MassBike takes another look at the the 2015 crash at Massachusetts Avenue and Beacon Street that killed Dr. Anita Kurmann. The driver of the truck was not charged; the Globe reports authorities stand by their conclusion he did nothing wrong.
Ed. note: The video includes footage of Kurmann's death.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
:(
By frobot
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 11:00am
Heartbreaking and horrifying.
It is disgusting that the
By Kinopio
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 11:07am
It is disgusting that the driver wasn't charged with hit and run. If the excuse is, "someone driving that truck may not be able to tell if they kit and killed someone" then that means vehicles like that should immediately be banned on city streets. That driver is facing zero repercussions. In America a drivers license is essentially a license to kill.
alternate viewpoint: if your
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 11:22am
alternate viewpoint: if your vehicle cannot protect you in a low-speed collision, then that vehicle should be banned from city streets. in America, riding bicycles in traffic is essentially attempted suicide.
Let's try a study
By Michael
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:06pm
Ban private cars and trucks on city streets for a week, then ban bikes for a week, and we'll count up how many accidents there are each of the two weeks.
It needs to be at least 6
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:49pm
It needs to be at least 6 months of no cars/trucks. That way we can deplete all resources in/out of the city or hire you for pedal power.
Lets further that study by
By dm12
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:13pm
Lets further that study by evaluating the level of hunger faced by the average bostonian before and after the test is implemented.
You got me
By Michael
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:23pm
You spotted a flaw in the 400 page thesis-level policy statement that I actually submitted as an actual policy proposal; well done
How do you stock stores
By dm12
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:28pm
How do you stock stores without trucks?
Simple question.
Simple
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:40pm
You don't use giant vehicles to make deliveries to a handful of stores. You use vans and smaller box trucks.
You don't bring giant things into the city when they should have escort details.
You do your deliveries before 6am.
There's literally 3 pallets
By BH
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 5:13pm
There's literally 3 pallets worth of stuff on that truck. You can't really be saying that there's no other option for delivering it.
excellent question, lets ask
By pierce
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 9:38pm
excellent question, lets ask the continent that's full of cities with similar streets to Boston: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FEEGC0/madrid-spain-europ...
Conley Terminal
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 10:33pm
Gateway to MA and New England for container shipping.
Redesign and pay for said redesigns to Southie and the Seaport.
Rework how Conley does business.
Let us know how you want to make this happen.
Are you also going to ban
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:32pm
Are you also going to ban pedestrians?
Does no one mention the other
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 6:13pm
Does no one mention the other bike in between the two cars at the red light (making his own private third lane) and then swerves into the one car's lane once the light turns green? This is the sort of behavior I see by bikes daily. That and running red lights and swerving around pedestrians in crosswalks.
I don't see lane splitting as
By PLOP!
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 1:44pm
I don't see lane splitting as illegal and unsignaled lane merges are routine for motorists as well. At the same speed of traffic, it isn't a big deal.
Passing within the same lane as occupied by another vehicle is what drivers do when passing a bike, yet they aren't "making their own lane".
That behavior was safer and other than an unsignaled lane change, I don't believe it was illegal. In fact it was downright Boston driving, meaning should be anticipated by fellow Boston drivers. Which means driving assertively at best and as a total douchebag at worst.
You might note two things
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 7:23pm
1. The risks of sedentary lifestyle diseases that plague Americans because they drive everywhere are far higher than injury risks of cycling.
2. The woman murdered here in this video was a doctor and would know this.
3. The risk of riding a
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 10:21pm
3. The risk of riding a bicycle alongside cars. If you genuinely care about cyclists' lives, then urge them to stay off the road. It's a dumb way to risk your life.
And how are they to get anywhere?
By lbb
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 8:44am
And how are they to get anywhere, if not by using the roads?
This has to be the stupidest comment in this thread.
Of course
By Roman
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 1:35am
Swirly knows what's best for everyone. Crown her God-King and grovel at her feet!
Or...
Take responsibility for your own damn health and safety by not sneaking around heavy machinery [b]and[/b] maintaining a good diet and exercise regimen. Shocking as it might be to a certain, shall we say "triggered" sort, the two are not mutually exclusive.
"Sneaking"
By lbb
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 8:46am
Operating a vehicle in a legal fashion, as the cyclist was doing, is not "sneaking".
Someone's triggered here, but it ain't the people calling an act of irresponsible and careless driving that resulted in vehicular homicide.
Famous last words
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 11:28am
"If it's legal, it MUST be safe!"
Act your age
By lbb
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 3:57pm
This has nothing to do with the post you're responding to, so why post it? Oh, yeah, to be an assshat.
This is hitting a raw nerve with you
By Roman
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 5:52pm
Maybe you're just pissed that people are calling cyclists out on unsafe behavior using actual video evidence prepared by your own side.
Agreed
By FootPad
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 11:37am
Agreed.
I narrowly avoided my own right-hook situation on Beacon St. Monday heading toward Kenmore square in the 'new protected bike lane' by a large SUV driver who overtook me to make a right turn - saved myself by biking up onto the sidewalk giving myself a little more braking room/time.
Not sure if you could charge someone with it but....
By Pete Nice
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 11:42am
The truck crosses the white line (illegal). By doing that he injures someone with that turn (reckless/negligent?)
I can can see somewhat how the the bike was along the truck the entire time so the cyclist should have been able to see the right turn signal (and probably wouldn't have had time to avoid it anyway so I don't even know if that matters)
On the other hand, the truck should have seen the cyclist in it's mirror. No doubt in my mind.
I think you might be right. If a truck can't make a turn without crossing that line (which is there for a reason), it should either be banned from that street, or 1000% careful that no one gets hurt when you do an illegal maneuver.
Large turning radius
By Tim Mc.
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:09pm
By "the white line" do you mean the solid white line separating the same-direction traffic lanes in the approach to the intersection? Trucks of that size pretty much *always* need to cross those in that manner; that's why they have those "makes wide right turns" signs on them. It can be counter-intuitive to the people around them, but it's the only way they can make it through an intersection like that. And yeah, that's a huge problem.
Dr. Kurmann almost certainly did not notice the turn signals, but you can see that she did stop short when she noticed the truck *was* turning across her path. She successfully avoids getting hit by the front of the truck. It's a little unclear, but I think I see her start to back up when she realizes that the *back* tires of the truck are coming towards her; there's a good chance she was looking towards the front of the truck (perhaps pissed off at the close right-hook) and did not notice in time. There wasn't time to bail. I've almost been caught by the back end of a truck myself.
Either way, the driver is completely negligent in not checking his right side. In a civil case, where blame is apportioned by percentage, I'd probably assign 5-10% of the blame to her (inattention to turn signal) and 90-95% to the driver (not confirming a clear turn path, inattention to passed vehicle on right side.) Once she missed the turn signal, there was actually very little she could do without above-average reflexes and athleticism.
Could she even make out the
By tofu
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:21pm
Could she even make out the turn signal? Is it visible from her vantage point or only from front/side of truck?
Without a closer look at the
By Rob
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 7:38pm
Without a closer look at the actual models of truck & trailer in the setup, I couldn't say how visible the front directional signal would have been from alongside the whole length of the vehicle or if a rear (or side) directional on the tractor unit was visible to her or if there was a side directional on the trailer unit.
She came up from behind, however, and would have seen his rear directional. So far as I've read, nobody has said the rear directional wasn't working.
This shows how to make the
By Steve Brady
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:31pm
This shows how to make the turn correctly:
http://photos.truckingtruth.com/pics/5067/14802612...
edit:
Christopher Weigl was killed after colliding with a truck pulling the same jug-handle maneuver:
http://www.bu.edu/today/2012/student-cyclist-kille...
Good point. But button hook
By Tim Mc.
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:25pm
Good point. But button hook works only if the oncoming lanes to the right aren't occupied by people waiting for the light. I suspect that that happens so commonly that truckers just get used to doing the jug handle turn. -.-
Button Hook Killed Phyo Kyaw
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 12:28am
as the truck turned from one truck route to another (Mass. Ave. to Vassar Street). Unfortunately, Cambridge and MIT narrowed Vassar Street at the intersection, making trucks have to cross over into the oncoming lane. Stupid change for the intersection of two roads they designated as truck routes, claiming a theoretical reduction in danger from a shorter pedestrian crossing distance.
How much wider would you make
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 1:48pm
How much wider would you make Vassar Street? https://goo.gl/maps/zeka1YQwt1H2
I don't think Vassar was much wider at the Mass Ave intersection before the 2003 reconstruction.
Fair points
By roadman
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:19pm
Except for one thing. Crossing a SINGLE white line is NOT illegal in state law, the Uniform Vehicle Code, or the MUTCD.
Without fail
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:24pm
You and your BIKE ALWAYS AT FAULT MAKES ME FEEL BAD BLAH BLAH TEENAGERS
For someone who thinks that he knows the laws, you sure as hell are afraid of actually being responsible for OBEYING them.
The Mass RMV driving manual
By Steve Brady
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:32pm
The Mass RMV driving manual seems to frown upon both making lane changes in intersections, and making right turns from any lane but the right one.
I think the term of art used
By Dot net
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:44pm
I think the term of art used is "unlawful". Somehow, this is different from "illegal", or prohibited.
That's because ...
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:29pm
Car drivers think they are special.
RMV manual uses the term "should not"
By roadman
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:54pm
Which does not imply "illegal" to do so.
I believe these are City violaitons?
By Pete Nice
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:48pm
Like one way violations are?
White line
By downtown-anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:42pm
According to the first paragraph of page 10 of this document, it is something "you should avoid". Doesn't say anything about it being illegal.
https://www.massrmv.com/Portals/30/docs/dmanual/ch...
Courts have interpreted the laws however....
By Pete Nice
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:58pm
MGL CH. 89 s.4A is your standard "marked lanes violation".
I'm having trouble looking up the case law on google, (comm vs Obrien 2013), (comm v Ferrell 2011) and (comm vs Ortolani 2011) basically all say that the police can pull you over for crossing these lines. One of them says that just "touching" the line isn't enough for the stop.
If you look at the statute it doesn't really say this but like most MA laws and statutes, courts tell us what they think the law means.
I think the RMV manual sums it up pretty well then
By Dot net
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:47pm
Source, top of page labeled 88, 10th page of PDF: https://www.massrmv.com/Portals/30/docs/dmanual/ch...
That might be the problem though...
By Pete Nice
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:54pm
just thinking from a legal standpoint.
"should not"
Not a great clear legal term
Sorry, but the bicyclist was
By wtf021
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:01pm
Sorry, but the bicyclist was clearly at fault. The truck passes her on the bridge then stopped at a red light. The bike then attempts to pass the truck on it's right hand side and out of the bike lane. His directional was on for 8 seconds. The bike should have been behind the truck, not next to it.
The real question is why do we think bikes and 18 wheelers can share the same space.
WRONG
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:24pm
Watch it again, honey.
Nice try.
It's a bike lane. The
By Dot net
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:29pm
It's a bike lane. The bicyclist has every legal right to pass on the right.
As a defensive biking issue, I would never pass a truck like that unless I was sure I could clearly beat the truck well before he would even consider start making his turn. For the safety of my fellow cyclists, I strongly recommend this guide: https://bicyclesafe.com/
That being said, the onus is on the operator of the heavy vehicle to ensure they aren't endangering other road users. The trucker saw and passed bicycles. It's on the trucker to safely turn only when the path is clear. They have a CDL for a reason. Larger vehicle, greater responsibility.
It was the bus lane
By whyaduck
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:00pm
at the time of this terrible accident. The dedicated bike lane came later.
"Using footage from traffic cameras, police investigators concluded Kurmann was at fault, adding that at the time she was riding in a bus lane, and not in the marked lane that cyclists can share with motor vehicle traffic."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/01/23/bicyc...
Yes, but can't fault her for
By Tim Mc.
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:11pm
Yes, but can't fault her for that. Cyclists get screamed at, honked at, and even swerved at for riding in anything but the farthest right lane, even when it's not the legal place for them to be.
Sure, I'll take the damn lane as is my right, but that's my decision, and I won't force it on others.
More entitlement, more incompetent driving
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:22pm
My car makes me a special somebody too!
Nope
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:28pm
Bike lane. Marked with a bike and bus stop signs.
Can't believe they let people like you drive with that sort of entitled ignorance.
Note the dashed lines across, note the bike markings in the lane, dear. Every bit of pavement isn't about your special car.
https://goo.gl/maps
By Dave
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:32pm
https://goo.gl/maps/ySeT3Zbtr282
That's an extremely poor design
By HenryAlan
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 10:23am
Note how the bike lane immediately shifts out of the shared lane to a bikes only lane after the crosswalk. There is no angled transition, it simply appears directly in front of the bus lane. So think about this from the standpoint of the cyclist. They are approaching the intersection, there is a bus lane to the right. At the intersection, they must cross over to the right at the same point that the bus must cross over to the left. That's an extremely unsafe tactical situation. Any sane cyclist will merge in to the bus lane before the intersection so as to align with the upcoming bike only lane and to avoid the counter merging bus traffic.
But that is a distraction from the issue. Suppose Dr. Kerman is in the middle lane rather than the bus lane. The truck is still making a dangerous turn that crosses in front of the path of on-coming vehicular traffic.
She was in a marked bus lane.
By wtf021
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:55pm
She was in a marked bus lane. The middle lane was the bike lane back then. Are you people blind or ignorant?
...speaking of ignorance...
By Rob
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 7:22pm
...speaking of ignorance...
Dave put up a google view from the layout at that time.
That's not a bike lane in that area.
The bike symbol with two chevrons is what is called a sharrow. It's a reminder to all road users that the lane is a shared-use lane.
It was probably there because bicycles would need to get around the buses at the bus stop. There is another sharrow in that view, towards the middle-right of the intersection, probably because of buses pulling out from the bus stop and having to get out to the travel lane on the other side of Beacon (because the curbside along Mass Av south of Beacon was parking). An actual bike lane marking is visible starting south of Beacon. Actually, the bike lane resumed after Beacon - there was a bike lane on the bridge, which leads into the shared-use markings passing Back Street, the bus stop, and Beacon Street.
The truck was in the lane with the sharrow,
Ditto on what Tim Mc said
By Dot net
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:34pm
Yes, at the time, that was a bus stop. But it is normal for bikes to use available space on the street to the right of faster moving traffic. And I don't believe it's illegal for them to do so either, and is expected by other road users.
If there is no one parked on the right, and that area is striped for parking, I will ride there as it is generally safer to be out of motor traffic; and as a courtesy to the faster traffic. I think drivers would be pretty upset if I didn't do that when I could, and insisted on taking the lane as the sharrow permits me, if there were other options.
It was a marked bikelane.
By cinnamngrl
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:50pm
You can see it in the video. The posts came later, but the bike lane was always there.
No.
By Rob
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 7:41pm
No.
See the Google view Dave linked above.
It was a marked bike lane in 2012.
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 2:17pm
First thank you Dave for reminding me about street view history.
1. Notice in the crash video that inside the intersection the lane (that we are disputing) becomes parallel dashed lines. in the lower left corner is a upside down bike symbol marking it as a bike lane.
2. The so-called bus lane is not marked as a bus lane. The bus stop exists and the lines exist but there is nothing that identifies it as a buslane. In Boston bus lanes are marked diamonds symbols, maroon color and/or the words BUS ONLY. I am referring to the section of road between back street and beacon street. the section of mass ave running over the bridge is marked as a bike lane. Massachusetts Driver's Manual states that such restricted lanes are marked with a diamond.
3. In 2012 this same block of mass ave between back and beacon was marked as a bike lane & right hand turning lane. https://goo.gl/byhx7g
The bus stop is still present. Inside the intersection the lane becomes bike only painted green with dashed white lines
https://goo.gl/vWXzV9 In 2015 the sharrows are painted in. https://goo.gl/Zj4qnD
I am making a very technical argument, but not less so that the theory that finds the bicyclist at fault. It seems to me that if a person assumes the bicyclist was in the wrong lane, then that person is saying that sharrows require bicyclists to be in the the travel lane when road is marked with sharrows. The law does not seem to mention sharrows but it does say "It shall not be a defense for a motorist causing an accident with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of vehicular traffic." https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T...
So what I am saying is that the cyclist was in an unmarked lane to the right of traffic and visible to the truck driver if he chose to look. The truck driver had passed her on the bridge. If you argue that the cyclist passed the truck while he was stopped for the light, then it is not possible for the truck to hit the bicycle without passing her again between that stop and the turn. " 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. " General Laws Part I Title XIV Chapter 90 section 14.
I believe this shows that by law he was responsible for the accident. I don't know if he is criminally negligent. The intersection markings are very misleading if you look at the history of the markings.
1 & 3: In the video as in the
By Rob
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 4:48pm
1 & 3: In the video as in the three google views you linked, there is never a "bike lane" or "bike only" marking.
The bicycle stencil with the two chevrons is a sharrow. That does not mark a bike lane. It is a reminder marking that a lane or area is shared space.
A bike lane is marked with two circles and the (presumably helmeted) rider figure.
2. Others called it a bus lane. I did not. There was a bus stop there
Look again
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 7:27am
Inside of an intersection a bike only lane is Marked with dotted lines to reflect the fact that vehicle traffic will be crossing it. So inside the intersection it is a bike only lane. In 2012 it was a bike only lane until you get close to the intersection and then it was a shared right laying with cars that are turning right and bicycles (between back and beacon). In 2012 you can see that after the bike lane enters the intersection going south it is painted green which is bike only. Obviously that is dangerous too. Again nothing about Sharrows in the law. To presume that Sharrows imean a bicycle cannot travel to the right of traffic is your assumption not the laws.
Again - the symbol in the
By Rob
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 10:00am
Again - the symbol in the intersection is NOT a bike lane marking. It is a sharrow - a reminder of shared use.
It was not a bike only lane in the intersection. Buses coming out of the bus stop and continuing south on Massachusetts Avenue were headed for the right-hand travel lane south of Beacon Street, where the bike only lane did start between the right-hand travel lane and the parked vehicles.
Green pavement does not = "bike only lane". Green highlights areas of potential road sharing conflict.
Yes, sharrows are in the law.
So, there are four misstatements of facts you made in one paragraph.
You compound that by projecting views on me that I don't have and never said - for the second time in as many posts, as a matter of fact, so STOP. You're having enough trouble with photographs and printed words, so maybe you should clear that up before you move to mind-reading or clairvoyance.
No, I did not presume that sharrows mean a bicycle cannot travel to the right of traffic. The responsibilities of both parties in the "passing on the right"/"passing to turn" situation are described in the law.
If you want to review some of the background facts, Chapter 4 of the driver's manual is a pretty good place to start, especially pages 89 and 106-110.
https://www.massrmv.com/Portals/30/docs/dmanual/ch...
not you personally Rob
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 2:37pm
But if I must then when you search sharrows in the law you get this result
https://malegislature.gov/Search?SearchTerms=sharrows
So when this accident happened bicycle symbol was visible within the dotted lines in the intersection, but the chevron's were not visible. Those dotted lines lead from the supposed "bus only" lane. The boston globe article does state
"...police investigators concluded Kurmann was at fault, adding that at the time she was riding in a bus lane, and not in the marked lane that cyclists can share with motor vehicle traffic." I am disputing that it ever was bus only lane. In the future I will direct my comments firmly in your direction by using your name "Rob", when I am criticizing you, "Rob". For instance "Rob", sharrows are mentioned in the Manual not Massachusetts law.
Okay...
By Rob
Sat, 01/27/2018 - 1:22am
Okay...
The acts of the Legislature do not lay out each dot and jot of law on a topic. They specify some things, and then adopt or commission assembled standards for the bulk of it. Sometimes, they adopt most of a national or regional standard, like the highway standards for signs and road markings that others have mentioned here. Other times, Massachusetts has its own standard, like the plumbing code. So, the legislative search tool doesn't find sharrows, but they are indeed part of the law - because the law adopted/commissioned the standard that includes them. The driver's manual is produced by the agency/department that, under law, is responsible for (among other things) getting this information to the public.
About sharrows... They are a reminder that an area is shared use. That's about it (There's an item in the driver's manual which, interestingly, talks about them being suggested positioning for bikes, but certainly not required positioning). Their absence does not mean and cannot be interpreted as meaning that an area is "motor vehicles only" (i.e. "not shared use") - only specific types of road can be so restricted. Their presence does not ever mean a "bike only" lane and cannot be interpreted as meaning "bike only" because they are two entirely different symbols.
You say that the chevrons were not visible in the intersection at the time of the crash. So far as I know, the chevrons were part of the symbol in the intersection at the time of the crash. They are visible in the google view you linked which was closest in time to the crash. They are not visible in the video clips because they are outside the frame of the video.
Also, that marking had nothing to do with the crash.
I agree that the space between the travel lane (where the truck was) and the curb should not have been called bus-only lane. I never called it such.
I'd hardly call it a lane at all, as it was set up. Most of it was bus stop, with a little room at the end for cars and bikes turning right onto Beacon. Nobody should be going through a bus stop, but there certainly appeared to be enough width between the bus stop and the lane the truck was in for cyclists to safely pass on the right (as is legal) if they didn't want to be in the same lane. Ultimately, that didn't have anything to do with the crash.
The problem is the distance/speed/time in overtaking. Work with the distances, positions, and times as given in the video. He didn't cut her off. He passed her way back on the bridge. She was still well behind him (he in the full lane, she in the bike lane) when he started moving after the light turned green and he had his directional on, so she should have seen it. I don't know if she somehow missed the turn signal or miscalculated the distance & her ability to safely pass in time. She came up close as he was turning (and yes, probably in a blind spot at some point) and stopped in a bad place when she realized she couldn't pass him in time (namely, a spot where she got hit by the back end of his trailer).
?
By cinnamngrl
Sat, 01/27/2018 - 7:49pm
All that you (Rob) have explained about the nature of the driving manual and the law is that you are not an attorney. me, neither. I suggest that it is manual about how to drive in compliance with the law.
All bike lanes are sharrows within intersections. The dotted lines lead directly from the "bus lane" to the bike lane next to the parked cars.
It seems that police would argue that Anita should have seen the blinker as she came up the right side of the truck. And then the truck moves to the left, to make the right turn. The police seem to expect cyclists to understand truck driving like a licensed truck driver. Many cyclists do understand this but to blame Anita for this crash is wrong.
However as I look at all the problems with the markings, it seems to increase the problem with holding the negligent truck driver criminally responsible.
Also see: Street Smarts
By Sad Sitch
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 1:39pm
Also see: Street Smarts
Even without a clearly marked bicycle lane, the cyclist is legally allowed to pass on the right, the truck driver should have remembered he'd JUST passed her, she should have taken the lane to go straight through, but behind the truck.
But as far as legal behavior, I agree the onus is clearly on the driver. She may have been a poor cyclist but was not illegally operating, AND that driver should have known she was being cut off by the truck's right turn, AND I'm not sure but she may not have even been in the driver's blind spot.
His speed was not needed for cornering. A slower turn may have allowed her time to make a sharp right off the roadway or stop and hop left or roll back enough to clear. The turn indicator and the counter-steer were warning signs she missed, I cannot tell if she would have been able to see the truck's right rear indicator when it was first turned on.
Passing on the right of any vehicle at an intersection with a right turn requires extra vigilance and often a change of lateral roadway position.
Considering the amount of bicyclist and motorist education and training, especially on the bicycling side, it doesn't surprise me that cyclist behavior and motorist awareness is substandard.
It is a shame we lost such a promising life to a crash which could have been so easily prevented.
When did the truck stop at a
By cinnamngrl
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 1:53pm
When did the truck stop at a red light?
Stopped in line for the red
By Rob
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 12:42am
Stopped in line for the red light, in line in that lane behind three cars, a box truck, and another car.
ah nope
By Bobp
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:22pm
Sorry the truck driver was at least negligent if not at fault. Her had to see the bike before and should have looked for it before making the hard turn. He was in a hurry and didn’t check. That and sorry he knew he hit something and never stopped. No way he felt nothing. As someone who drove and made deliveries for 10 plus years downtown you know you need to double check, not just for bikes but pedestrians. At the speed he turned if someone was near the curb or off it he would have smashed them as well. Yes there are bike riders who ride out of control but just like there are drivers doing the same..
Why has the driver and
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 11:09am
Why has the driver and company not been named? Every other fatal collision in Boston & Cambridge for the past decade has named all parties involved. What is so special about this incident that this information has been withheld?
Driver is named
By Tim Mc.
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 12:12pm
Driver is named in the video as a Mr. Matthew Levari.
Pages
Add comment