Glad to see "Sidewalks - Do not ride on them." Cars have their armor around them; smart bicyclists have at least the protection of their helmets. Pedestrians are completely at risk. Just yesterday, I saw an elderly woman almost run down by a bicyclist racing along in the Commonwealth Avenue Mall (where, by the way, it's clearly marked that bicycles are prohibited).

Funny I did not see "stop at stop signs and red lights" anywhere. I guess only the convenient rules apply to bicycles.

Bikes should have side mirrors.

As someone who has been an urban commuter for several decades now (without an accident, by the way), here's a basic tenet for cyclists: begin with the fact that Boston, Cambridge, and other roads were *not* designed for you, they were designed for the automobile. Hence, there will be a lot of situations in which you will be at great risk, so you have to respond quickly and intuitively to each situation as it comes. Urban planners and city governments in the US have done virtually nothing to make your ride a safe and rational one, and understanding this is important in better orienting yourself to extreme situations. With so many bicyclists now on the roads, this lack of rational planning has created a very tense situation between bicyclists and automobile drivers, and understandably so. Neither bicyclists nor cars are to blame for this, the blame rests squarely on the dysfunctional planning of city governments. Because of its compact size, narrow streets, and many, many students, Cambridge *should* be a bike riding urban mecca. Instead, it's an insane free-for-all out there. 

The graphic is wrong. No matter what the letter of the law says, total lack of enforcement means 1- never stop for a red light, stop sign, or pedestrian; and 2- any cyclist who wants to change direction need only turn 90º and -poof- instantly becomes a pedestrian. This means you can run down pedestrians with impunity, because they are lighter and softer than cars, and as they are walking, they are not hipsters. The rest of us understand how important it is that you get to artisanal anything class or home to not shave.

Unlike any other recent Boston Globe article about bicycling on the streets, this one at least mentions that bicycles are required to obey traffic regulations.  The article also mentions that 37% of bicylce accidents involve automobiles.  However, it does not mention how often those accidents occurred when the bicyclist was violating a traffic regulation.  The comments about the articles show the frustration and annoyance caused by the bicyclists.  Since respect regets respect,wouldn't the streets be safer for bicyclists if they would obey traffic regulations?  Unfortunately, this will not happen until those regulations are enforced.

The cyclist in the drawing is wearing unsafe colors. In the real world the backdrop is not a white sheet of paper - it's trees and foliage and asphalt and a variety of other colors that camouflage a cyclist wearing green and black. For safety, cyclists should WEAR WHITE, DAY and NIGHT.  

Three feet? Really? Three feet suggests I would have to cross the double yellow lines into the oncoming lane. How is that possible if there's oncoming traffic?