« Kidical Mass Arlington 2014 Schedule | Main | Did the Census report on bike and walk commuting actually downplay the data? »


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

I need to warn people about the comments to those stories. Really annoying and depressing at the same time.

I think the Mass Ave victim was a physician (in the TBI clinic!) at Walter Reed and the rumor is that he suffered a diagnosable concussion among other injuries. I only hope this horrible coincidence reflects an increase in the number of cyclists on the roads, not a further deterioration in the situation vis a vis drivers.

The only way cyclists can prove they were riding legally is to ride with a camera.

It would be great if there are traffic cameras at that location as there are so many accidents. Maybe some exist that recorded the accident?

I always ride with a helmet camera. I've got a Fly6 rear-facing camera on pre-order as well. Always have evidence.

Meanwhile, the women who was so drunk she couldnt stand properly, drove miles down the W&OD, and put a cyclist in the hospital with serious injuries, got misdemeanor charges and 6 months in the pokey. But hey, cyclists run red lights.

Why isn't there a surveil camera at the intersection of doom?

@Crickey7,NEVER read the comments,esp on Wapo. You won't change anyone's mind,and you're just going to raise your blood pressure.

BTW,if I may rant for a second,wonder how many bike cops will be at the pitstops on BtWD? Last weekend there were a maybe a couple hundred people in Dupont Circle for a Pride rally. They had an MPD cruiser parked in the circle with a rainbow flagged draped on it. There'll be thousands of us on next Fri,wonder if Chief Lanier will take notice?

Better question, why is there an intersection of Doom?

On April 4 I was hit by a pick up truck on Rhode Island Ave, just outside of DC. The driver never stopped and and left me lying in the road unconscious. I ended up in the trauma unit at the hospital with multiple pelvic fractures, a broken thumb, 10 stitches and some serious road rash. Even after several calls to the Brentwood, Md. podunk police no one has contacted me about or investigated anything as far as I can tell. I was hit right past a sign that says Bikes may use full lane.

I wonder if Falls Church PD will have their usual BtWD cyclist ticketing campaign?


because completely eliminating it via seperated infra would cost lots of $$, and its only recently that spending that money to solve this has reached the level of a high priority (probably because A the growing critical mass of cyclists is adding political oomph, and B. Because a lot of other stuff has already been done)

The less expensive way to ameliorate it by banning turns on red has IIUC been vetoed by VDOT which has for years prioritized motor vehicle LOS over service to cyclists and peds - their transition to even consider complete streets is very recent, and I suspect they have a very long way to go before they would consider changing priorities here (I will try to talk to my delegate about this next time I speak to her -she has been very supportive of the bike safety bills, which have been the main priority of Va bike advocates in Richmond) But a camera would be cheap (compared to rebuilding the intersection) and would not impact VDOT's LOS goals, so Greenbelt's question is a very good one, and much harder to answer.

They probably should put in a camera. But if they said "We've noticed how dangerous this intersection is, so we're putting in a camera to help with the investigation and litigation of the inevitable crashes." I'd accuse them of malpractice. Installing a camera is tacit admission that the intersection is a crash-trap.

the crashes are not inevitable if everyone follows the rules to a T, which would mean drivers stopping and carefully checking before making a (slow) turn. So I think they would get out of any legal liability - they are putting in the cameras to check for violations of the law (like many other cameras.)

Also who would you be accusing of malpractice? I presume it would be ArlCo that would install the camera, but ArlCo (IIUC) cannot force no right no red there. And of course ArlCo is looking at infra fixes as part of the Realize Rosslyn project, IIUC.

The intersection itself is not dangerous, it's the lack of rules being followed by all user groups that makes the intersection dangerous. A camera would allow for an objective, non bias view of accidents.

At this point in time, it is very clear that the police and other drivers will side with and even lie to protect another driver. Cameras are the best way to stop this injustice. Of course drivers will have a major problem with cameras but that's because they would no long be able to be the biggest scofflaws of all!

I would argue that it is malpractice to not have cameras, which would provide unbiased, objective facts, instead of he said she said testimony.

I would say that an intersection with frequent crashes is dangerous. If there is something about this intersection that causes unusually bad behavior, then the intersection is dangerous.

There are frequent accidents at this intersection because:

1) Drivers do not give right of way to cyclists & peds when they legally have the right of way to be using the crosswalk.

2) Cyclists and peds cross against the light when they are not legally allowed to cross.

3) Neither of these rules are enforced.

If they were enforced on a regular basis the number of accidents would go down.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader