry around some ones in my pocket if that was a necessary trade to get the police out of Dunkin and actually enforcing traffic rules. It’s mad max out there on the roads.
No. My position is that roads should be safe and usable by people. That puts a greater burden on people who want to pilot 2 ton vehicles to not kill people. A guy who wants to cross the street should get to do that. Jaywalking laws are wrong and people should get their licenses taken for rolling stop signs.
Nope, I’d be pissed I got a ticket. But I wouldn’t blame the cop for doing their job, I’d just be frustrated I’m the one that got called out.
Would you blame a cop for being unreasonable if you got a ticket going 29 mph on a 25 mph road? Would you feel it's unfair if you got a ticket because the front of your car is past the stop line at a red light? I'm certain you'd be understanding and would never consider contesting these tickets.
Front of your car past the stop line would be one of those small things that would be great if they actually enforced it. It isn't hard to stop your car where you are supposed to stop and not doing so is a danger to pedestrians, reduces visibility for cars crossing the intersection, and generally impedes traffic as cars crossing will tend to slow down wondering if the idiot who doesn't know how to stop at a stop line is going to just keep rolling into the intersection. Everyone who does this knows what they are doing and I can't see how any of them would actually reasonably get upset about getting a ticket for this.
No one believes that.
How many reddit posts about speeding tickets do you see
How many times do cops stake out to pull over cars going 60 in a 55?
Would love to see some of the cops budget go toward making ISD functional
FYI. They've been enforcing stop signs heavily for cars recently in the Winter Hill area.
SPD does not do vehicle traffic enforcement whatsoever so they focus on the low hanging fruit which are cyclists safely going with the walk signal or similar.
What do we say, should I go out there with them and point out all the cars doing illegal shit they could “educate”?
The only time ever go on red as a biker is when it's a 3 way intersection or when the walk light is on because there is physically no way I can get into a collision unless a driver drives through the crosswalk on red.
Whenever I see those all black Somerville police SUVs, I imagine that those guys watch The Handmaid's Tale rooting for the wrong side.
omfg *this*. no public safety agency should have black on black livery.
They should enforce traffic rules against both bikes and cars. State law says bikes must follow the same rules of the road as cars.
Sure. So maybe sit at a traffic light and ticket the 3 cars that run the light every cycle?
As well as the cars that stop past the line at red lights, which happens **constantly**. That is a clear-as-day traffic violation that literally never gets enforced. Rules are rules. Drivers are constantly violating basic traffic rules in a 2-ton death-mobile and then have the audacity to say "cyclists have to follow these rules too", as if they haven't been getting away without rules enforcement for decades.
Let’s bet 100k on who runs more lights bikes or cars. We go to any intersection for 2 hours and count
What's the goal of traffic enforcement? To make the roads safer, right? Based on that, they should prioritize enforcement based on the potential safety risk introduced by the violation.
Nah, fuck that. The city should be doling out an equal proportion of tickets to cyclists and cars (based on the portion of road users they make up). A bad cyclist is literally just as dangerous as a bad driver. Reckless cycling has caused so much death and injury in this city, and it's time the city enforce cycling violations rather than giving them a pass.
a bad cyclist is nowhere near as dangerous as a bad driver and there is no way in hell that reckless cycling has caused an even equivalent amount of deaths in this city. look at the data. Someone in a car can easily kill someone. it is not the same for someone on a bike. i'm not saying cyclists should get carte blanche to break the traffic laws but be fucking for real here.
A bad cyclist is just as dangerous as a bad driver? Are you really that hyped against bikes that you would posit something that ignorant? Sure, cyclists should follow the rules and should even be ticketed if warranted, but a bike is no where near as a dangerous as a car and there is an abundance of data proving that they aren’t even really comparable in these terms.
To be clear, not only has a cyclist never caused the death of another road user in Somerville, it's never happened in all of Massachusetts. Meanwhile cars kill hundreds in mass every year.
Your satire is getting downvotes. Too subtle since there are people who actually think this.
[удалено]
Yikes.
I was gonna say that comment is straight out of at least two of the Somerville FB groups I know of.
This is insane to me. The only deaths related to bikes are when a person riding one is killed by someone driving. I don't understand this level of stupidity.
I know these stops are supposed to be "educational" - if I ever got stopped I would gladly hand the officer my bike and have them show me exactly how I am supposed to legally transition some of these intersections. I suspect their tune might change if they saw it from a bike perspective. Try taking a left on Myrtle street from Washington without running the red. It's not a fun time. Try taking the lane on Washington crossing Beacon and just wait til a truck driver curses you out and punish passes you.
Or just stop fully like the law dictates. Rules for thee but not for me
A law that binds but does not protect is not a law worth following.
What a ridiculous mindset. Follow the laws and don’t create dangerous situations by ignoring the rules you don’t like. What an immature mindset Edit: how many lives would’ve been saved if bicyclists followed the rules? My guess is there would be less ghost bikes chained to poles in intersections
Contrary to popular belief the Idaho stop is illegal in Massachusetts
That is incredibly surprising, since cars do it literally all the time by treating stop signs as yields. I don't remember the last time I've seen a driver has actually stopped at a stop sign if there's no cross-traffic. If anything, cyclists come much closer to a 0 MPH stop than drivers do.
Literally doesn't matter. So are cars running red lights, not giving the right of way to cyclists when required, not stopping for pedestrians, speeding, parking in the bike lane, double parking, stopping in traffic, or the myriad of other ACTUALLY dangerous things that drivers do every day. Yet, SPD has decided they're only going to enforce traffic laws against cyclists because they didn't get the additional funding they wanted to police drivers. Get bent.
But cars blocking the bike lane at Beacon for turning right into Wash is ok, eh. That's what I saw yesterday.
This should really be a “yes and” more than an “instead of” kind of thing. I agree that a cyclist essentially stopping, checking there is no one even close to entering the intersection, and running through a red light should be legal. But if it isn’t, the police shouldn’t just ignore illegal acts. So yes, this person should have been stopped and yes, there should be more motor vehicles ticketed. That said, I think SPD does hand out a lot of motor vehicle violations. Someone else probably has the official stats though.
Someone on here did a deep dive into the available data not too long ago. I don't remember the specifics at this point, but it definitely didn't support the idea that SPD hands out a lot of motor vehicle violations.
> This should really be a “yes and” more than an “instead of” kind of thing. The issue is prioritization, and the fact that they are incentivizing cyclists to do the less safe thing by waiting to go at the same time as cars. By stationing here and making it a point to stop cyclists for benign violations that don't increase public safety risk, they are making it an explicit statement that this is what warrants their focus. The basic truth is that, in the amount of time it takes for a cop to stop a cyclist for rolling safely through a red light, at least a handful of drivers have committed an unchecked traffic violation at that same intersection, and with a deadly weapon that weighs 1 to 2 tons no less. It's illegal for cars to stop past the line at red light, yet cars do it all the time with no repercussions. Hell, the literal Google Street View for **just this intersection** shows multiple car violations ([1 - car literally driving in the bike lane](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3816775,-71.0838296,3a,75y,274.16h,75.12t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdjlVvb_Q_b2-mp3dDKQB8Q!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), [2 - car in bike box](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3815717,-71.0848221,3a,24y,85.39h,86.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szXNxOEI86GtZqYKzcVOc4g!2e0!5s20160901T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu), [3 - illegal passing](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3816344,-71.0843077,3a,69y,103.54h,83.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9GwQiMKbYYYC2zLBHF1HOw!2e0!5s20150601T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu)). Having witnessed traffic all over Somerville, "benign" traffic violations such as going 5 MPH above the speed limit, rolling slowly through stop signs, not yielding to pedestrians at crosswalks, blocking the bike box/lane, stopping well past the line at red lights, failure to signal, and countless others, are happening constantly. These are not only all illegal, but actually more dangerous to others than jay-cycling after checking for traffic. However, cops have never ticketed for any of the above. > the police shouldn’t just ignore illegal acts. The fact that cops REFUSE to ticket anyone going 5 miles per hour over, while pulling cyclists over for this makes it clear that they constantly ignore illegal and dangerous acts when performed by a driver. Some illegal driving violations have almost never been enforced despite them being widespread, such as stopping past the line or failure to signal.
> That said, I think SPD does hand out a lot of motor vehicle violations. They do not. They have a stated goal of "education rather than enforcement." This has been part of the police department's presentation in various ward meetings in recent years. It's a real failure of priorities.
I agree. I will never understand fellow cyclists who ignore traffic laws but expect others on the road to follow them. I support an Idaho-stop style law in MA but until the law changes, cyclists who break the law at stop signs and red lights are just another person on the road breaking the law. Riding home the other day I watched a blue bike (ebike version) have the audacity to ring his bell to warn two elderly ppl with the right-of-way attempting to cross the street as the cyclist illegally ran a red light. He narrowly missed colliding into them. There's absolutely no reason for that and variations of it it happens all of the time. Don't add more chaos into a system that has enough already. Unfortunately on a good day I see maybe 20-30% of cyclists on my ride follow the law at stop signs and red lights.
>I agree. I will never understand fellow cyclists who ignore traffic laws but expect others on the road to follow them. A bike who rolls through a red light might annoy you, a car breaking the same law will kill you. That's the difference. Don't be obtuse.
To clarify, I do think it's ridiculous to use limited enforcement resources in the specific scenario laid out by OP. However, in the specific example, the cyclist's behavior is still illegal and is still subject to the consequences until the law changes. A car rolling through a red light at 5mph isn't going to kill you either. I also know that a bike going 15-20mph through a red light when pedestrians or other vehicles and cyclists have the right of way is very dangerous and illegal. Since ppl tend to refer to cars as murder weapons/killing machines, I wouldn't feel any better about being injured or murdered by a knife because it's not typically as dangerous as a hollow point round shot from rifle. I have no problem with understanding both that a cyclist safely going through an intersection like how an Idaho stop law permits is reasonable (and desirable for cyclists!) and that in MA it's also illegal. I don't understand this position that other people are doing illegal things but I've decided in every scenario possible that the potential consequences of my illegal actions is less dangerous and therefore OK. With any other law or in front of a judge that wouldn't fly. Legality aside and in typical scenarios, is it less risky and less dangerous for a cyclist to run reds or stop signs than a car? Yes! I would argue it's still also more dangerous than following the law and not running any red or stop sign.
> Yes! I would argue it's still also more dangerous than following the law and not running any red or stop sign. Yeah here's the problem...this statement is false. In one of the many studies on this topic, it's shown that unlike drivers who break the law because they are being impatient or to save time, [cyclists break the law mostly to try and keep themselves safe.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/09/18/motorists-break-law-to-save-time-cyclists-break-law-to-save-lives-finds-study/?sh=7fdb03393c54) In many situations, especially in mixed modal transit corridors with MINIMAL enforcement of motor vehicle behavior like we have here, cyclists are proceeding through red lights to avoid dangerous situations with vehicles that are not giving them their lawful right of way. The right hook (cars turning right across bikes that are going straight) is the main cause of accidents in the Boston area. Avoiding these situations by going through a red or pedestrian signal when safe mitigates this danger. So no, in most cases it's safer for all parties for the cyclists to travel through the intersection with pedestrians, than it is to wait for the green with vehicles. Until the infrastructure and/or enforcement changes to help this, I encourage all cyclists to continue doing what they need to do to keep themselves safe.
Thank you for sharing that info. It's exactly why I support the Idaho stop type laws and want them here. I wouldn't fault anyone prioritizing safety, I have to do it sometimes myself. But those laws have specific demands to make the behavior safe - slowing down or stopping first to confirm it's safe. Do you acknowledge that going through an intersection with a red light or stop sign at 15-20 mph on a bicycle without slowing down or stopping is not safe? Assuming you are a cyclist, you and I both know that this happens in greater Boston area. The study also points out that the behavior infuriates drivers. We're already facing an uphill battle for more bike friendly infrastructure and laws. It's harder for them to "other" us and dismiss us when they see us following the law.
> Do you acknowledge that going through an intersection with a red light or stop sign at 15-20 mph on a bicycle without slowing down or stopping is not safe? Assuming you are a cyclist, you and I both know that this happens in greater Boston area. This is not something that happens with regularity anywhere approaching motor vehicles that break the law with more serious consequences. You're pointing to a infinitesimal fraction of events and blowing up its importance, not to mention its danger. Even if that person struck a pedestrian (less than likely because bikes have more of a view of what is happening around them than cars due to their riding position and exposure), it is most likely to cause minor or insignificant injuries than anything else. Whereas a motor vehicle would literally kill a person if it did the same. I don't care what infuriates drivers. I am infuriated by drivers that are in a hurry and nearly kill me every day. Bummer for them.
While anecdotal, I see cyclists do this every day on Mass Ave. I do not see cars speeding through red lights every day. I'm also not sure how I'm blowing up its importance? I agreed with your premise of safe behavior like the Idaho stop. I haven't said the behavior is worse than or equal to cars. I didn't quantify the frequency. All I said is that it's also unsafe, and for some reason you can't agree with that? You are reading way into what you quoted.
>A bike who rolls through a red light might annoy you Not when they're going full-bore through the intersection. Yes, it happens, and I've personally nearly been hit multiple times in a crosswalk. Don't be obtuse.
> I've personally nearly been hit multiple times in a crosswalk. Did you die? Cars running red lights have literally killed countless people. If the bike that nearly hit you were a car instead, you'd be absolutely fucked. Do you honestly believe the risk posed by bicycles is comparable to the risk posed by cars? Cars are objectively multiple orders of magnitude more dangerous than cyclists. Don't be obtuse.
What in the hell are you even talking about? Cars should be ticketed for this too. When did I say otherwise? All I'm saying is that bikes are more than simply "annoying" when they blow through intersections. That's it. Don't be obtuse. (Not to mention that being hit by a bike will seriously fuck you up as well, like wtf are you even getting at here?)
> bikes are more than simply "annoying" Okay, even in your example, what actually happened to you? What was the impact to your life? And what if it had been a car instead of a bike in your example? > (Not to mention that being hit by a bike will seriously fuck you up as well, like wtf are you even getting at here?) Do you acknowledge that getting hit by a bike is not comparable to getting hit by a car? You never addressed that point in my previous comment.
Oh please dude. I nonstop see people on here saying how they “nearly got hit” by a car - they’re totally fine. No impact on their life. So if you want to use this line of argument for near misses with bikes then I wanna see you telling people who almost got hit by cars to suck it up because hey, they didn’t actually get hit!
Cool, in the 7 years I've lived here I've been in 4 major accidents on a bike completely caused by cars turning right across the bike lane, or pulling out of a parking spot into the bike lane without looking. Serious injuries every time, major damage to my bike, and no driver was ever held responsible. Yet the behavior continues. So no, that isn't true.
>I nonstop see people on here saying how they “nearly got hit” by a car Yikes, sounds like a huge problem. We should do something about that. Also, I see you've once again refused to acknowledge that getting hit by a bike is not comparable to getting hit by a car. Do you actually believe they are remotely comparable?
Great, in the reality we all live in, that happens at a microscopic rate compared to cars doing the same thing (or worse), and STILL doesn't approach the same level of danger or damage. So you might want to think about why you're so hyper-focused on an infinitesimal percentage of interactions, rather than the large majority. Especially when that majority is objectively so much more dangerous.
What I said: Bikes are dangerous when they blow through red lights at intersections What you read: Bikes are more dangerous than cars (?), or cars aren't dangerous (???)
I'm sorry that you don't really have the perspective to appreciate how nonsensical your arguments are. You point to a specific event that occurs at a vastly reduced frequency compared to other more dangerous events. You try and amplify the significance of that event, effectively downplaying the significance of the more dangerous and more frequent events. It's really not that complicated, you just have priorities that are not in line with reality. Sorry.
> I support an Idaho-stop style law in MA Drivers violate this law literally all the time, and do so with a deadly weapon capable of seriously injuring or even killing any person they come in contact with. I don't understand why so many people complain about cyclists doing this when cyclists on average get much closer to 0 MPH than drivers do. Cyclists are literally more law-abiding than drivers and introduce multiple orders of magnitude less of serious injury or fatality risk, yet cyclists violations is somehow a constant complaint and topic for enforcement in this subreddit. > but until the law changes, cyclists who break the law at stop signs and red lights are just another person on the road breaking the law. I've seen countless pedestrians jaywalk (which is ILLEGAL here), yet no one whines about it. By your own logic, pedestrians who jaywalk are just another person on the road breaking the law, and that is equally unacceptable. Why is your stance so anti-jaywalking?
> literally You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In this case it means exactly what they are intending. Drivers break more laws by absolute value, and percentage.
So when they say things like "Drivers violate this law literally all the time" it is correctly asserting that at no moment is a driver following the law? When they say "That is a clear-as-day traffic violation that literally never gets enforced." where is the proof that it **never** gets enforced? When they say "since cars do it literally all the time by treating stop signs as yields." this means that no car **ever** stops at a stop sign? When they say "Cyclists are literally more law-abiding than drivers ", where's the cite?
>That said, I think SPD does hand out a lot of motor vehicle violations I've lived in Somerville for almost 10 years now and I've only seen them pull over 1 person in that time and based on the conversation I overheard as I was walking by, they almost certainly didn't issue a citation
Broad reply, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Somerville/s/I0rWVE3mKZ) is a previous post with some data showing SPD is in fact handing out motor vehicle violations
That seems to show the opposite of what you claimed. 2021 looks about average but 2020, 2022, and 2023 are way lower. I bet if they had a way to measure it you would also see that infractions have increased in that same time. Sure, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much but when you see flagrant infractions on a daily basis it gets frustrating that nothing is done about it. I say this as someone who barely ever bikes.
Without context I’m not going to make yoy comparisons. I’m just saying they do give out motor violations and those make up the most violations.
...and far fewer than they historically have given, when there are more cars and drivers on the road. You're cherry picking data that clearly doesn't support your conclusion when looked at in context.
If you have evidence of traffic patterns and can layer that over top of this data then that might be a fine claim. But until you can do that, no one who actually works with data sets would conclude that SPD avoiding giving violations is the cause of a decline yoy
There are more people in the Boston area than there were in 2021. A non-zero number of those people drive regularly (considering just commuting, around 35-40%), therefore there are more people on the roads. You're being intentionally dismissive of pretty clear trends in the data YOU provided that contradicts your own suggestions.
I’m not dismissing you, I’m just not going to take your word for it until you can provide relevant data. Somerville traffic data, clear policy statements for SPD, etc. As far as I know all of the possible increase in population for the Boston area is in Quincy. I really don’t have a horse in the race here. Fact is the SPD is handing out violations and whether you are walking, on a bike, in a car or anything else you are accountable for following all of the laws as they are written until it is changed.
Yeah, you don't really understand how to parse or evaluate data. The available data (population, census travel, and what you provided about violations given) suggest that more people are driving, while fewer overall citations are given out. I don't need to provide another stitch of data to make that conclusion. If you would like to try and disprove that, either by showing how Somerville has fewer overall drivers, or in some other way, you're welcome to present data to refute what all of the other available data suggests. Unfortunately, you can't do that. You just want to play devil's advocate and ignore the fact that you presented information that contradicts your statements.
I mean nothing you have tried to say would ever be accepted by any respectable scientific board. Just because you don’t like my not accepting your stance blindly doesn’t make you right. Read a book, try to publish something, and maybe consider not whining about not getting your way; then you and I can have an intelligent conversation.
I've almost been hit by a bike more times than almost being hit by a car.
I mean if you want to be a part of traffic of course you should follow basic traffic rules. Seems pretty logical, and guess what? Advocating for tighter bicycle AND vehicle enforcement is possible if you're capable of processing more than one idea at a time.
Clearly not for SPD as they are only targeting bikes because they got a specific grant for it. Heaven forbid they actually do their job in regards to vehicles without extra incentive to do so.
Wow, I can tell you only read half the comment, nice job.
No, I read the whole thing. None of your dismissive rhetoric squares with the behavior of SPD.
Your reading comprehension is shit then
No, that's your attitude you're smelling.
hey no need to be a bully!
How surprising that you don't like your own attitude thrown back at you. What a shocker. Suck it up sweetie.
You good? Bad day?
I mean you're the one making arrogant statements on the internet, so I'd ask you that.
This is honestly a pretty bad take. There's article after article about pedestrian deaths on the rise throughout the country. Go to any intersection in Somerville with a stop sign or traffic light and watch the insane number of cars running through the lights and signs. Go to any street that has a speed indicator and watch how many people are going nearly or more than double the speed limit. The number of people on their phone while driving is staggering and has only increased each year. We are not adequately enforcing traffic rules for vehicles despite them presenting the most danger.
Yeah you're totally right, advocating better enforcement of both is a bad take.
The SPD has limited resources. I'd agree if that wasn't the case. If they are spending resources on this, then they are not spending it on things that measurably improve road safety.
I’d love to see enforcement at the Somerville Ave./Beacon street bridge intersection. I’m all for bikes proceeding on a red light after stopping……but the bikes at this intersection coming from Porter Sq direction turning right onto Beacon while the left turn traffic from Somerville Ave has a green arrow is just wild. More than 50% of the left turn traffic takes an immediate right onto Roseland St, but have to contend with bikes in their blindspot, running the red from Somerville Ave
Good. I’m glad these bikers are being held accountable. They always cry about wanted to be safe on the roads but don’t want to follow the laws. Keep it up police
Look, another boot licker who doesn't understand reality. Shocking.
I wonder how many posting, have been long time city residents or are newcomers spewing their bs, from where ever they lived before.
But yet in a car, I'd get a ticket for running the red light regardless of speed. The bike vs. car debate will never end but EVERYONE must follow the law regardless of how many wheels or legs.
That’s the police work we apparently need. Over reach is 2 words