Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
This is a horrible accident
The lighting in this area is seriously insufficient.
How do you figure, with the lighting?
I looked at this intersection in Google Street View. Looks like there's a crosswalk there, with downward-pointing streetlamps at either end of the crosswalk. If those lights are working as intended, there shouldn't be a lack of illumination there. (I concede that GSV doesn't show what the intersection is like at night. Lights may be burned out. The streetlights may also be of a design that was chosen for looks rather than for actual ability to project illumination. There may also have been resident complaints about harsh lighting entering residential buildings at night, prompting a lowered level of lighting.)
Oh, well
If you looked at Google Street View, I guess that settles it.
Foliage?
Ever drive the J-way? Around this time of year, it gets a whole lot darker because the leaves come out -- BELOW the level of the streetlights. Possibly the case here too?
Instead of arguing ...
Why not scroll down and see what the people who actually live there had to say? Neal, Will, etc. know the area.
Or
Maybe the driver was looking at their phone and not the road.
Or...
Maybe the pedestrian was looking at their phone.
Or...
Maybe an aateroid streaked across the sky simultaneously blinding both of them.
Can we hold off blaming anyone until the facts are in?
Facts
The driver will never admit to being distracted (if they were) and the pedestrian won't be able to defend themselves if the driver accuses them of waking into traffic without looking.
Hopefully a nearby camera captured the tragedy.
I hope you are never on a jury
Don't ket the facts get in the way of a good story
Facts
Look, if there's a witness or video that shows the pedestrian jumping into traffic with no way of the driver slowing or even seeing them, I will be the first to exonerate the driver. This has been known to happen. I'm just not going to jump to the driver's defense like other in this thread.
Fact: A person is dead because a large object collided with them and that object was being directly controlled by another person.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Thanks loads.
Strict Liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
Civil, Not Criminal
Civil liability is different from criminal culpability. There may be countries on earth where the accused has the burden of proving her own innocence, but none you'd want to live in.
That's not how this works
Not blaming the driver is not the same as jumping to their defense. I really can't see why someone would take a "side" based on the little information that is known.
Why isn't everyone's response "wow, this is terrible, we should really find out what happened to try and keep it from happening again"?
You really can't understand?
With the way people drive around this city? With they way we design our transit infrastructure?
The almost weekly incidents of cars hitting pedestrians/cyclists/buildings/etc doesn't give you a little idea of why people might blame a motorist?
The reason that you don't see responses asking about preventing crashes like this because nothing is ever done to curtail reckless driving in this city, via lack of enforcement and poorly designed, car-centric infrastructure.
Is That How It Works?
A person has to find "a witness or video" to prove her innocence? I totally thought the burden was on the government to prove guilt. Maybe there are exceptions for certain people?
Civil Liability
Look it up.
How do you know what the
How do you know what the driver will or will not do? You know what they say about assuming....
Would any pedestrian admit to
Would any pedestrian admit to walking into traffic while distracted? Or even blatentlyin defiance of the laws of physics?
The laws of physics
Those do apply to such things as "not driving too fast to stop quickly in an area with multiple crosswalks".
Last I checked, that's the responsibility of the driver to worry about, not the pedestrian in the crosswalk.
What a stupid comment
So, as long as you're in a crosswalk, you shouldn't pay attention to oncoming traffic? A car going 15mph will still hit you if you walk into traffic a second before the vehicle enters said crosswalk.
Do you know what physics is?
Clearly not.
The driver is controlling the physics of the situation, not the pedestrian. Duh.
Yes
Your comment is stupid.
It is the job of the driver to drive so as to not hit people. That means stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks and driving at speeds that make that possible. You must be kind of dim if you don't get that.
Ok, since your a physicist
If you're driving at 15mph, and someone walks in front your car 5ft from your current position, how much time do you have to stop? cars/humans aren't magic. Are you dim enough to suggest that cars should always be able to stop in less than a second? Should the speed limit be the same speed that humans walk?
Okay, since you are dim
Lets try a more real scenario.
Person walking in crosswalk is hit by a driver going 30 mph in a 20 mph zone.
Who is in control of the hazard?
The pedestrian is not in control of the vehicle - the driver should be. Your "scenario" is a joke - what usually happens is that the driver is either speeding or not looking.
State Law
By law you must stop for a cross walk if a pedestrian in any part of cross walk or about to step into the street.
If a pedestrian is in a crosswalk you have to wait for them to complete their path all the way through.
If they are coming toward your lane from the other side of a two way street, and are within 10 feet, you need to stop.
If your side of the road is two lanes, and the car in the other lane has stopped, you are not permitted to pass that car and enter the crosswalk.
Cars will hit you
Isn't that the victim blaming mantra Mayor Walsh spoke of recently? Ok so when are going to start acknowledging that we need Strict Liability laws like the Dutch to protect pedestrians and cyclists from motorists?
I was hit by a car that ran a stop sign yesterday and sent to the hospital in a neck brace. The only reason the police got both sides of the story was because I didn't die and was conscious to give my statement. Now I get to look forward to fighting the he said/she said bullshit and fighting his insurance to pay for my bike and medical bills.
Imagine the narrative if I died because of that negligent motorists actions. Pedestrians and cyclists know how dangerous drivers are in this city, stop with the excuses for those road users that are overwhelmingly responsible for this.
Yikes
Yikes - sorry to hear of the accident and I hope your recovery goes well. And the insurance follow-up.
Glad you survived and I hope
Glad you survived and I hope the driver who almost killed you is held accountable.
hy·per·bo·le
hy·per·bo·le
/hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms: exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric
Curious
What do you think is exaggerated here? I was almost killed.
Spin -
If the car ran the red light, as you have said, it is that driver is at fault. The police have the report which says that the car ran the red light. You should have no problem with his insurance company doubting your claim.
You are right whya
Thanks for clarifying, families been helping out and helping we worry less about this. Appreciate it man!
What part of CROSSWALK
Do you not understand?
DRIVERS are REQUIRED to LOOK OUT for CROSSWALKS.
PERIOD.
Let's be crystal clear about
Let's be crystal clear about something here: There is a crosswalk at this intersection, which means that other than the fairly remote possibility that the pedestrian had opted not to use it (even though that would have meant squeezing between parked cars), there are very few possible scenarios where the driver is not at fault here. if a pedestrian steps into the road at an unsignalized crosswalk (at any speed with or without looking) and the driver fails to yield, the driver is ALWAYS at fault.
Yep
I've given a couple of drivers' side windows a good slap at Washington and Parsons for that very reason.
Pedestrians not using crosswalks
I believe reports are that the pedestrian was in the crosswalk. But pedestrians walking out from between parked cars is very far from being a remote possibility. People j-walk everywhere on that stretch of Tremont Street all the time, often crossing in the middle of the block only to walk right past the cross walk when they get to the other side of the street. Obviously does not justify an accident, but don't be so certain everything is crystal clear.
Nice try
As a cyclist, pedestrian, and motorist I get pretty annoyed by the jaywalking.
However, when I'm cycling I get super annoyed by pedestrian nonsense because it directly endangers me. (I stop at crosswalks with peds in them, only to get honked at and swerved around more times than I'd like to count). However, when driving I know that it is MY responsibility to drive my large heavy mechanically powered object such that I maintain control given my surroundings.
Know what? It isn't hard at all to do that. Not at all. You just have to get over yourself and get away from the idea that you are owed speed. You aren't. In a car you are warm/cool and dry and can just freaking wait your turn.
However, when cycling, it is
However, when cycling, it is equally your responsibility to ride your VEHICLE such that YOU maintain control given your surroundings
Where does it say ...
That isn't required?
An out of control cyclist is far less dangerous than any motorist, any time.
Just get over yourself, like she said.
Not saying jaywalking isn't
Not saying jaywalking isn't common on Tremont Street, just that it seems unlikely in this particular location given the close proximity to the crosswalk.
Anyway I regret continuing the conversation about whether we should be blaming the driver or the pedestrian here. That is a distraction. The blame lies with the city and the mayor for continuing to allow street designs like this one to continue to exist.
I live in this neighborhood and cross here daily
The problem here isn't lighting (it is a very well lit area), it's the street design. It promotes speeding and bad driver behavior. Tremont Street here has six lanes: two parking lanes and four travel lanes -two in each direction. A daily occurrence here: A pedestrian is crossing Tremont at say West Brookline St or West Canton St, etc., cars yield in the first two lanes, and then the third lane as the pedestrian approaches the yellow line. Traffic approaching the cars that stopped in the left lane for the pedestrian, instead of slowing or stopping (in many cases probably assuming that the traffic is stopped because someone is taking a left turn), will instead pass the stopped cars at full speed on the right, and right across the occupied crosswalk. What is needed here are stop signs every few blocks or a lane reduction. It is a dangerous speedway and will continue to be until changes are made.
As a driver
I hate those. I always stop when I see somebody in the crosswalk at Chester St. and Brighton Ave. I'll be in the left lane, and somebody invariably will zip right by on the right.
If I was turning, I would have signaled, (expletive).
Exactly.
The situation Neal describes happens up and down Tremont from Melnea Cass to Bay Village.
Preventable Tragedy
I'd like to say that I am surprised by this, but I am not. Living close to both Tremont and Washington, both of these roads are used for easy, and quick access downtown. There is almost no regard for pedestrians at any time. To make it worse, traffic safety devices clearly favor drivers, and the police willfully ignore countless pedestrian crossing violations, nearly every day.
We recently reduced the speed limit in order to create a "safer" city. None of these traffic safety laws mean a damn thing because, in reality, they are never enforced. Ask yourself when you last saw someone get a ticket in Boston. Now ask yourself when you last saw this in Cambridge. Cambridge is far more friendly to pedestrians, despite the "safety theater" that Boston puts on.
Maybe unnecessary casualties will be the unfortunate catalyst for real change. I am not holding my breath though.
Sincerest of condolences to those affected by this neglect.
I actually agree with you but...
I agree with you that Boston is all about "safety theater" and doesn't enforce the 25mph limit -- especially(!) on this stretch of Tremont, BUT...
...the BPD (almost every evening during the summer) sets up traps to pull over cars for running red lights and not stopping for pedestrians along this stretch. And they're busy! It's good entertainment to watch them nab another right when they send one off. If you want to see it for yourself, check out the intersection with Dartmouth and down by W Canton/Starbucks.
We recently reduced the speed
Well.... sort'a
Recent legislation allowed the City to set a lower default limit - like "25 MPH unless otherwise posted"
So...
Was this area previously posted at 25?
Was this area previously not posted - therefore default speed limit applies?
Was this area previously posted higher than 25 and postings removed - therefore default speed limit now applies?
Was this area previously posted higher than 25 and remains posted higher than 25 - therefore default speed limit doesn't apply?
So ...
... was the concept of default speed limits ever discussed on your Massachusetts drivers exam?
They probably didn't have room on the test
After all, the RMV considers it far more important to require new drivers to know things like not being allowed to use a cell phone and not driving with passengers for the first six months after getting your license than knowing about actual rules of the road.
And there's only so much ground you can cover when you limit the permit test to ten multiple choice questions.
Room on the test/
That thing is only like fifteen question and half are questions about junior operator restrictions/penalties - irrelevant to anyone over 18!
Room on test? They can just make it longer. Go to a state that has a real exam - 40, 50, 60 questions and comprehensive, too!
You should be tested on new stuff every time you renew, too. Like those HAWK things.
Agree with you 100%
on both counts.
Enforce the speed limits
Very sad. I see cars speeding down Washington, Tremont and Columbus in South End almost every day. Some do not stop at the stop signs for the pedestrians. BPD should enforce the reduced speed limits. With so many pedestrians and children in South End, speeding cars are creating dangerous situations.
Roads are a big race
Going down the road is exciting, like a race. There must be something at the end that is good to have, so we have to beat everybody else to it.
Not just drivers, works on the minds of bikers too. In fact it's probably more powerful on the minds of bikers, because we are getting beat by all these car people, so the chance to make up ground is much harder to resist.
So if you see somebody speeding past you it's hard not to try to catch up.
Adults exercise self control
If you lack self control, you should not be driving.
Adults lie to themselves
.
Wait, what?
You were serious???
(shudder)
Blame the lighting. Sure.
Anything but the driver.
See above
N/t
Right, because I've never
Right, because I've never seen a pedestrian step out into traffic without heeding caution.
It doesn't require high speeds to kill someone with a vehicle. The driver at least stayed at the scene with the victim, so why don't we let this shake out before we go pinning blame on one party?
While we're not blaming...
...how come your first reaction was a hypothesis that blames the pedestrian?
Trying to shift blame is not the same thing as not blaming, or trying to get away from blame as the first kneejerk reaction to an incident like this.
Sounds like a Mahty voter
n/t
Where in my comment to do see
Where in my comment to do see a hypothesis?
However, since you're grasping for some, here are a few to ponder:
1. Some drivers speed.
2. Some pedestrians step out into traffic.
3. Perhaps BOTH parties could be to blame?
When there is a crosswalk involved
The driver is to blame.
Couldn't stop in time? Driving too fast.
Pedestrian steps out into traffic just as driver who is obeying
speed limit is about to enter crosswalk - NOT the driver's fault.
A pedestrian in a crosswalk
A pedestrian in a crosswalk is never at fault
You're still stuck on blame
You're still stuck on blame; with you, it's just a matter of who is to blame. How about stepping back and figuring out the cause first? Then you'll have a better idea who, if anybody, is to blame.
Facts
Drivers kill 30,000 people each year, and very few of those accidents are not the fault of the driver.
Entitlement kills. Incompetence kills. Distraction kills. All of these killers become automated when a motor vehicle driver is involved.
Because one party is the one
Because one party is the one doing all the killing. Take cars out of the equation and pedestrians will never be brutally killed like this. Cities were designed for people, not cars. Every time someone drives a vehicle in a city they are in effect deciding to put other peoples lives at risk.
Other cities around the world figured this out long ago and have saved lives by creating pedestrian only streets, improving public transit, adding real bike infrastructure and enforcing traffic laws. Boston does NONE of that.
wow
You really have gone off the deep end.
well.
Boston does all of that, but none of it well.
Which American cities are
Which American cities are these mythical places you speak of?
no american cities
no american cities
Not Aging Well
“There’s a lot of talk about what the city is doing to make everything safer — pedestrians need to be safer,” Walsh said.
I see reckless, dangerous driver and pedestrian behavior every
day and night around the South End.
I'm particularly horrified by this one because I drive through or walk across that particular crosswalk about a thousand times a year.
We. Don't. Know.
Just saw this on Twitter and I think it's important to remember that the driver is a person too -- one who is probably feeling pretty shi*ty this morning. I saw a tweet that said: it's possible to "ALSO feel bad for the driver that hit the pedestrian."
Accidents do happen sometimes. I feel like it's a safe bet that this person didn't get in their car and say "Ok, gonna go kill some pedestrian crossing the street tonight!" We don't know the facts, of course. Maybe they had been drinking (it was a holiday...), maybe they were distracted (ban cell phones while driving, Charlie). Maybe the pedestrian was intoxicated and/or stumbled/fell into traffic. (Oh no! I thought of an instance when and acknowledged that both sides could be to "blame" -- what will the "victim blaming police" do now?!) We. Don't. Know. Unfortunately, tragically, there's only one person still around (alive) to tell their side -- maybe, hopefully there are witnesses or cameras that can help fill in that information.
So there's a lot we don't know. But we do know is that this is horrible, and we (humans) need to do things and make changes to prevent it from happening again. It's unfortunate that we have more evidence that the mayor's a whole lot of "saying what sounds good" and not a lot of "actually doing things that help."
Wake up
The fact is that negligent drivers kill people on urban roadways and are almost always at fault.
The fact is that excessive speed in areas where pedestrians have the right of way kills people.
Pedestrians have the right of way in any crosswalk without a light. All the time. Always. Ever.
The fact is that there are rarely such a thing as "accidents" - they are called collisions by the grown up professionals who investigate them. God or the Tooth Fairy or Fate or WTFever you wanna worship has shit-all to do with them - they are the result of ERROR, NEGLIGENCE or sometimes MALICE on the part of a motor vehicle operator. Thus they can be prevented or controlled or their cause removed from the risk pool if necessary.
Your thinking is dangerous, dated, and foolish. It contributes to the carnage. It kills people.
Here you go again.
There is rarely such a thing as an accident? Really? Hokey. Yes, sometimes accidents are a result of an error (either by the motor vehicle operator or the pedestrian and/or the cyclist), and rarely malice. Some accidents are collisons, some are not.
So, collisions can be prevented or controlled? Really? Hokey. I was almost hit by a pick up truck, last year, as I crossed in a Cambridge crosswalk. I had the walk light but for some reason the pick up truck driver "did not see me" in the crosswalk. I was smack dab in the middle when I saw the grill and had to throw myself to one side. Luckily, aside from a huge bruise, I was ok. So if the pick up collided with me, how could that of been prevented or controlled at that very moment? It was an accident where I just lucked out.
Your thinking is flawed.
accident?!
What the hell kind of reasoning is that? You had made it halfway through the crosswalk and you admit the driver did not see you during any of that time.
If he had hit you, that would not have been an accident.
Why did the driver not see you? Was he texting? Was he looking down at the radio? Was he just totally oblivious to the world around him, and therefore failing at the key job of driving in the city?
Its a crash. Not an accident.
It doesn't matter if someone intended to get in their car and kill someone, it matters that they killed someone with their car.
When the overwhelming majority of crashes on the road are caused by cars and poor road design, how can one ignorantly say "gee, we just don't know."
It is an accident.
And, yes, it does. There is a HUGH difference between someone getting in their car and saying "Gee, let me kill someone today" and someone who is driving and is involved in an accident where someone is killed.
I know this is the current "in" verbiage with many of the cycle zealots but please stop. It is just semantic bullsh*t.
this is not a cycle conversation and this was not an accident.
It is about responsibility. A driver's license gives a person to drive a car in exchange for taking responsibility for driving lawfully. The drive is responsible for making sure that an non-signaled crosswalk is free of pedestrians before they enter the crosswalk. If the view is blocked then you have to stop. What exactly is the improbable scenario where a driver was paying attention and didn't see and stop for a pedestrian? If the driver fulfilling their responsibility to be vigilant then it cannot be an accident.
Boston is a CITY. Cars should
Boston is a CITY. Cars should always be prepared for someone to "jump out" (which I doubt happened here) and should always be going slow enough so as to minimize the damage of a potential collision. No excuse.
Agreed.
You hit someone. You were going too fast. You are responsible.
Tremont St through the South
Tremont St through the South End is a prime candidate for a road diet. It's the single biggest and easiest thing the City could do to make it safer for EVERYONE. Make it 3 lanes instead of 4: one lane in each direction with alternating left turn lanes and/or striped median for pedestrians, along with a bike lane in each direction. Left turns would be easier, pulling out of side streets would be much easier, pedestrians wouldn't have a "double" threat scenario to deal with when crossing, and bikes would have a safer place to ride. Win, win, win, win.
It took 4 deaths in CT to change a road, what will it take here?
East Hartford CT is narrowing one of it's busiest streets from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with bike lanes after 4 deaths and 164 crashes in the past 3-4 years. Four lane roads have no business existing in urban environments! Lets do the same on Tremont St.
http://burnsideave.com/
http://www.easthartfordct.gov/public-works/pages/%E2%80%9Croad-diet%E2%8...
Want to see something funny
Go to your first link and look at the EHPD Bike Lane Informational Guide. Do you know where the photograph on the cover was taken?
The grass is always greener, I suppose.
Is there an update??
Is there an update on this story? I haven't been able to find anything on the victim or driver yet...