Crash site. Photo by Epic Stratton.
Updated.
A Quincy motorist plowed into a pedestrian crossing Massachusetts Avenue in front of the Orange Line station around 6 a.m., then just drove away, police say.
The victims remains in critical condition at a local hospital, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Lawrence Stead, 69, of Quincy, was arrested later in the morning in Quincy, after police traced the license-plate number of the gray, 1999 Mercury Marquis seen leaving the scene to his home.
Stead is scheduled for arraignment tomorrow in Boston Municipal Court on a charge of leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident, the DA's office reports.
WBZ reports Stead is a retired Cambridge cop.
Massachusetts Avenue was shut for much of the morning as police investigated the crash.
Innocent, etc.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
It might be stupid to cross
By Whatev
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 2:05pm
It might be stupid to cross when you don't have the signal, but nothing justifies a hit-and-run. Whoever is in the position of greater power has the responsibility to move defensively - and in this case, that's the driver of the big heap of metal. When you get behind a wheel of a car you agree to accept that pedestrians will do stupid things, but as the person with a car, you will not plow them down vindictively. And if you do ACCIDENTALLY hit a pedestrian - because hey, accidents happen - you agree to stop, not speed away and leave them to die like a rat. If you can't agree to that, turn in your decent human being license.
Are you seriously blaming the victim?
By Neal
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 2:08pm
You've repeatedly displayed that sort of twisted logic here Mark. If you think that somehow justifies hitting a pedestrian, you should probably forfeit your driver's license before you kill or injure someone. Regardless of who had the right of way, someone was hit by a car that then drove away. The person that was hit is the victim. With the possible exception of a pedestrian darting into the path of a moving automobile, I can't think of a scenario where having the right of way justifies a motorist striking a pedestrian. Nothing justifies them driving away. If they weren't aware that they hit something, they probably shouldn't be operating an automobile on the public way. Rule number one of driving is to not hit people or objects on or off the roadway. The operator of the automobile is obligated to stop for anything in the way, regardless of whether it is supposed to be there or not. This isn't two people bumping into each other, this is the case of a person operating a 3,000 lb automobile striking a person with the automobile. That's why there is a licensing scheme, rules governing operation and consequences for those who have proven that they are unable to follow those rules. Liability for the safe operation of the automobile is assumed by the driver. Right of way does not excuse liability in cases like this.
Of COURSE Markkk is blaming
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 2:11pm
Of COURSE Markkk is blaming the victim! You must be new here.
Just to balance people like you
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:08pm
who would blame a motorist if if somebody jumped off a building or bridge and hit a car!
What a brilliant response!
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:15pm
Because jumping off a bridge is exactly like crossing the street. I can't remember the last time I drove down a city street and didn't see people jumping off of bridges and buildings on every other block. I guess my so-called common sense is no match for your incredible intellect.
Where do you get that?
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 2:37pm
That I ever claimed it was OK to hit a pedestrian or run? Right of Way rules help people know when they should yield to another boat/ship on the water or user on the street. Thankfully on the subway and railways, operators obey signals and drivers obey crossing lights and gates. When a car driver OR pedestrian ignores a train crossing signal and gets hit by a train, are they also an innocent victim?
Tho only excuse for not stopping after an accident is imminent personal danger, and that is seldom the situation. I've never claimed otherwise.
what?
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:25pm
"Tho only excuse for not stopping after an accident is imminent personal danger, and that is seldom the situation. I've never claimed otherwise."
Except for right here, where you claimed that the driver may not have stopped because it's just such a bother keeping track of one's license, registration, excise, and insurance:
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20140319/pedestr...
Not excuse
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:50pm
The subject speculated upon was why the driver did not stop, not at all whether or not it was OK. Huge difference.
Lesson for me: Already know many people don't get jokes. New: reading comprehension varies widely too.
I counted to 20
By Belmont
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 5:36pm
I'm sure you're perpetually delighted with yourself that you're your own best audience. Get a Kickstarter going for your own
"reality" show. I'm sure the donations will be overwhelming. Also noted: your glasses don't make you any smarter than you like to think you are.
Well ...
By Somebody Else.
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 2:22pm
... only emergency vehicles displaying lights and sirens can be said to "have the right of way". Nobody else -ever- has the legal right of way; it's merely a matter of whether or not you are obliged to yield to something-or-other. Non-emergency vehicles facing a green light, for example, must still yield before pedestrians in a crosswalk.
Wrong
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 2:42pm
Wrong. If there is a light or a signal, pedestrians have to stop for it.
Crosswalk does not help you there.
The word for this is jaywalking. It is technically illegal in MA. In many US and Canadian cities you can (and will) be ticketed for it.
I dare you to take your foolish misinterpretations of the law to Calgary or Toronto ... they might even jail you.
Not quite
By Matthew
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:37pm
A pedestrian in the crosswalk has the right-of-way. For example, suppose the pedestrian began crossing and the light changed before they could reach safety. That does not mean open season on their life. The vehicles must yield until the pedestrian finishes crossing.
What the laws do say is that pedestrians are not to begin crossing when there is a signalized crosswalk and the signal displays the "Don't Walk" indication.
This is a false statement. The law does not refer to the term "jaywalking" in MA. The reason is: the term "jaywalking" is not a formal, legal name for an act; it is just a slur used by angry drivers and it is hurled as invective against pedestrians.
Nope
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 7:59pm
Pedestrians do not have the right of way if there is a light that is not in their favor, crosswalk or no.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/T... explicitly states:
You really should travel more, Matthew - you have such great theories of public space use and city design, but they are not grounded properly in observational experience of how cities really work. I'd love to see you preach at a cop in Toronto, get buzzed by a motorist in Dublin or Edinburgh, or get ticketed in Seattle or Portland - all of these cities cater to pedestrians far more than Boston does, but they also require pedestrians to do their part and follow rules.
Swirly... please re-read
By Matthew
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 9:06pm
You've completely misinterpreted that section of MGL. I am aware of it. Yes, the first paragraph pertains to unsignalized crosswalks (or broken signals). However, that is not the paragraph that I am talking about, nor the situation.
I previously stated that a person who is in the crosswalk, regardless of signal, has the right-of-way. Another way of phrasing it, which might be simpler is: if you're already crossing, you have the right to get to a safe place, even if the light turns against you.
There is no case under which it is legal to run someone over, even if they made a mistake, or if they were caught in the middle of the roadway. I don't know why you would think that.
As "Somebody Else" pointed out, paragraph 2 explicitly states that a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk has the right to cross and that the vehicle shall not enter the crosswalk until it is safe. And that applies no matter what the traffic signal says. MGL has that written, explicitly.
Now, in 720CMR9 it states that a pedestrian must follow the pedestrian signals, if present, and cannot enter the crosswalk if the signal says no. But that is a different situation from what I brought up, and from what may have transpired today. And nothing, in no law, nor regulation, permits a driver to strike a pedestrian, regardless of situation!
Regarding my theories, well, I don't live in Toronto or wherever, I live in Boston. And here, we have a system that has evolved based on the idea that BTD/DPW will do a crap job, and in return, pedestrians will ignore the poorly timed signals and unfriendly infrastructure. A cop handing out a ticket in Toronto doesn't weigh against me. It just means that Toronto PD and/or city government is run by assholes who care about cars more than people. Nothing too surprising about that, really! I mean, look, it's "Crack-smokin mayor" ROB FORD! He was elected because Toronto was forcibly merged with a bunch of its suburbs, and he is a manifestation of the latter.
And you are wrong according to how that law is interpreted
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 9:33pm
I did not in any way misinterpret this law - you simply want the world to be other than it really is.
The leading sentence is clear: pedestrians have the right of way in the crosswalk when there is not a light or signal. When there is a light or signal, they have to wait their turn like other road users.
Here's what a pedestrian accident lawyer has to say:
This is how the law is INTERPRETED. Not how Matthew thinks it should be - how the COURTS read it. A personal injury lawyer would damn well know that.
Reference: http://www.bwglaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1445449.html
Seriously Swirly
By Matthew
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 9:38pm
Instead of throwing insults at me, please actually read the words that I am saying.
A pedestrian IS ALREADY IN THE CROSSWALK.
That means the pedestrian is ALREADY in the roadway, and in the path of a vehicle, potentially. Maybe the person is slow and unable to complete the crossing before the signal changes.
The person has the right to finish crossing and make their way to safe passage without being struck by a vehicle.
I really do not know how you could misinterpret what I am saying, and I cannot think of a simpler way to say this.
But what you are saying has no relevance to the situation that I have outlined, and I have outlined the exact same situation in all 3 responses to this thread.
Paragraph 2 of that section of MGL fully supports exactly what I have been saying.
Please re-read!
Sorry Matthew
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 9:39pm
I read just fine. You are really trying hard, but, sorry, pedestrians have responsibilities too. You are welcome to find and cite legal opinion to support your contention - but you are otherwise just trying too hard.
Consider as well that pedestrians can and have injured cyclists by walking into the street against the light - including people who have posted on UHub. It isn't near the risk that motorists pose, but, all the same, there are rules and there are laws and pedestrians have to follow those rules and laws, too.
You are unbelievably stubborn
By Matthew
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 9:53pm
You are totally wrong. There is no right to kill a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Period.
Even if the pedestrian enters the crosswalk illegally, there is still no right to kill him or her.
And if the pedestrian enters the crosswalk legally, there is still no right to kill him or her, even if unable to complete the crossing within the allotted time.
You are not reading my statements correctly, and I feel like you are just changing the meanings of the words to suit what you think I am saying.
Just take it slow. Go back. Re-read. Do not insert any words into my mouth.
All along, I have explicitly tailored my statements to avoid what you keep accusing me of saying.
I am not saying that it is legal for a pedestrian to enter a crosswalk against the signal. I am merely saying that a pedestrian who has already begun to cross the street has the right of way even if the signal turns against them. This is not controversial, at all. You are just misinterpreting my statements.
No, She's Right ... (As Usual)
By Elmer
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 11:18pm
Pedestrians are obliged to obey the lights at signalized crosswalks. Of course, a driver can't deliberately run down a pedestrian; that would be reckless endangerment; but drivers don't need to stop for pedestrians waiting at signalized crosswalks unless the vehicular signal turns red. In addition, state law requires pedestrians to use crosswalks when one is available. When there are no marked crosswalks in the immediate area (there's a specific distance, but I couldn't find it), only then are drivers required to stop for pedestrians attempting to cross mid-block or at unmarked crosswalks. In other words, a driver wouldn't necessarily be ticketed for accidentally hitting a jaywalking pedestrian.
I feel like I am banging my head against a wall
By Matthew
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 11:46pm
I am not disagreeing with Swirly (or you) when she says that pedestrians are obliged to obey the lights at signalized crossings.
But that is not the situation that I am talking about!
I am talking about someone getting stuck in the middle of the roadway when the signal changes!
READ!!!
Holy moly... people.
Huh?
By Somebody Else.
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:46pm
Calgary? Toronto? Whatever. We're in Massachussetts, and I quote:
"...nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed ..." Mass. General Laws: CHAPTER 89, Section 11
I made no comment regarding whether the pedestrian would have legal liability for jaywalking, which they may well, but that is irrelevant to the driver's liability. Naturally, it's this law that insurance companies use to determine fault.
See above
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 8:03pm
You conveniently omitted the first part of that MGL section, and then you avoided providing the link to the full text. Did you really think you could conveniently edit it to suit your point when it actually starts with the exemption?
Nnnnoo...
By eeka
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 1:34pm
I agree with you with regards to wishing more people knew how signaled crosswalks work and I especially get frustrated with people who walk out on a big red hand with a child in tow. Oh, and the drivers who stop and yell "are you gonna cross or what?!" out their windows when I'm waiting with my child who has been taught that we wait for the walk signal.
However, as a human being who tries to have morals, and as someone who is a parent/child/sister/neighbor/coworker, if I hit someone with my car because I'm not paying attention, couldn't stop in time, or even because the person ran right out in front of me, and I get some scratches on my 2000-pound machine that contacted a human, I am not the victim in the situation. I'm the fortunate one.
Cameras Work
By BostonDog
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:13am
I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this but red light and speeding cameras are effective in slowing people down and preventing them from running red lights once word is out that you get tickets doing these things. The city should install the video camera versions (to prove the yellow light was yellow for long enough) at high profile intersections and crosswalks.
Red light and speeding
By Michael L
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:20am
Red light and speeding cameras are illegal in MA.
And yet ...
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:27am
We have parking tickets that presume guilt and actually say "Offender" on them.
Laws can be changed.
By BostonDog
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 11:04am
n/c
Red light cameras sometimes
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:40am
Red light cameras sometimes become about revenue and result in more accidents (usually rear end collisions) when the yellow light timing is reduced to less than typical design standards to generate tickets. They are great when used properly and disasters when abused by the powers that be to generate ticket revenue.
That's why you use video
By BostonDog
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 11:03am
If you use a video camera which also records the traffic light you can prove that the yellow light was lit long enough which is a frequent complaint. You can also prove you were justified in running the red light if you needed to run the red to make room for an emergency vehicle, etc. It's the ones which simply take a photo which are more ripe for abuse.
As for it being illegal, I know this is now the case. But up until a week ago it was legal to take a photo up a woman's skirt but they seemed to figure out a way of changing that law so they can do the same regarding the red light cams.
They can give all the money to soup kitchens or other good causes for all I care -- I just want drivers to stop running reds and going 45mph+ in 25mph zones.
Yellow time Catch-22
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 12:43pm
MUTCD and other roadway regulations specify how long traffic lights need to be yellow, based on the speed of traffic. To find out the speed of traffic, a traffic study is needed, then yellow time and speed limits can be set (85th percentile guideline) for fewest accidents. Often, a speed limit determined by best engineering principals is higher than speed limits set by politicians, hence a reluctance by politicians to have speed studies performed.
Need for video camers
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 1:00pm
While video cameras don't produce a reduction in accidents, they can help catch cyclists and pedestrians from ignoring traffic signals if tickets were to actually be issued and collections enforced. These cameras are only about the money.
Even if you think red light
By anon
Thu, 03/20/2014 - 3:04pm
Even if you think red light cameras for bikes and pedestrians would be a good idea, how could it work? They don't have license plates.
Bicycles used to have license plates
By Markk02474
Fri, 03/21/2014 - 8:04pm
Must have been some good reasons for it, back even before there were video cameras. As for pedestrians, the MBTA thinks there are good reasons to install cameras inside buses and stations. Police also try to identify people from video for criminal investigations. Driving a car seems to only require civil infractions to warrant video surveillance and identification by police.
Blah blah blah
By blah blah blah
Fri, 03/21/2014 - 8:45pm
Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.
99.99% the case.
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:21pm
Visibility is key. Those videos from red light cameras showing dramatic crashes are all from people not noticing the red traffic light.
So, how could this location be made safer?
1. Pedestrians encouraged to use the tunnel.
2. Traffic signal added to the median closer to driver eye level than overhead traffic lights.
3. High-intensity + a few strobe blinks pedestrian crossing lights. People going into seizures from them seems mostly urban myth.
Traffic volumes and speed are both too high at that location under regulations for a speed table. A waste given the safest option of pedestrian tunnel already exists. While speed tables and bumps may not cause fire trucks and MBTA buses to bottom out, they put more wear and tear on half million dollar+ vehicles which need to last more than a decade. Besides stress on the suspension and frame, slowing down and speeding up wears brakes and increases greenhouse gas emissions.
You forgot #4
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:03pm
4. Giant anvil dropped on speeding self absorbed motorist.
thin the herd of people who shouldn't be driving.
Citations please
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:23pm
Citations please.
Wow, 9,999 times out of 10
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:39pm
Wow, 9,999 times out of 10,000? That's pretty amazing. Unfortunately, the part of your post where you cite any evidence to support this statistic got cut off. You should probably re-post and include this information or people are going to start to suspect that you're just making shit up.
Excellent point. I can tell how concerned you are about greenhouse gas emissions by all your posts encouraging civil engineering changes that make it easier for people to ride bikes and walk instead of driving their cars.
Call your legislator to support Vulnerable Road User laws
By Matthew
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 3:48pm
Senator Brownsberger's bill S. 1639 is stuck in Joint Transportation committee now. It is an "Act to Protect Vulnerable Road Users."
If you are interested in protecting vulnerable road users, then I recommend looking up your legislators and giving them or their staff (more likely to answer) a call. Both House and Senate.
Tell them that you support S. 1639, that you want safer streets, and that you request for the legislator to contact the Transportation committee and indicate support for this bill.
There is also a companion bill, S. 1640, that helps protect bicyclists in bike lanes. If you are interested, also ask them to support that as well.
Doesn't protect pedestrians
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 4:45pm
from bicyclists. There is a huge vacuum in bicycle safety by not enforcing any traffic laws against them, encouraging reckless behavior. It seems like more bicyclists are rewarded for breaking traffic laws by being given free helmets if stopped, than the number of cyclists who have paid fines for violations.
The bill is pointless. It only increases fines for things people already avoid doing, hence no additional deterrent. The traffic fines too low are the ones for jay walking and bicycling infractions.
{edit]
The bill also fails to include motorcyclists and moped riders as vulnerable users, another major flaw.
Is this an example of your lack of reading comprehension or
By Sally
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 4:12pm
a deliberate attempt to, yet again, bring your obsession with bikes into a thread about a hit and run driver and disregard Adam's request--i.e. are you being dense or rude?
No, no, no, no, no!
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 4:29pm
Markkk is just trying to raise awareness about the horrible danger posed by reckless cyclists. No new motor-vehicle laws should ever be passed unless they address the incredible danger posed by bicylists. After all, I can't even remember the last time I opened UHub and *didn't* see a story about some out-of-control bicyclist killing a pedestrian or putting them in the hospital! This plague must be stopped!
No
By Belmont
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 5:40pm
He's delighted with himself. Totally hilarious. Funniest person ever, What a card. Waiting for the movie.
Doesn't matter if anyone sees it. What would Arlington do without him? Can't wait for the Marathon "jokes".
Tunnel
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:02am
I use the MBTA pedestrian tunnel under Mass Ave. I've never been hit by a car or truck down there, the only problem is the pee smell.
Just saying.
People are kind of afraid of
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:33am
People are kind of afraid of getting attacked and/or raped down there. But you're probably a guy and never think about such things.
Guys...
By Sally
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 11:16am
are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. No need to rush to judgment. But honestly, as someone who's usually on foot or bike there and not on the T, I didn't even know that there was an underpass there--crazy.
I'll be honest
By dpalomares
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:36am
I never knew there was a tunnel till now, but I doubt people will start using it after today
As a woman, I don't feel safe
By ornahh
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 10:59am
As a woman, I don't feel safe using that tunnel after dark.
As a woman
By anon
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 1:56pm
I have used the tunnel many times, both in the dark and daylight, and I have never felt unsafe
I've
By Leena
Wed, 03/19/2014 - 11:27am
used that tunnel/underpass in situations where the lights are green and the train i'm waiting for is close to pulling into the station and I don't want to miss it by waiting for the walk signal. I was never fearful to do so, I suppose because I'm naive never thought about it much. But now I'll have to stay extra on-guard....
Pages