WTOP's report has changed the description so that the bus is heading east on Fla., crossing Conn., not turning from Conn. to Florida.

by ah on Sep 3, 2009 12:13 pm • link • report

I think we will just have to wait, since this key point seems to be in dispute. My friend says the bus was going about 30 MPH, something that seems impossible if making a right from Ct on to Fla.

by Jazzy on Sep 3, 2009 12:21 pm • link • report

Also, if the bus had been turning right on red, the pedestrian also presumably would have had a red light.

There are so many conflicting accounts right now (I have also seen eyewitness accounts that the pedestrian was not in the crosswalk, but was crossing Florida a little before it on the more direct route to the Rite Aid - something I do all the time). Hopefully the investigation will be able to sort it all out.

by Esmeralda on Sep 3, 2009 12:22 pm • link • report

Might want to cut back on throwing fuel and on the speculation fire, it will serve no one well.

by RJ on Sep 3, 2009 12:23 pm • link • report

Florida and Connecticut is also just a tough intersection for pedestrians. There is no crosswalk across Connecticut on the south side of the intersection, and slip lanes abound.

I don't see why earphones should be an issue. Until we start speculating about whether a car had its windows closed with the radio on at a medium volume during every accident, I don't think we can associate wearing headphones as a pedestrian with carelessness or even causation.

by Reid on Sep 3, 2009 12:41 pm • link • report

The earbuds are potentially relevant just as one might ask whether the driver was texting. They have the potential to reduce awareness by eliminating audio clues. Of course, not necessarily in this case, or it may not have mattered if the bus came "out of nowhere".

by ah on Sep 3, 2009 12:55 pm • link • report

And this is why accident investigations aren't conducted in the blogosphere...

by metronic on Sep 3, 2009 1:22 pm • link • report

Until we start speculating about whether a car had its windows closed with the radio on at a medium volume during every accident, I don't think we can associate wearing headphones as a pedestrian with carelessness or even causation.

Right, I believe in the US, the commonly accepted custom is that unless the operator of a motor vehicle is falling-down drunk, or driving at least 20 mph over the speed limit, that it's the pedestrian/cyclist's fault.

Give the driver his $25 fine, and let's move on people.

by ibc on Sep 3, 2009 1:33 pm • link • report

I live right on that intersection, in the WTOP picture it appears that the bus is facing east on Florida and the only way to end up there off Conn. is by turning is from the northbound direction.

As Reid said, that intersection is not an easy one to navigate, I regularly see people almost get hit on the west side of that intersection because of the confusing signaling (and the fact the signals are almost always cockeyed by about 45 degrees so you can't easily tell which signal is which) because of the turn lane off of Conn. Guests at the numerous hotels up on Connecticut seem particularly bewildered.

Combine the confusing nature of the intersection with aggressive drivers on Florida that regularly run that light due to the intersection's wide width and I've had to jump back onto the curb numerous times. Maybe DC needs to lengthen the time between the red light on Florida and the walk signal across Florida.

I'm certainly not saying it's the girl's fault, but I sure as heck wouldn't be running across Connecticut Ave. in rush hour wearing earphones. Reality is that you're giving up one of your senses while you move in between thousand ton hunks of steel moving at 40 mph. Not smart. Run around Kalorama or something where you don't need to worry about crazy commuters running lights and barreling around corners.

by marconi on Sep 3, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report

I wouldn't equate running with earphones with texting while driving, the later makes you much less aware of your surroundings than the former. However, I never run outside with earphones on because I do think it makes you less aware of your surroundings and is less safe with regard to traffic. Not to say I put the blame on this jogger because she may have been wearing headphones, but it's something pedestrians need to consider.

by Isotopor on Sep 3, 2009 2:01 pm • link • report

Isotopor--I agree. My point wasn't to make a direct equation, nor to place the blame on the jogger if she was wearing headphones. Rather, the point is relevance.

With texting (or a cell phone) drivers are dangerous. They may ultimately be behaving legally, but still fail to avoid an accident. Put it this way--if you're a jaywalker, would you rather the car coming at you have someone on the phone or paying full attention to driving? I'd rather that they be aware enough that they might avoid me, even if they have the right of way. Spin it around to a jogger (any one, not the one struck today). As a driver, I'd rather they didn't have headphones on when running on city streets because as much as I pay attention, one never knows and I'd appreciate them also being able to look out for themselves.

by ah on Sep 3, 2009 2:08 pm • link • report

I honestly don't understand how people wear headphones while out in public. On my side of the park, it's a total dog-whistle to potential muggers. Throw in navigating busy sidewalks and intersections, and it becomes completely untenable.

As an aside, I can attest that buses and all manner of other vehicles enter that intersection from the west at full throttle, usually just as the light's turning red on them.

by mark on Sep 3, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report

Making a right on red? I thought there was a Metro policy against that.

by Tim on Sep 3, 2009 2:19 pm • link • report

If you truly believe wearing headphones is a bad idea then you should advocate for a prohibition on car stereos and windows.

If you aren't willing to do that, then aren't you holding pedestrians to a higher standard than drivers?

by Reid on Sep 3, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report

Reid-No, except for high volumes. Earphones do a much better job of blocking out sound than just from the sound itself. Note that it's illegal to drive with earphones on in most jurisdiction, but not to drive with music on the speakers.

by ah on Sep 3, 2009 2:52 pm • link • report

Hmmmm... I rather like the idea of banning car stereos. Then I wouldn't be awoken by the pounding bass of a lame PG County teenager on his way home from the downtown clubs...

by David T on Sep 3, 2009 3:10 pm • link • report

I disagree. I think that unless you are blasting music on your headphones, they block way less sound than a closed window and a stereo at medium volume.

When I run I wear headphones and can hear myself snap my fingers. Maybe I just keep my volume lower than others. But there's no reason to assume people are listening to loud music. And to tut-tut them while not making a similar case against windows and car stereos is to hold them to a higher standard, which inherently excuses drivers.

If cars were replaced with people walking around swinging a knife in the air, we'd never come up with the same excuses we do for drivers.

by Reid on Sep 3, 2009 3:35 pm • link • report

(Also don't forget the sound of the car itself. If you've got a loud engine and the A/C blasting on top of the radio, you wouldn't anything but a car horn, which is about all we expect drivers to listen for anyway...)

by Reid on Sep 3, 2009 3:40 pm • link • report

I think those who are arguing over whether earphones while jogging or drivers with rolled up windows with the radio on are less aware of their surroundings are missing the point. No matter what other cars or pedestrians are doing around you, if you as a pedestrian are wearing earphones you are less aware of your surroundings than if you were not wearing headphones, and are therefore more apt to be hit by a car, bike, or another pedestrian. Again, not saying wearing earphones while jogging should be illegal or anything, but if you are a pedestrian who has been hit by a car that broke traffic laws, being "in the right" is cold comfort.

by Isotopor on Sep 3, 2009 4:13 pm • link • report

I work across the street from this morning's incident. One thing that I don't think has been discussed yet: The corner sidewalk canopy for the Royal Palace strip club, I think, could create a visual blindspot for traffic turning right. I've had 1-2 close calls with cars and buses making that right turn. It certainly can make it tough for pedestrians to see what's coming around the corner.

Also, signage could be much better. Because of the numerous no left turn signs, there are many drivers making left turns from eastbound Florida Avenue into the corner cut-off from westbound Florida Avenue to northbound Connecticut Avenue. I would assume that's illegal, but there's no sign saying it's illegal to make that left. Additionally, northbound Connecticut Avenue drivers will make U-turns at Bancroft Place and then make the right turn onto Florida Avenue, thus circumventing the no left turn at the main intersection.

by Michael E. Grass on Sep 3, 2009 4:15 pm • link • report

@Michael E. Grass: You are right about the canopy, I think. I've also had more than a few cars come close to hitting me as I cross north on Connecticut there.

As for earphones and noise awareness: I think some people here need to differentiate between in-ear (ear buds) and over-ear (traditional headphones). There's a huge difference in how much background noise you can hear with them. The whole purpose of ear buds is to basically block outside noise so that you only hear the music. Traditional headphones tend to fit a bit more loosely and therefore allow in more background noise. At least that's been my experience.

by Mike B on Sep 3, 2009 4:41 pm • link • report

My point is that runners can be more aware than drivers even with headphones on. Yes, they could be even more aware without them in, but so what? Merely bringing it up in the wake of an accident inevitably puts the initial blame on the pedestrian, yet I've never heard people start speculating after an accident about whether the windows were up and the radio on.

by Reid on Sep 3, 2009 6:14 pm • link • report

I can't say that the two are exactly the same. A pedestrian afterall can hear a car or a bus (if she/he is not wearing earphones, that is) but a driver does not hear a pedestrian normally. I think we are perhaps barking up the wrong tree here. The jogger might have had earphones on, but who knows, maybe the thing was between songs, maybe it was off, maybe it was turned down very low, maybe it was a talk radio program.

This has been one of the worst days, honestly. It's the culmination of so much. What I take away from the experience encountering a friend right after it happened is the speed the bus was traveling at. I seem have been wrong about where the bus was coming from. Judging by the photo, it does appear to have been turning from Ct on to Florida. If so, this would make it all the more incredible.

by Jazzy on Sep 3, 2009 6:36 pm • link • report

Great. Someone gets hit and is in the hospital with -life-threatening injuries (does she have insurance?), and all we're talking about is how dangerous wearing head-phones is while walking.

metronic is right.

by Jasper on Sep 3, 2009 9:59 pm • link • report

Out of curiosity one day, I pulled published court opinions in cases involving WMATA. Of course there were lots of contract disputes, and employment-related actions. But of course also there were lots of tort cases.

One case involved a person who was killed by a train on the lower platform at Metro Center. According to the court, the eyewitness accounts were simply irreconcilable. Some said that the person jumped in front of the train as it entered the station and that the two collided in mid-air. Others said the person entered the track bed and lay down on the tracks, which is where he was when the train came in. Irreconcilable.

Eye witness accounts are not reliable.

by Omari on Sep 3, 2009 10:33 pm • link • report

Omari--out of curiousity, was WMATA held liable in that case? It seems like either set of facts it's not really their fault.

by ah on Sep 3, 2009 11:15 pm • link • report

@ Reid & ah

Was it headphones (wrap around the head) , earphones ( go into ear but not deep into the ear canal) or canalphones ( go deep into the ear canal) there different each has subtle changes that can effect this situation differently.

It really depends on the type of head/earphone; some brands and models can echo noises while others suppress outside noise and some raise the volume of the music played.

This depends entirely on the brand of the device plus the type. If they are cheap apple earphones you can hear everything while if there top of the line sony canalphones you cant hear a damn thing besides the music and the loudest bomb like noises if they were anything close to studio headphones you cant hear s**t outside of whats coming through the headphones

by kk on Sep 3, 2009 11:23 pm • link • report

I haven't seen news reports one way or the other. My sole point was that it could be relevant. Of course it might not have mattered for any number of reasons as well. We just don't know enough at this point.

by Ah on Sep 4, 2009 8:30 am • link • report

A very similar accident happened in Cleveland last summer. Now, all buses beep (the sound they would make when going in reverse) whenever the turn signal is engaged, and they honk before making turns. It's quite obnoxious to those who live and work downtown. I only hope Washington doesn't have the same knee-jerk reaction.

by Rob on Sep 4, 2009 8:41 am • link • report

I recall once, upon making a right-on-red onto Connecticut from Tilden, being surprised by a runner suddenly appearing in front of me. Because she was running at speed, she was outside my view as I started my turn, then leapt out in front of my car like a gazelle. I was ready for people at walking speed, but not for one running.

Yes, I stopped, but abruptly, and the young lady grimaced at me as if I was supposed to have seen her coming.

Was this the case yesterday? I don't know, of course. But runners, joggers, bicyclists, and pedestrians all seem to think that they're more visible to automobile drivers than they really are.

One rule of driving safety: don't do the unexpected, taking automobile drivers by surprise.

by Jack on Sep 4, 2009 10:19 am • link • report

In my experience, the most dangerous buses on the road are the ones that ride the "not in service' route. Anything is possible, but if the bus plowed into her, or ran a red, it would not surprise me.

by ANon on Sep 4, 2009 11:46 am • link • report

Headphones?

And this whole time I thought it was my eyes and legs that kept me from getting run over...

Seriously, headphones are completely irrelevant to the scenario unless you cross the street blindfolded...

by Justin from ReadysetDC on Sep 4, 2009 4:26 pm • link • report

headphones + running = bad.

by beatbox on Sep 9, 2009 10:14 am • link • report

Justin, do you have eyes in the back of your head?

by ah on Sep 9, 2009 10:30 am • link • report

Headphones have nothing to do with the accident. Sometimes I can't hear the music I run to because of all the auto noise. People who blame the headphones are just trying to tell themselves that sudden, random death can't happen to them.

by цarьchitect on Sep 9, 2009 10:54 am • link • report