Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PapaJack2008 t1_iumw9hf wrote

This includes bike questions/comments/rants? Right?

57

kjeovridnarn OP t1_iumwyzb wrote

Of course, all bike discussion is welcome as long as it’s civil. The only thing is I don’t want the sub to get overrun with jokes about the bike ban from the get go.

40

HaddockBranzini-II t1_iunh40k wrote

By "civil" you mean 110% in agreement with cyclists I assume.

−42

CKF t1_iunqpdd wrote

I assume by “civil” they mean people with a better and less instantly pessimistic attitude than you’re displaying. There’s no reason you couldn’t ask “will both sides be able to represent themselves in equal favor, if polite.”

20

noob_tube03 t1_iupqce8 wrote

Right, that's what we've all come to expect from r/Cambridge 😂

1

crazicus t1_iun9aic wrote

Joined! We needed a forum where we can actually discuss the relevant topics of the city without worrying that a single person in power can stifle the conversations they don’t like.

29

t1s2r3d4 t1_iunor1d wrote

I also joined. I lived in Cambridge for 30 years. Moved outside of the city a year ago, but still work here. I am disgusted by the behavior of the Moderator.

12

HaddockBranzini-II t1_iunh7yg wrote

Like cycling, bikes, and how drivers are basically Hitler?

−37

crazicus t1_iunhh9a wrote

Like cycling and bikes and how drivers can be inattentive because there’s always a lot going on while driving, so we need dedicated separate infrastructure for people on bikes to keep them safer and to reduce distractions for drivers.

17

HaddockBranzini-II t1_iunhp5r wrote

Like bikes going down a one way street the wrong way while texting with both hands? That's not inattentive though, because it's a cyclist...

−26

crazicus t1_iunhzgi wrote

That is inattentive, but I’m not sure what that has to do with bike infrastructure. Safe infrastructure shouldn’t be used as a pawn to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior, safe infrastructure should be a given so that all of our neighbors can travel safely.

20

HaddockBranzini-II t1_iunixv2 wrote

What's the point of infrastructure if the cyclist is still in the street and not the bike lane? Going the wrong way no less. And let's not get started on the ones that still need to ride on the sidewalks of the Mass Ave bridge. My problem as a pedestrian is 90% bikes. I swear cyclists are getting more cult-like by the day.

But let the circle jerk of up/down votes to continue. You're all saving the planet through your harnessing of smugness as a future energy reserve.

−14

crazicus t1_iunjlnw wrote

I’m downvoting you not because I disagree but because I think you’re here in bad faith. There are people that are unfamiliar with the bike infrastructure, or that are just inconsiderate, but they’re not the majority. The bike lanes are used, and quite a bit, it’s just not as memorable to see people doing what they’re supposed to do.

When I see someone in a car doing something inconsiderate or dumb, I don’t want to take cars away from everyone, I just want to change the infrastructure to minimize the impact of inconsiderate or distracted drivers.

As a pedestrian, I also don’t like when people on bikes fly through without stopping for me. But I don’t think that denying safe bike infrastructure is an appropriate response to that. Mostly I would think it would make it worse.

18

noob_tube03 t1_iupqxib wrote

Blue bikes are a bane to any cyclist with half a brain. Any step forward in bikers safety or rights is set back 10 by them. I've seen a handful of cars drive the wrong way down the one way I live on, but you see cyclists and scooters do it daily. Acting like "we need infrastructure" is super bad faith. Most cycling infrastructure panders to the lowest common denominator. Raise the bar required for riders and I think we can get better infrastructure and more safety

0

crazicus t1_iuprhts wrote

No, I actually think the “lowest common denominator” deserves to travel safely too. Blue bikes are an incredibly useful tool, even for those who own their own bikes. I don’t see how blue bikes set us backwards whatsoever, the number one way to get more support for better infrastructure and rights is getting more people riding bikes.

3

Master_Dogs t1_iunngx8 wrote

> What's the point of infrastructure if the cyclist is still in the street and not the bike lane? Going the wrong way no less.

Because bikes are legally allowed to use the street, bike paths, bike lanes and the sidewalk (^(outside of business districts and if the local City has no further restrictions)). This gives flexibility depending on the rider's ability. Slower speed riders can use the sidewalk and bike paths. Average speed riders can use bike lanes. Faster riders can use the street, which is good for those with ebikes capable of 20+ mph.

> And let's not get started on the ones that still need to ride on the sidewalks of the Mass Ave bridge. My problem as a pedestrian is 90% bikes. I swear cyclists are getting more cult-like by the day. > >

This wouldn't be such an issue if MassDOT and DCR actually built proper cycling infrastructure on the Boston side of the river. The Cambridge side has access to the bike lanes on both sides of the roadway, but on the Boston side it's only accessible from the sidewalk. It's like complaining about traffic down a side street when the City hasn't fixed key intersections (looking at you Medford Sq area) - what do you expect will happen? People will take the easiest path possible.

> But let the circle jerk of up/down votes to continue. You're all saving the planet through your harnessing of smugness as a future energy reserve.

HELL YEAH. 🤡 It's a renewable energy too punk. 🤪

17

pattyorland t1_iunk48p wrote

For the next cyclist who does use the bike lane.

Also, bike lanes are part of the street, there should not be a wrong way for cycling, and riding on the sidewalk is a personal choice.

I'm sorry you experience cycling behavior that you find dangerous. But that does not excuse your collective blame and other logical fallacies.

8

thumbsquare t1_iup31dv wrote

There are drivers who text, there are drunk drivers. There are drivers who drive the wrong way down one way streets. There are drivers who use their cars to intentionally kill people. And yet at no point would you argue that cars make people a hazard to society, you would simply say that’s a bad driver, or like OP is saying, we need better infrastructure to idiot proof our streets.

The difference is that bad drivers get to wreak havoc from the safety of a metal cocoon. Bad cyclists win Darwin awards.

6

defenestron t1_iunhs5x wrote

I’ll be switching over and slowly reducing my participation here except to encourage others to do the same.

As a community member and city worker, it’s pretty outrageous to see a Moderator who barely does their job show up only to abuse their power arbitrarily while ignoring the immense Moderation backlog.

This is the worst kind of Mod. One that actively does not do their job, arbitrarily changes the rules based on a whim or personal issues, and only shows up to ban and mute for dubious reasons when called out for it or even given constructive criticism.

22

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuojvm1 wrote

I seem to have missed the underlying conflict here. It sounds dramatic and bicycle -related on the basis of the comments here and posts over there....?

12

darkshaddow42 t1_iuoozbk wrote

I was also out of the loop, looks like it started here: https://old.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/yiossn/notice_were_taking_a_break_from_bike_related_posts/

And continued with a pinned post a few hours ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/yje899/open_request_for_ideas_on_cambridgema_can_be_made/

12

SheeEttin t1_iupr33p wrote

Yeesh. Not just one bad day, but also zero self-reflection or actual responses.

5

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuot9v3 wrote

I kind of agree with the mod. There's a high intensity bicycle argument on reddit that is really angry. These are obviously important things to figure out locally, but I don't understand how a sleepy topic like bike lanes turned into a culture war. It's intense.

0

Lentamentalisk t1_iutggvo wrote

Careful spelling out the "b word" on this sub. It can get you banned.

I'd argue there isn't really a high intensity bcycle argument. There is a high intensity anti-bcycle argument. The conversation generally goes something like this:

  • Hi, I would like to get to work/school/grocery without getting smooshed plz
  • Ha ha lolz I fantasize about running over spandex clad [insert your slur of choice]
  • Can we not do the whole murder thing?
  • Aaaarg why are b*cyclists so mean to me! Help help, I'm being oppressed!

As to how it became a culture war, I'm not really sure. Most people riding their b*kes are just having a good time. I think to people like our beloved moderator, seeing that is an afront to their way of life. They're absolutely miserable in their cars, and angry that some people aren't. But who knows. I ride the forbidden mode of transit, so my opinion doesn't matter here 🙄

2

EnjoyTheNonsense t1_iuulz8s wrote

Please tell us more about the nature of discussions in this sub. Oh wait, you live in San Francisco and only have been commenting here since you found out about the mod’s post.

Edit: of course they blocked me for calling them out for brigading and not being from Cambridge.

1

Lentamentalisk t1_iuuur0u wrote

Correct, I moved for work recently. Good sleuthing. Cambridge was one of my all time favorite places to live. I miss that shitty walkup with 6' ceilings.

1

EnjoyTheNonsense t1_iuyfq98 wrote

You mean you moved recently from Charleston? Not from Cambridge. I am not sure why you do not understand that your post history is available to others. I also notice you posted a thread with the aim of starting a brigade and as such people with recent histories in places as far away as Adelaide posted in the sub.

I find it amazingly hard to believe that you are so passionate about bike lanes and bicycle safety, but passively read posts in this sub where the car people were the toxic ones, and sat silently without comment. Yet here you are claiming to have knowledge of how bicycle discourse in this sub was going.

I am calling bullshit.

0

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuv3m4x wrote

It sounds like both you and the mod are having real life conflicts with people that you want to moan about passive aggressively on the internet. And both are shocked to find that there are people who respond negatively/counterproductively to that. As for your description of the people with whom you have conflicts, online or offline, I guess it sounds a lot like you want this to be a culture war since you believe you know exactly what's in the minds of others. You're really bringing this ugliness on yourself, in that respect, which puts you in a pretty bad spot to then complain about it.

1

ExpressiveLemur t1_iuvkduq wrote

It's because people who ride bikes are tired of getting injured and killed and watching silently as others are injured and killed by people driving cars all while being told they don't deserve safer infrastructure and that they are entitled whiners when the meager infrastructure they have is occupied by parked vehicles.

Most people who bike are asking for safety. That's it. The refusal to back down is being falsely painted as a culture war by people who'd prefer the status quo where people on bikes should not expect safety.

2

Hyperbowleeeeeeeeeee t1_iuvlwtl wrote

Expectation of safety is an interesting point. There are definitely generational differences here. When I was growing up, there was really an expectation that I was responsible for my own safety on a bike, but it was still a pretty clearly dangerous way to get around town. It was just down to situational awareness, helmets, and deference pretty much. We had no bike lanes, which are now really well built out over the last 10 years. So that seems to be improving a lot. It is still not a very safe activity fundamentally. There are no safety features on a bicycle whatsoever, so I guess I personally have some expectation when I get on the bike that there's some risk that's a bit higher than, for example, taking the T.

1

ExpressiveLemur t1_iv4y6vq wrote

There are so many people driving and so many who don't drive safely even for other drivers, much less for people not in cars, that statistically it's impossible to avoid not running into a dangerous situation in the places where cars interact with people running, walking, or wheeling.

We can try traffic calming and reducing city speed limits, but people driving will still speed (making collisions with cars and people more dangerous), run stop signs and lights and not yield or even look for pedestrians (making street crossing dangerous).

Since it seems impossible to change the minds and habits of every person driving, it seems more effective to reduce the number of interactions between people in cars and everyone else doing anything else. We have sidewalks for pedestrians (though they still get hurt and killed even in marked street crossings). We have "bike" lanes for people wheel (bikes, electric scooters, motorized wheelchairs, etc) though because of the way many are built and protected there's often still a lot of interaction between people driving and people wheeling.

1

ClarkFable t1_iuowpjx wrote

It’s a small population of entitled jackasses that don’t understand why a car free Cambridge is not practical, but until the entire city is transformed to suit their interests, they’ll keep whining about it aggressively. A number of them don’t even live in Cambridge. Just look at some of the commenters here, accounts that are days old with no other comments. It’s probably a couple dudes with multiple sock puppets.

−20

doppler_effects t1_iuon4os wrote

As a fellow Cambridge resident, joined. Thank you!

5

book81able t1_iuohf92 wrote

As someone who has lived in Cambridge and Somerville in the past 6 months, seems like the place to be

2

ClarkFable t1_iuox3vl wrote

You will be missed. Okay not really.

−3

[deleted] t1_iun2nw5 wrote

[deleted]

−32

defenestron t1_iun57vv wrote

The present moderator here isn’t waiting. They’ve banned and muted numerous users for questioning them. The Mod invited members to PM them with questions or concerns regarding their decisions and it seems anyone who questioned or criticized them was either banned or muted — even for doing so in private at their invitation.

How’s it an echo chamber when /r/camberville has yet to ban anyone? This is a bad take and honestly, the Mod here is the one who needs to take a break.

26