Biking in Boston

[cden4]

What I understand to be true is this:
The bicyclist was riding alongside another bicyclist in the right lane of Comm Ave. The driver came up behind the bicyclist and hit him, knocking him into a parked car.

Comm Ave has left-side bike lanes here. There is no legal requirement to ride in them. If someone is preparing to turn right, it makes sense for them to ride in the right travel lane. Or they may not know about the bike lanes or simply not like using the bike lanes. It bothers me that the media keeps saying "the victim was not in the bike lane." That is implying that the law requires him to, which it does not. It is possible that if he had been in the bike lane, he would not have been hit.

I don't know if he had a taillight or not. The law only requires a rear red reflector. It is possible that the driver would have not hit him if he did have a light or had a brighter light, depending on the circumstance. Again, this has no bearing on blame, only on possible avoidance of the crash.

It's also possible that there was nothing the bicyclist could have done to avoid being hit by this driver. We'll never really know for sure.

The important thing is that the onus is on drivers to not hit people, bikes, or anything else in the roadway. I hope the police find the driver and come down hard on him. Hitting and killing someone with your car is bad enough. Fleeing the scene is even worse.

 

[millerm277]

I hope the police find the driver and come down hard on him.

Don't get your hopes up about that. It'll be a difficult case to prove much about, you'll be lucky if they even get charged and convicted of anything criminal. Juries and courts don't like to consider an incident without well-documented negligence (like street racing or the like) criminal at all.

Hitting and killing someone with your car is bad enough. Fleeing the scene is even worse.

Morally? Yes, it's a terrible thing.

As far as pure self-interest goes? If you were drunk/impaired it's a very smart move. It'll be near impossible to prove you were drunk, which means you aren't getting hit with the much more severe charges for killing someone with a car while intoxicated/they can't hold the threat over your head to at least get a plea bargain out of you for lesser charges.

 

[jass]

To the previous commenters, I'm not blaming the cyclist, I'm simply stating facts.

But, who the hell would ride on Comm Ave at 3am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning.

Fuck off.

 

[Arlington]

As a great sage once said: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering,"

Cyclists should not be afraid to use the public street. If their environment is "supposed to" make them afraid of people going 50 in a 30 or even incidentally does, let's resolve to change it.

I think it would be helpful to focus on the profound sadness of this incident, and to focus first on changing the environment (street design and, as I suggest above, the commercial supply chain that results in too many hard-to-see bikes) (and if this were a pedestrian safety thread, having reflectivity requirements for black athletic wear)

 

[DZH22]

I really don't understand the hostility here towards FK4. My dad has a saying "nothing good happens after ______". Usually he used midnight, because he's a bit stuffy, but the point remains that it gets more dangerous the later you are out. For my own safety, I assume that every single person operating a vehicle at 3am is either drunk, tired, or both. I am afraid of even driving my car at this time of night.

Nobody is making light of what happened. Of course it's tragic. All FK4 is pointing out is that it is a risky proposition to be out at that time of night. Basically, don't be out if you don't have to, and if you do, be vigilant regarding your surroundings! I don't see it as blaming the victim at all. It should be common sense that being out at 3 am is riskier than practically any other time of day, no matter what business you have or vehicle you are using.

Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out, there are also less witnesses which could make it difficult to catch the driver. I have to think there's enough cameras around the city by now though to eventually catch the culprit.

 

[fattony]

Cambridge held a meeting last night regarding the redesign of Inman Square. I attended and I think they are honing in on a really great design. It isn't perfect, but the square is so challenging that nothing is going to be perfect.

http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/publicworksdepartment/Engineering/cityprojects/inmansquare/inmansquaresignalizedconceptmay2017.pdf

This is a mash-up of the 3 previous signalized design concepts, taking elements from each. The peanut-about was given full consideration, but failed on a number of key points:

• Reduces open space in the square
• creates dangerous conflicts between cars and bikes (the designer practically quoted my post from up-thread)
• requires Springfield to become one-way southbound, which had strong community push-back

The crowd was probably 2/3 gray-hairs with most of the other 1/3 carrying bicycle helmets. There were many concerns raised about parking, in-particular in front of the Pharmacy. This is on Cambridge street where the map shows "Bus Lane" for queue jumping the 69. Cambridge is considering only using this queue jumping lane during the AM rush and allowing parking in that area the remainder of the day. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Overall, the square will lose about 50% of its metered parking.

One of the biggest improvements to my mind is stopping cars in the middle of the square. This breaks up the massive amount of pavement and reduces the time allocated to clearing vehicles after a phase change. This allowed them to reduce the light cycle from 160 seconds (yes, nearly 3 minutes if you catch a red light!) to about 90 seconds. This should greatly improve signal compliance for car, bikes, and peds because the penalty for catching a light is greatly reduced.

The fire house poses a major challenge and they are trying to improve the ped-crossing situation, but ADA compliance other laws make it almost impossible to put a crosswalk at the obvious desire-line crossing Hampshire.

 

[FK4]

I really don't understand the hostility here towards FK4. My dad has a saying "nothing good happens after ______". Usually he used midnight, because he's a bit stuffy, but the point remains that it gets more dangerous the later you are out. For my own safety, I assume that every single person operating a vehicle at 3am is either drunk, tired, or both. I am afraid of even driving my car at this time of night.

Nobody is making light of what happened. Of course it's tragic. All FK4 is pointing out is that it is a risky proposition to be out at that time of night. Basically, don't be out if you don't have to, and if you do, be vigilant regarding your surroundings! I don't see it as blaming the victim at all. It should be common sense that being out at 3 am is riskier than practically any other time of day, no matter what business you have or vehicle you are using.

Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out, there are also less witnesses which could make it difficult to catch the driver. I have to think there's enough cameras around the city by now though to eventually catch the culprit.

I understand it. People want very hard to believe certain things about the world, and the ones who succeed are generally those who take action on the things they want while being mindful of the realities, rather than what's in the books.

I've already said you can point to all the laws you want, but if you go walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, decked out in jewelry, dont be surprised if you get mugged. "Hey, mugging is illegal! It shouldn't happen!"

Mass traffic law can say all it wants about bikes having the right to take a lane on Comm Ave at 3am. Great. I won't be doing that, ever, because what's written in a law book does not equate to keeping me safe. I happen to know that people drive recklessly and way too fast on Beacon and Comm, so I avoid them, even in the day, if possible.

This is completely separate from any argument over the morality of drunk driving or hit and runs. It's separate from what you (or I) would wish could be the case in regards to urban biking. And it's totally separate from any action we all can take to make the roads safer through advocacy. I'm totally in favor of more bike safety and some actual speed enforcement in this city, the latter of which is currently totally nonexistent.

But, again, when you're biking, you're as vulnerable as it gets. The law alone wont protect you. There's no law against biking the Jway, either, and people do it — but it's moronic to do. Keeping oneself safe happens by being aware of reality, not just what the laws or signs state.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I understand it. People want very hard to believe certain things about the world, and the ones who succeed are generally those who take action on the things they want while being mindful of the realities, rather than what's in the books.

I've already said you can point to all the laws you want, but if you go walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, decked out in jewelry, dont be surprised if you get mugged. "Hey, mugging is illegal! It shouldn't happen!"

Mass traffic law can say all it wants about bikes having the right to take a lane on Comm Ave at 3am. Great. I won't be doing that, ever, because what's written in a law book does not equate to keeping me safe. I happen to know that people drive recklessly and way too fast on Beacon and Comm, so I avoid them, even in the day, if possible.

This is completely separate from any argument over the morality of drunk driving or hit and runs. It's separate from what you (or I) would wish could be the case in regards to urban biking. And it's totally separate from any action we all can take to make the roads safer through advocacy. I'm totally in favor of more bike safety and some actual speed enforcement in this city, the latter of which is currently totally nonexistent.

But, again, when you're biking, you're as vulnerable as it gets. The law alone wont protect you. There's no law against biking the Jway, either, and people do it — but it's moronic to do. Keeping oneself safe happens by being aware of reality, not just what the laws or signs state.

Or to sum this up:

Street smart and alive

- versus -

Legally smart and dead

 

[kingofsheeba]

There are several cyclists in the Boston area from whom I deeply care about. I would be crushed if anyone ran them down. While I didn't know this kid, I know several people who did. What they're going through right now is something that none of you should ever have to experience. Think about your loved ones for one hot minute.

 

[fattony]

Or to sum this up:

Street smart and alive

- versus -

Legally smart and dead

I don't think you realize that this sentiment is the epitome of victim blaming.

For everyone who thinks the cyclist made a poor choice, replace "cycling" with "short skirt" and "killed" with "raped" and see if you think the same sentiment about smarts and bad choices apply. (Hint - if you do, please keep it to yourself and get educated.)

 

[DZH22]

I don't think you realize that this sentiment is the epitome of victim blaming.

For everyone who thinks the cyclist made a poor choice, replace "cycling" with "short skirt" and "killed" with "raped" and see if you think the same sentiment about smarts and bad choices apply. (Hint - if you do, please keep it to yourself and get educated.)

So apples to apples, you are talking about a woman out by herself at 3 in the morning? I think most people (even most people here) would agree that's a bad choice from the get-go.

 

[JumboBuc]

I don't think you realize that this sentiment is the epitome of victim blaming.

For everyone who thinks the cyclist made a poor choice, replace "cycling" with "short skirt" and "killed" with "raped" and see if you think the same sentiment about smarts and bad choices apply. (Hint - if you do, please keep it to yourself and get educated.)

I've been keeping out of this discussion/argument, but this is a very unfortunate and flawed leap in logic.

Rape is intentional. One cannot get "accidentally" raped. If a person rapes another person, the rapist is blatantly violating their victim's human rights and committing a heinous crime. There is absolutely no question as to whose "fault" a rape is.

Road collisions--even fatal ones--are not so clearly defined. Most road fatalities are accidents. When accidents take place, "fault" is much more ambiguous. Fault can fall on either party. In many situations, it can fall on both parties. It can also possibly fall on neither party.

A hypothetical drunk cyclist may swerve into traffic and get run over. In that situation, the cyclist is both the victim and the one at fault.

A hypothetical drunk woman in a short skirt might "swerve" into a man on a dark street. If he rapes her, he's still at fault. Not her.

The driver that hit the hypothetical drunk cyclist is in no way equally guilty to the man who raped the hypothetically drunk woman. And the hypothetical drunk woman is in no way equally at fault as the hypothetical drunk cyclist.

In practically all fatalities, drivers don't set out to kill cyclists. And similarly, rapists don't accidentally rape people.

I'm not speaking about this case here. Who knows exactly what happened on Comm Ave that night; it is not our place to judge. I am speaking more in general that it is not fair or accurate to say that the perpetrator/victim dynamic applies equally to situations of rape and road fatalities. That assertion disrespects rape victims as much as it disrespects the victims of road collisions.

 

[fattony]

Jumbo,

You are right that it isn't a perfect analogy, but it isn't as "deeply flawed" as you outline.

We are trying to avoid victim blaming in all scenarios, not mince words to find the right victims to blame. A drunk cyclist might carry quite a bit of fault in an accident and yet the cyclist was not the one operating a killing machine. People who drive killing machines (and that includes me) need to take responsibility for the people they kill.

The cyclist and the pedestrian are ALWAYS a victim in a serious traffic accident. You know why? Because there is no such thing as a serious accident that doesn't involve an automobile. They may make a series of poor choice and mistakes and even be deliberately careless, but they didn't bring death into the equation.

 

[JumboBuc]

Jumbo,

You are right that it isn't a perfect analogy, but it isn't as "deeply flawed" as you outline.

We are trying to avoid victim blaming in all scenarios, not mince words to find the right victims to blame. A drunk cyclist might carry quite a bit of fault in an accident and yet the cyclist was not the one operating a killing machine. People who drive killing machines (and that includes me) need to take responsibility for the people they kill.

The cyclist and the pedestrian are ALWAYS a victim in a serious traffic accident. You know why? Because there is no such thing as a serious accident that doesn't involve an automobile. They may make a series of poor choice and mistakes and even be deliberately careless, but they didn't bring death into the equation.

I hear you that the blame in road deaths is all-too-often unfairly shifted from driver to cyclist. But you can't compare that to rapists.

People who "drive killing machines" do frequently "need to take responsibility for the people they kill", but not always. Sometimes it is honestly, legitimately not the driver's fault. Rapists do always need to take responsibility, because it is always their fault.

And there are plenty of serious (even fatal) accidents that don't involve automobiles. There are no rapes that don't involve rapists.

 

[fattony]

And there are plenty of serious (even fatal) accidents that don't involve automobiles.

You can't possibly claim that with a straight face. Maybe one in a million traffic fatalities only involves cyclists and pedestrians.

 

[JumboBuc]

You can't possibly claim that with a straight face. Maybe one in a million traffic fatalities only involves cyclists and pedestrians.

Cyclists die in single-vehicle crashes the same way motorists do. And cyclist-pedestrian crashes do happen, albeit rarely. Forget one in a million, if I had to estimate I'd guess that about one in ten fatalities involving cyclists don't involve autos.

But this isn't the point.

I think most (all?) people intuitively understand that drivers are not always at fault in road fatalities. And I think most (all?) people intuitively understand that sometimes cyclists are at fault in road fatalities. If we then say that all drivers are equally guilty as rapists and all cyclists are equally innocent as rape victims, then that softens the guilt of rapists and pushes blame onto rape victims. And that's my issue with your statement.

EDIT: Three minutes of Googling yielded this: "about 16% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents reported to the police do not involve a collision with another vehicle". So one in ten is not far off. But again, this isn't the point.

 

[fattony]

Cyclists die in single-vehicle crashes the same way motorist do. And cyclist-pedestrian crashes do happen, albeit rarely. Forget one in a million, if I had to estimate I'd guess that about one in ten fatalities involving cyclists don't involve autos.

But this isn't the point.

I think most (all?) people intuitively understand that drivers are not always at fault in road fatalities. And I think most (all?) people intuitively understand that sometimes cyclists are at fault in road fatalities. If we then say that all drivers are equally guilty as rapists and all cyclists are equally innocent as rape victims, then that softens the guilt of rapists and pushes blame onto rape victims. And that's my issue with your statement.

Easy buddy, we are on the same team here. You have gone way off the rails extrapolating logical conclusions from what I said.

What I said was - if you wouldn't victim-blame a woman for wearing a short skirt, then don't victim-blame a cyclist for riding on Comm Ave at night. My point was to make people think about how they are assigning blame for something that is LITERALLY 100% innocent. You cannot assign any blame to the cyclist simply for being on the road at night. All other discussion about it not being impossible for the victim to have any shred of fault is beyond the the point I was trying to make. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect analogy and recognize now that I should have chosen something different to illustrate my point.

For what it is worth, DHZ understood exactly what I meant because the little monster walked right into it and couldn't keep his mouth shut:

So apples to apples, you are talking about a woman out by herself at 3 in the morning? I think most people (even most people here) would agree that's a bad choice from the get-go.

 

[JumboBuc]

Easy buddy, we are on the same team here. You have gone way off the rails extrapolating logical conclusions from what I said.

What I said was - if you wouldn't victim-blame a woman for wearing a short skirt, then don't victim-blame a cyclist for riding on Comm Ave at night. My point was to make people think about how they are assigning blame for something that is LITERALLY 100% innocent. You cannot assign any blame to the cyclist simply for being on the road at night. All other discussion about it not being impossible for the victim to have any shred of fault is beyond the the point I was trying to make.

DHZ understood exactly what I meant because the little monster walked right into it and couldn't keep his mouth shut:

Yeah - I hear what you're trying to say but your comparison still makes me a bit uncomfortable. I know we're on the same team here. No worries...

And DZH did walk straight into it.

 

[DZH22]

DHZ understood exactly what I meant because the little monster walked right into it and couldn't keep his mouth shut.

First of all, I am at least 20 pounds overweight at the moment, so I take offense to the term "little" monster. Call me what I am, which is a borderline fat monster.

Also, I am DZH not DHZ.

My best friend's sister very nearly got raped a few months ago. She was out by herself around 1 in the morning, and a creep followed her back to her apartment complex and tried to follow her into the apartment itself. As lucky as she was to have steered herself out of that situation, she learned a couple of key things from this. The biggest takeaway is that she shouldn't be out by herself at 1 in the morning! She also now carries mace in her purse.

If she HAD been raped, of course it would not have been her fault, and of course she would have been the victim 100%. However, what became plain as day to her, as it is to most logical people, is that she shouldn't be putting herself into those types of risky situations to begin with. The odds of a creep following a single woman home is much higher at 1 in the morning than 1 in the afternoon.

It is less about "assigning blame" and more about understanding the percentages regarding any risk you take. If I walk across an active gun range, I might get shot. If I flip off a police officer while otherwise driving fully legally, I will still probably get pulled over. And if I'm out extremely late at night, I am more likely to invite negative consequences, just by default of what time it is and who else is out with me. It's a fact that there is more inherent risk to being out late at night than there is in the middle of the day.

Note the following people who were out late, got drunk, and supposedly wandered away from their groups. None of them deserved their fate but they raised the odds against themselves by being careless. https://cryptidantiquarian.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/bostons-mysterious-vanishing-men/

In short, it is not monstrous to recognize that 3 in the morning is a more dangerous time to be outdoors than, say, anytime between 5am - 12pm. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. When my dad tells me I shouldn't be out wandering the streets alone after midnight, I don't call him a monster. I call him prudent.

 

[cden4]

FK4, I think what you're really talking about is mitigating risk on a personal level. Unfortunately in the context of a crash, it easily can be interpreted as victim blaming, which I know is not your intention.

As an experienced bicyclist in Boston, whenever I read about crashes, I think about what the bicyclist could have done to avoid the situation, or what I could do to avoid that situation myself. If the answer is "nothing" (or don't bike), to me that is not an acceptable answer.

Of course as a bicyclist, there are many things one can do to mitigate risk. The things that I find particularly useful are:
- Ride away from the door zone of parked cars.
- Ride in the middle or left side of the travel lane when it is not wide enough for a car to share side by side with me.
- Don't pass vehicles on the right when going through an intersection, especially trucks.
- When filtering alongside slow or stopped traffic, go slow so that I can react if a person walks out into the street, or if a car door opens, or if a car is turning across my path that I cannot see.
- Expect the unexpected. Don't assume that any drivers or pedestrians who are turning or crossing my path can see me. Be ready to react if they don't.
- Use a white front light and a red rear light, at all times.
- Avoid routes that are known to be very dangerous or pose an increased danger at that particular time. (This is not always possible. I would say I tend to choose routes based on directness and comfort rather than safety. If traffic is light, I might actually choose a route with a bike lane vs one without, since vehicle speeds will be higher on the non-bike lane route.)
- Wear a helmet. (Note that out of all of these, this is the least important thing. It doesn't prevent crashes, but it may help reduce injuries/death if one does occur.)

But none of this has anything to do with fault if there is a crash. As long as I am operating within the law, I am not at fault.