Bicyclist killed in crash with tractor trailer in South Boston

Boston Police report a collision between a tractor trailer and a woman on a bicycle ended with the bicyclist dead around 3:50 p.m. at West Broadway and A Street.

Kevin Wiles reports:

It appears the TT was turning left from A St on West Broadway when the accident occurred.

Photo of the scene.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Tragic

However, before this turns into another arguement, can we all agree that both motor vehicle drivers and bicyclists in boston act like a-holes?

No

Because while yes, this was tragic, there are hundreds of thousands of drivers and cyclists who do not act like a-holes and the readiness to assign all members of both groups tags like this is what leads to endless stupid accusations by weird extremists.

People get killed riding bikes in every American city. Cyclists need to ride carefully and obey the rules of the road. Car and truck drivers are most likely to kill those cyclists. Drivers need to drive carefully and obey the rules of the road.

Sometimes accidents happen. Accidents aren't murder. They involve trucks, cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians. Everyone needs to do what they're doing carefully and obey the rules of the road.

If you drive something big, recognize that you could kill someone. If you ride something small, recognize that you could get killed. Wear a seat belt or a helmet.

TL;DR - Try not to get hurt or hurt anyone else. Sometimes this will add seconds to your commute. TOUGH SHIT.

piss off

When was the last time you saw a cyclist kill an 18 wheeler? Never.

Drivers in motor vehicles cause more than 99% of pedestrian injuries and deaths. They're responsible for 75-90% (depending on the study, and there have been several, including one that used video from cameras on cyclists) of crashes/injuries/deaths of cyclists, most of whom were doing absolutely nothing wrong or illegal when they were struck.

You remind me of that fucking asshole who works for Menino who stood up at the annual bike report meeting and declared that cars and bicycles have "equal responsibility."

What the fuck is equal about a 2-ton car occupied by people who are doing everything they can to NOT drive it properly...versus someone on a 30lb bicycle?

That guy on Morresy was struck by a drunk driver.

Kelsey Rennehbom was struck by an MBTA drier who didn't stop, didn't notify their supervisor, didn't do anything - just went home pretending it never happened. Same night, another cyclist was struck by a drunk driver.

Same intersection where Gordon Riker was killed - a taxi smashed into him and threw him under the wheels of a dump truck.

Same intersection where Ruth Michler was killed while she stood on her bike waiting for the light to change, run over by a construction worker driving (I think) a forklift.

Eric Hunt was run over by a 39 bus that had just finished a sharp right turn and was traveling plenty slow enough to stop for him.

Phyo N. Kyaw, killed when a truck driver illegally crossed the double-yellow line, struck him and ran over his body. Cambridge PD and MSP fell over themselves providing excuses for the driver, drawing wild theories like claiming that because the bicycle was in a high gear, Kyaw must have been traveling at a high rate of speed.

Then there was the Cambridge pedestrian killed in Central Square, run over by...gasp...an eighteen wheeler cutting the corner.

OH BUT YES THOSE CYCLISTS ARE SUCH ASSHATS AREN'T THEY.

You can pull all the names of the tragically dead all you want

the fact remains that for every law abiding biker that's killed tragically in this town, there's three that ride like assholes.

And yes, while vehicles have the weight advantage, bikes are faster and quicker and there are way too many morons out there who drive their bikes like other assholes drive their cars.

You can debate it all you want, but the undeniable fact remains;this is a dangerous town for anyone in any type of moving vehicle.

I hate people who watch DVDs

"the fact remains that for every law abiding biker that's killed tragically in this town, there's three that ride like assholes."

See, thing about convenience-store robbers: they like to watch DVDs.

I see from your username that you like to watch DVDs.

C'mere so I can punish you, DVD-liker.

With love,
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

"You can debate it all you want, but the undeniable fact remains;this is a dangerous town for anyone in any type of moving vehicle."

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

Faster? And quicker?

Bikes are faster and quicker? Than cars?

there are way too many morons out there who drive their bikes like other assholes drive their cars.

And there are way too many fucking idiots in Uhubland who think that it matters at all to call the majority of cyclists assholes after a tragedy like this. You're a real POS, dvdoff.

In an urban setting and in traffic

they certainly are. Ever seen the way some people whip around town on bikes? No? Well then, maybe you could ask the parents of the little girl I saw a few weeks ago splattered by some goof on a bike at the Comm Ave crossing on Arlington Street.

He didn't even have the common decency to stop.Maybe he was afraid that the father was going to get blood all over his faux Lance Armstrong official spandex bike suit.

Oh, but I'm a POS....

Here's another one for you. I;m at the Four Seasons in my Suburban last week. I was parked on the street and another driver was on the double in his Suburban. All of a sudden some dweeb in a bike decides he wants to try and skirt though us by riding in between us. Only this moron flunked spatial relations at MIT because his handlebars left a nice scrape on the paint of the other SUV.

Did he stop? No. He just kept pushing through and rode away. So the driver chases him down Boylston and catches him in front of Boloco. What does he offer for an apology?

"Well, if I had insurance maybe you could put in a claim but I don't. You don't need bicycle insurance" and took off again down the alleyway.

Oh, but I'm a POS...

And those 37 people who liked my comment..are they POS also? Just wondering?

Bikes not Tanks

Actually for being at the Four Seasons and in a SUV you are kind of a POS...
Also like how you clearly find nothing wrong with the double parking of your fellow enviromonster.
"and another driver was on the double in his Suburban."

Anyhow, trading anecdotes is a meaningless activity. After all there are thousands of people who can tell very earnest stories about how they were abducted by aliens.

Wow, I like to treat myself

Wow, I like to treat myself to Tea at the Four Seasons a couple time a year, does that make me a POS?

Wow, way to stereotype people. Like someone already said, those that take so offense to snobbery tend to practice it themselves.

Wow, I like to treat myself

Wow, I like to treat myself to Tea at the Four Seasons a couple time a year, does that make me a POS?

Wow, way to stereotype people. Like someone already said, those that take so offense to snobbery tend to practice it themselves.

True, but the problem was

he obviously did not have enough room to get by. He literally scraped the rubber covered handlebars against the other car in his his hurry. Had he had the decency to ask, the other driver would have moved gladly. I was not on the double I was live parked at the hydrant behind the cab stand, where the doorman asked me to wait.

Also this was early Sunday morning, there was no traffic so his momentary double to chat with me caused no traffic issues.

Street justice vs. legality

Cyclist and part-time bike commuter here.

Notwithstanding the fact that I would not have attempted this maneuver, regardless of how stupidly parked someone was, there is something more distressing about this.

As described, these events sound to me like the cyclist left the scene of an accident at which there was property damage. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to do that, and that it might even be a crime (can't remember if it needs to be bodily injury to elevate to a crime, or whether property suffices).

Regardless of who is at fault for that accident (something which determined later by someone other than those involved in the accident), I don't think that the cyclist should have left and has possibly invited a much bigger problem by doing so.

I'm faster and quicker?

Wow. I had no idea. So the next time some jackass jets by me in his Expedition so that his rear view mirror brushes me, I should just outpedal him with my superhuman bike strength. Why didn't I think of that?

Based on the information in

Based on the information in the original post, do you know the cause of the accident?

No.

The cyclist could have been passing on the left as the driver signaled and turn left, just for example.

Shut the hell up until the facts are known.

Dear Momma, This one time, I

Dear Momma,

This one time, I was a cunt on the interwebz, but NO ONE EVEN REPLIED.

I'm so sad. I miss you, Momma. Please send me hugs and fifty dollars so I can do laundry and buy ramen noodles.

Love, your sad sack of human entrails,

TheVanJones

Cripes

Around when a motorcyclist did the same

If children riding bicycles advanced to riding motorcycles, they would start obeying traffic laws more often in acts of self preservation. Motorcyclists are as unprotected as cyclists, yet somehow get run down less often.

Recognize that being in a car will protect you better in an accident than on a bicycle, scooter, or motorcycle. Chose your mode of transportation along with the risks. Nobody forces anybody to choose a bicycle. Many motorcyclists give up riding when becoming parents. They have responsibility for someone besides themselves and do the adult thing.

A driver might be expected to have greater care where children might run out into traffic. You seem to indicate it extends to the adult children on bicycles.

Most of the examples you given over the past decade often result from cyclists contributing to their demise. Kyaw broke the law by not having a headlight on what was a very dark, rainy night. He was also stupid by wearing all dark clothing.

This accident might be from the cyclist getting hit by the driver taking a left in front of her OR if she ran a red light. Details will come out, then you can assign blame other than claiming its never the fault of cyclists.

You are nauseating

Bleeding heart bike-always-right folks like you are ridiculous. Part of the same crowd that argues against helmets because you "wouldn't need them if cars didnt drive like total assholes, etc. etc.?"

Since you are going to go to that length to hijack this thread already I will say my piece as well. As a cyclist in this city and a driver as well, the growing popularity of urban cycling is going to continue to cause these events to become more common. People need to take responsibility on all sides to coexist on the roadways.

You can't lump an entire population and infer that they are free from any blame at any time and always at the mercy of drivers when in fact, a bicycle is considered a vehicle as well. You would also be endorsing those I've seen around town in increase amounts not wearing helmets, wearing headphones, and riding the wrong way.

It is case by case. Enough with the whole holier-than-thou bullshit. You dont yet know the facts and you probably don't know the facts for those poor folks you are name dropping.

learn to read

"You can't lump an entire population and infer that they are free from any blame at any time "

I said that you can't lump an entire population together and hold them responsible for the behavior of some of their members. Not that cyclists are "free from any blame at any time."

Learn to read.

It's the drivers, stupid.

Now, all of a sudden, they are outraged by a puny cyclist?
If I recall, it's the auto drivers who have been the crazy whack jobs driving the wrong way on our beloved interstates recently. I think those wrong-way-Rogers ended up killing three or four people a few weeks ago....where's the outrage from the driving community? Why arent there tire spikes at the exits of all interstate ramps? Maybe, drivers with poor senses of direction should wear NASCAR helmets and have NASCAR-like safety cages built into every car, i mean, that would protect them if they wanted to try to drive through the big dig against speeding traffic...at least they wouldnt hurt themselves too badly.

How exactly can I do any thing wrong on a bike?

I really don't under stand how I can piss anyone off by riding a bike on the road. Nothing I can do will allow me to kill you with my bike. You on the other hand have a 2000 pound car with which you can kill me. So explain that to me. What is it which I can do on a bike which makes you mad?
I can't believe there are a whole lot of people out there on bikes cutting off cars. It would just be crazy to even try and do that.
If you are stuck in traffic and a bike goes by you, suck it up. You are the one who gets to turn on the AC and blast the radio. Not my fault you want to be part of the 99 percent and sit in traffic.

Seriously?

What you can do to piss off someone in a car is ride in an unsafe manner that puts YOU in danger. People get angry when they are startled and/or scared and it's not just their own bodily injury that scares them. No one WANTS to hit a cyclist, no one WANTS to have your injury or worse on their hands. So when I'm sitting in traffic or moving at a crawl because of it and you blow past me in a bike lane or a safe distance from my car - yay for you! As least one of us is moving. But if a cyclist is weaving in and out of traffic or running red lights on a vehicle that is much smaller than the surrounding cars and operates in relative silence (especially to a driver whose windows are rolled up), then yes, people are going to get angry and unfortunately they're going to impute that behavior to all cyclists because they are *afraid.*

Is this really that difficult to understand?

They get angry because we exist, sometimes

Nothing a cyclist can do about that - save for wearing a helmet cam and videotaping the proceedings. Like the guy here on UHub who videotaped it when he was harassed and road raged because he legally took the lane and some idiot had to share "his" road and it jsut wasn't faiiiirrr!

or that woman in Belmont who regularly threatens cyclists with her car and her mouth just because they are there.

Is that really difficult to understand?

cannot share the road

since of course you are a biker as am i im also a responsible driver ans pedestrian. i need to respond to your comments ive been struck while at a pedestrian light yes by a biker just my foot as i jumped out of his way i did not see him as he came from around stopped traffic. he shouldve been stopped right beside the traffic!! not to mention a couple of other close calls i have my eyes wide open looking everywhere at all times either on my bike in my car or walking. it goes both ways bikes need to obey rules of the road also.

This is not about whether

This is not about whether drivers or bicyclists are at fault. This is about an unsafe roadway system that needs to be re-designed so that cars and bicycles and their riders can co-exist without killing each other. The discussion should be centered around how we can make roads safer (for everyone, not just cars) rather than pinning blame on *any* party.

OK, Cyclists, pay for it then

Motorists contribute to roadway costs for each block they travel in the form of gas taxes, while cyclists...don't. I agree that travel should be made safer for bicyclists and motorcyclists, but this is not yet a welfare state. Come up with a way for bicyclists to start paying for the roads they demand, and its more likely to happen than by just complaining.

not that easy

your gas taxes cover but a fraction of road costs in this country, and cyclists pay property, sales, income, etc taxes too. Not to mention most cyclists also own cars.

You may want to do some research into the amount of non-gas tax government subsidy that goes towards roads and highways in this country.... your mind will be blown.

I have

Cyclists just like to ignore the costs they put on others. Cambridge puts costs on employers to discourage driving. It makes them build showers and locker rooms (for cyclists) even. Most people, especially women, still prefer to shower and dress at home instead of public bathrooms. Its human nature, with how much people spend on home bathroom renovations and residential choices as more evidence.

Oh ha ha ha

Grow up. Seriously. Grow up.

Employers subsidize car travel by providing parking at below cost - there is no "basic right" to parking that has been at all infringed here. They subsidize T travel, too. So they build showers - has it occurred to you that that has a hell of a lot more to do with executives taking red-eye flights and jogging on their lunch breaks than with cyclists?

Probably not, because you don't live in the modern world in any way, shape, or form.

Move to Texas, please.

Seriously--can you just stop?

Did a six-year-old run over your toe when you were an impressionable toddler? We get it--you hate bikes, OK? So don't ride one. Stay in your car, please try not to run anyone over, and if you can, stop popping up here to mouth off every time a bicyclist dies. Your comments are just creepy and weird.

Motorists contribute to

Motorists contribute to roadway costs because motorists cause their deterioration by the weight of their vehicles. If no cars were on the road, the roads would require less maintenance and would not nee to be resurfaced as often.

I'd be perfectly happy to pay a "bike tax" if it gave me even 1/2 the infrastructure and rights that road taxes give motorists.

While there are arguments for

While there are arguments for bikes in Boston (the Mbta is both increasingly expensive AND unreliable) it is just not practical or safe in some areas. Why put your life into someone else's hands for the sake of convenience? That being said, for all people considered the area the accident happened, which I am very familiar with having lived and worked there for 7 yrs, being a pedestrian the whole time, there is way to much traffic because the area of south Boston connects the highways and city to the most major shipping and receiving areas of Boston. Also, almost every other street in southie is blocked off, torn up, or detoured because of the Channel Water preservation. On top of that, the other half that are drivable are one way and too narrow to fit anything larger than a mini down them. If anything, if you are going to ride in southie, stick to these streets- west second, third, fourth, Athens, etc. they run paralell to broadway and have much less traffic. Anyway, the other side of this is people whether in cars, bikes, or shoes need to start taking responsibility for their actions and own safety. The only way they will is if others MAKE them. For example, as I walked down the street home for this actual accident this afternoon, amounts many others and much increased traffic due to the detour, I watched a bicyclist weave through the traffic and without hesitation run the red light right in front of the cop redirecting traffic. The cop did nothing, this person should have been pulled aside and ticketed just like a car. Furthermore, he crossed the red light from the road to the crosswalk. This is not allowed. Period. If you want to bring your bike on a cross walk , you have to get off and walk it on your TURN to cross as if you are a pedestrian. That is the rule.
Similarly, I have on numerous occocassion been on a crosswalk not at a light and had cars fly by behind and in front of me while I am in a crosswalk. This has even happened in front of policemen doing detail on many occassions and again, the police do nothing. They should be pulled over and fined. If people thought were held responsible for their actions BEFORE someone is killed, then a lot of accidents due to negligence could be avoided. If you see this happening, maybe it would be more proactive to stop and lecture the person you see breaking the rules rather than complaining online after the fact... Next time you see a cyclist run a red light or take an illegal turn, roll down your window and RESPECTFULLY repremand those actions, even if it didn't technically affect you THIS time. At the same time, follow the rules of the road and remember none of us is perfect, that's why we all have to look out for EACH other not just ourselves.

I am not here to trash

I am not here to trash motorists or cyclists,just to relay some of my experience. I have been driving vans(carefully)in this city for almost 30 years and have never had an accident. I have had some close calls though not just with cyclists. I have lost count of the amount of times that I have tried to make a right turn and find someone on a bike riding alongside my right side in all kinds of weather and light conditions. You may not see directionals if you are riding beside the turning vehicle.Also vans have limited visibility at the sides. I have also been stopped at red lights and stop signs and seen bikes blow right past me without even slowing down and once saw a cyclist become very agressive with a lady who almost hit him even though she had the green light.I see lots of cyclists observing the rules of the road but I think more who dont.There needs to be some kind of accountability on the part of cyclists.Roads are dangerous and anyone can take a bike into the roadway without any question of their ability to do so.

Cyclists are SUPPOSED to be

Cyclists are SUPPOSED to be riding to your right, unless they're about to make a left turn or choosing to share the lane (which seems to be an unpopular option for car drivers). Your side view mirror should be adjusted to show the areas to the right and left of your vehicle. If adjusted properly, blind spots are eliminated. You should not see the side of your own vehicle in the side view mirror, nor should you see what's behind you.

It's your responsibility to be sure you're not turning into someone else's path, YES EVEN WITH A RIGHT TURN.

The cyclist also has a responsibility

Avid cyclist here....
You're correct, and the cyclist also has a responsibility to ride safely, which means assuming the vehicles ahead of him can't see him in their mirror, assuming the driver is even looking in the first place. Should the driver check his right mirror? Yes. Will he/she? Who knows. Cyclists can't just barrel down the right side of the road blowing by cars stuck in traffic and assume they are all looking out for him. It's a great feeling blowing by all those cars and it's even fun, but you're going to get whacked some day, and when you're lying in a hospital bed with all sorts of tubes hanging out of you, eating mush, and not remembering your name, you can say "But I was right", and you were. So what?

Please ride responsibly.
Thanks.

Oh, absolutely! I just wanted

Oh, absolutely! I just wanted to point out that in the discussion above, the cyclist was actually where they're supposed to be. I'm not much of a cyclist these days at all (arthritis), but as a driver, I make a point to check my mirrors before making a right turn because I understand that there's an additional flow of traffic on my right side.

Interestingly enough, I was driving in NYC recently, and they have segregated bike lanes on the other side of parked cars. For me, it made it a bit harder to see if there were cyclists approaching the intersection where I was making the turn, but I wonder if having a separated lane for the cyclists makes it more clear to drivers that there is, in fact, traffic on their right.

Cycletracks in NYC

The ones I encountered on 8th ave wouldn't have been a problem for you, as the cars had a red light when the bikes had their own green. Bikes could go straight on their own signal. Then bikes stop while right turn was permitted for cars (or left turn, as the case may be).

(Of course, I assume you know that right turn on a red light is banned in Manhattan ...)

I encountered a more strange configuration in Tours, France: when bikes were allowed to go forward, but had to yield to right turning cars, they had an amber bike signal. Otherwise, they got a green when they owned the intersection and a red when stopped for cross traffic.

That sounds like a much

That sounds like a much better set up! In the East Village, there are no lights at the intersection specifically for bikes, so I had to cross bike traffic to make a right turn (yes, on green).

In Sweden, where I've also spent some time driving, most intersections have separate lights for cyclists which is effing GREAT. In small towns or at small intersections, cyclists and pedestrians always have the right of way, and cars are much more cautious. As a pedestrian or cyclist there, I'm still not used to the idea of being able to stroll across a street without fear, because cars take crosswalks as a sign to slow down and scan the sideway/crossing bike lane both ways for pedestrians/bikers. Of course, they don't have near the traffic congestion that we do (possibly because of the awesome number of people who cycle and/or take public transit), but as a whole - even in Stockholm which is comparable in size to Boston - traffic moves slowly but smoothly, and I haven't experienced one moment of road rage there, from cars or cyclists.

One of the worst intersections in the city

That whole Broadway Station area is a cluster of the highest order. A St. is too narrow for a TT like that but the CVS and Stop & Shop have to get supplies somehow. Maybe they could find an alternate route like L Street or Fourth Street or the Broadway Bridge.

It seems like Morrissey Blvd and South Boston are uber-dangerous for bicyclists compared to other parts of the city. Yikes.

P.S. - If you take the 9 or 11 bus, it's not going to Broadway Station as of 5:30.

Oh that's enough

Because freight trains are not an option for cities, trucks are the only option, and thus are needed. I've had JUST about enough of this bicycle crap. I feel terrible for this woman, but her fellow cyclists are much bigger assholes than drivers.

Trucks are not the only option

No cyclists are not bigger assholes than drivers. They are driving vehicles that can weigh less than my cat and at maximum weigh less than a dog. Even IF they break more laws than drivers - which is so debatable - it would take about 50 of them simultaneously hitting something for it to equate to the mass of a large sedan.

Drivers constantly display the following behavior:
running yellow and red lights
blocking intersections or edging past stop signs
double parking
passing on the right lane of multiple lane roads
illegal parking in no parking zones - hydrants, bus stops, etc
illegal left turns where signage indicates not allowed
illegal right turns where signage indicates not allowed
fast right turns where only allowed after stopping and checking if it is clear
right turning across traffic on their right - j-hook
speeding (and this is a universal flaunt of the law - not just on the highway but in the city and even by the enforcers of said law)

Those things are all high on the potential to create instant fatalities. And often do. Both for pedestrians, bikers, and other drivers.
The only time someone has been killed by a bike, or even seriously injured in the past 20 years, was a jaywalking pedestrian who jumped out between cars 13 or so years ago.

Trucks are hardly the only option. Cities could make large trucks (which would otherwise make routine deliveries of small items) instead offload in the suburbs onto smaller delivery vehicles such as minivans or cab pickups. You don't need an 18 wheeler to deliver potato chips or toilet paper to the city's bodegas. And trucks that big just don't have the right size, visibility, or agility to be routinely using city streets.

And yet

strangely enough, it's the cyclists who always end up dead, never the other way around. An asshole on a 30-lb bike is a hell of a lot less dangerous than an asshole behind the wheel of a car, and frankly, there are a lot more of you than there are of us.

Truck route?

What's that? Is that a limited set of city streets on which large trucks are allowed, while they're ticketed and towed for using the other streets? Do some cities have a thing like that?

Thanks

Yup, that is a citation for the truck driver unless he was delivering there. Anybody know when and why the restriction was created? Is the bridge failing and can't take the weight?

Exactly.....

.....it would have meant a citation for the driver if he hadn't been delivering there. He had been. Those signs restrict through traffic of vehicles over the posted weight limit but allow for local deliveries. Had his log books not shown information pertaining to a local delivery, he would have been facing a citation. Unfortunately for the poor driver, he has to not only live with what happened that day, and the memory of what he saw, but the published opinions of "armchair quarterbacks" who think they know more about his job than he does. How about we don't second guess the facts as they've been uncovered in the police investigation and stick to commenting on what we *do* know about?

Funny you should criticize

Funny you should criticize cyclists for not having common sense. Are you going to ban those cyclists from living on or patronizing businesses on the streets that have more trucks?

You remind me of the guy in Arlington who thinks there should be no bikes on Mass Ave because the Minuteman Path is nearby. That's like saying I should never need to use the street that I live on because there's another street right next to it. Ummm how exactly do I get home then?

No bikes on Mass Ave?

Actually, I'm OK with bikes on Mass Ave in Arlington. Cyclists do just fine without bike lanes. Bike lanes are no safer than the wide curb lane now available. I even want to make things safe for cyclists on the street. People want to narrow streets giving cyclists the squeeze, and I fight that.

There are many in Arlington, who after paying millions of dollars for the Minuteman path, think cyclists ought to use that instead of taking more from motorists in the form of bike lanes replacing a travel lane on Mass Ave.. They view cyclists as being insatiable for taking away roads from the motorists who pay for them with gas and registration taxes. With cyclists being freeloaders, they can have scraps instead of free lunches.

odd

...because trucks cause the worst road wear and most pollution, and motor vehicles cause pollution, injuries, deaths, and take up the most parking space.

Cyclists cause none of the above problems.

PS: London, one of the world's largest economic powerhouses, does in fact penalize traffic within its core:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

Reduced emissions, encouraged public transit use, increased cycling - even dropped traffic-related injuries.

So does Singapore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Prici...

So does Milan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Area_C

They seem to be doing juuuuuust fine economically.

Wrong Idea

If 18 wheeler drivers strike, then loads of smaller trucks and vans will replace them.

And, when the customers and distributors discover (as FedEx and UPS have ...) that this is a FAR more efficient way to do business, then they will be out of a job.

Humans != Goods

Sorry you can't see the difference.

My neighbor runs a trucking company that delivers to hair/nail salons in the area. He has vans do the urban deliveries, and, having driven tractor trailers, has strong opinions on how stupid it is to bring them into tight urban spaces - the fuel costs alone are crazy, apparently, as is the insurance.

I guess he doesn't know what he is doing by your "math".

In addition

The 5 axle trucks are doing the vast majority of the damage to the roads. It's in the city's interest to restrict them, since it's the city (and the taxpayer) that must pay to repair the damage.

And, I might mention, city buses do compromise for urban environments: they only have 2 axles while intercity and commuter buses tend to have 3 axles. This is because city buses are generally required to be more nimble than intercity buses. The trade-off is with ride comfort and maintenance costs. City buses these days also feature low floors for easier wheelchair access -- this requires more complicated wheel assemblies than a high-floor bus.

Which is it?

Full 5 axle trucks do more damage.

Others are saying vans are sufficient, but they seem to miss the concept of loading docks.

Thus, 5 axle trucks on streets must be lightly loaded if vans can be loaded for the necessary deliveries. Lightly loaded means big trucks are not doing so much damage.

Really, there is the right too for every job. Vans and box trucks with lift gates can deliver smaller quantities at street level. There is no substitute for large deliveries to loading docks but big trucks. Box trucks are fine for smaller loading dock deliveries.

Drivers naturally don't take 18 wheeler's around the city for no reason. Transferring to box trucks does require having some sort of transfer location with loading docks and fork lifts. Some haulers don't have access to that along with a fleet of smaller box trucks or vans. If you have not noticed, most UPS and a number of FedEx trucks are just as wide as MBTA buses, 18 wheeler's, and box trucks.

Dear Markkk02474

Please move to a city where the streets were designed for cars.

Or stop driving in a city where the streets were designed for horsecarts and pedestrians and paved for cyclists, and whining about how you don't feel like you get special privileges for doing so.

I already avoid going to and spending money there.

I already avoid going to and spending money in places that discriminate. In this case, Boston, and Cambridge, against motorists. If you look at census data, you will see that states with roadway expansion are growing and this state with roadway contraction is not. If I did not have aging parents here to care for, I would seek freer, saner places.

Oh no!

You're "discriminated" against because Boston and Cambridge don't prioritize motor vehicle traffic above every other form of transportation? Go get yourself a hanky and call the wahmbulance.

Define "growing"

Cambridge has no room to grow, if you mean "construct wastful enormous houses where people don't have to interact with their kids".

Meanwhile, where do all these people who live in the suburbs work, darling? Um ... maybe, in places where job numbers are still actually rising like ... Cambridge?

How out of tune you are

Conversation in the carpool on the way home:

Nerd1: hey, did you hear CompanyX is moving into my building
Nerd2: no way
Nerd3: Wow - I turned them down because they were so out in the middle of nowhere that we'd have to buy a new car
Nerd1: that's why they are moving downtown: they can't get anyone to work for them out there. They need to hire dozens of people, but they apparently couldn't get anybody to drive out to Waltham.

I love biking, I know many

I love biking, I know many people love and rely on their bikes, I know the city and some businesses mean well by encouraging biking into town, I know Hubway has been a huge success...all that being said, I would never ride a bike on any city street, particularly a Boston street. That's just me. Cars, trucks and bikes must share the road, but sometimes, even when no wrong has been done by either party, things end badly. Bike vs. car or bike vs. truck is not a fair fight. RIP to this poor woman and her family.

I love walking, I know many

"I love walking, I know many people love and rely on walking, and I know the city and some businesses mean well by encouraging walking around. All that being said, as a woman I would never walk on the street at night, particularly a boston street. That's just me."

Would you post that shit in articles about a women being raped? No?

Then why are you posting that victim-blaming BS here?

Oh My Lord

If I took a shot of vodka every time someone cried "blaming the victim" over the past couple of weeks here, I'd need a new liver.

Yes, as a woman you do have to avoid some places and situations to keep yourself out of potential harm's way. It's called personal responsibility. That's the way the world works. Now suck it up, buttercup, and get a new line because that one is tired.

Nice try at equivocation, but

Nice try at equivocation, but no dice. You're seriously out of line if you're saying I would blame a rape victim for being raped. Rape is serious a crime. What I'm talking about are ACCIDENTS WHERE NO ONE IS AT FAULT. There is no evidence of fault or wrongdoing on either side so far. What my statement boils down to is simply that biking on a busy city street is inherently risky, and I'm sure many people would agree. I'm not blaming anyone, least of all this poor victim, and I bitterly resent you suggesting so. People are free to bike on the street if they wish. A woman (or a man for that matter) is free to walk down an empty city street alone at night if he or she wishes. But both are risks, and it's a risk some people may choose to avoid. I just gave an opinion on what I would not do myself, based on my judgement of the risks involved. As I said, when something goes wrong, the bike is outmatched, and it almost always results in serious injury or death for the cyclist. That is not blaming the victim!

Comments

"A" street is a truck route. If you grew up in southie you would know that, or should. Also, keep in mind if you cannot see the trucks mirrors he/she cannot see you. A woman died today, a truck driver may never again get behind the wheel of a rig.
Instead of commenting and blaming anyone, bow your head and say a prayer for the woman's family, the other biker who was with her and that truck driver.

I was a bike messenger in NYC,Manhattan

primarily midtown and downtown, grew up in NY and Boston [Allston,JP, and Somerville], and used to ride my bike to work everyday from Cleveland Circle to downtown. This was the late 80s into the 90s. It was dangerous then, it's gotten a lot worse now. People in general are nastier, and everyone is more tense today than even the 1990s. Traffic is worse. Congestion is worse. Population is higher. The vehicles driven today [SUVs, suburbans, etc.] by many are huge compared to when I was a child, and they seem to make many drivers more cocky and isolated from what's going on in the outside world. There is simply more disrespect on all sides today. I wouldn't ride a bike in the city anymore. It's just too dangerous and unpleasant an atmosphere.

I wouldn't ride on every street in Boston

But I would ride on most and frankly, the more bikes there are, the safer the streets become. I hear you completely on the shift in the car culture. I even find the design of modern cars so insular and strange--with the majority now having tinted windows, it's impossible to see through them, harder to make eye contact with drivers, harder for drivers to be aware of what's going on around them--it's like they're in some kind of travel pod. And the trend towards SUVs...it's like the attitude has become "I'm just going to barrel through this, but if something happens it'll be OK because I'm bigger than everyone else." depressing. That said, I do think that things are shifting the other way, at least in cities like Boston where people are realizing that making streets more shareable makes them better places to be.

Why, thank you!

Shucks, I'm blushing.

And to everyone--drivers, riders--be careful out there. Slow down, watch out for other people, and stay safe. And bike people--don't forget your helmet and light that bike up up like a Christmas tree at night, ok?

My opinion living infront of that gas station

With the train station on the same block as south Boston yoga n MIT there's a strong need for a traffic cops presence. I live above the Station bar n grill and myself have been hit by a cab driver and a cyclist. Mine is all you pussies on here running your mouth about the dead say it to the families. And if you don't want to say to the face is the family as you can come say it to my face 6'2 275 I'd love to.smash you

At first

I laughed about how this comment is such a textbook "internet tough guy" comment, but after reading the stats he posted at the end again now I just want to see UHub user trading cards.

BostonBurnah
6'2" 275lbs
SMASHES ALL COMERS

Driving made worse

Great observations. Cars have had to get larger and heavier due to government regulations. Impact protection and big crumple zones add weight and size. Child car seat regulations favor higher SUVs and bigger ones that can fit more than two.

Government has been hurting public health by reducing roads instead of making them flow as well or better than before. Congestion produces health damaging stress and instances of road rage. Only a few percent succumb to the torture and convert to cycling, so the net is harmful. The lack of respect for each other by cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians feeds more stress and disrespect.

Being stuck in traffic and going slow removes the freedom and enjoyment of driving, so people buy automatic transmissions, make SUVs into living rooms and offices (complete with phones and Internet service), isolated from the experience of driving. Something people can get back on a motorcycle or nice bicycle. Government policies have increased problems by making driving as detached from reality as video games. Many so called, Complete Streets features end up doing more harm than good in the end - expected given the lack of economic, human stress, or accident analysis.

A solution is to stop putting stress causing road features in that have not shown to save any lives, yet make travel more difficult for the greatest number of travelers (drivers). Tightened corners, curb extensions, and creeping along from stop light to stop light produces the greatest harm, not good. We could all shift mode to motorbikes and scooters, but we know that isn't realistic in the next 20 years. We get rain, snow, and some need to wear business attire to jobs.

I agree with the first part

I agree with the first part of your post, Mark, but I must disagree with your conclusion. Motorists are not being careless because of traffic calming and intentionally mistimed signals (most signals are actually timed in their favor, although perhaps poorly). Motorists are frustrated and careless because there are too many other cars on the road, and because the nature of driving a car (which brings the most pleasure when going fast) is at 180 degree odds with being in a city that is full of pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic calming done well is actually supposed to work to a driver's benefit, encouraging slow and steady speeds instead of the jerky and frustrating stop and go fast between intersections design that most of our roads have now.

Traffic Calming usually the opposite

What has been lost are roads wide enough to go around slow, stopped, or turning vehicles. Turning vehicles are forced to slow more to turn, and in turn everyone behind them has to slow or stop too, creating more frustration and pollution. We see how people respond to more stopping in switching to automatic from manual transmissions.

Going fast is a limited view of driving or riding pleasure. Cornering well is fun, as is generally being in harmony with the vehicle. I drive a Mazda Miata, and going slower speeds with the top down in nice weather is pretty good. Using sticky tires for more g forces in curves is fun, not simple fast.

Maybe, then

People driving cars need to grow up and behave like mature adult human beings.

I don't particularly want MY tax dollars used to cater to a bunch of immature brats who can't behave themselves behind the wheel because they are such self-important little snowflakes.

Go back to kindergarten and relearn that part about sharing toys, please!

I drove these roads "back when"

The problem isn't traffic calming.

The problem is too many cars.

If you want to expand road capacity, you go to bike lanes - go out on Hampshire at rush hour when 40 bikes and 5 cars make it through a light. that isn't because people can't make it unofficially two lanes - it is because there are just too goddamn many cars on the road for the capacity of the roadway. Period. Your car adds one more, and maybe you should leave it at home if you want to solve the real problem.

You have no clue, and yet you spew.

Oh you poor thing!

Traffic calming keeps you from feeling the g-forces when you corner?? My gosh, how can you even bear to get out of bed in the morning? Your life must be pure hell.

Ha Ha, not.

Traffic calming clogs traffic making roads too narrow for other cars to go around turning drivers who are waiting for traffic and pedestrians to clear, but it kills cyclists. Making roads too narrow ends up with cyclists getting side-swiped by trucks and MBTA buses. Sick sense of humor you have.

That's creative

We see how people respond to more stopping in switching to automatic from manual transmissions.

Wow, that's a pretty creative statement.

People buy cars with auto transmissions for the simple fact that they don't want to shift. Add in the fact that auto transmissions are quite advanced these days, allowing the driver to shift manually, and in some cases, providing better fuel economy.

I say this as someone who owns two cars with standard transmissions. But really, feel free to make up your own "facts".

auto transmission = lazy and stupid/distracted

If people are too lazy to shift gears driving a car, its clear they won't jump to bicycles to pedal somewhere! Unless, possibly its downhill (as bike share systems show mostly downhill trips).

People driving through buildings from hitting gas instead of brake would nearly all disappear if they only had manual transmissions. Got runaway acceleration? Just press the clutch pedal. Dead battery? Pop start with the clutch, after disabling any "safety" interlock preventing it if present.

People would think about and perhaps engage more in the task of driving with manual transmissions. Auto increases temptation to multi-task along with other automation to distance people from the primary task of driving.

People would not rush so much from traffic light to traffic light with manual trans - they try to time so the light turns green before they need to stop. I see so many idiots with automatic transmissions hitting the gas when there is just a red light or stopped traffic ahead. A manual teaches them to look beyond their hood better than an automatic, since there is a penalty of added clutch and shift work for not looking ahead.

Knowing how to drive a manual comes in handy too should you ever want to rent a car outside the US or Canada, though more accommodation has been made for stupid Americans who can't drive a standard.

Don't want to get car jacked or your car stolen? Get a manual transmission. Even car thieves are less likely to be able to drive a manual these days!

Few locations indeed

Just places like Boston, really.

Also, you have to count most bus riders as pedestrians also. For most, they're pedestrians four times a day (to and from each stop) and bus riders only twice a day, so that doesn't help your argument much.

Bus riders suffer from congestion too

The bus riders cover way more distance in buses than on foot, otherwise, they would have just walked to where they are going. Traffic calming streets hurts these riders with longer transit times. It hurts the T with more buses on a route to maintain stop intervals, or just worsening the service with fewer trips.

You try using the same bad logic used by HubWay counting its trips. Its fake, like counting web page hits instead of unique visitors.

Good thing

Good thing we have Markkk to point out how bad our logic is. Those HubWay people have it all wrong, just making up numbers and stuff. Hubway is really a dismal failure and isn't taking off at all, and won't expand either. They'll all be sorry someday for not listening to Markkk.

Markkk has even helped me realize that, really, I'm not a pedestrian at all. After all, I've flown to other continents, which makes me, by the superior logic of miles travelled, primarily an air traveler. I've always wanted to think of myself as a jet-setter, so I thank him for my new self-knowledge.

Tomorrow I'll go out and militate against traffic calming and trying to remove cars and trucks from Boston streets, because that would hurt bus riders.

See you at the barricades, comrade! I'll be the jet-setter in the smoking jacket.

Hubway

Well... I love the Hubway idea and movement

However ever notice all those commuters who use them or tourist never
have helmets on?????

HubWay: How many unique visitors/day?

Hubway needs to be as transparent as Capitol bike share with data from its publicly funded system. Only then will success or failure be visible. Success is relative. The MBTA and Hubway both have stops that don't pay for themselves. MBTA however does release boarding numbers by stop. Hubway tries to hide and spin its data. Anybody doing that is usually trying to hide bad news.

The whole pricing structure for HubWay is to inflate usage numbers! They get no extra income from about 99% of "trips" (trip segments, actually), which are under 30 minutes. So, these trips are for show, not revenue. The revenue comes from taxpayers, New Balance, memberships, and a little from weekend riders and tourists.

Until HubWay opens their books, you can't say if they are a success or failure yet. We might have to wait until they have their hand out for more tax money, take away stations, or beg for more sponsors.

Please...

...do not feed the troll. He parks his '72 lime-green Nova under the bridge and babbles out about the benefits of leaded gas and crank-start motors (which describes any car he starts, really), and swears at passing bicyclists and pedestrians (and urban planners).

But...

..I so do cherish what I have left, you reprehensible, monomaniac, lost-in-the-50s-of-your-fantasies idiot.

Go bother people on the Arlington mailing lists and blogs.

Responsibility

We don't know the full story yet of exactly what happened, but I can safely say that as the driver of a car or truck, it is your responsibility to not hit things while you are driving. As the operator of the larger, more powerful vehicle, even if everyone else on the road (pedestrians, bicyclists, etc) are being total asshats, you must do everything you can not to hit them.

Every time someone says "oh bicycling in Boston is so dangerous", they are basically admitting that there are a lot of people driving motor vehicles who are should not be doing so.

Of course it is also in your best interest as a pedestrian, bicyclist, or smartcar driver to try to predict and avoid dangerous situations where you will definitely lose. If I see a large truck and I'm not sure if the driver sees me, I slow down or wait until I know it's safe. Because you can't trust that everyone on the road will see you, driving/bicycling/walking defensively is always a good idea.

what a horrendous thread.

It's a tragic accident and this thread really contributes nothing to the debate around cars and bikes. The second comment should have just been the end of it until further information about the accident was released by reliable sources. Instead it's the usual useless ranting and hyperbole by people who are not going to be swayed by anyone else's opinion or by reality.

The on-going bike-car war on UHub is tired and depressing.

Another perspective

Since we don't know any of the details of this tragedy, I'm not going to comment on it.

But I do want to share that I have been biking for years in Boston, both to commute and for fun and exercise (there's nothing better than a ride around Cape Ann on a beautiful day). I think things have gotten way better in the city and the surrounding area over the last eight years. There are way more bike lanes, bike-in-lane-of-traffic road paintings, and general "share the road signs." The number of cyclists seems to have increased greatly, creating more awareness of cyclists. And, and this is just my experience, motorists have become more respectful of the rights of bikers. I still get people honking at me just for biking, but it happens so rarely I don't even think about it.

There's something else though. For every biker I see biking defensively, the way I was taught to drive a car: not speeding on busy streets, not running lights during rush hour, keeping constantly aware of my surroundings, I see five or ten blowing by me, headphones in, running red lights, going against traffic, and so on. We can talk about rights all we want and how drivers should bear more responsibility, but in the real world the burden of safety is on us, the cyclists. Nearly every day there is a situation where, had I not been paying attention, an accident would have occurred through no fault of mine. And I've witnessed many of those people I described above, wherever the hell they were trying to go so fast, getting into accidents or near-accidents, road rage incidents, you name it. Why do we need to make cycling like Boston's aggressive driving culture?

Because its a rush!

Riding fast around obstacles is stimulating. Its just part of the whole X-treme culture of feeding adrenaline addiction. The streets are right here - people don't need to go where there is bungee jumping or sky diving for a little thrill. Rolling at a rave is less easy than back in the day. It takes enforcement to give the message that public streets are not the place for racing.

"I see five or ten blowing by

"I see five or ten blowing by me, headphones in, running red lights, going against traffic, and so on."

-And those are just the drivers, right? how many drivers do you see each day blasting a red light, have headphones in, are texting, or are talking on the cell phone --- your 37% less capable of correctly driving a car while talking on the cell phone....that's like drunk driving at the minimal blood alcohol....

Distracted driving is bad. Solution?

I hope you can think about what causes distracted driving and running stale yellow lights, and how to work with human nature to improve conditions. If enforcement could do it all, cyclists would follow traffic laws too. Basically, driving slowly and sitting in traffic occupies the mind too little so other activities are sought. The frustration of all lights being red tempts running of yellow. Roads kept at 1935 capacity levels, or worsened hurts, not helps.

There's a reason for that

Roads kept at 1935 capacity levels, or worsened hurts, not helps.

So we are supposed to bulldose half the city to fit more cars in?

Like, um, Detroit? Or the booming economy of ... Hartford?

Son, maybe it is time for you to convince those aging parents of yours to move to Texas or Southern California or Florida if you think your ideas about creating permanent human-repellent car habitats make for nice places to live.

Argument against bike infrastructure

The argument of taking land makes more sense for impractically providing bicycling infrastructure! Try and raise that money with some fundraising rides! The decline of many cities seems to have nothing to do with "too much" auto infrastructure. Is it the cause in Lawrence, New Bedford, Springfield, Worcester, Buffalo? There is lots of auto infrastructure in Texas not harming their economy. Its illogical to claim any connection of excess infrastructure and collapse - unrelated.

Much can still be done with existing public lands. Restore efficiency of intersections with more right on red. Widen DCR owned roads - much was mosquito infested swampland shovel ready for 1930's filling and road building, not parkland. One section of road narrowed in the 1970's, now backed up 17 hours/day is Rt 16 in Medford by I-93, where it goes from 4 lanes to 2. The road needs to be widened using the available DCR land and a big parking garage put at the endpoint of the proposed Green Line Extension in order for the GLX to not be a complete waste of taxpayer money and transfer to pockets of developers.

Stop tearing down overpasses and underpasses which makes movement harder for everyone. Undo removal of travel lanes. Undo excessive sidewalk widening for free benefits of business like rent-free outdoor seating. Widen sidewalks only where pedestrian volumes demand and other volumes are lower.

Yep take away all other

Yep take away all other transportation options, that will get rid of congestion. LA tried that, by the 1990s it had failed miserably and now the city is desperately trying to reverse course.

What do you do for a living

I think we can all agree that "traffic engineer" and "urban planner" are seriously off the list.

What do you make of this: Portland, Oregon, where my aging parents lived until their demise, has long restricted its expansion boundaries and long invested a fixed percentage of roadway funds in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. They have also managed to build and expand a light rail and trolley system over the last 30 years.

The area has doubled in population in 20-25 years.

I guess all those bike lanes scared people away - not. Who have they attracted? People who don't want to depend on cars - youngsters who don't want the costs, elders who understand that it is wise to live in a place where not being able to drive does not result in either house-arrest or fatal accident risks.

Computer / networking performance, QA & security testing

I have an eye for inefficiency and logic flaws. Urban planners are fascists wanting to impose their "new" concept of Utopia on others. Traffic engineers are declining in quality and . They use computer simulations to make up for not having common sense or experience driving anything larger than a Prius.

Packet switched networking performance is not much different from traffic engineering, except that dropping packets can't be done with vehicles! I was talking with a physicist and he viewed traffic as a wave phenomena, where flow constrictions would reflect back waves of congestion (compression). I've done my reading of research literature, and that too is declining in quality. Studies are only undertaken which will support desired results favoring "sustainable" policies.

Portland is well suited to bicyclists. If people can move where it rains a lot, they must have little trouble riding out in it too. The cable show Portlandia sums up the people attracted to the place. I'm happy there is a home for them, much like Sedona Arizona is for others.

I recall that traffic congestion is bad in Seattle, a similar city. Portland may also have been on the list of US cities with the worst congestion. Congestion and waste is the product of their policies.

Get your eye checked

"Urban planners are fascists"

I've been wondering why all urban planners like to goose-step so much and have weird quasi-German accents, but thanks to a man with an eye for logic flaws now I know.

An urban planner just screamed at me the other day

VE HAVE VAYS OF MAKING YOU BIKE!

And I don't know why it didn't dawn on me then that urban planners are all fascists. I guess I just can't see logical flaws well enough to notice.

Logic Flaw

I've never been somewhere, but I watched a TV show about it so that's all I have to know.

I deal with electronics, so I know it is like electronics. Even though many experts in several fields talk about traffic in terms of fluid dynamics, I've never seen a TV show on it.

nice.

+1. The thing about traffic engineering is that everyone (who drives) experiences traffic. Sits for hours in traffic. Ponders traffic. Eventually comes up with their naive theories of how and why traffic works (or doesn't). So they all assume they are experts on traffic. "Hey I've sat on the expressway for hours for every day for the past 20 years, so my opinion is valid!" When in fact their opinion is garbage. All they know is that they want to go fast and all these cars won't let them. Make more lanes and it will go fast. Logical, right? Bullshit.

These people should move to Montana. Soon. Become dental floss tycoons.

Really?

My Dad had done all of those by the time he took the qualifying exams to get his Highway Engineer 1 designation for the State of Oregon. He had also driven tractors and farm equipment.

Of course, it was still possible then to qualify for that exam without a college education.

Oh, and he fully supported Oregon's program of 1% for non-car amenities that created bike lanes and signals and paths, despite his experience of driving trucks into and out of the city. He didn't see these things as the Zero Sum Game that you do.

It's high time that a lot of those overpasses were torn down.

Overpasses are coming down all over the country. It's not the 1950's any more. Frankly, I wish they'd tear down the McGrath highway overpass instead of just temporarily repairing it so that the decrepit thing will be able to stand for another decade or possibly more. First of all, if one walks underneath that overpass and takes a close look at it, they'll see exposed rusted-out steel frames in some places, and it's obvious that the cement that went into building the thing has lost its integrity. Moreover, the tearing down of that overpass and making it into a flat, user-friendly boulevard would make it safer for bicyclists and walkers alike, and unite the city of Somerville more, instead of cutting off 1/3 of the city from everyone else.

I also might add that the traffic on the McGrath highway is much too fast and needs to be slowed down.

Overpasses not the problem

The problem with McGrath is the confusing mess of roads underneath the overpasses. Replacing four lanes (2 each way) of free flowing overpass traffic requires an intersection twice as wide! If four lanes have to stop for a red light, cutting their flow time in half across an intersection, twice as many lanes are needed to get the same flow in the half time period. Crossing the longer distance on foot thus becomes more exposed and less comfortable for pedestrians.

Overpasses and underpasses are simply more efficient uses of space. The central artery went from an overpass to an underpass. Putting it at street level would have been a disaster.

McGrath is too fast? What parts? Is the accident rate high at fast locations? Fixing overpasses on McGrath is simply way cheaper and more efficient than tearing it down, filling landfills with the rubble, and rebuilding it all at surface level. A great waste of materials and money.

These threads are the same every time

Can't we just agree that biking in a busy city is dangerous, mmmkay? You can't control the behavior of drivers. The best cyclist in the world is no match for a distracted driver. Distracted and bad drivers aren't going away. No law is going to change that. No one wants to see anyone hurt or killed, but reality is that when you have bikes and auto's sharing the road, cyclists are going to get hurt. The only thing you can do it either not ride, or ride as defensively as possible and hope for the best.

not a tuff guy

I'm met the family yesterday that lost that young lady that got hit on Monday. I gave the lady a hug and she cried staring at a telephone pole with candles and flowers and her daughters picture around it. And fyi not a tuffguy but do have an accuired set of skills I have no problem snapping your leg or arm. It makes me sick seeing people talk shit about the dead. Just might be you tommorow under a truck tire dead for8 hrs then will write about you. KARMA IS A BITCH AND I WIFED HER UP LOL

WTF?

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I "talk shit about the dead"? Oh that's right, I didn't. You just imagined it in your feeble little mind. That sucks that someone died and it sucks that you had to "WIFE HER UP" whatever that means. You're threats of bodily harm are at least funny. I fart in your general direction. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

Location