Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And people wonder why cars should be banned from any place a non-driver may be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And people wonder why cars should be banned from any place a non-driver may be.

Eh. Cyclists bring it on themselves. Maybe they shouldn't be such incredible *ssholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And people wonder why cars should be banned from any place a non-driver may be.

Ever been on a local trail? Tons of cyclists have trail-rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And people wonder why cars should be banned from any place a non-driver may be.

Ever been on a local trail? Tons of cyclists have trail-rage.

How many people have they murdered or killed? Gotta think about what matters.

[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.

There is plenty of reason to believe that the accident is due to cyclist error. She clearly made an assumption that the driver was going straight and she either put herself or left herself in a place where the driver could not see her. Hard to know at this point whether the driver should have seen her or could have stopped. Very sad.

[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.

You make a crappy lobbyist. Please do us all a favor and let someone else speak for the pro-biking, anti-car movement.

[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:

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.

You make a crappy lobbyist. Please do us all a favor and let someone else speak for the pro-biking, anti-car movement.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The law you cite also has a key phrase that I have bolded which is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about this particular bike death, but the bicycle lobby is the most dishonest, ruthlessly self interested group I've ever encountered. Terrible people.

So terrible so as to promote a mode of transportation that has minimal environmental impact while also providing health benefits. How purely evil.

It's the opposite of promoting when you turn people off.

So much this

[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:

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?

Absolutely. But we have scant evidence in this case that she was at fault. Just the word of the truck driver who killed her. In spite of this, we have a number of people (well, in truth it could be one person posting repeatedly - we don’t know) here grasping at straws to find a reason to believe she coveted her own death. Of course, it’s possible that she did - but no one knows whether she did.

[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:

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.

You make a crappy lobbyist. Please do us all a favor and let someone else speak for the pro-biking, anti-car movement.

I’m not trying to lobby for sh*t. People who evidently think of cyclists as some kind of sub-human species are writing ghastly things in this thread and need to be called out.

[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:

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.

You make a crappy lobbyist. Please do us all a favor and let someone else speak for the pro-biking, anti-car movement.

I’m not trying to lobby for sh*t. People who evidently think of cyclists as some kind of sub-human species are writing ghastly things in this thread and need to be called out.

What are some of the ghastly things that have been said?

I think people hijacking this woman’s tragedy to advance an agenda is pretty ghastly, but that is only my opinion.

[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:

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.

You make a crappy lobbyist. Please do us all a favor and let someone else speak for the pro-biking, anti-car movement.

I’m not trying to lobby for sh*t. People who evidently think of cyclists as some kind of sub-human species are writing ghastly things in this thread and need to be called out.

What are some of the ghastly things that have been said?

Start from the first post and read down . . .

[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:

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.

You make a crappy lobbyist. Please do us all a favor and let someone else speak for the pro-biking, anti-car movement.

I’m not trying to lobby for sh*t. People who evidently think of cyclists as some kind of sub-human species are writing ghastly things in this thread and need to be called out.

What are some of the ghastly things that have been said?

I think people hijacking this woman’s tragedy to advance an agenda is pretty ghastly, but that is only my opinion.

That “agenda” being the kind of basic infrastructure - not even bike lanes, but functional traffic lights and road markings - that would make roads safe for all users? What kind of fringe nutcases could lobby for such things? Last year, GGW analyzed 311 data to make a list of those intersections which had triggered the most requests for traffic safety investigations. Can you guess which intersection made the top 10? I’m sure the suspense is killing you. Well, it was none other than 21st St and I St NW! You know, the intersection where Shawn O’Donnell was killed on Wednesday morning? And what kind of crazy “agenda” were those traffic safety investigations calling for? Well, they were “ the requests at this intersection were primarily for roadway striping/markings”. You cannot make this stuff up. And why would I when I could be spending that time on funneling dark money in advance of schemes to ban automotive transport or whatever crazy plot you think the nefarious “bike lobby” is pushing.

And, before you ask, here’s your reference: https://ggwash.org/view/80785/dcs-top-ten-most-hated-intersections-according-to-311-data

[Anonymous]

I think everyone can see why the bike lobby gets nowhere.