Hey, there! Log in / Register
Head-on crash kills two on the Jamaicaway
By adamg on Sun, 10/19/2014 - 9:52am
State Police report a head-on crash shortly before 3 a.m. on the Jamaicaway at Perkins Street killed two, injured three and left the road shut for three hours.
A 2007 BMW 530XI with three occupants struck a 2002 Toyota Camry with two occupants. Two of the passengers from the BMW, a 44 year old Everett woman and a 33 year old Revere woman, were pronounced dead at the scene. The two women did not have seat belts on and it was determined to be a factor in their deaths.
Police say their initial investigation is that the BMW crossed the center line markers. Its driver, Jennifer Guzman, 26, of Hyde Park, was taken to Beth Israel with non-life-threatening injuries. The driver of the Camry, Cesar Viasus, 36, of Roslindale, will also likely survive, police say. His passenger, however, is in critical condition.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
Seat belts save lives
As do motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, and more visible (including reflective) clothing worn (especially at night) by pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. Lights on ALL vehicles (yes, including bicycles) as required by law at night, also save lives.
And not whipping around the J
And not whipping around the J-way over the speed limit, staying on your side of the double yellow...
Amen to that. The J-Way is a
Amen to that. The J-Way is a difficult road that requires a lot of caution to drive safely. Drivers need to treat it with respect. Seatbelts mitigate screwups, they don't prevent them.
Not to mention
Not squeezing in more lanes on a roadway than can fit, or encouraging speeding through poor road design and lack of built controls (e.g. speed humps).
You mean
Not narrowing already narrow traffic lanes just so a few hipsters on their fixies can have their very own travel lanes and really stick it to all the cagers out there?
You mean
You've never actually driven on the Jamaicaway and don't know what you're talking about. There are plenty of bicyclists along the Jamaicaway - they've got this whole path thing going on, at least until you get to Rte. 9.
...aaaand
Brave Sir Adam saves the day yet again. Why don't you two just go on and get married? SwirlyGaff sounds pretty badass, if you ask me.
I know, right?
People who know things are totally lame.
Ugh
Was driving on the Jamaicaway Friday night, getting passed by everyone, and actually thought to myself "I enjoy life...and that's why I drive slow on the Jamaicaway."
Not that they say speed was a factor but people don't seem to realize (or care) how low the speed limit actually is. And even when you're not going very fast, it's easy to cross the lines with all those twists. It's not a safe road without extreme caution.
This is really sad. Especially considering at 3am there should have been plenty of room for the cars to go by each other.
"Not that they say speed was
Good point about the speed limit. Remember if you are driving 30 mph and a car coming in the other direction is traveling at 30 mph and there is a head on collision, you have a 60 mph collision.
Regarding being difficult to not cross the double yellow line being difficult, I disagree. Many thousands of people manage to do it. As long as you have a steering wheel, are sober, and paying attention, it is in fact pretty easy to stay in your lane and not cross into the lane of traffic going in the other direction.
I would are say that if you are having a difficult time staying in your lane, perhaps you are driving too fast for the conditions (a winding, narrow roadway). I'll add that most people who drive the Jamaicaway are very familiar with it, so are able to anticipate each turn - which would be very intimidating to drivers who are not familiar to the road.
"Regarding being difficult to
"Regarding being difficult to not cross the double yellow line being difficult, I disagree."
Depends what you mean by "difficult". There are several places where the lanes shift, such that if you follow a straight path through an intersection (which would normally keep you in your lane), you're no longer in your lane coming out of it. I'd call that an above average degree of difficulty.
You Sir, are correct.
You Sir, are correct.
In my mind I was on the non-intersection part of the road, but I recall entering the Jamaicaway from the south rotary after coming down the hill, from Faulkner hospital and encountering that lane shift thing as traffic entered from Center Street in JP.
Passing suicide cyclists
necessitates encroaching into the next lane.
Cyclists I don't
encounter much on the lanes of Jamaicaway. And if you do pass them, you still need to signal and look before changing lanes.
Go away
No cyclists were involved in this.
Since you mentioned it, though, a cycle track and one lane each way is, honestly, all that really fits there.
A lane diet would make this road much safer.
Also, consider this: if you can't pass a cyclist safely, then don't pass. That simple!
Stupid cyclists...
I pass one of these dingbats cycling on the J-way yesterday...honked and threw my soda at him.
Why bike on the road there when there is all that sidewalk to safely ride on?
Lived 200' from the
Lived 200' from the jamaicaway for 5 years and only once saw a cyclist on it.
Back under the bridge with you, clueless suburban troll
Is Medford considered a
Is Medford considered a suburb?
...
What else would it be considered? It isn't part of the city.
Medford?
02474 is in Arlington.
Oh, and Medford IS part of the city - the City of Medford.
As Boston remained a fifedom and didn't annex many of its neighbors, I actually live closer to Boston City Hall than anyone in Westie, Roslindale, Mattapan, Hyde Park, Brighton, much of JP, and some of Dorchester.
In terms of economic and social activity, very close to the center of the metro area.
Except...
...close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Except
Boston is an except-ion. That doesn't make it really any different, though - not economically, not functionally, anyway.
I can still bike to my job in Boston without much physical difficulty. This area is a pretty densely-matted urban swath until you hit the Fells - and Somerville, Medford, and Malden are some of the most densely populated areas in the US. That ain't suburban by any meaningful metric in any city, despite what boundary-obsessed fools may think.
What does proximity to Boston
What does proximity to Boston City Hall have to do with anything? Honestly confused.
What it has to do with
West Roxbury is part of Boston, but is not urban.
Somerville and Cambridge and Medford and Malden and Watertown are not part of Boston, but are urban and short-distances from the center and economically connected.
We also have several of the same lovely "four lanes smashed into a three lane road" things like the J-way, Alewife Brook Parkway, Mystic Valley Parkway, and Fresh Pond Parkway, among others.
Somerville, Cambridge, and
Somerville, Cambridge, and Medford are all cities, and yes, urban. West Roxbury is a section of Boston, so I'm confused by the comparison. Considering it's actually part of the city, West Roxbury has more of an economic link despite being several miles from City Hall. But this is about a car crash in Jamaica Plain...
Same road design
There are roads like this all over the inner Boston area.
They all need to be fixed and made to be slower and safer. This accident happened in Jamaica Plain, but it could have happened in Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Milton, etc. The problem isn't limited to JP.
Medford is a suburb of Boston
Just google "medford suburb boston" and you'll see that everybody except Swirly recognizes that. Medford being incorporated as a city has nothing to do with it, Swirly just likes to pretend.
But the question should be whether Arlington is a suburb of Cambridge.
Where do you expect the
Where do you expect the bicyclists to ride; it's not as if there's an adjacent bike path along one side and a 15 foot-wide sidewalk on the other.
Ride the bus
Handy bike racks on the front of them.
Bike path
What tenfortyseven was saying is that there is never a reason for bikes on the Jway. There's a well-used bike path adjacent to it and other alternatives if it is nighttime. I am on the Jway often and rarely (once a year) see a cyclist there.
This has nothing to do with bicycle riding.
Neither did this accident
But that doesn't stop Mark from injecting his own stupidity about hating cyclists and complaining that the world isn't paved over everywhere.
Actually CW that's not at all
Actually CW that's not at all what I was saying. It's not up to me to decide who should drive/ride on the J-way.
I drive on the J-way 5-7 days of the week and I frequently see people biking on it, including some boob who bikes in the right lane pulling a trailer with a kid in the back. I think this guy is a jerk, but I still don't get to decide where he rides. People generally make their own choices knowing the risks they're taking. "Suicide" or not, none of my business.
Sorry.
I misunderstood your comment. I thought it was sarcasm.
He probably thinks you're a
He probably thinks you're a jerk, too. After all, you're using his road just as much as he's using your road.
Too many bikes on other parkways
Parkways are generally 4 ten foot wide lanes. Foolish cyclists will ride on them and Storrow Drive anyway, side path or not. They do it simply because its legal, even if foolish.
Fantasies
You could probably count on one hand all the times anyone on this board, who actually frequent those roads unlike yourself, have seen a cyclist on the road on those parkways. Stop making things up.
And again, what the hell do cyclists have to do with this crash? Are you contending there was a cyclist involved? If so I have a grassy knoll I would like to sell you.
I've seen cyclists on the Jamaicaway
And it's pretty insane.
That said, this has nothing to do with bicycles. If/when it ever comes up (my hope is never), then we should have the discussion.
Parkways also dangerous for cyclists
No, this crash at 3 AM didn't involve cyclists. The issue is about road safety and the importance of doing what we can to make transportation safer. In this case, seat belts are relevant, So too are having roads that are not too narrow such that accident rates increase (see my initial post with link to facts about how accidents increase as lane width decreases). Wider roads are also needed to safely accommodate bicyclists. Parkways like the J. Way aren't even wide enough to accommodate motor vehicles safely nor wide enough to accommodate the number of vehicles necessary.
The brain damage of narrow roads makes so many bike lanes shoehorned on streets of Cambridge and Somerville unsafe also. Its also a historical thing, this time dating back to the 1970's and 1980's when sidewalks were widened despite adequate pedestrian capacities on them.
You have no clue
You sound like you have never driven this road.
Then there is no bike involved in this crash.
Then you talk about roads, but have no idea about their safe design, research, etc.
Sounds like maybe you shouldn't be driving.
I've read the propaganda
on traffic "calming" that actually increases frustration and stress, making them unhealthy!
Narrowing lanes is part of the dogma and the result is more accidents and crossing of lanes, like the fatal collision on the J Way this past weekend. The theory is that narrower lanes and windy roads will reduce vehicle speeds. Perhaps, but the failure is thinking that speed is the only issue and the narrower lanes and curves have a greater, negative impact on safety. Those fast, wide, and straight roads called interstate highways are by far the safest roads despite the highest speeds.
Source:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/...
See the section on crash modification factor (CMF). Those ignorant about road design clearly don't understand the term. Its a multiplier to predict outcomes. For example, if there are X accidents where there are 12 foot wide lanes, reduce them to 10 feet wide, we can expect 1.30 times X accidents, a 30% increase.
TSA studies
= "propaganda"
Right.
Your equation is also massively out of context.
Traffic calming isn't a mental health treatment
The goal of traffic is simply to slow down traffic, not to help drivers follow their bliss. If you want to argue against it, please argue against what it actually is.
"Those fast, wide, and
"Those fast, wide, and straight roads called interstate highways are by far the safest roads despite the highest speeds."
Highways are safe because there are no intersections, not because the lanes are wide. They also have traffic in opposite directions completely physically separated. Most of the crashes on Jamaicaway and Arborway have been head-on collisions. That's nearly physically impossible on a highway.
Bike lanes make things more safe
Just because you say otherwise doesn't mean it is so.
The statistics are NOT in your favor here. Cambridge has increased trips on its roads (increased capacity) while DECREASING accidents and decreasing the need for parking.
Go to the city website - the data is all there.
Sources Please
Please cite and link to sources.
The City cites an increase in capacity of the roads (due to more cyclists) with a decrease in parking and traffic-calming reducing accidents.
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Transportation/design.aspx
I am a daily bike commuter
I am a daily bike commuter along the Jamaicaway; I use the bike path that runs parallel to it.
I have once, in the 4 years of living here, seen a cyclist on the Jamaicaway itself, when not crossing at a designated crosswalk.
I have ridden on other parkways, such as the VFW parkway, which has wide enough shoulders to make cycling on it reasonable. Most of the parkways like the Jamaicaway, with high speed traffic and no shoulders, I avoid like the plague.
Complaining about cyclists on the Jamaicaway is like complaining about drivers who drive on the wrong side of the road. Sure, sometimes it happens because someone is clueless and picks the wrong side of a median when turning, doesn't realize that a street is one way, or just doesn't care, but it's so uncommon as to not really be worth complaining about when talking about driver safety; there are dozens of issues that are much more prevalent that are much more worth discussing.
Bikes on the J-Way
I see them now and then, maybe once every couple of months. I always think they must be real idiots. It's very much not a safe place to ride. And the path is so close.
On the other hand, I see someone crossing the double yellow on the J-Way almost every single time I'm on it. I see a box truck, oil delivery truck, or semi on the J-Way about every second time I'm on it. I see a huge 2+ton SUV whose driver can't keep it in between the lines every single time I drive the J-Way. I see someone going more than 20 miles over the posted speed limit every single time I'm on the J-Way. I see people blocking the box, running red lights, chasing ambulances, turning left when prohibited, going straight from the right turn only lane, jaywalking twenty feet from the crosswalk, etc. almost every time I'm on the road. I see a combination of several of these events every time I'm on the road.
If a bike ever causes an accident on the J-Way it won't be the only factor. It'll be be because somebody swerved to miss the bike and hit somebody who swerved across the lines the other way because…
A crash there is not a surprise; lack of crashes there is the surprise.
To be more exact,
What's surprising is the fact that there aren't more crashes than there are on the Jamaicaway.
Must ot feed troll, must not feed troll...
Oh, can't resist. Cyclists do not tide on these roads. Have you ever been out of Arlington?
You ride the bus, too
Please. You shouldn't be driving if you don't get some pretty basic stuff.
There is a bike path along
There is a bike path along the side of the Jamaicaway, not on the road itself.
Let's try that again...
"Passing another vehicle necessitates changing lanes when it is safe to do so." There ya go!
By "not going very fast" and
By "not going very fast" and crossing the yellow lines I just meant, not very fast in general. Parts of this roadway are 25 mph, so you don't have to go very fast to be considered speeding here.
Only sort-of
Only sort-of. If you are driving 30 MPH and you collide with a car of the same size traveling in the opposite direction at 30 MPH, it's the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 30 MPH.
Um, no, it isn't.
Um, no, it isn't.
Yes it is
If you are in a car driving at 50 mph and you hit a wall (defined as a perfect reflector of energy) moving at 0 mph, then you experience all of the energy of the collision as a car going from 50 mph to 0 mph.
If you are in a car driving 100 mph and you hit a wall moving at 0 mph, then you experience all of the energy of the collision as a car going from 100 mph to 0 mph.
If you are in a car driving at 50 mph and you hit a car moving at 50 mph directly head-on, then you experience HALF of the energy of the collision and the other car also experiences HALF of the energy of the collision as both cars go from 50 mph to 0 mph.
Both cars only put in 50 mph worth of momentum each for 100 mph of momentum total AND both cars experience 50 mph worth of collision for 100 mph of collision total across both cars, not 100 mph of collision each.
Don't believe me? Watch this Mythbusters episode: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1da1kb_mythbusters-2010-mythssion-cont...
I never studied physics
But there is a force going 30 MPH coming into contact with a force coming from the opposite direction going 30 MPH. If one hit a wall, it would be a force going 30 MPH coming into contact with a force coming from the opposite direction going 0 MPH.
A scientist could figure it out. It might not be a full 60 unless they are coming from exactly the opposite direction, but it would be a force greater than a 30 MPH collision.
It's not
See above. Each car (assuming two completely equal cars) experiences half of whatever was brought to the table at the time of the collision. All of the energy has to be accounted for and given two equal cars, they each divide the energy equally. So, bring 60 total mph of collision to the table, and each gets collision damage equal to 30 mph of damage.
Goes to show what I know
Of course, per Swirl's example below, the car might face the full force to start, but modern technology lessens the force quicker.
It still doesn't make sense to me. If I clap my 2 hands together, the sensation on both hands feels lighter than if I just moved one hand to a still hand. That said, I never studied physics, so I take what you say as right.
A solid wall ...
... moving at 30 mph.
No, wait, crumple zones.
But, yes, physics!
Some entertainment:
Jamaicaway
In my life, I have lived in Chicago, Detroit, SF, Oakland, New Orleans, Honolulu, NYC, and Boston (Dorchester & JP). With the only exception maybe being the Pali Highway in Honolulu, the Jamaicaway is hands down the most terrifying stretch of road in any major city I have ever seen. I don't think there is really anything that can be done to remedy it either. I always try to avoid it when possible.
Change the pavement back to
Change the pavement back to cobblestone and that will make everyone slow the heck down.
Parts of
Alewife Pkwy in Cambridge are curvy and scary too.
I assume you mean FP Parkway
Specifically between Brattle and Huron, agreed. 4 slender lanes, lot of speed particularly as cars are coming off Mem, SF, or Greenough, and very difficult to see at night with opposing headlights. I'm amazed more cars don't crash there - but i guess it speaks to the idea that drivers will take extra caution in 'difficult' situations like this.
No, Alewife Brook Parkway, too
This is another road which has too-narrow lanes because the MDC decided long ago that it should have more lanes shoved into it than fit, and bends a lot. I hate it because most motorists are not able to drive it and stay in their lanes.
It is partly in Cambridge.
MDC
I swear the road engineers at MDC in the 50s/60s/70s were on acid. How else can you Storrow, SFR, 16, FPP, even Mem drive as being as absurdly designed.
Olmstead
I absolutely agree with you that 1950 era designs like Storrow Dr are completely batsh*t crazy, but this one in question predates that.
For Pleasure Vehicles Only
MDC roads were designed for casual driving. City residents out for a Sunday drive.... The roads were for driving at a more leisurely pace and to enjoy the country like atmosphere. When drivers got a bit agreessive the MDC Officer was not far away and ready to issue a ticket. After the demise of the MDS, the State Police were supposed to also patrol the roads controlling speeding and commercial traffic. (I haven't seen a trooper on the Jamaicaway for years, but the commercial traffic certainly has increased.)
MDC roads were not used for commuting into 'Town' as they are today. Back in the day, a family would have one car - if they had one at all. Both of my parents grew up in West Roxbury. They and their famuly and friends took the train to/from work, for sporting events, the theatre, etc. Driving into 'Town' was usually for a special occasion.
Over the years it has been suggested that part of the green-scape be allocated for widening the roads. There are more city residents that are opposed to that idea than agree. During the week, I would venture to guess that 75% of the cars using the Arborway/Jamaicaway/Riverway are commuters from outside of the city. Personally, I love the roads the way they are and prefer the more bucolic ride. We need to be looking at getting commuters off the road with better and more public transportation from the suburbs.
***
Very sad the increased number of accidents on the river roads. I would love to see lighting improved and actually used along the Jamaicaway. Apparently we cannot afford to keep the lights working. The lights are rarely ever on during my evening drives.
I have suggested for years that the intersections with traffic lights need a modified schedule. Only one side of the intersection should have the green light at a time. This would allow left turns without taking your life into your hands and decrease blocked traffic patterns. It would increase the length of time a driver actually waits for a green light, but I believe would calm traffic patterns. The roads used to have more frequent red lights to control traffic.
MDC roads were not used for
This is an excellent point. Storrow was intended to relieve west-bound traffic (though not necessarily commuter congestion), but by and large, MDC roads were not meant to be the major arterials they are today. I still do not understand why Storrow is the way it is, and I'm not talking about height-limits. I'm talking about all the blind merges, the lane dropping, the reverse curves.
I can imagine the conversation
MDC Engineer 1: This acid is great, where should be put the merge from the Bowker west bound
#2: How about right after the road sheds a lane and then whips around a curve
#1: Isn't that dangerous
#2: Yes
#1: Great idea, let's repeat that process over and over again
#2: Make sure to make the incoming lane merge immediately with traffic, so that drivers have to look forward and backward at the same time.
But seriously, I'd actually like to know why Storrow is the way it is, I'm having trouble finding material on google about its original design.
History lesson
When lots of marsh and wetlands were being filled in around the greater Boston area, whatever was too boggy to build on was given to the MDC as parkland, mostly because there wasn't much else to be done with it.
After the Great Depression, a great number of public works projects were created to put people back to work. Road building was part of it. Road projects being submitted had to have the Right of Way already, as legal battles over land could delay projects for years. Well, it just so happened that the MDC already had ownership of lots of land next to water bodies. So, these sites were submitted for roadway projects and got funded as four lane roadways.
So, while the idea of parkways being leisurely four lane roads for contemplating nature sounds lovely, the fact is that the locations were chosen because much of it hadn't been developable and cost effectiveness of building roads on it wasn't so important when the federal government is paying.
Wasn't about fitting more lanes
Back in the day, it was decided that parkways would be four 10 foot wide lanes (40' total) while highways commonly had 12+ foot wide lanes. Narrowing from 12 feet both increases accidents and reduces traffic flow.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/...
Now, if only DCR would use land available on the sides of these roads to widen them and make them safer. Better yet, take all roads and bridges with more than 1,000 vehicles per day traffic away from DCR and give them to MassDOT to manage because they are actually vital transportation, not recreational routes.
Naw, Needs a Lane Diet
The turns make them unsafe even if they were wider, as do the speeds.
Widening them won't make them safer - even if it could be done.
Narrowing the road to fewer, wider travel lanes makes them safer. If there is space for turn lanes as a result, traffic may even move faster due to the lack of interactions (as it is, cars have to stagger themselves when using both lanes on these roads).
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10053/ has some interesting details from actual research on "road diets".
Here's another with data on speeds and throughput of the roadways: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/humanfac/04082/
Wrong
Mystic Valley Parkway (route 16) where it intersects route 38 near I-93 got a "road diet" (ie starved) probably in the 1970's when a Medford official had a monetary interest in a property near the intersection. There was also a pedestrian fatality getting to/from the swampland next to the river.
Since then, despite turn lanes, traffic regularly backs up 18 hours a day, with lengths up to a mile.
That's what road starvation does. Creates unnecessary greenhouse gas from vehicles waiting un undersized roads.
Read the links
The data and studies say that you are wrong. Traffic throughput remained the same or increased due to reduced interactions of vehicles and dedicated turn lanes.
Also, your "example" is a bunch of nonsense. Note that Rt. 16 backs up going the OTHER WAY (westbound) for the same amount of time each day??? Despite going from one lane to two, IT STILL BACKS UP from the two lane section onto the one lane section?
Yeah, that. Going from one lane to two lanes at the Somerville border doesn't do jack shit for that traffic, because it can't effectively use both lanes going through the rest of the system. It might as well be one lane all the way through, with left turn capabilities.
I live over here, remember?
I'm also betting that you would flunk fluid dynamics if you think the answer to increasing flow through a faucet requires getting a bigger pipe (hint: the relevant term is "rate controlling factor". It ain't the size of the pipe but the capacity of the valves!)
Yes, there are other problems
Route 16 is a vital link between RT 2 and I-93 and has been in desperate need of being upgraded against the objections of DCR (and MDC in previous decades), Cambridge, and now Somerville. Wider lanes would improve two lanes sections, and at route 38 there is plenty of right of way width for four lanes plus turn lanes. Alas, the expensive part are the bridge widenings, both over water and under railway.
I get the concept of flow. Many 4 way intersections should widen to double the number of through lanes crossing as the roads. this compensates for each road getting about half the time to cross the intersection during its turn to have a green light. Its the price to pay when not having overpasses to reduce contention for a scarce resource (the intersection).
These roads can't be widened
If they are widened, they have to be brought into compliance with regulations on curve radii.
They can't.
The only answer is to reduce them to single lane each direction with enhancements.
You'd make a lousy plumber, BTW. Customer: "hey, my shower isn't putting out enough water" Markk02474: "well then, I'll put in a 5' wide pipe - that will solve the problem!!
Not that I'm advocating for it, but
There was another possible solution proposed in 1969. The MDC wanted to make the Jamaicaway One Way inbound from Kelley Circle/Parkman Drive all the way to a (widened) bridge over Route 9/Huntington. Outbound traffic in this scheme would have used Pond Ave in Brookline on the north side of Leverett Pond and Jamaica Pond, creating one big loop. MDC wanted two 12' lanes and a breakdown lane in each direction with some straightening. Brookline ultimately blocked this, I believe.
vital link?
Only for people who can't read a map.
The greenhouse gas argument
The greenhouse gas argument is such a bunch of crap and you know it. When you add more lanes, you may get better flowing traffic for the short term, but those new lanes quickly fill up with additional car trips. Then you have twice as many cars stopped in traffic. You haven't solved anything. You've actually made it worse.
Nearly all of the supposed
Nearly all of the supposed dangers of narrower lanes that you cite apply only to rural two-lane roads or higher speed streets (45 mph+). Note that the only type of crashes that it says increases on an urban street are Sideswipe (same direction) crashes. These rarely result in injury and certainly not death. Also note that it says that narrower lanes in this environment results in slower speeds, which is better for safety for everyone (especially for pedestrians and bicyclists) in the event a crash does take place.
Yes, I was
referring to Fresh Pond Pkwy.
Outside SF has some scary roads.....
Not too much traffic though. (Marin County and of course Big Sur a little farther south!)
Inside SF, too
Once you get up toward the top of the hills away from downtown, it can get pretty dodgy in terms of road conditions, maintenance, etc.
A lot of those roads that you see in steep, windy driving scenes in movies are actually in the city proper - and the grid system breaks down as the terrain gets gnarly.
Driving Interstate 95
through Providence RI makes me want to be medicated. I agree, however, that the Jamaicaway is not a relaxing road to drive.
The Jamaicaway is a horrible road to drive on ordinarily, but
it can be downright dangerous when one's going above the speed limit, especially around those intense curves.
When will people learn to not
When will people learn to not drive like dicks?
Hey!
This:
"When will people learn not to drive like dicks?"
is a good question, anon! Bravo!