Officials and activists are looking for answers about the death of John Corcoran, 62, the Newton bicyclist who died Monday on Memorial Drive in Cambridge.
State Rep. Mike Connolly is demanding answers from Massachusetts State Police about why charges were not being pursued against the driver of the black Mercedes SUV that hit Corcoran, who was not in the roadway; the driver jumped the curb, leading to a head-on crash. Connolly reached out to “ask why there’s been no arrest or if there’s a citation,” he said Wednesday.
The driver lost control of his vehicle, state police said. There have been no further details explaining what that means.
“No one should die on our streets – especially when they are on a sidewalk. We need more infrastructure improvements in the short, medium and long term, along with stronger traffic enforcement,” Connolly said on social media.
Ken Carlson, a founder of the BU Bridge Safety Alliance and a volunteer with Cambridge Bike Safety, criticized the Department of Conservation and Recreation for a lack of response to the danger presented by the state-owned Memorial Drive.
“One of the problems is DCR itself. It’s not just speed, it’s DCR that’s complicit,” Carlson said.
Connolly posted a letter from last year raising concerns about the BU Bridge and Memorial Drive intersection. In the letter addressed to the commissioner of the agency, Brian Arrigo, Connolly and co-signers describe the site of the collision, saying it is “narrow, has broken pavement, numerous obstacles or debris and often floods.”
Those complaints were echoed by Carlson on Wednesday, saying nothing has changed, and that “the sidewalk is in pretty bad shape, and narrow.”
Cambridge Bike Safety met with city officials last week to make recommendations on safety measures at intersections they consider dangerous – including two where cyclists have been hit and killed this year. “We have to do better. We have to be proactive. We can’t wait for people to die in order to fix situations,” Carlson said.
Memorial Drive and city streets can be safer for Cambridge residents, Carlson said, but the key is to “build our cities for the people who live in them” and prioritizing the safety of local pedestrians and cyclists over convenience for drivers. (His advice for drivers? “Drive like your 62-year-old parent is walking or biking on the street.”)
The city has agreed to create more concrete islands surrounding sidewalks that might prevent a driver from turning into the bike lane – a potential life-saver in the previous two fatal collisions, Carlson said.
Because Memorial Drive is controlled by the DCR, state police have jurisdiction on investigating Corcoran’s death. It also means neither of the two recent collisions on Memorial Drive involving cyclists – one Sept. 5 resulted in minor injuries to the rider – appeared in the Cambridge Police Department’s daily log, which can delay notice. On Tuesday, state police also initially misidentified the deceased as “John Cochran.”
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.
This is unacceptable from my government
Shame on DCR
The sidewalk there is quite narrow near the bridge itself, further up the hill from what’s shown in the above photo– but the sidewalk in front of the BU Boathouse is plenty wide enough for guardrails to run that entire stretch.
Start with that, rather than speed bumps or other nonsense on the Memorial Drive road itself. This is about protecting pedestrians from cars, not slowing down the cars.
The bar is way too high for charging drivers when they hurt or kill someone. A transportation expert once said, “if you want to get away with killing someone in the US, hit them with your car.” Absolutely shameful.
Tell me something: How can we build sustainable transportation and combat climate change if people have to fear for their lives when they are not in a car?
Someone bristled at the idea that cars are “death machines”. Well, I guess they are. Apparently, you can run down someone on a sidewalk, kill them, and then go about your life as if nothing happened.
This is why we need infrastructure that separates people from cars. It seems that drivers can kill with impunity.
Despicable. While I am sure and I hope that the driver if reckless will be sued in civil court, I hope the state or city also files some kind of charges to set an example. Apparently only if you’re a cop like the Karen Read or other vehicular homicide deaths does a life matter to the state.
A driver who loses control and jumps the sidewalk should receive a citation and have their license suspended—even if they don’t hit and kill anyone.
In other news, murder now legal in Cambridge.
@RadioFreeMatt Slowing down cars is a good thing. It means the difference between the life and death of a pedestrian.
Every 10 mph increase in speed approximately doubles the pedestrian mortality rate.
At 25 mph, about 4.4% of pedestrians die.
At 30 mph, it 40%
At 40 mph, it’s 80%
We need traffic calming infrastructure on many streets in Cambridge. I see too many drivers speeding.
Just a few weeks ago, there was a car totaled in a crash on Mass Ave. The driver must have been speeding. You don’t that kind of damage at slow speeds.
FrankD
Have you said anything to the administrators in Cambridge who are setting up the new intersection at Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen?
If not, why not? This will be a very dangerous intersection for bikers. Why don’t you try to stop it before something happens.
@Concerned43 why don’t you express any concern over any of the existing terrible spots? Why do you always think the safety improvements (in that case even including bollards that would prevent something like this from happening at the Mt Auburn end) are the problem and never the existing and dangerous car centric infrastructure?
This all looks like a major improvement over what’s currently there to me. https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/projectsandprograms/mtauburnaberdeenintersection
I asked you before what was dangerous about it and you dodged the question. You do not operate in good faith.
I’m not concerned about Mt. Auburn/Aberdeen because the redesign appears to be a significant improvement. It will separate bikes from cars and enhance pedestrian safety.
Your characterization of the situation as “dangerous” is merely an opinion, not a fact.
Most people learn that distinction at some point in life.
@concerned43 lives in a funhouse mirror world where the streets are safe now, anything designed to improve safety makes things unsafe, and bikes, not cars, are killing people.
@Slaw
I’m glad to hear that you think this is a major improvement over what is there.
On the other hand, I think it is a disaster waiting to happen. Once again, we see things very differently.
On two tangential topics. Is it okay for cyclists coming east on Mt. Auburn to ride on the south sidewalk and on the south side of the street, when on the north side there is a protected bike lane?
How do you feel about e bikes having to have a bike license? Man, some of them are speeding along on sidewalks leading to Harvard Square.
And stop with your nonsense that I don’t operate in good faith. It makes you look foolish.
I sure hope State Rep Mike Connolly gets to the bottom of this and lets us all know why the driver swerved and went onto the sidewalk. I don’t really know why it takes so long.
@concerned43. Stop with your nonsense. The fact is that cars are killing people, not bikes. Your trolling doesn’t change that fact.
It is not OK that people have to fear for the
People have to fear for their lives simply because they are not in a car. Your BS doesn’t change that.
The facts are that cars are killing people. Your attempts to put the blame on cyclists and to cast doubt on methods proven to incresae safety are total BS.
Denial of facts makes you look foolish.
I live near the intersection of Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen, which is quite dangerous. I fully support the city’s Safety Improvement Plan, which aims to narrow the road, create a pedestrian crossing island, and separate bike lanes from vehicle traffic. These changes will undoubtedly enhance safety.
The city’s plans are based on proven strategies such as road diets and crossing islands that have been shown to improve safety.
Furthermore, in light of recent cyclist fatalities, it seems illogical to label cyclists as a threat. The real danger comes from cars, trucks, and unsafe streets, not cyclists.
Meanwhile, in Boston yesterday:
SUV hits 3 pedestrians before crashing into Boston restaurant
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/suv-hits-pedestrians-restaurant-boston/
@concerned43
Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen intersection recorded 56 crashes over a five-year period. It is a disaster that has already happened. These safety improvements are long overdue.
Same thing for that stretch of Mem Drive. I hope this will finally motivate the DCR to do something.
Were the drivers of the trucks involved in the two fatal bike accidents in Cambridge earlier this year, ever charged?
@concerned43
Well the evidence is on my side. Things you have labeled as dangerous have been proven by the federal government to increase safety. existing intersections I have identified as dangerous and participated in protests about have actually resulted in deaths and injuries. It’s not about you seeing things differently. It’s you inventing an entirely different reality that more conveniently fits your narrative.
“On two tangential topics. Is it okay for cyclists coming east on Mt. Auburn to ride on the south sidewalk and on the south side of the street, when on the north side there is a protected bike lane?”
Yes. That is not a business area and sidewalk riding is not banned there by local ordinance. Riding on the sidewalk is perfectly legal. And again this is a problem, to the extent you even think it is one, created by two-way bike infrastructure on one side of the street. Want to add one to the south side too?
“How do you feel about e bikes having to have a bike license?”
Already required for class 3 e-bikes. This is settled policy at this point why are you acting like this isn’t a thing? Peddle assist ebikes with speed capping (insane to apply to bikes not cars but that’s neither here nor there) should never require a license.
You demonstrate your bad faith constantly. Thinking anyone doesn’t see right trough it makes you look foolish.
You dodged the question about what is supposedly dangerous about the new design again. Want to do so a third time?
@ Mr. Nice
I, too, live near Mt. Auburn and Aberdeen. We disagree on the new plan for the intersection. It will just further complicate an already dangerous intersection.
The city made an error. It happens. The bike lanes should have been on the south side of Mt. Auburn, not the north side. There are no street intersections, from Star to Coolidge Avenue, on the south side of Mt. Auburn; only two entrances to the cemetery.
The city should just admit it made a mistake and move the segregated bike lanes to the south side of the street. This would clear up the problem with Aberdeen.
@concerned43 The city didn’t make a mistake simply based on your *opinion*.
There is substantial data showing that the planned infrastructure changes enhance safety.
Common sense indicates that separating bikes from cars is safer, as is reducing pedestrian exposure to traffic with crossing islands.
You can disagree all you want. But plenty of evidence shows that you are wrong. You will be proved wrong by the decreased in accidents at a dangerous intersection.
You really should learn to read.
I said was that the bike lanes should have been put on the south side of Mt. Auburn.
Why would the city put them on the north side where there is a major, and dangerous, intersection. Tell us your “opinion.”
If we’re worried about the safety of cyclists with regard to cars, as we are, the city should put the bike lane where there are no intersections.
Sorry that it doesn’t make sense to you, but it does to me.
@Concerned43 and there you go dodging it again.
This is the most substantive it seems to get: “The city should just admit it made a mistake and move the segregated bike lanes to the south side of the street. This would clear up the problem with Aberdeen.” However this makes no sense. A bike path on the south side of MT auburn would make it significantly harder and more dangerous for bicyclists to access as they would have to cross Mt Auburn to and from Aberdeen. The current design they simply merge into the bike lane, with a protected waiting area. What you claim to be the problem and what your proposed solution is are completely misaligned.
This is why I say you operate in bad faith.
Stop with the bad faith crap. You’re only demeaning yourself by continuing to impugn my motives. I ride with the Charles River Wheelers, so I know a bit about cycling.
Most of the bike traffic on Mt. Auburn is not coming south on Aberdeen and is not turning right on Aberdeen. It is coming from Watertown and Belmont and going toward those towns as well. A south side protected bike would have made the most sense. Aberdeen and the intersection of Brattle and Mt. Auburn vs. two cemetery entrances. Seems an easy decision.
And as far as Mr. Nice’s comment :”The city didn’t make a mistake simply based on your *opinion*.”
The city has made many mistakes. Look at what happened with Concord and Garden as it affected Appleton. Why was this so? Because the initial planning wasn’t very good.
And so… the worst screwup became Brattle and Appleton. Again, it was poorly designed and even now, with the changes, it is a mess.
That Brattle Street protected bike lane should have been put on the south side of the road, not the north. The south side has fewer intersections, and those that are there Hubbard Park, Lowell and Channing, are less traveled than the intersections of Brattle with Appleton, Fayerweather and Sparks.
Are you still against CCTV because it may invade your privacy? There is no privacy on a public street. It is foolish to think there is.
There was an accident with a car and a bike at JFK and Memorial. Hit and run. That driver is still out there. A CCTV camera might have gotten the license plate. You argue for privacy, but isn’t getting hit and run drivers off the road more important?
And still no answer from any who write here about any citations against the truck drivers who were involved in the two fatal bike accidents earlier this year. Have there been any citations? If not, why not?
@concerned43. There is something wrong with someone who thinks they alone have all the answers.
@concerned43 Fourth time dodging the question about what is dangerous about the Aberdeen improvements.
“Stop with the bad faith crap.”
really doing an “I know you are but what am I?” what have I said that could possibly be construed as in bad faith?
“I ride with the Charles River Wheelers, so I know a bit about cycling.”
Thats nice you do road cycling in a group, where for one thing safety in numbers and taking the lane are the guiding principles. The considerations are not actually the same at all for building bike infrastructure for daily use by people of all ages and abilities. It’s actually clear based on what you say later you want to prioritize that kind of riding over neighborhood connections. I feel exactly the opposite about what kind of cycling/cyclist the city should be designing infrastructure for.
“Most of the bike traffic on Mt. Auburn is not coming south on Aberdeen and is not turning right on Aberdeen… Aberdeen and the intersection of Brattle and Mt. Auburn vs. two cemetery entrances. Seems an easy decision.”
No one claimed what you start off arguing against and you are missing the point completely. You claimed the Aberdeen road improvements are dangerous and south side lanes on Mt Auburn would resolve the issue with it. That does not make any sense at all. Moving them to the south side would only make that crossing more difficult. Do you see why I brought up you operating in bad faith because of that? You claim there is an issue, which you cannot stay what it is despite being repeatedly asked, but your only proposed solution seems tangential at best and would actually make it worse.
As I’ve said a few times the city clearly saw the trade off on Mt Auburn between making cyclists cross twice to use the bike lane from side streets vs the bike lane being exposed to turning vehicles at side streets and chose to eliminate the former issue not the latter. It’s not as clear a trade off as you suggest, especially once you consider people accessing from every other side street not just this one. Again, I said I prefer unidirectional lanes on both sides.
“Are you still against CCTV because it may invade your privacy? There is no privacy on a public street. It is foolish to think there is.”
I am against constant surveillance of all public spaces, yes. This is not an absurd position no matter how much you want to claim otherwise. It is deeply disturbing to me how quickly so many people surrender freedoms permanently in the name of temporary safety. And cameras don’t keep people safe, at best they might catch someone after the fact.
“There was an accident with a car and a bike at JFK and Memorial. Hit and run. That driver is still out there. A CCTV camera might have gotten the license plate. You argue for privacy, but isn’t getting hit and run drivers off the road more important?”
Calling a hit and run an “accident” is just absurd. No one does that by accident.
But what would have happened if the Police got the driver? no arrest and no release of name like the person who hopped the curb and killed John Corcoran? That driver also killed someone, but isn’t off the road, despite the police knowing who they are. What exactly is improved by the police having the plate when they don’t see this as a problem and the law largely exists to exonerate deadly drivers? https://transalt-gift-shop.myshopify.com/products/crash-course-if-you-want-to-get-away-with-murder-buy-a-car
I’d also say the idea that the danger on our streets is exclusively caused by dangerous drivers who can be removed and the problem goes away is simply naive. No where on earth has arrested their way out of traffic violence. What places have done successfully is utilize designs with actively promote street safety. Again I ask you why you continually pretend every safety improvement makes roads more dangerous while ignoring every existing dangerous piece of road design?
@concerned43, have you considered that the bike lanes are on the north side of Mt. Auburn because that’s where the side streets are? This design allows cyclists to access the lanes without crossing Mt. Auburn, making it much safer.
For someone who claims to know everything, you seem to have overlooked some obvious points.
You made a mistake. It’s OK. It happens.
@concerned43 The explanation of this design choice is available in the city’s plan.
The bike lanes are on the north side of Mt. Auburn for safety reasons:
1. Cyclists can access side streets without crossing Mt. Auburn.
2. This arrangement minimizes cyclist-vehicle conflicts at intersections.
3. The north side has fewer driveways, reducing potential collision points.
This placement aligns with urban planning goals to create safer cycling options and improve access to local areas.
https://myemail-api.constantcontact.com/Cambridge-Active-Transportation-Report—August-2024.html
Another obvious point:
Enforcement helps but it is not the answer. There are state troopers all over the highway yet people still speed.
How will enforcement work when they won’t even charge a driver who jumped a curb and hit someone on a sidewalk.
You made mistakes. It’s OK. It happens.
@concerned43 Have you read the city’s plan??
The city’s Safety Improvement Plan places bike lanes on Mt Auburn’s north side for safety.
This allows cyclists to access them without crossing busy streets, as the south side is blocked by the cemetery.
This logical design supports @slaw’s point about your bad faith, unwarranted, criticisms of safety improvements.
I see a couple us bothered to read the city’s plan. Pro tip: Do your research before commenting.
Not sure why there’s so much focus on what I call Mt. Auberdeen here, but I bike through it daily on my way home from work. I want those North side bike lanes! I agree it’s currently difficult/confusing to access the two-way cycle track that connects with Brattle, a major bike corridor that is two-way as well.
And yes, for the love of physics, speed kills. It absolutely does. You can put up all the guard rails you want. Yes they might indeed have helped prevent the killing at the boathouse and yes should absolutely be installed ASAP, but that doesn’t keep people from speeding and so drivers can smash into them and flip over. Vehicles are really heavy and go really fast (have we as a society forgotten this?) and a guard rail is no match for a 6,000-9,000lb metal thing accelerating or spinning into it.
I live on yet *another* DCR parkway nightmare, Alewife Brook Pkwy, and we are blessed with a guard rail– but it is frequently smashed and bent in. AnSUV driver smashed into my neighbor’s house and took out their fence in 2017; they have kids who play in the yard who were fortunately not doing so at the time. The ped signal pole, the entire thing, at Broadway/ABP has been completely knocked down at least two times in the past three years. So I could be standing right there on the sidewalk waiting to cross and be taken out. Just like what happened with John, to bring it back to the article at hand: he was on the sidewalk and never saw it coming.
Speed. Kills. And until people can rein in their speeds on their own, or we implement automated enforcement (bc current enforcement doesn’t seem to be working), we’re going to need to force them to slow down with traffic calming infrastructure.
Traffic calming measures get implemented for public safety, not to annoy drivers for no reason. But when people get behind the wheel they seem to turn weird and feel like having to toe the brake pedal for 3-5 seconds is the ultimate insult that is worth having road rage tantrums over.
Don’t speed and the speed hump wont scrape your undercarriage. Don’t speed and you won’t get a ticket. Don’t speed and you won’t kill someone.
Mass Ave north of Harvard Square is another stretch of road that is dangerous because of speeding cars. It is in desperate need of a road diet.
@lkw I agree with you completely. The part about the traffic lights reminded me of this article: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/7/26/one-billion-bollards
@slaw That article is shocking. It reminds me of both the tragic death on Mem Drive and the SUV that hit three pedestrians after jumping the curb last week.
Pedestrians and cyclists need protection from cars, period.
Cyclists want infrastructure funding to add bike lanes with center islands to be added, CCTV cameras, guardrails, speed bumps, close off certain streets to motorists, eliminate parking in front of decades old businesses……but cyclists resist bike registration? That is where they lose me.
@Ben, it is because bicycle licensing is expensive, unnecessary and impractical.
Unlike cars, bicycles pose minimal risk to others and rarely cause property damage.
Many cities have attempted to implement bicycle licensing programs but ultimately abandoned them due to their ineffectiveness and high costs.
Cycling offers numerous advantages:
Environmentally friendly: No air pollution or contribution to global warming
Promotes health: Encourages physical activity
Reduces traffic congestion: Fewer cars on the road
Instead of creating barriers to cycling, we should promote this sustainable mode of transport.
Implementing licensing requirements could discourage people from choosing bicycles, potentially leading to increased car usage and its associated negative impacts.
@Ben, here is an article for you to read.
Why Don’t You Need a Bicycle License? Short answer: Because it’s pointless and expensive.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-29/why-bicycle-licensing-usually-doesn-t-work
Cyclists want to be safe and don’t want needless bureaucratic hurdles that would prevent many people from biking, decreasing safety in numbers, and which is only practiced in the way you want it in North Korea: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/17/north-korea-where-bicycle-licence-plates-are-non-negotiable-grant-shapps
There is no contradiction at all there. Your idea is simply impractical and authoritarian.
@Ben, cars and trucks are injuring and killing people and damaging property, as shown by the recent incident in Boston where an SUV hit three pedestrians on a sidewalk and smashed into a restaurant. Bikes don’t do that.
You think bike licenses are the answer?
Bikes aren’t the problem—cars and trucks are dangerous to others, which is why they require licenses. Even with Driver’s Ed, vehicles continue to kill thousands of pedestrians and cyclists each year, highlighting the need for safer streets.
Car licenses hold drivers accountable, but bike licenses address a non-existent problem.
We license things that can hurt other people, like cars and trucks. We don’t license things that don’t, like skateboards, pogo sticks, baby carriages, and bikes.
Keep in mind that thousands of pedestrians are killed every year by motor vehicles, virtually none by bikes.
@Ben Bike lanes do not harm local businesses.
Evidence shows they often boost foot traffic and increase sales.
The claim that losing parking spots devastates businesses is unfounded. In Cambridge, 2/3 of customers don’t use cars, and businesses that predicted closure due to bike lanes are still operating years later.
Think about it: If your business depends on 1 or 2 parking spots, you have a terrible business model.
This argument against bike lanes is baseless and should not be used.
Bike lanes not only do not hurt businesses, multiple studies show they actually boost sales. This means ironically some of the people who stand most to gain from them financially are the same people fighting hardest against them.
That being said, even if bike lanes hurt businesses we should still build them. We know they reduce crashes, injuries, and deaths. We cannot prioritize profit over human life.
@slaw +100. Business is not more important than lives, nor is parking. However, this is moot because bike lanes typically help local businesses rather than harm them.
Somerville has reported an increase in business in neighborhoods after bike lanes were installed, demonstrating the positive impact of such infrastructure.
It’s encouraging to see Somerville leading the way in this initiative.