Bob Novak hits pedestrian, tries to commit hit-and-run

Traffic

Bob Novak hits pedestrian, tries to commit hit-and-run

by David Alpert • July 23, 2008 12:36 pm

Conservative columnist Bob Novak hit a pedestrian at 18th and K this morning, then tried to escape but was stopped by a bicyclist, Politico reports. Novak claims not to have known he hit the pedestrian, but according to the cyclist, Harkins Cunningham partner David Bono, the pedestrian was "splayed onto the windshield", and that after stopping, Novak "[kept] trying to get away."

Novak "really despises... jaywalkers." Image from Wikipedia.

Novak was already an aggressive driver who told the Post that he hates "jaywalkers" and would like to run them over, "but as a compassionate conservative, I would never do that."

Politico uses the word "accident" once in their article. I'd give Novak the benefit of the doubt that he didn't deliberately hit this person, but given his past comments and aggressive driving behavior, it's entirely possible some legal fault could be involved.

Meanwhile, Novak was cited for "failing to yield," which only carries a $50 fine today, but which the DC Council plans to raise to $250 and three points on the license. That bill passed first reading last week, and is the one to which Tommy Wells tried to add a fine for blocking a bike lane.

Thanks to Patrick for the tip.

23 comments — Share	— tags: Bob Novak, DC, pedestrian safety

Pedestrian killed on Connecticut Avenue (Oct 2, 2008)
Council passes fine for blocking bike lane (Sep 16, 2008)
Novak sorry he has cancer, not sorry he hit a pedestrian (Sep 8, 2008)
Council balks at bike lane parking fines (Jul 16, 2008)
Pedestrian safety: Fines? Lights? Two-way streets? (Jun 20, 2008)

Comments

eaten by wolves in prison

by Fred on Jul 23, 2008 12:47 pm

Has Novak or any of the other media talking heads EVER public ally discussed ANY DC related transportation issues, such as the truncations of the freeways, WMATA, or anything else?

by Douglas Willinger on Jul 23, 2008 12:48 pm

What constitutes failing to yield to the point of ticketing? On a four lane road if the pedestrian has just walked through the lane I aim to use but has not fully crossed the street I still go. Yet some pedestrians crank their head backwards to give me stink eye for this. When roles are reversed and I'm on foot it doesn't bother me. I don't expect that I own all four lanes of road simply because I've put one foot into the cross walk. Yet some think that no car may proceed until they've fully crossed the entire street. What gives with this attitude? T

by Cascades on Jul 23, 2008 1:05 pm

I give the stink eye when it seems the car kind of cuts me off on my backside kind of quick. Meaning, give people a decent space, don't let them feel the heat of your engine on their legs.

by Jazzy on Jul 23, 2008 1:36 pm

I give everyone the stink eye. It's a medical condition.

by VC on Jul 23, 2008 1:54 pm

"Failure to yield"???? In Virginia he would have been charged with felony hit and run. This is pathetic.

by Carla57 on Jul 23, 2008 1:56 pm

Carla57 - within the conservative political establishment, Novak is at approximately the same level of influence (or perhaps a little higher these days) as Cheney - who was able to shoot someone in the face, not report it for a while, and then get let off. He's got friends *everywhere*, and he's [nominally] a member of the press, who don't attack their own.

by Squalish on Jul 23, 2008 2:12 pm

I don't expect that I own all four lanes of road simply because I've put one foot into the cross walk. Yet some think that no car may proceed until they've fully crossed the entire street. What gives with this attitude?

Probably the fact that you brush the ped's back with your side-view mirror as you go by. People are tetchy that way.

by ibc on Jul 23, 2008 3:47 pm

cascades asks, "...Yet some think that no car may proceed until they've fully crossed the entire street. What gives with this attitude?"

Answer: It's the law. In most states it's illegal for the car to drive across a crosswalk if the pedestrian is on ANY part of it.

Cascade asks "What constitutes failing to yield to the point of ticketing? ..."

Answer: See answer above. Plus, in this case, the stricken pedestrian was apparently clinging to the windshield after being hit, Novak still driving a full block away. Seems worse than failure to yields. Reckless driving?

by Answering on Jul 23, 2008 3:53 pm

I don't have the detailed rules, but I believe that they allow a car to cross the crosswalk after the pedestrian has passed with a certain amount of room. I'll try to find it.

by David Alpert on Jul 23, 2008 3:54 pm

Cascades, I'm pretty sure that traffic must stop for the entire roadway on a road without a median strip and for the entire half if it has a median strip. In California it's enforced like that. I know it's not here, but I think the law is the same. We're just more flexible ... Conversely, jaywalking is usually not fined either.

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 3:55 pm

P.S. I meant must stop "at a crosswalk".

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 3:56 pm

I'll usually give the ped about 8 feet buffer. More if there are children. Keep in mind they have passed the area I am turning into rather than approaching it. If that's not good enough for you zealots then this conversation can only end in Godwin's Law.

by Cascades on Jul 23, 2008 4:06 pm

At a pedestrian safety meeting earlier this year, MPD indicated the pedestrian needs to be fully clear of the sidewalk, not just "your half" of the street.

by Andrew on Jul 23, 2008 4:12 pm

>>"At a pedestrian safety meeting earlier this year, MPD indicated the pedestrian needs to be fully clear of the sidewalk, not just "your half" of the street."

That may make sense for side streets but it's lunacy for boulevards like Mass Ave.

by FourthandEye on Jul 23, 2008 4:15 pm

I agree. Just reporting what MPD said. Perhaps this is another area where we can work with the Council to adjust the law.

by Andrew on Jul 23, 2008 4:19 pm

My favorite would be drivers who turn make a right turn onto a street I'm crossing right in front of me. That's against the law, right?

by Steve on Jul 23, 2008 4:54 pm

OK, I checked into this. There's not a specific standard, being left instead to the judgment of the officer. In trainings, DDOT generally advises police that if the car is more than a lane away from the pedestrian, it's all right (Obviously, hitting the person is not enough distance.)

Having a discretionary standard could be good, since a bright-line rule would likely catch drivers who really aren't doing anything dangerous. On the other hand, police could under-enforce (which they do already, for this and many other driving violations).

by David Alpert on Jul 23, 2008 5:38 pm

DA,

Thanks for looking into it for us.

by Jimmy D on Jul 23, 2008 6:43 pm

David, I bet if you check tomorrow with someone different, you'll get a different answer ... Did you see the article about the Ward Court parking tickets in the Dupont Current today? ... Just amazing how one agency can put up signs saying "Parking Allowed" and another ticketing people for parking there ... And when asked about it their spokesperson (Nancy Lyons, Dept of Public Works) responds "We just enforce. DDOT is in charge of the legislation and the signs". Apparently the Dept. of Public Works folks felt this street should be viewed as an alley (and parking isn't allowed in alleys) despite the fact that the DDOT had already figured out it wasn't an alley (it was too wide to qualify) and had put up the signs allowing the parking. It sounds like the Dept. of Public Works folks problems isn't that they "just enforce" but that they can't read something that is as plain as "a sign on the side of the road" ...

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 9:30 pm

This thread is bizarre. I stumbled upon this site and read a short article about how a major media personality commits a felony that any "regular" person would be charged with, and nearly all the comments in this thread are about the decorum of the behavior of pedestrians!!!

What about the wingnut who apparently got away with a significant crime?

by Mark on Jul 24, 2008 1:11 am

He's not the Douchebag of Liberty for nothing.

by Steve on Jul 24, 2008 5:58 am

The $50 fine is a total joke. I hope this guy sues Novak's enormous head right off his shoulders.

by Jake H. on Jul 24, 2008 11:51 am