Hey, there! Log in / Register
Dump truck driver acquitted for crash that killed pedestrian in Cambridge
By adamg on Thu, 11/21/2019 - 9:56pm
Cambridge Day reports a Middlesex Superior Court jury today found the driver of a dump truck who hit and killed Jie Zhao, 27, at Magazine and Putnam streets last year, after a trial in which the driver's driver suggested the MIT graduate was to blame for her death because she may have been listening to music and so unable to hear the truck's back-up beeping.
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
of course
Driver: I didn't see the pedestrian
Court: Rebuttal?
Pedestrian: [doesn't say anything because is dead]
Court: Sorry to trouble you, you're free to go
If you consider the court and jury the same thing...
Then yea, it does go like that.
that's a good point
Most vehicular homicides don't even get anywhere near a jury, the killer driver having long since been sent home with a pinky-swear not to do it again
Sad
But the reality is that volumes are played loud enough to make other sounds unheard. Add not paying attention to immediate surroundings.
We don't live in forests where there is a rare moment danger. We live in cities where not paying attention has costs.
How many times is it necessary to remind folks to not walk with their headphones blasting into their ears at night in areas where bad people look for easy victims?
I offer to the family the recognition of their pain of loss. I hope that this might teach other folks to be more attentive to their surroundings.
Yeah, paying attention
So why aren't you blaming the driver for not paying attention?
Because
Humans typically have eyes on the front of their head, not on the back of their dump trucks.
That’s why drivers need to ..
.. look in their mirrors or rear view screens.
Check out the concept
of blind spots when driving a truck.
Check out the concept
Of not driving vehicles where you can't see.
back up camera disabled or broken
Modern technology can overcome all blind spots. In fact this dump truck had a back up camera that wasn't working at the time. At this point, Truck operators have blind spots because they want to.
The motor vehicle bias is killing more and more people every year. This case makes it obvious. Backing up in an intersection is illegal to start with. It is evil to allow this to go on.
Trucks with blind spots ...
... should be banned from the road.
So in other words
Every single motorized vehicle in existence? Now, I’m sure you can brew your own kombucha, but who’s going to deliver your 70” OLED, your $300 raw Japanese selvedge skinnies and your special edition handmade Chucks? And your bike, for that matter?
If you can’t see my mirrors
I can’t see you.
If you can’t see ...
... what’s behind you. You have no business backing up.
My cheap ass hatchback has a rearview camera...
If cities are so full of danger maybe the *source* of the danger should take some responsibility and take appropriate precautions?
Surely the cost of a camera is minimal compared to the dump truck's TCO
This is victim blaming and
This is victim blaming and nothing else. The driver ran the victim over twice but you blame a pedestrian for wearing earbuds?
And sometimes the victim is
And sometimes the victim is to blame. Jurys don't always render the verdicts you like.
You should read the article
Then your reason can overtake your emotions.
I did read the article. That
I did read the article. That’s how I know the driver ran the victim over twice, genius.
Read it again
And again and again, until you stop fixating on a single line and understand what actually happened.
Oh wait, never mind, it’s kinopio! Look, a car! Bark! Fetch!
Jury Instructions
The judge instructed the jury that the victim's possible negligence (which was the defense attorney's speculation based on finding earbuds near her body) WAS NOT a defense to the charge here.
Maybe a valuable lesson for internet commenters too....
Here's the lesson maybe?
Have situational awareness.
Unplug the earbuds.
Be aware of your surroundings.
So, I read the links...
"According to a police report, another truck driver behind Desroche initially signaled that the intersection was clear but then frantically warned Desroche to “Stop! Stop! Stop!” when the second driver saw Zhao start to cross Putnam Avenue. Other motorists at the intersection beeped their horns and shouted, but no one could get Desroche’s attention, court documents said. Some witnesses told police that Zhao seemed to freeze and lost her footing when the truck began backing up."
Sounds like he acted responsibly, waved on by someone, then the situation changed.
Look, I'm not going to get into the argument about what happened here. I'll just say here's the lesson...you might be in the right, Jie Zhao may have been in the right. She's still dead. The world is not a perfect place. If you're in the way, you pay the penalty, unless you are aware and move accordingly.
The driver will live with this the rest of his life.
Don't glibly dismiss that statement. People kill themselves over guilt like that.
talk about glib, dude.
maybe you should try a little self-awareness yourself.
you know what? good. he should, because he took another life, out of his own inattentiveness. he should sit with it, and it should eat him up.
You're young. You haven't seen much.
'If you're in the way, you pay the penalty.'
Yes. I stand by that statement. Poor Jie Zhao is dead. The truck didn't get hurt.
'maybe you should try a little self-awareness yourself.'
I have plenty. My heart breaks for that girl. I wish someone was standing next to her on the sidewalk to grab her arm...
'The driver will live with this the rest of his life.'
Yes he will. I hope he can find peace.
'you know what? good. he should, because he took another life, out of his own inattentiveness. he should sit with it, and it should eat him up.'
It will, but as I said, I hope he can find some peace and healing.
As an aside, you're a horrible little
fuckperson. I pray that you never find yourself in a situation where something terrible happened and, as you look around, know that it's all on you.friend
I appreciate your calling me "young", it makes my Friday.
And I've seen plenty. I happen to currently live where traffic (and truly horrific deaths) are exponentially higher than in Boston.
I've seen how, even here, it comes down to responsible operation of a machine that is capable of killing people.
Have a blessed day.
Situational Awareness
You're 100% correct. It sounds like Desroche could have used a lot more situational awareness:
You've never driven a truck...
It doesn't take long. Guy waves you on, you press the clutch, throw it into reverse, scan the mirrors, look right, nobody, look left, nobody, let out the clutch, reverse beeper sounds nice and loud, hear a bunch of horns, stop. Now you've covered what, ten feet? Less? Pull forward.
How long, five seconds? Game over.
Read the article. He had no priors. He was a good driver.
Tell me, what would you have done differently? This is not a case of a crackhead with no CDL driving off a New Hampshire road killing seven people.
Your standards are very low
I understand that this person had no priors, but there is very little enforcement. How many people should die because truck driving is hard? I don't hate this truck driver, but we need to save lives. Victim blaming is natural, but it hasn't reduced deaths. The truth is that statistically, it doesn't matter whether the pedestrian is paying attention or not.
The facts of this case as presented don't show that the victim was negligent, they show that the jury is biased. Without video, you cannot reliably show that the victim crossed against the light. The victim would have had to know that the truck would back up. There is no evidence that the victim would have time to get out of the way, or tried to get out of the way. The record shows that the other truck driver attempted to stop the first drive but the truck didn't break fast enough. It is biased to expect the object impacted to anticipate the other vehicle. If this guy had back into another car, he would been found at fault. Laws must change to give drivers responsibility.
"Your standards are very low"
Actually, no. The jury ruled. I was not a witness, so I didn't see what happened that day. All we can do is infer what happened from the articles cited.
I'm glad you don't hate the truck driver. Perhaps you can see that he's a decent person that will have to deal with what happened.
"The truth is that statistically, it doesn't matter whether the pedestrian is paying attention or not. "
No. Absolutely not. If you believe that, I want to see a citation. It absolutely does matter if you are paying attention. You will see a possible danger. You will size it up. You will say to yourself, "Self? That truck is making a beeping sound. It's not moving, but it is in reverse. Maybe I'll wait a sec before I step off the curb."
The truck will move, you won't, and everyone goes off to the rest of their day. It's called keeping alive on a planet that doesn't care if you live or die.
"... they show that the jury is biased."
I dunno. They considered all the facts, facts that we don't have access to because we weren't there.
"It is biased to expect the object impacted to anticipate the other vehicle."
If by the object impacted you mean Jie Zhao, we anticipate the actions of other vehicles, people, objects constantly every day. This is how we negotiate through traffic, crowds, everything.
'Laws must change to give drivers responsibility.'
What? He was charged with vehicular homicide.
You can do your own research.
You can do your own research. We do anticipate the actions of others but it is impossible when a truck backs up in an intersection. It is not a driveway or a loading dock. It was illegal driving. He was charged with vehicular homicide and by even the limited evidence given, he was responsible for negligent homicide. The head phones were not in her ears when her body hit the ground. Assuming that they "might" have been in her ears is bias.
Again, if this truck had backed into another car, he would been found at fault.
Not if the car went against the signal like the pedestrian did..
So I don't think so.
Backing up in an intersection
Backing up in an intersection is going against the signal. why is a pedestrian held to a higher standard than a driver?
Never said a higher standard.
Just pointing out the difference if a vehicle knew they may have a red light for pedestrians for backing up and looked through their mirrors and did not see one.
What traffic lights allow a
What traffic lights allow a driver to back up in an intersection over a crosswalk? The driver was aware that his backup camera was broken and he did not have a coworker flagging him. You are clearly expecting the pedestrian to be more careful than a licensed truck driver.
I expect the pedestrian not to walk when the red hand is up
Not complicated.
And I'm very fucking careful when and if I decide to cross a street against the proper signal.
Again, why are you holding
Again, why are you holding the pedestrian to a higher standard then the Class B CDL dump truck driver who knowingly backed with a broken/disabled back up camera? If the driver had backed into a car, they would be at fault.
A parked car? Sure.
I'm not mentioning standards anywhere. I'm talking about what I do when I walk around the city (or anywhere) and I don't want to get hurt.
Plus, standards are always subjective.
If a drunk driver crosses an intersection legally and another car comes the other way speeding through a red light and crashes into the drunk driver, who is more at fault?
This is nonsensical. What
This is nonsensical. What does a parked car have to do with it? It is biased to assign any blame to the pedestrian. How is it reasonable for her to expect the dump truck to back up? She didn't cross in front of the truck she crossed behind it. The truck had a broken back up camera. He had no right to back up without a without a co-worker standing back there signaling. His view was obstructed and he backed up any way.
A parked car isn't breaking the law
Unless it was illegally parked. A person who crosses against a light is breaking the law. How is that nonsensical?
Have you walked in a city? You should expect unreasonable things all the time. I don't care if I have the white hand and a green light, I still look to see if cars are coming or turning illegally that might not see me.
His view was obstructed and a person broke the law and crossed in back of him. That is a fact. He probably expected someone would see and hear a dump truck backing up two streets away from where he was doing a paving job.
I will be crystal clear for you...
You are correct that the issue is whether the driver acted negligently. That went to a jury. I disagree with the verdict, but I am not arguing that.
You seem to be missing my point that whether or not the victim was wearing earbuds has NO BEARING on that first issue.
Banning car stereos, are we
No?
How about requiring all drivers to never have roofs on their cars?
No?
Examine your understanding of what people can/can't hear and then check stats on which type of vehicle driver kills the most.
Deaf people
Glad I'm not deaf. Apparently it's legal to kill someone with a hearing disability.
Isn’t there a significant moral difference
Between hitting a blind person, and hitting someone who deliberately puts on a blindfold and walks into traffic?
In neither case is it ok to hit a pedestrian of course, but they are two very different cases.
Bad analogy
Someone who puts on a blindfold and walks into traffic is suicidal. Not figuratively, literally. They are looking to end their life or at least get hurt.
Someone wearing headphones (a device 95% of the population owns and uses) is not looking to die. Neither is someone wearing earmuffs when it's cold for that matter.
The pedestrian wasn't doing something wreckless like walking into a construction site. The driver did not set out to hit the person, but it was their fault the person struck. The pedestrian didn't strike the truck.
Don’t wear headphones when it is not safe to do so
Someone wearing headphones in an environment where situational awareness is necessary for safety is acting with reckless disregard for their own well being. That lots of people do it doesn’t alter that, any more than “lots of people drive drunk,” or “lots of people text while driving” excuses either of those behaviors.
Deliberately interfering with your hearing while walking around, especially near traffic or heavy machinery, is reckless self endangerment.
Not true
Right, people driving have no responsibility to know the surroundings of their vehicles. It's everyone else who is responsible.
Glad you cleared that up.
Contributory negligence?
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of contributory negligence? Contributory negligence on the part of the victim does not relieve the culpability of the other party. It is not an either/or thing and I have in no way claimed that it is.
Hypocrite and victim-blamer
I’m glad you always drive your windows down and radio off. That makes us all safer when you drive your two tons of metal and plastic!
Thanks for doing your part and not being part of the proven and blaming a dead person!
Prove that she was wearing headphones
They were found nearby. That doesn't mean anything. I keep mine in my pocket, but if I were run over they would probably end up near my body.
This is a stupid argument. A fake argument. A "drivers get to kill people free" argument.
Was the driver using a stereo in the truck? Were the windows up? Those impair hearing, too.
Victim blaming knows no bounds when precious drivers might be held accountable for their death toll.
I hope you don’t listen to
I hope you don’t listen to music or talk to anyone while you are driving then. Oh, those rules don’t apply to the people operating 2 ton deadly weapons? Cool hypocrisy, bro.
I don’t wear earphones while driving
Because doing so is unsafe and illegal.
If you take the time to read what I have posted in this thread I hope you will see that I am in no way exonerating the driver nor am I blaming the victim (I have no reason to believe she was wearing earphones at the time). I was responding to the poster who tried to equate wearing earphones with deafness. One is a disability; the other is deliberate self impairment.
own up to it, Bob.
you absolutely are, and you know it. you went head first into your justification of this person's murder-by-truck and now you're trying to backpedal.
don't be a coward.
Not victim blaming
If I say, “don’t leave your laptop on the seat of your car with the door unlocked,” would you accuse me of victim blaming?
Yeah, you ought to be able to do so, and the thief who steals your laptop is to morally to blame and not you, but my advice remains, “don’t leave valuable shit lying around.”
And if you were my employee, and if it had been my laptop you left lying out in plain sight, I would be justifiably pissed off at you for your negligence. Would you interpret my position as exonerating the thief?
Wearing earbuds while moving around in shared public space is needlessly stacking the deck against yourself.
When someone is dead, its
When someone is dead, its monstrous.
What difference would headphones make when driving?
You already can't hear much street noise when driving. And car radios aren't prohibited. A modern, high quality car is effectively a sound booth.
So driving such a car would be deliberate self impairment in your world. After all, the driver would be purposefully cutting off their hearing as soon as they closed the car door.
Getting back to this trial, how do you know the woman didn't scream "STOP" but the truck driver didn't hear her? Why is it only her hearing which matters?
I have no comment on this particular case
because I have no knowledge of this case. My comments pertain to the practice of wearing earphones while walking around
Sometimes while walking down a busy street ...
.. I am forced to cover my ears because of the noise from motors and drivers who lean on their horns. I get why people wear earbuds.
The trouble with wearing earbuds, however, is
that wearing them blocks out sounds not only of motor vehicles, but the sounds of people with bad intentions who are looking for easy victims.
A former co-worker of mine was wearing her SONY walkman and listening to music, while walking home from work at night. A couple of roughnecks mugged her, took her stuff, and threw her in the bushes. She learned the hard way never to wear earbuds and listen to music while walking around in public, especially at night. It's only common sense. It's unfortunately, however, that she had to learn the hard way.
That, and also...
Also the sounds of people with good intentions who are interested in helping you.
I was in an airport yesterday. A guy sitting across from me stood up and started walking towards his gate, having left behind a charger, a battery pack, and some other electronic thing I didn't recognize. I picked them up and followed him, trying to get his attention, but, being a self-centered jackass, he was walking around wearing headphones and so couldn't hear me. After about the third loudly voiced, "Excuse me, you forgot this." I was about to toss them in a trash can, when someone else tapped him on the elbow and pointed at me. He put out his hand for the electronics without even a hint of "thank you".
you have issues
Wearing headphones makes you a "self-centered jackass"?
Little extreme no?
The guy with the earphones was careless enough as it was.
Yet, the fact that the guy who'd left his stuff behind kept his headphones on, thus making hi oblivious to what was going on, including a person who was out to help him, does make the man the the headphones a self-centered jackass who does have issues, not Bob LePonge. Keep up the good work, Bob. We need more people like you in the world!
I am pretty sure this is not
I am pretty sure this is not Bob's job. And I guess you would think it was great work to insult the dead.
notes to self:
- vehicles and heavy machinery are priority at all times.
- city not built nor intended for people. only machines.
thanks for this Bob. you know, sometimes it amazes me you choose to post these kinds of things under your real name.
If you get that from what I wrote...
Please reread the thread. Nothing that I have written could reasonably be construed as exonerating the driver. My sole point remains that trying to walk around shared public space while wearing a blindfold, or while wearing earphones, or with your ankles tied together, is reckless self endangerment. That would be true even if cars and trucks did not exist
I didn't say you exonerated the driver
however, this perfectly illustrates the problem:
first of all, you are equating those three things as if they were equal. by extension, you imply that a person wearing headphones in public wants to be injured.
second, you are putting the onus squarely on the individual pedestrian and not on the operator of a multi-ton vehicle that, through the smallest error or careless operation can injure or kill other living beings.
your logic would seem to indicate that if I step out of my home and into public with so much as anything less than the situational awareness of a Navy Seal, I am to blame for any injury I might sustain, even when that comes at the hands of someone wielding what is, essentially, a gas-powered weapon on wheels. That person, on the other hand, is apparently exempt from the situational awareness requirement, even though that carries an exponentially higher risk.
all of us are pedestrians at some point in our day. but driving is a choice, and as most of our parents said to us at one time, a privilege. you want to drive a truck in public? make sure you can do that responsibly. and yes, that means always being aware of and able to react proactively to protect pedestrians and other more vulnerable motorists, whether they see you or not.
Not what I wrote.
They are not equal but they are similar, in that each of them entails voluntarily doing something to yourself that reduces your awareness of the world around your or your ability to deal with the task of moving around safely in it.
How would you or I know whether the person who puts on a blindfold, or ties his ankles together, or puts earphones in his ears wants to be injured? All we can see is the facts, which is that each of these three actions increases the chances that he or she will be injured.
Not in the slightest. The responsibility is on the driver to avoid me as a pedestrian, just as the responsibility is on the passer-by not to break into my car and steal my stuff. But in either case, there actions that I can take that either tend to increase or decrease my risk.
Only if you look at any event as having a single cause, and only if you're looking through the lens of "whom to blame" rather than "how to prevent such occurrences." Professionals who investigate complex failures such as airplane accidents or building collapses tend to favor the "Swiss cheese" approach, which is worth looking into if you're not familiar with it.
So you are saying that
So you are saying that drivers should not listen to music, talk on the phone or look at their GPS when driving, correct?
It wasn't unsafe
She was crossing the street looking at the back end of a truck that had already gone through the intersection. It's illegal for him to back up into an intersection in a vehicle of any size, let alone a giant dump truck with blind spots and a broken camera. He knows that because he has a professional driver's license, which is supposed to hold him to a higher standard than the average driver. He was 100% at fault. The buds were found near her body not in her ears so it's supposition that she was wearing them at all but even if she was, she was not at fault or putting herself in danger. You are holding her to a higher standard than the driver who was breaking the law before murdering her.
isn't there a significant moral difference
between reality and this nonsense you just put here?
for real? you should probably be more than a little ashamed of yourself.
that was gross.
Was this really what decided the case?
I don't know whether the victim was actually wearing her earpods or not, and I don't think it should matter, because the operator of a large machine that is capable of killing people should have the primary responsibility in ensuring that it does not do so. I don't think there's any evidence, however, that the jury considered whether she was wearing them or not. The judge told them not to, and the foreman says they didn't, but focused entirely on the behavior of the driver. Whether or not they came to the right conclusion on that, they shouldn't be faulted for a line of reasoning they did not take.
And it's not clear she even was listening
Note that the lawyer (I assume that's what Adam meant to write) said she "may" have been listening. If there were proof, I'm sure that "may" would have been omitted.
She also crossed against the light
which is illegal, but backing up in an intersection like this is also probably legally illegal.
Wow!
If, indeed, the victim did cross against the light, that's not only illegal, but beyond stupid, and irresponsible. I'm not exonerating the driver of the truck, but if the victim really did cross against the light, she also helped put herself in danger.
Do we really if she was
Do we really know if she was crossing against the light when the video was disabled. Is it your fear of death that causes you to say so many heartless things about dead people?
Oh, come off of it, will you!?
Crossing against a light does help put people in danger, at least in part because not everybody is responsible enough to slow down and protect pedestrians against their own stupidity.
Backup cameras
Maybe it's time that trucks be required to have backup cameras just like passenger vehicles.
Are you suggesting that these
Are you suggesting that these companies...retrofit the trucks to make them safer in urban environments? The job losses that would cause would be staggering! How could you suggest such a thing. Go away.
Ridiculous.
I know someone who just retrofitted her car with an inexpensive kit. Took her 20 min to install.
This truck had a backup camera
But it was not working at the time.
Backup cameras cause other problems
Backup cameras can be really helpful, but I find people end up with tunnel vision, totally relying on the camera. Yes, use the camera, but also look to your sides to see if anybody is approaching. People get zeroed into the screen and don't look around.
This is great SAFETY news for Centre St drivers in West Roxbury
This would make a fine SAFETY TIP for promotion by Steve Morris and his fellow MOTORIST SAFETY experts at the West Roxbury Speedway Association. To remain SAFE from prosecution, honk your horn prior to blowing through crosswalks. This SAFELY ANNOUNCES YOUR INTENTIONS and makes it clear that you are NOT stopping for crossing pedestrians.
Stay SAFE out there!
Huh?
Is this English?
Cambridge Day reports a Middlesex Superior Court jury today found the driver of a dump truck who hit and killed Jie Zhao, 27, at Magazine and Putnam streets last year, after a trial in which the driver's driver suggested the MIT graduate was to blame for her death because she may have been listening to music and so unable to hear the truck's back-up beeping.
The jury found the driver at Magazine and Putnam and the driver's driver made a suggestion?
Looks like Adam was kicking a few back last night...
the driver
of the truck, (and sole proprietorship or company that owns it) are responsible to operate it without killing pedestrians. you have a flagger get out into traffic and back up the driver of the truck with semaphores. there are a multitude of types of individuals who would have been killed in this situation, either because deaf, elderly, or from a culture or state more used to a greater share of intepersonal humanity.
Wow
Given the Boston area's track record on cases involving motorists killing non-motorists, I am simply shocked that the driver got off without penalty. What an outlier!
This verdict is outrageous.
With all the other noises going on in traffic, it’s not always clear where those back up beeps are coming from.
The driver should have made sure the area was clear before backing up.
This sends a message to all drivers that killing people with your vehicle is okay.
"asking the detail officer "
So what exactly was this "detail officer" doing or not doing? For the amount an inattentive police officer makes one can get 2-3 flag men to be posted strategically around the job site, thanks for being useless Boston police/staties
Detail officers are either on
Detail officers are either on their phones, talking to another detail officer or talking to the construction crew. Very rarely are they actually watching out for pedestrians.
Walked against the light
Walking against the light puts at least 50% of the blame on her. Maybe more. I'd say 100% except the broken back-up cam and reversing into intersection.
If the light says "Don't Walk", then don't walk.
Pedestrians in every other city seem to understand how to cross a street and share the road. In Boston for some reason, Pedestrians ignore the signs.
And yes, I'm a pedestrian also.
Vastly more pedestrians are...
... struck by drivers while crossing a street in a crosswalk with the walk light than in any other part of the street.
There simply is no excuse for killing someone with your vehicle. Stop trying to victim blame.
Nope, sorry
"Don't Walk" means, don't walk. It's really simple.
Most of the time, drivers who kill pedestrians are at fault, but
when a pedestrian is stupid and irresponsible enough to dart out in front of a car whose driver is driving either at or below the posted speed limit, that does put part of the responsibility on the part of the pedestrian.
Years ago, while driving to school and looking for a parking space, I was going 15 mph on an ordinary city street. A young woman darted out into the street, right in front of my car. I hit the brake pedal just in the nick of time, heard an awful thud, and for one sickening moment, thought I'd hit her. There she was on the other side of the street, safe, unharmed, and accounted for.
A few minutes later, when I entered the school, I encountered the same young woman in the lobby of the school. Our conversation, although brief, went like this:
Me: Hey! Do you know that I almost hit you?
Young woman who darted across the street, right in front of my car: (turning all colors from embarrassment): I know, and you can tell everybody that I'm that stupid girl who darted right in front of your car to cross the street, at the last minute.
She did apologize, however, realizing that she'd also put herself in danger by darting out into the street, right in front of my car, at the last minute.
“Don’t walk, for no reason.”
Of the closest dozen or so intersections to my house, I’d say that ten or so of them have a substantial portion of the cycle during which no cars are allowed to proceed across the crosswalk and yet the pedestrian signal says “don’t walk”. For example, a one way side street tees into a main street; the sign says “no turn on red”; the light controlling the side street is red, and yet the pedestrian signal crossing the side street says “don’t walk.” I have tried reporting via 311 and have been brushed off with “case closed; signal working.”
The city should stop training us to ignore the “don’t walk” signals.
Unfortunately, however,
Pedestrians, at least here in Boston, are often just as stupid as a lot of drivers, if not stupider. It's the drivers' obligation to protect pedestrians from their own stupidity, but pedestrians are also obligated to take a certain amount of responsibility by not violating the "DON'T WALK" signs, and, if they're out riding or walking at night, to wear, or at least carry something light-colored that will enable them to be seen.
Complex sentence...
Found the driver innocent? Guilty? I see the headline (acquitted), but looks like the end of the sentence is missing. Just saying.
Pedestrian hunting season is
Pedestrian hunting season is open... Fill your gas guzzlers and mow them down. Remember driving on the sidewalk is A.O.K in Boston.
Pro-tip: the pedestrian was
Pro-tip: the pedestrian was killed in Cambridge. Cambridge is a shit-show for pedestrians and has gotten much worse with the supposed road improvements.
Huh. Do they make non gas
Huh. Do they make non gas guzzling dump trucks yet? Was your street built with Priuses? (Prii?). Was someone trying to mow anyone down? Please try to stay on topic.
What or who is a "driver's
What or who is a "driver's driver"?
Drive like someone else's life depends on it
From the article:
"...another dump truck driver who was traveling behind Desroche to the same repaving job on Pearl Street, was watching the intersection at Desroche’s request and radioed him to stop when he saw Zhao in the roadway, but the weight and type of brakes on Desroche’s truck lengthened the time it took to bring it to a halt."
Meaning that he was driving to fast for the circumstances. He was backing up, through an intersection, and despite the fact that he had a spotter he couldn't stop in time. With a busted back-up camera. Sure sounds like negligence to me.
First and Foremost obey the Laws of Physics
Sorry -- there are human created laws and then there are the laws of nature
Break the former and then throw yourself at the mercy of a Judge or Jury and you might be absolved. Break the latter [e.g. Newton's Laws of Motion] and your fervent wishes and prayers may not be able to help you.
A key corollary of the Laws of Physics -- soft, relatively light things made of a combination of fragile and low tensile strength [easily tearable] materials -- need to look out for our own safety -- don't trust others' behavior to protect us.
As someone has posted to use the War Fighters expression -- "Have Situational Awareness at all times"
Ear Buds and Smart Phones with high res displays are the major impediments to Situational Awareness. Note the latest gen of ear buds with noise cancellation are very good at suppressing background sounds such as horns and yells from your fellow pedestrians.
In other words -- Don't Cross an Intersection with your ear-buds on and your head down -- the consequences can be not just unpleasant -- they can be FATAL*1
*1 Full Disclosure -- a couple of years ago I was driving quite slowly while leaving the UNH Campus when I encountered a couple of UNH students nearly randomly wandering across a fairly major street [and not even at an intersection] with their heads down staring at their phones and wearing ear buds. When I honked to give them the proverbial "Heads-Up" -- neither of them even looked up from what they were doing. I waited patiently until there was a wide gap in the student parade and then proceeded away from the campus area ASAP.
you got it backwards
If you want the privilege of operating a large, dangerous vehicle that can easily kill people and animals, it is your responsibility to have even greater situational awareness.
Its on you not to kill people.
Driving is not a universal right.
Well,
This:
is true, but pedestrians also have an obligation to display some common sense, not cross against a light, and to also protect themselves from from their own stupidity, by acting smarter than they often do and obeying the DON'T WALK sign..
pedestrians don't kill people
pedestrians don't kill people. By law walking is an entitlement. please think about your heartless comments, a person died.
she didn't dart in front of the dump truck, it backed over her without looking. backing up in an intersection is illegal and negligent. Why are you holding this dead women to higher standard of safety than the driver?
Try a Maritime example
You are in a small sea kayak in Boston outer harbor -- the pedestrian
The USS John F. Kennedy CVN - 79 -- the newest aircraft carrier in the US Fleet is visiting Boston shortly after its commissioning*1
You are in the designated small boat area to watch the majestic entrance of the carrier into Boston Harbor -- but your view is limited by larger small boats [you are essentially in the water] -- so you take caution to the wind and move into the front rank [just across the line established by the US Coast Guard]
On comes the JFK all 100,000 tons majestically moving -- you are so entranced by the spectacle that you move further into the path of the ship -- divers later find pieces of you and your kayak which had been chewed-up by the Kennedy's massive props
Should the JFK have run over you -- NO! -- of course not!
Should you have been aware that things the size of aircraft carriers:
YES -- Absolutely!
PS: it works for trucks and people, even cars and people, trucks and cars, trucks and bicycles, etc.
Moral of the story -- You need to be aware that big heavy things may squash you like a proverbial bug -- you might have been in the right -- but you are still DEAD!
*1
from the Wikipedia USS JFK
from Kennedy Christening Ceremony
https://thefordclass.com/cvn79/christening.html
Cambridge drivers are far
Cambridge drivers are far worse than Boston drivers. Stay safe out there fellow pedestrians and cyclists!