Hey, there! Log in / Register
Two pedestrians hit in Chinatown, one dragged three miles to Dorchester
By adamg on Mon, 02/01/2016 - 7:17am
UPDATE: Bail set at $5,000 (DA asked for $7,500).
WBZ reports a woman was dragged by the SUV that hit her on Kneeland Street around 1:40 a.m. to Columbia Road in Uphams Corner. A man was also hit, but not dragged.
Xiao Ying Zhou, 44, a massage therapist from Sandwich, will be arraigned in Boston Municipal Court today on two counts of leaving the scene of a collision causing personal injury, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office report. The female victim, 48, remains alive, the DA's office says.
Innocent, etc.
Neighborhoods:
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
More pedestrians hit or more reported?
It seems that there have been more pedestrians struck in 2016 than I am used to hearing about in the media (aka UniversalHub). Are more pedestrians being hit or are we just hearing about more pedestrians being hit?
This one is reported because
This one is reported because of the unusual circumstances. How many times have you heard a pedestrian getting hit by a car, and then somehow being dragged for miles, with the driver presumably unaware?
#VisionZero
It's not just the type of injury suffered that is glaring here, though this certainly is particularly awful. Just one month into 2016 so far..... An elderly woman was killed in a crosswalk on Washington St in Roslindale. A woman was hit on Hyde Park Ave. A man was struck and killed on Dot Ave. And this past Friday night, a woman was struck in the crosswalk on Washington St near Roslindale Square. Common to each incident? The pedestrians were in crosswalks yet still hit. People are driving too fast and not paying attention. Vision Zero is a welcome and desperately needed initiative we all need to get behind.
Try "Zero Vision"
Vision Zero needs to have some solid planning around it. If Mahhhhty the Cahhhbaby's latest plans for what some wag called BosVegas are any indication, we will get more "wider sidewalks in some places" where a total redo and beefed up pedestrian infrastructure is already critically overdue, serving as his "vision" for the city.
And more massive tax breaks for GE and its ilk. And a redundant bridge rebuilt solely for his construction friends to run over budget on. Etc,
Can we ship him to Dallas now?
Boston 311 didn't work!
Boston 311 didn't work!
What is this referring to
What is this referring to specifically?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
What does that have to do
What does that have to do with Vision Zero? One is an international effort to eliminate fatalities. The other is a Boston program to report neighborhood problems like potholes, graffiti, etc, one that has actually been fairly successful for me as most things I report are fixed within days.
We report safety issues and
We report safety issues and hazards constantly, and 311 says "call police" if you see cars parked in a bike lane, making illegal turns, running reds.
311 should be looking at patterns. If cars are repeatedly causing problems in the same areas, 311 needs to respond accordingly.
drivers are also more distracted than ever
Honestly, what is it going to take to stop drivers from using cel phones??
Its not just cell phones, its too much video in life
A couple weeks ago In Arlington, a woman drove into the back of a parked 18 wheeler which was pulled over making a delivery! "The car's driver told police her mind was elsewhere..."
The problem is that more and more moving pictures (video) in our lives has trained our brains to be less attentive to the relatively static things we need to pay attention to. Consider animals that hunt, like cats, are very attuned to movements. It used to be that moving pictures were just in theaters and then TV. Now, web pages are full of them for people to swallow content on computer, and now everywhere on cell phones. Video games are immersion in moving pictures. Web producers including news outlets, Vine, You Tube etc. are making content ever more dynamic with video, rotating ads, and ticker tape banners to hold attention.
Its all training us to be more like cats and desensitizing us to really important, but relatively slow moving things in our real life existence, including pedestrians.
Problem 2 is illustrated by the woman driving into the back of that truck: homogenized road design and low speeds (usually due to congestion and ever more traffic lights) induces trance and inattentiveness. When roads are stripped of character and made all uniform like where the woman drove into the truck, drivers end up paying less attention to the road because it demands less attention - all the same, uniform with painted lanes, and looks more like every other road. That type of collision didn't happen before the stretch of road was striped with lanes.
10/10
Nail on the head. People were never distracted before those confounded moving pictures ruined our lives. Glad you found time to criticize the lack of an inner-city Autobahn as the essential reason the collision happened, too. Well done.
It's doubly confusing to me.
It's doubly confusing to me. This is coming from anti-public transit Markk, who seems to be making a case for distracted/aloof drivers to get out from behind the wheel and let someone (dare I say) more responsible take care of their transportation needs. But I never thought his arguments amounted to him being the most rational or consistent.....
Public transit is the perfect place
for people who prefer to focus on their cellphones to scan Facebook, Twitter, uhub, tinder, grindr etc. instead of driving or watching where they walk.
Oh, I'm aware.
Just more befuddled by your backhanded endorsement of public transportation in that regard.
I think more reported
I guy I know was killed after being hit by a car in Boston back in the 90s. It wasn't a hit and run, no drunk driving or any circumstance like that. Consequently, there was nothing in the papers or TV (the only way news came out back then) about it.
I'd love to see the stats, but my gut is that car-pedestrian incidents are probably the same in number.
In 2014, 1,279 people, 2-3
In 2014, 1,279 people, 2-3 per day, on average, who were walking or bicycling required EMS due to a crash on Boston roads. (Source: Boston EMS) - http://www.visionzeroboston.org/media
I had to look it up
Fatalities are on a downward slide nationwide, going from 6,482 pedestrian deaths in 1990 to 4,735 in 2013 (most recent year.)
Injuries have gone down similarly, going from 104,805 injuries in 1990 to 66,000 (most likely roughly) in 2013.
This is not to say the levels of deaths and injuries are acceptable, or that we should be complacent in our efforts, just that the numbers are down. Much like any horrible thing, reporting on it makes it seem more common than it is.
However - take a look at
However - take a look at Smart Growth America's Dangerous by Design 2014 Report.
"In 2012, pedestrians accounted for nearly 15 percent of all traffic deaths, up 6 percent from 2011 and representing a five-year high.
Dangerous by Design 2014 takes a look at where these fatalities happen and who’s most at risk, presenting data from every county, metro area, and state. As in past years, Sunbelt communities that grew in the post-war period top the list of most dangerous regions. These areas developed rapidly, with many low-density neighborhoods overly dependent on extra wide, fast arterials to connect homes, schools, jobs and shops. Such roads rarely feature the facilities needed for safe travel by foot. The report also calls out the unacceptably high number of pedestrian deaths seen in nearly every major metro region.
The fact is that even our most walk-friendly communities can—and must—do more.
More than half of all pedestrian fatalities occur on arterials, and over 60 percent of these tragedies occur on roads with speed limits of 40 mph or higher. These roads were not planned or designed for more than speeding traffic.
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/research/dangerous-by-design/dbd2014/n...
Wow, Boston is safest place to walk!
Thanks for that design and construction industry funded report! Really good news that Boston was ranked lowest pedestrian danger among the 51 metropolitan areas they listed. Our safety on the streets explained by:
Sadly, there is no mention at all of how about a third of pedestrians killed are legally drunk or on drugs and how they would solve that.
Cite?
Please provide a citation to substantiate this, along with evidence showing that said intoxication caused the accident.
Ah, blessed silence...
Already cited during race discussion
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810995.PDF
See page 8. Google will assist you in your other search. A big problem are drunk people stumbling off sidewalks and into traffic, or otherwise not looking before stepping in front of a vehicle.
Recently in NYC, a drunk passenger in a cab died after asking the driver to stop so he could vomit. He got out and walked in front of a moving MTA bus which unsuccessfully swerved to try to avoid him.
Wow
Mogadishu may be the safest place to be in Somalia, too!
Doesn't mean much.
But thanks for the tiny clip of a big report that proves that speeding kills and speed limits should be lower in many places.
Kneeland Street traffic signs and traffic lights.
Traffic signs and traffic lights need great improvement for the intersection of Kneeland Street at Harrison Avenue as well as Washington Street at Kneeland Street and Stuart Street. Tufts Medical Center patients have difficulties crossing the streets.
I concur
I cross that street at least twice a day and EVERYONE has trouble crossing the street. There are so many lights that drivers don't realize they have a red and go straight through it. I make sure that they are actually going to stop before crossing (and only on a walk signal - the street is dangerous enough!). I have had to pull strangers out of the path of cars before...
Washington and Kneeland
The walk sign comes on but the cars turning right have a green light. I am so sick of these type of intersections. There is a really dangerous one by the Science Museum coming from the bridge going to the Cambridgeside Galleria as well. What genius thought that the illuminated walk sign at the same time as turning cars with a green light was a good thing?
A greed light does not give turning traffic the right of way
Turning traffic, regardless of what direction, must yield to oncoming traffic, whether it is pedestrian traffic or auto traffic. In most cases it's not much of an issue, in some, it might be a good idea for an exclusive phase.
Maybe the people that...
Planned all of the intersections in Manhattan. That's how every walk sign works there.
Not all according to this
Not all according to this source. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/exclusive-ped-signals.shtml
The same genius who decided
The same genius who decided that drivers turning left need to yield to, you know, oncoming drivers and pedestrians.
It typically works well at
It typically works well at Atlantic and Summer, albeit for the left turn. I can tell you as a pedestrian who spent copious amounts of time walking on Kneeland Street to Stuart Street and back over the past 2-3 years that being a pedestrian around the intersections of Kneeland, Washington, and Lincoln could become extremely frustrating, as it always felt that the cars had priority.
You're right. The cars do
You're right. The cars do have priority in those areas. Cars have a lot of green time while pedestrians have very little walk time.
Are you sure about that? Has
Are you sure about that? Has this changed recently? For the last many years, the walk signal at Washington and Kneeland has been an exclusive phase, where pedestrians may only cross when all traffic has a red light.
You get out much?
You get out much?
New England is the only place in the world that uses exclusive pedestrian phasing. Which makes Boston the only major City with exclusive pedestrian phasing. Even Cambridge has mostly concurrent pedestrian phasing at this point.
This is the 2nd comment in a matter of days where not only was the commenter baffled that there isnt exclusive pedestrian phasing at a specific intersection, but clearly had no idea that Boston is the only place where exclusive phasing even exists at all and assumes the concurrent phasing is some kind of mistake or the result of incompetence. It just shows the ignorance when not only is the commenter questioning the intelligence of the engineers for having concurrent phasing but also has no idea that the rest of the world doesnt even consider exclusive phasing an option.
Time for Bostonians to grow up (drivers and pedestrians), learn the rules of the road (yes you can turn right--or left at one way street intersections--on red after coming to a complete stop even if there is a walk sign as long as there arent any pedestrians), stop jaywalking (no the pedestrian does not have carte blanche right of way at a signalized intersection), and pay the F attention when they are driving.
Incorrect. This occurs in Las
Incorrect. This occurs in Las Vegas as well.
Every intersection in Las
Every intersection in Las Vegas I just checked (on the strip and off) in street view has concurrent pedestrian phasing. You can clearly see the green and walk together.
Some intersections may not allow pedestrians during left turn arrow advance phases, but pedestrians do get a walk signal while through and right turn vehicles have a green.
There arent any exclusive pedestrian phases when all vehicles are under a red signal and pedestrians have a walk signal.
Incorrect
I walk through the intersection of Washington and Kneeland twice every single day - there is absolutely no time when a green light and a walk signal appear at the same time.
The one by the Museum of
The one by the Museum of Science actually has an LED No Turn on Red sign. When the walk signal says Walk, the NTOR sign lights up. Once the walk signal says Don't Walk, the NTOR sign turns off as well. There are no times when pedestrians have a Walk indication when cars can turn right (either legally on Red or on Green.)
Same place?
Are you sure you mean the Gilmore bridge if you are walking from Charlestown, toward the direction of the Galleria Mall? That light for cars on Gilmore west going to Land Blvd, is green at the same time that walkers coming off the Gilmore and crossing O'Brien Hwy have a walk sign. Meaning if those drivers are turning right instead of going straight to Land Blvd, then they have to be alert to walkers crossing O'Brien. And the walkers need to be alert and double check behind their shoulder.
Speaking of that area - Lechmere Station Jay walkers
When a train or bus empties out at the station, a mob of pedestrians crosses the street to the Mall, completely ignoring when their signal goes from walk to Don't Walk. Its like that at many T stations, including Porter and the Tufts Medical Center stop, though cyclists ignore their red light on Washington Street too.
This is why it's important to
This is why it's important to make pedestrian crossings convenient around T stations. The signal at First St requires pedestrians to wait quite a long time, so they often don't. Of course, people should obey them, but I understand why they don't.
This is a gripe of mine
Back in the 1990s the City of Boston decided that our walk signs should be like other cities with countdowns. The thing is, in places like Washington DC they have countdowns to walk, not just countdowns to don't walk. If people knew that they'd get the sign in 30 seconds, even I would wait, and I am a notorious jaywalker.
I was in Latvia once. I was driving by a shopping center and saw that a left turn signal to get into the mall had a countdown. For the drivers. Because when people know it will be another 20 or 30 seconds, they will wait. If they don't know when, if ever, they will be able to cross, they will take the risks.
Exactly. And instead of
Exactly. And instead of harping on the perfectly fine intersections where the green light is concurrent with the walk signal, how about the numerous intersections that show a Don't Walk sign when there is no legally conflicting car traffic. Want to know why pedestrians "jaywalk" around here, Mark? Try standing at the corner facing a red hand sign, knowing that it is perfectly safe to cross because no drivers with the green would conflict, and not knowing how long till the white hand sign will appear.
If every fifth red light you encountered was at an intersection where drivers and pedestrians in every other direction had red lights, perhaps you'd better understand the plight of pedestrians around here instead of going off on rants about bikes and jaywalkers and pedestrians not wearing neon vests at night.
That sounds correct for that
That sounds correct for that signal at the Gilmore Bridge. That's a pretty standard signal timing. Right turning traffic must yield to pedestrians.
seriously - sit at the corner
seriously - sit at the corner of harrison and kneeland. i work right around there, and without exaggeration, once a week I see someone blow through that red light. it's very hard to see from the street.
Only once a week? Sounds like
Only once a week? Sounds like the safest intersection in the city.
clarification - once a week
clarification - once a week while I'm walking to or from work - i only am at that intersection for maybe two light cycles a day, but I see a car blatantly (like, 5-10 seconds post-turning red) blow through the light at least once a week, or i guess once every 10 cycles. it's really bad. they also built scaffolding on one of the buildings around the light to further obfuscate it.
please report dangerous sports to the city
using this handy map!
http://app01.cityofboston.gov/VZSafety/#_=_
about the map:
http://www.wbur.org/2016/01/25/boston-vision-zero-mapping-tool
Man that's horrible. Not to
Man that's horrible. Not to sound crass but how does something like that happen for so far?
Horrifying
I can't even imagine being dragged by a car for 3 miles. Damn.
Right? That is one tough
Right? That is one tough cookie! I hope she comes out of it OK.
"OK"
I don't think it's possible to get dragged three miles and come out of it "OK". She might survive, but she'll almost certainly have permanent problems. This is something that's usually overlooked when an accident victim isn't killed outright, the ongoing cost to the victim.
Horrifying indeed. Another
Horrifying indeed. Another horrifying aspect of this story is that the driver will be legally behind the wheel again in no time. This will be nothing but a mild inconvenience for the driver while their victims suffer in the hospital. And Marty "I'm a Car Guy" Walsh will do nothing while other cities like Oslo save lives by banning cars from city centers.
see psychic above
see psychic above
You're as bad as MarKKK
Kinopio, I have sympathy with where you're coming from, but you are getting to be just as knee-jerk and just as unbalanced as MarKKK. Why don't you try to temper your postings with a little reality, use phrases like "it's likely that the driver will be back behind the wheel in a short time", provide citations of past cases that indicate why you think this is likely, etc. And, why don't you consider that most of us have heard your tirades before, and we get it. It's not aging like a fine wine, it's turning into vinegar.
I would love nothing more for
I would love nothing more for there to be no stories about drivers hitting pedestrians to comment on. Unfortunately it happens all too often and pedestrians shouldn't sit around being happy about the status quo.
There isn't enough time in the day to cite all the examples of dangerous drivers not getting their licenses terminated or even punished at all. If you really want an example how about the guy who sped through a stop sign on Beacon Street and killed two pedestrians in the crosswalk. His license was not terminated. Or the guy who hit my wife in a crosswalk 3 months ago. The cop didn't even give him a ticket and let him go on his merry way to have dinner in a restaurant while my wife was looked at by paramedics. That is the "reality", chief.
So keep it on point, "chief"
That's fine, Kinopio. Cite actual cases. Provide facts, including dates and outcomes. Most especially, provide something that's comparable to the current case, a hit-and-run driver who dragged the victim for three miles. If you can't, maybe you should strengthen your case by refraining from stating (not speculating, you didn't speculate, you said what WOULD happen) what will happen in this case, "chief".
How are things in Western MA?
How are things in Western MA?
Since you ask
They're fine, cupcake! Hey, did you know that I work three blocks from that intersection?
If you have something relevant to say, feel free to reply.
Seriously, that's ALL he's
Seriously, that's ALL he's being charged with? What is that, like, a $100 ticket? Ridiculous.
That's all he's charged with NOW
That's all he's charged with NOW, that's not necessarily all he's going to be charged with.
It was a woman driver
based on the pronouns used by WBZ.
Yes
And?
http://supertart.com/priceofteainchina/
a massage therapist from
Explain how this is even remotely relevant to the matter at hand.
It means he's not local
which may be relevant to the story.
The fact he's from Sandwich
may be remotely relevant to the story. The fact he's a massage therapist has NO relevance to the story.
Ron, the driver was female
You may not be conscious of bollards on the bike path and bicycle into them, but with a little sensitivity to foreign names, you could google and learn that Xiao Ying is a woman's name.
He knows from experience
Markk once tried to keep a little girl named Xiao Ying from being adopted in Arlington.
Checkmate
n/t
Wow
So, what you are saying is that Markk is a racist, sociopathic asshole.
Not true
I took no actions to prevent any such thing. I merely questioned the wisdom of a male-female couple already with 3 biological children (girls) in a house with one bathroom, intending to adopt 2 handicapped girls from China and costing taxpayers when there are over 600 kids just in Massachusetts.
They announced to the town they wanted people to donate to their gofundme page, that's on top of the $13,000+ the IRS gives per child. Almost nobody donated, so few thought it a good idea.
Wow, you really are quite the
Wow, you really are quite the busybody aren't you?
Hey
Being a racist, sociopathic asshole is a 24/7 job.
You never looked up real estate?
Never looked on Zillow to see what it thought your property was worth?
Never looked at tax assessments to see if your taxes are fair or what nearby properties are taxed at? Never looked at how corrupt building permit fees are in your community, provided your community doesn't hide that from its taxpayers.
When someone calls up a TV station to send a reporter and cameraman to my doorstep with a false claim in response to an email posting I made, I don't feel the slightest bit nosey for looking up their public tax assessment data and reading their gofundme solicitation. They got in my business and I was even gentle in my response. Was this the actions of pious Christians?
Creepy stalker stuff
Just because you Can cyber-stalk someone, that doesn't mean you Should do it. The fact that we have to explain this is very telling.
You poor little bunny
Your little attention-seeking hate stunt ended up getting you attention!
Amazing how actions have consequences like that.
They got in my business
Sounds to me like you have it backwards.
They started by broadcasting a plea for money
To adopt two children with special needs, whose medical and educational costs puts a burden on other people. Arlington was facing major bills for the rebuilding of one elementary school, renovation of another, rebuilding the high school, rebuilding Minuteman tech, overcrowding, and now expensive rental of trailer classrooms.
Meanwhile 600 kids in Massachusetts already are waiting adoption. Why cost taxpayers extra by bringing in more costs when kids here need homes? Fundamentalists like them wanting to increase their cults do it by procreating and adopting kids. Its like they are competing with Mormons to have lots of kids to grow their churches. All the while, their neighbors end up paying some for it too.
That's the great thing about
That's the great thing about America. You get to say how many kids you have, not your nosy neighbors.
Four Words
None of your business.
As in "the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in their house" and "the children they wish to adopt" are none of your business.
Lighten up, Francis
Look, if we're going to keep you around, then you're going to have to learn how to be the butt of every joke.
"Handicapped" is considered a
"Handicapped" is considered a slur. Please use respectful language such as "disabled," "deaf," "blind," or "person with disabilities."
Often but not always
I googled and was able to learn that there are both men and women named Xiao Ying.
Indeterminate gender, like Pat?
I didn't know people drove with their "gender"
It must be an important feature of crash investigation to see what kind of adapter they were using?
Caution, black humor below
The female massage therapist driving gave an unhappy ending.
caution my ear
Granted, you're getting roasted all over the place in this post, but I just gotta say: this is a shitty, mean-spirited, unfunny "joke."
It's a factoid
It's one bit of data we know about this woman we didn't know before, but, true, not directly related, that we know of, to the incident. But what if she'd been, say, a lawyer, instead? Would that make a difference?
Boston drivers don't notice pedestrians
I have been writing to City hall and the Police Department about the increased danger to pedestrians over the last six months or so. I do not own a car, so I walk more than most people, and see more crazy traffic situations than I am comfortable with. When I moved to Boston back in 2007, drivers were careful about pedestrians. Not any more. Pedestrians are now just another obstacle. If a car can get past a pedestrian without hitting "it", the car just keeps going. This applies to all situations, including turn-right-on-red and ordinary pedestrian crossings. A few mornings ago I was almost hit on a controlled crosswalk by a police car blowing through a red light at Forest Hills. He had his lights flashing but no siren, and I was looking at another car coming towards me as if it wasn't going to stop. It is now routine to go through red lights so late that the walk sign is lit before they clear the intersection. An even more disturbing trend is people just driving through red lights without noticing them. This is happening increasingly often - it happened to me twice last week, when it previously was a rarity. Pedestrians must now treat crossing a road as dangerous, even when on a crosswalk, and even when theoretically protected by a red light. But people still stroll across busy roads as if nothing could go wrong. I think this is happening because modern social media is turning people inwards. It is as if people are texting inside their heads even when they are not physically texting.
Huh?
Drivers have changed in 9 years? Ok, sure. So, you were crossing an intersection and looking at a car coming at you....yet you were unable to see a police car coming at you with its lights flashing?
A big part of the problem is poor intersection design standards
Lights are aligned across the intersection, bringing the driver's attention away from their surroundings. We could do a lot better and use roadway design standards similar to what is used in Germany, among other places, where the traffic signals are placed lower and before the intersection, not beyond it, (stoplights are genereally aligned with the stop line). This brings the driver's focus to where they are, rather than a hundred to several hundred feet ahead and avoids things like intersection and crosswalk blocking.
It also tends to discourage
It also tends to discourage drivers from overshooting the stop line and stopping halfway (or entirely) in the crosswalk, since they'd have to crane their head at an uncomfortable angle to see the light, and eventually they learn to be more careful about where they stop.
Agree with this
Within last year or two I have been noticing more and more people taking lefts on red lights. I had always thought that was illegal but apparently you can if you're on a one way street taking a left on another one way street.
Also, I see MBTA buses all the time running red lights. I have no idea how they get away with it.
left on red
Left on red is allowed from a one-way street to another one-way street.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Sect...
I agree, drivers are less attentive now
See my post above about how we are now bombarded with moving pictures (video) which makes us all less attentive to anything slow moving or not moving.
Too much TV isn't just bad for children!
question
Does this trigger you?
I need my safe space now
And there really are three special places in hell for people who play on their phones while driving, people who make animated billboards, and jackasses who insist on installing moving spotlights to announce their grand whatever to all of 128 at night at rush hour.
driver is NOT from Boston
Bozton, The driver is NOT from Boston. The driver is from Cape Cod. Read before you type!
She used to live in Boston
http://www.wickedlocal.com/x488817944/Boston-woman-advertising-services-...
Why does that matter?
Are you hung up on address because you want to make it some us vs. them argument? It wasn't by cool kids who live in the City but a lame-o from the burbs? We live in a mobile society and it looks like "message therapy" pays.
Safe crossing in Rotterdam
Drivers stop their vehicles and pedestrians cross at lights or crosswalks. Carefully obeying the rules of the road.
Boston?
Prayers and thoughts with the victims.
And their families. So sad.
I'll reserve judgement on the driver. For now.
Here we go again
Another judge who decides to set a bail amount lower than what the DA recommends.
OK, in this case, it wasn't that much lower. But there's still something wrong with the principle that a judge can arbitrarily disregard the prosecution's recommendations - and NOT be required to explain on the public record why they are doing so.
Why?
Why would you choose to let the prosecution set the bail?
They don't have the citizen's interests at heart. They have the citizens'. The entire court system is setup to protect the minority from the majority as its credo.
Bail is just a factor to make sure you show up again. Did the judge think this woman would have $5k and/or be willing to leave it behind if she tried to run. That's the only question that matters and we put that question in the hands of a professional arbiter of such matters.
Points taken
However, if that professional arbiter decides to disregard a recommendation from somebody who is also presumed to have professional knowledge in such matters, that arbiter should be required to provide a written rationale for their decision ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.
And bail should reflect the severity of the charges, in addition to being a 'promise to appear". That is clearly in the interest of ALL citizens, not just the suspect's.
Adversarial system is why the judge decides
The prosecutor is not an impartial entity. The judge is.
Just because the prosecutor represents the state's case, doesn't mean they should get to decide bail. In fact, their role as prosecutor directly disqualifies them from making bail decisions per the constitutions of the US and Commonwealth, which were set up to limit the state's power to imprison people.
Saying "the prosecutor should set bail" is nonsense - as much nonsense as the lawyer for the defense setting bail.
You might want to look into how our judicial system is set up - and why it is set up that way. This is a fundamental concept here.
And I never said that the judge
shouldn't ultimately decide the bail amount. However, if the judge makes a decision that is contrary to the prosecution's (or the defense's) bail recommendations, they should be required to justify on the public record why they deviated from the recommendations they received.
There are two words for what I'm describing here - accountablity and transparency. How can applying either to judges' decisions, even in matters of bail, be bad?
Where this leads
You'd have an argument for accountability if the state led the nation in bail jumpers because bail values were so low that people were murdering others, getting a low bail, and then deciding the likelihood of life in prison given the case against them was worth risking losing their bail money over.
I'm not sure why a judge's bail decision requires transparency. I'm also not sure if the court record might not reflect what he used to justify his decision. Are you privy to a transcript that I'm not where he says "Nope, bail is set at $5000. Next!" and doesn't explain his thoughts?
I'm also aware of the way we treat some people in public office or public jobs as if because "we the people" make all the decisions regarding everything about their professional lives they're beholden to us to explain every minute of that waking life to us. Yes, transparency on certain matters and processes is critical. But, as an example, testing schools and teachers every few months via testing the students' knowledge is killing our education system. There's a certain level of trust we have to have in our public professionals to do their jobs. Until they show some reason to distrust them, then we can lay it on harder on *only the specific people that abused our trust*. Like I said, there's a fine line here and the amount of trust, transparency, etc. has to be struck at a level that we can all live with comfortably. I don't see why bail decisions falls inside the bounds of what we need to distrust. Unless you've got bail-jumping statistics that say otherwise, at which point, I'd probably be right there with you.
Why not attempted murder?
A&b with a dangerous weapon implies intent, no? And if there was intent, then attempted murder appears to be the appropriate charge. And $500,000 bail or a GPS bracelet.
Torture more like it
That's what I'd call being dragged for 3 miles on city streets and an Interstate highway. The Taliban have done some of that, btw.
So sick of this crap
A stupid old douchebag almost ran me down yesterday as I was crossing the street in a crosswalk. He made me so darn mad, and he was SO close to me, I was even able to give his car a good slap as he whizzed past me. If I had a crowbar, I would've smashed his window. I'm at the point now where I might just start carrying a big rock to throw. I'm sure I'll end up getting arrested (even though all these jerks get off scott free for KILLING people) but I just don't give a crap anymore.
I hear you.
I hear you.
I was crossing last week by the Museum of Science (the entire area between the MoS and Lechmere is a hellscape for pedestrians) and a guy was about to whip around a turn, on a red, without even slowing down.
So in a fit of rage I did slap the back of his car.
My glee was only surpassed by his rage and name-calling as he fumed at the light.
updates?
I think the driver's hearing was scheduled for today - I cannot find anything in the news nor have I been able to find any information on the victim's status.