In Fields Corner, some drivers don't think red lights apply to them

Unsafe intersection + reckless driving = hurt ped

Vivian Gerard's security camera caught a pedestrian getting mowed down at the intersection of Dorchester Avenue and Adams Street in Fields Corner about 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday.

The gentleman with the backpack is crossing Dorchester Ave as all traffic lights are red, and the ped light turns “green” as he is about halfway into his street crossing. A car is speeding thru the intersection sending him over the car hood, and then onto the ground. The driver did stay on the scene. The hit pedestrian was taken by ambulance shortly after. At the time of the posting of this video the victim’s condition is unknown.

Gerard is fed up with the situation at the intersection and wonders when it will see some enforcement and more permanent changes to reduce the odds of a crash like this:

Flanked by 3 high schools, a myriad of businesses and a nearby Red Line stop, this is Fields Corner’s busiest intersection for motor vehicles and pedestrians alike. More often than not, there are cars still moving thru the intersection well after all the traffic lights have turned red and the ped light has turned green. Some of it as to do with people driving thru the red light –occasionally at a high rate of speed. In other cases, vehicles may go thru a green light but find themselves stopped in the middle of this wide intersection by someone taking a left turn for instance. Once the traffic in front of them clears up, they keep on driving thru the intersection even though all the ped lights are green and all traffic lights are red. This condition occurs at most light cycles during busy hour.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

Not to excuse to the driver

By on

Not to excuse to the driver at all, but based on that video, the sun was totally glaring in the driver's eyes.

up
19

That was what I noticed too

There's a saying that you hear sometimes in cycling and motorcycling circles that "your shadow points to the people that can't see you" which is a good thing to keep in mind when the sun is low.

up
14

if the driver was not able to

By on

if the driver was not able to see where she was driving, shouldn’t she have stopped her car, or at the very least showed waaaaaaaay down?

up
21

.

They were likely going less than 20mph there...

Not saying whether that's fast or not, but it's not like they were speeding

At 11:30 am

By on

that's not much of an excuse. Perhaps people use sunglasses or a visor?

up
58

Never an excuse

By on

Due to a medical issue, I had some trouble handling glare.

Know what I did? I stopped driving at times that it would be an issue.

up
59

Then pull over

By on

There are several types of skills for dealing with sun glare.

But if you can't see, you pull over. The sun will move in a couple of minutes.

up
16

If you can't see where you

By on

If you can't see where you are piloting your 4000lb metal box, you should slow the hell down.

up
86

Well then

By on

They just shouldn't try to cross dangerous streets using a crosswalk with a red light.

How could she possibly see him or the light? Just not used to the light.

Can we make more excuses for these drivers?

up
33

Pedestrian Light??

By on

On top of the sun glare, looks like the pedestrian had the do not cross red light. Video doesn't show proof of green light for the driver. At least he stopped and waited.

Hope person is okay.

Pedestrian light

the pedestrian light was red at the time the pedestrian started crossing, but at the time he was hit the light was white.

up
23

The point being

By on

The driver might not have gone through a light that was red, or if it was red it might have just turned red. The driver might have been trying to stretch a yellow.

If the jeep hit the pedestrian, we would probably not be seeing this video, since it would be a simple case of a guy jaywalking. The jeep did a sudden stop, before the walk sign was lit.

I jaywalk all the time. I take all sorts of risks. If someday my risks end up with me in the hospital, I'll probably admit that I did something I shouldn't have. On the other hand, I've had walk signs and had to scurry because a driver wasn't paying attention. This was not necessarily the case.

The driver ran the light

By on

Flat out.

At 30 mph, the stopping distance plus thinking distance is 120 feet. At 30 mph, 3 seconds is 132 feet. The speed limit at that location is 30 mph or less.

So look, the ped light turns walk -- meaning the motor vehicle light is red -- before the guy gets hit. That means that the car either (a) was speeding, (b) didn't come to a safe stop when the light turned yellow despite being able to do so, or (c) both.

The only conclusion is if the driver was obeying traffic signs and signals, that car would have stopped at the light.

up
14

So what?

The walk light was on when he was hit, and the driver had a red light. End of story. You can try to cast blame on the pedestrian as much as you want, but the video clearly shows that the driver is 100% at fault.

up
38

Not exactly the driver seems

By on

Not exactly the driver seems to have been taking the right from Adam's street and not running a red light

The pedestrian signal

By on

Is directly above the middle of the white car parked or standing on the other side of the street. You can see it turn from orange to white just as the pedestrian reaches the middle of the street.

Ok so when white walk sign

Ok so when white walk sign came on, Dot ave would have a red light. Did this car come from Adams Street southbound? So either the driver ran a red light or turned right onto Dot Ave. Then he would have to yield to pedestrians. If remember it right though this intersection doesn't alternate walks signs with Adams and Dot. If you push the button and wait , it will eventually go all way red and the walk signs come on.

The Jeep Yielded

By on

It's my understanding that once the Jeep yielded right of way to the pedestrian, and the pedestrian entered the cross walk all other cars approaching that cross walk must yield as well.

up
19

That sounds like proper legal thinkin'

By on

There's no room for that in here. In here, we're assassinating the character of a pedestrian we've never met, based on a video of him being mowed down by a driver clearly running a red light. Can't you read?

up
17

Something is very wrong with

By on

Something is very wrong with you if you are arguing " its the pedestrian's fault". This is why we can't have the nice things, like civilization, that other cities have in Boston.

Boston drivers from all

By on

Boston drivers from all neigborhoods and suburbs think red lights dont apply, and the police cant be bothered to do anything like say ticket those drivers. The whole state freaked out when one person for the first time in 80 years was killed by a shark and a wide range of solutions were proposed. Drivers kills pedestrians all the time in MA and nothing is done.

up
90

And yet somehow...

the pedestrian didn't notice, or at least didn't heed, the Don't Walk signal when he started across the street. The signal turned to Walk when ped was about halfway through the intersection (at 0:12 of the video).

And, oh, by the way, there's a bicyclist chugging through the red light at 0:15.

If you want to be sticklers about cars, then be sticklers about bikes and pedestrians, too.

up
20

Hogwash. Cars weigh orders of

By on

Hogwash. Cars weigh orders of magnitude more than pedestrians or cyclists. Cars travel orders of magnitude faster than pedestrians or cyclists. Momentum is the product of mass and speed; they work together. Cars are way, way more dangerous and have way more killing power; with that, they have greater responsibility to be safe. If a car hits someone, the person dies. If a pedestrian hits another pedestrian, a "sorry" is exchanged. Walking is inherently safe. Biking is inherently safe. They only reason all of our means of transportation are dangerous is because of the introduction of multi-ton vehicles traveling at high speed through our neighborhoods.

up
46

Clueless criminal car drivers

By on

Clueless criminal car drivers have no interest in things like "science" "common sense" or "personal responsibility". They are criminals themselves so they make up excuses for their fellow criminal drivers.

up
23

Yes, you're exactly right.

By on

Yes, you're exactly right. We drivers are a fucking cartel bitch, and you just put yourself on our radar! Jackass.

Curious omissions there

You didn't say anything about the car that rolled over the bike box and didn't stop on the line or the car partially parked in the crosswalk?

Do you see anyone on this thread saying don't ticket jaywalking or scofflaw cyclists? Do understand where the overwhelming majority of traffic violence comes from? Good god you car apologists are insufferable.

Also cute phrase, chugging through the red light, yeah that cyclist is a real menace there.

up
40

Heed this:

Don't call me a car apologist, you insufferable twat. I've ridden >1000 miles this year (nothing great obv, but not bad for 71 yrs old), promoted the Minuteman in dozens of ways, served on my town's bike committee, and might even suit up for the Jingle Ride in a week. I'm no car apologist.

But I do get my knickers in a bunch when I see my fellow cyclists cruising through red lights or not stopping for pedestrians in a crosswalk. No way we're going to fix the dumb laws (Stop signs, e.g.) until we riders as a group are seen as obeying the sensible ones.

up
20

You're a garbage advocate talking like that

This idea that every single one of us has to be seen obeying the law before we get respect on the road, better laws and better infrastructure is complete horseshit. Thats not how you legislate safety and is a hallmark phrase for car apologists.

Fantastic, you get your knickers in a bunch when you see cyclists run reds, if thats the worst outcome I think society will be just fine. Thanks for your work on the Minuteman and town bike committee, doesn't absolve your garbage opinions.

up
27

Those are the same standards

By on

Those are the same standards you're applying to drivers though. One driver does something stupid and you and Kinopio are all like "all drivers are criminals" yadda yadda yadda....

No, actually, thousands of

No, actually, thousands of drivers do stupid things every day -- we all see them -- and dozens of people are killed in Massachusetts every *month* as a result.

up
18

Nah Scratchie did because its a stupid point you made

Aside from the 100 or so Americans that will die on roads today, its pretty clear to anyone that cars represent a far great risk to damaging private and public property compared to cars. Its basic physics.

Its the reason why motorists need to be adults that are licensed, have registration, regular inspections, up to date insurance and bikes in contrast don't because friggin children, adults and the elderly all ride them without killing 100 people a day or crashing through store fronts.

The text of the story says

The text of the story says that the pedestrian light is green. I don't understand that exactly. Commenters seem to be interpreting it both ways.

1. So did the pedestrian have a walk signal?
2. was Dot ave light green or red?

Glare is not any kind of reasonable excuse, if you can't see then stop and pull over.

Road design and crash

Road design and crash interpretation are biased towards automobiles. The intersection should be designed in way that prevents cyclists and pedestrians from putting themselves at risk. The speed limit is 25. How could this driver have been observing the speed limit it if they couldn't stop in time? they didn't even brake until after they hit the pedestrian.

Wow,

By on

Wow,
A speeding car is F-a-s-t and a pedestrian is walking. I almost got hit tonight crossing because when i turned my head to look another car sped up on me. People should not drive so recklessly, it is rude, arrogant and unsafe.

Automate traffic enforcement

Sorry but the status quo of relying on the police to do anything or motorists obeying the laws isn't working. There is no push or incentive on either group that'll make our streets safer, time for traffic cameras, road diets, raised intersections and tech options like speed governors and tracking so we can find motorists that in inevitably leave the scene of a crash.

Good luck getting that passed though, the car lobby will fight this tooth and nail because freedom or liberty or whatever.

up
33

Car lobby has nothing to do with it

By on

Basic MA constitutional right to face your accuser.

You want this? Rewrite the constitution to make an exception for traffic offences.

up
10

You need to read up on

By on

You need to read up on constitutional law because the right to face an accuser only applies in a criminal trial, and tickets like this are civil offenses. Ample case law on this point.

up
29

Yeah screw it lets change it

Your right to face your accuser, great, awesome, its a way to weasel out of meaningful measures to curb traffic violence. Once again, the car lobby will be there to fight this.

I dunno how the laws and such work in Europe but strict liability laws, as in you are at fault in a motor vehicle crash when hitting a vulnerable road user, needs to be explored.

Of course, you can just run over your future accuser and they can't appear in court.

up
14

Never Mind The Bollards

By on

As a way to prevent red light running, pedestrian injuries and deaths, and box blocking... Pop up bollards that seal off intersections on light changes.

Unfortunately we know how maintaining infrastructure goes around here... so they would be as useful as that escalator that always breaks down at Star Market in Packard's Corner.

up
15

I walk most everywhere, and

By on

I walk most everywhere, and look both ways *four* times (due to my lack in faith of drivers) and cross where I'm supposed to, and I nearly get hit or buzzed by a car weekly at minimum. Sit at Bremen St Park in East Boston at the crosswalk and observe every second driver texting and doing California rolling stops at the busy crosswalks (and flip out when pedestrians have the gall to walk *in between* the two crosswalks at the main gate--how about you don't drive through the intersection until it's clear?). I've had to literally jump out of the way of an older driver turning left into a crosswalk by Santarpio's when I had a walk signal recently. If I were blind or staring at my phone (which would have been my right in that situation) I would have been gravely injured or killed.

If traffic enforcement cared more about keeping people safe in traffic, we'd be a lot better off. But they can't collect $50 from every pedestrian kept safe, so they just make traffic enforcement a revenue arm of the city. Though any common sense measures in major cities will face stiff headwinds from auto and fossil fuel lobbyists, and astroturfed backlash against any changes by the one person, one car crowd.

edit - clarity

up
30

No

By on

so let's make traffic enforcement just a revenue arm of the city.

Very bad idea. That quickly turns into hypershortened yellow lights and massive corruption to shield friends of cops and politicians while extracting immense sums from people who did nothing wrong.

See also: Chicago

"Who did nothing wrong"

Yeah sorry no, if the cameras catch you breaking the speed limit, running a red, failing to stop, thats on you. Yellow lights are shortened? Slow down. Take some responsibility FFS.

The only way it seems to get motorists to care about traffic laws and safety is to hit them in the wallet.

Valid point about corruption, I dunno make the process more transparent, innovate, do something at least.

up
25

Did nothing wrong

By on

Plenty of examples in other states where the driver enters on a green that flips immediately red just to "catch" people "running the red".

Except they are already in the intersection when the light goes direct to red.

It does actually happen when there is $$$ involved

My niece in Chicago bought a dash cam because of this shit - and beat three "red light" tickets because the light clearly jumped from green to red with barely a split-second yellow while she was traversing the intersection. These sorts of sketchy practices have nothing to do with safety - they were done just to enhance revenue.

Before we advocate for automated policing and for making traffic control a revenue department, it would be a very good idea to check out how this approach has played out in other places.

It might also be a good idea to check out whether traffic fatalities are lower in those places.

A solution isn't a solution if it doesn't actually solve anything. While I strongly believe that the cult of internal combustion has gone way, way too far and that anyone who does such things as this should be retested at the very least, I also believe in evidence-based actions.

I disagree with your thesis,

By on

but am actually 100% in favor of your plan of execution: if you're caught by a red light camera, it's up to you to prove you weren't in the intersection illegally when the camera caught you breaking the law. Dashboard cams for all, as it becomes incumbent on everyone to prove that they weren't operating their 4000-weapon-of-blunt-force negligently.

up
11

It's a civil problem.

I am not saying that it is ok to fine driver's fraudulantly, but does it saves lives? If it slows down traffic then that's what we should do.

Chicago comment

I think the previous poster was referring to how the City of Chicago got caught shortening yellow lights which resulted in an additional $8M in fines. One source: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yellow-light-101...

And near to Fields Corner, I see people blow through the light heading north/south on Adams St at the intersection for Centre Street every single day. I've called and emailed C-11 several times. Nothing has changed in four years. It actually feels like it is getting worse with the rise in popularity of Waze and more people drive into the city instead of taking the T because, well, you know... it doesn't really work.

up
12

You know what? This is terrible

But I'm still ok with it. Shaving off hundredths of a second means nothing in stopping a car any quicker but if word spreads and suddenly motorists are scared of a $100 ticket, good.

I'll take the $8 million, gotta get drivers to pay their fair share somehow and you know they won't vote for a gas tax increase.

up
12

And...

By on

And how are bikers contributing to funding the upkeep of roads (other than the taxes everyone, regardless of whether they use roads or not, pays)?

Well you kinda answered your question there

Carefully worded of course, you acknowledge that everyone pays taxes, regardless of whether they use the roads or not. What you carefully omitted was that what motorists currently pay doesn't cover the true cost of driving and up keeping the infrastructure they use.

And if you want to go with the idea that what you pay is proportional to usage, be careful. While you could argue that cyclists represent 1% of road users, the bike infrastructure provided for us certainly doesn't.

Also there is the whole externalities thing that motorists again don't pay anyhting for, like impacts on healthcare needs. And theres that whole bit about cars doing far greater damage to roads than a little bicycle.

So yeah we pay more than enough for what we get.

I'm not sure how you'd

By on

I'm not sure how you'd prevent an accident like this from happening.

The pedestrian waited, and looked both ways a few times before crossing. Other than glancing into the lane he was entering, or not having a hood cinched around his head to obscure his vision. (But then again, what about a blind pedestrian?)

This isn't an excuse, but in the video it appears the sun is shinning directly into the driver's direction of travel, and the pedestrian is walking from a shadowed area. Either way, the driver blew through the red light – and who knows, this could be a cell phone/distracted driver situation as well.

Perhaps this driver should not be operating a motor vehicle?

Ya think?

Perhaps this driver should not be operating a motor vehicle?

Ya think?

up
25

Or....

By on

Perhaps this driver should not be operating a motor vehicle?

Perhaps when a driver hits a pedestrian (or otherwise demonstrates that they are incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle), it should be grounds for an immediate driver's license forfeiture until the driver can prove that they are fit to be operating a motor vehicle or other heavy machinery on a public way?

up
36

Make the punishment for such

By on

Make the punishment for such an action a real consequence. If screwing up like this actually prevented you from driving for years, maybe people would take the operation of their 4000lb boxes a little more seriously.

up
23

driver definitely at fault

By on

but if you look closely the do not walk sign is in effect until the exact moment he steps out of the sun and into the path of car. THE DRIVER SHOULD HAVE SEEN HIM AND ITS THE DRIVERS FAULT but that guy was halfway across the street before the light changed.

i hope that guy is ok.

up
12

Plus

By on

Agree with you about everything. Also, there is a person with a dolly and two boxes who is also waiting to cross. I think he saw the car coming and waited, but that may have been one more distracting factor to the driver....is that guy with the boxes going to cross in front of me?

The car had a red light

By on

REPEAT: THE CAR HAD A RED LIGHT

That's ALL we need to know here. FULL STOP.

You must never actually walk around here - Mayuhhhh Mahhhhhteeee has decided to SHORTEN ALL THE WALK LIGHTS. If you aren't walking as soon as the light turns, you will not make it across.

up
29

Did the car have a red light?

By on

I've been getting way to invested in this.

The distance on between the stop line on the southbound side of Dorchester Avenue to the crosswalk is not short because Adams Street meets Dot Ave at an angle. We do know that the pedestrian was in the middle of the road when the walk sign came on.

If I really wanted to be Encyclopedia Brown, I'd go to the intersection and press the walk sign. When the lights turn red, I'd check on a stopwatch to see how long the light is red before the walk sign is illuminated. Then I'd try to figure out how far a car going 25 MPH would go in that time period. This could be a timing issue, or the car could have run the red light.

As for putting red light cameras at this intersection (were it allowed), there could be an unintended downside. If drivers wanted to beat the light, knowing that they could get a ticket if they didn't, there would be more of a motivation amongst some to push down the pedal on the right rather than the one on the left. In this case, the pedestrian would have had much worse damage done to him.

And to be clear, this is all speculative.

It doesn't actually matter

It doesn't actually matter whether the driver had a red light. What matters is whether he had a yellow light. Given the timing of the while walk light (which we can see), the driver clearly had a yellow light before he entered the intersection. Thus, the law requires him to stop.

up
12

That's not necessarily true.

By on

The point at which the driver entered the intersection is over 200 feet away. At 25 mph, it would take almost 6 seconds from the far stop line to the crosswalk. At 20 mph the travel time would be over 7 seconds. At the standard minimum yellow timing of 3 seconds, it's very possible the light hadn't turned yellow, or had turned yellow within a second or so of the driver entering the intersection (i.e. not enough time to react and stop safely).

You make a great point

By on

Either 25 MPH is too fast for Boston drivers to be able to safely avoid hitting pedestrians who have walk signals, or this guy broke a traffic law. Which was it, o apologists for the accused?

Again

By on

The claim that "the driver clearly had a yellow light before he entered the intersection" is not borne out by anything on the video. We only know that the walk sign illuminated as the pedestrian was crossing the center yellow line. If there was another angle that showed car and light, we would have proof, be we don't have that.

To be clear, when I first saw the video, I thought it was a case of the driver running the light in the most blatant of ways. Now, I have doubts (obviously.)

The car was turning right

The car was turning right from Adams southbound to dorchester ave southbond. If he had a red light or a green light, the driver is obligated to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Maybe

By on

I feel like I’m a Kennedy conspiracy theorist watching the Zapruder film. The film doesn’t show the whole intersection, but the car is a bit to the right. Now, as an outsider, I have to ask if the walk sign comes on when Adams Street has the green light or if it is pedestrian activated.

I’m spending too much time on this.

Really?

I feel like I’m a Kennedy conspiracy theorist watching the Zapruder film.

Maybe you should see a therapist for this incessant arguing about and against nothing ad nauseum.

Or maybe you and Ms. OMG THAT'S TERRIBLE BLAME MILLENIALS should just get a room, and we can use the resulting eternal spin as a source of energy.

Touche

By on

But we're not even arguing this time.

Of course, I'm still trying to figure out the last argument, but that's another story.

not relevant.

If this driver came from Adam's Street southbound turning right onto Dorchester Ave (most likely) then when you turn, you are required to yield pedestrians in the crosswalk. That yield cannot be over ridden except perhaps by green arrow right (which this intersection doesn't have). If the driver came from Dot Ave southbound they ran a red light. If they were following the speed limit and paying attention they should have been able to stop for an obstacle. It doesn't seem that the driver hit his breaks until the person was the hood.

Agreed about the driver being at fault...

By on

But I watched the video twice. The pedestrian who was hit was already halfway across the street when the pedestrian signal changed from orange (don't walk) to white (walk).

Another point here: Because Dot Ave and Adams St meet at an oblique angle at Fields Corner, the distance between the stop line on Dot Ave on the north side of the intersection and the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection is a bit over 210 feet. The citywide speed limit of 25 mph equates to about 37 feet per second. Therefore it takes almost 6 seconds for a vehicle obeying the speed limit to pass through the intersection, and it would take longer for a vehicle traveling under the speed limit.

Given that the customary duration of a yellow light is approximately three seconds, and even assuming that BTD has built in some delay between when the traffic signal for Dot Ave turns red and the walk signal comes on, it's very possible that the car entered the intersection legally (i.e. within a second or so of the light turning yellow) and yet had not cleared the intersection by the time the pedestrian signal changed to "walk."

As others have pointed out as well, the shadows also might indicate poor visibility of the pedestrian to the driver; the car hits the pedestrian pretty much at the exact moment the pedestrian steps out of the shadow of the adjacent building. Also, this time of year, the sun is low enough even at midday to cause glare.

BUT... as a driver it's still your responsibility to avoid hitting people in the road if at all possible. Without knowing the exact timing of the traffic signal, though, it's entirely conceivable that the driver didn't actually run the light.

even assuming that BTD has

By on

even assuming that BTD has built in some delay between when the traffic signal for Dot Ave turns red and the walk signal comes on

you probably don't actually walk anywhere, but that's standard across the entire city. people BLUGH BLUH HIS DON'T WALK WAS LIT are failing to realize there's a good three seconds between when the lights for cars goes red and when the white for pedestrians starts. the car blew an OBVIOUS and CHANGED red.

Not to hijack the thread but.....

Honest question for people.

How often do you just run a red light because you simply didn't know it was there or were day dreaming (not just running it because no one was coming, or you knew you could "beat the light" and avoid a crash).

It happens to me like once every two years maybe? I'm guessing that is what happened here. That car was going way to fast for a glare problem. I'm thinking the driver just didn't even see the light due to inattention, unfamiliarity of the area, etc. I am also up for any punishment for this driver.

On another separate note, and I don't want to victim blame, but how do people keep their head down and not even look both ways, even if they have a go light for pedestrians? If I cross this road, I always keep my head on a swivel (I know I shouldn't have to) in case something like this happens. Why isn't this instinctual for all humans?

Try

By on

Never?

Sorry, but I'm not buying your bullcrap here. This person ran a light AND HIT SOMEONE.

Stop making excuses for bad drivers.

Um, dude?

By on

The guy swivels his head multiple times.

The driver was not looking, paying attention, or obeying speed restrictions.

I never run a red light

By on

I never run a red light because I don't drive. That is the best way to not assault someone with a 4000 pound weapon. It is easy to never drive in Boston. Many thousands of people do it. Get people out of cars and onto sidewalks, bikes, trains, buses etc and you will have less criminal drivers killing and injuring people. Improve public transit and bike infrastructure, throw criminal drivers in jail and make drivers actually pay for the roads(raise gas tax and tolls and charge for parking permits)

up
17

You know what I've never done?

By on

I've never punched you in the face, because I've never met you.

As to the actual question at hand, I have confused reds for greens, and greens for reds, a few times, for reasons I cannot fathom even at the time.

One of the worst things drivers do accidentally is to run stop signs that have been installed on roads they have driven several times. I did that on Milton Street in Cedar Grove the first time I drove down it after they put the stop signs up and somehow the third time, but not the second time. To be fair, I don't drive down the road that much, but enough to be familiar with it. It's the classic concept of familiarity being a bad thing.

Oh, and Kino, I did accidentally punch a guy at Back Bay Station while running for a train. I tripped at the bottom of the stairs and somehow lead with my hand. Thankfully, I was on my third apology before he realized what had happened. Also, I have no upper body strength, so he might not have felt it too much.

This reads like a North

This reads like a North Korean press release. I'm curious what your Venn diagram for "drivers" vs. "criminal drivers" would look like. A circle?

weird flex, but ok

By on

I've never gotten a mustard stain on my shirt because I don't eat hot dogs.

Geez

By on

If I found myself running red lights that regularly I'd probably turn in my license and just start taking Ubers everywhere. Doesn't that freak you out at all? What if there was a pedestrian or some other vulnerable road user that was crossing at that point?

up
14

Full disclosure, run lights from time to time on my bike

I didn't used to always do that, was a militant strictly-to-the-rules-rider no matter what. I thgouth set a good example and maybe we'll be blessed with other riders doing the same and respect from motorists and new city bike infra. But I just don't care anymore, many of the roads on my commute aren't very safe, new bike infra is at a snails pace, sometimes running a red actually gets me ahead of traffic to make safer turn ahead because again, infra sucks around here and motorists still drive recklessly.

Now of course I'm not just blowing through lights, there is a deliberate and focused effort to run them without getting tagged or hitting a pedestrian. Call it "ethical law breaking", I think Waquoit said that before regarding jaywalking. However, if I'm driving a car I don't accidentally run a red, you made a point about people day dreaming and all that, which is terrifying.

But in general, I just stopped caring because its not like the police are gonna ticket me or anyone else on the road for that matter and like I said, I'm running lights in a way not putting myself or others at risk so screw it. I just don't care anymore, whats the point?

Walking across the street, yup I look both ways and its way too often that I almost have to wave/stutter step to get them to commit to stopping, even when they see me.

up
11

if you're making a right turn on a Red light that doesn't have a

By on

"NO TURN ON RED" sign at that particular intersection, that's one thing. If there's a "NO TURN ON RED" sign, however, that's a different story. You are violating the law in this latter case, and if you get busted and ticketed when and if you're caught, well--it'll serve you right.

Another diversion

By on

It was my belief that when Right on Red became law in Massachusetts, the legislature (or someone) was still pretty much against it, so they insisted that just about every light got a No Right on Red sign. I grew up in NY state (upstate) and only the lights where it was REALLY unsafe to go on red got those signs. MA still has way too many places with that sign, which makes people lose faith in the validity of the sign and just go. (I might be one of them.)

It's true that when the law

It's true that when the law was rolled out, almost every intersection got a sign.

However, it doesn't follow by any kind of logic that if there were fewer signs, Massholes would respect them more.

I remember reading a column

By on

I remember reading a column just after that law passed, I don't remember who it was, but he basically said the state spent millions of dollars putting those signs up at every intersection when what they really should have done is put up a few "Turn on Red" signs at the couple of intersections they deemed ok to do so for a few hundred bucks. Too funny. Not much has changed in MA politics unfortunately.

Wrong

By on

They initially did that.

FEDERAL DOT said "nonstandard. no. You already have too may special exemptions. can't do that"

So they put them up everywhere and federal DOT said NOPE - only where necessary - not everywhere.

Get the story straight, please.

Whoa

By on

Seriously? My google-fu is failing me; do you have a cite for that? Not doubting the claim at all, just looking for verification... it would explain a lot.

Partially correct

My dad was scoffing at the "right turn permitted on red" signs when he visited me in college. They were supposed to be gone as of 1980 or so, but there were still a lot of them around.

The national standard was a default right turn on red permitted, with "no right turn" signs where justified, but MA was the final holdout for permitting these turns. The feds forced the issue.

Some Massachusetts communities hung on to the nonstandard signs for a long time, and the Fed did make MA replace them to match the national standards.

What is odd about MA is that most communities do not have traffic engineers, or at least did not have them in the 1980s. Consequently, selectmen and city councilors decided these things - which is why the "no turn on red" signs went up everywhere - even though the federal standard was that they were intended to be sparse.

Here's some more info: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/4/right-on-red-comes-to-bosto...

Massachusetts is the last state to implement the law. The federal government pushed the law through to make a uniform motor vehicle code, and the government threatened to withhold the state's national energy funds if the state did not pass the bill.

Odd

What is odd about MA is that most communities do not have traffic engineers

The electron microscope has not yet been built which is powerful enough to detect how little I am surprised by this revelation.

that is victim blaming and absolving the criminal

By on

Prefacing blaming the victim by claiming you aren't doesn't negate it.

So your general feeling is:
Pedestrians - you should be constantly looking back and forth constantly or its your fault
Drivers - Cant be expected to be paying attention all the time

You are up for any punishment even though you claim to do it multiple times a year? So 30 day license revocation for running a red light work for you? Year for drunk driving sound good. Driver shouldnt have to hit someone to be punished.

up
11

Seriously stfu

First I said I did it probably once every two years, and if I really think about it, it might be less than that. And yea, I do keep my head on a fucking swivel because there are people like this out there. And yea, I’m all for 60 day revocation for running a red light and 5 years for an OUIl

the dude did look both ways.

By on

the dude did look both ways. you can't tell from this angle if his head is actually down or not - especially with the hood, which unfortunately probably cut down on his peripheral vision. but, you know, with the weather being frigid you have to make compromises. almost got hit the other day by a car swinging a hard right onto a side road I was crossing (no lights, he was coming off a major road into a residential) and didn't see him with my winter gear on.

maybe instead of victim blaming we should put more responsibility on the person inside the climate controlled box to wait an extra two seconds while we peasants scurry around in the cold.

up
11

Are you kidding me?

This pedestrian had zero idea a car was coming. Zero. Unless he has some sort of pain fetish, this guy walked with his head down. I would never do that, it’s really that simple.

You know what is really simple?

You are making excuses for the driver "oh just zoned out! everyone does!" and then blaming the victim for being violently impacted by the bad driver operating their vehicle in an illegal manner.

You are the one who needs to STFU. Normal people don't act like this - are you morally bankrupt or just brainwashed/damaged from years of testalying practice?

Or is that you running down that pedestrian while running a red light?

They are not excuses.

I’m all for a harsher punishment for this guy that even you probably want. What do you think the reason was why this driver did that? Because he was an evil person who hates pedestrians? I don’t give a fuck why the driver hit the pedestrian. But he did it for a reason right? Glare, inattention, medical issue, negligence, recklessness, who cares? Those are all excuses as to why the driver hit the pedestrian and yes, when I cross any street in Boston I always look both ways, reglarless if I have a walk signal, cars are stopped or whatever. I tell my kids the same thing.

Just because your uncle invented the crosswalk, doesn’t mean I have to keep my head down while crossing them.

They are not excuses.

I’m all for a harsher punishment for this guy that even you probably want. What do you think the reason was why this driver did that? Because he was an evil person who hates pedestrians? I don’t give a fuck why the driver hit the pedestrian. But he did it for a reason right? Glare, inattention, medical issue, negligence, recklessness, who cares? Those are all excuses as to why the driver hit the pedestrian and yes, when I cross any street in Boston I always look both ways, reglarless if I have a walk signal, cars are stopped or whatever. I tell my kids the same thing.

Just because your uncle invented the crosswalk, doesn’t mean I have to keep my head down while crossing them.

its not easy being a driver but

By on

pedx went from shade to sun and sun was blinding driver...but he should have stopped if light was red...this happens alot i remember in norwood a young person lost their lives about 15 years ago on a sunny morning..

Cover up

By on

There have been a couple more pedestrians run down in Southie but no publicity about them. The City has been quiet about them because they don’t want the public to think the pathetic actions taken after the young boy was killed on L Street is not working.