Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A stop line means you stop. A flashing yellow light means you slow but don’t stop.

The driver has a defense on that basis but the woman would probably still be alive today had DDOT just turned the f*cken light on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They're there, at 20th & I:

https://goo.gl/maps/LBEXYHofxWvZRsfF8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A stop line means you stop. A flashing yellow light means you slow but don’t stop.

The driver has a defense on that basis but the woman would probably still be alive today had DDOT just turned the f*cken light on.

No it doesn't. It indicates where to stop when the light is red. It doesn't mean stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They're there, at 20th & I:

https://goo.gl/maps/LBEXYHofxWvZRsfF8

Oh wow, thank you. I wonder why she wasn't using them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the safest thing to do as a cyclist. I'm sorry it inconveniences your right turn on red, but they are absolutely in the right to make themselves as visible as possible at intersections like this.

[Anonymous]

I really didn’t think it was possible for me to have a lower impression of the kind of people who post on DCUM. But this thread - populated by spite-filled idiots eager to employ their complete lack of understanding of DC traffic law and basic logic to blame a woman for her own death - has done it. Good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A stop line means you stop. A flashing yellow light means you slow but don’t stop.

The driver has a defense on that basis but the woman would probably still be alive today had DDOT just turned the f*cken light on.

No it doesn't. It indicates where to stop when the light is red. It doesn't mean stop.

This. The line on the road is just a marker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn't illegal for a bicycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn't illegal for a bicycle.

It's legal but known to be extremely dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A stop line means you stop. A flashing yellow light means you slow but don’t stop.

The driver has a defense on that basis but the woman would probably still be alive today had DDOT just turned the f*cken light on.

No it doesn't. It indicates where to stop when the light is red. It doesn't mean stop.

I’m PP and you are right. Of course it doesn’t mean to stop if you have a green or a yellow you don’t have time to stop for. But the flashing yellow is an uncommon signal and could well have contributed to the accident. It doesn’t by itself implicate or absolve the driver or the cyclist of blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A stop line means you stop. A flashing yellow light means you slow but don’t stop.

The driver has a defense on that basis but the woman would probably still be alive today had DDOT just turned the f*cken light on.

No it doesn't. It indicates where to stop when the light is red. It doesn't mean stop.

I’m PP and you are right. Of course it doesn’t mean to stop if you have a green or a yellow you don’t have time to stop for. But the flashing yellow is an uncommon signal and could well have contributed to the accident. It doesn’t by itself implicate or absolve the driver or the cyclist of blame.

DP. Flashing yellow is not uncommon - it's very basic driver's ed stuff. If you're going to be on the road - car, cyclist, or pedestrian, you have to know these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn't illegal for a bicycle.

It's legal but known to be extremely dangerous.

Dangerous relative to what? Remaining beside a vehicle and risking being caught in the blind spot? Taking the whole lane and risking infuriating some maniacal driver behind you? Have you ever had to make that decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn't illegal for a bicycle.

It's legal but known to be extremely dangerous.

Dangerous relative to what? Remaining beside a vehicle and risking being caught in the blind spot? Taking the whole lane and risking infuriating some maniacal driver behind you? Have you ever had to make that decision?

Well, this woman is dead. So yes, it's more dangerous than infuriating some maniacal driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn't illegal for a bicycle.

It's legal but known to be extremely dangerous.

Dangerous relative to what? Remaining beside a vehicle and risking being caught in the blind spot? Taking the whole lane and risking infuriating some maniacal driver behind you? Have you ever had to make that decision?

You interestingly neglected to list another option that cyclists seem to loathe: applying their brakes, thus slowing their forward momentum so that the vehicle advances ahead and the cyclist falls back and the cyclist is no longer in the blind spot.

No need to "remain beside" the vehicle. I personally do what I propose here whenever I'm cycling OR driving - especially driving on the interstate.

Of course, as I said, too many cyclists either don't know any better or they refuse to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn't illegal for a bicycle.

It's legal but known to be extremely dangerous.

OK, but the PP said the cyclist was violating the law.