Woman Hit by Cyclist on Four Mile Run

[vvill]

@jabberwocky 21949 wrote:

Yeah. There are limits to how much you can accommodate other peoples randomness/failure to follow rules. I’m a pretty careful cyclist on the trail, but I’ve almost hit a lot of people (and have hit a few) over the years I commuted on the W&OD. You can call, slow when passing, give as much room as possible but at some point, if someone decides to do a rapid 180 or dart into the trail without looking, well, there just isn’t much you can do to avoid them.

Yeah I’ve seen a few 180s from runners up ahead where I guess they’ve reached their allocated mileage/lap/run distance and just wheeled straight around without pausing or looking. Luckily I’ve never been close enough to hit any. And just this morning in Georgetown there was a lady running a blind sharp left turn straight into the right side of the “path” (just over the Key Bridge/M St corner) where I was riding. Neither of us were going fast and we were attentive enough that we both moved out of the way with no problem but again, if I had been 5-10 yards further ahead it could have been a different story.

[Tim Kelley]

@ponchera 21959 wrote:

anyone use one of these? maybe it’s loud enough to give a good heads up. Even if the person gets spooked and jumps in front of you, you’ll have enough time to brake (combined with slower speeds).

http://www.amazon.com/Megalert-Mega-Horn-Electronic-Bicycle/dp/B0017SFPQ8/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pdT1_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&coliid=I11Y9PP3LO3RHO&colid=1AV9N86BA1Z48

I have an Air Zound and it is way too loud to use for pedestrian in a trail situation. I only use it on the road around cars, when necessary.

[representing]

I doubt a bell would have helped – obviously, her hearing was impaired so she probably wouldn’t have heard the bell either. I am hearing impaired and never hear the bell until the cyclist is beside me. I take precautions to make sure i’m not in harm’s way because i realize that i can’t hear…but we all need to take greater care and recognize there are people of all capabilities using those paths.

[PotomacCyclist]

@vvill 21966 wrote:

Yeah I’ve seen a few 180s from runners up ahead where I guess they’ve reached their allocated mileage/lap/run distance and just wheeled straight around without pausing or looking. Luckily I’ve never been close enough to hit any. And just this morning in Georgetown there was a lady running a blind sharp left turn straight into the right side of the “path” (just over the Key Bridge/M St corner) where I was riding. Neither of us were going fast and we were attentive enough that we both moved out of the way with no problem but again, if I had been 5-10 yards further ahead it could have been a different story.

There were a couple cases across the country last year where a runner died because they did an abrupt 180 on a trail and collided with a cyclist. I think the runners were using earphones and didn’t look before turning suddenly. A couple years ago, I worked with someone who was just getting into running. She did the same thing, running with earphones and then doing a quick 180 without looking. She got hit by a cyclist but fortunately she only suffered a few minor scratches and bruises.

If I see someone behaving dangerously, whether it’s doing a blind 180, passing on the trail by crossing into the other lane and forcing oncoming cyclists/runners off the trail, salmoning on bike lanes or streets, etc., I’ll usually make a simple comment without being rude. (Of course, if the person has a crazed or aggressive demeanor, I avoid them.) For salmoning cyclists, I’ll say calmly, “You’re going the wrong way.” The hope is that the brief comment will wake them up a little bit so that they may reconsider their behavior in the future. It doesn’t take much effort on my part so why not do it? I don’t comment in a threatening tone, unless there’s a near collision and I blurt out something impulsively. Some of the people will admit that they shouldn’t be riding the wrong way or they will look stunned when I say “whoa!” after the blind 180.

When I see a runner who appears to be slowing up, I tend to assume that the person is about to make a blind 180. I’ll prepare in advance by slowing up and moving farther to the side. Then if they go through with the blind 180, I’ll avoid a collision easily, but I’ll still be close enough to say “yikes!” and have them hear it. Many people are simply clueless about these situations. The embarrassment from the near collision combines with the instinct for self preservation to alter their behavior in future situations (I hope).

[baiskeli]

Wow, the police report says he also rang a bell.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 21900 wrote:

Even if I were not interested in promoting biking, as a transportation economist I am against on-street parking, in most instances, on economic grounds.

But anyway, your point seems to be that American citizens lack the willpower and desire to create this kind of bike friendly environment. I agree with you on that point. It’s sad since the technology exists and the infrastructure can be built in most places. Unfortunately I think a lack of support is due to ignorance of existing alternatives that are alive and well (but CaBi should help in this regard).

There is a long list of things that I’d like to chalk up to ignorance. But the lack of support is more likely, IME, due to arguments that are simply unconvincing or undesirable to constituents in face of whatever effort it would take to change. I’d argue that the fundamental problem is that people don’t pay for a host of things on the margin. If they did, it’s unclear to me that segregation solution is what people would choose.

BTW, shouldn’t on-street parking just pay market rates for spaces? FWIW, on-street parking seems to slow down motorized traffic noticeably.

@Mark Blacknell 21896 wrote:

Perhaps I lack imagination, but I really can’t imagine a United States in which this is a politically viable solution.

Almost certainly not a US-wide solution. But allowing for people to sort themselves into areas they like, I can imagine certain qualities being broadly applied to municipalities.

[5555624]

@Tim Kelley 21922 wrote:

The other thing I’ve noticed Pete does, is say “Thanks” after calling and making the pass. He does it every single time, regardless of whether or not the person being passed moved over or gave some recognition of hearing the call. People wearing headphones may not have even heard him, but he still says it.

I tend to do this as well. Not making it a conversation, even a one-sided one, like Dirt does, just a simple, “Thanks.” I admit that one reason I do it is because some people don’t move, even when it’s clear that they heard or saw me before the pass, so I think that by saying “Thanks,” they might move the next time.

[Dirt]

I guess the reason I talk so much to people is that we ALL tend to simplify things by putting people into categories. It is human nature. By trying to talk to everyone, it reminds ME that everyone I meet, even if for a moment, is an individual and I need to be respectful of that. It helps me make better decisions when passing or reacting to situations on the trail.

It is SOOOOO easy to get wrapped up in our own ride, lives, thoughts, etc. That is very true for EVERYONE on the trail and intersecting the trail.

[Subby]

I have seen joggers randomly U-turn on the WOD a number of times. With headphones, of course. Couple that with the cyclists who will pass between two cyclists approaching each other in opposite directions and its a wonder this doesn’t happen more often.

[5555624]

@Greenbelt 21943 wrote:

One thing I try to remind myself is that it’s OK to ride off trail to avoid an erratic or unexpected move on the trails. At least in most places it’s just grass, and worst case scenario if I lose it is a dirty bruise or two.

Or a flat. I tend to avoid going off the trail if at all possible and would rather stop. I’ve gotten several flats, glass and nails, from riding off the trail and on the “grass.” I’ll do it on occasion, such as last week, when two tourists completely blocked the trail with their bikes after dismounting to take a picture, but it’s rare for me to do it.

[mstone]

@Greenbelt 21943 wrote:

One thing I try to remind myself is that it’s OK to ride off trail to avoid an erratic or unexpected move on the trails. At least in most places it’s just grass, and worst case scenario if I lose it is a dirty bruise or two. (Most of the time I don’t lose it though.) I often just take to the grass anyways when there are kids on training wheels or a group of teenagers. It’s more fun and safer than coming to a complete stop, which is often the only option especially where there’s a whole peleton of kids on tiny bikes.
Of course, some of it is circumstance — trails in Prince George’s seem to have lots of strollers and walkers when the weather’s nice, but fewer bikes and high-speed runners, so it’s a little different dynamic. And I realize some of the trails in VA are much tighter and don’t have grassy or level areas on the sides.

Yeah, most of my trail miles involve a multi-inch drop and gravel, sometimes steep gravel. I’ve wiped on that before, and I’d rather just stop.

[jnva]

@5555624 21981 wrote:

I admit that one reason I do it is because some people don’t move, even when it’s clear that they heard or saw me before the pass, so I think that by saying “Thanks,” they might move the next time.

I thought pedestrians have the right of way on a multiuser path – why do you want them to move? This is the problem I have with this situation. I have a hard time believing this 80 year old woman was ignoring the cyclists warnings. If you as a cyclist can not stop in time to avoid hitting a pedestrian on a mup, then you are going too fast.

[consularrider]

@jnva 22007 wrote:

I thought pedestrians have the right of way on a multiuser path – why do you want them to move? This is the problem I have with this situation. I have a hard time believing this 80 year old woman was ignoring the cyclists warnings. If you as a cyclist can not stop in time to avoid hitting a pedestrian on a mup, then you are going too fast.

While the pedestrians do have the right of way, hopefully since we are all sharing the same small space, people will be considerate. It is quite common for walkers and runners (less so cyclists) to be two (or occassionally more) abreast whether on the right side of the MUP or spreading across the middle. I do not expect a single walker/runner/cyclist to move over to allow me to pass and will go completely to the left to go around, but when there are multiples in front of me, it is polite to tighten up their formation to reduce the possibility of a collision.

One thing that really got to me on the Arlnow comments were the commentators (trolls?) who do not see anything wrong with wandering aimlessly, walking lost in thought with no situational awareness, or just standing and obstructing part of the MUP. Just as I get annoyed with others who seem to have forgotten that we have a social compact that enables us to coexist in a built up urban environment. Ok, I’ll get off my soapbox.

[rcannon100]

@jnva 22007 wrote:

I thought pedestrians have the right of way on a multiuser path – why do you want them to move? This is the problem I have with this situation. I have a hard time believing this 80 year old woman was ignoring the cyclists warnings. If you as a cyclist can not stop in time to avoid hitting a pedestrian on a mup, then you are going too fast.

Unfortunately it is a problem of location. Where the incident probably happened, it is extremely hilly, and curvy, with no side to the paths. There is essentially no opportunity for evasion.

And unfortunately, the terrain is so rugged at this point, even the smallest nudge can cause someone to fall over.

No, pedestrians dont have the right of way as you are suggesting. It is a multiple user path. It is for everyone. Bikes are suppose to yield to pedestrians, but the concept of yield always assumes that the other party is acting in a predictable manner. Bicyclists yield to pedestrians; pedestrians must walk on the right and not block the path. Pedestrians must not do unpredictable turns. This is the same on the road – cars are suppose to yield to pedestrians, but pedestrians have a duty to ensure the road / crosswalk is clear and safe before entering. “right of way” is no the same as “always has the right”

In this case we can assume that the cyclists did everything by the book. We can assume a reasonable speed, signalling, use of bell, and passing as far on the left as possible. In this situation, when the pedestrian – as described in the reports – turns and hooks left to look at the oncoming bicycle – there is nothing that the bicyclists can do…. at any speed.

These are shared paths. Everyone that uses them needs to be familiar with the rules. Pedestrians as well as cyclists. There is nothing in any description that has suggested that this cyclists did anything wrong, nor was the cyclists receive a traffic citation.

That does not in any way overcome the tragedy of this situation.

[DaveK]

Mark Blacknell wrote:

Perhaps I lack imagination, but I really can’t imagine a United States in which this is a politically viable solution.

@invisiblehand 21980 wrote:

Almost certainly not a US-wide solution. But allowing for people to sort themselves into areas they like, I can imagine certain qualities being broadly applied to municipalities.

That may be true when applied to municipalities like Portland, Davis, or Boulder, but Arlington isn’t one of those. As much as many people would like to think so, Arlington won’t reach that level until there is real widespread citizen advocacy and public support for new and increased separated bike facilities, acknowledging that installing these facilities in many cases requires losing on-street parking, roadway travel lanes, or green space in parks. That support either isn’t there or isn’t making itself known. Not that it’s a simple equation of showing up at the board meeting and a week later we’ve got cycletracks down Wilson and Clarendon, but the process won’t even get started until someone speaks for it.

[Author]

Posts