By adamg on Fri., 10/30/2015 - 5:53 pm
Cambridge Police report they are looking for the driver of a pick-up they say swerved towards a bicyclist on Webster Street shortly after 7 a.m. on Sept. 29:
Just before the hit and run, the operator of the pickup yelled, honked his horn and then made contact with the bicyclist's handle bar, causing him to fall.
The bicyclist, Geren Stone of Somerville, is a doctor at Mass. General. He required surgery for injuries to his left arm, police say.
tone writes of the aftermath of the collision and what it says about the state of roads in the Boston area today.
Anybody with leads on the identity of the pick-up driver can call Cambridge Police at 617-349-3364.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I don't think the driver wished any harm
By Markk02474
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:15pm
Look closely at the video and the still above.
1. The doctor has abnormally wide handlebars on his bike
2. The handlebar appears to make contact with the last 3/4ths of the truck, at the bed.
3. The doctor did not appear to move to the right at all when he was being passed.
The normal human behavior for drivers of motor vehicles, bicycles, and even pedestrians when being passed is to move over when being passed to create more buffer space. I think the truck driver subconsciously was assuming the doctor would also do this like countless other cyclists he may have passed on roads previously.
Furthermore, the uncommonly wide handlebars of the doctor's bicycle removed an extra margin of clearance/safety, allowing for the contact, and destabilization of the bicycle. The slightest amount of contact can destabilize a bicycle, so the truck driver could easily be unaware that the cyclist fell afterwards.
The police differ with your assessment
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:56pm
Also, you're full of it. The cyclist has no way to move right there, and, more importantly
NO OBLIGATION TO MOVE TO THE RIGHT
The width of his handlebars don't matter.
The truck hitting him with the back end when cutting over is intention and/or incompetence. The cyclist was not driving the truck.
You don't know the area. You are ignoring the fact that the police consider this to be DELIBERATE and you clearly don't know shit about how to drive, how vehicles are steered, or about the laws of driving, minimum passing clearance, and rights of way, either.
Do us all a favor and get off the road before you kill someone. Seriously. Get off the road.
I've been on that street
By Markk02474
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:55pm
Isn't it the one with all the auto-related businesses, scrap yards, industrial businesses, and heavy trucking?
Actually does have an obligation to move to the right
By Stevil
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 8:52am
His own personal safety aside, at least in tort law (though it probably does not excuse the criminal actions of the pickup driver) there is something called the doctrine of last clear chance. If the doctor had the opportunity to move to the right and brake in order to avoid an accident, even if he is not otherwise so obligated under the law, he must do so. Looking at the video, assuming they find the truck, he may have a very difficult time collecting from the insurance companies who are very familiar with this law. Not excusing the driver in any way who is a first degree Masshole, but I viewed the video several times and it appears to me the good doctor may have been playing chicken with the driver. From the time the truck and the cyclist enter the frame he appears to be inches from the truck - but for the next 2 seconds of the video the cyclist does not seem to make any effort to move right or brake until the truck clips him and he goes down.
This would eventually require some forensic analysis and lots of lawyers - but I have a feeling this is going to come back and haunt Doctor Stone in civil court:
"Then I heard the black pickup pulling next me extremely close and fast. As he proceeded to drive into my bicycle rather than around, I knew there was only one end to this."
If he had time to think of all that - he had time to stop or at least slow down and none of us would be having this discussion. I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there's more to this - but I think the Doctor may be on thin ice that got thinner when he wrote that editorial.
Truck driver made an unsafe pass
By downtown-anon
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 9:01am
To bicycle safely your handle bars need to be a car door's width from the parked cars. Any further right is unsafe and to insist otherwise is to show disregard for another human's safety. Bicycling in the center of the lane makes this more clear to people who wish to pass you.
I think you have the likely
By eherot
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 12:38pm
I think you have the likely legal scenario here a bit backward. In fact I think it is more likely to be used against the pickup driver than the cyclist. Barring some kind of extreme circumstance, it's hard to imaging a court agreeing that a person could be so stubbornly unwilling to move to the right as to put their own life in immediate danger.
evidence
By Anonymous
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 6:49pm
The cyclist has an obligation to avoid an accident. That said, what the rider and the driver are doing prior to the moment the truck strikes the bike defines the progression of events and the context for applying the law. Indeed, the rider had the lane and the driver struck the bike by trying to take the lane.
Bicycles are considered vehicles, they entitled to the lane and responsible for obeying traffic laws. Cyclists have the same right of way as drivers.
The cyclist is riding on the single lane road and passing a parked car on his right, which means he must ride his bike closer to the center line to pass the car.
At the same time,the pickup truck makes a decision to pass the cyclist from behind. There is not sufficient room in the lane to do so safely. He leaves his lane and crosses the solid yellow center line to pass the cyclist which is illegal. If his line-of-sight was limited by a right curve in the road, that's a second violation of driving law.
"Passing is illegal and unsafe when your line-of-sight is restricted or limited by a curve, hill, or weather conditions, cross-traffic is present, when there is a solid yellow line on your side of the roadway..."
Those two potential driving violations aside, the question remains who has the obligation to insure that when you pass a vehicle ahead of you, you must complete the maneuver safely and and not collide with them?
It appear that the cyclist is about 10-15 yards past the park car.
The cyclist has an obligation to make room by moving into the next lane but in this case there is only one lane.
When returning to the lane, the driver is required to; ,
If the driver had checked his rear view, he would have know he could not yet return to the lane.
Both the truck driver and the cyclist have an obligation to yield right of way to each other, even though the truck driver violated the law at least twice when passing the cyclist.
"The driver/cyclist should never assume that other drivers/cyclists will start or complete any maneuver and should never insist on the right of way nor attempt to force their way into traffic. Drivers should try to anticipate other driver’s actions as well as yielding whenever needed or required by law. Giving up the right of way to other drivers also helps to avoid crashes, as does gaining eye contact with all operators of motor vehicles that come directly into conflict with you.
The cyclist didn't cause the collision by not yielding, the truck driver did by taking the lane after passing the cyclist illegally. Notice there was no car coming from the opposite direction.
I would find the driver guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and give the cyclist a ticket for failure to yield [to avoid an accident]
You can't give the cyclist a
By tape
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 2:14pm
You can't give the cyclist a ticket for failure to yield when there was no obligation to yield. The cyclist has the right to the entire lane, full stop.
yield [to avoid an accident]
By Anonymous
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 6:51pm
?
How could he yield?
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 7:03pm
He was being attacked with a vehicle.
Also, go ride that stretch on your bike. Explain where, exactly, the cyclist could go? Moreover, the cyclist had NO OBLIGATION to do anything he wasn't already doing. Go check your road rules, dude.
This is attempted murder, pure and simple. No yield involved at all.
right-of-way rules
By Anonymous
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 7:49pm
massrmv driver's manual: chap 4: rules of the road (pdf)
As a motorist in the presence of bicycles:
Do Not Cut-Off After Passing: When passing a bicycle traveling in the same direction that is on your right, you must not return to the right until you have safely passed the overtaken bicycle. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2)
Do Not Squeeze Bicycles in a Narrow Lane: If a lane is too narrow to pass a bicycle at a safe distance, be PATIENT until you can safely use an adjacent lane or WAIT until it is safe to pass in the lane you share. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2)
Watch for Bicycles on Your Right: Bicycles can legally ride to the right of motor vehicle traffic. The law says it is not a defense for a motorist causing a crash with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of other traffic (Chap. 85, Sec 11B)
Right-of-Way Rules: “Right-of-way rules†help drivers handle traffic situations not controlled by signs or signals. These rules are based on safety and courtesy. They do not give you any “rights.†Remember, the right-of-way is something you give, not take. If another driver does not follow these rules, you should always give the right-of-way.
You all are missing the point
By Stevil
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 7:10pm
First - the driver is probably guilty of one or more criminal laws - not likely the cyclist violated any criminal laws.
What I am saying is that the cyclist may not be able to sue because based on my view of the video - and perhaps others - he made zero attempt to avoid the accident. Doesn't matter what your rights are, you have an obligation to make all reasonable efforts to avoid an accident - even if it's the other guy's fault. You can't just say - look at that guy behaving like a jackass - I'm not going to swerve or hit the brakes - I'm just going to hit him or let him hit me. You lose your rights if you do that.
This can be left to a jury and a court - but I see zero effort on the part of the cyclist to brake or swerve. If that's the conclusion - the driver may still be found guilty of other crimes - but if the cyclist sues - he won't collect a dime because he neglected his "last clear chance" to avoid the accident. And for the love of God - you're a doctor and a father of three. Playing chicken with a truck you know is driven by a road rager that's already cursing you out is a really bad life decision.
You can only attempt
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 7:46pm
What is possible to attempt.
I ride that street on a regular basis. There is no way to move over to "avoid" the psychotic guy there - road conditions and parked cars preclude that. The road is a bunch of holes.
So what you are saying
By Stevil
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 9:10pm
Is perhaps the cyclist wasn't even hit - and in fact a pothole wiped him out?
Again - I'm only calling what I can see in the video. The road on this stretch seems fine (unless there's a pothole behind that parked car).
The main thing is - it doesn't look like the cyclist ever even slowed down and it looks from the video like he's got a couple of feet of space to move to the right near the parked car. Not ideal in normal situation - but that was his only out.
Looks to me like he was playing chicken with the truck and lost (in the very beginning he was so close even though there was open parking to the right that I thought he was holding onto the truck).
No question the driver is a Masshole and performed an extremely dangerous and probably illegal maneuver. But if the doctor had slowed or pulled just 6 inches to the right, we are not having this discussion. Was he obligated to? Under the law, probably not. But under the doctrine of your first duty when operating a vehicle is to avoid an accident - he had that obligation, ignored it and paid the price (solely based on what I see in the video). Fortunately it didn't cost him his career - or worse.
How about an emprical exercise
By SwirlyGrrl
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 9:45pm
A pot hole didn't wipe him out - an asshole did.
But, hey, go ride that street yourself and explain to the class how much room you have to ride there and all that.
The bottom line: attempted murder. No obligation to attempt to avoid, possible hazard in doing so, and stop blaming the victim.
Doesn't get more empirical than this
By Stevil
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 10:09pm
Rule 1 when operating a vehicle - do not cause personal injury to others or yourself
Rule 2 when operating a vehicle - do not cause property damage
Rule 3 when operating a vehicle - obey all the rules EXCEPT if they must be broken to avoid causing personal injury and/or property damage
I'll say it again - the driver is a Masshole of the first order - possibly attempted murder. But the cyclist doesn't get to "enforce his rights" (which is what it looks like he's doing in the video to me) if the result is personal injury or property damage. Sounds like even you will admit there is no apparent attempt to slow or swerve. If he doesn't have a good excuse for that - assuming they find the driver - he may have a very tough time collecting from the driver's insurance company. (I'm not sure if this doctrine has any place in criminal or traffic law - this is just the rule as I understand it in civil law).
And again - seriously - a doctor and father of three should know better than to do something like what it appears he's doing in that video.
And here, I'm back to disagreeing
By HenryAlan
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 10:16am
I knew it wouldn't last -- you said one thing that made sense, but now back to pure lunacy. The only person who did something wrong was the pick-up driver. The shape of the handlebars, the position of the bike, the decisions made by the cyclist, none of that has any responsibility for the accident. You were correct to say that the video does not necessarily demonstrate malice. But you are completely incorrect to claim that any of this was caused by anything other than the driver's decisions.
Did the cyclist slow to more safely allow the pass?
By Markk02474
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 12:25pm
It does not appear so, even if the cyclist could not move right as you (wrongly) claim.
No obligation
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 12:48pm
No obligation.
Download more at massrmv.com. They have a whole book about what you are and are not supposed to do.
Cyclists are not required to move right, slow down, etc. Motorists are required to pass safely or not at all. Period.
Laws Against Nature !!!
By Markk02474
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 1:02pm
Self preservation, being the one in this case! Stuff goes wrong more often when laws are made in opposition to nature. That is a very broad generalization from drug laws, prostitution, physics, whatever.
Yawn
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 1:10pm
Just so stories != science.
Just take a walk, and get off the road.
Better yet, read this book: http://massrmv.com/rmv/dmanual/index.htm
Poor Driver
By Exremental Driver
Thu, 11/19/2015 - 2:17pm
That driver could have passed safely instead of pulling back right after overtaking. He struck another road user and did not stop. Incompetent Asshole and Lawbreaker is my verdict.
You didn't write it
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:54pm
But you said it nonetheless.
You clearly don't know the laws. You clearly don't understand your responsibilities and the rights of other road users. Turn in your license.
Fun fact
By Roman
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:32pm
If he drove his car the way many* people ride their bicycles, he *would* have to turn in his license. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one is not required to pass a driving test or have a license to operate a bicycle on public streets?
*Doesn't look like the victim did anything outlandish here, so statement doesn't apply to this case
This is a false equivalency.
By eherot
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 12:40pm
This is a false equivalency. Bicycles and pickup trucks do not carry even remotely similar risk profiles.
.
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 1:07pm
.
Count the number of people that drivers kill
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 1:07pm
Then count the number that cyclists kill.
There are something like four to five orders of magnitude difference.
But do persist in your idiocy. Your ignorance of basic traffic laws is rivalling Markkk's
Count the number of people opiates kill
By Markk02474
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 1:16pm
and those killed playing badminton and you'll have another irrelevant point.
BTW, opiates are on track to kill 4.5 times as many people in Massachusetts this year as all people dying on our roads in all collision types.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/22/mass-o...
Per my post above
By Stevil
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 8:41am
You clearly don't know the laws or understand your responsibilities. Turn in your license.
I hope that's your sick sense of humor
By Rose
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 7:30pm
because you're completely incorrect and a total asshole. Mass doesn't have a 3ft minimum passing distance yet, but there is a more general "safe passing" law on the books. You can see in the video there is no oncoming traffic (and yes, you are supposed to cross the yellow line to overtake a cyclist), and the driver seems to speed up and aim for the rider. The cyclist is not "taking the lane" by a long shot. In fact, it looks they were so far to the right they could have been in danger of getting doored. I'm assuming you're all for eliminating street parking on that stretch so cars can pass vulnerable road users without changing their path at all?
Just reporting the facts
By boo_urns
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 9:16pm
Given your past thoughts on cyclists....lol.
From the day it happened
By tachometer
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:00pm
"A male driver in a dark blue, gray and black Ford pickup passed my girlfriend and another cyclist and yelled out of the window "You fucking moron cyclist, get off the road!" then accelerated past them and intentionally swerved and struck a cyclist in front of them."
https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/3mu511/hi...
The above account was posted the very morning the collision happened and before any of the media coverage or this video footage emerged. The poster's girlfriend is one of the two mentioned cyclists who stopped to aid the doctor and you see them in the video. You, on the other hand, were not at the scene and have a deep history here of being anti-cycling at every opportunity. Yet, we're supposed to take your "impartial facts" based on your viewing of that video clip over the account of the witness which is also substantiated by the exact same video? I'd say the odds are not in your favor.
I can't wait to see what the demons of hell have in store for you. I'll bet that for all eternity you're late for the most important thing possible for you but you're stuck behind a slow moving bicyclist on a narrow road with no opportunity to pass and there's a cop on a bike with an itchy trigger finger behind you. For ever and ever. Amen.
And?
By Lecil
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:12pm
Is there anything in your *cough* unbiased *cough* summation of the situation which is relevant?
We know how you love false drama, but
By section77
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:39pm
Crossing over the double line to avoid crushing a bike is not "breaking the law", while running someone over is. Check with your local PD is need be.
Oh, Markkkkkkk
By TommyJeff
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:40pm
It's not even remotely cute anymore.
You're just a strange, strange person with many, many issues that for whatever reason manifests as a hatred for bicycles.
Have to agree with Mark*
By HenryAlan
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 9:59am
I don't see anything in the video to indicate intentionality. There is probable wreckless driving, and there is definitely a hit and run, but people who are calling this attempted murder must have some information that isn't in the video.
* and I really hate when I have to do that.
Hardly....
By Michael Kerpan
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 11:08am
... "wreckless".
;-)
A reckless wreck?
By HenryAlan
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 11:11am
But yes, I did mistype and neglected to proof. That certainly changes the meaning (not at all).
Get your facts straight
By Daniel
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 9:22am
If this is really you're version of "objectivity" when driving, remind me to keep my kids off the street when you're out. I know you're not supposed to stoop to personal attacks when making an argument but you're an idiot. The cyclists are legally allowed to take the entire lane regardless of whether you find this inconvenient or not. Despite the drivers "heroic" attempt to avoid the cyclist--he failed. And what kind of human being keeps driving after potentially killing someone? The same one who is so selfish and out of touch with reality that he doesn't mind using his 2 ton vehicle as a weapon against another completely unprotected human being because he was annoyed. Only in Boston could people come to this guys defense. Pull your head out of your ass.
This happens to me weekly
By spin_o_rama
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 8:21pm
Only difference is, they manage to "just miss." Beyond this, I'll save the comments for everyone else, this gets too depressing.
I will agree just misses are too frequent
By Markk02474
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 12:35pm
and its wrong to happen leaving too little margin for error that depends on a cyclist to make an effort at self-preservation by slowing and moving right. The pickup truck driver was driving a really long vehicle and cut back in too soon such that about 10' behind his sitting position made contact. That's poor judgement on his part and he was wrong to cut things so close.
Poor judgement?
By tachometer
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 10:08pm
So, the cyclist was legally taking the lane and the truck driver only had a bit of "poor judgement" in making an illegal pass but you're coming down on the side of the driver. Logic is not your strong suit for sure.
I also notice that you have not responded to the link I provided above with the account of the truck driver bitching out the other riders who appear in the video which was posted prior to any media coverage of this event but is corroborated by the video.
It makes perfect sense that a truck driver who would pass cyclists in an unsafe manner on a narrow street while hurling insults at them just had a bit of "poor judgement" when he cut back into the lane colliding with the rider ahead of them and there was no possible way that he had any kind of animosity toward the person on the bike. Again, logic is not your strong suit.
Drivers have no monopoly on poor judgement
By Markk02474
Sun, 11/01/2015 - 11:12pm
Clearly the doctor here did too, even if it was legal. Legislators acted in poor judgement signing the current laws. The doctor should have acted to preserve his own safety when being passed by slowing and moving right, but failed to. No, he was not obligated to legally, but he should have considered the advantages of doing so versus not.
Over the decades while driving or riding a motorcycle I have avoided crashes where the other driver would be at fault by slowing or taking some sort of evasive action. Its the normal response of a good driver/rider. I don't blithely assert my legal "rights" in the face of danger and bodily harm when it could be avoided. Its a stupid argument to claim its my right to get into an accident and perhaps collect insurance money and sympathy. Scammers and bicycle martyrs I guess think that way...
Its also really obnoxious how the doc and others wrongly claimed the truck driver tried to kill him. The video clearly shows that to be false. The cyclist made errors in judgement and so too did the truck driver.
The video doesn't show enough
By tachometer
Mon, 11/02/2015 - 7:47am
The video doesn't show enough to demonstrate your assertion, you're seeing what you want to see and the account of the eyewitness I linked above is more likely to be true than your armchair position.
Also, in the video the doctor is putting himself in a safer situation by taking the lane and avoiding the door zone which is the potential accident with much higher odds there. The standard behavior I've seen is that riders will take the lane but as soon as there is extended curb space they will move over and allow any backed up cars to pass. Horror of horror for the driver but that could take somewhere around thirty seconds if it's a long stretch before that appears.
I ride a motorcycle too and I hate the expression "ride like everyone is trying to kill you" because at nearly any time someone could cross the double yellow and take you out in a head on collision. Obviously there is an expectation that someone will not willfully commit vehicular homicide in that way. In the same way the doctor was riding in a way that lessened the danger until his path was crossed by someone with the symptoms of a sociopath (putting someone's life below their need to get somewhere). It seems from your postings here that you share those tendencies. Would you strike someone with a baseball bat to get them out of your way if you were stuck on the sidewalk behind someone who was walking more slowly than you? That is essentially what you're trying to justify.
From the video you can see there was a car coming in the opposite direction but there appears to be plenty of room to pull off the illegal pass without clipping the rider. Keep in mind that legally the truck should not have been passing even if there was no car coming but they crossed back over the line way before overtaking the cyclist. There is nothing that justifies the truck doing anything other than waiting until it was safe to pass and the more you prattle on here the more ignorant you sound.
Imagine if the doctor were in a car instead of on a bicycle
By Markk02474
Mon, 11/02/2015 - 11:12am
and getting passed on a double yellow by a yahoo in a pickup truck. Is that attempted murder? No.
But, What to do?
Slow, and try to keep right to expedite the pass? Yes, its what many drivers would do. Did the doctor do that? No.
Would keeping to the right put the doctor in the door zone? Yes, but that risk of one to two vehicles, likely unoccupied was less than the risk from the truck, so the lesser of two evils and the better choice.
In a car, the doctor has the right to drive down the middle of the single travel lane in that direction just as he did on his bicycle, yet, still moving over to the right would have helped to possibly avoid a collision and his personal injury.
What?
By tachometer
Mon, 11/02/2015 - 3:00pm
What if it was a mountain road and the pickup intentionally ran the doctor in a car down the embankment? Would you consider that attempted homicide or do you just never let the circumstances of an event inform your "critical thinking" process?
The pickup truck driver is likely a sociopath based on the eyewitness account and your defense of him puts you right in the same category.
Watch the video again
By tachometer
Mon, 11/02/2015 - 3:45pm
The cyclist is in contact with the truck at the front part of the bed which is right behind the driver when the vehicle enters the view of the camera, the actual contact may have begun at the door for all you can see in the video. Yet you claim that the poor driver made a tiny error in judgement and somehow the cyclist is ten feet behind the driver of a truck when the video clearly shows otherwise. As I said elsewhere, you're seeing what you want to see.
Thank God there's video...
By makeshift_vicinity
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 9:40pm
...because if all we had was the good doctor's eyewitness testimony, he might have trouble being believed. I read part of his own letter to the editor of the Somerville Times:
Further down:
Whoops! Could be an error on the paper's part, or just a silly typo, but not the kind of thing you want to have in your published letter describing your side of the story.
Yes, the video doesn't match his prior exaggerated description
By Markk02474
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:25pm
where he claimed the truck ran him down. In the video, we see he was riding down the middle of the lane and the truck brushed his handlebar (sideswiped), destabilizing his bike, not "running him down".
Give it a rest, Mark
By Cantabrigian
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:49pm
The truck driver hit him and fled the scene. "[B]rushed his handlebar," come on man, someone lands in surgery and that's what you've got to say? You'd have some credibility if you gave up on the extremism once in a while.
Sometimes I wonder if you're secretly anti-car and are trying to provoke people over to you side. Blink twice if this is true.
Pages