WBZ has the dashcam video from another motorist this morning at the rotary by the Arboretum where the Arborway and Centre Street come together.
Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
That the bicyclist wasn't seriously injured.
I think its great this was captured on video. My brother-in-law also had his accident captured by a witness with a dashcam a few weeks ago where a young driver ran a stop sign and hit his truck. I'm just wondering how prevalent dashcams are and if this is what they are intended for? I had an Uber driver who said he uses one in case of an accident but just wanted to know if many people use them?
But I've had enough friends on bikes get hit-and-run recently that I'm investing in two for mine.
Theyve become more common thanks to Uber and Lyft
I recently acquired one, for the dual purpose of protecting myself in the event of an accident, and recording some of the stupidity I see on the roads every day.
I have a dashcam for my car, and a GoPro for riding on my bike.
I put a dashcam in my car after being rear-ended while stopping for a pedestrian. I have recorded quite a lot of stupidity with it, including one near-collision on the highway. I think that every single car should come standard with one. With that said, this camera (one of the most recommended at the time) has been buggy so I didn't get one for my wife's car when she got one. There are other, better options nowadays out there.
It was caught by multiple dash cams. Which brought the question why do they have so many dash cams there. Turns out they are needed to combat daily insurance fraud where people try to pretend they were injured by cars. Larceny is the Mother of Invention.
People drive like lunatics. SLOW DOWN AND GET OFF YOUR PHONE.
That car clearly accelerated to beat the bike to the exit, realized it wasn't going to make the right hook, then plowed through the bike and didn't stop. There's no "I never knew I hit them" there.
The fucked up thing is that it's a rotary. If you miss your exit, you can literally just go around again!
Sad but common all along the park way roads. I've had enough close calls by bike coming out of that rotary onto the arbor way with aggressive fast cars that I've decided it's just better to roll up onto the sidewalks through there and stay away from the cars.
Bottom line: Riding a bike in a rotary sucks. Even the most mundane rotaries are dicey.
It's really perfectly fine and normal. Sorry.
I am very reluctant to ride through that rotary, and will only use it to approach the next spoke. Otherwise, I pretend I'm a pedestrian or find an alternate route (of which there are many).
is so wide, that people speed through it, making it dangerous for pedestrians (at crosswalks), cyclists, and drivers. Drivers often accelerate and cut through from the inner lane to exit.
I'm not convinced that the driver saw the cyclist initially, but they clearly knew when they hit her and then sped up, leaving the scene.
But that would add an extra 10 seconds to the drivers commute!!1!
This driver thinks 10 seconds of their day is more important than another persons life. They would rather kill someone than go around the rotary again. The scary part is this there are countless homicidal drivers like that on the road. That is what happens when you give a license to anyone who wants one and the state fails to take away licenses from people who have shown themselves to be maniacs behind the wheel.
The scary part is this there are countless homicidal drivers like that on the road.
Enough with the tired hyperbole. If you want to say something like this, prove it. Can't? Shut it. Yes, there are a lot bad drivers. Homicidal? Maybe this one, but in general, no.
Your broad brush schtick is getting old.
Drivers kill pedestrians and cyclists all the time, and almost none are held responsible. Wake up and smell the money. Traffic laws were written for the benefit of auto manufacturers not public safety. Google it. It is not hyperbole. Cars and streets could be made in such a way that no one was ever killed but where is the money in that?
According to your logic, it's the courts, road planners, and legislature who are homicidal, as they're responsible for our justice system, street design, and traffic laws. Drivers don't get to decide their own punishment, design their own roads, or write their own regulations. Bad driving is largely a symptom (with exceptions), not a root cause.
Claiming that all or most drivers are just out to kill pedestrians and cyclists is stupid, and it takes away from the legitimacy of your argument.
Drivers are the target. Roads and cars won't change unless people are held responsible. There may be more driver's than voters but if all crashes that kill someone are treated as vehicular homicide then driver's will vote for change. And that's how it is in some countries, so it is possible.
I don't know why you're arguing with me. I'm all for bad drivers being held responsible for driving badly, whether it be speeding, running lights, or hitting people. I'm not arguing against that. All I'm saying is that labeling the majority of drivers as homicidal is false and counterproductive if you want to be taken seriously.
. Cars and streets could be made in such a way that no one was ever killed but where is the money in that?
Seriously? There's a world out there that defies the laws of physics?
That statement is right up there with Alex Jones.
Look, I ride a bike regularly and would prefer not to get hit by a car. Cell phone users are my biggest fear. But there is no way I'm going to even begin to believe that statement of yours.
Here's what you said, with emphasis:
Cars and streets could be made in such a way that no one was ever killed but where is the money in that?
That's a nonsense claim that neither of your links dare to make.
Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. Its philosophy is that traffic deaths are not accidents but, instead, the products of design flaws in the traffic system. Fix the system, and while you may not prevent all crashes due to human error, you can prevent the fatal ones.
although poorly designed and constructed traffic systems, roads and throughways can be and often enough are a contributing factor.
No, it isn't an acid goth band. It was a movement in the Netherlands 40 - 50 years ago that resulted in putting car travel in its place and holding drivers responsible for their behavior behind the wheel.
They did say "countless", an indeterminate number. ;-)
Its the exact thing thats said about cyclists, we are all suicidal morons out trying to kill ourselves and everyone on the road. Yet somehow thats still a legitimate argument, maybe you think otherwise.
Clearly we're not all suicidal (I'm an occasional cyclist). That's another stupid generalization which, from what I've seen since I started to frequent UHub, is most often used as an excuse by people who would prefer to sit in their cars in traffic rather than ride a bicycle. I hope nobody considers that a legitimate argument.
is most often used as an excuse by people who would prefer to sit in their cars in traffic rather than ride a bicycle
By riding bikes just about anywhere save Dehli, the exercise benefits seriously outstrip the risks.
I think the issue is less that drivers are homicidal, and more that they're clueless. Homicidal implies that they got behind the wheel intending to go kill some cyclists, whereas in reality I think the problem is more that people don't think through the consequences of their actions.
This driver didn't sit there pondering "do I kill a cyclist or circle around again?". They probably just went, not thinking at all one way or the other about other road users. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained through ignorance.
They are supposed to be licensed drivers, educated and tested that they understand the laws of the road and therefore, the consequences of their actions on others safety. Jesus Christ this is like burned into our teenage heads as we (the majority of drivers I assume) going through drivers ed, you are operating a heavy machine capable of very destructive consequences when not operated properly, we are testing you and licensing you to ensure that you don't do that.
You said it perfectly "not thinking at all one way or the other about other road users." Ok great, that results in someones injury or death because of your actions, you can jump through as many hoops as you want but at the end of the day, a deliberate and avoidable action was taken that caused that.
If you wanna stick with ignorance being a legitimate excuse, then we need to do something to get those ignorant drivers off the road.
Or we could do what some of our European counterparts do and have strict-liability laws that find the motorist automatically at fault for hitting vulnerable road users. Maybe that'll be enough to make people think about other road users? But no that'll never happen here because of the faux hysteria that opponents would conjure up.
Fuck it, lets just throw our hands up and say oh well, what can you do.
Yeah, they're supposed to be, but they aren't.
There are a lot of things drivers are supposed to do that they don't.
I'm not making excuses for anyone. This asshole needs to see justice, and drivers on the whole need to be held more accountable for their actions. I was merely pointing out that we have to think of it in terms of ignorance rather than intentional malice. We can't just explain incidences like this away as "homicidal drivers!"
It sounds to me like you agree with me, but are looking for an excuse to argue. Find somebody else to argue with though, because you're preaching to the choir with me.
I just disagree about intent/malice, we're pretty much on the same page.
"Homicidal" might be strong, but as a regular bike commuter, I'm frequently struck by the callousness of drivers toward cyclists.
Trying to beat a cyclist to a turn by cutting through a bike lane, rolling through stops so that the cyclist on the main road never quite knows that they've been seen, passing with inches of room in a shared lane --- this stuff is an every-minute reality in this city.
And clearly the op is not making an empirical point about what's in the hearts and minds of motorists here. Forget about bike-auto relations, our general car culture here is sick. Aggressiveness, entitled/individualistic behavior to the max, and texting, all coupled with an awe-inspiring lack of enforcement has sent our roads to hell in a hand basket.
Looked like the driver was cut off by the biker.
The bicyclist wasn't turning. Why would she signal?
You don't signal to stay on a rotary. Nor do you exit from an inner lane. Who taught you how to drive?
I point right, I point left, I point straight ahead, whatever it takes to make clear where I'm going.
But that's not the law, nor is it common or should be expected of cyclists by people driving.
Furthermore, striking anything with your car and driving away is illegal irrespective of signaling.
I agree with everything you said, but I find that signalling with my hands is the best way to safely navigate a rotary. (For me, most commonly the one at Powderhouse Circle in Somerville.)
The cyclist acted lawfully. There is no evidence in that video that supports the concept that such a signal would have prevented the crash. The inner vehicle must track and yield to the outer vehicles. Taking your left hand off the handle bars while turning is challenging. You signal before the turn not during. you are not turning while following a rotary. unless you signal straight ahead, you could mislead other vehicles.
Regardless of the fact that you are wrong on the facts, I would also say that criticizing the victim at this time is inappropriate. Save your defensive cycling tips for your cycling class.
I never said anywhere that the cyclist contributed to the crash, or that signalling would have prevented it.
Also, all discussion is appropriate here.
(My most frequent rotary on a bike is Powderhouse Circle in Somerville, which isn't quite as scary as this one because it's usually a bit slow and congested)
This is an internet forum. You are not having a private conversation. Imagine if you and I were the first two people on the scene and we helped this person get up, and gave them first aid. Would you start giving your help tips then? Because if you did, you would be an asshole.
Cyclists and Pedestrians can't change this. While I understand where you are coming from, crash statistics don't back it up. Its a ritual that you practice and you believe. This won't change until driver's are actual held responsible for controlling the vehicle they operate.
Classic mansplaining, wrong on the facts and rude.
Last night I was driving up the expressway when I noticed a car start to drift right. My hand moved for the horn and I prepared to swerve. Good thing - because s/he kept coming and could have run me off the road. I honked and I made a defensive maneuver swerving into the breakdown lane.
You should always be a defensive driver - including (especially?) when you are on a bike.
this isn't victim blaming (the guy in the car is 100% at fault and is a criminal for not stopping). However, it's possible that this could have been avoided if the cyclist looked over her shoulder while going through the rotary exit. Not her responsibility - but preventable by a defensive maneuver in a situation that could have easily killed her.
No blame - not her fault at all. But defensive action could have prevented what was almost a tragedy.
I see this all the time on my corner. I know there is a bike lane so always check for oncoming bikes before turning right. But a lot of people aren't familiar with the area and I'm surprised we don't have more right hooks on that corner as bikes pass turning cars on the right with no consideration for whether or not the car saw them. Not their fault perhaps, but if you don't want to die - I'd suggest watching for and yielding to the turning cars if you are to the right of traffic.
As a cyclist, I do not see any possible defensive action that she could have taken.
I'm sure the cops will make one up for the sake of the poor widdle dwiver like they did for that murder trucker who murdered the doctor in the back bay - the one who should not have been driving that truck in that area without a placard and an escort - who overtook a cyclist and murdered her and drove off. Copscuses abounded!
However, it's possible that this could have been avoided if the cyclist looked over her shoulder while going through the rotary exit.
She wasn't exiting. She was driving on the right side of the right lane because it's insane for a bicyclist to do anything else in a rotary, but she wasn't exiting. She was going "straight" within the rotary.
You can't ride a bicycle safely while looking over your shoulder. You need to keep your eyes in the front 180 degrees to make sure that you don't ride into other things.
Had the motorist done that, there would have been no crash.
She was going straight - BUT there are cars exiting from her left. If she had looked over her shoulder while going through the rotary exit (a common and safe practice for drivers and cyclists - my dad used to say "head on a swivel") she may have seen the car barreling toward her.
Again - not at all her fault - but drivers aren't perfect - sometimes they don't or can't see a cyclist - so you have to be on the lookout. Given the number of bike accidents reported out here where the car is making a right, any time you are on a bike and traffic is on the left with the possibility of a car cutting you off - you should be prepared to brake if they are slightly in front of you and expect them to cut in front of you if they are behind to your left.
Not your responsibility, but that's just being defensive and could very likely save your life.
Take a bike through there and see how effective your theories are.
You will find that there is little or nothing that she could have done to stop the douchemurder express from taking her down. Nothing.
The driver was 100% at fault, but there are things the bicyclist could have done to prevent/avoid this:
Signal left at each exit to show drivers they are continuing around the rotary.
Look left prior to crossing each exit to ensure that no cars are exiting from their left.
Further back, merge to the inside of the rotary so that drivers cannot pass on the left. Then merge right again prior to exiting.
None of these are easy. They all take a bit of skill. But they are all doable.
But it doesn't lend itself to how quickly these things can happen. And it doesn't lend itself to all the other things that we have our head on swivel for.
As I'm riding down Comm Ave (on the hilly incline) I'm watching for all of the following: potholes/debris in the lane, pedestrians that might be trying to cross, parked cars that might have a door swing open, yes even a car that may suddenly swerve and take a right in front of my path.
I think we agree though, the cyclist is not at fault but lets be real, theres nothing they could've done here to avoid this, at all. Zero. Drivers aren't perfect, so what can be done about vulnerable road users safety, whats a legitimate way to reduce crashes like this?
Being defensive is unlikely to save you from a car. Driving a automobile is a responsibility. However the USA treats driving as if it is a shared responsibility with pedestrians, cycles and even parked cars. Do you think they invented folding mirrors because of tiny garages?
Driving an automobile or any other motor vehicle is a responsibility, and it's up to the driver to drive defensively and protect bicyclists and pedestrians. I believe, however, that it's up to bicyclists to obey the rules of the road, which, unfortunately, many of them don't, and pedestrians to observe the "DON'T WALK' signs when crossing the street. If they need to cross the street, they should press the button that provides the WALK sign on the pedestrian light. Nobody says drivers, especially in this instance don't bear responsibility, but it really is also up to the bicyclist, as well.
Eighty per cent of the time, regarding bicyclists' fatalities vs. cars, the cyclist has been at fault. Poorly designed and poorly constructed roads, bike lanes and traffic systems are a factor, too, but that doesn't mean that drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians shouldn't share the responsibility of driving, bicycling and crossing streets defensively. A certain amount of defensiveness on the road on the part of everybody would go a long, long way towards preventing crashes and fatalities.
80%? Put that stat back in dark place you pulled it out of.
take your lies somewhere else.
You need to keep your eyes in the front 180 degrees to make sure that you don't ride into other things.
Good thing I don't use that method for driving defensively. I actively look all around to ensure I'm not going to get hit by nor hit others.
@cinnamngrl, as you say, this is an internet forum. This is not in any way, shape, or form the same as being the first people on the scene trying to help the victim. I absolutely agree with you that lecturing the victim on her cycling style would be an asshole move. It would also be completely inappropriate, say, on her social media accounts, or those of her family, unless she *specifically* asked for such advice.
But this is a public forum, and we are all just kibbitzing here. As a cyclist myself, I want to know what I can do to prevent that from ever happening to me, or to others. One way is to hold motorists accountable for this action, and I'd really like to see the driver here serve jail time at the very least for leaving the scene of a crash, and most likely for culpability in that crash. Another way is to improve facilities to make such collisions less likely. And yes, another way is for us cyclists to ride defensively. Suggesting that cyclists ride defensively is no more victim blaming than suggesting that people lock their doors to prevent being robbed.
Find some evidence that your mansplainingwould reduce crashes or STFU.
crashes. What's there not to get?
The person driving the death weapon at excessive speed has far more murder potential and, therefore, far more responsibility.
As most cyclists are hit from behind, it seems the only thing they can do is quit cycling.
Purely anecdotal - but almost every accident I read about on Uhub involves a side or front impact, including this one. Haven't been reading about motorists literally "mowing down" cyclists. Not saying it doesn't happen - but based on Uhub articles - almost always a vehicle making a right turn (including this accident) and sideswiping or cutting off the cyclist from the front.
Cyclist murdered by a truck driver splitting lanes and not looking in front of him when he floored the accelerator.
Every incident except this seems to involve a turn. This is the exception (there was a nightbincident on comm ave also-but dark and possibly alcohol was involved).
The rule is these accidents happen when a cehicle is turning.
A cyclist got hit by a car. This thread isn't about prudence, this thread isn't about analyzing the situation and working rationally to avoid it in the future, it's about organizing a mob to lynch the driver. Anything less sanguine will get your head snapped off as "victim-blaming."
You think this is okay?
This thread isn't about prudence, this thread isn't about analyzing the situation and working rationally to avoid it in the future, it's about organizing a mob to lynch the driver. Anything less sanguine will get your head snapped off as "victim-blaming."
You're wrong here. The driver needs to be found and arrested, but organizing a mob to lynch the driver and accusing people who point out some facts of victim-blaming is completely out of line...and unacceptable.
There is no evidence in this video that the cyclist made a wrong move. You seem to be complaining that she didn't assume that the driver would ignore her. You lie about statistics as well. Accept the fact that the only thing this cyclist could have done to prevent this is stay home.
You don't exit from the inner lane. However this rotary is a cluster $^&$# with roads going in three different directions and very poor signage to boot. The outer lane is supposed to continue down 203 toward Forest Hills, the inner lane goes to Center St. this is provided you got in the right lanes where the road splits near the Pond Street lights. Of course there isn't a single sign telling you this anywhere on the road. Glad the biker is OK!
Agreed, this rotary is rather terrifying to navigate by bike. Cars don't really pay attention to lanes and approach it at really high speeds, in some directions merging from 4 lanes into the rotary. After seeing another cyclist almost get taken out similar to this, I started riding on the sidewalks whenever I go through here. I also know of two pedestrians who were hit by cars exiting the rotary as they were crossing at the sidewalk. The speed limit here is I believe 25 but cars often take it at 40 or higher.
The rotary on the Hammond Pond Parkway has lanes painted on it with arrows indicating which one to be in for exiting. It would be really great to do the same at this one. If nothing else maybe it would slow traffic down as people would have to think about which lane to drive in rather than flying through only sort of in a lane.
Well maybe the driver was traveling in the inner lane in the first place because he did not want to be close to the bicyclist. Let's be honest bicyclist drive anywhere they want. They weave in and out of traffic, avoid red lights, blow through stops signs and more, I have even gotten hit by several bicyclist while crossing the street as a pedestrian. It is awful that she got hit but she should be more careful because she did not even look. She went from all the way from the right side into the middle without looking knowing that there was an exit for cars. No you don't signal on a rotary but you do look for other cars who fail to abide by the rules of the rotary. I always thought it was pretty funny how bicyclist have more rights than people who actually pay excise tax and insurance. As for the driver, for the simple fact of hitting a human and not stopping is automatically jail time. There should be no way around that.
Could the biker at least have made some effort to pay attention?
It is the responsibility of the vehicle coming from behind to yield to the vehicle in front if it is overtaking.
Could you at least make some effort to go fuck yourself?
The WBZ link requires one to watch 30 sec commercial for every replay. This is not conducive to identifying the offending car.
(1) I'm guessing enforcement on Arborway is not a priority for the MSP. That rotary and feeder streets are extremely dangerous for pedestrians using any of its crosswalks because cars always speed up before entering and exiting it without any regard for the state laws. As illustrated by this accident, they are equally dangerous to bicyclists.
The car didn't stop because anyone caught driving that type of car would die of embarrassment if they were identified.
That rotary is probably the worst in the city for everyone (outside of Bell Circle), especially with essentially three lanes entering from the north.
It would probably take a generation to get it done but a little more Arborway / Centre Street traffic calming is needed and a wee more sidewalk space on the residential side of the J-Way should be given over to bikes because pedestrian traffic besides near this intersection is so low and the roadway is so narrow.
Hope the bicyclist is ok, hope the driver is drawn and quartered.
That rotary is probably the worst in the city for everyone
Horace James Circle, next to the Putterham Golf club in Brookline is worse, for bikes anyway. The sight lines coming in are very short, the lanes are narrow and there's a ton of traffic. As a car, when you see an opening, you gotta floor it. Just no safe place to enter and maneuver, as a biker. (I always take to the sidewalk and go around clockwise, crossing at the pedestrian crosswalks. It's not worth getting hit to save 30 seconds.)
The car didn't stop because anyone caught driving that type of car would die of embarrassment if they were identified.
It's one of the most popular cars in New England. Try again.
Looks like a crappy old Chevy Aveo or a Ford Aspire on my phone.
taken to court, tried for and charged with his crime; a hit-and-run incident. thank Heavens that the woman wasn't seriously injured, or killed.
Question, do you know the penalties for a hit and run where the person (thankfully) wasn't killed? Just wondering how much time a person gets for that.
Nothing. The police will submit a report citing the cyclist for failure to signal and riding outside of the bike lane. They will note that the car has passed a safety inspections and has all of the mirrors and safety equipment required by law.
I believe that this rotary is under the watchful eye of the State Police owing that it is a former MDC Parkway. Things may have changed. I am not sure though.
Perhaps our jodhpured friends in blue could get some good publicity, because they really, really need it and look into this a little harder.
at Murray Circle nor at Kelley Circle near Jamaica Pond, or on the Arborway between the two circles.
When they resurfaced the Arborway a few years ago, they did paint a bike lane on the southbound side between the two rotaries. Soon after, however, they scratched out the paint (which you can still see), for reasons I cannot comprehend.
for reasons I cannot comprehend.
Probably for the same reason the City removed the perfectly good bike lanes on Ruggles St a few years ago - no good one!
Those lanes are back, I rode that stretch a few weeks ago. But there is a problem, in that the lane tapers away just before Centre St., which makes for a potential car/bike interaction on entering the rotary.
stencils in the lanes were removed shortly after being painted--4 or 5 yeas ago perhaps.
Instant license suspension, followed by license revocation upon conviction.
Leaving the scene penalties—which are rarely, if ever, actually applied—basically assume you were drinking and that's why you left the scene. (MGL 90 § 24 (a1/2) (1))
Mandatory minimum of six months. See also here. I'll be shocked if the driver sees the inside of a cell.
how much time a person gets for that
It's highly unlikely anyone will do any time even for a fatal hit-and-run. Drivers beat that regularly because the average jury's sympathy is with the motorist, not the cyclist or pedestrian.
District attorneys know this and usually won't even try to bring it to trial unless there are aggravating circumstances like OUI, video showing it was intentional, prior criminal record, etc. that might make the driver less sympathetic.
What the actual fuck? The person even swerves after the collision. No way they didn't know. Can we start throwing the book at people like this?
Glad the cyclist was not seriously injured.
The title of the article should be changed, it should be bicyclist plows into car. The bike clearly hits the side of the car.
The bigger question is what is a bicyclist? They want the same rights as cars but until they stop going up one way streets the wrong way, riding down sidewalks and going through red lights most motorists will see them only as obstacles, just like this driver did at the rotary.
There are two lanes in a rotary. The outside lane has the right of way. The car moved from the inside to the outside lane and cut off and struck the biker. The biker did NOTHING wrong and the car is 100% at fault.
The whole point of the outside lane is for merging and exiting. The bike clearly was doing neither of the two. He had no right to be where he was at the time. If you don’t know what are you are doing on a bike, get off it and become a pedestrian and cross at the cross walk.
It's perfectly legal for any vehicle to move along the outside lane of a rotary. Vehicles on the inside should slow down to merge in behind traffic on the outside if they need to exit, or if they can't do that safely, they should go around the rotary and try again. Bicycles may always pass to the right of cars and it's never a defense for a car hitting a cyclist that the cyclist was on the right side of the road.
Yes, the car should've been in the outside lane when exiting. It exited from the inside lane, nearly killed a woman, and drove off. Yet you're defending the driver. If you don't think this was reckless driving, please get out of your car and become a pedestrian.
Great website. It even has a downloadable driving manual for you to read so that you can learn the rules of the road!
I highly recommend that you do so now, read it, and then throw your license in the insinkerator at the earliest opportunity. You need to get off the road before you kill somebody with your stupidity.
And stay off the streets, asshole.
RIding on the bike, I rely on a rear-view mirror constantly.
Bicyclists can easily be aware of what's coming, what's the traffic in front.
However, it's always what is behind someone on a bike that is often a more urgent worry.
Equip your bike with a rear-view mirror for sure. (Or helmet- mirror).
Perhaps, in this case, she had a mirror, but from the video she seemed oblivious to the approaching/speeding car. The bicyclist might have had right-of-way but it's moot point when dropped to the street.
Grateful that it didn't end worse than it did.
I've often thought about the most sensible way to ride through a rotary -- clearly one of the most challenging things for a cyclist. Taking the lane works ok if the roadway width is narrow enough to keep a car from passing you if you're in the dead center of the lane, but that's not the case in the JP rotary. In this JP rotary, if I'm not getting off at the 1st turn, I might try to get to the inside of the circle (with cars passing on my right) until it's time to move back to the outer part of the circle -- but I'd be real busy giving hand signals while doing so. (Also waiting to hear Ari's take on this.)
I don't normally cycle through rotaries, but the few times I went through the Concord Rotary (large and allows drivers to really pick up speed) I definitely took the inside lane until my exit. Going straight on the right side of right turning drivers just feels wrong.
I used to bike Kosciuszko Circle twice a day (Boston's "worst" rotary but it's not that bad, clearly better than this one) and yes, that is the safest way to do it. And if you don't feel comfortable doing it that way, use the crosswalks.
I know a lot of people are considering this a clear-cut right-hook, but a right hook is generally when the cyclist is proceeding straight forward and a car overtakes them and makes a right turn. Riding the outside edge of a rotary and across the exits is just reckless.
But the driver clearly tapped their brakes and swerved, so it's academic. They were aware of the situation and were required to stop.
Can we talk about the other car, the one the red car blows by at the end, which is taking what I believe to be an illegal left right at the end?
please delete your interweb
Riding towards the middle-outside is often the safest place to be, particularly in problematic rotaries or those just known to be clusterjams. If this happened to this cyclist being on the outside, do you really think motorists would let her out of the rotary safely if she were in the interior of the rotary?
I ride Boston rotaries and other, bigger, arguably more whackadoo dangerous ones elsewhere. Sometimes you just have to assert your place safely and if it slows down people in the outside lanes, too bad.
I have not been through this one, even when I lived in JP, so please don't try to apply my thoughts to it without carefully assessing whether it works for this one. I'd also like to note that having watched the video, I don't think there was much of anything the cyclist could have done to avoid the crash.
I have ridden through Sullivan and the one at 99 and 16 (Sweetser Circle on Google maps, who knew) a fair number of times, though not recently, and definitely not since they re-striped Sullivan. I've had good luck riding between the two lanes, where there is or would be a white line.
Doing so puts you out of the path of anybody entering the circle into the outside lane, which is helpful, because a bicycle disappears pretty readily in the visual clutter of a circle, especially if a driver isn't looking for bicycles specifically.
It also means you aren't occupying the inner lane, which is usually moving pretty briskly in both of those. Traffic has to pass through your path, but isn't following you along the path of your travel. This gives people clear space to pass in the inside lane People will argue whether drivers should do this, but it's moot; they do. I have not had any close calls with people exiting from the inner lane, and barring truly boneheaded behavior (as witnessed in the video), there's a pretty narrow window in which a car can pass through your path without giving the cyclist opportunity to avoid a crash by braking.
Note also, that being between the lanes means that if you do have to make an emergency stop, there is (at least in theory), nobody in a car directly behind you who needs to stop to keep from running you over.
It's worth pointing out, that at least in this area, most of the higher-speed multi-lane rotaries don't see much bicycle use. As a consequence, car drivers aren't used to seeing cyclists in them, or having the faintest idea how a cyclist would safely use the rotary. I keep my head on a swivel through them, and allow as much room for people to do unexpected things as I can in them.
Again, I don't think there's anything the cyclist in the video could have done to avoid this crash. The above is my experience in a different rotary, and shouldn't be construed to be applicable in any way to the rotary in which the crash happened.
As a further note, I also drive a car. I'm not going to engage in generalizations about all car drivers this, or all cyclists that. Some people in/on either of those do stupid things, and it's asinine to judge all of them by the actions of the few.
Some people *also* do things that appear to be stupid if you don't have experience operating a car or bicycle, but are in fact, not. Cyclists would be more proficient road users if they drove enough to understand how cars behave and why, and car drivers would be a lot safer around bicycles if they rode them enough to understand how cyclists behave and why.
Lastly, some of the cyclists here don't seem to like the reality that it doesn't matter whose fault the crash was when you're bleeding on the pavement. Please be safe out there, even if it means making allowances for cars doing stuff they shouldn't be doing.
TL;DR: Ride like you're invisible and everybody's trying to kill you. You'll be a lot safer that way.
people who do engage in stupid-assed acts on the road to give all bicyclists and/or automobile drivers a bad name.
As someone who's a cyclist as well as a driver, I've seen too many bicyclists, as well as drivers driving rather offensively; i. e. running red lights and STOP signs, weaving in and out of traffic, going the wrong way down one-way streets, failing to yield the right of way to people who are already in the rotary or rotaries, and going too fast for existing conditions.
That being said, many automobile drivers and bicyclists alike have a long history of engaging in rather bad behavior and using bad judgement on the road, which has helped get many bicyclists and drivers alike badly injured or killed..
Like, what city do you work and live in.
and I bicycle to appointments and to do errands when the weather's decent, which it hasn't been lately. Why do you want to know?
Everyone talking about hand signaling... yeah, in a rotary in MA you will be hand signaling so that the slow moving, cautious, courteous drivers behind you smile, slow down some more, and wave you through...
Or you will be white-knuckling the handlebar and brake levers for emergency maneuvers, spinning your head like an owl, while pedaling like crazy in an attempt to match the roller derby speeds of the cars flying through, as their drivers are fishing for their phones/lattes.
Or just go on the sidewalk.
I really hope the cyclist is OK, and that they catch this lunatic.
PSA - Navigating rotaries around here is dangerous when driving a car, trying to enter, navigate, and exit on a bike is a risk I would never take. This rotary in has well-marked crosswalks. Best to take the extra 30 seconds, dismount and opt for the safer route.
I find the crosswalks at rotaries to be more problematic than just being visibly in the roadway.
I prefer my rotaries to be jammed solid so I can just cruise through them without hazard.
Good luck having cars stop for you when you use sidewalks in this rotary.
fair point - but better to be a few minutes late than hit by a car.
If you watch the video, the driver with the cam not only stops to help and hands over the video, they use their vehicle to physically shield the downed cyclist from getting a second hit.
I do this when I drive where a rotary has a crosswalk - use the car to cork the jerks who would just buzz around and kill people.
DCR actually has some fantastic plans for making this whole corridor safer and easier to navigate for everyone: drivers, bicyclists, and walkers. However, it seems to have stalled. Please contact your elected officials and ask them to push this project forward so that crashes like these can be avoided in the future!
Here is the presentation from the most-recent public meeting (in 2015!)https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/10/uc/2015-10-14-dcr-presentat...
Thanks for sharing these! I was wondering what had happened to that plan. It was so exciting when they first presented it and (I thought) the room seemed unusually supportive compared to other DCR proposals.
2) There's also no way in hell I would ever try to cycle through that situation without turning my head to see if an oblivious driver was aware of me or not.
When I cycle, I am constantly monitoring the autos around me. It stuns me how few cyclists I see looking over their shoulders before proceeding through intersections.
Here's something a lot of cyclists don't seem to get: your right to the road DOES NOT KEEP YOU SAFE. Cycle defensively, even if it means you feel like the cars win. Because there's no scoreboard in your hospital bed.
According to Massachusetts law the vehicle already in the rotary has the right of way. Since it appears that the vehicle involved overtook the bicyclist from behind it's possible that the bicyclist had the legal right of way.
The bicyclist definitely had right-of-way. Whether you apply that rotary law, or overtaking law, or failure to signal …
That rotary is horrible and an 8 lane highway (or parkway as they try to sell it) is unsuitable for a densley populated neighborhood. The city/state should remove the inner 4 lanes and return it to a park connector between jamaica pond and the arboretum so the people who live there can safely get around and all the people who visit the pond and arboretum can walk between them safely. And make the intersection a 4 way instead of the rotary, which are insane for areas with pedestrians. I know suburbanites passing through will whine, but Ive driven through there (as well as biked and walked) and that is not the choke point traffic wise.
I'm sorry that the woman on her bicycle was hit by an irresponsible driver, but that route is really not built for bicycle-riding at all, especially since it has those bottle-necked rotaries on it, which can be quite dangerous for both cars and bikes alike to negotiate, especially during rush-hours.
If you took a look at the era of original construction, I would wager that it was very much built for cycling, as the Good Roads Movement was a cycling organization!
Many of these connections between parks were not about cars at all! Not when they were originally designed. They were about carriages and bicycles.
More history about that, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement
In a number of places, including Somerville, there are protected bicycle lanes, so that bicyclists are thoroughly protected from cars. They should have protected bicycle lanes on routes that have bottlenecked rotaries. Also, since both cars and bicycles (Yes, a bicycle is also a vehicle.) are supposed to yield the right of way to those who are already in the rotary or rotaries, whether they be in cars or on bicycles, that rule should be strongly enforced.
In England rotaries, or roundabouts as they are called there, are quite common and considered one of the safest and most efficient methods of intersecting roads. It's funny how differently they are perceived here, but perhaps that is because of our bad driving habits?
7 roundabouts in one:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OGvj7GZSIo
The design is different. Roundabouts have more sharp entry and exit angles, forcing the drivers to slow down. The planned re-design involves replacing the rotary with two congruent roundabouts.
Looking at the Cam Video, the cyclist appears to hit the car. I travel that route all the time. Cyclists are always entering that rotary with no regard for traffic. I don't understand how the media blamed the driver. That cyclist didn't collide with that car, she "hit" that car!
Go fuck yourself, you entitled, self-important piece of shit.
So why did the motorist take off and run away?
Hmmm ... what's your tag number, again?
So this rotary has two lanes of traffic and the car was veering across the outer lane and exiting. The bicycle was traveling in the outer lane past the exit targeted by the criminal driver. The bicycle did not change lanes and therefore had the right of way. Watching the video, you can see that the cyclelist was hit by the right rear side of the car from the side. To me it looks like a sideswipe, but even so the car is 100% wrong.
I'm retired now, however I traveled that road every day for 20yrs. It was always a challenge. I've watched the video a couple of times and there is no doubt that the car didn't stop. That said the individual on the bike never gave a hand signal to indicate their intention. Two wrongs never make a right.
Again, a person in a rotary, regardless of their mode of transportation, does not signal to stay in the rotary. To suggest otherwise is complete and utter bullshit.
When was the last time you read a driver's manual? You can download one from MassRMV.com
Anyone know what the make and model could be on the red car?
Tough to tell for sure from the video, but I think it's likely an '06 or '07. (There was a slight cosmetic redesign between '05 and '06.)
It also looks like it may have had a damaged front bumper. From some angles it looks like it's hanging/broken away from the car.
The bottom corner of the front bumper is what makes me suspect that it's an '06-'07. The '04-'05 bumper curves in more at the bottom than the '06-'07, at least on non-WRX/STi models. Lots of people swap bumpers though, so it's possible that it's damaged and/or a swap. Either way, it does seem to stick out more than it should.
EDIT: Just found clearer, longer video posted by MSP on facebook. There is definitely damage to the front bumper. Black steel wheels without hubcaps. Still unclear on year, but still leaning towards '06-'07.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2020 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy