Hey, there! Log in / Register
Head-on collision along Jamaicaway sends bicyclist to the hospital
By adamg on Thu, 01/22/2015 - 7:19pm
The head-on collision, north of the boathouse around 7 p.m. was with another bicyclist on a path.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
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.
Comments
were both on ped path or bike
were both on ped path or bike path?
Where was this reported?
curious because these are not the sort of head on collisions reported by BPD or recorded in statistics.
Did either or both cyclists have headlights?
It's quite dark at 7 pm in January. Especially today, with a nearly new moon. Any further details on this would be appreciated. (You didn't link to anything.)
Something I wonder
Were there ice patches? I had somebody nearly head-on with me while avoiding one this morning.
Can't say for sure of course
But that path doesn't tend to be icy on a day like this. There did seem to be a lot of bikes out tonight since it was a bit warmer.
Trolling?
At this point you're just trolling, right?
No
You are the one who is trolling - and adding nothing to the conversation. Go to hell.
Hopefully both are okay and
Hopefully both are okay and were wearing helmets. Distracted cycling is never a good idea...
Lots of dark stretches along the J Way
At night I usually stick to South Huntington because the section from Route 9 to Pond Street is pitch black; it's easy to miss obstacles/sticks/curbs even with a strong headlamp. Up along the pond it's brighter, but not well-lit. There are certainly other areas along the Emerald Necklace which could use some light, too (the section along the Muddy River is just as dark). I'm not sure if there would be support for lighting the area at night, and I understand the aesthetic in not doing so, but it certainly makes it more dangerous to walk or bike.
Don't light a path that people use
because you support the "aesthetic in not doing so." What a pathetic rationale for not improving both convenience for the path users and public safety if I ever heard one.
Oh wait, the environmental mafia have branded light and noise as the work of the devil, even though we're in an URBAN area. So I guess it's OK to allow cyclists to pedal in the dark and to give would-be muggers places to hide.
Hmm.
I never thought I'd see you coming out advocating for bicyclist safety but, er...welcome.
I don't know what drives these decisions but I suspect that cost, low nighttime use, and possibly swamp logistics would be the main reason that that part of the Emerald Necklace has never been lit. The bike paths on the J-way side get adequate light from the street but the Riverway and the paths on the Brookline side are unlit--maybe they just never wanted to encourage after-dark use. You need serious lighting to bike there at all at night.
There are some parts that used to have lighting....
... but now don't. The poles were still around 10 years ago (or maybe a bit more) -- not sure if they still are.
Walking or bicycling there at night,
some serious lighting is needed.
two primary reasons for not lighting the muddy river path...
1. night light is not historic: Olmsted would not have wanted it this way; and,
2. it would encourage use.
I know, it IS insane,
Bike Ninjas suck
http://jednokolecko.blogspot.com/2011/11/yehuda-vs-bike-ninja.html
Bicycles!
Threat or menace?
Y'all are doing MarKKK's work
Y'all are doing MarKKK's work for him this morning for sure...
Not exactly
It is important to figure out why any collision happened, because then we learn about how collisions may be prevented.
Head-on bike/bike accidents at leased used to be one of the larger sources of cyclist injuries.
Markk would just like that "solution" to be "require everyone to use a car".
Nope, just obey laws
I'd be happy if bicyclists just obeyed the law, laws were enforced, and fines were enforced with license suspension when unpaid. Law of natural selection is enforced, however.
Bicyclists are REQUIRED to have a headlight AND taillight between dusk and dawn. Its not challenging technology, as its been commonly available for over 85 years.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-efwE6sz-QBc/VG-aRA68u6I/AAAAAAABG00/E7KrHbIp4B...(1).jpg
wrong, and wtf is that link ?
Current Massachusetts law requires only a rear reflector, not a tail light, at night. I think everyone SHOULD use at least one tail light, but it's not required right now.
As for your link ... care to tell us why you want us to look at a photo of four Hitler Youth on bicycles?
Those bikes have headlights
Generator powered headlights and taillights were in common use in the 1930's. Bike Nazis go way back too. ;)
People can get new, 12v, 6w generator lighting sets on ebay for $20. No LEDs or Lithium ion necessary to save your life. No maintenance. No batteries. No theft. No forgetting. No recharging.
Bike laws here: http://massbike.org/resourcesnew/bike-law/
Rear light or reflector AND pedal/clip on leg reflectors.
Whatever. Death Wish Ninja cyclists are everywhere.
No need to Godwin, then
The Germans do require a lot of items on bikes - and you can buy a bike that meets the requirements at Aldi, for 700 euro (and has fenders, too).
No need to bring in Nazis. Also, motorists who hit cyclists in Germany will be charged for the collision on the assumption that they are more responsible as they are piloting motor vehicles. You want that here, too?
Does Aldi in Medford sell these bikes?
Not that I've seen
I was highly amused to find one in the middle of an Aldi in Munich!
Fenders, generator hub, lights, etc. This was in a very urban market near the main train station!
Motorists are more responsible than bicyclists
in Germany because they have to pass a rigorous driving training and test program to get a license. Children and others riding bicycles do not.
Drivers here already pay for collisions with bicyclists because bicyclists don't carry insurance!
Then go to Germany
See how much traction your "more lanes everywhere" would get you?
If they even let you drive.
DCR doesn't care
I'm amazed that this type of collision doesn't happen more often. Must be a testament to the general ability of people to accommodate. The bike paths along the Charles River are in absolutely miserable shape: generally too cramped, crumbling, some portions are even washed out. Nonetheless, they get intense usage during all seasons. I'm glad I don't have to use them on a regular basis, the amount of separation between riders traveling in different directions is mere inches.
The sidepath crumbles year after year and gets zero attention from the agency responsible. Meanwhile DCR paves and re-paves (and then re-re-paves) the motorways such as Memorial Drive. When will they get held responsible for maintaining the actual PARK part of their parks?
Rushing to blame the DCR
for an accident when we have NO information for what caused it is jumping the gun in a huge way. The paths along the J-way are in pretty good shape and I'd be very surprised if they had anything to do with this accident.
I think you are rushing to
I think you are rushing to read something that I didn't say.
I didn't blame DCR for this particular crash. We probably will never get the information necessary to make that claim.
I did say that DCR is responsible for the maintenance of the paths, and the paths are in generally poor condition, especially around the Charles River.
I said that it is surprising that collisions do not happen more often as a result of that negligence.
Just we don't know if DCR may or may not be responsible for this particular crash doesn't make them any less responsible for the poor condition of all their paths.
"DCR doesn't care"
would tend to indicate that you're holding them and their indifference responsible for this and other crashes. Say what you will but own it. If Markk posted a "deathwish negligent cyclists riding without lights or helmets don't care" response I'd hold him to task too. My point being--if you want to talk about the DCR and their alleged neglect of paths, maybe save it for another time.