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: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.


1. Why do you think DC police are any different?
2. I'm fine with assigning blame where it's due. It's not just possible, but likely that everyone involved was wrong in some way. Sometimes illegal, sometimes just dumb. But either way we can fix problems so that there's less death and destruction when people screw up.

I'm really ok putting
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: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.


1. Why do you think DC police are any different?
2. I'm fine with assigning blame where it's due. It's not just possible, but likely that everyone involved was wrong in some way. Sometimes illegal, sometimes just dumb. But either way we can fix problems so that there's less death and destruction when people screw up.

I'm really ok putting

Why do you think DC police lie about accident investigations? What do they have to gain? Such a bizarre thing to believe.
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: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.


1. Why do you think DC police are any different?
2. I'm fine with assigning blame where it's due. It's not just possible, but likely that everyone involved was wrong in some way. Sometimes illegal, sometimes just dumb. But either way we can fix problems so that there's less death and destruction when people screw up.

I'm really ok putting

Why do you think DC police lie about accident investigations? What do they have to gain? Such a bizarre thing to believe.


Have you ever interacted with DC police? They are quick to victim blame, hem and haw about not wanting to file a report. Do you even live here?
Anonymous
After visiting the intersection where the crash occurred this morning, I have a bit more insight into what probably happened.

The road on the block on 21st St NW where the crash occurred is about 1 1/2 lanes wide with cars parked on both sides. The lanes are not marked as the road was recently repaved (the imagery on Google Earth indicates that the road previously had lane markings that are not there now). The blocks immediately north and south are at least two (marked) lanes wide.

The intersection at 21st St NW and I St has a traffic light that is flashing yellow for vehicles traveling south along 21st St NW and flashing red for vehicles traveling east along I St NW. The flashing yellow caution light indicates (per the DC DMV's Driver Manual) that vehicles do not need to come to a stop at the intersection and few - if any - vehicles come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. However, there is a (solid white) stop line painted on 21st St NW before the crosswalk and the intersection, which contradicts the flashing yellow light in signaling that drivers should come to a complete stop before proceeding.

It seems reasonable to infer that the lack of lane markings (particularly given that the preceding and forthcoming blocks feature multiple lanes) and the contradiction between the flashing yellow light and the stop line contributed to the crash. My presumption, based on the evidence at hand, is that the cyclist was riding beside the truck as it approached the intersection. Believing either that the truck was proceeding straight (either because the turn signal was not duly activated or because she didn't see it) or that the truck would stop before turning right, she proceeded through the intersection into the open lane ahead of her (and, as there are 2 marked lanes on the block, she would not have been attempting to "get ahead" of the truck as both could continue in parallel without conflict). Unfortunately, of course, the truck turned straight into her.

I don't believe that the cyclist was technically at fault. The driver may technically not be at fault either, but it is reasonable to expect that those driving heavy truck through congested urban streets to check the mirror before turning and especially so if they suspect a cyclist may be beside them. Whoever left that road without proper road markings and a flashing yellow signal that contradicted the stop line has something to answer for.
Anonymous
I'm the PP who said the police reports were always skewed against whoever is unconscious. This is just common sense and has nothing to do with bikes vs. drivers. Same thing happens in accidents between two cars -- the one conscious gets to tell their side of the story. The one unconscious does not.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:After visiting the intersection where the crash occurred this morning, I have a bit more insight into what probably happened.

The road on the block on 21st St NW where the crash occurred is about 1 1/2 lanes wide with cars parked on both sides. The lanes are not marked as the road was recently repaved (the imagery on Google Earth indicates that the road previously had lane markings that are not there now). The blocks immediately north and south are at least two (marked) lanes wide.

The intersection at 21st St NW and I St has a traffic light that is flashing yellow for vehicles traveling south along 21st St NW and flashing red for vehicles traveling east along I St NW. The flashing yellow caution light indicates (per the DC DMV's Driver Manual) that vehicles do not need to come to a stop at the intersection and few - if any - vehicles come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. However, there is a (solid white) stop line painted on 21st St NW before the crosswalk and the intersection, which contradicts the flashing yellow light in signaling that drivers should come to a complete stop before proceeding.

It seems reasonable to infer that the lack of lane markings (particularly given that the preceding and forthcoming blocks feature multiple lanes) and the contradiction between the flashing yellow light and the stop line contributed to the crash. My presumption, based on the evidence at hand, is that the cyclist was riding beside the truck as it approached the intersection. Believing either that the truck was proceeding straight (either because the turn signal was not duly activated or because she didn't see it) or that the truck would stop before turning right, she proceeded through the intersection into the open lane ahead of her (and, as there are 2 marked lanes on the block, she would not have been attempting to "get ahead" of the truck as both could continue in parallel without conflict). Unfortunately, of course, the truck turned straight into her.

I don't believe that the cyclist was technically at fault. The driver may technically not be at fault either, but it is reasonable to expect that those driving heavy truck through congested urban streets to check the mirror before turning and especially so if they suspect a cyclist may be beside them. Whoever left that road without proper road markings and a flashing yellow signal that contradicted the stop line has something to answer for.


Thank you for taking the time. I think the bolded is the big point. There are reasonable policies about lanes, marking / temporary marking, physical barriers, or whatever, that if implemented and enforced would result in fewer deaths and injuries. That's what I want.

But here we go with four more years of Muriel "Slogans" Bowser, so I have no hope of that happening in any meaningful way.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:After visiting the intersection where the crash occurred this morning, I have a bit more insight into what probably happened.

The road on the block on 21st St NW where the crash occurred is about 1 1/2 lanes wide with cars parked on both sides. The lanes are not marked as the road was recently repaved (the imagery on Google Earth indicates that the road previously had lane markings that are not there now). The blocks immediately north and south are at least two (marked) lanes wide.

The intersection at 21st St NW and I St has a traffic light that is flashing yellow for vehicles traveling south along 21st St NW and flashing red for vehicles traveling east along I St NW. The flashing yellow caution light indicates (per the DC DMV's Driver Manual) that vehicles do not need to come to a stop at the intersection and few - if any - vehicles come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. However, there is a (solid white) stop line painted on 21st St NW before the crosswalk and the intersection, which contradicts the flashing yellow light in signaling that drivers should come to a complete stop before proceeding.

It seems reasonable to infer that the lack of lane markings (particularly given that the preceding and forthcoming blocks feature multiple lanes) and the contradiction between the flashing yellow light and the stop line contributed to the crash. My presumption, based on the evidence at hand, is that the cyclist was riding beside the truck as it approached the intersection. Believing either that the truck was proceeding straight (either because the turn signal was not duly activated or because she didn't see it) or that the truck would stop before turning right, she proceeded through the intersection into the open lane ahead of her (and, as there are 2 marked lanes on the block, she would not have been attempting to "get ahead" of the truck as both could continue in parallel without conflict). Unfortunately, of course, the truck turned straight into her.

I don't believe that the cyclist was technically at fault. The driver may technically not be at fault either, but it is reasonable to expect that those driving heavy truck through congested urban streets to check the mirror before turning and especially so if they suspect a cyclist may be beside them. Whoever left that road without proper road markings and a flashing yellow signal that contradicted the stop line has something to answer for.


Thank you for clearly explaining the situation. I posted upthread about having a near-miss of this kind of collision in a different area of DC. I was riding in a well-marked bike lane at the time and we were at an intersection with a stop light that had just turned green as we approached. I suspect the clear road markings helped the bus driver be extra cautious and see me before he started his turn and stop, and me be extra cautious and see him turn his blinker on and stop as well. Agree that clearly marked intersections would help avoid these kind of tragedies in future, as well as drivers and cyclists being careful.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It seems likely she was in the blind spot of the truck.

DC law requires an underguard for trucks, this truck did not have one, which is how she ended up underneath it. If the truck has not been registered or inspected since the law went into effect in 2021, there is no violation. That has yet to be determined.

https://dcregs.dc.gov/Common/DCMR/RuleDetail.aspx?RuleId=R0036825

That regulation (not law) only applies to vehicles registered in DC. If the truck was not registered in DC then it does not apply.


There's a photo of the truck with what look like both MD and DC plates. What else do you have?


It is not registered in DC per NBC news.
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.


Did you read the actual police report because the ones I see report each party’s version of the story as that party’s version. They are not conclusory.
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.


And yet DCUM complains incessantly about cyclists who "take the lane", which is the safest option.
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


Not on point. You cited an article about police reporting of their own actions.
Anonymous
Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.
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.


Did you read the actual police report because the ones I see report each party’s version of the story as that party’s version. They are not conclusory.


Here is the preliminary police report (https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/traffic-fatality-intersection-21st-street-and-i-street-northwest):
The preliminary investigation revealed, at approximately 8:09 am, a driver operating a Mack truck was traveling southbound in the 900 block of 21st Street, NW, which is a one-way travel lane. A bicyclist was also travelling southbound in the same block and on the right side of the Mack truck. At the intersection of 21st Street and I Street NW, the Mack truck began to make a right hand turn onto I Street NW. The bicyclist attempted to ride ahead of the Mack truck and was struck by the front passenger side of the truck, causing significant injuries.

Please, please show me where the cyclist's version of the story is noted. Further, the police report lacks a lot of the detail that the pp who visited the scene provided and that gives extremely important context about this particular intersection. I hope it will be in the final report. But given my prior experience with DC cops and with investigations of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes, I doubt it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:After visiting the intersection where the crash occurred this morning, I have a bit more insight into what probably happened.

The road on the block on 21st St NW where the crash occurred is about 1 1/2 lanes wide with cars parked on both sides. The lanes are not marked as the road was recently repaved (the imagery on Google Earth indicates that the road previously had lane markings that are not there now). The blocks immediately north and south are at least two (marked) lanes wide.

The intersection at 21st St NW and I St has a traffic light that is flashing yellow for vehicles traveling south along 21st St NW and flashing red for vehicles traveling east along I St NW. The flashing yellow caution light indicates (per the DC DMV's Driver Manual) that vehicles do not need to come to a stop at the intersection and few - if any - vehicles come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. However, there is a (solid white) stop line painted on 21st St NW before the crosswalk and the intersection, which contradicts the flashing yellow light in signaling that drivers should come to a complete stop before proceeding.

It seems reasonable to infer that the lack of lane markings (particularly given that the preceding and forthcoming blocks feature multiple lanes) and the contradiction between the flashing yellow light and the stop line contributed to the crash. My presumption, based on the evidence at hand, is that the cyclist was riding beside the truck as it approached the intersection. Believing either that the truck was proceeding straight (either because the turn signal was not duly activated or because she didn't see it) or that the truck would stop before turning right, she proceeded through the intersection into the open lane ahead of her (and, as there are 2 marked lanes on the block, she would not have been attempting to "get ahead" of the truck as both could continue in parallel without conflict). Unfortunately, of course, the truck turned straight into her.

I don't believe that the cyclist was technically at fault. The driver may technically not be at fault either, but it is reasonable to expect that those driving heavy truck through congested urban streets to check the mirror before turning and especially so if they suspect a cyclist may be beside them. Whoever left that road without proper road markings and a flashing yellow signal that contradicted the stop line has something to answer for.


Ok, so if there weren’t two lanes until the next block, then would the cyclist be considered to have been passing the truck where the accident occurred and, if so, shouldn’t she have been passing on the left not the right?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.


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

Go look again. There are some rules that apply differently when biking.
Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Go to: