Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is a single lane road. Why was the cyclist adjacent to the truck? Was she trying to pass him or cut him off?

Those are the only two options. Both illegal. But the cyclists in here want the big bad truck, who was operating legally, to be at fault.

[Anonymous]

I supposed OP would call me part of the Bike Lobby. Guess what ... it is possibly to simultaneously believe that the biker may have made a tragic, fatal mistake; AND that better bike infrastructure could have kept her safe. She was likely only in that position because we have a shameful lack of bike infrastructure in Foggy Bottom. With a protected lane as well as a no-right-on-red law, she would still be alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"While the investigation is in its initial stages, the District Department of Transportation said new traffic signals at the intersection were activated a day earlier and were flashing on Wednesday morning."

I'll await your apology.

Flashing yellow = not activated

Are you bad at gaslighting or just not reading the thread? No one is claiming they were fully activated. In response to the report that they were flashing yellow, someone was trying to claim that the traffic signals were covered in burlap and not flashing at all. The link demonstrates that they were flashing yellow, as was asserted in the report that someone else (maybe you) claimed was "crazy" and invalidated by the fact that the lights were "not activated".

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There was no stop sign, no red light. Whether the lights were blinking yellow or were covered in burlap, the truck had right of way to turn right without stopping first. He should have slowed and looked for pedestrians jaywalking, since this is DC. Should he have seen a bicyclist in his blind spot? Maybe. From the pictures, he stopped immediately after the collision. So he wasn't traveling very fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I supposed OP would call me part of the Bike Lobby. Guess what ... it is possibly to simultaneously believe that the biker may have made a tragic, fatal mistake; AND that better bike infrastructure could have kept her safe. She was likely only in that position because we have a shameful lack of bike infrastructure in Foggy Bottom. With a protected lane as well as a no-right-on-red law, she would still be alive.

I thought that there were no lights there at the time? Or do you mean if there had been a red light there and a no right on red law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is a single lane road. Why was the cyclist adjacent to the truck? Was she trying to pass him or cut him off?

Because, as stated earlier in the thread, the lane is about 1.5 times the width of a normal single lane there and the blocks before and after are multi-lane.

And because if the cyclist takes the lane, which is the safest thing to do, drivers often threaten them, try to run them off the road, or worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I supposed OP would call me part of the Bike Lobby. Guess what ... it is possibly to simultaneously believe that the biker may have made a tragic, fatal mistake; AND that better bike infrastructure could have kept her safe. She was likely only in that position because we have a shameful lack of bike infrastructure in Foggy Bottom. With a protected lane as well as a no-right-on-red law, she would still be alive.

I’m not “bike lobby” and I agree. Especially with GW there, seems almost criminal that there’s no infrastructure to support cyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"While the investigation is in its initial stages, the District Department of Transportation said new traffic signals at the intersection were activated a day earlier and were flashing on Wednesday morning."

I'll await your apology.

Flashing yellow = not activated

Are you bad at gaslighting or just not reading the thread? No one is claiming they were fully activated. In response to the report that they were flashing yellow, someone was trying to claim that the traffic signals were covered in burlap and not flashing at all. The link demonstrates that they were flashing yellow, as was asserted in the report that someone else (maybe you) claimed was "crazy" and invalidated by the fact that the lights were "not activated".

What are you talking about? They turned the new signals on after and as a direct consequence of the accident.

The words to describe my bemusement escape me. How could this be any clearer?

Statement: "While the investigation is in its initial stages, the District Department of Transportation said new traffic signals at the intersection were activated a day earlier and were flashing on Wednesday morning." Source: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/cyclist-hit-by-truck-seriously-hurt-in-northwest-dc/3106101/

The crash was on Wednesday morning.

Can someone please take your internet pass away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a single lane road. Why was the cyclist adjacent to the truck? Was she trying to pass him or cut him off?

Because, as stated earlier in the thread, the lane is about 1.5 times the width of a normal single lane there and the blocks before and after are multi-lane.

And because if the cyclist takes the lane, which is the safest thing to do, drivers often threaten them, try to run them off the road, or worse.

In a single lane that's greater than 11 feet we're encouraged (required?) to bike to the right side of it, exactly where you buffoons are suggesting it's illegal to ride.

If the lane is 10' wide then I'll be smack in the middle of it. Great. But 15'?? Nope. I'm on the side right where that woman was biking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a single lane road. Why was the cyclist adjacent to the truck? Was she trying to pass him or cut him off?

Because, as stated earlier in the thread, the lane is about 1.5 times the width of a normal single lane there and the blocks before and after are multi-lane.

And because if the cyclist takes the lane, which is the safest thing to do, drivers often threaten them, try to run them off the road, or worse.

Those are a bunch of poor excuses. The cyclist was violating traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I supposed OP would call me part of the Bike Lobby. Guess what ... it is possibly to simultaneously believe that the biker may have made a tragic, fatal mistake; AND that better bike infrastructure could have kept her safe. She was likely only in that position because we have a shameful lack of bike infrastructure in Foggy Bottom. With a protected lane as well as a no-right-on-red law, she would still be alive.

I’m not “bike lobby” and I agree. Especially with GW there, seems almost criminal that there’s no infrastructure to support cyclists.

Especially with GW there, most people walk. Not ride bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"While the investigation is in its initial stages, the District Department of Transportation said new traffic signals at the intersection were activated a day earlier and were flashing on Wednesday morning."

I'll await your apology.

Flashing yellow = not activated

Are you bad at gaslighting or just not reading the thread? No one is claiming they were fully activated. In response to the report that they were flashing yellow, someone was trying to claim that the traffic signals were covered in burlap and not flashing at all. The link demonstrates that they were flashing yellow, as was asserted in the report that someone else (maybe you) claimed was "crazy" and invalidated by the fact that the lights were "not activated".

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. There was no stop sign, no red light. Whether the lights were blinking yellow or were covered in burlap, the truck had right of way to turn right without stopping first. He should have slowed and looked for pedestrians jaywalking, since this is DC. Should he have seen a bicyclist in his blind spot? Maybe. From the pictures, he stopped immediately after the collision. So he wasn't traveling very fast.

He stopped immediately after the collision because he ran over a human body and their bicycle. That's a hell of a speed bump, ya know?

The point, as stated earlier, is that the yellow flashing lights were contradicted by the stop line painted on the road. This created confusion that *potentially* contributed to the accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a single lane road. Why was the cyclist adjacent to the truck? Was she trying to pass him or cut him off?

Because, as stated earlier in the thread, the lane is about 1.5 times the width of a normal single lane there and the blocks before and after are multi-lane.

And because if the cyclist takes the lane, which is the safest thing to do, drivers often threaten them, try to run them off the road, or worse.

It's not a long stretch of road. Trying to pass any vehicle in this short space is a moronic calculation at best, fatal at worst. I'm sorry this lovely lady is no longer alive, but she made a really stupid, really irresponsible decision that cost her her life. I feel bad for the truck driver who will be scarred by this forever, through no fault of his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After visiting the intersection where the crash occurred this morning, I have a bit more insight into what probably happened.

The road on the block on 21st St NW where the crash occurred is about 1 1/2 lanes wide with cars parked on both sides. The lanes are not marked as the road was recently repaved (the imagery on Google Earth indicates that the road previously had lane markings that are not there now). The blocks immediately north and south are at least two (marked) lanes wide.

The intersection at 21st St NW and I St has a traffic light that is flashing yellow for vehicles traveling south along 21st St NW and flashing red for vehicles traveling east along I St NW. The flashing yellow caution light indicates (per the DC DMV's Driver Manual) that vehicles do not need to come to a stop at the intersection and few - if any - vehicles come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. However, there is a (solid white) stop line painted on 21st St NW before the crosswalk and the intersection, which contradicts the flashing yellow light in signaling that drivers should come to a complete stop before proceeding.

It seems reasonable to infer that the lack of lane markings (particularly given that the preceding and forthcoming blocks feature multiple lanes) and the contradiction between the flashing yellow light and the stop line contributed to the crash. My presumption, based on the evidence at hand, is that the cyclist was riding beside the truck as it approached the intersection. Believing either that the truck was proceeding straight (either because the turn signal was not duly activated or because she didn't see it) or that the truck would stop before turning right, she proceeded through the intersection into the open lane ahead of her (and, as there are 2 marked lanes on the block, she would not have been attempting to "get ahead" of the truck as both could continue in parallel without conflict). Unfortunately, of course, the truck turned straight into her.

I don't believe that the cyclist was technically at fault. The driver may technically not be at fault either, but it is reasonable to expect that those driving heavy truck through congested urban streets to check the mirror before turning and especially so if they suspect a cyclist may be beside them. Whoever left that road without proper road markings and a flashing yellow signal that contradicted the stop line has something to answer for.

It’s crazy that you are performing your own independent investigation, but more power to you.

One problem with your analysis and conclusions are that the lights at that intersection were recently installed and not yet activated at the time of accident.

The news reports indicated that the lights were flashing yellow on the morning of the accident. They are also flashing yellow now.

On the morning of the accident the lights were off and covered in burlap. Whatever news report you claimed to have read is inaccurate. I have read several reports on this accident and none of them have made this inaccurate statement. I really do understand the urge to want the facts to be different but recommend waiting for the professionals to do their jobs.

Look at the pictures, would you? The crosswalk signs are in burlap and still are. The traffic lights for 21st St NW were not covered in burlap when those pictures were taken and are not covered in burlap now.

The street lights were not activated, but if you read a report that says otherwise I’d be happy to read it. Really a sad situation all around.

The street lights are not activated but are flashing yellow today. The NBC News report indicates that they were flashing yellow at the time of the crash.

If the report is inaccurate were turned off completely, the analysis and conclusions still hold. The truck should have come to a complete stop at the stop line (and verified that their right side was clear) before proceeding.

The easiest way to determine that this is false is because if the driver had disobeyed a signal it would have been an infraction and they would be issued a ticket.

A driver issued an infraction and issued a ticket??? What city do you think this is, man/ma'am???

In a fatal collision? Yes, a ticket would be issued.

No, that is not always the case at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a single lane road. Why was the cyclist adjacent to the truck? Was she trying to pass him or cut him off?

Because, as stated earlier in the thread, the lane is about 1.5 times the width of a normal single lane there and the blocks before and after are multi-lane.

And because if the cyclist takes the lane, which is the safest thing to do, drivers often threaten them, try to run them off the road, or worse.

An abnormally large lane would not be sufficient for me to decide to lane share with a cement truck and then undertake at an intersection.

Safe practice, whether in a car or on a bike is to always give trucks a wide berth. Always. Doesn’t even need to take the lane. Just slow down and give the truck some space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a single lane road. Why was the cyclist adjacent to the truck? Was she trying to pass him or cut him off?

Those are the only two options. Both illegal. But the cyclists in here want the big bad truck, who was operating legally, to be at fault.

Mostly what the "ruthlessly selfish" bike lobby wants is for the streets to be properly marked so this sort of thing is less likely to happen.