DOES INTRINSIC bias against cyclists explain why a grand jury recently failed to hand up an indictment against a driver suspected of vehicular homicide in last summer’s death of 41-year-old rider Alexander Motsenigos? Bicycle advocates believe so — fervently. And Wellesley Police Chief Terrence Cunningham and Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey aren’t far behind.
Many accidents involving bicycles and motor vehicles can be traced to road design, inclement weather, or attention lapse. But law enforcement traced Motsenigos’s death to truck driver Dana McCoomb, a man with an extensive history of driving infractions who fled the scene after striking the Wellesley cyclist from the side. Witness statements, video footage, and subsequent police analysis of the scene suggested that the deadly collision was more than an unavoidable accident.
Comments
Yes, cyclists are tremendously vulnerable vis-a-vis a truck or automobile. Just about the same as a pedestrian is vis-a-vis a cyclist. Yet no one seems to want to stop cyclists from riding on sidewalks, in parks, on streets going the wrong way, and through intersections with no regard for pedestrians. It's time that Boston -- the walking city -- spent some time protecting the walkers as well as the riders and the drivers.
This comment has been removed.
Really, jedi...ok for bikes to clip people, because they won't die. So as long as cars don't kill the bikers we can bump them a bit...
Part of the problem with drivers' attitudes towards bicyclists is the car itself. There's something about the anonymity of riding inside an enclosed metal box, sealed off from the surrounding environment that makes people do things they would never dream of doing if they were say, riding on a bicycle too. It's really a continuation of the bunker mentality that starts with living in a big house in the suburbs continued to it's obvious conclusion. You separate from all living beings except family and co-workers. A person on a bike becomes a thing to deal with, an obstacle, like a pole or a bump on the road. The rider becomes another challenge to beat. Refined aggression.
what responsibility does the bicyclists have? the video i saw showed the bike passing on the right?
Unfortunately, the 16 second video in the WHDH coverage is no longer readily available. However, you are either not watching the correct video or totally misinterpreting it. In the video, Motsenigos crosses Rt 135 and continues up Weston Road heading north towards the Linden St intersection. The Mabardy truck (clearly legible in the video) turns right behind off of Rt. 135 East with the cyclist clearly visible and ahead of him. The truck driver then proceeds to recklessly accelerate with his huge truck in an attempt to pass the cyclist, IN THE INTERSECTION, and before the road narrows dangerously just past the intersection. At the point of the collision (I refuse to use the word accident) the bike is to the right of the truck, but only because of the reckless behavior of the truck driver. The driver also said he saw the cyclist and knew the road. This was blatantly criminal driving. All three charges were justified and the grand jury should have allowed it to go to trial. The 16 second video is all the evidence you need to come to this conclusion.
To be a bicyclist in Massachusetts, must one be a fatalist or even a kamikaze? That is my question.
Not sure about the answer. I just can't imagine hating someone on a bike. Where does the rage scone from? And then to leave the scene of an accident? Sure, there are some careless and rude bikers out there, but look at the odds in any collision between a vehicle and a bike. Bike loses every time.
This comment has been removed.
I've never been flipped off by a bike rider. Maybe that says it all for me!
I have. I pulled up to a four-way stop intersection. A car was pulling up to the stop on my left simultaneously. Two cyclists were also approaching the intersection from the left. As I was on the right, I had the right of way, that's the law. After stopping, I began to pull into the intersection when I realized that the two cyclists had not stopped but had entered the intersection, passing the stopped car on the left. I stomped on my brakes and as the two cyclists passed in front of my car, one of them flipped me the bird. So, they didn't stop as the law requires, and they ignored the fact that I had the right of way. These weren't kids either, they were gray haired guys in their fifties. And no, neither one was wearing a helmet.
This comment has been removed.
"DOES INTRINSIC bias against cyclists explain why a grand jury recently failed to hand up an indictment against a driver suspected of vehicular homicide in last summer’s death of 41-year-old rider Alexander Motsenigos? Bicycle advocates believe so — fervently. And Wellesley Police Chief Terrence Cunningham and Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey aren’t far behind."
___________________________________________________________
Of course it couldn't just be that the Wellesley PD and the Norfolk DA did a poor job of making the case to the grand jury, could it? Nah, just slap the jurors around for doing their civic duty because you don't like the verdict.
What jurors are u talking about?
This comment has been removed.
Bike riding isn't any fun if one has to stop for red lights and wait. Standing there sweating in a speedo and helmet is very uncomfortable.
Cyclists seem to want to prove they can "outperform" automobiles in terms of travel times on city streets. Sort of like those guys in itty bitty cars who get crunched by big ugly SUV's.
But then, since there is very little enforcement of traffic laws in this area, it is pretty much a free-for-all. Travel at your own peril.
This comment has been removed.
Get rid of half the parking and put in physically separate biking and walking lanes.
This comment has been removed.
I've considered the implications of the grand jury's failure to indict. It has some strange unintended consequences. Grand juries are secretive things, so we don't know the exact details. But here's my only interpretation of happened that makes logical sense, given existing laws:
The driver failed to pass the cyclist safely (this is by definition). Massachusetts law requires a driver to give adequate space when passing a cyclist. But unlike other states, the state doesn't specify a distance: States that do specify, usually state either 3 feet or 4 feet. The lack of a specific, measurable safe zone for adequate passing provided a loophole big enough for Dana McCoomb to drive his truck through.
Here's what it means: The grand jury is telling cyclists, if you let another vehicle squeeze you, it's not a violation of the law. The only adequate counter-measure: don't *ever* let another vehicle squeeze you. Cyclists, when in doubt, ALWAYS take the lane. Force vehicle traffic to move entirely into an adjacent or oncoming traffic lane to pass you. Obviously cyclists should be courteous and move aside when it is safe. But ONLY when it is completely safe for vehicles to pass. When in doubt, do *NOT* ride at the edge of the lane, allowing traffic to squeeze by. There will be impatient vehicle operators, but your safety trumps their frustration.
I'm not advocating this position personally. But until the laws are changed to specify a minimum distance as a safe zone for cyclists, the grand jury's decision means that taking the lane is the only way for a cyclist to protect her or himself legally.