Fatal intersection re-paved and now re-striped

That's how it was. Now it will be a bike lane all the way to the intersection at Beacon, and the bus stop will be farther south. Unfortunately, the bike lane doesn't go PAST Beacon heading south on Mass Ave....

Lock that driver up for life!

How dare he operate a vehicle, on a road, in a city, and miss a single blip or bump*.

* I'm certainly not calling any person a blip or bump, but rather trying to imagine how a big-rig driver must feel.

I am curious to see the full report before rendering any further judgement about the driver or cyclist.

we have no information whether the truck driver in this horrific accident is at fault. And again I say, if a cyclist, a motorcycle or a car is in the truck driver's blind spot, the truck driver can't see you (that is why it is called a blind spot as the bumper stickers on many large vehicles attest to).

Here is an excellent tutorial for you and your friends:

http://www.wikihow.com/Stay-Out-of-a-Truck%27s-Blind-Spots

1. The cyclist was probably not paying enough attention to the truck. (No, cyclists, I'm not victim blaming here: the cyclist was probably paying attention to the bus stop, the horrid pavement and merging traffic going right.) One of the good things about the new lane is that cyclists won't have as many things to worry about. If you haven't cycled in the city (Markk, that's you!), you have to be aware of a lot of things; more than driving (pavement quality, pedestrians not looking for bikes, nails/gravel, etc). Riding a bike makes you a better driver.

2. On the other hand, I call BS on the whole "the truck drive didn't see the cyclist" argument. At the point of impact this may have been the case. However, the cyclist was likely moving across the bridge at 12-16 mph, and the truck at 30-35. So at some point on the bridge, given the time of day (7:05 a.m., little if any traffic) the truck passed the cyclist. For the driver to not have the situational awareness that the cyclist would be coming up along the right side of the road is inexcusable. He should have been extra careful about checking his blind spots and making a turn slowly knowing a cyclist would be passing on his right. If you want to get in to statute, read MGL 90.14: "No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper." Blatant violation, there's no clause in there about "… unless they were in your blind spot." Come on.

Think about it this way. You're driving out the Pike on a sunny weekend morning (let's imagine it's one of those special weekends without gridlocked traffic) in the center lane. As you pass an entrance ramp, you see a Corvette accelerating to merge in to the highway traffic at about 50 mph, but going faster as they approach the mainline. (You're a good Masshole, so you're doing about 78.) You are behind a slower moving vehicle (with out of state plates, natch) and pass in the left lane. After the pass do you immediately move back in to the center lane without checking your mirror and blind spot? No, because you realize that the accelerating 'Vette is likely to pass the other car on the right and might try to make the same move that you are, so you look out for it, even though it might be in your blind spot.

That's basically what the truck driver didn't do.

We have to take a good look at that intersection to see what we can do in the short term to improve it. Ultimately, it's going to be a long-term fix,' Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said.

Like I said, they haven't said much of anything, except this short bit that I've so far seen broadcasted by the Herald and WCVB. No press conference. No press release. Great about expediting but honestly, make some noise about it too so people know?

maybe we were trying to conserve paint?

No, Boston, just doesn't give a fuck. It doesn't make any difference to put down paint if nobody is going to write tickets.

NYC has been preventing gridlock by giving out fines and points for blocking the box. Don't hold your breath if you're waiting to see that happen in Boston.

Block the box in NYC? It's a hefty fine AND points on your license. Block the box in Boston? Maybe you get honked at. That's it.

I was once in a limo where the last 2 feet did not clear the box, and the driver got a ticket on the spot. I was impressed!

If motorists are allowed to turn right, cyclists would have to stop or get right hooked.

Like Anita Kurmann?

You are a waste of skin, MarKKK.

Because right turn on red encourages drivers to turn across the path of bicyclists to their right who are filtering forward up to the intersection. It also endangers bicyclists proceeding straight ahead on the cross street because the driver turning right on red might not be able to see them until they are already in the intersection.

in the first place almost forty years ago. When RTOR (Right Turn On Red) was introduced as a Federal standard about 1976 or so, the original Massachusetts RTOR law was written such that drivers could make a RTOR maneuver ONLY where a sign was posted (similar to the current MUTCD standard for red right turn arrows). As a result, very few intersections were signed as such.

Of course, the Feds came along and chastised Massachusetts for not adopting the national standard of allowing RTOR unless a "No Turn On Red" sign is posted. The law was changed to be consistent with the Federal standard, and the 'No Turn On Red (NTOR)" fairy magically appeared and festooned nearly every intersection in the state with NTOR signs.

Note that the MUTCD and UVC RTOR standards allow for RTOR (without a No Turn On Red - NTOR - sign) where the red signal is a full "ball" indication - if the red signal is a red arrow indication, both the MUTCD and the UVC state that RTOR is supposed to automatically prohibited UNLESS there is a sign permitting it. And, of course, Massachusetts RTOR law only specifies a 'red indication', and does not distinguish between a ball and an arrow. Not only does this obvious conflict unnecessarily confuse drivers, but it creates yet another loophole that defense lawyers can use to absolve drivers who are involved in crashes.

no right turn for motor vehicles without a right arrow light

Because Boston drivers will *definitely* respect that!

I have found myself in the second-to-leftmost-lane (4 lanes, two left-turn only, one straight, one right), waiting to turn left, and been hit BY THE GUY ON MY LEFT who thought it was a good idea to go straight. By my calculation, he would have needed to ignore 3 signs, an arrow stoplight, and the giant letters on the ground showing a prominent "Left Turn Only." Signs ain't gonna cut it if there's no police enforcement.

But it will be a boon for the cab and delivery truck driver demographic, so we've got that going for us.

Seems like that would be an easy ticket to write every morning then, if the city gave a damn

I think the first one will go down within a fortnight. I suppose they all have to come up by the first plowable snow.

They mean "don't block the box." As someone who drives so often and claims to be such an expert at road safety, you should know that.

Oh and here they are in MUTCD:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part3/fig3b_18_longdesc.htm

Lines won't be visible by spring and not repainted for years anyway.

This I agree with. They might as well use plaster of paris to mark the roads.

Don't forget that when they finally get around to repainting the intersection in 5-10 years, they'll just paint whatever they feel like instead of referring back to the original specifications.

(I'm thinking of the Eliot Bridge, where the right-turn lanes weren't even painted to match the posted sign a few feet away, or one-way streets that get double-yellow lines painted down the middle and then scraped off or covered over a few months later).

This matters zero if nobody's ever there to write a ticket.