Dorchester woman charged with killing South End pedestrian in hit and run

By adamg on Thu, 09/05/2013 - 9:47pm

Updated, 10 a.m.

Boston Police report arresting Christina Martinez, 21, of Dorchester, on charges she hit a woman in a South End intersection last night, then drove over her as she sped away - and that she wasn't wearing her glasses at the time.

The victim, not immediately identified by police, was transported to nearby Boston Medical Center after the 9 p.m. incident at Washington and Northampton. She was later pronounced dead.

Martinez is scheduled for arraignment today in Roxbury District Court on charges of motor vehicle homicide, leaving the scene of an accident causing death and operating a motor vehicle without a license. Her gray Corolla was impounded as evidence.

Innocent, etc.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

This is heartbreaking

By anon on Thu, 09/05/2013 - 11:22pm.

There is no crosswalk at this intersection and the closest ones are a football field away.. The street is pitch black at this time and I know from driving through here almost everyday that cars are always speeding towards the green light at mass ave... It's too dangerous, something needs the be done.

You're right, something should be done

By Will LaTulippe on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 2:32am.

I propose banning women from walking after 8:30 P.M.*

*Facetious and not remotely something I actually believe

Good points!

By Markk02474 on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 12:46pm.

There are no street lights on the road, only pedestrian scale lights for the sidewalks. If there was an overhead train line, then streetlights under it could at least illuminate the roadway! Now, a median with streetlights seems the choice, though it takes away from people parking down the middle of the road for church services...

You cite an example of where traffic signals produce accidents, which are hopefully outweighed in general by signals preventing accidents.

It's funny that it takes

By anon on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 5:51pm.

It's funny that it takes someone's passing to see the obvious. If you walk a block down th street deeper into the south end. It's us very well lit and police patrolled! After mass ave you clearly see the change of scenery. There are less light due to more blacks and ethnic people living in that area. I just think when the area was getrified they could havd at least made it safe FOR EVERYONE! Something does need to be done!

oh, no worries

By anon on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 12:12am.

She wasn't on a bike, so the driver will actually be charged.

Umm, since the pedestrian

By anon on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 9:57am.

Umm, since the pedestrian DIED, I think it's more, "She DIED, so the driver will be charged"--absolutely nothing here having to do with a bike... This is why Bostonians (justifiably) hate most bike people, you're always inserting your agenda in any way possible.

It's a fair point

By anon on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 11:05am.

Cyclists are killed by hit and run drivers. The drivers are seldom charged with even a moving violation, even when the cyclists is operating lawfully. Cyclists must use every opportunity to insert our agenda (To make it illegal to kill a cyclist), if we wish to see change.

I'd accept that standard

By roadman on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 1:19pm.

If we also make it illegal for cyclists to operate:

Wihtout a proper license

Without a proper vehicle registration

Outside a marked bicycle lane when such lane is provided for use

And, if also we require that:

Moving violation while on a bicycle results in points against cyclist's motor vehicle insurance

Motor vehicle "standards of fault" apply equally for ALL vehicle/cyclist accidents

really?

By anon on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 1:29pm.

At which age should all the little childrens obtain their bicycle license?

How much do you think it should cost to register a $20 bike versus the cost of administration?

Tough to make a left turn from a bicycle lane, no?
And if the cyclist is intelligent enough to not desire a motor vehicle license, what then?

"Standards of Fault", unfortunately, do NOT apply equally for ALL vehicle/cyclist accidents, as the cyclist does not have an insurance agency to fight for them and even the simplest law, such as "must pass at a safe distance" are not enforced.

Sure you want that?

By SwirlyGrrl on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 1:34pm.

I mean, it isn't like anybody in MA ever loses their license for anything, but that would mean setting up license procedures for school children, etc. That would gum up the system far more than just actually requiring drivers to retest every few years and demonstrate that they knew the rules of the road from the beginning.

Which would in turn save vastly more lives and reduce property damage than a licensing procedure for cyclists - MOST OF WHOM ALREADY HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES! Many from states and countries with far more meaningful comprehensive licensing exams!

It really helps to have a sense of proportion - rather than a sense of entitlement that deems "car use" with "owning road".

Oh, and the "out side a marked bike lane" is utterly silly so long as drivers continue to confuse these lanes with PERSONAL ME ONLY SPECIAL WHATEVER MY LAZY ASS WANTS lanes.

Speaking of "sense of entitlement"

By roadman on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 1:52pm.

think about a state law that capitulated to cyclists' demands for special lanes and other facilities without considering whether such facilities are practical or justified by the demand (you know, the standard that's been used for decades for highway improvements like signals, turn lane,s widenings, etc.). Even worse, there is no statutory requirement that cyclists be required to use those facilities where they are provided.

While were at it, let's talk about cyclists' continued (and totally irrational) opposition to accept the responsibilites (licensing and registration) that other road users MUST abide by in order to legally use the public streets and roads.

I agree with your idea about periodic re-testing of drivers. However, retesting of drivers alone will not level the playing field. The bike lobby continually proclaims the mantra of "equal rights - equal responsibility". My proposals will go a long way to making that a reality.

And we already have a licensing and registration infrastructure in place. As for adult cyclists with driver's licenses, all the more reason to tie moving violations on a bike to their driving record (after all, a bicycle is legally considered to be a vehicle).

Stuff it

By Matthew on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 1:58pm.

Drivers NEVER follow the rules. I watch them SPEED and RUN RED LIGHTS every SINGLE DAY. They endanger pedestrians CONSTANTLY. And that's not good enough! Drivers are always demanding more and more of our public space be turned over to their selfish desires.

If you want to jabber about responsibilities, start with the people driving multi-ton, speeding machines. As a pedestrian, it is those machines that I am worried about, not tiny little bikes.

After you've solved that problem, then come back. Until then, I don't really care about what garbage you have to say.

Why ask why?

By Markk02474 on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 9:19pm.

Matthew, are you writing about MBTA bus drivers, or all drivers?

Why do drivers squeeze the lemon every day (run stale yellow lights)? Most of the time its because there are too many frustrations along routes of travel. That includes too many traffic lights where too often the next one for a driver will be red. Going through a just barely red one means one less red light out of many to wait for.

Besides excessive numbers of traffic lights (often under warrant guidelines), travel is impeded by road narrowing creating backups behind every driver making a turn, parking shortages leading to double parking, pedestrians who have no respect for others and don't wait for a walk signal (their turn) or break in traffic to cross, and of course, inadequate roadway supply.

If you want to correct driver behavior, fix the infrastructure problems, basically not enough or it and too impeded. Instead the opposite is being done with more traffic lights, more road narrowing, more encouragement for pedestrians to be selfish. Pedestrians don't generate extra greenhouse gas to wait for their turn, while produce wastes by forcing motor vehicles to wait for them.

Bicyclists running red lights behave differently, they will run a solid red whenever it looks safe to. That is the fundamental rule for their travel, all traffic laws are secondary and optional for a significant subset of cyclists.

Then they should put the car away

By SwirlyGrrl on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 9:28pm.

Why do drivers squeeze the lemon every day (run stale yellow lights)? Most of the time its because there are too many frustrations along routes of travel.

Driving is a privilege. If you can't do it responsibly, get out of your car and walk, take the T, etc.

Or reorganize your life before you take someone else's with your irresponsible and immature behavior.

Bicyclists and Drivers alike

By Markk02474 on Sat, 09/07/2013 - 6:31am.

Bicyclists and Drivers alike are frustrated with too many and poorly controlled traffic signals. Its a problem that should be fixed in order to appease human nature, increase compliance, and reduce accidents.

Nobody's arguing that the roads are poorly designed around here,

By anon on Sat, 09/07/2013 - 7:57am.

but drivers, too, bear responsibility. It's up to the driver(s) to reduce speed if and when necessary. Don't you remember the question that was on the test for going up for a Learner's Permit for driving an automobile:

"What is the cause of most vehicular accidents?"

Answer:

Operating at too great a speed for existing conditions.

You just might want to think about that a little bit!

Citation Please

By Pete Nice on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 2:00pm.

That no one in MA ever loses their license.

(Ok I admit, I really only wanted to post something with "citation please" as the subject line)

Why?

By Neal on Sat, 09/07/2013 - 1:22pm.

If we also make it illegal for cyclists to operate:

Wihtout a proper license

Operators' licenses give people qualified to do so permission to operate heavy machinery (IE cars, trucks, buses etc) on the public ways. Bicycles hardly qualify as heavy machinery.

sure but...

By anon on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 11:08am.

there are plenty of cases where bikers are killed and there are no charges. Check out the father of 2 in wellesley last year as just another example.

You can hate us if you want, and sure some bikers do stupid things, but as long as I am the one in the car's firing line, I will continue to "push my agenda" of staying alive.

I'll agree that it's not

By z on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 11:26am.

I'll agree that it's not really the time for agenda-inserting, but I think the comment is referring to that accident in Wellesley where the cyclist DID die, and no charges were filed.

But anyhoo, not trying to grind anyone's axe for them.

So the police should charge drivers.....

By Pete Nice on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 2:05pm.

If the DA and clerk give you a hint that it is a waste of time (and money)?

No, this is not a "cyclist issue"

By Matthew on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 1:59pm.

If you kill a pedestrian OR a cyclist with your motor vehicle, there are only two ways you will get charged with a crime:

You fled the scene -- hit and run
You were drunk -- DUI

If you stay at the scene and are not intoxicated then the police will let you off, and probably apologize for inconveniencing you.

This isn't about "cyclists" and your attitude is stupid. This is about the police not giving a shit about anyone who is not inside of a motor vehicle.

Was the driver OUI?

By Markk02474 on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 12:37pm.

I thought Mass state law required someone to be drunk or on drugs while driving and killing someone to be charged with motor vehicle homicide (MGL Ch. 90, Sec 24G). Can anyone cite the chapter and section of laws that police are charging her under?

By the way, cyclists can hit pedestrians, knock them down, have their head hit the pavement, and kill them with a fatal brain injury, and not even be subject to arrest, let alone charged with vehicular manslaughter (MGL Ch. 90, Sec. 11E)! Mass has only MOTOR vehicle manslaughter/murder. Oh, and yes, cyclists have killed pedestrians in both SF and NYC. There are small number of it, but still Mass laws shield bicyclists from arrest, under Ch 90, Sec 11E.

32,367 people were killed by cars in 2011

By anon on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 1:33pm.

Did you say two people were killed by bikes? Egads, something must be done!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle...

No, I didn't

By Markk02474 on Sat, 09/07/2013 - 6:44am.

give any numbers. Two is just the number of deaths in San Francisco in the last few years, so the total is larger. Damn pedestrians need to wear helmets but don't! Actually what would be far more effective for pedestrians is wearing visible clothing at night and not stumble drunk into roadways.

Your citation of total roadway deaths is meaningless without context, and reflects how much motor vehicle transportation dominates travel more than anything else. How safe is bicycling or walking per mile compared to driving? Cite that instead!

Its not like thousands of pedestrians were killed crossing Interstate highways. Most pedestrians are great contributors for their death by not looking both ways (more and more looking at their phone instead), drunk, high, j-walking, and wearing dark clothing at night.

Oh, the victim blaming

By anon on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 1:07pm.

"The pedestrian was asking for it."

Motor Vehicle Homicide

By Pete Nice on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 2:27pm.

Is a Felony with OUIL, and a misdemeanor without OUIL.

1. Operation

2. Public Way

3. Reckless or Negligent

4. Causes Death of another.

Citation please

By Markk02474 on Sat, 09/07/2013 - 6:49am.

What are the state laws (chapter, section) for this? Really, I'd like to know and read them. Misdemeanor homicide just seems like an oxymoron, where manslaughter doesn't. Driving without glasses or contacts is like driving after drinking and texting, however - premeditated self-impairment.

Mass General Laws

By Pete Nice on Sat, 09/07/2013 - 8:28am.

Mark,

Sometimes the penalties for specific laws are different sections that the actual law, but most of them are the same.

Motor Vehicle Homicide: Ch. 90 s. 24G(a) and (b)

Misdemeanor: No more than 2.5 years in house of corrections and fine no more than $3,000

Felony: No more than 15 years in State Prison and

Manslaughter by Motor Vehicle: Ch. 265 s.13.5 (This is a newer law with a more severe penalty than motor vehicle homicide misdemeanor). In this case the operator must have wanton and reckless operation in addition to a BAC over .08, while the homicide felony only requires either or (OUIL/reckless/negligent) driving. The penalty for this is a minimum sentence of 5 years in state prison and no more than 20 years. Your license is also revoked for 15 years min to life.

An acquaintance in Boston was

By anon on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 2:44pm.

An acquaintance in Boston was arrested in the '90s after he struck a pedestrian with his bicycle and the pedestrian hit his head on the pavement and died, exactly as in your scenario. The charges were ultimately dropped when it was demonstrated that the pedestrian was at fault (he stepped out between parked cars in the middle of the block and my acquaintance had no chance to avoid him).

This is, to my knowledge, the only pedestrian fatality in Boston involving a bicycle in the 20 years I've lived here. In the same time span I've seen with my own eyes three pedestrians struck and killed by motor vehicles (one in Cambridge, two in Boston). In all three cases the pedestrian was in a crosswalk. I don't know the outcome of those cases. In two of those cases I volunteered to give a statement to police but was never contacted.