Is all of Mass. Route 9 legally open to bicycles?

[John F. Carr]

I saw a couple bicyclists on Route 9 in Framingham and Natick
today. Riding a bicycle there is unwise, but perhaps not
illegal (except for the one riding in the wrong direction).
Is there any part of Route 9 which is posted with a bicycle
prohibition?

[David Chesler]

Post by John F. Carr
Is there any part of Route 9 which is posted with a bicycle
prohibition?

Is it ever limited access and express enough for such prohibition
to be legal? (I can't remember how much its character changes
further west.)

[John F. Carr]

Post by David Chesler

Post by John F. Carr
Is there any part of Route 9 which is posted with a bicycle
prohibition?

Is it ever limited access and express enough for such prohibition
to be legal? (I can't remember how much its character changes
further west.)

Short sections are limited access. One of the bicycles was
in the Route 30 interchange. Another was near Speen Street.

"Express" is not defined in state law so MassHighway gets
to make up a definition.

It is dangerous to ride on most of Route 9 from Newton to
Shrewsbury because of the heavy, high speed traffic and
inconsistent shoulders.

[William H. O'Hara, III]

Post by John F. Carr
"Express" is not defined in state law so MassHighway gets
to make up a definition.
It is dangerous to ride on most of Route 9 from Newton to
Shrewsbury because of the heavy, high speed traffic and
inconsistent shoulders.

Where else are they going to ride? Your
opinion probably matters little. I truly
enjoy the people yelling at me to get on
the sidewalk or get off the road. They
might have been the only car that passed
me for 30 minutes.

Route 9 is a busy road, but there isn't any
reason why a bicycle couldn't have its lane.
Bicycles are not suppose to ride on the
shoulders. No one is suppose to be there
AFAIK.

If you got stuck behind the bicycle he does
not have to allow you to pass, as he can
not see you. You can not pass him if you
do not have enough room in the lane to
safely pass him.

Many people like to pass the bicycle and
make an immediate right turn in front of
him or her. This is reckless driving and
I think is the most probable accident that
would occur on Route 9.

The incident would not occur if people
followed the rules and let the bicycle
travel unrestricted and automobile drivers
follow the CMR and the statutes.

As a bicyclist you get threatened by the
dangers of someone making decisions about
your safety or the other type of person
that hurls objects at you or performs
other deeds.

My opinion

Bill

[John F. Carr]

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
If you got stuck behind the bicycle he does
not have to allow you to pass, as he can
not see you.

In Massachusetts it is a vehicle operator's legal
responsibility to watch for a visible signal from
a following vehicle indicating an intent to pass.
In some states an audible signal -- horn -- is
to be used instead.

[William H. O'Hara, III]

Post by John F. Carr

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
If you got stuck behind the bicycle he does
not have to allow you to pass, as he can
not see you.

In Massachusetts it is a vehicle operator's legal
responsibility to watch for a visible signal from
a following vehicle indicating an intent to pass.
In some states an audible signal -- horn -- is
to be used instead.

A bicyclist does not have to yield if he does
not see the vehicle behind him. He has no
mirrors.

Bill

[Marc Dashevsky]

Post by William H. O'Hara, III

Post by John F. Carr

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
If you got stuck behind the bicycle he does
not have to allow you to pass, as he can
not see you.

In Massachusetts it is a vehicle operator's legal
responsibility to watch for a visible signal from
a following vehicle indicating an intent to pass.
In some states an audible signal -- horn -- is
to be used instead.

A bicyclist does not have to yield if he does
not see the vehicle behind him. He has no
mirrors.

[Advancing the discussion by repeating himself.]

[Ed]

Post by William H. O'Hara, III

Post by John F. Carr

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
If you got stuck behind the bicycle he does
not have to allow you to pass, as he can
not see you.

In Massachusetts it is a vehicle operator's legal
responsibility to watch for a visible signal from
a following vehicle indicating an intent to pass.
In some states an audible signal -- horn -- is
to be used instead.

A bicyclist does not have to yield if he does
not see the vehicle behind him. He has no

^^^^^^^^^

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
mirrors.

^^^^^^^


Smart ones do.

[John F. Carr]

Post by William H. O'Hara, III

Post by John F. Carr

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
If you got stuck behind the bicycle he does
not have to allow you to pass, as he can
not see you.

In Massachusetts it is a vehicle operator's legal
responsibility to watch for a visible signal from
a following vehicle indicating an intent to pass.
In some states an audible signal -- horn -- is
to be used instead.

A bicyclist does not have to yield if he does
not see the vehicle behind him. He has no
mirrors.

It is a vehicle operator's responsibility to be aware
of his surroundings and be preparded to fulfil legal
duties. Turn your neck, get a mirror, ride your bike
so you are always doing what the law requires on signal
from an approaching vehicle, or if you can't do any
of those stay off the road because you are not capable
of following the law.

[William H. O'Hara, III]

Post by John F. Carr

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
A bicyclist does not have to yield if he does
not see the vehicle behind him. He has no
mirrors.

It is a vehicle operator's responsibility to be aware
of his surroundings and be preparded to fulfil legal
duties. Turn your neck, get a mirror, ride your bike
so you are always doing what the law requires on signal
from an approaching vehicle, or if you can't do any
of those stay off the road because you are not capable
of following the law.

There is no requirement for a bicyclist to
have a mirror.

The only requirements are the federal product
safety standards and some additions by Mass CMR.
Blowing a horn is not an acceptable signal AFAIK.

A bicyclist is under no obligation to turn his neck
and review the traffic behind him. He is obliged
to handle the road in front of him. Just as you
are. This concept is well engrained into Massachusetts
drivers.

Bill

[Skippy]

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
Where else are they going to ride?

There are plenty of local roads that go east-west in Massachusetts. Learn
how to read a map and then you will be able to figure that out.


Your

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
opinion probably matters little. I truly
enjoy the people yelling at me to get on
the sidewalk or get off the road. They
might have been the only car that passed
me for 30 minutes.

I do not understand. So you say you enjoy making other people angey and
upset. I beleive that would make you what people call an asshole.

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
If you got stuck behind the bicycle he does
not have to allow you to pass, as he can
not see you. You can not pass him if you
do not have enough room in the lane to
safely pass him.

So since you feel like traveling 20-30 miles per hour on a bicycle. So
everyone else on the road (in cars) should follow your wishes and patently
drive all the way from Worcester to Boston at 30 miles per hour behind you
because you don't feel like letting them pass. That would put you into the
category of people I mentioned above.

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
Many people like to pass the bicycle and
make an immediate right turn in front of
him or her. This is reckless driving and
I think is the most probable accident that
would occur on Route 9.

They must be assholes. Does it make you upset? Well, hopefully you feel
better knowing they are assholes just like you and they enjoy making you
upset.

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
The incident would not occur if people
followed the rules and let the bicycle
travel unrestricted and automobile drivers
follow the CMR and the statutes.

Or is bicyclists would face reality and acknowlege the fact that they are
not the only people on the road either.

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
As a bicyclist you get threatened by the
dangers of someone making decisions about
your safety or the other type of person
that hurls objects at you or performs
other deeds.

Wow - what assholes. You must be very proud to be a member of that group.

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
My opinion
Bill

My opinion - you are an asshole.

[Ed]

Post by Skippy

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
Where else are they going to ride?

There are plenty of local roads that go east-west in Massachusetts. Learn
how to read a map and then you will be able to figure that out.
Your

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
opinion probably matters little. I truly
enjoy the people yelling at me to get on
the sidewalk or get off the road. They
might have been the only car that passed
me for 30 minutes.

I do not understand. So you say you enjoy making other people angey and
upset.

Isn't the the raison d'etre of Masshole drivers?

[William H. O'Hara, III]

Post by Skippy
My opinion - you are an asshole.

I think that you should learn how to
behave and consider the things
that you say.

Bill

[Ron Newman]

Bicycles are not suppose to ride on the shoulders.

This I'll disagree with. If a shoulder is paved, sufficiently wide, and
free of glass or other tire-piercing debris, it's a fine place to ride a
bicycle.

I routinely ride on the shoulders of Mystic Valley Parkway between West
Medford and Winchester. Route 16 in Wellesley is another good example
of a road whose shoulder easily accommodates bicycles.

[John F. Carr]

Post by Ron Newman

Bicycles are not suppose to ride on the shoulders.

This I'll disagree with. If a shoulder is paved, sufficiently wide, and
free of glass or other tire-piercing debris, it's a fine place to ride a
bicycle.

Legally, he is correct. Massachusetts prohibits driving on the
shoulder and does not make an exception for bicycles.

Practically, nobody takes that law seriously when bicycles are
concerned.

[William H. O'Hara, III]

Post by John F. Carr

Post by Ron Newman
This I'll disagree with. If a shoulder is paved,
sufficiently wide, and free of glass or other tire-piercing
debris, it's a fine place to ride a bicycle.

Legally, he is correct. Massachusetts prohibits driving on
the shoulder and does not make an exception for bicycles.
Practically, nobody takes that law seriously when bicycles
are concerned.

Practically many do. I used to do a CRW
ride. One day we had the edge of the road
huggers. Don't be suprised that we had
multiple flats that day.

One day we had the idiots that passed a
car on the right. Why do I say that they
were idiots? The vehicle had its right
blinker on.

Bicyclists in general follow most of the rules
and try to give their right to the road
away to vehicles.

The safety aspect is for vehicles to follow
their rules as well.

I do not think anyone should be denied from
Route 9. The thing comes down to you let
them do your thing and you do yours.

Bill

[Sean]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:32:02 -0500, "William H. O'Hara, III"

Post by William H. O'Hara, III
Bicyclists in general follow most of the rules
and try to give their right to the road
away to vehicles.

What planet do you ride on?

Sean

[William H. O'Hara, III]

debris, it's a fine place to ride a bicycle.
I routinely ride on the shoulders of Mystic Valley Parkway
between West Medford and Winchester. Route 16 in Wellesley
is another good example of a road whose shoulder easily
accommodates bicycles.

Overall, you shall seldom see a consistent
wide shoulder free of obstacles. My point
was to specify that the law does not want
any moving vehicle in the shoulder.

I am confounded by those in the CRW ride
on one day that I used to do. They would
ride at the absolute right of the road.
People would pass us by two or three inches.
We would be treading one inch next to broken
glass.

This is all to please the "driver."

If some person wants to go somewhere they
should not be restricted from a non-restricted
road based on the feelings of an ignorant
driver.

I would be out bicycling right now if my
knee wasn't out of whack.

I had stuff thrown at me. I have been
hit by a car that decided it would be
fun.

Read the post by "skippy" about the lack
of your rights in the real world.

Bill

[Ron Newman]

Route 9 is not a limited access highway. One grade separation does not
make a highway limited access -- if it did, you'd have to call
Huntington Avenue limited access where it passes under the Jamaicaway at
a (very squashed) full-cloverleaf interchange.

[A***@hotmail.com]

Post by Ron Newman
Route 9 is not a limited access highway. One grade separation does not
make a highway limited access -- if it did, you'd have to call
Huntington Avenue limited access where it passes under the Jamaicaway at
a (very squashed) full-cloverleaf interchange.

On the other hand, stretches of unbroken, uncrossable median 2 or 3
miles long in heavily-developed areas *do* tend to tip the balance in
favor of a limited access designation. (And Route 9 has far more than
just one grade separation.)

I think it's unfortunate the way this road is configured. It makes it
very difficult to make certain trips that involve crossing or left turn
movements, especially on foot but even in a motor vehicle. I had never
seen roads like that before I came to this area. In other places,
roads are either fully freeway-ized, or have traffic lights or
overpasses every quarter mile to half mile where there are businesses
or intersecting side streets.

RTSPCC has described how the former local bus service along Route 9 to
Worcester now uses the Mass Pike out to Framingham, primarily because
it was too difficult for people to cross the street before or after
riding the bus. (There are abandoned bus shelters along various parts
of the road.) I guess prices of homes near or on 9 reflect the extreme
inconvenience and danger of dealing with it every day, but it would
still be a better outcome for everyone if frequent, safe crossing
opportunities were provided.

-Apr

[John F. Carr]

Post by A***@hotmail.com

Post by Ron Newman
Route 9 is not a limited access highway. One grade separation does

not

Post by Ron Newman
make a highway limited access -- if it did, you'd have to call
Huntington Avenue limited access where it passes under the Jamaicaway

at

Post by Ron Newman
a (very squashed) full-cloverleaf interchange.

On the other hand, stretches of unbroken, uncrossable median 2 or 3
miles long in heavily-developed areas *do* tend to tip the balance in
favor of a limited access designation. (And Route 9 has far more than
just one grade separation.)

"Limited access" has a specific legal meaning: abutting property
owners do not have a right to access the highway. Route 9 is
limited access near some interchanges but not elsewhere.

Bicycles may also be prohibited from "express" state highways,
and that term does not have a specific legal meaning. Limited
access or express could plausibly be read to mean the set of
highways in red or blue on this map:
Loading Image...

(Bicycle prohibitions are always optional in Massachusetts.
Route 49 doesn't need one even though it is a limited access
highway.)

[c***@raines.com]

1. All cyclists should be required to have rear-view mirrors; either
the clip-on kind that fit on one's goggles frame, or the bar-end kind.
This is for safety just like rear-view mirrors are, for cars.
2. It is naive to think one, as a cyclist, is safe on every
non-limited-access road. There are other safer routes one can use, in
the Rt. 9 area. I recommend getting a Rubel's Bike Map for eastern
Mass. They are sold at most bike shops. The map shows suggested roads
(wide shoulders, less traffic, etc.) and one can plan a trip very well
using its pink and green roads.

C.C.

[William H. O'Hara, III]

road. There are other safer routes one can use, in the Rt.
9 area. I recommend getting a Rubel's Bike Map for eastern
Mass. They are sold at most bike shops. The map shows
suggested roads (wide shoulders, less traffic, etc.) and
one can plan a trip very well using its pink and green
roads.

You ignore the fact that someone might want to
travel to a destination on Route 9. No one
should travel on any road solely because it
has an acceptable shoulder.

People should be allowed to travel where they
want and other vehicles should remain courteous
and follow the rules.

Bill

[Don]

Post by John F. Carr
Is there any part of Route 9 which is posted with a bicycle
prohibition?

I've never seen a sign prohibiting bicycle use on Route 9. I'm
positive there is no such prohibition on 9 anywhere between Natick and
Pittsfield, somewhat less certain east of Natick.

--
Don McAllaster, who does sometimes ride that road
Shrewsbury, Mass