Bike Lobby and Dishonesty

[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.

They should be but they're not. The bicyclist can legally undertake the truck. But it's extremely dangerous. Because the truck can make a right turn and run over the bicyclist.


Rules for cars have been ironed out over years of crashes, and are designed so that everyone knows what all the cars are supposed to be doing, for the safety of everyone. Rules for bikes are designed for convenience or efficiency but not for safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you kidding? Car drivers would prefer bikes take the lane rather than split the lane. Especially on the right.

[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.

It’s crazy that you are performing your own independent investigation, but more power to you.

One problem with your analysis and conclusions are that the lights at that intersection were recently installed and not yet activated at the time of accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.

They should be but they're not. The bicyclist can legally undertake the truck. But it's extremely dangerous. Because the truck can make a right turn and run over the bicyclist.


Rules for cars have been ironed out over years of crashes, and are designed so that everyone knows what all the cars are supposed to be doing, for the safety of everyone. Rules for bikes are designed for convenience or efficiency but not for safety.

I would partly disagree here. Rules for bicycles are certainly designed for convenience, but at the expense of clarity. Cyclists demand to be able to make risk-based judgments in certain situations that cars are simply not allowed to make due to the risks. This means that there are no bright lines rules governing cyclist behavior. The most important thing for safety is that all users can have expectations of how other users will act in certain situations. Unfortunately there is a lot of pushback to setting these brightline rules for cycling. It’s worth noting that countries in Europe that have lower accident rates for bicycles do have clear rules governing all users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.

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

Go look again. There are some rules that apply differently when biking.

She was not permitted to pass the truck on the right, no matter whether he was turning or proceeding straight. End of. Story.

Look, it sucks she died but she has herself to blame.

Here's DC DOT's pocket guide to the laws. Reference pages 18 and 19 in particular.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/DC-Bike-Law-Pocket-Guide-Oct2012.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.

They should be but they're not. The bicyclist can legally undertake the truck. But it's extremely dangerous. Because the truck can make a right turn and run over the bicyclist.


Rules for cars have been ironed out over years of crashes, and are designed so that everyone knows what all the cars are supposed to be doing, for the safety of everyone. Rules for bikes are designed for convenience or efficiency but not for safety.

I would partly disagree here. Rules for bicycles are certainly designed for convenience, but at the expense of clarity. Cyclists demand to be able to make risk-based judgments in certain situations that cars are simply not allowed to make due to the risks. This means that there are no bright lines rules governing cyclist behavior. The most important thing for safety is that all users can have expectations of how other users will act in certain situations. Unfortunately there is a lot of pushback to setting these brightline rules for cycling. It’s worth noting that countries in Europe that have lower accident rates for bicycles do have clear rules governing all users.

And there it is. Bicyclists do whatever the hell they want and then blame drivers for collisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

No, just the entitled ones who feel that driving a car is a right and not a privilege and one that pollutes and wastes space and contributes to obesity.

[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.

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.

Obviously her story is never going to be known. But the report is very factual. I’m sure this blurb about the accident is derived from the physical evidence on the truck which would show what part of the truck his the cyclist.

Also this is not the police report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you kidding? Car drivers would prefer bikes take the lane rather than split the lane. Especially on the right.

False. I once "took the lane" on Nevada Avenue and came to a full stop at every stop sign, just like ALL of the drivers want us to do. Guess what? About 25 cars illegally crossed the double yellow lines and honked and cussed at me, while I was legally taking the lane and coming to a full stop at every stop sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s crazy that you are performing your own independent investigation, but more power to you.

One problem with your analysis and conclusions are that the lights at that intersection were recently installed and not yet activated at the time of accident.

The news reports indicated that the lights were flashing yellow on the morning of the accident. They are also flashing yellow now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s crazy that you are performing your own independent investigation, but more power to you.

One problem with your analysis and conclusions are that the lights at that intersection were recently installed and not yet activated at the time of accident.

The news reports indicated that the lights were flashing yellow on the morning of the accident. They are also flashing yellow now.

DP. That's what not yet activated means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you kidding? Car drivers would prefer bikes take the lane rather than split the lane. Especially on the right.

False. I once "took the lane" on Nevada Avenue and came to a full stop at every stop sign, just like ALL of the drivers want us to do. Guess what? About 25 cars illegally crossed the double yellow lines and honked and cussed at me, while I was legally taking the lane and coming to a full stop at every stop sign.

Drivers want you to take the lane when traffic is slow/stopped and then get the F over to the right so they can pass you once it starts moving.

Also known as the IDGAF policy.

[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.

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.

Obviously her story is never going to be known. But the report is very factual. I’m sure this blurb about the accident is derived from the physical evidence on the truck which would show what part of the truck his the cyclist.

Also this is not the police report.

A "very factual" report does not include statements like "[t]he bicyclist attempted to ride ahead of the Mack truck" that project the intentions of a dead person in the actions immediately before her death.

How do we know she was attempting to "ride ahead"? If she presumed, as is possible, that the Mack truck was proceeding straight as she was, then she had no need to get ahead.

That this was included in the report also raises questions about when the driver saw the cyclist. If it was the driver who informed the police that she was attempting to "ride ahead", then he was aware that she was beside the truck before the impact. Why couldn't he stop before hitting her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s crazy that you are performing your own independent investigation, but more power to you.

One problem with your analysis and conclusions are that the lights at that intersection were recently installed and not yet activated at the time of accident.

The news reports indicated that the lights were flashing yellow on the morning of the accident. They are also flashing yellow now.

DP. That's what not yet activated means.

OK. Call me "crazy" but I don't know why that poster is calling other people "crazy" while claiming that the statement that the lights are flashing yellow is a "problem with [the] analysis and conclusions" when the fact that are "not yet activated" means that they are flashing yellow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rules for bikes are the same as for cars. Try and pass a car on the right when he's making a right hand turn and let us know how it works out.

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

Go look again. There are some rules that apply differently when biking.

She was not permitted to pass the truck on the right, no matter whether he was turning or proceeding straight. End of. Story.

Look, it sucks she died but she has herself to blame.

Here's DC DOT's pocket guide to the laws. Reference pages 18 and 19 in particular.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/DC-Bike-Law-Pocket-Guide-Oct2012.pdf

Thanks for giving us a reference for your lack of reading comprehension.