Merchants along Centre Street have bought nine crosswalk signs to remind drivers that, in fact, they're supposed to stop for pedestrians, not try to pick up points by running them down, which apparently a growing number of them have done over the past year.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
oh i forgot about those....
By pierce
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:33pm
oh i forgot about those.... They put them up on Centre Street in JP between Pond Street and The Monument. They lasted at least a month, though now, less than a year later, are a distant memory. Take your pictures now!
"Key to Safety"
By Jay Levitt
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:35pm
I would like to once again tout my trademark "Key to Safety" program:
When you walk in a crosswalk, walk with your keys in your hand and your arm fully extended. Drivers don't fear hitting a pedestrian, but they DO fear having their car keyed. When a car passes you, stand still. If the car strikes the key, you've done nothing, and they've caused an accident (and demonstrably entered a crosswalk within ten feet of a pedestrian.)
Your subsequent death by shooting or stabbing will in no way diminish your righteous win against Masshole drivers.
tough guy hiding behind a laptop doling out bad advice
By anon
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:28pm
And I'm sure you've followed your own advice. Give me a break. You're just a wannabe tough guy vigilante hiding behind your computer. Most drivers do stop for pedestrians in crosswalks... otherwise, there would be tens of thousands of hit pedestrians every day in the city alone. Why don't you volunteer as a street crossing guard if you're so concerned? No, of course not... it's so much easier to bitch online.
Been there, done that
By adamg
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:34pm
I once organized a group of people in downtown Natick to catalog people running the pedestrian crossing lights (back when red and yellow meant something). Money? Meet my mouth.
In any case, you're apparently unfamiliar with the pedestrian point system. It's a joke, son. You also obviously jammed up your keyboard with too much spittle (again!) to be able to click over to the linked BPD report, which says the number of pedestrians hit by cars along Centre Street has actually gone up over the past year. Yeah, most people do stop for walkers, but too many don't.
Um, no.
By BStu
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 3:37pm
That pedestrians avoid getting killed daily is only proof that cars don't continue flying through crosswalks once we occupy them. It says absolutely nothing about their capacity to yield for pedestrians waiting to enter crosswalks, which they aren't doing with much regularity. Yes, they seldom continue through while I'm there in there in the intersection, (though they do sometimes; I've been hit in a crosswalk twice) but that's hardly the point.
See, now you're getting it.
By Jay Levitt
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 6:00pm
Yes. That was the entire premise of my post. Well done!
better yet....
By Sarcastic Sam
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:42pm
to prevent fellow pedestrians from bumping you in a crowded crosswalk: with a separate keychain in each hand, move your arms in alternating circles as you cross the street, declaring "I'm in the crosswalk, walking in a straight line! if your eyes get gouged out it's YOUR fault and I will sue!"
Those sometimes appear on
By got2trotlibrarian
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 12:45pm
Those sometimes appear on Broadway in Southie too. They actually reappeared a couple of days ago, but will probably not last very long.
I definitely agree with
By Ben
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:09pm
I definitely agree with stopping for pedestrians, but some situations are different than others. If you see a pedestrian from a ways off, it's a simple matter to comfortably slow down and let them pass, and it's your responsibility to do so. However, often times a driver doesn't see them until he's right on top of the crosswalk because they're standing hidden behind a parked vehicle, tree, sign, or some other visual obstruction. And yet legally, in those instances as well, you're basically required to slam on your brakes and potentially cause an accident in order to let them pass if they're standing in the edge of the crosswalk. That just doesn't make sense to me; doesn't it seem more sensible to put the responsibility on the pedestrian sometimes to be alert and go when traffic is lighter? After all, in those types of situations, it's much easier for a human being to stop himself from walking than it is for a vehicle to slow itself to a stop safely in a matter of several feet. The responsibility has to go both ways; I have *definitely* seen pedestrians walk into a crosswalk, not at all paying attention as to whether a car is coming. Why should I have my safety endangered by a rear-end collision just so someone can do something so thoughtless?
I too I run into this problem
By whyaduck
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:19pm
I too I run into this problem every afternoon driving through Wellesley center where many pedestrians will wait till you right at the crosswalk and step out causing you to slam on the breaks. Yes it is frustrating but...
HOWEVER, though, Mass. law states that we in cars have to stop when the pedestrians foot is in the crosswalk. Period. That is the law, Ben. So even as I do find these cases frustrating, it is still my responsibility ALWAYS to stop for the pedestrian. If someone hits me from behind, well, what can I say - they should not be that close to begin with.
As someone who pedesters, I should not have to wait till traffic is lighter to cross a road! Come on Ben, really! And speaking about Centre street in West Roxbury, do you know how busy the road is? The traffic there is hardly ever lighter so, what, you want someone to wait till when?!?
Personally, drivers will ignore the signs. Business need to get more cops on the street to pull over drivers who don't stop for pedestrians and start write some big tickets.
Yes, I'm familiar with Centre
By Ben
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:44pm
Yes, I'm familiar with Centre St. I grew up right near there for over twenty years, and still frequently visit my parents there, so I know the area, then and now. And yes, I know that's the law, which is why I pointed it out in my post. I just don't think that as a driver, I should have to subject myself to a higher likelihood of collision and injury because of something that could be solved very easily by common sense on the part of the pedestrian, or the law not being black-and-white. Don't get me wrong-- whenever I see them, if I have a chance to stop I do, even slamming on my brakes. I'm just waiting for that day when I get rear-ended and wind up with whiplash and a totaled car. Gonna be great.
And the attitude of "I should not have to wait till traffic is lighter to cross a road" just does not sit well with me. Cause, you know, people being expedient towards their own interests and not working towards the most reasonable solution is ALWAYS the way to go. I guess the problem I have is with the "all or nothing" design of the law itself, not the pedestrians. But whatever, the entire system is based on bureaucracy, and so the nature of the laws will never change to be "smart". Keep walking right on out there, and be safe.
Well then
By whyaduck
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 3:26pm
if you wait for people to exercise "common sense", you will be at a loss I am afraid. I am afraid we have to agree to disagree I guess. If I am a pedestrian, I will walk out and into a cross walk and expect the driver of the car to stop before hitting me. (For comparision, many years ago I was in York, England and as soon as the driver saw me placing my foot in the crosswalk, the car stopped on a dime - a beautiful thing - anyway, I digress).
Or to put it another way, if one is familiar with a road, such as yourself, very familar it appears, than you know you have crosswalks with pedestrians (some doing really dumb things like taking flying leaps into the crosswalk) so it is up to you and I to exercise caution as much as we can. I do not believe in stepping right out into a crosswalk when I car is almost on me but I do know people, being people, being human, get distracted. As I don't want to hurt anyone, I always try to keep an eye on those crosswalks.
You grew up there for over 20 years?
By tenfortyseven
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 3:35pm
Hey genius: if somebody rear ends you (in the bad way) it's not the fault of the pedestrian. It is the fault of the person who rear ended you (in the bad way). They were driving too close to your rear end (in the bad way).
Is that every crosswalk ?
By Manny
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:58pm
Do drivers have to stop at every crosswalk if pedestrian is in it ? I always thought, and could be wrong, that if a crosswalk had a Walk/Don't Walk light then the pedestrian had to wait for the WALK signal. Am I wrong on this ? I know that in crosswalks with no light, if a pedestrian is crossing, a driver must stop for them.
Maybe
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:19pm
If another car is already stopped at a crosswalk, you must also stop your car at it, whether or not you have a green light.
Actually sock puppet.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:17pm
It depends on if you are in the same lane or not.
I went to a call once where a vehicle stopped at a green light to let an elderly pedestrian cross. the vehicle from the other lane crashed into the pedestrian in the crosswalk when the vehicle had the green light. The elderly pedestrian ended up suing the driver that stopped at the green light and I'm pretty sure that driver was found responsible for the crash (the one that stopped at the green light).
You cannot pass another vehicle that is stopped for someone in a crosswalk, as that might be what you are thinking about (I'm not sure what would happen if there was an actual light there)
Chapter and verse
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:27pm
"No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed."
MGL Chapter 89, Sec. 11
I trust what seems to be clear in the law more than what you're "pretty sure" happened.
"shall pass"
By Pete Nice
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:33pm
Those were the key words. The situation I saw regarded two lanes and no passing.. I'm not sure that was what you meant.
Passing
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:36pm
If I am nigh-stopped in one lane, and you are moving in the other lane, you will surely pass me unless you succumb to Zeno's Paradox.
Thats one definition of passing.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:41pm
The other one would be if you were behind a vehicle in the same lane, and you changes lanes to 'pass' that car on the left or right, and then continued straight.
And it depends when the pedestrian crosses. If the pedestrain crosses against a red light, and there are two lanes of vehicles traveling perpendicular, and the car in the right lane stops for the illegal crossing pedestrian but the car in the left lane hits the pedestrain in the crosswalk (since the vehicle would have no resonable reason to suspect someone in the crosswalk or see someone in the crosswalk) the pedestrain is at fault. That I do know. I've seen them cited plenty of times.
I don't doubt for a moment
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:53pm
That police have correctly cited people for jaywalking, and have incorrectly failed to cite people for breaking other laws at the same time. The law as written states in no uncertain terms that a vehicle passing another vehicle stopped at a crosswalk, notwithstanding the traffic control signal indicating that vehicles may proceed, breaks the law. That person should be cited, in addition to the jaywalker. But, as you point, out, the law as written always takes a back seat to the whims or "reasonableness tests" of a police officer. Nothing will make a police officer cite a driver who is legally at fault if he just doesn't feel like it (or doesn't understand it).
That said, just because you are more likely than not to get away with it, and many cops don't understand the law very well, doesn't mean you should break the law if you know better. If you see somebody stopped at a crosswalk, you have an affirmative legal obligation to stop, no matter if you have the light. One can't count on the whims of every cop to not feel like enforcing that law, and besides it's a law for a very good reason - people generally stop at crosswalks because there are pedestrians in front of them. I'd rather have the guy behind me honk than run over the person in front of me.
Don't foget the judges too sock puppet.
By Pete Nice
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 5:04pm
They are the ones that rule the pedestrains were at fault and that the drivers were not at fault here. Laws get intrepeted by them. That was what I was talking about, the judges ruling on this law, not what you, me or other cops think about it.
again, when a person illegally crosses the street against a red light and gets hit by a car going through a green light even if another car stopped for the illegally crossing pedestrain, courts have ruled the driver is not at fault, since a reasonable person would not be able to see this pedestrain in the first place.
And many times drivers in the right lane have to stop at a green light so that pedestrains can legally cross at the crosswalk on the street to which the vehicle wants to take a right onto. If another person crosses illegally and someone in the left lane hits them, do you really think the driver is at fault?
remember there are different intrepretations of "passing".
Does the MGL
By eeka
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 8:24pm
say anything about requiring police officers to know how to spell "pedestrian"?
Know it does'nt
By Pete Nice
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 8:37pm
Last time i checked any way; unles your looking at a different section then I am.
(o:
By eeka
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 8:53pm
.
That law is to protect pedestrians who lawfully entered
By roadman
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:52pm
a crosswalk on a green light or walk signal, and are still within the intersection when the light changes (some people, especially the elderly, walk more slowly than others do). It is not to give authority to pedestrians to enter a crosswalk against a red light or don't walk signal.
When do drivers have to stop for people at crosswalks?
By Pete Nice
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:26pm
Legally there are two things you should remember as a driver as to when you have to stop:
1. If the pedestrian is on the same half of the way as the vehicle; or
2. The pedestrain is approaching from the opposite half of the way and is within 10 feet of the vehicle's lane.
Common sense applies to most other situations here. If you are in a vehicle and you are driving through an interection when you have a green light and a jogger with headphones runs into the crosswalk against a red light or don't walk signal and you hit them with your vehicle in the crosswalk, the pedestrain is at fault.
If the pedestrain started crossing before your light turned green or you were far away enough where a reasonable driver could have stopped, then you may be at fault
Looks like
By Sock_Puppet
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:14pm
It looks like they're installing that in the middle of the block - where people tend to cross Centre in West Rox anyway.
Are the police actually going
By anon
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:17pm
Are the police actually going to ticket people who don't stop? Of course not, so its a waste of money since Boston cops are anti pedestrian. They could make a mint, and save a lot of lives, by waiting undercover by the crossing in front of the Mass Ave T on the orange line or really anywhere. People dont stop in Hyde Square in the crosswalks even though there is a detail cop there all the time, since hes too busy texting his friends to bother ticketing people who break the law.
Well, since the fine is $1.00
By i'm a donkey
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:45pm
Well, since the fine is $1.00 (As in, 100 pennies), the administrative costs to process the tickets would far outweigh the point.
Not a Masshole, but sometimes I screw up
By Mark-
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 1:42pm
I do try to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, but it's easy to miss some of the crosswalks on Centre St. in West Roxbury. Some are behind small rises in the roadway, so you don't see them from very far away. Plus, with the 4 lanes of zig-zagging traffic there's a lot to look out for. These signs will help a lot. At least, as long as they last.
We'd never get anywhere
By polarbare
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:08pm
Posters above hit the nail on the head. Wellesley is horrible about people darting out from between cars, and people continuously ignore walk/don't walk signs. If the car is always fully responsible we'd never get anywhere. And I don't even want to get into a discussion of how bad it is in Boston.
The 100-300lb person should ALWAYS be the more cautious one when compared to a 1000-3000lb vehicle. (But they rarely are)
Agree
By John-W
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:27pm
Agree with many of the posters, and as a driver I try and stop for pedestrians when physically possible and as a pedestrian I try and wait for better opportunities to cross, rather than have someone stop tons of steel when I can just wait 25 seconds more.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the reason why it can be so hard for a driver to stop in some of these instances is that we are rarely going the speed limit. For that reason, I, as a pedestrian, do not assume the magical white lines of the crosswalk exempt me from the laws of physics. Especially when they are so many massholes (like myself) driving around out there. I'm certain I'll end up running myself over one of these days...
Centre Street is an interesting case
By adamg
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:36pm
It has crosswalks at both intersections with traffic signals (some of which actually seem to have working pedestrian-crossing buttons) and intersections without them. It has curves, so pedestrians can just pop up out of nowhere sometimes. But it also has non-signalized intersections on what are basically straightaways in which you'd basically have to be blind NOT to see pedestrians, so there's no real excuse not to stop.
Some easy to see
By bph
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 2:49pm
I just came back from Centre St. where I counted 5 people crossing outside the crosswalks, across traffic - they were easy to see. I also managed to stop for one pedestrian in a crosswalk. But sometimes it really is easy to miss people waiting to cross at a crosswalk because they are blocked from view by SUVs or trucks, especially if you're driving in the left lane.
What exactly do you mean by
By J
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:36pm
What exactly do you mean by people " crossing outside the crosswalk".
I hope you understand the concept of unmarked crosswalks, right?
Way outside
By bph
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 5:13pm
On Centre St. people cross wherever & whenever they feel like it - in the middle of the block, not on a corner or near a crosswalk, just wherever they want to cross, often walking down the yellow line while waiting for a break in traffic to finish crossing.
That doesnt answer the
By J
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 6:40pm
That doesnt answer the question.
Centre street is packed with unmarked crosswalks, which are, for many people "in the middle of the block, not on a corner,"
Actually, I don't
By anon
Tue, 06/29/2010 - 6:43am
What is an "unmarked crosswalk"?
Thanks.
An unmarked crosswalk
By Ron Newman
Tue, 06/29/2010 - 9:10am
exists at every street corner. Pedestrians have the right of way at all crosswalks, marked or unmarked.
Not in MA
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 06/30/2010 - 9:29am
In other states that is true. In MA it is not.
Like Ron said, everywhere
By J
Tue, 06/29/2010 - 4:52pm
Like Ron said, everywhere that the sidewalk would extend across the road.
The Most common are found at T intersections:
____
.|
There are 3 crosswalks, and all 3 might be unmarked, but all have the same legal standing as a marked one. Someone driving on the primary street (the through street) might see people crossing and think they're jaywalking because they dont understand the legal concept and havent reviewed their drivers guide.
Cities and Towns are allowed to make up their own rules
By Pete Nice
Tue, 06/29/2010 - 5:17pm
regarding pedestrian conduct.
Unmarked crosswalks may not have the same standard as marked crosswalks unless they meet the standard set by the higway department in the city or town.
State Law regarding pedestrians specifically states
By roadman
Wed, 06/30/2010 - 9:28am
"within a marked crosswalk." Unless you can provide us a specific cite in the law (as opposed to the driver's manual, which actually contradicts state law in some areas)to the contrary, it is my understanding that the concept of pedestrian right of way within an unmarked crosswalk is not legally recognized in this state. (and yes, I am aware that the Federal MUTCD does refer to "unmarked" crosswalks).
And I'll be the first to agree that it's not good form to hit a pedestrian anywhere in the street, marked crosswalk or not. However, to accept the walking lobby's arguments that pedestrians somehow have absolute right of way over vehicles everytime and everywhere (with the exception of controlled-access highways) is just wrong.
I love how private citizens had to pay for this
By Brett
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 3:03pm
I love how a bunch of business owners had to pay for proper road signage because the city wouldn't.
The city can't afford $1k in traffic signs for an area where there have been many pedestrians struck?
And I love how when they did pay for it themselves, Menino came down to show his face. Fucker won't do show up at anything unless someone gives him a PR blowjob (trust me, I know people who have tried to get him to come to things- usually the requirement is that he get his name on any materials handed out or banners and lots of thank-yous in any speeches), but now he seems to have shown up to make it look like he was somehow involved.
Centre St. is too narrow for
By HenryAlan
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 4:29pm
Centre St. is too narrow for these things. I almost hit one this morning as I drove past a delivery van that didn't quite fit in the right lane, forcing me slightly to the left. The only real fix for Centre St. safety issues is making it two lanes with bike lanes added into the freed up space.
The only real fix for Centre St.
By Anonymous
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 5:17pm
is synchronize the lights at 30 mph so that drivers who go 30 mpg will not have to stop between holy name rotary and the spring st/parkway near old Topsy's.
Ticket jaywalkers who do not cross in crosswalks with the light or who do not cross at intersections with the light. Ticket drivers who do not comply with the law with regard to pedestrians crossing.
In order to ticket jaywalkers
By eeka
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 8:28pm
they would need to make the fine more than a dollar so that it would cover the costs of issuing it, people fighting it, etc.
I agree
By anon
Tue, 06/29/2010 - 9:04am
Ticket drivers and pedestrians $75 a pop for not obeying crosswalk rules and there will be no macho keying of cars necessary and the streets will be safer for all. I've seen it work in at least one Southern California city where I regularly visit family... it was almost surreal that I didn't see one person try to jaywalk through downtown nor one driver not yield at a crosswalk. My inclination was to dart across the intersection, but it was clear from the crowds of people waiting at the curb that this was NOT done in this town.
Chronicle did a segment on crosswalk safety recently that was pretty interesting. They reported that once a pedestrian made their intent to cross known, then the driver was obligated to stop.
You can't fight Boston
By fenwayguy
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 9:35pm
You can't fight Boston pedestrian culture. How about adding a couple of mid-block, signalized crosswalks timed with the intersections? If people only have to go half a block "out of the way", and know that the cycle will let them cross in X seconds without a staredown, maybe they'll cut it out with the jaywalking.
'Course, that might cost the merchants a hefty sum.
You can't fight Boston ... culture.
By Anonymous
Mon, 06/28/2010 - 10:45pm
I know. You could but it would take a big campaign.