Blue Order

CB HI

Although not clearly stated, the quote provides some implication that the pedestrian was j-walking and stepped out behind a stopped or parked car.

AlmostTrick

ILIKE2WALK: Leave it to the self appointed "serious" walkers to come up with all kinds of goofy theories that have no basis in reality. Maybe all you safety nannies should just shut up. By the way, did you see that spectacular play a guy made in some trivial game yesterday?

SamHouston

It's different everywhere, they may have meant all of DC & a touch of Maryland & Virgina, the only thing they need to know is how far some fool will commute, & then it's "in the area".

A dozen sounds about right for ped deaths in a core & core area ped deaths get more attention in many US cities because it can be the only area where authorities have to manage peds en masse. Everywhere else, you drive, no peds, no problem. Often only kids & poor immigrants walk anywhere outside a loop. I've had friends, not kids or poor immigrants themselves, be asked by passing drivers if they were okay, if they needed help, because they were walking somewhere & it's that unusual. Houstons got the sprawl bad like though, it's not that bad in many other places.

noisebeam

Actually there is evidence that marked crosswalks are more dangerous than unmarked.

After being adjusted for usage rate, (in a San Diego study) pedestrians are 2x more likely to be hit in a marked crosswalk vs. an marked one. Marked crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security.

https://cityofmesa.org/transportation...rosswalks.aspx

https://www.walkinginfo.org/pdf/rd/crosswalk_021302.pdf

Al

Keith99

Perhaps. what is said there also fits for a pedestrian crossing at the light, in the crosswalk, until he encounters a car that has pulled too far forward and he choses to pass behind the car.

Note the word BEHIND. Why would it make any difference if the pedestrian walks behind a car unless the cyclist in question is going the wrong way? If the cyclist was riding with traffic then a pedestrian walking behind a car would be of no consequence as it would not obstruct the cyclists view.

Or of course it could just be sloppy writing as news has to be written quickly and they do not expect people to parse it out to infer details that are not mentioned.

San Rensho 

And as usual, with no real facts, everyone is speculating and getting into heated, name calling arguments about what MIGHT have happened.

If nothing else, this forum is consistent.

Helmet Head

Given that we will never find out what actually happened for sure, what's wrong with speculating and debating about what may or may not have happened, and, if it did, what the ramifications are assuming any particular given speculative scenario IS what happened?

Helmet Head

Thanks for digging this up Al.

It's a fascinating study. the ramifications of which I think most here are yet to realize and appreciate.

LittleBigMan

I don't know exactly what happened, but the story makes me think about how silent bikes are, how invisible they can be, and how quickly a pedestrian can step out in front of a fast-moving one.

invisiblehand

Just in case people are interested in the nature of the problem in Washington DC ...

https://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?d...sh_summary.pdf

There are a lot of reasons to report the statistics for a particular municipality versus the greater area; I doubt that the reporter was trying to advance some alternative agenda as opposed to grabbing the most convenient statistic. Remember that the Washington Post audience includes the surrounding counties which--in total--have a greater population compared to the District proper.

The local cycling groups have been discussing the issue as well. As of a few minutes ago, I have not seen any updates to the story. When I read more details, I will post something here.

We recently had a cold spell hit the area. Based on pure conjecture, my guess is that the cyclist and pedestrian were both in a hurry because of the temperature. It doesn't answer who, in a legal sense, has responsibility for the accident.

Helmet Head

Practically speaking (NOT legally), every single person has the responsibility to at least himself to avoid being involved in a crash. Allowing oneself to be involved in any kind of crash is a failure to meet that fundamental responsiblity, regardless of who is primarily at fault for the crash.

invisiblehand

Agreed.

ghettocruiser

Let's recap my entire history of auto accidents as an illustration:

1) Hit from behind lined up in traffic at a red light.
2) Hit from behind lined up in traffic at a stop sign.
3) Hit from behind in heavy freeway traffic by a semi-truck whose driver fell asleep.
4) Smashed into in parking lot while sitting in the parked car with the engine off.

Man, I've had a lot of failures considering how little I drive. Good thing my insurance agent doesn't embrace this messed-up view.

Helmet Head

How long were you stopped before you were hit? That is, were you hit from somebody who was following you, and didn't notice as you slowed to a stop, or were you stopped for a while and then somebody just showed up and rear-ended you?

Any sign that he was falling asleep (weaving, etc.) before he hit you, or were you not paying attention?

Were you in a parking space?

Perhaps he should.

ghettocruiser

Lets take HH's Auto Insurance Eligibility Quiz:

I had been at a dead stop in both cases for around 10 seconds. My car had working brake lights that were engaged (or at least it did before it was hit). Other vehicles were stopped in front of and beside me.

I clearly saw him approaching, centered in the left lane in the expected fashion, as I slowed for congestion ahead. Then he drifted over into my lane and ran in the back of me. You might refer to it as inadvertent drift, freeway version I indeed saw him drift a moment before he hit me, but due to obstructing traffic in all other lanes I could only accelerate as a prevention measure in the limited space I had. Not enough to keep me from being caught on his front bumper and ground into the guardrail. The “fell asleep” terminology came from the investigating officer. He did seem a bit dazed to me.


Before I was hit, I was in a marked parking spot. After I was hit, I was diagonal in two marked parking spots.



I only list above the accidents that involved a vehicle I was driving. While cycling I have seen many similar accidents, including numerous collisions where cars stopped at red lights were hit, very hard, from behind. On one occasion the vehicle was struck hard enough to slide through the entire intersection and narrowly miss me on my bike.


You seem skeptical that these sorts of incidents can happen to people that are following the letter of the law and not doing something wrong themselves.

To me, this indicates you perhaps have more faith in the abilities of the drivers of vehicles around you than may be warranted, unless the drivers in your community are somehow much better than elsewhere.

Blue Order

Put a sock in it, freakshow.

Helmet Head

I don't deny that there are some crashes which are entirely the fault of someone, and the other could not do anything about it. But, those are relatively rare.

Especially considering you say you drive very little, you seem to have had more than your share of such crashes. Still, just like somebody is bound to win the lottery, somebody is bound to be involved in a handful of highly unlikely crashes in his life.

But I think it's a mistake to generalize from your unusual case and assume these are normal experiences that we all can expect to encounter, just like we shouldn't all go out and spend our life savings on lottery tickets because we heard someone won.

I-Like-To-Bike

+1

uncorrect

HH you sure do use lottery tickts as an analogy in alot of things.
How's this one for you?
Are the chances better that someone will win the lottery tomorrow or that you will one day get killed by either
a.) taking your own stupid/dangerous advice
b.) someone getting pissed at you for being a freaking moron
???

Do you even ride a bicycle? Or do you just lurk in the A&S forum waiting for chances to jump into a thread that no one really cares about you in? From looking at your post history I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

chephy

Because you have studded tires?

Daily Commute

HH is right. Even when not at fault, you can prevent a lot of accidents by just paying attention. My guess is that if either the cyclists or the ped in the OP had been paying more attention, this accident would not have happened.

Helmet Head

With friends like you, cyclist rights advocacy needs no enemies.

I ride from 3,000 to 6,000 miles per year, depending on the year.

CrosseyedCrickt

No, YOU are probably right in saying that alot of accidents can be avoided... how do we know that they aren't already? No one ever reports a "near accident" do they?
HelmetHeads position is that it is rare for only one person to be at fault. That in at least 6 out of 10 incidents both people are at fault. I wonder if anyone else buys this line of thinking? And where this line of thinking comes from.

chipcom 

I'm just glad I'm not HH's publicist...talk about Mission Impossible!