Wouldn't have to be a big "corral" style -- just a few of the big iron loops would be great. The problem sneaks up on people who use the signposts in desperation: they don't realize that just jostling them lets them slide down, and pretty soon they're an obstruction to either/both sidewalk *and* parking. No one wants that.
sidenote< I bet anything that a lot of these signpost-users are part of the perennial body of new students who still havent figure out this "living in a city" thing. ::sigh::

Perhaps we should also have signs produced that say, "Learn how to properly lock up your bike so that it doesn't fall over and get in everybody's way."

(hahaha true, but in fairness, I have seen cars jostle otherwise adequately parked bikes and knock them down, so without knowing / being there at the moment... could've been either!)

I believe Robert's no-so-subtle point is that the "proper" way to lock a bicycle with a U-lock involves running the u-lock through three things: the frame of the bicycle, one of the wheels, and the object being locked to (e.g. signpost). When locked in such a fashion, the bike cannot fall over (and also the locked wheel can't be stolen, although the other wheel can). If a car can "jostle" a locked bike, it is — basically "by definition" — not "adequately parked."

The City does not have a practice of "no bike locking on street sign poles" anywhere. It does have related signs for handicapped spaces, but that's a different thing. I do not think the city should start such a thing; bicycle parking is inadequate already, and to some extent this is a self-selecting problem. Those who park their bikes recklessly are likely to get them damaged.

As to the original request, I understand that outside commercial districts, the city asks residents to pay part of the cost of installing bike racks. It'd be interesting to know if that had changed.

Thanks for the useful comment Mr. Hawkinson. I think it's in line with the City's trumpeted re-commitment to the Paris Accords, after the president withdrew us, to purchase bike racks for citizens' as well as merchants' sakes: we might make that point to our councilors.

But a note to you and Mr. Winters: not all bike locks will do what Mr. Hawkinson usefully describes, because they're rigid. Insurance companies seem to like the rigid kind.

I haven't noticed a tsunami of lazy, thoughtless bike-riders in Cambridge. Drivers, yes, pedestrians too: both groups are legendary. But outrage at cyclists trying to clean up some air for us to breathe is misplaced. We need more cyclist jokes, to lighten our irritable Massachusetts hearts!

Great discussion here! John is correct that those 'no bike parking' signs are only for Disability Parking Spaces. Bikes can be removed by DPW no matter where they are locked if they leave less than 36 inch path of travel for pedestrians. This usualyl will only happen in a busy location of if someone reports the issue here on SeeClickFix. For all the rules and regulations see here: http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/gettingaroundcambridge/bybike/Parking/.

We will evaluate this location, let you know of our findings, and notify abutting property owners if racks will be installed. I do not think we have sufficient sidewalk width to add them on Clinton, so we will look to site them nearby on Harvard street. Please be aware that the time from request to installation is approx. 6-12 months.

Mary: I'm not quite sure what you mean about rigidity (other than perhaps of my thinking). It's true that there are hundreds of different kinds of bike lock, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Although it's also true that there are bike locks are that are simply inappropriate for use in cities like Cambridge.

A u-lock is a rigid lock, and is the well-recommended bike lock for most circumstances in cities in general and Cambridge in particular, and is accepted by insurance companies as far as I am aware. A U-lock allows the configuration I described, at least nearly always. U-locks do come in different sizes and if you have one that does not fit your bicycle, then you can run into trouble. Mountain bikes are classically known for requiring longer-neck U locks because of their frame dimensions; and lately "messenger"-style ulocks, like the Kryptonite Mini-5 (a 3.25"x5.5" lock instead of 3.75"x6.5") have become somewhat popular both because they can fit in a messenger's back pocket and also because they leave less space for someone to insert a lever to try to "pop" the lock.

In the latter cases it can be harder to include the wheel, though usually it's still possible. Sometimes it's a matter of practice, or even "learning the trick." For me that's to insert the lock through the wheel first, around the signpost second, and the bike frame third.

I worry when "flexible" is mentioned (here, by implication, as the opposite of rigid). If the suggestion there is a "cable lock," be aware they are generally regarded as extremely insecure. Most cables can be cut with a portable pair of bolt cutters, which makes such locks the low-hanging-fruit for bike thieves. For many, such flexible locks fall in the "not appropriate for Cambridge" category, but your milage may vary; and Mid-Cambridge (this location) is not Strawberry Hill; but nor is it Harvard Square.

Justin: For what it's worth, the original request was indeed for "On Harvard near Clinton," probably for the reason you suggest. Although the sidewalk width on Clinton does vary and the even side of the street is plausible in this location.

Hey @Mary , you may enjoy --> http://yehudamoon.com/

> Although the sidewalk width on Clinton does vary and the even side of the street is plausible in this location.

Oops, I meant the ODD side (the side not pictured).

Thanks, I will check it out!

Locations for 3 bike racks have been identified on Harvard St and are marked on the sidewalk with white dots. These racks will be installed within 6-12 months. If you wish to inquire further, please email bikerack@cambridgema.gov.