Hey, there! Log in / Register

Pedestrian hit, killed by truck in Charles Circle; witnesses say she was crossing against light

Charles Circle crash scene

The crash scene this afternoon - the Coca-Cola truck was the one involved.

Updated with information from the DA's office.

A woman apparently walking against the light was struck and killed by a tractor trailer in Charles Circle this afternoon.

Witnesses reported that the woman, 68, was crossing Cambridge Street towards the Liberty Hotel when hit around 1:30 p.m., according to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office, which adds:

Emergency medical technicians from an ambulance company were in the immediate area and stopped to assist. The woman was transported to Massachusetts General Hospital a short distance away, where she died of her injuries.

The driver showed no signs of impairment when interviewed by police. Though the investigation remains open, with investigators expecting to retrieve footage from public safety cameras in the area, no charges have been sought against him at this time.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Not surprised. Lots of traffic from all directions, and pedestrians seem to like to play frogger there.

Of course, the pedestrian light timing is awful, counting down to "zero" for ages before the cross traffic is allowed to flow. So it's your usual Boston cluster situation: horrible drivers, pedestrians jumping in front of cars, lights that provide pedestrians with little or no useful information about whether safe to cross, and drivers who treat lights as optional.

up
Voting closed 0

I was very disappointed that when Charles/MGH Station was renovated and Charles Circle was 'reworked' they removed the pedestrian overpasses from the station.

I know MGH bitched because they weren't ADA friendly, but they did serve a purpose. That intersection is a pedestrian nightmare.

up
Voting closed 0

 

up
Voting closed 0

however, they could have done both. Give people options. Or made them more ada friendly like the ones that connect the Esplanade to Charles Circle (where there are ramps and stairs)

That intersection is just a hazard in general..

up
Voting closed 0

... but access to the station is hardly ADA "friendly".

up
Voting closed 0

It has escalators and elevators; what more does it need?

up
Voting closed 0

I don't know if that was your intention but the language is loaded. Jumping in front of cars? Like to play frogger there?

If your going to characterize pedestrians attempting to cross a street this way, why stop there? Why not speaking about the drunk drivers, facebooking on their cell phone while swerving all over the road?

I bike through here daily, the pedestrians typically treat the lights well. Drivers however....

up
Voting closed 0

I'm so tired of people saying "oh, that intersection is so obviously dangerous, that's why this happened."

No. It's because someone driving a vehicle through a dangerous intersection placed the burden on everyone else...instead of exercising more care.

up
Voting closed 0

Much of the hazards in that intersection are the DIRECT RESULT of failure of infrastructural design.

Infrastructure is something WE CAN CONTROL - particularly when that whole goddamn mess was REBUILT and yet it was not done right.

I'll blame the community, too, for insisting that Cambridge St. have a giant brick median mess, wasting so much space and making the whole disaster a four-lane divided raceway with jaywalking launch pads.

up
Voting closed 0

Well said.

Many of the advances in the last few decades have come from the acknowledgement that infrastructure affects people's behavior. Wide lanes encourage drivers to speed. Long distances between intersections make people pay less attention to the road. And inconvenient pedestrian signal timings teach pedestrians that a "don't walk" signal is usually meaningless and encourages them to take their chances when there's a gap in traffic. I'm not saying those individual factors are necessarily true of Charles Circle (other than the poor pedestrian timing), just giving them as examples of infrastructure whose effect on safety is well studied.

Blaming bad infrastructure doesn't mean we're absolving individuals of their responsibility to drive, walk or bike safely. It means we're trying to learn from this tragedy and achieve safer infrastructure in the future.

up
Voting closed 0

I've gone through that intersection as a pedestrian for years and it's been designed around cars, not people.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't even like managing that intersection in a car. But yes, it's almost impossible if you're a pedestrian.

up
Voting closed 0

There's really no way to get to the Longfellow without coming down Cambridge Street, and that intersection is horrible, made slightly less bad by the fact that traffic is usually at a standstill. If you're on the right of traffic, you're effed, as traffic will see the green light and floor it to get on to Storrow. It screams for a bike box and a bicycle light cycle or at least an earlier light, but doesn't get it (MassDOT, ftl). The best thing I've found to do is to get over in to the left lane, take that lane, and if the light is red get way out in front of the crosswalk so that when it changes you're visible to drivers. But not everyone is comfortable weaving through slow-moving or stopped traffic.

For pedestrians, it's really bad when walk lights aren't concurrent with traffic signals. If there are 15 seconds when the light is red but the sign says don't walk, pedestrians are going to walk, this being Boston and all. That is poor design, and there is no call for it, and it causes more problems than it avoids (really, it avoids nothing). It's sort of a boy who cried wolf problem: if people learn that the signals are meaningless and ignore, them, they're more likely to step off a curb when the signals are actually in their favor.

I know it's all temporary, but that's no reason not to do things right. Sadly, it usually takes a situation such as this for any changes to be made. But as part of the Longfellow process, the state/contractor should make sure that all possible pedestrian crossing times are given appropriate signals, and look in to making accommodations for pedestrians and cyclists, especially coming off of Cambridge Street.

And in the long run, a two-way separated bicycle facility on Charles Street (from the Common to Charles Circle) would go a long way towards bicyclists safety and getting some of them off of a terrible portion of Cambridge Street (which was built before the city had an epiphany that bicycles were a thing). I'm actually surprised a cyclist hasn't been killed going through that mess yet.

up
Voting closed 0

The left lane is usually jammed up with people trying to get to the right. The left side is typically clear while the drivers sort out the whole "whoh I shouldn't be here" and rush to the right. Also, it rarely moves at anything above cycling speed, and nobody is cutting in or over or past you like the fools on the right side who don't look at anything but their iPodes. Any other lane through there is suicide on a bike.

If you are headed up the bridge, you have every right to use this lane from Blossom on.

up
Voting closed 0

Every time someone points out something that you MAY not like?

up
Voting closed 0

I don't know. Can we stop treating anyone not in a car as a second class citizen?

up
Voting closed 0

something that you MAY not like

Forgive me but does that mean you LIKE pedestrians getting hit? Like poorly designed intersections? Like drivers running reds?

I don't like that we live in city/society that trivializes deaths caused by motor vehicles and poor road design. I don't like that people in your shoes put the blinders on (figuratively) when talking about the dangers of driving and choose to throw blame elsewhere. I don't like that we look at an incident involving a pedestriand and a vehicle weighing several tons and wonder aloud "gee, those pedesitrians are always playing frogger." Never "gee, those drivers never seem to follow the law."

Care to articulate your point further?

up
Voting closed 0

She's the vicitim (as in dead) and some here are blaming here. I don't know what else you'd call it.

up
Voting closed 0

But pedestrians do regularly step into traffic in the area. A LOT of it is because of the poor design of the intersection.

My condolences go out to the woman who was killed. That's horrible.

up
Voting closed 0

I feel horrible for the lady and her family. And drivers who are drunk or not paying attention are certainly a potential hazard. And from my reading of the news, the police are rightfully quick to charge a driver they believe was drunk or texting.

But if indeed the woman stepped in front of traffic with a red pedestrian-light in front of her saying, "Don't Walk", then the media should report that. People with Don't Walk lights absolutely do walk in front of cars constantly in most of Boston. Sometimes becuase the light cycle sucks, but often because... oh, I don't know exactly why, but it's dangerous, and rude.

The language may get hyperbolic at times, but that doesn't change the fact that people do this all the time.

I am not in this area often, but I run, walk, and drive downtown neighborhoods daily (and occasionally bike). I find pedestrians to be the worst of the bunch, by far, and I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.

Everyone please keep this in mind as you play frogger step off the curb at the next intersection.

up
Voting closed 0

Some day, that is, when the facts have been established.

Right now, I'd say it's time to STFU.

up
Voting closed 0

is that the Pedestrian lights aren't nearly long enough. The "Walk" signs only remain just a scant few seconds before the "Don't Walk" sign starts flashing and then changes to the "don't walk", with the steady red hand, if one gets the drift. The pedestrian "Walk" lights should be way longer, especially in such a dangerous intersection as the Charles Street one.

up
Voting closed 0

I think you're sharing helpful information so we can hopefully avoid repeats of this. It's amazing how many people in this city think that the "don't walk" light is just there for fun, and that they should walk out in the street when cars have green and they have a big red hand, and the cars are required to stop for them.

And sure, I agree with everyone else that the city could be made a lot more pedestrian and bike friendly, and that that particular area is kind of poorly designed. Not the point. The "don't walk" sign means that you shouldn't walk out in the street, because cars have a green and aren't required to stop for pedestrians on green. Why is this any different from people who ignore "stay off the train tracks" or "don't put your hand in the bear cage" signs? It's unfortunate any time a life is lost, but...

up
Voting closed 0

I'm sorry, but you must never have been a pedestrian in Boston to take this position. The light cycles in this city are the worst of any city I've ever been to, and actively encourage jaywalking.

Go anywhere else in the country and you get walk lights concurrent with traffic, and countdown times that go to zero when the lights change. Here, everything requires pushing a button every block, and the lights count down to zero a full ten seconds before the cross-traffic gets the green.

There's also no enforcement of yielding to pedestrians (go to California, where you can get a ticket for turning right in front of a pedestrian, even if they are few yards away from your car).

Yes, it's well and good to say "follow the rules," but it's the same situation as speed limits that are set unrealistically low: everyone simply ignores them.

And finally, you're wrong that "Don't Walk" means the cars have the green. If that were the case, there'd be a lot less jaywalking.

up
Voting closed 0

My favorite peeve: the multiple emergency exit doors at the bottom of the T platform staircases, which lead to a narrow traffic island with no crosswalk. It's unclear if you're supposed to use them in a non-emergency, but a lot of people do, since it's the obvious direct route from the platform to where most people are going. http://goo.gl/maps/t6Aai

Did the people designing the doors not talk to the people placing the turnstiles and crosswalks?

Wasn't the whole point of removing the footbridges supposed to be making things easier and safer for pedestrians?

up
Voting closed 0

Those doors are important in moving crowds on News Eve and 4th of July. But it would be helpful if they were not useable (like an alarm going off) the rest of the year except in an emergency.

up
Voting closed 0

Those exit doors are very useful if you're trying to get to MGH. The right answer isn't to disable the doors, but to add raised crosswalks from them across Cambridge Street.

up
Voting closed 0

Right... because cars would stop for someone in a crosswalk that is ~50 feet from the intersection.

up
Voting closed 0

I drive through that intersection pretty often. If I thought about it too much, I probably never would again. *shudder* Condolences to that poor woman's loved ones.

up
Voting closed 0

in the foreground. Road paint needs to be maintained much better.

up
Voting closed 0

I am very sorry that someone lost their life, but that area is a disaster waiting to happen. As is typical, when the T rebuilt the station everything went to hell. Nothing there makes any sense with regard to pedestrian crossing. They never should have taken down the pedestrian overpass.
As for the station itself, when one is finally able to get to it after risking life and limb to cross the street, no matter which side you are on it always appears like you are at some back alleyway door of the station that may or may not open. It's confusing.

up
Voting closed 0

My condolences family.

It is a horrible intersection. I go through it most morning between 6:30 and 7:30 and if a train lets out people stream across the street and there is a bit of testing the cars (or trucks) that have the light. At that time there can easily be 200 people waiting (or testing) to cross. Same with the back Emergency exit. You can say it is blaming the victim or not, but the protocol used by pedestrians blurs the line of what is safe and not safe pretty heavily.

up
Voting closed 0

It is a horrible intersection. I go through it most afternoons between 5:30 and 6:30 and if a red light goes on, drivers still stream across the intersection and there is a bit of testing the lights (or pedestrians) that have the light. At that time there can easily be 10 cars blocking the box. You can say it is blaming the cars or not, but the protocol used by drivers blurs the line of what is safe and not safe pretty heavily.

up
Voting closed 0

This gets back to light timing. The reason the pedestrians cross when it looks open is because the lights are often meaningless. Retime the lights so that the walk sign (and countdown) mean something and people will wait. Also, 200 people waiting to cross the street on foot should not need to wait a long time for a few (or more then a few) cars. The cycles on these lights need to be timed so that someone isn't waiting to cross for more then 30 seconds. Go back to using the walk buttons if needed.

That said, if you think pedestrians are bad you should see the drivers. In this town drivers treat the light as green 10 seconds after it's turned red. (And people accuse cyclists of running red light!) Using turn signals is rare. Yielding for pedestrians is only done if there is so much traffic that the driver couldn't have moved anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

I agree, clearly the pedestrian light cycles encourage the pedestrians to ignore.

Is there a way to measure when there are 200 people waiting other having the guy sitting in the control room press a button?

As suggested elsewhere having an overhead crossover would reduce the competition for the space.

I am not in the area when there is car gridlock, so I don't see the rampant red light running (although there are plenty of places where I do see it).

up
Voting closed 0

Pedestrian flows follow a general pattern, so counts are about the same at given times of the day and week. If 200 pedestrians regularly accumulate during don't-walks at busy times, it means the light should be retimed.

up
Voting closed 0

Can you describe what you mean by "testing"? Sounds like the intersection handles way more pedestrians than cars and passengers at the that hour there travel should be prioritised over mostly single passenger vehicles. Maybe if it gets you peeved you should choose a different route or don't drive altogether.

up
Voting closed 0

What I am describing as testing is a pedestrian looking at the light and noticing it is green, then looking down the street and simultaneously stepping into the crosswalk and deciding if they can "beat" the car when crossing the street. I drive slowly through there because of this, but not everyone does.

I think when the light is green the car drivers should be given the right of way. Car drivers don't have the right of way for most of the cycle (and obviously not all car drivers recognize they don't have the right of way as pointed out by several posters). Testing is seeing if you can steal someone else cycle time.

up
Voting closed 0

Go hang around South Station/Financial District around 5pm. Swarms of suits who don't know what a "don't walk" signal means and are angry that drivers are wanting to proceed on a green light.

up
Voting closed 0

My experience: Far more often it is drivers whose vehicles are jamming the intersection who want to keep driving through throngs of people who now have the walk lights, just because traffic on the other side of that crosswalk is now moving.

Tens of thousands of people walk through that area - drivers need to know their place and wait their turn.

up
Voting closed 0

My experience is that there is no shortage of asshole drivers or asshole pedestrians in that part of Boston. YMMV.

up
Voting closed 0

I was walking by when I saw the commotion of ambulances, and paramedics where rushing around. They were placing her in the ambulance. I saw some shopping bags (and a sheet with some blood on it) in the middle of the left lane at the crosswalk. There was no sound or movement (that I could see) so I'm guessing she was gone at that point. Very sad and condolences to the family...I was hoping to read that she had survived. It is a dangerous crosswalk and certainly hope improvements are made at this location.

For the record, I was probably at the scene @ 12:45, so the 1:30 timing is definitely off.

up
Voting closed 0

put tunnels underground to cross to the other side of the street. I believe there may be some existing pedestrian tunnels there from back in the day that were used for mbta purposes. Who's the historian here?

up
Voting closed 0

Because that's what it would become. The tunnel under the old Central Artery, in order to get from Faneuil Hall to North End? Toilet. The tunnel to under the green line at Park Street to get from inbound to outbound trains? Toilet. The tunnel under Dartmouth street to get to Back Bay Station? Toilet.

It'd permanently smell like piss within one week, so people who don't have to currently take a piss would avoid the tunnel and....walk across the street anyway.

I agree with the poster who preferred the catwalks over the street (non ada compliant and all) but I recall the same thing happening. Able bodied folks too lazy to use the stairs just ran across the street anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

they were the only way into the old Charles T station. The doors at street level, in the middle of the circle, were not openable from the outside.

Speaking of toilets, though, I do have some memory of going down to that level to use one of the T's secret restrooms.

up
Voting closed 0

There were panhandlers who would camp out in them. There were also icy stairwells that were impossible to navigate even for the able-bodied. I can't tell you how many times that I had to help an elderly person down those death cases!

I'm not sure an elevator at each possible landing corner is even feasible or desirable. What would help a lot would be a 15mph raised speed table wide enough to take the load of people who need to cross there at busy times, including from the accessory doors.

up
Voting closed 0

Is an awesome idea..

What would help a lot would be a 15mph raised speed table wide enough to take the load of people who need to cross there at busy times, including from the accessory doors.

up
Voting closed 0

Among many problems with this intersection is the fact that cars making the right turn from Cambridge St onto the Storrow on-ramps often speed through the crosswalks there even after the pedestrians have the walk signal. This is so prevalent that you can see it almost every light cycle during rush hour.

Given the positions of the truck and police tape, I doubt that is what happened here. But, it's clear that the all-day state police detail is not doing much to improve safety.

up
Voting closed 0

Has something to do with having the ability to close down the bridge on short notice if there is need to get an ambulance across it or something.

Either that, or MSP wasn't getting enough overtime.

up
Voting closed 0

Witnesses say she was crossing against the light.

up
Voting closed 0

I read she was crossing from the T station side. I can see how something like this could happen because the station obstructs the view of the oncoming traffic until you get to the curb. If one is unfamiliar with the area and not paying attention, stepping out into traffic (which is traveling at a good clip) could easily happen. One solution may be to corral pedestrians with a railing to delay their crossing (I dont think is presently exists). Im glad the truck driver stopped. Tragic event for everyone involved.

up
Voting closed 0

None of us know when our time is up. Makes you stop and think, hopefully see the big picture in life.

And my sympathy to the driver of the coca cola truck. I'm sure he is badly shaken up and certainly didn't mean to run down the poor woman.

And I agree with others, that's a piss poor infrastructure and road layout if ever there was one. They put a subway entrance on an island in the middle of that clusterphuk. Of course there should be a pedestrian overpass or underpass.

up
Voting closed 0

I cross here daily to go to MGH. When the walk sign lights up I cross like many others. When it says "Don't walk", I adhere and wait like others. Then there are people who have their faces glued to their phones, people running and oblivious people crossing as it says "DONT WALK". People need to wake up and pay attention. I know there are vehicles that don't.follow the rules either.

up
Voting closed 0

I cross here daily to go to MGH. When the walk sign lights up I cross like many others. When it says "Don't walk", I adhere and wait like others. Then there are people who have their faces glued to their phones, people running and oblivious people crossing as it says "DONT WALK". People need to wake up and pay attention. I know there are vehicles that don't.follow the rules either.

up
Voting closed 0

Many have commented here on how the redesign of this intersection and the MGH T stop got several things wrong. The current project review system isn't working if it allowed failures like these to occur. Public hearings are an outdated system of appearing (placating) to listen to the public without any mandate that they resolve concerns. As long as design consultants get paid, minimum regulations followed, and an appearance of being safer, the project moves on. Too often hearing attendees represent minority interests and are not at all proportional to user populations. Seldom are plans available online for the public, just for the DOT and contractors. People are welcome to write letters, but they are seldom read or considered. At best they are counted as for and against the design with no breakdown of specific aspects of the design.

There really needs to be a better way to do public projects, including making use of this Internet thing. I'm glad software QA doesn't operate the way public project review does currently.

up
Voting closed 0