Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There's no confusion or contradiction about flashing yellow lights and a line on the road indicating where to stop for a red light. The truck driver had right of way - he should have checked for pedestrians on the crosswalk before turning - but he didn't see the bicyclist.

[Anonymous]

I drive on Four Mile Run in Arlington every morning and every evening. There is a bike trail that runs beside the street, but bicyclists do not like to slow down for the people who also walk on the trail.

Countless time bicyclists have pulled up to the right of me when I have my right turn blinker on to turn right onto either Walter Reed Drive or George Mason Drive. They "create" their own right turn lane rather than stay where they should among the cars.

I also see bikers running through red lights to go straight and they always make right turns on red when it is clearly marked "No Right Turn on Red."

I give bicyclists wide berth because I don't want to be caught in the same problem as the truck driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People bike through foggy bottom to get to workplaces like State. The huge issue is that there are inadequate bike lanes in Foggy Bottom, so even though you can get all the way from lots of neighborhoods to the White House on excellent lanes, they run out when you get west of the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

In any accident, fatal or not, where the was an obvious violation of traffic signals as is claimed a ticket is always issued.

[Anonymous]

She should have slowed down on the one way road and let the truck stay ahead of her.

She ended up being in the truck drivers blind spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People bike through foggy bottom to get to workplaces like State. The huge issue is that there are inadequate bike lanes in Foggy Bottom, so even though you can get all the way from lots of neighborhoods to the White House on excellent lanes, they run out when you get west of the White House.

There actually is not a lack of bike lanes in Foggy Bottom. There is a bike lane on every other street now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't comment on this incident, but generally, as a cyclists I have to anticipate that the truck might be making that right turn.
And I've seen personal instances where the auto drive really makes the mistake and almost runs me over.
I agree with the above statement: The cyclist is dead and she is unable to tell her side of the story.
Luckily, there are probably many cameras in the area that most likely caught the incident in really time but not sure that will be shown to the public.

Why so paranoid that the accident "will not be shown to the public?" Do you think there is a big conspiracy against bicyclists? If the bicyclist is dead, she took the risk of biking in heavy traffic on tight streets in an urban setting. She took the risk and it didn't work out for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People bike through foggy bottom to get to workplaces like State. The huge issue is that there are inadequate bike lanes in Foggy Bottom, so even though you can get all the way from lots of neighborhoods to the White House on excellent lanes, they run out when you get west of the White House.

There are fairly new and well-marked bi-directional bike lanes on 20th Street NW, just a block from the accident scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drive on Four Mile Run in Arlington every morning and every evening. There is a bike trail that runs beside the street, but bicyclists do not like to slow down for the people who also walk on the trail.

Countless time bicyclists have pulled up to the right of me when I have my right turn blinker on to turn right onto either Walter Reed Drive or George Mason Drive. They "create" their own right turn lane rather than stay where they should among the cars.

I also see bikers running through red lights to go straight and they always make right turns on red when it is clearly marked "No Right Turn on Red."

I give bicyclists wide berth because I don't want to be caught in the same problem as the truck driver.

I walk/run a lot. I'd be more compassionate to cyclists if so many weren't such hypocrites. I'm so tired of dealing with them cutting off and riding in between pedestrians on trails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In any accident, fatal or not, where the was an obvious violation of traffic signals as is claimed a ticket is always issued.

You're kidding, right? It would be great if this was the case. But the DDOT pocket guide to bike laws cited above, for instance, is full of examples of tickets being incorrectly given to bicyclists for violations of the law by drivers. Just because the police SHOULD issue a ticket in an accident where an obvious violation of the law occurred doesn't mean they always DO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the bicyclist was legally at fault or that the truck driver legally wasn't. And again, what the ruthless bike lobby wants is for it to be safe to ride bicycles in the District without having to take vastly more precautions than just following the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which laws was the cyclist violating, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People bike through foggy bottom to get to workplaces like State. The huge issue is that there are inadequate bike lanes in Foggy Bottom, so even though you can get all the way from lots of neighborhoods to the White House on excellent lanes, they run out when you get west of the White House.

There are fairly new and well-marked bi-directional bike lanes on 20th Street NW, just a block from the accident scene.

Thanks. I haven't been there in a while. Hopefully this accident will spur progress towards protected lanes: https://www.dccycletrack.com/20th21st22ndstnw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which laws was the cyclist violating, exactly?

Passing on the right.