Hey, there! Log in / Register
Remembering a bicyclist
By adamg on Sat, 05/09/2020 - 11:07pm
Rev. Laura Everett says some words at a ghost-bike ceremony at Massachusetts and Harrison avenues today for Thomas Anderson, the bicyclist who died in a crash with a truck there on April 22. The photo is by Peter Cheung, a member of the local bicycling community who often is the person who paints bikes white for the memorials.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
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.
Comments
The ghost bikes freak me out
The ghost bikes freak me out - I am a casual biker and at some level of consciousness know that I am taking real risk - the bikes reinforce that in a very practical and a very artful way.
They should paint a dump
They should paint a dump truck white and park it in the intersection for all eternity, as a traffic calming memorial.
A Plane Crashed On Lonsdale Street in 1987
It knocked out four houses. The pilot was killed but all the occupants got out of the houses. Do you want a ghost plane put there?
My point exactly. Also, yes.
My point exactly. Also, yes.
Hey
Why the hell are you talking about a plane crash that happened 33 years ago. This article is about a cyclist who died bcuz they got hit by a truck. And my cousin got killed in a hit a run by a person driving a truck this year. The ghost bike is about bringing awareness to everyone. So stop being an idiot and an ignorant troll.
Usually, these ceremonies draw a crowd
In this case, the time was deliberately not announced so that people would not gather here.
Ghost bike
Are these supposed to send a message to drivers or cyclists? I always wonder if people notice them and what they think. To me, it sends the wrong message - "biking is deadly and when you die on your bike, we will memorialize your foolishness."
Where are the ghost cars?
Its for all
As a biker, I see it and reinforce the need to make myself visible, and to take the lane at anytime.
As a driver, I see it and remember there could be a bike anywhere around me anytime.
As a citizen, I see it and think we need better-designed street infrastructure for everyone.
"...take the lane at any time
"...take the lane at any time."
Amazing.
Your point?
Taking the lane where there is no room for a vehicle to pass is a well-established safety maneuver for cyclists.
And, yes, this is legal and we do have the right to do so.
If you are driving and can't deal with it? Stop driving until your anger management is sufficient that you can handle being around other legally operating vehicles and learn what "right of way" means. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Driving is a right
Just like cycling or walking. Or getting on a plane, for that matter. The "privilege" argument is just an excuse to go after a form of transit you don't like, or for governments to arbitrarily deny people access to something.
You need a license to walk or bike?
Kind of a big detail to gloss over when talking about privilege and comparing means of transit. Doubly so for flying, which requires an ID and you can also be banned from doing just like if you lose your license.
Last I checked you can't be banned from walking or biking. (Obviously there is some limited access for those methods,like you can't walk or bike on a highway.)
Airline ID requirement started in 1996
TWA flight 800 exploded over Long Island due to a fuel leak, but terrorism was suspected at first. The rule requiring the name on the ticket to match the ID was adopted, and retained even after the real reason was determined. Airlines liked the rule because it because it put an end to the resale of tickets.
Maybe someday you will be required to get a license to use a bike, or be required to wear a helmet. My point is that driving, cycling and walking are rights, not privileges that can be denied without a reason.
Your point, legally, is wrong
Nobody has a "right" to drive. It's not enumerated in the Constitution (unlike, say, the right to own a gun) and the state can take it away for reasons, including during a public-health emergency.
lol I thought you people were about small government
Nice self-own.
Good luck getting licenses and helmet laws passed, let alone enforced without rapidly expanding police forces and dedicating resources to check license and registration on a vehicle that children ride.
(Helmet laws for kids are still ok though)
Wasn't angry at all. Thanks
Wasn't angry at all. Thanks for projecting, though.
---
Let me break it down for you.
I was amazed (and said so!). Not that somebody would do that for actual safety, but the "anytime" part.
"Anytime" is the cliched illusion of safety/control/need bit, shrouded in legality and rights, and not actually safe.
- not wearing a seatbelt (back when it was legal not to) because of wanting to maintain control or not be trapped
- not wearing a helmet (in those states that permit it) when riding a motorcycle
- having guns stored in the house that aren't locked in some way when they're not on your person (where the law permits that) on the grounds of needing unimpeded access.
All four of those are just the same tired tune, and I'm amazed that anyone still wants to dance to it.
I don't think you know how this works
The alternative to taking the lane is to hug the edge of the road (or the side of parked cars), which AT ANY TIME could lead to your unexpectedly being projected into the street and into traffic, resulting in a much worse outcome. Speaking as someone who has been doored...
Can you explain
what's not actually safe about cyclists taking the lane? Honestly, the only time it's made me feel less safe is because of driver road rage, but presumably you're not suggesting that everyone modify their behavior to account for potential psychopaths on the road.
Rob
I pretty much take the lane everywhere I ride in Boston because I don’t have a death wish. I can take the verbal abuse from drivers but experience has taught never to trust them to keep a safe distance at a safe speed when passing me or to give me the right of way when they are making a turn.
Not ghost cars, but what
Not ghost cars, but what about all those crosses and weather-beaten stuffed animals you see at crash sites. I've told all my loved ones that if I die like that, remember how I lived, not where I died.
Real Nice
I am sure the murder victims would really appreciate you calling them foolish, except they can't because they were murdered.
Please don't misuse language
Negligent homicide is not murder.
Splitting hairs
In America, death by car is written off as the cost of doing business. How many killer drivers ever face consequences for their dangerous behavior? Drunkenness, distraction, speeding, and other forms of negligence are just dismissed.
Ok, but lack of prosecution
Ok, but lack of prosecution doesn't make something murder.
Has the truck operator been charged with anything?
Initial media reports were that the bicyclist ran the light. Certain bike advocate outlets have been very mum about the details, though they said details would be forthcoming, nothing from them two weeks on.
In the past where the operator of the much larger vehicle has been at fault, as was the deaths of bikers in Sullivan Square and at Mass Ave and Beacon, there has been justifiable vitriolic outcry.
Here, the reaction appears to have been much more muted from the biking community.
Everyone please slow down and obey traffic rules That means cars, bikes, and pedestrians. Thanks.
Good questions all, I would
Good questions all, I would love some follow up reporting on the accident and I guess if memorializing the cyclist brought some more attention on it so people like me hear what happened, so much the better.
Help me out here though, I don't see it reported anywhere that the victim ran a red light, are you sure you didn't just invent that detail?
Was Reported That Morning
Either BZ or FXT, I cannot remember which.
There has been no follow up. Most of the stories now are about local cops delivering infant formula to zoos or people driving by the house of the 10 year old whose Mom called the station for attention for their kid's birthday.
The fact that WaPo and UHub have been doing more Boston reporting than the Globe or the local tv stations lately has been very interesting.
The Globe has gone into a state of Jason's Mom At The Lake trying to blame Covid 19 deaths on salt piles in Chelsea while the tv stations just seem to give you the weather every 3 minutes. Piss poor in their actions I'd say.
As others noted
Someone commented here that they saw it.
Interesting that the reaction here was that we shouldn't jump to any conclusions until the investigation is complete, yet somehow a lot of people who comment at this webside are usually quick to blame the driver. Either way, it's a sad turn of events. As some have pointed out, the ghost bikes should remind all of us to take more care when we are other there, regardless of mode of transportation utilized.
What about that news report you kept citing?
You still haven't shown any reporting that the cyclist ran the red light.
https://www.universalhub.com/comment/779418#comment-779418
This is how garbage like this spreads, we've got two of you now on this thread saying you "heard" they ran a red light but oh gosh golly gee you can't find anything backing that up except for one anon comment on that thread.
Hell, the investigation may conclude that yes, the cyclist did run the red light and that'll be the factual reporting on this incident. Until then you haven't show credible reporting that cyclist was at fault.
https://www.google.com/search?q=massachusetts+ave+cyclist+red+light&safe...
We now have 4 UHub threads that are the top search results and both you and John Costello have cited the WBZ report that magically doesn't exist anywhere. You'd think a big narrative point like that would be highlighted if there was credible data to back it up.
Nothing from WBZ: https://boston.cbslocal.com/search/?q=cyclist+2020+april+massachusetts
But yes, great point, won't someone think of the poor drivers that get blamed for incidents like this by mean people on the internet. They are truly the victims here.
You're back on this
Now you've got two registered users who saw it on WBZ along with a comment from an anon who says they say the accident.
If you cannot admit that perhaps there is a chance that a bicyclist did something bad and paid a horrible price for it, fine, but that is on you. If you really care, the phone number for WBZ is (800) 642-1551. Call them and request the video of Lisa Hughes' comments when discussing the crash. Or just concede that several people heard what she said, along with with an witness posting his/her account on this website. Weird glasses you wear.
Isn't reading comprehension on of your usual responses?
There is me admitting that there is a chance that a bicyclist did something bad and paid a horrible price for it.
Haha yeah I'm not doing the work for you and John Costello, like I said if was a solid narrative to report on, they would have and we'd see if cited in plenty of places. Its not and so we should wait until the report is out before we draw conclusions. Now where have I heard that before?
And lets not forget, you implied that the cyclist deserved to die because they might have run the red light. I mean I don't really believe you did but hey if were staying consistent with your metrics for how implying goes it is what it is.
So, let me get this straight
You are saying that we should withhold judgement until the investigation is complete? Boy, it would be interesting to see your comments after other crashes.
I have mentioned the reporting. I have drawn your attention to a witness, repeatedly. That's what we have. Unless you have something else, that's all we have.
There you go implying things again
And of course that doesn't reflect that initial reports of crashes like this do vary with details that are provided, sometimes that does make it easier to draw conclusions before an official report comes out, sometimes not.
I mean if an anon comment is enough to convince you one way, whats stopping a cycling advocate from making an anon comment blaming the motorist? Whats stopping someone with an axe to grind about "cyclists" or in this case "drug addicts" as anon stated? Would you still carry that much stock in the anon comments?
A bystander also reported that a second car may have been involved but fled the scene. Mass Streetblog actually noted this, still haven't seen any reports about the cyclist running a red light though. Maybe they are biased?
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2020/04/22/truck-driver-kills-bicyclist-on-...
Thats all you've got and its not much to speak of, hence why we haven't seen any concrete reporting of it. In this case we wait for the report, which maybe very well say the cyclist was at fault.
one registered user
You are the only one on uhub. How do you attribute it to Lisa Hughes? This intersection has cameras, hopefully the answer is there.
Nope
Costello said WBZ or FXT. I remember who said it. It was Lisa Hughes, who was sitting in the studio when she said it.
Okay, if it wasn't Hughes, it was whoever is the anchor at 11.
Upon further review
It may have been Paula Ebben.
I thought she did the earlier broadcast, but there she is.
text book rumours
Taken all your comments together is is clear that you can't be sure, but you keep repeating it.
I do believe I've been consistent
I just mixed up which blonde anchors the 11 PM news. They all kind of look the same to me.
And I'm guessing that you are calling John Costello a liar as well? I mean, you've already taken the actual witness who posted the day it happened to task (and to be fair, I missed that comment originally.)
Its the same problem
John Costello recalls a different news story than you. Doesn't it seem odd that this isn't archived anywhere? You have demonstrated poor reading comprehension in the past. Only you know whether it is dishonest. The only record that has been found is comments on other articles. You are spreading a rumor without foundation. There are several cameras at this intersection. I hope the investigation is clear and public.
Okay, so here's the deal
Back in the day, I found out that an acquaintance was a 9/11 Truther person. They lent me some videos, which I watched with a critical eye.
Part of the theory is that it was not passenger aircraft that flew into the World Trade Center towers, but tanker planes presumably from some governmental agency. Part of their proof? A video of the second plane flying over people on the way to the South Tower. At one point, someone says "that is not an American Airlines plane." It wasn't, and that doesn't matter, because it was a United Airlines plane (carrying a classmate of mine), and it did hit the South Tower.
I mention that because you are like the 9/11 Truther people. A witness comments on this website, you dismiss it. I claim that I saw mention of the crash on the news that night, with the anchor saying the victim ran a red light, and you dismiss it because I confuse who was the anchor that night over a week ago. Another commenter (the beginning of this thread, I will note) corroborates this, and you dismiss that, too. Again, that is three different people making the same observation.
We've done this enough in the past. When presented with information that contradicts you, you refuse to concede. It's what you do. Perhaps it's based on some condition you have. You make your own reality, and nothing can shake that.
Wow
This seems like classic projection. You have acknowledged that you don't know exactly where you heard this, and you can't find any record of this report. John Costello does not "corroborate" your story. He repeating the rumor. From his comments, he didn't hear it directly. You can't find any documentation that this report exists, but you spend so many words calling me a "truther". It seems obvious that you are insecure about your assertion.
If such a report exists, which I reasonably doubt, then consider why they would withdraw it. Thomas Anderson was a person. It is unkind to speculate in this way.
I looked on Street View and found several cameras at that intersection. The truth will be in that CCTV footage.
Your logic
Never ceases to amaze me.
You should be amazed at logic because you are not good at it.
Intentional fallacies
Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi): 911 truthers
Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem) : me in every reply
Assume the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principii): Hearsy comments prove that the news story exists because hearsy comments were made
Making jumps in logic (non sequitur) : comments about running a red light mean that cyclist is at fault
Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning) So many people (3) saw the news story so it must exist
Creating a "false dilemma" ("either-or fallacy") in which the situation is oversimplified: either John Costello is lying or news report exists
Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy)proof of 911 attack = proof that this cyclist ran a redlight (or that a news story about him running light exists)
Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization): asserting that John Costello's, Onscene and your comments agree on the facts
Or maybe I have it all wrong and your entire account is just a long winded prank about mansplaining.
Yikes
Is there a Goodwin's law equivalent for drawing comparison to 9/11 Truthers?
Again, if an anon comment is enough to convince you one way, whats stopping a cycling advocate from making an anon comment blaming the motorist? Whats stopping someone with an axe to grind about "cyclists" or in this case "drug addicts" as anon stated? Would you still carry that much stock in the anon comments?
Also what about the hit and run driver that Streetblogs reported on? Did your news broadcast mention that? Why didn't the anon commentator mention that?
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2020/04/22/truck-driver-kills-bicyclist-on-...
Hey why not throw in some casual misogyny while you're at it.
Give me a better comparison
Look, despite our disagreements over time, I think we can both agree that we are based in reality. You seem to at least concede that perhaps Costello and I saw something about this on TV. You probably concede than some person alleging to be a witness commented on this website shortly after the crash. Why cinnamngrl starts commenting, reality often goes out the window. Could I remember which anchor (btw, I would say it was misogyny if I confused blonde and non-blonde female anchors) read the report weeks later? It appears not, but I did give a description of her. I hate to break it to you, but that doesn't mean that I didn't hear what I heard. It doesn't mean Costello didn't hear what he heard. Again, if it doesn't dovetail with what you want to have happened, so be it, but if it comes out that in fact what was reported on the news happened, how will you deal with it?
"Some people are saying"
Probs a better comparison for your line of reasoning, you heard it from someone who heard it from someone but oddly enough, no one is reporting on. Thats a pretty big narrative to leave out of the published article but oddly include in just the tv broadcast that can't be found anywhere.
Speaking of narratives and reporting, what about Streetsblog mentioning bystander reports (plural) seeing a hit and run vehicle involved in the crash?
You've carefully ducked addressing that a few times now but still hold a lotta stock in the anon comment.
Again, if an anon comment is enough to convince you one way, whats stopping a cycling advocate from making an anon comment blaming the motorist? Whats stopping someone with an axe to grind about "cyclists" or in this case "drug addicts" as anon stated? Would you still carry that much stock in the anon comments?
cinnamngrl and I have pretty much been on the same page, we gotta wait for the official report to know what truly happened. You seem pretty deadset on the cyclist running the red light and so far have one emotionally charged anon comment to back it up. You see the difference yeah?
And nah, the misogyny is pretty apparent in the choice of words.
EDIT:
Also wanted to address this.
Reading comprehension seems to be an issue for you, I already said the official report may very well find out the cyclist was at fault.
you are the only one that concluded fault
I have said over and over, there are are cameras and we should be able to know the truth.
I've learned something about you
You are under the age of 35, and most likely under the age of 30.
Not everything is on the internet.
The more you know, eh?
I'm actually 35
You still haven't shown an article reporting on the red light running.
There is a report from Streetsblog that about bystanders mentioning a hit and run vehicle that might have shared responsibility in the crash.
Next!
Oh, brother
Okay, come over my house and we can watch the VHS tape of the news broadcast, because I use my VCR to record every nights' broadcast.
My faith in your understanding on information is really, really slipping. If you want me to explain the concept that not everything is on the internet, I could, but it won't come across well.
News stories are archived digitally
This is a classic memory bias called source confusion.
Silly child
No, not everything is archived on the internet.
Specific to this particular story, I have recently noticed how much of the news is the anchors reading a script of the story while footage is played. This is much different than the pre-recorded reporting that television stations put on their websites. This is not a new thing. Several times recently, I have noticed news helicopters hovering over the neighborhood only to have the only sources of the "breaking news" being a snip-it posted by Adam, who most likely was curious about the noise and put on the bank of TVs in the news bureau to track down the source. The reality is that while the stations most likely record their news broadcasts, they don't upload them.
Information illiteracy is bad, but it grows every day.
Why would their digital
Why would their digital archive be on the internet? Wbz has directions for requesting footage. All these intentional fallacies in your arguments indicate that you have realized your mistake. So many insults.
I agree
Yet two of you are doubting what was aired yet refuse to do the research. Funny how that works out.
I have done the research
No such story was aired. Funny how that works out.
Except
I saw what was on the news, as did another registered user. Moreover, an anon posted on this website that he was a witness that day, which I know you saw since you commented on the comment.
Are we back on this again? Are you really a denier?
Source confusion is real, look it up
But what is most telling is that you refuse to ask wbz for the clip or a transcript. You know that no Boston newscaster said that. You mixed it up with a comment you read. Or you made it up to be smarmy.
Delusional you are
Again, I wasn't the only one who saw that who has commented here.
I know what I saw. I know what you read before I saw what I saw. Why you are insistent that Costello and I didn't see anything on this on the TV news is beyond me.
the facts don't support the existance of the news story
you claim that you weren't the only one that saw the story.
argumentum ad populum does not prove that the news story exists. But even so, you don't have actual agreement with more than yourself. the registered user John Costello never stated "I saw it"
and
He is just repeating what he read, probably in your comments. OnScene, the unregistered user, claimed to be a witness. He did not report a news story. He also called the victim a "Meleana Cass regular" and a drug addict.
Now the time line. The accident happened at 9am on 4/22, and the UHub story was posted at 11:15am. WBZ filed their story online at 3:14pm Onscene posted his comment at 4:56pm.
You posted on 4/23 at 1:18pm that you saw a news story the night before. At 5:14pm, spin posted a request for more info on the story because he could not find the red light running in any publication. At 8:21pm, you specified that it was WBZ.
On 4/24 at 10:40am Spin posted the WBZ story with a link to the video. That story does not mention a redlight.
on 5/10 John Costello posted 2 comments. His 2nd comment said it was reported that morning. In fact Uhub was the first filed story that I could find at 11am, so it seems that if he was referring to a story he saw (which I doubt) it was news at noon.
So according to your claims, At noon, 5pm and/or 11pm WBZ made a news report stating that the cyclist ran a read light. But the online story shows a date of 3pm, which may be the first filing or the last update. For your claims of a news story to be true it would mean that they filed one story before 3pm, updated that story to remove the redlight, and then played the old story (or read the old copy) at 11pm. This does not seem possible. It would also seem that WBZ wants to retract or cover up this information, also not likely. Then about 2 weeks later John Consello made two comments that agree with you (why didn't he mention this in April? he made several comments on the first article. what does he say now?)
You have spent weeks repeatedly using 7 out of 11 classic intentional fallacies to argue this claim, but haven't added any evidence. Generally intentional fallacies describe an attempt to deceive the audience. This would be consistent with your history of "hot takes" and argumentative trolling with anyone that calls you out on the facts. I really believe that this is a false memory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory
It is similar to your seal lion trolling. I don't believe you that you do it on purpose. It is the results of constantly pronouncing your opinion without bothering to read or learn anything about the subject. Your reactions may actually be genuine, but that is actually more unfortunate for you.
Your brain is fun
And it was American Airlines Flight 77, not a missile, that hit the Pentagon.
Hmm.
There are several news stories that are available to read on this tragedy.mention witnesses at the scene
https://whdh.com/news/like-a-horror-movie-witness-recalls-shocking-momen...
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2020/04/22/truck-driver-kills-bicyclist-on-...
For some reason, none of these stories mention the cyclist running a red light despite having spoken to witnesses at the scene. Which one of us is denying the available evidence? I think that we will know the truth if investigators are able to use the camera's surrounding this intersection. For time being, Waliquot is the Alex Jones of his own false analogy
I saw that too
I don't remember where, but I definitely read a report about the cyclist running a red light.
It was an anon comment
And somewhat emotionally charged, in my and others opinion.
https://www.universalhub.com/comment/779278#comment-779278
So far, no actual reporting from any news agencies have cited it. It may turn out to be true when the actual report is released but when narratives like that are credible, they are reported on it.
Not a comment
I saw it in a news article right after it happened, I just don't remember the source.
I only saw it was initially suggested..
.. he may have been running a red light.
Whatever the case, this is one more bit of evidence as to why trucks that size do not belong on city streets.
Really?
Isn’t it also evidence that running a red light: on bicycle or via car, is a very bad idea
this is one more bit of
Why?
in the comments section
I saw it in the comments section of Uhub and other sites but no news reports. There are a number of cameras visible in that intersection on street view. Hopefully we will learn the truth.
Invent?
I see cyclists whiz through red lights all the time. It’s very dangerous
Whats your point?
I see cars whiz through red lights all the time. It’s very dangerous.
And compared to bikes...
the cars are killing/injuring a lot more people when they do that...
I'm not saying they were
I'm not saying they were foolish. I'm just worried ghost bikes send this message "biking is dangerous" to the public at large. Sincerely curious what others think of them. I am on my bike every day.
To me, these memorials say, "if some negligent asshole runs you over, there will be no Justice, and your bicycle will be displayed as a warning to the others."
there isn't justice when negligent drivers maim or kill
I am (in normal times) a daily bike commuter. Biking is dangerous in Boston, I do it bc I like biking, it is efficient, and I am not rich or connected to have free parking at work. A memorial that reminds us that leaders like Walsh and Baker dont care that biking is dangerous is good. Pretending its not doesnt make it so.
And the memorial saying "if some negligent asshole runs you over, there will be no Justice" is correct. You wont. The police will do everything they can to say oh well its an accident, like they did for the scientist who was killed by the hit and run driver in Kenmore several years ago before they had even tracked the killer down. They decided it was just an accident. Before even catching him, much less hearing what he said.
So a memorial saying biking in Boston is dangerous because of a lack of interest from police and politicians is doing its job. Much older cities (ie Amsterdam or Copenhagen) and more car dependent and colder American cities (Minneapolis) are much safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. They made a choice to be safer, and the people in power in Boston make a choice. Maybe we can change that choice, but not if we dont talk about it and prosecute not just the killers, but the people who drive dangerously every day who havent killed anyone yet (speeding, running lights, parking in bike lanes and on sidewalks, using their phone, not using their blinkers, driving drunk, etc.)
Creepy
Those ghost bikes are creepy. I am truly sorry for those who have died, and, as a pedestrian I can attest that yes the traffic in this city is awful and drivers are often careless. But I'm not sure those ghastly bikes serve any constructive purpose and almost border on being pretentious. Surely there is a better way to honor the dead.
Biking IS dangerous
That doesn't mean it's the cyclists' fault that this is the situation.
I’ve never seen a ghost car.
But I’ve seen plenty of makeshift memorials on the sides of highways and busy roads.
Ghost cars of a sort
Ghost cars of a sort (slightly more of a suburban thing) - police departments will collaborate with MADD & SADD groups to deposit a wreck on the front lawn of the local high school during prom season.
Where's the memorial
Where's the memorial to all the drivers who have been slightly inconvenienced by sharing the road with cyclists?
Slightly? Have you tried
Slightly? Have you tried driving through mass ave?
Let's face there's plenty of
Let's face there's plenty of blame on all sides, Masshole drivers, Masshole bicyclists, Masshole pedestrians.
wrong
most of the blame belongs to the drivers.
Fun facts about "distracted pedestrians"
https://twitter.com/KMRalph/status/1260247469176176641
There are 3 main empirical findings:
Pedestrians ain't the problem.