Wild in the Streets

See note below for missing facts

by Thomas M. Keane Jr., Boston City Councilor
Back Bay Courant, December 16, 1997.
 

Cars, trucks, pedestrians, bikes, rollerblades,horse-drawn buggies, and skateboards.

They're all out there, using the same roadsand sidewalks, traversing the city in a fashion that, seen from a distance,appears like some impossibly complex dance. It's a cacophony of travel,the clash of which causes fear, injury and the occasional tragedy.

One such tragedy occurred several weeksago, when Back Bay resident William Spring was crossing Commonwealth Avenue.He was struck by a bicyclist, thrown and severely hurt. He remains, asof this writing, in the hospital in a coma.

We regrettably have become accustomed toinjury and death from automobiles and trucks. Bicycle accidents, particularlysevere accidents, are rare, however. Usually it is the bicyclist that fearsgetting hit by a motor vehicle. Pedestrians normally do not see themselvesat risk.

It turns out that the bicyclist in questionwas a messenger. That fact has provoked a mini-storm of controversy.

Bicycle messengers seemingly swarm throughdowntown Boston during the day. In their zeal to deliver their packagesas rapidly as possible, they often disobey the rules of the road and therules of common sense. They weave among stopped cars, hop from sidewalkto road and back again, run red and yellow lights, travel the wrong waydown one-way streets and generally strike fear amongst the downtown crowd.

Bill Spring's accident has raised the familiarcry, "Something must be done." The solutions seem obvious — license andregulate and train messengers — but on closer inspection these strategiesturn out to be ineffective.

They are ineffective for this simple reason:laws regulating bike messengers are already on the books. They have beensince 1991. They haven't stopped the problem downtown, and they did nothingto help Bill Spring.

Boston has rules requiring messengers tocarry a license and to wear a distinctive vest with their license numberon it. By most accounts, however, few messengers follow these rules. Therules themselves are impossible to enforce. Why? Because non-messengerbicyclists do not have to carry a license or
wear a vest. So imagine, for a moment,that you're a police officer. A bicyclist passes you with a backpack.
Messenger? Student? Commuter? If a messenger,he or she should be wearing a vest. But you can't see it, so you can'tdo anything.

The Boston Police Department now has atask force assigned to look into the bicycle messenger problem. It hopesto come out with recommendations early in 1998. It'll be tough. If thetask force chooses to go in the direction of more regulation, it in somefashion will have to include a requirement that all bicyclists be licensed,something that very likely would require state legislation.

Tougher regulation has a second problemas well. It makes everyone feel good when it passes, but months later,after the hue and cry has died down, other events come up that capturethe attention of the police and the public. Enforcement goes slack, andthe old problems return.

Fixes in Boston's existing ordinances wouldbe welcome, of course. But making the streets safer may require other solutionsthat are more self-working. One idea, proposed by the Greater Boston Chamberof Commerce, is for businesses themselves to become the enforcers. If allBoston businesses agreed to accept packages only from trained and licensedmessengers, compliance with the law would increase. Another thought isto put the liability insurance requirements on the messenger companiesthemselves, so that
they would have a strong incentive tomake sure their employees were well-trained and obeyed the rules of theroad.

Even better solutions will require rethinkinghow we use our roads and sidewalks. Right now autos and trucks rule theroads. Boston makes little provision for bicyclists. Setting aside someof the road for bicyclists could not only help public safety, but couldalso encourage others to get out of their cars and rely upon a mode oftransportation that is still safer and less polluting than its internalcombustion counterparts.
 

Since much of thereporting in this accident is selective when it comes to the facts, Messengervillehas included some. These types of serious accidents involving bike couriersare extremely rare. The Gladstone/Spring accident occurred when a pedestrian(Spring) ran across the street against a red light and collided with thecyclist (Gladstone) who was proceeding through a green light.

The bicycle messenger ordinance in effectat the time already required bicycle couriers to have licenses, wear visibleidentification numbers, and have license plates on their bikes. It alsorequired messenger companies to register with the city. Much to the dismayof the anti-bike types, the only new requirement is insurance. Automobilecouriers face no similar requirements.

Since the accident took place at anintersection crosswalk we were told that Gladstone was ticketedbecause, under the law vehicles must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk- even if the pedestrian is jaywalking. The fines he received were: "$100for not wearing the vest required under a city ordinance; $100 for notbeing licensed, and $20 under the state law mandating deference to pedestriansin crosswalks (wrong - check here).In other words $200 for bureaucratic violations and $20 for traffic violations.

However now we learn that no such lawexists and there was no legal basis for the traffic ticket that he received.In other words - Mr Spring was the dangerous one.
 
 

Back to the BostonCrash Controversey