Bicyclist struck and killed by tractor trailer in Dorchester

WHDH reports on the crash shortly before 2 p.m. on East Cottage Street near Norfolk Avenue.



Free tagging: 



It’s not clear why the victim was biking in the hazardous area.

I thought local news stations would avoid this kind of obvious victim blaming. What is especially hazardous or industrial about this block? It's a public street not a truck yard.

RIP young man

By on

And condolences to loved ones. Looks like a great kid.

teenager killed

By on

Truck drivers should be more cognizant of their surroundings because cyclists don't have much of a chance when they get blindsided by a truck.


So? Unless it is closed to the public, it is open for cycling.


By on

You might enjoy bike riding in open to the public construction zones but I prefer a safer and more serene area.

That's nice dear

You get to play on your bike on safe roads! How sweet.

Ever occur to you that many people don't have that ... privilege? That they need to navigate situations like this to get out of their neighborhood?

Of course not. You're too special. So special and such a good girl that you don't complain about groping and harassment like those bad girls ... and bad boys who can't afford cars and get mowed down by entitled motorists. Oh no. Not you.


What a tool

By on

I usually don't respond to ignorance, but since I grew up in this area, I feel compelled to do so. This area is a dense residential and commercial (pizza shop, convenience store, small body shop, etc.) area. I ride through here all the time on my motorcycle. I will tell you that the trucks working on this road act like they own the neighborhood. School buses are picking up and dropping kids on a daily basis. There's even an elementary school about a quarter mile up the road. So to say oh well for riding his a bicycle in his neighborhood that lead to his death is just distasteful. What would the response be if he was in Cambridge or Brookline????

They didn't say it was on the street...

... in an industrial area at 80 East Cottage Street.

I'm withholding judgement because it could have been in the loading docks at the rear of the property.

Unfortunately, whatever happened, the victim won't get to tell his/her side of the story.

Bad speculation

By on

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just speculating like the WHDH reporters did based on a helicopter shot of where the dump truck was eventually parked? The Boston Globe has a photo of crime scene tape up in Cottage Street. Not sure why they would put tape up there if this all took place in the lot.

Eventually parked?

Both the bike and the truck are off the street in these pictures. Am I wrong to believe that vehicles investigated in a crash are left untouched as long as safe?

It would be nice if someone reported the location of the crash. I think it unrealistic to think that this crash happened in the street unless someone moved the bike and truck after the crash.

Current text says

By on

It’s not clear why the victim was biking in the area.

Which will be interpreted by most as putting the fault on the victim.

If the bike was somewhere that cars go, other than a freeway, that quote seems very wrong.

Boston shouldn't be getting any awards for being bike-friendly, when any crash gets the mayor and the TV news immediately blaming the bicyclist. When politically-sensitive people feel they have to do that, that means Boston is not bike-friendly, but bike-hateful. Any organization that gives Boston an award for this is part of the problem.


By on

Did you watch the video? The cyclist was in the industrial yard, a place he/she should not of been riding in for many reasons. The cyclist was not on the road. This was an industrial yard where there is heavy truck traffic, in and out of the yard. Yeah, I have no idea why anyone would want to take a bike joy ride in an industrial area.

Hey, but if all you bike zealots want to ride in such an area, go for it. Since those truckers do not have blind spots, really, you have nothing to worry sbout.

Oh for fuck's sake

"It’s not clear why the victim was biking in the hazardous area."

Huh, WHDH. Let me help you out here. You see, streets are bits of space that people use to get between two points. A bike is a vehicle that allows you to get between two points more rapidly than you would by walking. So I think it's safe to surmise that the victim was there because they was trying to get somewhere that they weren't.

Seriously, what the fuck is this bullshit.

Screw you, WHDH

It’s not clear why the victim was biking in the area.

It's not clear why the TRUCK crushed the cyclist.

Do you need permission to enter certain parts of Boston now? Do they always question why people killed were in the area?


By on

"It was not clear why the driver was driving in a hazardous fashion."

Unfortunate that somebody died here

By on

However, and at the risk of invoking the wrath of the "cars and trucks are pure evil" crowd here, it's UNFAIR to automatically blame the truck driver. Because we all know how cyclists NEVER operate recklessly or flaunt the law. But I guess it's easy to blame a driver of a LARGE vehicle that has far more limitations, including wider turning circle and BLIND SPOTS, than a cyclist has instead of objectively looking at the true cause of the collision.

As noted above, and as per Massachusetts law, bicycles are VEHICLES. And when a crash involving a cyclist occurs, it should be investigated EXACTLY the same as any other crash between two cars, or a car and a tractor trailer, or two tractor trailers. And if fault is to be assigned, the standards of fault should apply equally in ALL cases. That is called accepting equal responsibility. You know, the mantra the bike lobby keeps promoting "equal rights, equal responsibility."

Sadly, the bike lobby will cite this crash as another reason why cyclists should continue to get entitled treatment and specialized laws (like, bike hitting driver while passing on right is NOT at fault for collision) that discriminate against other VEHICLE operators.


By on

But I guess it's easy to blame a driver of a LARGE vehicle that has far more limitations, including wider turning circle and BLIND SPOTS

Blind spots are not an excuse. A good driver knows where their blind spots are and will not make a movement without checking them. "I didn't see them" is not a valid argument.

You know, the mantra the bike lobby keeps promoting "equal rights, equal responsibility."

I believe you are confused. I don't think the cycling community was putting up the "same roads, same rules" signs.

why cyclists should continue to get entitled treatment and specialized laws (like, bike hitting driver while passing on right is NOT at fault for collision) that discriminate against other VEHICLE operators.

Two things: when has a bicycle hit a vehicle passing on the right? Much more often a vehicle will turn across the path of a passing cyclist. That is illegal and it damn well should be.

Secondly, I'm so very sorry that car operators have been discriminated against. The Bicycle Lobby is working hard to make sure that car operators are given roads with the majority of space given over to cars, that rules are strictly enforced (since, you know, you always see a cop pull over the first person to run a red light, not to mention the second and third), that illegal U-turns have been ticketed out of oblivion, and that a vehicle operator knows that if they right-hook a cyclist or buzz a roll a stop sign and hit a pedestrian they are going to jail for a long time. Yes, you're right, we've been discriminatory. Perhaps it's time to dial it back a little bit.


By on

Blind spots, by their very nature of being blind spots, means just that, blind. You cannot see what is in your blind spot. As a driver of a car or truck, you mostly have only your mirrors to check around you when you are driving. That is the reality. I really do not understand why you and others are still putting forth this silliness. Plenty of info on Prof. Google on the topic such as

In regards to your comment about when would a cyclist hit a vehicle passing (and I will add turning) right? Well, I was a witness to an accident as you described a few months ago. A car driver was making a right and had stopped to let a pedestrian cross in the crosswalk. It was a tight turn with a set amount of room. Cyclist, for some reason, ran right into the back of the car. Cyclist was in bike lane but the end of the car, because the driver had stopped to let the walker cross, was partially (end corner) in the lane. Difficult to see how this was the driver's fault.

Okay …

By on

a) blind spots are blind because they are not easily visible to the driver. However, a driver should never make a movement in to a blind spot without being sure that it is a safe and legal maneuver. Say you're driving down the highway and go to change lanes. Do you just move in to the other lane if you don't see a car in your mirrors? Hell, no. You check your blind spot (ever head that phrase? It's a thing! It's mentioned 161,000 times on Prof. Google, as you put it, with a bunch of videos if you have a hard time with the words) by turning your head to make sure the roadway is clear.

Same thing with bicycles. On an urban street, before you do anything, you should check for bicyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians, and pretty much anything else that may not be a huge fucking SUV. You know those bumper stickers the RMV gives out with way too many exclamation points? They say "check twice, save a life." Figure it the fuck out. (Per your link, if a truck changes lanes in to you and causes an accident you're SOL, right? Wrong. The truck driver is. That's why trucks are very careful about changing lanes, and good truck drivers have a very good idea of where any other vehicles may be.)

As for your second situation: the driver is obviously at fault. If the driver is making a turn and there are pedestrians in the crosswalk, the driver should stop and wait for the pedestrians, allowing other traffic to pass as necessary on the right. Vehicles going straight have the right-of-way. You may only enter a bicycle lane to make a turn, and if you can not make a turn because there is a pedestrian, you wait. Simple! Once the crosswalk is clear, then you check for bicycles (including in your blind spot) and, if it is clear, make the turn. (Chapter and verse for this is 90§14.) I know that Massholes tend to pull right up to the crosswalk to best menace the pedestrians crossing and block the bike lane, but it doesn't make it okay.


By on

that on the highway, all the cars are moving in the same direction and one is unlikely to materialize in your blind spot in the second or two it takes for you to redirect your attention forward and execute the lane change.

With bikes in the city...they'll swerve into your blind spot in no time flat. They'll go from your left to your right side in the time it takes you to turn your head. Don't pretend it doesn't happen. You can be the best, more careful, most diligent driver in the world and you'll still have a close call with a cyclist around here because they just don't give a fuck. Not for the rules of the road, not for their own safety.

In the past week, as a pedestrian I've seen cyclists swerve out of the bike lane and into the car lane on a whim without checking if it's safe or signalling their lane change and as a motorist I've seen a cyclist at night no helmet, no lights, no reflectors, suddenly go from in front of me on the right to making a left turn (without checking or indicating) just as I was about to overtake him (at <25 mph). Good thing I gave him some space, or else we'd both be less than happy right now. Him more than me, I suspect.


With proper mirrors the only true blind spots on a large truck are directly behind it, directly in front of it but blocked by the hood, or directly adjacent to the front passenger side but blocked by the hood/door (i.e. ahead of the mirror and below the hood). A good driver knows that. A significant number of truck/bike collisions happen when a rider is adjacent to the truck but behind the mirror on the passenger side and the truck turns right. That is not a blind spot, the cyclist is visible in the mirror but the driver of the truck didn't check that side sufficiently before turning.

Actually, I think it's at

By on

Actually, I think it's at least five blind spots on a large truck. It's been a while since I went to the demonstration exhibit at the Auto Show at rhe Convention Center, but I'm pretty sure it was more than four.

Are you a good driver?

I'm going to assume you're a good, law abiding driver who pays full attention to what's around him. Sure, many drivers aren't law abiding or attentive but because I'm not an asshole I'll assume you aren't one of them.

That's why I'll feel sorry for you when you are killed by an inattentive driver who nevertheless blames you knowing that you can't defend yourself on account of being dead. Maybe I'll even feel sorry for you when the state considers you at fault solely on the testimony of your killer. And I'll even feel sorrow knowing that no meaningful investigation occurred. I wouldn't imply you need to be proven innocent because I'm not a jerk who assumes two entirely different things are equal because of some general legal statute.

Anyway, the reason why there should be separate laws that apply to bikes is because bikes are cars are NOT the same. One goes fast and weights tons, the other goes slow and is feather light. If you can't see the difference between a bike and car (and simply assume all vehicles are identical) perhaps you should find another line of work.

You might be interested to

By on

You might be interested to know that in the Netherlands, if there is a collision between a car and a bicycle, the car driver is presumed to be at fault. I believe this is because bicycles generally operate at lower speed and have more agility; if there is a collision, it is more likely the driver doing something stupid than a cyclist ramming a car or diving under the wheels.

People are people, and people sometimes break the law. But when a driver breaks the law, it is more likely to kill people.

You should also review your driver's education materials; it is the responsibility of any vehicle operator to know what is in their "blind spots".


I was thinking about what they would do in the Netherlands as I was watching that a man was ran over in Dorchester mass.Here we throw rocks at whoever we think is at fault and anyone nr accident is suing someone that's how it's done in DOT. UN FN REAL THANK ONCE AGAIN TIM

I haven't been on a bike in

By on

I haven't been on a bike in Boston in a decade because cyclists in this city are treated as subhuman by many people, and most of these people are operating 4000 pound deadly weapons. Its really disturbing.

You're correct

Only I keep cycling because fuck the jealous losers. Riding a bike is fast, riding a bike is cheap, and riding a bike is good for everyone. (Less traffic, less pollution, less crowding on the T.)

Someone might kill me but I'd rather die having enjoyed life instead of being stuck for a 1/3 of it in traffic and wasting my money. The reason why people complain about bikes is because they're envious.


By on

reason people complain about bikes is because they are ignorant of the law which says cyclists can use the full lane. I have spoken to two on-duty police officers who did not know this law, and one practicing attorney in the Commonwealth.

Information is good believe it or not.

"Riding a bike is cheap"?

By on

"Riding a bike is cheap"? How expensive is a 10mph collision to you? In a car, that might be $10,000 of damage. On a bike, that might 50 years of scars, painkillers, and physical therapy.

Overall, it's relatively safe

By on

"Relatively", because driving is pretty damn dangerous too. The statistics can be a little confusing to sort out -- sometimes they're presented as "deaths per mile" (or hour) or sometimes "likelihood of serious injury per year", and those don't really convert because people ride in different places in cars and bikes, and with different distances and speeds. But overall, if you're OK with being on the road in a car, you should be OK with being on the road on a bike. It just *feels* more dangerous because you don't have a metal cage around you.

The big difference is that people scream and honk at you -- as you mention, treat you as subhuman.

I'll be happy when self-driving cars take over. People don't deserve their cars.

those don't really convert

By on

those don't really convert because people ride in different places in cars and bikes, and with different distances and speeds.

This is kind of a major thing to hand-wave away as un-convertable when weighing the safety of bikes versus cars.

What it means is that you can

By on

What it means is that you can't make an absolute statement about which is safer; the numbers still show that neither is *particularly* more dangerous than the other.


So no one really knows exactly where this happened I'd like definite location so I can put a FILTHY DIRTY STUFFED ANIMAL.there in remembrance


So no one really knows exactly where this happened I'd like definite location so I can put a FILTHY DIRTY STUFFED ANIMAL.there in remembrance

Yeah, I imagine she was

By on

Yeah, I imagine she was reading off a prompter and stumbled a bit but the way she said "it's unclear why the person was biking in the area" was pretty alarming... jeezz


By on

I saw a cyclist post-accident in Kenmore I think it was on Monday night. I believe the cyclist was struck by a car. I was on my bicycle heading westbound and did not stop for him because many pedestrians were already attending to him. I saw him lift his head from where he lay in the middle of Beacon St and I hope he is okay. I was hoping to read about the incident on uHub but it never appeared.

I rode past this guy on my commute on morning recently.
This apparel is important because it can help Boston drivers understand laws that they are completely ignorant of. I am not a shill and I don't know this guy--I am just another bicycle commuter.

Every week cyclists in this town are harassed by drivers speeding in 4000b vehicles because those drivers don't know that a cyclist can use the full lane, that a cyclist sometimes turns left, or that a cyclist is a vulnerable human being without protection from a motorists prejudices or psychoses or just bad dehumanized morning.

The problem is motor vehicles and the laws must be changed to favor cyclists. END OF.

Don't stand in way of progress on this one.

"in an industrial area at 80

By on

"in an industrial area at 80 East Cottage" doesn't sound like "on Cottage Street biking past an industrial property". It sounds much more like "actually on some property (perhaps 80 East Cottage) and not the street" - and the playing the clip tends that way, too....

I live near there. I drive on Cottage Street sometimes. There is what I would call a commercial/industrial property on one side of the road (Unifirst is at 80 E Cottage) and a large vacant (last time I went by) lot across the street (where the flea market used to be - I think it's a construction site as it's being redeveloped).

It's as easy to imagine that a cyclist (either one who had business on the property or who was joyriding or who was trying to find a shortcut) caused the accident and the truck driver is blameless as it is to imagine that the driver of the truck must be at fault. Howzabout we wait for some actual details?


Maybe uu people would like everything delivered on RICKSHAWS ,one person says "why was truck in parking lot?"No offense but why was guy riding bike in parking lot? (Was he practicing) Then u sir say I'm glad I wasn't working up in there on that loading dock! Of course u werent.Do trucks drive up on the loading docks now ?if u work there why not tell us what the hell trucks go in there for do u know,or do u take every day off.Tell us what happens up in there.

The only thing I want

By on

The only thing I want delivered by rickshaw is a big load of straw men.





My VERY VERY good friend is in law enforcement

I talked to my closest friend n he is in law enforcement he was told ..The first responders ( god bless them ) told him they thought they had another (REGINALD DENNY SIT.). No one has mentioned why this truck had broken winshield u could notice on TV also this truck driver just killed a poor soul and someone is throwing rocks at him, Then did u here woman on ch5 (ALL I KNOW IS SOMEONE'S GETTING PAID) YES THAT IS ALL U KNOW! Did u know a man died and he has a family grieving for this poor guy who accidentally drove behind the truck backing up

Talk about speculation

Reginald Denny? Are you serious? Or just a histrionic racist?

Has it crossed your inebriated brainpan that the truck's windshield was busted and impairing the driver's vision?


So where was the yet again

By on

So where was the yet again useless detail Boston police officer? On their phone? I drive through there and they never direct traffic, yet want detail money...swamp

When so many cyclists get killed on Boston's streets,

By on

there's something seriously wrong here; poorly designed and constructed roads, bottlenecked rotaries, and people impatient to get to where they're going, as well as poorly synchronized traffic lights, to boot.

Many drivers are rude, nasty and are in too much of a hurry to get to where they're going, and they don't always pay attention to what's on the road in front of them

Unfortunately (and it's a drag to point this out.), however, I've also seem many bicyclists run red lights and STOP signs, and weave in and out of traffic, thereby helping to put their own lives and limbs at risk. This is not good, either.

I've said before, I'll say it again

By on

If people drove their cars the way cyclists ride their bikes, the streets would be red with blood. Hell, if pedestrians walked the way cyclists bike, the streets would be red with blood.

Seriously, Mass Ave bridge at the 200 Smoot mark northbound side at evening rush hour. Stand and watch.

It's Very Easy To Kill People While Driving A Motor Vehicle ...

By on

... either accidentally or intentionally. Very rarely are people killed by bicyclists and almost never by pedestrians. That is why drivers bear more responsibility for avoiding conflicts, than people using non-motorized transportation.

Some drivers have difficulty understanding this concept, particularly elderly people who grew up in an era when automobiles were promoted as always being superior and more important than public transit, bicyclists or pedestrians. Times have changed, and single-occupancy motor vehicles in a crowded urban area are now looked upon with disdain.

People who choose to keep driving in the city need to adapt to a much different environment than it was a few decades ago when there was less consideration for pedestrians, and none at all for bicyclists. Unfortunately, many older people dislike any change at all and cling to a false belief that streets belong to exclusively to cars. Their selfishness endangers everyone else.

No, it isn't easy

By on

Because cars and trucks are big and tend to move in straight lines.

That means to hit someone when you're moving, you have to actively aim at them. To hit someone when you're standing still, you have to actively remove your foot from the brake and put on the gas.

For the record: I would guess that I am quite a bit younger than you, and streets do in fact belong exclusively to cars. That's why we have separate places called sidewalks for pedestrians. And bikes don't belong anywhere, period. People around here show repeatedly that they aren't capable of operating them safely or responsibly.

Maybe in Indiana they do

By on

You aren't going to make Boston into Indiana or Texas - maybe you should move?

“Tend to move in straight lines”—ha ha ha ha

By on

Why don’t YOU go stand by the Mass Ave Bridge or better the BU bridge and tell us again about all the orderly, rule-abiding drivers? It’s a f’ing shitshow and it takes an incredible level of vigilance to navigate it on a bike without getting whomped by some driver who’s eager to get through the yellow while simultaneously checking his Facebook page.

But honestly, why am I even arguing with someone trying (and failing) to make the case that “bikes don’t belong anywhere?” Sorry bud, but just because you wish it doesn’t make it so. I wish drivers like you would GTFO of my city but hey—apparently we’ll have to live with each other. Just maybe try a little harder not to kill anyone.

It isn't your city

By on

it's public streets and sidewalks. The only things that you have exclusive right to are the things that you own. Otherwise, we've all got a right to be out in public and to get from point A to point B. The purpose of separating pedestrians from automobiles, trains from automobiles, and the point of traffic lights at intersections and the double-yellow in the middle of the road is to accomodate everyone's right to get places without having them trample on eachother in a free-for-all.

That's right, snowflake: people who don't live in city limits have a right to use the roads within city limits and you urban chauvinists don't have any right to interfere with that.

Yes—“we’ve all got a right”

By on

And that includes me to bike safely in a street or a bike lane without getting killed. You’re the one arguing against that for some reason. I live here and pay taxes for those streets so yeah, it strikes me as reasonable that I should be able to use them without worrying about bozos like you running me down.

Your right doesn't trump mine

By on

That's why there's a sidewalk and a bike for you so you don't get in my way and can go merrily on yours without placing yourself in danger.

I pay taxes too, by the way. So does just about everyone. Massachusetts is a flat tax state.

"streets do in fact belong

By on

"streets do in fact belong exclusively to cars"
They do not. Part I, Title XIV, Chapter 85, Section 11B. Bother to read? Bikes 'don't belong anywhere'? That's your argument? GTFO, child.


By on


Cars kill people. Cyclists do not.

Studies have shown that cycling and driving behavior are generally the same - same rates of running lights, etc.

Cyclists have killed

By on

How many cyclist caused deaths are required in what term of time before they count?

I know of only one at least. That was in front of city hall several years ago when a bike messenger ran into a pedestrian. The collision led to the man suffering a fatal heart attack. Of course someone choosing pedantry over compassion would argue that the cause of death was the heart attack. But the cause of the heart attack was the collision.

So it's true that cyclists have not killed anyone.


Magnitude counts.

Note that cyclists are injured when pedestrians who do not have the right of way step in front of them. And cyclists are injured in collisions with pedestrians regardless of who is at fault.

Compare to the slaughter of pedestrians by motorists ... oh, wait, ten orders of magnitude means that there is no comparison.

You people aren't all dumn

We all agree a few people are killed each year in Boston and any other city.With that said if UR going to bike to work then relive u could be hurt or killed. I DON'T PARACHUTE OUT OF PLANES CAUSE ITS with it and be careful it's UR decision I'm sick of UR whining and UR ugly white bikes ( VERY CREEPY BY THE WAY).

You people aren't all dumn

We all agree a few people are killed each year in Boston and any other city.With that said if UR going to bike to work then relive u could be hurt or killed. I DON'T PARACHUTE OUT OF PLANES CAUSE ITS with it and be careful it's UR decision I'm sick of UR whining and UR ugly white bikes ( VERY CREEPY BY THE WAY).

Or at least

By on

Pull over and don't try to drink, drive, and type at the same time

Oh I'm so sorry tim

I have my opinions and u have mine just cause u disagree do u really have 2 go tell the teacher? Honestly ? I won't upset u again YA BABY

Wrong to believe all bicyclists are equal

By on

I find it funny on this site that "bicyclists" are always considered equal. I have no idea what happened in this case and sorry for the loss of life. I rarely get to the Cambridge/Watertown area at night but recently did. I was struck by the numbers of bikes and the caution and safety of the bicyclists. Obeying traffic laws, helmets, reflectors, lights, some of which were almost blinding. My guess is that they can afford the safety gear and education to be careful.

In other parts of the city, I've been scared to death that I might hit a bicyclist with no lights, reflectors, helmets, swerving around in risky maneuvers. Keep in mind, many are on a bike because they lost or were unable to obtain their driver's license. Just as there are some bad drivers (motorists), there are some "bad' bicyclists. Let's keep an open mind on these incidents until fault is determined.

Obeying traffic laws, helmets

By on

Obeying traffic laws, helmets, reflectors, lights, some of which were almost blinding.

The one's with the bright blinking light are the worst. How is that even legal?

I don't so much mind the blinking tail lights

By on

And some people have a second one on their helmets for good measure, but the bright blinking white LEDs are very distracting to pedestrian and motorist alike. And I say motorist because there has been more than one time I've seen one of these knuckleheads going the wrong way.

That said, I'd rather have them wearing blinking lights than no lights, no reflectors, and dark clothing. And they're on their phone, naturally.

If you're talking about

By on

If you're talking about headlights, there are canonically two kinds:

  1. Lights to see with, and
  2. Lights to be seen with

Car headlights are bright enough to function as both; with bikes you generally want one of each, and the "be seen with" ones blink to add extra noticeability.

If people were better at noticing bicyclists, I would not feel the need for the blinky ones, but as it is I've had a 700 lumen headlight (about the same as a car's low beams) plus a rapid blinker and still had drivers "fail to see me".

I don't like blinkers any more than you do, but they're necessary as long as there are inattentive drivers.

Wait a minute

By on

First you marginally able to drive morons whine whine WHINE and WHINE about "cyclists aren't visible", then you whine some more about 'OMG their lights are HALF as bright as car lights WAHHHHHHH".

Sounds like you should go to the eye doctor and, maybe, stop driving?

Or are you just finding things to whine about because people getting around without engines makes your balls shrink?

I prefer to see continuous white light on bike fronts

By on

When I see the solid light I can gauge where the bike is as we approach each other. With blinking white lights I harder time gauging where the other biker is as we near each other.

Blinking red on the back are easier for me to see. Don't know why the difference.

Oh, no doubt there are bad

By on

Oh, no doubt there are bad cyclists. Do you know the term "salmon"? Those are cyclists who "swim upstream" (the wrong way) in the bike lane. They're not super common, but boy are they aggravating -- possibly more so to other cyclists. (I recall someone saying that in the 70s, in some areas, this was taught as the correct way to bicycle. I don't know why. So maybe some of these people are doing what they were told to do...)

And yeah, lots of people ride with insufficient (or no) lighting, which is a problem (again, not just for drivers). But that's irrelevant here, since it was 2 PM. Broad daylight.

What it comes down to, though, is that the car driver is driving the more dangerous vehicle, and cyclist deaths due to collisions with cars are usually the driver's fault, so... yeah, I am pretty quick to side with the cyclist.

Let's ride our bicycles on the taxiways and runways at Logan

By on

The airplane is clearly more dangerous than the bicycle. It can't be the cyclist's fault if he gets blown away by the jetwash or run over on the taxiway.

Let's ride on the highways. Let's ride on the train tracks. Let's do everything we can to maximize physical danger to ourselves and blame the other guy because your God-given right to ride your bicycle to travel short distances trumps everyone else's right to use motor vehicles to travel long distances.

I'm not picking on you personally because I don't know you and I've never seen you cycle, but when I hear you make the argument about dangerous vehicles, that's what pops to my mind. Each time every time. And always will.

Lame? That's ableist!

By on

And it's also Saturday. You expect me to bring out my A game when I'm just killing time trolling the forums in between what I really should be working on over the weekend?

Oh look

By on

Swirly is being Swirly.

How novel.

SWIRLY I remember everything

You once posted that u r proud of being clean and sober for 2 and 1/2 yrs. And u should be yet u went on n on non no not then but you said u have beat that demon for ever.You can't predict that yet u wanted to b miss know it all venues back then.You need a date clown.

At night salmons are stupid

By on

A fellow was biking on the sidewalk along Amory Street. Next to the buildings where lighting is dimmer. He could have ridden on the bike path on the other side of the street or even in the street. He had no lights. His clothing was dark. Maybe he didn't care about running into anyone. Maybe he wanted to play chicken with pedestrians. Maybe he needs to crash into a pole or something to learn to not be stupid when biking. Whatever lesson he needs hopefully the fellow won't die as a result.

Question I ask when anyone dies in a bike accident is what can be learned? How could it have been prevented? Were the conditions that caused the death (last year I think) of a young doctor on Mass Ave. corrected? What were the circumstances that led to Antawani's death. What can be learned?


Keep in mind, many are on a bike because they lost or were unable to obtain their driver's license.

I have never met this kind of cyclist. not a one.

Disappointing to learn about

By on

Disappointing to learn about another fatality. Disappointing to witness the hatred and vitriol from a number of sad, sad individuals who apparently have nothing else in their lives than to use this to further their hateful agenda.