Prank or Vandalism? MassDOT Bike Lane Cones
 

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) has released video of pranksters? or vandals? throwing over a bridge (the Harvard Bridge) traffic cones meant to protect a winter bike lane.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/video-c...-2022/39155245

Do you deem this to be a prank? or dangerous vandalism?

It's neither. It's drivers who want their lane back. Last sentence in the article:

Drivers, on the other hand, say the single lane causes traffic buildup.

When it goes through the city approval process, random people don't just get to decide themselves. That's called vigilantism

It's one thing just to ignore a law; it's then another to take the law into your own hands like that.

One man’s prank is another man’s vandalism. In this case, if they’re caught, they will likely be additionally charged with an environmental crime for throwing the cones in the river. They’d probably have been better off just throwing them onto the sidewalk.

Dan

Car culture "Richards".... :notamused:

It could be both, especially if college kids and alcohol are involved.

How many pedestrians are on that sidewalk? That would seem like the best place to put the cyclists, as long as they can be sane around other bridge users.

Also consider making bicycle (bike/pedestrian) specific bridges.

Eugene may be somewhat unique with I think 5 bicycle bridges across the Willamette river, and 2 over the McKenzie river. Plus several smaller bridges. There may well be more bicycle bridges crossing the river than automobile bridges.

https://live.staticflickr.com/5475/1...fdc84fc4_b.jpg

The river is smaller than in Boston, but it is also a lot smaller city.

It just seems a little crazy to apparently cut the vehicle access in half, but not spend the money on bicycle infrastructure.

I would never classify it as a prank when it endangers people's lives.

typical yutes

OK, Vinnie! :D

One of my faves. 😆

something about the way she explains positraction, is just so hot

cool bridge! pedestrians & bikes don't mix. diff. cities need diff solutions. we have more bike lanes opposing up everywhere. seems ti be working fine. we've had some truly horrifying & incredibly tragic deaths of cyclists by trucks & buses https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5105001/ I don't think they are eliminating car lanes on all bridges. I've ridden from my home way outside of Boston to Fenway & even the waterfront a cpl of times. it was pretty harrowing even on a nice sunny day. for ppl commuting year round, I suspect they need a better solution. I've been know to nickname the Cambridge side as looking like China due to all the bikes. bike use is growing & this tiny old city has to adapt. I like driving in the city, grew up in NY, but it's good to see more bike lanes. actually makes it easier for car drivers to figure out what to do to avoid killing someone, or rather saves them from trying to decide. bike lanes are probably faster ^ cheaper to implement than new bridges. we can barely rebuild maintain the bridges we already have

https://www.bikeattorney.com/massach...accidents.html

https://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...bike-friendly/

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/09bike.html

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/11...-more-to-come/

This thread belongs in the A&S section.

related? speaking for Boston area bridges, have you seen this video? the driver survived
https://www.necn.com/news/national-i...river/2687700/

so much for guard rails, eh?

And get it subjected to the endless bickering about whether cycling safety is the responsibility of the cyclist, or falls 100% on the drivers?

Boston has a lot of bridges, many of which are wide crossings.

Eugene may have a unique situation. The city took over the public utilities over a century ago due to a typhoid outbreak.

This may well have impacted cyclists during the 1970's and 1980's.

Whenever the city needed a new utility crossing, they did a cost analysis. Under water, above water, or bike bridge.

Finishing it off as a bridge did increase costs somewhat, but it largely was a utility project. Thus, we have a wonderful bike bridge in North Eugene leading directly to the Sewage Treatment Plant. :thumb: Nonetheless, several of the bike bridges were utility crossings, and even the one near the sewage plant gets quite a bit of use due to neighboring schools, and businesses, as well as poor alternative crossings.

Anyway, it sounds like Boston is doing a lot of work on bike infrastructure, and bridges are the next thing.

Hard to say about pedestrians and bikes. To some extent they mix. But, it depends on both cyclist and pedestrian density. And pedestrians like to loiter on bridges :eek:

One thing Eugene has also done is build several miles of sawdust jogging paths. Pedestrians still like the paved paths, but it is possible that a community could start creating parallel infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians in certain situations.

This was up in Portland.
https://www.bikeforums.net/attachmen...9&d=1515315002

I think it meant bicycles beware of Sasquatch.

It wasn't in a place that had a lot of pedestrians, but there are some attempts to segregate cyclists and pedestrians. Since that photo was taken, the city has also planted a bunch of plastic posts along the side of the bike lanes. Not a change I'm in favor of, but some like it.

lol yeah there is some size diff. there. 1st thing that comes to mind is what happens when 2 bikes going in opposite directions meet in that narrow bike lane. but I know markings like this are more of a suggestion & ppl will just figure it out when it happens. & yeah cones are not the answer, a legit protected bike lane is much better. I like what I saw in DC a few years ago
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b92cba9ca0.jpg
got that pic here

regarding the underwater option ... Boston & the Charles River, may always have it's knuckleheads
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...ae74191e69.png

In that regard, it's no difference where it's posted because you and I are both here making comments.

Unless...there's a certain someone or two, who hang around the A&S section complaining about the threads, I think you might not want to get involved?

Well it's a winter cycling thread in the sense that the traffic cones were set up to protect winter cyclists especially during the unique winter darkness.

And the vandalism resulted in the "fruits" of the crime being on full display on top of the Charles River ice as opposed to being concealed under water

And as RumRun says, in the winter time the bridges get icier faster than the roads do. This fact lends credence to the city's protection of bicycles. And this fact reinforces the rational basis underpinning the law protecting the bike lanes. Which goes back to the original point that it's vandalism and not "harmless."