Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[Anonymous]

RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

[Anonymous]

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

You mean except for all of the new bike lanes all over the city that are virtually empty?

[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.

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.

“Scant evidence”? The most basic fact available is that this poor woman shared a lane with a cement truck. That was a huge mistake that cost her her life. I am really sorry for what happened to her, but that doesn’t change the basic facts.

[Anonymous]

The woman's death is an absolute tragedy. She sounds like she was an amazing person.

None of us know precisely what happened here. But as a driver on DC streets, I see so much dangerous behavior by bikes and electric scooters, especially downtown - overtaking drivers and zipping in and out of lanes in rush hour traffic. I think there is a tendency to overstate their visibility and/or invulnerability. If a car or bus travelling behind me cuts into another lane to try to zoom ahead and pass me from either side, it's large enough to register on a driver's peripheral vision. And even if there's a collision, it's unlikely to be fatal. A guy on an e-scooter who 'passes' a car from the right while riding in the same lane is not as visible and not nearly as protected. And if you're riding in the same lane as a car, you can't see its tail lights or turn signals.

I'm not defending bad drivers. But anyone moving in traffic needs to drive/ride/scoot defensively - be prepared for unexpected stops or turns, assume the other drivers don't see you, etc. I've got a teenager learning to drive and that's how his drivers' ed is taught. But I realize he was never really given the same advice when he learned to bike. Yes, it's common sense, but in my experience there's not a lot of common sense among all the 2/4 wheeled vehicles jostling for space on busy streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

Love this transition from tragedy to judgement to “do as I say not as I do” wooooooow

[Anonymous]

Thanks, but my kids are older and ride independently. We only rode with them for a brief time in the early pandemic. There were so few cars on the road. But yeah, I’ll admit I’m judge mentally these parents.

[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:

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.

Quoting ggwash is kind of telling on yourself.
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]

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:

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

Quoting ggwash is kind of telling on yourself.

[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.

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.

I see so many people assuming that she was trying to pass him- it is just as likely that she was cycling, he was behind her and decided to pass and turn right. Construction vehicles drive very dangerously in this city and I don't see what people presume that she was behind him at some point.

[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.

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.

I see so many people assuming that she was trying to pass him- it is just as likely that she was cycling, he was behind her and decided to pass and turn right. Construction vehicles drive very dangerously in this city and I don't see what people presume that she was behind him at some point.

You have no proof for anything that you’ve said. Only wild speculation. The one unassailable fact is that she was lane splitting with a cement truck. While lane splitting is allowed in DC, common sense dictates that one should give trucks a wide berth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RIP to the two cyclists who died recently. The state department woman was a great person. What a loss. I live in Shaw near whether the other cyclist died. As a mom and a driver, I just hope that parents who think it’s safe and cool to ride with their kids in trailers and baby seats on their bike will think twice. I rode bikes downtown with my kids during the pandemic when the streets were mostly empty, but it’s not safe most of the time, especially at rush hour. One mistake by a car and the unthinkable will happen again. Ok if adults take risks, but please don’t put your kids on the line. Also, I hope all the scooter people will take note. So many near accidents every day.

+1

You have to be insane to allow a child on a bike in Washington D.C. It is really, really dangerous.

[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.

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.

I see so many people assuming that she was trying to pass him- it is just as likely that she was cycling, he was behind her and decided to pass and turn right. Construction vehicles drive very dangerously in this city and I don't see what people presume that she was behind him at some point.

You have no proof for anything that you’ve said. Only wild speculation. The one unassailable fact is that she was lane splitting with a cement truck. While lane splitting is allowed in DC, common sense dictates that one should give trucks a wide berth.

Um I didn’t say I had proof. No one has proof of what happened and many people on this thread are saying she was passing him. I am saying it is just as likely that she was not passing him. I am not saying that x or y happened, I am saying that everyone says x, y is also possible.

[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:

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.

I see so many people assuming that she was trying to pass him- it is just as likely that she was cycling, he was behind her and decided to pass and turn right. Construction vehicles drive very dangerously in this city and I don't see what people presume that she was behind him at some point.

You have no proof for anything that you’ve said. Only wild speculation. The one unassailable fact is that she was lane splitting with a cement truck. While lane splitting is allowed in DC, common sense dictates that one should give trucks a wide berth.

Um I didn’t say I had proof. No one has proof of what happened and many people on this thread are saying she was passing him. I am saying it is just as likely that she was not passing him. I am not saying that x or y happened, I am saying that everyone says x, y is also possible.

She was passing him. She was headed to State. Which dictated her path was straight. The truck was turning. And it was witnesses on the street that reported she tried to get ahead of him before the turn. Her mother was on NBC4 and repeated this account.

Are you here to use her death to push a false narrative? If you really are advocating for cyclists out of this tragedy, your best bet is to use her mistake to teach others.

[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:

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.

I see so many people assuming that she was trying to pass him- it is just as likely that she was cycling, he was behind her and decided to pass and turn right. Construction vehicles drive very dangerously in this city and I don't see what people presume that she was behind him at some point.

You have no proof for anything that you’ve said. Only wild speculation. The one unassailable fact is that she was lane splitting with a cement truck. While lane splitting is allowed in DC, common sense dictates that one should give trucks a wide berth.

Um I didn’t say I had proof. No one has proof of what happened and many people on this thread are saying she was passing him. I am saying it is just as likely that she was not passing him. I am not saying that x or y happened, I am saying that everyone says x, y is also possible.

Whether she was passing the truck or riding right beside it at an intersection where he could have made a right turn really doesn’t matter. Both are know. To be very dangerous behaviors. This is a tragic situation but the efforts some people are going to to ignore the cyclists contribution to the accident is astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Replace “cyclists” with any other demographic group and you’ll realize how bigoted you are.

Oh this made me laugh for like 3 minutes. Those poor, poor discriminated cyclists

- Biracial daughter of two immigrants from two continents, two war torn countries, and two different minority religions

If you think being of a particular skin tone or being a parent of an adherent to a particular religion absolves you of making bigoted statement, then I hate to brake it to you but you are also an idiot.

Save your brake for the stop signs you routinely blow through just because you’re on a bike and think rules don’t apply to you

Yeah, gee, I’ve never seen a car blow through a stop sign, they ALWAYS come to a complete stop at every single one.

Just look at the thread on stop sign cameras to see how many people are ticked off they actually have to stop.