Woman Hit by Cyclist on Four Mile Run

[dasgeh]

@KLizotte 22430 wrote:

I find it a bit odd that peds are so adamant that we call/ring our passes on the designated MUPs (I’m thinking of the ones with stop signs, yellow lane markings, etc – not the “trail” around the Jefferson Memorial) since cyclists don’t expect or demand that drivers toot their horns when they are going to pass us. When we are on the road we automatically assume that others will be passing us at any time, that it is incumbent upon us to behave predictably and not to move to the left without looking first. Shouldn’t we expect the same behavior from peds? They are walking in a roadway (call it a park or trail but it is essentially a road) and when I’m walking along one I don’t much care if anyone calls or rings since I presume a cyclist can come by at any time and I’m not planning on making any unexpected moves without looking first.

I disagree because (1) peds and most bikes don’t have rearview and side mirrors to help them see what’s coming behind them; (2) I don’t expect passes on a MUP to be at least 3 feet (which allows you a little wiggly room in case you have to dodge bad pavement); (3) the many more very reasonable situations in which pedestrians move in ways other than a straight line (oops, I dropped my pen and it’s rolling over there — let me pick it up); and (4) the difference in expectations on different MUP situations v. the relative homogenous expectations on roads. By (4), I mean that every user, on every road, is expected to look behind them enough to see other users coming at a reasonable speed (e.g. when changing lanes or turning). MUPs, especially in this area, come in many types, and I can see how users could be confused as to what counts as a “MUP” v. a sidewalk. (On a side note, this is why I’m pushing so hard to get better signage on the MUPs, though I admit that if it looks like a sidewalk, feels like a sidewalk and quacks like a sidewalk, it doesn’t matter that you call it the “Custis trail”, people will treat it like a sidewalk). Do you really expect a pedestrian on a sidewalk who, e.g. drop a pen, to turn around enough to see a bike coming at a reasonable speed before lunging over to pick it up? No, you expect the cyclist to make their presence known, so that the ped knows that they should wait a second before lunging. Cars don’t lunge over if they drop something.

[Terpfan]

@jabberwocky 22435 wrote:

I’ve been road riding for many years and can’t remember ever being outright surprised by a car passing me. Cars make a lot of noise (engine and tire) when moving. Bikes on the other hand are damn near silent, and I’ve been surprised many, many times by riders on the trail.

And yeah, nobody should rely on noise (pedestrian, car, bike, etc) to determine whether its safe to change lanes or whatnot. Its a courtesy thing. I know quite a few runners who run on MUPs and they all seem to appreciate it when cyclists announce passes.

In general you can hear cars, but that’s one of the biggest complaints from the National Federation of the Blind is some of the newer hybrids that don’t engage the gasoline fired engine until 5 or 10mph. Basically they want them to make noise so the blind can hear them.

Back to KL’s post, I do think pedestrians need to share in responsibility. It’s ironic that the mode of transportation with the easiest ability to signal intentions basically never does. It’s far easier for me to look both ways walking than on a bike or more so a car simply based on speed.

C’est le vie.

[dasgeh]

@TwoWheelsDC 22440 wrote:

Is that because it actually enhances safety somehow, or do they appreciate it because that’s become a normal rule-of-the-road type of thing? If people are acting predictably (i.e. “under normal circumstances”) then a courtesy ding seems redundant. I will admit, however, that I never use the trails for anything other than cycling, so my view is skewed. I’m sincerely curious (as in, I’m not snarking and am really interested to hear people’s thoughts) to know exactly why runners appreciate the signal since, as KLizzotte points out, users should anticipate being passed at any time.

As a sometimes runner, I’d say that it’s a few things: 1. a perceived vulnerability thing — cyclists pass very closely, and the perception (at least) is that as a ped, you’re more vulnerable than a cyclist. 2. A safety thing — I know I may run into a bad section of pavement, or some other reason to step left, that’s not visible to a cyclist coming up behind me. I generally look behind me, but if it’s only one step left, I don’t always do so. If I know someone’s coming, I stick to my line. 3. A good neighbor thing — enough cyclists don’t obey the rules (and yes, I think more drivers don’t obey the rules), a cyclist who dings or calls passes is following at least one rule, which says to me they know what they’re doing and they’re going to follow most of the rules.

[acc]

This tragedy continues to weigh heavily on me because there are no easy lessons, there is no group to demonize.
We could all call it a day, hunker down in our backyards and never venture off the block. It would be safer.
But pulling weeds and trimming shrubs are activities I try to avoid because I’d rather ride my bike, run on the trails, swim in…oh never mind.
So we go out into the world knowing it’s risky out there.

There are steps we can take to lessen our own risk. We can take the Confident City Biking Classes or other Bike Safety classes. We can invest in bells. We can call out our passes. As runners, joggers, stroller pushers and dog walkers we can stay on the right, not make sudden turns, wear reflective clothing, and be careful with electronic devices.

But despite our best efforts, there is always going to be risk.

In part it comes down to how much speed are you willing to sacrifice? And if you’re not willing to cut your speed back in tight passes where getting around is like threading a needle, why not? Isn’t this the same behavior we detest among impatient drivers who buzz by our left shoulders because our bikes are slowing them down?

Mr. Blacknell wrote a column this week that was well done and well thought out and I wish I could steal it.
http://clarendon.patch.com/articles/sharing-our-trails-revisited

[PotomacCyclist]

@Terpfan 22442 wrote:

In general you can hear cars, but that’s one of the biggest complaints from the National Federation of the Blind is some of the newer hybrids that don’t engage the gasoline fired engine until 5 or 10mph. Basically they want them to make noise so the blind can hear them.

Back to KL’s post, I do think pedestrians need to share in responsibility. It’s ironic that the mode of transportation with the easiest ability to signal intentions basically never does. It’s far easier for me to look both ways walking than on a bike or more so a car simply based on speed.

C’est le vie.

According to this review, at least one new hybrid automobile broadcasts a prerecorded engine sound to alert pedestrians of the car’s presence:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304299304577350223009953412.html?mod=wsj_article_exploremore_row2_2

[MCL1981]

I would love if everyone on two wheels would read and understand this portion of Mark’s column

Cyclists, understand this: You are to pedestrians on the trail as cars are to you on the road. This means that you have the responsibility – as the ones who can do the most damage – to not only observe the pedestrian’s right of way on the trail, but to anticipate and avoid dangerous situations. If that means slowing to a crawl for a few moments because you think that couple ahead of you might take the left turn without looking — do it. You know how motorists can wait for a few seconds when you need to take the lane? Same thing here.

Cyclists are also in the driver’s seat when it comes to signaling a pass. My recommendation from last year remains the same – get and use a bell. They’re cheap, they’re easier to hear than voice warnings, and they’re not subject to misinterpretation.

[KLizotte]

@MCL1981 22451 wrote:

Cyclists, understand this: You are to pedestrians on the trail as cars are to you on the road. This means that you have the responsibility – as the ones who can do the most damage – to not only observe the pedestrian’s right of way on the trail, but to anticipate and avoid dangerous situations. If that means slowing to a crawl for a few moments because you think that couple ahead of you might take the left turn without looking — do it. You know how motorists can wait for a few seconds when you need to take the lane? Same thing here.

I’m not saying this is good advice that we should all heed; however, it can be interpreted as saying that if someone does a U-turn without looking in front of me and I hit him, I am at fault for not “anticipating and avoiding” the situation. The analogy to the driver waiting a few seconds for me to take the lane doesn’t quite fit since I’m assuming the cyclist has signalled his intention to get into the drivers’ lane. If the cyclist swings into the driver’s lane without looking or signalling and gets hit, I think it is the cyclist’s fault. That said, yes, cyclists must keep to a reasonable speed and scan the horizon for trouble but it is getting increasingly wearisome trying to avoid stupid behavior every day on my commute (I can’t avoid the MVT and Gravelly Pt given where I work and live).

I bring these issues up out of concern for personal liability. DC, MD and VA are all contributory negligence (CN) states which can be a blessing or a curse depending on which side of an accident you are on. It’s also rather unusual since most states do not have such laws. I don’t know if CN in VA would prevent this, but the woman’s family may sue the cyclist for funeral costs at minimum and these would run at least 10K plus all the legal fees. What if you get into an accident outside DC, MD and VA? Does it become a he said, she said scenario? If so, I fear for our side of the story given the high level of vitriol against cyclists out there. If you read the comments on WashPost, ArlNow, and even by the editor of WashCycle and you will quickly realize you don’t want most of these people on the jury of your trial. It doesn’t help that the laws pertaining to cyclists are contradictory and hazy.

I’ve done a quick google search for bicyclist insurance that would cover injury to others and came up with nothing except that offered to pro cyclists when they are participating in events.

The vast majority of us will never have to face these issues but fate may bite one or two of us in the butt someday. I don’t think the laws have kept pace with cycling today.

[MCL1981]

He spoke of pedestrian responsibility prior to that paragraph. The reason I only quote this cyclist portion is…

1. This is the Washington Area Bicycle Form, not the pedestrian forum.
2. We can’t control what peds do, we can only control what we do.
3. If cyclists don’t control themselves, how can we expect or be angry at peds who don’t control themselves?

There is a reason cyclists get a stereotypical arrogant profile. We demand everyone else do what a large number of us refuse to do.

[Arlingtonrider]

You and KLizotte make good points as well. I have to say that I know a lot of us are very saddened by this. Hopefully, we will bear it in mind. I think more about her life and family than i do about liability issues or who is to blame for what. That by itself makes me want to be extremely careful, regardless of who is responsible for acting in a certain way. Right now i’m just heartbroken that this happened. Other accidents involving bicyclists affect me that way too. I’m glad these issues are being discussed though.

[JeffC]

@MCL1981 22451 wrote:

I would love if everyone on two wheels would read and understand this portion of Mark’s column

Cyclists, understand this: You are to pedestrians on the trail as cars are to you on the road. This means that you have the responsibility – as the ones who can do the most damage – to not only observe the pedestrian’s right of way on the trail, but to anticipate and avoid dangerous situations. If that means slowing to a crawl for a few moments because you think that couple ahead of you might take the left turn without looking — do it. You know how motorists can wait for a few seconds when you need to take the lane? Same thing here.

Cyclists are also in the driver’s seat when it comes to signaling a pass. My recommendation from last year remains the same – get and use a bell. They’re cheap, they’re easier to hear than voice warnings, and they’re not subject to misinterpretation.

Although I agree with this, it just supports in my mind the need for bikes only trails like in some more advanced US cities. A major cause of vehicle accidents is cars at vastly different speeds on the freeways, e.g., the person trying to weave in traffic going 70 mph when a slower person is doing 50 mph. This is why many freeways have minimum speeds of at least 40 mph.

Now go to the MUPs, a bike can easily (based on my bike getting flagged by some radar cameras by Arlington Hospital) go 20 mph. On a flat MUP. 15 mph is very easy to do. Good joggers are maybe going 6 mph, walkers half that. So you have bikers going roughly 3 times as fast as many joggers/walkers. Imagine on a road you suddenly said ok some cars are going 60 mph while others are going 20 mph on a freeway, it would be a recipe for disaster. Is it any wonder that a crowded MUP has disasters too?

[jnva]

@KLizotte 22430 wrote:

Shouldn’t we expect the same behavior from peds? They are walking in a roadway (call it a park or trail but it is essentially a road)

Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. It’s not a road.

[MCL1981]

@jnva 22472 wrote:

Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. It’s not a road.

Can you elaborate? You took one sentence out of an entire detailed reply with no context.

[Riley Casey]

In a thread I started a couple of weeks ago I complained that in a twenty mile ride I heard only one pass called. I guess I made it seem like I was unhappy that cyclists were not calling passes on me when in fact the point I was trying to bring attention to was that none of the cyclists I was nearby in all that ride were even making an announcement of passing pedestrians.

Someone early in the thread posted a response that said that while bells were not a bad idea that they were not a universal solution. I have to suggest that they are the closest thing to a universal solution that we have on hand. Bells have been associated with the approach of a bicycle since at least the days of the Little Rascals films of the 1930s and I would expect even earlier. Its impossible to say what might or might not have ameliorated the tragic accident that has occasioned this thread but it’s clear to me in all my years of riding that a bell is MUCH more clearly identified by pedestrians than any sort of voice warning. The actual content of voice communication is too easily distorted by distance and ambient sounds. A bell is a unique sound. I would very much like to see some sort of agreement among the cycle-centric people on the forum that bells are the best answer to warning pedestrians of the approach of a bike and further I’d like to suggest that this go further, that organizations like WABA make it a meme in general that bells be used often and vigorously.

Calling passes to other cyclists is a separate topic to my mind. Not too many cyclists are on the path deep in conversation with the person next to them and pushing baby strollers. Making the bell warning as close to universal as possible is for the their benefit.

Oh, and those miserable little bells on the CABI bikes need an upgrade too.

[MCL1981]

You’re thinking logically and suggesting something for the good everyone on the trail. Unfortunately, I’ve found that the vast majority of cyclists on the trail are not logical, and they do not give a crap about anything or anyone but themselves and their pace. They can not and will not be bothered by everyone else around them. That bell weighs too much and adds air resistance. Speaking would make it appear as if they care. So unfortunately, the likely outcome, even after a death, is that nothing will change.

[DOS]

@MCL1981 22480 wrote:

You’re thinking logically and suggesting something for the good everyone on the trail. Unfortunately, I’ve found that the vast majority of cyclists on the trail are not logical, and they do not give a crap about anything or anyone but themselves and their pace. They can not and will not be bothered by everyone else around them. That bell weighs too much and adds air resistance. Speaking would make it appear as if they care. So unfortunately, the likely outcome, even after a death, is that nothing will change.

I dont use a bell and its not because I am “not logical” or because I “do not give a crap”. I also know alot of cyclists and do not believe that above post describes any of them. I can only speak for myself but when I did use a bell, it was generally received negatively — like I was telling folks to “get out of my way” as opposed to a warning I was approaching. I may start using one again (although having stopped using trails for most part, maybe not), but on the increasingly rare occasions when I find myself on trails or otherwise among pedestrians, I never get the kind of negative reaction (flipped birds and the like) to a spoken “passing on your left” that I used to get to a bell. I do take the point that a bell is more easily heard and less likley to result in a pedestrian turning into the oncoming bike in response, however. So perhaps the risk of aflipped bird in worth the trouble.

[Author]

Posts