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:

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.

Let’s just take out the question of whether she was passing or not. Lane splitting with a large truck is extremely dangerous. Even driving a car or riding a bike in a separate lane adjacent to a truck is dangerous. All trucks have warning signs that demonstrate this risk.

I think this is an area where cyclists could use better education and it is unhelpful for improving safety to engage in this knee-jerk behavior of refusing to ever acknowledge contributory fault of cyclists for accidents. It prevents honest assessment of the cause of accidents in order to improve safety. For example, if the only solution is closing streets to vehicles, which is what the cycling community promotes, you cannot close all streets and it leaves the remaining streets even less safe and reinforces an idea that no cyclist behavior can be unsafe. These are bad outcomes.

Let us improve safety to make streets safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anytime a bicyclist dies in a collision in this town, I think we all agree it's terrible, even if it was the cyclist's fault.

This latest one- the State Department woman- though is just a complete rewrite of history. The woman was traveling against the permitted flow of traffic (wrong direction on a one way street) when she was struck.

Why has the response been to again rail against vehicles as if they are at fault?

All community activist groups exaggerate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anytime a bicyclist dies in a collision in this town, I think we all agree it's terrible, even if it was the cyclist's fault.

This latest one- the State Department woman- though is just a complete rewrite of history. The woman was traveling against the permitted flow of traffic (wrong direction on a one way street) when she was struck.

Why has the response been to again rail against vehicles as if they are at fault?

All community activist groups exaggerate.

And if they go too far they lose all credibility. Like our not so friendly "I identify as a bicycle" poster.

[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:

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.

She also could have been riding in front of him, had him pass her and then turn right. She was not necessarily riding next to him. That is the right hook cyclists often talk about - where a driver sees a cyclist or slower car and passes it to turn right in front of it when really the driver should be slowing down and waiting for the slower road user to pass the intersection. I have had this happen to me on the highway- I will be in the right lane going straight and a driver in the left lane who wants to get off cuts me off right by the exit to get in the right lane then the exit lane. This is clearly unsafe behavior on the part of the exiting forever who would be safer off slowing down to merge in behind me before going right

[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:

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.

She also could have been riding in front of him, had him pass her and then turn right. She was not necessarily riding next to him. That is the right hook cyclists often talk about - where a driver sees a cyclist or slower car and passes it to turn right in front of it when really the driver should be slowing down and waiting for the slower road user to pass the intersection. I have had this happen to me on the highway- I will be in the right lane going straight and a driver in the left lane who wants to get off cuts me off right by the exit to get in the right lane then the exit lane. This is clearly unsafe behavior on the part of the exiting forever who would be safer off slowing down to merge in behind me before going right

Heavy trucks aren't very maneuverable and don't have good stopping/slowing distances. It doesn't make sense for a biker, even one going downhill (the truck was also going downhill), to expect a heavy truck to slow down to go behind them. She was reportedly trying to get ahead of the truck and didn't succeed. She may have thought she was picking the safer option but it wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Factual question - do we know if the truck driver had passed the cyclist and then turned into them? I see lots of discussion that the cyclist was splitting the lane. Do we have any accounts to support this? Or is it also possible the driver "did" the splitting here?

I ask because while biking I get passed closely on the left quite frequently, and occasionally by drivers trying to beat a light for a right turn, leaving me furious at their recklessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Factual question - do we know if the truck driver had passed the cyclist and then turned into them? I see lots of discussion that the cyclist was splitting the lane. Do we have any accounts to support this? Or is it also possible the driver "did" the splitting here?

I ask because while biking I get passed closely on the left quite frequently, and occasionally by drivers trying to beat a light for a right turn, leaving me furious at their recklessness.

The police report indicates that the cyclists came from behind the truck and then tried to pass at the intersection as it slowed down to make a right turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The police report indicates that the cyclists came from behind the truck and then tried to pass at the intersection as it slowed down to make a right turn.

Is there a different police report? This is the description on the one I'm looking at, which does not address the question I asked.

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.

... This just says they were both traveling in the same direction, but does not say how the truck came to be partially in front of the cyclist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The police report indicates that the cyclists came from behind the truck and then tried to pass at the intersection as it slowed down to make a right turn.

Is there a different police report? This is the description on the one I'm looking at, which does not address the question I asked.

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.

... This just says they were both traveling in the same direction, but does not say how the truck came to be partially in front of the cyclist.

You keep this up instead of promoting cyclist education and you’re going to continue to see more dead cyclists and that will be on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Factual question - do we know if the truck driver had passed the cyclist and then turned into them? I see lots of discussion that the cyclist was splitting the lane. Do we have any accounts to support this? Or is it also possible the driver "did" the splitting here?

I ask because while biking I get passed closely on the left quite frequently, and occasionally by drivers trying to beat a light for a right turn, leaving me furious at their recklessness.

Upthread someone posted that witnesses reported that she tried to pass/undertake the truck. Whether they were splitting the lane for part or all of the block, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You keep this up instead of promoting cyclist education and you’re going to continue to see more dead cyclists and that will be on you.

Excuse you. I just got here in this thread. You don't know me. I'm asking an honest question. Check yourself, we're all humans here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Factual question - do we know if the truck driver had passed the cyclist and then turned into them? I see lots of discussion that the cyclist was splitting the lane. Do we have any accounts to support this? Or is it also possible the driver "did" the splitting here?

I ask because while biking I get passed closely on the left quite frequently, and occasionally by drivers trying to beat a light for a right turn, leaving me furious at their recklessness.

Upthread someone posted that witnesses reported that she tried to pass/undertake the truck. Whether they were splitting the lane for part or all of the block, I don't know.

Their goal isn’t to the understand the accident but to obscure the truth to further a political agenda. As a result, they are trying to seed doubt regarding the accident cause to push an agenda which unfortunately is not focused on improving safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Factual question - do we know if the truck driver had passed the cyclist and then turned into them? I see lots of discussion that the cyclist was splitting the lane. Do we have any accounts to support this? Or is it also possible the driver "did" the splitting here?

I ask because while biking I get passed closely on the left quite frequently, and occasionally by drivers trying to beat a light for a right turn, leaving me furious at their recklessness.

Upthread someone posted that witnesses reported that she tried to pass/undertake the truck. Whether they were splitting the lane for part or all of the block, I don't know.

Their goal isn’t to the understand the accident but to obscure the truth to further a political agenda. As a result, they are trying to seed doubt regarding the accident cause to push an agenda which unfortunately is not focused on improving safety.

I'm not sure which "they" you mean, the poster upthread, the witness, or someone else.

There is a large, new bi-directional bike lane one block over, that was created in response to the bike lobby. This woman was not using it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Factual question - do we know if the truck driver had passed the cyclist and then turned into them? I see lots of discussion that the cyclist was splitting the lane. Do we have any accounts to support this? Or is it also possible the driver "did" the splitting here?

I ask because while biking I get passed closely on the left quite frequently, and occasionally by drivers trying to beat a light for a right turn, leaving me furious at their recklessness.

Upthread someone posted that witnesses reported that she tried to pass/undertake the truck. Whether they were splitting the lane for part or all of the block, I don't know.

Their goal isn’t to the understand the accident but to obscure the truth to further a political agenda. As a result, they are trying to seed doubt regarding the accident cause to push an agenda which unfortunately is not focused on improving safety.

You think witnesses to the accident are making up things to force a political agenda? That’s crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is a large, new bi-directional bike lane one block over, that was created in response to the bike lobby. This woman was not using it though.

Cyclists are not required to be in the bike lane.

When cyclists are on a road shared with cars, they are entitled to the entire lane. Car drivers frequently expect cyclists to ride all the way to the right, which creates dangerous situations. A driver is required to leave 3 feet of space when passing a cyclist, and they should not pass if they do not have that space.