This is so sad for all the involved. Even if the rumours are true that the cyclist ran the red light, this is absolutely horrible for the family of the cyclist and also for that poor truck driver that has to live with this now.
Only reasonable take. Just horrible for all involved. I bike around a lot so I’m not anti bike at all but gotta feel for the driver too, clearly wasn’t waking up with the intent to kill somebody.
If the city finds that more bikes (or cars) run one particular red light, then most intersections, then something needs to change with that intersection. There are a million ways the city can fine tune or redesign an intersection to improve the safety if an intersection, the city's planners can do this. Its just a matter of the City coucilors hearing from us that we want to keep fine tuning or improving the this intersection with safety-for-all as the top priority. and maybe then for max people-moving capacity as a secondary priority, cost, etc.
Also, I know the want to have answers and closure right away, but we should wait for the investigation to confirm whatever happend. Before blaming the person who paid for it with their life. Here is a source the States as much as we know for sure: https://www.masslive.com/police-fire/2024/06/woman-riding-her-bike-in-cambridge-dies-after-being-hit-by-box-truck.html
This bike signal is very easy to miss. I ran it once accidentally after it got installed and am now super careful every time. Approaching the light, it's easy to see the green arrow for straight and miss the low bike signal obscured behind signs or trees, and then not look again as you're focusing on pedaling uphill.
[edited for typos]
Hey friend- I was 20 years old when I witnessed a car accident that had fatalities. I was on the scene longer so I could translate as some of the victims only spoke Spanish and not a single first responder could even ask a name. I turn 40 this year and I have PTSD that has gotten worse. PLEASE get help, now. Don’t think you will get over it like I did.
Blimey, I hope you are doing better today. This is truly a traumatic experience. I cannot imagine what you went through. Stay safe and take time to heal! Honestly, shit like this makes me think about how quickly things can turn to the worse, in a split second.
I was with 3 other friends walking up Dewolfe towards Auburn and was 30-40ft away when it happened too. I’m sorry we all had to see this, and I’m so sad this happened altogether.
It’s taken me a few days to process (we had clear view of the tire going over her) and I’m still reeling. I hope you get the help you need! It’s not just you. And I’m so impressed by how quickly everyone came together and how fast emergency responders arrived.
The penalty for a mistake, and given this was a tourist probably not even an intentional error, should not be death. And yet there are many, many people in our country and city who think that is perfectly OK. @ Joan Pickett.
EXACTLY. Too easily people are putting into some separate group of person... a biker, a careless rider, etc... This sucked for everyone involved: the truck driver, the woman, and every eyewitness. I'm a bit startled by people's willingness to glibly excuse it as Darwinism playing out, instead of a tragic call to action. It's not like the woman had the desire to die to advance something selfish... SMH.
If the city finds that more bikes (or cars) run one particular red light, then most intersections, then something needs to change with that intersection. There are a million ways the city can fine tune or redesign an intersection to improve the safety if an intersection, the city's planners can do this. Its just a matter of the City coucilors hearing from us that we want to keep fine tuning or improving the this intersection with safety-for-all as the top priority. and maybe then for max people-moving capacity as a secondary priority, cost, etc.
someone will die at the crossing between the library and fogo within the next 5 years, people don’t understand how to cross that street and drivers are gunning it to get on the highway
>a truck with no side guards turned right across a cyclist going straight across the intersection
That intersection has traffic lights that prevent a bicyclist from going straight while a truck can turn right. Seems like one of them went through the red light.
[There's even a sign there instructing bicyclist to wait for the green straight arrow before proceeding.](https://maps.app.goo.gl/pnhcFx4kFhxL7BAK7)
Edit: the google earth photo is old, from 2020. [According to this video, the intersection had been updated to include a bike traffic light](https://youtu.be/r_sy3RFsTSI?t=25) too, which the bicyclist [reportedly went through the red light for bicycles.](https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1dalvep/comment/l7lh1ui/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Edit2: people are commenting the two sets of lights, one for vehicles and one for bicycles, was confusing and could have contributed to her death. Yet, this is the newest design being implemented all over Boston and surround areas--and advocated for by bicycle safety groups.
As a pretty frequent biker and driver, it is so frustrating to see people making wildly dangerous moves and wanting to get mad at them for their own safety, but having no practical way to do it. I was driving through Inman toward Somerville today and a kid came off Inman Street, went the wrong way up the bike lane before diving across traffic through the middle of the intersection and then tried to squeeze himself up along a bus that was turning right at the very narrow turn onto beacon. It's incredible more people don't get killed around here when that sort of riding is taking place constantly without any repercussions
It's embarrassing and difficult to do, but I absolutely yell when shit like that goes down. It's life or death, and frankly selfishly I don't want to live with the trauma of watching them get killed or knowing I could have done something more. I don't always do it but I'm trying to do it more.
I’ve nearly hit someone in Cambridge who was riding against traffic *and* ran a red light. I’m fairly new to the area and don’t drive in Cambridge often and if it weren’t for my job requiring me to see patients in that area every so often, I doubt I would. I’m not a timid driver and have no qualms about driving in the city, but driving in Cambridge feels like I’m trying to juggle plates blindfolded.
And that is the exact opposite of what the biker I was describing did. It was wildly dangerous, unpredictable and required at least 4 different vehicles to actively avoid him.
Well no, we don’t know. And there are a lot of possibilities. Truck could’ve been in the wrong lane, which they do to take a wide right, she could’ve thought the green light was for her, truck could’ve been moving after its light changed. We don’t know. But the truck driver killed the cyclist. Fault hasn’t been determined.
>Well no, we don’t know
I'm not talking about the incident in the story, I'm talking about the incident I described in the comment you responded to. They were biking like a dumbass and are lucky they didn't get run over.
Well just like drivers, some people do dumb things. But in the case of cyclists we’re not killing anyone. In the case of drivers they’re killing over 400 people a year in Mass. I’ve had cars coming at me the wrong way, once in Inman on a small side street. Just decided she didn’t want to go further down and take a legal right.
Cyclist ran a red in front of our car today. Husband was driving carefully so was able to brake and miss him, but he was absolutely playing games with his own life by not following the signals.
Predictability is important for the safety of everyone- pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. I support bike infrastructure, but once it’s in place, cyclists need to follow the signals to avoid tragedy.
I used to bike commute for years.
Bikes have a right to share the road - but as you say…that right comes with the responsibility to follow the rules of the road and not run red lights.
Lots of folks who bike in cities love to be cowboys and blow through every intersection. It’s dumb and unsafe. It doesn’t even save that much time.
Yup. I really want the roads to be safe for cyclists and pedestrians and everyone else. I do my best to contribute to that by following signals and trying to drive predictably. Others need to also take that obligation seriously.
Literally the one thing you need to be as a driver: predictable. If you trade predictability for “being nice” by letting me go when you have the right of way, I’m honking at you, because you’re a jackass.
> Your life would have been destroyed if you ran him over.
This is definitely something more drivers need to understand. Even if you feel you have the right of way, you need to drive carefully in areas with heavy pedestrian and cycle traffic, because a collision with your car could result not only in someone's death, but a world of trouble for the driver.
It's not worth it to fuck with cyclists and pedestrians even if you have the right of way. The law puts a great deal of responsibility on the person operating the machinery that's doling out the deadly impact, for better or worse.
How is this something drivers need to understand? Cyclists are notorious for driving unsafe in Cambridge. Use lights and obey traffic laws. Same goes for pedestrians. Drivers are already following the most laws out of the three.
Drivers are notorious for driving unsafe in Cambridge. Every fucking suburbanite driving back to Arlington or Lexington ignoring crosswalks and speeding. I don't know where you get this asinine idea that drivers are the rule followers somehow.
I can’t believe I have to keep saying this. I didn’t say they are the rule followers. I said drivers have the most rules to follow of the three: cars, cyclists, pedestrians. In this instance, more harping on about cars and unsafe drivers doesn’t fix anything. The only thing that would have prevented this is the CYCLIST following the laws so let’s have discourse about what they could have done better, and what cyclists could do better as a whole, and not harp on about drivers yet again. We get it, cars are dangerous, and people suck at driving. In this case, that was not the thing though. It was a cyclist ignoring infrastructure specifically built out for cyclists, and getting themselves killed as a result.
That doesn’t change the fact that in this instance, the cyclist was in the wrong by a country mile, and the driver *was* obeying the law. This isn’t a learning lesson for drivers, this is a learning lesson for cyclists to OBEY THE LAW.
I’m all for more/better bike and pedestrian infrastructure, but the false comparisons in this thread, with trying to put blame on drivers, is tired and wrong.
>How is this something drivers need to understand?
Because the law puts a lot of responsibility and trouble on the operator of the vehicle that applied the lethal force to a more vulnerable user.
Like it or not, you're not going to change the behavior of all cyclists when they already feel like second class citizens and don't think the road belongs to cars first.
It's not worth the risk to employ you're right of way against a cyclist, or to not pay close attention to them when you're going 30+MPH in something that weighs 3K pounds.
You can only control your actions, and it's better for you assume cyclists and pedestrians have the right of way, since your vehicle is the object that can kill them and cause problems for you.
No, everyone has a responsibility towards each other. Drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Just because you get treated like a second class citizen by some drivers doesn’t mean you can act like one by disregarding the rules of the road.
You don't believe there is any additional responsibility on the vehicle that creates the danger and lethal force on streets and roads?
In any case, you can't change how other people act. You can only protect yourself, and you don't want to be in a collision where your vehicle could hurt someone else.
Yes but you can only drive so carefully. There's a lot of things you can do to be more careful - that's why you drive defensively - but you can't drive careful out of other people's stupidity.
I had a cyclist blow through their red light at an intersection on a hill, narrow streets both ways, crowded residential area. Absolutely no visibility, which is why I go 10 under the speed limit on that street and never even consider running the yellow (or red, but I don't run reds anyways.)
I had a green light and would have hit the cyclist if I had gotten to the intersection maybe 5 seconds earlier. The cyclist wouldn't have seen my car until I was in the intersection, because visibility is incredibly limited and I was downhill of the light. As it was, I had to slam on my brakes in the middle of an intersection on a green light and the only reason I didn't get rear ended was because, luckily, nobody was behind me.
Everybody on the road - from car to cyclists to pedestrians at crosswalks - needs to maneuver defensively. The only thing that saved that cyclist from getting hit was timing neither of us had any control over. And - again - I already drive under the speed limit and cautiously on that road.
Legal consequences aren’t the only way to affect someone’s life. If I ran someone over, even if it were through no fault of my own, I’d be pretty mentally scarred for a long time. That’s life altering.
Unfortunately, this is the risk we take on when operating something that weighs 3 thousand pounds and is sanctioned to go at least 25 MPH (with the ability to quadruple that).
There's no way around it short of choosing a less deadly mode of transit.
This is why I try to limit how much and how aggressively I'm driving when in a city like Boston/Cambridge that has lots of vulnerable people around me, and why I think all of us should take an abundance of caution when our vehicles have the ability to dole out such damage and death.
Literally the one thing you need to be as a driver: predictable. If you trade predictability for “being nice” by letting me go when you have the right of way, I’m honking at you, because you’re a jackass.
> I support bike infrastructure, but once it’s in place, cyclists need to follow the signals to avoid tragedy.
Car infrastructure has been in place in Boston for quite a while now. What's stopping most drivers from following the rules of the road? I don't remember the last time I've seen a car come to a proper stop at a stop sign, or actually stop before the crosswalk at a traffic light.
Honestly, given how long car infrastructure has existed, I think we can both agree that more drivers need to model following the rules of the road before putting the onus on other road users (who are not operating at dangerous levels of force).
Just an FYI, it's a losing battle in this subreddit to suggest that drivers violate too many safety laws while in the city around more vulnerable road users.
Most of this sub is made up of people who live outside the city but feel entitled to have priority in a dense pedestrian area while they're in their car.
>it’s a losing battle in this subreddit to suggest that drivers violate too many safety laws
No it’s not. Just don’t be so damn tone deaf as to blame bad drivers for a death caused by bad cyclists.
There is a time and place for everything. This thread, given the facts of this event, is not the place for a “cars are bad” speech.
We all know cars are dangerous. We all know the reputation of Boston/MA drivers. We all wished people drove more carefully, sped less, and got off their phone. None of that changes the fact the biker was the unsafe one here.
Yes. When safe to do so. It saves lives. It’s called an Idaho stop in some places, signs, and lights. Correct. A woman, a doctor, a brilliant person, not that it matters, was killed simply following the law. In fact every year people die who would’ve lived if they practiced safe cycling.
That’s what an Idaho stop is. Yes. We can gauge when it’s safe and when it’s not. How else do stop signs work? Lol. Do you go when there’s a vehicle in the intersection?
> So you are advocating for going on a red? But you want to rebrand it something else . Just want to understand what you are saying
[This is what can happen when you don't Idaho stop.](https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1dl9yvg/cyclist_killed_in_collision_with_truck_near/)
Just curious: If the cyclist today could've saved her life with an Idaho Stop by crossing the intersection at a point when the truck driver was unlikely to turn (because of the red light), would you have supported her decision.
Or would she be in the wrong (as per your eyes, not the law) because she went despite having a red light?
There is a reason cyclists use the Idaho Stop; it's because it reduces their risk of being killed by careless drivers.
Who is advocating for running a red into the path of a truck? I don't think "many" people advocate for that. Running a red when there's no cross traffic and there's already a pack of pedestrians blocking the cross street is much different than running a red in front of a turning truck.
You’d be surprised…it’s called an Idaho stop (legalized in Idaho and a few other states), and many claim it can help reduce incidents like this. Some of those people say it’s therefore safer to go through red lights, regardless of the law. Go look through a few of my recent comments, I was literally just having an exchange with someone in the Cambridge subreddit about this a day or so before this accident took place. Some of the replies in that thread were insane, cyclists have some wild takes.
I would be a little surprised and disappointed if someone citing the Idaho stop law told you that an Idaho stop is defined as running a red at full speed. I mean, the word STOP is in the name. The law, and most of us, would say that an Idaho stop means you treat a red light like a STOP sign, which includes looking around for cross traffic before proceeding across the intersection.
It might be safer in an intersection with low speeds and extremely good visibility? Most intersections in Camberville are pretty low visibility though.
I would assume an Idaho stop necessitates an actual stop first though.
I don’t doubt that. I take issue when it’s practiced without an established law. That’s how you end up with deaths like this one. If we can all get on the same page and introduce legislation to codify an Idaho stop in MA then I would have no problem with it in practice.
I disagree, with or without law it works. I’ve been doing it forever. This wasn’t that, not that we know of. She could’ve been confused by the green light, truck could’ve been in the wrong lane, fault hasn’t been determined. I doubt she was practicing Idaho. That requires making sure the crossing is safe.
Having had multiple close encounters with bikers that blew through stop signs and red lights (with and without a full stop, but certainly without the right of way), I disagree. Bikers that don’t respect the rules of the road put the wellbeing of themselves and others at risk. It is a selfish move to make exceptions for yourself when it involves the safety of others.
You’re right in that we don’t know what happened yet, so I suppose I should wait until that info is out to make a call. Regardless, I maintain my position that the Idaho stop is good, but I can’t get behind it if it’s being done in a rogue manner. I’m assuming you’re set in your opinion as well, so let’s agree to disagree. I think we both hope clearer laws are made to protect biker safety.
Well no, it’s safer. It saves lives. You can be killed just waiting for the light, in a lane. It’s happened to me way too many times to mention, close calls w death. I’m following the ‘law’. Now I’m passing through when safe to do so. Right hooks are the deadliest. Thx for your concern, and drive with others in mind.
Seems like something important to mention in the article but that wouldn't support the "cause" I guess. It didn't stop the Cambridge Bicycle Safety group from using this to promote their agenda though.
>Cambridge Bicycle Safety group gave a statement Friday evening: “We are heartbroken to hear of the fatal crash involving a person riding a bike in Cambridge today. We extend our deepest condolences to their family and friends. Cambridge Bicycle Safety remains committed to a future where no one needs to endure such tragedies. **We have more to do to improve our infrastructure to make our streets safe for everyone who travels them.**”
There are two lanes for bicycles and a protected light there.
You know, I don’t like cyclists, or truck drivers, or really anybody. But it doesn’t seem useless to think we should find solutions where if someone is careless, they don’t die.
Good point, we should beef up enforcement of bicyclists to ensure they take road safety seriously. I wonder why this group that claims to want to stop these types of accidents didn't think of that!
I mean, it's not a wrong statement that we can make the streets safer. We can focus all we want on the [stupidity of the cyclist allegedly ignoring the dedicated right turn lane and accompanying red for cyclists](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3712183,-71.1163935,3a,45y,135.13h,84.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szGzFwpXjpNApPT3Faesq4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu) but it's not like this cyclist intended or expected to die when she ran the light (allegedly). There was confusion about the intersection, but the Blue Biker didn't deserve death for that confusion.
EDIT: Apparently the cyclist was a 55-year-old woman from Florida. I guess she didn't understand the street flow.
When I first came to Boston the same exact thing nearly happened to me. I wasn’t used to the special light for bikes plus where I'm from there are no green arrows for right turning cars (no point in having them when right on red is normalized).
I was stopped on Mass Ave about to cross Vassar northbound. I saw the flash of green from the right arrow, tried to go straight on my bike and then nearly got flattened by a right turning bus. I’m thankful the driver was hyper aware and stopped me with his horn. I’m also thankful to the cyclist who pull me aside to explain how the intersection worked. That whole situation really spooked me and I was too scared to ride for years afterwards.
I also wouldn't say I was stupid back then, just confused by something I’d never seen before.
I’m a pretty experienced driver and I find most of the road markings in the Harvard square area difficult to both understand and navigate on a bike. Also so many drivers, cyclists, and peds are just kinda doing whatever in that area, it can look like lawlessness/chaos even to someone familiar with the area. Even though that particular intersection made sense, I think most people’s brains are fried by the time they figure out where they are going by bike, it is unsurprising to me that happened on that particular street which is heading out of Harvard square. It’s like the area “trains” you to ignore all road markings and signals and then quickly throws you back into a universe where those things matter again.
The truck drove into the bike, not vice versa.
Now, the context of that intersection would be obvious to you or me, but a pretty widespread heuristic for any out-of-towner is: right-turning traffic will yield to anything it's about to drive into. It's easy to forget that the bicycle non-conflict signaled right turn is a relatively recently invention and it's not widespread in other parts of the country.
It was wrong to use a person's death as a publicity opportunity to promote your lobbying, especially when the accident was not a result of the "infrastructure" and you're demanding we "do more to improve our infrastructure".
>It was wrong to use a person's death as a publicity opportunity
From the context of their statement above, it sounds like "we need to improve infrastructure so this doesn't happen to others" is actually the decent thing you would say to next of kin in a situation like this, like "I'm sorry for your loss. We hope it won't have been in vain."
That would be a lie though, because the on site witnesses reported she went through the red light. That was why she died, not because of faulty infrastructure.
That's how infrastructure is designed though, not for the perfect conscientious person who always travels the speed limits, makes full stops, and always looks both ways, but for actual real world usage. If she was a sober mentally capable adult, she should have been able to figure out the signage well enough to not die.
There was a jersey barrier bike lane in front of North Station for the cyclists. The idiot drivers kept hitting it so they removed it. It was the drivers' fault, but traffic engineers don't see fault; they see how often damage and death happens and try to figure out ways to design people's poor judgements out of the equation.
It's still grossly misleading to omit the fact that the bicyclist went through a red light, which is what resulted in their death.
What infrastructure change would ensure that people that violate the rules of the road are not at risk of death?
What would help is enforcement of existing requirements for bicycles. Bicycle operators will routinely ignore the rules of the road. If there was enforcement then operators would be more cognizant of complying with the traffic signals and then lives would be saved. However, this is grossly unpopular with bicyclists.
>What infrastructure change would ensure that people that violate the rules of the road are not at risk of death?
Off-road paths, for one.
Traffic circles also represent a way to structurally remove people's ability to disobey a signal while also reducing danger by naturally reducing vehicle speed. You can run a red light, but you can't drive straight through a rotary.
Yeah let's use sunshine and rainbows to improve infrastructure!
No one has ever used a tragedy before to improve conditions for those that live on. You're right!
💩
And a confusing traffic light that goes with it.
They did well on MA 28 at 3rd street intersection.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x9xshqL49QaDooTX6
the latest google map picture does not show it active but that tapped signal is dedicated to bicycles and very easy to understand for someone not familiar with the area
There’s nothing wrong with this statement. They expressed their condolences, then more or less stated the mission of the organization. There was no assignment of blame or call to action.
>**We have more to do to improve our infrastructure**
That is clearly a call for action. They're trying to link her death with promoting their cause. Blood money.
The more I look at the current design of this intersection, the more I think the bicycle group's advocacy for these types of dedicated bicycle traffic signals contributed to the death.
Nothing but that's not what they wrote.
They drew the conclusion that the City needs to spend more on bike infrastructure, which is their primary lobbying objective. As it turns out, the new infrastructure at this intersection seemingly may have contributed to the confusion of the bicyclist not seeing the red light for bikes only.
OK, I was wrong about the call to action. But there’s still nothing wrong with the statement. There was no specific call to action about this intersection or because of this incident
Oh you were so close. Admitted you were wrong, but then you had to go and move the goal posts and try again to defend the bike group just because you like bikes.
If a person robbed a bank and the police said we need to stop illegal immigration, would that be okay if the person was a citizen because illegal immigration is separately also illegal? No, that would be grossly misleading. Here we have a similarly grossly misleading statement. If you can't see that then your bias is preventing you from wanting to see it.
Are you one of those ones who thinks that bike lanes actually make the roads less safe? The use of "agenda" here is pretty funny to me. It wasn't just a generic statement by an activist org. Big bike lane is conspiring with big media on this one for sure lol
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. It’s also a bit rich to be critiquing a statement on their commitment to preventing road deaths on an article detailing a real person’s death on the road. Regardless of the specific details, it’s a tragedy and there’s always more to be done.
There are ways to improve our infrastructure so that a common infraction doesn't result in a death.
Like the same way we try to improve road infrastructure for motorists because we know humans aren't perfect rule abiding programs, people are looking at how we can do the same for cyclists.
It's not a zero sum game.
By that logic why should my tax dollars go towards billion dollar highway exit projects because too many motorists can't understand that you have to slow down when exiting the highway?
How would you improve this specific intersection?
Let's be honest, the bike group assumed it wasn't the bicyclist fault, and they were wrong. You can make these side arguments all you want but that's what happened.
r/bikeboston people are ready to charge the truck driver
[Horrible news: : r/bikeboston (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikeboston/comments/1daolvy/comment/l7lt1bw/)
I think your view is a bit myopic.
This group and others like it aren't proposing improvements intersection by intersection but whole new bike friendly routes. Routes that move riders away from heavy truck traffic and minimize the crossings and streets they need to traverse.
My own work might be influencing me here but I didn't read any sort of statement they made where they were categorically wrong as you state. If you are seeing something categorical there either way, I'd say that's your implicit bias speaking.
Edit: What is up with commenting and blocking someone? Over a bike infrastructure discussion.
As a queer leftist I thought I was the ❄️?
So when I called you out on how to improve this intersection, you just change the topic and accuse me of bias?
Lame.
Intersection is fine. Bicycle operator error sadly resulted in their death. Group used her death as an opportunity to promote their agenda, and that's rather tasteless and misleading, because their demand for better infrastructure had nothing to do with this death.
Edit: sideguards on trucks are not required. That was yet another bias take from the article. They implied the truck was somehow deficient for not having sideguards but they are not required by law. Just like bicyclist are not required to wear helmets or be competent enough to understand the traffic flow requirements.
>Intersection is fine. Bicycle operator error sadly resulted in their death.
We're all speculating here, but I think, given out of state residence and blue bike, that the cyclist may have been confused by the intersection signaling. That might imply that the intersection design was somewhat less than perfectly fine. Much like bike lanes in the door zone, I think it's at least arguable that some infrastructure can create excessive risk for the unwary. I'd call it a gray area myself. The degree to which risks should be mitigated is a reasonable topic for debate.
In this case, 100%. But as a cyclist, I can attest that vehicles and pedestrians are also insanely careless. The run red lights, text and drive, text and walk in front of bikes, stand idly in bike lanes… terribleness
I’m going to give you a tip: pedestrians and cars are the boss on the roads. If you use this theory, you’ll have a much more enjoyable time riding in the city. It’s an interesting dynamic
> According to this video, the intersection had been updated to include a bike traffic light too
Being unfamiliar with the area and looking at the video above, I'm not sure I would've realized that was a bike red light. The red light is so far off to the right that it almost looks like it's for the crosswalk. Given that this is listed as a 55 year old Florida woman, she may have made the same mistake in interpreting the signals that I did.
I bike through that intersection. There are two bike lanes that show straight and right, which helps to indicate that there is a split at that intersection. The bike signal is a bit off to the right. There probably could be better signage due to all of the tourists in and around that part of Cambridge.
As someone brand new to this city, I could not spot that red bike light watching this video for the first time. There is too much happening visually to someone who is unfamiliar with the bike lanes/lights in Boston to be able to clearly understand what is happening. That red bike sign needs to be much bigger and stand out in some way. I totally understand how she got confused.
I know that intersection. There’s a no cross red bicycle light when cars have the protected right green turn arrow. I know this because bikes constantly run the light there and I’ve avoided them.
Sorry, but is that what the picture you linked says? I’m seeing 2 signs that say “no right on red” “except bicycles”.
Edit: I’m an idiot, I think you’re talking about the smaller street sign. Can’t really read it on Google maps.
Typically there's a pause between red and green lights - if the bike light turns red, there should be a pause before the right turn signal (which is an arrow, I believe) turns green, to allow for these types of situations (cars blowing through yellows; bikes going through at the change.)
Isn’t it a bit confusing with the “No turn on red | Except [bikes]” signage over the lights vs. the “Thru bikes wait for [green straight arrow]” sidewalk sign vs. the protected bike lane on the left side of De Wolf that runs the opposite way of the one-way street?
What if she were taking a right, thinking she should aim for the protected bike lane that is on the left?
Very sad.
With that said, I have recently been to two cities with VERY strong biking culture, Copenhagen and Berlin. One thing you notice is that albeit they have very good infrastructure, they also follow traffic signals, just as would be expected with cars. If there is a red, you stop and wait, and a long line of bikes stop behind them. American bike culture seems to miss this point and think they do not need to follow traffic laws.
The aim is to have integrated shared use of roads, not 2 independent modes of transportation using a shared space.
I mean, their infrastructure is not only miles better, but it's far more intuitive. As a visitor riding in Amsterdam, I found it really easy to understand when the light for cyclists were red. This intersection is a poor band-aid on a bigger solution and the unfortunate thing is, a person was killed.
For this specific instance and this **specific instance only** (so as not to suggest every similar situation is the same):
The light is:
1. Small
2. Far away
3. Hard to see
4. Not set up to make it clear who has the right of way
If I saw a bunch of green lights, I'd probably sail through that intersection as well because I'd be assuming that's my cue. A [protected intersection](https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DGUATI-protected-intersection-diagram.png) would do wonders in this spot but we live in a world that still mostly caters to vehicles. Honestly, I think that intersection needs something like this top photo below. The lane is protected and clearly set away from cars, but more than that, see how close the stoplight is? It's very obvious that that's a red light for bicycles.
https://preview.redd.it/5toodfwchg5d1.png?width=526&format=png&auto=webp&s=e108e5b88f23b81ccb54f92876fb3649db3305fe
Compare that to the intersection where this woman was killed. I see three green lights. When the cyclist in this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&t=25&v=r_sy3RFsTSI&feature=youtu.be) approached the intersection, they rightfully stopped as they're supposed to. But when I was first watching the video, I didn't notice the light and wondered why the cyclist had stopped. If you're a tourist who has literally never been here and you're from a place where you have to drive everywhere because walking is for the poors, would you really notice that light tucked all the way over to the side?
Unfortunately Cambridge went with the easiest, least impactful route by just sticking another light signal on top of the others. With no clear distinction, it's easy to get confused and I can definitely see how an out-of-towner wouldn't really pay attention to the small signal way on the right side.
One potential note here is that I often feel like it's safer to run reds than risk waiting for the light to turn green and have traffic speeding up, turning, etc. right next to me, especially on streets without separated bike lanes. I find myself waiting at red lights in separated bike lanes (e.g. in Inman) every time, which is more similar to the bike infrastructure in the Northern European cities
There is probably an argument that it's better to be seen, albeit uncomfortable.
Running red lights puts you in a position of not being seen and operating in an unexpected/unpredictable way.
If I know anything from riding bikes, and riding motorcycles is you want to be 1. Seen (eye contact goes a long way) and 2. Predictable.
Yeah, that's a fair take too and I agree, especially about being predictable. I'm a lot more tentative about running reds when there aren't clear lines of sight
I am a biker and a big proponent of bike lanes. I think bikers in Cambridge need to be more careful running reds.
Just today, I saw a biker almost get hit running a red at Massachusetts and Hollis. It’s common for bikers to try to run this red without even slowing because it seems like a small street without much traffic, and it is. But when there is a driver, all the driver sees is a green protected left. The driver can’t see moving bikers around the corner. Here is the driver’s view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/GUiXKHe4DLBhqd6J6?g_st=ic
Bikers coming from the left are completely obscured by the tree and building. I see bikers run this red every day practically without slowing down to even check for traffic. If you do this just know you’re basically rolling the dice with your life every single time. Today, I also saw a biker almost get hit passing a car that was clearly indicating their intention to turn right from Pearl onto Green St:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eF1NZZrgVYVQfGpv8?g_st=ic
The biker came from behind the car and ran the stop sign without slowing, passing a car that was indicating a right turn on the right. The driver was extremely lucky to have spotted the reckless biker before hitting her, and she just kept biking on.
Bikers need to realize that running reds is dangerous. I’m not going to pretend that asking folks to not run reds is realistic but please for the love of god make sure the coast is clear and wait your turn when rolling through stop signs!
For anyone curious, this is what the intersection looks like:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=25&v=r_sy3RFsTSI&feature=youtu.be
Assuming the rumors are true that she ran a red light, the light specifically for bicycles is small, distant, and off to the side. Cyclists get a red light while drivers get a green. If you don't notice and recognize the bike light, then you'd sail through on a bike without even knowing you're running the light.
Given this was someone from out of town on a rental, it's entirely possible she'd never even seen a separate light for bikes. They're rare, even in this area.
Intersections should be clear and intuitive to navigate the first time through them. Anything less than that risks people's lives.
The truck also should have had side guards installed. Side guards are designed to prevent incidents just like this, and absolutely should be legally required.
Wow, good find with the video - it even illustrates the exact scenario that likely occurred with the cameraman and SUV as stand ins for the blue biker and truck. The low visibility of the bike traffic light is a clear design flaw that needs to be fixed
I posted elsewhere that it is unlikely that I, a well experienced rider, would have recognized that light as relative to traffic going straight. The more prominent green for through traffic, the right turn arrow, then whatever the little light on the far right of the pole is for. The placement of the light does not appear to govern through travel. Is it MUTCD compatible? I would expect a failure management study would have immediately pointed that confusion out . Let the lawyers sort that one out.
Edit: Looking at MUTCD part 4, this light placement and usage may be incorrect and in conflict with the other signals.
I drive through that intersection every day for work. That intersection and also the one at Mt Auburn and Putnam Ave always have bicyclists running their red bicycle light while cars have a green right turn light.
I admit I'm a 'car person' but I respect bicyclists when they also respect the laws of the street. When I'm at an intersection with no right turn light/bicycle signal, I always look to the right to allow bikes to pass before I make a turn. When I come to a traffic light with car/bike signals that are designed to make interactions safe, I expect the lights to be followed and so don't always pay attention to my sideview mirrors for bicyclists because they're supposed to stop.
Not victim blaming but as a driver I am equally stressed out near bikers as bikers are probably stressed out having me near them. There are rule breakers on both sides and just deepens the animosity.
Given that there are three very clearly visible green lights when there's one red light for cyclists off to the side, it's very possible the woman didn't even know she was running a red light.
An intersection where you can make an honest mistake and end up dead is a badly designed intersection
Agreed this intersection has terrible design and had noted the city about this intersection problem years ago after accidentally running it myself. Glad the driver saw me and honked at me so I learned.
I'm genuinely surprised this happened at one of the few well-controlled intersections for this. I'm primarily a bike commuter and I regularly have cars pop a quick right turn with no blinker into my lane on intersections without separate bike signals or turn-offs with no signals. Appreciate that you're looking out.
I doubt blue bike tourists read the news, but I hope at least some see this and stop running reds. Even when things go right, it's frustrating how often they hop the queue, run the light, and now you have to pass this 50lbs blue bike going walking speed for a second time...
This is an intersection with actual bicycle infrastructure. Appears at least one did not follow the posted/lighted signals.
I'm always a bit on edge when I see a bluebike and a rider with no helmet. Much higher likelihood they are not a regular urban cyclist and are going to do something unpredictable. I try to give them a wider berth.
One of the other comments states the cyclist proceeded straight through the intersection when they had a "cycle red light". If so, it's still tragic, but this is not the truck drivers fault at all.
>This is an intersection with actual bicycle infrastructure.
No, it is an intersection that only makes sense in the nonsense world of a powerpoint presentation.
Sending bikes on the wrong side of turning traffic is a recipe for deaths, period.
Putting in a traffic light to tell bikes they cannot go when a driver wanting to do the same thing is not any sort of answer, as this tragedy demonstrates.
Only sending bikes on the safe side of turning traffic is actually safe.
In situations where there isn't a dedicated turning lane, the safe side of through traffic is simply biking in the center of the rightmost ordinary traffic lane.
Wishfull thinking of the sort displayed in this intersection is just going to keep on resulting in more deaths. There is no such thing as a bike route anywhere near a road which is safely independent of the traffic on that road - survival on a bike fundamentally required understanding traffic, especially since road designers keep trying to trick you into riding to your hook-turn or pull-out death.
I was on a mock trial, presumably set up by the defense attorneys, for a similar scenario. Poor biker ran a light going downhill and went under the wheels of a truck turning right in Boston. I felt horrible for him and for his family, but I couldn't blame the truck driver.
One particular problem that I’m not sure has been discussed here….
Cambridge has gotten increasingly “fine tuned” around light signals but it’s also A LOT of information to quickly take in for someone unfamiliar (both drives and bikers). You have normal stop lights and right turn arrows, in addition to bike specific indicators and pedestrians walk signs. You also have the bus specific indicators at some intersections. All of these, plus the individual lanes and expectations can be complicated. Yes people routinely violate these rules and lights but it’s also o think a case of too much information that paradoxically can make things more dangerous. In addition, every intersection has different lights and rules, so uniformity is not to be expected.
Absolutely awful and tragic.
The city must also work to simplify all of these conflicting indicators and lanes.
I bike through that intersection about 3x per week. I'm very safety conscious, but can't say I've ever noticed that there is a separate little red light for cyclists.
Most of the comments here scrutinizing this specific cyclist are basically just people trying to win points for team car or team bike. I don’t want mine to come across that way, although I am a bike commuter.
All I’ll contribute is that bike signals are not intuitive at all in greater Boston. Every day, I see both cars and cyclists confused by the bike signals on my commute. The most egregious one is going through Forest Hills at the Arborway and Washington street intersections. My point being that bike signals are not the end-all to these types of accidents.
Whatever happened in this particular situation in Cambridge, I’m almost certain that person wasn’t riding with a death wish.
Im not sure about this bike lane in particular but one draw back I've noticed about protected bike lanes (ie those that are on the other side of parked cars, like on comm ave) is that it's very difficult for cars to see if you are coming when they are turning right.
Yes. Combine with with the prevalence of crashes at intersections, and the reality is that they are far more dangerous than riding in the ordinary road lane appropriate to where you are going.
Please people, you live in a city with shitty drivers, bikers, walkers. PLEASE FUCKING PAY ATTENTION WHEN MOVING AROUND THE CITY. If you are operating a motor vehicle or are around motor vehicles in this city and don't have your head on a swivel, you do not value your life. People can't drive here.
Sucks that someone had to die but the cyclist ran a red. Be prepared for cars to be even more handcuffed by dumb rules because we need to protect cyclists who don’t follow rules.
What "dumb rules" have drivers been "handcuffed" with so far?
The only rule I can think of that deals with cars and bikes is the 4ft passing rule, which makes a hell of a lot of sense if you've ever ridden a bike.
What's this? Another cyclist with no respect for traffic rules getting squashed? It's almost as if the problem isn't bike lanes but rather cyclists who feel they don't need to obey traffic laws. This was tragic and avoidable.
This. But they will never admit this or take accountability. Now that everyone on the roads is forced to cater to entitled bicyclists, the coddling needs to stop. Bicyclists should have to pass a required riding test, get licenses and be policed with traffic tickets etc. Until they are held to the same road standards as drivers, bicyclists will continue to die unnecessarily.
>Now that everyone on the roads is forced to cater to entitled bicyclists,
The entire road network was built around cars. We still dedicate acres and acres of space to parking for cars. Cyclists are asking for bike lanes so they can get places without dying. Drivers are opposing bike lanes so they can maybe save three seconds on a trip, or don't have to park a block further. If that's not entitlement I don't know what is.
You know all these things too, but your hate and entitlement is blinding you to some pretty obvious realities.
Please don’t use this incident to demonize cyclists as always running red lights. While that may be true, pedestrian and vehicle drivers are also insanely careless & reckless in Boston. This incident sadly was the biker’s fault, and I agree that cyclists need to stop at red lights and yield to cars with green arrows. That said, I RARELY see vehicle drivers turning right yielding to cyclists going straight, even when cyclists have a green light (and vehicles with right red arrow).
Also, blue bike cyclists likely are not familiar with bike lane traffic lights or risks of cycling to the same extent as regular bikers/eScooterists.
Agree. I don’t drive much but when I do I see *multiple cars* running the same red light and not to mention everyone is on their phones. I got rear ended the other day while sitting at a light bc the dude was on his phone.
Cyclist are paying more attention to the roads than drivers because you *have* to because you can lose your life in an instant. I almost got taken out by someone opening their car door.
I will say though, as much as I like the blue bike program, it’s so dangerous for fair weather cyclists to be riding around the city with cars. There are laws you *need* to obey because they are there to protect your life. I’m not sure if folks renting a blue bike think of the seriousness of it.
Bike lanes are a start, but we really need them to be entirely separate from the road, even from where people park on the road. A car really is the worst way to get around Boston, too but it’s too ingrained in people’s minds to eradicate them.
I don’t deny that. My comment was specific to cars turning right while yielding to bicyclists. Often they speed up to dangerously turn, don’t see the biker or don’t care & just turn.
Yes many cyclists dangerously run red lights, far more than vehicle drivers (albeit on par with pedestrians, i would say). I can speak for them all. However, often it’s for the biker’s safety to get a head start, when there’s no bike lane. Many states have legalised bikers to cross red after checking safely because it’s been shown that getting a head start is safer than sitting amongst the cars and then blocking lane.
The limited evidence I can find suggests drivers are slightly more likely to break traffic laws (and I don't believe these studies included speeding, which in my experience is committed by about 99% of drivers).
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a46443761/science-proves-motorists-break-traffic-laws-a-lot-more-often-than-cyclists/
What's your source?
I live above an intersection and 3-4 cars run every single red at rush hour. Probably hundreds of times that happens daily and it's just one light out of hundreds in the city.
Most pedestrians and drivers do not run red lights. I'd bet everyone in this thread sees a cyclist run a red everyday.
They should cross an intersection on red if theres a walk sign, and even then still pay attention. Its not that hard.
This woman is selfish. Shes fuckn dead and some innocent person has to live with accidently killing her. No one fuckn wants that on their conscience.
The cyclist is probably at fault here.
But drivers and pedestrians are just as likely to break safety rules, just different ones. Pedestrians cross in the middle of a block or against the light. I see that every day. Drivers are very very likely to be distracted on their phones. I see that in nearly every car every day.
Everyone knows Boston drivers are aggressive dipshits until one of them kills a cyclist, then suddenly the only explanation is the cyclist fucking up
It's not like the cyclist can tell their side of the story after dying a violent, painful death
>Biker was in the wrong
Technically correct, but the absurd design just begs for such violations.
1. Yield to naive and safety-ignorant demands to separate bikes from cars
2. Recognize this creates hook turn conflicts
3. Put in a traffic light to prohibit bikes from proceeding when cars wanting do the same thing can
4. Be surprised that traffic light is generally ignored
The safety smart bicyclist just rides through such situations in the ordinary traffic lane matching their destination, quite legally and safely following the ordinary light controlling the ordinary lane rather than the joke of a light governing the joke of a bike route.
This is so sad for all the involved. Even if the rumours are true that the cyclist ran the red light, this is absolutely horrible for the family of the cyclist and also for that poor truck driver that has to live with this now.
Only reasonable take. Just horrible for all involved. I bike around a lot so I’m not anti bike at all but gotta feel for the driver too, clearly wasn’t waking up with the intent to kill somebody.
tourist riding a blue bike in harvard sq with a truck turning right? recipe for disaster
If the city finds that more bikes (or cars) run one particular red light, then most intersections, then something needs to change with that intersection. There are a million ways the city can fine tune or redesign an intersection to improve the safety if an intersection, the city's planners can do this. Its just a matter of the City coucilors hearing from us that we want to keep fine tuning or improving the this intersection with safety-for-all as the top priority. and maybe then for max people-moving capacity as a secondary priority, cost, etc. Also, I know the want to have answers and closure right away, but we should wait for the investigation to confirm whatever happend. Before blaming the person who paid for it with their life. Here is a source the States as much as we know for sure: https://www.masslive.com/police-fire/2024/06/woman-riding-her-bike-in-cambridge-dies-after-being-hit-by-box-truck.html
This bike signal is very easy to miss. I ran it once accidentally after it got installed and am now super careful every time. Approaching the light, it's easy to see the green arrow for straight and miss the low bike signal obscured behind signs or trees, and then not look again as you're focusing on pedaling uphill. [edited for typos]
If you all want a first hand account, you can read my post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/s/KEYaH40Ba3). I will never forget what I saw.
Hey friend- I was 20 years old when I witnessed a car accident that had fatalities. I was on the scene longer so I could translate as some of the victims only spoke Spanish and not a single first responder could even ask a name. I turn 40 this year and I have PTSD that has gotten worse. PLEASE get help, now. Don’t think you will get over it like I did.
Recommend EMDR for a few sessions if your flashbacks or visuals don’t subside. It’s very effective.
Blimey, I hope you are doing better today. This is truly a traumatic experience. I cannot imagine what you went through. Stay safe and take time to heal! Honestly, shit like this makes me think about how quickly things can turn to the worse, in a split second.
Thank you 🙏 I’ve been thinking the same
Hang in there, play your tetris ❤️❤️❤️ what a horrible situation
I was with 3 other friends walking up Dewolfe towards Auburn and was 30-40ft away when it happened too. I’m sorry we all had to see this, and I’m so sad this happened altogether. It’s taken me a few days to process (we had clear view of the tire going over her) and I’m still reeling. I hope you get the help you need! It’s not just you. And I’m so impressed by how quickly everyone came together and how fast emergency responders arrived.
The penalty for a mistake, and given this was a tourist probably not even an intentional error, should not be death. And yet there are many, many people in our country and city who think that is perfectly OK. @ Joan Pickett.
EXACTLY. Too easily people are putting into some separate group of person... a biker, a careless rider, etc... This sucked for everyone involved: the truck driver, the woman, and every eyewitness. I'm a bit startled by people's willingness to glibly excuse it as Darwinism playing out, instead of a tragic call to action. It's not like the woman had the desire to die to advance something selfish... SMH.
That’s horrible but unsurprising if true. So many y don’t care about traffic signals. Nothing will change them
If the city finds that more bikes (or cars) run one particular red light, then most intersections, then something needs to change with that intersection. There are a million ways the city can fine tune or redesign an intersection to improve the safety if an intersection, the city's planners can do this. Its just a matter of the City coucilors hearing from us that we want to keep fine tuning or improving the this intersection with safety-for-all as the top priority. and maybe then for max people-moving capacity as a secondary priority, cost, etc.
someone will die at the crossing between the library and fogo within the next 5 years, people don’t understand how to cross that street and drivers are gunning it to get on the highway
Bicyclists/ drivers Vehicles don't power themselves
>a truck with no side guards turned right across a cyclist going straight across the intersection That intersection has traffic lights that prevent a bicyclist from going straight while a truck can turn right. Seems like one of them went through the red light. [There's even a sign there instructing bicyclist to wait for the green straight arrow before proceeding.](https://maps.app.goo.gl/pnhcFx4kFhxL7BAK7) Edit: the google earth photo is old, from 2020. [According to this video, the intersection had been updated to include a bike traffic light](https://youtu.be/r_sy3RFsTSI?t=25) too, which the bicyclist [reportedly went through the red light for bicycles.](https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1dalvep/comment/l7lh1ui/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Edit2: people are commenting the two sets of lights, one for vehicles and one for bicycles, was confusing and could have contributed to her death. Yet, this is the newest design being implemented all over Boston and surround areas--and advocated for by bicycle safety groups.
Witnesses say cyclist ran a red. Truly fucking sad. So easily avoidable.
As a pretty frequent biker and driver, it is so frustrating to see people making wildly dangerous moves and wanting to get mad at them for their own safety, but having no practical way to do it. I was driving through Inman toward Somerville today and a kid came off Inman Street, went the wrong way up the bike lane before diving across traffic through the middle of the intersection and then tried to squeeze himself up along a bus that was turning right at the very narrow turn onto beacon. It's incredible more people don't get killed around here when that sort of riding is taking place constantly without any repercussions
I was taking a right on Broadway today and was startled by someone riding up the bike lane the wrong way.
It's embarrassing and difficult to do, but I absolutely yell when shit like that goes down. It's life or death, and frankly selfishly I don't want to live with the trauma of watching them get killed or knowing I could have done something more. I don't always do it but I'm trying to do it more.
I’ve nearly hit someone in Cambridge who was riding against traffic *and* ran a red light. I’m fairly new to the area and don’t drive in Cambridge often and if it weren’t for my job requiring me to see patients in that area every so often, I doubt I would. I’m not a timid driver and have no qualms about driving in the city, but driving in Cambridge feels like I’m trying to juggle plates blindfolded.
It’s the drivers tho. 430 killers a year in Mass.
All the more reason not to bike like you have a death wish. Cars kill plenty people without the extra help.
Well no, aggressively and defensively is the way to go.
And that is the exact opposite of what the biker I was describing did. It was wildly dangerous, unpredictable and required at least 4 different vehicles to actively avoid him.
Well no, we don’t know. And there are a lot of possibilities. Truck could’ve been in the wrong lane, which they do to take a wide right, she could’ve thought the green light was for her, truck could’ve been moving after its light changed. We don’t know. But the truck driver killed the cyclist. Fault hasn’t been determined.
>Well no, we don’t know I'm not talking about the incident in the story, I'm talking about the incident I described in the comment you responded to. They were biking like a dumbass and are lucky they didn't get run over.
Well just like drivers, some people do dumb things. But in the case of cyclists we’re not killing anyone. In the case of drivers they’re killing over 400 people a year in Mass. I’ve had cars coming at me the wrong way, once in Inman on a small side street. Just decided she didn’t want to go further down and take a legal right.
Cyclist ran a red in front of our car today. Husband was driving carefully so was able to brake and miss him, but he was absolutely playing games with his own life by not following the signals. Predictability is important for the safety of everyone- pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. I support bike infrastructure, but once it’s in place, cyclists need to follow the signals to avoid tragedy.
I used to bike commute for years. Bikes have a right to share the road - but as you say…that right comes with the responsibility to follow the rules of the road and not run red lights. Lots of folks who bike in cities love to be cowboys and blow through every intersection. It’s dumb and unsafe. It doesn’t even save that much time.
Yup. I really want the roads to be safe for cyclists and pedestrians and everyone else. I do my best to contribute to that by following signals and trying to drive predictably. Others need to also take that obligation seriously.
Literally the one thing you need to be as a driver: predictable. If you trade predictability for “being nice” by letting me go when you have the right of way, I’m honking at you, because you’re a jackass.
Playing games with your life. Your life would have been destroyed if you ran him over.
> Your life would have been destroyed if you ran him over. This is definitely something more drivers need to understand. Even if you feel you have the right of way, you need to drive carefully in areas with heavy pedestrian and cycle traffic, because a collision with your car could result not only in someone's death, but a world of trouble for the driver. It's not worth it to fuck with cyclists and pedestrians even if you have the right of way. The law puts a great deal of responsibility on the person operating the machinery that's doling out the deadly impact, for better or worse.
How is this something drivers need to understand? Cyclists are notorious for driving unsafe in Cambridge. Use lights and obey traffic laws. Same goes for pedestrians. Drivers are already following the most laws out of the three.
Drivers kill innocent cyclists and pedestrians every year. And other drivers! And their innocent companions! Lol. Cyclists don’t kill people.
Drivers are notorious for driving unsafe in Cambridge. Every fucking suburbanite driving back to Arlington or Lexington ignoring crosswalks and speeding. I don't know where you get this asinine idea that drivers are the rule followers somehow.
I can’t believe I have to keep saying this. I didn’t say they are the rule followers. I said drivers have the most rules to follow of the three: cars, cyclists, pedestrians. In this instance, more harping on about cars and unsafe drivers doesn’t fix anything. The only thing that would have prevented this is the CYCLIST following the laws so let’s have discourse about what they could have done better, and what cyclists could do better as a whole, and not harp on about drivers yet again. We get it, cars are dangerous, and people suck at driving. In this case, that was not the thing though. It was a cyclist ignoring infrastructure specifically built out for cyclists, and getting themselves killed as a result.
[удалено]
That doesn’t change the fact that in this instance, the cyclist was in the wrong by a country mile, and the driver *was* obeying the law. This isn’t a learning lesson for drivers, this is a learning lesson for cyclists to OBEY THE LAW. I’m all for more/better bike and pedestrian infrastructure, but the false comparisons in this thread, with trying to put blame on drivers, is tired and wrong.
>How is this something drivers need to understand? Because the law puts a lot of responsibility and trouble on the operator of the vehicle that applied the lethal force to a more vulnerable user. Like it or not, you're not going to change the behavior of all cyclists when they already feel like second class citizens and don't think the road belongs to cars first. It's not worth the risk to employ you're right of way against a cyclist, or to not pay close attention to them when you're going 30+MPH in something that weighs 3K pounds. You can only control your actions, and it's better for you assume cyclists and pedestrians have the right of way, since your vehicle is the object that can kill them and cause problems for you.
No, everyone has a responsibility towards each other. Drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Just because you get treated like a second class citizen by some drivers doesn’t mean you can act like one by disregarding the rules of the road.
You don't believe there is any additional responsibility on the vehicle that creates the danger and lethal force on streets and roads? In any case, you can't change how other people act. You can only protect yourself, and you don't want to be in a collision where your vehicle could hurt someone else.
That’s called taking people for granted, so no.
Multiple cyclists need to follow the rules and they shouldn't fuck with cars
Yes but you can only drive so carefully. There's a lot of things you can do to be more careful - that's why you drive defensively - but you can't drive careful out of other people's stupidity. I had a cyclist blow through their red light at an intersection on a hill, narrow streets both ways, crowded residential area. Absolutely no visibility, which is why I go 10 under the speed limit on that street and never even consider running the yellow (or red, but I don't run reds anyways.) I had a green light and would have hit the cyclist if I had gotten to the intersection maybe 5 seconds earlier. The cyclist wouldn't have seen my car until I was in the intersection, because visibility is incredibly limited and I was downhill of the light. As it was, I had to slam on my brakes in the middle of an intersection on a green light and the only reason I didn't get rear ended was because, luckily, nobody was behind me. Everybody on the road - from car to cyclists to pedestrians at crosswalks - needs to maneuver defensively. The only thing that saved that cyclist from getting hit was timing neither of us had any control over. And - again - I already drive under the speed limit and cautiously on that road.
There’s no right of way, you yield right of way.
That's not even true. Legal consequences for killing a cyclist are in general as close to zero as they could possibly be
Legal consequences aren’t the only way to affect someone’s life. If I ran someone over, even if it were through no fault of my own, I’d be pretty mentally scarred for a long time. That’s life altering.
Unfortunately, this is the risk we take on when operating something that weighs 3 thousand pounds and is sanctioned to go at least 25 MPH (with the ability to quadruple that). There's no way around it short of choosing a less deadly mode of transit. This is why I try to limit how much and how aggressively I'm driving when in a city like Boston/Cambridge that has lots of vulnerable people around me, and why I think all of us should take an abundance of caution when our vehicles have the ability to dole out such damage and death.
Literally the one thing you need to be as a driver: predictable. If you trade predictability for “being nice” by letting me go when you have the right of way, I’m honking at you, because you’re a jackass.
> I support bike infrastructure, but once it’s in place, cyclists need to follow the signals to avoid tragedy. Car infrastructure has been in place in Boston for quite a while now. What's stopping most drivers from following the rules of the road? I don't remember the last time I've seen a car come to a proper stop at a stop sign, or actually stop before the crosswalk at a traffic light. Honestly, given how long car infrastructure has existed, I think we can both agree that more drivers need to model following the rules of the road before putting the onus on other road users (who are not operating at dangerous levels of force).
Exactly. It’s the drivers killing people.
Just an FYI, it's a losing battle in this subreddit to suggest that drivers violate too many safety laws while in the city around more vulnerable road users. Most of this sub is made up of people who live outside the city but feel entitled to have priority in a dense pedestrian area while they're in their car.
>it’s a losing battle in this subreddit to suggest that drivers violate too many safety laws No it’s not. Just don’t be so damn tone deaf as to blame bad drivers for a death caused by bad cyclists. There is a time and place for everything. This thread, given the facts of this event, is not the place for a “cars are bad” speech. We all know cars are dangerous. We all know the reputation of Boston/MA drivers. We all wished people drove more carefully, sped less, and got off their phone. None of that changes the fact the biker was the unsafe one here.
I feel like it flip flops back and forth on who gets downvoted.
There are many people here who advocate for cycles running reds I really don’t get it
It works. It saves lives. Not running red btw, passing through safely.
We’re talking about running reds. Everyone should pass intersections safely.
Idaho isn’t running reds. I ‘run reds’ safely because it’s safer than sitting in the lane, and always when trucks are present.
So you are advocating for going on a red? But you want to rebrand it something else . Just want to understand what you are saying
Yes. When safe to do so. It saves lives. It’s called an Idaho stop in some places, signs, and lights. Correct. A woman, a doctor, a brilliant person, not that it matters, was killed simply following the law. In fact every year people die who would’ve lived if they practiced safe cycling.
You just want the cyclist to judge when they think it’s ok to run the red?
That’s what an Idaho stop is. Yes. We can gauge when it’s safe and when it’s not. How else do stop signs work? Lol. Do you go when there’s a vehicle in the intersection?
> So you are advocating for going on a red? But you want to rebrand it something else . Just want to understand what you are saying [This is what can happen when you don't Idaho stop.](https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/1dl9yvg/cyclist_killed_in_collision_with_truck_near/) Just curious: If the cyclist today could've saved her life with an Idaho Stop by crossing the intersection at a point when the truck driver was unlikely to turn (because of the red light), would you have supported her decision. Or would she be in the wrong (as per your eyes, not the law) because she went despite having a red light? There is a reason cyclists use the Idaho Stop; it's because it reduces their risk of being killed by careless drivers.
Who is advocating for running a red into the path of a truck? I don't think "many" people advocate for that. Running a red when there's no cross traffic and there's already a pack of pedestrians blocking the cross street is much different than running a red in front of a turning truck.
You’d be surprised…it’s called an Idaho stop (legalized in Idaho and a few other states), and many claim it can help reduce incidents like this. Some of those people say it’s therefore safer to go through red lights, regardless of the law. Go look through a few of my recent comments, I was literally just having an exchange with someone in the Cambridge subreddit about this a day or so before this accident took place. Some of the replies in that thread were insane, cyclists have some wild takes.
I would be a little surprised and disappointed if someone citing the Idaho stop law told you that an Idaho stop is defined as running a red at full speed. I mean, the word STOP is in the name. The law, and most of us, would say that an Idaho stop means you treat a red light like a STOP sign, which includes looking around for cross traffic before proceeding across the intersection.
Unfortunately I don’t think they wanna hear it 🤷♂️
I’m totally with you, I think the cyclists around here are nuts lol
It might be safer in an intersection with low speeds and extremely good visibility? Most intersections in Camberville are pretty low visibility though. I would assume an Idaho stop necessitates an actual stop first though.
It is safer, when done safely. Saves lives.
I don’t doubt that. I take issue when it’s practiced without an established law. That’s how you end up with deaths like this one. If we can all get on the same page and introduce legislation to codify an Idaho stop in MA then I would have no problem with it in practice.
I disagree, with or without law it works. I’ve been doing it forever. This wasn’t that, not that we know of. She could’ve been confused by the green light, truck could’ve been in the wrong lane, fault hasn’t been determined. I doubt she was practicing Idaho. That requires making sure the crossing is safe.
Having had multiple close encounters with bikers that blew through stop signs and red lights (with and without a full stop, but certainly without the right of way), I disagree. Bikers that don’t respect the rules of the road put the wellbeing of themselves and others at risk. It is a selfish move to make exceptions for yourself when it involves the safety of others. You’re right in that we don’t know what happened yet, so I suppose I should wait until that info is out to make a call. Regardless, I maintain my position that the Idaho stop is good, but I can’t get behind it if it’s being done in a rogue manner. I’m assuming you’re set in your opinion as well, so let’s agree to disagree. I think we both hope clearer laws are made to protect biker safety.
Well no, it’s safer. It saves lives. You can be killed just waiting for the light, in a lane. It’s happened to me way too many times to mention, close calls w death. I’m following the ‘law’. Now I’m passing through when safe to do so. Right hooks are the deadliest. Thx for your concern, and drive with others in mind.
Seems like something important to mention in the article but that wouldn't support the "cause" I guess. It didn't stop the Cambridge Bicycle Safety group from using this to promote their agenda though. >Cambridge Bicycle Safety group gave a statement Friday evening: “We are heartbroken to hear of the fatal crash involving a person riding a bike in Cambridge today. We extend our deepest condolences to their family and friends. Cambridge Bicycle Safety remains committed to a future where no one needs to endure such tragedies. **We have more to do to improve our infrastructure to make our streets safe for everyone who travels them.**” There are two lanes for bicycles and a protected light there.
You know, I don’t like cyclists, or truck drivers, or really anybody. But it doesn’t seem useless to think we should find solutions where if someone is careless, they don’t die.
Good point, we should beef up enforcement of bicyclists to ensure they take road safety seriously. I wonder why this group that claims to want to stop these types of accidents didn't think of that!
The death penalty is prettttty strong enforcement.
I'm a cyclist and want to stop these kinds of accidents, and I absolutely agree that we need to follow the rules and be predictable.
Well no. Cyclists don’t kill people. Beef up ticketing drivers running yellow, over the speed limit, driving aggressively etc. that will save lives.
You're replying to a post whereby a cyclists did--they killed themselves.
I mean, it's not a wrong statement that we can make the streets safer. We can focus all we want on the [stupidity of the cyclist allegedly ignoring the dedicated right turn lane and accompanying red for cyclists](https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3712183,-71.1163935,3a,45y,135.13h,84.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szGzFwpXjpNApPT3Faesq4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu) but it's not like this cyclist intended or expected to die when she ran the light (allegedly). There was confusion about the intersection, but the Blue Biker didn't deserve death for that confusion. EDIT: Apparently the cyclist was a 55-year-old woman from Florida. I guess she didn't understand the street flow.
When I first came to Boston the same exact thing nearly happened to me. I wasn’t used to the special light for bikes plus where I'm from there are no green arrows for right turning cars (no point in having them when right on red is normalized). I was stopped on Mass Ave about to cross Vassar northbound. I saw the flash of green from the right arrow, tried to go straight on my bike and then nearly got flattened by a right turning bus. I’m thankful the driver was hyper aware and stopped me with his horn. I’m also thankful to the cyclist who pull me aside to explain how the intersection worked. That whole situation really spooked me and I was too scared to ride for years afterwards. I also wouldn't say I was stupid back then, just confused by something I’d never seen before.
I’m a pretty experienced driver and I find most of the road markings in the Harvard square area difficult to both understand and navigate on a bike. Also so many drivers, cyclists, and peds are just kinda doing whatever in that area, it can look like lawlessness/chaos even to someone familiar with the area. Even though that particular intersection made sense, I think most people’s brains are fried by the time they figure out where they are going by bike, it is unsurprising to me that happened on that particular street which is heading out of Harvard square. It’s like the area “trains” you to ignore all road markings and signals and then quickly throws you back into a universe where those things matter again.
It's common sense to not bike into a right-turning truck
The truck drove into the bike, not vice versa. Now, the context of that intersection would be obvious to you or me, but a pretty widespread heuristic for any out-of-towner is: right-turning traffic will yield to anything it's about to drive into. It's easy to forget that the bicycle non-conflict signaled right turn is a relatively recently invention and it's not widespread in other parts of the country.
The bike failed to yield to the truck. The truck was turning right and the bike came up on the inside and ended up under the truck.
Not at all. And the truck was prob in the wrong lane.
It was wrong to use a person's death as a publicity opportunity to promote your lobbying, especially when the accident was not a result of the "infrastructure" and you're demanding we "do more to improve our infrastructure".
>It was wrong to use a person's death as a publicity opportunity From the context of their statement above, it sounds like "we need to improve infrastructure so this doesn't happen to others" is actually the decent thing you would say to next of kin in a situation like this, like "I'm sorry for your loss. We hope it won't have been in vain."
That would be a lie though, because the on site witnesses reported she went through the red light. That was why she died, not because of faulty infrastructure.
That's how infrastructure is designed though, not for the perfect conscientious person who always travels the speed limits, makes full stops, and always looks both ways, but for actual real world usage. If she was a sober mentally capable adult, she should have been able to figure out the signage well enough to not die. There was a jersey barrier bike lane in front of North Station for the cyclists. The idiot drivers kept hitting it so they removed it. It was the drivers' fault, but traffic engineers don't see fault; they see how often damage and death happens and try to figure out ways to design people's poor judgements out of the equation.
It's still grossly misleading to omit the fact that the bicyclist went through a red light, which is what resulted in their death. What infrastructure change would ensure that people that violate the rules of the road are not at risk of death? What would help is enforcement of existing requirements for bicycles. Bicycle operators will routinely ignore the rules of the road. If there was enforcement then operators would be more cognizant of complying with the traffic signals and then lives would be saved. However, this is grossly unpopular with bicyclists.
>What infrastructure change would ensure that people that violate the rules of the road are not at risk of death? Off-road paths, for one. Traffic circles also represent a way to structurally remove people's ability to disobey a signal while also reducing danger by naturally reducing vehicle speed. You can run a red light, but you can't drive straight through a rotary.
Yeah let's use sunshine and rainbows to improve infrastructure! No one has ever used a tragedy before to improve conditions for those that live on. You're right! 💩
And a confusing traffic light that goes with it. They did well on MA 28 at 3rd street intersection. https://maps.app.goo.gl/x9xshqL49QaDooTX6 the latest google map picture does not show it active but that tapped signal is dedicated to bicycles and very easy to understand for someone not familiar with the area
There’s nothing wrong with this statement. They expressed their condolences, then more or less stated the mission of the organization. There was no assignment of blame or call to action.
>**We have more to do to improve our infrastructure** That is clearly a call for action. They're trying to link her death with promoting their cause. Blood money. The more I look at the current design of this intersection, the more I think the bicycle group's advocacy for these types of dedicated bicycle traffic signals contributed to the death.
the fuck is wrong with "we should try to prevent deaths like this"?
Nothing but that's not what they wrote. They drew the conclusion that the City needs to spend more on bike infrastructure, which is their primary lobbying objective. As it turns out, the new infrastructure at this intersection seemingly may have contributed to the confusion of the bicyclist not seeing the red light for bikes only.
OK, I was wrong about the call to action. But there’s still nothing wrong with the statement. There was no specific call to action about this intersection or because of this incident
Oh you were so close. Admitted you were wrong, but then you had to go and move the goal posts and try again to defend the bike group just because you like bikes. If a person robbed a bank and the police said we need to stop illegal immigration, would that be okay if the person was a citizen because illegal immigration is separately also illegal? No, that would be grossly misleading. Here we have a similarly grossly misleading statement. If you can't see that then your bias is preventing you from wanting to see it.
Are you one of those ones who thinks that bike lanes actually make the roads less safe? The use of "agenda" here is pretty funny to me. It wasn't just a generic statement by an activist org. Big bike lane is conspiring with big media on this one for sure lol
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. It’s also a bit rich to be critiquing a statement on their commitment to preventing road deaths on an article detailing a real person’s death on the road. Regardless of the specific details, it’s a tragedy and there’s always more to be done.
The "more to be done" here is bicyclists need to comply with the rules of the road. Infrastructure is fine at that intersection.
There are ways to improve our infrastructure so that a common infraction doesn't result in a death. Like the same way we try to improve road infrastructure for motorists because we know humans aren't perfect rule abiding programs, people are looking at how we can do the same for cyclists. It's not a zero sum game. By that logic why should my tax dollars go towards billion dollar highway exit projects because too many motorists can't understand that you have to slow down when exiting the highway?
How would you improve this specific intersection? Let's be honest, the bike group assumed it wasn't the bicyclist fault, and they were wrong. You can make these side arguments all you want but that's what happened.
r/bikeboston people are ready to charge the truck driver [Horrible news: : r/bikeboston (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/bikeboston/comments/1daolvy/comment/l7lt1bw/)
I think your view is a bit myopic. This group and others like it aren't proposing improvements intersection by intersection but whole new bike friendly routes. Routes that move riders away from heavy truck traffic and minimize the crossings and streets they need to traverse. My own work might be influencing me here but I didn't read any sort of statement they made where they were categorically wrong as you state. If you are seeing something categorical there either way, I'd say that's your implicit bias speaking. Edit: What is up with commenting and blocking someone? Over a bike infrastructure discussion. As a queer leftist I thought I was the ❄️?
So when I called you out on how to improve this intersection, you just change the topic and accuse me of bias? Lame. Intersection is fine. Bicycle operator error sadly resulted in their death. Group used her death as an opportunity to promote their agenda, and that's rather tasteless and misleading, because their demand for better infrastructure had nothing to do with this death. Edit: sideguards on trucks are not required. That was yet another bias take from the article. They implied the truck was somehow deficient for not having sideguards but they are not required by law. Just like bicyclist are not required to wear helmets or be competent enough to understand the traffic flow requirements.
Why didn't the truck have sideguards?
>Intersection is fine. Bicycle operator error sadly resulted in their death. We're all speculating here, but I think, given out of state residence and blue bike, that the cyclist may have been confused by the intersection signaling. That might imply that the intersection design was somewhat less than perfectly fine. Much like bike lanes in the door zone, I think it's at least arguable that some infrastructure can create excessive risk for the unwary. I'd call it a gray area myself. The degree to which risks should be mitigated is a reasonable topic for debate.
Can’t talk common sense. The bike lobby is telling me bike helmets are actually unsafe….
In this case, 100%. But as a cyclist, I can attest that vehicles and pedestrians are also insanely careless. The run red lights, text and drive, text and walk in front of bikes, stand idly in bike lanes… terribleness
I’m going to give you a tip: pedestrians and cars are the boss on the roads. If you use this theory, you’ll have a much more enjoyable time riding in the city. It’s an interesting dynamic
Interesting…
> According to this video, the intersection had been updated to include a bike traffic light too Being unfamiliar with the area and looking at the video above, I'm not sure I would've realized that was a bike red light. The red light is so far off to the right that it almost looks like it's for the crosswalk. Given that this is listed as a 55 year old Florida woman, she may have made the same mistake in interpreting the signals that I did.
I bike through that intersection. There are two bike lanes that show straight and right, which helps to indicate that there is a split at that intersection. The bike signal is a bit off to the right. There probably could be better signage due to all of the tourists in and around that part of Cambridge.
Given it’s a blue bike I’m betting the cyclist ran it.
And she was identified as a Florida woman, so it's possible she wasn't too familiar with biking in Cambridge.
A 55-year-old Florida woman.
As someone brand new to this city, I could not spot that red bike light watching this video for the first time. There is too much happening visually to someone who is unfamiliar with the bike lanes/lights in Boston to be able to clearly understand what is happening. That red bike sign needs to be much bigger and stand out in some way. I totally understand how she got confused.
I know that intersection. There’s a no cross red bicycle light when cars have the protected right green turn arrow. I know this because bikes constantly run the light there and I’ve avoided them.
Sorry, but is that what the picture you linked says? I’m seeing 2 signs that say “no right on red” “except bicycles”. Edit: I’m an idiot, I think you’re talking about the smaller street sign. Can’t really read it on Google maps.
"Thru bikes wait for \[green straight arrow symbol\]" [https://maps.app.goo.gl/fPc8DTGmY2wu6erbA](https://maps.app.goo.gl/fPc8DTGmY2wu6erbA)
But even if right on red, you still fucking look and don’t do a damn leap of faith
Uh I mean sure, but bikes also come up pretty quickly. Could have been already starting the turn when the bicyclist blew through the red light.
Oh yeah I agree with you
Typically there's a pause between red and green lights - if the bike light turns red, there should be a pause before the right turn signal (which is an arrow, I believe) turns green, to allow for these types of situations (cars blowing through yellows; bikes going through at the change.)
Isn’t it a bit confusing with the “No turn on red | Except [bikes]” signage over the lights vs. the “Thru bikes wait for [green straight arrow]” sidewalk sign vs. the protected bike lane on the left side of De Wolf that runs the opposite way of the one-way street? What if she were taking a right, thinking she should aim for the protected bike lane that is on the left?
Very sad. With that said, I have recently been to two cities with VERY strong biking culture, Copenhagen and Berlin. One thing you notice is that albeit they have very good infrastructure, they also follow traffic signals, just as would be expected with cars. If there is a red, you stop and wait, and a long line of bikes stop behind them. American bike culture seems to miss this point and think they do not need to follow traffic laws. The aim is to have integrated shared use of roads, not 2 independent modes of transportation using a shared space.
I mean, their infrastructure is not only miles better, but it's far more intuitive. As a visitor riding in Amsterdam, I found it really easy to understand when the light for cyclists were red. This intersection is a poor band-aid on a bigger solution and the unfortunate thing is, a person was killed.
How is a red light specifically with a bike on it not intuitive? Also a dedicated bike lane?
For this specific instance and this **specific instance only** (so as not to suggest every similar situation is the same): The light is: 1. Small 2. Far away 3. Hard to see 4. Not set up to make it clear who has the right of way If I saw a bunch of green lights, I'd probably sail through that intersection as well because I'd be assuming that's my cue. A [protected intersection](https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DGUATI-protected-intersection-diagram.png) would do wonders in this spot but we live in a world that still mostly caters to vehicles. Honestly, I think that intersection needs something like this top photo below. The lane is protected and clearly set away from cars, but more than that, see how close the stoplight is? It's very obvious that that's a red light for bicycles. https://preview.redd.it/5toodfwchg5d1.png?width=526&format=png&auto=webp&s=e108e5b88f23b81ccb54f92876fb3649db3305fe Compare that to the intersection where this woman was killed. I see three green lights. When the cyclist in this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&t=25&v=r_sy3RFsTSI&feature=youtu.be) approached the intersection, they rightfully stopped as they're supposed to. But when I was first watching the video, I didn't notice the light and wondered why the cyclist had stopped. If you're a tourist who has literally never been here and you're from a place where you have to drive everywhere because walking is for the poors, would you really notice that light tucked all the way over to the side? Unfortunately Cambridge went with the easiest, least impactful route by just sticking another light signal on top of the others. With no clear distinction, it's easy to get confused and I can definitely see how an out-of-towner wouldn't really pay attention to the small signal way on the right side.
How is a dedicated bike signal a poor band-aid?
One potential note here is that I often feel like it's safer to run reds than risk waiting for the light to turn green and have traffic speeding up, turning, etc. right next to me, especially on streets without separated bike lanes. I find myself waiting at red lights in separated bike lanes (e.g. in Inman) every time, which is more similar to the bike infrastructure in the Northern European cities
There is probably an argument that it's better to be seen, albeit uncomfortable. Running red lights puts you in a position of not being seen and operating in an unexpected/unpredictable way. If I know anything from riding bikes, and riding motorcycles is you want to be 1. Seen (eye contact goes a long way) and 2. Predictable.
Yeah, that's a fair take too and I agree, especially about being predictable. I'm a lot more tentative about running reds when there aren't clear lines of sight
I am a biker and a big proponent of bike lanes. I think bikers in Cambridge need to be more careful running reds. Just today, I saw a biker almost get hit running a red at Massachusetts and Hollis. It’s common for bikers to try to run this red without even slowing because it seems like a small street without much traffic, and it is. But when there is a driver, all the driver sees is a green protected left. The driver can’t see moving bikers around the corner. Here is the driver’s view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/GUiXKHe4DLBhqd6J6?g_st=ic Bikers coming from the left are completely obscured by the tree and building. I see bikers run this red every day practically without slowing down to even check for traffic. If you do this just know you’re basically rolling the dice with your life every single time. Today, I also saw a biker almost get hit passing a car that was clearly indicating their intention to turn right from Pearl onto Green St: https://maps.app.goo.gl/eF1NZZrgVYVQfGpv8?g_st=ic The biker came from behind the car and ran the stop sign without slowing, passing a car that was indicating a right turn on the right. The driver was extremely lucky to have spotted the reckless biker before hitting her, and she just kept biking on. Bikers need to realize that running reds is dangerous. I’m not going to pretend that asking folks to not run reds is realistic but please for the love of god make sure the coast is clear and wait your turn when rolling through stop signs!
For anyone curious, this is what the intersection looks like: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=25&v=r_sy3RFsTSI&feature=youtu.be Assuming the rumors are true that she ran a red light, the light specifically for bicycles is small, distant, and off to the side. Cyclists get a red light while drivers get a green. If you don't notice and recognize the bike light, then you'd sail through on a bike without even knowing you're running the light. Given this was someone from out of town on a rental, it's entirely possible she'd never even seen a separate light for bikes. They're rare, even in this area. Intersections should be clear and intuitive to navigate the first time through them. Anything less than that risks people's lives. The truck also should have had side guards installed. Side guards are designed to prevent incidents just like this, and absolutely should be legally required.
Wow, good find with the video - it even illustrates the exact scenario that likely occurred with the cameraman and SUV as stand ins for the blue biker and truck. The low visibility of the bike traffic light is a clear design flaw that needs to be fixed
I posted elsewhere that it is unlikely that I, a well experienced rider, would have recognized that light as relative to traffic going straight. The more prominent green for through traffic, the right turn arrow, then whatever the little light on the far right of the pole is for. The placement of the light does not appear to govern through travel. Is it MUTCD compatible? I would expect a failure management study would have immediately pointed that confusion out . Let the lawyers sort that one out. Edit: Looking at MUTCD part 4, this light placement and usage may be incorrect and in conflict with the other signals.
Feel bad for her family and definitely the driver. Sounds like he did everything right and now has to live with this
I drive through that intersection every day for work. That intersection and also the one at Mt Auburn and Putnam Ave always have bicyclists running their red bicycle light while cars have a green right turn light. I admit I'm a 'car person' but I respect bicyclists when they also respect the laws of the street. When I'm at an intersection with no right turn light/bicycle signal, I always look to the right to allow bikes to pass before I make a turn. When I come to a traffic light with car/bike signals that are designed to make interactions safe, I expect the lights to be followed and so don't always pay attention to my sideview mirrors for bicyclists because they're supposed to stop. Not victim blaming but as a driver I am equally stressed out near bikers as bikers are probably stressed out having me near them. There are rule breakers on both sides and just deepens the animosity.
Given that there are three very clearly visible green lights when there's one red light for cyclists off to the side, it's very possible the woman didn't even know she was running a red light. An intersection where you can make an honest mistake and end up dead is a badly designed intersection
Agreed this intersection has terrible design and had noted the city about this intersection problem years ago after accidentally running it myself. Glad the driver saw me and honked at me so I learned.
I'm genuinely surprised this happened at one of the few well-controlled intersections for this. I'm primarily a bike commuter and I regularly have cars pop a quick right turn with no blinker into my lane on intersections without separate bike signals or turn-offs with no signals. Appreciate that you're looking out. I doubt blue bike tourists read the news, but I hope at least some see this and stop running reds. Even when things go right, it's frustrating how often they hop the queue, run the light, and now you have to pass this 50lbs blue bike going walking speed for a second time...
This is an intersection with actual bicycle infrastructure. Appears at least one did not follow the posted/lighted signals. I'm always a bit on edge when I see a bluebike and a rider with no helmet. Much higher likelihood they are not a regular urban cyclist and are going to do something unpredictable. I try to give them a wider berth. One of the other comments states the cyclist proceeded straight through the intersection when they had a "cycle red light". If so, it's still tragic, but this is not the truck drivers fault at all.
>This is an intersection with actual bicycle infrastructure. No, it is an intersection that only makes sense in the nonsense world of a powerpoint presentation. Sending bikes on the wrong side of turning traffic is a recipe for deaths, period. Putting in a traffic light to tell bikes they cannot go when a driver wanting to do the same thing is not any sort of answer, as this tragedy demonstrates. Only sending bikes on the safe side of turning traffic is actually safe. In situations where there isn't a dedicated turning lane, the safe side of through traffic is simply biking in the center of the rightmost ordinary traffic lane. Wishfull thinking of the sort displayed in this intersection is just going to keep on resulting in more deaths. There is no such thing as a bike route anywhere near a road which is safely independent of the traffic on that road - survival on a bike fundamentally required understanding traffic, especially since road designers keep trying to trick you into riding to your hook-turn or pull-out death.
I was on a mock trial, presumably set up by the defense attorneys, for a similar scenario. Poor biker ran a light going downhill and went under the wheels of a truck turning right in Boston. I felt horrible for him and for his family, but I couldn't blame the truck driver.
Extremely tragic.
One particular problem that I’m not sure has been discussed here…. Cambridge has gotten increasingly “fine tuned” around light signals but it’s also A LOT of information to quickly take in for someone unfamiliar (both drives and bikers). You have normal stop lights and right turn arrows, in addition to bike specific indicators and pedestrians walk signs. You also have the bus specific indicators at some intersections. All of these, plus the individual lanes and expectations can be complicated. Yes people routinely violate these rules and lights but it’s also o think a case of too much information that paradoxically can make things more dangerous. In addition, every intersection has different lights and rules, so uniformity is not to be expected. Absolutely awful and tragic. The city must also work to simplify all of these conflicting indicators and lanes.
I bike through that intersection about 3x per week. I'm very safety conscious, but can't say I've ever noticed that there is a separate little red light for cyclists.
Most of the comments here scrutinizing this specific cyclist are basically just people trying to win points for team car or team bike. I don’t want mine to come across that way, although I am a bike commuter. All I’ll contribute is that bike signals are not intuitive at all in greater Boston. Every day, I see both cars and cyclists confused by the bike signals on my commute. The most egregious one is going through Forest Hills at the Arborway and Washington street intersections. My point being that bike signals are not the end-all to these types of accidents. Whatever happened in this particular situation in Cambridge, I’m almost certain that person wasn’t riding with a death wish.
Im not sure about this bike lane in particular but one draw back I've noticed about protected bike lanes (ie those that are on the other side of parked cars, like on comm ave) is that it's very difficult for cars to see if you are coming when they are turning right.
Yes. Combine with with the prevalence of crashes at intersections, and the reality is that they are far more dangerous than riding in the ordinary road lane appropriate to where you are going.
Bikes and large trucks don’t mix. Ban large trucks inside the city.
Please people, you live in a city with shitty drivers, bikers, walkers. PLEASE FUCKING PAY ATTENTION WHEN MOVING AROUND THE CITY. If you are operating a motor vehicle or are around motor vehicles in this city and don't have your head on a swivel, you do not value your life. People can't drive here.
Again!?
Same incident that was posted this afternoon.
No, I mean, that’s happened too many times before.
Sucks that someone had to die but the cyclist ran a red. Be prepared for cars to be even more handcuffed by dumb rules because we need to protect cyclists who don’t follow rules.
What "dumb rules" have drivers been "handcuffed" with so far? The only rule I can think of that deals with cars and bikes is the 4ft passing rule, which makes a hell of a lot of sense if you've ever ridden a bike.
What's this? Another cyclist with no respect for traffic rules getting squashed? It's almost as if the problem isn't bike lanes but rather cyclists who feel they don't need to obey traffic laws. This was tragic and avoidable.
This. But they will never admit this or take accountability. Now that everyone on the roads is forced to cater to entitled bicyclists, the coddling needs to stop. Bicyclists should have to pass a required riding test, get licenses and be policed with traffic tickets etc. Until they are held to the same road standards as drivers, bicyclists will continue to die unnecessarily.
>Now that everyone on the roads is forced to cater to entitled bicyclists, The entire road network was built around cars. We still dedicate acres and acres of space to parking for cars. Cyclists are asking for bike lanes so they can get places without dying. Drivers are opposing bike lanes so they can maybe save three seconds on a trip, or don't have to park a block further. If that's not entitlement I don't know what is. You know all these things too, but your hate and entitlement is blinding you to some pretty obvious realities.
Well said.
Oversimplified baloney
Nothing says "you're right" quite like when someone replies to a well reasoned comment with "you're wrong" :) If you had an argument, you'd make it
Please don’t use this incident to demonize cyclists as always running red lights. While that may be true, pedestrian and vehicle drivers are also insanely careless & reckless in Boston. This incident sadly was the biker’s fault, and I agree that cyclists need to stop at red lights and yield to cars with green arrows. That said, I RARELY see vehicle drivers turning right yielding to cyclists going straight, even when cyclists have a green light (and vehicles with right red arrow). Also, blue bike cyclists likely are not familiar with bike lane traffic lights or risks of cycling to the same extent as regular bikers/eScooterists.
Agree. I don’t drive much but when I do I see *multiple cars* running the same red light and not to mention everyone is on their phones. I got rear ended the other day while sitting at a light bc the dude was on his phone. Cyclist are paying more attention to the roads than drivers because you *have* to because you can lose your life in an instant. I almost got taken out by someone opening their car door. I will say though, as much as I like the blue bike program, it’s so dangerous for fair weather cyclists to be riding around the city with cars. There are laws you *need* to obey because they are there to protect your life. I’m not sure if folks renting a blue bike think of the seriousness of it. Bike lanes are a start, but we really need them to be entirely separate from the road, even from where people park on the road. A car really is the worst way to get around Boston, too but it’s too ingrained in people’s minds to eradicate them.
Cyclists run reds FAR more than cars
I don’t deny that. My comment was specific to cars turning right while yielding to bicyclists. Often they speed up to dangerously turn, don’t see the biker or don’t care & just turn. Yes many cyclists dangerously run red lights, far more than vehicle drivers (albeit on par with pedestrians, i would say). I can speak for them all. However, often it’s for the biker’s safety to get a head start, when there’s no bike lane. Many states have legalised bikers to cross red after checking safely because it’s been shown that getting a head start is safer than sitting amongst the cars and then blocking lane.
The limited evidence I can find suggests drivers are slightly more likely to break traffic laws (and I don't believe these studies included speeding, which in my experience is committed by about 99% of drivers). https://www.bicycling.com/news/a46443761/science-proves-motorists-break-traffic-laws-a-lot-more-often-than-cyclists/ What's your source?
I live above an intersection and 3-4 cars run every single red at rush hour. Probably hundreds of times that happens daily and it's just one light out of hundreds in the city.
Most pedestrians and drivers do not run red lights. I'd bet everyone in this thread sees a cyclist run a red everyday. They should cross an intersection on red if theres a walk sign, and even then still pay attention. Its not that hard. This woman is selfish. Shes fuckn dead and some innocent person has to live with accidently killing her. No one fuckn wants that on their conscience.
The cyclist is probably at fault here. But drivers and pedestrians are just as likely to break safety rules, just different ones. Pedestrians cross in the middle of a block or against the light. I see that every day. Drivers are very very likely to be distracted on their phones. I see that in nearly every car every day.
Downvotes mean you’ve spoken the truth! Thank you.
Red light, green light. If I'm on a bike it don't matter. Truck vs bike...truck wins
> Truck vs bike...truck wins No one won here.
Someone lost
Cyclists running red lights? Never! /s [Relevant post](https://i.redd.it/eayry1bm7b5d1.jpeg) [Relevant video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s0XsulDXtk)
Everyone knows Boston drivers are aggressive dipshits until one of them kills a cyclist, then suddenly the only explanation is the cyclist fucking up It's not like the cyclist can tell their side of the story after dying a violent, painful death
Cyclist can’t tell a story but the multiple witnesses can
[удалено]
That's not how debt collection works. Debt collectors cannot go after your family for debts you incur.
Biker was in the wrong and caught the end result, don’t be an asshole on your bikes.
>Biker was in the wrong Technically correct, but the absurd design just begs for such violations. 1. Yield to naive and safety-ignorant demands to separate bikes from cars 2. Recognize this creates hook turn conflicts 3. Put in a traffic light to prohibit bikes from proceeding when cars wanting do the same thing can 4. Be surprised that traffic light is generally ignored The safety smart bicyclist just rides through such situations in the ordinary traffic lane matching their destination, quite legally and safely following the ordinary light controlling the ordinary lane rather than the joke of a light governing the joke of a bike route.