Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Future (small) section of the Met Branch Trail | Main | Tuesday Morning Commute - Less competition »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Four Mile Run Trail is a much more parklike setting than the parallel W&OD, and purposeful cyclists should prolly avoid it anyway, in favor of the W&OD. And for older people who might be hard of hearing, a bell might be a better signal.

Condolences to her family, and to the cyclist, who i'm sure is feeling terrible.

As you get older you lose hearing in the high range so a verbal warning may be better. What a shame this happened. An elderly woman was struck and killed by a bike when I was in grade school. The cyclist was a little kid unable to control his too big bike. Imagine carrying the memory of the crash with you for the rest of your life

If the sequence is (a) signal (b) unanticipated response from pedestrian (c) collision, then you are calling too close.

While I agree, I'm consistent, and also believe that any time an automobile strikes a pedestrian, it's the driver's fault.

If you're colliding with others, you're not driving responsibly--bike or car.

Moving the focus out a bit, pedestrian/cyclist collisions are pretty much purely a function of our automobile culture reserving 99% of all public space for autos, and leaving everyone else to fight over the scraps.

RIP

+1 @oboe

Also, as we do when a driver kills somebody, i have to wonder if the police statement that the cyclist called a warning is supported by anything besides the cyclist's statement.

hope that the outcome of this isn't the many cyclists who do not signal their passes feel their view is vindicated by this tragedy

That's really ashame.

I agree with oboe's consistency, though I'd make this refinement: As with the analogous auto-bike collission, it depends on the passing distance and magnitude of the swerve. With the safe-passing law, when a cyclist swerves two feet after a drive honks and is struck, the driver is at fault. But if the cyclist swerves 4 feet then the cyclist is at fault.

What is the assumed vehicle-ped safe-passing distance? I am beginning to think that the best answer is 3 feet.

+1 Oboe

"Though the primary culprits are probably riding too fast for the situation..."

I doubt it. 4MR at that point is EXTREMELY hilly and curvy (in my lowest gear I struggle with the hills there). Unfortunately, if the cyclists had only tapped a senior, the senior could have had a bad fall at that place. There is nothing in the facts presented that suggests that speed was an issue, and we should not ascribe negligence on anyone unless we know.

It is a very sad incident.

Will there be any calls for the cyclist to receive the same punishment that we would expect the driver of a car that kills a pedestrian?

Looks like the cyclist is going to walk. At least the police are consistant.

I generally agree that the maximum safe speed to ride/drive is the maximum speed at which you can avoid others.

That said, isn't there a certain limit to that? If I'm rolling down Wilson in the right hand bike lane, and then decide to hang a super quick left across the road to get to Whole Foods, is it really the fault of the driver who hits me, given that he was just a length or two behind me when I initiated that turn?

Sad. Very sad. And one of the reasons I prefer yelling "Bike Passing!" rather than "On your left!"

The latter is too ambiguous, and a plausible subconscious reaction for the person being passed is a move to the left, which can result in tragedy.

"Bike passing" more often gets them to move to the closest edge, wherever they may happen to be.

oboe, I agree. In this situation, I start with the burden of guilt on the faster moving vehicle and I need to see some evidence that they aren't to blame. I haven't seen enough to shift the burden from the cyclist yet. And I'm unclear on who witnessed this other than the cyclist.

JimT, that would be quite a sideways movement to get over three feet so quickly that the cyclist can't react. Not sure a 70-year old could pull that off. But yeah, if a runner - without looking - suddenly crosses all the way to the left to do a crazy Ivan U-turn, then I'd shift the blame to the ped.

rcannon100, what makes you think he was going uphill? And even if he was going uphill, if he hit her he was still going too fast/passing too close [Specifically, the passing distance was too small for the speed at which they were going to allow for safe reaction by the cyclist. It's a bit like the 2-second rule when driving]

Tom, Assuming that the facts we've been given so far are correct, I'd call for the same punishment in this case.

washcycle; again your're looking at this a bit wrong. from a civil suit -- and this guy is going to get hard with one -- you're right.

From a criminal side, state still has to show it, and it very hard to show a bike was moving too fast.

Takweway: I hope this cyclist gets hit with a civil lawsuit that destroys his life. * Was a crime committed? I doubt it.


* absent insurance, most people are pretty judgment proof.

charlie, I'm actually looking at it from an accident investigation standpoint. So yes, the burden will be higher in a criminal investigation.

But, if he wasn't going too fast to safely pass, or passing too closely, then why did the crash occur?

@washcycle "But, if he wasn't going too fast to safely pass, or passing too closely, then why did the crash occur?"

It apparently occurred because the pedestrian moved left, possibly at the last second when the pass was occurring. I am sure I am not alone in having had a pedestrian move left at the last split second. Once I clipped a runners foot when he actually lunged to the left forcing me off of the path. Was i going too fast? Well, any speed is too fast to avoid a collision if the pedestrian moves left just as you are passing.

I can't tell from the story whether the cyclist is at fault or not. I wonder whether there were witnesses. It is a tragedy.

There but for the grace of God go I...

@ washcycle; on that section of the trail there is no speed limit. You and I may say "too fast is you can't stop when an elderly woman steps in front of you" but that is a subjective standard. And proof. It's why we need speed limits on the trail.

Now the only defense in a civil judgment is the contributory neglience. did the women doom herself by moving into the path? While I see it both ways, I suspect a jury (if it came to that) would agree with you and say too fast.

Rootcycle: i have to disagree. A bell is louder, more concise, and unambiguous. It can be used much further back, and there's no chance of it being misunderstood as an instruction to move left. Even for someone with significant auditory attenuation in the high end, a bell is so much louder and clearer, it's more likely to be understood.

Anyway, the bottom line is that we need to be prepared for the case when a pedestrian or other cyclist cannot hear us at all. Last year on the W&OD i stopped to help out a profoundly hearing impaired cyclist who had been run into by a woman on a tri bike. She said she'd signaled to him, but it didn't matter. I'm guessing he did something unexpected, but everyone takes a misstep once in a while. Luckily his injuries were minor.

What is the assumed vehicle-ped safe-passing distance? I am beginning to think that the best answer is 3 feet.

I think it is more but on our narrow trails I don't think it can be achieved. At least on the roads vehicles should have plenty of room to swing around. And if they don't we expect them to wait until they can do so.

I always slow down and pass on the extreme edge of the opposite lane. This puts me in probably 1% of the cyclist population from my observation (I'm looking at all of you out there who "pass down the middle").

But unless I dismounted and walked the bike past a pedestrian I could never completely ensure that a collision couldn't occur.

Walkers (and runners) should have a place where they can enjoy their activity without immient concern of being bowled over by a passing cyclist.

While a trail (CCT) is central to my commute I would agree that we should be emphasizing claiming space on the roads for cycling and leaving the trails for more leisurely pursuits.

Oops. I mean Rootchopper. Sorry. Still on my first cup of tea...

It's why we need speed limits on the trail.

Sorry, but speed limits on the trail aren't going to do a thing, any more than speed limits on the roads do.

What we need is a change in liability laws.

@oboe; speed limit on the trail would there for criminal purposes. Exceed that speed, hit someone, you have liability and criminal fault. You were "speeding."

Proof of bicycle speeding is tough. But proof of car speeding is also tough. Tire tracks, eye witness, etc.

In this case, as in almost every accident we've talked about, the liability (that is, civil) will work itself out.

I am unsure of renters/homeowners liabilty clauses would cover something like this. I am 100% sure my auto insurance would not.

I am unsure of renters/homeowners liabilty clauses would cover something like this.

They do. It is only because the automobile is so unqiuely that one is required to get specific insurance for that.

Sorry about not closing the italics. I don't think I can fix it. Washcycle, Help!

I tend to avoid close-in MUPs when I can, for obvious reasons. Especially in tourist season when you have a lot of people for example around Gravelly Point who don't know what might be expected, by no means do I always use a bell or even call out--they've darted in front of me too often for me to actively put myself and those distracted people in danger.

More than that, I marvel at the cyclists who insist on threading the gap in the middle of the trail, creating the hazardous three-abreast on a trail scarcely wide enough in places for two. Plus I'll never forget when heading down alongside 66 (is that the Custis there?), getting yelled at by a Lycra Warrior because I was slowing down to wait for a better moment to pass some careless toddlers.

"Lycra Warrior" Hahahahhahaha

It apparently occurred because the pedestrian moved left, possibly at the last second when the pass was occurring.

Yes, but that should not be a totally unexpected occurance. One should pass at a distance and speed that they can react to a reasonable, but unusual, movement. Did she make an unreasonable movement - like diving across the trail? Possible, but highly unlikely.

So what I gathering is that a ped does not have any responsibility for their saftey and other trail users?

I ped steps infront of a cyclist and it's the cyclists fault all the time?

Then there is only one solution, ban bikes or ban peds on bike trails. Personally I hate that idea but that's where we are headed as responsibilty for saftey is not being expected from all users equally (bikes peds & drivers etc)

By the way, where can cyclist go to enjoy cycling/commute with out peds and cars? No where, but peds and cars to have places to themselves while cyclists do not?

@JimT [Maybe the safe passing distance for a vehicle passing a pedestrian should be three feet]

@Washcycle that would be quite a sideways movement to get over three feet so quickly that the cyclist can't react

@JeffB I think it is more but on our narrow trails I don't think it can be achieved

I agree with both of you, yet I wonder whether either of your insights would be valid reasons not to extend the 3-foot rule to pedestrians. (In the case of VA, that might even help to get the bill passed.)

Cyclists rarely swerve 3 feet, yet we all agreed that the 3-foot rule is a good idea. The buffer has to not only include the predictable swerving by the cyclist, but also extraordinary swerving by either vehicle caused by potholes, sneezing, flat tire, etc.

It should be predictable that pedestrians will occasionally swerve or stumble--is there any reason to think that pedestrians won't occasionally swerve as much as an overtaken cyclist? The more random direction of two feet walking makes me think that a walker could easily swerve 2 feet quite reapidly. Any reason to think that the overtaking cyclist won't occasionally swerve as much as an overtaking car? Or that a motor vehicle swerves less when passing a pedestrian than a cyclist?

JeffB, I would analogize your point to the driver who says that the safe distance when passing a bike is greater than 3 feet and changes lanes to pass whenever possible. Whatever rule people might adopt, it's a minimum.


@Joe: It frustrates me as well that everyone assumes the cyclist was at fault and that no blame can be placed on the pedestrian. I've had close calls on MUPs even when acting with extreme caution.

Sometimes pedestrians do ridiculously stupid things on MUPs, and I don't think it's fair to say that they don't have any obligation to learn trail etiquette and take measures to ensure their own safety. When I bike on the road, I have to pay attention to my surroundings and follow the rules even though I'm a more vulnerable user of that space.

The whole situation is a tragedy, and it's possible that the cyclist is at fault, but it is absurd to assume that that's the case.

According to News Channel 8,the cyclist claims he used his bell and gave a verbal warning. They also said she died because she fell and struck her head. Seniors can be fragile;it's possible the cyclist only bumped her,and it was enough to cause her to fall and hit her head. Speed may not have been a factor after all.

I'm sorry but I don't see why so much blame is being heaped on the cyclist. According to the report he called out twice, which means he was at least 2-3 seconds away when he first called out. Secondly, the woman turned around and said "what," indicating that she obviously heard him. We can all speculate about how fast he was going, but those are the known facts right now. I don't know how anyone can get on here and say he should have done this or that when you don't know what he was doing in the first place.

And I have seen this happen enough to believe that there may really have been nothing he could do. In any form of transportation you have to make some level of assumption that those around you are going to do the right thing. Do you stop and look both ways at every green light just because you should be prepared for some idiot to run the red? Please . . .

I agree with JG - "on your left" is bikespeak. Many pedestrians don't understand it. Also, the human voice can be confusing and hard to understand in that situation.

I've been using a bell. It works so much better.

Having said that, I agree that bikes are the "cars of the trail" and we do have a greater onus to behave responsibly, lest we become hypocrites when preaching to drivers.

Still, pedestrians please be aware of your surroundings and for the love of God please take out your headphones and wear something conspicuous when it's dark out. [End rant.]

@Joe

So what I gathering is that a ped does not have any responsibility for their saftey and other trail users?

I don't think that is what anyone is saying. But the burden of guilt has to start with the cyclist, just as on the road the burden of guilt starts with the driver.

ped steps infront of a cyclist and it's the cyclists fault all the time?

One step? Yes. Every time. Cyclists should be passing with enough of a gap, and at slow enough a speed, that one step gets you a close call. But, if they suddenly cross the entire trail, then no, that's on the pedestrian. If you need a hard rule, a crash with a same direction ped that is on the right side of the center line is nearly always the cyclist's fault.

It is not hard to pass pedestrians with 3 feet of safety, and as such, cyclists and pedestrians can share trails.

I live right at that intersection - I sometimes take 4MR (despite the fact that it's hilly) because it puts me closer to my apartment. I've also had one old man deliberately step into my path when I rung my bell (he swung his arms out so that I couldn't pass, and yelled "on your left!" at me). I've also had a toddler come running straight at me, and when I stopped they grabbed my tire (stopped just in time to not slice off tiny fingers - parents were sitting on a grassy bank laughing). I've also called out "passing left" on an incline on a bridge, and had another cyclist (middle aged man with family) deliberately move to the middle of the trail in front of me.

Basically, I'm lucky that I'm a super slow.

@Ian

It frustrates me as well that everyone assumes the cyclist was at fault and that no blame can be placed on the pedestrian.

Again, I don't think anyone is saying this. From what we've heard, I would say they are both to blame, but that the cyclist is primarily to blame.

Sometimes pedestrians do ridiculously stupid things on MUPs

True. Do you think turing around to say "what?" when somebody shouts at you is "ridiculously stupid."


I don't think it's fair to say that they don't have any obligation to learn trail etiquette and take measures to ensure their own safety.

I would agree. But I also think that the person on the bike has the greater responsibility to keep things safe. They are the ones bringing the risk to the trail, and they have a greater obligation to mitigate that risk.

Another factor:according to dcist,the cyclist was 62. So it wasn't a 20-something who couldn't avoid a senior citizen. It was two senior citizens.

@RyanB

I don't know how anyone can get on here and say he should have done this or that when you don't know what he was doing in the first place.

Because he crashed into her. That's how.

Do you stop and look both ways at every green light just because you should be prepared for some idiot to run the red?

No. Is what she did comparable to running a red light? If she jumped over to the left-hand side of the trail, then yes. But I find that hard to believe.

WaPo is reporting that the cyclist was 62 and riding a "Next" brand bike (i.e. those 50lb. china bikes you can buy at Safeway). Any of you who were blaming the "Lycra warriors" want to eat those words? The cyclist was probably going about as fast as the victim.

@wash- one could easily say she ran into him. The fact that the accident happened doesn't prove anything in it's own right.

I agree with your second point if they were both on the right side of the trail. He definitely should have been farther over if that were the case. But I never underestimate people's ability to do truly stupid things either.

one could easily say she ran into him.

One could, but they'd be wrong.

She didn't choose to have him pass her. He chose to pass her.

He knew where she was and that he was approaching her. You can't say the same for her. So he had more information.

The onus is on him to not crash into her.

Now some info could come out that she did something like one of Amber's run-ins, but that is not what we're hearing.

Almost all of my daily commute is via trails shared with pedestrians. I agree strongly with antibozo and dayglo. A single loud ping of a bell is the single best means of avoiding accidents with pedestrians. This works optimally if you ring it early enough that it does not startle--and if it does startle, it still allows you time to react to any unexpected behaviors. Secondly, move to the left lane *before* ringing, so that you sound like you are on the left. Sometimes a second ping of the bell is required. If still no response from the pedestrians, I slow way down and assume they can't hear (hearing impaired or headphones). This doesn't occur often, but it happens to me perhaps once a week. The last class of pedestrians nobody has mentioned yet are those who act as if you are inconveniencing them by asking them to move right. As in, "fck you, I don't have to move my butt for your damn bell..." I encounter this a few times a year.

Careful there Washcycle, people will start taking your qoutes and use them to try and ban bicycles from trails.

Yes, the ped ran into the cyclist in this case. That is exactly what happened. A ped does NOT have the right to weave down the trail or block the trail. On a multi use trail ALL users MUST stay to the right UNLESS passing. This goes for peds as well as cyclists.

By your logic a group of people can legally walk abreast down a trail and force everyone out of there way and off the trail.

...and the more I think about it, Wash, are you saying that if a cyclist hit's a ped on a trail that it will allways be the cyclists fault as they should have expected the ped to act unexpectantly and cross into the cyclists path?

If so I think I'll quit cycling with all it's yeilding to slower trail users and faster road users and just be a ped where I can do what ever I want and it is always someone elses fault! ;)

This is sad for all parties. I don't agree with oboes "If you're colliding with others, you're not driving responsibly--bike or car": a pedestrian that suddenly changes lanes in front of you as you pass is going to be hard to avoid, even at 5 mph. That could be enough to kill a 70 yo.

If the pedestrian is walking down the center of the trail, equal distance on her right and left, and you ring a bell, which way is she going to turn?

There is no universal rule that is going to work in this situation or all situations.

Cyclists have to be skilled enough and considerate enough to moderate their speed, their passing distance and their warnings to the particular situation whether it's a senior citizen, power jogger, dog walker, Gallaudet student, toddler, Hungarian tourist, or another cyclist.

This event doesn't prove anyone is right or wrong. It proves that accidents happen, and that of the millions of instances of cyclists passing pedestrians on the trails, this almost never happens.

@Joe

people will start taking your qoutes and use them to try and ban bicycles from trails.

And how would they do that?

By your logic a group of people can legally walk abreast down a trail and force everyone out of there way and off the trail.

I do not see how you get to that from my logic.

are you saying that if a cyclist hit's a ped on a trail that it will allways be the cyclists fault

No. I'm not. Go back and read what I wrote.

Wash, I did miss some of what you wrote and see that you do not think it will always be the cyclists fault. Yes I agree that cyclist should pass with a good two or 3 steps distance from peds (we do not know how far the ped stepped into the cyclist's path in this case). Some of what was written sounded as if the ped was given full right to cross the entire path.

One major differance in thinking that we have is that blame starts with the driver (on the road). Many people alway place blame first on the cyclist and ped, so much to the point that they say it's the cyclist or peds fault for not yeilding to the bigger car and they should never have been in the road in the first place (even if they were legal) because a car can kill them. To that point the blame usually starts with the cyclist, then the ped then the driver from my experance.

As for taking comments and using them against multi use trails, by suggesting that a cyclist must take blame for a ped unexpectantly steping into the cyclist path after the cyclist gave warning, it can easly be suggested that multiuse trails do not work and that peds and cyclists can not safely share trails. This is something that has been pushed on the CCT trail in the past, so much that some park staff want segregated paved trails for peds and cyclist.

To that point it took alot of work to get Parks to agree that ped do infact have to take responsibility for their own saftey as well as other trail users as do cyclists. The problem with saying it will usually be the cyclist fault the majority of the time, leads to the idea that peds don't have to follow basic safety rules such as, stay right pass left, look before turning around on the trail, don't stop on the trail, look before entering the trail, be aware of other trail users (ear phones come in here) etc.

But the burden of guilt has to start with the cyclist, just as on the road the burden of guilt starts with the driver.

Basicly, in the situation of an accident (road or trail) it should be viewed objectively by looking at who made the unexpected move, and which party was not following the rules of safety, but not by laying more blame (guilt) to one user group.

If we consider the question of "how do you avoid a situation like this?" rather than liability, etc., when I used to ride weekends on the Anacostia Tributary Trails, I did this:
1) rang a bell
2) had a horn for the people with headphones
3) made sure I had their attention well before passing them (because you never know what a startled person will do)
4) If I didn't see them react, slow down so I can stop/swerve at the last minute if necessary.

To follow on the bell thing a bit: i think it's better to do a double ping than a single ping. I think that conveys a little more subliminal auditory information about your speed and position.

Amber's stories about things she's encountered on 4MR i think reinforce what i was saying earlier: cyclists generally shouldn't be using it for transportation because the expectations are for a much more parklike environment than the W&OD.

We have a similar situation on the Little Falls Trail paralleling the CCT north of MacArthur. Cyclists are welcome to use it, but it is a predominantly pedestrian area and the peds are pretty assertive about keeping it that way and subtly discouraging cycling at speed. If you want speed, stay on the CCT, and leave the walkers an area where they can relax. That's how i feel about 4MR.

And here we go again, so now we are trying to kick cyclists off 4MR and Little Falls Trail while the drivers are trying to kick cyclists off MacAthur and Peds are trying to kick us off the CCT. To many cyclists jumping on the ban cyclists from roads and trails on here.

Simple rule is be smart and courteous,if a trail is crowded, cyclists (and runners!) slow down and trail users should stay right with the expectation to be passed on the left.

Cyclists trying to ban cyclists from trails and roads is suicide. The roads and multi use trails are safe if ALL users are smart and respectful of each other.

Joe: i think you misunderstand me. I'm a cyclist. I'd love to cruise up Little Falls Trail at the same speed i can use on the CCT, but by the same logic that i wish drivers wouldn't buzz me past the zoo on Beach on the weekends, i can extend some latitude to the walkers in an area where i have a perfectly acceptable and nearby alternative. So i keep it slow and easy if i'm on 4MR or LFT, and leave the hammering (with appropriate caution and yielding) to the CCT and the W&OD. I'm not advocating a ban at all. I'm advocating willingly giving walkers a place to feel safe, just as we have on the closed sections of Beach on the weekends.

What's wrong with that?

This is very sad.

Just last week on trails when I encountered pedestrians and slowed down and rang my bell, and rang my bell again, and again. The pedestrians were looking all over and seemed to have no idea what that sound could mean. When I called out "passing on your left" they finally realized what was going on. I slowed to a crawl to make sure I passed safety and was preparing to stop. One even commented that they thought the sound was coming from a passing car! I have an incredibell that is nice and loud. This happened twice in one day and no headphones were involved. Maybe I need a horn? People who drive might responded better to that sound.

Antbozo, I agree, I did misunderstand, from way to many meeting I tend to look at at things very black and white, if there is any inkling, of excluding bicycles from a road or trail it snowballs into ban bikes from the road or trail. Along with that is the constant situation I have of people asking me, "so tell me, you're a cyclist, why do you all ride on the roads?"

As a fast rider and 4MR user I've had times when it's empty and clear and I fly, other times there're people on the trail and slow down and say Hi and smile. I've found 4MR to be one of the friendliest trails around. I like the park aspect and the fact that I can avoid most the stop lights.

Interesting you bring up the closed sections of beach drive. I find those packed on the weekend and am usually slow through there. Actually haven't ridden it for a long time after being harrassed on Rock Creek Parkway by a black unmarked "police" car with only red lights, actually caused me to crash when he told me to get off the road, bicycles were not allow over his loud speaker. It is or at least was legal to ride on the DC section of Rock Creek Parkway back then.


I think the main thing people need to take away from all this is that some cyclists need to slow down more than they do now, and at the same time all trail users need to expect to be passed on the left on multiuse trails. It's the best way to keep more horrable and unfortunate accidents such as this from happening again.

TWK, my friend's girlfriend used to have a squeeze horn that made a funny honking noise. It was so ridiculous that no one could ignore it or get angry.

But then she set his couch on fire, so they broke up.

Joe, i understand your vigilance, and i think it's well-founded.

I don't find Beach too crowded on the weekends. The most dodgy section is the curve just north of Broad Branch; that just takes a little caution. Mostly the road is so wide that there's no problem. I find i can safely cruise the downhill from Military to the Boulder Bridge at 20-25 mph as long as i am good about signalling.

I've heard a couple of times that bikes aren't allowed on RCP, but i haven't seen any signage to that effect. Anyone know where in law this ban originates, or where it is signed? Using the MUP in that section is a royal PITA.

Sorry i'm getting off topic. Feel free to ignore me...

Biking is not banned on the RCP.

washcycle, good to know, thanks! Some people seem to think it is tho. See, for example: http://girlonabicycle.blogspot.com/2012/05/summers-here.html

Brendan, fwiw, if a pedestrian is walking in the middle of a trail, they are supposed to move to their right, in the direction they are walking.

But not frequently enough are trail rules posted on trails. This is especially a problem on the MBT. No rules signs are posted at all.

I haven't ridden 4MR I don't think, and I've only been on W&OD once, so I just don't remember what's on the trail signs. (I do think they could have much better and more frequent map signs...)

- http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/4815455189/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/palmateer/6739440649/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9986245@N05/6338148355/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/biker89/833596152/

I predicted this a few years ago on THIS blog.

The comments here to this incident are largely innane, including Washcycle's.

It is the STRUCTURE of the situation that will produce more fatalties. not bike technique, nor bells. bells!!!???? calling out??? huh???? speed limits?? HA HA HA. they dont enforce them for cars why would they work for bikes?!!!....

Park departments run bike "trails" that are used by PEDESTRIANS!!! the latter never did any bike advocacy, but now like the trails since their bullshit rich idiotic suburban neighborhoods have no sidewalks, and have few quiet areas to walk...

The CCT trails poor pavement will cause a crash; maybe near the water near DC, or up higher where the greenery is encroaching on rail and drastically cutting down sight lines -- dangerously. When i see MULTIPLE morons on aero bars or other suburban-based white, white-collar males RACING home from work on the CCT i just laugh: someone will be killed I GUARANTEE IT.

Their will be a collision death on the MVT near the airport soon, too; and definitely a death on the FUCKING IDIOTIC approach to the 14th street bridge that the NPS and WABA and every other fucking moronic bike advocate sits and doesnt say shit about day after day, year after year.

we need some roads that are CAR FREE. that is what is STRUCTURALLY REQUIRED, esp in a (putative) democracy. the car cannot coexist with the bike at all times in all places in the urban environment. PERIOD. bikes are better than cars in the city. PERIOD. its time to privilege them.

Lastly, as i said a million times before: i've run thousands of miles for millions of years: run or walk ON THE LEFT -- do NOT trust the skill of the bicyclist to go around you, while you sit with back to them on the right!!!!!!

that old woman is dead because she so embodied the car culture practices that she walked as she drove...and now shes dead. FORGET what the morons will tell you at the various DOTs: do NOT walk on the right, walk on the left facing the bikes. youll live; and theyll go around -- believe me.

also, share the road signs are bullshit, written by beauracrats lawyers looking to mitigate liability. TAKE the lane. BLOCK THE FUCKING CAR in the city. youre moving faster them they are, and the roads are not just for cars. if you do this youll stop riding on the retarded bike multi-use (sic) paths (sic) administered by well intentioned IDIOTS but who DONT RIDE BIKES!!!!!!!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader