Hey, there! Log in / Register
Police say pick-up driver plows into Cambridge bicyclist on purpose, then speeds away
By adamg on Fri, 10/30/2015 - 5:53pm
Cambridge Police report they are looking for the driver of a pick-up they say swerved towards a bicyclist on Webster Street shortly after 7 a.m. on Sept. 29:
Just before the hit and run, the operator of the pickup yelled, honked his horn and then made contact with the bicyclist's handle bar, causing him to fall.
The bicyclist, Geren Stone of Somerville, is a doctor at Mass. General. He required surgery for injuries to his left arm, police say.
tone writes of the aftermath of the collision and what it says about the state of roads in the Boston area today.
Anybody with leads on the identity of the pick-up driver can call Cambridge Police at 617-349-3364.
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
What a GIANT asshole! I'm
What a GIANT asshole! I'm sincerely glad that the doctor lived because this could have been so much worse. In my own experience, it's always pickup drivers that feel the need to rev their engines from behind and then pass very close to me when I'm biking on the street (especially on Tremont in Downtown). I've been biking around this city for a while and it's always a pickup, never fails. Clearly, it is an intimidation tactic because drivers in sedans aren't doing it, motorcyclists aren't doing it, drivers in vans aren't doing it, and the list goes on. It's something about that type of truck that just attracts shitheads.
And before someone gets in their feelings, I know, #notallpickuptrucks
Finally, I don't care how upset that driver was because a cyclist was in front of him, his commute is not and never will be worth more than that doctor's life.
Not an asshole
He was an asshole when yelling at the guy. Then he stopped being an asshole and turned into an attempted murderer. The same as if you shot someone with a gun or put a knife in their neck.
I sure hope they catch they guy and charge him with attempted murder.
It's my sincere hope the
It's my sincere hope the surveillance video can be resolved enough to pick up the license plate, and that the driver spends the next several years contentedly not seeing any bikers blocking his way in his jail cell.
Jail?
Haha this is Mass, we have career criminals with 20+ arrest getting probation. Good luck with that.
haha assault and battery with a dangerous weapon
If found and then found guilty, they have the elements to sentence the man who committed assault and battery with a dangerous weapon to jail time. If he's done it before or has a record of violence, it's much more likely. If he has a clean record, he'll get a lesser sentence.
The sentence should not but probably does matter that the victim is a doctor who works at world renown Mass. General, in that we live in a society that attaches different value to different peoples' lives. The battery with a dangerous weapon put the doctor's life at risk.
"An assault with a deadly weapon occurs when an attacker accompanies a physical attack with a physical object capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death, by virtue of its design or construction... “Deadly weapon” generally refers to a wide range of objects that can inflict mortal or great bodily harm—for example a car or a golf club.
Under Massachusetts’ laws, any person who uses a weapon to commit assault (the attempted use of physical force, or demonstrating an intent to use physical force), or assault and battery (physical contact that is unwanted or likely to cause harm), can be convicted of a crime.
For example, firing a gun at someone (but missing) is assault. Actually shooting someone is assault and battery (sometimes just called a battery). Assault and battery is often punished more severely than assault alone.
"Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon is punished more severely if the victim sustains serious bodily injury (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 15A.)
"Even a dog or vehicle can be a dangerous weapon if used to attack another person. (Mass. Crim. Model Jury Instructions, No. 6.300, Commonwealth v. Fettes, 835 N.E.2d 639 (2005).)
Punishment: Assault with a dangerous weapon is punishable by up to five years in prison, two-and-a-half years in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 15B.)
Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon is punishable by up to ten years in prison, two-and-a-half years in jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both imprisonment and a fine. (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 265, § 15A.)
You are completely right, and
You are completely right, and I'm sure his completely warped sense of entitlement makes him think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a 2,000+lb vehicle to knock over a person because how dare this cyclist be on the road? Doesn't he know that roads are for cars and that driver has places to be?? Gotta teach him a lesson, even if that means death.
Wasn't there some person out of DC a year or so ago who actually wrote an editorial that called for drivers to "tap" cyclists from behind when they were on the road? He was swarmed with, deserved, hate and I haven't heard about any of his editorials since. Thank god.
Who has the sense of entitlement?
I think its the bicyclists leisurely riding down the middle of the road not having a care how many people are waiting for him, just like patients stacked up in a waiting room.
entitled
Cyclists are entitled to the road, exactly the same rights as a driver.
1) That's not happening in
1) That's not happening in this video.
2) Even if it did, it doesn't matter. That's how roads work. People can drive or ride at different speeds, which sometimes means you end up behind someone going slower than you want to go. You have to wait until there's a safe opportunity to pass. That's our system. If you don't like it, then don't drive.
3) In the case where someone else does something you don't like which *is* illegal, you aren't allowed to assault them for it.
Very Distinctive Looking Truck / Toolbox / Ladder Configuration
See it larger
Could be a construction worker going to a job in Cambridge — I hope they find him!
I dont think it's toolbox, it
I dont think it's toolbox, it looks like a small dumpster. I think the model is an older, stripped down, Ford 4x4, maybe 1987-91.
"Jobox Style" Slope Lid Toolbox
Yup
In the first few years my husband had his Vespa, we got tailgated and then cut off (in an attempt to run him off the road) by several engine-revving pickup drivers screaming homophobic slurs out their windows.
Once it was in Packard's Corner (Allston) and the other time I remember it being somewhere around Coolidge Corner (Brookline.)
Pickup Posers
When you see a guy wearing a suit and driving a pickup truck you know he has some issues and it is time to watch out.
There's no way this is the only video of this truck.
I'm sure Cambridge PD already know who did it. Now they just have to find him.
The verbiage doesn't match the video
The video shows the cyclist "taking the lane", riding down the middle of it and the truck side-swiping him, not running him over. This is most clear late in the video clip.
The truck driver clearly did cross the double yellow line to try and go around the doctor, breaking the law, though we could not see any oncoming traffic from the limited perspective. From this, the truck driver attempted to avoid the cyclist, though did not slow to his speed as the doctor wanted all traffic to do.
Just reporting the facts impartially...
And Tsarnaev is innocent too, right?
The truck strikes the cyclist. Agreed? There was no obstacle preventing the truck from either waiting behind the cyclist or merging further to the left.
It's attempted murder, plain and simple. No way it can possibly be accidental. (Though the driver will claim some bullshit like the steering wheel malfunctioned or something like that.)
To claim it was an accident would be like holding a gun to someone's head and firing and then claiming that your finger slipped and you didn't intend for the gun to go off.
I know traffic laws mean nothing to cyclists
but you expect drivers to cross double yellow lines all the time so they can have the entire travel direction to themselves?
Nope
I expect motor traffic to wait behind cyclists -- legal road users -- until it's safe to pass. (Which might not be for miles.) You have no right to go at one any particular speed but people have a right to live.
Is that a confusing concept?
Yes, you have the right to be selfish
an an entitled snowflake because its the People's Republic of Cambridge in Massachusetts. Screw all the people behind you that have jobs, appointments etc. to go to because you are entitled to ride down the middle of the road and not even think of keeping right with your wide, comfy handlebars, even when there are gaps in the parking lane to swerve into to let those waiting behind pass.
Here's a thought: The cyclist is a doctor - they don't care how long people are in the waiting room!!!
You are the selfish snowflake
Like the 4 seconds this person might have lost waiting to pass safely is more important the the person he chose to run over.
You're in a rush?
Get a bike!
15 minutes from Union Sq, Somerville to Park St.
20 minutes from Centre in JP to Inman Sq.
15 minutes from Oak Sq to Back Bay.
20 mins from Roslindale to Copley.
10 mins from Harvard Sq to Union Sq, Allston.
10 mins from Coolidge Corner to Forest Hills.
All in rush hour, all whilst stopping for red lights, and crosswalks. Average speed of vehicular traffic is somewhere around 11 mph in Boston.
And yes, I am entitled to not be run over. Just like your loved ones, and even you Mark, are.
Mark's Theorem
Really?
You expect everyone to wait behind you while you roll down a 30mph road at a leasurely 5mph or so? Just because you can be in a traffic lane, doesn't mean you should - that's what your sacred bike lanes are for.
simply?
yes. that's the law.
There are no bike lanes,
There are no bike lanes, sacred or otherwise, on Webster Ave. Nor on any of the other routes from Cambridge Street to Union Square.
Can we just ban Mark already
Seriously. Enough of your shit. As someone who both drives a pickup truck and rides a bike in this city, I have no vested interest. I'm neither rabidly pro cyclist (although, yes, cyclists *do* get the whole lane, it's the law) nor rabidly pro pickup.
But I am rapidly anti asshole. And you're an asshole who contributes nothing to this forum except the same tired remarks, over and over again, about "driver this" and "cyclists that." We're all PEOPLE, Mark. The way we choose to get from A to B at any particular moment doesn't change that. No one method of transportation makes us better than people than another. There is never a situation in which what the person driving did to the person biking today is OK. Is it that hard to grasp?
So enough. You're nothing but a troll, and it's high time we escorted you out of the forum and firmly told you never to come back.
Freedom of speech
I almost alway disagree with Mark, and at times he seems much more than mean spirited. But I have yet to see him cross the line into damaging a person.
That said there is absolutely no way to defend his advocating sacrificing other peoples safety for his convenience. It is a city it takes time to travel from here to there and if you don't like it move to Wyoming.
not exactly freedom of speech writ large
The law says the government may make no law abridging.. but that doesn't apply here on Adam's blog because he's not the government.
That said, we have an ethos in murika that says selfish, callous, ignorant, angry hateful speech is best countered not with censorship but with more speech. For Adam, that's a choice not the law.
I don't mind Mark123132567's angry and aggrieved shit piles because of the many thoughtful comments he gets in response although he does hijack a thread now and then but that's not his fault, that's ours.
We - really - seriously -
We - really - seriously - could stop replying to his posts.
You're foregoing the obvious/correct option
✖️ break the law by crossing the double yellow*
✖️ break the law by passing unsafely
✔️ follow the law by traveling at a safe distance behind the cyclist until it is safe (and therefor legal) to overtake
* bit of a grey area here, as several officers I have ask have said its ok to cross the double yellows in this situation, not unlike passing any other slower vehicle like farm equipment.
Apologies to Markk for using logic and facts to make my argument; and a speedy, complete recovery to the Doctor.
just curious
Do cyclists really care if cars cross the yellow line, but from a safe distance? I realize the law says it's illegal to cross the double-yellow, but wouldn't that be my calculated legal risk?
You don't even know what the traffic laws are.
Your "cyclist had to move right" comment gives that away, as do your other comments here and elsewhere.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Making shit up isn't the law, either.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
True! We can be held to account for the law whether we know the law or not. More broadly, ignorance is no excuse when you assert falsehood as fact.
It makes me wonder what conservative radio hosts like Carr and Rae are telling their audiences when they grouse about traffic, traffic laws, cyclists and bike lanes.
Just to clarify--the doctor is alive!
Broken wrist, horrible scar, lots of pins etc. Which isn't to minimize what the driver did but I'm very thankful that we're not discussing another dead cyclist here.
According to Mark
Tsarnaev drove a car at some point during his crime spree. By Mark's math, he must be innocent.
He hit and run, perhaps vehicular homicide
He drove over his brother, though it would be hard to say it was vehicular homicide or gunshots from police that were the cause of death. Walk Boston would normally complain about hit and run drivers not getting charged, but the state of Massachusetts really hasn't taken its crack at him now that federal prosecution is done.
I think I'll frame this comment
This might be the first time when you've been so direct as to your [insane] view that anyone who you feel slows traffic should be murdered. That's pretty much why few people can take your comments seriously. There is some real merit to a discussion regarding how wide to make lanes, etc. But why factor your views if ultimately you'd rather people die then you feel you've been delayed. It would be like inviting ISIS to a discussion about school prayer.
I did NOT write he should be murdered
Don't twist what I wrote.
So then
What were you trying to share with us?
That slow vehicles create a dangerous situation
on the road given the way people behind the wheel *do* behave, as opposed to how you *want* them to behave?
That drivers' psychology being what it is, taking up the whole lane marks you as an antagonist in lots of people's eyes, and a small number of them won't restrain their anger and do something regrettable?
That cyclists are taking their lives into their hands when they share space with cars that are less maneuverable, harder to stop, and harder to see out of than a bicycle?
Yes it's a hit and run, and yes the guy should get the book thrown at him. No, bicycles don't belong on the road with cars. Yes it's the law that they do. No, the law isn't sound.
Resolved it for ya?
Do you even know this area?
Motor vehicles can't do more than 20mph on Webster - not realistically. Cyclists are often in traffic here because they are keeping pace with traffic. I cycle it and drive on it on occasion and it really makes no difference to just stay behind the cyclists. It doesn't get you anywhere any faster to pass.
Nice try. Perhaps you should stop driving if you can't drive safely. Or, maybe, you should actually know the area before posting such a vapid comment.
Ooh ouch
No, I don't know that part of town. I'm extrapolating from other parts of town where traffic does move marginally faster than a cyclist would.
I also stand by my comment that cyclists don't belong in the same lanes as cars. You* wanting to be green/be fit/be cheap/be hipster shouldn't trump my ability to traverse city streets at the speed they were designed to accommodate.
Get rid of the parallel parking, make it one-way, do something that makes room for a separated bike lane if you're dead set on having people cycle to work/school/whatever. Just don't get pissy when you're on the wrong side of the laws of physics and I call you on it.
*Collective you/me. I do try to refrain from personally insulting the intelligence of the people I'm arguing with, though I may fail to live up to that standard.
Speeds streets designed for?
What city do you live in? Speeds that cars fly by in Boston are frequently faster than is safe. As for speed roads were designed for: have you ever driven down the J-Way? That was designed for horses and buggies. So if in sticking to the premise that speeds for which roads were designed should be the prevailing speed for motorists, cyclists, etc. then vritually all traffic on the J-Way is moving far faster than the "designed speed."
On the other hand if motorists drove at human sppeds rather than pretending they are part of the machine and so need to drive at the machine's speed then there could be a vast improvement to the quality of life in Boston by simply slowing down.
There would probably be fewer mangled and dead people from racing cars. Heck even gang bangers would have to slow down if everyone else was slower - with the result that drive by shootings would not be a good idea since they would be more easily be caught.
Extrapolate further: motorcycles and scooters moving at slower speeds, Perhaps less noise even.
But when a person has lost their humanity upon enterring a car and see themselves as merely a human piece of a powerful machine then nothing else matters other than speed and everyone getting the hell out of their way.
Woonerf
Speed Bumps or Chicanes every 20 feet ought to do it.
Speed limit should be 20 mph
There is no reason for the speed limit to be greater than 20. And that is the limit, that is not the speed at which one should be expected to drive and become violent when he cannot. Being able to see and respond to traffic takes almost twice as long at 30 mph as it does at 20. The severity of injuries when hitting a pedestrian at 30 mph vs 20 mph rises considerably.
As for the road having a design speed, it's a city street. The speed at which one can or should travel isn't dependent on the engineering of the street surface, it's dependent on the environment, which includes plenty of pedestrians, parking cars, delivery trucks, cyclists, etc. Since too many people don't care enough about driving at a safe speed and the police don't enforce it, we need more so called traffic calming measures to make it feel more natural for drivers to go more slowly, and so they feel like they are sharing the space with other modes of moving around instead of feeling like others are invading their territory.
I even pull over to let traffic pass
Its the considerate thing to do. Sometimes I will be driving slowly looking for an address, business, or road and will find a place to pull over and let traffic behind me pass. Cyclists? Not so much. They seem to want to be parade marshal of their own special parades.
Do tell us
How fast you went the last time you drove down Webster street at this hour.
Take your time.
Ah, logic
You admit that the driver sideswiped (collided) the cyclist and that there is nothing which forced the driver to do so other then his desire to go faster. You are justifying the indisputable harm to come to the cyclist as a result of the completely avoidable collision.
Given the circumstances I'm inferring that you wished the harm was mortal. Forgive me if you only can justify his maiming, not death.
I don't think the driver wished any harm
Look closely at the video and the still above.
1. The doctor has abnormally wide handlebars on his bike
2. The handlebar appears to make contact with the last 3/4ths of the truck, at the bed.
3. The doctor did not appear to move to the right at all when he was being passed.
The normal human behavior for drivers of motor vehicles, bicycles, and even pedestrians when being passed is to move over when being passed to create more buffer space. I think the truck driver subconsciously was assuming the doctor would also do this like countless other cyclists he may have passed on roads previously.
Furthermore, the uncommonly wide handlebars of the doctor's bicycle removed an extra margin of clearance/safety, allowing for the contact, and destabilization of the bicycle. The slightest amount of contact can destabilize a bicycle, so the truck driver could easily be unaware that the cyclist fell afterwards.
The police differ with your assessment
Also, you're full of it. The cyclist has no way to move right there, and, more importantly
NO OBLIGATION TO MOVE TO THE RIGHT
The width of his handlebars don't matter.
The truck hitting him with the back end when cutting over is intention and/or incompetence. The cyclist was not driving the truck.
You don't know the area. You are ignoring the fact that the police consider this to be DELIBERATE and you clearly don't know shit about how to drive, how vehicles are steered, or about the laws of driving, minimum passing clearance, and rights of way, either.
Do us all a favor and get off the road before you kill someone. Seriously. Get off the road.
I've been on that street
Isn't it the one with all the auto-related businesses, scrap yards, industrial businesses, and heavy trucking?
Actually does have an obligation to move to the right
His own personal safety aside, at least in tort law (though it probably does not excuse the criminal actions of the pickup driver) there is something called the doctrine of last clear chance. If the doctor had the opportunity to move to the right and brake in order to avoid an accident, even if he is not otherwise so obligated under the law, he must do so. Looking at the video, assuming they find the truck, he may have a very difficult time collecting from the insurance companies who are very familiar with this law. Not excusing the driver in any way who is a first degree Masshole, but I viewed the video several times and it appears to me the good doctor may have been playing chicken with the driver. From the time the truck and the cyclist enter the frame he appears to be inches from the truck - but for the next 2 seconds of the video the cyclist does not seem to make any effort to move right or brake until the truck clips him and he goes down.
This would eventually require some forensic analysis and lots of lawyers - but I have a feeling this is going to come back and haunt Doctor Stone in civil court:
"Then I heard the black pickup pulling next me extremely close and fast. As he proceeded to drive into my bicycle rather than around, I knew there was only one end to this."
If he had time to think of all that - he had time to stop or at least slow down and none of us would be having this discussion. I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there's more to this - but I think the Doctor may be on thin ice that got thinner when he wrote that editorial.
Truck driver made an unsafe pass
To bicycle safely your handle bars need to be a car door's width from the parked cars. Any further right is unsafe and to insist otherwise is to show disregard for another human's safety. Bicycling in the center of the lane makes this more clear to people who wish to pass you.
I think you have the likely
I think you have the likely legal scenario here a bit backward. In fact I think it is more likely to be used against the pickup driver than the cyclist. Barring some kind of extreme circumstance, it's hard to imaging a court agreeing that a person could be so stubbornly unwilling to move to the right as to put their own life in immediate danger.
evidence
The cyclist has an obligation to avoid an accident. That said, what the rider and the driver are doing prior to the moment the truck strikes the bike defines the progression of events and the context for applying the law. Indeed, the rider had the lane and the driver struck the bike by trying to take the lane.
Bicycles are considered vehicles, they entitled to the lane and responsible for obeying traffic laws. Cyclists have the same right of way as drivers.
The cyclist is riding on the single lane road and passing a parked car on his right, which means he must ride his bike closer to the center line to pass the car.
At the same time,the pickup truck makes a decision to pass the cyclist from behind. There is not sufficient room in the lane to do so safely. He leaves his lane and crosses the solid yellow center line to pass the cyclist which is illegal. If his line-of-sight was limited by a right curve in the road, that's a second violation of driving law.
"Passing is illegal and unsafe when your line-of-sight is restricted or limited by a curve, hill, or weather conditions, cross-traffic is present, when there is a solid yellow line on your side of the roadway..."
Those two potential driving violations aside, the question remains who has the obligation to insure that when you pass a vehicle ahead of you, you must complete the maneuver safely and and not collide with them?
It appear that the cyclist is about 10-15 yards past the park car.
The cyclist has an obligation to make room by moving into the next lane but in this case there is only one lane.
When returning to the lane, the driver is required to; ,
If the driver had checked his rear view, he would have know he could not yet return to the lane.
Both the truck driver and the cyclist have an obligation to yield right of way to each other, even though the truck driver violated the law at least twice when passing the cyclist.
"The driver/cyclist should never assume that other drivers/cyclists will start or complete any maneuver and should never insist on the right of way nor attempt to force their way into traffic. Drivers should try to anticipate other driver’s actions as well as yielding whenever needed or required by law. Giving up the right of way to other drivers also helps to avoid crashes, as does gaining eye contact with all operators of motor vehicles that come directly into conflict with you.
The cyclist didn't cause the collision by not yielding, the truck driver did by taking the lane after passing the cyclist illegally. Notice there was no car coming from the opposite direction.
I would find the driver guilty of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and give the cyclist a ticket for failure to yield [to avoid an accident]
You can't give the cyclist a
You can't give the cyclist a ticket for failure to yield when there was no obligation to yield. The cyclist has the right to the entire lane, full stop.
yield [to avoid an accident]
?
How could he yield?
He was being attacked with a vehicle.
Also, go ride that stretch on your bike. Explain where, exactly, the cyclist could go? Moreover, the cyclist had NO OBLIGATION to do anything he wasn't already doing. Go check your road rules, dude.
This is attempted murder, pure and simple. No yield involved at all.
right-of-way rules
massrmv driver's manual: chap 4: rules of the road (pdf)
As a motorist in the presence of bicycles:
Do Not Cut-Off After Passing: When passing a bicycle traveling in the same direction that is on your right, you must not return to the right until you have safely passed the overtaken bicycle. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2)
Do Not Squeeze Bicycles in a Narrow Lane: If a lane is too narrow to pass a bicycle at a safe distance, be PATIENT until you can safely use an adjacent lane or WAIT until it is safe to pass in the lane you share. (Chap. 89, Sec. 2)
Watch for Bicycles on Your Right: Bicycles can legally ride to the right of motor vehicle traffic. The law says it is not a defense for a motorist causing a crash with a bicycle that the bicycle was to the right of other traffic (Chap. 85, Sec 11B)
Right-of-Way Rules: “Right-of-way rules” help drivers handle traffic situations not controlled by signs or signals. These rules are based on safety and courtesy. They do not give you any “rights.” Remember, the right-of-way is something you give, not take. If another driver does not follow these rules, you should always give the right-of-way.
You all are missing the point
First - the driver is probably guilty of one or more criminal laws - not likely the cyclist violated any criminal laws.
What I am saying is that the cyclist may not be able to sue because based on my view of the video - and perhaps others - he made zero attempt to avoid the accident. Doesn't matter what your rights are, you have an obligation to make all reasonable efforts to avoid an accident - even if it's the other guy's fault. You can't just say - look at that guy behaving like a jackass - I'm not going to swerve or hit the brakes - I'm just going to hit him or let him hit me. You lose your rights if you do that.
This can be left to a jury and a court - but I see zero effort on the part of the cyclist to brake or swerve. If that's the conclusion - the driver may still be found guilty of other crimes - but if the cyclist sues - he won't collect a dime because he neglected his "last clear chance" to avoid the accident. And for the love of God - you're a doctor and a father of three. Playing chicken with a truck you know is driven by a road rager that's already cursing you out is a really bad life decision.
You can only attempt
What is possible to attempt.
I ride that street on a regular basis. There is no way to move over to "avoid" the psychotic guy there - road conditions and parked cars preclude that. The road is a bunch of holes.
So what you are saying
Is perhaps the cyclist wasn't even hit - and in fact a pothole wiped him out?
Again - I'm only calling what I can see in the video. The road on this stretch seems fine (unless there's a pothole behind that parked car).
The main thing is - it doesn't look like the cyclist ever even slowed down and it looks from the video like he's got a couple of feet of space to move to the right near the parked car. Not ideal in normal situation - but that was his only out.
Looks to me like he was playing chicken with the truck and lost (in the very beginning he was so close even though there was open parking to the right that I thought he was holding onto the truck).
No question the driver is a Masshole and performed an extremely dangerous and probably illegal maneuver. But if the doctor had slowed or pulled just 6 inches to the right, we are not having this discussion. Was he obligated to? Under the law, probably not. But under the doctrine of your first duty when operating a vehicle is to avoid an accident - he had that obligation, ignored it and paid the price (solely based on what I see in the video). Fortunately it didn't cost him his career - or worse.
How about an emprical exercise
A pot hole didn't wipe him out - an asshole did.
But, hey, go ride that street yourself and explain to the class how much room you have to ride there and all that.
The bottom line: attempted murder. No obligation to attempt to avoid, possible hazard in doing so, and stop blaming the victim.
Doesn't get more empirical than this
Rule 1 when operating a vehicle - do not cause personal injury to others or yourself
Rule 2 when operating a vehicle - do not cause property damage
Rule 3 when operating a vehicle - obey all the rules EXCEPT if they must be broken to avoid causing personal injury and/or property damage
I'll say it again - the driver is a Masshole of the first order - possibly attempted murder. But the cyclist doesn't get to "enforce his rights" (which is what it looks like he's doing in the video to me) if the result is personal injury or property damage. Sounds like even you will admit there is no apparent attempt to slow or swerve. If he doesn't have a good excuse for that - assuming they find the driver - he may have a very tough time collecting from the driver's insurance company. (I'm not sure if this doctrine has any place in criminal or traffic law - this is just the rule as I understand it in civil law).
And again - seriously - a doctor and father of three should know better than to do something like what it appears he's doing in that video.
And here, I'm back to disagreeing
I knew it wouldn't last -- you said one thing that made sense, but now back to pure lunacy. The only person who did something wrong was the pick-up driver. The shape of the handlebars, the position of the bike, the decisions made by the cyclist, none of that has any responsibility for the accident. You were correct to say that the video does not necessarily demonstrate malice. But you are completely incorrect to claim that any of this was caused by anything other than the driver's decisions.
Did the cyclist slow to more safely allow the pass?
It does not appear so, even if the cyclist could not move right as you (wrongly) claim.
No obligation
No obligation.
Download more at massrmv.com. They have a whole book about what you are and are not supposed to do.
Cyclists are not required to move right, slow down, etc. Motorists are required to pass safely or not at all. Period.
Laws Against Nature !!!
Self preservation, being the one in this case! Stuff goes wrong more often when laws are made in opposition to nature. That is a very broad generalization from drug laws, prostitution, physics, whatever.
Yawn
Just so stories != science.
Just take a walk, and get off the road.
Better yet, read this book: http://massrmv.com/rmv/dmanual/index.htm
Poor Driver
That driver could have passed safely instead of pulling back right after overtaking. He struck another road user and did not stop. Incompetent Asshole and Lawbreaker is my verdict.
You didn't write it
But you said it nonetheless.
You clearly don't know the laws. You clearly don't understand your responsibilities and the rights of other road users. Turn in your license.
Fun fact
If he drove his car the way many* people ride their bicycles, he *would* have to turn in his license. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one is not required to pass a driving test or have a license to operate a bicycle on public streets?
*Doesn't look like the victim did anything outlandish here, so statement doesn't apply to this case
This is a false equivalency.
This is a false equivalency. Bicycles and pickup trucks do not carry even remotely similar risk profiles.
.
.
Count the number of people that drivers kill
Then count the number that cyclists kill.
There are something like four to five orders of magnitude difference.
But do persist in your idiocy. Your ignorance of basic traffic laws is rivalling Markkk's
Count the number of people opiates kill
and those killed playing badminton and you'll have another irrelevant point.
BTW, opiates are on track to kill 4.5 times as many people in Massachusetts this year as all people dying on our roads in all collision types.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/22/mass-opioid-overdoses-kill-m...
Per my post above
You clearly don't know the laws or understand your responsibilities. Turn in your license.
I hope that's your sick sense of humor
because you're completely incorrect and a total asshole. Mass doesn't have a 3ft minimum passing distance yet, but there is a more general "safe passing" law on the books. You can see in the video there is no oncoming traffic (and yes, you are supposed to cross the yellow line to overtake a cyclist), and the driver seems to speed up and aim for the rider. The cyclist is not "taking the lane" by a long shot. In fact, it looks they were so far to the right they could have been in danger of getting doored. I'm assuming you're all for eliminating street parking on that stretch so cars can pass vulnerable road users without changing their path at all?
Just reporting the facts
Given your past thoughts on cyclists....lol.
From the day it happened
"A male driver in a dark blue, gray and black Ford pickup passed my girlfriend and another cyclist and yelled out of the window "You fucking moron cyclist, get off the road!" then accelerated past them and intentionally swerved and struck a cyclist in front of them."
https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/3mu511/hit_and_run_cyclist_in_c...
The above account was posted the very morning the collision happened and before any of the media coverage or this video footage emerged. The poster's girlfriend is one of the two mentioned cyclists who stopped to aid the doctor and you see them in the video. You, on the other hand, were not at the scene and have a deep history here of being anti-cycling at every opportunity. Yet, we're supposed to take your "impartial facts" based on your viewing of that video clip over the account of the witness which is also substantiated by the exact same video? I'd say the odds are not in your favor.
I can't wait to see what the demons of hell have in store for you. I'll bet that for all eternity you're late for the most important thing possible for you but you're stuck behind a slow moving bicyclist on a narrow road with no opportunity to pass and there's a cop on a bike with an itchy trigger finger behind you. For ever and ever. Amen.
And?
Is there anything in your *cough* unbiased *cough* summation of the situation which is relevant?
We know how you love false drama, but
Crossing over the double line to avoid crushing a bike is not "breaking the law", while running someone over is. Check with your local PD is need be.
Oh, Markkkkkkk
It's not even remotely cute anymore.
You're just a strange, strange person with many, many issues that for whatever reason manifests as a hatred for bicycles.
Have to agree with Mark*
I don't see anything in the video to indicate intentionality. There is probable wreckless driving, and there is definitely a hit and run, but people who are calling this attempted murder must have some information that isn't in the video.
* and I really hate when I have to do that.
Hardly....
... "wreckless".
;-)
A reckless wreck?
But yes, I did mistype and neglected to proof. That certainly changes the meaning (not at all).
Get your facts straight
If this is really you're version of "objectivity" when driving, remind me to keep my kids off the street when you're out. I know you're not supposed to stoop to personal attacks when making an argument but you're an idiot. The cyclists are legally allowed to take the entire lane regardless of whether you find this inconvenient or not. Despite the drivers "heroic" attempt to avoid the cyclist--he failed. And what kind of human being keeps driving after potentially killing someone? The same one who is so selfish and out of touch with reality that he doesn't mind using his 2 ton vehicle as a weapon against another completely unprotected human being because he was annoyed. Only in Boston could people come to this guys defense. Pull your head out of your ass.
This happens to me weekly
Only difference is, they manage to "just miss." Beyond this, I'll save the comments for everyone else, this gets too depressing.
I will agree just misses are too frequent
and its wrong to happen leaving too little margin for error that depends on a cyclist to make an effort at self-preservation by slowing and moving right. The pickup truck driver was driving a really long vehicle and cut back in too soon such that about 10' behind his sitting position made contact. That's poor judgement on his part and he was wrong to cut things so close.
Poor judgement?
So, the cyclist was legally taking the lane and the truck driver only had a bit of "poor judgement" in making an illegal pass but you're coming down on the side of the driver. Logic is not your strong suit for sure.
I also notice that you have not responded to the link I provided above with the account of the truck driver bitching out the other riders who appear in the video which was posted prior to any media coverage of this event but is corroborated by the video.
It makes perfect sense that a truck driver who would pass cyclists in an unsafe manner on a narrow street while hurling insults at them just had a bit of "poor judgement" when he cut back into the lane colliding with the rider ahead of them and there was no possible way that he had any kind of animosity toward the person on the bike. Again, logic is not your strong suit.
Drivers have no monopoly on poor judgement
Clearly the doctor here did too, even if it was legal. Legislators acted in poor judgement signing the current laws. The doctor should have acted to preserve his own safety when being passed by slowing and moving right, but failed to. No, he was not obligated to legally, but he should have considered the advantages of doing so versus not.
Over the decades while driving or riding a motorcycle I have avoided crashes where the other driver would be at fault by slowing or taking some sort of evasive action. Its the normal response of a good driver/rider. I don't blithely assert my legal "rights" in the face of danger and bodily harm when it could be avoided. Its a stupid argument to claim its my right to get into an accident and perhaps collect insurance money and sympathy. Scammers and bicycle martyrs I guess think that way...
Its also really obnoxious how the doc and others wrongly claimed the truck driver tried to kill him. The video clearly shows that to be false. The cyclist made errors in judgement and so too did the truck driver.
The video doesn't show enough
The video doesn't show enough to demonstrate your assertion, you're seeing what you want to see and the account of the eyewitness I linked above is more likely to be true than your armchair position.
Also, in the video the doctor is putting himself in a safer situation by taking the lane and avoiding the door zone which is the potential accident with much higher odds there. The standard behavior I've seen is that riders will take the lane but as soon as there is extended curb space they will move over and allow any backed up cars to pass. Horror of horror for the driver but that could take somewhere around thirty seconds if it's a long stretch before that appears.
I ride a motorcycle too and I hate the expression "ride like everyone is trying to kill you" because at nearly any time someone could cross the double yellow and take you out in a head on collision. Obviously there is an expectation that someone will not willfully commit vehicular homicide in that way. In the same way the doctor was riding in a way that lessened the danger until his path was crossed by someone with the symptoms of a sociopath (putting someone's life below their need to get somewhere). It seems from your postings here that you share those tendencies. Would you strike someone with a baseball bat to get them out of your way if you were stuck on the sidewalk behind someone who was walking more slowly than you? That is essentially what you're trying to justify.
From the video you can see there was a car coming in the opposite direction but there appears to be plenty of room to pull off the illegal pass without clipping the rider. Keep in mind that legally the truck should not have been passing even if there was no car coming but they crossed back over the line way before overtaking the cyclist. There is nothing that justifies the truck doing anything other than waiting until it was safe to pass and the more you prattle on here the more ignorant you sound.
Imagine if the doctor were in a car instead of on a bicycle
and getting passed on a double yellow by a yahoo in a pickup truck. Is that attempted murder? No.
But, What to do?
Slow, and try to keep right to expedite the pass? Yes, its what many drivers would do. Did the doctor do that? No.
Would keeping to the right put the doctor in the door zone? Yes, but that risk of one to two vehicles, likely unoccupied was less than the risk from the truck, so the lesser of two evils and the better choice.
In a car, the doctor has the right to drive down the middle of the single travel lane in that direction just as he did on his bicycle, yet, still moving over to the right would have helped to possibly avoid a collision and his personal injury.
What?
What if it was a mountain road and the pickup intentionally ran the doctor in a car down the embankment? Would you consider that attempted homicide or do you just never let the circumstances of an event inform your "critical thinking" process?
The pickup truck driver is likely a sociopath based on the eyewitness account and your defense of him puts you right in the same category.
Watch the video again
The cyclist is in contact with the truck at the front part of the bed which is right behind the driver when the vehicle enters the view of the camera, the actual contact may have begun at the door for all you can see in the video. Yet you claim that the poor driver made a tiny error in judgement and somehow the cyclist is ten feet behind the driver of a truck when the video clearly shows otherwise. As I said elsewhere, you're seeing what you want to see.
Thank God there's video...
...because if all we had was the good doctor's eyewitness testimony, he might have trouble being believed. I read part of his own letter to the editor of the Somerville Times:
Further down:
Whoops! Could be an error on the paper's part, or just a silly typo, but not the kind of thing you want to have in your published letter describing your side of the story.
Yes, the video doesn't match his prior exaggerated description
where he claimed the truck ran him down. In the video, we see he was riding down the middle of the lane and the truck brushed his handlebar (sideswiped), destabilizing his bike, not "running him down".
Give it a rest, Mark
The truck driver hit him and fled the scene. "[B]rushed his handlebar," come on man, someone lands in surgery and that's what you've got to say? You'd have some credibility if you gave up on the extremism once in a while.
Sometimes I wonder if you're secretly anti-car and are trying to provoke people over to you side. Blink twice if this is true.
Half of bike accidents are solo falls
It doesn't take much for a cyclist to go down and get hurt. Rock, rut, bump, flat tire, tram rail, brushed handlebar, whatever. The bike fatality in Arlington happened when a cyclist racing around a corner had her pedal hit the curb, launching her into a tree. No motor vehicles were involved as in roughly half of cyclists ending up in hospital emergency rooms (*).
* There has been a recent shift in demographics. Previously, more young people were riding bikes and getting hurt on trails and roads. Now, with the large population bubble of baby boomers getting older, more prone to injury, and more likely to only ride on the street, the number of solo off-road bike crashes has been declining.
Broken Record
Mark, none of that is relevant to the conversation we're having. The rest of us are trying to discuss issues that impact our community and you're here just blabbering on off topic. Please, please, just try to stay on topic.
Edit: Plus, you're completely wrong. Making up 'facts' doesn't help your case. 2% of traffic fatalities are bicyclists. Only 16% of serious/fatal accidents are solo.
Apples and oranges
I was citing stats for ER visits and you are quoting some other stats about serious/fatal injuries. ER visits are the only reliable data source because so many solo bike and pedestrian-bike injuries on the street go unreported.
Off your meds again?
Or just returned from your halloween killing spree in the Bronx and feeling reinvigorated?
Look again
We see a truck being driven into a bicycle and then leaving the scene.
The doctor was not sideswiped as you're trying the claim; the person driving the truck actively maneuvered said truck into the section of the road occupied by the doctor riding a bicycle. Seeing how the truck came up behind the bicycle it is reasonable to imply the driver knew the bike was there. Therefore the person driving the truck (most likely intentionally) caused a collision and made matters worse by failing to stop.
In less words: a person directed the mass and force of several thousand pounds of metal at another human being and caused serious injuries.
...
You realize that he doesn't need to come in hot on his 6 to "run him down", right?
And does it matter? (Short and long answers, and everything in between: No.) Even if he thought he cleared the biker to come back cleanly over into the lane, he fled the scene.
Stop making excuses for this guy and for bad driving. You're not doing yourself any favors.
This is why I said "lol" to you being impartial, above. It's quite clear you're going to come out on the side of the driver, no matter what.
One of these days
When you mow down a pedestrian or cyclist with your incompetent driving and self-aggrandizingly erroneous opinions about how driving makes you special, we will know that the victim of your flagging abilities, impaired vision, and egregious ignorance will collect everything that you own as compensation.
That's because the internet does not forget. You have just provided that future victim's lawyers with amazing amounts of fodder for your demise in court. Going on the internet and repeatedly spewing ignorant bile that is in direct opposition to the laws of the commonwealth can and will come back to bite you in the arse.
Listen to yourself
Driving doesn't make anyone special. Driving is what people do in order to get to work and live their lives without sweating or freezing for every mile traveled. Driving also makes people more dangerous because they've got two tons of metal and Sir Isaac Newton preventing it from stopping or turning on a dime, which is why we have streets for cars, sidewalks for people, and licensing procedures and hands-on tests before we let anyone operate motor vehicles.
Cyclists on this forum do tend to think they're special and deserving of deference from everyone else. They tend to hide behind the laws they've lobbied for without responding to the challenge of why those laws are good, they have a bad happing of playing the victim even when they aren't (not this case) and looking down their nose at anyone who doesn't live within biking distance of work.
I can take your post and use it to chew out anyone I like without changing too many words. That means it's not a sound argument for your position, it's loud angry emotion. And I like to think we live in a place where we think with our heads, not with our hearts.
People who dislike bikes on roads tend to....
paint with broad brushes trying to imply that all cyclists consider themselves special and deserving of deference? Using one's head shows that broad brush claims about cyclists and anti-cyclists are generalizations and contribute only strife and animosity to a conversation.
A false broad brush stroke against one set of people, which defies logic and fact, couched in a pretense of logic and fact, not only empties the statement of possibly validity but implies a purposefull attempt to bend facts and truth to a predetermined conclusion.
As an aside that is modern Republican rhetoric at its best.
Listen to YOURself.
The cyclist isn't acting as if he's "special" or breaking any laws. This is not a 21-year-old bike messenger screaming through a red light or scofflaw daredevil on a fixie or any of the favorite scapegoats of the bike haters. This is a doctor riding to work on his bike, legally, on the right, at what looks like a reasonable rate of speed, being plowed into by a driver who is so impatient to get where he's going that he's swerving all over the road. Who's the one who thinks he's "special?"
If "deference" means "not running into me", like acknowledging that I exist in a physical place which you cannot simultaneously occupy, then yes, I want some damn deference. Is that really so crazy?
Corrections?
Hey Adam,
Two points:
There's a Webster Ave in Cambridge, but no Webster Street.
You dated the incident September 29. Did this happen Thursday or a month ago?The news story says Sept. 29
And in the footage, the guy's injuries and scarring look mostly healed.
Should have gotten a better doctor
Unless he wanted a huge, ugly scar to show off, especially for the cred he would get with the 3rd world and low income community work he does. Fancy plastic surgery level stitches would take away conversation fodder at fundraiser cocktail parties and with patients.
Ugly scar is a public health service, telling people that bicycling is dangerous.
Grow up
Go away. Take a flying leap at a rolling rubber donut. Look in the mirror and die of fright. Or maybe fuck off and die already.
And stay off the roads tonight - people will be DARING to be out WALKING with CHILDREN and IN YOUR WAY.
You got it backwards, bro
Riding bicycles is very safe, while it is frequently demonstrated that driving heavy machinery in dense urban areas is incredibly dangerous (well, cars are incredibly dangerous everywhere, ask that guy who was ejected onto the highway sign in CA yesterday, but we're talking about Cambridge), and gets worse when idiots do it carelessly, acting like they own the place. It's not bicycles that kill 33,000 people a year in this country and injure millions more.
Indeed , is this the Webster
Indeed , is this the Webster ave that goes from Union square Somerville , + / - , to Cambridge street Cambridge, + / _ ?
Somerville'ish
Based on the video, it's gotta be the Webster Ave from Union Square. I didn't realize that the northern arm spends a few hundred feet Cambridge.
Mark Krackpot
Complains constantly about cyclists breaking the law. Sees video of a driver breaking several laws against a law-abiding cyclist … invents a new "laws" that the cyclist didn't follow. The only good cyclist in his book is one who gets off the street and bows down low whenever a lordly driver approaches.