Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 16, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 541-542: March 15, 2022

Episode 541 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 15, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Mar 15, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Ides of March; Spring Training Baseball; Covid status; City Manager search & interim possibilities; Council complaints & light workload; Board appointments – “apply at your own risk”; misunderstanding the Charter and roles of councillors vs. manager. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 542 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 15, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Mar 15, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: “Moving Forward Together” w/o most involved councillor; Planning Board discussions re: single-family zoning, evolving roles as planners vs. petition reviewers; building the tax base; some history of Kendall Square, University Park, NorthPoint, Alewife Triangle, Alewife Quadrangle; planning before and after demise of rent control; Blurred Envision; real routes to affordability requires transit and not unilateralism; flexibility in residential uses. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 5, 2022

In Like a Lemming, Out Like a Loon – March 7, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

In Like a Lemming, Out Like a Loon – March 7, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

The Charter-Changers will this week charter a course through the sea of Charter Right agenda items pulled last week for reasons unknown. The rhetoric should be priceless in justifying why residents volunteering their time and talents should be challenged by privileged councillors acting as tools for political organizations. Save for the holdover items, the agenda is relatively brief this week. Here are a few notable items:

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-42, regarding a report on reviewing Cambridge’s corporate contracts and purchases to identify any vendors or manufacturers whose products are used to perpetuate violations of International Human Rights Laws and Cambridge’s policy on discrimination.
pulled by Carlone (trying to narrow focus to computer companies, i.e. Hewlett-Packard); McGovern notes that products are often comprised of parts from many companies; Zondervan characterizes Solicitor response as a "refusal to respond to the policy order"; Placed on File 9-0

One of the great misunderstanding of occasional Council-watchers is that a short agenda translates into a short meeting. The problem with that is that it fails to account for the “political theater” associated with some items that might otherwise be easily dismissed and placed on file. Such is the case with this quite rational and sensible response from the City Solicitor in response to last year’s marathon-inducing order that was anti-Israel and pro-BDS (Boycott-Divest-Sanction). [Reference: Charter Right #2 of May 24-25, 2001, from Order #6 of May 17, 2021] That kerfuffle was poorly resolved by a) removing the specific reference to Hewlett-Packard and affirming Israel’s right to exist (an amendment that was opposed by Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, and Zondervan and Mayor Siddiqui); and b) broadening the scope of the order to include “any vendors or manufacturers whose products are used to perpetuate violations of International Human Rights Laws and Cambridge’s policy on discrimination.”

More recently, there was a letter published online on Jan 27, 2022 written by John Roberts, Nancy Murray, Denise Bergman, Kathy Roberts, Jude Glaubman, and Chris Affleck that sought to reignite the kerfuffle. The Solicitor’s response pretty clearly illustrates why boycotting and otherwise targeting every entity who may have done business that a few councillors seem unsavory is a bottomless pit. If this City Council must engage in foreign entanglements, there are more universally acceptable targets available other than Israel. That, of course, will not sway Councillor Zondervan who is likely now massing virtual troops at the border of City Hall. The best course of action for the City Council can be summarized in three words – “Placed on File”.

Note: Nobody actually spoke on this item during Public Comment. Once again, it was all tiresome talking points about bike lanes.


Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $730,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Traffic and Parking Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($700,000), and to the General Fund Traffic and Parking Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($30,000) for additional costs associated with the implementation of the Cycling Safety Ordinance.
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the status of our planned implementation of cycling safety improvements in Porter Square along Massachusetts Avenue between Beech Street and Roseland Street.
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 8-1 (Zondervan – NO)

Pardon me for not wading into the polluted waters surrounding the Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO – an acronym which has been more widely used for Combined Sewer Overflow). Perhaps the most significant thing worth noting is the announcement that there will be a minor delay in implementation of the CSO in one section – an unspeakable horror for the adherents of the Cambridge Bicycle Safety group who seek to enforce pledges from compliant incumbents and challengers to cover their ears, eyes, and mouths whenever the notion of amending that ordinance or deviating even slightly from its mandates is mentioned.


Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request to approve the disposition of property located at 35 Cherry Street (the “Property”) to the Affordable Housing Trust to facilitate the development of affordable housing.
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

There were a number of ideas proposed for use of this lot but, well, you know where all those considerations are ultimately filed.


Late Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the findings of the “Future of Telework” Committee, and to explain the City’s current policy regarding a remote work policy in the Weekly Digest this Friday, March 11th; and to submit a full report with recommendations to the full City Council at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Monday, March 21st.
Order Adopted 5-2-1-1 (Mallon, McGovern, Nolan, Zondervan, Siddiqui – YES; Azeem, Toner – NO; Simmons – ABSENT, Carlone – PRESENT)

The discussion illustrated some basic misunderstanding by Vice Mayor Mallon and Mayor Siddiqui regarding the distinction between their role as city councillors and the role of the City Manager in regardless to City employees. In contrast, Councillor Azeem showed a clear understanding of the role of city councillors under the Plan E Charter (Bravo, Councillor Azeem!). Councillors Toner and Carlone also showed wisdom in their vote.


Manager’s Agenda #16. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request to move to Executive Session to discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property as discussion in an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body.
Executive Session Held

I have no idea if this is in regard to something new or the potential resolution of something old still in litigation, e.g. Vail Court. Whatever happened to that? I really wish the City had the vision to do something creative with the taken-by-eminent-domain Vail Court property in concert with the adjacent huge parking lot at Prospect St. and Bishop Allen Drive. Mediocrity should not be the rule.


Stolen from August 1974 National LampoonCharter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the reappointment of Michael P. Gardner as a member of the Cambridge Retirement Board for a term of three years, effective Mar 1, 2022. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Placed on File 9-0 (not subject to City Council review)

Charter Right #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Maxwell Solet as a new member of the Board of Trustee of the Cambridge Health Alliance for a term to expire June 30, 2024. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Placed on File 9-0 (not subject to City Council review)

Charter Right #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval requested for new appointments and reappointment to Open Data Review Board for a term of two year. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Tabled 9-0 (Mallon)

Charter Right #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval requested for reappointment and new appointment to the Water Board. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Tabled 9-0 (Mallon)

Charter Right #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval requested for reappointments to the Fresh Pond Master Plan Advisory Board. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Tabled 9-0 (Mallon)

Charter Right #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval requested for new appointments and reappointments to the Mid Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Tabled 9-0 (Mallon)

Charter Right #7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval requested for a new appointment and reappointments to the Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Tabled 9-0 (Mallon)

Charter Right #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval requested for reappointments to the Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Tabled 9-0 (Mallon)

Charter Right #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval requested for a new appointment and reappointments to the Historical Commission. [Charter Right – Mallon, Feb 28, 2022]
Tabled 9-0 (Mallon)

The tap dance continues. On the one hand, it is right and proper that the City Council should establish some ground rules for their newfound veto-power over appointments to City boards & commissions. On the other hand, politicizing board appointments was and is a terrible idea. Will the appointments be farmed out to City Council committees to be turned into politically-charged tribunals? Will a new “Review Committee” be established to process them all? Or will the Council just vote on each set of appointments after councillors beholden to political organizations have had an opportunity to delete the names of those appointees unacceptable to their handlers? Inquiring minds want to know.

NOTE: Anyone who thinks it is OK to refer to an item made subject to the Charter Right as having been “charterwritten” needs to enroll in some basic English grammar classes.


Charter Right #14. A Zoning Petition has been received from Craig A. Kelley regarding The Cambridge Transportation De-Carbonization and Congestion-Mitigation Bill.. (Ordinance #2022-10) [Charter Right – Carlone, Feb 28, 2022]
Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board 9-0 (Carlone)

Though my guess is that Craig Kelley’s petition won’t survive in its initial form, he deserves credit for reopening the conversation of such things as car-sharing and how electric vehicle charging can be made more widely available. Abutter concerns will not and should not be easily dismissed, but this is still a conversation that needs to take place. I won’t be buying an electric car (or an eclectic car) any time soon, but if I ever do the matter of charging for those of us without driveways can’t be dismissed, and even if battery improvements make things somewhat faster it likely won’t be as fast as filling up the tank. Let’s also not forget that the electrical infrastructure maintained by Eversource will likely need a tremendous amount of reinvestment as vehicles and buildings become more dependent on the electric grid.

Charter Right #15. That the City Manager is requested to work with DCR to pilot an expansion of Memorial Drive closures along any segments east of Western Avenue that could be used as parkland. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 28, 2022]
Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-0-1 (Simmons – PRESENT)

This is likely still a non-starter for a variety of reasons. Besides, actual parkland is better than pretend parkland that’s covered in asphalt and only available one or two days per week during a portion of the year.

Charter Right #16. That the City Manager is requested to amend all existing Community Host Agreements previously issued by the City by reducing the Impact Fee to 0.05% of Gross Revenue and to refrain from placing this burden upon any future HCAs that may yet be issued. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Feb 28, 2022]
Amended to add Zondervan as sponsor (and withdraw his proposed amendments); Tabled 9-0 on motion of Simmons

I am endlessly entertained by the City Council’s attempts to override economics in the pursuit of accomodation of the politically connected. In Washington, DC former elected officials become lobbyists, and in Cambridge and Boston they go into cannibis sales. Are there any other taxes and fees being waived for other businesses – especially now that Covid seems to be in retreat – or is this just a weed thing?

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the Department of Public Works to introduce the SMART Box rodent control system in Cambridge.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Proposed City Council Order #5: That the City Manager be and herby is requested to appoint a Rodent Rights Commission in order to ensure that all members of the order Rodentia and the genus Rattus be granted the full rights and privileges as all other Cambridge residents – especially in regard to exposure to electric currents and other matters of environmental justice.

Committee Report #1. The Housing Committee met on Dec 1, 2021 to conduct a public hearing to resume its discussion of the Sept 20, 2021 Policy Order that seeks to amend the Zoning Ordinance via potentially raising the linkage fee. [Report]
Report Accepted; Placed on File 9-0

Tax, tax tax – spend, spend, spend. Let others worry about the details and potential consequences.

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Councillors Toner and Simmons, transmitting a memorandum regarding the search for the next City Clerk. [Outreach List] [Search timeline] [Job posting]
Placed on File 9-0

Where are John Wayne and Jeffrey Hunter now that we need them? – Robert Winters

January 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 533-534: January 18, 2022

Episode 533 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 18, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 18, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Police Commissioner Christine Elow and some history of Chief vs. Commissioner; optimistic Covid update; bikes & buses – controversy and alternatives; ideology within Community Development Department; future prospects. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 534 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 18, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 18, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Filibuster and the value of slow legislation; Charter questions – past, present, and future; Envision history; Charter Change while seeking new City Manager, City Clerk (and City Auditor); proportional representation (PR) realities and distortions by single-issue politics; role of planning within CDD vs. responding to partisan petitions; PR revisions for fractional transfers should be part of future Charter revision discussions. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 29, 2018

A First Look at the Oct 29, 2018 Cambridge City Council Agenda

A First Look at the Oct 29, 2018 Cambridge City Council Agenda

City HallHere’s my first pass at the interesting stuff up for discussion at this week’s meeting:

Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $67,179.02 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures Account to support additional tree plantings in the Gore Street Neighborhood.

What is notable is that the street tree that was lost has been appraised at $67,179.02. I’d love to learn more about how that figure was derived. Especially the two cents.

Charter Right #1. That the Chairs of the Ordinance Committee schedule a hearing on Tree Protections and the Chairs of the Health & Environment Committee schedule public hearings on Tree Protections and the preliminary results from the Ordinance Committee hearing.

There are good ways and bad ways to do this. As a side note, I heard that the tulip tree on Cambridge Street that was at the center of a controversy almost two decades ago (with at least one person chaining herself to the tree) was removed recently due to internal rot. Some have suggested that this may have been helped along, but in any case the tulip tree is no more.

Charter Right #2. The City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a written timeline of what specific steps must take place in order to take a final vote on the Affordable Housing Overlay legislation.

Communications #6. Sundry communications received relating to opposition of City Envision proposal.

My sense is that very few people know much about the proposed Subsidized Housing Overlay proposal and its provisions to permit neighboring properties to be redeveloped as subsidized housing as of right a) at densities up to four times what is allowed under current zoning, b) with minimal setback requirements, c) and with no objections permitted. The proposal is a severe departure from the Growth Policy Document that has been successfully applied for nearly 25 years. The Overlay proposal was panned at the Planning Board for many reasons. It does nothing to address the housing affordability problem as most people understand it, i.e. the difficulty most people have in finding an affordable place to own or rent without being forced to apply to a government agency for housing.

Communications #3. A communication was received from Charles Hinds, President East Cambridge Planning Team, regarding the disposition process of the First St. Garage.

The First Street parking garage is there largely because it served the needs of the Courthouse. The primary reason it has been underutilized (hence the available surplus of parking) is because the Courthouse has been closed for some time. Sure, some things have changed in the interim and perhaps in an ideal world the Courthouse building would be scaled down more than is proposed, but courts have ruled that the re-purposing of the Courthouse building may proceed as planned.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee elections.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui

As much as I want everyone to vote (I’m one of the only 116 Cambridge voters who has voted in every citywide Cambridge election since 1997), I really don’t see how the substantial increased cost of this proposal is justifiable. Unlike state and federal elections, the Commonwealth won’t be picking up the tab. It really is very simple to vote in municipal elections on Election Day and absentee voting could simply be expanded to achieve the same goal.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update on any current discussions or plans for extending the Alewife Greenway Bike Path from Alewife to Sherman Street.   Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone

This is a great idea. In fact, if the path switched over to the north side of the tracks at Sherman Street, you could extend it all the way to Porter Square with the added treat that you could pass under Walden Street through the old cattle pass.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to confer with City staff and report back to the City Council on the status of the Cambridge Street Bicycle Safety Demonstration Project and on any efforts to assess how successful the project has been and what lessons the City may learn from the project that may help inform street allocation and design decisions elsewhere.   Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to confer with City staff and report back to the City Council on opportunities and plans to increase signage or other communication efforts to help ensure that all users of Brattle Street between Eliot and Mason Streets understand the cyclists may be using Brattle Street in the opposite direction of prevailing motor vehicle traffic.   Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to include protected bicycle infrastructure along the entire length of River Street as part of the FY20 River Street Redesign project.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone

All of these are covered under the City’s "Listen Zero" policy regarding bicycle accommodation. There were and still are better ways to re-envision traffic flow on Cambridge Street, and Brattle Street should have been made into a two-way "slow street" from Mason St. to Eliot St. connecting to Mt. Auburn St. As for River Street, there is no way on earth that safer bicycle accommodation won’t be a central part of the plan, and this is one location where traffic calming and some separation of cyclists from traffic (including drivers just off the Pike who have not yet mentally slowed down) is completely justified.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair and Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Health and Environment Committee for a public hearing held on Sept 27, 2018 to discuss stormwater management best practices and get an update on how Cambridge will be impacted by the EPA’s new Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, which took effect on July 1, 2018.

I’m highlighting this report simply because I think that every Cambridge citizen should learn more about the "hidden city" under their feet, i.e. the infrastructure that we depend on every day. We should have regular citizen seminars on this.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk transmitting a report from Councillor Jan Devereux, Chair and Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Health and Environment Committee for a public hearing held on Oct 9, 2018 to was to receive an update on progress towards Zero Waste goals and to discuss successes and challenges of the citywide composting and recycling programs to date.

Two words – Recycle Right. If you want to ensure the economic viability of recycling you have to be mindful of the eventual end markets. Recycling is a lot more than throwing things into a blue (or green) container.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Oct 2, 2018 to discuss a petition filed by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinances in Articles 2.000, 4.000, 6.000 and 11.000 and to establish provisions for Cannabis Uses.

I really hope the City Council reconsiders the proposal to allow pot shops to open as of right in all of the City’s BA-1 zones [base zoning map]. These include many of our small "mom ‘n pop" mixed residential/commercial zones. [Full disclosure – I live in a BA-1 zone, but I’m directly across the street from a school and have a day care and two Montessori schools as neighbors, so I’m within the buffer zone.] This is fundamentally different than allowing pot shops along a BA corridor like North Mass. Ave. [BA-2] or Cambridge Street east of Inman Square [BA], though I’ll leave it to residents along those corridors to chime in for themselves. The Western Ave. corridor is primarily BA-3. A proposed Order in this committee report calls for allowing adult use (recreational) pot shops as a use as of right in all BA-1, BA-2 and BA-3 districts. Another proposed Order would reduce the buffer zone around schools and other youth facilities from 500 ft. to 300 ft.

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from City Clerk Donna P. Lopez, transmitting notes for the first meeting of the Mayor’s Arts Task Force.

This meeting was mainly just introductions, but it’s worth keeping an eye on where this Task Force is headed. – Robert Winters

August 14, 2018

Tight spot on Huron Avenue

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling — Tags: , , , , , , — jsallen @ 1:01 pm

I am expanding here on comments which I made on a post in the Cambridge Bikes Facebook group.

The overhead view from the post shows a stretch of Huron Avenue near Sparks Street.

Huron Avenue and Sparks Street, Cambiridge, Massachusetts

Huron Avenue and Sparks Street

I see here a retrofit to a car-centric street design in an attempt to accommodate bicyclists of all ages and abilities, a popular goal of bicycling advocacy.

This stretch is downhill right to left in the overhead view. A common explanation for the buffer (diagonally-striped area) to the left of the bike lane is that it is to protect cyclists from overtaking motorists — but it places the bike lane in the door zone. A bike lane in the door zone is unsafe for any bicyclists, but it is worse here. Motorists don’t have x-ray vision. A look in the driver’s side mirror won’t show a bicyclist until rather late on a right-hand curve: bicyclists are hidden by the parked cars behind. Bicyclists can travel as fast or nearly as fast as cars here, also worsening the dooring hazard. and do best to merge out and ride in the stream of motor traffic. This also improves sight distance for motorists who might (horrors!) have to slow a little to follow a bicyclist.

On the other side of the street, the bike lane leads bicyclists into the right-hook zone at Sparks Street in the expectation that all right-turning motorists will yield. The green-painted crossing is an attempt to accommodate bicyclists who do not check for traffic behind them, whether due to lack of skill, a stiff neck, inattention or misplaced trust. But, not all motorists yield. A bicyclist needs to be extra careful here, casting a look over the shoulder, and preferably merging left to block a right-turning motorist or let that motorist pass on the right.

Is it actually possible to design safely for all ages and abilities here? A speed hump could help by slowing motor traffic. Removing parking spaces would make a big improvement, but parking spaces are sacred to residents and business owners, and illegal parking (as in the bike lane on the south side) is tolerated as a minor sin. Moving the legal parking to the uphill, soutth side, would reduce the dooring risk. On the south side, bicyclist are traveling more slowly and sight lines are better.

But above all, a major change in motorists’ behavior is needed — a cultural change: reduction in speed, and respect for bicyclists who safely far enough from the parked vehicles to avoid dooring. Attempting to bring about bicycling accessible to people of all ages and abilities using paint first, without the public will to step up enforcement, gets things backwards. In the mean time, children might ride slowly on the sidewalk, but grownups do best to use defensive driving techniques, as I have described.  The major motorist behavior change can be expected (with autonomous vehicles) — in a decade or three.  If  shared use becomes dominant with motor vehicles, there also will be less need for parking spaces and that would be good too.

March 14, 2018

The Marcia Deihl bicycling fatality

Cambridge City Councilor Craig Kelley has obtained a copy of the crash reconstruction report in Marcia Deihl’s fatal collision with a truck on March 1, 2015, and posted the report online. I thank Mr. Kelley for performing this public service.

My understanding is that a Freedom of Information Act request was necessary to obtain a copy. That is not as it should be. The public needs to know the how and why of crashes, to avoid them and guide policy.

Quick summary: Deihl rode out of the driveway on Putnam Avenue from Whole Foods, collided with the front bumper of the truck, which was headed east in the lane closest to the driveway, and went under its front wheels. Here. You can see the ghost bike in the image. (It is before the driveway but the crash occurred at or after the driveway.)

Half-trigger warning: this post isn’t relaxing reading and neither is the report, but they don’t include any gruesome images, or except for the last few pages or the report, descriptions more graphic than what you have just read.

So, what about the report?

Unfortunately, the investigation leaves questions unanswered, which it might have answered. Only in the synopsis at the start of the report does the State Police investigator repeat part of the report of Cambridge Officer Sullivan who interviewed the truck driver at the scene. Sullivan’s report says that the driver “checked to his right but didn’t see anything but snow so he started to pull over. He stated as he was pulling over he started to put on his hazard lights. He felt a bump and thought he ran over a snow bank.” He also said that he was pulling over to park and then walk to a construction site to see if it was ready for the dumpster he was carrying.

The report doesn’t raise, or answer, the question whether the driver was looking ahead prior to pulling over, as he was approaching the driveway. There was also no discussion of the role that snowbanks might have played in blocking sight lines. You will probably recall that the winter of 2015 was the snowiest one ever recorded in the Boston area. 94.4 inches had fallen from Jan. 24 through Feb. 22, 2015.

Deihl pulled out of the driveway either just as the truck was passing, or she passed it. The initial point of impact was the front of the truck and — as identified by a GPS recorder in the truck — it was going only 5 mph at that point (slowing to a stop).

One thing that calls out to me in the report is the intensive examination of the truck but cursory examination of the bicycle (p. 12 of the PDF, p. 7 of the report). What if, for example, Deihl’s brakes had failed? Were the steel rims of Deihl’s old English three-speed bicycle wet? Steel rims are as slippery as ice when wet, and rim brakes barely work then. The temperature reached 30 F on the day of the crash, which occurred at 3 PM, but snowmelt might have wetted the rims. Or did the bicycle have a coaster brake, in which case wet rims wouldn’t have been an issue? Did Deihl skid on packed snow or ice? Also the autopsy report is rather perfunctory. Medical condition leading to loss of control? — last page of the PDF. “Bicyclist rideout” crashes like this one are rare after childhood, suggesting to me that something unusual went wrong.

The key to this crash would seem to be why Deihl came out of the driveway and collided with the truck, rather than stopping to let it pass. But the trucker also pulled over to the right — Deihl may have turned right assuming that the truck would clear her. — page 9 of the PDF.

Deihl was required under the law to yield to traffic in the street before entering it from a driveway. If she pulled out of the driveway ahead of the truck, the trucker could have prevented the crash as long as it was not too late for him to avoid the collision by braking or swerving. He was at fault if he failed to look. If Deihl was passing him on the right, she would have been close to the side of the truck and probably in its right-side blind spot. And sight lines may have been blocked by a snowbank.

It’s incredibly frustrating that:

  1. The investigator didn’t know what he is doing in a bicycle investigation (scenario repeated with the Anita Kurmann fatality in Boston later the same year);
  2. It took a FOIA request to see the report;
  3. Advocates use these tragedies to justify whatever pet projects they have. (Sideguards, says Alex Epstein. They would be irrelevant in this collision with the front of a truck: more about them here. Separate bike traffic from car traffic, says Pete Stidman. Just how would a sidepath have worked on a day when the street was lined with snowbanks is another valid question. Most likely, it would not have been usable. Comments by Epstein and Stidman are here. Neither of them had seen the report when they made their observations.)
  4. Advocates are avoiding adequately informing bicyclists about the hazards of trucks and how to avoid them.

Well, the advocates at the American Bicycling Education Association are an important exception. I am proud to be an instructor in its program. An animated graphic on safety around trucks is here and if you click on the title at the top of the page, you can find out how to sign up for a course (online or in person) which will cover that topic and much more.

I thank Paul Schimek for many of the observations in this post, and for drawing my attention to the availability of the crash report.

And again, I thank Craig Kelley for making the report available.

February 16, 2018

A look at the Brattle Street bikeway

In 2017, Cambridge installed a two-way separated bikeway on Brattle Street between Mason Street and Brattle Square. In the video here, I take a look at part of that bikeway, from Church Street to Brattle Square.

This is a high-definition video. For best viewing, start the video playing, click on “Youtube”, and then click on the Full Screen Icon — the square at the lower right.

September 24, 2017

Not left, Felton

OK, I couldn’t resist the palindrome, but this is a serious post anyway.

Site of near-collision at Cambridge and Felton Streets.

I nearly left-crossed another cyclist today, on my bicycle, as I turned left from Cambridge Street onto Felton Street. It could have been a very serious collision. He came storming out of the shadows past the black parked SUV in the photo, on the new separated bikeway. I wasn’t looking in his direction at the right time to see him in time to yield. (I had to look in different directions to yield to street traffic, sidewalk traffic in both directions, crosswalk traffic — and now, this parking-screened conflict. “He came out of nowhere,” someone else might say but the Transporters in Star Trek are fiction: he came from where not visible in time reliably to allow yielding.) The short stretch where parking is prohibited before the intersection is supposed to make it possible for left-turning drivers to yield. The bikeway is really only designed for bicyclists riding slowly. It doesn’t work to yield to a cyclist going 20-25 mph.

Startled, I yelled WHOAH! as I crossed just in front of him. He yelled back “I have the right of way.”

His sense of entitlement doesn’t exactly reflect prudence, but if I’d collided with him, I would have been held at fault.

In 45 years bicycling in Boston-area urban traffic, I’ve never collided with a motor vehicle, but I’ve had a couple of near-collisions with other cyclists: both in Cambridge, both at night: a near head-on on the path along Memorial Drive in front of the MIT dorms — the other cyclist had no headlight; the other, I was riding westbound on Harvard Street and a cyclist traveling the wrong way on Dana Street or Ellery street crossed at speed a couple of feet in front of me — also, no headlight.

The new installation on Cambridge Street gives bicyclists the sense of entitlement to enter intersections from screened conflicts, at speed. Bicyclists and motorists turning left here need to be extra-cautious. I don’t see how it would be even possible for the driver of a long vehicle turning left to see a bicyclist in the bikeway in time to yield.

Bicyclists riding fast are much safer riding with the motor traffic, but now the travel lanes are too narrow for motorists to pass bicyclists, and only the very strongest bicyclists (or those with electrical assist) are able to ride fast enough that motorists won’t want to pass.

I was on my way to the Bow Tie Ride when this incident occurred. The Bow Tie Ride was a tame affair indeed, average speed around 5 miles per hour due to the large number of participants of varying abilities. Traffic management by the Cambridge Police and volunteers was very good, but I didn’t have time to finish the ride at that speed and left partway through.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress