Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[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: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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If that’s the only data point you have, it’s probably best just to concede your ignorance and move along.

[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: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


No one is going to engineer away accidents. Nor should they even try. The city has better things to spend money on. Cyclists need to learn to accept some responsibility for the risks they choose to run.

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

[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:

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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

+1

Cyclists need to take responsibility for the risks they choose to run, and stop expecting the government to somehow prevent them from getting hurt.

[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:

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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

There is no amount of knowledge or logic that will penetrate your numb skull.

[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:

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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

This. Cyclists, at the end of the day, you're most responsible for your safety. Be a defensive cyclist and adjust your moves accordingly. Don't take stupid risks because you think you can win.

[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: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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

Cyclists also need to take responsibility for safety. I don’t want to see anyone pay for mistakes with their life again like this.

This. Are there aggressive and arrogant drivers? For sure.

But to pretend like there aren't aggressive and arrogant cyclists who try and pull moves they clearly should not (as in this case), is denying a factor in the problem. Drivers should work to be more aware, but cyclists aren't helpless and devoid of responsibility on the roads.[/quote

You have no idea what caused this cyclist’s death other than a single phrase in a police report that was most likely informed by the driver who was a party to the crash. And yet you are eager to blame her for her own death. Why?

[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:

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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

Cyclists also need to take responsibility for safety. I don’t want to see anyone pay for mistakes with their life again like this.

This. Are there aggressive and arrogant drivers? For sure.

But to pretend like there aren't aggressive and arrogant cyclists who try and pull moves they clearly should not (as in this case), is denying a factor in the problem. Drivers should work to be more aware, but cyclists aren't helpless and devoid of responsibility on the roads.

You have no idea what caused this cyclist’s death other than a single phrase in a police report that was most likely informed by the driver who was a party to the crash. And yet you are eager to blame her for her own death. Why?

Did the truck driver pick the woman and bicycle up, place it besides his truck, then deliberately run her over? Really, you think that's what happened?

The significantly more likely scenario is that the cyclist was trying to pass the truck on a single lane road, didn't make it, got caught in his blindspot, and got killed from her risky decision. It's tragic, but your naivete that cyclists bear no responsibility for poor decision making, is an alarming one.

[Anonymous]

Bikers need to remember that they are smaller and less protected than vehicles.

[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:

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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

Today I learned that suburbanites addicted to lifestyles that revolve around two-ton death machines, massive government subsidies, and toxic emissions will stoop to baselessly blaming a cyclist for her own death in order to better comfort themselves when advocating against infrastructural improvements that will save lives and marginally improve the chances of humanity making it to 2100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the police report: https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/traffic-fatality-intersection-21st-street-and-i-street-northwest

"The preliminary investigation revealed, at approximately 8:09 am, a driver operating a Mack truck was traveling southbound in the 900 block of 21st Street, NW, which is a one-way travel lane. A bicyclist was also travelling southbound in the same block and on the right side of the Mack truck. At the intersection of 21st Street and I Street NW, the Mack truck began to make a right hand turn onto I Street NW. The bicyclist attempted to ride ahead of the Mack truck and was struck by the front passenger side of the truck, causing significant injuries."

It's the bolded part of the police report that gives me pause, because it PRESUMES right of way for the truck and essentially assigns blame to the cyclist for riding ahead. But she wasn't "riding ahead" - she was continuing straight in the lane where she had been traveling. Also, since the cyclist is dead, she cannot tell her version of what happened. And it is in the cops' interest to blame the dead person because that is the path of least resistance for them to close out the file.

It is a tragedy that this cyclist died. It is a tragedy that TWO CYCLISTS have been killed on DC streets in the past week. It is a tragedy that this city will not enforce traffic laws or implement infrastructure to keep cyclists and pedestrians safe.

My husband's an avid cyclist and I guarantee you he would try to 'beat the truck'

[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:

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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

I don’t think you understand what happened here. How much wider can a turn be? If a cyclist is intent on blowing through an intersection to effect a pass on a turning truck, a bike lane would not have helped. In this case and in this circumstance there was no about of infrastructure that would save someone from doing something dangerous. It’s sad but the truth.

Guess what - there are traffic engineers & urban planners who know how to make these intersections safer. For example, the "bend out" crossing.

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-the-Intersection.pdf

There is no amount of engineering design that can protect people intent on taking risks.

Today I learned that suburbanites addicted to lifestyles that revolve around two-ton death machines, massive government subsidies, and toxic emissions will stoop to baselessly blaming a cyclist for her own death in order to better comfort themselves when advocating against infrastructural improvements that will save lives and marginally improve the chances of humanity making it to 2100.

Do you ever think it's *ever* possible for a cyclist to be at fault if they're hit?

[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: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

A protected bike lane would not have saved this person if they were intent on passing in front of a truck in the middle of a turn in an intersection.

It would have. It would have kept the truck away from the path of the bike and forced a wider right turn.

The accident was in the intersection. Protected bike lanes do not continue through intersections. It’s a different issue, but the truck also did not take a “narrow” turn as you claim. There are photos posted in this thread which give the precise location of the incident.

It’s really tragic but hopefully we can all take from this tragedy how important it is to give trucks a wide berth.

I don't think you get the geometry. No, the protected lane is not in the intersection, but typically, it funnels the riders into a more visible position at the intersection. And if they have the light, then traffic to their left is buffered away from them and can't start turning until further out into the intersection. It's not a 100% guarantee, but MUCH safer than giant trucks whipping around the corner.

Cyclists also need to take responsibility for safety. I don’t want to see anyone pay for mistakes with their life again like this.

how many drivers vs pedestrians/cyclists have died on DC streets this year?

Don't lump pedestrians in with cyclists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.

Thanks for demonstrating another driver who very confidently does not know the rules of the road.

Go look again. There are some rules that apply differently when biking.

She was not permitted to pass the truck on the right, no matter whether he was turning or proceeding straight. End of. Story.

Look, it sucks she died but she has herself to blame.

Here's DC DOT's pocket guide to the laws. Reference pages 18 and 19 in particular.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/DC-Bike-Law-Pocket-Guide-Oct2012.pdf

From the linked document:

According to the DCMR a cyclist can split lanes.
Section 1201.3(b) states:
A person operating a bicycle may
overtake and pass other vehicles
on the left or right side, staying
in the same lane as the overtaken
vehicle, or changing to a different
lane, or riding off the roadway, as
necessary to pass with safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bikers need to remember that they are smaller and less protected than vehicles.

Bikers also need to remember that there is a thing that exists called road rage, and they should think twice about messing with drivers, because they don't know how any given driver is going to respond. A lot of drivers *despise* cyclists.