Hey, there! Log in / Register

Driver hits two on a scooter in Dorchester, drives off

Hit and run on Dunbar Avenue in Dorchester

A woman got into her car on Dunbar Avenue in Dorchester around 12:55 a.m., promptly ran into two people on a scooter and kept on going up Washington Street towards Codman Square even, as one of the people on the scooter went flying.

That person is now on crutches and will require oral surgery, while the scooter's driver suffered less serious injuries but still had to be taken to the hospital for observation, a family member said.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

Hitting people with a car with the goal of causing harm is wrong. It is illegal; it is violent. No debate of that fact.

The scooter kids who purposely taunt drivers are playing chicken; they are purposely creating dangerous conditions. Playing with fire results in fire.

But then there is the fact that we live in a world that encourages and permits adolescents to play a very dangerous game of chicken.

In other words Russian Roulette with cars and motorbikes.

At some point the people who invite danger should be carry the culpability of creating the harm that their danger invites.

up
Voting closed 32

The scooter kids who purposely taunt drivers are playing chicken; they are purposely creating dangerous conditions. Playing with fire results in fire.But then there is the fact that we live in a world that encourages and permits adolescents to play a very dangerous game of chicken.

Have you shared your eyewitness account with the police or are you just taking a wild random guess here? How do you know that this had the least thing to do with the way the scooter users were operating and not something like the driver being impaired?

Or are you just taking your well-established pathological hatred of two-wheeled vehicles on a wild fucking excursion in an attempt to justify victim blaming?

up
Voting closed 66

SwirlyGirl don't drive, obviously.

up
Voting closed 30

But I don't see WTF that has to do with anything.

Have you filed your police report about your witnessing the incident and how these two people deserved this attack because of their mode of travel? How the driver was right to attack, attempt to kill, and then drive away because "scooter"?

The worst actors on the roadway are drivers. Period. Learn how to read statistics.

up
Voting closed 41

You're assuming that the children playing chicken deserve to be hit. You're wrong. They are playing chicken and are challenging drivers. Doesn't mean they deserve to be hit. It means they are setting themselves to be hit.

You write as though you're an expert in all things. Your expertise is clearly wrong here. These are adolescents in the late teens and early 20s who were prevented from developing a realistic sense of boundaries or mortality. Why? A larger societal issue. But the part of the problem is that these adolescents' brains are in sufficiently developed to do things such as operate motorized devices.

The legal response should be to deny licenses to anyone under 25 in the hopes that by 25 sufficient sense of mortality has developed. Because the problem is that we now live in a world where kids who act dangerously on the road are given legal permission to act as they want.

Instead of acting like a knee jerk liberal (which, from my experience are often just as dangerous as Trumpsters) try using the hard won education you claim to have to understand the world where we live.

By the way Swirrly: You are UTTERLY IGNORANT of my motivations. You know nothing about the work I've done to support SAFE roads and safe neighborhoods. That includes pushing the city to stop the motorcyclists who roar through neighborhoods causing obscene amounts of noise pollution.

Whether you're just looking for a reason to be angry or suffer from some other need to use your keyboard to condemn people, you're way off base.

Or are you just taking your well-established pathological hatred of two-wheeled vehicles on a wild fucking excursion in an attempt to justify victim blaming?

You're using violent language, violent ad hominem to somehow make yourself sound legitimate. I have tended to agree with many of your sentiments. But it's clear to me that your mission is to attack anyone who diverges even just a hair from your requirements of belief. A liberal version of radical bigoted conservatism.

I know of liberals in my neighborhood who do the same. It's their hypocrisy which makes it clear to me why liberals lost credibility in most states. Hypocrisy, self-attacking viciousness has become the standard of behavior among liberals. It's the same kind of self-hatred that blacks use against blacks, Jews use againt Jews and Gays use against Gays.

up
Voting closed 34

Swirly is not a liberal.

up
Voting closed 18

You're assuming that the children playing chicken deserve to be hit. You're wrong. They are playing chicken and are challenging drivers.

You're assuming that the children in this case were playing chicken, or indeed, that they're even children, are you not?

up
Voting closed 28

She called you out on your biases.

You are the one who is saying that scooter users deserve to be murdered by motorists.

Wow.

up
Voting closed 27

but some of your responses are empty.

If you don't see this in your neighborhood then be grateful.

Regarding police reports: Apparently you know nothing about what police require to file reports. Unless I could provide more information than seeing two people on a motorbike they will do their best to convince me to just deal with the situation.

Ten years ago there was a motorcyclist who drove by my house between 11 and 11:30 five nights a week. The motorcyclist blasted the bike up the hill generating vibrations that could be felt in houses along the street.

The response of a cop at a local neighborhood meeting? Stretch a rope across the street. In other words telling me to commit a crime. That told me the cop didn't care.

Do a better job of figuring out who is causing harm. I have always been a liberal; but I not a liberal who slaves myself to illusions of ideology.

These bikers are playing chicken. Only fools refuse to see that.

up
Voting closed 21

Must be exhausting

up
Voting closed 24

The response of a cop at a local neighborhood meeting? Stretch a rope across the street.

And if you're lying about that to make a point, it calls everything else you've said into question.

up
Voting closed 19

or change your perspective (and get off your keyboard) because your anecdotal evidence that cyclists and other two wheel commuters are "playing chicken" is based on nothing but your confirmation bias - unless you have some actual proof of this?

Furthermore, cars kill people. Bikes, scooters, trikes, skateboards, and pedestrians do not. Because of this, I think it's ok to assume they have more responsibility to act safely and responsibly and MATURE.

up
Voting closed 16

The driver would have a much more convincing argument that the scooter driver was at fault if they stuck around to tell the cops that at the scene.

When you drive away you sure look guilty even if the scooter driver is at fault.

up
Voting closed 45

Civil law recognizes that responsibility for a conflict is not always one sided. If the car driver is at guilt then they have to answer to that. But if the bikers are creating a dangerous situation then they are also partially responsible.

up
Voting closed 12

Much harder to argue the scooter is at fault when you're being accused of hit and run yourself.

up
Voting closed 27

The imaginary guilt of these imaginary bikers who are "playing chicken" in your fevered imagination.

up
Voting closed 5

I mean, I agree with your overall point and sadly would not be surprised if what you assume is true in this case, but we don't know the facts.

up
Voting closed 25

The assumption is that all evidence is based on facts. Circumstantial evidence is considered to be sufficient to convict. That means that the evidence which is a step outside of direct observation can be used in considering guilt.

The reality of many convictions is that the assumptions have often been wrong. So lecture me about assumptions. We all make them every day.

Nearly everyday I see two adolescents (15 - 25) riding motorbikes on main and secondary roads. Usually without helmets. I've seen them ride in dangerous ways.

This is not new. It's been happening for many years. Only recently have the BPD taken any action and that is usually directed toward motorcycles that are generating noise pollution, instead of motorbikes road in games of chicken.

This is on streets every day. Anyone who doesn't see the dangers is lucky to not have to deal with it.

up
Voting closed 9

Because you've seen people riding scooters and motorbikes poorly...that means all? most? some? a few? do it...and since that's the case, these must be one of those all, most, some, few that you know do it because you've seen all, most, some, a few do it?

In other words, you have a hammer ("I've seen people doing stupid shit on two-wheelers in this city")...and now everything is a nail ("I can safely assume these two were doing stupid shit on two-wheelers in this city because they were two...and riding a two-wheeler...and in this city").

Sorry, dude, it doesn't follow. Just because you've seen bad drivers doesn't mean every driver is bad and it doesn't even mean there's a high likelihood that any given driver is bad. You can't generalize your experience and you should probably just call it quits before you start talking about how it's because the ones you've seen acting out are all black and since this happened in Dorchester these two were probably black and that's how you know you can feel so safe in generalizing it. Because that's what you *want* to say...but are tip-toeing around. And that would be really racist of you...but no, you're probably just bad at logical causality....that's the ticket.

up
Voting closed 34

Kinopio has a much better case for banning all drivers and cars than you do for saying these scooter users deserved to be murdered because they were using scooters.

Get therapy.

up
Voting closed 21

Your anecdotal evidence is not evidence. it's confirmation bias. look at some real numbers before you make up your mind. Let me give you an example: My own person anecdotal evidence contradicts yours. Who's "right"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

up
Voting closed 11

A driver was involved in an injury accident and fled the scene.

That really should mean jail time.

up
Voting closed 19

I always say that fleeing is often worse than the act itself. Even if this is a case of the scooter swerving into the path of the car (not say that's what happens, but positing a theory), the driver's moral and legal duty is to remain on the scene until the authorities arrive.

up
Voting closed 6

... driving privileges.

up
Voting closed 10

“At some point the people who invite danger should be carry the culpability of creating the harm that their danger invites.”

You sound like someone making up justifications for committing violence.
I feel for you and the problems you had with the motorcyclist who didn’t use a muffler and drove up your street every night but you’re scaring me with that above comment.
Is the heat getting to you?
Take care of yourself, Daan.

up
Voting closed 14

This word means so many different things that I'm not sure what it denotes here. A Lime-type electric scooter, which normally should not have two people riding it?

up
Voting closed 9

The pictures are kind of blurry, but it looks like a larger, gas-powered scooter such as a Vespa, which can definitely carry two people.

up
Voting closed 12

From what I can make out in the wreckage, it looks like it might be a Chinese brand Vespa knockoff. Could possibly be a Vespa but I don't think their front housing comes off that way.

So, no, not a Lime-type electric scooter.

up
Voting closed 11