Advocacy & Safety - Cambridge cops crack down on blithe red-light-runners

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/09/26/cyclists_pedal_into_arms_of_the_law/?page=1


CAMBRIDGE - He looked as carefree as can be, pedaling on his silver 18-speed mountain bike, wearing designer jeans and a black sport coat, a butterscotch leather handbag in his bicycle rack.

He had no idea that two Cambridge police officers were watching him from the side of the road with pads of tickets in their hands, waiting for him to break the law.

When the cyclist cruised through a red light, Officer Susan Kale stepped into the street, thrust out a hand, and waved him to a stop. Looking stunned, the man apologized and said he was new to town. Kale nodded and handed him a ticket - just a warning this time, though she could have slapped him with a $20 fine.

"Now you understand the rules of the road," she said firmly.

Many cyclists assume that they are exempt from the laws governing their motor-driven colleagues and have no cause to fear the officers who enforce them. The rules of the road, they say, are merely courtesies to be observed, or suggestions to keep them safe. Not so in Cambridge, where cyclists are increasingly being cited for any of dozens of violations, from running red lights or failing to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks to riding at night without a headlight.



I think this is an overreaction -- I wonder how many police resources are being spent when overall Cambridge is very safe for cyclists.

My neighbor's, whose grandson was stabbed and killed in Cambridge over a leather-jacket while walking home, will be thrilled to know the police in Cambridge are devoting their time to clamping-down on bicycle-scofflaws terrorizing the streets and intersections. What next? Speed-Bumps on Memorial Drive?

My neighbor's, whose grandson was stabbed and killed in Cambridge over a leather-jacket while walking home, will be thrilled to know the police in Cambridge are devoting their time to clamping-down on bicycle-scofflaws terrorizing the streets and intersections. What next? Speed-Bumps on Memorial Drive?

While I sympathize with your neighbor's situation, traffic enforcement has it's place, along with a million other things that are far less serious than homicide. And Cambridge is actually a pretty safe place overall.

My neighbor's, whose grandson was stabbed and killed in Cambridge over a leather-jacket while walking home, will be thrilled to know the police in Cambridge are devoting their time to clamping-down on bicycle-scofflaws terrorizing the streets and intersections. What next? Speed-Bumps on Memorial Drive?

That's nuts. I used to walk to and from Shaws at night throughout undergrad; never had any trouble. It really depens on where you are in the city, though. Close to campus is different from those sketchy places without lights.

It was between Kendall and Central Square off Mass. Ave. He was walking home from Berkeley (Sp?) College of Music. He was 18. They got the idiots who did it. He gave 'em his jacket. They killed him anyways. Left his guitar.

My neighbor's, whose grandson was stabbed and killed in Cambridge over a leather-jacket while walking home, will be thrilled to know the police in Cambridge are devoting their time to clamping-down on bicycle-scofflaws terrorizing the streets and intersections. What next? Speed-Bumps on Memorial Drive?

Irrelevant.

Plus, are you trying to imply that it is unusual in ANY WAY for cities to have traffic enforcement as well as criminal enforcement? Your comment just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I am fine with this as long as they are are targeting cyclists that are actually doing illegal maneuvers that could endanger someone. Otherwise it is a waste of resources.

"Cyclists can be fined $20 for violating state traffic laws or a series of local codes, such as riding on sidewalks in neighborhoods at speeds "greater than a normal walk." "

I really like this law. I like it so much that it should be extended to the roads. A law where motorist are not allowed to travel at speeds "greater than a normal bicycle rider".

Geese, now along with everything else, we have to be on the lookout for cops.

Geese, now along with everything else, we have to be on the lookout for cops.

If we want bicycling to be taken seriously as a mode of transportation, rather than a recreational/atheletic activity, then it behooves us to cycle in a responsible and lawful manner. If we will not do so voluntarily, because it is our duty as citizens to obey the law, then we must be compelled to do so.

Riding against traffic, running red lights and stopsigns, riding on sidewalks, turning and changing lanes without properly signalling, are not only illegal, they are also dangerous, not only to ourselves, but to others. Not so long ago here a boy ran a stopsign; a motorist swerved to avoid him, skidded, and hit a tree. He was killed and his passenger so severely injured that he will be crippled for life. The only reason the cyclist wasn't charged criminally was that he was ten years old--too young to be held responsible. (I'd charge his parents for neglect in allowing him out unsupervised if he was inacapable of knowing and following the rules, but it wasn't my decision.)

. . . I really like this law. I like it so much that it should be extended to the roads. A law where motorist are not allowed to travel at speeds "greater than a normal bicycle rider".

Me too, for neighborhood streets. Something like 15 MPH with enforcement starting at about 20 MPH would suit me just fine.

Ten MPH for motorized vehicles and 30 MPH for human-propelled-vehicles would likely be too much to ask, though it sure would be fun.

riding on sidewalks.

The legality of this varies by jurisdiction. Might not want to compare it to something universally illegal like running a red.

20$ !!! I imagine it costs more to process the ticket than the 20$ fine costs. The city is probably loosing $ on the effort. and If I got a 20$ ticket.. It wouldn't stop me from doing again,, right down the road.

20$ !!! I imagine it costs more to process the ticket than the 20$ fine costs. The city is probably loosing $ on the effort. and If I got a 20$ ticket.. It wouldn't stop me from doing again,, right down the road.

What are you, 15?

What are you, 15?

Not sure what you are saying. But I can ask your mom,, she's under my desk! Booya! :roflmao2:

OK I see your point. But don't let me catch you jaywalking.

But seriously.. 20$??

Not sure what you are saying. But I can ask your mom,, she's under my desk! Booya! :roflmao2:

OK I see your point. But don't let me catch you jaywalking.

But seriously.. 20$??

Sigh, it's about this "LOL REBEL" attitude, you're a vehicle, you shall act like one.

If we want bicycling to be taken seriously as a mode of transportation, rather than a recreational/atheletic activity, then it behooves us to cycle in a responsible and lawful manner. If we will not do so voluntarily, because it is our duty as citizens to obey the law, then we must be compelled to do so.

OK...you first! Take your car out on the freeway and drive exactly the speed limit (or less) from now on - regardless of circumstances. Start counting the number of motorists who pass you compared to the how many you pass. At the end of the year, tally up the results and figure the percentage of scofflaw motorists to law abiding ones. Lets guess. Maybe 5 percent are driving the speed limit or less as directed by law.

When 95 percent of motorists are respecting the law and driving in a responsible, attentive manner - then I'll take my turn.

What otherwise perfect world do you live in? I would like to move there.

OK...you first! Take your car out on the freeway and drive exactly the speed limit (or less) from now on - regardless of circumstances. Start counting the number of motorists who pass you compared to the how many you pass. At the end of the year, tally up the results and figure the percentage of scofflaw motorists to law abiding ones. Lets guess. Maybe 5 percent are driving the speed limit or less as directed by law.

When 95 percent of motorists are respecting the law and driving in a responsible, attentive manner - then I'll take my turn.

What otherwise perfect world do you live in? I would like to move there.

Good point.. perhaps if drivers respected the law (in most states) that a bicyclist is allowed to occupy an entire lane, and if not that law the other popular one is they are required to give bikers at least 3 feet of space when they pass. Those are laws that are not respected by drivers.

But also this can't be a tit for tat type of thing. I think myself as an uber safe cyclist and do that by making the right decisions at the right time. And yes I do ride through stop signs and lights, if it is undeniably safe.

I've always believed that stop lights and stop signs should have the Idaho rules for bicycles. And I have to say that it will be nice when motorists start observing stop signs and stop lights, and respect my right of way. Not to mention the fact that killing a cyclist with a motor vehicle is not illegal in most states, no matter how negligent the driver is.

When roads are made to accommodate bikes and drivers respect cyclists in the road i will follow their rules. Until then i'll do whatever the hell i want while i'm on a bicycle.

WORD, after 25 years riding the cities, I've come to one conclusion, and that's to be in front.. it's the only place they will see you to ANY degree. If that means I jump a red to get in front so be it. Here for the most part it's two lanes at the light and then a bit beyond the far side of the intersection it's parking and one driving lane, so one has the inevitable drag race at every light for the open lane. I want no part of that so being in front makes it soooo much safer for me.

AS above posters have said, once the majority drive within the law, I may indeed change my ways. Lane straddling, no signals, no look lane changes, no signal right turns, dangerous passes, etc etc etc and a general I'm-bigger-so-git-outta-the-way attitude has led me to how I ride now, safely and oh-so-illegally. Grouper/Cleaner fish in a school of sharks.

When roads are made to accommodate bikes and drivers respect cyclists tin the road i will follow their rules. Until then i'll do whatever the hell i want while i'm on a bicycle.Posturing.

My money says when roads are made to accomodate bikes and drivers resp[ect cyclists in the road, you will continue to do whatever the hell you want while on a bicycle.

It's not the first time the city of Cambridge MA, has done this. It probably won't be the last. Now, are they going to go after jay-walking pedestrians with equal gusto? Seriously, Cambridge pedestrians are the worst for this. Bicycle, automobile, motorcycle, huge truck transporting chemical waste, they just don't care. They'll walk right in front of it, without looking.

OK...you first! Take your car out on the freeway

What car? I don't own a car.

OK...you first! Take your car out on the freeway and drive exactly the speed limit (or less) from now on - regardless of circumstances. Start counting the number of motorists who pass you compared to the how many you pass. At the end of the year, tally up the results and figure the percentage of scofflaw motorists to law abiding ones. Lets guess. Maybe 5 percent are driving the speed limit or less as directed by law.

When 95 percent of motorists are respecting the law and driving in a responsible, attentive manner - then I'll take my turn.

What otherwise perfect world do you live in? I would like to move there.

I think the idea is that bicyclists break more/different rules than drivers (even speed limits, especially on downhills). It doesn't really matter what cyclists think of the rules - it's what the drivers think of the cyclists breaking them. I can't say I stay stopped for every red light, but I also can't say that that behavior is justified to drivers by the fact that they might speed by 5mph on freeways.

Honestly the stupidest comments come from red-light jumpers who complain when a car rolls through a stop sign or something (not your post in particular, but i've seen this alot).

What car? I don't own a car.

If you have ever driven, or been a passenger in a motor vehicle on the freeway, then you get my point.

Honestly the stupidest comments come from red-light jumpers who complain when a car rolls through a stop sign or something (not your post in particular, but i've seen this alot).

I really don't care what anyone, in any kind of vehicle, does when the coast is clear.

But when a car actually stops at a stop sign, looks RIGHT AT ME, then proceeds as if I didn't exist, that tells me where I stand in the asphalt food chain. I dunno, but it happens every ding-dong day. I have video evidence.

I've heard cambridge cops have been cracking down for a while. Yesterday I ran a red light in cambridge right in front of several cop cars on at a t-junction on mass ave (after stopping and making sure all the cars turning had gone) and was almost expecting them to stop me but they didn't. Oh well.

I've heard cambridge cops have been cracking down for a while. Yesterday I ran a red light in cambridge right in front of several cop cars on at a t-junction on mass ave (after stopping and making sure all the cars turning had gone) and was almost expecting them to stop me but they didn't. Oh well.

I think there are just certain officers looking out for the scofflaw cyclists. I'm sure the rest of them couldn't care less.

I'm pretty sure no law enforcement officer really cares about enforcing traffic laws on cyclists. Big waste of resources.

I wonder how they profile which scofflaw cyclists they pull over. Do they only go for the commuter who looks like he's got a job, or do they go for the seedy looking fellow on a crappy bike who's all over the road. I figure the cops will target the guy who looks like he'll actually pay the ticket, or who has something to lose related to his drivers license if he fails to pay. So, the really dangerous bums riding bikes aren't being curtailed. No real benefit to the community, at least in my estimation.

There're a lot of ways the same resource could be more profitably deployed.

I don't have a problem with cops busting scofflaw cyclists, I just want to know how often they have run operations like this where they watch for cars not passing safely or right hooking cyclists.

Why does it seem they only run special enforcement operations to catch scofflaw cyclists, never to catch scofflaw motorists whose actions directly jeapordize cyclists safety.

I've heard cambridge cops have been cracking down for a while. Yesterday I ran a red light in cambridge right in front of several cop cars on at a t-junction on mass ave (after stopping and making sure all the cars turning had gone) and was almost expecting them to stop me but they didn't. Oh well.It was the bicyclist cops handing out tickets to bicyclist.

I wish the cops in my city would start ticketing scofflaw cyclists. The stupid things I see...

Holding bike riders and cyclist responsible for their behaviour on the roads would be better for cycling than every bike route, bike lane and bike boulevard ever made.

beerfilter

Holding bike riders and cyclist responsible for their behaviour on the roads would be better for cycling than every bike route, bike lane and bike boulevard ever made.

Holding lawmakers responsible for dumb laws made out of apathy + ignorance would be the best thing for cycling since the QR hub.

Give me laws that make sense. I might obey some of them.

The good news here was the small, but appropriate, size of the fine. In California bicyclists are routinely fined as much as equally errant motorists, despite the relative harm each is likely to do.

I'm pretty sure no law enforcement officer really cares about enforcing traffic laws on cyclists. Big waste of resources. <snip> There're a lot of ways the same resource could be more profitably deployed.

Criticism is easy. Please give a positive suggestion. Or, better yet, write to your mayor or city counsellor. Or, even better, run for city council yourself.

OK...you first! Take your car out on the freeway and drive exactly the speed limit (or less) from now on - regardless of circumstances. Start counting the number of motorists who pass you compared to the how many you pass. At the end of the year, tally up the results and figure the percentage of scofflaw motorists to law abiding ones. Lets guess. Maybe 5 percent are driving the speed limit or less as directed by law.

When 95 percent of motorists are respecting the law and driving in a responsible, attentive manner - then I'll take my turn.

What otherwise perfect world do you live in? I would like to move there.

Running a red light is more dangerous that driving slightly above the speed limit. The difference is fundamental because one is absolute and one is analogue.


I really don't care what anyone, in any kind of vehicle, does when the coast is clear.

But when a car actually stops at a stop sign, looks RIGHT AT ME, then proceeds as if I didn't exist, that tells me where I stand in the asphalt food chain. I dunno, but it happens every ding-dong day. I have video evidence.

That's because the car got to the all way intersection first and is supposed to have right of way over you. You clearly don't drive. If you're not going to follow the laws of the road, then you have no right to b*tch about how much danger you're in.

My neighbor's, whose grandson was stabbed and killed in Cambridge over a leather-jacket while walking home, will be thrilled to know the police in Cambridge are devoting their time to clamping-down on bicycle-scofflaws terrorizing the streets and intersections. What next? Speed-Bumps on Memorial Drive?

One of the best ways to lower the overall crime rate in an area is to vigorously enforce traffic laws. Felons do not only commit felonies, they tend to disregard all laws. I made far more felony arrests per days worked in my traffic enforcement days than now, patrolling neighborhoods and running calls.

That being said, a warning ticket is a WARNING ticket. The cyclist in the OP received a warning ticket. No fines, no points on the license. Where is the harm? Where is the oppression? The officer is able to provide stats that she was working, and not sitting in a donut shop all day.

One of the best ways to lower the overall crime rate in an area is to vigorously enforce traffic laws. Felons do not only commit felonies, they tend to disregard all laws. I made far more felony arrests per days worked in my traffic enforcement days than now, patrolling neighborhoods and running calls.


There's a pretty good critique of this theory (also known as the "broken windows" theory) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows#Critics_of_the_theory

Holding lawmakers responsible for dumb laws made out of apathy + ignorance would be the best thing for cycling since the QR hub.

We do. We can write to our legislators informing them of our opinions. We can circulate petitions. We can vote.


Give me laws that make sense. I might obey some of them.

It is the duty of a citizen to obey the law. If obedience is optional, then they are no longer laws, but guidelines or suggestions. Without the rule of law, we have either tyranny or anarchy. Look at Somalia if you want to see what happens when the rule of law breaks down. Without the rule of law, we then have the State of Nature, in which (as a clever old British gentleman reminds us) life is "nasty, poor, brutish, and short."

We do. We can write to our legislators informing them of our opinions. We can circulate petitions. We can vote.



It is the duty of a citizen to obey the law. If obedience is optional, then they are no longer laws, but guidelines or suggestions. Without the rule of law, we have either tyranny or anarchy. Look at Somalia if you want to see what happens when the rule of law breaks down. Without the rule of law, we then have the State of Nature, in which (as a clever old British gentleman reminds us) life is "nasty, poor, brutish, and short."

Well... we're quite a ways from being like Somalia. Breaking the occasional traffic law when they don't make sense != anarchy.

Slavishly following all laws even when they make no sense at all = not using the brain you were given.

This isn't an arbitrary crackdown. I read the article in the Boston Globe -- apparently there is some senior housing near the area where the ticketing is occurring. The old folks have been complaining about feeling threatened by cyclists riding on the sidewalk and running lights (when the light is red to allow pedestrians to cross, for example).

The intent of traffic laws is to keep everyone moving safely. We can debate whether they serve their intended purpose, however they are not optional. What feels safe to one person may put others at risk. I've narrowly avoided collisions with bicyclists who ran red lights when I had the green, or who were riding on the wrong side of the street.

I applaud Cambridge for enforcing the traffic law. Ticketing cyclists shows that Cambridge takes them seriously as vehicles.

Well... we're quite a ways from being like Somalia. Breaking the occasional traffic law when they don't make sense != anarchy.

Slavishly following all laws even when they make no sense at all = not using the brain you were given.

Have you ever heard of the saying, "The camel's nose under the tent."?

Or, as (IIRC Browning) puts it:

"It is the little rift within the lute
That, by and by, will make the music mute."

The intent of traffic laws is to keep everyone moving safely. We can debate whether they serve their intended purpose, however they are not optional. What feels safe to one person may put others at risk. I've narrowly avoided collisions with bicyclists who ran red lights when I had the green, or who were riding on the wrong side of the street.

Even as a cyclist, I've narrowly avoided collisions with cyclists riding against traffic and at night without lights; as a pedestrian, I've been nearly run down by cyclists on sidewalks.

A case I know of involved a boy running through a stop sign; a driver swerved to avoid him and wrapped his car around a tree. The driver was killed; the passenger will be in a wheelchair for life; the boy wasn't scratched; he was not charged because he was 10, and was deemed too young to be held resposible.

Ten is not to young to be taught that a red octagon with the letters STOP means 'stop.' If he wasn't taught that, it was his parents' fault for not so teaching him. Unfortunately, the criminal law doesn't see it that way. Last I heard, the family of the driver and the paralyzed passenger were looking into civil actions; I hope that they find something.

There's a pretty good critique of this theory (also known as the "broken windows" theory) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows#Critics_of_the_theory

And we all know that Wikipedia is an objective, accurate, peer-reviewed, scientifically verified source, don't we?

If we want bicycling to be taken seriously as a mode of transportation, rather than a recreational/atheletic activity, then it behooves us to cycle in a responsible and lawful manner. If we will not do so voluntarily, because it is our duty as citizens to obey the law, then we must be compelled to do so.


I think the idea is that bicyclists break more/different rules than drivers (even speed limits, especially on downhills). It doesn't really matter what cyclists think of the rules - it's what the drivers think of the cyclists breaking them. I can't say I stay stopped for every red light, but I also can't say that that behavior is justified to drivers by the fact that they might speed by 5mph on freeways.

Honestly the stupidest comments come from red-light jumpers who complain when a car rolls through a stop sign or something (not your post in particular, but i've seen this alot).

I hold motorists to a higher standard than cyclists. And cyclists to a higher standard than pedestrians. Means I think pedestrians should have the most liberal way moving in traffic. More rules for bikes , even more rules for cars. Btw If the people are 100% sure the way is clear I have nothing against cars running a red. Pedestrians move in a different way than bikes and cars.
A person responsebily jaywalking gets out of the way of people. Run a stop sign without looking you could get flattened in the middle of the road. Do a clean jaywalk you end up on a sidewalk out of the traffic flow. Bikes are significantly less free than pedestrians in that way. A bike is smaller and more agile than a car.

Why could two wheeled vechicles not ride the wrong way on a one way street?
Does it generally hinder anyone? A car blocks the entire road. Maybe there are examples where it doesen't function but there are also the places where it does. The rules of the road are car centric. I think forcing everyone to 100% follow them is bad. I think it's fundamentalism. Just as 100% separation or 100% vechicular driving.

All the bending and ignoring rules can be done in a bad way. There are bad examples for everything. I don't agree with every single outlaw:roflmao2: bikers riding style or just the way the inexperienced move trough traffic. I think the laws should be changed. You all know the bad examples. I think there is room for more freedom where both traffic flow and safety can be improved. I ride on sidewalks , i ride on the road , I ride on bikepaths. The goal should be safe , efficient and stress free movement. If it functions for the people it's good for me. People don't lock their bikes in car parking lots inside these white boxes ...

If you're not going to follow the laws of the road, then you have no right to b*tch about how much danger you're in.

I bet you can't find a quote from me complaining about danger except regarding obeying the law here in NOLA. If I selectively break the law I feel pretty safe. If I obey every law here I might as well just throw myself under a bus right now.

My biggest gripe no matter what is inattentive motorists. Mostly cell phone use and just plain ignorance. I would be complaining minutely if I followed the rules where I ride. As it is, I do anything it takes to limit the number of interactions with motor vehicles.

Funny... obeying the laws has never made anyone not in a car at all safer. The laws are to facilitate traffic flow, and to minimize bunching up on city streets. I've had to teach my kids NOT to trust the light that says it's OK to walk because of cars pushing the yellow/red light envelop despite a 2second common 4way red light.

The 'potential to harm' needs to come into effect when assessing just-how-dangerous something breaking the law on the streets is. Not all vehicles on the road are equal and thereby shouldn't be given the same 'OMG he just went through a light' value. Safely going through a red I could have easily jaywalked I seriously doubt upsets motorists, as I rarely get vehicular grief for that. Threading to the light juuuust as it's changing and bolting just ahead of them sure does get a reaction though. Personally I think it burns them to no end to think that their $40,000 Lexus can't get across an intersection faster then a guy on a bike, unless they redline it.

Cambridge cops crack down on blithe red-light-runners -
He looked as carefree as can be, pedaling on his silver 18-speed mountain bike,...

If you look guilty about it, do they let you off?

It's not the first time the city of Cambridge MA, has done this. It probably won't be the last. Now, are they going to go after jay-walking pedestrians with equal gusto? Seriously, Cambridge pedestrians are the worst for this. Bicycle, automobile, motorcycle, huge truck transporting chemical waste, they just don't care. They'll walk right in front of it, without looking.


yes holy CRAP I was riding last night in the drizzle, rode from Burlington to Somerville then did my standard loop through Cambridge to beantown and back.... with my Dinotte 140L and niterider. i was easy to see,
but so many peds were crossing the streets all over the place except legally !

yes a few people actually waited for crossing signals, but the large majority of 20-30 something individuals and couples would just jump out in front of traffic....I saw zero riders breaking the law and over 100 peds doing it