Fatality in D.C.

Bicyclist standing with bike hit by tractor trailer at intersection

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=238033&nid=25

"Badger_South" wrote in message
...

Bicyclist standing with bike hit by tractor trailer at intersection

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=238033&nid=25


I remember Constitution ave. It scared the crap out of me as a pedestrian!
DC drivers hug the curbs so close they're practically on the sidewalk. Small
wonder there aren't more accidents there. I was scared just crossing the
street!

Recently, there have been a couple of bike-car accidents that weren't fatal,
but bad, and in both cases were actually brought on by really dumb bikers
who were on roads where I'd never go- busy like Constitution. In one case, a
guy was on a bike, 3 am, no helmet, no flashers, went through a red light
and headfirst into a windshield. ANd he'd been drinking. He had bad head
injuries but not killed. Sorry, but that is just dumb- why not put a gun in
your mouth? .In the other case a guy was riding his bike on a busy
boulevard where no sane person would ride a bike, also at night, no helmet,
went through an intersection and was hit by a car, but miraculously not
badly hurt. A girl was killed on that boulevard a few years ago, also at
night, hit from behind on her bike.Even during the day I'd never ride a bike
there!

I love that the quick article is about the fact taht traffic is going to be
shut down for a while, not that a truck plowed into some guy waiting at a
red light with his bike or something.

Mike

"Badger_South" wrote in message
...

Bicyclist standing with bike hit by tractor trailer at intersection

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=238033&nid=25

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:36:58 -0400, "Mike Beauchamp"
wrote:

I love that the quick article is about the fact taht traffic is going to be
shut down for a while, not that a truck plowed into some guy waiting at a
red light with his bike or something.

Its the web site for a television station and that tends to be the
focus that time of the morning.They tend to be the same way short of
four or five deaths all at once.

Although how 5:50 am became prime driving, even in DC, I can't guess.
7:00 am on is more like prime.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:30:05 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:36:58 -0400, "Mike Beauchamp"
wrote:

I love that the quick article is about the fact taht traffic is going to be
shut down for a while, not that a truck plowed into some guy waiting at a
red light with his bike or something.

Its the web site for a television station and that tends to be the
focus that time of the morning.They tend to be the same way short of
four or five deaths all at once.

Although how 5:50 am became prime driving, even in DC, I can't guess.
7:00 am on is more like prime.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

It's getting earlier. I left Va Beach, thinking to miss the traffic, at
0445 on Monday, and the traffic was already very heavy and there had been
one accident. It's getting so I only travel early Sunday morning and
there's still a lot of traffic by 0730 heading across the tunnel (typically
lots of vans and guys towing boats)

-B

Marlene Blanshay wrote:


I remember Constitution ave. It scared the crap out of me as a pedestrian!
DC drivers hug the curbs so close they're practically on the sidewalk. Small
wonder there aren't more accidents there. I was scared just crossing the
street!

Well, different people have different levels of skill and different
tolerance for risk. The fact you were scared isn't absolute proof of
danger. I've ridden Constitution Ave with no problem (but admittedly
not at rush hour).


Recently, there have been a couple of bike-car accidents that weren't fatal,
but bad, and in both cases were actually brought on by really dumb bikers
who were on roads where I'd never go- busy like Constitution. In one case, a
guy was on a bike, 3 am, no helmet, no flashers, went through a red light
and headfirst into a windshield. ANd he'd been drinking. He had bad head
injuries but not killed. Sorry, but that is just dumb- why not put a gun in
your mouth? .In the other case a guy was riding his bike on a busy
boulevard where no sane person would ride a bike, also at night, no helmet,
went through an intersection and was hit by a car, but miraculously not
badly hurt.

Since you brought it up: It's too bad those guys weren't wearing
helmets! Two great opportunities for "My helmet saved my life!!!"
stories. You hate to see them squandered like that!

More seriously: Why not discuss behavior that really makes a
difference? In the first case, you had plenty to address with the
drinking, the lack of lights and the running of the red light.

In the second case, you haven't shown the cyclist did anything wrong at
all. Implying he's insane just because he does what you wouldn't do is
wrong.

Keep in mind that there are motorists who use your "logic" against _any_
cyclist who gets hurt in _any_ circumstance. Your version is only a
little less intolerant.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Badger_South wrote:

Bicyclist standing with bike hit by tractor trailer at intersection

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=238033&nid=25


It sounds to me like it was a pedestrian that was hit. He happened to
be standing there with a bicycle.

This is an important distinction. Someone needs to notify the "walking"
discussion groups, so the proper amount of fear can be spread among
pedestrians. In fact, this needs to be done for each of the 6,500
pedestrians killed each year in the US.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:56:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Badger_South wrote:

Bicyclist standing with bike hit by tractor trailer at intersection

http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=238033&nid=25


It sounds to me like it was a pedestrian that was hit. He happened to
be standing there with a bicycle.

This is an important distinction. Someone needs to notify the "walking"
discussion groups, so the proper amount of fear can be spread among
pedestrians. In fact, this needs to be done for each of the 6,500
pedestrians killed each year in the US.

You're of course correct, it's really a pedestrian fatality.

However we post bike-related fatalities not to show that biking is
dangerous, but to honor and note a fallen comrade; or at least that's why I
posted it.

-B

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
Marlene Blanshay wrote:


I remember Constitution ave. It scared the crap out of me as a
pedestrian!
DC drivers hug the curbs so close they're practically on the sidewalk.
Small
wonder there aren't more accidents there. I was scared just crossing the
street!

Well, different people have different levels of skill and different
tolerance for risk. The fact you were scared isn't absolute proof of
danger. I've ridden Constitution Ave with no problem (but admittedly
not at rush hour).


Recently, there have been a couple of bike-car accidents that weren't
fatal,
but bad, and in both cases were actually brought on by really dumb
bikers
who were on roads where I'd never go- busy like Constitution. In one
case, a
guy was on a bike, 3 am, no helmet, no flashers, went through a red
light
and headfirst into a windshield. ANd he'd been drinking. He had bad head
injuries but not killed. Sorry, but that is just dumb- why not put a gun
in
your mouth? .In the other case a guy was riding his bike on a busy
boulevard where no sane person would ride a bike, also at night, no
helmet,
went through an intersection and was hit by a car, but miraculously not
badly hurt.

Since you brought it up: It's too bad those guys weren't wearing
helmets! Two great opportunities for "My helmet saved my life!!!"
stories. You hate to see them squandered like that!

More seriously: Why not discuss behavior that really makes a
difference? In the first case, you had plenty to address with the
drinking, the lack of lights and the running of the red light.

In the second case, you haven't shown the cyclist did anything wrong at
all. Implying he's insane just because he does what you wouldn't do is
wrong.

Keep in mind that there are motorists who use your "logic" against _any_
cyclist who gets hurt in _any_ circumstance. Your version is only a
little less intolerant.

I am not the same as motorists who think all cyclists are 'bad' and it's
ridiculous to lump me with those morons. The second cyclist showed
incredibly poor judgement. It turned out that the driver wasn't at fault, it
was the cyclist who went through a red light, not wearing a helmet, at night
on a boulevard which is dangerous at any hour. You'd have to live in this
city to know that road anyways- it's one of those that you'd avoid at all
costs if you value your life. Around here, we call cyclists like those poor
guys "organ donors". There are certain circumstances where you're basically
playing with a loaded gun, and that's not intolerance, it's just a fact.

As for Constitution ave, it's probably a lot less dangerous for drivers than
it is for cyclists or pedestrians.

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 20:00:31 -0400, Badger_South
wrote:

You're of course correct, it's really a pedestrian fatality.

However we post bike-related fatalities not to show that biking is
dangerous, but to honor and note a fallen comrade; or at least that's why I
posted it.


I don't want to hear about fatalities here, nor do I want the google
to record nothing but fatality reports.

The ignorant will believe that we're doing nothing more than writing
bad hagiographies for martyrs to the cause. I'm sure there are many
other newsgroups for that purpose--newsgroups whose martyrs prefer
more explosive exits from this world.

Every fatality post generates the same traffic, which falls into a few
basically recognizeable types:

1) Anti-car screeds. The motorist is ALWAYS in the wrong. ALL cars
must be melted down into slag.

2) "I-told-you-so", which comes in several sub-variants:
2a) He should have been wearing a helmet.
2b) He shouldn't have been riding in the road/sidewalk (delete as
appropriate)
2c) He shouldn't have been on that road (and I know, I've DRIVEN
there)

3) Spurious appeals to statistical evidence

4) Statements of defiance.

I here submit my own version of number 4:

I'm sad that someone had to die on Con. Ave. The main avenues in the
District are wide, heavy, and probably sub-optimal cycle routes. But
then, I've ridden (and seen many other people ride) far busier (in
terms of total motor vehicle volume, or gross tonnage, or any other
way you want to slice it) roads in London--The Elephant & Castle
Roundabout at rush hour, say, or The Strand--and had no problems,
provided my bike behaves like the rest of vehicular traffic.

In the case in question, I don't have enough data to apportion blame.
People die in car wrecks all the time; it doesn't stop me or my
friends from driving. People die in plane crashes all the time; it
doesn't stop me from flying. People die all the time--it doesn't stop
me from living.

-Luigi

www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
Photos, Rants, Raves