By adamg on Thu., 6/5/2014 - 3:10 pm
Capt. John Greland at C-6 reports that around 5:55 p.m. on Tuesday, a motorist took exception, by way of his fist, to a bicyclist obeying traffic rules at Dorchester Avenue and Columbia Road.
Greland says the motorist, apparently headed straight, beeped at the bicyclist in front of him. When the bicyclist refused to move and told him the light was red, the driver got out of his car and punched the bicyclist in the face, giving him a bloody mouth and knocking him to the ground - possibly into unconsciousness - Greland says.
EMTs took the bicyclist to the hospital; police will seek criminal complaints against the driver in South Boston District Court.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Me first!
By Pete Nice
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:25pm
Bikes don't belong on roads with cars.
Discuss.
Apparently someone isn't
By anon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:29pm
Apparently someone isn't mature enough to operate a car without resorting to violence and needs to have their license revoked.
Counterpoint: Cars don't
By Ebolasaurus
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:29pm
Counterpoint: Cars don't belong on the road with bikes
Outside the box.
By Chris Rich
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 4:03pm
Roads don't belong on the bikes with cars!!
Bikes don't belong on cars on
By gotdatwmd
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 4:05pm
Bikes don't belong on cars on roads... they should be ridden.
Bikes were there first
By anon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:31pm
Motorists can't behave. There's no room for giant contraptions for single people. Ban all cars.
Both preceded by trains and horses
By Markk02474
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 12:25pm
So get the damn bikes off the roads too. Oh, and prior to trains we had canals, even long ones like the Middlesex Canal.
You're living in the wrong
By Marq
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:34pm
You're living in the wrong city then my friend.
Legally, tactically,
By Villian
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:36pm
Legally, tactically, functionally, and ethically your opinion is baseless and without merit.
No discussion.
Good Idea, Pete
By anon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:38pm
Lets punish the law-abiding victims because the criminals can't be expected to control themselves!
Can I join in
By J Tammaro
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:39pm
They had it coming
Minor edit
By MattyC
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:40pm
Bikes[i]Some drivers[/i] don't belong on roadswith cars.Fixed that for you.
Well then
By anon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:42pm
Fewer car lanes, more cycletracks. Discuss.
neither do mentally ill
By anon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:45pm
neither do mentally ill motorists....
I agree
By Jon Ramos
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:52pm
I agree, we don't belong on the same roads. Instead, let's build a network of cycletracks & greenways that are separated from streets as much as possible. They are safer, and offer cleaner air for us cyclists so we don't have to choke down toxic car exhaust. Now, that we all agree, I can help identify which roads to remove lanes from in order to make this happen.
I disagree
By Bike Ryder
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 7:32pm
And when you're through building your utopia with butterflies and unicorns romping, and the end to world hunger, let us know.
Meanwhile, the rest of us still need to ride on the roads we have.
Reply to I disagree
By SUX VR40 Rider
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 12:01pm
Whom do you think should fund the bicycle facilities? The tax payers. This was attempted in Iowa about 10 years ago. It happened as a result of a state law maker who got pissed at a group of cyclists LEGALLY riding on the shoulder of a state highway with an adjacent multi use path. When the former state senator, who shall not be named, pulled over and ordered the cyclists to get on the path they refused. He tried to play I'm a state senator card with them and they still refused. The reason they refused is the path turned to continue away from the highway and was not going to the destination they were going.
At the next legislative session he presented a bill to ban all cyclists from all public roadways. The cyclists mobilized and got our own supporters in the legislature and had amendments made to the bill. The amendments included a multi use path adjacent to every single public roadways, especially state highways. This effectively killed the bill in committee. At the next election year the former senator who shall not be named, was voted out of office because of this bill he proposed.
So I ask again who in the state of Massachusetts is going to fund the building of separate bicycle facilities? The tax payers? Which state law maker is going to propose this bill with the risk of being voted out of office for doing so? It happened in Iowa, this has happened in other states. Do the law makers of MA really want to risk it in their state?
Tax on electric vehicles
By Markk02474
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 12:33pm
A week or two ago Mass Republicans suggested a way to increase roadway funding in the face of declining gas tax revenues as vehicles get more efficient. What should be the funding model if everyone drives an electric vehicle? What pays for road repairs when electric vehicle owners pay nothing, bicyclists pay nothing, and hybrid owners pay little? They suggested a $100/year registry tax.
So, the question is: How do you propose bicyclists pay for their adjacent paths? Do you have a funding model with enough political support?
I'm not sure on what funding
By Booties4Breakfast
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 1:48pm
I'm not sure on what funding model should be propose, which is a very good question that should be addressed before any progress is expected. But I'd also like to point out that cycling paths are fractional costs compared to motor-purposed roads, but they also allow denser traffic. For example, a single car lane can support 4 bi-directional bike lanes. They also require very low maintenence once built (virutally none, unlike vehicle roadways that needs to be repaired very frequently due to heavy trucks ruining the surface).
I think to get move forward, you first have to appeal to the masses that you are not spending their money on somebody else's roads. You are spending their money to help improve their OWN situation. More cycling paths means less cars on their roads, which translates to less traffic, less pollution, and less costly road maintenence in the long run. Quite honestly, I think it's an investment more than just expense.
A modest proposal
By J. Swift
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 10:10pm
It seems to me that people who use bikes to commute burn more calories than those who drive. As a result of this, they likely have to consume more calories. Thus, I propose a calorie tax. The taxes paid for foods will be weighted based upon how many calories are in that food. That way, all those cyclists who are eating all those calories will have to pay their way to building those safer paths.
Non-car owners already pay for the bulk of car travel
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 11:00pm
When motorists start paying for more than 28% of the public cost of their driving we can talk.
Perhaps we should add an obesity-related illness tax on cars as well? To pay for the healthcare that cyclists, walkers, joggers, and public transit users don't use because the lack of physical activity in habitual drivers leads to higher rates of illness?
There is plenty of evidence that investment in infrastructure that encourages non-motorized travel pays back hugely in the increase in productive life span (measured as DALYs - disability adjusted life years). Longer, healthier lives mean more time working and producing and paying taxes.
I did once talk to a Cuban physician who had to ride a circuit of clinics when he was younger. He eventually bought a motorcycle because the cost of food to fuel 4-500km of cycling a week was far less than the cost of fuel.
Anti-MBTA now too?
By Markk02474
Sat, 06/07/2014 - 12:07pm
Hint: The MBTA only provides motorized transportation.
You make that claim how? Because there are so many more tax payers who don't own cars than do? So many more bicycles on the road than cars? More people traveling to work by walking and bicycle than by motor vehicles (car, car pool, bus, cab, motorcycle, train)?
I guess you indirectly agree that electric car owners should pay more for roads, that aren't now because they pay no gas taxes. High efficiency car owners need to pay more too, again because they are under-charged by the gas tax method of funding roads.
Gas tax pays only 1/4 of the cost of car travel in MA
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 06/08/2014 - 12:53pm
The money all goes into and comes out of the general fund (in case you aren't familiar with how our local government works).
Car owners put in 25.8% of the cost of MA roadways via gas taxes according to the Tax Foundation. Everybody, regardless of car ownership, pays the rest through sales tax, income tax, property tax, and other fees and taxes that support car habits.
Gas tax is only a pittance of the actual costs. Meanwhile, cyclists, walkers, MBTA users pay in a lot of money that subsidizes car users (on top of fares funding 60% of the MBTA).
So, when drivers pay their fair share of their road use, we can start talking about taxing other modes. Meanwhile, cyclists get no where near what they pay in to subsidize your car habit back in accommodations, and will continue to demand their fair share (especially since cycling accommodations are far cheaper than car accommodations - especially when the capacity is so much higher given so much less extra vehicle is involved).
The less popular, the more unfair?
By Markk02474
Sun, 06/08/2014 - 5:03pm
By your logic, the less popular the transportation mode, the more unfair the funding is?
Rollerbladers, skateboarders and pogo sick riders are thus treated even less fairly than bicyclists? Where are the skate parks from transportation money for them?
What is the fair share of road costs for drivers? Should they pay in proportion to how much they use roads, and yet get a lower percentage of the road width because you think bicyclists should get more road percentage than their ridership represents?
What you have not answered is what you think should replace the gas tax model. The gas tax model fails for electric and hybrid vehicles, contributing to the gas tax shortfall. How do you propose fixing the gas tax so that higher efficiency vehicles pay their fair share? Tax based on vehicle weight cubed times mile per year traveled (only while driving in Massachusetts)?
Whenever I Use My Pogo Stick To Cross The Longfellow Bridge ...
By Elmer
Sun, 06/08/2014 - 11:04pm
... those nasty bicyclists keep intruding into the pogo lane ...
Oh, and don't get me started about when the pogo signal says "Go", while bike signals say "No Go", but the pogos can't go because the cars didn't go because the pedestrians had to go when the "Walk"signal said "No" ... !
So ... build more pedestrian bridges to get to and fro. From there, you can look down and laugh at the madness below!
.
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 06/08/2014 - 12:44pm
.
Sure! There Are 31,500 Calories In One Gallon Of Gasoline ...
By Elmer
Sat, 06/07/2014 - 12:00am
... start there!
Those are called sidewalks
By anon
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 1:35am
Those are called sidewalks
no. it's a sidewalk. it's
By anon
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 6:58am
no. it's a sidewalk. it's more dangerous for cyclist and pedestrians if bikes are ridden on it
You're right! They can't
By erik g
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 3:54pm
You're right! They can't possibly coexist, because many cars have sociopaths driving them, and most of our roads are not designed to properly protect bicyclists from them. Since bikes have been using those roads for much longer, I assume you're advocating for banning motor vehicles from the streets of Boston, yes?
Perfectly put sir. Exactly
By anon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 6:57pm
Perfectly put sir. Exactly right. Bikes were here first, so let's get the cars off the roads. We gave them a go, and they've been disastrous. Just a completely failed experiment.
Ooh, ooh, ooh...
By Daan(not logged on)
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 4:15pm
Cars don't belong where people are. Since people need to use roads for transportation cars should not be there.
Cyclists need to take back
By SteveR
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 7:05pm
Cyclists need to take back the roads from motor vehicles, especially when drivers can't behave like mature human beings.
Bikes
By Ariel Font
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 7:12pm
Should be registered and have some sort of license plate or identifying number. People who ride bikes should have to take a bike safety and road test. A bike license would be nice also, and an excise tax should be assessed for every bike.
Lets start with those who cause the most deaths
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 7:35pm
You know, careless drivers? I challenge you to find a single accident in MA in the last five years where a careless cyclist killed someone other than themselves. Meanwhile, careless drivers and drunk drivers kill hundreds each year in MA and tens of thousands nationally.
Oh, and you clearly understand that most cyclists - like well over 90% - have driver's licenses already, right? Right?
You're not serious...
By InTheKnow
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 7:46pm
... about that challenge, are you?
Google.
Care to share...
By Sally
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 9:36pm
The results of your google? Because I'm not seeing anything except for lots of dead cyclists killed by cars.
Suicide kills more than all traffic accidents
By Markk02474
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 12:35pm
Nationally. I don't know how many were bicyclists and skate boarders, though.
That would be homicide
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 06/08/2014 - 12:55pm
When a drunk/distracted/entitlement-huffing driver kills a cyclist or skateboarder, though.
Bikes
By steve
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 7:27pm
You know it was bicycle and a bicycle club in the 1890s that got paved roads started .
Were you alive in 1890? I
By anon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 9:43pm
Were you alive in 1890? I doubt it, so no, YOU did not get the roads paved. Do you by groceries? How do you think those groceries got to wherever you bought them. On a TRUCK which uses a ROAD. Mind blown? Get over yourself.
Roads were paved because if the bike
By Garret
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 12:22am
This is historicaly correct. In 1885 the roads were first paved because cyclist needed a smooth surface to ride on. Also it was the bike manufacturing industry that started to make cars. This is a historical fact. You don't need to have lived in that time to know it is true.
My mind is blown, by your defensiveness
By BlackKat
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 6:24am
You know the intended point was not that cars [or trucks in this instance] do not belong on the road per se. Hell, most cyclists are also car drivers some of the time too. Rather the point seemed to be to counter the frequently mantra that bicycles do not belong on the road. The point being drivers should be grateful to those actions taken by cyclist advocacy groups back in 1890 because driving on cobblestones sucks almost as much as riding on them does. And perhaps as a result extend a little more courtesy towards cyclists today, and stop making selfish statements that amount to "Mine!".
I absolutely think bikes
By anon
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 10:05am
I absolutely think bikes belong on the road and off of the sidewalks. I don't know any cyclist who doesn't also carry a driver's license. None of them take credit for paving roads. It's childish and silly. The cyclists who keep congratulating themselves for paved roads are not helping improve relations with the neighborhood residents through which they ride. Demanding and whining without contributing is obnoxious and only discredits one's cause. Roads were paved before they were born and they had NOTHING to do with it.
Know any children?
By Markk02474
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 12:38pm
I would rather have young kids riding slowly on sidewalks and paths than playing in traffic.
Kids can and do ride on sidewalks
By Robert Winters
Sun, 06/08/2014 - 11:18am
It's both legal and sensible for kids to ride on sidewalks in most places. This doesn't mean that it's sensible for adults to ride on sidewalks. If you want to get anywhere on a bike, the road is the way.
*buy. If you're going to
By anon
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 2:35pm
*buy. If you're going to slam on someone, try to spell it correctly or you just sound ridiculous.
Funny
By Israel
Fri, 06/06/2014 - 8:29pm
What's funny is that anon you did not notice that he said cyclists from that time was the people that got roads paved. He didnt say he got them paved. Read carefully. And have a good day sir.
reducing vehicles on the road.
By cinnamngrl
Sat, 06/07/2014 - 9:43am
Actually, my theory about getting cars off the road would exclude commercial vehicles. as you mind blowingly noticed, restricting commercial vehicles would restrict commerce, and that would be unsustainable.
I think that if you banned private cars from cities (or even city centers), it would be safer to ride and walk. handicapped drivers would also need to have access. I think this would even increase commerce of certain kinds of business because commuters wouldn't bring everything from home each day.
my cray cray rant, would also point out that private cars are killing us. I can't count how many parents have told me that asking their child to walk 2 miles to school is abuse. In fact, back when this kind of abuse was normal and people walked everywhere, people were healthier.
Bikes don't belong on the
By raccoon
Thu, 06/05/2014 - 9:14pm
Bikes don't belong on the road?
Where DO they belong.
Pages