Love that last paragraph - my dad used to say that all the time when I was learning how to drive.

by Sean Robertson on Jul 8, 2008 6:16 pm  

Trying to find criminal intent or negligence in EVERY collision is a moral and legal quagmire - to the point that it's often cheaper to get things repaired yourself than incur the insurance hit. That's why we call them accidents - it's explicitly devoid of blame, and that's necessary in such a high-risk environment as our roadways. You won't get fired for being late because of 'a traffic accident', but you will if 'you hit somebody'. It's a compromise, not an indication of blamelessness.

That said, this is a common problem, and one of the reasons bike lanes don't jump out as a highly popular measure.

So the question is to how to solve this problem: Should municipalities planning for a high-bike-traffic future simply allow them in the road? Should they build a shoulder? Should they force them onto the sidewalk? Overhead bridges?

What criteria decides best practices?

In this case, the bike would have been safe on the road.

by Squalish on Jul 8, 2008 6:50 pm  

There's no reason 'collision' need carry an assumption of criminal intent/negligence. If a building burns down, we call it a 'fire', not an 'oopsie'. 'Fire' doesn't necessarily mean it was intentional or criminal (that's 'arson'), but it doesn't mean it wasn't either.

Likewise, we oughtn't use a term that necessarily assumes no fault. Nor should we use a term that assumes fault. 'Collision' or 'crash' is neutral; 'accident' prejudges the situation as not criminal, when in truth some crashes are criminal and some are not.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2008 7:57 pm  

I think it's a little irresponsible to mess with the word "accident" here. Accident doesn't imply no one is at fault or criminally responsible. It implies that however this tragedy came about, the outcome was not the intent of either party involved. I'm sure the truck driver is having the worst day of his life right now.

Garbage trucks are often victims of irresponsible driving as well. In a legal sense, I'm sure the truck driver is at fault, but I would place more of the blame on the city for failing to ensure the safety of cyclists.

I am not a regular cyclist and I will admit my inexperience with some of the laws that govern cyclists in DC, but this sort of traffic patterns seems doomed to wind up in accidents like this.

If there is a bike lane that crosses right turning traffic, why is the intersection engineered so that a huge truck can turn right fast enough to kill a cyclist presumably wearing a helmet and abiding by the law? I am not absolving the truck driver of all wrongdoing here, especially considering the irresponsible behavior that to which garbage trucks fall victim all too often, but this sounds like a much, much larger problem with the city failing to provide a safe environment for one of its most important commuting assets, the bicyclists.

by Dave Murphy on Jul 8, 2008 8:24 pm  

I too find the word 'accident' acceptable. The alternative is that it was intentional, which doesn't seem to fit either. Someone can still be responsible for an accident. But then what the hell do I know, I use the words 'Mankind' and 'anti-Semitic' and mispronounce aluminum.

by washcycle on Jul 8, 2008 9:46 pm  

I'm baffled by these comments. Why does the alternative need to be that it was intentional? I'm not saying we should call it a "purpose", just that we should call it a "crash" or "collision". Clearly, some times when a car hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the driver was indeed at fault. Sometimes not. Please explain why "crash" or "collision" necessarily implies intent.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2008 9:50 pm  

It's all well and good to say, "we should engineer our intersections so that if drivers have a momentary lapse, there's as little chance as possible that someone will get hurt or killed," but how exactly does one engineer intersections in that way?

I ask this as an honest question, not to be snarky; my twin brother used to cycle quite frequently. I do know that there are some intersections in NY that have separate traffic lights for motor vehicles and bike lanes, but this seems like a rather expensive answer to the problem. Is there something that is less expensive?

by Greg Rae on Jul 8, 2008 9:51 pm  

For pedestrian safety doing exactly what you suggest is very common. It's called a "leading interval", where the walk signs go on a few seconds before the light turns green, allowing pedestrians to get into the crosswalk before the cars start turning. That way, there's no way the cars would not notice the people.

As for bikes, you're probably right that a separate signal is expensive, but it may be worth it for high-crash intersections. There may be other options too; I will ask around.

by David Alpert on Jul 8, 2008 9:59 pm  

David,

Maybe George Carlin is channeling you, sit back and let him explain it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

by RJ on Jul 8, 2008 10:15 pm  

Greg,

As David indicated, engineers can use a leading interval to allow peds/cyclists to start their move in an intersection via signal head (the white ped/red hand signal) before the light changes green, which allows vehicles to proceed.

There has been a test in a high pedestrian area of Chevy Chase where, upon pedestrian activation, all four lights went red, bring all traffic to a stop. Pedestrians and cyclists are able to proceed without fear of turning vehicles etc. This signal demonstrated that DDOT was able to implement a signal at a high pedestrian area which had not caused "any traffic volume changes at Morrison and surrounding streets of any statistical significance".

In other words, this signal, which has been 100% effective in pedestrian and vehicular safety, has also not had any statistically significant impact on Connecticut Avenue or any of the side streets.

What happened? The Director decided he didn't like the light and announced that it would be converted to a traditional signal. There is no engineering or scientific data to back up this move. He cited anecdotal information about driver confusion and vehicles running the red light.

Given the record number of pedestrian fatalities in 2007, it should be a no-brainer that a signal like the one tested in Chevy Chase, DC should be used per the Pedestrian Master Plan.

However, unless the Mayor shows some leadership on this issue, it will be a lost opportunity for "alternative" transportation in this city.

David has blogged on this issue, so you can search the site for those entries.

by Andrew on Jul 8, 2008 10:18 pm  

Re-engineering intersections can be effective, and in general I support them, but there's another, more immediate solution that could prevent a lot of these accidents for free.

We teach drivers defensive driving - why shouldn't bikes practice it too?

Bicyclists should know how vulnerable they are and should exercise caution when riding next to large a dump truck - or any situation that could result in a right hook for that matter.

Ms. Swanson's death is tragic, but bicyclists need to take note and spread the word to prevent further loss of life.

Cars shouldn't have free reign on the roads, but if we're serious about preventing this type of accident, and acknowledge that it can happen through no fault of either party, then it's only fair to extend the responsibility for prevention both ways.

by Lewis Derkins on Jul 8, 2008 10:35 pm  

It may seem like semantics to some, but David brings up a very valid point here. Accident implies the situation was unavoidable, act of god and/or void of blame. With this crash, as with most, there is a responsible factor if not person(s).

I really don't think this should turn into a debate of the merits of bike lanes considering Swanson was on the sidewalk- 15 to 20 ft. from the truck stopped for the same light to cross in the crosswalk at pedestrian speed, but I do think it is worth noting some of Portland's and other communities institutional and engineering responses to right-hook crashes.

After several high profile fatalities that shook their tight knit cycling community the city began instituting painted green bike lanes with 'bike boxes' that place stopped cyclists in front of traffic for added visibility. Along with this they added additional signage and an awareness PR campaign to alert motorists. This effect can also be accomplished by simply having the stop line further back than that of the bike lane, again allowing bikes to stop ahead of the stopped vehicle. One commenter already offered advanced lights for pedestrians, though additional bike-only lights can also be included. Such lights at this particular intersection would be very useful given the high rates of pedestrians, cyclists and auto traffic all having to navigate a higher than usual amount of possible movements.

Though none of their crashes have involved city owned trucks, Portland has been proactive in installing side guards, additional mirrors and have rerouted much of their fleet away from bike routes when possible. Other communities with dense urban areas have required trucks to also have spotters riding in the passenger seat to help look to avoid such crashes. These larger vehicles do have larger blind spots and all should be more attentive when around them regardless of the travel mode, but knowing these deficiencies the responsibility is ultimately on the driver to make sure it is clear before attempting to turn.

While it is true that regardless if the cyclist/pedestrian has the right of way the automobile is likely to come out ahead, it should also be said that drivers should bare a greater responsibility to wielding such large vehicles, particularly those who make driving their profession.

by jeff on Jul 8, 2008 11:25 pm  

I'm not sure that I agree with your definition of "accident," Jeff (at least in this context). As a matter of fact, one of the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary is "An unfortunate event, a disaster, a mishap." I think is what the word accident, when used in the phrase "traffic accident," is intending to use.

The definition that most closely fits the definition you want to use is the one that suggests that an accident is something that happens by "chance."

But the word accident certainly doesn't require that an action be blameless or unavoidable.

(And I thank those of you who followed up with answers to my question. As much as I hate it when people respond to arguments by saying, "why do you say this is a problem when you don't suggest a solution?" I really was interested in hearing if there were reasonable solutions.)

by Greg Rae on Jul 9, 2008 12:24 am  

In most cases, if there is a crash or collision how is that not accidental? The term is a colloquialism and no longer means what 'accident' means. It's like the word 'decimate'. People don't use it in the literal sense anymore, so it's meaning has changed.

If I had a magic button that could make everyone refer to traffic accidents as crashes or collisions, and I pushed it, I don't think any lives would be saved. That's why I'm OK with term. There are better fights to fight.

by washcycle on Jul 9, 2008 8:59 am  

Biased language has been an unfortunate feature of conventional traffic engineering for decades. In 1996, the city of West Palm Beach put forward a neutral language policy that needs to be replicated in more places.

by thm on Jul 9, 2008 9:51 am  

thm, thanks for that WPB DOT document. It's great!

by Bianchi on Jul 9, 2008 12:03 pm  

On a previous post I mentioned that I feel painted bike lanes are dangerous because they give cyclists a false sense of security. Obviously we'll never know what the cyclist was thinking when this incident occured, but I can imagine myself in her place and I know that if I had a bike lane I would think it safe to proceed the minute the light turned green, however if I was just part of the traffic I'd still be in the same spot, but I'd know that the truck had the right of way (because I would have rode up to his right) and I'd have at least looked over to see what the truck was doing before it took off. As for the truck driver, with or without bike lanes, there's a good chance he never even knew the cyclist was there as the cyclist would most likely have been in his blind spot. I don't mean to harp on bike lanes, but I think they create too many situations where the biker will act differently than they would if there were no painted lane there. And no matter who is "to blame" the end result is that the biker ends up with the most to lose. I really think bike lanes that aren't totally separate from regular traffic lanes should be banned in DC. They're just too dangerous.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2008 12:33 pm  

the following might not have saved alice's life, but it certainly would have helped:

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/portland-green-bike-box/

the chain of blame associated with this collision and death runs thus, in my view: 1) decades of car-centric urban planning and those in government and the market who have sustained it; 2) private-vehicle/commercial drivers suffering from automobile-centric false consciousness, which tells them that they're more important than bicyclists and pedestrians on the streets. the victim, from all accounts, is blameless: she was obeying the law.

by tony on Jul 9, 2008 12:48 pm  

When a pilot crashes a plane, the root cause is often what is called, loss of spatial awareness. The final report by the FAA nearly always ends with the cause of death as "pilot error."

A cyclist in traffic must bear the responsibility to out think and out maneuver those in the cars and trucks.

Certainly vehicle operators must obey the traffic laws and drive defensively, but those on bikes must act with their own vulnerability held paramount. Just having the right of way is not enough. Of course in this case, it appears both vehicles had the same right of way and the position of the bike was just in the truck's blind spot.

When I am commuting by bike, I am always watchful of the vehicle that may approach from the rear and quickly make a turn in front of me without regard for my stopping distance or impediments to maneuver, such as parked cars, high curbs, etc.

The only workable solution that I have found is to anticipate the traffic approaching from the rear and ensure that I am not in that vehicle's blind spot as we both approach the intersection.

Even with my experience in dealing with urban bike commutes, I still get cut off. Most recently was a woman driving twice the speed limit in a silver Audi, stereo blasting. As she cut me off, nearly running me into a parked car, I could see she had a cell phone to her ear and was lighting a cigarette with the other hand, all while turning.

When riding in urban areas I add a referee's whistle to my other safety gear. As I ride along with traffic, the whistle alerts the door openers, the jay walking pedestrians and the nearby motorists of my approach. You don't have to blow the whistle all the time, but just when you see someone about to do something that might endanger you or nearby riders. That whistle has saved me many collisions with car doors, strollers and a few trucks.

by J. Tyler Ballance on Jul 9, 2008 1:19 pm  

"the victim, from all accounts, is blameless: she was obeying the law."

It's one thing to assign a right. It's quite another to put force behind it and make it enforceable. No matter what the law says, a cyclist will always be "2nd place" to someone behind the wheel of a 3,000 lb vehicle and a painted line is not going to change that. All it does is make the cyclist think they are on equal footing. They're not. A separated path with barriers does. A painted line just gives a false sense of security.

by Lance on Jul 9, 2008 1:21 pm  

If there were no bike lanes, things like this would happen. Drivers don't like to be slowed down by bicyclists.

And if this fatality had been a result of driver road rage instead of inadvertent carelessness, I just might see comments here still blaming the cyclist for not being more aware of the cars waiting to pass and pulling over periodically.

Trucks have mirrors because they have big blind spots. It's your responsibility to check them. I'm not saying the driver should be sent to jail necessarily, but it's way too hasty to jump to the conclusion that it's the cyclist's fault and this driver is just a poor innocent bystander.

by David Alpert on Jul 9, 2008 1:40 pm  

it bears repeating that, as many pro-bike/pro-ped activists have argued, true street democracy and safety will never come to cities until the hierarchy of street rights and privileges reads thus:

Pedestrians first.

Bicyclists in physically-separated lanes second.

Mass transit third. (The preferred order: streetcars and light rail first, buses second, and all, needless to say, with the exclusive right of way.)

Taxis fourth.

Delivery vehicles fifth.

The private automobile last.

On-call emergency vehicles, of course, would take precedence over all.

by tony on Jul 9, 2008 2:52 pm  

J Tyler, but you don't expect to blow the whistle and plough on through, do you?

Whenever there are people in a relatively small space, it's up to you to slow down and be careful.

I see some cyclists demanding that pedestrians "move to the right" as the ride past on the sidewalk. They call out "on the right! On the right!" as if people must step aside for them. Sometimes those pedestrians they are shouting commands at have iPods on and don't hear them. I see others determined for the maximum aerobic workout, riding at high rates of speed through the streets of Dupont Circle and other places.

Sometimes, you must slow down and not get angry at someone just because they detain you. Even if they detain you unfairly. We're all in this together. As soon as a bike brushes past me, I try to forget it. I don't shout after them.

by Jazzy on Jul 9, 2008 3:09 pm  

I'm glad for a chance to clear this up. "On your left" (never right) is a warning that I'm going to pass you so that you don't move suddenly, not a demand to get out of the way. Same with a bell. It says "Hey, I'm here." It is not a horn.

by washcycle on Jul 9, 2008 3:15 pm  

Agreed that that is how it started, but it's not how it is currently used. Now, you can say those "cyclists" are using it incorrectly....

by Jazzy on Jul 9, 2008 4:17 pm  

This incident appears to be an unfortunate 'right hook' accident and my condolences to all parties involved. However, all too often the problem of right hooks (at least for me) has been motorists who pass me and forget me...Out of sight, out of mind. They fail to realize that I'm still moving and at a much higher rate of speed than a pedestrian. While they are slowing down for their turn I have made up the distance and am often right next to them again. The other and more dangerous right hook I encounter is the motorist who tries to beat me to an intersection and make their turn so as not to be inconvenienced by having to wait an extra 3 seconds. Their impatience will kill someone eventually.

My wife was nearly taken out by a landscapers truck that didn't want to wait for her. But for her quick thinking by pushing off the side of the truck and allowing herself to fall onto the shoulder things could have turned out much worse.

Over the years, as the volume of traffic has increased, I have developed a much more aggressive defensive riding style in traffic. I put myself out where I can be seen and am not afraid to make noise or bang on doors/windows to get motorists attention.

by Hayduke on Jul 10, 2008 8:32 am  

Agreed that that is how it started, but it's not how it is currently used. Now, you can say those "cyclists" are using it incorrectly....

God, are you being intentionally thick? "On your left" means, "I am coming up on your left." "How it is currently used" (i.e. how *you* choose to interpret it) has nothing to do with it.

Sheesh.

by ibc on Jul 13, 2008 1:16 pm  

The article doesn't say the truck overtook the bicyclist. The biker presumably snuck into its blind spot, and the rest is history. Duh.

by The victim may have deserved it on Jul 17, 2008 8:24 pm  

The victim...

seriously, she may have deserved it? No one should be allowed to drive around with such a large blind spot - for starters

by VC on Jul 17, 2008 11:50 pm