Hey, there! Log in / Register

Driver slams into front of Grove Hall block of stores

SUV newly enmeshed in front of real-estate office at Washington St. and Blue Hill Ave.

Fresh drive-thru. Photos by BFD.

The Boston Fire Department reports that around 11 a.m. the driver of a Toyota SUV took down a traffic-light pole on the way to a collision with the front of the small business plaza with the red awnings at the corner of Blue Hill Avenue and Geneva Avenue in Grove Hall around 11 a.m.

The department evacuated the building and had utilities turned off. ISD was called in to take a look at whether it was still structurally sound. The crash knocked out power to other traffic signals in the area.



I bet the building was wearing headphones and otherwise not paying attention to the world around it


The driver probably didn't see it.


-- Hero Mayor


That should be some interesting video.

Subtle but thank you, Adam, for a correct headline and not defaulting to "Car Slams..." as if the vehicle was automated.


This also speaks to the issue of "car accident" versus "car crash". Many TV news outlets, with Channel 25 being the worst offender, have adopted "crash" for their traffic reports. The rationale apparently being that not all car accidents are, well, accidents. Kind of ridiculous really. Not all accidents are crashes either. Hearing the traffic reporter repeatedly say "there was a crash on Route 1, there was a crash on the Mass Pike, there was a crash on the Southeast Expressway" etc, etc is very jarring. Especially since many of these are mere fender benders, or maybe a car skidding of the road or some such.

I recently had this argument here. I think I lost. Not that I was persuaded that crash is always the right word, but I seemed to be outnumbered. Apparently the government has decided that there are no accidents, and that's good enough for a lot of people.

Crashes are kind of, uh, jarring.

All accidents are crashes.

Not all crashes are accidents.

I didn't think this one was that complicated.


When my dog had an accident in the car, there was no crash.

I find it difficult to believe that there are so many people driving the highways and byways of New England intentionally crashing into other cars that every little fender bender or spinout must be called a "crash". It's extremely misleading.

You and I want to make a distinction about whether the incident was intentional, so we can say whether the driver is to blame. The government and people who insist on crash would rather avoid making that determination. (Then most of them go on to assign blame anyway.)

The thing is, that "crash" sounds so catastrophic, when:

1) most incidents of this nature reported on TV news traffic reports are very minor incidents, although they can cause very major traffic delays.

2) were definitely unintentional. So "accident" should definitely suffice. Let's save "crash" for the big incidents that are actually "crashes".

Not the vehicle.

I have no evidence to prove this, but it could well be that the driver was incapacitated by a medical event and was no actually in control of the car

We can't do that much damage! Your insurance company pays to repair all this, including the streetlight and downed camera!


If they'd just replace those pesky sidewalks with more car lanes, this never would have happened!


Actually, you can park there. It may be a sidewalk, but you're allowed to park in front of the building. Note the car next to it. You are not however, allowed to park next to the cash register.

you can't park there. The other car is at the entrance to the mall, next to the bank where there is no parking allowed. Also it looks to be going in the wrong direction of the normal traffic flow.

If you look at the pics in the BFD Twitter
you'll see the block of wood behind the car next to the crashed car that keeps people from backing up too far. The other car is parked in front of the hair braiding place. It's backed into the parking spot.

yup, it's not even in the mall.

you just have to


Vehicle 1 and Pole 1 were approaching from opposite directions.

Driver of Vehicle 1 made several attempts to swerve out of the way, but Pole 1 struck the front end of Vehicle 1 nevertheless, thereby causing Vehicle 1 to careen into Building 1, which was heading in the same direction as Pole 1.inspired by

I apologize for my post if it turns out that the accident was caused by some kind of medical emergency.


Rational take I’ve seen regarding the Westie Road diet was (clearly) not posted here, but was a letter to the editor of today’s transcript.

The Transcript still exists?

Were the stores wearing helmets?