Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Terrible
So sad to hear this. I feel like there were a bunch of bicycle accidents (several fatal) in the Boston area a few years ago, but nothing lately. I was hoping all the new bike lane markings were working to keep cyclists safe.
not all lanes created equal
There are some parts of mass ave that have quality bike infrastructure, that is curb and/or parking protected bike lanes. This intersection is not one of them. Huntington has no protections at all while this intersection and the block in both directions are simply painted bicycle gutters, that leave bicyclists in the turn zone of trucks and busses. This emphasizes the necessity of actually building quality infrastructure, not simply doing the bare minimum and calling it a day. An unsafe bike lane has particular dangers, as it provides an illusion of safety while not actually providing it.
This must be a wake up call that we need to do far more to provide protected and contiguous bike infrastructure.
Hey, now! The City Put Up A Sign!
I’m in total agreement. This particular stretch of Mass Ave from Westland to Tremont is some of the most dangerous for cyclists.
It’s like the city simply gave up trying to make that stretch safe for everyone. They threw up a sign on the Huntington intersection reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians and cyclists then called it a day. Like speed limits, signs do little to impact driver behavior. Roads need to be designed to encourage the desired behavior.
Safety features are only as
Safety features are only as good as the people using them. Seems like even though the lane was clearly marked, the driver wasn't paying attention enough to notice the biker right next to him.
I've been in that area a lot and it's a very tight space, I used to hop up onto the sidewalk specifically because big trucks would be taking right turns there without any form of signaling.
Signals
How can you say "Seems like even though the lane was clearly marked, the driver wasn't paying attention enough to notice the biker right next to him." Were you there in the drivers seat?
How can a biker see a turn signal if they are riding parallel to the truck?
There are things called 'blind spots' in every type of vehicle....
Easy
First, if you as a driver, are crossing another lane to make a turn, you have to yield. Did that happen? So what conclusions are you able to draw?
Second, trucks have turn signals at all four corners (at least) so you can see turn signals from alongside the truck. If you couldn't, how do you think this would work on a multi-lane highway?
There’s also a sign which the driver ignored…
The infrastructure here is terrible we can all agree.
The driver certainly missed the cyclist and according to witnesses wasn’t even looking so blind spot arguments are somewhat moot. But the driver also ignored the sign placed on that corner specifically informing drivers to yield to pedestrians and cyclists when turning. Despite this reminder to check, they did not.
It’s careless and/or unskilled driving, pure and simple. Getting a driver’s license is already frighteningly easy here. Getting a CDL is only slightly more difficult given the potential for death and injury is so much greater. There need to be consequences for this kind of carelessness.
But the city bears responsibility for the terrible design of this area. Study after study show that traffic signs do not significant impact driver behavior. Instead roads need to be designed specifically to encourage safe driving.
Go pound sand
So now "I can murder someone if I don't bother to notice that I'm passing him AND I HAVE BLIND SPOTS".
Eat merde.
Corners are the most dangerous places
and unfortunately all the markings in the world won't stop drivers from making a blind turn across a bike lane. There's basically no such thing as a "protected bike lane" when it comes to intersections. (Yes, the Dutch intersection design is good, but it partially relies on *signal timing*, and doesn't help with unsignaled side streets.)
This is actually a huge part of why I don't like bike lanes, and prefer riding in-line with traffic: Drivers might be annoyed, but they won't fail to see me.
Boston doesn’t build protected lanes well
First of all these lanes are not protected here. A protected lane should be protected through the corner with crossings clearly marked. Boston almost never does this instead protected lanes where they exist usually end right before intersections dumping you out into traffic. That is a dangerous design. A protected lane like they do it in the Netherlands or Germany where it continues all the way to the intersection, there is demarcated space for bikes on the curb, a clear right of way across the street, and even a light specifically for bike crossings do not pose these same issues. The problem here is that they half assed it, pained the gutter and called it a day. Protected lanes in this section of mass ave likely would have prevented this.
Riding in traffic is far less safe and protected bike infrastructure improves safety for everyone. Numerous studies reflect this. Numerous studies also reflect that if the only option is to ride in traffic most people (especially women, and children) will simply not bike at all.
Taking the lane advice just seems so tone deaf
I don't need Mike from Woburn tailgating me because I decided to take the lane and he's in a rush to get to the next red light and has an axe to grind because he saw a cyclist run a red light once.
Especially the perception that creates for newer riders or people considering getting on a bike. Its a non-starter for some people.
Seems like robust European-esque infrastructure works, like raised portions through intersections for bikes and pedestrian crossing. I get that were aren't getting it on all roads. I know it can't be everywhere and NIMBYs will complain about lost parking/perceived congestion and the police aren't doing enough to make the roads safer.
I dunno, do we need strict liability laws to curb dangerous driving? Traffic cameras? Lotta good making the city speed limit 25 MPH when there is no enforcement.
I use my experiences on the Comm. Ave lanes as an example for why protected lanes work, sure there are pain points at the intersections that require me to look over my shoulder and there are still the morons that don't yield. But its infinitely safer that it was with with the bike lane providing no protection and cutoffs/hooks could happen anywhere. With the new setup, I know where the conflict zones are.
Oh it's ridiculous
The people who advise "just take the lane" either don't bike or easily bike 25-30 mph.
Literally just about every day, I see construction or municipal vehicles blocking the bike lanes. I 311 this and tweet about it if I can identify the culprit such as police, NU police, NU construction, utility company, particular city department, etc. They don't care. I've spoken to the offenders and asked, if it's something like necessary construction, if they can put up cones or have someone directing cyclists safely around the obstruction. When it appears there's no reason for a cop to be chilling in a bike lane, I ask if they wouldn't mind blocking the travel lane, pulling into a legal spot, or getting out to direct cyclists safely around. Oh, I should add that 99% of the time I am biking, I have children with me. One who frequently bikes behind me is visibly disabled. People who AREN'T blocking bike infrastructure often notice my teen and say unsolicited patronizing things suggesting my kid is either a miracle for existing or pitying them for being slightly independent instead of safely institutionalized, so I'm going to say it's obvious to most people my kid can't dart out into traffic safely.
They don't get it. They say there's no reason to do any of that. They say just go around. There's no reason for cones or assistance directing traffic. They really think that children, disabled folks, seniors -- the people who really need bike infrastructure the most -- can safely dart out into 30+mph traffic or weave alongside gridlocked traffic.
Some of the lycraheads in the cycling advocacy groups will say this same "just take the lane" shit. I give them one chance, explaining that children/seniors/disabled folks might not be able to do this safely, and they usually say they should be riding on the sidewalk. Even people in the cyclist community don't get there's anything between elite cyclists and toddlers who ride pedestrian speed.
We totally need Netherlands-style curbs/barriers/similar or protected by the parking lane (but with proper islands/narrowing at the intersections so cop cars and UPS trucks can't enter them like they do right in front of the NU police station) and a law that any obstruction of them barring an absolute life-threatening emergency requires a coned detour or someone directing traffic. The bike lanes as they are are largely useless. We have to leave super early to make sure we have time to walk bikes on the sidewalk if the bike lane is blocked. I have to accompany a kid who should be able to bike alone, because kid rides a cargo bike due to things they need to transport, and can't really lift this up when curb cuts are all blocked.
Speaking of illegal parking
You know what I see way less of on Comm. Ave. since the new bike lanes? Double parking.
And it hasn't resulted in disaster for the businesses needing deliveries, ubers dropping off students, tour buses at the Paradise, etc. All thanks to the bike lane being made parking protected.
Now of course further up into Allston, we have our fancy new bus lane thats been blocked by construction on Brighton pretty much since its inception. And the double parking even further up near Harvard Ave. No amount of Bos 311s helps, BPD/BTD roll right by without batting an eye.
Yes!
There is way less, but people do still sometimes pull in at the intersections and block it. Usually rideshare and food delivery in that area.
I didn't give advice, just stated why I do it.
As eeka said, the people who *do* give that advice can usually ride fast. And yes, I can ride fast, which is part of why I feel comfortable taking the lane -- I can often match the speed limit.
I *will* advise people to take the lane in certain circumstances, such as when a bike lane is in the door zone, or the road is certain width that tempts drivers to do dangerous passes, or when making a left turn.
But I don't tell other people to do it as a broad statement.
Unclear Reporting
Did the truck take a right or a left? How does a story like this go to print?
Even worse
Even worse is the completely victim blaming line of "And the bicyclist has got to realize the truck is going around them, that is like a bus" while the driver faces no charges for vehicular homicide and the bicyclist is dead. Victim blaming pure and simple.
victim blaming
im sorry that this person died such a terrible death. unless the truck driver made a totally careless and dangerous turn i'm also sorry for the truck driver who was involved and has to live with this for the rest of their life. i've driven a truck in boston many times and it can be difficult with the narrow lanes, pedestrians. cyclists and other traffic. i have seen countless asshole truck drivers with very little regard for pedestrians, lane restrictions and cyclists. i have also seen many asshole cyclists that ride wherever they want with no regard to stop signs, crosswalks, light cycles and lane restrictions. cyclists have to realize that trucks are going to make turns and make sure they do everything they can to protect themselves in every situation as much as truck drivers have to be aware of everything happening around them as they move through the city.
edit: im not saying the person that died yesterday did anything wrong, im just speaking of the things i have seen.
"things that I have seen"
But if they're not germane to this situation, it does feel a bit victim-blamey to bring them up in this context.
Nothing you say is new, and I'm not saying that to be critical of you. I'm just pointing out that maybe it doesn't need to be said right here and now.
Residents have to realize there are going to be home invasions.
Doesn't that sound stupid? Now re-evaluate your statement:
It is always the fault of the truck, always the fault of the home invader. To say otherwise implies that it is unreasonable to demand safety.
sums up the whole problem
This driver committed vehicular homicide and bostonkid has sympathy for the driver. As dangerous as guns are, cars kill more people. Would you have the same sympathy for a person that carries a unregistered gun because they have been threatened? Will you stand up for them if they shoot someone they didn't mean to?
No one drives a car by accident. The driver must yield to any obstruction before making the turn. It is irrelevant whether that car, pedestrian or cyclist is in the way legally. Not only is it wrong to blame the victim, but it is also wrong feel any need to defend the victim. But near here, a garbage truck driver was found not guilty because the person they illegally back over was found to have headphones. The deceased victim was not wearing the headphones, they were found under the body. The implication that the pedestrian might have worn headphones was enough for the jury to vote not guilty.
Oh you poor baby
Wahhh wahhh waahhh bikes whaaaaghh
FTFY
Get out of your cage and participate in a city properly or move to some strodified suburb made for obligatory transhuman mobility.
It's right in the article:
It's right in the article:
"One witness said the two were traveling side by side but then the truck took a left.
“Not looking. The truck, no looking,” another witness said."
Right
The video said truck was turning right.
What sad news. I saw this on the news yesterday evening and all they said was the cyclist was taken away conscious. It sounded encouraging. Hearing it now and seeing the bicycle this morning, man, terrible.
Agreed.
Agreed.
If sounded like - truck driver made left, hit person on bike, so bike was probably to the left of the truck.
If the truck was making a left, the bit about the right-side mirror doesn't make much sense. (I mean, yeah, you gotta check all your mirrors and sides anyway, but...).
Also, where in that area would they be traveling side by side with the bike on the left?
Unless... it was a large truck that swung right first to lead into a left turn. That would fit the description.
Cyclist could have been preparing to turn left
and was therefore in the left lane. And it's quite common for cyclists to move at the same pace as the rest of traffic, or even overtake other vehicles. (Which can be a very dangerous situation, as drivers don't even have the advantage of just having seen you as they passed.)
The story is pretty unclear, but "turning vehicle hits bike" is how deaths happen, whether left or right. My impression is that basically all other collisions are non-fatal, with the most common being someone opening a door into the path of a bike without checking behind them first.
(Right-hooks/left-hooks are also usually non-fatal, because they usually involve a car. When it involves a big truck, though...)
I know this won't stop people from being killed this way, but I still want to see prosecutions and prison time and/or loss of license for drivers who kill cyclists. It's inexcusable, and it's literally the least that could be done.
Yes, possible and even likely
Yes, possible and even likely, if the part about right-side mirror was a bad statement or bad proofreading.
What I suggested was a possible explanation of how 'left turn' and 'right side mirror' could both be correct.
Maybe instead of a ghost bike...
They should paint the mangled wreck of his bike white and hang it 10 feet above the road so it hits trucks like the "CARS ONLY" signs on Storrow.
I mean it won't stop them from killing any more cyclists any more than those signs stop Storrowings. But it might break a few windshields and keep more trucks off the road.
You're not wrong
When are we going to do what civilized countries do and ban trucks in cities?
Require a one-time permit and fee for anything that literally cannot be transported another way, like huge beams to construction sites. Everything else gets transported on highways to distribution centers where it's loaded into vans, small box trucks, cargo bikes, etc.
Soil/rocks are small items. No reason for a huge dump truck to travel to worksites in a city. Take more trips in the ones that are basically on a compact car chassis like in much of the world.
How about this?
Rent a dump truck.
Dump a huge load of rocks wherever a dump truck driver kills somebody while driving with their head up their ass.
Problem solved.
Do you think turtle boy will
Do you think turtle boy will publish the driver's name?