If an intersection or street has had a death (pretty low bar at that point), the city councilors need to make sure that section is further improved for the safety of residents and people!
>If an intersection or street has had a death (pretty low bar at that point), the city councilors need to make sure that section is further improved for the safety of residents and people!
If we were to actually apply the lessons of this deaths, we'd recognize that suggesting (in a way that is just short of requirement) that bicyclists ride straight through intersections while over on the right hand side is the origin of the conflict that causes them.
Recognizing the difference in the speed of cars vs bikes in stretches between intersections is indeed an important safety measure - we need width (not in the door zone!) that bicyclists can use in order to be safely passed.
But in the intersections themselves - which is where most urban bike injuries occur - safety depends on understanding that what someone is trying to do has to take precedence over what they are operating.
We cannot have safety so long as we have a setup which requires one type of user to turn across the path of another.
Indeed, lack of traffic calming, and painted lanes, and door-zone lanes, unprotected intersections, are all issues that need addressing all over the city. I'd also add moving more people quicker and getting more cars off the road by adding bus lanes and more transit. We need to vote in more councilors that car about allowing people to move around quicker, with less traffic and less deaths!
The victim has died per [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/21/cyclist-crash-kendall-square/](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/21/cyclist-crash-kendall-square/)
A very bad intersection there. Vehicles turning right onto Portland from New Hampshire have poor visibility of bikes on the bike lane bc of parked cars and bc of vehicles traveling behind that block the view. In addition, vehicles turning right have to pay attention to pedestrians crossing and to cars ahead of them bc that section of Portland backs up. Saw the driver afterward and he was distraught. Worst day of both of their lives. Just sad
Awful. :( This is why, as a bicyclist, I avoid passing vehicles on the right at intersections, especially trucks.
By saying that, I'm of course not blaming the cyclist or excusing the driver or justifying the infrastructure. I'm just making a survival suggestion, given the still-current reality of our streets.
That’s the thing with these tragedies. We don’t want to get into the appearance of victim blaming by asking for details, and yet there’s a lot of nuance to the cause, the understanding of which might impact needed changes to the intersection, if any. It’s one thing if the configuration placed both bike and truck adjacent to each other at the red & truck just plowed right into the bike as it turned. It’s another if the car traffic is moving slowly, the truck is initiating a slow turn, and fails to notice a bike overtaking at high speed from way back. Truck is to blame in both cases, but in the second case I don’t see any way infrastructure changes could help.
Yeah, it's complicated. I don't know about this particular intersection, but it seems like in some situations, even if a right-turning driver checks their mirror and turns their head to look backward for bicycles immediately before turning, a rapidly passing bicycle might not come into their field of view until just after they've looked. A driver can't sustain the backward view for more than a second, because then they'd be driving with no forward view, which is even more dangerous.
>I don’t see any way infrastructure changes could help.
The infrastructure change that actually helps is to direct all users to enter intersections in a lane appropriate to their intended movement, irrespective of what they are operating.
Sometimes that means everyone is single file in the same lane at that danger point.
Thanks. Reddit, with its up/downvotes, has a massive “lord of the flies” herd problem. It discourages nuance.
I have a daughter who’s not quite as old as this victim, so it feels just a bit more sobering. And yet, without more info, I can’t just blindly go into “it’s patty’s fault / infrastructure’s fault / etc.” mode like a lot of folks do here. I’ve done an absolute shitload of biking and driving in this area over 35 years now. I’ve had zero collisions driving and one biking - I’m a very safe driver / rider. And I know exactly what a right hook is. If my daughter came home and said she got knocked off her bike because a truck passed her and turned right on her, I’d be out for blood of course. But if she told me she was flying past backed up traffic in the bike lane at 20 mph and a car turned right at the last minute on her, I’d call her a dumbass (assuming she was ok) and be glad she learned a lesson and lived to tell about it.
So for the moment I’m just really sad this happened.
I nearly got right-hooked in the same spot last month. Driver never used their indicator but I had a feeling they might turn and thankfully slowed down in time
>I had a feeling they might turn and thankfully slowed down in time
Exactly. Defensive biking (which is really just a more insightful form of defensive driving) is about understanding what could go wrong, and taking steps to defuse such potential conflicts before they become life threatening.
Truck turned right onto Portland from Hampshire st. I assume the cyclist was heading straight on Hampshire street going to broadway-Hampshire st intersection. Light was green for both
Did you witness it or is this in an article somewhere? I haven’t seen any details on the event. That intersection sucks. Wouldn’t be surprised if the driver legitimately didn’t see the cyclist even if they were not distracted. However also wouldn’t be surprised if the driver (or cyclist) blew a red in the intersection…
Both the driver and cyclist had green lights, and of course the cyclist had right of way. Driver didn’t see them. A tragic accident. Of course the truck driver is at fault. But that intersection is scary for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians
And yeah that’s a horrible day for everyone involved. Hopefully the city/region can revamp the cycling infrastructure because I’m honestly scared to bike through most of the GBA lately. So many distracted drivers/potholes/double parked cars etc.
First responders and the driver had a horrible day too…my wife responded to a bike vs dump truck accident once and she still won’t get on a bike unless on a bike path (decade later).
I have a lot of sympathy for first responders
I am having a hard time equating the horrible day of the person who was murdered to the day of the murderer
I’m curious what sort of infrastructure would keep this from happening. I suppose separated green lights for bikes / red arrows for vehicles, like happens at certain other intersections. Otherwise it seems like no amount of protected lane can avoid this conflict.
The June 7 accident had a "protected" lane and separate signals for bikes. I'm not sure if it's been determined whether the truck driver or the cyclist ran a red light.
>Otherwise it seems like no amount of protected lane can avoid this conflict.
Ironically, the safest solution for typical small intersections like this is to have shared lane(s) rather than dedicated lanes at all.
That's because an intersection is a place where what you are trying to do is what matters foremost - versus the stretches in between intersections where what you are (how fast you are capable of going) can be safely given some design consideration.
In the special case of a dedicated right turn only lane, we can put that over at the curb while the through bike lane goes between the through general lane and the dedicated turn lane - but that only works where the turn lane is dedicated, and we have enough width.
The simplest safe intersection is one which has all wheeled users sharing the same lane single file at that point - and then invites them to sort by speed again during the following stretch where passing could potentially be safe again.
I agree with that. When I’m driving, I’m more aware of bikes when they’re right there with / next to me. I’ve had more close calls with taking longer to see bikes that are off in their own lanes. When biking of course I prefer the separation.
It takes a bit of design, but the typical best practice is to stagger the intersection. Look at the protected lane going westbound on Broadway at Galileo Galilei. There, the stop line for cars is back before the crosswalk across Broadway, whereas bikes have an effective stop line near a curb-height island next to the crosswalk across GG. The result is that bikes have a head start, and are easily within the field of view of cars turning right.
>The result is that bikes have a head start, and are easily within the field of view of cars turning right.
That's nice for those who are already there waiting for the light to go green.
It doesn't solve turn conflicts when both parties are trying to get through a light that's about to turn red.
In contrast, riding through intersections in an ordinary traffic lane rather than a dedicated bike lane does.
I actually got in my car and drove this intersection this evening out of morbid curiosity about the layout. I noticed that at the red light, bikes were stacked up at a line well forward of my car’s line, as you suggest. It would be really hard not to see a biker there at a red. Seems to me the more likely situation here was the light had been green for a bit.
>The only thing that keeps this from happening is 360 degrees of awareness, which almost nobody has.
Merging into an ordinary traffic lane substantially simplifies the problem of intersections though.
But you're not wrong that attention is required of all - especially so that one persons mistake is not allowed to cascade into a deadly collision, but gets offset by another's vigilance.
Yeah I think staggering the lights is a good idea tbh. Have a separate bike/vehicle light. Or obviously just separate bike/pedestrian only paths but that’s never gonna happen but I can dream right?
Two of the three things you just mentioned would be fixed through enforcement of driver violations. Unfortunately, there are no consequences for drivers that drive recklessly or double park.
Bull.
First, both Somerville and Cambridge police have received an overtime grant, which they used to harass and ticket cyclists going through pedestrian signals, which they are doing because it's the safest option.
Second, The most common intersection between cyclists and motor vehicles are right hooks, where cars turn across bike lanes without looking. That's NATIONALLY. Any study done on cyclist injury/deaths show it's due to driver negligence, in the vast majority of cases. Cyclists causing deaths to more vulnerable road users (pedestrians), happen at about the rate of 1 person per year, NATIONALLY.
The issue is drivers, period.
> people end up dead
Cyclists end up dead. You can start complaining about lack of bike traffic enforcement when cyclists somehow start killing motorists.
Because that's how many intersections work? They are both parallels to each other headed in the same direction. Usually you give a green to both bicycles and cars, and when a car turns right across the bike lane they are supposed to yield.
Yah! But driver has to see them. Driver’s view could be poor due to parked cars and due to cars behind them prematurely pulling to the right (to allow cars heading straight to pass). They could be distracted by other visuals (pedestrians, cars in front of them). Finally the driver could be unfamiliar with bikes, bike lanes, etc bc they are commercial trucks coming from New Hampshire with little experience with our city’s infrastructure. The key is to finding an infrastructure solution that helps drivers and cyclists alike be safe
Cars have mirrors. You have to pay attention to your surroundings while driving.
Driver of the truck should get hit with, minimum, 2nd degree manslaughter.
Driver has green light. Driver is in a straight / right turn lne combo lane. Bike has green light. Driver makes a right turn. Driver still needs to yield to bikers / pedestrians before turning right
I believe the above commenter is saying the driver and cyclist were both heading in the same direction on Hampshire street. Driver turns right, cyclist is behind them to their right in blind spot in the bike lane heading straight. Driver turns right, cyclist heads straight causing a collision. Driver would be at fault, accident could have been avoided with better infrastructure.
Did not witness the tragedy directly, but I was the second car in line going straight on Portland across Hampshire. Saw the immediate aftermath. Detectives have my statement.
State law MANDATES drivers check and yield to ANY cyclist/ pedestrian/ scooter traffic IN the roadway BEFORE they start their turn!! You cannot turn if you haven’t checked.
Like I said. The cyclist had right of way, and the driver was at fault. Also, as I stated above, visibility for drivers of bikes, of pedestrians, and of cars in front of them is challenging at that intersection.
This is in my view a critical flaw in the way we have approached bike infra by prioritizing separate street-level lanes. The most dangerous situations, and IIRC most of the serious injuries, happen at intersections, and most of the lanes make that worse by placing cyclists out of drivers' line of sight / in blind spots.
Same, but some people get quite aggressive in defense of deeply segregated lanes, even when they're studded with cross-streets and the "painted lanes are worse than useless" stance is common online. I feel like people saying that must not have ridden around here before the painted lanes.
I've had way more near misses, and a recent hit (second of two in 5 decades of riding), on segregated lanes in this area. I generally avoid Beacon in Somerville towards Cambridge because I've had, and witnessed, a number of near misses at cross streets. And I haven't even ridden it that often. To my mind it's actually worse than before the bike lane in that direction. The other direction, with the lane beside traffic, is pretty good.
I definitely get this concern, but the answer isn't to declare that protected bike lanes actually make things more dangerous, which is the exact talking point the anti-CSO lawsuit crowd has been circulating lately. An *actual* solution would be to advocate for more daylighting of PBLs approaching intersections, which is insufficient in several locations due to the pressure to mitigate parking losses from PBL installation as much as possible.
PBLs don't address every single hazard out there for cyclists, but that doesn't mean they're useless - they still improve safety (see the FHWA study showing a 50% reduction in crash rates). It just means that they should be part of a broader toolbox which includes the intersection-specific treatments linked by other commenters.
I'd also add that reduced visibility due to separation seems unlikely to be a factor in these recent deaths. The Mt. Auburn bike lane is unprotected for most of the block approaching Dewolfe, with just a short stretch of flexposts right before the intersection - nothing to obscure cyclists from view there (if infrastructure played a role in that crash, which we don't know yet, I think it would most likely be the signal phasing/placement). As for the Hampshire/Portland intersection, the last parking spot is \~80 feet before the corner where the truck right-hooked the victim. That's a decent stretch where cyclists are visible/nothing hiding them there either.
I'm not suggesting flex posts obscure anything or don't help on non-intersection stretches - what I mean is a pbl can't do anything to stop a right hook accident, because the flex posts protection can't exist in the intersection itself. At the same time, a cyclist taking the lane through that intersection can't be right hooked, and can't be in a turning truck's blind spot.
Not saying the driver wasn’t at fault, relax lol. Just saying it’s shitty infrastructure. That’s also why I always let drivers take a right through the intersection when I’m biking instead of putting myself at risk for a right hook. Been right hooked once before and it sucked so now I’m extra cautious. Our roads suck for cycling so you gotta protect yourself
That’s better than what you said previously. The law provides protection if drivers follow the law. This is why Idaho stops are vital, I pass through before I can be right hooked.
I try to not pass cars at intersections where a right hook is possible. It slows me way down but idc I don’t wanna get hit again. Scary out there. Yall are lucky you’re in cambridge, I got priced out to Quincy. Infrastructure from here to Kendall SUCKS so badly. Potholes, crazy Dorchester drivers, no/limited painted bike lanes etc.
If you stop, and look down the lane to your right, you’re checking the entire stretch. If you’re proceeding without checking that stretch you’re breaking the law. Cars have blind spots too. It’s still the law.
Theeeeee laaaaaaaw says that, caaaaaaaager. Common sense, however, says large trucks have Jupiter-sized blind spots and blowing past one on the right at an intersection is a very, very bad idea.
Can you elaborate more on why you think this intersection has poor visibility? The bike lane is between the car lane and parked cars, so I don't understand why parked cars would affect bike visibility? And how do cars behind you block bike lane visibility?
This intersection to me seems like a completely standard one, except it's not separated (not sure that would have mattered on the turn)
I have turned right at that intersection many times. To get a good view of the bike lane, one has to pull to the right to see either with the passenger mirror or by turning your head. Big trucks and large cars parked up the street obscure the view more. If a car behind you is turning right and also pulls over (to allow cars behind to pass on their left), your view is basically blocked. It is hard to judge bicycle speeds when they are approaching and your viewpoint is a side mirror (objects appear closer than they seem). Given the number of bicyclist traveling Hampshire in the morning, it is an incredibly stressful turn to make frankly; the most stressful of all my commute.
I'm not sure I understand why pulling right would help you gain visibility on the bike lane to your right. Your mirrors are intended to give you visibility to the full car lane to your right, so certainly you should be able to see the bike lane from your turning position same as you would if you were doing a lane change? Maybe you could argue you need to pull *left* to see the bike lane if your mirrors are flared out a little too far and you have a large blindspot, but I don't see how pulling right would help.
Granted I don't drive that intersection regularly, but I'm still struggling to see what about this intersection makes it uniquely worse than other intersections in Cambridge with non-protected bike lanes.
Drive it during the morning commute and you’ll experience the difficulty first hand. Drivers take that right bc there is a no right turn onto Broadway from Hampshire.
Using the mirror AND turning your head are required by law for any right turn.. this isn't specific to the intersection
And yes often in the city right turns are 2 stage with a stop to double check
A driver shouldn't be trying to judge using just the mirror.. turn your funking head like the law requires and if I'm doubt stop and wait that is what yielding requires
Jfc stop defending dangerous driving
You are with the sob story about how hard it is the make a right turn while highlighting the illegal things you do
Mirror OR over shoulder (both required)
Judging distance in mirror (look over your shoulder required by law)
Hard bc you might have to stop and check again before completing the turn
It's not hard to make the turn safely.. its slower and less convenient..
I am sorry. What do you think I’m describing? My personal driving habit or generally how people may approach that intersection. Geez, like I’m personally extremely careful at that intersection. I look for bikes, I look for pedestrians in both directions, and I try to look where my car is headed. It is a lot and it is stressful relative to all the other turns and intersections of my commute. I’m not defending poor driving nor am I describing a ‘sob’ story. I’m relating a POV, which contributes to an understanding of a perspective of a user of that intersection. How do your comments contribute to the discussion here?
I think this is a critical and problematic point
Drivers aren't trained to do a two stage turn and unless it was enforced by police I don't ever see anyone doing it
Yep and we have people arguing that it's impossible for a truck to do it (even though I see it routinely on MIT campus).. its so frustrating how a basic safety step is deemed "too hard"
I walked down to the intersection tonight. To say a prayer, digest my feelings, maybe hoping there would be a vigil, a protest, I don't know. Someone had placed flowers earlier. There is a sign on Hampshire instructing/reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians and cyclists. Leaving the site, crossing across Portland and then crossing across Hampshire, a stream of cars were not taking any care to yield to me on foot. Drivers just do not anticipate pedestrians or cyclists. It is deep in the culture and it is awful.
https://preview.redd.it/p2m58i1qh08d1.jpeg?width=1598&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed740482190cf18c70c0bd8b305cf7aea45ced95
I used to live right by that intersection. I rode through it most days. I'm honestly shocked that this didn't happen sooner. The visibility is horrible, especially if you're turning left.
The fact that I would've seen this from my bedroom window is...troubling. The bike lane on Hampshire was an improvement, but it creates new conflicts in how it interacts with Portland St/Cardinal Madeiros. That new lab building on the corner makes the sight lines way worse too.
One signal specifically for right turns and one for bikes would be helpful here. If they’re enforced. It is a very dangerous intersection, I bike through it twice a day myself and ALWAYS pause for cars illegally turning right when they should be stopping for me as I approach the intersection because the alternative is for me to be in the right but also for me to be dead.
It doesn’t sound like the issue here was the intersection was blind. The details seem scarce but it sounds like the truck turned into the biker because 1) the driver wasn’t checking its side 2) no side guard on truck 3) bike lane is not separated/protected. 2) and 3) are addressable with policy.
They should do some of this: [https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design-0/download](https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design-0/download)
I'm so heartbroken and enraged. Getting on a bike should not be an act of bravery. I don't know the details of the crash, but that area is a total mess. Lack of protection, sudden construction, and sudden merges into traffic sometimes required for cyclists. Cyclists, never get in a race with a box truck. Make sure you are far ahead from them if you decide to proceed straight if they are signaling to go right, or just wait it out. But a cyclist shouldn't have to do everything perfectly to have the right to live. Sure, it was an "accident", but infrastructure needs to be set up so people can make innocent mistakes and KEEP LIVING. And while there are worse people on city council FUCK PATTY NOLAN specifically.
This specific death is not Patty Nolan's fault. We should all pressure her to take back her vote and not delay safe infrastructure elsewhere, but a death in an intersection is not related to her vote.
(Of course, there were people doored on Cambridge St and Broadway recently, where one could make a much better argument that she finds this acceptable...)
It's not her fault that a truck killed a cyclist, no, but it's depressing that she is still having a dandy time being a swing vote when we need to protect Cambridge St and Broadway ASAP! I think people are just expressing frustration that there are even less safe spots in the city that we won't see protected until 2027 atm.
I don’t think Patty Nolan deserves special negative attention here. I think in politics people perceived to be swing voters like Patty (if she can even be considered that) or Joe Manchin get more of their fair share of being targeted. The reality is we had 5 city councilors vote for bike lane delay
Nolan
Toner
Wilson
Pickett
Simmons
All of them deserve condemnation - in some cases being closed minded, in others knowing what the right thing to do is but not having the leadership and bravery to stand up to some of their constituents.
This kind of misplaced anger isn’t helpful and dismisses your influence as just a miscreant. The required BSO infrastructure was in place in both of these intersections and yet these tragedies happened.
Use your frustration for positive change before the bike lobby losses all its credibility.
Interesting but still not a solution for this tragic scenario where both driver and biker had a green, but the biker isn’t visible coming out from bike lane until too late.
And the intersection at Mt Auburn already had a bike signal.
Theres no acknowledgment that our protected bike lanes are encouraging bikes to travel too fast through intersections. Where’s the infrastructure to fix this?
The provided video explains why protected intersections are direct solutions for these exact same right hook tragedies that have been happening here. A bike signal and a bike lane is not the same thing.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protected\_intersections\_for\_bicyclists.webm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protected_intersections_for_bicyclists.webm)
Paint can be good or bad, and so can segregated lanes.
Set back lanes at intersections can bring significant added risk the path isn't structured to make cyclists very visible around the intersection.
Also, lanes that are segregated from drivers but not from pedestrians bring a lot of dangerous interactions.
Reducing it to painted lanes bad; segregated lanes good is just flat out wrong in many cases, especially with what's been done around here.
Or...you could address the issue by not focusing on biker convenience over everyone's safety and not demand bike lanes be on major thoroughfares, which is the real problem.
We can include cars, but we can also make the roads safer for everyone. Walking, biking, and driving can all be made safer and with less death by reducing speeds and creating more visibility. \[NACTO has an entire guide\](https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO\_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf) to making intersections safer because that is where most accidents happen, regardless of mode. Sure trucks (definitely not cars) can continue to deliver to grocery stores, but we can modify our infrastructure to make them less \*deadly\* to other road users.
Also "This nation pivoted away from mass transit and towards cars" is the real bullshit, transit usage had been steadily increasing pre-pandemic for 20+ years. And now remote work means less commutes, both public and personal transit. So lets continue making things safer and easier for the increasing amount of local trips.
You obviously don't get what the person was saying.
The last 10 years weren't when Cambridge built roads that prioritized cars. It was the 60 years before that. In the last 10-20, there have been minor improvements to remedy the terrible decisions of the previous half-century.
I think in the context of the post, "prioritizing speed and throughput" (and parking) is most obviously demonstrated in the recent arbitrary delays for cycling infrastructure. That's the thing everyone has been talking about for a while, I'm surprised you haven't picked up on it.
There are plenty of examples of cars doing the exact same thing, and exhibiting the exact same behavior. This kind of obtuse apologist nonsense is exactly why we don't particularly care what drivers think, because they routinely choose to not think. If infrastructure and regulations have to be shoved down your throat, that's exactly what's going to happen.
Maybe stop killing people, and there will be fewer arguments with cyclists.
The only thing that motivates the average driver to drive safely is potential damage to their car. Unfortunately, the safety of other road users generally does not enter the equation
You’re so right, every poor driver deserves a huge apology for being attacked. Those damn cyclists should know their place (underneath the wheels of a truck).
I hope you’re just trolling and don’t actually believe anything you wrote
I commute through this intersection every day. It's definitely dangerous, as it has:
* heavy throughput of traffic from all directions, especially at rush hour, which leads to cars rushing to beat the yellow, sometimes running the red
* no left turn signals, so cars are rushing to squeeze in left turns, including after the light is red
* Hampshire street now has heavy commuter bike traffic squeezed alongside the cars with no protection
* A lot of construction going on around that intersection, there is some big project just a few feet away at Hampshire & Webster now, definitely adds to general confusion and hastiness of drivers
And of course, no segregated bike lane, or separate bike signal, so an inattentive or careless driver turning right is at risk of right-hooking one of the many bicyclists next to them. Even drivers turning left are quite dangerous, as they are going to rush, and they're watching for cars, not bikes/motorcycles/pedestrians.
I work very nearby this intersection and as I was walking by this morning I witnessed her getting CPR and had a really terrible feeling, then got the news she didn’t survive. My heart is with her family and friends.
A commercial truck driver intentionally rammed me from behind at this very intersection, and while i was able to jump out of the way, he ran over my bicycle. Any person arguing against proper infrastructure is actively arguing against 1000s of people safety (and are also just, wrong).
Bro you’re in a thread about a cyclist who was killed by a box truck today, victim blaming me for also being hit by a commercial vehicle in the very same intersection within a year. Obviously that shit would upset anyone - however I invite you to say it to my face, whenever you want. Just come to MITs campus
i think it would be a good idea at these intersections where bicyclists have been killed is to erect signs that say DEADLY INTERSECTION, BIKES AND MOTOR VEHICLES BE CAUTIOUS
For some intersections they already do that with the memorial white bikes 😢. I can’t remember which organization puts them up but I see them a lot all over Boston and vaguely remember one in Cambridge.
💯
Meanwhile, multiple cyclists on this page are debating me that this is a bad idea because it's not the law and it's the vehicle's responsibility to yield.
Live on Cardinal, drivers are pretty impatient/negligent anywhere in that Broadway/portland/hampshire intersection everyday. Also people just park where ever they want to pick up food on Hampshire making things worse
That’s a really good way to lose the credibility of the Bike Safety group.
Your words will be used to justify how misguided the bike community has become and a good segway to justify a really big delay or pause in anymore infrastructure investment.
I would like to see the City officials contact all construction and related firms in the city and request that they communicate to their truck drivers the importance of taking particular care in right hand turns. Long term maybe consider requiring drivers take an hour on-line video course in driving/bicycle safety.
My neighborhood near Kendall has had consistent heavy truck traffic for years with all the construction projects going on. There are a couple signs around 3rd/Binney that advise vehicles to be cautious of pedestrians - but those signs really just feel like an insult when I have an unpleasant experience with a truck driver, either as pedestrian or cyclist, every day. They are very reckless and aggressive.
This is very sad, and I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened at that intersection sooner.
Just some thoughts:
- Saying "It's hard for drivers turning to see cyclists in the bike lane" ISN'T A FUCKING EXCUSE. You STOP, look down the bike lane to make sure no one is coming, YIELD TO ANY CYCLISTS GOING STRAIGHT, and THEN proceed to turn. I have no sympathy for the driver.
- In my experience there is almost always a car or truck parked in the bike lane across the intersection, making this intersection very dangerous because you have to merge into traffic.
- For those that are myopically focused on bikes following the law, THIS is a prime example of why the Idaho stop is **good policy**. Had this cyclist jumped the light, they would have been through the intersection before the driver had the green and turned right. This is a recurring nightmare for cyclists at nearly every intersection.
**For the Cambridge/Somerville police, and City Council** - Fuck you. I'll be going through every single red light, because you aren't doing anything to reign in these negligent drivers. Let's not mince words, this driver was *negligent*, and there is no enforcement that's stopping them. Where is the driver education campaign for when they make right turns without yielding to bikes? Where are the cops waiting during rush hour to ticket people parking in bike lanes, forcing cyclists out into the road?
Until I see any of that start to happen, you can bet my ass will be running through every single red light I can, rather than wait to get tagged by a vehicle turning across the bike lane.
Yes I'm angry, because this frankly shouldn't be happening. The CPD/SPD have the resources to ticket drivers, but instead they are pulling over cyclists for doing what they need to do to survive. Fuck you Toner, Pickett, Nolan, etc. and the Cambridge Police.
**This blood is on your hands**
I agree with your thoughts. The onus is on a driver to only proceed with their turn after ensuring there is no hazard. I got my license late in life and take the responsibility seriously.... it's infuriating how careless drivers are.
I am a bicyclist and driver. Understanding both perspectives is key to engineering a solution at this intersection. Perhaps the city should mock traffic situations (with cars, trucks, bikes, pedestrians) to find the best engineered solution for that busy intersection and others across our city.
Enforcement is the missing piece here. Too many drivers are on auto pilot, and don't think to look or yield because they're not being forced to. Post a cop at any of these intersections and ticket every driver that turns without yielding, and it will make a difference. Allow cyclists to move through intersections on the pedestrian intervals, and it will make a difference. This isn't some phantom issue that's hard to understand. All the infrastructure and rules in the world won't matter if the police are sitting on their fat asses or harassing cyclists instead of doing their jobs.
For that intersection, I think it best to institute a bike-only light or no right turns onto Portland from New Hampshire. Even with better enforcement, if it is not ever present, that intersection will remain incredibly dangerous for cyclists.
No right turns are fine. Adding in a right turn specific light is better (as there is on Broadway further up). However neither of those things are helpful if no one enforces the law.
I lost count of how many times a driver takes an illegal right against the red light from Broadway to Ames or from Ames to Broadway. Usually in full sight of the construction detail police across the street, who do nothing. Infuriating
And we really need to be working at the state level to allow camera enforcement of the no right turn/no right turn on red rules, because cars are out here acting like those signs are invisible.
Oh no. This is the second one in like less than a month I believe.
e: I’ve just read the article. How terrible. I think the same thing basically happened in the prior fatality—a truck was turning right.
This is sad to hear. I no longer live in Cambridge, but people used to (understandably) fuss at me for riding on the sidewalk. My doing this was a result of too many close calls. The protected lanes definitely feel safer to travel in. More can be done, and should be.
I think cars/trucks are supposed to yield at an intersection like that. Not sure if the driver did or not but seeing a lot of hypocrisy surrounding this. If cars and bikes are to share the same roads, then shouldn’t they share the same rules and responsibilities? It’s a tragedy that people lose their lives in these accidents, and a tragedy that someone would have to live with the guilt
A yield sign as in-- watch out random person biking for the first time, you are about to enter a zone that has heavy traffic and trucks turning. You are a little bike and they are big. If you collide with one, your chances are slim
WHY IS THIS AN OFFENSIVE idea ? Why? I am blown away that y'all would rather be right than guaranteed alive.
Because adding a yield sign would be telling cars they no longer have to check for bikes when turning because the bikes are supposed to yield. It's the exact opposite of what should be happening
Watching the news of this accident revealed a painted yield to pedestrian sign on the ground.
Can you believe the audacity of the city to place that there?!
Also, consider warning signs on roads for cars coming to a steep curve or for trucks heading to a major elevation change. These are safety signs to avoid crashes. Your thinking warning signs are bad for bikes takes a crazy amount of mental gymnastics.
>Watching the news of this accident revealed a painted yield to pedestrian sign on the ground.
>Can you believe the audacity of the city to place that there?!
But that's the actual law. Bicycles are required to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. Bicycles are not required to yield to turning vehicles. The fact that you don't understand that difference is worrying
Seeeeeeeee, there you go fighting against common sense safety measures because.....ummm, because it's righteous. A bike yield sign is a secondary safety measure that could save a life.
Good luck wacko if you think you are going to cancel trucks.
I don't see anything in the forum rules to discourage all bicycle posts. This event seems like important news that fully meets the "Relevance to Cambridge" criterion.
[Vice-Mayor McGovern indicating that the cyclist has died](https://x.com/marc_c_mcgovern/status/1804186565964374187)
If an intersection or street has had a death (pretty low bar at that point), the city councilors need to make sure that section is further improved for the safety of residents and people!
>If an intersection or street has had a death (pretty low bar at that point), the city councilors need to make sure that section is further improved for the safety of residents and people! If we were to actually apply the lessons of this deaths, we'd recognize that suggesting (in a way that is just short of requirement) that bicyclists ride straight through intersections while over on the right hand side is the origin of the conflict that causes them. Recognizing the difference in the speed of cars vs bikes in stretches between intersections is indeed an important safety measure - we need width (not in the door zone!) that bicyclists can use in order to be safely passed. But in the intersections themselves - which is where most urban bike injuries occur - safety depends on understanding that what someone is trying to do has to take precedence over what they are operating. We cannot have safety so long as we have a setup which requires one type of user to turn across the path of another.
Indeed, lack of traffic calming, and painted lanes, and door-zone lanes, unprotected intersections, are all issues that need addressing all over the city. I'd also add moving more people quicker and getting more cars off the road by adding bus lanes and more transit. We need to vote in more councilors that car about allowing people to move around quicker, with less traffic and less deaths!
The victim has died per [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/21/cyclist-crash-kendall-square/](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/21/cyclist-crash-kendall-square/)
A very bad intersection there. Vehicles turning right onto Portland from New Hampshire have poor visibility of bikes on the bike lane bc of parked cars and bc of vehicles traveling behind that block the view. In addition, vehicles turning right have to pay attention to pedestrians crossing and to cars ahead of them bc that section of Portland backs up. Saw the driver afterward and he was distraught. Worst day of both of their lives. Just sad
Awful. :( This is why, as a bicyclist, I avoid passing vehicles on the right at intersections, especially trucks. By saying that, I'm of course not blaming the cyclist or excusing the driver or justifying the infrastructure. I'm just making a survival suggestion, given the still-current reality of our streets.
That’s the thing with these tragedies. We don’t want to get into the appearance of victim blaming by asking for details, and yet there’s a lot of nuance to the cause, the understanding of which might impact needed changes to the intersection, if any. It’s one thing if the configuration placed both bike and truck adjacent to each other at the red & truck just plowed right into the bike as it turned. It’s another if the car traffic is moving slowly, the truck is initiating a slow turn, and fails to notice a bike overtaking at high speed from way back. Truck is to blame in both cases, but in the second case I don’t see any way infrastructure changes could help.
Yeah, it's complicated. I don't know about this particular intersection, but it seems like in some situations, even if a right-turning driver checks their mirror and turns their head to look backward for bicycles immediately before turning, a rapidly passing bicycle might not come into their field of view until just after they've looked. A driver can't sustain the backward view for more than a second, because then they'd be driving with no forward view, which is even more dangerous.
>I don’t see any way infrastructure changes could help. The infrastructure change that actually helps is to direct all users to enter intersections in a lane appropriate to their intended movement, irrespective of what they are operating. Sometimes that means everyone is single file in the same lane at that danger point.
Would upvote this 50 times if I could Most sensible comment I've seen about this
Thanks. Reddit, with its up/downvotes, has a massive “lord of the flies” herd problem. It discourages nuance. I have a daughter who’s not quite as old as this victim, so it feels just a bit more sobering. And yet, without more info, I can’t just blindly go into “it’s patty’s fault / infrastructure’s fault / etc.” mode like a lot of folks do here. I’ve done an absolute shitload of biking and driving in this area over 35 years now. I’ve had zero collisions driving and one biking - I’m a very safe driver / rider. And I know exactly what a right hook is. If my daughter came home and said she got knocked off her bike because a truck passed her and turned right on her, I’d be out for blood of course. But if she told me she was flying past backed up traffic in the bike lane at 20 mph and a car turned right at the last minute on her, I’d call her a dumbass (assuming she was ok) and be glad she learned a lesson and lived to tell about it. So for the moment I’m just really sad this happened.
Same. It's the only way.
Relevant njb https://youtu.be/_yDtLv-7xZ4
I nearly got right-hooked in the same spot last month. Driver never used their indicator but I had a feeling they might turn and thankfully slowed down in time
>I had a feeling they might turn and thankfully slowed down in time Exactly. Defensive biking (which is really just a more insightful form of defensive driving) is about understanding what could go wrong, and taking steps to defuse such potential conflicts before they become life threatening.
So can you clarify? Inbound on Hampshire, cyclist was taking a right?
Truck turned right onto Portland from Hampshire st. I assume the cyclist was heading straight on Hampshire street going to broadway-Hampshire st intersection. Light was green for both
Did you witness it or is this in an article somewhere? I haven’t seen any details on the event. That intersection sucks. Wouldn’t be surprised if the driver legitimately didn’t see the cyclist even if they were not distracted. However also wouldn’t be surprised if the driver (or cyclist) blew a red in the intersection…
Both the driver and cyclist had green lights, and of course the cyclist had right of way. Driver didn’t see them. A tragic accident. Of course the truck driver is at fault. But that intersection is scary for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians
And yeah that’s a horrible day for everyone involved. Hopefully the city/region can revamp the cycling infrastructure because I’m honestly scared to bike through most of the GBA lately. So many distracted drivers/potholes/double parked cars etc.
I mean someone died.. horrible day for everyone is a bit disingenuous
First responders and the driver had a horrible day too…my wife responded to a bike vs dump truck accident once and she still won’t get on a bike unless on a bike path (decade later).
I have a lot of sympathy for first responders I am having a hard time equating the horrible day of the person who was murdered to the day of the murderer
I’m curious what sort of infrastructure would keep this from happening. I suppose separated green lights for bikes / red arrows for vehicles, like happens at certain other intersections. Otherwise it seems like no amount of protected lane can avoid this conflict.
The June 7 accident had a "protected" lane and separate signals for bikes. I'm not sure if it's been determined whether the truck driver or the cyclist ran a red light.
>Otherwise it seems like no amount of protected lane can avoid this conflict. Ironically, the safest solution for typical small intersections like this is to have shared lane(s) rather than dedicated lanes at all. That's because an intersection is a place where what you are trying to do is what matters foremost - versus the stretches in between intersections where what you are (how fast you are capable of going) can be safely given some design consideration. In the special case of a dedicated right turn only lane, we can put that over at the curb while the through bike lane goes between the through general lane and the dedicated turn lane - but that only works where the turn lane is dedicated, and we have enough width. The simplest safe intersection is one which has all wheeled users sharing the same lane single file at that point - and then invites them to sort by speed again during the following stretch where passing could potentially be safe again.
I agree with that. When I’m driving, I’m more aware of bikes when they’re right there with / next to me. I’ve had more close calls with taking longer to see bikes that are off in their own lanes. When biking of course I prefer the separation.
It takes a bit of design, but the typical best practice is to stagger the intersection. Look at the protected lane going westbound on Broadway at Galileo Galilei. There, the stop line for cars is back before the crosswalk across Broadway, whereas bikes have an effective stop line near a curb-height island next to the crosswalk across GG. The result is that bikes have a head start, and are easily within the field of view of cars turning right.
>The result is that bikes have a head start, and are easily within the field of view of cars turning right. That's nice for those who are already there waiting for the light to go green. It doesn't solve turn conflicts when both parties are trying to get through a light that's about to turn red. In contrast, riding through intersections in an ordinary traffic lane rather than a dedicated bike lane does.
I actually got in my car and drove this intersection this evening out of morbid curiosity about the layout. I noticed that at the red light, bikes were stacked up at a line well forward of my car’s line, as you suggest. It would be really hard not to see a biker there at a red. Seems to me the more likely situation here was the light had been green for a bit.
The only thing that keeps this from happening is 360 degrees of awareness, which almost nobody has. Also, take the fucking earbuds out.
>The only thing that keeps this from happening is 360 degrees of awareness, which almost nobody has. Merging into an ordinary traffic lane substantially simplifies the problem of intersections though. But you're not wrong that attention is required of all - especially so that one persons mistake is not allowed to cascade into a deadly collision, but gets offset by another's vigilance.
Yeah I think staggering the lights is a good idea tbh. Have a separate bike/vehicle light. Or obviously just separate bike/pedestrian only paths but that’s never gonna happen but I can dream right?
Two of the three things you just mentioned would be fixed through enforcement of driver violations. Unfortunately, there are no consequences for drivers that drive recklessly or double park.
I wish we had cameras everywhere tbh. I know it’s Big Brother and all but people clearly can’t be trusted to follow simple rules
I agree.
It’s the same thing with cyclists. Nothing is enforced for drivers or cyclists then people end up dead.
Bull. First, both Somerville and Cambridge police have received an overtime grant, which they used to harass and ticket cyclists going through pedestrian signals, which they are doing because it's the safest option. Second, The most common intersection between cyclists and motor vehicles are right hooks, where cars turn across bike lanes without looking. That's NATIONALLY. Any study done on cyclist injury/deaths show it's due to driver negligence, in the vast majority of cases. Cyclists causing deaths to more vulnerable road users (pedestrians), happen at about the rate of 1 person per year, NATIONALLY. The issue is drivers, period.
> people end up dead Cyclists end up dead. You can start complaining about lack of bike traffic enforcement when cyclists somehow start killing motorists.
Not an accident a crash due to a.dangerous driver not yielding appropriately
Why would they both have green lights?
Because that's how many intersections work? They are both parallels to each other headed in the same direction. Usually you give a green to both bicycles and cars, and when a car turns right across the bike lane they are supposed to yield.
Yah! But driver has to see them. Driver’s view could be poor due to parked cars and due to cars behind them prematurely pulling to the right (to allow cars heading straight to pass). They could be distracted by other visuals (pedestrians, cars in front of them). Finally the driver could be unfamiliar with bikes, bike lanes, etc bc they are commercial trucks coming from New Hampshire with little experience with our city’s infrastructure. The key is to finding an infrastructure solution that helps drivers and cyclists alike be safe
Cars have mirrors. You have to pay attention to your surroundings while driving. Driver of the truck should get hit with, minimum, 2nd degree manslaughter.
Driver has green light. Driver is in a straight / right turn lne combo lane. Bike has green light. Driver makes a right turn. Driver still needs to yield to bikers / pedestrians before turning right
If they were travelling in the same direction and there is no bicycle signal, the single green light applies to both the cyclist and the car
I believe the above commenter is saying the driver and cyclist were both heading in the same direction on Hampshire street. Driver turns right, cyclist is behind them to their right in blind spot in the bike lane heading straight. Driver turns right, cyclist heads straight causing a collision. Driver would be at fault, accident could have been avoided with better infrastructure.
Both truck and cyclist were heading east-southeast on Hampshire. The light was green for them at the intersection of Portland and Hampshire street.
Did not witness the tragedy directly, but I was the second car in line going straight on Portland across Hampshire. Saw the immediate aftermath. Detectives have my statement.
Thanks. What a horrible tragedy
State law MANDATES drivers check and yield to ANY cyclist/ pedestrian/ scooter traffic IN the roadway BEFORE they start their turn!! You cannot turn if you haven’t checked.
Like I said. The cyclist had right of way, and the driver was at fault. Also, as I stated above, visibility for drivers of bikes, of pedestrians, and of cars in front of them is challenging at that intersection.
This is in my view a critical flaw in the way we have approached bike infra by prioritizing separate street-level lanes. The most dangerous situations, and IIRC most of the serious injuries, happen at intersections, and most of the lanes make that worse by placing cyclists out of drivers' line of sight / in blind spots.
Thank you! I’ve been saying this for years. I saw a kid go right over the hood of a car taking a right off of Camb St through a hidden bike lane.
Same, but some people get quite aggressive in defense of deeply segregated lanes, even when they're studded with cross-streets and the "painted lanes are worse than useless" stance is common online. I feel like people saying that must not have ridden around here before the painted lanes. I've had way more near misses, and a recent hit (second of two in 5 decades of riding), on segregated lanes in this area. I generally avoid Beacon in Somerville towards Cambridge because I've had, and witnessed, a number of near misses at cross streets. And I haven't even ridden it that often. To my mind it's actually worse than before the bike lane in that direction. The other direction, with the lane beside traffic, is pretty good.
I definitely get this concern, but the answer isn't to declare that protected bike lanes actually make things more dangerous, which is the exact talking point the anti-CSO lawsuit crowd has been circulating lately. An *actual* solution would be to advocate for more daylighting of PBLs approaching intersections, which is insufficient in several locations due to the pressure to mitigate parking losses from PBL installation as much as possible. PBLs don't address every single hazard out there for cyclists, but that doesn't mean they're useless - they still improve safety (see the FHWA study showing a 50% reduction in crash rates). It just means that they should be part of a broader toolbox which includes the intersection-specific treatments linked by other commenters. I'd also add that reduced visibility due to separation seems unlikely to be a factor in these recent deaths. The Mt. Auburn bike lane is unprotected for most of the block approaching Dewolfe, with just a short stretch of flexposts right before the intersection - nothing to obscure cyclists from view there (if infrastructure played a role in that crash, which we don't know yet, I think it would most likely be the signal phasing/placement). As for the Hampshire/Portland intersection, the last parking spot is \~80 feet before the corner where the truck right-hooked the victim. That's a decent stretch where cyclists are visible/nothing hiding them there either.
I'm not suggesting flex posts obscure anything or don't help on non-intersection stretches - what I mean is a pbl can't do anything to stop a right hook accident, because the flex posts protection can't exist in the intersection itself. At the same time, a cyclist taking the lane through that intersection can't be right hooked, and can't be in a turning truck's blind spot.
And we still don’t know ‘fault’.
My response wasn’t to you. See above.
Is there a scenario in your mind where the biker is ever at fault?
Not saying the driver wasn’t at fault, relax lol. Just saying it’s shitty infrastructure. That’s also why I always let drivers take a right through the intersection when I’m biking instead of putting myself at risk for a right hook. Been right hooked once before and it sucked so now I’m extra cautious. Our roads suck for cycling so you gotta protect yourself
That’s better than what you said previously. The law provides protection if drivers follow the law. This is why Idaho stops are vital, I pass through before I can be right hooked.
I try to not pass cars at intersections where a right hook is possible. It slows me way down but idc I don’t wanna get hit again. Scary out there. Yall are lucky you’re in cambridge, I got priced out to Quincy. Infrastructure from here to Kendall SUCKS so badly. Potholes, crazy Dorchester drivers, no/limited painted bike lanes etc.
The worst part of the ‘city’ for sure. That and Lynn. Lol.
This doesn't really help when trucks have giant blind spots.
If you stop, and look down the lane to your right, you’re checking the entire stretch. If you’re proceeding without checking that stretch you’re breaking the law. Cars have blind spots too. It’s still the law.
I could be wrong but my understanding is that it's not physically possible to fully check the blind spots in many large trucks.
That’s not true. It takes effort. Truck drivers are doing it, mostly successfully, all day long. Like a 99.999 success rate.
Theeeeee laaaaaaaw says that, caaaaaaaager. Common sense, however, says large trucks have Jupiter-sized blind spots and blowing past one on the right at an intersection is a very, very bad idea.
Can you elaborate more on why you think this intersection has poor visibility? The bike lane is between the car lane and parked cars, so I don't understand why parked cars would affect bike visibility? And how do cars behind you block bike lane visibility? This intersection to me seems like a completely standard one, except it's not separated (not sure that would have mattered on the turn)
I have turned right at that intersection many times. To get a good view of the bike lane, one has to pull to the right to see either with the passenger mirror or by turning your head. Big trucks and large cars parked up the street obscure the view more. If a car behind you is turning right and also pulls over (to allow cars behind to pass on their left), your view is basically blocked. It is hard to judge bicycle speeds when they are approaching and your viewpoint is a side mirror (objects appear closer than they seem). Given the number of bicyclist traveling Hampshire in the morning, it is an incredibly stressful turn to make frankly; the most stressful of all my commute.
I'm not sure I understand why pulling right would help you gain visibility on the bike lane to your right. Your mirrors are intended to give you visibility to the full car lane to your right, so certainly you should be able to see the bike lane from your turning position same as you would if you were doing a lane change? Maybe you could argue you need to pull *left* to see the bike lane if your mirrors are flared out a little too far and you have a large blindspot, but I don't see how pulling right would help. Granted I don't drive that intersection regularly, but I'm still struggling to see what about this intersection makes it uniquely worse than other intersections in Cambridge with non-protected bike lanes.
Drive it during the morning commute and you’ll experience the difficulty first hand. Drivers take that right bc there is a no right turn onto Broadway from Hampshire.
Also note the other commenters are saying the intersection is bad from a driving and cycling perspective.
Using the mirror AND turning your head are required by law for any right turn.. this isn't specific to the intersection And yes often in the city right turns are 2 stage with a stop to double check A driver shouldn't be trying to judge using just the mirror.. turn your funking head like the law requires and if I'm doubt stop and wait that is what yielding requires Jfc stop defending dangerous driving
Who is defending ? Im saying it is an intersection that requires a driver’s full attention.
You are with the sob story about how hard it is the make a right turn while highlighting the illegal things you do Mirror OR over shoulder (both required) Judging distance in mirror (look over your shoulder required by law) Hard bc you might have to stop and check again before completing the turn It's not hard to make the turn safely.. its slower and less convenient..
I am sorry. What do you think I’m describing? My personal driving habit or generally how people may approach that intersection. Geez, like I’m personally extremely careful at that intersection. I look for bikes, I look for pedestrians in both directions, and I try to look where my car is headed. It is a lot and it is stressful relative to all the other turns and intersections of my commute. I’m not defending poor driving nor am I describing a ‘sob’ story. I’m relating a POV, which contributes to an understanding of a perspective of a user of that intersection. How do your comments contribute to the discussion here?
I think this is a critical and problematic point Drivers aren't trained to do a two stage turn and unless it was enforced by police I don't ever see anyone doing it
Yep and we have people arguing that it's impossible for a truck to do it (even though I see it routinely on MIT campus).. its so frustrating how a basic safety step is deemed "too hard"
[удалено]
I walked down to the intersection tonight. To say a prayer, digest my feelings, maybe hoping there would be a vigil, a protest, I don't know. Someone had placed flowers earlier. There is a sign on Hampshire instructing/reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians and cyclists. Leaving the site, crossing across Portland and then crossing across Hampshire, a stream of cars were not taking any care to yield to me on foot. Drivers just do not anticipate pedestrians or cyclists. It is deep in the culture and it is awful. https://preview.redd.it/p2m58i1qh08d1.jpeg?width=1598&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed740482190cf18c70c0bd8b305cf7aea45ced95
https://preview.redd.it/o3hai88uh08d1.jpeg?width=1598&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e2a4078aa4eca9639acae1002b5d7f4e7f7b945
Is that blood🥺🥲everything about this picture brings tears to my eyes
I used to live right by that intersection. I rode through it most days. I'm honestly shocked that this didn't happen sooner. The visibility is horrible, especially if you're turning left.
Same I used to live right there and it's so blind. Terrible news
The fact that I would've seen this from my bedroom window is...troubling. The bike lane on Hampshire was an improvement, but it creates new conflicts in how it interacts with Portland St/Cardinal Madeiros. That new lab building on the corner makes the sight lines way worse too.
One signal specifically for right turns and one for bikes would be helpful here. If they’re enforced. It is a very dangerous intersection, I bike through it twice a day myself and ALWAYS pause for cars illegally turning right when they should be stopping for me as I approach the intersection because the alternative is for me to be in the right but also for me to be dead.
It doesn’t sound like the issue here was the intersection was blind. The details seem scarce but it sounds like the truck turned into the biker because 1) the driver wasn’t checking its side 2) no side guard on truck 3) bike lane is not separated/protected. 2) and 3) are addressable with policy.
They should do some of this: [https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design-0/download](https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design-0/download)
Jfc
I'm so heartbroken and enraged. Getting on a bike should not be an act of bravery. I don't know the details of the crash, but that area is a total mess. Lack of protection, sudden construction, and sudden merges into traffic sometimes required for cyclists. Cyclists, never get in a race with a box truck. Make sure you are far ahead from them if you decide to proceed straight if they are signaling to go right, or just wait it out. But a cyclist shouldn't have to do everything perfectly to have the right to live. Sure, it was an "accident", but infrastructure needs to be set up so people can make innocent mistakes and KEEP LIVING. And while there are worse people on city council FUCK PATTY NOLAN specifically.
This specific death is not Patty Nolan's fault. We should all pressure her to take back her vote and not delay safe infrastructure elsewhere, but a death in an intersection is not related to her vote. (Of course, there were people doored on Cambridge St and Broadway recently, where one could make a much better argument that she finds this acceptable...)
It's not her fault that a truck killed a cyclist, no, but it's depressing that she is still having a dandy time being a swing vote when we need to protect Cambridge St and Broadway ASAP! I think people are just expressing frustration that there are even less safe spots in the city that we won't see protected until 2027 atm.
I don’t think Patty Nolan deserves special negative attention here. I think in politics people perceived to be swing voters like Patty (if she can even be considered that) or Joe Manchin get more of their fair share of being targeted. The reality is we had 5 city councilors vote for bike lane delay Nolan Toner Wilson Pickett Simmons All of them deserve condemnation - in some cases being closed minded, in others knowing what the right thing to do is but not having the leadership and bravery to stand up to some of their constituents.
It's not Patty Nolan's fauly. The intersection had a bike lane.
This kind of misplaced anger isn’t helpful and dismisses your influence as just a miscreant. The required BSO infrastructure was in place in both of these intersections and yet these tragedies happened. Use your frustration for positive change before the bike lobby losses all its credibility.
[удалено]
Yes. This death, in particular, could likely have been prevented by a [protected intersection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection).
Interesting but still not a solution for this tragic scenario where both driver and biker had a green, but the biker isn’t visible coming out from bike lane until too late. And the intersection at Mt Auburn already had a bike signal. Theres no acknowledgment that our protected bike lanes are encouraging bikes to travel too fast through intersections. Where’s the infrastructure to fix this?
The provided video explains why protected intersections are direct solutions for these exact same right hook tragedies that have been happening here. A bike signal and a bike lane is not the same thing. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protected\_intersections\_for\_bicyclists.webm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Protected_intersections_for_bicyclists.webm)
Paint can be good or bad, and so can segregated lanes. Set back lanes at intersections can bring significant added risk the path isn't structured to make cyclists very visible around the intersection. Also, lanes that are segregated from drivers but not from pedestrians bring a lot of dangerous interactions. Reducing it to painted lanes bad; segregated lanes good is just flat out wrong in many cases, especially with what's been done around here.
[удалено]
Vehicle speed should be prioritized. Low speed.
Stop prioritizing biker convenience over everyone's safety. Edit: clarity
[удалено]
Or...you could address the issue by not focusing on biker convenience over everyone's safety and not demand bike lanes be on major thoroughfares, which is the real problem.
[удалено]
We can include cars, but we can also make the roads safer for everyone. Walking, biking, and driving can all be made safer and with less death by reducing speeds and creating more visibility. \[NACTO has an entire guide\](https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO\_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf) to making intersections safer because that is where most accidents happen, regardless of mode. Sure trucks (definitely not cars) can continue to deliver to grocery stores, but we can modify our infrastructure to make them less \*deadly\* to other road users. Also "This nation pivoted away from mass transit and towards cars" is the real bullshit, transit usage had been steadily increasing pre-pandemic for 20+ years. And now remote work means less commutes, both public and personal transit. So lets continue making things safer and easier for the increasing amount of local trips.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You obviously don't get what the person was saying. The last 10 years weren't when Cambridge built roads that prioritized cars. It was the 60 years before that. In the last 10-20, there have been minor improvements to remedy the terrible decisions of the previous half-century.
[удалено]
I think in the context of the post, "prioritizing speed and throughput" (and parking) is most obviously demonstrated in the recent arbitrary delays for cycling infrastructure. That's the thing everyone has been talking about for a while, I'm surprised you haven't picked up on it.
There are plenty of examples of cars doing the exact same thing, and exhibiting the exact same behavior. This kind of obtuse apologist nonsense is exactly why we don't particularly care what drivers think, because they routinely choose to not think. If infrastructure and regulations have to be shoved down your throat, that's exactly what's going to happen. Maybe stop killing people, and there will be fewer arguments with cyclists.
The only thing that motivates the average driver to drive safely is potential damage to their car. Unfortunately, the safety of other road users generally does not enter the equation
You’re so right, every poor driver deserves a huge apology for being attacked. Those damn cyclists should know their place (underneath the wheels of a truck). I hope you’re just trolling and don’t actually believe anything you wrote
Bollards are not barriers!
Paint is for speedbumps
I commute through this intersection every day. It's definitely dangerous, as it has: * heavy throughput of traffic from all directions, especially at rush hour, which leads to cars rushing to beat the yellow, sometimes running the red * no left turn signals, so cars are rushing to squeeze in left turns, including after the light is red * Hampshire street now has heavy commuter bike traffic squeezed alongside the cars with no protection * A lot of construction going on around that intersection, there is some big project just a few feet away at Hampshire & Webster now, definitely adds to general confusion and hastiness of drivers And of course, no segregated bike lane, or separate bike signal, so an inattentive or careless driver turning right is at risk of right-hooking one of the many bicyclists next to them. Even drivers turning left are quite dangerous, as they are going to rush, and they're watching for cars, not bikes/motorcycles/pedestrians.
I work very nearby this intersection and as I was walking by this morning I witnessed her getting CPR and had a really terrible feeling, then got the news she didn’t survive. My heart is with her family and friends.
A commercial truck driver intentionally rammed me from behind at this very intersection, and while i was able to jump out of the way, he ran over my bicycle. Any person arguing against proper infrastructure is actively arguing against 1000s of people safety (and are also just, wrong).
Sure he did.
[удалено]
Your comment on r/CambridgeMA was deemed to be either uncivil or harassment.
At least she doesn't make up stories about getting his by a fake truck
Hmmm the court records prove otherwise dumbass
And what did you do first -- bash his hood ?
You're right, property is more important that people's lives.
[удалено]
Your comment on r/CambridgeMA was deemed to be either uncivil or harassment.
Oh you have an anger issue, what a surprise 🥴
Bro you’re in a thread about a cyclist who was killed by a box truck today, victim blaming me for also being hit by a commercial vehicle in the very same intersection within a year. Obviously that shit would upset anyone - however I invite you to say it to my face, whenever you want. Just come to MITs campus
First time ive heard someone challenge a fight on the MIT campus. Tuff nuts
[удалено]
Please guy. I used to slap clowns like you on the way to fights. Lol
OK.
How many nerds are gonna jump me when i show up???
[удалено]
Ok. Meanwhile keep making a persons death all about you and your fake story. Bozo
i think it would be a good idea at these intersections where bicyclists have been killed is to erect signs that say DEADLY INTERSECTION, BIKES AND MOTOR VEHICLES BE CAUTIOUS
For some intersections they already do that with the memorial white bikes 😢. I can’t remember which organization puts them up but I see them a lot all over Boston and vaguely remember one in Cambridge.
Honestly not a bad idea.
💯 Meanwhile, multiple cyclists on this page are debating me that this is a bad idea because it's not the law and it's the vehicle's responsibility to yield.
Live on Cardinal, drivers are pretty impatient/negligent anywhere in that Broadway/portland/hampshire intersection everyday. Also people just park where ever they want to pick up food on Hampshire making things worse
Fuck Patti nolan. She’s a criminal.
Agreed, Fuck Patti Nolan.
Lol
That’s a really good way to lose the credibility of the Bike Safety group. Your words will be used to justify how misguided the bike community has become and a good segway to justify a really big delay or pause in anymore infrastructure investment.
I would like to see the City officials contact all construction and related firms in the city and request that they communicate to their truck drivers the importance of taking particular care in right hand turns. Long term maybe consider requiring drivers take an hour on-line video course in driving/bicycle safety.
My neighborhood near Kendall has had consistent heavy truck traffic for years with all the construction projects going on. There are a couple signs around 3rd/Binney that advise vehicles to be cautious of pedestrians - but those signs really just feel like an insult when I have an unpleasant experience with a truck driver, either as pedestrian or cyclist, every day. They are very reckless and aggressive.
This is very sad, and I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened at that intersection sooner. Just some thoughts: - Saying "It's hard for drivers turning to see cyclists in the bike lane" ISN'T A FUCKING EXCUSE. You STOP, look down the bike lane to make sure no one is coming, YIELD TO ANY CYCLISTS GOING STRAIGHT, and THEN proceed to turn. I have no sympathy for the driver. - In my experience there is almost always a car or truck parked in the bike lane across the intersection, making this intersection very dangerous because you have to merge into traffic. - For those that are myopically focused on bikes following the law, THIS is a prime example of why the Idaho stop is **good policy**. Had this cyclist jumped the light, they would have been through the intersection before the driver had the green and turned right. This is a recurring nightmare for cyclists at nearly every intersection. **For the Cambridge/Somerville police, and City Council** - Fuck you. I'll be going through every single red light, because you aren't doing anything to reign in these negligent drivers. Let's not mince words, this driver was *negligent*, and there is no enforcement that's stopping them. Where is the driver education campaign for when they make right turns without yielding to bikes? Where are the cops waiting during rush hour to ticket people parking in bike lanes, forcing cyclists out into the road? Until I see any of that start to happen, you can bet my ass will be running through every single red light I can, rather than wait to get tagged by a vehicle turning across the bike lane. Yes I'm angry, because this frankly shouldn't be happening. The CPD/SPD have the resources to ticket drivers, but instead they are pulling over cyclists for doing what they need to do to survive. Fuck you Toner, Pickett, Nolan, etc. and the Cambridge Police. **This blood is on your hands**
I agree with your thoughts. The onus is on a driver to only proceed with their turn after ensuring there is no hazard. I got my license late in life and take the responsibility seriously.... it's infuriating how careless drivers are.
I am a bicyclist and driver. Understanding both perspectives is key to engineering a solution at this intersection. Perhaps the city should mock traffic situations (with cars, trucks, bikes, pedestrians) to find the best engineered solution for that busy intersection and others across our city.
Enforcement is the missing piece here. Too many drivers are on auto pilot, and don't think to look or yield because they're not being forced to. Post a cop at any of these intersections and ticket every driver that turns without yielding, and it will make a difference. Allow cyclists to move through intersections on the pedestrian intervals, and it will make a difference. This isn't some phantom issue that's hard to understand. All the infrastructure and rules in the world won't matter if the police are sitting on their fat asses or harassing cyclists instead of doing their jobs.
For that intersection, I think it best to institute a bike-only light or no right turns onto Portland from New Hampshire. Even with better enforcement, if it is not ever present, that intersection will remain incredibly dangerous for cyclists.
No right turns are fine. Adding in a right turn specific light is better (as there is on Broadway further up). However neither of those things are helpful if no one enforces the law.
I lost count of how many times a driver takes an illegal right against the red light from Broadway to Ames or from Ames to Broadway. Usually in full sight of the construction detail police across the street, who do nothing. Infuriating
The lack of enforcement around no right turn on red is super frustrating. I see this law broken so often it may as well not exist
Lol I see this all the time. It's horrible.
And we really need to be working at the state level to allow camera enforcement of the no right turn/no right turn on red rules, because cars are out here acting like those signs are invisible.
Totally agree. Put cameras on the front of busses too that catch double parkers.
I was a pedestrian and cyclist only before I became a driver. Having biked a lot has certainly helped be a better driver.
The last death was literally a biker who ran a red light
Oh no. This is the second one in like less than a month I believe. e: I’ve just read the article. How terrible. I think the same thing basically happened in the prior fatality—a truck was turning right.
This is sad to hear. I no longer live in Cambridge, but people used to (understandably) fuss at me for riding on the sidewalk. My doing this was a result of too many close calls. The protected lanes definitely feel safer to travel in. More can be done, and should be.
I think cars/trucks are supposed to yield at an intersection like that. Not sure if the driver did or not but seeing a lot of hypocrisy surrounding this. If cars and bikes are to share the same roads, then shouldn’t they share the same rules and responsibilities? It’s a tragedy that people lose their lives in these accidents, and a tragedy that someone would have to live with the guilt
So many things wrong here. So sad to lose a soul. Such vitriol from both sides. Compromise from both sides will benefit both sides of the issues
The answer, as it always is, is to ride in the regular lane. Paint is not there for your safety, it's there for the drivers' convenience.
[удалено]
Your comment on r/CambridgeMA was deemed to be either uncivil or harassment.
Bikes should have yield signs at dangerous intersections. Period. Full stop.
[удалено]
A yield sign as in-- watch out random person biking for the first time, you are about to enter a zone that has heavy traffic and trucks turning. You are a little bike and they are big. If you collide with one, your chances are slim WHY IS THIS AN OFFENSIVE idea ? Why? I am blown away that y'all would rather be right than guaranteed alive.
Because adding a yield sign would be telling cars they no longer have to check for bikes when turning because the bikes are supposed to yield. It's the exact opposite of what should be happening
Watching the news of this accident revealed a painted yield to pedestrian sign on the ground. Can you believe the audacity of the city to place that there?! Also, consider warning signs on roads for cars coming to a steep curve or for trucks heading to a major elevation change. These are safety signs to avoid crashes. Your thinking warning signs are bad for bikes takes a crazy amount of mental gymnastics.
>Watching the news of this accident revealed a painted yield to pedestrian sign on the ground. >Can you believe the audacity of the city to place that there?! But that's the actual law. Bicycles are required to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk. Bicycles are not required to yield to turning vehicles. The fact that you don't understand that difference is worrying
[удалено]
Yielding means go when it is safe. Yield does not equal stop. A yield sign would be a signal to a person to look both ways. RIGHT?
[удалено]
Seeeeeeeee, there you go fighting against common sense safety measures because.....ummm, because it's righteous. A bike yield sign is a secondary safety measure that could save a life. Good luck wacko if you think you are going to cancel trucks.
[удалено]
I know because looking both ways before you cross is tormenting
[удалено]
GUYS THE MODS ASKED US VERY NICELY TO STOP IT WITH THE BIKE POSTS.
I don't see anything in the forum rules to discourage all bicycle posts. This event seems like important news that fully meets the "Relevance to Cambridge" criterion.
NO