Anonymous wrote:No one wants to hit a cyclist but they make so many poor decisions when it comes to their own safety that it’s mind boggling.

I’m the DC driver PP, and I guess? But I’ve also seen cyclists say that a lot what they do is a reaction to the way people drive—that some of what a driver might categorize as aggressive or frustrating is actually them trying to stay alive. Again, I don’t cycle, so I can’t judge the validity of this argument. But I do know that I see drivers doing way, way stupider and totally indefensible stuff in way, way larger numbers. And I take seriously my responsibility to be a good steward of the death machine I’m driving. Car-caused deaths are going up, and it’s not because of the actions of cyclists and pedestrians.

No one wants to hit a cyclist but they make so many poor decisions when it comes to their own safety that it’s mind boggling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Passing on the right is never safe. This is one of many reasons why. By car or by bike. The biker was an idiot. Never pass a car on the right side.

All you drivers have no idea of the unintended consequences of what you're asking. The alternative is for the biker to take the lane, and all the cars wan stay behind her. If everyone did that, drivers would lose their minds.

This. If you want a bike to behave like a car, you have to give them the space you'd give a car.

In this scenario I'd say the bike was technically right, bikes can ride on the right of cars in the absence of a bike lane and cars should not turn into cyclists continuing straight. If the car turned and hit the bike, i cant see the argument that the OP (driver) was actually in the right to do so. BUT the bike was also practically wrong, they were taking a risk that the driver of a much deadlier vehicle was fully aware of their presence, and being technically right doesn't help much if you're dead.

As a DC driver who never bikes, I agree with this 100%. And I would add, in reference to the bolded part, that the same goes for drivers—it doesn’t matter if you’re technically in the right if the result is a cyclist’s death. Even if you aren’t criminally responsible and even if you don’t face civil liability, you have to live with that forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biker was wrong but in these scenarios the driver is also at fault for not stopping at a stop sign or taking the turn too quickly.

The biker was not wrong. All of that is permitted by the DC Code.

Where in the DC code does it say that you can pass on the right when a driver is turning? (Not being snarky -- I'm genuinely surprised and genuinely asking.)

It doesn't say that of course, but it does say that bicyclists can split the lane and come up to the intersection. Was OP's turn signal on?

Splitting the lane means using the middle. Not using the right hand side and risking your life.

But, maybe you're looking for a lawsuit for your kids inheritance as you lie smushed on the road.

I've never seen that specified before. Do you have a source? Or is it just what you feel it should mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biker was wrong but in these scenarios the driver is also at fault for not stopping at a stop sign or taking the turn too quickly.

The biker was not wrong. All of that is permitted by the DC Code.

Where in the DC code does it say that you can pass on the right when a driver is turning? (Not being snarky -- I'm genuinely surprised and genuinely asking.)

It doesn't say that of course, but it does say that bicyclists can split the lane and come up to the intersection. Was OP's turn signal on?

Splitting the lane means using the middle. Not using the right hand side and risking your life.

But, maybe you're looking for a lawsuit for your kids inheritance as you lie smushed on the road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you had hit her, you would be in the wrong. But she’s also an entitled moron. Bikers should never be allowed on the right side of a car and certainly not ride up the side of one signaling to turn.

That is not true. But the problem is pointing out that the bicyclist didn't break for the intersection. how do you do that?

I bought a front and rear dash camera system after I was hit by a woman on a bicycle last year. I had no way to prove the cyclist ran the stop sign and crashed into the side of my car. The police who responded said if I’d had video they could’ve cited her. As it was, the amount of damage to her bike and my car, and the particular nature of the damage to my car, were both sufficient proof to my insurance company that she was clearing traveling faster than 15 mph when she ran into me. And that would only have been possible if she’d run the stop sign, because a bicycle cannot accelerate to that kind of speed from a stop in the 20-odd feet from the stop sign to where she hit me. But I bought a camera system for any future encounters with cyclists. Even after the insurance investigation she was still contacting me and threatening to sue me. I thought I was going to need a restraining order at one point.

Anonymous wrote:If you had hit her, you would be in the wrong. But she’s also an entitled moron. Bikers should never be allowed on the right side of a car and certainly not ride up the side of one signaling to turn.

That is not true. But the problem is pointing out that the bicyclist didn't break for the intersection. how do you do that?

Anonymous wrote:If you had hit her, you would be in the wrong. But she’s also an entitled moron. Bikers should never be allowed on the right side of a car and certainly not ride up the side of one signaling to turn.

The law states otherwise with regard to the right of a bicyclist to overtake and pass vehicles, including those stopped, standing or parked. You should review 18 DCMR § 1201.3 before getting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.

Nevertheless, in the absence of a marked bike lane, a cyclist should not attempt to pass a vehicle (hopefully using a signal) about to make a turn into/crossing the path of the bicycle. The cyclist instead should merge into the travel lane behind the turning vehicle and either proceed to pass the vehicle on the left or wait to proceed until after the vehicle has made the turn. (The rules applicable to a marked bike lane with a designated mixing area are different.)

The driver of a motorized vehicle should move to occupy the rightmost (or leftmost) portion of the travel lane prior to making the indicated turn to attempt to avoid potential conflicts.

Cyclists sometimes make bad decisions, whether unintentional or intentional, and the fact drivers like OP are exercising due caution based on the neighborhood and circumstances is to be commended. The redlight at Independence and Second SE is a long one and traffic frequently backs up to turn left onto eastbound Pennsylvania.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Passing on the right is never safe. This is one of many reasons why. By car or by bike. The biker was an idiot. Never pass a car on the right side.

All you drivers have no idea of the unintended consequences of what you're asking. The alternative is for the biker to take the lane, and all the cars wan stay behind her. If everyone did that, drivers would lose their minds.

This. If you want a bike to behave like a car, you have to give them the space you'd give a car.

In this scenario I'd say the bike was technically right, bikes can ride on the right of cars in the absence of a bike lane and cars should not turn into cyclists continuing straight. If the car turned and hit the bike, i cant see the argument that the OP (driver) was actually in the right to do so. BUT the bike was also practically wrong, they were taking a risk that the driver of a much deadlier vehicle was fully aware of their presence, and being technically right doesn't help much if you're dead.

Anonymous wrote:This isn't hard.

The biker is 1000% in the wrong.

Girls are supposed to obey traffic laws. Theyre not supposed to cut to the inside of a car going right in order to go straight. They also shouldn't be using right turn only lanes to go straight. If a car in front of a bike going straight is turning right, sorry, the bike has to wait like a car would for a car in front turning right.

+1

This isn't hard.

The biker is 1000% in the wrong.

Girls are supposed to obey traffic laws. Theyre not supposed to cut to the inside of a car going right in order to go straight. They also shouldn't be using right turn only lanes to go straight. If a car in front of a bike going straight is turning right, sorry, the bike has to wait like a car would for a car in front turning right.

As a driver in DC I always tried to keep an eye out for cyclists coming up on my right when making right turns. They are allowed to pass on the right, so you need to check for them when making a turn. I’ve had a few scares too, and am now very careful.

That said, bicycles in DC act like they want to die because they don’t do anything that makes sense, and seem to rely wholly on drivers seeing them and making allowances for them. Makes me crazy, but I do everything I can to be careful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biker was wrong but in these scenarios the driver is also at fault for not stopping at a stop sign or taking the turn too quickly.

The biker was not wrong. All of that is permitted by the DC Code.

Where in the DC code does it say that you can pass on the right when a driver is turning? (Not being snarky -- I'm genuinely surprised and genuinely asking.)

It doesn't say that of course, but it does say that bicyclists can split the lane and come up to the intersection. Was OP's turn signal on?

Read the OP.