MassLive.com reports Methuen truck driver was cited for the death of a 27-year-old woman when he tried backing his truck up on Friday.
It's truck restricted, so should have been on Magazine (or Pearl?) in the first place. Trucks must have those loud and annoying beepers when reversing exactly due to inability to see behind. A rear view camera on a dump truck would be quickly dirty or destroyed, and impractical. So, speed had nothing to do with this crash, but maybe you want to argue for an army of bike fiets replace dump trucks, turning back the clock 100 years.
For those with zero tolerance of accidents, have a look at crash videos in China and Russia where really crazy stuff happens.
It's a crash, not an accident. Accidents imply no one was at fault. The moronic driver who backed over a person is at fault.
No need to go to China or Russia to find crazy, homicidal drivers. There are plenty around here, unfortunately. At least China has good high speed trains. We can't even say that.
Accident implies lack of intent. It says nothing about fault.
Crash, not accident. Anyone entering the field of traffic safety has this drilled into their heads.
Yeah, because someone stupid decided that forcibly altering the English language will increase safety.
Because professionals see enough of these things to know far more what they are talking about than you do.
An accident is always a crash, a crash is rarely an accident.
Really? Most crashes are intentional?
I'm not going to get into a dictionary-citing argument about who's right or wrong, but the point being made is pretty clear, and I really don't understand why so many people either really don't get it, or feel the need to pretend they don't. "Accident", the argument goes, connotes that what happened could not have been foreseen or prevented, and many (most?) crashes don't meet that definition, in that the driver(s) could have foreseen the possible consequences and modified their driving behavior to prevent it. For example, if I'm driving in traffic and I see brake lights flashing repeatedly in front of me, I'm going to guess that someone is driving erratically or otherwise creating conditions in which drivers are stopping short, and I'm going to back off a bit and be extra vigilant. If I'm driving on Comm Ave through the BU campus on a Friday evening, I'm going to assume that there may be pedestrians crossing unpredictably and not at intersections, and I'm going to watch out for them. Does it make sense now?
Magazine is annoying for anyone to get onto, especially a big truck. https://goo.gl/maps/oYT6f7UeHtS2
Pearl allows trucks even though the city knows it's a bad idea, because there's no easy way for them to get out. https://goo.gl/maps/J53BAXdLHL32
There is a no-trucks sign at the beginning of Putnam, but it's only after you've committed to the turn: https://goo.gl/maps/bsWoLFWwWjS2
The situation is slightly better at Western and Putnam, but still not perfect: https://goo.gl/maps/GPxwqo9zxLA2
Yes, the truck is restricted, but with Pearl Street being repaved all day, it was probably part of that project and able to bypass the truck restrictions. Still, given that, Cambridge should have had police or other details at any intersections which were used by trucks as part of the project. There might be a civil case that the failure to do so was negligence on the part of the contractors.
Oh wow, a citation. That really sends a clear message that....you can kill someone with impunity. The traffic laws need a dramatic overhaul.
Better than not citing the driver, which is what often happens.
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 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy