Truck involved in collision. Photo by Mike Juergens.
UPDATE: BU Today reports the bicylist was Christopher Weigl, 23, of Southborough, who was pursuing a master's degree in photojournalism at BU. His Web site.
A bicyclist did not survive a collision this morning with a semi at Comm. Ave. inbound at St. Paul St..
At 8:51, Sasha tweeted from a passing trolley:
Body covered by a tarp. RIP. what a bad start to the morn.
Daniel Robert tweets the truck appeared to be making a wide right turn onto St. Paul from the left lane at the time of the collision.
Around the same time, a bicyclist was involved in a collision at North Harvard and Cambridge Street in Allson, but he suffered non-life-threatening injuries.
By coincidence, a City Council committee holds a hearing on making Boston safer for bicyclists today at noon at City Hall.
On Nov. 12, another BU student on a bicycle died in a collision with a 57 bus on Brighton Avenue at Harvard Avenue.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
At 9am they had the bike &
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 9:09am
At 9am they had the bike & body underneath a white sheet and the EMTs were sort of just sitting around at their truck.
safety hearing at noon at City Hall today
By DaveA
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 9:26am
While this was happening, I was riding with a group including Councillor Felix Arroyo along the SW Corridor. Terrible news to start the day. A co-worker rode past the scene and told us about it.
There is a hearing at City Hall at noon
http://www.cityofboston.gov/cityclerk/docs/SKMBT_4...
Thurs., Dec. 6, at Noon
Boston City Hall
5th Floor
Iannella City Council Chambers
The hearing will delve into questions of where and why most crashes are occurring, as well as statistics on the effects of separated bike lanes (cycletracks) and the success of various infrastructure improvements made in other cities.
Thank you!
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 9:39am
I'm going to try to make it. Cycle tracks would be great on many of these roadways, as Boston's street plan doesn't work with off-major roadway diversions. It would keep the trucks from treating bike lanes as "instant special for me loading zones" and the "I'm too special to find a parking spot" types out of the lanes, too, which is a serious safety hazard on major routes.
Where
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:01am
Does the extra space come from?
1)Boston's road are already dangerously narrow which i think leads to some of these horrific bike accidents.
2)Biketracks would interfere will public transportation, specifically handicapped patrons of the MBTA.
3) Would undoubtedly eliminate on-street parking in a city where free parking is already scarce.
3.a) A reduction in free parking would have a direct effect on small business.
THE LIST GOES ON.
1) these streets are narrow
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:28am
1) these streets are narrow because most were not designed for cars. as a visit to the larz anderson auto museum will tell you, many of these streets were built for bikes, not cars. the auto industry managed to swing the tide such that they eliminated the space for cyclists in favor of their cars, but don't be so ignorant as to ask "where does the extra space come from?" when the city has made adjustments in the past.
2) this makes no sense. it is simple to design cycle tracks that do not interfere with handicapped patrons. Many cities still allow buses to enter the cycle track at stops to pick up passengers.
3) uh, wo what?
3a) oh, this is your point, that you haven't actually studied the impact on small business. cyclists are much more likely to stop at a small business and shop than people in cars, but you're not aware of that. The situation is very similar to interstates and small towns. Many towns allowed interstates to come through in a belief that it would increase business, but all it did was allow people to fly through their towns and their businesses suffered. per square foot, access for cyclists is much better for small business than access for cars
built for bike
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 6:21pm
Last time I checked, bikes were invented in early 1900s, those streets have been around for quite a bit longer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
By pierce
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 6:59pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
Youi might want to check again
By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 7:04pm
> Last time I checked, bikes were invented in early 1900s
"Modern" bikes were developed in the 1880s and ladies were riding them fairly soon (before the turn of the century). (I doubt that there were special lanes for the high-wheel bikes of the 1870s). ;~}
Historians of roads are
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 9:01pm
Historians of roads are pretty much in agreement that the bicycle played a big role in increasing the quality of paving and road design in the late 19th century
bikes have been around a bit
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 9:40pm
bikes have been around a bit longer than that - also... that section of comm ave originally had two 10' cycle tracks on either side of the trolley tracks. the carriage and "bridal" paths were later enlarged to accommodate two car lanes and parking - and the bicycle paths were eliminated.
Ever been in Europe?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:37am
They have narrow roads.
They have parking issues.
They have hub/spoke style street plans and not grids.
Why don't you do some googling on Amsterdam, Utrecht, Copenhagen, Tours, etc. and learn how it works.
Funny - we used to get the "but we're not California/Oregon etc." comments when these things were mentioned. Those criticisms were valid - grid systems can put bikes on alternate parallel roadways.
Now that planners are (rightly) looking at European adaptations for our rather European street plan, we get the same "but we don't have space" and "Boston is different and not California or Seattle or Portland" style of arguments. These criticisms are not valid, given the successful experience of European cities with similar limitations.
Car
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:47am
in Europe are far smaller than those in the US. Also public transit is much better organized than the MBTA.
The Grass is not Always Greener...
By whyaduck
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:00am
Yes, Amsterdam is a "bike city" but, from what I recently read (just google Amsterdam and biking), they also have frenzied drivers, dangerous tram tracks that must be avoided, crowded bike lanes which lead to problems and high bike theft. And also this:
http://thisbigcity.net/too-many-bicycles-amsterdam...
The fact is that many of Boston's streets are indeed narrow and those streets are not going to be redesigned any time soon (if at all).
Bike riders simply need to take extra precautions when they ride on those roads, especially around tractor trailers and buses as the driver's visability is hampered by his/her vehicle.
It is not that simple
By spin o rama
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:11am
I take all the precautions I can and on a daily basis I still find myself put into harms way by oblivious drivers who refuse to signal and use mirrors. I do not buy the "driver's visability is hampered by his/her vehicle" excuse. It is the drivers responsibility, by law, to ensure that they are not cutting off anyone with the right of way.
Responsibility works both ways
By merlinmurph
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:26am
Avid cyclist here.
First, this sucks. I hate seeing these deaths.
OK, responsibility works both ways. That means cyclists can't blindly ride along cars assuming the cars see them. This is especially true when a cyclist is passing cars on the right because the cyclist is coming out of nowhere with respect to the cars. It's simple defensive riding.
Again, this sucks.
Yes, agreed
By spin o rama
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:34am
It does go both ways. I never assume that a car sees me, rather I assume that they do not see me. And this is why I've only been right/left hooked twice, I've been able to anticipate turns of drivers that don't signal or use the mirrors.
It does suck and of course, we don't if it was a driver that illegally right hooked the cyclists or a cyclist that tried to squeeze by as the truck legally turned.
Blind Spots
By whyaduck
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 3:31pm
Have you ever seen a sticker on a tractor trailer that says "If you don't see my mirrors I can't see you?" or something to that effect.
Blind spots are real and has nothing to do with responsibility. If you are in a driver's blind spot, he or she will not see you and you may be hit.
Aside from that fact, today's case appears that the driver of the truck was already negotiating the turn (he had the right of way) and the bike rider plan ran into him for some reason.
You're right
By spin o rama
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 9:52am
Which is why I don't put myself in a cars blind spot as I come to an intersection. Despite this, I find many cars that will make the right hand turn when I have the right of way and I can see their face in the mirror. So either they look, see me and still turn, cutting me off illegally or they don't look, turn and cut me off illegally. Either way they are putting my safety at risk and a blind spot has nothing to do with it. And I should mention, there are the good souls that will look, see me and allow to proceed forward before they make the turn. So its not everyone, but I always put myself out of the blindspot and have my hands ready to brake, just in case.
Also when I've been left hooked by drivers, there is no blind spot to deal with. I am on coming traffic that they are illegally cutting across my path. I'm clearly visible to them, so there is no excuse.
As for yesterdays case, yes its pretty clear that the truck was not at fault, no arguments from me here.
Wide Turns Too Wide
By BlackKat
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 10:18am
Technically while the cyclist hit the truck, which leads one to presume the truck was already making its turn, it was stated the truck was making a right hand turn from the left hand lane of Comm Ave. That is kind of wrong, no?
Grey area for me
By spin o rama
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 3:09pm
Honestly, I don't know. Yes, turning from the left hand lane, over a right hand lane AND bike lane would seem to be wrong and illegal. But then again, how does a truck like that turn onto this street? Better question, should these 18 wheelers even be allowed on these roads if they cannot navigate the turn properly? Maybe these deliverys need to be limited to smaller sized trucks.
I guess I can only testify to my experience coming to this intersection. It is very easy to come bombing down this part of Comm Ave. from Allston and usually I'm braking a few more cars back when I'm about to come to an intersection with a turning car or hit a red then I normally would on a flat road.
Blind Spots
By whyaduck
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 3:29pm
Have you ever seen a sticker on a tractor trailer that says "If you don't see my mirrors I can't see you?" or something to that effect.
Blind spots are real and has nothing to do with responsibility. If you are in a driver's blind spot, he or she will not see you and you may be hit.
Today's case appears that the driver of the truck was already negotiating the turn (he had the right of way) and the bike rider, according to witnesses, was coming down the road at "a high rate of speed" and for some strange reason just ran right into the truck.
oversight
By slowman4130
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:05am
you're overlooking a major factor here, in that these European cities have had bikes as a major source of transportation for a long time, so people are used to it. Also, and possibly most important, is that those cities aren't full of self entitled assholes.
No matter what provisions are put in, I only see things getting worse because people (in general) care less and less about their fellow people. Look at Black Friday, road rage, etc. Everyone's getting more angry, more in a hurry, more distracted by new fangled smart phones. Add in ever increasing traffic (be it bikes or cars) and it just snowballs.
Make it better?
By PB
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:25am
So how exactly is this an argument against trying to improve the system? Your point seems to be "it's only going to get worse, so let's not even try to make it better."
it's not an argument against,
By slowman4130
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:51am
it's not an argument against, its a realist observation. Consider that things have already been done to make things better, and yet we have more cyclist deaths now than before these measures were taken.
Not true
By bosguy22
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:22pm
The Globe quoted someone in the Mayor's office as saying bike ridership was up over 30% and bike-related injuries are up 5% from 2011.
'Society is getting angrier' view is cynical, not realistic
By Jeff F
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 1:03pm
There's large amounts of empirical data collected for more than a half century showing that Americans are trending less violent and more empathetic over time. Arguably, we see more bad behaviour onscreen/paper because some clever people have realized that they can capture eyeballs (and therefore $$$) by appealing to the rubber-necking inclinations of their audience.
(also, your comment that European cities "aren't full of self-entitled assholes" made me laugh out loud!)
Your point that European cities have already gone through adjustments wrt to bike/car co-existense is (as Swirly said originally) actually a great advantage for us here in Boston. We can benefit from their hard-earned knowledge and avoid potentially costly mistakes.
Your other points - that there are more distracted drivers and more vehicles of all types on the roads - are both very true, and are serious problems that probably need to be addressed before we see real improvements in road safety.
Comm Ave is not narrow
By Matthew
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:17am
It's 200 feet wide. Brighton Ave corridor is 100 feet wide. Huntington is also wide. Why are we discussing "narrow" streets in this case? The only narrow streets in Boston are in the very old downtown areas (e.g. North End), and there's no reason for a car to be going faster than a bike (~15 mph) on any of them.
Secondly, free parking is detrimental to business. It encourages space hogging, which hurts turnover, which makes it more difficult for people to find a space. Parking should be priced at a rate which results in about 10-15% vacancy at any given time, eliminating cruising, and virtually guaranteeing that you can get a spot when you need it. That's a win-win.
Biketracks and public transit co-exist in many places. Let's learn from them.
This is a tragic event. I hope that people can come together in the meeting today and later to think about what we can do to prevent it in the future. Unfortunately I suspect we're going to see more victim blaming and whining from the usual suspects.
Secondly, free parking is detrimental to business.
By greenlinetobrooklyn
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:29am
In a car:
Passenger: "Hey, that shop looks cool, let's check it out!"
Driver: "Darn, there's no open parking space, we should just keep going..."
Passenger: :(
On a bike:
Biker 1: "Hey, that shop looks cool, let's check it out!"
Biker 2: "Ok, lets pull over at the next intersection!"
Biker 1/2: :)
How do we get this home on bike?
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 7:21pm
Biker 1: "I want this rad bean bag chair!"
Biker 2: "Too bad its unsafe to try and ride home with it."
Merchant: "We can deliver for $40 if you can't pick it up!"
Biker 1: "Uh, well, we'll just buy it next time we drive by if we have time to stop, a place to park, and you still have it."
Biker 1, Biker 2, Merchant: :(
Yeah...whatever
By Kaz
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:06pm
You'd think all those non-car owners would just go buy a car, since they already save so much money not buying anything ever.
Mark has basically zero
By anon
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:57am
Mark has basically zero imagination or ability to work the googletron. People carry stuff like that via bicycle or trailer all the time. He really does have no idea what he's talking about re: bikes, but he can drop a technical terms into a conversation to fool people.
If you can't do it call a
By anon
Sat, 12/08/2012 - 1:09pm
If you can't do it call a Professional Courier. I deliver all types of items that people say are impossible to move on a bicycle. Everyday, incident free. And then you get to help two small businesses!
Cycletracks on sidewalks
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 1:48pm
The road is too narrow and the sidewalk too wide: put the cycletrack on the sidewalk. There used to be diagonal parking on the sidewalks on that side of Comm Ave, its so wide.
A cycletrack still would not have prevented this crash. A cyclist riding too fast down a hill to stop in time not to strike a vehicle or pedestrian in a busy area will still hit a truck entering the side street. If this were Amsterdam, cyclists would not be riding too fast for conditions. I hope investigators test the bicycle's brakes if there were any.
Another solution is not have any motor vehicle or Green Line traffic near BU. That would then be safe, leaving just bicycle and pedestrians to injure each other.
Doesn't Work Well
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 2:03pm
You must not spend much time outside of your little mettle crash helmet bubble ... check out what happens over on Vassar St. at MIT ... sheep wandering into the "roadway" that is clearly marked and reserved for bikes, and then freaking out when they nearly get their precious wool coats fluffed.
People learn - quickly
By merlinmurph
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 2:13pm
Vienna Austria has a lot of bike paths on sidewalks and it works really well. Some of the sidewalks are 40+ feet wide leaving plenty of room for two bike lanes. As this foreigner learned quickly, you don't walk in the bike lanes. After a few screwups by me and being politely reprimanded by cyclists (usually with an agressive bell ringing), I learned to stay out.
Speaking of Vienna...if people think Boston is old, Vienna makes Boston look like a new city, and their bicycle infrastructure is amazing. If you want to do it, it can be done. No excuses about being an old city.
Back to the Dutch...
By R Hookup
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 9:52am
In Amsterdam, every bike has a bell and pedestrians get alerted if they are in the way.
Especially when the cyclists
By Kathode
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 4:53pm
are riding in the wrong direction or don't let the pedestrians know they are approaching. I see that plenty of times on Vassar.
If a Cycle Track
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:32am
is installed, ALL bikers should have to pay an annual tax to help pay for the roads they are using.
I do pay
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:48am
I pay MA income tax, I pay Federal income tax, I pay property tax, I pay excise taxes on my car, I pay registration fees for my car.
Funding for this stuff comes from these sources that I (that is, we cyclists) pay into.
Really? Again?
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:55am
Do we need to go over this every time?
Most road funds do not come from auto/gas taxes. So cyclists already contribute money to road construction. If you want a pay-for-use system, increasing costs for cars, trucks, and parking should be part of the equation.
Secondly, I'd bet most cyclists would be happy to pay an annual excise tax if it meant more infrastructure and respect. The rate is 2.5% of the purchase price in year one, falling to 0.25% in year 5. So the annual bill for most cyclists will be something like $1-2. Put a 10% tax on inner tubes and you'll pull in more revenue.
I will GLADLY pay excise taxes on the use of my bike . . .
By thetrainmon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 3:43pm
but, I have a list of demands:
*All dedicated bike trails (SW Corridor, Paul Dudley White, Minuteman, etc.) shall be 100% passable within 12 hours of a snowfall--I want the snow cleared, and I want them fully deiced.
*Ditto with all the bike lanes in the City--two years ago was ridiculous when, on South Huntington for example, the parking lanes became snow mounds and the bike lanes were impromptu parking lanes.
*Widen the SW Corridor Trail where possible so it can better accommodate cyclists, joggers and pedestrians.
*Re-time the walk time where the SW Corridor Trail crosses Ruggles Street--the walk light should come on no more than 20 seconds after
being pressed.
*Bigger stop signs and flashing red lights for vehicles that blow right through the current Stop signs on Gordon Street and Atherton Street where they cross the SW Corridor Trail.
They do. Constantly.
By Neal
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:59am
They're called income and sales (and other) taxes, which go into the General Fund, out of which the funds for infrastructure improvements come. Gas and excise taxes go into that fund too, but don't come close to covering the subsidies provided to support the infrastructure required to allow automobiles to use the public ways.
road tax for cyclists??
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 2:22pm
What amount of our society doesn't already pay for road taxes via fuel? Until there is a HIGH percentage of cyclists, this is a mute point that would cost more to enforce, collect, etc.
Thank you for the meeting information
By spin o rama
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 9:40am
Was not aware of this hearing, will certainly be attending this now.
cycletracks only make it harder for turning vehicles
By downtown-anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 9:44am
Cycletracks tend to make the presence of bicycles more obscure to turning vehicles and would increase the likelihood that a driver will miss a bicycle.
Most vehicle/bicycle accidents occur at intersections where (unless protected by separate light cycles that bicyclist follow) cycletracks provide little protection.
Citations, Please
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:00am
I'm willing to entertain that notion - if you can provide some supporting evidence.
Not quite peer-reviewed literature, but...
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:13am
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2008/11/30/wha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling
Cyclecraft: The Complete Guide to Safe and Enjoyable Cycling for Adults and Children (North American Edition) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0117064769
Any Statistics?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:40am
These are largely opinion-generated pieces that lack any real data on safety issues.
I have biked in cycletracks in multiple cities of Europe and the US and I'm not saying that you are wrong here ... just asking for some data on this that I may not have found or noticed.
Also consider that it should not be the responsibility of cyclists to enable bad driving.
Cycletracks and statistics
By JonT
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:20am
Surely the burden of proof is on those who want to make changes, not on those who want to maintain the status quo. So can you provide peer-reviewed studies that indicate that cycletracks are safer?
Wrong about Burden of Proof
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 1:05pm
Are "people dying in the streets" and "poor road design" the status quo you desire?
Even then, "not doing anything" is never the default, nor is it a determinant of burden of proof in policymaking decisions. See also "anything put out by most state and federal policymaking agencies in the last thirty or so years".
As to your question, there are plenty of statistics available - let's start in the US with NYDOT: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikest...
Do any google search for "cycle track safety" and you will find much more than I can reproduce here. Also, Cycler, above, has provided some additional information.
Look, I bike on that section
By JonT
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:24pm
Look, I bike on that section of Comm Ave quite often, so you can bet I'm not happy with a status quo that might make my wife a widow and my kids orphans. But just because a status quo is unsatisfactory, doesn't mean that *any* change is good. This poor kid appears to have been killed in a right hook collision. Some of the cycle track designs I've seen make the cyclists even *less* visible to drivers than before, and might make right hooks more likely rather than less. I'm all in favor of making changes that will improve safety for cyclists (and pedestrians, and for that matter all road users), but let's make sure that we don't make changes that will make things worse.
And I've been to plenty of community meetings where developers have had to prove to a skeptical public that their proposals will lead to improvements, so I'm not sure what you're talking about in your second paragraph.
Right Side of road = BAD
By BostonDog
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:55am
I agree with the anti-cycle track position (in most cases) and I'm generally against bike lanes which run between parked cars and travel lanes. A driver making a right turn needs to completely cut over and cross most bike lanes, and by extension, right side cycle tracks. Anytime you have a larger vehicle cutting across another lane of traffic there is bound to be increase in accidents. (The fault is still squarely on the driver of the car/truck but that doesn't change much.)
Don't think of Bike Lanes/Tracks as separate, think of them as adding another lane to a road. On that part of Comm Ave there are three lanes. Due to poor planning, vehicles in the MIDDLE lane often need to turn right. Vehicles in the RIGHT lane (bikes) are going straight. If you think of it this way it isn't surprising that a vehicle in the right lane is hit by a turn vehicle in the middle lane. A cycle track is simply another lane, irrespective of what type of barrier there is between this lane and others. Worse, a cycle track isn't plowed as often and many pedestrians think it is just an extension of the sidewalk.
John Allen has a good discussion of bike tracks in Cambridge on his site: http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm
Two better solutions:
1. Put the bike (third) lane on the left side of the road as they do along Comm Ave and the Mall. With no parked cars and only a few left sidestreets this is far safer. I enjoy riding in this lane.
2. Keep the road two-lane and make it very clear with signs and markers that the rightmost lane is shared between cars and bike. While this is already the law, increased signage on high traffic roads would help more then adding a third narrow bike.
Comm Ave Back Bay
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:00am
Once you get East of Mass Ave, the bike lane is on the left.
I like this a lot as it has fewer turning issues involved, the cyclist is very visible to even the laziest drivers, and there are no parked-car issues and the lane can be a bit narrower because of that.
Yeah, it never made sense to
By Brontomon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:07am
Yeah, it never made sense to me why they would have it on the left side in downtown but not at the BU side. Clearly, the left lane should always be the bike path.
And then they have that dumb intersection in which they make the bike lane go across the street at the Storrow ramp. The safest way I've found is to stay in the left turning lane for cars rather than switch over at a busy intersection.
Very poor planning in my opinion.
What bothers me about that
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:37pm
What bothers me about that Storrow ramp is that it's too narrow for a car turning right to pass a bike turning right, even though there's a bike lane immediately afterwards on the bridge.
When they rebuilt it a few years ago, they made a wide ramp, and put in fancy granite curbs. Then they changed their mind, and filled in part of the width with a pile of asphalt.
I follow this logic, but it
By greenlinetobrooklyn
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:10am
I follow this logic, but it assumes that bicyclists and drivers are not actively looking for turning cars/bicyclists in the cycletrack when coming to an intersection. Which in my opinion is a problem with education not with the infrastructure. However, bicycle signals are something that I am strongly for, especially in high traffic areas.
How does that work in this situation?
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 2:00pm
Lets say the cycletrack was on part of the sidewalk. The tractor trailer truck needs to take the right turn from the left lane to make the narrow corner. Does he have to wait for a right arrow while stopped in the left lane, at which time the cyclist gets a red light, but the truck is blocked from turning right by a vehicle stopped in the right travel lane. Cycletracks are simply still problematic when there are many sidestreets and driveways to cross. The thing we need from Amsterdam are cyclists who ride more slowly, have working brakes, and can stop in time not to hit things.
You almost had me agreeing with you for once.
By spin o rama
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 2:07pm
Up until this BS spewed from your keyboard
Crawl back under your bridge.
Mark just can't keep his bias
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 3:40pm
Mark just can't keep his bias from showing. :)
And there's the problem
By Neal
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 4:43pm
If it's too big to make a legal turn, it is too big for the intersection. In most cases, tractor trailers have about as much legitimacy on city streets as railroad cars.
+1000
By cycler
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 4:46pm
THIS!
This comes up every time
By merlinmurph
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 4:58pm
Then you'll have to ban all busses from city streets, too, because they have to do the same thing.
The truck isn't doing anything wrong by making this turn.
Differences
By Matthew
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 5:06pm
City buses are 2-axle vehicles on-purpose, it makes them more nimble than 3-axle buses, even though it costs more in maintenance.
Secondly, city buses are supposed to follow heavily planned routes that do not require them to make any turns they cannot handle...
So are trucks. We've seen how well that works out.
Busses still swing wide to make turns
By merlinmurph
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 5:16pm
Regardless of what you say, you'll see busses swing wide on turns all the time. Even regular 2-axle trucks have to swing wide to make some turns.
Buses ≠ semi-trailers
By Neal
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 8:38pm
You're comparing 40' long 10-12 ton (or 60' 12-15 ton articulated) buses, which are much more maneuverable and specifically designed for use on city streets, to 60' long 30-40 ton tractor trailers, which are semi attached articulated vehicles primarily designed as long to medium distance freight transport on interstate highways? They're not nearly the same thing.
Buses ≠ semi-trailers
By Neal
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 8:39pm
You're comparing 40' long 10-12 ton (or 60' 12-15 ton articulated) buses, which are much more maneuverable and specifically designed for use on city streets, to 60' long 30-40 ton tractor trailers, which are semi attached articulated vehicles primarily designed as long to medium distance freight transport on interstate highways? They're not nearly the same thing.
Buses ≠ semi-trailers
By Neal
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 8:40pm
You're comparing 40' long 10-12 ton (or 60' 12-15 ton articulated) buses, which are much more maneuverable and specifically designed for use on city streets, to 60' long 30-40 ton tractor trailers, which are semi attached articulated vehicles primarily designed as long to medium distance freight transport on interstate highways? They're not nearly the same thing.
Missing the Point
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 8:53pm
It looks like this crash happened when the cyclist either tried to cut in front of the truck or couldn't slow in time to stop before hitting it. It doesn't matter that it was a tractor trailer. It could have been a Mazda.
The law is that right turning
By anon
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:34pm
The law is that right turning vehicles must yield to bikes.
Turning vehicles
By Allstonian
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 2:28pm
Even when they're in the process of actually making the turn? How does that work?
Pages