Hey, there! Log in / Register
Mother, baby in stroller hit by car turning onto Jamaicaway at Perkins Street
By adamg on Sun, 05/19/2013 - 11:24am
Around 5 p.m. yesterday. Driver was headed outbound on the Jamaicaway, mother and baby were in the crosswalk. Mother and baby taken to local hospital for observation.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Needs another sign
There are several signs telling cars not to turn left at that intersection. Howvever, drivers look at the light that doesn't have a sign. Cars take that illegal left turn all the time!
Maybe actually enforcing the traffic laws
Doesn't say whether the driver was turning right or left, but how about actually enforcing the laws there. The left-turners back up traffic on Perkins forever and the Jamaicaway is a free-fire zone on walkers.
Witness
I was the second witness on the scene. Baby and mother looked OK. Baby was screaming. No visible injuries. Taken to Children's. Driver stopped. He seemed oblivious to the no turn sign. Could have been much worse.
Not always an illegal left
The left turn westbound fron J-way onto Perkins is only illegal at certain hours. The left from Perkins (westbound) onto J-way is illegal 24/7.
Good point. Confusing,
Good point. Confusing, inconsistent signage is probably a factor in the large number of left turns at this intersection (i.e., as I recall, there is a straight green arrow and a right green arrow on the stoplight, even though left turns are permitted at certain times).
Also, can someone clarify how the walk signal works at this intersection? If it's like 90% of the walk lights in Boston, it only comes on when all the drivers have a red light (i.e. unlike Cambridge and most cities in the world where walk lights are synchronized with green lights).
I find it hard to believe that this one dangerous intersection is an exception to the rule (not impossible to believe, but hard), and unless that is the case, it sounds like this woman was crossing against the light.
As always, though, consistent traffic laws, signage and enforcement would go a long way towards avoiding accidents like this.
Glad to hear that everyone (apparently) was OK.
Boston walk signals
They only come on if you press the button, if the button is working, and if you press it at the right moment in the cycle. Otherwise there is no Walk signal.
I suspect they do this so that BTD and other random idiots (see below) can blame the pedestrians for not waiting for the Walk signal, even though there is no cross-traffic and anyone who knows the signal knows it would be displaying Walk at this time but for the button press.
I can't follow your logic.
I can't follow your logic. It's OK to break the law and you shouldn't suffer any blame for any misfortune that results?
The logic
The law is purposefully designed to make it as difficult as possible for pedestrians to follow it. If you were to lawfully wait 2-3 minutes at every intersection for the signal button to successfully summon a walk signal, then your walking trip times would double.
Since the law disrespects pedestrians, they disrespect it back.
Most other cities do not force pedestrians to push a beg button and wait 2-3 minutes in order to "lawfully" cross a street.
Since the law disrespects
Well, that must give them a truly satisfying sense of moral superiority when they're dead.
Most other cities do not have drivers who ignore pedestrians when turning.
are you stupid or just trolling
I'd rather trust my eyes than some signal. You're just as dead when the signal says Walk and someone runs you over.
Apparently you have eyes on
Apparently you have eyes on the back of your head. I don't, and I prefer not to gamble with my children's lives that I can outrun a Boston driver.
You may not like the law, but you're still obliged to follow it. I'm sure the driver in question thinks it's just as disrespectful to him that he's not allowed to turn left at that light.
You're just as dead whether
You're just as dead whether or not you follow the "law" in your supposed instance. No point in being anal retentive. Better off being highly aware instead. Don't need eyes in back of your head, just peripheral vision and swivel.
I should also point out that despite these terrible recent events, Boston is a much safer city than other places do which enforce idiotic laws like "jaywalking". Trusting little lights with your life produces more dangerous accidents when assumptions break down. This goes for drivers too.
I doubt Boston is any safer
What do you base this statement on?
My experiences across much of the US is that most communities are much stricter on traffic enforcement for both pedestrians and cars.
This leads to better compliance. In California, in particular, things like jay-walking and blocking the box are strictly enforced and therefore no one does it.
My opinion is that not having pedestrians pop out at you like Frogger leads you to be more aware when you're at intersections. that's where you expect pedestrians.
You forgot to post any actual
You forgot to post any actual statistics or analysis to support your claim that Boston is safer than cities that enforce jaywalking laws.
As for my post, I never said I was going to "trust" a "little light" with my family's life. I feel safer, though, and feel like I have more of a chance of crossing a road like the J-way without dying if all the lights are red.
You're free to do as you wish until your "peripheral vision" fails to pick up some jackass who's flooring it to beat a yellow and make an illegal left turn.
Study
http://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign2011/
and
http://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign20...
scroll all the way down.
The logic behind pedestrian phases is
to give pedestrians a chance to cross the street without worrying about conflicting traffic. Requiring pedestrians to wait their turn is not disrespectful of them, it's common sense.
Unless you feel it would be better to completely gridlock traffic in Downtown Boston just so pedestrians can cross the street "on demand" whenever they feel like it.
And if pedestrians don't want to wait for the WALK light and get hit as a result, fine. But let's make that a "standard of fault", and stop this nonsense of presuming the driver that's unfortunate enough to hit them in such cases is to blame.
Reality Check Time - The person on foot is (usually) more able to control their actions than a person in a multi-ton vehicle is - it's too bad that the right of way laws don't recognize the basic principles of physics.
It's not just "conflicting phases"
It's not just "conflicting phases" however. It's all phases, whether conflicting or not. BTD makes a policy of not showing a walk signal unless (a) person presses beg button, (b) it's the right time in the cycle (else it gets punted to the following cycle), (c) making the "Walk" segment as short as possible. The "renovated" Kenmore Square signals demonstrate these principles pretty well.
It doesn't take more than a minute or two to walk down most blocks. It can easily take a minute or two, or more, of waiting at intersections. Sometimes even more, at skewed or strangely shaped intersections with multiple crossings.
If everyone followed the signal guidelines like an anal-retentive pedant then walking would be reduced significantly, because walking trip times would double, and overall conditions would become more dangerous, like a desolate suburban area. You cannot trust signals to stop a car; the idea that a colored light can somehow replace your own awareness is simply stupid. It may seem counterintuitive, but we're all much safer when people are less certain. Certainty leads to assumptions, assumptions can easily be broken, and when they are it is usually tragic. It's strange, but we're almost better off when drivers are uncertain about the behavior of pedestrians (and vice versa). I think that's why Boston comes in as the safest in this study, for instance.
It will not "gridlock traffic" to make cities a nicer place to walk -- that's a canard, and pure fear-mongering used to stomp on any changes that make a city more livable.
Then the vehicle is travelling too fast. Cities are places for people. Vehicles are welcome but only as long as they respect their limitations and the danger that they pose to people.
come on, Matthew, you should know better
Boston has started converting some lights to have concurrent walks.
But the Jamaicaway is a DCR road.
So I've heard
But it's a slow roll-out. And if I understand correctly, you still have to press a beg button, at the right time, to get a "Walk" signal. So the anal-retentive pedants are still out of luck. I would love to hear that I'm wrong though. That would at least show that BTD recognizes the way people are actually using the infrastructure.
P.S. All DCR roads should be under MassDOT now. Still not BTD, but anyway...
I saw the accident. This
I saw the accident. This person made a left turn from Perkins onto the J-way which is ALWAYS illegal. Just glad to hear they are okay.
Did the pedestrian have a
Did the pedestrian have a walk light?
Bad intersection
I house-sat on Perkins there for a week a few years ago and I couldn't believe how many people completely disregarded the signs and made their left turn every single morning. They should station an unmarked car out there and grab a few thousand dollars for the city some morning.
Need another sign
Cars have been taking that illegal left turn for years. There needs to be a sign on the light nearest the illegal left turn. That's where a drivers eyes goes. I yell at drivers all the tme. Half smile (hey, I got away with it) and half go "oops". Presently, the no left turn signs are on the opposite side of the street to the right and several feet it north towards Boston, not south.
Hit and run?
Or no?
No, didn't sound like the
No, didn't sound like the driver left the scene.
Motor vehicle personification?
There's something misleading about the headline of this post. Yes, the car hit the family, but the driver is the person who did it. For example, you wouldn't write "gun shoots man." You'd write "gunman/shooter/attacker/man shoots man."
I would have titled it:
"Mother, baby in stroller hit by driver turning onto Jamaicaway at Perkins Street"
Sorry, that's just as wrong based on what we know
We know there was a collision, we don't know the cause. Your headline would assign a blame we don't know the driver deserves.
it's a FACTUAL statement
They were in the driver's seat, controlling the car. Thus, yes, they struck the pedestrians. The car is an inanimate object incapable of doing things on its own.
Furthermore, they were making an illegal traffic maneuver and there were witnesses.
And if the vehicle lost its
And if the vehicle lost its brakes, the driver had a heart attack, etc?
Actual example
Couple weeks ago, the local Tweeties were all atwitter about a T bus hitting a pedestrian on Boylston at Arlington. Using Sr. Anon's suggestion above, had I bothered to write about it, I would have written:
MBTA bus driver hits pedestrian
or, since I love sexing things up:
MBTA bus driver plows into pedestrian
Fortunately, I wrote neither of these, since it eventually (like within an hour) came out that what happened was:
Pedestrian walks into side of bus
Red light cameras
The Jamaicaway, especially the Pond street intersection has the worst red light running in Boston. It's crazy considering the level of pedestrian traffic at these crossings. They need to just put in red light cameras and start mailing out tickets.
you're kidding right?
Pond street x Jamaicaway = "The worst red light running in Boston"?! This is my hood (in a general sense - I used to live three blocks from that intersection, now I'm over in Rozi). I've probably crossed that intersection on foot more than a couple thousand times. Although drivers often cheat the light, blatant running isn't common there at all. Otoh, one absolutely sees plenty of overspeeding (driver=bad) and jaywalkers (ped=bad). When the two coincide, bad things can happen.
The new crosswalk just west of there near the end of the pond is where you see a lot of drivers just out-and-out running the red light. Hopefully it'll decrease over time as people get used to the new crossing - a police presence might speed that up a bit, but I think it'd have to be a statie, and I doubt that spot's high on their list.
****
Of course, prayers out to the mom and child. I hope no additional news = good news, Adam?
Are not lights only a suggestion?
I thought in Boston the only real law of traffic is to avoid getting hit. Everything else is just a suggestion.
I'm sure that MarkkK02474
I'm sure that MarkkK02474 will chime in to tell us that
1) the mother was clearly at fault because everyone besides the driver is always at fault in these cases. Always.
2) they should require all baby stroller users to have licenses for them
3) it must have been the light from some ATM that blinded the driver (in broad daylight no less)
Try a killfile!
Can I use this space to plug a killfile for UHub? No? Well I'm going to anyway. Install Greasemonkey, run this file, and watch as your day is filled with serenity as a number of notoriously-irritating users have their comments filtered. (It only breaks down when 17 people don't log in to comment on a single thread. You can't filter anon)
Pedestrians and Drivers: R-E-S-P-E-C-T
This accident and many others like it can be avoided by taking the time and making it your intent to obey traffic signs and signals.
Drivers and pedestrians who cut corners and rationalize exceptions for themselves create dangerous conditions. We all want to do it sometimes.
For example, pedestrian thinks: "I'll cross to the pond side because, even though the walk signal is red, the oncoming cars won't turn while I'm in the crosswalk."
For example, driver thinks: "Even though there's a no left turn sign here, I don't have time to go to that other intersection. I'll wait until it's safe to turn."
Both the driver and the pedestrian focus on the biggest danger, oncoming traffic. They don't see the secondary danger, the person in the crosswalk and the car making the illegal turn from behind.
Both people in this example are capable of preventing the accident by doing the right thing.
So glad no one was seriously hurt in that accident.