Cyclist seriously injured by car running red….

[Kolohe]

It’s really just that one intersection at Irving, though. (and to a lesser extent, Edison). There are only five traffic signaled intersections between Pershing and Manchester (Fillmore, Irving, Henderson, Park, and Edison), but all of them (but Irving and Edison) have plenty of cross traffic and frequent (and I believe, timed rather than sensed) red intervals for Rt 50 traffic. It’s just Irving and Edison that are the ‘surprise’ reds. (and everyone gets antsy from the occasional vehicle trying to make a left there)

ETA: and frankly, it’s easier to cross 50 at grade at any signaled intersection than either George Mason Drive or (especially) Glebe Road.

[dasgeh]

@Kolohe 96661 wrote:

It’s really just that one intersection at Irving, though. (and to a lesser extent, Edison). There are only five traffic signaled intersections between Pershing and Manchester (Fillmore, Irving, Henderson, Park, and Edison), but all of them (but Irving and Edison) have plenty of cross traffic and frequent (and I believe, timed rather than sensed) red intervals for Rt 50 traffic. It’s just Irving and Edison that are the ‘surprise’ reds. (and everyone gets antsy from the occasional vehicle trying to make a left there)

ETA: and frankly, it’s easier to cross 50 at grade at any signaled intersection than either George Mason Drive or (especially) Glebe Road.

I’m not as familiar with Edison, but Irving is especially bad because it’s on a straightaway and WB cars are caught by the sun. Fillmore is better, if you’re headed that way (though at that point, I often prefer the trail along 27 to the portion of Fillmore south of 50).

We end up on George Mason to cross 50 a lot, and if you take Thomas to 2nd, you don’t have to be on it for too long, and it’s not too bad.

[scoot]

@dasgeh 96653 wrote:

I thought “don’t blame the victim” went without saying, but apparently I was wrong.

Not crossing at grade is not that simple. From this intersection, finding a grade-separated option involves a mile detour for those who can’t take the pedestrian bridge: bridge at Glebe or tunnel at 27. Neither is a good option — riding on Glebe or the substandard sidewalk along Glebe or crossing entrance/exit ramps on the 27 trail. As others have pointed out – there are other ways to mitigate the risk of crossing at a traffic light — for example waiting until the first line of cars coming at you has stopped.

I agree that victim blaming is unacceptable, but I don’t think folks are out of line for suggesting alternatives here. It is good to be aware of all options; each individual has a different risk/reward equation.

The pedestrian bridge is certainly an option for me, but I doubt I’ll use it much for the reasons Dickie mentioned. On my road bike I’ve taken Glebe, though that feels far safer downhill (southbound) when I can ride at close to the automobile speeds. So I will probably continue to cross here, but will definitely be more cautious in the future though.

[rcannon100]

“Dont blame the victim” taken to its completion means we would never do anything to mitigate risks. We would not have seatbelts. We would not have airbags. We would not wear helmets. We would not wear bike lights. After all, the car hit you – you’re the victim – it cant be your fault for not doing everything to mitigate risk.

But of course bicycle advocates do — well not blame the victim — but evangelize safety. Bicycle advocates evangelize the use of lights, reflectors, helmets and other safety gear.

This isnt about who is or is not the “victim”. This is, as said before by several people, about risk mitigation. If you have the opportunity to reduce your risk exposure, it is prudent to do so.

And for me, yes, that means I change my cycling route to avoid dangerous intersections.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 96653 wrote:

I thought “don’t blame the victim” went without saying, but apparently I was wrong.

If you think recommending that someone look out for their own safety and anticipate dangerous behavior by others is blaming the victim, you really need to slow down and take a deep breath.

Not crossing at grade is not that simple. From this intersection, finding a grade-separated option involves a mile detour for those who can’t take the pedestrian bridge: bridge at Glebe or tunnel at 27. Neither is a good option — riding on Glebe or the substandard sidewalk along Glebe or crossing entrance/exit ramps on the 27 trail.

That’s true. There are no great options that are both easy and safe in this situation.

As others have pointed out – there are other ways to mitigate the risk of crossing at a traffic light — for example waiting until the first line of cars coming at you has stopped.

And that’s another example of something someone could do to protect themselves, and saying so also isn’t blaming the victim.

[scoot]

@arlrider 96635 wrote:

But also thumbs down to ARLnow for closing the story talking about traffic impacts. Talk about trivializing the value of a human life.

I disagree. It’s part of the story and shouldn’t be withheld. If anything, the fact that it’s only buried at the end of the article says exactly the opposite.

[scoot]

@rcannon100 96670 wrote:

“Dont blame the victim” taken to its completion means we would never do anything to mitigate risks. We would not have seatbelts. We would not have airbags. We would not wear helmets. We would not wear bike lights.

And I would ride the right lane of Route 50 to Glebe when heading to Ballston 😮 Choosing to instead cross at Irving is just another example of risk mitigation.

[lordofthemark]

Its always difficult when the discussion of “what should I do to stay safe” get mixed up with “how should public policy address safety” There are things I do in my personal choices to be safe I would do even if public policy were perfect. There are things I do for my personal safety because public policy is not perfect (sometimes understandably due to resource constraints, sometimes not so understandably) I try to seperate my discussions of what I do from my discussions of what policy should be, but it is often hard to do that.

My sympathy goes out to the injured cyclist. AFAICT she was predictable, alert, and lawful.

[PotomacCyclist]

I rarely ride near or across Rte 50 so I don’t follow infrastructure plans there as closely. Are there any plans to address safety issues along Arlington Blvd., other than the recently completed 10th St./Rte 50 interchange project?

Re ARLNOW commenters, no doubt there are some trolls there. But it’s much better than it used to be. There are now many who speak up about cycling, and bike/pedestrian safety concerns. I’m one of them. I don’t see as many of the nonsense statements like “bikes don’t belong on the roads because cyclists don’t pay for them” these days. There are still some Internet skirmishes, but it’s much more of a back and forth, instead of the one-sided rants we used to see. The Gazette and Loudoun news sites still have some of that old attitude though.

[dasgeh]

@PotomacCyclist 96682 wrote:

I rarely ride near or across Rte 50 so I don’t follow infrastructure plans there as closely. Are there any plans to address safety issues along Arlington Blvd., other than the recently completed 10th St./Rte 50 interchange project?

My understanding is that there is a project to upgrade this exact signal (50 & Irving), but I’m not 100% sure it will change the lights for 50. Also, there is a long-range project to complete/upgrade the trail along 50, with some sections moving faster than others (thanks, Penrose NC!!!)

[scoot]

@dasgeh 96683 wrote:

My understanding is that there is a project to upgrade this exact signal (50 & Irving), but I’m not 100% sure it will change the lights for 50.

Interesting. Any idea what the upgrade would consist of?

[Steve O]

@rcannon100 96670 wrote:

This isnt about who is or is not the “victim”. This is, as said before by several people, about risk mitigation. If you have the opportunity to reduce your risk exposure, it is prudent to do so.

And for me, yes, that means I change my cycling route to avoid dangerous intersections.

Sure, don’t take undue risks. The problem with this is that there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who have mitigated the risk by choosing not to ride bikes at all. They perceive them as dangerous; period. But we know that if those thousands started riding, it would be safer for them and for all of us, too. Cycling is not inherently unsafe. Crashes are rare. But the perception remains among many that it is unsafe and that crashes are frequent. And our infrastructure still has miles and miles to go before it becomes safe enough for those thousands and thousands to feel safe.

I will be very interested to find out what the driver is eventually charged with. I would recommend assault with a deadly weapon; negligent homicide or criminally negligent manslaughter if she dies. It will be enormously disappointing, and a deep disregard and diminishment of the value of a human, if he gets off with just traffic violations like failing to stop.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

@Steve O 96705 wrote:

Sure, don’t take undue risks. The problem with this is that there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who have mitigated the risk by choosing not to ride bikes at all. They perceive them as dangerous; period. But we know that if those thousands started riding, it would be safer for them and for all of us, too. Cycling is not inherently unsafe. Crashes are rare. But the perception remains among many that it is unsafe and that crashes are frequent. And our infrastructure still has miles and miles to go before it becomes safe enough for those thousands and thousands to feel safe.

I will be very interested to find out what the driver is eventually charged with. I would recommend assault with a deadly weapon; negligent homicide or criminally negligent manslaughter if she dies. It will be enormously disappointing, and a deep disregard and diminishment of the value of a human, if he gets off with just traffic violations like failing to stop.

First paragraph, completely agree. Second paragraph–sadly–is wishful thinking. Driver will use the “I didn’t see the red light because of the sun” defense and nothing of great consequence will be further done.

I live on 50 near the at grade crossing at Park. Every 6 months, when the sun sets on axis with 50, outbound drivers drive blind. They “don’t see” the red lights so they drive as a pack depending on the herd to tell them when to stop. Every 6 months there’s a major accident when cross traffic on Park crosses with the green only to get creamed by a blinded westbound car. Cars usually end up all over the place, spun around and flipped over. It’s dangerous for cyclists just to filter up to the stop line on our red because it puts us in the blast zone.

The only safe way to cross 50 at grade is to treat it like a stop sign: stay in line or back from the intersection and don’t begin to cross until you can visually confirm that all 6 lanes have come to a stop. The at grade crossings on 50 are exceptional intersections, they need an exceptional approach.

[baiskeli]

@Steve O 96705 wrote:

Sure, don’t take undue risks. The problem with this is that there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who have mitigated the risk by choosing not to ride bikes at all. They perceive them as dangerous; period. But we know that if those thousands started riding, it would be safer for them and for all of us, too. Cycling is not inherently unsafe. Crashes are rare. But the perception remains among many that it is unsafe and that crashes are frequent. And our infrastructure still has miles and miles to go before it becomes safe enough for those thousands and thousands to feel safe.

That’s a great point. Still, the way that potential cyclists, can feel its safe to ride a bike is by a) knowing how to avoid accidents (which involves alot more than avoiding bad situations or bad intersections, of course), and b) not seeing those of us already on bikes getting into accidents.

[scoot]

@Brendan von Buckingham 96711 wrote:

Second paragraph–sadly–is wishful thinking. Driver will use the “I didn’t see the red light because of the sun” defense and nothing of great consequence will be further done.

Yet 99.9% of the drivers manage to obey these signals, even when their visibility is so compromised. I share your cynicism about the likely legal outcome. Perhaps the victim will have some opportunity for civil recourse. In any case, I’ll never be convinced that it’s acceptable for a 21st-century civilization to externalize motorists’ risks and liabilities to the extent ours does.

If this woman had been hit by an unintentional discharge from a firearm, would society be so quick to write it off as an “unfortunate accident”? Each year more Americans are killed by cars than guns (although the gap is narrowing). Call me naive (and yes I know I’m preaching to the choir here), but a culture change is needed whereby folks are held just as accountable for negligent and reckless behavior with their automobiles as they would be with any other deadly weapon.

[Author]

Posts