Hey, there! Log in / Register

Pedestrian suffers life-threatening injuries in Roxbury crash

WBZ reports on the crash on Malcolm X Boulevard around 6:30 a.m.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

That whole street is so dangerous to try to cross.

up
Voting closed 0

First and foremost, hopefully she pulls through this. An awful thing for both the pedestrian hit and the driver as well.

Second, the article doesn't say if she was in a crosswalk or had the right-of-way, but this intersection has people crossing on the roads through traffic constantly. Such a hazard, especially during rush hour or at times when it's difficult to see. Surprised this doesn't happen more often. How can we educate people and have them use the crosswalks/cross when they have the right-of way?

up
Voting closed 0

I saw the police had roped off the area this morning, essentially a large square (trapezoid, really) area right in front of the mosque. I was wondering if there had been some sort of Trumpkin threat which is why they'd roped it off. But that area does not have a crosswalk, so if she was hit there then she was not in a crosswalk.

up
Voting closed 0

I saw a car last week drive down the wrong side of the road (heading West on Malcolm X) in order to pass up a line of cars to get to the mosque quicker. Lucky they didn't get into a head-on collision with East-bound traffic.

up
Voting closed 0

But a few months ago, I was in the middle of a crosswalk (and had the walk light) and almost got hit by a pick up truck.

Crosswalks do not always protect.

up
Voting closed 0

This happens every single day.

up
Voting closed 0

How can we educate people and have them use the crosswalks/cross when they have the right-of way?

Pedestrians are not required to cross only at crosswalks.

They are permitted to cross at any intersection.

Somehow, Boston drivers seem to think that any pedestrian who is not in a crosswalk is trespassing on private property owned and defended by motor vehicle operators.

up
Voting closed 0

In this case, the area that was roped off was not at an intersection. It was simply a large area directly in front of the mosque. IF she were crossing Malcolm X there then she would have been jaywalking. Not saying that's what she did or assigning any blame, just making the point that your point does not apply here.

I drive this road every day. It's a tough road - people speed all the time and people jaywalk all the time. I hope she is ok.

up
Voting closed 0

Dear Brent Jeffries,

My point was not about the particular collision leading off this thread. I, too, drove past this collision this morning, and the scene of investigation was, as you suggest, east of Elmwood Street and perhaps west of King Street, though I could not see the eastward extent of Malcolm X Boulevard that was roped off.

My post was restricted to a common attitude of cowing pedestrians into crosswalks. Pedestrians have rights to cross a street at any intersection, marked or not. Whether crossing that six-plus-lane, undivided boulevard at either King or Elmwood streets is prudent is another question.

Best,

Jonas

up
Voting closed 0

I guess I could have worded that better. My point is that people walk through the busy streets (2 lanes each way plus a turning lane) without regard to crosswalks or intersections. It's dangerous. I don't know what the solution is or should be, but I was trying to generate discussion towards that end.

up
Voting closed 0

seem to operate under this delusion that they automatically have the right of way anywhere they step out into a street or road. Unfortunately, this attitude is NOT CORRECT, as it directly conflicts with state law. From MGL, Chapter 89, Section 11:

When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways (emphasis added) if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.

up
Voting closed 0

at times when it's difficult to see

Drivers need to be more responsible about assesing their driving abilities. If a motorist has difficulty seeing, they should not be operating a motor vehicle.

up
Voting closed 0

You're right, I could have worded that better. My point was to try and figure out a solution. Of course it's dangerous any time pedestrians are walking out in the streets without a crosswalk or intersection. I was trying to emphasize there are times when it is more dangerous than others, based on lighting, clothing people are wearing, whether pedestrians are paying attention, whether drivers are paying attention. I'm just noting that it is a problem in that area and perhaps there is something that can be done before additional accidents occur.

up
Voting closed 0