Sweet Tomatoes scene. Photo by Echoplex.
WCVB reports two people inside Sweet Tomatoes, 1279 Washington St., in West Newton, died when an SUV crashed into the restaurant tonight - and that seven other people were injured.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
getting really fed up with
By anon
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 8:11pm
getting really fed up with drivers and their shitty cars. Peak oil where are thou. why do u jack@$$3$ need SUVS in the first place clearly they are more of a hazard oh yea cuz ppls stupid status symbols.
Same OP, I motion passenger
By anon
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 8:54pm
Same OP, I motion passenger vehicles of excessive weight require a separate license, too many people driving these things like coupes. also city of boston, you can ban silly string why not SUVs.
Enough Already.
By Sources Say
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 9:53pm
Take the anti-SUV nonsense elsewhere. Plus, a VW Tiguan is hardly a vehicle of "excessive weight."
unless Chris Christie
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 7:55am
is driving.
:-)
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 12:16pm
username/post combo
:-)
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 12:16pm
username/post combo
Excessive weight
By Scumquistador
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:27pm
Tiguan weighs less than a Ford taurus but continue being an idiot
defend your silly automobile
By anon
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:04pm
defend your silly automobile
If stating facts is defending
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 6:39am
Then sure, no problem. If somebody makes statements that can't withstand reality they should consider doing research or not lying.
Really?
By Used to be logged in
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 9:29pm
First of all, people are dead and injured, and an excellent local business is shattered tonight...
But you've gotta rant about SUVs, oil... Do you have some info that makes it clear that the crash was caused by the fact that the vehicle is an SUV? (A questionable term in this case, cause that appears to be a VW Tiguan (essentially a tall Golf), which typically stop and turn just fine. Why is this car a hazard?
Plus, even if it were a massive, unwieldy, not really fit for the streets kind of military HumVee type thing, you're just speculating that the crash occurred because of he vehicle and not some other factor or happening. TL;dr pipe down, por favor.
found the 20th century auto
By anon
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 9:49pm
found the 20th century auto lover
go play
By Scumquistador
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:02pm
In the street
I did and was doored by
By anon
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:22pm
I did and was doored by another clueless inattentive asshole, any more quips?
Too bad
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 6:23am
They didn't finish the job.
15 people visiting UHub
By baepp
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 10:27am
approve of scumquistador's comment that a cyclist should have been killed by the drive of a motor vehicle.
15 of you have no regard for human life.
Disgusting.
actually, you're a lying liar with a pro cyclist agenda
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 10:38am
i never mentioned jack about cyclists. i simply suggested an efficient and clean way for him to go away
that somebody assumed this would happen on a bicycle and then held him responsible for his theoretical actions on said bicycle is actually amazing & hilarious and indicative of an equally anti cyclist agenda ---(EDIT: well, i guess if you believe he was being serious about being doored, you can remove my "assumed" and "theoretical", which actually just makes the rest of the anti-cycle stuff even funnier. )
as somebody that uses car, bike, and T, i just realize that you're all assholes no matter how you decide to commute
god bles
Next time, PAY ATTENTION
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 8:21am
to what's going on in front of you (the basic rule of thumb for operating a vehicle on the street) and perhaps you won't wind up getting "doored'. Oh right, far easier to pass a silly law that puts the responsibility on somebody else for your stupidity.
I bike pretty slowly and if I
By bshep
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 11:00am
I bike pretty slowly and if I'm up against parked cars always try to check as I approach to see if someone's in the car who might potentially open their door. Basically if I'm in a situation where I might get doored, that's all I think about. But even then I have to be fairly close to the car to make that judgement, and if a door is opened I'll probably have time to brake but likely will still hit the door, likely in a way that could cause me to bounce off and into oncoming traffic. I do my part, but there's no harm in raising driver awareness so that they take the 2 seconds needed to check for bicyclists before opening their door. (honestly I think the larger problem is that bikes and cars don't mix on tight city streets, which means one or the other has to go (not gonna happen) or more protected bike lanes (better solution))
yeah
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 11:33am
it only takes seeing it happen once/one close call to keep one eye on the drivers side doors of every car you're biking past .
conversely you truly are an asshole if you're in a car and don't look first. this is 100% about situational awareness, which is ~*a two way street*~
i mean, to me, the driver that doors somebody that says "well that guy on the bike should have looked!" that guy isn't wrong- he's an asshole and worthy of a knock in the jaw- but he isn't wrong. but he's an asshole because he definitely didn't look either, or else the situation never happens.
of course, there are times when both/all parties involved can try their best and still fail :shrug:
I'm pretty certain
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 1:44pm
You're at fault if you open your car door and it is hit by someone/thing.
While I agree that the person riding the bike or operating a vehicle should pay attention and avoid collisions with opened doors, the person opening the door is also required to do so. And according to insurance companies - they have even more responsibility to pay attention.
If you want to get even more
By Kinopio
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 8:24pm
If you want to get even more depressed click on the Driving link under this article. Boston area drivers are killing people at a shocking rate in 2016 and practically nothing is being done to prevent further death. Raising T fares and cutting late night service will put more cars on the road which will put more people at risk.
These types of accidents
By xZ
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 8:33pm
These types of accidents happen much more frequently more than ever , still state legislatures can prevent cars from barreling into crowded public places such as resturaunts and malls or open sidewalk cafe seating areas close to street, heavy duty STEEL GURDRAILS is the answer,..
Another solution
By Michael
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 8:53pm
They can stop handing out drivers' licenses to anyone who shows up at the RMV not totally reeking of gin, and they can start pulling people over for traffic violations so they don't correctly assume they can get away with everything until it's too late.
If only
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:25pm
If only MA regulated driving like they do gun ownership, and punished bad driving like they do random shooting.
Ummm
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 12:12am
You mean everyone would drive without a license, and getting caught driving without a license wouldn't even get you a slap on the wrist?
Jesus Christ
By bosguy22
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 8:58am
You people are assholes. People died. Nobody knows what happened yet. Did the driver have a seizure? Heart attack? Brakes fail? Was in an accident and pushed into the pizza place? Enough with the stupid fucking generalizations "cars are bad" " drivers shouldn't have licenses".
Did the driver have a seizure? Heart attack?
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:57am
i dont think so since they were released from the hospital already
though your point still stands mostly
also cars ARE bad. just not mine. and drivers SHOULDNT have licenses. except me.
I can only imagine the
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 10:08am
I can only imagine the lawfare and uproar if Boston only handed out restricted drivers licenses following an up to six month application process, required a police driving exam every six years, and had a SUV/specific car model ban.
Right, why try to deal with
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:17am
Right, why try to deal with the problem with practical solutions like safety guardrails, when we can just punish people instead.
i got $32 million problems
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:59am
but a berm aint one
The answer is self-driving
By Sean117
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 7:44am
The answer is self-driving cars.
Yeah, then drivers can
By Cruz-Baker 2016
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:03am
Yeah, then drivers can legally claim they have no responbility and blame google or tesla, and tesla or google can blame the driver, and no one will be liable for accidents anymore. A self driving car crashed into a bus in CA last month and the googlers said their precious algorithm would have anticipated the bus yielding.
Considering that people driving cars kill 30.000 a year...
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:50am
I can't imagine that self driving cars could possibly be anything but a vast improvement.
Cutting late night T service
By aldos
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 9:07pm
will not just put more cars on the road, it will put more DRUNK DRIVERS on the road.
Actually something is being
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 8:33am
Actually something is being done, thanks to the Swedes. http://www.visionzeroboston.org/
What's worse than worse...
By Kaz
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 4:30pm
More cars on the street mean the buses still in service will go even slower, forcing more people to re-evaluate the worth of a pass if they can't where they're going.
We will hear the enablers say
By Cruz-Baker 2016
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 8:53pm
We will hear the enablers say "the driver is going to have to live with this, that's enough punishment, but they should have to pay to repair the restaurant." And then something shallow like "prayers for all (even the killer)."
The driver will have to pay for the damage to to the restaurant, but I'm betting they wont spend any time in jail for killing 2 people. Property damage is taken more seriously than killing in MA.
The driver will have to pay
By ShamusJP
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:15pm
Suuuuure they will...
It only took the first 8
By anon_wd
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 9:51pm
It only took the first 8 posts to get where I expected to be after 60 or so here
The anti car and suv agenda is strong
By Scumquistador
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:21pm
Nevermind that living in Newton without a car sucks.
Never mind
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:29pm
That living in Newton without a car was the design basis for the entire city plan and design.
Cool, great
By Scumquistador
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:01pm
That doesn't change the reality of the situation
Also, you need to cite that.
No need for a citation because it's wrong
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 1:01am
"living in Newton without a car was the design basis for the entire city plan and design" couldn't be further off-base. There are maybe 10 voluntarily car-free households in Newton. The city is about 6 miles long by 5 miles wide and for the majority of Newtonians (i.e. those who aren't on the D-line), public transit is awful.
Not quite off
By Waquiot
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 9:52am
Newton for the most part was laid out when there were no automobiles, so technically she is correct. Newton was developed along the rail lines along with Commonwealth Avenue, which had a streetcar running along it. The hole in her theory is the area around Oak Hill. That is post World War II construction with drivers in mind.
Now, the question of how car free the average Newtonian can be today is debatable, but Newton was designed around the train and trolley, like many suburbs of Boston.
You've got to be kidding me
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 10:54am
So the 1,485 streets and 320 miles of roads, including two eight-lane interstate highways, should not be considered part of the city "plan and design," I guess.
Sigh
By Waquiot
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 2:43pm
Look, if you don't care about the history of Newton, that's okay with me. Just try not to be ignorant about it.
Newton developed in the 19th century as a commuter suburb, with the villages developing along the 2 rail lines that still run through the city (one of which did have an interstate highway built next to it.) Later, Commonwealth Avenue was laid out with a trolley line along the median. That development is the core of Newton, with as I admit sections, particularly south of the current Riverside Line, built out in the era of the automobile. The other highway you mention came much later and barely is in Newton.
There have been books written about the topic. Go to your local library and check them out.
i think the real issue is
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 3:32pm
that going back to the 1800s and saying well heres what they planned, so if you cant make that work today, its on you! is just stupid. and you know that, and i know you're not saying that the plans from back then would or in some cases, should, work today.
Oh, I agree
By Waquiot
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 6:28pm
That said, Swirly made a point that Newton was laid out to be lived in without a car. This was challenged. Since I have read a bit about the development of Boston's suburbs, I had to give her support, since what she said is true. Same with a lot of parts of Boston where space savers are an issue, meaning yes, people who live in streetcar suburbs do drive.
In short, Newton isn't Westwood or Framingham. It was not originally designed for the automobile. What goes on today is another issue, but the bare bones were not put in for cars.
Times have changed
By merlinmurph
Thu, 03/03/2016 - 7:42am
Like you said above, technically it's true, but it's totally irrelevant. Since the plans had been made, the world has changed, and hence, plans change. That's the way the world works. The whole cow paths argument is bogus.
But it is relevant
By Waquiot
Thu, 03/03/2016 - 9:44am
Yes, the way we (and by we, I include my sorry mallrat ass) handle our physical environment has changed a lot since 1900, but Newton, Brookline (at least the parts near the Green Line) and other were designed without the car in mind, meaning theoretically automobile use is more optional.
I was out with a few people once. We were getting into a car on the way back and one of them said "I don't have a license." My first response was "how do you get your groceries?" This was in the 1990s, so no Peapod or whatnot then. Yet other than that, he was okay with never learning how to drive.
The design changed
By merlinmurph
Thu, 03/03/2016 - 10:21am
But, designs aren't static. Designs change with time as the world changes. The city adjusts things as times change.
At first, people's houses congregated in certain areas where transportation was available. When the car arrived, houses could be built further away from these centers, i.e. sprawl. The world changed, and the city changed with it. Are you expecting the city not to change?
Another example is zoning. When a city/town gets zoned, zoning is a plan. But plans change, and zoning changes all the time.
Anyways, we were in Newton last night meeting a friend and drove by the scene. Man, that was awful.
How many cars were there?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 11:04am
During the heavy development times in Newton?
The registration numbers for vehicles in the 1870s-1910s are pretty damn low.
I don't know what your point is
By anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 11:18am
You're coming up with some arbitrary "development period" for Newton and claiming that there weren't any cars around then. What's your point?
My point is that for 90% of the population in Newton, unfortunately it's impractical if not impossible to live without a car. Not just for the work commute but for grocery shopping, getting the kids to schools and sports practice, etc.
I wish that the city's leaders (and the state's) would go about changing this and making the city less dependent on the automobile, and ensuring that it becomes truly practical and safe to live your life using public transport, walking, or cycling.
Great
By bosguy22
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 12:19pm
So the city was designed for horses and buggy's, so what? It's not a "walkable" city, so today (where horses and buggy's aren't allowed), a car in quite necessary.
I live in West Newton(in the
By Chris77
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 7:21am
I live in West Newton(in the Brae Burn district on the other side of the Turnpike) and don't own a car. I'm within walking distance of commuter rail, buses and the Green Line if need be. This terrible accident aside, it's a great neighborhood to be in.
That area is not bad for car free living
By tachometer
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 7:27am
That restaurant is practically within sight of a commuter rail stop plus it is incredibly easy to tie into the Charles River bike paths from there to commute downtown. It's also walking distance to shops, restaurants, a movie theater etc. The supermarkets aren't right there but they're not too far up Washington St either.
I lived right there
By Scumquistador
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 8:01am
My statement was made from experience. But yes DEFINITELY cite our public transit as being reliable enough to justify ditching a car in Newton. You also better hope your job is right on the T even in the best of circumstances.
Almost nobody in Newton would tell you it's feasible to be carless. Sorry, that's just the truth for a huge majority of people there.
Also re: grocers- can't do it in that city with ease without a car unless you're single or don't cook. That is a massive issue and not to be taken lightly.
Hell I lived pretty close to the grocery store and would frequently walk there. But there are definitely times I regretted not driving, or, would end up just calling a cab to drop me off in the same driveway my functional car was in.
Brake failure?
By Ron Newman
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:07pm
It does not look to me like Chestnut St has an especially steep downslope leading to Washington Street, but can someone more familiar with the area say more?
Used to live 1 or 2 min from there
By Scumquistador
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:19pm
No real particular excuse I can think of. Keep in mind that Newton has a lot of older drivers and today might have drawn some infrequent drivers out of the woodwork
I know the area well.
By jo
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:23pm
Chestnut St. is actually on a very steep hill - West Newton Hill - certainly one of the steepest in the area. But it levels off some where it crosses the Turnpike - I think the bridge or the turnpike even is humped upwards, which would slow down a car coming down the hill.
If there was a brake failure, then I think a car would be in a lot of trouble coming down that hill, even with the bridge reducing its momentum.
But of course if it were someone texting......
Just ate pizza there first
By anon
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:44pm
Just ate pizza there first time a couple months ago. Terrible traffic light and hazardous to cross street in crosswalk. That said have no clue what caused this crash. Very sad and random
Uh, it's a steep hill
By Ari O
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:44pm
100 foot drop, 6˚ grade.
Highland, the next street over, is a 9˚ grade, which is what we rode bikes down recklessly in high school (because we were stupid). But if your brakes go out on a 6˚ downgrade, you can get some speed up.
When is the last time brakes
By ShamusJP
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:16pm
When is the last time brakes have actually failed on a modern car?
guarantee
By Scumquistador
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:18pm
whenever it was, it was in a liam neeson movie
Brake failure is common
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 11:28pm
IF you mean "failure to apply brakes properly".
Enough of a hill that brakes are necessary
By Anon
Tue, 03/01/2016 - 10:51pm
If brakes failed or the driver lost conciousness the hill is steep enough to be a problem, but it's not as steep as the mission hill street that the brake-less fire truck flew down.
There are no witness reports of the driver honking the horn, which I would hope someone experiencing brake failure would do as they approached an intersection.
Witness reports
By LauraB
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 7:12am
Obviously take with a grain of salt, but on the Reddit thread someone said the hazards were on. It's just a weird sad mystery for now.
It was a medical event and
By Greggygreen
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 12:39pm
It was a medical event and this person should not have been driving. Sad...
Source?
By Anon
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 1:45pm
I don't doubt you, I just can't find any news outlet reporting a cause.
Driving
By 151
Wed, 03/02/2016 - 6:15am
It's not the cars its the driving in Boston and MA in general. Having a European licence I had to redo my test here in Boston to be allowed to drive. The test is laughable, lasts 5 mins once around the block and reverse park. How can you justify that as a test?
Take new drivers out to different roads with varying speed limits. See how they change lanes safety, observe them at roundabouts , teach them road manners,have more hazard perception in the theory test , ban mobile phones and have the test last 60 mins and make new drivers meet a long list of criteria / maneuvers. Oh and get some street lights on roads here (Arbourway fpr example).
Having an easy test allows drivers to develop bad habits, if you failed your test 3 times at a cost of $200 you'd soon learn and obey the rules of the road.
Pages
Add comment