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: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?

Other than the drivers statement, how would the police know that the driver didn't just roll right into her when she had the right of way? Would the driver admit to being careless? Distracted? In a rush? These are things we see all day every day and are very reasonable to question against the "facts" in the report. So no, I'm not just going to take the driver at their word. He may very well have murdered someone.

[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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

[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.

On the morning of the accident the lights were off and covered in burlap. Whatever news report you claimed to have read is inaccurate. I have read several reports on this accident and none of them have made this inaccurate statement. I really do understand the urge to want the facts to be different but recommend waiting for the professionals to do their jobs.

[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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

The street is only one lane. The cyclists had decided to lane share with a cement truck, which is very risky.

[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.

On the morning of the accident the lights were off and covered in burlap. Whatever news report you claimed to have read is inaccurate. I have read several reports on this accident and none of them have made this inaccurate statement. I really do understand the urge to want the facts to be different but recommend waiting for the professionals to do their jobs.

Look at the pictures, would you? The crosswalk signs are in burlap and still are. The traffic lights for 21st St NW were not covered in burlap when those pictures were taken and are not covered in burlap now.

[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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

The street is only one lane. The cyclists had decided to lane share with a cement truck, which is very risky.

I don't know why this is so hard. There are no lanes painted on the road. No lanes. Not one lane. Not two lanes. No lanes. Go to the block and look for yourself if you don't want to take the word of a random stranger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On the morning of the accident the lights were off and covered in burlap. Whatever news report you claimed to have read is inaccurate. I have read several reports on this accident and none of them have made this inaccurate statement. I really do understand the urge to want the facts to be different but recommend waiting for the professionals to do their jobs.

Look at the pictures, would you? The crosswalk signs are in burlap and still are. The traffic lights for 21st St NW were not covered in burlap when those pictures were taken and are not covered in burlap now.

The street lights were not activated, but if you read a report that says otherwise I’d be happy to read it. Really a sad situation all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

The street is only one lane. The cyclists had decided to lane share with a cement truck, which is very risky.

I don't know why this is so hard. There are no lanes painted on the road. No lanes. Not one lane. Not two lanes. No lanes. Go to the block and look for yourself if you don't want to take the word of a random stranger.

In the absence of striping, the road is one lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

The street is only one lane. The cyclists had decided to lane share with a cement truck, which is very risky.

I don't know why this is so hard. There are no lanes painted on the road. No lanes. Not one lane. Not two lanes. No lanes. Go to the block and look for yourself if you don't want to take the word of a random stranger.

There are no lanes pained because it’s not a multiple lane road?

I understand what you are trying to do, but this information is not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

The street is only one lane. The cyclists had decided to lane share with a cement truck, which is very risky.

I don't know why this is so hard. There are no lanes painted on the road. No lanes. Not one lane. Not two lanes. No lanes. Go to the block and look for yourself if you don't want to take the word of a random stranger.

In the absence of striping, the road is one lane.

It's only when you add the double yellow lines that you can then use the other side for passing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On the morning of the accident the lights were off and covered in burlap. Whatever news report you claimed to have read is inaccurate. I have read several reports on this accident and none of them have made this inaccurate statement. I really do understand the urge to want the facts to be different but recommend waiting for the professionals to do their jobs.

Look at the pictures, would you? The crosswalk signs are in burlap and still are. The traffic lights for 21st St NW were not covered in burlap when those pictures were taken and are not covered in burlap now.

The street lights were not activated, but if you read a report that says otherwise I’d be happy to read it. Really a sad situation all around.

The street lights are not activated but are flashing yellow today. The NBC News report indicates that they were flashing yellow at the time of the crash.

If the report is inaccurate were turned off completely, the analysis and conclusions still hold. The truck should have come to a complete stop at the stop line (and verified that their right side was clear) before proceeding.

[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.

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?

Other than the drivers statement, how would the police know that the driver didn't just roll right into her when she had the right of way? Would the driver admit to being careless? Distracted? In a rush? These are things we see all day every day and are very reasonable to question against the "facts" in the report. So no, I'm not just going to take the driver at their word. He may very well have murdered someone.

Do you want the police to make up facts favorable to the cyclist or to conduct investigations and produce reports that intersperse their opinion? Police and not journalists. I’m not sure how hard this is to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On the morning of the accident the lights were off and covered in burlap. Whatever news report you claimed to have read is inaccurate. I have read several reports on this accident and none of them have made this inaccurate statement. I really do understand the urge to want the facts to be different but recommend waiting for the professionals to do their jobs.

Look at the pictures, would you? The crosswalk signs are in burlap and still are. The traffic lights for 21st St NW were not covered in burlap when those pictures were taken and are not covered in burlap now.

The street lights were not activated, but if you read a report that says otherwise I’d be happy to read it. Really a sad situation all around.

The street lights are not activated but are flashing yellow today. The NBC News report indicates that they were flashing yellow at the time of the crash.

If the report is inaccurate were turned off completely, the analysis and conclusions still hold. The truck should have come to a complete stop at the stop line (and verified that their right side was clear) before proceeding.

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

The street is only one lane. The cyclists had decided to lane share with a cement truck, which is very risky.

I don't know why this is so hard. There are no lanes painted on the road. No lanes. Not one lane. Not two lanes. No lanes. Go to the block and look for yourself if you don't want to take the word of a random stranger.

Uh, that's because it's one lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Cyclists are conditioned to ride in the right lane because that is where slower traffic is supposed to go. If she was on the left and the driver had turned left without verifying that there was anyone beside the truck, the result would have been the same.

She was passing through an intersection that had at least two (and maybe three) lanes of road ahead of her. If the truck was going straight, she would not have been passing the truck, but rather proceeding in parallel with the truck.

The street is only one lane. The cyclists had decided to lane share with a cement truck, which is very risky.

I don't know why this is so hard. There are no lanes painted on the road. No lanes. Not one lane. Not two lanes. No lanes. Go to the block and look for yourself if you don't want to take the word of a random stranger.

In the absence of striping, the road is one lane.

+1