Is it biased though? It’s simply true that at rush hours in peak season, bikes make up half of the traffic on the road. Also, it’s far beyond any reasonable threshold for getting protected bike lanes. Even if the bike numbers went to zero in the winter (which they don’t), it would warrant protection here.

Either way, it shows that it’s an extremely popular bike route that needs protection

“Than ever before” = “since 2015”?

https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-how-homes-have-changed-since-2010-2021-6

Of all things to complain about, this isn’t one.

Streets are for transportation, bikes are transportation

Why is perception of safety not a good metric? If a system is perceived to be unsafe, people won’t use it.

Nobody is really choosing to drive into pedestrians when they’re turning right on red. They’re just not paying attention to all directions, only to the direction that traffic is coming from

Cars became king decades before RTOR was allowed nationwide. Removing RTOR in an extremely dense city for pedestrian safety makes sense, and if that alone can make driving not worth it, I’d argue it already wasn’t.

It’s fully legal to ride a bike in a travel lane, even when a bike lane exists.

If the driver is facing North at a red light, trying to turn right to go East, the East-West crossing will likely tell pedestrians to go. A pedestrian on the Southeast corner of the intersection will attempt to go West, crossing in front of the driver attempting a Right Turn On Red. The driver is looking for Eastbound traffic coming from their left, and doesn’t notice the pedestrian crossing in front of them. I have been hit by drivers multiple times in this exact manner.

Cambridge Street has a lot of those signs

It’s not really that unpredictable though, is it? It’s already pretty common practice, enforcing stops would actually be seen as the change in policy.

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

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

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

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

This isn’t a useful critique

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

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

The fact of the matter is that street safety is a contentious topic no matter where you go. Vulnerable road users are growing in number and visibility, and are understandably frustrated with the status quo of car dominated planning which makes everything more dangerous for them. Putting a ban on discussing this is not going to help that whatsoever.

If you’re seeing uncivil things happening in the comments, and you think it’s overwhelming to moderate it all alone, that’s a clear sign that you need to expand the moderation team, not that the (very relevant) topic shouldn’t be allowed at all.

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

Right, real Cantabrigians don’t live in Cambridge! /s

This honestly just feels like an excuse. NYC’s system is perfectly usable and one of the few in the world with 24/7 runtime. Every transit system has its issues, those in the US especially, but it works.

Is it the worst thing in the world to not own a car?

Public transit is perfectly usable in NYC and SF, and in a lot of other cities too. Here in Boston, a third of households don’t even own a car

Cars are already “environmental classism”. Poor people are much less likely to own a car, and much more likely to be negatively impacted by cars. Freeways are built through lower income neighborhoods, busy streets go through the same, killing poorer people at disproportionate rates, and poorer people are more likely to feel the impacts of climate change.

Not to mention that even among poor people who do drive, transportation is a much larger percentage of their budget than richer people due to the high cost of car ownership. Parking mandates also raise the price of homes and goods, passed along to poor people that don’t own cars.

The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup is a great book that also explains why parking minimums are actually bad, if you’re interested

For now yeah. But down the line when we can get more housing friendly policies passed (like the relaxing of zoning), the prices of the apartments aren’t going to pegged to a higher value just so the developers can meet costs. Like you said, a step in the right direction