Actually, that's not hit and run

Oh boy, the worst part of this letter to the editor article in the Post today is that it makes multiple claims that a pedestrian was the victim of a hit-and-run without explaining what the law is or that, in fact, they weren't. They were hit and it certainly seems like it was the cyclist's fault, but it's not hit and run. But the letter is bad for other reasons too.

In order:

I’ve come to understand that the timely “On your left!” has become as obsolete as “What tidings, sirrah?”

This has not been my experience. I do think I hear it less than I used to, and that headphones are to blame, but I think it may not be that bad. Regardless, everyone should pass others as though saying "on your left" will do absolutely nothing anyway.

But on this early October morning, I wasn’t on a bike trail. I was walking in a park within sight of the Washington Monument, using a footpath that didn’t seem likely to have many bicycles on it.

Without knowing where he was, I don't know that this wasn't a trail that allows bikes (there aren't any real "bike trails" just multi-use trails). My guess is, this was not pedestrian only space.

I heard a bell behind me and stepped to the right. But instead of slowing down, the biker had already decided to pass me — also on the right.

So this is where the cyclist screwed up. Passing on the right and passing too fast to adjust to the pedestrian's movements. [Credit for ringing the bell, but a lot of good that did]. But I wonder where he was walking on the path. Earlier he said that he was "careful to the point of paranoia about hugging the right side of the path so bicycles and joggers can pass." Perhaps since he thought he was not on a bike path, he didn't think he would be passed. It's more academic since it doesn't matter where he was walking, the cyclist was at fault.

The biker went down too, but with less energy perhaps, having used me as his shock absorber. He was polite enough. He assisted me to a park bench. He asked whether he should call an ambulance, which I declined. Then he went on his way, without offering any contact information. I was shaken up and didn’t think to ask for his information before he left.

If he had been driving a car, that would have been a hit-and-run under Virginia law.

Ok, well first of all, this doesn't sound like it was in Virginia as it was "in a park within sight of the Washington Monument" and since the tie-in to this is WABA's push to make DC safer.  So, Virginia law is irrelevant. 

Under DC law, this does not sound like "hit and run" or "Leaving after colliding" as the cool kids call it. To be guilty, one needs to leave after a collision and

Where another person is injured, call or cause another to call 911 or call or cause another to call for an ambulance or other emergency assistance if necessary, remain on the scene until law enforcement arrives, and provide identifying information to law enforcement and to the injured person;

The pedestrian was injured, but they had scratches. Not the kind of thing where an ambulance is needed. And do we really want people calling the police and getting a report for every crash like this? The cyclist didn't ride off. They helped the victim. They offered to call an ambulance. That's not hit and run. [It can also be hit and run if there is property damage, an injured animal or an unsafe situation created by the crash, none of which apply here]

Also, it wouldn't be "hit and run" in Virginia. Hit and run, or "duty of driver to stop" as the cool kids call it, only applies to the "driver of a vehicle" and 

"driver" means every person who either (i) drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or (ii) is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.

Which doesn't include bicyclists. That should probably be changed, but the point stands. 

I was forced to take off additional time for work, too, because of my injuries, including an infection from the tire track on my leg that required antibiotics and an ultrasound to make sure I didn’t have blood clots. I was lucky I had good medical insurance and an understanding boss.

Let's not get carried away here. This isn't medical bankruptcy territory.

Then I read WABA’s action plan for traffic safety... Fine...But what about bicycle safety? Shouldn’t we require bicyclists to carry insurance to cover them and potential injuries to pedestrians, or to take a riding test to prove they know how to ride?

No. For several reasons. Being forced to carry insurance doesn't actually reduce crashes (as far as I know). No one really offers that product right now. I don't know of any cases of cyclists being liable for damages and unable to pay, which is why we usually require insurance. That's the problem insurance solves, but if that's not a problem, then this is just "good for the goose" policy. Which is bad policy. 

What about extending hit-and-run laws to cover bicyclists?

Yes. That's a good idea (Virginia). But we should be clear about what is meant by "injury". 

Or annual bicycle inspections and equipment checks?

Having a bicycle in good working order is a good idea, but mandatory checks...no.

How about stricter penalties for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk when there are bike lanes nearby?

How about that's not illegal. And it shouldn't be.

I would at least like to see bicycles have turn signals in addition to other basic safety equipment.

Most cyclists do. The Spanish call them "brazos".

Stricter laws for bicyclists should include better reporting.

I'm not against better reporting on bicycle crashes, but do we want to call the police for EVERY crash? We don't even do that for car crashes. 

Anyway, yeah bicycle-pedestrian safety is part of Vision Zero. About 0.5% of all traffic fatalities in the District result from bicycle-pedestrian crashes, and an unknown - but non-zero - number of serious injuries. But I'm not sure that any of these ideas are going to move the needle. 

Comments

[Richard B]

I read the opinion piece in the Post this morning and was just waiting for the our crap doesn't stink post from WashCycle.

Unfortunately, nearly all of WashCycle's points are right, the guy seems to want to be protected from behaving stupidly on a mixed use trail.

I would like turn signals though. For us that don't care for fixies, using your brazos to signal means you can't be using them to brake, which I much prefer.

[ACyclistInThePortCIty]

The point WashCycle did not make, that is an important difference from car on ped crashes, is that in a bike on ped crash the bike rider will almost always be injured as well - this provides an incentive to avoid crashing into peds even for the most selfish.

[washcycle]

What do bicycle turn signals even look like? Is there any evidence they improve safety?

[Richard B]

@washcycle. I tried to make my own once, but never managed to make them bright enough.

There are apparently a bunch of different types available on some website called Amazon. I like this one the most I think: http://a.co/d/fhto6G2

[Riley]

If no self respecting news outlet can resist a man bites dog story then how are we going to expect better from the WaPo ? On the upside at least he wasn't hit by a car or bus ...in a crosswalk.

[Bill]

Thanks for this post. I've been stewing all day since reading the article in the Post and then peeking at the comments.

[huskerdont]

On the same homepage was a story about how the bus driver who killed two pedestrians has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, but people get upset and spew bile on an article full of misinformation about traffic laws and incomplete, anecdotal information about a crash with minor injuries involving a cyclist and a pedestrian. Our priorities are screwed and skewed, but I guess it gives people an outlet for their irrational anger.

I get annoyed about irresponsible cyclists too, but I am actually afraid of irresponsible drivers.

[Jeffb]

Your homeowners or renters policy probably covers any liability as a cyclist. Mine does. The real crime isn’t that cyclists don’t have insurance, but that, drivers in DC can, legally, can by with so little.

[contrarian]

Or annual bicycle inspections and equipment checks?

Note that DC has gone away from regular inspections for passenger vehicles. All they currently require is an emissions test every two years. My suspicion is that they found a marginal safety benefit from regular equipment checks.

[contrarian]

Regardless, everyone should pass others as though saying "on your left" will do absolutely nothing anyway.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying that. It drives me crazy the way "warn before passing" has been fetishized. On many signs it's the lone piece of safety advice given. It's like telling drivers that the key to safe driving is a well-functioning horn. A much better message is "pass only when it is safe to do so."

[turtleshell]

"I heard a bell behind me and stepped to the right. But instead of slowing down, the biker had already decided to pass me — also on the right."

Author can't know whether the cyclist slowed down. My guess is they did, especially if they passed on the right. In any case Wash Post editors should have corrected that assumption based on zero evidence.

Another case of piling on the cyclist. Facts be dammed.

[Crickey]

The writer forgot to ask for contact information, he admits. That's understandable, but the bizarre part is how he then spins it into being a hit and run, and uses it to spin out a bunch of policy proposals that have absolutely nothing to do with anything that happened here.

FYI, the author went on the WABA forum last night to launch an unhinged anti cyclist screed, making it pretty clear he had an agenda to start with.

[drumz]

My problem with bells and turn signals on bikes is that on most bikes I have to move my hands away from the brakes to do whatever it is people expect me to do.

I'd rather just use my voice and keep my hands where I can slow down/stop if needed.

[Purple Eagle]

We also really don't know where (on the path - left/right side, in the middle?) the author was originally walking. If the cyclist was trying to pass on the right, it's quite possible the walker was in the middle of the trail, or was unpredictably "wandering" from one side towards the other. We have all seen this behavior in pedestrians. (I am not excusing the cyclists' behavior).

[huskerdont]

drumz, it's the same for hand signals. I'll do a hand turn signal if the road surface is good and I'm not flying down a hill, but I'm not going to wreck to do one.

[drumz]

And on a personal note. I've changed my behavior around pedestrians over the past few years precisely because I don't want to be a hypocrite. I either ensure I give enough space to pass that even if they suddenly turn around I can avoid them or failing that I slow down enough so that if they did suddenly change direction it wouldn't be a huge hit.

At the same time I look over my shoulder before turning around when I'm on my feet.

And still doing all that I still realize that at least between cyclists and pedestrians we've hit Vision Zero most years and the idea that cyclists as a class are just as hazardous (or mostly there) simply isn't true.

[Brerndan]

Don't kill anyone
Don't get killed
Don't hurt anyone
Don't get hurt.

Those are the rules. In order. For everyone and every mode. It's really that simple.

Sometimes I'm tempted to add "don't be a douche" to the end of the list but then I have days like yesterday when I'm reminded that many people can't modulate they're douchiness.

[dbehrend]

Are you sure that Virginia Code sec. 46.2-894 doesn't apply to cyclists? Sec. 46.2-800 states that "Every person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, electric power-assisted bicycle, moped, or an animal or driving an animal on a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter and shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, unless the context of the provision clearly indicates otherwise. . . ." (https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-800/) The "duty of the driver to stop" provision is in the same chapter and doesn't appear to explicitly exclude people riding a bicycle.

[contrarian]

Dbehrend, a "vehicle" and a "motor vehicle" are not the same things under the law. The Virginia code regarding hit-and-run only applies to operators of a "motor vehicle."

[dbehrend]

Ok. But 46.2-894 (the provision cited in the post as the "duty of driver to stop" law) doesn't use the term "motor vehicle" anywhere, it uses "the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident...." As I mentioned, 46.2-800 states that a person riding a bike has "all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, unless the context of the provision clearly indicates otherwise." Is there another reason a cyclist would be excluded from the duty to stop requirement?

[dbehrend]

Just to clarify, I understand that the definition for "driver" for Title 46.2 includes "motor vehicle," but 46.2-800 appears to modify that term for purposes of Chapter 8, including sec. 46.2-894.