Cyclist nearly takes out a kid while running a red light

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 159065 wrote:

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

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

This reminds me so much of debates I’ve heard in shul. My rabbi emeritus “we are not immigrants any more, we should not be less assertive than anyone else” My child of holocaust survivors wife, “nah, I’m not sure, we need to watch what the gentiles think” (I suspect african americans, gays, etc, have similar discussions) (note also, I have immense sympathy for Muslim Americans whom I imagine pray hard “let it not be a muslim” when they hear of a violent incident, just as I pray particularly hard that it not be a Jew especially for a financial crime)

Its a difficult choice, between realistically acknowledging that small, different, sometimes disliked minorities are stereotyped and judged (unfairly) as groups, and that thus, as a pragmatic matter, the bad or illegal acts of one set back all. OTOH there is also the danger of internalizing the bigotry, and being too inassertive, and legitimizing the stereotyping.

I think there is an intermediate solution. One is to push back against stereotyping in one’s advocacy (and all stereotyping, not just the kind one is a victim of) and to be assertive in pushing for legitimate benefits. While at the same time paying some attention to the optics of one’s own behavior, and reminding others of the pragmatic impact of their behavior.

[Crickey7]

I’m getting a bit of cognitive dissonance between the “we’re not responsible for stereotyping” and the “it’s okay to break laws we’ve decided are unnecessary.” Simply put, I’m calling BS here.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@dasgeh 159067 wrote:

Actually, what matters is the speed of the road to be crossed (I believe 35& under means crosswalk, 40+ only when paint) and whether there’s a sign saying not to cross. I couldn’t see well enough in the video, and didn’t know where this was, to know whether there was an “implied” crosswalk

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

Seems that if there’s a sidewalk, there’s always an implied crosswalk regardless of speed limit…unless I’m misreading part B below (which is totally possible, as it’s confusing). If there’s no sidewalk, there is still an implied crosswalk at every intersection, provided the speed limit is 35mph or below.

§ 46.2-924
Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;

2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block;

3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 159070 wrote:

I’m getting a bit of cognitive dissonance between the “we’re not responsible for stereotyping” and the “it’s okay to break laws we’ve decided are unnecessary.” Simply put, I’m calling BS here.

If the stereotype was that cyclists only run reds when there are zero pedestrians present, and after stopping and checking for cross traffic, we would be way way ahead. The stereotype that we do technically violations of law is, IMO, a trivial problem in bike advocacy, because after all 90% of drivers drive at least 1MPH over the speed limit, 90% of pedestrians cross mid block at least occasionally (I live across the street from a bus stop, you have to go about 30 feet out of your way to use the crosswalk, visibility is good, traffic is not too fast – and in three years I don’t think I have seen one person walk to the crosswalk to cross). And the people we need to convince are people who do drive over the limit, who do sometimes jaywalk, not the tiny handful of people who never do technical infringements of the law (nor the folks of bad faith who focus only on technical violations by cyclists while ignoring other modes).

What sets us back IMO is the behavior that is not only illegal, but genuinely reckless. Certainly the (thankfully very rare) bike ped fatalities are hugely bad for us in terms of advocacy.

[lordofthemark]

Note, I have been tempted to mention the universal jaywalking to the bus stop near my building in the context of discussions of “scofflaw cyclists” but then it occurs to me Alexandria Police might actually start ticketing (harmless, safe) jaywalkers there. So I keep quiet.

[dasgeh]

@Crickey7 159070 wrote:

I’m getting a bit of cognitive dissonance between the “we’re not responsible for stereotyping” and the “it’s okay to break laws we’ve decided are unnecessary.” Simply put, I’m calling BS here.

Not from me. I follow the laws unless I think that it’s safer not too. I even stop at the red at Nash on the Custis (Marriot parking lot exit).

I just call bs on saying that one person is responsible for the biases of another. The biased person (and in many cases, a history of biased people), bear the responsibility for that.

We all human. Humans break rules. To expect other cyclists to be better than human for the sake of the cause is ridiculous.

That said, you should follow the rules because we live in a society and we all agreed to these rules to make our lives easier.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

[dasgeh]

@TwoWheelsDC 159071 wrote:

Seems that if there’s a sidewalk, there’s always an implied crosswalk regardless of speed limit…unless I’m misreading part B below (which is totally possible, as it’s confusing). If there’s no sidewalk, there is still an implied crosswalk at every intersection, provided the speed limit is 35mph or below.

§ 46.2-924
Drivers to stop for pedestrians; installation of certain signs; penalty

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;

2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block;

3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.

I think your reading is right. Sorry, I was going from memory

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

[Crickey7]

I don’t expect cyclists to be better than other humans. I just don’t think actually stopping for red lights is even close to the line of impossible saintliness.

[lordofthemark]

@Crickey7 159079 wrote:

I don’t expect cyclists to be better than other humans. I just don’t think actually stopping for red lights is even close to the line of impossible saintliness.

Do you stop for the red light when approach a “go” leading pedestrian interval in DC? Would you stop for a red (assuming no pedestrians and no visible cross traffic at a location with decent visibility) when riding in Idaho?

Stopping for red lights is not impossible saintliness. Nor is walking 30 feet out of the way to a bus stop. Heck riding a Hains Point loop each time you ride into the District is not impossible either (as witness some people who do that). The question, to me, is A. Is it worth drawing a distinction between people who do what I call “proper Idahos” and people who ride dangerously in ways that put pedestrians in danger B. Is there a potential benefit from legalizing Idahos because then WABA and others could teach how to do them properly. You have said “there is no proper red light running” which I take to mean “there is no proper Idaho Stop at reds”. I have not seen a compelling argument that that is so. That it is currently illegal in all local jurisdictions does not mean there is no proper Idaho stopping, just that proper Idaho stopping is illegal in our local jurisdictions (again with the exception of LPI’s in DC).

[Judd]

@lordofthemark 159082 wrote:

Heck riding a Hains Point loop each time you ride into the District is not impossible either (as witness some people who do that).

It’s kind of hard though. I might be a saint.

[jrenaut]

@lordofthemark 159082 wrote:

Do you stop for the red light when approach a “go” leading pedestrian interval in DC?

This has nothing to do with saintliness or not – a cyclist in DC may legally proceed on the LPI even if the traffic light is still red. This of course becomes complicated at pedestrian scramble intersections, but DDOT!

[bentbike33]

@jrenaut 159089 wrote:

a cyclist in DC may legally proceed on the LPI even if the traffic light is still red.

Don’t tell anyone, but I proceed on a LPI activated by the pedestrian beg button in my VA neighborhood.

[Emm]

@jrenaut 159089 wrote:

This of course becomes complicated at pedestrian scramble intersections, but DDOT!

I have one of those right next to my office. My rule of thumb is at that intersection (where every crossing becomes a walk signal at once), is that I act like a car and hold still, unless there REALLY isn’t anyone there which almost never happens outside of days I’m at the office absurdly early or late. But what is legal? Can I proceed as long as I don’t hit anyone? Not that I would since it’s unlikely I’d make it through without crashing into a coworker, but I’m curious. For the light I’m waiting at, it’s an LPI since it goes green after ~10-15 seconds when the other signals stay red.

[lordofthemark]

@jrenaut 159089 wrote:

This has nothing to do with saintliness or not – a cyclist in DC may legally proceed on the LPI even if the traffic light is still red. This of course becomes complicated at pedestrian scramble intersections, but DDOT!

I read crikey as saying that “running” a red anywhere is wrong. AFAICT he is opposed to legal Idaho stops, because they are never proper, legality aside. He is not only opposed to cyclists violating the law, but to advocating for changing the law.

[jrenaut]

My understanding is cyclists can go on the LPI no matter what. I suspect the law just doesn’t consider a scramble intersection. #VisionZero

[Author]

Posts