by Paul Schimek, November 11, 1997
Dear MassBikers,
As co-chair of the City of Boston Bicycle Advisory Committee's Educationand Enforcement Task Force and an Effective Cycling Instructor, I havesome thoughts about this tragic incident:
WHAT DOES THE TRAFFIC LAW SAY?
If Spring (the pedestrian) started to cross the street on a WALK signal,he legally had the right of way in the crosswalk and was entitled to cross,even if the light had turned green before he reached the opposite curb(normally there would be sufficient time to cross). Drivers (motoristsand bicyclists) are required to wait before all traffic (including pedestrians)clears the intersection before proceeding on a new green signal (I'll admitthat few drivers are aware of and fewer obey this rule). From Gladstone(the bicyclist's) report, it seems certain that Spring began to cross whenhe knew the light would be changing (flashing DON'T WALK and perhaps ayellow signal), and therefore probably did not have the legal right tobegin crossing. Drivers (including bicyclists) are required to attemptavoiding a collision with a pedestrian, even if the pedestrian does nothave the right of way. In this case Gladstone almost certainly had no suchopportunity because Spring ran into his path. The driver of the motor vehiclein the rightmost traffic lane must have seen Spring and was waiting forhim to finish crossing. Spring did not expect another vehicle (the bicycle)between the car and the curb, and may not even have been looking in thatdirection. Gladstone was approaching from an unexpected place. However,Massachusetts traffic law does specifically allow cyclists to pass on theright (but see below). Mass. law also requires cyclists to have a whiteheadlight half an hour after sunset until half an hour before dawn. Gladstonedid not have a head light roughly 1/2 an hour after sundown and thereforemay have been at the margin of violating the law.
WHAT DOES EFFECTIVE CYCLING SAY?
As was discussed earlier on this list, it is dangerous for cycliststo pass motor vehicles on the right -- especially vehicles that are moving,or are about to move, on a new green--they may decide to turn right acrossthe cyclist's path. It is also dangerous because the stopped vehicles maybe waiting for traffic (including peds) to clear the intersection--as wasthe case here. Gladstone was not going fast for normal bicycle travel (15-18mph)--but he was going much too fast to be passing on the right (whichis modestly safe at low speeds (5-8 mph) when traffic is completely stopped).Furthermore, it is essential to use a headlight if it will be dark beforethe end of your trip. However, even if Gladstone had been using a headlight,it may not have prevented a collision in this case (especially if Springwas not looking in his direction).
DETERMINING FAULT
I think it is important to know how "accidents" happen andwho is at fault because in most cases, accidents happen because someonedoes something wrong -- in the sense of violating the traffic laws. (Sometimesmore than one person makes a mistake, of course.) This does not mean thatone class of road users is more to blame than another, but rather thanby improving everyone's behavior we can actually prevent collisions andtherefore dramatically improve road safety.
THE GLOBE ARTICLE
The 11/7/97 article was terribly one-sided. The authors implied thatthe cyclist was at fault, but that is not at all clear from the facts.The article should have stated that the pedestrian may have been crossingillegally. Here's an analogy: If a motorist had run a red light and collideswith a pedestrian crossing lawfully, would The Globe have used the incidentto publicize the fact that pedestrians frequently jaywalk?
The Globe is also wrong to focus on messengers. The fact that Gladstoneis a courier is irrelevant to this case (he may not even have been workingat the time). To his credit, Officer Kenneth Westhaver said that "Notall bike messengers do this, but a minority do." (Note that OfficerKenneth Westhaver and messenger Adam Ford, both quoted in the article,are members of the BBAC.) Furthermore, all of The Globe's arguments (see11/8/97 editorial) about incentives to rush apply just as much to taxidrivers, and we have not focused nearly so much attention on them.
HELMETS
If Gladstone had been wearing a helmet he might have walked away withoutneeding hospitalization. More important, by chance he might equally havesustained critical rather than just serious injuries if he had hit hishead on the asphalt. The incident has convinced Gladstone of the desirabilityof always wearing a helmet. Still, it should be pointed out that wearinga helmet would not have prevented this collision and therefore would nothave prevented the critical injuries to Spring.
CAN GOOD COME FROM TRAGEDY?
The renewed attention to bicycle and pedestrian road safety may helpspur some new initiatives in this area. Hopefully it has increased awarenessthat a collision between a bicyclist and a pedestrian can result in seriousinjuries, and therefore that we need to take road safety seriously.
1). BOSTON POLICE
The BBAC is trying to institute bicycle safety enforcement trainingat the Boston Police Academy. This training would be given to all policeofficers and would emphasize that (1) bicyclists have the same legal rightto use the roads as motorists, (2) that violations of the rules of theroad by bicyclists greatly increase danger, and that (3) traffic law enforcementshould therefore be directed evenhandedly at all road users. I know fromfirst-hand experience that some Boston police are convinced that bicyclistshave no right to be "in traffic." I have also seen Boston bicyclepolice run red lights (while casually patrolling). In fact, it was reportedthat some Boston bicycle police were ticketed for running red lights inCambridge (!).
2). REGISTRATION OF COURIERS
I think this is a flawed approach to the problem. Perhaps we will beable to refocus the police's attention on enforcing the traffic laws ratherthan harassing people who look like couriers because they are not wearinga number vest.
3). EDUCATION
The courier registration ordinance requires that the messenger companiesprovide bike safety training. The Globe helpfully suggests that this partof the ordinance be enforced. I will try to arrange for messengers to takeEffective Cycling. Better yet, let's get the messengers and the bicyclepolice trained in the same classes, and ultimately recruit instructorsfrom the ranks of both groups.
Spring is a member of the Boston School Committee and a prominent educationadvocate. Perhaps this incident will motivate the School Committee to investigatethe possibility of requiring road safety training in the public schoolcurriculum.
4). SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
We need more traffic enforcement in Boston. The police can't stop everyoneall the time--enforcement is necessarily selective. But neither shouldthey cop out and say that you can't change Boston drivers. Instead of singlingout messengers, let's direct enforcement efforts selectively at a few locations(which can change over time). Enforcement should be targeted at anyonewho violates the law (e.g., wrong way cyclists, motorists who do not yieldto pedestrians lawfully in the crosswalk, pedestrians who dart out intotraffic, cyclists who ride on the sidewalk).
5). GETTING THE WORD OUT
Publicizing the twin message--cyclists have the same right to use theroads as anyone else, and must also obey the same laws--should be doneby all means necessary--print ads, posters, banners, cable TV, radio, BikeWeek, leaflets, mailings with utility bills, and word of mouth.
back to BostonCrash Controversy
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at messvilleto@yahoo.com