Cyclists, not Motorists, Need Common Sense Road Signs  

When I first saw them, my middle finger shot up spontaneously, and I heard my voice voice spit out my preferred verb followed by a non-negotiable pronoun for those who set mindless rules.

Call it “therapy.” On Plum Island’s one and only road to the mainland, as of last summer, we now have signs instructing “MOTORISTS GIVE 4 FT TO PASS” with a little bicycle underneath—a reference to a common sense courtesy usually known as “share the road.”

Calmed down, I can’t help but wonder about yet another nail in the coffin of common sense. We half-joke that it “is not common anymore” even as we conform to vague notions of what’s “appropriate”—in this case a well-intended but too often paralyzing politeness that makes me wonder if we still have any sense at all.

Long before the redundant signs on the Plum Island Turnpike — which is really a causeway — this was thoroughly driven home on the streets of Newburyport, where motorists hit the brakes if a pedestrian so much as leans toward the curb. And spectators are appalled by any motorist who does not.

We’ve come to expect that pedestrians can cross streets without looking both ways, far from a crosswalk, and against a red light. And that cyclists can whiz down one-way streets in the opposite direction. Any contact with a car, and the motorist is guilty. We are nearing the point when, if there’s an accident between a pedestrian and a bicyclist in Newburyport, the owner of the nearest parked car will get the blame.

At State and Pleasant the traffic and crosswalk lights might as well be defunct phone booths for all the attention they do not get. And good luck to visiting drivers who cling to the belief that green means go in Newburyport. More maddening is the confluence of Water and Merrimack at Market Square. Again, a signal regarded as insignificant punctuates the problem. As pedestrians push the “Walk” button, a driver on Merrimack Street will stop and wave for them to go.  Result: All drivers are stopped on green until both streets get red—just as “Walk” comes on for the benefit of strollers already safely across the road.

But let’s get back on the road to Plum Island: Does the “MOTORISTS GIVE 4 FT TO PASS” sign apply when cyclists pedal outside the line, giving themselves their own four-foot lane on Plum Island’s two-lane causeway? And there’s no lack of cyclists who ride two abreast, one of them entirely on the motorist’s side of the bike lane line.

In accordance with a state law that took effect in 2023, the new signs now appear on roads I frequently travel that are often two-lane, hilly, and winding. In such places, they no doubt help remind drivers to be on the lookout.

PI’s causeway, however, is flat except for a small bridge across the narrow channel, and as straight as the Pesky Pole on both the mainland and island sides of that bridge. With a line for bicycle lanes in both directions, and absolutely nothing blocking any sight-lines, the sign does nothing more than state the obvious.

Yes, there are times when the proximity of bicycles to large trucks is dicey. However, danger never results from a lack of space between a bike and any motor vehicle if the two merely stay in the middle of their lanes. The four feet will be there, no need to afford extra room. All of the risk is taken, all of the danger is created, when bicyclists pedal outside their lane—as when they ride two abreast—while oncoming traffic is well within view.

So, here’s a question that cannot be dismissed as either hyperbolic or rhetorical, though it can’t help but sound wild: Are motorists supposed to drive on or over the line that divides us from the other lane into the face of oncoming cars and trucks?

Put another way, which would you rather risk: A head-on collision with another car? Getting rear-ended if you slam the brakes? Or knocking some oblivious fool for a loop? Of course, I’d lay on the horn before choosing the last option. If that didn’t get them to move over, well — that’s what helmets are for.

If anyone who frequently drives the causeway wants a sign to improve its safety, that sign would read: “CYCLISTS, STAY IN YOUR LANE!” And, yes, that should be covered by common sense.

Jack Garvey
Plum Island resident

Passionate about a local issue? We want to hear from you. Check out our submission guidelines.

Subscribe to our Newsletter


Comments

7 responses to “Cyclists, not Motorists, Need Common Sense Road Signs  ”

  1. That is not a bike lane on the road to PI. It’s a shoulder featuring sewer drains, loose gravel and leaves, broken glass and assorted trash. So bicyclists have every right to keep as far left as necessary to travel safely. That’s both the law and common sense.

    1. Jack Garvey Avatar
      Jack Garvey

      I’m wondering what “PI” you are talking about. Pleasure Island in Wakefield went out of business long ago, so I’m sure it is run down as you describe. But I was referring to Plum Island off the coast of Newburyport, Mass. which has two bike lanes clearly marked, one on each side of the road–and one of which is clearly visible in the photo added to this post.

  2. It isn’t clear from Jack Garvey’s column if he is incensed by the state law demanding cars stay 4-feet from cyclists, or the signs stating cars stay 4-feet from cyclists, or that cars defer to cyclists who drift into the motorist lane. Is he arguing that it is better to hit a cyclist than another motorist? As a cyclist and a driver, I know that fault rests in both camps. Cyclists may roll out of a bike lane or away from the edge (often to avoid potholes and debris) and motorists may drive within inches of people on bikes (perhaps to avoid oncoming traffic). The answer is patience and awareness and education. Drivers can slow and pass when the coast is clear. Cyclists need to stay in their lanes and respect traffic laws. Everyone needs to understand the rights of the other. These roadways are shared space.

  3. Jack Garvey Avatar
    Jack Garvey

    Thanks for the statement, “Cyclists need to stay in their lanes…” To me, that’s all that’s necessary. To answer your earlier question, my juxtaposition of sideswiping a cyclist to running head-on into another car is not intended to suggest there’s anything beneficial about either. It is there to emphasize the impossible position that cyclists riding two abreast put motorists in. I live on PI, and I often see bikes two abreast–which necessarily puts one over the line. Those people create more of a hazard–mostly to themselves–than do any drivers. My complaint is that a new sign should have addressed them and said, as you say, “Cyclists need to stay in their lanes…”

  4. Joe Carper Avatar
    Joe Carper

    Author is not a cyclist, apparently. I’m for anything that will remind drivers to give some space to cyclists…I’ve had too many overtaking drivers pass me way too closely. Glad Jack has common sense…but many don’t follow it.

  5. Warren Russo Avatar
    Warren Russo

    Too many of Newburyport’s nitwit pedestrians just step off the curb wherever and whenever they please, without even a glance at the oncoming traffic! Growing up in NYC, the only pedestrian signals we had were signs reading “Look Both Ways.” I think people were smarter years ago and had more common sense than today, when so many people expect the nanny state to coddle them in their idiocy.

  6. Nathan Hey Avatar
    Nathan Hey

    You flipped off a sign and got upset enough to write an article about a basic safety reminder for motorists? It really is a basic safety regulation. The sign is there as a gentle reminder to the drivers of cars that they should give a considerate berth to cyclists, as required by law. Sure, cyclists do stupid things but drivers do too (I am both cyclist and driver and have certainly made mistakes while doing both). The difference is that when a driver makes a mistake they are controlling a heavy, deadly vehicle and are far more likely to harm or kill than a cyclist.

    Further, your point about cyclists “crossing the line” doesn’t matter. Even when a bike lane is present, cyclists are allowed to bike in the car lane unless otherwise restricted from doing so as per Mass. General Law Part I, Title XIV, Chapter 85, Section 11B (“Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted”). From what I can tell and remember, the Plum Island Turnpike has no such restrictions. What is the issue with a cyclist being in the road anyway? Are you upset that you will be slightly inconvenienced having to pass them? Would you be as upset about a car driving well the speed limit on the same road?

    Especially as a Plum Island resident, cyclists are your friends, neighbors, and overall fellow human beings. Your animosity seems to be misplaced.

Leave a Reply to Nathan Hey Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *