Plate lv 75999

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

You don't understand why plates and insurance exist, do you? Anyway, I say 3 bikes having to go to the car lane because of this driver. Parking spaces are available on the side street. And this is illegal.

saw*

Please don't use this SeeClickFix utility as a lobbying tool for segregated bicycle facilities. There are more appropriate forums for that kind of advocacy. [Reference: "separate infra please"]

I'll stop when drivers stop squatting bike lanes or when the police start enforcing parking laws in a consistent manner. Until then...

Thanks for not addressing the specific criticism. You may now return to your vigilantism.

Robert, what about Nico's post or comments resembled vigilantism? It's exactly the opposite... he's using a community forum to contact the police, not handling the situation himself. The post is polite and clear, and includes the most passive form "lobbying" I've seen.

Nobody needs to decide which forum is or is not appropriate for this kind of advocacy. We have city employees for that. They can choose to take or leave any specific details in a post as needed.

If you truly want to work constructively together on safer road infrastructure, it probably makes sense not to antagonize people who post issues that concern them on here. It would be even better to stop ascribing malice to actions (e.g. bikers exploit deaths to further their agenda) or to generalize (e.g. biker vigilantism).

I repeat: SeeClickFix is not meant to be a forum like Usenet or Facebook or Twitter. It's a utility for requesting that something be fixed. If filing a complaint about someone stopped where they should not be, fine, though the better course of action is to call the police if it bothers you that much. You apparently also didn't read my reference before launching into your screed. My objection was the inclusion of the phrase "separate infra please". That's lobbying. As for what constitutes safer road infrastructure, that's a conversation that should take place elsewhere.

Robert, who put you in charge of deciding how SCF is meant to be used? You just said it's a utility for requesting that something be fixed. Nico is very specifically trying to get the city to fix this ongoing issue with illegally parked cars in the bike lane. Seems like a reasonable use of the platform.

I completely read and understood what you were referring to as "lobbying". It's painfully clear you have a point of view about this issue rather than his actual use of the forum. Maybe you are the one who should be thinking about what lobbying you are doing on here. Nico posted three words that made you call him a vigilante and tell him what he could or couldn't say.

Wishing we really could have a constructive dialogue that didn't involve demagoguery.

It is also painfully clear that YOU have a point of view about this issue as well. Once again, the inclusion of the phrase "separate infra please" was what I interpreted as lobbying. Should I start submitting SeeClickFix requests to correct some of what I see as bad implementation on Brattle Street and Cambridge Street? I believe there are better places for that sort of lobbying than here.

Again, I completely understood what you meant was the lobbying. Robert, you're welcome to post whatever you want on here. I'm not the one trying to censor what people do on here. The equivalent post that you describe for what Nico posted would be to actually take a picture of somebody actively breaking a law and explaining how you think the infrastructure needs to be changed to address it. Do you see how one is more mature and reasonable than the other?

You clearly didn't read what my objection was after repeated references.

Seems like somebody flagged my posts, so I can't post without moderator approval. Thanks for that.

Robert, for the third time, I completely understand your specific criticism of Nico's post and the three words he used that you called lobbying. I agreed in my very first post that "it was the most passive form lobbying I've seen." It seems that you can't defend your position, so instead you complain "you clearly didn't read what my objection was".

Cyclists who post on here or who go to city meetings aren't vigilantes or bad people. They aren't "lobbyists" with agendas. They are people who genuinely want to see the roads be safer because they feel frightened when they bike. Stop attacking people for sincerely held positions under the guise that they are malicious.

I do not ascribe malice, just a belief that this is not the right forum for lobbying. Complaints, yes. Lobbying, no. As for going to public meetings, that's exactly where lobbying should take place - hopefully based on facts rather than misinformation.

Agreed. I'm saying when you go to a public meeting, try not to ascribe malice (e.g. saying things like "using deaths to further an agenda" and "vigilantism"). To be most productive, you might want to avoid passive aggressive phrases like "hopefully based on facts rather than misinformation". If we're talking facts versus misinformation at public meetings, nobody's business credit card transactions are 20% lower year over year, and if they are, it's not because of the loss of one parking spot in front of his business.

I could do without the condescension or the references to statements made at a forum other than this. You may want to speak with the Cambridge Police, by the way, regarding some of the relevant details.

Nico. Thanks for the post!

Thanks for the post nico! Everyone should please keep reporting Livery/Ride Share/Taxi drivers for parking illegally and dangerously, when it happens.

Non sequitur, to be sure: Every Cambridge cyclist who wants safer streets needs to (1) Register to vote, and encourage their friends to register to vote and (2) vote for protected cycling infrastructure friendly candidates in the 2019 Cambridge City Council elections.

We did well in 2017, we need to seal the deal in 2019!!!

Worth noting that Cambridge Police specifically has asked for people to submit this, so that they have a better idea of hotspots where these activities occur and they can proactively educate drivers about what not to do.

Thanks for posting, Nico. I have in the past used SeeClickFix to request the repair, relocation, or addition of street lights, road markings, trash cans, water fountains, play equipment, road defects, bus stops, mailboxes, street trees, sidewalk segments, ADA ramps, pedestrian crossings, and traffic signals. The idea that separated bike lanes are any different from these other necessary pieces of good urban infrastructure, and therefore can't be requested through the usual channels, is a fiction created by those who directly oppose them. If the City has an issue with using the SCF platform to report such concerns, they have, as far as I know, yet to voice them.

I won't even bother reading through the back and forth, but I know that I have been encouraged by the police to use SCF for these types of incidents, so, whomever so opposes reporting these issues on SCF is uninformed.

Nico - thanks for reporting, please continue to do so!

Thank you for reporting your concern to City of Cambridge via Commonwealth Connect. This reporting is useful, as we use the information as part of an ongoing review of data to better understand where and when to deploy our officers for this type of enforcement.