Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t she have been either behind or in front of the truck? When cyclists come beside me it seems really dangerous.

It is legal and extremely dangerous. As this shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cyclist was at fault here:

O'Donnell was hit near 21st and I Streets in Northwest when a Mack Truck attempted to make a right turn.

O'Donnell tried to ride her bike ahead of the Mack Truck but was struck by the front passenger side of the truck

Applicable law:

Title 18 (2203.3) requires that both the approach
for a right turn and the turn itself shall be made as
close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge
of the roadway.

How does that law mean she was at fault? How do you know the truck was "close as practicable to the right-hand curb"? I could have been in the middle of the lane with her next to him ready to go froward when he decided to try to turn from the lane that he should have been going straight in.

+1

the operator of the truck is responsible for ensuring the right of way, including the curb area where there are pedestrians and cyclists, is clear.

He didn't.

Please stop with the nonsense.

[Anonymous]

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.

Which lobby is not self-interested? Also, part of the purpose of lobbying to make it safer and easier to ride a bike around is to cut emissions from cars, which I guess is self-interested in a way (none of us want to live in a warmer planet) but not primarily.

But the bike lobby isn't self-interested, they promote bike rules and laws that are dangerous and sometimes, like here, fatal for bicyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

[Anonymous]

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.

Which lobby is not self-interested? Also, part of the purpose of lobbying to make it safer and easier to ride a bike around is to cut emissions from cars, which I guess is self-interested in a way (none of us want to live in a warmer planet) but not primarily.

RUTHLESSLY self-interested. There's a difference.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

Blaming the police for presenting one side as fact prematurely. They could even say "the driver claims the pedestrian was not in the crosswalk, however we are still investigating to determine what happened."

Instead they come out with the driver's story as "fact" and then have to roll it back if they ever actually investigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

Blaming the police for presenting one side as fact prematurely. They could even say "the driver claims the pedestrian was not in the crosswalk, however we are still investigating to determine what happened."

Instead they come out with the driver's story as "fact" and then have to roll it back if they ever actually investigate.

To add to this, the "preliminary" version of the events, which are based on the driver's story but almost never properly caveated as such, gets picked up by tv and print media and contributes to the "cyclists are always in the wrong" narrative. It is a thing that you cannot unsee once you start to notice it, and it's everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

Blaming the police for presenting one side as fact prematurely. They could even say "the driver claims the pedestrian was not in the crosswalk, however we are still investigating to determine what happened."

Instead they come out with the driver's story as "fact" and then have to roll it back if they ever actually investigate.

That is not what they have done and you misunderstand the role of police and investigations. They are obligated to file a report based on the evidence they collect and have done so. You are just unhappy with those findings because you seem to think that Police are journalists. I can understand that you wish the police would allow for the findings of their investigation to be ambiguous so that their could ne plausible deniability reagarding fault for the cyclists, but that’s not their job.

But since you are making a strong accusation against the police, do you have evidence that their accident investigations in previous cases had to “rolled back”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

Blaming the police for presenting one side as fact prematurely. They could even say "the driver claims the pedestrian was not in the crosswalk, however we are still investigating to determine what happened."

Instead they come out with the driver's story as "fact" and then have to roll it back if they ever actually investigate.

To add to this, the "preliminary" version of the events, which are based on the driver's story but almost never properly caveated as such, gets picked up by tv and print media and contributes to the "cyclists are always in the wrong" narrative. It is a thing that you cannot unsee once you start to notice it, and it's everywhere.

Police are not journalists. If you are unhappy with reporting then take it up with the reporters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

I'm the PP you're responding to and I was not 'blaming the police'. I was just stating the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

Blaming the police for presenting one side as fact prematurely. They could even say "the driver claims the pedestrian was not in the crosswalk, however we are still investigating to determine what happened."

Instead they come out with the driver's story as "fact" and then have to roll it back if they ever actually investigate.

That is not what they have done and you misunderstand the role of police and investigations. They are obligated to file a report based on the evidence they collect and have done so. You are just unhappy with those findings because you seem to think that Police are journalists. I can understand that you wish the police would allow for the findings of their investigation to be ambiguous so that their could ne plausible deniability reagarding fault for the cyclists, but that’s not their job.

But since you are making a strong accusation against the police, do you have evidence that their accident investigations in previous cases had to “rolled back”?

Ok here's one: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/police-reports-lying-videos-misconduct-trnd/index.html

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of you witnesses saw the turn signal from the truck?

Apparently the bicyclist did, or saw that the truck was going to turn, if she tried to pass it ahead of the turn, as was stated in the news article.

The news article was written based on the police report which is the best explanation of the currently known facts until further investigation can be completed.

Police reports, especially when the victim is dead or hospitalized/unavailable are notoriously deferential to the drivers. I just don't trust it as anything more than what the driver thinksm

The police can only summarize the facts as they are known to them at the time. Frequently, and unfortunately, the facts skew in favor of drivers because (i) regulation of driving behavior is clear while unfortunately cyclists have resisted clearer regulation of cycling behavior so if a driver follows the letter of the law for driving then it doesn’t matter the circumstances of the cyclist, and (ii) frequently accidents do occur due to unsafe cyclist behavior and while all traffic deaths are an avoidable tragedy, vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians all have obligations to act safely.

They skew in favor of whoever is able to tell their side of the story. Anyone unconscious obviously can't describe what happened from their POV.

I frequently see this complaint from cyclists about police and I find it both bizarre and counter-productive. An investigation is ongoing to determine the circumstances of the fatal crash. If you have evidence to present to help that investigation then you should come forward. If you do not, then I’m not sure what you are blaming the police for.

Blaming the police for presenting one side as fact prematurely. They could even say "the driver claims the pedestrian was not in the crosswalk, however we are still investigating to determine what happened."

Instead they come out with the driver's story as "fact" and then have to roll it back if they ever actually investigate.

That is not what they have done and you misunderstand the role of police and investigations. They are obligated to file a report based on the evidence they collect and have done so. You are just unhappy with those findings because you seem to think that Police are journalists. I can understand that you wish the police would allow for the findings of their investigation to be ambiguous so that their could ne plausible deniability reagarding fault for the cyclists, but that’s not their job.

But since you are making a strong accusation against the police, do you have evidence that their accident investigations in previous cases had to “rolled back”?

Ok here's one: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/06/us/police-reports-lying-videos-misconduct-trnd/index.html

I can see where this game is going so I’m going to shut it down now.
1. That is not DC police
2. That is not about an accident investigation

You will not find evidence to support your claim that DC police accident investigation on scene reports need to be “walked back” because it doesn’t exist.

You want to fault everyone but the cyclist and I get it. But in this case, with these facts, everyone who uses streets should understand the basic rule of always giving trucks wide berth and never pass on the right.

I am very sorry for this woman who seemed like a great person and her family.

[Anonymous]

I don't own a bicycle but if your reaction to the news of a cyclist being run over by a Mack Truck and killed is to take to the internet to rant about how much you hate bicyclists, there's something broken inside of you.