In response to a complaint about how the lights at Atlantic Avenue and Summer Street downtown now require pedestrians to cross with traffic rather than all alone, the city Transportation Department's engineering team optimistically says drivers will yield to walkers:
Walk signals at this location allow pedestrians to cross while the light is green for vehicles. Turning vehicles must yield to pedestrians. This type of signal phasing is widely used throughout the country. BTD is in the process of converting signals to this type of phasing where feasible as it allows for more time when pedestrians are allowed to cross.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Sure! What could possibly go
By Bomar
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:06am
Sure! What could possibly go wrong?
It's done that way in most places outside Boston
By Ron Newman
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:06am
and even some places around here, such as Central Square in Cambridge.
Coolidge Corner too
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:43am
Coolidge Corner too
Coolidge Corner is the one of
By Annika
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 12:09pm
Coolidge Corner is the one of the worst for driving. The way the crosswalks are set up makes me nervous because not all drivers yield and people tend to just walk straight out into moving traffic.
Also unrelated, but that Trader Joe's parking lot is a total nightmare.
The more nervous you are in
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 9:37pm
The more nervous you are in an intersection the safer it is for everyone because you are paying more attention
Oh yeah totes, thats exactly
By anon
Fri, 08/22/2014 - 2:29pm
Oh yeah totes, thats exactly why they should'nt even use traffic lights which are too predictable and make people complacent ... imbecile
Guess what
By Matthew
Fri, 08/22/2014 - 3:48pm
Yes, that is a common criticism of traffic lights. The green light gives people confidence to speed through the intersection. Normally it works, but if something goes wrong, then the resulting crash is usually quite vicious (e.g. a T-bone, a flipped car, dead pedestrian. Like what happened in the Back Bay recently, where a driver sped through a red light and killed two people).
One of the main advantages of roundabouts over traffic lights is that they force you to slow down and negotiate your way into the intersection. Thus, crashes at roundabouts may still occur but they tend to be softer, lower speed and more of the fender-bender variety.
Also roundabouts can handle higher traffic volumes than traditional 4-way traffic lights or stop signs, and you don't have to sit and wait, you just keep moving for the most part. Unfortunately, roundabouts require a lot more space than is usually available. And they're generally not suitable for intersections where one street is much more dominant in traffic flow than the other(s).
So roundabouts are not always applicable. But the dangers of traffic lights are well known.
Mass Ave and Boylston
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 12:40pm
On the same side as the Hynes T stop/Berklee auditorium. Pedestrians cross Boylston as cars are right-turning onto Boylston inbound. Sometimes, it's impossible to cross because so many cars are turning. Because of it, when the light pauses to let cars turn left off of Mass Ave southbound, a lot of people think the light's broken and start crossing.
In my experience, it's
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 1:25pm
In my experience, it's actually sometimes impossible to either take that right or continue straight on Mass Ave (you need to be in the right lane to go straight) because there are too many pedestrians. The light there should be separated for pedestrians and cars.....
This intersection (and the
By riggs not logged in
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 3:31pm
This intersection (and the one south at Mass Ave/Belvidere+Haviland) used to be timed much, much better, then the city came along and screwed it all up in the name of "traffic flow."
The unintended consequence was that pedestrians get screwed or confused, and walk when they're not supposed to. Which, in turn, holds up traffic. They are stubbornly refusing to admit their error, and the residents and people who work around here suffer dearly every day.
Some lights in Cambridge have
By autonomy
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 1:00pm
Some lights in Cambridge have their timing tweaked to show the pedestrian signal crossing first to give pedestrians about a 5-seconds start. That way, cars can't simply jackrabbit through as soon as the light turns, forcing pedestrians to wait.
these work great!
By InfrastructurePlease
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 1:21pm
Yes, I'm a frequent pedestrian at some of the intersections timed like this in Cambridge. Coupled with a no-turn-on-red, they actually work amazingly well to ensure any pedestrians are already in the street before cars have a chance to nose in. Its probably only a 2-3second delay, so it hardly has an effect on traffic throughput.
And yes, it works on some
By bibliotequetres...
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:41pm
And yes, it works on some corners and intersections. But crossing Atlantic is never easy, and as I visualize this intersection-- where cabs picking up from the side of South Station are turning right onto Atlantic-- not having a dedicated pedestrian light seems like a nightmare.
Yield?
By Massholes
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:12am
Yield? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one!
I cross this
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:42am
intersection daily and most driver do yield. However cyclist routinely blow red lights and weave in and out of large groups of pedestrians trying to cross.
YES!
By tape
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:48am
I just won "anti-cyclist crank bingo"!
Its funny because
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:00am
right when i read your comment i looked out my office window and saw a cyclist blow through a red light crossing 5 lanes of traffic.
What iv noticed is their are two types of cyclist who run red lights. Those who blatantly do it. And those who are biking in the street but decide to become pedestrians and utilize packed crosswalks when approaching a red light.
Light-running technique
By whyinternet
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:32am
I saw a pretty advanced technique by a bicyclist who didn't want to stop on Mass. Ave. eastbound when he encountered a red light at Inman Street in Cambridge. While moving at speed, he dismounted as he entered the intersection, ran through the intersection pushing his bike, and hopped back on once he reached the other side without slowing down much. So I guess technically he was a pedestrian when he disregarded that traffic signal.
Was the walk light on? if so,
By gotdatwmd
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 1:18pm
Was the walk light on? if so, this is perfectly acceptable and he even properly dismounted to cross which is in line with the rules. AFAIK the real world is not grammar school and there aren't any "no running" rules.
he dismounted as he entered
By Scratchie
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 1:39pm
Which is exactly what you're supposed to do if you want to cross the street in a crosswalk with your bicycle. What's your complaint, that he didn't ask your permission first?
I do this
By Matthew
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:05pm
Walking (or running) the bike is the legal way to cross an exclusive ped signal with a bike. It looks ridiculous, but that's how it's written. I think it highlights how stupid it is to exclude bicyclists from the crossing phase, but if that's what they want, so be it. The law really needs some reworking to fix some of the various vagaries and absurdities.
Riding cautiously through a 4
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 6:35pm
Riding cautiously through a 4-way walk is safe. Blasting through a crowd of pedestrians without slowing down is not. It's too bad laws and their enforcement can't reflect these facts.
I agree
By Matthew
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 7:36pm
If and when they ever get around to fixing the laws to be more sensible and reflective of reality, I think they need to find a way to distinguish between a bike ridden at pedestrian speeds and one ridden at higher speeds. Because to claim that a bike is like a pedestrian is patently absurd. But to also claim that they are like a motor vehicle is obviously not working either. It's more like something in between, and really, it all depends on speed. I can ride my bike at 1 to 2 mph, slower than most people walk, while being completely unobtrusive. Or I can ride it at 15-18 mph, which is clearly much too fast to mingle with pedestrians. Same vehicle, different behaviors, different effects.
The other day I saw a guy on a Segway rolling down the sidewalk at a tremendous rate of speed. Is he a pedestrian? Or a motor vehicle? I really don't know. I know that I'd rather not run into him while turning a corner. On the other hand those things were supposed to be nimble and crowd friendly. Go figure.
If the cops were trying to be helpful and protective they'd be looking to catch those folks blasting through a crowd (on whatever vehicle) too fast. But instead, they just sit there and gleefully write tickets for people who are going cautiously through the exclusive phase. What's the point of doing that? I see that as a complete waste of police resources, and it's generating ill will too. Why attack the people who aren't harming anyone, when there's so much actually dangerous behavior out there to stop? Well, that's police for ya. No thinking. It's really a shame.
Try this some day: in the
By lbb
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:33am
Try this some day: in the course of your commute, make note of every moving violation that you see committed by a motor vehicle. This would include (but not be limited to): speeding, failure to signal when changing lanes, failure to signal when turning, failure to come to a complete stop at a stop sign or signal, failure to stop for a red light, failure to yield right of way to a pedestrian, failure to yield right of way to another vehicle, opening a door into traffic.
Then post about each and every single instance here.
Alternately, you could get a sense of proportion and stop your anon whining about cyclists.
Sense of proportion
By Lmo
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 12:53pm
Considering there are significantly more MV's than bikes, you would get a sense of proportion. Difference is, for bikers many of these decisions could be life and death.
You gave anon homework.... How cute.
the comment you were replying
By bractune
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 12:59pm
the comment you were replying to was talking specifically about running red lights. are you saying that you think the percentage of cyclists who run through red lights is the same as that of people in motor vehicles?
while every moving violation has the potential to lead to a serious problem, i don't think that you can seriously say that failure-to-signal and failure-to-stop-at-a-red-light are at the same level of danger. failure to stop at a red light is also much more of a flagrant "fuck you" to everyone else, whether you're doing it in a car or a on bicycle.
cyclists seem to be constantly harping about the importance of obeying the rules of the road, so when they so egregiously violate one of the most important ones, people are going to resent them for it. they're also going to have much less sympathy when a cyclist gets hit by a vehicle, as they appear to be inviting it by running red lights.
is it really that hard to understand human psychology?
Have you even been in morning
By autonomy
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 1:02pm
Have you even been in morning rush-hour traffic? I see multiple cars run red lights almost daily. Yellow in Boston is a "speed up" sign.
no, i have never been out of
By bractune
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 8:06pm
no, i have never been out of the cave that i am posting from.
Per intersection
By massmarrier
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:30pm
For proportion, try recording per intersection on a trip to work or through town. Just as there are more motor-vehicle operators, they cannot call get to an intersection between lights as cyclists can. Thus, the number of law violators at a moment per intersection is deceptively low, but the likelihood of car drivers driving badly at any given intersection is high.
If you (as I have) go to some intersections and record (on foot with a pad, for safety) how frequently scofflaw break laws and put everyone's life in danger, you'll surely find that the vast majority of intersections have one and many times multiple motor-vehicle operator offenses per light cycle. We can only imaging fi cars were bike width and more of them had access.
Yeah, yeah, that time, no one was killed or maimed at that cycle. Yet record, lane changes without signalling or yielding, turning without signalling or yielding to pedestrians or cars, blocking the crosswalk, not stopping or even slowing for a red light, and on and on. I found figures in the mid-80% to high 90% violations when I watched.
There are a few, very few intersections, like around BU, that have many aggressive scofflaws on bikes, but motor-vehicle operators are everywhere, all the time with their recklessness.
I bike and walk, and less frequently drive or take the T. I watch carefully for all modes of maniacs. Yet, I have no doubt I am in much greater danger from crazy car drivers than cyclists...per intersection.
I actually did this one time
By Matthew
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:44pm
Out of curiosity, on a nice day with some free time, I counted 114 moving violations in an hour at Brighton & Harvard. By automobile drivers. And not borderline cases like yellow light running, but actual red light running or illegal turn on red. Drivers that had plenty of time to stop but chose to enter the intersection when the signal clearly displayed red. I did not count speeding because I did not have a radar gun but that most certainly would have added to the total. One incident that stands out from that hour is when a red light running driver in a small sporty car nearly crashed into U-turning minivan, but screeched to a halt at the last second. I guess he had good brakes on that thing.
Crazy car drivers are indeed a much greater danger. Why just about a week ago I was nearly killed by a car blasting through the red light on Comm Ave. I'm alert for such things to happen so I was able to hold up about a foot away from where the vehicle passed through the crosswalk showing the walk signal, but if I hadn't noticed...
Of course the police don't care about red light running by cars. According to them, it never happens.
On my old bike commute, there
By Jack
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:31pm
On my old bike commute, there were I think three spots where I could safely "blow through" a light, due to either a four way walk sign or a T intersection. I'm sure some driver complained about me doing this, despite it being safe (and yes, I looked for peds before running the walk lights, too).
You're right about that
By BB from Dot
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:27am
In my experience turning cars DO NOT YIELD to pedestrians, even when there are signs saying to do so. I've even yelled "I have a walk sign!" only to be told "I DOUBT it" by someone who almost hit me, when the white figure was clearly visible in the walk sign.
Best signaling is Cambridge
By BostonUrbEx
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:13am
In Cambridge, all lights will turn red, pedestrian signals will say "go" in one direction, then cars in the same direction get the green light a couple seconds later. This way, pedestrians get a head-start, forcing the cars to yield, and also making the pedestrian's intentions more obvious before traffic starts moving.
Leading Pedestrian Interval
By Ari O
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:41am
This is called a "leading pedestrian interval" and Cambridge is a leader in implementing it. As you point out, it is a safety feature, since pedestrians are able to enter the crosswalk and the vision fields of the drivers before the light changes to green. If the lights change at the same time, quick-turning drivers can enter the crosswalk at the exact same time as a pedestrian they might not be able to see. LPIs help quite a bit.
In Cambridge, nearly every intersection has a 3 second pedestrian interval. There are a couple of exceptions in wider intersections with particularly heavy pedestrian traffic which have five second LPIs (Central Square in particular). And there are a few non-standard intersections (i.e. intersections which don't have two roads crossing, or with diagonal crosswalks and the like) which don't have any LPI. And of course the DCR-maintained roads (Mem Drive, Fresh Pond) and MassDOT roads (O'Brien Highway, etc) have no help for pedestrians, because as we all know, the purpose of the Department of Recreation and Conservation is to move as many cars as quickly as possible, safety be damned.
Boston would do well to reengineer their lights to this standard. Here's the difference between Cambridge and Boston. 0 seconds is when the cycle changes and the walk signal begins.
The additional phasing in Cambridge allows more time for pedestrians to cross (since the "DON'T WALK" ends when the light goes to red, not to yellow, since there are a few extra seconds with the leading pedestrian interval) and allows them to do so more safely. Boston should adopt these measures as well.
Yup.
By JCK
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:49am
Boston has the additional problem that some ped lights hit zero a full 10 seconds or so before the cross traffic gets the green.
One of my faves (and by "faves" I mean least faves) is the intersection of Bromfield and Tremont. The light to cross Bromfield counts down and changes to a solid red hand many, many seconds before the Bromfield traffic get the green. This is a narrow street that takes about 3 seconds to cross.
Peds will only respect the timers if they are meaningful.
This
By Allstonian
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:11am
This. A million million times this.
This is a problem across
By Scratchie
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:37am
This is a problem across Boston, not just with Walk lights. I never really noticed it so much until I moved to NC, but in Boston, it seems like the traffic "engineers" (sic) set the traffic light timers once and then never give them a second thought (or a first one). Thus, you get major arteries where left-turning traffic backs up for a half-mile while the green arrow gets enough time to let one or two cars through on each cycle. Since moving to Raleigh a year ago, I literally don't think I've ever waited more than two light cycles to get through any traffic light, even if it's the middle of rush hour, even if the traffic was backed up for a quarter of a mile, even if I'm on a secondary road turning left onto a main road, etc., etc., etc. (And lest you think I'm claiming that Raleigh is some paradise-on-earth for perfectly-tuned traffic engineering, it isn't even close. It's merely competent, which puts it light-years beyond Boston in that regard.)
Density
By tk
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:50am
Another contributing factor:
Raleigh: 3,023.4 people /sq mi
Boston: 13,340 people / sq mi
Sure, that's a factor as well
By Scratchie
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 12:02pm
Sure, that's a factor as well, but the combination of incompetent traffic engineers and alpha-douche drivers has a lot more to do with it, I'd reckon.
Don't forget lazy
By Chris Rich
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 5:54pm
.dog shit upkeep by someone's useless cousin.
Boston traffic signal stuff often seems to be broken or only working to tell motorists when to go.
Pedestrians have been a sloppy afterthought for decades.
Ah The Phantom Walk Button
By BlackKat
Fri, 08/22/2014 - 4:00am
Those new walk buttons that talk to you are hilarious. But I recall fondly the old "mechanical" ones that often did not actually do anything as if there was a walk cycle it was built into the normal traffic light programing. Pushing them just made you feel better. And I wonder if any of the newer versions are still just for show.
Yeah, Boston has so many layers of
By Chris Rich
Fri, 08/22/2014 - 6:13am
...dysfunction.
The elements seem to work in concert. The neighborhoods have a quality edge and less activity density but the urban core is like something invented for and by motorized shop-aholics with attention span problems.
Asshole density
By JCK
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:03pm
How does that compare?
Boston is off the charts, but
By Scratchie
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:45pm
Boston is off the charts, but then, you probably already knew that.
Leading pedestrian interval
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:42am
This is called "leading pedestrian interval" or LPI. It gives walkers a chance to get into the crosswalk first, and makes drivers aware that peds have the right of way.
Great.
By JCK
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:19am
With a few exceptions, the exclusive phase pedestrian signalling should go away. Peds shouldn't need to hit a button to trigger a walk light, and then wait up to a full cycle to cross at every intersection.
Cars also have to spend less time waiting as well, because this drops an entire phase from the light cycle. It's really win-win for everyone.
Exceptions
By Allstonian
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:29am
Important exceptions: any intersections with obstructed views (for example, Harvard Avenue and Cambridge Street in Allston, where cars turning onto Cambridge Street eastbound can't see pedestrians at the crosswalk across Cambridge Street, since it is set well away from the corner) and any intersections involving more than a 4-way crossing (for example, Brigham Circle, which is a 5-way intersection which many pedestrians need to cross diagonally.)
Sure.
By JCK
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:37am
But going block-to-block in downtown Boston having to hit the button and wait for a special phase (which may be 3 minutes out), is just plain ridiculous.
Except...
By ChrisInEastie
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:31am
this is Boston. Aka, "screw you if you're not me!"
My complaint about this
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:24am
My complaint about this intersection: pedestrians only get 8 seconds of walk + flashing hand. That's not nearly enough time, even for people who walk fast.
The worst is the Summer
By tape
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:55am
The worst is the Summer/Purchase crosswalk, where in a pretty long light cycle, pedestrians get exactly one second (ONE SECOND) of white walk signal before a flashing don't walk. This is with turning concurrent traffic as well.
I can't remember if it was reported on this site or just tweeted, but a few weeks ago someone was hit by a Silver Line bus at this crosswalk.
Funny you mention that crossing
By El Danimal
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:59am
I was crossing here this morning and the white walk signal flashed for literally 1 second before the 8 second countdown started. I thought to myself that something must be wrong with the signal, but I guess not.
Cars Red Light
By Liz
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:13am
And there are usually cars running the red light to make the left turn from Summer onto Surface Road which means the walk sign is flashing by the time pedestrians can safely cross
I believe something is wrong.
By JJJJJ
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 4:14pm
I believe something is wrong. If my memory is correct, fed guidelines require something like 3 seconds of white signal at minimum.
Mass. Ave. at Commonwealth
By Allstonian
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:21am
When I worked in the Back Bay and occasionally walked to Kenmore to catch the 57 bus, I had to teach myself to avoid the pleasant walk up Commonwealth to Mass. Ave., because the pedestrian light across Mass. Ave. (crossing towards the Eliot Hotel) was too short to safely get across the street.
LPI in Boston
By Matthew
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 1:47pm
Actually, the Mass Ave/Comm Ave intersection is one of the few Boston intersections with leading pedestrian interval, for the last few years that I can remember. It's helped.
I don't remember when it was installed. Probably well after you stopped commuting to the Back Bay.
I will typically walk from Hynes to Kenmore rather than go down to the Green Line, because (a) it's the Green Line, and (b) all the steps to go downstairs in Hynes make my knees hurt.
Change is good!
By Allstonian
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:37pm
I worked on Boylston across from the Pru 1984-1999. The light was definitely changed after then!
I did take the Green Line more often than not - the 57 at rush hour is no prize either - but it was a hellish commute. I do not miss it one little bit.
I lived at Comm/Mass Ave up
By gotdatwmd
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 3:48pm
I lived at Comm/Mass Ave up until a month ago and those lights were awful. Always long waits to cross, always problems with traffic in the intersection. So broken.
Go ahead,jump!
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:25am
Don't worry, there's someone there with a net to catch you.
I'm familar with the lights in Cambridge, and don't like them. It's li
Finally!
By Alis
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:26am
It drives me nuts that Boston doesn't do this -- all of NYC works on this principle.
I suppose it's dangerous in some ways, since Boston drivers aren't used to it yet (am I wrong to think they're trainable?). However, it's also dangerous when there's no traffic turning, but the pedestrian signal also says don't walk, and everyone (including the people in the cars in the non-turning lanes) just waits around an empty intersection -- nobody knows what is going on, and it makes people (both drivers and pedestrians) do stupid things out of frustration.
The light cycle in Cambridge with the tiny head start described above makes a lot of sense.
NY also has no right on red
By anon
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:31am
NY also has no right on red throughout the city, which helps pedestrians a lot to make crossings. If Boston would implement that it would improve life for pedestrians, but Walsh is even more anti-pedestrian than Menino, so its unlikely.
Montreal Does It One Better ...
By Elmer
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 12:27pm
... Traffic parallel to the crosswalk gets a straight-ahead green arrow during the pedestrian "head start" phase, so they don't have to wait to proceed. Several seconds later, it changes to a solid green, and then cars can turn right. Like New York City, right turn on red is prohibited everywhere.
answer
By bibliotequetres...
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 2:45pm
Yes. Yes, you are.
If I'm not mistaken this is
By mdecast
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:30am
If I'm not mistaken this is the same way the lights operate along Newbury, Boylston, Beacon and Arlington streets.
Cars should stop for the pedestrians and most drivers reluctantly do so. Those ones that don't are the ones that you have to worry about because they just have no regard for pedestrians. Unfortunately, there isn't always someone around to ensure that those drivers are ticketed for disobeying the law.
If I'm not mistaken this is
By Scratchie
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:33am
Fixed that for you.
Stupid fucking Masshole drivers can go fuck themselves sideways.
Exactly
By JCK
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:44am
Given that most cops don't seem to know the traffic rules, I'm not surprised this is problem around here.
But go even to that car-loving paradise of LA, and see how much better people are about yielding to peds in crosswalks.
A little enforcement goes a long way.
Pedestrians Too
By tk
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 11:57am
And peds much better about crossing in cross walks.
I don't argue that many drivers don't look and yield to pedestrians enough...
But people need to look up when the cross the street. Look at where cars are going to be coming from. Make eye contact with the driver. Your oblivious, heads down, earphones in walking is going to get you hurt not the driver.
The number of people who don't even look up astounds me.
City buses
By El Danimal
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:45am
From what I've seen city buses are the worst offenders. I ride the bus to and from work in downtown. At least once on the ride in or home the bus will blow through a walk sign, coming dangerously close to pedestrians crossing in the crosswalk. At the very least the bus will inch into the crosswalk to the point where people can't safely cross anymore, and then drive through when they stop for fear of being hit. It’s at the point now where I’m surprised when the bus waits for people to safely move through the cross walk without inching up on them.
I had a T bus accelerate at
By Josev
Fri, 08/22/2014 - 12:32am
I had a T bus accelerate at me and honk it's horn while I was crossing Washington Street in the South End. This was in a dedicated crosswalk. I had to run to get out of it's way.
How long do you think it'll take
By ChrisInEastie
Thu, 08/21/2014 - 10:33am
for someone to get hit? My money is on a taxi clipping someone before the first snowfall.
Pages
Add comment