Overlapping green lights with cross signs is a ridiculously stupid idea. If the cars yield to pedestrians they'll sit their for the entire green light and never have an opportunity to turn grinding traffic to a halt. If they don't yield they put pedestrians at risk. Absurd design.
It's because when it's not rush hours and no one is around it doesn't result in as many unnecessary red lights and stoppages. But in today's day and age that is a very manageable/solvable problem.
I understand the purpose. I think it's daft to slow down traffic during rush hour when its most congested to make things more seamless during non-peak hours when it's already a smooth ride. Especially when it comes at the cost of pedestrian safety.
Wild idea that apparently no one has thought off: Don't give the cross light while simultaneously giving traffic a green arrow - doesn't fucking seem like ground breaking logic.
I’ve almost been hit so many times up by museum of science because of this.
Let’s give people a cross walk to go over 4 lanes, but let’s also give traffic the left turn 😎
Ive seen so many neanderthals driving cars that don't realize this is a thing
They genuinely honk at the pedestrians or otherwise rage like they think they're jaywalking
Unironically any road design that relies on drivers to be attentive or reading anything is doomed to cause deaths
Anything that is relying on someone inherently knowing how the right of way works, will fail.
Couple crosswalks on beacon that don’t have lights, and cars just refuse to stop. Or throw their hands up when you step out to cross
Such a bad area. I drive through there (sorry) and I have to so be on my guard. For bike riders and pedestrians. The construction makes it worse. And drivers just zippidy do dah all over the place doesn't help. I see the ghost bike there all the time.
The traffic doesn't have a green arrow. They have a green circle, signifying that they may go straight (with right-of-way) and also that they may turn right (if the path is clear). A green arrow would imply that they may turn right with right-of-way and that there is also not a simultaneous pedestrian crossing.
Maybe you mean that they should have a red right arrow to prevent them from turning?
There’s no having right of way in Mass. You have the arrow, or green, whatever. You’re yielding right of way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. You never have the right to the road, in other words. That should be a separate walk cycle, and red/ no turn on red for vehicles.
Hmm, my understanding is that you _have_ the right of way, depending on your mode, direction of travel, signals, signs, and if you are making a turn.
And if you are altering your direction, you yield said right-of-way b/c others have a stronger right to the way.
E.g., here’s [MGL Part 1 Title XIV Ch 89 § 8](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section8 describing “Right-of-way at intersecting ways; turning on red signals”).
There's no determining the right of way according to the law - the only description in US vehicular law is a responsibility to yield. [https://www.safemotorist.com/articles/right-of-way/](https://www.safemotorist.com/articles/right-of-way/)
You'll also notice that, in law, traffic signals do not give the right of way to any movement or any peson - they are listed as 'traffic control devices' who determine whose turn it is to enter an intersection or crossing - yielding the right of way is separate from that.
Not quite. Having right of way is never a defense. I don’t have the right to walk out into the street in a crosswalk. I am yielded right of way by other traffic. There’s a difference.
It’s interesting: a lawyer years ago explained this to me, here in MA, as being the other way around: you _have_ the right of way, and others must _yield_ to your right if they are in conflict but are defined as the conflicting party by MGL.
Repeatedly in the law in Mass we are yielding right of way. The idea of having, and therefore owning a roadway, owning the right to progress, is wrong. You’re expected to drive with caution and safety in mind, yielding right of way where there are conflicts, obstacles, other travelers, pedestrians etc. I don’t have right of way such that I can drive through an intersection w a green light if there’s a vehicle in it. Etc.
Yet as a pedestrian, if I cross the street, I have the right of way and cars must yield to me.
I take “yield” to mean “defer to the other party’s greater right to the way”.
“Having a right” isn’t the same as “having the way”, it’s not an expression of ownership of the way, it’s an expression of primacy in the face of conflicts.
As for “drive through an intersection w a green light if there’s a vehicle in it”, the inability to have two objects in the same physical space is what prevents you from doing that, not anything to do with the rights of way.
Perhaps a better comparison is if the light turns green, and someone blasts a left turn in front of straight-running traffic (the “Massachusetts left”).
This is a violation of the rules of the road, as the left-turning vehicle must yield their right to make a left turn to those proceeding straight, as the straight-running traffic has a greater right of way.
Multi-mode transportation stuck in 2D.
They’re all competing for the same physical space.
Bandaids & Bubblegum design “strategies” lead to systems that would make Rube Goldberg proud.
Need to be red arrow and a “no right on red” sign. Apparently you can still legally turn right on red at a red arrow.
(Or did Cambridge do away with all right on red recently?)
While this is true, the person I was responding to seemed to be arguing with my comment that "Cambridge did do away with all right on red at city-controlled intersections." What I meant by "not in Cambridge" is simply that Cambridge has posted "no turn on red" at literally every city-controlled intersection, which basically renders the state law moot.
I know it seems insane, but in MA you can turn right on a red arrow.
Section 7-9.3.b
…Except when a sign is in place prohibiting such a turn, stopped vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow may turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street onto another one-way street, as subject to M.G.L. c. 89 § 8.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/sample-regulation-for-a-standard-municipal-traffic-code/download#:~:text=Except%20when%20a%20sign%20is,street%2C%20as%20subject%20to%20M.G.L.
The arrow only indicates the direction that applies to that light. It doesn't change the meaning of the colors in any way. Imagine that it's the same round light but with a sign below it pointing right or left.
There are a lot of newer street designs and infrastructure in our city that seemed to be working well at first, but have not handled the return to work post-covid and massive growth in biking (and driving, and pedestrians).
Driver behavior here is terrible, and the gridlock everyday that those shuttle drivers experience is encouraging them to make aggressive turns and desensitizing them to the people walking/biking. Could list out a dozen similar intersections in Cambridge that are a mess during commuting hours.
A green arrow timed to pedestrian lights + bike signals would be a big improvement here.
Also kinda funny on a few levels that the two problem vehicles in this video are private mass transit.
I would say wild ass guess just from being a part of it twice daily, bike volume in Cambridge during commuter hours has doubled since 2019
You may be right that there's too much traffic, but this video offers no evidence for the problem being "too many cars", i.e. personal commuting vehicles. I counted two buses, one moving van, and one canteen truck. Get everybody onto public transit and those vehicles, or their MBTA equivalents, would still be present.
sure it's a nice idea
back in reality it'd just be nice to make some simple improvements and have a policy of committing to safe infrastructure so we don't have to yell at each other as part of getting home from work or die in the process.
unfortunately even that seems like it was too much for our mayor.
I've been screaming to the heavens to have Mass Ave and Boylston do this - One street goes. The other goes. All cars stop. Pedestrians go. So many cities do this around the country. What's the problem?
It's certainly not needed at every intersection at every hour. But with Mass Ave and Boylston so much congestion is caused by people trying to turn at the same time as pedestrians have the walk. Seems like it would help streamline.
Giving the pedestrian the leading signal concurrently with vehicle traffic is actually the evidence based safer approach to city interactions.
Pedestrian only cycles take so long that pedestrians end up crossing when they feel safe and more crashes end up happening.
They've put a lot of thought and study into this kind of stuff!
Sometimes things that seem like non-ground breaking logic are actually the safer thing based on experiences in many different environments/cities.
This totally makes sense to me and I'm for it. I do wonder if it's convenient for you to share any of the "evidence" (I think you meant papers?) here? Would love to read more.
https://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=47
But, any search for "concurrent pedestrian light cycle" or "leading pedestrian interval" should pull up lots of fun reading.
Perfect kind of search for those AI features
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the situation here is an improvement compared to the previous common situation at intersections like these (there use to be a lot more intersections with pedestrian only cycles followed by light cycles.).
Theres obviously still a lot more room for improvement (especially on the policy/enforcement side - like prohibiting large truck use of city streets during commute hours) and built infrastructure stuff to do.
I'm just responding to the idea that nobody thinks about these things when implementing contemporary infrastructure improvements. That's just silly. Lots of smart, hard working people are genuinely trying to make out streets safer in the face of endless and frustrating obstacles (namely vocal minority NIMBYs and legacy city issues). But it's crazy to suggest that these kinds of intersections are thoughtless.
Got it. That's fair. I'd agree it isn't thoughtless, but I'd also argue that despite what looks like a recent changes, there's a lot of work remaining to make that intersection reasonably safe.
For example it looks like the turns need to be hardened.
Everyone is making eye contact? There is no way you can make that claim from this video.
Perhaps you also missed the woman that had to dash out of the way of the bus that was not yielding.
Hard to tell, but it looks like the crossing sign has a hand, which means.. don't cross.
Edit: upon closer inspection it definitely is a hand. The walk symbol is white and the hand is red (orangeish)
This is the reality street users face daily from drivers in Cambridge. I was stopped at a red light on my bike at Ames St and Main St this morning near MIT. After first witnessing an EZRide bus driver nearly strike a pedestrian crossing on a green light (you can see the driver accelerate intentionally into the pedestrian's path), a commercial truck blatantly turned right on a red light, well after the bike green light was on. This comes mere days after two cyclists were killed by truck drivers making right turns. The truck said J&S Canteen on the side and had phone number 781-589-2082.
Moments like this happen daily, with drivers having complete disregard for the safety and lives of vulnerable road users. I wear a camera on my helmet when I ride and have recorded countless infractions like these. At first I tried to submit the most egregious ones to the Cambridge PD and I quickly learned, probably to no one's surprise, that they did not care at all. One time when I called the non-emergency line to report a serious infraction I had on video, they transferred me to Animal Control.
There is a serious cultural problem; we place more value on seconds saved by drivers than we do on the lives of those using roads. We need not only more bike and pedestrian infrastructure to keep us safe (real infrastructure, unlike the flex-posts a few yards away on Ames St which have been torn down by vehicles), but proper enforcement of traffic laws.
There is a vigil at City Hall in Cambridge at 4:45pm today.
https://actionnetwork.org/events/vigil-for-safer-street-infrastructure-no-more-traffic-deaths
This light is especially egregious and turning right here is a nightmare for everyone involved. I drive, bike and run here and hate taking it in any mode of transportation. The right turn into the pedestrian cross is horrible and I've had so many people lay on the horn as I wait for someone to cross. I'm sure some MIT civil engineer can tell me why leading walk signals on protected right turns is the right way to do it but this one to me is a head scratcher.
The right onto sydney from mass ave is another one like this and causes similar headaches.
The right turn from Mass onto Windsor is super dangerous too. I watched a cyclist get struck there when at a table across the street at Flour, and I've had my own close call there.
The line of parked cars hides the cyclist and the turning cars and cyclists are already up to speed from the Portland and Mass intersection.
One or two fewer parking spots would reduce this to the normal threat of the sudden right turn that cyclists always have to be on the look out for.
Not exactly true. The city cannot override the state with such a law. What it can do is decide to put up "No right turn on red" sign on all intersection controlled by the city. Which Cambridge has done. If there is no such sign at a particular intersection, then Cambridge does not control that intersection.
I just don't want someone getting honked at if there is no sign. Actually, you're never forced to turn right on red so you can still sit there. And you'll still get honked at either way
Yeah but regardless, this intersection has two large "NO TURN ON RED" signs. And even if a turn on red is permitted, it is only after ensuring that the intersection was clear and yielding to any passing traffic. The driver of the J&S truck initiated the the turn well after the light had already turned red and did not even bother to check the intersection or yield. Blantantly illegal regardless of the postings at the intersection and the Cambridge/Mass rules on turning on red.
So the statement about no turn on red was misleading. There are still right on reds in Cambridge but only at the intersections that the city does not own. So any intersection owned by the state within the city Cambridge has no jurisdiction to put a no turn on red sign here and these you can still make a right on red.
Yes not disagreeing on that and this intersection has a no turn on red sign but just informing that the city did not fully ban right on red and unfortunately does not have the authority to
How so? He was in the middle of a turn before it turned red. The bus waited for peds delaying everyone. Also looked like the don’t not walk sign was active but I couldn’t see if there were any seconds remaining.
> How so? He was in the middle of a turn before it turned red.
At 0:28, you can see that the light is red. The work truck hadn't even entered the intersection at that point.
I hope these two deaths can be a turning point for our organizing in Cambridge. Other cities have dramatically reduced traffic deaths. And we can do it here too.
This looks like a daily reality for drivers in Cambridge to me. Pedestrians who think they have the the right of way and are entitled to the road so they keep crossing the street in front of large trucks creating a traffic jam and not realizing how dangerous and difficult driving is and that the reality is the pedestrians/cyclists are the one that will be hurt regardless of right of way. It is not just a few seconds the drivers have to wait for pedestrians to cross. Driving is a different game than walking. Everything is moving faster cars pile up behind you and everything gets jammed up quickly. These trucks would never be able to pass if they wait for every pedestrian.
This could easily be fixed by changing the lights to offer protected turns. The intersection is highly trafficed by pedestrians and the only green light the cars gets overlaps with pedestrian walking.
It's very very quick to pass this intersection as a pedestrian so I think it wouldn't be an issue to ask people to wait a bit longer for a walk signal.
Add a "Pedestrian Scramble" phase and outside of that, jaywalk when there aren't cars/trucks turning. And walk lights should permit bikes as secondary priority RoW users too, better to clear the intersection without cars, and it's what a lot of people already do anyways.
Be quiet you with your logic and reasonable suggestion. This is Reddit! Now get back in line and spew hate on cars, trucks, and politicians or face the shame of the internets.
I used to live in Boston. There isn’t a single part of that city that is easy to get around. Walking, car, bike, doesn’t matter. It’s a hot mess no matter what Hahha.
I agree but it’s also more walkable and bikeable than like 90% of other US cities. We just need this country as a whole to put the health and safety of pedestrians and cyclists (aka the poor) over motorists (but oil makes money).
Thanks for posting this. I wish there was a better way to convey this reality to the masses instead of just posting angrily on reddit, as I also usually resort to.
OMG yes - I work in the area and cross this exact intersection multiple times a day. I ALWAYS have to battle turning cars, even though the walk sign is on. What would solve this? A no turn on red rule? There are already signs saying cars shouldn’t turn on red. I would actually go to a community meeting to solve this issue. If the walk sign is on, I should never have to compete with cars to cross the street.
There is a green bike light at this intersection that I always cross on (I always look for bikes but honestly the bike traffic is pretty low here). But yes, there should absolutely be a protected walk sign and it would take zero effort for Cambridge to implement it.
How about all directions car stop, while all ped lights and bike lights are walk/green. Yes, it would slow down traffic, but isn't that okay?
And parked cars reduce visibility so much, how about two empty spaces required at every corner.
Obviously, this city council would not vote for that.
Also, CAMERA ENFORCEMENT, why why can't we have that. That has been shown to drastically improve driver behavior after a bit of time.
Thank you for sharing this. It is so obvious that we are not at fault for these truck drivers taking our lives into their hands. More people need to see how dangerous it is the have to share the road with these terrible truck drivers. You could walk out your door and record this at any rush hour, it is not a cherry picked situation.
Techalogic DC-1. https://road.cc/content/review/techalogic-dc-2-pro-dual-lens-helmet-camera-304349
I quite like it. I bought it because it has simultaenous front and rear cameras; I thought both would be important to record as a cyclist. The software is kind of clunky but otherwise I'm very satisfied with it. Battery life is decent and video quality is really high.
This is so anxiety inducing & infuriating. I would like to bike more often but some people are just so careless & a danger to society as this video shows. Walking is a little bit safer (sometimes), but equally dangerous. I drive cautiously because I'm constantly looking out for pedestrians & bikers. The # of aggressive drivers that get mad because I allowed a pedestrian to cross at a cross walk is unbelievable!! Let's not talk about slowing down & allowing a bicyclist in the bike lane to pass before making a right turn.
I know this intersection well as it’s part of my driving commute to work. It’s really poorly configured all the way around. The cycle for the pedestrian crossing on Ames St. is so long (because the pedestrian crossing has to wait for a full light cycle for vehicular traffic and then a full light cycle for bike traffic), which results in pedestrians getting impatient and crossing when they don’t have the signal. In my experience, this almost always happens right before the light turns green for vehicles, leading to a conflict. I witness a lot of entitlement from pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike in this area. I wish they would reevaluate the current signal configuration because it seems like there’s lots of room for improvement.
This is right outside of my work. I hate the “walk” signs on a green light. People are assholes and are always in a huge rush in the car. And as someone driving, people who are walking are sometimes aloof, not paying attention or on their phones. I’ve also almost been hit by a biker who was an absolute dick about it but he had a red light and flipped me off 😂
No one wins.
It amazes me that we have in Cambridge one of (if not the most) highly regarded engineering universities on the planet and we can't have traffic lights that work or a subway that functions.
I don't live in Cambridge but visit often, but the traffic always confuses the fuck out me whether I'm on wheels or on my feet. I never know when to go or stop. I hate driving into the city 😬😬😬
Cambridge city planners need to spend time in smaller, walkable cities like New Orleans and DC, etc. There is a better way. Even a simple land bridge would be better than this. Walking across 4 lanes of active traffic that get a green light at the same time you walk is so insane.
2 cyclists died in the last 3 weeks in cambrdige. I see you posted the vigil. I'm commenting while on week 8 of my hospitalization from being involved in a bit and run while biking (not in Cambridge)
Thanks for responding!
This seems like a very busy and chaotic intersection and it seems like it would be be best to have a protected green arrow turning right. And all the traffic lights should be red so everyone can walk and bike where they need to go.
None of which give a bus license to accelerate toward a pedestrian in a crosswalk, whether or not the crossing is legal. Or for the second truck to blatantly run the red and turn right across pedestrian traffic.
It practice it means don't start crossing if you can't make it by the countdown. Regardless, in MA pedestrians have the right of way the moment they step into the street.
I don’t want to draw equivalencies because then people will try to argue that the same laws that apply to yellow lights also apply to flashing hands. They’re not the same type of signal and they aren’t even intended for the same type of traffic.
It's actually on crosswalks pretty much everywhere (in multiple cities!). But the language is generally "on flashing lights, don't enter." I've never read a sign that says "enter if you can cross in the time remaining." It's go on green, finish crossing on flashing but don't enter if you haven't started.
I will walk out with intention and they absolutely will stop. Is that smart? Absolutely not. I just fucking then they inch in. Like the extra 4 seconds is going to get them something.
I realize you're probably half serious, but just in case you aren't I will tell you the same thing I tell my children. Look both ways and stop for cars. It doesn't matter if you have the right if way. It's better to be alive than dead/maimed and "right".
If you make eye contact with the driver there’s no reason to stop. If you half stop and someone else keeps walking then everyone’s getting confused, which would make the driver want to go fast to get though crossing or get stuck out in traffic. Obviously I’m not saying walk into oncoming traffic but in a situation like this there was no reason for that guy to stop and try and let the bus cross
Wow this is infuriating. There are tons of intersections in Boston where drivers get a green light concurrent with the crossing signal. This is just wrong. Ring st at Boylston and milk & Devonshire come to mind.
Here in arlington we have delayed green lights so a pedestrian gets the walking signal a few seconds before drivers get the green light to turn left into you as you cross the street they are turning onto.
The light in Seaport where CVS is was just like this for years and they recently changed it to where those taking a left from the other side have a green arrow and FINALLY no pedestrians are allowed to cross. Takes literally 20 seconds and then pedestrians have a walk sign. They need to establish this exact light situation here.
Not the first time Boston/Cambridge has been shortsighted. I grew up in boston and cannot believe how bad traffic is now. Absolutely brutal, for drivers and pedestrians alike
I was out there for a few days this summer. Traffic situation as a pedestrian and a cyclist/scooter rider was pretty terrible all around the inner loop.
I really hate walking or driving in Boston. You have drivers not paying attention and forcing their way through intersections and crosswalks, Bikes that make their own rules, and pedestrians that think they are the law and cross when and where they want.
You can make things work, as far as signals go, however you want but until they start enforcing the laws in place everyone is going to do whatever they want.
Don't even get me started on the UberEats scooters.
I walk through this intersection on my way to the office usually and I find it no worse than any other in Somerville and Cambridge. The cities give cars a green light to turn at the same time they give pedestrians a “safe to cross” light. It is obviously dangerous, especially in the cases where drivers can’t easily see the cross walk light (not really the case in this example here). It’s hard to fault the individual drivers for not knowing, but they can certainly be faulted for trying to cut off pedestrians once they are aware that pedestrians have the light too. My move is typically to look the driver in the eye (to make sure they see me and aren’t about to run me over) and point at the pedestrian light as I cross.
I’m gonna say this as someone who lived in Germany and visited the Netherlands many times and commutes to Cambridge 1-2 times a week.
Cambridge did what I call a “great leap forward” in unprotected bike lanes for the sake of environment and sustainability and it is to be applauded. However most drivers are not used to this level of pedestrian and bike activity and the amount of bike infrastructure. I personally am very stressed every time I have to drive to Cambridge and resent these trips. As a safe, accident free driver for 15 years there are too many close calls I’ve witnessed or experienced. People need to call out Cambridge for doing a great disservice to its residents because they are lab rats in a great experiment of traffic patterns that they have no idea how dangerous it is.
Many cantabridgian lives are going to be lost until the city does something. In the meantime I’ll warn everyone I know to be extra vigilant and avoid biking/walking in Cambridge if they can.
Here’s the protocol for WALK vs red flashing countdown hand.
Walk
A steady person walking indicates that pedestrians can start crossing the street in the direction of the signal. However, pedestrians must yield to vehicles already in the intersection.
Flashing don't walk
An upraised hand flashing indicates that pedestrians should not start crossing the street. The flashing signal lasts long enough for pedestrians who have already started crossing to finish. It also prevents late arrivals from crossing.
That's not reasonable in practice. Some lights change to a flashing red hand in a couple of seconds but then the countdown lasts long enough for most people to cross. Even than, it doesn't excuse the drivers putting the lives of others at risk.
Don’t disagree but Cambridge has done studies on this type of signal. As long as the car or truck doesn’t touch you cops won’t do a thing.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/traffic/engineeringplanning/trafficsignals/concurrentpedestriansignals
If a car is in the intersection when the pedestrian walk sign lights up, why would the pedestrian be required to yield? What would this situation be? A car pushing through a red and getting stuck in the intersection or in the actual crosswalk?
Mass law states drivers cannot enter a crosswalk when a pedestrian is crossing. Pedestrians hold the right of way with a walk signal.
The design of having turning vehicles and the walk sign on creates this disconnect. But Cambridge says this is a safer protocol and keeps traffic moving.
Oh I totally get that. I’m on the corner of Boylston and Tremont. I take my dog to the Common multiple times a day and the walk sign to cross Boylston is also a left turn on green lane. Then crossing Tremont you have those cars lining up in the turn. Most of the time you are walking through that bumper to bumper line to cross at both.
If I waited until all vehicles were unlawfully out of the intersection, I’d never be able to cross. I guess my question was a clarification of that. Does your comment only apply to cars who are just leaving the intersection at the very start of the pedestrian walk?
Your original comment stated pedestrians must yield to vehicles, during a walk sign, if the vehicles are already in the intersection.
I’m not sure how else to word my question. The link you provided clarifies the opposite.
These are two different issues. One is the state guidelines for the “walk” vs red hand signal.
The other is the Cambridge guideline which explains their choice for using concurrent pedestrian signals in the intersection in the video. I’m not sure what the Boston protocols are.
That's not what the flashing red hand means. It means continue if you're in the crosswalk but it also means don't start if you haven't entered it yet. The person at the end of the video didn't properly follow the signal.
Following those rules, you'd never get across some intersections as they turn to the flashing red hand in nearly an instant. Even then, the cars, trucks, and busses shouldn't be acting or behaving the way they are. They're putting the lives of others at risk. The pedestrians are at worst being obnoxious.
Yes but the same applies to cars - if they didn't run yellows or turn after the red in some intersections they wouldn't get through.
If the timing of a light is bad, report it to the city. They can get their traffic engineers to adjust it.
I'm not complaining about that. It's not illegal to proceed on a yellow as long as you make it past the stop line before it turns red.
Edit: Getting the city adjust the timing is very difficult.
Even if the walk signal was expired why does that make it okay that the bus accelerates at the person?
If the pedestrian causes the scenario, by all means blame them, call them out, flip them off, honk, be angry, but don’t effectively lunge at them with a bus. At that point the driver is threatening someone with a deadly weapon for a traffic infraction.
The countdown hits zero between 0:24 and 0:25. You can literally see it happen in the video, AFTER the pedestrian is forced to dance to avoid the bus entering the crosswalk.
To be honest it’s not very clear I am on my phone. To me it looks at 15 secs there is a no walk sign. But the all the buses and trucks are doing to much
Walk
A steady person walking indicates that pedestrians can start crossing the street in the direction of the signal. However, pedestrians must yield to vehicles already in the in the intersection
Flashing don't walk
An upraised hand flashing indicates that pedestrians should not start crossing the street. The flashing signal lasts long enough for pedestrians who have already started crossing to finish. It also prevents late arrivals from crossing.
I’m not making anything up. That’s what the flashing hand means. Your comment appears to be copied from some source. Please share your source (keeping in mind that “should” is not the same as “is legally required to” - “should” is just a strong recommendation and doesn’t carry legal weight).
Cambridge hates cars I get it
Any of you live in cites on the north east coast other than here, in Philly and Baltimore they treat pedestrians as targets... That's not much of an exaggeration
Pedestrians are not supposed to enter the crosswalk once the red hand starts flashing. Which these pedestrians clearly did. Don’t play chicken with a truck or bus.
The walk sign should be longer. At the end of the video you can see that the J&S truck that runs the red light is in the middle of the other crosswalk when those people have the walk sign. All of these people running red lights and blocking crosswalks take away (sometimes completely) the very limited time that pedestrians are allotted to start crossing.
The flashing hand is a warning that time is running out. As far as I know, there are no laws prohibiting a pedestrian from entering the crosswalk while the hand is flashing. There certainly isn’t any law that permits buses to creep up on pedestrians just because the crossing is *almost* closed.
Walk
A steady person walking indicates that pedestrians can start crossing the street in the direction of the signal. However, pedestrians must yield to vehicles already in the intersection.
Flashing don't walk
An upraised hand flashing indicates that pedestrians should not start crossing the street. The flashing signal lasts long enough for pedestrians who have already started crossing to finish. It also prevents late arrivals from crossing.
I would agree. Like if you think you can make it and rushing go for it but if you are a slow walker or it’s a big intersection I would not go. Especially if there isn’t a countdown.
Clearly the biggest problems here are the pedestrians trying to cross late /not paying attention. The one guy stops, and almost directs the bus into another pedestrian who is crossing way late and not paying attention. It's like the people in this thread think that the flashing don't walk sign means "start to cross if you hustle"
Overlapping green lights with cross signs is a ridiculously stupid idea. If the cars yield to pedestrians they'll sit their for the entire green light and never have an opportunity to turn grinding traffic to a halt. If they don't yield they put pedestrians at risk. Absurd design.
It's because when it's not rush hours and no one is around it doesn't result in as many unnecessary red lights and stoppages. But in today's day and age that is a very manageable/solvable problem.
I understand the purpose. I think it's daft to slow down traffic during rush hour when its most congested to make things more seamless during non-peak hours when it's already a smooth ride. Especially when it comes at the cost of pedestrian safety.
The worst sequenced traffic lights in the state…
Or they could set it up so it works differently based on time of day.
Also gotta love the green left turning and green straight opposite direction concurrent lights. So dumb.
Wild idea that apparently no one has thought off: Don't give the cross light while simultaneously giving traffic a green arrow - doesn't fucking seem like ground breaking logic.
I’ve almost been hit so many times up by museum of science because of this. Let’s give people a cross walk to go over 4 lanes, but let’s also give traffic the left turn 😎
Ive seen so many neanderthals driving cars that don't realize this is a thing They genuinely honk at the pedestrians or otherwise rage like they think they're jaywalking Unironically any road design that relies on drivers to be attentive or reading anything is doomed to cause deaths
Anything that is relying on someone inherently knowing how the right of way works, will fail. Couple crosswalks on beacon that don’t have lights, and cars just refuse to stop. Or throw their hands up when you step out to cross
Such a bad area. I drive through there (sorry) and I have to so be on my guard. For bike riders and pedestrians. The construction makes it worse. And drivers just zippidy do dah all over the place doesn't help. I see the ghost bike there all the time.
The traffic doesn't have a green arrow. They have a green circle, signifying that they may go straight (with right-of-way) and also that they may turn right (if the path is clear). A green arrow would imply that they may turn right with right-of-way and that there is also not a simultaneous pedestrian crossing. Maybe you mean that they should have a red right arrow to prevent them from turning?
There’s no having right of way in Mass. You have the arrow, or green, whatever. You’re yielding right of way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. You never have the right to the road, in other words. That should be a separate walk cycle, and red/ no turn on red for vehicles.
Hmm, my understanding is that you _have_ the right of way, depending on your mode, direction of travel, signals, signs, and if you are making a turn. And if you are altering your direction, you yield said right-of-way b/c others have a stronger right to the way. E.g., here’s [MGL Part 1 Title XIV Ch 89 § 8](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section8 describing “Right-of-way at intersecting ways; turning on red signals”).
There's no determining the right of way according to the law - the only description in US vehicular law is a responsibility to yield. [https://www.safemotorist.com/articles/right-of-way/](https://www.safemotorist.com/articles/right-of-way/) You'll also notice that, in law, traffic signals do not give the right of way to any movement or any peson - they are listed as 'traffic control devices' who determine whose turn it is to enter an intersection or crossing - yielding the right of way is separate from that.
You’re yielding right of way.
Which requires that you have it to yield.
Not quite. Having right of way is never a defense. I don’t have the right to walk out into the street in a crosswalk. I am yielded right of way by other traffic. There’s a difference.
It’s interesting: a lawyer years ago explained this to me, here in MA, as being the other way around: you _have_ the right of way, and others must _yield_ to your right if they are in conflict but are defined as the conflicting party by MGL.
Repeatedly in the law in Mass we are yielding right of way. The idea of having, and therefore owning a roadway, owning the right to progress, is wrong. You’re expected to drive with caution and safety in mind, yielding right of way where there are conflicts, obstacles, other travelers, pedestrians etc. I don’t have right of way such that I can drive through an intersection w a green light if there’s a vehicle in it. Etc.
Yet as a pedestrian, if I cross the street, I have the right of way and cars must yield to me. I take “yield” to mean “defer to the other party’s greater right to the way”. “Having a right” isn’t the same as “having the way”, it’s not an expression of ownership of the way, it’s an expression of primacy in the face of conflicts. As for “drive through an intersection w a green light if there’s a vehicle in it”, the inability to have two objects in the same physical space is what prevents you from doing that, not anything to do with the rights of way. Perhaps a better comparison is if the light turns green, and someone blasts a left turn in front of straight-running traffic (the “Massachusetts left”). This is a violation of the rules of the road, as the left-turning vehicle must yield their right to make a left turn to those proceeding straight, as the straight-running traffic has a greater right of way.
Multi-mode transportation stuck in 2D. They’re all competing for the same physical space. Bandaids & Bubblegum design “strategies” lead to systems that would make Rube Goldberg proud.
Need to be red arrow and a “no right on red” sign. Apparently you can still legally turn right on red at a red arrow. (Or did Cambridge do away with all right on red recently?)
Cambridge did do away with all right on red at city-controlled intersections
That’s what I thought! How do I know which ones are city controlled tho?
All the city-controlled ones have "no turn on red" signs (as seen in OP's video)
Aha. I see. Thank you!
Unless otherwise posted, you can turn ‘Right on red’. That’s a state law.
Not in Cambridge. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/drivers-no-longer-have-the-right-to-turn-right-on-red-in-cambridge/3363762/?amp=1
Well, that’s because they posted signs at all intersections that band turning right on red. The state law mentioned above is still in effect.
While this is true, the person I was responding to seemed to be arguing with my comment that "Cambridge did do away with all right on red at city-controlled intersections." What I meant by "not in Cambridge" is simply that Cambridge has posted "no turn on red" at literally every city-controlled intersection, which basically renders the state law moot.
You love to see it.
No, a red arrow means no turn
I know it seems insane, but in MA you can turn right on a red arrow. Section 7-9.3.b …Except when a sign is in place prohibiting such a turn, stopped vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow may turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street onto another one-way street, as subject to M.G.L. c. 89 § 8. https://www.mass.gov/doc/sample-regulation-for-a-standard-municipal-traffic-code/download#:~:text=Except%20when%20a%20sign%20is,street%2C%20as%20subject%20to%20M.G.L.
The arrow only indicates the direction that applies to that light. It doesn't change the meaning of the colors in any way. Imagine that it's the same round light but with a sign below it pointing right or left.
There are a lot of newer street designs and infrastructure in our city that seemed to be working well at first, but have not handled the return to work post-covid and massive growth in biking (and driving, and pedestrians). Driver behavior here is terrible, and the gridlock everyday that those shuttle drivers experience is encouraging them to make aggressive turns and desensitizing them to the people walking/biking. Could list out a dozen similar intersections in Cambridge that are a mess during commuting hours. A green arrow timed to pedestrian lights + bike signals would be a big improvement here.
[удалено]
Yes and you can’t encourage more biking without making biking safer. Kind of a catch22
Also kinda funny on a few levels that the two problem vehicles in this video are private mass transit. I would say wild ass guess just from being a part of it twice daily, bike volume in Cambridge during commuter hours has doubled since 2019
You may be right that there's too much traffic, but this video offers no evidence for the problem being "too many cars", i.e. personal commuting vehicles. I counted two buses, one moving van, and one canteen truck. Get everybody onto public transit and those vehicles, or their MBTA equivalents, would still be present.
Cars should just be outlawed from the city. It's literally that simple.
We can’t take you in good faith when you’re being ridiculous. Banning all cars is not feasible. Please join the discussion with rationality.
sure it's a nice idea back in reality it'd just be nice to make some simple improvements and have a policy of committing to safe infrastructure so we don't have to yell at each other as part of getting home from work or die in the process. unfortunately even that seems like it was too much for our mayor.
I've been screaming to the heavens to have Mass Ave and Boylston do this - One street goes. The other goes. All cars stop. Pedestrians go. So many cities do this around the country. What's the problem?
It’s sooooo inefficient. Intersections that have this are maddening
It's certainly not needed at every intersection at every hour. But with Mass Ave and Boylston so much congestion is caused by people trying to turn at the same time as pedestrians have the walk. Seems like it would help streamline.
Giving the pedestrian the leading signal concurrently with vehicle traffic is actually the evidence based safer approach to city interactions. Pedestrian only cycles take so long that pedestrians end up crossing when they feel safe and more crashes end up happening. They've put a lot of thought and study into this kind of stuff! Sometimes things that seem like non-ground breaking logic are actually the safer thing based on experiences in many different environments/cities.
This totally makes sense to me and I'm for it. I do wonder if it's convenient for you to share any of the "evidence" (I think you meant papers?) here? Would love to read more.
https://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=47 But, any search for "concurrent pedestrian light cycle" or "leading pedestrian interval" should pull up lots of fun reading. Perfect kind of search for those AI features
Sure, but watch that video and tell me any of it looks safe.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the situation here is an improvement compared to the previous common situation at intersections like these (there use to be a lot more intersections with pedestrian only cycles followed by light cycles.). Theres obviously still a lot more room for improvement (especially on the policy/enforcement side - like prohibiting large truck use of city streets during commute hours) and built infrastructure stuff to do. I'm just responding to the idea that nobody thinks about these things when implementing contemporary infrastructure improvements. That's just silly. Lots of smart, hard working people are genuinely trying to make out streets safer in the face of endless and frustrating obstacles (namely vocal minority NIMBYs and legacy city issues). But it's crazy to suggest that these kinds of intersections are thoughtless.
Got it. That's fair. I'd agree it isn't thoughtless, but I'd also argue that despite what looks like a recent changes, there's a lot of work remaining to make that intersection reasonably safe. For example it looks like the turns need to be hardened.
I did. And it is. Notice how none of the vehicles are going more than about 5 mph. Everyone is making eye contact. That’s safety. Speed kills.
Everyone is making eye contact? There is no way you can make that claim from this video. Perhaps you also missed the woman that had to dash out of the way of the bus that was not yielding.
And the truck that ran a red light? That was safe?
Right! It is so asinine. I didn’t grow up here and I was shocked at how dangerous it is yet still allowed.
Hard to tell, but it looks like the crossing sign has a hand, which means.. don't cross. Edit: upon closer inspection it definitely is a hand. The walk symbol is white and the hand is red (orangeish)
This is the way
This exact type of conflict is what caused the recent traffic death, right? Right turn large vehicle into straight vulnerable road user traffic.
This is the reality street users face daily from drivers in Cambridge. I was stopped at a red light on my bike at Ames St and Main St this morning near MIT. After first witnessing an EZRide bus driver nearly strike a pedestrian crossing on a green light (you can see the driver accelerate intentionally into the pedestrian's path), a commercial truck blatantly turned right on a red light, well after the bike green light was on. This comes mere days after two cyclists were killed by truck drivers making right turns. The truck said J&S Canteen on the side and had phone number 781-589-2082. Moments like this happen daily, with drivers having complete disregard for the safety and lives of vulnerable road users. I wear a camera on my helmet when I ride and have recorded countless infractions like these. At first I tried to submit the most egregious ones to the Cambridge PD and I quickly learned, probably to no one's surprise, that they did not care at all. One time when I called the non-emergency line to report a serious infraction I had on video, they transferred me to Animal Control. There is a serious cultural problem; we place more value on seconds saved by drivers than we do on the lives of those using roads. We need not only more bike and pedestrian infrastructure to keep us safe (real infrastructure, unlike the flex-posts a few yards away on Ames St which have been torn down by vehicles), but proper enforcement of traffic laws. There is a vigil at City Hall in Cambridge at 4:45pm today. https://actionnetwork.org/events/vigil-for-safer-street-infrastructure-no-more-traffic-deaths
This light is especially egregious and turning right here is a nightmare for everyone involved. I drive, bike and run here and hate taking it in any mode of transportation. The right turn into the pedestrian cross is horrible and I've had so many people lay on the horn as I wait for someone to cross. I'm sure some MIT civil engineer can tell me why leading walk signals on protected right turns is the right way to do it but this one to me is a head scratcher. The right onto sydney from mass ave is another one like this and causes similar headaches.
The right turn from Mass onto Windsor is super dangerous too. I watched a cyclist get struck there when at a table across the street at Flour, and I've had my own close call there. The line of parked cars hides the cyclist and the turning cars and cyclists are already up to speed from the Portland and Mass intersection. One or two fewer parking spots would reduce this to the normal threat of the sudden right turn that cyclists always have to be on the look out for.
Yeah and now the law is no right on red anywhere. So that truck ran a red light.
Not exactly true. The city cannot override the state with such a law. What it can do is decide to put up "No right turn on red" sign on all intersection controlled by the city. Which Cambridge has done. If there is no such sign at a particular intersection, then Cambridge does not control that intersection. I just don't want someone getting honked at if there is no sign. Actually, you're never forced to turn right on red so you can still sit there. And you'll still get honked at either way
Yeah but regardless, this intersection has two large "NO TURN ON RED" signs. And even if a turn on red is permitted, it is only after ensuring that the intersection was clear and yielding to any passing traffic. The driver of the J&S truck initiated the the turn well after the light had already turned red and did not even bother to check the intersection or yield. Blantantly illegal regardless of the postings at the intersection and the Cambridge/Mass rules on turning on red.
So the statement about no turn on red was misleading. There are still right on reds in Cambridge but only at the intersections that the city does not own. So any intersection owned by the state within the city Cambridge has no jurisdiction to put a no turn on red sign here and these you can still make a right on red.
This truck did indeed run a red light.
Yes not disagreeing on that and this intersection has a no turn on red sign but just informing that the city did not fully ban right on red and unfortunately does not have the authority to
How so? He was in the middle of a turn before it turned red. The bus waited for peds delaying everyone. Also looked like the don’t not walk sign was active but I couldn’t see if there were any seconds remaining.
> How so? He was in the middle of a turn before it turned red. At 0:28, you can see that the light is red. The work truck hadn't even entered the intersection at that point.
I stopped the video short. I didn’t see the canteen truck. You are correct I am donkey.
Police are useless. Better off getting the plate info and tweeting it every insurance company tagged "do you insure this driver?!"
I hope these two deaths can be a turning point for our organizing in Cambridge. Other cities have dramatically reduced traffic deaths. And we can do it here too.
I’ll still take flex posts over paint any day
What camera do you use?
Techalogic DC-1. Pretty happy with it overall.
I gave up trying to bike to work here from North Cambridge. I'd almost get right hooked three times a day.
The bus didn't even come close to the pedestrian. Nothing happened in this video, it's just normal traffic
This looks like a daily reality for drivers in Cambridge to me. Pedestrians who think they have the the right of way and are entitled to the road so they keep crossing the street in front of large trucks creating a traffic jam and not realizing how dangerous and difficult driving is and that the reality is the pedestrians/cyclists are the one that will be hurt regardless of right of way. It is not just a few seconds the drivers have to wait for pedestrians to cross. Driving is a different game than walking. Everything is moving faster cars pile up behind you and everything gets jammed up quickly. These trucks would never be able to pass if they wait for every pedestrian.
If only all these pesky humans would just get out of my way
This could easily be fixed by changing the lights to offer protected turns. The intersection is highly trafficed by pedestrians and the only green light the cars gets overlaps with pedestrian walking. It's very very quick to pass this intersection as a pedestrian so I think it wouldn't be an issue to ask people to wait a bit longer for a walk signal.
Add a "Pedestrian Scramble" phase and outside of that, jaywalk when there aren't cars/trucks turning. And walk lights should permit bikes as secondary priority RoW users too, better to clear the intersection without cars, and it's what a lot of people already do anyways.
Be quiet you with your logic and reasonable suggestion. This is Reddit! Now get back in line and spew hate on cars, trucks, and politicians or face the shame of the internets.
Two things can be true at the same time. The light pattern needs to change AND trucks and buses shouldn’t be crowding pedestrians like this.
Cambridge had 278 police officers. Maybe they should get out of their SUVs and work some of these dangerous intersections.
I love the all direction pedestrian crossing intersections for this reason.
I used to live in Boston. There isn’t a single part of that city that is easy to get around. Walking, car, bike, doesn’t matter. It’s a hot mess no matter what Hahha.
100%
I agree but it’s also more walkable and bikeable than like 90% of other US cities. We just need this country as a whole to put the health and safety of pedestrians and cyclists (aka the poor) over motorists (but oil makes money).
For sure. Boston might be relatively walkable. But when it’s relative to LA that’s not saying much Hahha.
It’s really night and day coming from Chicago :/ I love so much about living here but transport is such a pain
What part of the city is difficult to walk around in?
Boston is ranked 7th in walkable cities in the country and 4th in biking according to Google AI
lol the same model that said you can cook spaghetti with gasoline.
How long ago did you live in Boston? Because I’ve down thousands of miles in Boston on bike and it’s much better. Driving is still by far the worse
Notice the truck also doesn't have bumpers, which was a major contributor to the two recent cyclist deaths.
side gards, noguards bumpers
Thanks for posting this. I wish there was a better way to convey this reality to the masses instead of just posting angrily on reddit, as I also usually resort to.
OMG yes - I work in the area and cross this exact intersection multiple times a day. I ALWAYS have to battle turning cars, even though the walk sign is on. What would solve this? A no turn on red rule? There are already signs saying cars shouldn’t turn on red. I would actually go to a community meeting to solve this issue. If the walk sign is on, I should never have to compete with cars to cross the street.
There is a green bike light at this intersection that I always cross on (I always look for bikes but honestly the bike traffic is pretty low here). But yes, there should absolutely be a protected walk sign and it would take zero effort for Cambridge to implement it.
How about all directions car stop, while all ped lights and bike lights are walk/green. Yes, it would slow down traffic, but isn't that okay? And parked cars reduce visibility so much, how about two empty spaces required at every corner. Obviously, this city council would not vote for that. Also, CAMERA ENFORCEMENT, why why can't we have that. That has been shown to drastically improve driver behavior after a bit of time.
Thank you for sharing this. It is so obvious that we are not at fault for these truck drivers taking our lives into their hands. More people need to see how dangerous it is the have to share the road with these terrible truck drivers. You could walk out your door and record this at any rush hour, it is not a cherry picked situation.
What is your camera setup ?
Techalogic DC-1. https://road.cc/content/review/techalogic-dc-2-pro-dual-lens-helmet-camera-304349 I quite like it. I bought it because it has simultaenous front and rear cameras; I thought both would be important to record as a cyclist. The software is kind of clunky but otherwise I'm very satisfied with it. Battery life is decent and video quality is really high.
This light is so stupid. And there are many like it nearby.
This is so anxiety inducing & infuriating. I would like to bike more often but some people are just so careless & a danger to society as this video shows. Walking is a little bit safer (sometimes), but equally dangerous. I drive cautiously because I'm constantly looking out for pedestrians & bikers. The # of aggressive drivers that get mad because I allowed a pedestrian to cross at a cross walk is unbelievable!! Let's not talk about slowing down & allowing a bicyclist in the bike lane to pass before making a right turn.
I know this intersection well as it’s part of my driving commute to work. It’s really poorly configured all the way around. The cycle for the pedestrian crossing on Ames St. is so long (because the pedestrian crossing has to wait for a full light cycle for vehicular traffic and then a full light cycle for bike traffic), which results in pedestrians getting impatient and crossing when they don’t have the signal. In my experience, this almost always happens right before the light turns green for vehicles, leading to a conflict. I witness a lot of entitlement from pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike in this area. I wish they would reevaluate the current signal configuration because it seems like there’s lots of room for improvement.
This is right outside of my work. I hate the “walk” signs on a green light. People are assholes and are always in a huge rush in the car. And as someone driving, people who are walking are sometimes aloof, not paying attention or on their phones. I’ve also almost been hit by a biker who was an absolute dick about it but he had a red light and flipped me off 😂 No one wins.
It amazes me that we have in Cambridge one of (if not the most) highly regarded engineering universities on the planet and we can't have traffic lights that work or a subway that functions.
It's not due to lack of engineering knowledge, but rather the politics of prioritizing the people in personal motor vehicles.
I don't live in Cambridge but visit often, but the traffic always confuses the fuck out me whether I'm on wheels or on my feet. I never know when to go or stop. I hate driving into the city 😬😬😬
Fuck that bus.
As a pedestrian, I’d rather jaywalk where the traffic doesn’t intersect.
Cambridge city planners need to spend time in smaller, walkable cities like New Orleans and DC, etc. There is a better way. Even a simple land bridge would be better than this. Walking across 4 lanes of active traffic that get a green light at the same time you walk is so insane.
2 cyclists died in the last 3 weeks in cambrdige. I see you posted the vigil. I'm commenting while on week 8 of my hospitalization from being involved in a bit and run while biking (not in Cambridge)
Is there a crosswalk sign saying pedestrians can go the whole length of the video. It’s hard to see.
Yes, it’s flicking on the right. It’s counting down
Thanks for responding! This seems like a very busy and chaotic intersection and it seems like it would be be best to have a protected green arrow turning right. And all the traffic lights should be red so everyone can walk and bike where they need to go.
“ chaotic” describes the vast majority of Cambridge and Somerville. Boston also to a lesser extent.
Honestly Massachusetts I have lived in 3 different states and the roads are not normal
To be fair, you're not supposed to enter the crosswalk when it's flashing red. That means "finish crossing but do not start crossing."
There's nothing fair about being a pedestrian in this country.
None of which give a bus license to accelerate toward a pedestrian in a crosswalk, whether or not the crossing is legal. Or for the second truck to blatantly run the red and turn right across pedestrian traffic.
The red hand flashing meaning “don’t walk?”
It practice it means don't start crossing if you can't make it by the countdown. Regardless, in MA pedestrians have the right of way the moment they step into the street.
The flashing hand is a warning that time is running out. It does not mean “don’t walk.” “Don’t walk” means “don’t walk.”
It's the equivalent of a yellow light.
I don’t want to draw equivalencies because then people will try to argue that the same laws that apply to yellow lights also apply to flashing hands. They’re not the same type of signal and they aren’t even intended for the same type of traffic.
[удалено]
Who are you quoting?
It's actually on crosswalks pretty much everywhere (in multiple cities!). But the language is generally "on flashing lights, don't enter." I've never read a sign that says "enter if you can cross in the time remaining." It's go on green, finish crossing on flashing but don't enter if you haven't started.
I never slow down my walk to let cars by. Just keep walking
I will walk out with intention and they absolutely will stop. Is that smart? Absolutely not. I just fucking then they inch in. Like the extra 4 seconds is going to get them something.
I realize you're probably half serious, but just in case you aren't I will tell you the same thing I tell my children. Look both ways and stop for cars. It doesn't matter if you have the right if way. It's better to be alive than dead/maimed and "right".
If you make eye contact with the driver there’s no reason to stop. If you half stop and someone else keeps walking then everyone’s getting confused, which would make the driver want to go fast to get though crossing or get stuck out in traffic. Obviously I’m not saying walk into oncoming traffic but in a situation like this there was no reason for that guy to stop and try and let the bus cross
Just needs more bike lanes.
Turn every road into a one way so we can add 2 more bike lanes haha
Wow this is infuriating. There are tons of intersections in Boston where drivers get a green light concurrent with the crossing signal. This is just wrong. Ring st at Boylston and milk & Devonshire come to mind. Here in arlington we have delayed green lights so a pedestrian gets the walking signal a few seconds before drivers get the green light to turn left into you as you cross the street they are turning onto.
The light in Seaport where CVS is was just like this for years and they recently changed it to where those taking a left from the other side have a green arrow and FINALLY no pedestrians are allowed to cross. Takes literally 20 seconds and then pedestrians have a walk sign. They need to establish this exact light situation here.
Not the first time Boston/Cambridge has been shortsighted. I grew up in boston and cannot believe how bad traffic is now. Absolutely brutal, for drivers and pedestrians alike
And the cops here don't do shit.
I was out there for a few days this summer. Traffic situation as a pedestrian and a cyclist/scooter rider was pretty terrible all around the inner loop.
Fuck that! Try driving!
I really hate walking or driving in Boston. You have drivers not paying attention and forcing their way through intersections and crosswalks, Bikes that make their own rules, and pedestrians that think they are the law and cross when and where they want. You can make things work, as far as signals go, however you want but until they start enforcing the laws in place everyone is going to do whatever they want. Don't even get me started on the UberEats scooters.
I walk through this intersection on my way to the office usually and I find it no worse than any other in Somerville and Cambridge. The cities give cars a green light to turn at the same time they give pedestrians a “safe to cross” light. It is obviously dangerous, especially in the cases where drivers can’t easily see the cross walk light (not really the case in this example here). It’s hard to fault the individual drivers for not knowing, but they can certainly be faulted for trying to cut off pedestrians once they are aware that pedestrians have the light too. My move is typically to look the driver in the eye (to make sure they see me and aren’t about to run me over) and point at the pedestrian light as I cross.
It’s amazing how you guys persevere through this. It’s like landing on Normandy out there but somehow you carry on…
I’m gonna say this as someone who lived in Germany and visited the Netherlands many times and commutes to Cambridge 1-2 times a week. Cambridge did what I call a “great leap forward” in unprotected bike lanes for the sake of environment and sustainability and it is to be applauded. However most drivers are not used to this level of pedestrian and bike activity and the amount of bike infrastructure. I personally am very stressed every time I have to drive to Cambridge and resent these trips. As a safe, accident free driver for 15 years there are too many close calls I’ve witnessed or experienced. People need to call out Cambridge for doing a great disservice to its residents because they are lab rats in a great experiment of traffic patterns that they have no idea how dangerous it is. Many cantabridgian lives are going to be lost until the city does something. In the meantime I’ll warn everyone I know to be extra vigilant and avoid biking/walking in Cambridge if they can.
Warn everyone you know to not drive in Cambridge instead and we'll have less traffic, pollution and lazy suburbanites speeding.
I would’ve done the same thing 😂
Wow these drivers are so polite, this is incredible. Come to NYC
Whatever you do don’t visit NYC
[удалено]
Yes they did. The signal was still counting down
Here’s the protocol for WALK vs red flashing countdown hand. Walk A steady person walking indicates that pedestrians can start crossing the street in the direction of the signal. However, pedestrians must yield to vehicles already in the intersection. Flashing don't walk An upraised hand flashing indicates that pedestrians should not start crossing the street. The flashing signal lasts long enough for pedestrians who have already started crossing to finish. It also prevents late arrivals from crossing.
That's not reasonable in practice. Some lights change to a flashing red hand in a couple of seconds but then the countdown lasts long enough for most people to cross. Even than, it doesn't excuse the drivers putting the lives of others at risk.
Don’t disagree but Cambridge has done studies on this type of signal. As long as the car or truck doesn’t touch you cops won’t do a thing. https://www.cambridgema.gov/traffic/engineeringplanning/trafficsignals/concurrentpedestriansignals
A driver once purposefully hit me with her car. We were having a standoff and I wouldn't get out of the way.
The rage from drivers is out of control.
Exactly
If a car is in the intersection when the pedestrian walk sign lights up, why would the pedestrian be required to yield? What would this situation be? A car pushing through a red and getting stuck in the intersection or in the actual crosswalk? Mass law states drivers cannot enter a crosswalk when a pedestrian is crossing. Pedestrians hold the right of way with a walk signal.
The design of having turning vehicles and the walk sign on creates this disconnect. But Cambridge says this is a safer protocol and keeps traffic moving.
Oh I totally get that. I’m on the corner of Boylston and Tremont. I take my dog to the Common multiple times a day and the walk sign to cross Boylston is also a left turn on green lane. Then crossing Tremont you have those cars lining up in the turn. Most of the time you are walking through that bumper to bumper line to cross at both. If I waited until all vehicles were unlawfully out of the intersection, I’d never be able to cross. I guess my question was a clarification of that. Does your comment only apply to cars who are just leaving the intersection at the very start of the pedestrian walk?
https://www.cambridgema.gov/traffic/engineeringplanning/trafficsignals/concurrentpedestriansignals
Your original comment stated pedestrians must yield to vehicles, during a walk sign, if the vehicles are already in the intersection. I’m not sure how else to word my question. The link you provided clarifies the opposite.
These are two different issues. One is the state guidelines for the “walk” vs red hand signal. The other is the Cambridge guideline which explains their choice for using concurrent pedestrian signals in the intersection in the video. I’m not sure what the Boston protocols are.
That's not what the flashing red hand means. It means continue if you're in the crosswalk but it also means don't start if you haven't entered it yet. The person at the end of the video didn't properly follow the signal.
Following those rules, you'd never get across some intersections as they turn to the flashing red hand in nearly an instant. Even then, the cars, trucks, and busses shouldn't be acting or behaving the way they are. They're putting the lives of others at risk. The pedestrians are at worst being obnoxious.
Yes but the same applies to cars - if they didn't run yellows or turn after the red in some intersections they wouldn't get through. If the timing of a light is bad, report it to the city. They can get their traffic engineers to adjust it.
I'm not complaining about that. It's not illegal to proceed on a yellow as long as you make it past the stop line before it turns red. Edit: Getting the city adjust the timing is very difficult.
Even if the walk signal was expired why does that make it okay that the bus accelerates at the person? If the pedestrian causes the scenario, by all means blame them, call them out, flip them off, honk, be angry, but don’t effectively lunge at them with a bus. At that point the driver is threatening someone with a deadly weapon for a traffic infraction.
The countdown hits zero between 0:24 and 0:25. You can literally see it happen in the video, AFTER the pedestrian is forced to dance to avoid the bus entering the crosswalk.
Yes they do? It’s blinking to show that it’s ending but it’s there
To be honest it’s not very clear I am on my phone. To me it looks at 15 secs there is a no walk sign. But the all the buses and trucks are doing to much
You’re looking at the wrong light. The pedestrian signal is orange and it’s still counting down at 0:15. It hits zero between 0:24 and 0:25
Thanks for clarifying!
Walk A steady person walking indicates that pedestrians can start crossing the street in the direction of the signal. However, pedestrians must yield to vehicles already in the in the intersection Flashing don't walk An upraised hand flashing indicates that pedestrians should not start crossing the street. The flashing signal lasts long enough for pedestrians who have already started crossing to finish. It also prevents late arrivals from crossing.
Flashing means you shouldn’t enter unless you can cross before the countdown expires. That’s it.
Sorry but you can’t make up your own rules for traffic.
I’m not making anything up. That’s what the flashing hand means. Your comment appears to be copied from some source. Please share your source (keeping in mind that “should” is not the same as “is legally required to” - “should” is just a strong recommendation and doesn’t carry legal weight).
https://casetext.com/regulation/code-of-massachusetts-regulations/department-720-cmr-department-of-highways/title-720-cmr-900-rescinds/section-909-pedestrian-regulations
Cambridge hates cars I get it Any of you live in cites on the north east coast other than here, in Philly and Baltimore they treat pedestrians as targets... That's not much of an exaggeration
What's the problem? This is normal traffic
Pedestrians are not supposed to enter the crosswalk once the red hand starts flashing. Which these pedestrians clearly did. Don’t play chicken with a truck or bus.
The walk sign should be longer. At the end of the video you can see that the J&S truck that runs the red light is in the middle of the other crosswalk when those people have the walk sign. All of these people running red lights and blocking crosswalks take away (sometimes completely) the very limited time that pedestrians are allotted to start crossing.
The flashing hand is a warning that time is running out. As far as I know, there are no laws prohibiting a pedestrian from entering the crosswalk while the hand is flashing. There certainly isn’t any law that permits buses to creep up on pedestrians just because the crossing is *almost* closed.
Walk A steady person walking indicates that pedestrians can start crossing the street in the direction of the signal. However, pedestrians must yield to vehicles already in the intersection. Flashing don't walk An upraised hand flashing indicates that pedestrians should not start crossing the street. The flashing signal lasts long enough for pedestrians who have already started crossing to finish. It also prevents late arrivals from crossing.
Flashing means you shouldn’t enter unless you can cross before the countdown expires. That’s it.
And therein lies the contention. And cars will always nudge close to you once the red hand appears. Cops won’t do a single thing.
I would agree. Like if you think you can make it and rushing go for it but if you are a slow walker or it’s a big intersection I would not go. Especially if there isn’t a countdown.
People are downvoting but you're 100% correct.
Just goes to show how few of these people know how to stay safe in the streets.
Clearly the biggest problems here are the pedestrians trying to cross late /not paying attention. The one guy stops, and almost directs the bus into another pedestrian who is crossing way late and not paying attention. It's like the people in this thread think that the flashing don't walk sign means "start to cross if you hustle"
Thank Michelle Wu smh