DeMarco does not quote it, but the legal definition of motorized bicycle in Massachusetts is “a pedal bicycle which has a helper motor, or a non-pedal bicycle which has a motor, with a cylinder capacity not exceeding fifty cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission, and which is capable of a maximum speed of no more than thirty miles per hour.” So a moped (pedal bicycle with a motor) is a motorized bicycle, but so is a small motorcycle with no pedals. Curiously, the Registry of Moter Vehicles has decided that a pedal bicycle with an electric motor is not a moped, even though this statutory definition would certainly seem to include such vehicles, since the statute says that any pedal bicycle with a helper motor is a moped.  Even more curiously, some legislators (on advice of misinformed police, perhaps) were convinced that mini motorcycles are neither mopeds nor motorcycles, and so came up with a third category, motorized scooter, which is “any 2 wheeled tandem or 3 wheeled device, that has handlebars, designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, powered by an electric or gas powered motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion” but is not “a motorcycle or motorized bicycle or a 3 wheeled motorized wheelchair.” Got it? The rules they created for motorized scooters are even more discriminatory than those for bicycles (motorized or not).

But back to DeMarco’s article. He correctly points out that “it’s illegal for moped drivers to go faster than 25 miles per hour, no matter what the posted speed limit is.” This seems to me to be unfair and discriminatory. Bicyclists often go faster than 25 mph.

When DeMarco uses police officers as an authority, he often puts forth assertions which don’t match the law.  DeMarco writes, “Maffei, of the Cambridge Police, said that moped riders often zip to the front of the line at a red light by riding between two lanes of cars. But riding between cars is illegal - motorcyclists and bicyclists aren’t supposed to do it, either - and carries a $25 fine.”  But that’s not what the law says.

Chapter 89 Section 4A is about as clear as it gets for Mass. traffic laws: “Section 4A. When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety. The operators of motorcycles shall not ride abreast of more than one other motorcycle, shall ride single file when passing, and shall not pass any other motor vehicle within the same lane, except another motorcycle.”

So drivers of motorcycles (but not bicycles or motorized bicycles) cannot pass another motor vehicle within the same lane (except another motorcycle), and all drivers must drive within one lane, and yield when changing lanes. This means that an operator of a narrow vehicle that is not a motorcycle can overtake another vehicle within the same lane, provided that he or she obeys the rules for overtaking (chiefly, maintaining a safe distance). If you think the statute means that a bicyclist or moped rider cannot pass a line of stopped cars within the same lane under any circumstances, then it must also mean that a motorist cannot pass a bicyclist without completely changing lanes under any circumstances. Motorists would not tolerate such an interpretation.

What about parking mopeds? “Tinlin, Boston’s transportation commissioner, also said his staff can’t issue parking tickets to mopeds parked on sidewalks. However, Boston has rules against chaining bicycles to posts and parking meters. If a moped owner chains her vehicle, parking officials might cut the chain and tow the vehicle.” Ah! Those mysterous rules again! I will give $100 to anyone who can find me a published copy (published before today, that is). The previous version I heard is that it is illegal to affix a bike to any “city asset.” This would presumably include bike racks (unless they are a liability). But I have search in vain in the municipal code. Mr. Mayor, you want to promote bicycling. Could you publish fair rules about bicycle parking on city sidewalks, rather than have your officials repeatedly assert a secret policy to remove locked bicycles without notice?

I am curious if police officers treat mopeds as motorcycles rather than bicycles in terms of traffic enforcement. That is, will they cite moped riders from time to time, or ignore them completely? Is there a way of citing a moped in the Uniform Citation book?

The absence of track now gives bicyclists freedom of movement without fear of falling. In the past few weeks I have easily and without worry passed stopped buses and doubled-parked cars and executed left turns — even in the rain.

I am trying to organize a Freedom Ride to mark the paving over of the trolley tracks. It would be fitting to do it around the July 4 holiday.

Now for the first time in the 16 years I have lived in Jamaica Plain, all of the major streets are reasonably smooth and free from hazards. Even Amory Street, which had been in horrible shape as long as I can remember, is now covered in smooth black asphalt from end to (almost) end. Lamartine St was repaved a few years ago, after being horribly potholed and dug up by utilities for years.

There is still more work to be done: the Southwest Corridor path is showing its 20 year age. Tree roots have caused heaves in many places. Crosswalks are missing. The original design defects, such as narrow curb cuts, lack of side clearance, and, in one place, a very steep slope are still there. But don’t hold your breath waiting for repairs. The DCR is chronically underfunded. Ten years ago when I asked about improving the surface quality of the path they offered to supply the materials if I could provide a crew of volunteers. The path needs to be rebuilt in many places and tree root barriers installed. I can think of only one case where badly needed path improvements were actually made (the old section of the Cape Cod Rail Trail). There are too many counter-examples: the heavily used Charles River paths are still a horror show.

To make matters worse, the city’s long-time policy is to require only temporary repairs after utility companies dig up the street. The city then comes in and makes a permanent repair — within two or three years. In the interim, the pavement can deteriorate significantly. This is why we live in an essentially permanent state of potholes. The Boston Globe ran an expose of this practice in 2005, with on-record quotes from national experts saying that the city’s policy was completely wrong. Nothing changed. Mayor Menino finally did something about the problem when his own car ran into a pothole. “I’m not going to stand for it” he said, and promptly halted all street excavations. But the ban lasted just 5 days. The city let the utilities and contractors continue their work after scolding them and showing them pictures of their bad temporary repairs. But one contractor justly asked: “There is money that goes into a fund and is supposed to go toward the permanent fix. The temporary patches will last a little time, but they’re not designed for the long term. The question is why isn’t the city making the permanent patch?”

And when the city crews do fill potholes, they usually convert the hole into a bump. Their only repair technology is to shovel in hot asphalt and tamp it down by hand. They don’t do any real repairs–except when the entire street is repaved, which can take years or decades. The city needs to survey and fix all road defects, and enlist citizens in reporting them. The NYC DOT has a nicely illustrated page on this. So I know it’s possible. But in my lifetime?

I had a look at the manual that comes with all Jamis bikes. It advises, “Ride in designated bike lanes, on designated bike paths or as close to the edge of the road as possible, in the direction of traffic flow or as directed by local governing laws.” The first part of the sentence is exceedingly poor advice, and does not match any traffic laws in the U.S. that I know of.

It continues: “Stop at stop signs and traffic lights; slow down and look both ways at street intersections.” Stop even if the light is green? Slow down and look even if you have the right of way?

And more: “Remember that a bicycle always loses in a collision with a motor vehicle, so be prepared to yield even if you have the right of way.”

Do their lawyers make them say this stuff? Or if I send them a nice letter will they change it to reflect the law and, better yet, good riding practice.