Pedestrian struck in hit and run outside Mass. Ave. T stop

Stead

Updated.

A Quincy motorist plowed into a pedestrian crossing Massachusetts Avenue in front of the Orange Line station around 6 a.m., then just drove away, police say.

The victims remains in critical condition at a local hospital, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

Lawrence Stead, 69, of Quincy, was arrested later in the morning in Quincy, after police traced the license-plate number of the gray, 1999 Mercury Marquis seen leaving the scene to his home.

Stead is scheduled for arraignment tomorrow in Boston Municipal Court on a charge of leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident, the DA's office reports.

WBZ reports Stead is a retired Cambridge cop.

Massachusetts Avenue was shut for much of the morning as police investigated the crash.

Innocent, etc.

Updates: 

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

    Comments

    Ugh

    By on

    This crosswalk is horrible. They tried to improve it (and kind of did...when peds and cars play by the rules) by putting in stop lights, but so many cars aren't used to/expecting (ANOTHER) stop light that they just blow right through it looking towards the light at Columbus. And pedestrians don't want to wait for the walk sign (for a number of reasons) so they'll cross even if the cars have a green light. I don't know what caused this accident, but that crosswalk is just problematic. Thoughts are with the victim, their family, etc.

    up
    40

    The city should have built a

    By on

    The city should have built a raised speed bump style crosswalk there. It's a long block and people have always floored it at that point of Mass Ave.

    up
    52

    I agree but

    By on

    fire trucks would probably bottom out...

    up
    15

    Has that been a problem in Somerville?

    By on

    I think we should check into where they are used and what the issues are and are not before making "probably" statements.

    up
    24

    They've got those raised

    They've got those raised crosswalks all over Cambridge, too. Doesn't seem to be a problem for their firetrucks (which have pretty high clearance, I'd think).

    up
    25

    what about a curb-out?

    By on

    We see them in Cambridge, Brookline, etc... but not so much in Boston? I'm wondering why Boston doesn't bother to do them - we could definitely use them in several places.

    up
    14

    they won't do it

    By on

    because fire trucks would bottom out... its mass ave not some side street in cambridge or somerville.. also, Larry Steadman is an incredible human being. he was always the kindest security guard at 555 and baker. i send my condolences to the family of the homeless man who lost his life and also Larry and his family.

    True

    By on

    Also, drivers who run a red light while endangering others (IE running an occupied crosswalk, illegal right into moving traffic, etc), should be subject to an automatic temporary license suspension on top of whatever fine may be incurred. This is how it's done in some jurisdictions (some jurisdictions also subject violators to very heavy potential fines). Operating heavy machinery (IE: automobiles) on the public ways is a privilege that carries great responsibility, the consequences of not taking that responsibility seriously should be greater than they currently are in Massachusetts.

    up
    40

    That assumes that a license

    That assumes that a license suspension is any kind of deterrent or inconvenience to the sort of person who would do a hit and run in the first place.

    up
    21

    No deterrence to human error

    People mistake gas pedal for brake pedal, so will some law against doing it make any difference? If someone doesn't see a pedestrian in the dark, legal changes are also ineffective.

    up
    11

    agreed

    By on

    This crosswalk is horrible and the recent "improvements" by the mbta only served to make the middle island even narrower (went from 5 feet to being hardly wide enough to stand on). Pedestrians used to avoid pushing the walk button and just crossed one half of the street at a time (which is relatively easy given the lights on either side). Now waiting in the middle island is too dangerous.

    up
    27

    This.

    By on

    It always feels perilous to stand there in the middle, especially if you're walking a bike or pushing a stroller. I truly hope that this tragedy forces some kind of redesign.

    up
    21

    Missing the point of the improvement

    By on

    Now there is a light, so there is no need to be waiting at the island in the middle. Unless, of course, you are jaywalking, in which case you assume the risk.

    This is not to support the driver or attack the victim, since we don't have the facts (except that the driver ran.) I'm just saying that the center island can be narrow now that there are lights.

    up
    16

    Center Islands

    By on

    aka "jaywalker launching pads" make the road look like a divided highway.

    Divided highway look = drivers intuitively SPEED UP.

    That roadway isn't all that wide - the obsession with center islands around here is absurd.

    up
    22

    It depends if your strategy

    By on

    It depends if your strategy for safety is making the urban environment physically friendly to pedestrians, or making a lot of rules and ignoring the fact that they don't work.

    up
    20

    Ignoring lights?

    By on

    I'm missing your point, perhaps. Are you saying that installing a pedestrian traffic light was the wrong move? I few years back I was running the Corridor and almost got hit by a car crossing the then unsignalled crossing (the cross walk was there.) Probably because it was almost I felt for the driver. He was in the right lane on the far side of my crossing, and a box truck in the left lane had stopped to let me cross (sure it's the law, but it's Massachusetts, too.) The car had no idea I was crossing until I ran into his path.

    In short, the changes at this crossing are good. I don't even mind breaking my pace to stop at the light, since I know I'll have a safe crossing. Therefore, I would say that installing the lights made the urban environment physically friendly to pedestrians.

    And once again, I want to note that I am by no means assigning blame to the pedestrian in today's accident. Or the driver, except that he should have stopped after hitting the pedestrian. I wasn't there. I have no idea what happened.

    up
    11

    Crosswalk & underpass

    By on

    I live nearby and have been concerned and sending out good thoughts for the person all morning as soon as I realized what happened.

    I agree about this crosswalk. The new traffic light seemed to make the crosswalk safer, but there's the greater danger of thinking it is safe to cross when the walk light is on, and then a car comes speeding through.

    I think that police recently put cameras in the underpass under Mass Ave at that crosswalk. The underpass has been pretty much un-used for years because it feels unsafe and smells bad. If other people would use the underpass, I would. It does involve some stairs, but it would be worth it to have a safer crossing there.

    up
    32

    Underpass User

    By on

    I started using the underpass regularly when the construction to "fix" the pedestrian crossing began. It's not in great condition; improvements in smell (I tend to hold my breath on the park side stairs) and drainage would help a lot.

    I feel pretty safe using the tunnel, and I've actually started seeing more people using it.

    Don't fear the tunnel!

    up
    25

    Thank you! I heard from a

    By on

    Thank you! I heard from a couple of other people that the tunnel is an okay choice. I'll use it more now.....

    up
    14

    Is that underpass still open?

    The last time I used the Mass. Ave. Orange LIne station, about a month ago, the underpass was gated off and the doors on the east side of Mass. Ave. were locked. This was around 10 pm on a weekday, after a Jordan Hall concert let out.

    up
    10

    Yikes

    By on

    Between this part cordoned off and the work being done around Huntington and Mass. Ave., the traffic is still moving at a glacial pace this morning around the entire area. I was glad to be walking for sure. I hope the individual hit makes a full and speedy recovery!

    up
    12

    Editorial decision here

    By on

    Let's not to make this another bicycle thread. Anon users: If you try, anyway, I just won't make your comments public. People with accounts: Count to ten, please.

    up
    68

    Respectfully...

    By on

    why would it, since this is a car/pedestrian incident? I'd say that the concerns of cyclists and pedestrians overlap here--I'm thinking of all the times I've stood waiting to cross, often with older people on foot (lots of elderly in this area) and we've exchanged nervous laughter or eye rolls as drivers zoom past close enough to flutter the scarves around our necks. A better crossing design would benefit everyone, including drivers who presumably aren't actually trying to kill anyone.

    up
    18

    Allocation of right or way width

    Pedestrian refuge islands and medians show a 50% reduction in accidents while bike lanes barely show any reduction in accidents, if at all. Hence, medians wide enough for pedestrians to stop/stay are far more valuable for public safety than using that width for bike lanes. We should also ask if sidewalk widths are excessive and some of that width would better serve the safety of other users like cyclists and crossing pedestrians. At bus/subway stops sidewalk can get congested and width is needed, however that's the exception, not the rule.

    Another bike discussion? To get over 200 comments again, the subject might have to be gay bicyclists on parade or something.

    "Pedestrian refuge islands

    By on

    "Pedestrian refuge islands and medians show a 50% reduction in accidents while bike lanes barely show any reduction in accidents, if at all. "

    Wrong.

    http://transalt.org/issues/bike/bikefaq

    "According to the DOT's Pedestrian Safety Study and the most recent Sustainable Streets Index, streets with bike lanes have about 40 percent fewer crashes ending in death or serious injury, and that's for all street users: drivers and pedestrians included. For example, after a parking-protected bike lane was installed on Manhattan's Ninth Avenue, all traffic-related injuries dropped 50 percent. Injuries to pedestrians dropped 29 percent and injuries to cyclists dropped 57 percent."

    Look, you're a well known bike-lane fighter. Give it a damn rest. Adam's "let's not make this about bikes" comment wasn't license for you to make untrue statements and insults like some kid who hides behind his parent and gives the other kid the finger.

    up
    29

    FAQ is crap

    Where are the studies? NYC pro-bike car fighters make all sorts of claims using anecdotal data for cherry-picked locations.

    up
    10

    Translation

    By on

    The actual gathering of factual information on the result of an intervention didn't validate my beliefs! So it must be wrong!

    Go back to reading your copy of The Pink Swastika, okay?

    up
    14

    anon bully?

    Cowardly attempt to bully people by using their name and occupation while hiding behind an anon log in. So, what's your name and zip code?

    up
    11

    Fair enough

    By on

    I generally have little time for what Markk has to say, but WTF. If you want to shut him down, then show him how he is wrong, or ignore.

    up
    11

    If you want to shut him down,

    If you want to shut him down, then show him how he is wrong

    Um yeah, did you miss the part where he posted a link to the study that shows Markkk is full of shit?

    up
    12

    One biased study is hardly conclusive

    Here are less biased resources to find studies.
    Search for the effectiveness and confidence level of studies on accident countermeasure you like: http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/advsearch.cfm
    Search for studies and publications here: http://www.trb.org/Main/Home.aspx

    The appointed head of NYC's Transportation department has been very outspoken in her anti-car ideology and goals, hence products of her organization all have that slant.

    up
    10

    I'm sure the driver just didn't see them

    Maybe its time for the state to look into laws with some teeth that actually protect vulnerable road users from distracted and bad drivers.

    Some European countries have laws that automatically place the majority of the blame on a driver, which would force drivers to be more aware, drive slower and generally act in a safer manner, lest they find themselves in court facing charges.

    Hell the reason you see so many dashcam YouTube videos coming out of Russia is due to the liability/fault laws that exist there and the need for drivers to protect themselves legally with evidence in the event of a traffic incident.

    up
    33

    that

    By on

    and the low angled sun really beats down mass ave at that time. such a sad thing to happen...

    Low angled sun

    By on

    If you can't deal with it, get off the road, slow down, find another route, etc.

    No excuses.

    up
    38

    Well of course there would be court hearing

    I wouldn't advocate for circumventing someones right to a fair trial. But maybe we can take a cue from some of the dog bite laws that we have.

    I'm a very fuzzy on the legal language of them but I'm led to understand that many US states have laws on the books that place the blame solely on the dog owner. I think this is called "strict liability" and only applies to civil court. So the owner is found at fault for civil damages automatically but any criminal charges could be dealt with in a criminal court with a jury. Right?

    From what I've read, in strict liability the blame cannot be shifted to the victim. If you retain a get-out for the vulnerable party’s fault, an insurance company can argue that the blame lies not with their insured policy holder but with the other party.

    up
    17

    Who is the victim?

    A pedestrian who crosses the road when he has a red light (orange hand) and damages a vehicle makes the vehicle owner the victim, legally speaking.

    up
    11

    Nope, just illegal alien

    missing "documentation" like a driving license. Could also be legal, but had driving license expired, suspended, revoked, expired registration, expired inspection, no insurance etc.. So many RMV fees, excise taxes, and insurance payments to keep track of...

    up
    13

    OK, point taken

    By on

    No American would do a hit-and-run

    ♪ ♫ My home sweeeeeeet hooooooome ♪ ♫

    up
    20

    Generally the guy in the hospital...

    By on

    or the morgue is considered the victim. Oddly enough in these accidents involving a car and a pedestrian that is usually the pedestrian. Hard to believe, I know.

    You do understand that this is a crosswalk we're talking about here, right? Not someone bolting across 95 north?

    up
    22

    Its a signalized crosswalk

    So, when there is a orange hand, pedestrians DO NOT have the right of way, motor vehicles and bicycles have the right of way during that time. They get a turn too.

    up
    12

    I agree, but...

    By on

    I agree that drivers don't have the right to mow down pedestrians, but I don’t think that’s what Mark is saying. I agree with him, if a pedestrian crosses when they have the red hand (stop light) they are jaywalking (breaking the law) and taking their own safety in their hands. If cars have to obey the traffic laws then pedestrians should have to obey them too. I just passed the intersection where this happened and a group of pedestrians brazenly crossed the street while I had the green light, while I didn't hit any of them, I laid on my horn until they all passed.

    I don’t know the facts of what happened, if this person jaywalked or if the driver ran the red light, either way it’s a terrible situation and my thoughts are with the deceased’s family.

    up
    18

    pretty sure using your horn in this way is illegal too

    By on

    Horn use is only legal when it's a matter of safety - like if the pedestrians weren't looking and were about to step in front of your moving vehicle - You are not supposed to use it express your displeasure at someone who was doing something illegal, like jaywalking.

    up
    13

    It might be stupid to cross

    By on

    It might be stupid to cross when you don't have the signal, but nothing justifies a hit-and-run. Whoever is in the position of greater power has the responsibility to move defensively - and in this case, that's the driver of the big heap of metal. When you get behind a wheel of a car you agree to accept that pedestrians will do stupid things, but as the person with a car, you will not plow them down vindictively. And if you do ACCIDENTALLY hit a pedestrian - because hey, accidents happen - you agree to stop, not speed away and leave them to die like a rat. If you can't agree to that, turn in your decent human being license.

    up
    16

    Are you seriously blaming the victim?

    By on

    You've repeatedly displayed that sort of twisted logic here Mark. If you think that somehow justifies hitting a pedestrian, you should probably forfeit your driver's license before you kill or injure someone. Regardless of who had the right of way, someone was hit by a car that then drove away. The person that was hit is the victim. With the possible exception of a pedestrian darting into the path of a moving automobile, I can't think of a scenario where having the right of way justifies a motorist striking a pedestrian. Nothing justifies them driving away. If they weren't aware that they hit something, they probably shouldn't be operating an automobile on the public way. Rule number one of driving is to not hit people or objects on or off the roadway. The operator of the automobile is obligated to stop for anything in the way, regardless of whether it is supposed to be there or not. This isn't two people bumping into each other, this is the case of a person operating a 3,000 lb automobile striking a person with the automobile. That's why there is a licensing scheme, rules governing operation and consequences for those who have proven that they are unable to follow those rules. Liability for the safe operation of the automobile is assumed by the driver. Right of way does not excuse liability in cases like this.

    up
    22

    What a brilliant response!

    Because jumping off a bridge is exactly like crossing the street. I can't remember the last time I drove down a city street and didn't see people jumping off of bridges and buildings on every other block. I guess my so-called common sense is no match for your incredible intellect.

    up
    17

    Where do you get that?

    That I ever claimed it was OK to hit a pedestrian or run? Right of Way rules help people know when they should yield to another boat/ship on the water or user on the street. Thankfully on the subway and railways, operators obey signals and drivers obey crossing lights and gates. When a car driver OR pedestrian ignores a train crossing signal and gets hit by a train, are they also an innocent victim?

    Tho only excuse for not stopping after an accident is imminent personal danger, and that is seldom the situation. I've never claimed otherwise.

    up
    10

    what?

    By on

    "Tho only excuse for not stopping after an accident is imminent personal danger, and that is seldom the situation. I've never claimed otherwise."

    Except for right here, where you claimed that the driver may not have stopped because it's just such a bother keeping track of one's license, registration, excise, and insurance:

    http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20140319/pedestrian-struck-hit-and-run...

    up
    12

    Not excuse

    The subject speculated upon was why the driver did not stop, not at all whether or not it was OK. Huge difference.

    Lesson for me: Already know many people don't get jokes. New: reading comprehension varies widely too.

    up
    13

    I counted to 20

    By on

    I'm sure you're perpetually delighted with yourself that you're your own best audience. Get a Kickstarter going for your own
    "reality" show. I'm sure the donations will be overwhelming. Also noted: your glasses don't make you any smarter than you like to think you are.

    Well ...

    By on

    ... only emergency vehicles displaying lights and sirens can be said to "have the right of way". Nobody else -ever- has the legal right of way; it's merely a matter of whether or not you are obliged to yield to something-or-other. Non-emergency vehicles facing a green light, for example, must still yield before pedestrians in a crosswalk.

    up
    13

    Wrong

    By on

    Wrong. If there is a light or a signal, pedestrians have to stop for it.

    Crosswalk does not help you there.

    The word for this is jaywalking. It is technically illegal in MA. In many US and Canadian cities you can (and will) be ticketed for it.

    I dare you to take your foolish misinterpretations of the law to Calgary or Toronto ... they might even jail you.

    up
    15

    Not quite

    By on

    A pedestrian in the crosswalk has the right-of-way. For example, suppose the pedestrian began crossing and the light changed before they could reach safety. That does not mean open season on their life. The vehicles must yield until the pedestrian finishes crossing.

    What the laws do say is that pedestrians are not to begin crossing when there is a signalized crosswalk and the signal displays the "Don't Walk" indication.

    The word for this is jaywalking. It is technically illegal in MA.

    This is a false statement. The law does not refer to the term "jaywalking" in MA. The reason is: the term "jaywalking" is not a formal, legal name for an act; it is just a slur used by angry drivers and it is hurled as invective against pedestrians.

    up
    11

    Nope

    Pedestrians do not have the right of way if there is a light that is not in their favor, crosswalk or no.

    https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Sect... explicitly states:

    Section 11. When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way

    You really should travel more, Matthew - you have such great theories of public space use and city design, but they are not grounded properly in observational experience of how cities really work. I'd love to see you preach at a cop in Toronto, get buzzed by a motorist in Dublin or Edinburgh, or get ticketed in Seattle or Portland - all of these cities cater to pedestrians far more than Boston does, but they also require pedestrians to do their part and follow rules.

    up
    11

    Swirly... please re-read

    By on

    You've completely misinterpreted that section of MGL. I am aware of it. Yes, the first paragraph pertains to unsignalized crosswalks (or broken signals). However, that is not the paragraph that I am talking about, nor the situation.

    I previously stated that a person who is in the crosswalk, regardless of signal, has the right-of-way. Another way of phrasing it, which might be simpler is: if you're already crossing, you have the right to get to a safe place, even if the light turns against you.

    There is no case under which it is legal to run someone over, even if they made a mistake, or if they were caught in the middle of the roadway. I don't know why you would think that.

    As "Somebody Else" pointed out, paragraph 2 explicitly states that a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk has the right to cross and that the vehicle shall not enter the crosswalk until it is safe. And that applies no matter what the traffic signal says. MGL has that written, explicitly.

    Now, in 720CMR9 it states that a pedestrian must follow the pedestrian signals, if present, and cannot enter the crosswalk if the signal says no. But that is a different situation from what I brought up, and from what may have transpired today. And nothing, in no law, nor regulation, permits a driver to strike a pedestrian, regardless of situation!

    Regarding my theories, well, I don't live in Toronto or wherever, I live in Boston. And here, we have a system that has evolved based on the idea that BTD/DPW will do a crap job, and in return, pedestrians will ignore the poorly timed signals and unfriendly infrastructure. A cop handing out a ticket in Toronto doesn't weigh against me. It just means that Toronto PD and/or city government is run by assholes who care about cars more than people. Nothing too surprising about that, really! I mean, look, it's "Crack-smokin mayor" ROB FORD! He was elected because Toronto was forcibly merged with a bunch of its suburbs, and he is a manifestation of the latter.

    up
    10

    And you are wrong according to how that law is interpreted

    I did not in any way misinterpret this law - you simply want the world to be other than it really is.

    The leading sentence is clear: pedestrians have the right of way in the crosswalk when there is not a light or signal. When there is a light or signal, they have to wait their turn like other road users.

    Here's what a pedestrian accident lawyer has to say:

    Usually pedestrians have the right of way, but the right of way is not absolute. A pedestrian crossing a street in a crosswalk, or at an intersection with either the "Walk" signal or on a green light, has the right of way.

    This is how the law is INTERPRETED. Not how Matthew thinks it should be - how the COURTS read it. A personal injury lawyer would damn well know that.

    Reference: http://www.bwglaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1445449.html

    up
    12

    Seriously Swirly

    By on

    Instead of throwing insults at me, please actually read the words that I am saying.

    A pedestrian IS ALREADY IN THE CROSSWALK.

    That means the pedestrian is ALREADY in the roadway, and in the path of a vehicle, potentially. Maybe the person is slow and unable to complete the crossing before the signal changes.

    The person has the right to finish crossing and make their way to safe passage without being struck by a vehicle.

    I really do not know how you could misinterpret what I am saying, and I cannot think of a simpler way to say this.

    But what you are saying has no relevance to the situation that I have outlined, and I have outlined the exact same situation in all 3 responses to this thread.

    Paragraph 2 of that section of MGL fully supports exactly what I have been saying.

    Please re-read!

    up
    15

    Sorry Matthew

    I read just fine. You are really trying hard, but, sorry, pedestrians have responsibilities too. You are welcome to find and cite legal opinion to support your contention - but you are otherwise just trying too hard.

    Consider as well that pedestrians can and have injured cyclists by walking into the street against the light - including people who have posted on UHub. It isn't near the risk that motorists pose, but, all the same, there are rules and there are laws and pedestrians have to follow those rules and laws, too.

    up
    11

    You are unbelievably stubborn

    By on

    You are totally wrong. There is no right to kill a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Period.

    Even if the pedestrian enters the crosswalk illegally, there is still no right to kill him or her.

    And if the pedestrian enters the crosswalk legally, there is still no right to kill him or her, even if unable to complete the crossing within the allotted time.

    You are not reading my statements correctly, and I feel like you are just changing the meanings of the words to suit what you think I am saying.

    Just take it slow. Go back. Re-read. Do not insert any words into my mouth.

    All along, I have explicitly tailored my statements to avoid what you keep accusing me of saying.

    I am not saying that it is legal for a pedestrian to enter a crosswalk against the signal. I am merely saying that a pedestrian who has already begun to cross the street has the right of way even if the signal turns against them. This is not controversial, at all. You are just misinterpreting my statements.

    up
    13

    No, She's Right ... (As Usual)

    By on

    Pedestrians are obliged to obey the lights at signalized crosswalks. Of course, a driver can't deliberately run down a pedestrian; that would be reckless endangerment; but drivers don't need to stop for pedestrians waiting at signalized crosswalks unless the vehicular signal turns red. In addition, state law requires pedestrians to use crosswalks when one is available. When there are no marked crosswalks in the immediate area (there's a specific distance, but I couldn't find it), only then are drivers required to stop for pedestrians attempting to cross mid-block or at unmarked crosswalks. In other words, a driver wouldn't necessarily be ticketed for accidentally hitting a jaywalking pedestrian.

    I feel like I am banging my head against a wall

    By on

    I am not disagreeing with Swirly (or you) when she says that pedestrians are obliged to obey the lights at signalized crossings.

    But that is not the situation that I am talking about!

    I am talking about someone getting stuck in the middle of the roadway when the signal changes!

    READ!!!

    Holy moly... people.

    up
    13

    Huh?

    By on

    Calgary? Toronto? Whatever. We're in Massachussetts, and I quote:

    "...nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed ..." Mass. General Laws: CHAPTER 89, Section 11

    I made no comment regarding whether the pedestrian would have legal liability for jaywalking, which they may well, but that is irrelevant to the driver's liability. Naturally, it's this law that insurance companies use to determine fault.

    up
    11

    See above

    You conveniently omitted the first part of that MGL section, and then you avoided providing the link to the full text. Did you really think you could conveniently edit it to suit your point when it actually starts with the exemption?

    Nnnnoo...

    By on

    I agree with you with regards to wishing more people knew how signaled crosswalks work and I especially get frustrated with people who walk out on a big red hand with a child in tow. Oh, and the drivers who stop and yell "are you gonna cross or what?!" out their windows when I'm waiting with my child who has been taught that we wait for the walk signal.

    However, as a human being who tries to have morals, and as someone who is a parent/child/sister/neighbor/coworker, if I hit someone with my car because I'm not paying attention, couldn't stop in time, or even because the person ran right out in front of me, and I get some scratches on my 2000-pound machine that contacted a human, I am not the victim in the situation. I'm the fortunate one.

    up
    22

    Cameras Work

    I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying this but red light and speeding cameras are effective in slowing people down and preventing them from running red lights once word is out that you get tickets doing these things. The city should install the video camera versions (to prove the yellow light was yellow for long enough) at high profile intersections and crosswalks.

    up
    24

    And yet ...

    By on

    We have parking tickets that presume guilt and actually say "Offender" on them.

    up
    27

    Red light cameras sometimes

    By on

    Red light cameras sometimes become about revenue and result in more accidents (usually rear end collisions) when the yellow light timing is reduced to less than typical design standards to generate tickets. They are great when used properly and disasters when abused by the powers that be to generate ticket revenue.

    up
    14

    That's why you use video

    If you use a video camera which also records the traffic light you can prove that the yellow light was lit long enough which is a frequent complaint. You can also prove you were justified in running the red light if you needed to run the red to make room for an emergency vehicle, etc. It's the ones which simply take a photo which are more ripe for abuse.

    As for it being illegal, I know this is now the case. But up until a week ago it was legal to take a photo up a woman's skirt but they seemed to figure out a way of changing that law so they can do the same regarding the red light cams.

    They can give all the money to soup kitchens or other good causes for all I care -- I just want drivers to stop running reds and going 45mph+ in 25mph zones.

    up
    20

    Yellow time Catch-22

    MUTCD and other roadway regulations specify how long traffic lights need to be yellow, based on the speed of traffic. To find out the speed of traffic, a traffic study is needed, then yellow time and speed limits can be set (85th percentile guideline) for fewest accidents. Often, a speed limit determined by best engineering principals is higher than speed limits set by politicians, hence a reluctance by politicians to have speed studies performed.

    up
    10

    Need for video camers

    While video cameras don't produce a reduction in accidents, they can help catch cyclists and pedestrians from ignoring traffic signals if tickets were to actually be issued and collections enforced. These cameras are only about the money.

    Even if you think red light

    By on

    Even if you think red light cameras for bikes and pedestrians would be a good idea, how could it work? They don't have license plates.

    Bicycles used to have license plates

    Must have been some good reasons for it, back even before there were video cameras. As for pedestrians, the MBTA thinks there are good reasons to install cameras inside buses and stations. Police also try to identify people from video for criminal investigations. Driving a car seems to only require civil infractions to warrant video surveillance and identification by police.

    Blah blah blah

    By on

    Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.

    99.99% the case.

    Visibility is key. Those videos from red light cameras showing dramatic crashes are all from people not noticing the red traffic light.

    So, how could this location be made safer?
    1. Pedestrians encouraged to use the tunnel.
    2. Traffic signal added to the median closer to driver eye level than overhead traffic lights.
    3. High-intensity + a few strobe blinks pedestrian crossing lights. People going into seizures from them seems mostly urban myth.

    Traffic volumes and speed are both too high at that location under regulations for a speed table. A waste given the safest option of pedestrian tunnel already exists. While speed tables and bumps may not cause fire trucks and MBTA buses to bottom out, they put more wear and tear on half million dollar+ vehicles which need to last more than a decade. Besides stress on the suspension and frame, slowing down and speeding up wears brakes and increases greenhouse gas emissions.

    up
    11

    You forgot #4

    By on

    4. Giant anvil dropped on speeding self absorbed motorist.

    thin the herd of people who shouldn't be driving.

    up
    13

    Wow, 9,999 times out of 10

    Wow, 9,999 times out of 10,000? That's pretty amazing. Unfortunately, the part of your post where you cite any evidence to support this statistic got cut off. You should probably re-post and include this information or people are going to start to suspect that you're just making shit up.

    increases greenhouse gas emissions.

    Excellent point. I can tell how concerned you are about greenhouse gas emissions by all your posts encouraging civil engineering changes that make it easier for people to ride bikes and walk instead of driving their cars.

    up
    18

    Call your legislator to support Vulnerable Road User laws

    By on

    Senator Brownsberger's bill S. 1639 is stuck in Joint Transportation committee now. It is an "Act to Protect Vulnerable Road Users."

    If you are interested in protecting vulnerable road users, then I recommend looking up your legislators and giving them or their staff (more likely to answer) a call. Both House and Senate.

    Tell them that you support S. 1639, that you want safer streets, and that you request for the legislator to contact the Transportation committee and indicate support for this bill.

    There is also a companion bill, S. 1640, that helps protect bicyclists in bike lanes. If you are interested, also ask them to support that as well.

    up
    14

    Doesn't protect pedestrians

    from bicyclists. There is a huge vacuum in bicycle safety by not enforcing any traffic laws against them, encouraging reckless behavior. It seems like more bicyclists are rewarded for breaking traffic laws by being given free helmets if stopped, than the number of cyclists who have paid fines for violations.

    The bill is pointless. It only increases fines for things people already avoid doing, hence no additional deterrent. The traffic fines too low are the ones for jay walking and bicycling infractions.

    {edit]
    The bill also fails to include motorcyclists and moped riders as vulnerable users, another major flaw.

    up
    12

    No, no, no, no, no!

    Markkk is just trying to raise awareness about the horrible danger posed by reckless cyclists. No new motor-vehicle laws should ever be passed unless they address the incredible danger posed by bicylists. After all, I can't even remember the last time I opened UHub and *didn't* see a story about some out-of-control bicyclist killing a pedestrian or putting them in the hospital! This plague must be stopped!

    up
    18

    No

    By on

    He's delighted with himself. Totally hilarious. Funniest person ever, What a card. Waiting for the movie.
    Doesn't matter if anyone sees it. What would Arlington do without him? Can't wait for the Marathon "jokes".

    up
    10

    Tunnel

    By on

    I use the MBTA pedestrian tunnel under Mass Ave. I've never been hit by a car or truck down there, the only problem is the pee smell.

    Just saying.

    up
    18

    People are kind of afraid of

    By on

    People are kind of afraid of getting attacked and/or raped down there. But you're probably a guy and never think about such things.

    up
    23

    Guys...

    By on

    are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. No need to rush to judgment. But honestly, as someone who's usually on foot or bike there and not on the T, I didn't even know that there was an underpass there--crazy.

    up
    29

    I'll be honest

    By on

    I never knew there was a tunnel till now, but I doubt people will start using it after today

    up
    13

    As a woman

    By on

    I have used the tunnel many times, both in the dark and daylight, and I have never felt unsafe

    up
    10

    I've

    By on

    used that tunnel/underpass in situations where the lights are green and the train i'm waiting for is close to pulling into the station and I don't want to miss it by waiting for the walk signal. I was never fearful to do so, I suppose because I'm naive never thought about it much. But now I'll have to stay extra on-guard....

    Tunnel (underpass) safety

    By on

    I mentioned the tunnel (but I said underpass) in an earlier comment. I think that police installed security cameras in the tunnel this year -- a plus for safety..

    up
    10

    Used by an illegal alien

    Illegal aliens without a driving license or insurance coverage (name on policy?) are less likely to stick around after an accident. Consider the car was found in Quincy, illegal alien is quite possible.

    up
    10

    How do you know it was an

    How do you know it was an illegal alien? Maybe it was just some car-obsessed moron who deeply resents the law that gives pedestrians and cyclists access to public streets and thinks driving a metal box gives him the right to hit anything that dares get in his way.

    up
    22

    Geez Mark, you get around

    By on

    You shared the same insight (incite?) on the Herald's comment section 40 minutes before. Until the guilty party is found, perhaps you should keep your tinfoil Kreskin turban stowed.

    up
    18

    This happened right outside my house

    By on

    This happened right outside my house and I can tell you drivers blow through that red light ALL THE TIME. It's not a matter of them having already floored it after passing Huntington or Columbus - the light is as obvious as all the others on Mass Ave. They simply see the red light and THEY DON'T CARE. They don't get caught running red lights, they get away with it, so they do it. Some stop or slow down first, check to see nobody is crossing, and then drive on through - that's marginally better than not slowing down at all, but still idiotic because red means stop, period, no matter what. Until drivers get rid of their entitlement complexes and stop thinking laws don't apply to them, we'll have tragedies like this.

    up
    18

    Not that it's an excuse, but

    By on

    Not that it's an excuse, but how well synchronized are the lights? If you blow through this red, do you just get caught at the next red? Or do you make a green that you wouldn't make if you stopped at the crosswalk?

    Bully to the end

    I'm somewhat flattered that you took the time and effort to identify me in your attempt to bully and intimidate from behind your keyboard. Cowardly actions like bullying work better on people who let fear run their lives, however. What's your name?

    Wrong Much?

    By on

    I guess Mark has trouble admitting when he's wrong...doncha feel kind of stupid re-reading your comments?

    up
    15

    Location