Hey, there! Log in / Register
Hit-and-run crash sends bicyclist flying into air at Mass. Ave. and Boylston
By adamg on Thu, 07/16/2015 - 3:39pm
Daniella Torres reports on a crash around 3:15 p.m. at the Back Bay intersection:
Just saw/heard terrible hit and run with a bike and a red (maybe gray trim) SUV at intersection of Mass Ave and Boylston.
Walking across street, heard crash, saw biker fly in air. Crowd (not me) got license plate, stayed until ambulance came.
Biker was in severe pain (head/leg) but talking. Guy in crowd made sure he didn't move his head & comforted him.
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
Sounds nasty
Hope the cyclist will recover OK.
And hopefully they'll get the
And hopefully they'll get the fucking asshole shithead in the SUV who did it. Good on the peds for catching the plate.
And hopefully they take said
And hopefully they take said shithead's license away for many many years after they spend some time behind bars. And hopefully drivers start taking more responsibility and stop hitting pedestrians and cyclists with their 5,000 pound killing machines. But this is America, land of the douche bag SUV driver, so that won't happen.
Trying to see the connection
Trying to see the connection to the SUV people keep referencing. Aggressive drivers are aggressive regardless to their choice of car. Buuuut never would have happened if the scumbag driver happened to have a sedan, Got it.
hit and run with a bike and a
Hence the SUV references here.
The difference as I see it
Is that if an idiot in a sedan crashes into you, you at least have a shot of rolling into the hood. SUVs are higher up and have a greater ability to just mow you down. Pretty sure there have been some studies too about SUVs driving more aggressively too--Malcolm Gladwell did a piece about it--but I couldn't swear to it.
yes i must stop reading comments
bless you, but rolling up on the hood is not increasing my life expectancy.
Sport Utility Vehicles are not overkill for urban driving. I wish neighborhood parking permits had an axle length limit. but that has nothing to do with this.
Maybe you should.
Or stop writing them because I literally cannot comprehend what you're trying to say. What I was trying to say, if it wasn't clear enough, is that SUVs (along with vans and big trucks) pose a greater threat than a Jetta, per se, because of height, weight, shape, etc. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4462-suvs-double-pedestrians-risk...
I would also prefer to be hit by neither while riding my bike or walking but I'd take my chances with a Mini over an Escalade. Get it?
There's no justification for having SUV's,
especially here in the city, unless one lives way up in the mountains, in which case, SUV's make a great deal of sense. A lot of people who own large SUV's, however, are quite arrogant and think they've bought a street when they've purchased one of those cars.
Here's hoping that the cyclist recovers, and that the driver of the car that hit him and ran away from the scene goes to jail for a long, long time.
YOU do not determine what
YOU do not determine what working people can and cannot purchase, no matter how high and might you may think you are.
He did not determine anything
He did not determine anything. He said that people who buy SUVs to use in the city are assholes. Just like people have a right to buy an SUV, he has a right to believe that buying an SUV is a dick move.
And you have confirmed it, by acting like an asshole, and getting all high and mighty yourself.
Kids are why people buy SUVs
in many instances. Clearly you have little to no experience getting kids in and out of car seats. If you had such a clue you would not proclaim SUVs made no sense. SUVs and other vehicles high up mean less back breaking bending over while getting the kids in and out of mandatory car seats.
Prior to child car seat laws, parents bought low slung station wagons and had the kids just pile in. Now that every kid has to be secured in a car seat that only fit two to a row, and not the front row, laws promote having more SUVs and CO2 emissions. So, blame lawmakers, because child car seats don't actually save many lives for all the negatives like more SUVs on the road and more rollovers from higher center of gravity in vehicles catering to parents needing to use child car seats. Then, that just encourages a height war so people without kids want higher vehicles because they can't see well blocked by all the SUVs on the road.
Driver's fault?
And you know this how? S/He shouldn't have taken off - but who knows - maybe drunk, maybe an outstanding warrant, maybe a scared illegal immigrant or a scared kid. But considering just today I saw a guy riding the wrong way down Arlington Street, two Hubway bikes on a narrow sidewalk in the biz district and almost got hit on the way home by a cyclist running a red light, I fail to see how you jump to the conclusion that the SUV was at fault. Could be a lot of other reasons s/he ran other than "being at fault". We all make mistakes while driving and/or make some stupid moves. But for many cyclists in this town being on a bike seems to be a license to ignore the rules.
Cyclists fault?
And you know this how? But consider just yesterday I was almost doored by an uber, passed too closely and cut off by car as I was in bike lane.
You fail to see the severity of leaving the scene of an accident. We all make mistakes while driving and/or make some stupid moves. But for many drivers in this town being in a car seems to be a license to kill.
But that is a cute way of not-quite-really-saying-it-was-the-cyclists-fault......but it must be the cyclists fault cause I saw hubway run a red yesterday.
Didn't say I "know" anything
Not the biker's or the driver's fault - the person above me was blaming the driver - nobody knows. Where do I blame the biker? I did say he shouldn't have left - I think in the first 10 words. Please read more closely.
License to kill? Really - a) I don't see drivers mowing people/bikes down (we all do stupid things - knowingly and unknowingly). b) the point was that the cyclists are as stupid around here as the drivers - but people immediately blame the driver - as the person above did.
PS - and that's a cute way of putting words in my mouth. The entire point of the post was to say cyclists do stupid things too and the accidents around here involving bikes and cares are probably a 50/50 split. Not at all excusing the driver for bolting - but that's a separate issue from who or what caused the accident.
i should stop reading comments
it is bizarre to me how people hypothesize a bunch of random facts not presented to defend the point of view that is apparently immune to facts and always will be.
The driver left the scene. I can only guess(hypothesis) two reasons for such behavior. 1. The driver was unaware of the collision. 2. the driver was at fault (for something).
just so you know
drunk = at fault
no license =at fault
warrant= well, I hear you, but just making things worse
As for random bad bicyclists that have caught your attention, not applicable. Also, there is no indication that the driver was on a cell phone why is this brought up?
I really think we just handle bike traffic very badly here. it won't change until we stop being so auto-centric
You leave the scene
You're guilty of leaving the scene (MGL 90-24)
(1) Whoever operates a motor vehicle upon any way or in any place to which the public has right of access, or upon any way or in any place to which members of the public shall have access as invitees or licensees, and without stopping and making known his name, residence and the registration number of his motor vehicle, goes away after knowingly colliding with or otherwise causing injury to any person not resulting in the death of any person, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years and by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.
In a just and loving world, you go to jail for six months. If you kill someone, it's 2.5 years in the slammer, minimum.
If you're not at fault, you wait for the police. If you are at fault, you still wait for the police, because an at-fault accident and points on your license is a lot better than six months in jail.
Now to deal with your straw men:
a) maybe the bike was going the wrong way on Arlington Street because the alternatives were biking down Charles Street in six lanes of highway-like traffic.
b) maybe the two tourists on Hubway bikes (and, gosh, were they going more than 6 mph anyway?) would have otherwise been on Segways or a goddamn trolley tour.
c) were you in a car? Because if so, any accident caused would have been detrimental to the cyclist, not you. If you were walking, then, yes, the cyclist is an asshat, but a "near miss" doesn't do any damage, and it's probably not that close.
If a cyclist "ignores the rules" they're generally being dumb (although sometimes the "rules" put them in a dangerous scenario and they're better off ignoring them), but if a cyclist runs a light in front of traffic, they're more taking their own life in their hands, not someone else's. If you hit a cyclist and they're obviously in the wrong, wait for the police. Most drivers get off with a slap on the wrist even if they're in the wrong anyway. But leave the scene, and you're in for a world of hurt. Maybe.
Now let's deal with YOUR strawmen
Suppose that person going the wrong way on Charles had been in a car instead of on a bike. Would you have been so quick to "justify" theri actions?
And I'm sick and tired of hearing this total BS line "when a cyclist runs a red light, they're only putting themelves at risk." Legally, cyclsits are supposed to follow the same rules as car drivers. The law is clear on this point - Cyclists are legqally required to follow the same traffic rules as vehicle drivers.
So stop insulting our intelligence and breeding disrespect for cyclists by trying to convince the world that they're somehow special and entitied to break the rules.
As for those who say "well, I see car drivers running reds all the time", ask yourselves this - When's the last time you heard of a car approaching an intersection on a green light when a motor vehicle on the side street suddenly appears from behind the stopped traffic and crosses the intersection. This behavior is commonplace with cyclists - not because it's somehow safer (another BS argument), but because cyclsits are too LAZY to stop for the 30 seconds or so it takes for a light to change.
A) Charles is easy to ride
A) Charles is easy to ride down according to the law, just observe and signal lane changes. Salmoning is no excuse.
B) Riding on the sidewalk is never okay
try getting around without a car sometime and open your eyes
and today I saw an SUV going the wrong way down a one-way, several cars parked on a sidewalk (probably hundreds parked in moving traffic lanes), and too many drivers running reds to count. People on bikes are going slow enough on a vehicle that can react quickly and rarely hurt anyone, and they generally take the safest route considering our garbage bike infrastructure. I'd rather have 10,000 salmoning hubwayers (instant contra-flow bike lane!) than these irresponsible drivers.
It's the driver's fault the driver fled the scene
Nobody I saw posited that the SUV driver was at fault for the accident. Nobody but the driver is at fault for fleeing the scene though.
When the driver takes off
The driver is at fault for hit and run.
They should automatically assigned fault for everything, or presumed to be, by leaving the scene.
Victim blame much?
There is no excuse for what the driver did.
Reading comprehension much
Very first line
Didn't says the cyclist or the SUV driver was at fault - only said you can't automatically blame the driver (which the previous poster did) until you know the facts. That's a separate issue from the fact that the driver took off. On that point I agree with you. I wasn't stating excuses - just possible reasons - none of which are valid - but may explain the behavior.
Aren't they almost always caught?
That's why I don't understand why a driver wouldn't stop, especially in broad daylight in a busy traffic area.
Illegal immigrant for one reason
driving without a license.
How do you know?
Another of your friends?
Why would an illegal immigrant run?
Don't we roll out the red carpet for them and treat them to a life of luxury so they can continue to rape your daughters?
I think that's what all those idiots were saying the other day.
Those weren't idiots
Singular - and he has a name - Donald.
Any news?
Any news on the cyclist's condition? Or if the driver has been apprehended for leaving the scene? For that matter, does anyone have any actual information on how the accident occurred?
Amazing how cruel people can be
Got hit by a driver that left the scene about a year ago, prior to getting the GoPro, so no plate #. Looked up from her phone at me for a split second and then casually took off while I was still crumbled on the pavement.
Ride safe everyone.
Inattention
If a pedestrian or cyclist isn't paying attention they can seriously hurt themselves. Even if they hit someone the cyclist is likely to be hurt badly.
If a car driver isn't paying attention they can seriously hurt others. They are unlikely to be hurt themselves.
This is why the clueless drivers are a problem. This is also why the standards of using a car need to be much higher then for cyclists even if they are using the same road. A guy with a bb gun is a minor threat. A guy with a fully automatic machine gun is a big threat.
Ban cellphones when driving
That has to be the single biggest culprit when it comes to distracted driving.
Better idea
Make cellphone use while driving a standard of fault if the driver in involved in a crash, and give the driver's insurance company the right to limit or deny any claims arising from said crash.
Interesting idea
Similar to how Europe treats hitting a vulnerable road user I believe? Car using the cell phone would be automatically at fault, right?
Also, how would that work if said driver no longer has insurance but the victim has massive medical bills? Less concern about the driver having nothing and more about the victim not being able to collect in timely manner. Not too keen on how that part of civil liability work.
I'd still rather prevent the crash...
(or at least reduce the likelihood of one) than increase the punitive aspects after.
Because the Massachusetts no texting
law and its highly punitive $100 fine is working out so well, right.
That deserves repeating
Please ban cellphone use while driving in MA
VT and NH now ban it. Has there even been a bill proposed in MA?
As a cyclist, I cringe when I see a phone stuck to a driver's ear.
Better yet
Require car companies to install devices that block use other than emergency numbers while the engine is running or the emergency brake is engaged. Perhaps bluetooth hands free could still be permitted, but no handsets. Want to call somebody? Pull over and shut down.
What about passengers?
I'm totally in support of banning drivers from cell phone use (including bluetooth since studies have shown that the distraction of being in a phone conversation is the major problem, not holding the handset).
But unless some nerdy engineers can figure out a way to confine your proposed blockade of non-emergency calls while the engine is running to just the driver's seat no one is going to see this as a solution. Not the 2,or 3, or 4 other passengers in a car pool on the way to work trying to get some emails done. Not the teenage passengers of anyone. Not the anyone riding in a car being driven by someone else.
I was a backseat passenger in a friends car and while he drove I was trying to set my GPS device to route us home from NY. The GPS refuse to allow this because the car was moving and it considered that a safety hazard. It may have been because it was highway speeds or it may have been because I didn't just want to update or reroute a plan but rather start a whole new one (which requires more attention). Whatever the reason it was super frustrating because I wasn't the driver--there was no safety reason to prohibit me from using that or any kind of mobile electronic device.
So how would you handle that aspect of cell phone use in your plan?
(again, I support driver's not being allowed to use a cell; I commute daily by bicycle in the city and have for decades; and I couldn't care less about access to my own phone. So I am not whining about not liking your plan because it doesn't suit my personal interests.)
Guess what
Except for emergency calls, every text or call is NON ESSENTIAL. So fi the passenger has to wait to call or text or post to Twitbird or Fatebook,. so be it.
Not like the world's going to collapse if we deny passengers something that generations of drivers and passengers managed to do without.
How to you block the signal
How to you block the signal of the driver and not any passengers?
You can't do that
You simply can't do that for about a thousand different reasons. Look, I constantly get pissed off when I see a car all over the road because they're looking at the phone, and as an avid cyclist, it scares the crap out of me.
But you can't just block the signal. I don't even know if it's technically possible, though I've heard that some movie theaters tried to use jammers and that was found illegal. A lot of people navigate with the passenger using a phone. Passengers can get a lot done on the phone while others are driving. You even admitted to streaming Pandora while you drive - oops, can't do that, signal is blocked.
Sorry, but no.
edit:spelling
NH has not banned mobile
NH has not banned mobile phone use while driving. You can still use it, you just can't hold it: Hands Free Law. So, in other words, you can still be distracted while driving by talking on your mobile.
You're right
That's right, the new law requires hands-free operation, an important distinction.
Thanks for the clarification.
Just like when you have a passenger
I have the built-in hands free. It is very much like talking to a passenger.
Not that that isn't distracting, but at least it doesn't block half your field of vision or require anything but yelling CALL HOME at an appropriate pitch to dial.
If you have to yell into
your hands-free system to initiate a call, I suggest you need to get it looked at.
Disclaimer - My 2012 Focus has a hands-free phone system. The voice activation works perfectly fine at a normal voice level. Even though it's hands-free, I still don't use it that often, as I'm one of those people who is 'old school' and still believes that driving should be treated as a full time task.
Yes, hands-free is less
Yes, hands-free is less distracting, nonetheless it's still a distraction. You really ought to be focused on the road when you're driving -- especially in congested parts of the city where there are people cycling, walking, double-parking, cabs running red lights, etc. Please. More people shouldn't have to be injured becuase you prefer the convenience of talking on the phone while driving.
to be fair
Anything goes in NH.
I moved back to VT last month
I moved back to VT last month and had no idea cell phones were banned until I meandered across the river to NH and saw a sign advising of such on the way back. Not like my cell phone gets much service up this way, but I do think it's s good law (now that I am aware of it, anyway). I don't know about those hands free device/ Bluetooth requirements in certain states though, that seems distracting, too.
CT has had a ban on cell phone use while driving for some time now. It would be a good thing to have more of a consensus on this in New England in general.
And anyway, the whole cyclists vs drivers debate that always pops up (and sometimes out of nowhere because someone, usually a driver, has an ax to grind) is so ridiculous. Drivers have the clear advantage here, surrounded by steel and with safety features like seatbelts and airbags and all that, and with all that size and weight the potential to cause so much more damage than a bike can. I never wanted to ride a bike in Boston because it seemed too dangerous for an inexperienced rider, never mind the experienced messengers and commuters I know who have gotten hit by cars and been victims of hit-and-runs!
More than anything, I think it needs to be more difficult for people to drive in the first place. There ought to be more regular reviews that touch on things like road rage, etc. (this is my fantasy plan, I am not arguing that it is actionable). Also, requiring a defensive driving course material to be implemented to basic driving school teaching could be hugely beneficial to not just new drivers but everyone else.
That intersection
That intersection is brutal in general. Especially trying to cross from the corner near where the T stop is (near the fence with all the padlocks on it) to the corner where Berklee is.
I wish there was some wavy
I wish there was some wavy bike lane when heading southbound Mass Ave to turn left onto Boylston. It's always scary to merge three lanes of inattentive speeding traffic.
And then there's those bridge seals with the gaps. Ugh.
A dedicated left turn bay
with its own signal phase would be more effective.
Who had the right of way?
Blame the driver for leaving the scene. No information on who had the right of way. With cyclists ignoring red lights so often, people will tend to think the cyclist is at fault. If cyclists obeyed road rules, the odds wouldn't favor that guess.
What's the matter with you?
LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT IS A CRIME!
except for cyclists
where its a $20 civil penalty if ever caught, though they don't have to pay it if they don't want to.
When a cyclist causes an injury to someone
And leaves the scene, get back to me.
More like
When a cyclist hits someone hard enough to injure them and is ABLE to leave the scene ...
But Mark thinks cyclists have super-light ultra armored shells - bounces them off his hood and leaves because he thinks they can't be injured.
Its the law
Cyclists must report if there is personal injury OR property damage over a certain minimum. So, even if its their dumb ass hitting a parked car, the law says to file an accident report. Cyclists love to file accident reports and are encouraged to do so by bike lobbies, well, er, not so much for solo crashes and ones where they are at fault.
Cyclists don't "ignore" red
Cyclists don't "ignore" red lights. They observe traffic and advance through the intersection if it is clear because going through an empty intersection is much safer than going through a crowded one right when the light turns green. Paris studied this and now allow cyclists to legally do this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11728098/Paris-t...
I wish drivers who have never rode a bike in a city would stop acting like experts on the matter.
We're not in Paris, are we
Last night, after dark, saw one of those rickshaw bikes blow a red light
at Melcher St. Explain that to the two passengers who could have been...
Who could have been what?
Killed? The person pedaling the bike would have been killed too. So there is justice in the world.
But if a car smashed into them either in the intersection or anywhere else? They still would have been killed. The driver of the car wouldn't be scratched.
That's the difference. A majority of the people killed on bikes are killed when cars make turns without looking. Running red lights are a red herring. (But while on the subject a majority of auto drivers in the city seem to think it's not running the red light so long as it's only been red for a few seconds.)
Some do what you describe...
...and others actually do ignore red lights.
Amazing, I know. It's almost as if cyclists are individual people.
So do drivers
Constant red light running on the greenway. Driving in the bike lane on Congress. Box blocking everywhere. Obstructing the travel lane by South Station.
I could go on ...
Oh god, the Greenway! The
Oh god, the Greenway! The light timing SUCKS, the roads are too narrow, and I have never seen box blocking enforced. Not to mention the aggressive panhandling.
The lights in Boston in general are so inefficient. There's one intersection in particular that just drove me nuts. The pedestrian walk sign to go across Washington at E. Berkeley didn't go on regularly enough, and then, when it did, didn't allow pedestrians ample time to cross Washington. And I say this as a driver! No enforcement of cars stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk whatsoever in that BMC/South End/Lower Roxbury area (on top of all the other shit they're dealing with) in general.
Two-way, er, street
That area is a clusterfuck. But it's also full of pedestrians who decide to cross at a crosswalk while they have a don't walk signal. I don't mean one that ended too soon; I mean just walking out when the cars have a green and then being mad that cars aren't stopping on a green. I saw a lady the other day screaming at cars that didn't stop on green that she was taking her baby to the doctor and what's wrong with them? What's wrong with you, endangering your child instead of waiting two minutes for a walk signal? And the people who just walk across in the middle of the intersection too, and the drivers who stop to let people do this, making traffic worse for pedestrians and cars. Why can't everyone just obey signals?
Who was distracted/impatient/drunk?
Blame the driver for leaving the scene. No information if they were drunk or texting. With drivers ignoring red lights/speeding/killing pedestrians so often, people will tend to think the driver is at fault. If drivers obeyed road rules, the odds wouldn't favor that guess.
I figured there was too little information for you to blame the victim but then there you go.
Just stop it
you great supine, protoplasmic invertebrate jelly.
Right hand turn for the bike messenger.
Harold Clancy is who was hit. He said he was making a "standard" right hand turn. I don't know under what circumstances that was, but all the right hand turns I made riding the street on my bike, I was never obstructing traffic. So I don't know how that SUV came to bash him how it did. Harold is dead now, suicide 2 days ago. Last week he was saying his brain was damaged. He leaves behind a son and a girlfriend, mother of his child. They both adored him.
https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/jml9/the-harold-clancy-memorial-f...
If you want to pay your respects.
https://www.facebook.com/harold.clancy?fref=ts
Little doubt
that the cyclist merely got what was comin
You were there?
Or are you just a fella late for Markkk?
BTW, multiple studies show that motor vehicle operators are highly likely to be the ones violating road rules in collisions with cyclists. Somewhere in the 60-80% range, depending on the study.
So
Theres up to a 40% chance he had it coming
Good odds, actually, thanks for the info
Casinos love dumbies like you
Casinos love dumbies like you who think 20-40% are "good odds".
Havent gambled
A penny in my life
But ill wager that cyclist dun goofed
Scofflaw cyclists everywhere!
He really could've hurt someone, flying through the air like that.
Again, with the nasty
Again, with the nasty comments from scumquistador. Adam, this guy is a troll!
Troll?
He's a cunt.
I see no twitter message
I see no twitter message about this. Did she get cold feet or what ? Can somebody tell us some facts please ?
hit and run me
hi everyone I was the victim of the hit and run if anyone saw anything I need witnesses and thank you for everyone who helps me and brought about this to try to find the driver
hey man...
...are you ok? hope so.
Thankyou Everyone
Hi I'm the bicyclist...
thank you everyone that saw. what happened and that I have your support!
the gentleman ran (maybe in middle of intersection) a red light and when i looked all I could see was. his vehicle accelerating faster and faster towards me... i was so scared I was going to die... the off duty EMT "Zach" who consoled me is a hero and every one who chased after his vehicle after he attempted to drive off are! From our boys in blue to our On Call lifesaving paramedics and all the pedestrians who stayed around me to make sure I was okay I thank you so much I'm so grateful that I get to see my son and he gets to still have a father in his life I cannot express my gratitude enough..
Harold*
You sound great
Hope everything turns out OK for you.
Thanks for getting back.
Best wishes ....
... for a total (and fast) recovery!
The guy who did this crushed my friends skull.
The kid who got mashed by this SUV city speeder was a bike messenger and said before he died that his brain wasn't working right on account of what had happened to him. All the "doctors" did for him was staple his scalp. He had been a heroin addict about 15 years ago, which I'm sure was on his medical history and I'm sure the "doctors" took that as cause to not give him pain medications, probably just ibuprofen. He committed suicide 2 days ago. He has hundreds of friends around Boston and other places and everybody who knew him loved him.
Doctors suck
They go brain dead every time they hear someone has any substance abuse in their past or present and refuse to treat that person. I know someone with depression and anxiety issues who had used percs, but docs (even at MGH, allegedly the best hospital in the country) refuse to put her on an antidepressant. Its criminal and something needs to be done as these assholes kill more people day after day.
Doctors also play blame the victim more than anyone. They probably blamed Harold for being a bike messenger and not wearing a helmet (his estate should sue the maker if he split his head open while wearing one).
His son looks so cute and loved on Facebook. So sad that he is now without his father.
PS His heroin use and troubles appear more recent for the 29 year old then 15 years ago, via Google: http://www.yourarlington.com/search/news-archive/374-police/6321-dispute...
The Middlesex DA will make anyone's life hell now in domestic cases after they screwed up with Remey.
PPS Roxbury drug court reportedly awarded a Harold Clancy a graduation certificate yesterday (posthumously?). http://www.bostonherald.com/photos/drug_court_graduation_ceremony