Missed connection

[komorebi]

@bobco85 139007 wrote:

This is from my morning commute today. I’ll just let the video speak for itself.

I’m glad that you and everyone else made it through OK.

By my count, the driver of the red car ignored (1) the red light directly in front of him/her, (2) the cyclist crossing from left to right across his/her field of vision, and (3) the large white van lumbering into the intersection from the driver’s right side. Ignoring any one of those indicators is bad enough; how do you ignore all three?

[bobco85]

As I was approaching the intersection, I was fairly certain that stupidity was on the horizon because I noticed how crowded traffic was, so I kept my camera on (I usually turn it off when I stop at a red, then turn it on a few seconds before I get a green to save battery life and make it easier to find individual pieces of footage). I felt safe because I kept my distance, but I definitely had a front row seat should anything else have happened.

(I also forgot that I dropped the f-bomb as I watched the driver of the red car do his thing as you can hear the audio; mind you, he looked over at the shuttle bus driver like it was the other guy’s fault!)

[Judd]

I’m going to make what will probably be an unpopular comment: I don’t think the driver of the red car is an idiot. Did he do something dangerous? Yes. Did he do break multiple laws? Yes. Did he do it because he has diminished mental capacity? Maybe, but probably not. Did he do all of this intentionally? Probably not.

Calling him an idiot is a case of attribution bias. Maybe he’s got a new baby that kept him up all night and he was as attentive this morning. Maybe he lost a loved one recently and is distracted by pervasive thoughts of his loss.

About a month ago I ran a red light at South Courthouse Road and 2nd. I stopped at it and then my brain converted it into a stop sign instead of a stop light. Fortunately there weren’t any cars or cyclists or pedestrians at the time. Am I an idiot? Not most of the time. I certainly wasn’t in this case. I just spaced out.

Out of all of the close calls that I’ve had very few were the result of someone intentionally doing something that risked my life. Of the handful of times that I have caused close calls or auto accidents, zero percent were intentional.

I’d like to see us as the cycling community turn close calls into a more positive discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobco85]

@Judd 139033 wrote:

I’m going to make what will probably be an unpopular comment: I don’t think the driver of the red car is an idiot. Did he do something dangerous? Yes. Did he do break multiple laws? Yes. Did he do it because he has diminished mental capacity? Maybe, but probably not. Did he do all of this intentionally? Probably not.

Calling him an idiot is a case of attribution bias. Maybe he’s got a new baby that kept him up all night and he was as attentive this morning. Maybe he lost a loved one recently and is distracted by pervasive thoughts of his loss.

About a month ago I ran a red light at South Courthouse Road and 2nd. I stopped at it and then my brain converted it into a stop sign instead of a stop light. Fortunately there weren’t any cars or cyclists or pedestrians at the time. Am I an idiot? Not most of the time. I certainly wasn’t in this case. I just spaced out.

Out of all of the close calls that I’ve had very few were the result of someone intentionally doing something that risked my life. Of the handful of times that I have caused close calls or auto accidents, zero percent were intentional.

I’d like to see us as the cycling community turn close calls into a more positive discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you’re confusing attribution bias with an insult. I was not arguing that the reason he made his poor decision was due to cognitive disability; it’s nothing personal about him. I called him an idiot because of the idiotic decision he made (and to that point, I fully admit that I have been an idiot in some of my decision-making while driving/biking/walking). Sarcasm is my way of dealing with a situation where I nearly witnessed people getting hurt.

None of the potential reasons you gave affecting his decision-making are valid excuses for the responsibilities needed for getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle. If someone is too tired/drunk/depressed/etc. and is distracted or unable to safely maneuver their vehicle for whatever reason, they should not be driving. This is especially important given the cycling community has rarely been given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to crashes.

My main issue with the driver of the red car is that he decided to enter an intersection 6 seconds after he had gotten a red light while cross traffic who had right-of-way was starting to enter. Since he was stopped, it looked like to everyone else that he was going to do the lawful and courteous thing which is to wait to get a green light. I don’t think he was actively trying to cause a crash, but his actions seem to show that the needs of other people were lesser in importance than his needs.

Lastly, I disagree with your final statement. I think that being empowered to share close calls, even if we add our bits of snark to it, is a positive thing. It has resulted in numerous discussions about the hazards facing cyclists in particular locations and in general, better cycling techniques, and a greater sense of community through our shared experiences. It might not always come across as positive as there are some controversial topics, but in the end we at least gain a better understanding of those with whom we disagree.

I hope this comes across as respectful as I disagreed with a lot of what you wrote.

[scoot]

@bobco85 139043 wrote:

I think that being empowered to share close calls, even if we add our bits of snark to it, is a positive thing. It has resulted in numerous discussions about the hazards facing cyclists in particular locations and in general, better cycling techniques, and a greater sense of community through our shared experiences. It might not always come across as positive as there are some controversial topics, but in the end we at least gain a better understanding of those with whom we disagree.

I agree 100%. I have found this thread invaluable to my continuing education as a cyclist (and driver, pedestrian, etc.).

[dasgeh]

To bobco’s video: did anyone else notice the ACPD cruiser that was just in front of the offending red car (though through the next intersection at that point)? *sigh*

@Judd 139033 wrote:

I’m going to make what will probably be an unpopular comment: I don’t think the driver of the red car is an idiot. Did he do something dangerous? Yes. Did he do break multiple laws? Yes. Did he do it because he has diminished mental capacity? Maybe, but probably not. Did he do all of this intentionally? Probably not.
[…]
I’d like to see us as the cycling community turn close calls into a more positive discussion.

So I strongly agree with you; disagree with you; and agree with you.

1) Yes, it is more productive to direct complaints to actions (“that was an idiotic move”) than to personal attributes (“he’s an idiot”). I try to work on that, especially around kids, but it’s easy to forget elsewhere. Focusing on the behavior makes it harder to dismiss as something I (or a non-idiot reader) would never do.

2) Yes, he intentionally drove his car. If he did so in a distracted or over-tired state, than he should completely be held responsible, just he would be held responsible if he drove drunk. Driving a car is an intentional act and is a big responsibility. Our society has diminished the responsibility by calling crashes “accidents” and letting people off the hook for getting behind the wheel when they really shouldn’t be. We have successfully shamed drunk driving – we need to do so with dangerous driving.

3) Yes, I would love to find a way to turn close calls into a positive discussion. What suggestions do you have?

But I still find enormous value in this thread. For example, it has provided an excellent video to tweet at ACPD (bobco – do you mind if I tweet this? Or do you want to share?)

[DrP]

@dasgeh 139064 wrote:

To bobco’s video: did anyone else notice the ACPD cruiser that was just in front of the offending red car (though through the next intersection at that point)? *sigh*

Yes, I did notice that and shook my head.

@dasgeh 139064 wrote:

2) Yes, he intentionally drove his car. If he did so in a distracted or over-tired state, than he should completely be held responsible, just he would be held responsible if he drove drunk. Driving a car is an intentional act and is a big responsibility. Our society has diminished the responsibility by calling crashes “accidents” and letting people off the hook for getting behind the wheel when they really shouldn’t be. We have successfully shamed drunk driving – we need to do so with dangerous driving.
[/quote]

Everyone seems to forget that a motor vehicle is a weapon. It’s main purpose is not that, but it can injury, maim, and kill if used incorrectly. I do avoid driving if I am overtired or and very distracted. Admittedly, one can become tired and distracted while driving, so when I am driving and this occurs, I know that it is my responsibility to wake myself up (or just stop until I am good again) and refocus my attention on the road. I find that lots of people feel that they “have” to be somewhere or to have driven themselves. Being late and not dead (or a killer), is okay. In this area in particular, there are many other options to get around – and not just via bicycle – but people seem to forget that. Yes, they might take longer, but perhaps it will give you the rest you need or a chance to focus on whatever is distracting you (like that phone call you need to make or text/e-mail conversation you need to have).

@dasgeh 139064 wrote:

But I still find enormous value in this thread.

Yes.

[bobco85]

@dasgeh 139064 wrote:

But I still find enormous value in this thread. For example, it has provided an excellent video to tweet at ACPD (bobco – do you mind if I tweet this? Or do you want to share?)

I have posted it already on Twitter (unsurprisingly, my handle is @bobco85), but if you want to link to the video it’s fine with me.

[dasgeh]

@bobco85 139043 wrote:

My main issue with the driver of the red car is that he decided to enter an intersection 6 seconds after he had gotten a red light while cross traffic who had right-of-way was starting to enter.

BTW, the red car in question, is sitting on the crosswalk when the light turns red. I think ACPD’s education campaign would be better served educating drivers what to do in similar situations…

[notinthe18]

Dude who insisted on passing two of us IN THE SANDY INTERSECTION without calling a pass, on the narrow path northbound alongside Washington Boulevard approaching the GWMP, into oncoming runners and bikers — you’re the real MVP today. But your response of “where else to you want me to pass?” to my “come on, bro” makes me think you were sent by a higher power to test me, so I’ll go on about my day.

[bobco85]

From this morning

Me: Slowing down to stop in a row of cars eastbound at the Beauregard/Seminary light, I am in the right of 2 straight lanes (there are also 2 left turn lanes and 2 right turn lanes, the rightmost of the latter being more like an off-ramp)
You: Driver on the off-ramp heading toward Seminary with no one anywhere in front of him about 2 lanes away from me, screaming out, “GET OFF THE ROAD!!!”
Me: Turning my head, seeing how far away you were when you screamed, and having a quick laugh at how ridiculous the situation was

The odd thing is that I was never even close to being “in his way” even when riding on Beauregard. Some people really just need to leave 10 minutes earlier, I guess.

[scoot]

@bobco85 140254 wrote:

eastbound at the Beauregard/Seminary light, I am in the right of 2 straight lanes (there are also 2 left turn lanes and 2 right turn lanes, the rightmost of the latter being more like an off-ramp)

The new design of that intersection befuddles me. Nobody uses the leftmost right turn lane, because there is a slip lane. Meanwhile there is high demand for U-turns from westbound Seminary (commuters from 395 headed to Mark Center), but there is a sign forbidding that maneuver. Presumably because it would conflict with right turning traffic, but there’s hardly any such traffic due to the slip lane.

The next intersection down Seminary (at Mark Center Ave) is worse. Three right turn lanes, and I’ve seen drivers take high-speed rights on red from any one of them into any lane on Seminary. Pedestrians are completely screwed; it’s so bad they didn’t even bother to paint a crosswalk on the southeast edge of the intersection (from 4900 Seminary to the base of the new ped bridge over 395). Instead you’re supposed to walk across six lanes on Mark Center Ave (where drivers are often hurrying to catch green arrows and almost never yield to peds) plus a slip lane, cross on the northwest edge of the intersection, then cross the Southern Towers entrance/exit, all just to get to the new bridge.

[tnelson]

Today, evening rush hour, near the Kennedy Center.

You: Driving your moped northbound along the busy Rock Creek Park Trail.

Me: Riding my bike southbound, reacting something like this:

Despite you also driving with earbuds in, I’m assuming you heard me yelling at you. I looked back as you passed me, and I’m hoping that you slowing down and putting your right blinker on meant you were going to get back onto the road. For the sake of all the other cyclists and pedestrians on the path, I sure hope I’m right.

[bobco85]

@scoot 140267 wrote:

The new design of that intersection befuddles me. Nobody uses the leftmost right turn lane, because there is a slip lane. Meanwhile there is high demand for U-turns from westbound Seminary (commuters from 395 headed to Mark Center), but there is a sign forbidding that maneuver. Presumably because it would conflict with right turning traffic, but there’s hardly any such traffic due to the slip lane.

Yeah, even in the morning, I don’t see many people making use of the leftmost 90 degree right turn lane, but there are always at least 1-2 (I always get stopped by the light). Usually it’s because they were unable to move into the right lane for the slip lane in time due to other vehicles. Hmm, I just looked at the satellite image, and I never noticed that the leftmost right turn lane is actually the same lane as the slip lane, it’s just that it splits. Weird stuff.

The next intersection down Seminary (at Mark Center Ave) is worse. Three right turn lanes, and I’ve seen drivers take high-speed rights on red from any one of them into any lane on Seminary. Pedestrians are completely screwed; it’s so bad they didn’t even bother to paint a crosswalk on the southeast edge of the intersection (from 4900 Seminary to the base of the new ped bridge over 395). Instead you’re supposed to walk across six lanes on Mark Center Ave (where drivers are often hurrying to catch green arrows and almost never yield to peds) plus a slip lane, cross on the northwest edge of the intersection, then cross the Southern Towers entrance/exit, all just to get to the new bridge.

I find it strange every time I pass through there that there are only crosswalks on 2 sides of that intersection. I was hoping that they’d extend the half-crosswalk for the temporary pedestrian path to the other side, but sadly that did not happen.

[Steve O]

@bobco85 140254 wrote:

From this morning

Me: Slowing down to stop in a row of cars eastbound at the Beauregard/Seminary light, I am in the right of 2 straight lanes (there are also 2 left turn lanes and 2 right turn lanes, the rightmost of the latter being more like an off-ramp)
You: Driver on the off-ramp heading toward Seminary with no one anywhere in front of him about 2 lanes away from me, screaming out, “GET OFF THE ROAD!!!”
Me: Turning my head, seeing how far away you were when you screamed, and having a quick laugh at how ridiculous the situation was

The odd thing is that I was never even close to being “in his way” even when riding on Beauregard. Some people really just need to leave 10 minutes earlier, I guess.

I’m still waiting for an opportunity to try out my new response to these sorts of things: Simply “Why?”

[Author]

Posts