Hey, there! Log in / Register

Companies that win contracts with city will have to outfit trucks with bike protectors

The City Council today passed an ordinance under which all trucks over 10,000 pounds used by city contractors will have to be equipped with side guards and special mirrors to reduce the odds a bicyclist or pedestrian will be crushed when the truck makes a turn or changes lanes.

The ordinance, which goes into effect in six months, is the first in the nation. The measure, first proposed by at-large Councilor Ayanna Pressley, does not apply to emergency vehicles or trucks used for snow plowing.

According to the mayor's office:

Since 2010, 11 cyclists in Boston have died as a result of crashes with motor vehicles, and seven of those fatal incidents occurred between a cyclist and either a truck or a bus. Mandated side guards on large trucks reduced deaths by 61 percent and serious injuries by 13 percent for cyclists in the United Kingdom according to a study completed by Transport For London. Convex blind spot mirrors and cross-over mirrors, similar to those found on a school bus, will allow drivers of large trucks to see the areas in-front of, and to the sides better, preventing "right hook”" incidents with cyclists.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


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

Comments

Ticket closed.

up
Voting closed 0

A small sticker on the mirror that reads "don't turn right on top of the cyclist you didn't totally pass".

up
Voting closed 0

"Bicyclists in mirror are closer than they appear."

up
Voting closed 0

USE YOUR FARKING MIRRORS!

I mean, its great that they are requiring improved mirrors ... but they are only as good as the driver's willingness to put down the phone and look before turning or changing lanes.

up
Voting closed 0

..what is on the left and right of there vehicle at all times during a turn (especially during the daylight hours). These accidents should be preventable with existing equipment. How do trucks avoid cars on the side of the road when turning right now?

Hopefully, they aren't guessing...

up
Voting closed 0

Cars are often forced to avoid the big trucks. I stay as far away from them as possible when the situation allows.

up
Voting closed 0

I was in a right turn lane, taking a right turn , and a car behind me tried to beat me through the turn , he drove smack dead center under the middle of the trailer. I stopped before any damage was done , the car backed up , and I went on my way. I crawl through turns, because nitwits come in all shapes and sizes.

up
Voting closed 0

"but they are only as good as the driver's willingness to put down the phone and look before turning or changing lanes."

I've seen a couple of cage/bike hits. You don't need a truck to make a mess. A car will do.

My take? You want to ride a bike, lose the ipod and pay attention. Best advice I ever heard was, "Pretend you are invisible and leave yourself a way out."

up
Voting closed 0

I've never been hit.

My take: idiot cyclists kill themselves - or learn otherwise; Idiot drivers kill a lot of people and never learn. Statistics confirm this.

Drivers are the dominant problem. We need to get much more serious about who we allow to operate motor vehicles in the US.

up
Voting closed 0

on the back of the truck that reads

DON"T EVEN THINK ABOUT PASSING ME ON THE RIGHT!

For that matter, perhaps we need a law that requires cyclists to pass on the left - like motor vehicles are already required to. Oh wait, that would entail equal treatment of cyclists - we sure can't have that.

up
Voting closed 0

A car was parked illegally in bike lane, so he switched lanes in to an empty lane and some shit-for-brains cop decided that wasn't allowed.

Cop even cited a law that said that it was a legal move for a cyclist!

Can't ticket a driver in an illegally parked car when you have a hard-on for "just gotta show dem cyclists hooz boss!".

So, yeah. Both you and Officer Donut Knowdarulz can shove it. Learn the laws - and learn how to drive, too. If you can't deal with that, you have no business driving.

up
Voting closed 0

properly share the road with drivers as well, instead of insisting on special rules (OK to pass on the right) and special "driver is presumed at fault" laws - like the "right hooking" and "dooring' scams.

You could also learn that some streets and roads are NOT suitable for bike lanes (perhaps your traffic engineer father could enlighten you on that), instead of mandating all of our infrastructure be revised to meet the demands of a small percentage of road users WITHOUT requiring that said cyclists prove that such facilities are appropriate.

And you can also lose this nonsense of "we want equal access and equal rights to use the public roads with other vehicles, but we don't want to register our vehicles or otherwise be held accountable for our actions to the same extent that other vehicle users are (i.e. licensing and insurance). It's getting old.

Lastly, lose the personal insults, they add no value to ANY of your discussions on the subject matter. BTW, I've been driving for over 36 years, and have had NO tickets and only one crash (not my fault) in almost 600,000 miles of driving. And I do respect cyclists when I see them on the road - it's the "bikes first, cars second" mantra that I'm getting sick and tired of.

up
Voting closed 0

You are griping and whining about the current laws here, but I don't see you doing anything to change them. Or, even, citing any research or data or anything meaningful to support your contentions that there is anything wrong - just your opinions about this, that, and whatever.

Makes you sound like a grumpy and impotent old man, shaking your fist at things, yelling "get off my roaaaaad" and such.

As for your driving record, Good Work - but mine is swell as well: 32 years with no serious accidents (I've even stayed out of ones that I should have been in!). Rear-ended only once by a driver not paying attention at a stoplight. Unlike you, however, I don't have any complaints about cyclists passing on the right or riding outside the lanes or being on "my road". That's because I don't think that wrapping myself in tons of steel makes me special ... unless knowing that I have special responsibilities in how I use that vehicle makes me special. You are entitled to drive appropriately for the conditions and pay attention to where that vehicle is going. That's what you are entitled to by having the privilege of driving.

up
Voting closed 0

Go read the law.

Cars can pass on the right, too. Under the same conditions as cyclists ... WHEN THEY FIT!

What makes cyclists special? 25lbs of steel instead of 2500. That's it. The "may pass on right" for cyclists was only put in there to clarify because cops like to make up their own rules.

Go read it. Please.

up
Voting closed 0

for example: lane splitting, or passing between lanes of traffic. Motorcyclists would get tickets in Mass for doing this. Also, no speed limits or DUI for cyclists. No test required or license for playing in traffic.

What trucks need are air horns as loud as those on fire trucks so even cyclists blithely pedaling can hear them and be alerted to stay away from trucks.

up
Voting closed 0

What does your rant have to do with anything?

If certain things shrink every time you see a cyclist, that has nothing to do with road rules.

BTW, the vast majority of cyclists do have driving licenses. Therefore, your comments only underscore the reality that driving tests in the Northeast are a joke.

Also, when was the last time you actually saw any driver get a ticket for any of these things? Like "splitting lanes" to pass a cyclist? Like "passing on the right" when someone was making a left turn? Or, even, making a second nonexistent lane on Mass Ave?

up
Voting closed 0

Once more: the problem is trucks turning without looking, particularly turning across lanes without looking for traffic -- including bicycles -- that's already in the lane. Your loud horn won't do a damn bit of good if the idiot trucker isn't paying any damn attention and doesn't know that there's anything to blow their stupid loud horn about.

up
Voting closed 0

ProTip: just don't antagonize the bikers on here. Seriously. I've just learned to keep my opinions about bikes to myself (and yes I 100% agree with you), its just a losing battle on here. You wont win and you won't change anyone's opinion about it. No point in even bothering to write an argument, it doesn't matter at all to them.

up
Voting closed 0

Is it ever legal for a cyclist to make a left turn on a red light?

up
Voting closed 0

So if bikes are suppose to 'follow the rules of the road', then no.

But you would know better than I would, SwirlyBiker.

Edit: Cars *can* if it is posted, so same applies to bikers. but typically no.

up
Voting closed 0

IF you are on a one-way street and IF you are turning onto a one-way street, THEN you may make a left turn on red, provided that you do not have the dreaded "no turn on red" sign.

This applies to drivers as well as cyclists. Therefore, a cyclist may legally make such a turn, provided the conditions are met. (I actually have two such intersections on my daily cycling route).

I know someone who was stopped in Cambridge for this - but, to the cop's credit, she looked it up.

"Turns on Red: After coming to a complete stop at a red traffic light, you are allowed to turn right on red after giving the right-of-way to pedestrians and other vehicles, unless a NO TURN ON RED sign is posted. You may turn left on red following the same rules only if you are turning from a one-way street onto another one-way street." (You can read the whole thing here on Page 94 (page 16 of the document): http://www.massrmv.com/rmv/dmanual/chapter_4.pdf )

up
Voting closed 0

It always shocks me how few people know that this is lawful under the circumstances outlined - especially in the cities where there are a greater number of one-way streets.

up
Voting closed 0

It's not "passing on the right" if you are in the right lane and a truck tries to make a right turn from the left lane. That's what's going on here.

up
Voting closed 0

that read:

Be observant of a truck's blind spots.

up
Voting closed 0

When a truck incompletely overtakes from behind, in the left lane, and runs over the cyclist. (or suddenly decides to fork left rather than right, cuts across a bike lane, and kills a cyclist ...)

Which is what has been happening.

Right. That's gonna work just fine.

BTW, I took a count of truck drivers on my way in this morning. Of the 23 I counted, 13 were driving while on the phone.

up
Voting closed 0

Oh - there's a bicyclist - let me make a hard turn and run him over.

Nobody is assassinating cyclists. They can't avoid what they can't or don't see.

There's a concept called defensive driving. Bicyclists should practice it. Don't pass a truck on the right (unless it's stopped maybe). And if you are passing on the left don't do it at an intersection unless you want to contend for the Darwin awards.

You are a tiny little object compared to most of the things the truck is trying to avoid - assume the driver doesn't see you. S/he didn't wake up that morning and say - I would like to ruin my life, I'll purposely carelessly run over some kid on a bike.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you walk around assuming that all drivers are drunk and you should just walk more carefully if one hits you and it is your fault, etc.?

Probably not.

A CDL is not a license to kill. If you can't drive responsibly, you should not be driving. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not you intend to do anything - if your head is up your distal digestive tract and you kill someone because you didn't bother to look and didn't yield the right of way, you should pay. Period.

If you shot a gun into a crowd and somebody got hurt, you'd do time in this state. Drive a car into a crowd and people like you make excuses and the state does nothing.

Negligence may not be intentional, but too few drivers wake up and say "I really need to work on my driving skills" or "I'm in a city and I'm driving a big thing and I am responsible for not killing anyone with it".

MA just breeds negligence and "not my fault because CAR or TRUCK" behavior by not requiring much of anything of drivers - and protecting them from the consequences of their negligence once they do kill. That has to change. My son tells me that his teacher went to California for a while. They made her retake the test. She failed it multiple times because MA doesn't make you know anything to get a license.

up
Voting closed 0

I've come closing to getting hit by bicycles 100 times more than I've come close to being hit by a car. They blow through lights, ride on the sidewalk, go the wrong way down the street, ride in parks where they aren't supposed to be and ride way too fast through crowded pedestrian areas (like the Esplanade paths).

If you get hit by a truck turning right or left- which is about 100% of the situations I've read about on Uhub - it is almost certainly the fault of the bicyclist. If I tried to go around a turning car in my car and got hit - it would be 100% my fault (unless they were in the wrong lane - but if I see a trailer swinging left - I can usually figure out what he's doing even at motor vehicle speed). Bicycles are not pedestrians and unless they are walking the bike why should I yield to the bicycle? (and if the cyclistas have gotten some stupid midnight law passed that says you have to yield to a bike going around you at an intersection, shame on the legislature - that's a moronic invitation to getting people killed).

No I don't assume people are drunk when I drive. I do assume they are stupid, bad drivers, not paying attention or can't see me. I try to anticipate dangerous situations. If a guy comes flying up on my right as I'm about to pass - I figure he's going to swing left and cut me off. If a car flies up to an intersection, even if I have the right of way, I assume he's going to pull out and slow down/move left. If a ball comes flying out from between two cars, I assume a kid is going to follow and hit the brakes hard. If you are bicyclist and you pass a truck -or any vehicle for that matter - at an intersection or assume he won't turn - you are literally taking your life in your hands. Don't do it, let him clear the intersection THEN pass if you can. You always assume it's the truck driver not paying attention. I'm guessing at least half the time they were, but simply didn't see the bicyclist (why does this almost never happen with cars and pedestrians?). Did it ever occur to you that maybe the bicyclist wasn't paying attention?

We don't all live in your cyclista fantasy world where we have eyes all around our heads and the superhuman ability to see/anticipate every possible thing that can happen when driving. Humans can only pay attention to ONE thing at a time, and believe it or not, there are lots of things other than bicycles that we have to pay attention to when driving. If I'm looking at that, I might be driving 100% responsibly and still not see the bike. The cyclistas need to get real. You are a very small minority and you're holier than thou crap is starting to piss the rest of us off. You won't like the result when WE get a hold of the legislators. (crack downs on scofflaws, more unified laws that take away some of your "rights", registration, taxes, licensing with training etc. etc. etc.)

up
Voting closed 0

Drivers kill 30,000 people a year.

How many pedestrians have been killed this year by motorists? How about by cyclists?

When cyclists achieve that level of mayhem, will talk about responsibility.

up
Voting closed 0

And (excluding drunks) had nothing to do with a difference in human behavior between drivers and cyclists. If cars behaved like bicycles - the streets would literally be drowning in blood.

I can guarantee this:

If I get hit by a car - it's almost certainly because I was doing something I wasn't supposed to be doing

If I get hit by a bicycle, it's almost certainly because the cyclist was doing something s/he were doing something they weren't supposed to be doing.

And if you ask a downtown resident if they think it's more likely they will get hit by a bike or a car - they will tell you a bike - even though bikes are outnumbered like 100-1.

up
Voting closed 0

...between simple and simplistic. Your analysis is the latter and begs the question, "Yes, and so what?" As a matter of "simple physics", an Abrams tank can do more damage than a nerf gun, which is why you can't treat silly transgressions by operators of Abrams tanks the way you would a silly transgression by operators of nerf guns. Do you understand now? '

And if you ask a downtown resident if they think it's more likely they will get hit by a bike or a car - they will tell you a bike - even though bikes are outnumbered like 100-1.

I don't know when I've read a sentence more heavily burdejed with made-up faux statistics. How long is your nose?

up
Voting closed 0

Please show me where I cite a statistic or perform an analysis before you worry about the size of another man's anatomic parts.

My comment wasn't exactly a white paper - nor was it intended to be.

up
Voting closed 0

I can think of at least four people who were killed in the Back Bay by cars speeding and driving recklessly, as reported on UHub.

And exactly zero by cyclists.

up
Voting closed 0

Said hit and I'm talking pedestrians (yes we lost a wonderful young couple taking an evening stroll earlier this year) - was at a community meeting where the topic came up. In a room of 40 people at least 6 raised their hand when the question was asked how many of you have been hit by a bike?

No you are not likely to die if you get hit by a bike. And yes - the roads are full of Massholes. I am not excusing them.

Unfortunately for your argument, the bike v. truck thing doesn't seem to have anything to do with careening garbage trucks and Mario Speed Semi Drivers. Has to do with people on bikes asserting their supposed right of way against large multi-ton vehicles moving at 5 mph that probably never saw the person on the bike. Word to the wise - Force = mass times acceleration. A giant truck moving at a snail's pace will smush you if you choose to pass it at an intersection.

If the vast majority of people who ride bikes don't understand that, maybe we need to start requiring you to be trained, licensed, registered and insured?

up
Voting closed 0

...and sweep up the damn straw. No one's said that truckers are trying to kill cyclists, and you knew it before you wrote that asinine post. Some of them are being stupid and careless and negligent and driving without consideration for others, and people are getting killed as a result. Please stop bellyaching about how the drivers' lives are ruined; their victims' lives are OVER.

up
Voting closed 0

The phrase murder has been used to describe on UHub incidents where bicyclists have died after coming into contact with motor vehicles. While death is horrible, and action should be taken to lessen if not end the deaths, the rhetoric of "murder" carries with it the implication that the drivers engaged in a willful act, as if to say that they woke up and decided that today was going to be the day they would kill someone, or in seeing a bicyclist driving down the street thought "I can do it. I can kill them."

There is reason on both sides, but there are statements made by all sides that don't help. That said, the phrase "get away with murder" has appeared on the Universal Hub way too many times.

up
Voting closed 0

... when weighing the gravity of a homicide charge. Recklessness is, of course, a lot more than negligence (or even than gross negligence).

up
Voting closed 0

"Someone once said a mean thing about motor vehicles that may not have been justified. Therefore, let's bring up that completely irrelevant point and use it to discredit any criticism of motor vehicles, no matter how completely removed from the current discussion." That about sum up your approach?

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, Stevil ramped up the discussion, but let's be honest, there's rarely a reasoned discussion here involving bikes, even discounting our friend from Arlington.

Again, nobody is claiming that motor vehicle operators shouldn't be paying attention, but are you really going to deny that the implication is often given that drivers have a wanton disregard for human life?

I'm sorry, but the claim made more than once at the website that drivers "get away with murder" does bother me. Not as much as the fact that someone is dead, but this disregards the fact that a driver has to live with the fact that someone died, and the vehicle they were using was responsible, so even if they could not have prevented the death, it happened. People drive drunk knowing they can kill someone. People shoot guns knowing that they can kill someone, perhaps even someone unintended. People get into fistfights or pull a knife knowing they can cause damage. A shmuck taking a right turn has no intention to do harm. That they do is a tragedy. Preventable, but not intentional.

up
Voting closed 0

The vehicle is not responsible, unless it malfunctioned. The driver is responsible for maintaining and safely operating their vehicle. Cars don't murder people, people do, and sometimes they do so with their cars, sometimes with guns, sometimes with knives, but its the persons fault.

up
Voting closed 0

For proving my point.

up
Voting closed 0

Many thumbs up.

up
Voting closed 0

with an eyedropper.

up
Voting closed 0

Why not just simply require a zero-kill surety bond of, say, 5 million ? That covers every body, not just walkers and riders. Business people may not understand the value of life but they understand the value of money.

up
Voting closed 0

These protectors cost $1800 per installation according to WBZ last night.

I think that sounds more than reasonable if it saves a couple of people a year (usually young people with promising lives ahead of them) from being dragged under a truck.

What I find disturbing is that Councilor Pressley couldn't bring herself to say that. When questioned on the cost, her response was "It's cost neutral". What the hell stupid politically correct kind of response is that? (the WBZ reporter had to go find the answer and announce it after the Pressley interview).

I like Councilor Pressley - always vote for her - even when I disagree with her, her heart is in the right place, but if she ever wants to move up the ladder in politics, she needs to learn to give straighter, less politically correct answers to simple, but important questions. We don't want to hear prepared sound bites like "it's cost neutral".

up
Voting closed 0

$1800 per truck, bus, or trailer, times how many installation? Seems like a lot of money, especially compared to other ways to save lives, like getting a flu shot.

up
Voting closed 0

Markkkkk's solution to bad drivers who endanger cyclists: get a flu shot.

Seriously, you're onto something. Let's enforce the traffic laws against motor vehicles that violate them, with double penalty if they endanger others in the process. How's that sound to you?

up
Voting closed 0

I believe the City should mandate that Schwinn install truck protecters on their bikes.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://www.cubebreaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/latvian-cyclists-02.jpg?be1710)

up
Voting closed 0

bike lanes!

up
Voting closed 0

Contract with Boston City Council for stenographic services hasn't been as widely advertised as could be to get more advanced technology and software. Instead the usual is grandfathered in every time.

up
Voting closed 0

anyone to type the ad.

up
Voting closed 0