By adamg on Mon., 1/7/2019 - 12:12 pm
Boston Magazine reports. Chris Dempsey, director of Transit for Massachusetts, fumes:
In perhaps the most walkable neighborhood in a city that once deserved the title "America's Walking City", you still risk your life crossing the street. We should be outraged at the number of crashes like this that occur on a daily basis.
Topics:
Neighborhoods:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Crosswalk but no mention of a
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 12:23pm
Crosswalk but no mention of a walk light. Did she have a walk light?
I don't know, but ...
By adamg
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:32pm
As well he should have, and then some but
By Roman
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:40pm
if people keep getting citations and/or failing to yield at the same crosswalk, maybe part of the problem is a poorly designed crosswalk.
First obvious question is did this happen at a crosswalk with a light or just paint in the street and a yield sign? If the former, was the red light easily visible to a car doing 25mph or was it blocked by parked trucks, untrimmed trees, or other signs?
If the latter, was the entrance to the crosswalk obscured by parked cars? Given this was at night, was the area lighted sufficiently to enable a driver to see that the crosswalk was occupied?
All of these are things I've seen in and around Boston that make it harder for drivers to see pedestrians in order to yield to them. When going the speed limit, not on the phone, not holding a conversation with a passenger, and scanning the street for other traffic, bikes, people getting out of parked cars, and pedestrians.
If it was a bright red light and she was perfectly visible then the next question is how often are there red light runners in that area and how frequently do the police sit there to remind everyone that it's a street, not a racetrack? Police presence is part of traffic safety too.
Riddle me this Roman
By spin_o_rama
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:47pm
How do you contort yourself into so much victim blaming without having back problems?
Not victim blaming
By mg
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:54pm
I didn't see a word blaming the victim in Roman's comment. He raises legitimate concerns about safety issues that can make it hard for even careful drivers. There are crosswalks in this city that are practically invisible in broad daylight, so drivers don't have warning to be extra careful when approaching them. There are important safety signs that are impossible to see.
It's important to take care of structural issues that make crashes more likely. Saying that is not blaming the victim. If it's blaming anyone, it's blaming the city.
The driver was cited for failure to yield. End of story.
By spin_o_rama
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:09pm
The garbage that Roman posts is always about absolving the motorist from blame, there is no coy attempt to spark a dialog about road safety because he is also a person that frequently speaks out against road diets, lower speed limits and other meaningful changes that get brought up on these threads.
Also, look at how people drive around this region and tell me with a straight face that it isn't the largest contributing factor. Good god you car apologists always find someone else to blame.
Edit: A fellow Uhub member just ripped apart whatever point you were trying to make.
Driving is a privilege, crossing the street is an entitlement
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:20pm
If you believe that road condition are too unsafe for you to detect people crossing the street, then it is your responsibility to pull over. Licensed driver's are responsible for forcing the city to make needed repairs. I would challenge you to report a street with conditions that would prevent you from stopping for an unexpected obstacle at 10-20 miles per hours.
10 miles an hour? That's right. Peabody and Codman Square are basically unlicensed pedestrian malls. Drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions.
Because it is Monday, and I have some time.
By whyaduck
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:10pm
Ahem.
Well, if you GOOGLED the street view where this accident happened, you would of seen that it is an intersection that has no visible obstructions (trees, plants, bushes, cars, etc.), the intersection has a traffic light as well as two street lights, pedestrian crossing signals and, if you use your little finger, you can zoom in to read a sign that says for cars to "yield to pedestrians on turns".
So my last sentence, negates your entire diatribe.
The driver said "he did not see her" cause it was a rainy, dark night and she was wearing black.
This might of happened: The driver had the green to make his turn and she had the walk. It is called "concurrent signals" and I do not like it.* Personally, I think when any pedestrian has a walk signal, all traffic should stop. He, nevertheless, had the responsibility to yield to her and he was cited for that.
*Here is a story for ya: A few years back, I was crossing in a crosswalk (Cambridge), had my walk signal, was right smack in the middle when a pick up truck, going too fast, made his left on green and nearly got me. I had to throw myself away from his grill and did so with enough umph (very lucky on my part) that the only damage to me was a badly bruised upper thigh.
He was not cited by Cambridge Police, even though I had a witness. He too said "he did not see me" even though it was daylight and was smack in the center of his vision.
Crash Reconstruction....
By Pete Nice
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:29pm
If someone does a crash reconstruction, they do use the lighting and pedestrians clothing in determining whether or not a driver could stop in time going a certain speed.
And if the answer is no, is
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:31pm
And if the answer is no, is the driver cited for driving too fast for conditions?
Yes that is part of the reason they do it...
By Pete Nice
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 6:59pm
Nt
Going a certain speed
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:50pm
Of course, there would never be a speeding violation involved. Oh no.
I'm with you on the
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 5:02pm
I'm with you on the concurrent signals...they don't work as many drivers feel they own the roads and don't yield or stop for the walk light. It's taking your life into your own hands with those signals. Corner of Dartmouth and Stuart is another shitty area that has those type of signals.
I usually just wait and jaywalk bc it's safer.
Concurrent left turn/pedestrian, better than no left turn signal
By Roman
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 5:26pm
My first close call as a young driver was making a left turn with no left turn light across two lanes of oncoming traffic during moderately heavy traffic on a road with a 40MPH speed limit. I waited for the gap in oncoming traffic and started making the turn when I saw an old man and his granddaughter in the middle of the crosswalk. I didn't even make it across the first of the two lanes when I stopped, but I'm sure I gave them both a good fright, but now I always look.
But when I have a green arrow telling me to turn, especially on roads (not too many of those around here, but some) where there are two turn lanes each with their own turn signals, I occasionally lapse into thinking that if I have the green arrow to turn, that means traffic that would be occupying the same space as me does not have a green light telling it to jump under my car.
I have to assume a lot of people around here learned to drive in jurisdictions where a left green arrow implies that the ped crossing on the opposite side is red. Logically that's what green means for a car: crossing vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic has red. Too bad they don't always do it that way around here. Sets people up for exactly what happened to you.
The rule is that a green
By cden4
Tue, 01/08/2019 - 1:05pm
The rule is that a green arrow is supposed to be a protected movement. There should be no conflicting traffic OR pedestrians during that time. If you do see a green arrow and a walk signal at the same time, that is incorrect and not supposed to be allowed. I would suggest reporting it to 311 if you see that anywhere.
Except when it isn't
By Roman
Tue, 01/08/2019 - 2:21pm
I haven't been there in a few months, but when the new bike lane was installed on Mass Ave by the pike overpass, I could swear the green right arrow to turn right was concurrent with the green light for bicycles to go straight. Probably wired into the green light for cars to go straight south on Mass Ave.
Nope, no right arrows.https:/
By anon
Tue, 01/08/2019 - 4:33pm
Nope, no right arrows.
https://goo.gl/maps/xBwfqLfJnUF2
https://goo.gl/maps/PV2RNYyBy1P2
Source: Google Maps
By Rob O
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:11pm
As best I can tell from Google Maps Streetview, the walk signal for pedestrians crossing Commonwealth and the green light for cars turning left from Hereford to Commonwealth run concurrently (as they should all over the city). So if the driver had a green, it appears that the pedestrian had a walk.
There are also signs telling drivers they need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk (it's a sad statement that the sign needs to exist in the first place).
There is also no parking along Hereford at that stretch, so I doubt the issue was a blocked sight line. (Although you are right to note this issue exists all over Boston and should be addressed with parking prohibited at corners).
So as best I can tell, the only issue was a negligent driver going too fast for the conditions. A fine doesn't seem nearly enough of a punishment.
I've never seen a traffic
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:31pm
I've never seen a traffic light in Boston that was obscured by parked vehicles, trees, or signs. If you know of one, please tell us the location, preferably with a Street View link.
It's possible a crosswalk's sight line was obscured by parked cars. But you know what? The point of a crosswalk is that it alerts drivers in advance that there are likely to be pedestrians, and that they need to go slowly enough to stop if a pedestrian is present.
Sometimes this means going under the speed limit. There's no guarantee that the speed limit is a safe speed for all conditions. In fact, the very first part of the speed law says, "No person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety of the public."
The law continues, "notwithstanding such establishment of a speed limit, every person operating a motor vehicle shall decrease the speed of the same when a special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic".
Wanna get away with assault
By Kinopio
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 5:43pm
Wanna get away with assault with a deadly weapon? Just be a car driver in America!
Question
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:33pm
Is there some way that we can blame the victim so we can completely avoid discussing and addressing the obvious problem of motorists with their heads up their rumps?
Light not relevant
By massmarrier
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:56pm
The law (MA 89 11) requires stopping or slowing as necessary when the ped is in the crosswalk and within a travel lane of the driver's vehicle...regardless of other signage or lights. That's it...no quibbling or excuses. This is presumption-of-guilt law, like rear-ending another vehicle.
Don't fantasize you can run down a walker and say, but, but, but he was walking against the WALK sign.
Go to a court someday and you will find plenty of excuses....
By Pete Nice
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:58pm
And a jury hears the driver say a person in all black ran out in front of their car and they didn't have a chance to stop.....
Then the not guilty verdict comes (or the judge dismisses the citation) and everyone is back to square one.
Are we reading the same law?
By anonamizzle
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:19pm
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.
How's the light not relevant?
By eeka
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 3:39pm
That law specifically refers to conditions when the light isn't telling the pedestrian/vehicles what to do. If there's a light and it's working, pedestrians and vehicles both are required to follow it. What do you think jaywalking is?
(And no, of course you can't just run people down who are jaywalking. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the presence of a law means it's a free-for-all against people violating it. You also can't intentionally ram cars that are violating laws.)
I'm not so sure...
By JonT
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 5:02pm
The first paragraph of that law deals with crosswalks that don't have a signal. The second paragraph says:
That first sentence is badly written, but it seems to me that "any such operator" means "any driver of a vehicle". So I'd interpret that as "nor shall any such operator [i.e. any driver of a vehicle] enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing ... notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed. [i.e. even if the vehicle has a green light]." It says nothing about whether the pedestrian has a "don't walk" sign.
If so, then if you have a green light you don't have to stop for a pedestrian who is waiting to cross, but if a pedestrian is already crossing, you have to stop for them.
Deja Vu
By Rob O
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 6:08pm
I think UHub parsed this same statute this same way back when the off-duty cop coming from the Red Sox game threw down the pedestrian who had the temerity to hit the cop's personal car with an umbrella.
Jaywalking was invented by the car manufacturing lobby
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 01/08/2019 - 9:54am
In the 20's or 30's, citizens were asking for cars to have speed governors to limit the max speed.
This law specifically applies
By Lmo
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 3:52pm
This law specifically applies to crosswalks without traffic control signals.
I almost asked that too
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:48pm
But then, I realized, despite my usual desire to know everything, I'm just fine not knowing that the poor terrorist attack victim can't/didn't want to observe a don't walk sign.
Texting & Driving
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 12:32pm
Did you see the crash in fields corner where the car when right through a red light & hit someone (it was actually pathetic). This is a HUGE problem that unfortunately will be very difficult to find solutions for.
Right here on UHub!
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:38pm
And the usual massive motorist enablers were out in force, making every excuse that they could to be sure that the driver wasn't "falsely" accused of anything despite the obvious video and obvious red light.
Including one who opined that everybody just spaces out all the time!
we've tried nothing an we're all out of ideas!
By zetag
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:41pm
I have a solution, it's called traffic enforcement, something BPD clearly has zero interest in. If this pedestrian had died, BPD might set up in the neighborhood for a few weeks, write a bunch of tickets, announce when they're leaving and then give cars free reign once more. Rinse and repeat.
The solutions is coming
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:55pm
Newer cars are gradually getting outfitted with pre-collision avoidance and pedestrian detection.
It will take years for those vehicles to appear, and for the time being, we're going to live in dangerous times.
Going to take even longer...
By fungwah
Tue, 01/08/2019 - 9:07am
For those vehicle features to be mandatory, which is what we'd really need for them to provide safety for everyone.
Toyota and Honda have already
By anon
Tue, 01/08/2019 - 9:59am
Toyota and Honda have already made them standard equipment. That helps.
We should be outraged at the
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 12:42pm
What is that number, exactly? Hard to be outraged at a number when you don't know what that number is.
What number of reckless
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:07pm
What number of reckless distracted drivers plowing into pedestrians are you ok with?
bpdnews.com
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:31pm
http://bpdnews.com/s/public_journal_for_web-20-375...
Open in a pdf viewer and search for M/V
This is raw data though. Has anyone complied data? I don't know. This is a rolling log posted on the website. I don't know how long the logs stay up.
Never gonna know
By Pete Nice
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:43pm
Some crashes police respond, some they don't get called, some they get the crash report that the operators do only, some the operators don't do a report.
We know the number of Boston
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 12:47pm
We know the number of Boston murders for 2018. Anyone got the figures in on the Boston pedestrians hit by anything with wheels (including bicycles)?
Cycling is different
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:35pm
"almost" get hit by a cyclist - you live to complain about it endlessly
Get hit by a cyclist - ditto, and the cyclist won't be in good shape either
Get hit by a car - guess who is uninjured and lives to avoid responsibility! Guess who dies!
Does BPD still refuse to obey
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:35pm
Does BPD still refuse to obey state law and submit crash reports to the RMV?
Pedestrians hit
By adamg
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 3:52pm
Two people hit right outside
By HCL
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 5:52pm
Two people hit right outside of my building. Nice.
Drivers have gotten so much
By anon
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 12:53pm
Drivers have gotten so much worse then I ever remember. I have been nearly hit several times last year, it is ridiculous.
We shouldn't be outraged
By BostonDog
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:07pm
The city and state should be doing something about it instead of waiting for "outrage". Red light and speed cameras work great. If they can charge an electronic toll to 100,000 cars daily, they can issue a couple hundred "speeding fees" to drivers across the region too.
Article XII
By Andy C
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:24pm
"And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defense by himself, or his council at his election"
I 100% agree with you but the declaration of rights doesnt- you can't meet a camera face to face.
You left out the rest of that
By The Guy
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 1:55pm
You left out the rest of that section. It's only applicable in a criminal case, not for a civil violations like speeding tickets or red lights. So a camera will work here.
BS
By BostonDog
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 2:41pm
If a camera can issue a fee for a toll it can issue a fee for exceeding a speed limit. If you can get a parking ticket or ISD fine without meeting the city employee, you should be able to get a speeding ticket.
Drop the points aspect of the fine if needed. Call it a speeding fine and not a crime if issued by camera.
There are ways to make cameras legal and effective. It just takes political will.
Pages
Add comment