Bicyclist hit at Duke and W Taylor Run, Alexandria

[dasgeh]

@bobco85 141039 wrote:

Maybe we need to adopt the Dutch strict liability laws for driving where the burden of proof is on the drivers that they were operating their 1+ ton vehicle responsibly. It’d probably do a lot to discourage texting while driving, too.

I think the real problem is that most people in this country (and in any given state) see driving a car as necessary to getting around. Most people also realize that they are human and have moments of inattentiveness/make mistakes some times. So they are sympathetic to the argument that it was an “accident” because they can see themselves as the driver, and they would really want it to be an accident.

I think the only way to combat that is to get people sympathetic to the victims here. Tell our stories – not just when we’re actually hit, but when there are near misses – to our families and friends, so they recognize that these moments of inattentiveness have real costs. Give people real transportation options so they don’t see the car as necessary, and get them walking and biking so they have personal experience with what it is like to be vulnerable.

Then, maybe, we can get people en masse to realize that driving is a responsibility. That they are piloting a multiton hunk of steel with a large engine. When doing so, they need to pay attention, because that moment when they linger too long looking at the console, or fumbling for something they dropped, or looking at their phones, could kill someone.

[Steve O]

@dasgeh 141053 wrote:

Was there even a traffic citation? It seems odd that there would not have been something.

Unquestionably true. Either the bike rider was crossing against the light or the driver was (without any inside knowledge whatsoever, I lean towards . A collision like this cannot occur unless at least one party is in violation.

[scoot]

@Steve O 141076 wrote:

Either the bike rider was crossing against the light or the driver was

The cagey language employed by the prosecutor in the article suggests that the driver was found at fault, but that the evidence is not strong enough to support a charge of criminal negligence. How could the evidence not be clear-cut? Perhaps witness statements conflicted each other?

What is the legal standard for criminal negligence? Assuming witnesses were in agreement, I have a hard time believing that running over crossing traffic while blowing a red light somehow fails to meet that standard.

[Fairlington124]

@scoot 141084 wrote:

The cagey language employed by the prosecutor in the article suggests that the driver was found at fault, but that the evidence is not strong enough to support a charge of criminal negligence. How could the evidence not be clear-cut? Perhaps witness statements conflicted each other?

What is the legal standard for criminal negligence? Assuming witnesses were in agreement, I have a hard time believing that running over crossing traffic while blowing a red light somehow fails to meet that standard.

My understanding is that the motorist was elderly, and I know that prosecutors tend to not press charges against the elderly for driving errors, perhaps out of sympathy for degrading driving skills. This could have factored in as well.

[KLizotte]

At a minimum, the driver should have her license permanently revoked. Obviously unfit to drive.

[Fairlington124]

I can’t recall instances of license revocation which didn’t involve DUI.

[DrP]

@Fairlington124 141088 wrote:

My understanding is that the motorist was elderly, and I know that prosecutors tend to not press charges against the elderly for driving errors, perhaps out of sympathy for degrading driving skills. This could have factored in as well.

If this was the reasoning, then shouldn’t the driver, at a minimum, been required to re-take the driving test? How can the prosecutor sleep knowing that people with bad driving skills may be out on the road possibly killing people – and he did nothing about the ones that he knew about. I don’t buy the reason of “she would need the transportation” (I have seen this as a “reason” for many people being allowed to keep licenses) so we cannot remove her driving privileges. Perhaps this was not the norm for the driver, but a test should show that – if you cannot do it correctly during the test, it is unlikely you can do it correctly at other times. If you pass the test, you might still not regularly drive safely, but theoretically, you know how to do so.

[mstone]

@scoot 141084 wrote:

The cagey language employed by the prosecutor in the article suggests that the driver was found at fault, but that the evidence is not strong enough to support a charge of criminal negligence. How could the evidence not be clear-cut? Perhaps witness statements conflicted each other?

Too lazy to take a case that isn’t a slam dunk. We need prosecutors willing to push, then we have cases to take to the legislature. Instead we have prosecutors who won’t even bother, and a legislature that refuses to change anything and points to a lack of cases showing that the current laws are a problem.

[scorchedearth]

So apparently, there was a witness who gave a statement. He said that the woman driving her car ran the red light and sent Ryan flying 50 feet. That doesn’t matter, I guess.

[Fairlington124]

From the statement:

Quote:

The investigation revealed that the 80-year old driver of the motor vehicle was properly licensed and remained at the scene of the accident. Furthermore, there was no evidence that she was intoxicated and she has cooperated fully with the investigators.”

Curious how nothing was said about the actual act of striking the cyclist. It also makes me wonder if the motorist was doing something patently illegal or incorrect, the previous poster suggested running a red light.

The prosecutor talks a lot about what the motorist didn’t do, not nearly as much as what she did.

[scorchedearth]

@Fairlington124 141107 wrote:

From the statement:

Curious how nothing was said about the actual act of striking the cyclist. It also makes me wonder if the motorist was doing something patently illegal or incorrect, the previous poster suggested running a red light.

The prosecutor talks a lot about what the motorist didn’t do, not nearly as much as what she did.

Ryan is a friend of a friend. According to our mutual acquaintance, Ryan rode very much by the book and would not have crossed against the light at that intersection. Frankly, you’d have to be insane to even try, knowing the conditions on that part of Duke Street.

The authorities really dropped the ball on this one.

[ginacico]

@Fairlington124 141090 wrote:

I can’t recall instances of license revocation which didn’t involve DUI.

I can’t recall an instance of license revocation, PERIOD. In Baltimore, the woman who killed Tom Palermo (a friend) will be free to drive with an interlock device when she’s done with her sentence. If her offenses (multiple) weren’t egregious enough, what is?

@scorchedearth 141113 wrote:

The authorities really dropped the ball on this one.

My sympathies.

[Zack]

I observed this intersection the other day for about 45 minutes during rush hour. The crossing signal is completely separated from traffic. This means that for about 30 seconds, no cars are supposed to move while a person walks across. I find it very unlikely that Brown would have crossed against the walk signal because there is no gap in traffic during rush hour without it. There is an east-west signal phase on Duke and then a phase for Taylor Run drives to turn left and right. Each time, eastbound Duke past the light is completely full of cars.
In this clip, walk signal comes on at the 8 second mark. If I was walking across at that point, I would have been hit by the red Chevy. Here are the rest of the videos and a few pictures I took.

[scorchedearth]

@Zack 141698 wrote:

I observed this intersection the other day for about 45 minutes during rush hour. The crossing signal is completely separated from traffic. This means that for about 30 seconds, no cars are supposed to move while a person walks across. I find it very unlikely that Brown would have crossed against the walk signal because there is no gap in traffic during rush hour without it. There is an east-west signal phase on Duke and then a phase for Taylor Run drives to turn left and right. Each time, eastbound Duke past the light is completely full of cars.
In this clip, walk signal comes on at the 8 second mark. If I was walking across at that point, I would have been hit by the red Chevy. Here are the rest of the videos and a few pictures I took.

Interestingly enough, the police claimed that the functioning of the intersection did not contribute to the crash. It sounds like you can refute that fairly easily based on your observations.

[KLizotte]

@Zack 141698 wrote:

I observed this intersection the other day for about 45 minutes during rush hour. The crossing signal is completely separated from traffic. This means that for about 30 seconds, no cars are supposed to move while a person walks across. I find it very unlikely that Brown would have crossed against the walk signal because there is no gap in traffic during rush hour without it. There is an east-west signal phase on Duke and then a phase for Taylor Run drives to turn left and right. Each time, eastbound Duke past the light is completely full of cars.
In this clip, walk signal comes on at the 8 second mark. If I was walking across at that point, I would have been hit by the red Chevy. Here are the rest of the videos and a few pictures I took.

The first clip you link to doesn’t make your case IMHO only because I can’t see the walk signal (I may be blind however). I do see cars going thru the crosswalk with a walk signal in one of the still shots on the linked page. Find a video/pics showing cars going thru the crosswalk with a walking man and send to the WashPost, VDOT, the city of Alexandria, and the Brown’s family if you can. Get the authorities in charge afraid of a civil lawsuit. Then maybe change will occur.

Thanks for all the hard work.

[Author]

Posts