Cyclist nearly takes out a kid while running a red light

Our Community Forums Crashes, Close Calls and Incidents Cyclist nearly takes out a kid while running a red light

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #919319
    annoyedindc
    Participant

    Cyclist nearly takes out a kid this morning. Ran this light, the next, a couple of stop signs but got passed in the end. SMH.

    [video=youtube_share;4jLL8kpxLfk]https://youtu.be/4jLL8kpxLfk[/video]

    #1069889
    dasgeh
    Participant

    Why isn’t there a crosswalk there? Did the kid jaywalk or is it just not painted?

    Just curious

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

    #1069890
    jrenaut
    Participant

    @dasgeh 159050 wrote:

    Why isn’t there a crosswalk there? Did the kid jaywalk or is it just not painted?

    Just curious

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

    Aren’t intersections like this considered “unpainted crosswalks” by law in Virginia? It definitely should be painted but I don’t think VA law considers it any different if there is or isn’t paint.

    #1069891
    ImaCynic
    Participant

    And your point is? The reality is that there are law breakers riding a bike, driving a vehicle, and walking on feet. I see this as a teaching moment for the kid, to look before crossing, and not just follow the signal. Relying on laws to protect you will kill you, every time.

    Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

    #1069892
    annoyedindc
    Participant

    There are sidewalks on either side of this intersection with curb cuts. Neither side of the street has marks for crossing Cherry St. though. So, if it isn’t a cross walk then there’s no way to cross Cherry St. at all.

    #1069893
    bobco85
    Participant

    Yeah, the crosswalks on Hillwood Ave there aren’t painted. The kid did nothing wrong, although they might want to practice not running into an intersection (for fear of right-on-red drivers).

    Here’s the intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/YSJmDSeFrKG2

    Also, why run that red? IME the light cycle there isn’t that long.

    #1069894
    Tania
    Participant

    I see this as another reason “all cyclists” are painted as jerks and scofflaws. The cyclist ran the light – and if he’d hit the runner he (the cyclist) would have been entirely at fault, crosswalk or not.

    #1069896
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @f148vr 159052 wrote:

    And your point is? The reality is that there are law breakers riding a bike, driving a vehicle, and walking on feet. I see this as a teaching moment for the kid, to look before crossing, and not just follow the signal. Relying on laws to protect you will kill you, every time.

    Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

    There is, pardon me, a proper way to break the law on a bike. When you come to a red, stop, look, then proceed through. IF there is no cross traffic, including no pedestrians. I tend to think its best not to Idaho when there are peds at any corner who might cross, but if that is too high a standard, certainly yielding to a ped who is actually starting to cross in front of you is the right thing.

    Note, one of the reasons I support legalizing the Idaho stop, is that I would like orgs like WABA to be in the position to teach riders how to do a proper, safe, Idaho.

    Of course people should walk (and bike and drive) defensively, assuming other road users will break the law, do the dangerous thing, etc. But don’t doubt, a bike ped fatality is always going to be bad for the cause of cycling advocacy.

    #1069897
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @bobco85 159054 wrote:

    Yeah, the crosswalks on Hillwood Ave there aren’t painted. The kid did nothing wrong, although they might want to practice not running into an intersection (for fear of right-on-red drivers).

    Here’s the intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/YSJmDSeFrKG2

    Also, why run that red? IME the light cycle there isn’t that long.

    Thanks. I couldn’t see the sidewalk coming in to the intersection in the video and didn’t know the spot.

    But no, one person is not responsible for the stereotypes or generalizations of a another person.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

    #1069898
    TwoWheelsDC
    Participant

    @jrenaut 159051 wrote:

    Aren’t intersections like this considered “unpainted crosswalks” by law in Virginia? It definitely should be painted but I don’t think VA law considers it any different if there is or isn’t paint.

    Yep. Basically, a crosswalk exists in Virginia at every intersection of streets or sidewalk and street, whether there is paint or not.

    #1069899
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @TwoWheelsDC 159059 wrote:

    Yep. Basically, a crosswalk exists in Virginia at every intersection of streets or sidewalk and street, whether there is paint or not.

    I believe only if there is a sidewalk. If there is no sidewalk on a given side, there is no implied crosswalk.

    #1069900
    Crickey7
    Participant

    There is no proper red light running. There may be a scale of badness that ranks running reds during normal peak travel periods without looking as worst, but there is no justification for taking it upon oneself to decide which traffic control devices may be ignored (I acknowledge that Virginia law does have a limited right to proceed through a signalized intersection after having waited a set amount of time).

    #1069902
    Judd
    Participant

    @dasgeh 159058 wrote:

    But no, one person is not responsible for the stereotypes or generalizations of a another person.

    Isn’t that how stereotypes work? You made wide judgments of others that are in a group that you’re not in based on limited observations?

    #1069903
    lordofthemark
    Participant

    @Crickey7 159061 wrote:

    There is no proper red light running. There may be a scale of badness that ranks running reds during normal peak travel periods without looking as worst, but there is no justification for taking it upon oneself to decide which traffic control devices may be ignored (I acknowledge that Virginia law does have a limited right to proceed through a signalized intersection after having waited a set amount of time).

    This morning. Maine Avenue. Three way intersection, so absolutely zero cross traffic except for construction equipment, which are usually stopped, and easy to observe. No chance of collision with traffic turning left onto Maine from 9th if you are staying to the right. And a good way to get out in front of traffic proceeding SE on Maine, in order to make a safer lane change to the left for the vehicular left onto 7th. There are many many times when it is totally safer to Idaho the red there, and its one of the few places in the region I do it, and it is NOT for the sake of momentum. I believe there are other places where the situation is similar. (Note there are quite a few places where properly Idahoing a red is probably safer, again to get out visibly in front of traffic, but I forego Idahoing, both for the sake of optics, and because I don’t feel I know the location well enough, nor do I Idaho reds enough, to feel confident in the judgement call) Note also, on the Eye Street SE-SW bike lanes, there are quite a few places where Idahoing reds would be very good for momentum, and there is rarely cross traffic, but I never Idaho, because there is no real safety benefit that I can see.

    Note also, at Eye and 4th SW, there is a leading pedestrian interval, and at that location I do proceed through when the light is red but the ped interval is white, as it is perfectly legal for cyclists to do that there.

    #1069904
    dasgeh
    Participant

    @Judd 159063 wrote:

    Isn’t that how stereotypes work? You made wide judgments of others that are in a group that you’re not in based on limited observations?

    Yes, but the stereotyper is responsible for doing that. Not the stereotypee

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 56 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.