There's probably a good reason a Bay State Taxi cab wound up on the Green Line tracks on Beacon Street near Coolidge Corner, as Jason Kashdan shows us. Whatever the reason, the line is now dead.
I dont understand how this happened
What is that, a late 90s K-car?
Looks more like a Crown Vic or Grand Marquis, which would go well with being used as a taxi sort of vehicle.
It's hard to tell from the photo the real size of the car. It doesn't look as big as a Crown Vic, so I can certainly understand the K-car thought. Looking at the body lines, though... If a Chrysler product, maybe a Plymouth Acclaim?
And I'm 99% sure it's the P71 (Police Interceptor) edition, as most Crown Vic taxis around here are former police cars. Many still have their bull bars and spotlights.
...made me do it.
It's one way for the floundering taxi industry to try to drum up some business
I hear they arrested the driver for trespassing and suspended their license. Just kidding! They only do that when people walk on the subway tracks. Drivers are welcome to trespass, damage public property and make thousands of people late for work.
If I walked along and across that exact section of track, I would not be arrested for trespassing.
Out of curiosity, why do you think it should be okay for people to walk in subway tunnels? It just doesn't seem safe.
I don't see any allusion to the notion that it should be okay for people to walk in subway tunnels - just a pointed statement about how drivers routinely get away with causing damage, waste people's time and fuel, etc...
Since he actually said
They only do that when people walk on the subway tracks.
He is in fact not making a statement about people being arrested for trespassing in the tunnels.
I got his point, but as is typically the case he made it in the worst possible way. The reality is that pedestrians do get away with things, and if you don't believe that some jaywalkers (not me, since I have an ethic to my jaywalking) don't waste people's time and fuel, I've got a subway to sell you.
Very carefully worded, so you're breaking the law right but in an ethical way that doesn't impact others, do I have that right?
I seem to recall you hammering on about the rule of law and cyclists that think they are above the law, with some stating for example how they ethically run red lights and stop signs. Just curious about the double standard that I think I'm reading here.
For the record, I don't have anything to say about the main thread here, just a little detail I noticed.
I don't think so. Crossing against the light is another issue, but it's not like the laws concerning traffic lights apply to cyclists or anything. But please point out where in the Massachusetts General Laws there would be a prohibition on me crossing Boylston Street at the marathon finish line or a similar mark.
As for the ethics of pedestrians crossing the street, the general idea is to not force traffic (regardless of how many wheels it has) to stop or alter one's course. Obviously, crosswalks and traffic lights are another story, as they are designed to allow pedestrians safe passage, but the general goal is to not act dickish to other modes. You might not quite get the idea behind it.
It is cute how you turn any conversation towards cyclists. I mean, I also think it was cute when my son was 4 and talked about going poop, so there are a lot of things I find cute.
Shockingly, I do agree with the general goal to not act dickish to other modes, which a few have argued with you before regarding cyclists that harmlessly run a red light or stop sign. Yes, they're violating the law but certainly in the same ethical vein that you've conjured up.
But yeah I do turn most conversations with you towards cyclists cause well, you've made a habit in the past of crucifying cyclists that advocate for ethically breaking traffic laws but pull out Olympic levels of mental gymnastics when it goes the other way.
I'll be honest, reading through M.G.L. c. 90, § 18A, there isn't anything explicit to knock down the strawman you made. But then again, you brought up the idea of some who ethically jaywalk and some who don't, which seems to be an ok grey area for you but when its cyclists no dice. Double standards are even cuter.
As you are with some comments I have made about the sanctimonious views of some cyclists. No, I care about transportation in all modes, and I can discuss the North South Rail Link or the new bus lane in Roslindale without any desire to talk about cyclists. Heck, I've even pontificated about how cars are parking in the new bike path by the West Roxbury District Court on this very website. I can also pontificate about how the guy who owns (owned) Redds in Rozzie is looking bad by blaming the Boston City Council for trying to get more liquor licenses to the outer neighborhoods.
But hey, the guy with a hammer sees every problem as being a nail, I guess. I hope this hobby of turning conversations to cycling makes you happy.
And I advocate for multi-model transportation options! I recognize that equitable mobility is the key to get traffic congestion resolved in this area, along with building more transit oriented housing to tackle the crisis we are currently facing. Isn't it amazing, its almost like my commentary here is limited to bikes but doesn't lend itself to other interests I advocate for!
I just a see a double standard comment and call it out as such because of the attitude you seem to have toward some of us that ride bikes and advocate for safety. Cause lets be real, thats the commentary you are so often pushing back against, people who rightfully acknowledge that the black and white laws regulating vehicles on the road don't favor our safety and so as a result, others break them ethically to remain safe.
"cyclists that harmlessly run a red light or stop sign"
At what point exactly does breaking a law become not harmless?
He never said it was okay to walk in subway tunnels.
He said that the penalties for doing so are more severe than completely closing down a line because you drove like an idiot.
Nice bit of whataboutism you got there.
...or you could wait to hear if the police think the driver was actually careless, stupid or otherwise particularly at fault, and therefore will be citing him/her, as opposed to a reasonable (albeit unlikely) explanation where the driver wasn't at fault - like having had a heart attack and swerved off the road, having a tire blow out and swerved off the road, carjacked by the Turkey Liberation Front
The law for trespassing on the tracks includes driving on them. The punishment is almost non-existent, like a Disorderly charge, the courts don’t want their time wasted with it. Welcome to MA
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.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy