The cyclist struck Monday by an SUV on Memorial Drive in Cambridge has died.
The cyclist, identified as John Corcoran, 62, of Newton (state police initially gave the name as “John Cochran” in an email), was killed at approximately 5:42 p.m. while on a bike riding west toward the Boston University Bridge on the Dr. Paul Dudley White Bike Path, state police said. A black Mercedes SUV swerved and jumped the curb, striking the cyclist, according to reports.
An eyewitness said the cyclist was struck “head-on” by the car. Footage from WCVB news shows a black SUV with damage to the front bumper, hood and windshield sitting in front of the BU DeWolfe Boathouse.
“Preliminary investigation suggests that a man in his 20s lost control of his vehicle,” which led to the collision, Massachusetts State Police Trooper James D. DeAngelis said.
Authorities initially described the crash and injuries sustained by the cyclist as “severe,” but Massachusetts State Police confirmed Tuesday that he died from his injuries. In identifying Cochran, state police expressed their condolences to his family.
This is the second recent collision between a motorist and bicyclist on Memorial Drive, and the third fatal collision in Cambridge this year.
The collision is under investigation by the Middlesex State Police Detective Unit. No charges have been filed at this time, police said.
This post was updated Sept. 24 to remove some details.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Ban SUVs. Especially for people who can’t drive them and stay on the street.
When will the Cambridge City Council take action on our unsafe streets?
They listen to unfounded claims about bike lanes and safety infrastructure while ignoring the real harm. Lives are at stake—people are dying.
Safety should take priority over driver convenience.
Here is yet another person who won’t be coming home.
Whoops! Lost control. I wonder if the driver gets fined $200 for driving on the curb
Why is it relevant that this was rush hour traffic? Are we trying to pass that off as yet another excuse for more human roadkill?
@FrankD. This death had nothing to do with “driver convenience.” Per reports, car was being driven recklessly, causing loss of control.”
@AllisS. The resistance to making our streets safer and preventing fatalities is driven by a focus on driver convenience.
@FrankD Given the sparse details known so far about the accident, it’s not yet apparent to what extent driver recklessness, cyclist error, and/or road infrastructure may have played into this fatality. Blaming “driver convenience” is far-fetched and absurd.
The state throws millions of dollars at incompetently prosecuting Karen Read for allegedly hitting her drunk boyfriend with her car but if it’s a cyclist – not even on the street- the drivers don’t even get a moving violation???
Frank did you even read the article before jumping in? Read the article again, carefully,
The cyclist was on the sidewalk/bike lane separate from the cars.
This was a reckless driver who jumped the curb.
Yes, reckless behavior leads to injuries and fatalities. We must make our streets safer, but some resist giving up any road space. As a result, preventable injuries and deaths continue to occur.
Oh no, here we go again.
Another unfortunate loss of life, and the crazies, starting with Marc Macgovern, are buzzing again.
News Flash! Accidents happen.
News Flash: Bicycles are NOT a practical form of transportation for the HUGE majority of our population.
News Flash! If you choose to use this impractical form of transport, for whatever your motivation, please take personal responsibility for this choice.
News Flash! We live in Massachusetts! Where for many months of the year bicycling an even less practical option!
News Flash: Modifying (wrecking) our roadway infrastructures to accommodate a wildly impractical romantic ideal, to the very real detriment of the great majority of said infrastructure users, is, if not the height of civic irresponsibility, must be pretty damn close.
Ok, queue the haters.
Though this terrible accident may not be due to any road changes, it does appear that all the effort and money spent by Cambridge to make it safer to bike has failed.
DCR could fix this problem by properly separating motorists from pedestrians and cyclists (just look at that “curb”) but they choose not to.
@clticfan
News Flash: Cars are not a practical transportation solution for those who cannot afford them. The largest proportion of bike commuters are low-income users.
News Flash: In Cambridge, 2/3 of trips are not made by cars. Many residents manage without one.
News Flash: Driving is a choice. Operating a 5000lb machine comes with the responsibility to avoid harm. Blaming non-car users for accidents is callous and immoral.
News Flash: City traffic counts show cyclists outnumber cars on busy corridors during rush hour, yet road space is not allocated accordingly.
News Flash: Cars kill 6000-7000 pedestrians annually in the US. This isn’t the fault of those not in cars.
News Flash: Urban transportation experts agree that car reliance has severely impacted city life negatively. For example, children near major roads have an increased risk of lung disease due to air pollution.
News Flash: Cars and trucks contribute significantly to climate change, accounting for 1/3 of greenhouse gas emissions.
News Flash: Romanticizing cars in a city where many don’t use them, despite their damaging effects, is misguided.
@Ruby. Let me understand. The city made NO changes to this road. And that shows that the changes they made on OTHER roads are not working?
That’s some head-scratching logic
@AllisS weren’t you the one talking about not speaking I’ll of the dead when people spoke the truth about a late city councilors record? Now you are attempting to blame the cyclist for being hit by a car on the bike path? My point then about who is seen as as human and who isn’t is again relevant.
@clticfan the bicycle is literally the most efficient mode of transportation ever invented. It is extremely practical for urban transportation. I beat cars around the city all the time.
Drivers need to take responsibility and stop killing everyone else on our streets and our politicians and traffic engineers need to be held accountable for dangerous designs. Advocates have been attempting to improve safety right there for years and Decker and DCR have stone walled them: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/10/03/advocates-organize-for-safer-access-across-boston-university-bridge
Blaming people for their own death because they chose to bicycle is disgusting. Genuinely why does Cambridge day continue to platform hateful bile like that?
Congratulations to Marjorie Decker on her re-election!
@Slaw The real question is why Cambridge Day continues to provide a platform for someone who repeatedly twists others’ words to try and show them in the worst possible light—behavior that would be considered libelous if this were a mainstream publication. As you know very well, I was not blaming the cyclist in this instance but rather saying the details have not yet been revealed. I realize that in your siloed little world all drivers are murderers and all vehicles are death machines, so the actual facts of any situation are irrelevant. And BTW I never took the stance you falsely attribute to me about “not speaking ill of the dead.” There is always room for criticism. Rather, I objected to your vicious, lying smears directed against the late City Councilor Pickett.
Biking topic is irrelevant. This could have been a runner, a walker, a child, a pet. The car jumped the sidewalk. This is my worst nightmare as a runner and something I think about *every time* I run along the Charles not only on Mem Drive path but also on Storrow path.
This is not a political issue. This is a matter of engineering more barriers to protect the paths.
In case it’s not clear, this road is a DCR road, i.e. it’s under state jurisdiction, it’s not managed by the city.
@green Street safety is both an engineering and political issue.
While we have the technical capacity to make streets safer and prevent accidents, some residents oppose changes that reduce parking or road space.
Their pressure on council members often leads to delays in implementing safety measures, despite limited justification for maintaining the status quo.
@AllisS @Slaw did not lie.
Joan Pickett actively opposed bike lanes, despite evidence of their safety benefits. She:
1. Sued the city to remove bike lanes
2. Helped run an organization that published misleading anti-bike lane propaganda
These facts are verifiable.
A driver killed someone who was on a curb separated path there is literally no situation in which that could be the fault of the cyclist. Cut the BS.
@AvgJoe Yes, Pickett opposed the bike lanes, for reasons that you and anyone else are certainly free to disagree with. Whether Cambridge Streets for All’s literature was “misleading…propaganda” is a matter of opinion. My objection to @Slaw’s comments is his repeated assertion that her (and others’) opposition signifies a disregard for human life. Things have reached a sorry state when people cannot respectfully disagree on policy. Pickett was always respectful; @Slaw never is, which, at least to me, shows the weakness of his assertions.
Every choice about public space is political.
@AllisS. “Death machines” may be hyperbole. But OTOH, consider that:
1. Cars kill about 60,000 people in the US every year. 1 million people worldwide. Plus, over 7000 pedestrians are killed in the US every year. The injury rate is roughly 10 times higher.
2. Cars cause air pollution, with severe impacts on public health.
3. Cars are a major contributor to climate change.
It’s time for a cultural change that moves us towards more sustainable forms of transportation. It is time for safety improvements that reduce injuries and death.
The problem is people defend the status quo because they like the freedom and convenience of cars.
But that’s an illusion. Sitting in traffic is not freedom. Lives, public health, and climate change are more important than convenience.
@Slaw This issue is bigger than this one accident. Cut the BS.
@AllisS. No.
1. Pickett opposed bike lanes citing “harm to business” without any supporting evidence. Claims need evidence, not opinion.
2. CSFA published studies contradicted by real evidence, using flawed statistics that have been thoroughly debunked.
This is a clear example of propaganda.
More Americans have died from car accidents than from both world wars combined, since the year 2000.
But sure, cars *aren’t* death machines.
As previously mentioned memorial drive is a DCR road and the city has no control over any part of sidewalks, roadways, bike lanes or safety measures.
This was a tragic accident that cost a man his life. This section of road already has a “protected” bike lane up on the sidewalk. The only thing that would have prevented this tragedy would be a 3 ft high reinforced cement wall.
So much is said here and see,click,fix everyday about bike lanes, bike safety, etc but there is no one simple solution short of baning all motorized vehicles from the city which would make the bikes happy while alienating the non-bike riding majority and put most businesses, especially small businesses, out of business.
While so much work is being done in the name of bicycle safety and millions of dollars being spent for road modifications the bicyclists do not contribute a single dollar to these costs. Motor vehicles are required to be licensed (drivers), registered, inspected, and insured plus taxes on gasoline all of which help in maintaining the roads.
State law states that bicycles must obey all traffic laws and in particular stopping at red lights and waiting for a green light to proceed, stopping for stop signs and pedestrians. The city does not encourage enforcement of these laws and very rarely do you see the police stop a bicyclist for these violations. Just today I saw 3 close calls, 2 almost simultaneously. At the intersection of Gore and Fifth st. There is a 4 way stop sign at the intersection. A car came to a complete stop and started to proceed straight on Fifth and a motorized bike on Gore did NOT slow down or even hesitate but did yell at the driver. A second car on Gore after stopping completely, started to proceed straight on Gore behind the car which just almost hit the motorized bike and a man, late teen, had to be doing 25-30 mph down the slight hill on Fifth and training the car on fifth by soon passing it did not stop peddling and missed getting hit by less than 2 ft.
At the corner of Sixth and Gore the third close call happened about 2 minutes later or the time it took me to walk 1 block. A bicycle on Gore was approaching 6th and Gore St had the red light so rather than stop or slow down made a left across the street up the handicap ramp onto the side walk, down the ramp and across the 6th St narrowly being missed by a car who was making a legal left with the green light.
The bicyclists and bike safety committee always say these are a few anecdotal situations however with the exception of large, busy intersections like Inman Sq. The majority of bicyclists do not stop and wait for a green, rarely stop for pedestrians, ride on sidewalks and generally disregard the rules of the road.
@Slaw “This issue is bigger than this one accident. Cut the BS.” Where did I suggest that? I have been clear all choices about public space are political. DCR and Decker both have blood on their hands for stonewalling improvements on memorial drive. This could have been avoided with some deliberate and proven strategies to improve safety (lane narrowing, daylighting intersections, protecting the intersection, bollards at the edges of high traffic areas for both cars and pedestrians, etc.) Simply narrowing the roadway by widening the path to multi-use standards would have probably reduced the speed at which that driver took the turn and reduced the likelihood they could get to the speed they supposedly “lost control” at. I was simply refuting the idea that not knowing everything made it possible to wash your hands of it and say “Maybe the cyclist was a at fault for being run over by a speeding car on the sidewalk.”
^meant to say @FrankD
The choice of DCR not to do things to these proven strategies to make drivers practice safer driving here absolutely has to do with driver convenience. Yet again that is placed above human lives. Even in cities and states that have both committed themselves to vision zero.
@rpm. Blaming cyclists is total BS
Numerous studies have shown that drivers break the rules just as often as cyclists, if not more. I see drivers running red lights every single day.
70,000 people are killed in the US by a car every year. It is not because drivers behave.
No one is perfect. That is why we need to make the streets safer. Get it?
Research shows that motorists break traffic laws more frequently than cyclists, despite common perceptions.
Forbes: Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/
Drivers often commit less noticeable but more common violations, such as speeding or reckless driving. Further, the consequences of bad driver behavior is far, far worse because they are operating heavy machines.
This is why the U.S. Department of Transportation pushes for better cycling infrastructure to improve safety and compliance among all road users.
Blaming cyclists is victim-blaming and does not reflect reality.
@rpm “As previously mentioned memorial drive is a DCR road and the city has no control over any part of sidewalks, roadways, bike lanes or safety measures.”
Yes this is true but DCR deserves a lot of criticism for how they have handled a lot of things. They have the cars and road moniker for a reason.
“This was a tragic accident that cost a man his life.”
How do you know this was an “accident” the investigation is still ongoing. The car was on the sidewalk/path. The driver was clearly at fault. Also see: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/There-Are-No-Accidents/Jessie-Singer/9781982129682 DCR and the traffic engineers are at fault as well for designing it like this.
“This section of road already has a “protected” bike lane up on the sidewalk.”
This section does not have a protected bike lane. It has a painted bike gutter actually pointed in the wrong direction for maintaining two way cycling on the path, and a narrow sidewalk, with a wide turning lane for cars. That alone encourages high speeds into a blind turn, inherently dangerous driving. Advocates have been talking about this for years and DCR has done nothing: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/10/03/advocates-organize-for-safer-access-across-boston-university-bridge The bike lane also has no vertical separation, which it does need when drivers hit the speeds they regularly do on this roadway.
“The only thing that would have prevented this tragedy would be a 3 ft high reinforced cement wall.”
Even you acknowledge there actually was an obvious engineering solution to prevent this, barriers or bollards. We just rarely use them outside of government buildings in the US because we see drivers killing pedestrians as less of an issue than drivers hitting barriers.
“So much is said here and see,click,fix everyday about bike lanes, bike safety, etc but there is no one simple solution short of baning all motorized vehicles from the city which would make the bikes happy while alienating the non-bike riding majority and put most businesses, especially small businesses, out of business.”
There is no simple solution but there are many small overlapping and mutually reinforcing solutions. Part of that probably should include banning most cars from parts of the city, as great cities around the world have done, but most of that simply means restraining vehicle speeds, improving intersection standards, and something totally out of local hands, regulating trucks. There are many things that can be done. The solution is not to throw our hands up and say “it’s a shame, nothing can be done.”
“While so much work is being done in the name of bicycle safety and millions of dollars being spent for road modifications the bicyclists do not contribute a single dollar to these costs.”
Absolutely false. Road expenses are paid primarily by property taxes. Everyone, even renters by proxy, is paying those. Cyclists and others who don’t own cars in fact are contributing to the tens of billions we spend on automobile infrastructure in the commonwealth every year. You have the idea of who is subsidizing who completely backwards: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/64-billion-massachusetts-vehicle-economy
“Motor vehicles are required to be licensed (drivers), registered, inspected, and insured plus taxes on gasoline all of which help in maintaining the roads.”
Congratulations you realized the state holds 20 lb 2 wheel vehicles that generally travel 10-15 mph differently than multi ton machines powered by fossil fuels and generally capable of going over 100 mph. Btw gas tax has not been increased in decades and doesn’t even come close to covering the social, health, and ecological costs associated with its use, or even the roadways as you suggest.
“State law states that bicycles must obey all traffic laws and in particular stopping at red lights and waiting for a green light to proceed, stopping for stop signs and pedestrians.”
It also says this about drivers and they don’t follow this very often either. When they ignore the rules they actually kill people though, like you know this story is about. Not an opportunity to vent about cyclists as several of you seemed to do. You know a human being died. His name was John Corcoran. He is mourned by a family and friends: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/25/metro/cambridge-cyclist-death-memorial-drive/
This is the thing you lot so callously ignore every time. You’ll come in after someone dies and just unleash a torrent of kettle logic and incoherent reactionary talking points. Then you’ll act like a wounded victim when for example I dare to say the truth that you and the politicians you support are acting callously, prioritizing your own comfort and the misconceptions about the profits of your friends over improving safety, even directly in the face of people dying. even as you literally do it. It’s like abusers DARVO.
I am sick of it. I want myself and people I love and care about to be able to get home safe. There are proven things we can do to prevent these things from happening and we don’t because of bad faith nonsense like this. It needs to stop. Your fixation and irrational hatred, and desire for vengeance against anyone on a bike is getting people killed. It needs to stop. Get a hobby. Find some real problems to care about. Stop actively fighting to make the city worse.
“The city does not encourage enforcement of these laws and very rarely do you see the police stop a bicyclist for these violations.”
They actually are, and paid for by state overtime grants, in the name of bike safety, while completely ignoring drivers running relights at the same intersections. Nevermind that even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says the Idaho stop is safer: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet-032422-v3-tag.pdf
You have anecdotes. I have data.
Data also says cyclists follow the rules of the road more than drivers: https://www.bicycling.com/news/a46443761/science-proves-motorists-break-traffic-laws-a-lot-more-often-than-cyclists/#
And again when drivers break the rules they kill people. Thats what this story is about. Let’s focus on the real problem here, rather than using the opportunity of a human being being killed by a car to rant about how much you hate bicycles.
In addition to the 70,000 annual deaths from car accidents, another 17,000 to 20,000 people die each year in the U.S. from vehicle-related air pollution. That’s nearly 100,000 deaths annually linked to motor vehicles.
Yet, some oppose measures to reduce car use, like bike lanes, despite their effectiveness.
Paris is a great example of success. The city has dramatically expanded its cycling network, leading to:
1. Improved traffic flow due to reduced congestion.
2. Bicycles outnumbering cars as a primary mode of transport.
3. Reduced air pollution, as reported by the Institut Paris Région.
4. A 25-50% decrease in accidents.
Not everyone needs to cycle, but the more who do, the better off everyone is.
In short, bike lanes benefit all, regardless of whether they use them.
@rpm. Much of what you said is incorrect.
1. Drivers are a minority in Cambridge. Most trips don’t involve cars, and on busy streets, cyclists often outnumber drivers.
2. There’s no evidence that bike lanes hurt businesses. In fact, most evidence shows they have a neutral or positive impact. In NYC, for example, bike lanes increased retail sales by 45% in some neighborhoods.
Please check your facts before posting; spreading misinformation helps no one.
The vitriol here is really sad. A person – he has a name, John Corcoran, 62, of Newton- suffered an unnecessary violent, probably really scary death through no fault of his own. We have a responsibility to learn from his death and to build a transportation system that minimizes similar ones.
Here is an article from the Globe that talks about him:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/25/metro/cambridge-cyclist-death-memorial-drive/
@slaw, my apologies for the misunderstanding. We’re in agreement that traffic calming on that stretch of road would significantly improve safety.
We also agree that @rpm is spreading misinformation. For example, the claim that cyclists don’t pay for roads is easily debunked with a quick search—everyone contributes, whether they drive or not. Yet, some drivers mistakenly believe the roads belong only to them.
@Jake L, I couldn’t agree more. We need to use these tragic incidents as motivation to improve road safety.
@Slaw
You said: “There is no simple solution but there are many small overlapping and mutually reinforcing solutions. Part of that probably should include banning most cars from parts of the city, as great cities around the world have done…”
Which part of Cambridge do you think should be the first in banning cars?
By the way, there will be another serious accident, perhaps a death, because of what is going to go on at Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen. The city’s newest plan, explained in its daily email of a few days ago, shows a plan so convoluted that only an out of control person (or people) could have dreamed it up. As I say, severe bike accident waiting to happen.
But, the city in its infinite wisdom put the protected bike lane on the North side of Mt. Auburn, when it should have been on the South side where there are no streets from Star Market to Coolidge Avenue. Same thing on Brattle. The city put the bike lane on the North side and look at the mess with Appleton.
Dumb.
@slaw, I share your passion and concerns. My office is full of trainees and interns who bike to work because they can’t afford cars, and I fear for their safety every day.
Yet, we can’t make our streets safer because some people push unsubstantiated claims about harm to businesses. They spread lies and blame victims for their own deaths.
@concerned43. No one mentioned banning cars. This is about improving safety and providing alternatives to driving.
The rest of what you said is opinion, not fact.
This is the issue with the anti-bike lane lobby—they ignore evidence and create their own narrative to fit their agenda.
@concerned43 “Dumb” is an non-expert armchair quarterback thinking that they have better answers than professionals.
@”Which part of Cambridge do you think should be the first in banning cars?”
I will clarify I did say “Most cars” but I do think large scale pedestrianizations like many cities around the world have done with access to abutters and loading in off hours would be great. Harvard Square is probably the most natural place to start.
“By the way, there will be another serious accident, perhaps a death, because of what is going to go on at Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen.”
Every time you’ve said this you’ve been wrong but don’t let that stop you.
“The city’s newest plan, explained in its daily email of a few days ago, shows a plan so convoluted that only an out of control person (or people) could have dreamed it up. As I say, severe bike accident waiting to happen.”
I assume you mean this: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2023/mtauburnataberdeen/aberdeenave/aberdeencommunityaccessible.pdf
Looks to me like a major improvement connecting a few pieces of well used bike infrastructure with some new projects. What exactly is so convoluted about it? What is the supposed danger you see in it that doesn’t exist in the current design?
“But, the city in its infinite wisdom put the protected bike lane on the North side of Mt. Auburn, when it should have been on the South side where there are no streets from Star Market to Coolidge Avenue. Same thing on Brattle. The city put the bike lane on the North side and look at the mess with Appleton.”
That would mean that any cyclists going from or to any of those side streets would have to cross in order to access the bike lane. It’s a trade off with two way infrastructure on one side of the street. That is one reason I generally prefer one way bike lanes on either side of the street. These two way lanes are a great improvement over what was there before but I’m not opposed to the idea they could use some refinement, you just never seem to have much substance in terms of what that would be.
The Aberdeen Ave safety plans are based on proven designs that enhance safety.
Claims of potential for increased accidents are unfounded, as similar designs have reduced accidents in many other locations.
Assertions without evidence are not facts.
It’s disheartening to see resistance to necessary safety improvements following these recent deaths. These victims had loved ones who will miss them.
Are people not willing to make even small sacrifices to protect lives? Where are our priorities?
This was a horrible accident. Was the driver having a medical emergency, drunk? A horrible thing to happen to a family. I’m sure he followed the rules of the road. Many bikers do not. Central sq. Is a prime example bikes fly thru red lights, the senior center is right there and have almost been hit by bikes not following rules. My prayers 🙏 go out to this family.