While I agree with you that better safety measure should have been in place here to allow a safe crossing, let's be careful not to demonize this driver. It appears this was simply a tragic accident, implying anything otherwise is implying that the driver committed manslaughter. While again this was a tragic accidnet, crossing a dark highway in dark clothes is what it is.

by SA on Feb 17, 2009 8:43 am  

Ritchie Highway (MD 2) was "upgraded" in the early 1960's to serve as something like a highway to connect Baltimore and Annapolis. It then became (surprise!) constantly choked in traffic and edge cities. In the 1990's, I-97 was built as a bypass for Ritchie Highway. Ritchie Highway will continue to serve as a too-wide suburban arterial choked in edge city traffic until gasoline gets too expensive for anyone to afford.

Anne Arundel County has some of the worst sprawl in the state. The northern half of the county is in the Baltimore region, on the exact opposite side from the Favored Quarter. Since Baltimore lacks any kind of complete Metro system, it would be incredibly challenging to build any kind of Transit Oriented Development. Even more, its location outside the Favored Quarter further lessens the demand for real estate products there. To top it all off, I wouldn't expect Anne Arundel County to understand complete streets and complete communities any time soon, unfortunately. It's just not on their political agenda. They're always decades behind the other metropolitan counties.

"Those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

by Cavan on Feb 17, 2009 9:25 am  

Yes, this is a tragic accident. We should do all we can to minimize the possibility for accidents, but we must also acknowledge that competing interests makes it impossible to eliminate them completely. For example, we could outright ban cars to completely do away with motor-vehicle caused accidents ... but then we'd just find ourselves back in the 19th century with the kinds of accidents they suffered through (horse and carriage accidents, tram accidents, etc.) and without the host of societal benefits which personal transportation options provide us.

by Lance on Feb 17, 2009 9:29 am  

not ban cars, Lance. Just build our human settlements for people, where cars are tools rather than necessities. The design of the road contributed to the collision more than the fundamental existence of cars. Cars are only machines. They only do what the driver tells them to do. If the road says to go fast and there is no one else around, the driver does just that. It's not because of the cars that people drive slower in Adams Morgan than on Ritchie Highway. It's because the drivers judge that it's not safe to drive fast in Adams Morgan. Roads like Ritchie Highway give drivers a false sense of security and safety, encouraging them to drive fast, increasing the liklihood of collisions.

by Cavan on Feb 17, 2009 9:41 am  

There have been a lot of talk about putting in a pedestrian bridge to go over top of Richie Highway to allow those of us that live on the opposite side of Richie access to the B&A Bike trail. Nothing has ever been done about it and it often goes unheard in Annapolis. I live on the opposite side of Richie and I would love to see a way for not only myself but others in my community to have a safe way to access the bike trail. The intersection of Richie and EastWest is a VERY Dangerous intersection. There is on average one accident every two weeks.

by Resident Near Crash Site on Feb 17, 2009 9:54 am  

Resident: I don't think a pedestrian bridge is the answer. Pedestrian bridges make drivers go even faster by taking any pedestrians away, and further encourage traffic engineers to design the road for cars alone. Plus, they force pedestrians to climb long ramps or stairs to cross, putting a lot of extra work on them. Many pedestrians or cyclists will just try to risk it and cross anyway to save the effort, and since now there's a bridge, engineers and the police will be even less sympathetic.

There's already a light there. We should just redesign that intersection to include crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Instead of moving as many cars as possible above all else, we should design it to share that space between all possible users.

by David Alpert on Feb 17, 2009 10:04 am  

If this girl was killed in an accidental shooting she would not be blamed for wearing the wrong clothes or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't know the laws but I think if that were the case the shooter would be held minimally responsible with some charge, not just "oh well-she got in your way". I believe it's morally wrong to not hold a driver to some responsibility when there is a death or maiming by the car s/he is operating. (see "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe). Cars kill, regardless of how accidentally. Was there even an investigation as to whether the driver was speeding? We all know how common the breakage of that law is. Fiddleing with the radio? Eating? Talking on the phone? As far as I've seen all the drivers who killed people on Conn Ave in Ch Ch were never investigated for wrong doing. The pedestrian was/is always held responsible for his/her own death. I think there is far far too much impunity given to drivers.

I like the default in the Netherlands where the driver is always the first party responsible regrdless of circumstances. Pedestrians and bikers don't kill the drivers of cars when there is a collision. The rate of fatal collisions between cars and walkers or bikers in the Netherlands is a small fraction of what it is in the US.

However there are also designs in place that help drivers protect themselves and pedestrains and bikers from making contact in the ND. Designs and mores that encourage and facilitate expressway style driving where there is not an expressway, such as Ritchie Hwy., (or upper Conn Ave.) is a disservice and unfair to the driver as well as the pedestrians and bikers. It is of course tragic for a driver to kill someone, one hopes it is anyway. This type of road design was a mistake and the consequences are deadly and tragic. The only way to prevent further tragedies is to admit the mistake and make efforts to change it -both in design of the built environment and in general social mores that drivers can kill with impunity. If the first were successful, the design, the second would be less of an issue becuase it would become less frquent.

If I swing a baseball bat and accidentally hit someone in the head and kill him/her won't I be liable under the law? I don't know the law but I think there would be some minimal charge wouldn't there? Why are drivers of cars such a different class of accidental killers?

I drive. I have a car. I include myself as a driver in the above assessment that drivers are not held responsible enough for our actions. I have not yet had a collision (unless you count that parking lot thing with my dad's car when I was 16). I am terribly sorry for this family who lost their daughter and the driver if s/he is indeed anguished. We can do better by both of them.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 11:16 am  

It was not dark at 5:45 p.m. last Friday. The sunset was 5:41 and twilight lasted until after 6. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl

The fact that the police blamed her for wearing the wrong clothes and not having a light, instead of suggesting the driver should have been extra vigilant at this transition time of the day exemplifies the extra protection from responsility drivers are afforded.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 12:08 pm  

@ Bianchi -- the difference is that shooting a gun is inherently hazardous, whereas driving a car is not in the same way.

by ah on Feb 17, 2009 12:17 pm  

I see way too many stories where the cyclist is blamed for a crash, no matter what the circumstances. In this case, why say that she should have been at a crosswalk? A bicycle is a vehicle and should operate like a vehicle. Was the driver speeding? Talking on their cellphone? Did anyone investigate? How else is a 14-year old going to get around, anyway? Inappropriate transportation infrastructure and inattentive drivers who are not held accountable are the real culprits here.

by wanderer on Feb 17, 2009 12:41 pm  

ah, in 2004 the CDC reports 29,569 gunshot wound related fatalities in the US. That same year the USDOT reports 38,808 automobile crash related falatities in the US (motorcycle fatalities not included). Operating a moving automobile is inhernetly hazardous. Different then shooting a gun and equally potentially fatal to self or others.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 12:56 pm  

I agree that this sounds like a bad intersection. Improvements should be made. On the other hand, it is offensive to imply that this was anything other than an accident. Were you there? Do you know the circumstances? Can't you possibly conceive of a situation where it wasn't the driver's fault?

People driving cars are not the only ones who make mistakes. And riding a bike at dusk in dark clothing without a reflector is stupid. Given what we know, and the great deal that we do not, there is absolutely no reason to have any presumption of guilt on the part of the driver. When you react to situations like this by saying "it's always the drivers fault" you do a disservice to the cause of cyclists by making it seem like you bikers bear no responsibility for their own safety on the road. It's a two way street.

by Jamie on Feb 17, 2009 12:59 pm  

How is shooting a gun anymore inherently harmful than driving a car? If I shoot the gun under the right circumstances (no one in the path of the bullet, no one near any shrapnel that might be caused by the bullet hitting something, no unprotected ears near the firing gun, etc.) how is it different than driving under the right circumstances (no other people in the path of the car, no people breathing in the exhaust fumes, etc.)?

It seems that most things aren't inherently dangerous, hence why there are so many moral and ethical dilemmas in the world. It's when those things are used in a dangerous or irresponsible way (whether on purpose or, as is the case most often with motor vehicles, by accident) that they become hazards to the well being of other humans.

by Chris Seay on Feb 17, 2009 12:59 pm  

Just wanted to point out that the Sun article says that the bicyclist "cut between two cars" who were stopped for a red light at the next major intersection. It sounds like the girl made a risky decision and driver who hit her didn't see her so yes, it was a tragic accident that probably could have been prevented if extreme caution had been taken on the part of either the bicyclist or car driver.

by um on Feb 17, 2009 1:07 pm  

@Bianchi, come on. How many man-hours a year are spent driving cars? How many man-hours a year are spent shooting guns?

Considering that the number of fatalities is actually almost the same - and I think you will agree that on average people spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, as much time time driving cars compared to shooting guns, that the activity is not "equally potentially fatal."

by Jamie on Feb 17, 2009 1:15 pm  

Jamie, Yes, people driving cars make mistakes. All the blame was put on the biker - for not having a light-not reflector. Did the driver have the headlights on? I agree blame was assigned too easliy and fully to one party. We have no reason to presume guilt of the biker either yet all responsibility for the collision was placed on the biker. This is the pattern. We see it in DC all the time. The driver is absolved of all mistakes and complete responsibility for the collision is placed on the pedestrian or biker. This pattern is imbalanced. If you agree that drivers can make mistakes then why are drivers nearly always absolved of any responsibility in collisions with pedestrians and bikers? Making a mistake does not absolve one of responsibility, just intent. Yes, the road design is bad and helped create the conditions for the fatal collision. This does not absolve the driver or biker of responsibility either. The burden of that responsibility, the design of our built environments, is on us as a community.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 1:20 pm  

I don't feel like there is a pattern of blaming pedestrians and cyclists for accidents at all. In the case of peds, I can't think of this ever happening, actually, the driver has been cited in every recent one I can remember. The bus ones were both definitively blamed on the bus driver.

On the other hand there is a very clear pattern of the cyclist community raging against the police when they declare something an accident. If there's not an eyewitness saying they saw the driver do something wrong, then why on earth would you automatically jump to this conclusion?

I don't see a pattern of absolving drivers of responsibility, I see a lot of situations where it's not really clear what happened, there was no third party witness, and so it's declared an accident. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, how on earth can you simply blame the driver? And in this one, it actually seems pretty clear that the cyclist was doing something risky.

by Jamie on Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm  

Jamie, I interpret the death rates to reflect that guns are more often intentially used for their fatal potential then automobiles. Indeed you may have a better chance of surviving a gunshot then being hit by a car going 30 mph.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 1:30 pm  

@Bianchi: Then the same could be said about having sex, which kills a lot of people unintentionally every year.

You original premise is incorrect. "If this girl was killed in an accidental shooting she would not be blamed for wearing the wrong clothes or being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Yes, she would be. That is why people wear orange in the woods during hunting season.

by Jamie on Feb 17, 2009 1:36 pm  

Jamie, on this very blog last week or so there was a discussion of a pedestrian who was killed by a driver on Conn Ave in Ch. CH. DC. There was an eye witness who said the pedestrian did not enter the crosswalk until she had the walk signal - the driver admitted entering the intersection after the light turned yellow. Yet all blame was placed on the pedestrian. As far as we know the driver was not held accountable for even making a mistake. This is just the latest example. This is the pattern whether you "believe" it or not.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 1:37 pm  

I don't know the specifics of that situation. I googled "pedestrian killed dc" and the bunch that I found easily are:

Novak cited after hitting pedestrian - 7/08

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11985.html

Women were not in a crosswalk and were walking against signal

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-pedestrian-killed0212,0,5843246.story

Pedestrian stepped from between two parked cars into the path of the bus

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1065842&nid=25

Bicycle hits, kills pedestrian - cyclist not charged

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2007/02/bicycle_hits_ki.html

Pedestrian killed, was jaywalking

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1279

http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1065842&nid=25

Pedestrian killed, hit & run at really bad intersection

http://metrodc.injuryboard.com/tag/Pedestrian+Accidents/

Frankly I am having a really hard time finding an article where it was even remotely clear that the driver was at fault and he wasn't cited.

I don't see a pattern at all. Unless you have some statistics or references to back up your position, anecdotally, it seems that these situations are being handled pretty reasonably based on the information available.

by Jamie on Feb 17, 2009 1:57 pm  

Automobiles and guns are both manmade tools that when used improperly have the potential to cause fatal injuries. Bikes and cars are both tools for transportation.

The girl was attempting to transport herself on a public space intended for transportation. She was almost home, just before dark. Again -did the driver have his/her headlights on?

More importantly this is our community and we have a responsibility to provide an environment where a 14 year old can ride her bike home using the only road available without such a risk to her life. The driver is an adult. We are adults, yet the child is assigned full responsibility for the circumstances that caused her death. At very least the road design can be changed if not the prevailing attitude that drivers share responsibility for the safety of other users of the road.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 2:01 pm  

While I was running this morning, a lady in a Lexus SUV with Maryland tags stopped to let me cross Cathedral Avenue at Glover Park, although she didn't have to yield. Best thing to happen to me this week.

by цarьchitect on Feb 17, 2009 2:26 pm  

This incident reminded me a lot of the Lloyd Clark incident. There the police were quick to excuse the driver by blaming dark clothing/no lights, even though the incident occurred before sunset [5:45 by the way, was the time 911 was called, so the crash occurred before that], as well as speed. I can't speak for pedestrian crashes, but I can tell you that when drivers kill cyclists, they usually get away with it. If a driver kills a pedestrian of cyclist, guess who is an who isn't around to explain what happened? Guess who has a natural advantage? "Blame the victim" is the standard legal defense in this situation. Unless you have videotape, like the Metro bus incident of a few years ago, you have little chance. Or have you heard something about the Alice Swanson case that I haven't?

by washcycle on Feb 17, 2009 2:26 pm  

Here there were, it seems, witnesses in the form of all the other cars in the area. According to the article, the cyclist went between cars in a stopped lane of traffic (the right lane) and was hit while trying to cross a moving lane of traffic (the left).

So first off there were probably several other witnesses to the accident. And, second, the color of her clothes is hardly in doubt.

As for guns vs. cars: When used as intended, cars are not designed to kill people/animals. They may happen to, but that is not their purpose. Untrue for guns, which are designed to kill (or at least maim) animals and humans.

by ah on Feb 17, 2009 2:38 pm  

Of course I think Bianchi is correct, and I think - check that, I hope - that in 20 or 25 years, we will look back on this time and it will appear, for lack of a better word, quaint, much like perhaps those initial pangs of doubt did when a pregnant woman lit up in the 60s and early 70s.

There's a radical difference in perspective and outlook here, it seems.

To my mind, we will have to change our mentality. And I wonder if it will take a law suit to do so.

by Jazzy on Feb 17, 2009 3:22 pm  

I cycle all over DC and the immediate suburbs, and have definitely ridden on some roads where traffic was extremely unfriendly to cyclists over time. Maybe in an ideal world, cycling would be so safe that we wouldn't have to exercise substantially greater caution than we do in our cars. But, we don't live in that world. And the fact of the matter is, no one should be moving between lanes of traffic with dark clothes and no reflectors, particularly on a roadway so unfriendly to cyclists. Now, this girl's death is a tragedy, but I am sorry, motorists are not always to blame in these situations.

by Nate on Feb 17, 2009 4:13 pm  

Let's admit that we have very few facts. And that what we do have has been filtered by the police (those are the only people the news media has interviewed) and thus we really don't know what happened. but..

David makes the point that road builders are culpable if not primarily responsible for this tragedy and I agree.

Some have stated that the girl appears to have attempted a dangerous maneuver and perhaps did not do it well and that she was wearing "dark clothes" - which in and of itself is not a crime - and that thus she was largely responsible. Based on what we know, that seems reasonable.

But, there was never any investigation as to whether the driver was partially responsible so that a determination as to who was more responsible could be made. She was not in a crosswalk (even though she was not a pedestrian) and wore dark clothes (even though there was still sunlight) and so it was her fault.

The way the police bend over backwards to excuse the driver, and the way they talk about her like she was a pedestrian, it shows a bias I think.

by washcycle on Feb 17, 2009 4:25 pm  

Bend over backwards to excuse the driver? In the article I read, all they did was state the facts. The only people bending over backwards are those who always want to hang the driver in an accident - even in cases like this when it seems clear it was not their fault.

For a different perspective, go read the blog post I linked to above about the cyclist who hit and killed a pedestrian.

Quoting the article:

"A [witness] said it appeared that a dark-colored mountain bike was coming toward the intersection "pretty fast."

The blog author says:

"It's unclear if the bike was speeding (though I doubt it)"

"if the pedestrian was in a crosswalk or not (sounds like not?),"

"Anyway this should be a reminder of how important it is to be aware and be visible (not that I'm saying the cyclists wasn't)."

Then the single comment says:

"Since no charges were filed, there were either circumstances that made this a freak accident or there was no indication that the cyclist was specifically at fault (note - not indication doesn't mean he was or wasn't at fault).

So I guess when it's a cyclist killing a pedestrian, if the facts are unclear but no charges are filed, it's all good -- the police must be right. The presumption is "I doubt he was speeding", "the pedestrian probably wasn't in the crosswalk", and "since no charges were filed, it must have been a freak accident"

Nice double standard.

by Jamie on Feb 17, 2009 4:35 pm  

If I ride a bike on train-tracks and get hit by a train, then it is my fault due to the fact I am using an infrastructure not designed for what I am doing. (not to mention extremely difficult!)

The fact of the matter is that the road was definitely not suited for recreational biking, and either the girl or the parents who let her ride on a busy highway like such should have exuded better judgment. I know that is a cold and cynical view of it, but that's simply the truth.

by MPC on Feb 17, 2009 4:35 pm  

Nobody is saying that the driver necessarily did anything wrong here. I don't think the scare quotes around "accident" in the original post was directed at the driver. The point is that its churlish of the city to fail to provide for basic pedestrian safety and then write this off as an unavoidable accident.

by db on Feb 17, 2009 4:48 pm  

When I was 8 years I used to bike everywhere with my friends. One day, one of my friends was biking along a local road and all of a sudden a car pulled out of a driveway and hit her. She ended up being alright, needed a few stitches and such. So that was good.

But the driver of the car immediately blamed her and yelled at her as her bike was all mangled and she was bleeding. He said she should have been on the sidewalk and looking both ways. A neighbor called the police, and when they came they ended up taking my friends bike and giving her a ticket. She was doing nothing illegal. She was wearing a helmet and going under 25 mph but they decided that it was her fault that she was hit, not the driver's, who should have looked both ways before backing out. If she had been a driver instead of a biker, the guy who backed out of the driveway would have been at fault.

When cars hit other cars, the car that hit the other car is almost always at fault. When a car hits something else, all of a sudden the car is the victim. That's ridiculous.

by Max on Feb 17, 2009 5:04 pm  

Thanks for that perspective, Max.

by Jazzy on Feb 17, 2009 5:08 pm  

MPC the cyclist was not riding on train tracks, the cyclist was riding in the road with her legal road vehicle, trying to get a break in traffic so she could cross a busy road. The fact that the infrastructure was not designed for her vehicle is an indictment against the legal jurisdiction responsible for the creation and upkeep of the road, for not making the taxpayer supported infrastructure accessible to all the forms of transport that could legally use that infrastructure. And from the reports I have read the cyclist wasn't using the road for recreation (not that there is anything wrong with using a road to get oneself together) but was trying to move her body from point A on one side of the road to point B on the other side. This is a fundamental use of this infrastructure, getting people (not cars, people) from A to B. I have been trying to get a Google Street View of the wreck site and the next closest intersection with the traffic light, but have been unsuccessful so far, can't get the search string right, but the written description is that there was no pedestrian controls (walk lights) at that intersection, nor was there someplace for low-speed vehicles to cross safely at any point along the street. For a street that transects a residential area this is unforgivable. This was not an accident, it was planned to happen. Maybe not with these particular participants, nobody said "Hey let's kill a little girl with a car," but the neglect of pedestrian and bicycle facilities when the housing was built planned for conflicts and fatalities.

by Opus the Poet on Feb 17, 2009 5:24 pm  

Exactly Opus. The problem with the train tracks analogy and with the police saying there was no marked crossing is the implication that a person on a bicycle didn't belong there. Which, simply isn't true and can't be true if we're going to get people to bike.

by washcycle on Feb 17, 2009 6:15 pm  

Jamie, I don't see any double standard between what I wrote above and what I wrote two years ago.

You wrote:So I guess when it's a cyclist killing a pedestrian, if the facts are unclear but no charges are filed, it's all good -- the police must be right. The presumption is "I doubt he was speeding", "the pedestrian probably wasn't in the crosswalk", and "since no charges were filed, it must have been a freak accident"

1. First of all, you mixed what I wrote with what a commenter wrote and that isn't fair.

2. I doubted the cyclist was speeding because I know how hard it is to do. I can rarely get up to 25mph and when I do, it isn't in the city. I also doubt the driver in this incident was driving on the sidewalk.

3. There is no presumption that the cyclist wasn't in the crosswalk. There was an attempt to glean from the slim facts (the pedestrian...might have passed behind a car that was halted near New Hampshire Avenue and Farragut Street) where the pedestrian was. With a very critical "?" in there to say - "I am very unsure."

4. To defend Chris but you took part of his quote and left out the critical "or" side of it that I read as "the cyclist may have not been charged because there simply wasn't enough evidence." Hardly a passionate defense of the cyclist.

The big difference is that we ASKED the questions. Was the cyclist speeding? In the wrong place? Not wearing a light? I don't see the same kind of soul-searching from drivers on this.

No one is trying to hang the driver here. But nothing the police mentioned the cyclist doing was illegal. Isn't if fair to ask if anything the driver did was?

by washcycle on Feb 17, 2009 6:34 pm  

I noted that that was from the commenter. Yes, I understand it's hard to speed on a bike - but there was actually a statement from the witness that said they were going very fast, and may be they weren't in control The point I was making is that your assumption was generally one of innocence on the part of the cyclist in the absence of any other information. I left out that part of the comment simply for brevity because I didn't think it added anything to what I'd already said.

I didn't say that posting was of "passionate defense" of the cyclist. I said that in the absence of compelling evidence, you and your commenter were both OK with the police's decision not to charge the cyclist.

However, in similar situation of a car/bicycle accident, it is very common for cycling enthusiast to react negatively towards the same decision by the police.

In this comment thread, the comment that sparked my first reaction:

"I believe it's morally wrong to not hold a driver to some responsibility when there is a death or maiming by the car s/he is operating."

then

"...and inattentive drivers who are not held accountable are the real culprits here."

"If a driver kills a pedestrian of cyclist, guess who is an who isn't around to explain what happened? Guess who has a natural advantage? "Blame the victim" is the standard legal defense in this situation."

These comments indicate a presumption of guilt towards the driver. In this particular situation, at least the majority of people here have agreed that the driver most likely was not at fault. But this was a rare, fairly clear-cut case. In the Alice Swanson case, there are many, many comments in discussions were of outrage from cyclists that the driver was not prosecuted.

As far as I can tell, we have about as much information on that case as we do on the pedestrian case -- maybe even less. At least with the pedestrian we had an eyewitness say he was going fast. With Alice, all we had was "maybe in the bike lane or maybe next to it." Not much to go on there to convict someone.

Yet there was no outrage that the police simply dismissed the pedestrian case and did not charge the cyclist.

by Jamie on Feb 17, 2009 7:31 pm  

Did a cyclist kill a pedestrian recently? Could you post a link to it?

Having asked that, your bringing it up reminds me of how my brothers and sisters and I used to fight. We would protest some grievance or other, and then they would say, but yeah, remember that time when you did so and so? Totally unrelated.

Can we just stick to the situation at hand?

by Jazzy on Feb 17, 2009 7:56 pm  

Again, I don't think there was any presumption of innocence for the cyclist, nor contentment with the police's decision not to prosecute in the ped killed by cyclist case, but perhaps you read it differently. I tried to be very careful to present facts as you put it.

Nor was I presuming guilt by the driver. The point of my comment is that their is a bias toward drivers (the cyclist wasn't in the crosswalk we're told - even though that isn't required) and they have a greater ability to defend themselves. So a list of accidents where there is very little data available to the reader, and where the police is the only source used by the writer, is unlikely to give a complete assessment as to whether the police is properly investigating these incidents.

With Alice we absolutely have enough evidence to know who was at fault. In the bike lane, next to it or on the doesn't even matter. The truck was not in the bike lane. We know that. The truck turned right. We know that. Turning right from any lane other than the bike lane is illegal.

Sure some cyclists react with indignation to every fatality where the cyclist is blamed. But I believe they are a minority, and if there were not a well-documented bias against cyclists they would probably go away.

by washcycle on Feb 17, 2009 8:02 pm  

I said the morally wrong thing - but I don't apply that only to drivers who accidentally kill. This would apply to a biker who unintentionally kills too.

I think it's actually harmful to the person who does the accidental killing not to have society hold them to some responsibility - even in the case of a mistake. Again a mistake just frees one from intent, not from the consequences of the action. i reffered to Chinua Achebe b/c it was in his novel "Things Fall Apart" that he laid out this perspective artfully and I was persuaded. I'm not suggesting jail time or devestating fines. Just something. Points on the liscense. A $100 ticket in the category 'unintentionally taking a life while driving'. Something. A life was lost for god's sake. That's meaningful in our society, isn't it?

If I swing a bat and accidentally kill someone I'm sure the law would find some way to make me accountable for the consequences of my action however unintentional. Drivers who make deadly mistakes, or commit unintentional life-taking, should not be exempt from this reckoning.

Again in the ND when children and elder pedestrians/bikers are injured by automobiles the automobile operators are held accountable regardless of circumstances because these two groups are the most vulnerable and it is the societal perspective that everyone has a special responsibility to look out for their safety on the road. They have a fraction of the fatal collisions we do even though they have a much higher perccentage of trips made by bike or walking.

It's a mind-set, it's a way of being on the road, it's an internal sense of responsibility that's in place before the potential collision takes place that makes drivers vigilant. It's also better road designs that help prevent the occasions when a collision can occur.

We collectively failed this child and this driver with this poor road design.

by Bianchi on Feb 17, 2009 8:21 pm  

Two people on a neighborhood Adams Morgan list reported seeing a cyclist hit by a car tonight at about 5:45 pm - on Columbia Road, NW. No one really knows what happened beyond that he was taken away in an ambulance.

by Jazzy on Feb 17, 2009 8:27 pm  

I agree with Bianchi as well. Moreover, I found this story very aggravating, not just for the obvious reasons, but because it was yet another story where the Maryland police were allowed to say there was no crosswalk. Maryland law -- just like DC law -- recognizes pedestrian right of way at both marked and unmarked crosswalks. A crosswalk is defined by law as "that part of a roadway that is: (1) Within the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at any place where 2 or more roadways of any type meet or join, measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway; or (2) Distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings." See Maryland Transportation Annotated Code Section 21-101(f)(2)(i). Notice the "or" between (1) and (2) -- the police who were quoted obviously recognize the second definition but completely ignore the first. [Also note that sidewalks need not be paved -- they are designated by law as well as "that part of a highway: (1) That is intended for use by pedestrians; and(2) That is between:(i) The lateral curb lines or, in the absence of curbs, the lateral boundary lines of a roadway; and(ii) The adjacent property lines." Md Trans Ann Code Section 21-101(f)(2)(w). All roads have sidewalks, even if they aren't paved.]

According to the Annapolis paper's article, she was crossing at the intersection of Ritchie Highway and Hamburg Street, and there was no signal there. That means that -- by definition -- a crosswalk was there, even if it was not marked, and she had the right of way under Md Trans Code Ann 21-502, which gives peds right of way at unsignalized crosswalks. The police do absolutely nothing to protect pedestrian right of way at unmarked crosswalks, with the result that drivers grow more and more abusive of pedestrian rights.

by Eileen on Feb 17, 2009 8:39 pm  

Eileen (or anyone really), since she had to squeeze between two stopped vehicles to cross the first lane, that means those cars blocked the intersection at Hamburg. Does anyone know if that's legal in Maryland? Not quite blocking the box, but similar.

by washcycle on Feb 17, 2009 10:33 pm  

washcycle -- I looked at the Maryland Code, and it doesn't address this question directly; I wouldn't be surprised if a direct prohibition isn't buried in a regulation somewhere, though -- it's a logical extension of general rules of the road -- e.g. I would argue that a driver who blocks a crosswalk has failed to give right of way to any pedestrian who tries to cross it (I'd faint if I ever saw a police officer enforce it this way, of course) and I think drivers would have the same argument -- under Md Code section 21-401, "a vehicle at an intersection: (1) Has the right-of-way over any other vehicle approaching from the left; and (2) Shall yield the right-of-way to any other vehicle approaching from the right." So somebody in that box was required to yield and, in not doing so, broke the law.

by Eileen on Feb 18, 2009 8:22 am  

This is part of continued poor design of State Highway intersections in Anne Arundel County. The two closest crosswalked intersections that allow for crossing Ritchie Hwy are 2.4 mi N (Marley Station Mall) and 2.4 mi S (Robinson Rd). Let's not forget that this is a bus line (MTA's 14 Line) that has stops all along Ritchie Hwy, including at East-West Hwy (where this girl was struck). To the west connecting to the hiker-biker trail are more trails leading to two county parks. To the east of this intersection is a community that has many students walking to school and a very popular park. The east side has no shoulders, no sidewalks, and no crosswalk to get there from the west side of MD2.

Another example of failure to put crosswalks in occurs at Hidden Brook Dr & MD 3 (Crain Hwy) where AACo recently built a new pool. They have a nice pedestrian/biker trail that leads from the building down to the sidewalk that continues north along the frontage street. On the other side of Crain Hwy there is a large area of land occupied by multiple apartment communities within walking distance that do not have pools. No crosswalk.

Padadena, the intersection of MD173 (Ft Smallwood Rd) & Riviera Dr. Traffic never stops at this intersection - there is no light protected crossings of 173, one direction is always moving across it. There are 2 parks close to opposite corners of this intersection, and one quadrant of that intersection is isolated from the 2 neighborhood grocery stores by 173. These are very walkable communities (The elementary schools have no buses)

by frustrated in aa on Feb 18, 2009 9:34 am  

I'm frustrated by this insanity too. The bad/thoughtless design; the no-fault attitude afforded drivers who collide with other more vulnerable users of the road.

One more example of it: Last week I was driving on I-195 outside of Baltimore and I was pulled over by the MD State Police and issued a $50 ticket b/c one of my headlights had burned out. It had been working earlier, it just happened to burn out that evening. I'd been on the road about 5 minutes. The ticket category was 'failure to use two headlights'. Completely unintentional and even uncontrollable by me. I can not control when the bulb burns out. It's going to burn out sometime. Yet the State of MD thinks the burned out bulb is so important that I should be held responsible for it to the tune of $50. However if I hit someone and kill him/her while s/he is trying to cross Ritchie HWY I will not be held responsible to anything. No ticket. No points on my lisecnse. Nothing. The State of MD values a burned out bulb more then a human life. Motorists in MD are responsible for burned out bulbs but not for killing pedestrians/bikers when our car strikes them.

by Bianchi on Feb 18, 2009 11:08 am  

Re: death by firearms vs automobile

The comparative stats I have are:

Motor-Vehicle Accidents 44,757

Intentional self-harm by firearm 16,907

Assault by firearm 11,920

Firearms discharge 730

Legal intervention involving firearm discharge 347

Firearm discharge 232

http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20061207130021353

Motor vehicle traffic deaths remain the leading cause of death among Americans aged between 1 and 34 years.

http://www.minority.unc.edu/sph/minconf/2004/materials/ewing.et.al.pdf

Being a passenger in a car is the leading cause of death for kids:

http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20090116150733902

Death rates this high should not be an accepted byproduct of our transportation system.

by The human car on Feb 20, 2009 10:43 am