Woman Hit by Cyclist on Four Mile Run

[KLizotte]

@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.

In that case you are advocating that all cyclists slow to match the walking pace of a pedestrian any time they come near one. Even then it is possible to collide – witness what happens when two people are trying to walk through a doorway at the same time and do the “dance”. A MUP first and foremost is a *transportation corridor*; one is not walking in the grass through a park. Walkers and runners have a responsibility to ensure their safety and that of others just as cyclists do when they are on the road. It should also be pointed out that cars are not expected to blow their horns at cyclists when they are about ready to pass them. I ride with the expectation that cars may pass me at any time if I’m staying to the right and act accordingly.

[jabberwocky]

@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.

Right of way does not translate to being able to do whatever you want at any time though. Pedestrians have right of way under the rules of the trail. The conflict here was that (according to the article) the lady did not stay to the right while being passed as she should have. We can talk about all the things that might have helped (like going slower, though we don’t know how fast the cyclist was actually going) but the fundamental fact is there isn’t really a defense against someone suddenly veering into your path like that (even with an overtaking speed of a few mph, there is a point where you won’t be able to stop in time).

Which is why that rule exists in the first place.

[5555624]

@jnva 22007 wrote:

I thought pedestrians have the right of way on a multiuser path – why do you want them to move?

Pedestrians do have the right of way, but that does not mean they own the trail. (Actually, while they clearly do have it on sidewalks, aren’t they supposed to “share the trail”?) On the other hand, if they are walking down the center of the trail, I think it is reasonable to expect them to move aside — share the trail — slightly so I can pass. If it’s two pedestrians walking side-by-side, I don’t think it’s too much for one of them to briefly move aside so I can pass. (I’ll even say, “Excuse me” in such circumstances.) In either situation, however, if they won’t move, I’ll stop.

@jnva 22007 wrote:

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.

According to the report, the cyclist not only “yelled” a warning, he rang his bell. It sounds like she heard part of that and stepped LEFT and into the cyclist’s path: “This is when the 80 year old woman stepped to her left and turned around to be struck head-on, causing her to fall backwards to the ground.” This is why several people have said, “on your left” can be confusing.

@jnva 22007 wrote:

If you as a cyclist can not stop in time to avoid hitting a pedestrian on a mup, then you are going too fast.

No matter how slow you are going, I can step in front of you without giving you time to stop and avoid hitting me. We have no idea how fast the cyclist was going or how hard he struck her. All we know is he hit her directly, head-on. At 80 years old and without being able to brace herself, it would not take much to knock her over. You can fall backwards of a curb and strike your head on the asphalt and die.

It’s a tragic, tragic accident. It would be nice if there were no such thing as accidents and we all want to minimize them, but sometimes they happen. What we need to do is see what can be done to prevent similar accidents in the future. In this case, since we don’t know the speed of the cyclist, maybe saying “passing” or “passing on your left” instead of “on your left,” is the takeaway.

[jnva]

@KLizotte 22018 wrote:

A MUP first and foremost is a *transportation corridor*.

Really? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, but I thought the wod/custis/ 4mr trails were recreational first and foremost. If its a transportation corridor then why aren’t motorized vehicles allowed?

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 21900 wrote:

In my ideal world, I would remove on-street parking and put in a barrier separated bike lane for each road. Whether you keep one side of the road available to on-street parking depends on whether you want one or two lanes of through traffic. 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).

I used to work for Amtrak so I know how hard it is to turn the tide. Patience, patience… That said, Arlington is 10x better than most American cities and I’m thankful for that. Go Arlington!

@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.

Lets take a super bike-friendly jurisdiction and high bike traffic route as an example. The Clarendon and Wilson Boulevard pair in Arlington. A few miles of prime east-west corridor real estate. How would you segregate traffic along there, and what are the chances of that plan being adopted within the next 20 years?

(FWIW, I’ve been to (and lived in some of) the places you mention. I’ve also lived here for a good long while now.)

EDIT … I seem to have lost DaveK’s text. Sorry.

I agree that Arlington, VA constituents will not go for widespread use of such facilities. I personally would vote against broad use of cycletracks and would let the board know it.

[Tim Kelley]

@jnva 22034 wrote:

Really? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, but I thought the wod/custis/ 4mr trails were recreational first and foremost. If its a transportation corridor then why aren’t motorized vehicles allowed?

Yes, our automated counters show distinct peak commuting habits. For example, see the graph below from Sunday and Monday of this week.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1190[/ATTACH]

Sunday shows recreational riders peaking midday. Monday show an AM and PM rush.

Motorized vehicles aren’t allowed because it is a multi-use path for pedestrians, people on bikes, and equestrian enthusiasts. Transportation doesn’t always have to be by motorized vehicle.

[MCL1981]

I guess this will have to be my next addition…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG2I-rRx5-w

[mstone]

@jnva 22034 wrote:

Really? I’m not trying to be sarcastic here, but I thought the wod/custis/ 4mr trails were recreational first and foremost. If its a transportation corridor then why aren’t motorized vehicles allowed?

All of the local MUPs are the result of trying to check off as many boxes as possible without spending much money. There is no “first and foremost” except “make sure it’s as cheap as possible”. Even that tiny expenditure needs to be justified by pretending that one trail will meet the needs of commuters, recreational cyclists, equestrians, roller bladers, joggers, mommies with strollers, marching bands, etc. The neat thing is, unlike roads, you don’t even need to maintain the MUP! It’s a one-time expense!

For project local to me, the original design called for sidewalks on either side of the road and an MUP connecting to the FFX county parkway trail. That’s been pared down to one sidewalk and one MUP, and we’ll probably be lucky if we get the MUP at all. Sure as hell we’ll get all four travel lanes plus turn lanes, though. At least one engineer at VDOT saw the benefit of separate cyclist and pedestrian infrastructure, even if it got killed.

[invisiblehand]

@KLizotte 22018 wrote:

A MUP first and foremost is a *transportation corridor*; one is not walking in the grass through a park.

Does the Parks Dept maintain the MUPs? I think yes such that it’s a park/recreation first.

IMO, it’s a park that everyone is entitled to reasonable use. So a bunch of kids playing hopscotch on the trail is unreasonable. Families slowly rolling along the trail is reasonable. Families slowly rolling along three-abreast is unreasonable. Off the top of my head, I don’t have a succinct rule that covers everything.

[DismalScientist]

Transportation corridor?

@Tim Kelley 22042 wrote:

Yes, our automated counters show distinct peak commuting habits. For example, see the graph below from Sunday and Monday of this week.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1190[/ATTACH]

Sunday shows recreational riders peaking midday. Monday show an AM and PM rush.

Motorized vehicles aren’t allowed because it is a multi-use path for pedestrians, people on bikes, and equestrian enthusiasts. Transportation doesn’t always have to be by motorized vehicle.

The particular section of FMR where the accident occurred, not so much.

[dasgeh]

I think debating the primary purpose of any or all MUPs is a red herring. The better questions are: what are the current rules of the MUP? Do users know the rules? Do they obey the rules? Are those rules appropriate for how the MUPs are used? Are they appropriate for how the MUPs “should” be used? Similarly, are the design and condition of the trail appropriate for how the MUPs are used? Are the design and condition appropriate for how the MUPs “should” be used?

From what I understand (I could be wrong here, because I don’t know the area well), the rules and expectations of trails users are not well publicized on this MUP, and the condition may not be appropriate (too narrow, steep grades, poor sight lines). You can’t prevent every accident and it’s possible that this could have happened on even the most Copenhaganized trail, but looking at the trail through these lenses may prevent another tragedy.

[Mark Blacknell]

Perhaps we could break off the facilities discussion into another thread?

[consularrider]

@dasgeh 22059 wrote:

I think debating the primary purpose of any or all MUPs is a red herring. The better questions are: what are the current rules of the MUP? Do users know the rules? Do they obey the rules? Are those rules appropriate for how the MUPs are used? Are they appropriate for how the MUPs “should” be used? Similarly, are the design and condition of the trail appropriate for how the MUPs are used? Are the design and condition appropriate for how the MUPs “should” be used?

From what I understand (I could be wrong here, because I don’t know the area well), the rules and expectations of trails users are not well publicized on this MUP, and the condition may not be appropriate (too narrow, steep grades, poor sight lines). You can’t prevent every accident and it’s possible that this could have happened on even the most Copenhaganized trail, but looking at the trail through these lenses may prevent another tragedy.

My experience on the 4MRT MUP is that there is no posted signage about use at all. I have seen a sign about helmet requirements for 14 and under near the 7.5 milepost coming off the MVT and near Walter Reed where a sign says it closes a half hour after sunset). There are more general use signs on the MVT, W&OD, and CCT (DC/MD).

[KLizotte]

@invisiblehand 22052 wrote:

Does the Parks Dept maintain the MUPs? I think yes such that it’s a park/recreation first.

IMO, it’s a park that everyone is entitled to reasonable use. So a bunch of kids playing hopscotch on the trail is unreasonable. Families slowly rolling along the trail is reasonable. Families slowly rolling along three-abreast is unreasonable. Off the top of my head, I don’t have a succinct rule that covers everything.

What I mean by “transportation corridor” is the reasonable expectation that traffic (on wheels, peds, etc) will be moving on it and that people have to act accordingly; that is, users should always expect traffic to pass them occasionally and that everyone is part of a continually moving traffic stream. We do not expect, or condone, people having a picnic in the middle of the trail, or kids playing hopscotch, etc. Likewise, if I have to change a tire, I move off the trail because I am impeding traffic. MUP users have to think just like they do as drivers – which is keep things moving and stay out of each others’ way. If I’m doing 55 on the beltway I stay in the right lane for instance.

[KLizotte]

@dasgeh 22059 wrote:

From what I understand (I could be wrong here, because I don’t know the area well), the rules and expectations of trails users are not well publicized on this MUP, and the condition may not be appropriate (too narrow, steep grades, poor sight lines). You can’t prevent every accident and it’s possible that this could have happened on even the most Copenhaganized trail, but looking at the trail through these lenses may prevent another tragedy.

I fully agree that there are not enough signs on the MUPs (Gravelly Pt is a very egregious example). Everyone playing by the same rules will only occur if everyone knows them first.

[Author]

Posts