Marathon bombing survivor gets hit by car while in Back Bay crosswalk

Boston Magazine reports. Chris Dempsey, director of Transit for Massachusetts, fumes:

In perhaps the most walkable neighborhood in a city that once deserved the title "America's Walking City", you still risk your life crossing the street. We should be outraged at the number of crashes like this that occur on a daily basis.





I don't know, but ...

By on

Police say the collision occurred around 7:15 p.m. Saturday and that the driver received a citation for failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.


As well he should have, and then some but

By on

if people keep getting citations and/or failing to yield at the same crosswalk, maybe part of the problem is a poorly designed crosswalk.

First obvious question is did this happen at a crosswalk with a light or just paint in the street and a yield sign? If the former, was the red light easily visible to a car doing 25mph or was it blocked by parked trucks, untrimmed trees, or other signs?

If the latter, was the entrance to the crosswalk obscured by parked cars? Given this was at night, was the area lighted sufficiently to enable a driver to see that the crosswalk was occupied?

All of these are things I've seen in and around Boston that make it harder for drivers to see pedestrians in order to yield to them. When going the speed limit, not on the phone, not holding a conversation with a passenger, and scanning the street for other traffic, bikes, people getting out of parked cars, and pedestrians.

If it was a bright red light and she was perfectly visible then the next question is how often are there red light runners in that area and how frequently do the police sit there to remind everyone that it's a street, not a racetrack? Police presence is part of traffic safety too.


Not victim blaming

By on

I didn't see a word blaming the victim in Roman's comment. He raises legitimate concerns about safety issues that can make it hard for even careful drivers. There are crosswalks in this city that are practically invisible in broad daylight, so drivers don't have warning to be extra careful when approaching them. There are important safety signs that are impossible to see.

It's important to take care of structural issues that make crashes more likely. Saying that is not blaming the victim. If it's blaming anyone, it's blaming the city.


The driver was cited for failure to yield. End of story.

The garbage that Roman posts is always about absolving the motorist from blame, there is no coy attempt to spark a dialog about road safety because he is also a person that frequently speaks out against road diets, lower speed limits and other meaningful changes that get brought up on these threads.

Also, look at how people drive around this region and tell me with a straight face that it isn't the largest contributing factor. Good god you car apologists always find someone else to blame.

Edit: A fellow Uhub member just ripped apart whatever point you were trying to make.

Well, if you GOOGLED the street view where this accident happened, you would of seen that it is an intersection that has no visible obstructions (trees, plants, bushes, cars, etc.), the intersection has a traffic light as well as two street lights, pedestrian crossing signals and, if you use your little finger, you can zoom in to read a sign that says for cars to "yield to pedestrians on turns".


Driving is a privilege, crossing the street is an entitlement

If you believe that road condition are too unsafe for you to detect people crossing the street, then it is your responsibility to pull over. Licensed driver's are responsible for forcing the city to make needed repairs. I would challenge you to report a street with conditions that would prevent you from stopping for an unexpected obstacle at 10-20 miles per hours.

10 miles an hour? That's right. Peabody and Codman Square are basically unlicensed pedestrian malls. Drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions.


Because it is Monday, and I have some time.

By on


Well, if you GOOGLED the street view where this accident happened, you would of seen that it is an intersection that has no visible obstructions (trees, plants, bushes, cars, etc.), the intersection has a traffic light as well as two street lights, pedestrian crossing signals and, if you use your little finger, you can zoom in to read a sign that says for cars to "yield to pedestrians on turns".

So my last sentence, negates your entire diatribe.

The driver said "he did not see her" cause it was a rainy, dark night and she was wearing black.

This might of happened: The driver had the green to make his turn and she had the walk. It is called "concurrent signals" and I do not like it.* Personally, I think when any pedestrian has a walk signal, all traffic should stop. He, nevertheless, had the responsibility to yield to her and he was cited for that.

*Here is a story for ya: A few years back, I was crossing in a crosswalk (Cambridge), had my walk signal, was right smack in the middle when a pick up truck, going too fast, made his left on green and nearly got me. I had to throw myself away from his grill and did so with enough umph (very lucky on my part) that the only damage to me was a badly bruised upper thigh.

He was not cited by Cambridge Police, even though I had a witness. He too said "he did not see me" even though it was daylight and was smack in the center of his vision.


Crash Reconstruction....

If someone does a crash reconstruction, they do use the lighting and pedestrians clothing in determining whether or not a driver could stop in time going a certain speed.

I'm with you on the

By on

I'm with you on the concurrent signals...they don't work as many drivers feel they own the roads and don't yield or stop for the walk light. It's taking your life into your own hands with those signals. Corner of Dartmouth and Stuart is another shitty area that has those type of signals.

I usually just wait and jaywalk bc it's safer.

Concurrent left turn/pedestrian, better than no left turn signal

By on

My first close call as a young driver was making a left turn with no left turn light across two lanes of oncoming traffic during moderately heavy traffic on a road with a 40MPH speed limit. I waited for the gap in oncoming traffic and started making the turn when I saw an old man and his granddaughter in the middle of the crosswalk. I didn't even make it across the first of the two lanes when I stopped, but I'm sure I gave them both a good fright, but now I always look.

But when I have a green arrow telling me to turn, especially on roads (not too many of those around here, but some) where there are two turn lanes each with their own turn signals, I occasionally lapse into thinking that if I have the green arrow to turn, that means traffic that would be occupying the same space as me does not have a green light telling it to jump under my car.

I have to assume a lot of people around here learned to drive in jurisdictions where a left green arrow implies that the ped crossing on the opposite side is red. Logically that's what green means for a car: crossing vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic has red. Too bad they don't always do it that way around here. Sets people up for exactly what happened to you.

The rule is that a green

By on

The rule is that a green arrow is supposed to be a protected movement. There should be no conflicting traffic OR pedestrians during that time. If you do see a green arrow and a walk signal at the same time, that is incorrect and not supposed to be allowed. I would suggest reporting it to 311 if you see that anywhere.

Except when it isn't

By on

I haven't been there in a few months, but when the new bike lane was installed on Mass Ave by the pike overpass, I could swear the green right arrow to turn right was concurrent with the green light for bicycles to go straight. Probably wired into the green light for cars to go straight south on Mass Ave.

Source: Google Maps

By on

As best I can tell from Google Maps Streetview, the walk signal for pedestrians crossing Commonwealth and the green light for cars turning left from Hereford to Commonwealth run concurrently (as they should all over the city). So if the driver had a green, it appears that the pedestrian had a walk.

There are also signs telling drivers they need to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk (it's a sad statement that the sign needs to exist in the first place).

There is also no parking along Hereford at that stretch, so I doubt the issue was a blocked sight line. (Although you are right to note this issue exists all over Boston and should be addressed with parking prohibited at corners).

So as best I can tell, the only issue was a negligent driver going too fast for the conditions. A fine doesn't seem nearly enough of a punishment.


I've never seen a traffic

By on

I've never seen a traffic light in Boston that was obscured by parked vehicles, trees, or signs. If you know of one, please tell us the location, preferably with a Street View link.

It's possible a crosswalk's sight line was obscured by parked cars. But you know what? The point of a crosswalk is that it alerts drivers in advance that there are likely to be pedestrians, and that they need to go slowly enough to stop if a pedestrian is present.

Sometimes this means going under the speed limit. There's no guarantee that the speed limit is a safe speed for all conditions. In fact, the very first part of the speed law says, "No person operating a motor vehicle on any way shall run it at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to traffic and the use of the way and the safety of the public."

The law continues, "notwithstanding such establishment of a speed limit, every person operating a motor vehicle shall decrease the speed of the same when a special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic".



By on

Is there some way that we can blame the victim so we can completely avoid discussing and addressing the obvious problem of motorists with their heads up their rumps?


Light not relevant

The law (MA 89 11) requires stopping or slowing as necessary when the ped is in the crosswalk and within a travel lane of the driver's vehicle...regardless of other signage or lights. That's quibbling or excuses. This is presumption-of-guilt law, like rear-ending another vehicle.

Don't fantasize you can run down a walker and say, but, but, but he was walking against the WALK sign.


Are we reading the same law?

By on

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 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.

How's the light not relevant?

By on

That law specifically refers to conditions when the light isn't telling the pedestrian/vehicles what to do. If there's a light and it's working, pedestrians and vehicles both are required to follow it. What do you think jaywalking is?

(And no, of course you can't just run people down who are jaywalking. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the presence of a law means it's a free-for-all against people violating it. You also can't intentionally ram cars that are violating laws.)

I'm not so sure...

By on

The first paragraph of that law deals with crosswalks that don't have a signal. The second paragraph says:

No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.

That first sentence is badly written, but it seems to me that "any such operator" means "any driver of a vehicle". So I'd interpret that as "nor shall any such operator [i.e. any driver of a vehicle] enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing ... notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed. [i.e. even if the vehicle has a green light]." It says nothing about whether the pedestrian has a "don't walk" sign.

If so, then if you have a green light you don't have to stop for a pedestrian who is waiting to cross, but if a pedestrian is already crossing, you have to stop for them.

Deja Vu

By on

I think UHub parsed this same statute this same way back when the off-duty cop coming from the Red Sox game threw down the pedestrian who had the temerity to hit the cop's personal car with an umbrella.

I almost asked that too

But then, I realized, despite my usual desire to know everything, I'm just fine not knowing that the poor terrorist attack victim can't/didn't want to observe a don't walk sign.

Texting & Driving

By on

Did you see the crash in fields corner where the car when right through a red light & hit someone (it was actually pathetic). This is a HUGE problem that unfortunately will be very difficult to find solutions for.


Right here on UHub!

By on

And the usual massive motorist enablers were out in force, making every excuse that they could to be sure that the driver wasn't "falsely" accused of anything despite the obvious video and obvious red light.

Including one who opined that everybody just spaces out all the time!

we've tried nothing an we're all out of ideas!

By on

I have a solution, it's called traffic enforcement, something BPD clearly has zero interest in. If this pedestrian had died, BPD might set up in the neighborhood for a few weeks, write a bunch of tickets, announce when they're leaving and then give cars free reign once more. Rinse and repeat.


The solutions is coming

By on

Newer cars are gradually getting outfitted with pre-collision avoidance and pedestrian detection.

It will take years for those vehicles to appear, and for the time being, we're going to live in dangerous times.

We should be outraged at the

By on

We should be outraged at the number of crashes like this that occur on a daily basis.

What is that number, exactly? Hard to be outraged at a number when you don't know what that number is.


What number of reckless

By on

What number of reckless distracted drivers plowing into pedestrians are you ok with?


Never gonna know

Some crashes police respond, some they don't get called, some they get the crash report that the operators do only, some the operators don't do a report.

We know the number of Boston

By on

We know the number of Boston murders for 2018. Anyone got the figures in on the Boston pedestrians hit by anything with wheels (including bicycles)?

Cycling is different

By on

"almost" get hit by a cyclist - you live to complain about it endlessly
Get hit by a cyclist - ditto, and the cyclist won't be in good shape either
Get hit by a car - guess who is uninjured and lives to avoid responsibility! Guess who dies!


Drivers have gotten so much

By on

Drivers have gotten so much worse then I ever remember. I have been nearly hit several times last year, it is ridiculous.


We shouldn't be outraged

The city and state should be doing something about it instead of waiting for "outrage". Red light and speed cameras work great. If they can charge an electronic toll to 100,000 cars daily, they can issue a couple hundred "speeding fees" to drivers across the region too.


Article XII

By on

"And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defense by himself, or his council at his election"

I 100% agree with you but the declaration of rights doesnt- you can't meet a camera face to face.

You left out the rest of that

By on

You left out the rest of that section. It's only applicable in a criminal case, not for a civil violations like speeding tickets or red lights. So a camera will work here.


If a camera can issue a fee for a toll it can issue a fee for exceeding a speed limit. If you can get a parking ticket or ISD fine without meeting the city employee, you should be able to get a speeding ticket.

Drop the points aspect of the fine if needed. Call it a speeding fine and not a crime if issued by camera.

There are ways to make cameras legal and effective. It just takes political will.


No, they snag unsuspecting

By on

No, they snag unsuspecting people from out of the area who are not necessarily doing anything dangerous. The locals learn where the cameras are, and continue to speed and run red lights in other places.

The only people who benefit from red light cameras are the camera companies.

Not doing anything dangerous?

By on

Like running red lights or speeding?

Like blowing through a light into a crowd of pedestrians with the right of way (I saw you out of state Uber on state street and I reported you!)

It's time to make some of

By on

It's time to make some of these streets pedestrian only.

And if that means that drivers get pissy, then so be it.


Tear up the pavement too?

By on

It's time to make some of these streets pedestrian only.

And if that means that drivers get pissy, then so be it.

Apparently this accident was on Commonwealth Ave after dark. -- Land created from the "Back Bay" by filling the "mud flats" with gravel excavated from a glacial deposit in Needham and brought by rail -- to create a Street -- not a footpath -- circa 1860 -1880

Note that people were being killed by horse-drawn wagons in the streets over 100 years ago including Pierre Curie*1 the Nobel Prize winning Physicist and husband of Marie

But more seriously -- technology exists to permit each Crosswalk to identify a pedestrian entering its domain of response and to announce the situation to the on-coming driver with a bright display of {PEDESTRIAN -- STOP!!!}

Note: With aid of 5G Networking -- this Warning could be repeated inside the vehicle [projected on the drivers windshield as a "Heads-up display" or even linked into the brake controls -- to bring the vehicle to a "safe for all involved" controlled Stop

*1 from the wiki

Pierre Curie died in a street accident in Paris on 19 April 1906. Crossing the busy Rue Dauphine in the rain at the Quai de Conti, he slipped and fell under a heavy horse-drawn cart. He died instantly when one of the wheels ran over his head, fracturing his skull.[*2] Statements made by his father and lab assistant imply that Curie's characteristic absent-minded preoccupation with his thoughts contributed to his death.

*2 Prof. Curie killed in a Paris street" (PDF), The New York Times, 20 April 1906

That's nice dear

We all know that geezers treat cars like prosthetic appendages and driving like viagra.

That doesn't make them new and modern anymore, or even sensible transportation solutions.

I bet you still think TV is a pretty nifty innovation, and keep faux snews on all the time at excessive volume.

Actually my business is all about Technology & Innovation

By on

ad hominem attacks are So BORING!!!!

What I suggested is today possible -- it could be to be implemented immediately*1 -- part of it anywhere and all of it in places where 5G Networks are oppeational -- which means in 3 or so years for most of the Developed World

We should not depend on passing laws to try to protect us from mal-occurrences -- the laws can punish the guilty and perhaps compensate our next of kin. BUT -- they can not protect us from the occurrence -- that is both the requirement of the society to develop common sense solutions and to implement them as is feasible*2 -- and then most importantly it is the responsibility of the vulnerable to be "a hard target"

In other words -- if sign such as the one the corner of McGrath and Storrow / Embankment ramp at Leverett Circle says "Yield to Pedestrian in Crosswalk on Right Turn" *3

  1. You as a responsible driver should yield
  2. You as a pedestrian should be wary of the driver who doesn't yield -- WHY -- because in case of a collision -- your body tissues will be doing the yielding!!

Bottom Line neither Crosswalks, Yield to Pedestrian Signs nor even diligent police patrols can protect a pedestrian [especially one immersed in a good Tweet or Text and wearing ear buds] from becoming the next count in the pedestrian accident statistics.

Note the same applies to Bike Lanes and even rubber / plastic lane dividing devices -- cars sometime wiggle and if you are on a bike -- that undetectable momentum transfer to / from the car in a grazing incidence collision -- can toss you as if you were a bean bag

*1 -- the sensors exist even at a hobbyist level [you could do it with Arduino] to detect the pedestrian entering the crosswalk -- and the network today exists to support the display on a traffic information sign [such X minutes to I-93] the words "Pedestrian in Crosswalk -- STOP"
It will take some further work for the transmission of the information to cars for support for the "Heads-up Display" on a windshield to be commonplace and by then the link to the automatic braking system may be just as commonplace

What may be lacking is the societal incentive to "just do it"

*2 -- There is no excuse today for Wrong Way Drivers on Highways -- we can use technology to stop them before they kill again -- the ingredients needed are:

  1. those signs that start flashing when you go faster than the local speed limit
    1. a Doppler radar is measuring your speed
    2. the sign is displaying it
    3. the flashing is started by comparing your measured speed to a threshold speed
    4. the same radar can also detect your speed in the opposite direction -- i.e. as you are leaving the sign can make sure that you are going in the right direction
  2. Police routinely deploy devices to flatten the tires on a vehicle in a high speed chase

The rest is left as an exercise for some "Maker"

*3 -- I see that sign in the on-state about every other time I'm when coming from the Museum of Science, crossing the Craigie Bridge and making a right turn -- however I've never purposefully recorded the actual text -- so please don't bother to correct the above

Sure would be great if BPD/BTD could lift a finger

Intersection near my house continues to be a nightmare, despite multiple car crashes that happen there. Blocks from the local BPD building.

I was nailed there by a motorist that ran a stop sign and it sent me to the hospital. That was Spring 2017 and absolutely nothing has changed. There was a crash as recently as two weeks ago.

And don't even get me started with the amount of close calls. Almost no cars stop there, constantly rolling through the stop sign and just the other night, I was almost hit by an inattentive driver as I walked in the cross walk. Apparently someone needs to die here for anything to change.

This is par for the course all over the city, meaningful changes and enforcement could fix this but god forbid we do anything to upset the convenience of motorists.


Take it a step further and digitally track all cars

Tracking of all motor vehicles, paid for by increases to user fees. Tracking speeding, synch with additional traffic cameras. We don't have a police force large enough to respond to all motor vehicle incidents? Fine, we compile data on everyone and cross reference when there is an incident. No more mystery cars fleeing the scene, no more weaseling out of speeding tickets, hell lets add in a sobriety check to get the car even started.

I don't care about anyones privacy rights when compared to the safety of those in public space.

Better yet

By on

Make cars themselves limit driver behavior. Automated controls on speed would be a great start.


By on

In other cities different agencies are allowed to ticket traffic offenses. If our police don't have time to enforce traffic laws maybe someone else should be.

I know this means going up against th e allmightly union, but honestly, I'd rather the police were enforcing block the box laws than standing by construction sites.



By on

It was dark & I believe rainy. I'd need info as to if she had a walk signal or was trying to sneak across and was hit by a motorist who would not see her until it was too late. She's handicapped so should've waited for the Walk signal.

how on Earth

By on

does one "sneak across" a marked crosswalk?!

And the only people who "needed info" to make the relevant judgment were the police, who cited the driver anyway so..

i have a theory you and Roman and Fish are the same sad dude.


Not accident.

And you don't need info - the cops had enough to cite the motorist for failure to yield.



By on

I'd need info as to if she had a walk signal or was trying to sneak across and was hit by a motorist who would not see her until it was too late.

You'd "need info" for what? To decide if she deserves to be in a crosswalk without getting hit? How truly good that none of this is up to you.

It doesn't matter if it's dark. It doesn't matter if it's rainy. Drivers are responsible for driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions, which means that they can stop before hitting a pedestrian who is in a crosswalk where the drivers have been explicitly warned -- in this case, AND as a matter of law -- they must yield to them.

Distracted drivers

By on

I was hit by a car a few years ago while I was crossing a narrow side street, in the crosswalk. The guy was making a left turn off a major street, and was distracted (I suspect) by the combination of a cellphone and the electronic "cigarette" dangling from his mouth (i.e. I guessed he was strung out from trying to quit smoking, just a guess).

Luckily I wasn't hurt, it was a mild hit, but it did get me to thinking...

Are there any technical means in the works to detect drivers using a phone? Something electronic, perhaps, that could augment the red-light cameras?

Also, I've read that studies have shown that hands-free phone use is almost as dangerous as handheld phones while driving. Shouldn't laws ban any kind of distraction while driving?

We test drivers' eyesight and basic driving skill. Shouldn't we test their ability to focus their minds as well?

Just some thoughts, I don't pretend to know much about this...

Let's think of realistic things -- not everyone is Bobby Kennedy

By on


Are there any technical means in the works to detect drivers using a phone? Something electronic, perhaps, that could augment the red-light cameras?


Also, I've read that studies have shown that hands-free phone use is almost as dangerous as handheld phones while driving. Shouldn't laws ban any kind of distraction while driving?

Famous quote from the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy

Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not
Read more at:

-- actually a paraphrase of another even more famous quote*1

Yes [1] technically easy-- the cellphone tower knows who is talking and to whom -- but its Not at all clear that we want that kind of information being used to decide driving disputes, and eventual insurance premium surcharges, etc.

Mostly No [2] -- unless you are doing a functional MRI scan of the driver's brain [while the driver is driving] -- that is impossible to do remotely using current technology

Major problem with the whole concept -- "What is distracted Driving" -- glancing to your side mirrors or your rear view mirror under some conditions -- takes your concentration away from what is right in front of you -- could be dangerous in a multi-element intersection at rush hour in downtown BOS, NYC,TPE, etc. In other cases -- while driving along during the day on a wide open interstate in say Montana -- you might be able to take several seconds away from the road in front and miss nothing.

In the next few years almost all new cars will have Automatic Lane Keeping [just like Cruise Control] for your steering and the higher-end ones will monitor your closing speed to the car in front and adjust accordingly. Some are already capable of detecting people and other slow things entering the travel lanes and putting on the brakes in time to prevent a collision at relatively low speeds and good driving conditions.

*1 -- paraphrase of line from a play by George Bernard Shaw "Back to Methuselah, act I, Selected Plays with Prefaces, vol. 2, p. 7 (1949)"

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not? . The serpent says these words to Eve.

spoken by President John F. Kennedy quoted these words in his address to the Irish Parliament, Dublin, June 28, 1963.—Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1963, p. 537.

Concurrent lights

By on

are a total menace. If someone has a walk sign they use it, and I don't blame them. Drivers making rights do blast too hard on the gas when they have a green light but giving a car and a pedestrian a green light is what creates scenarios like this. See the intersection of Elm Street and Rt 1 at Legacy Place. There are people who either work or are going into Legacy Place who walk across that street while there is a "concurrent light" that is green for drivers turning right. Someone is going to get killed because of these, I don't care if a driver is "supposed to" check and yield on a green to a pedestrian, sometimes they don't and this is what happens.

Do some research

By on

Please make a trip to New York City, Vancouver, or one of the many other major metropolises where they move pedestrians and cars more efficiently with concurrent signals. It also encourages better pedestrian behavior because the wait for the walk light is not as long.
When concurrent signals become standard, drivers behave less like entitled jackasses (at least with respect to this one element of driving).

Or Germany

Almost every single intersection in Germany uses concurrent lights. There is a design and engineering standard that takes all road users into account, as opposed to here, where pedestrians are an afterthought. Boston is particularly bad, as the city seems to have no standards at all. Settings are hodgepodge from one intersection to another and it seems like there is no one in charge of overseeing things at BTD. Or if there is, they have no idea what they're doing. It is a mess.

An all-way walk wouldn't help

By on

An all-way walk wouldn't help there. Drivers have a right-turn channel which lets them skip the light.

This one would take some road reconfiguration to make it safe for pedestrians. It's no surprise that if the road feels like a highway ramp, drivers will treat it like one.

And an all-way walk wouldn't exactly help drivers either. If you think traffic is bad now, image if all four directions had to stop for a walk light long enough to cross 8 lanes at an oblique angle.

My favorite ignored crosswalk

By on

My favorite ignored crosswalk:

What would I do about it?
1) Remove the stupid fake mosaic stickers, and paint the standard high-visibility zebra stripes.
2) Have the police do some periodic enforcement.
3) If that doesn't work, put in a traffic light. If drivers can't handle yielding to pedestrians, they'll have to sit there and wait longer than necessary for a full red light.

This is a reasonable point

By on

Cambridge uses the double-width lines as a standard crosswalk marking because they are far more visible than the narrower ones. Crossings like this, with the pavement marked to be visible seemingly for the pedestrian rather than for the driver, are just dumb. It doesn't absolve the driver of wrongdoing, but it is indicative of the poor street design which leads to higher-speed driving.

Don't want to sound like

By on

Don't want to sound like victim blaming here, but Saturday was rainy, and glare/visibility were awful when I was driving around.

Come on, people

By on

Yeah, I'm getting even crankier in my old age. I deleted a comment that said the poor was a victim of American geopolitics and lust for petroleum as well as of the car that hit her.


All these keyboard warriors

By on

All these keyboard warriors are always quick to call drivers distracted, but the number of times that I have to make sudden stops for pedestrians that come running through a crosswalk without so much giving the slightest glance at either direction before they cross is infuriating.

I'm driving the speed limit,

By on

I'm driving the speed limit, thank you very much. Ever drive 25mph and suddenly have a pedestrian change come running through a crosswalk without looking? It happens quite often. Oh but I'm sure it's always the driver's fault, never the pedestrians who are walking around face-down on their phone

Speed limit is the maximum in optimal conditions

By on

It is not a minimum.

Boston has pared back its crosswalk time and that strands a lot of people in the walk if they, oh, have their legs blown off.

Slow down. Drive to the conditions, not the speed limit.

It may astonish you to learn

It may astonish you to learn that the speed limit is actually the maximum speed. It's not a minimum.

I'm driving the speed limit, thank you very much. Ever drive 25mph and suddenly have a pedestrian change come running through a crosswalk without looking? It happens quite often. Oh but I'm sure it's always the driver's fault, never the pedestrians who are walking around face-down on their phone

Dear everyone driving on

By on

Dear everyone driving on wheels and riding on wheels,
YIELD to pedestrians in crosswalks. If you can't handle that then get off your lazy as and WALK!

Speedy recovery

By on

My heart goes out to Adrianne Haslet. May she dance again soon!