Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
Head over to why.i.hate.dc for a photo and update on the 22 ghost bikes that were placed all around the intersection of Connecticut and R NW a week ago. Looks like someone decided to let activist Legba Carrefour know they aren't fond of his bikes.
All of the remaining ghost bikes near Connecticut and R have been piled up at two locations, outside of the Cosi and at the site of the original ghost bike. It's a mess, and the pile near the Cosi is blocking the crosswalk. It appears as though some of the bikes that had been locked are in the pile or missing, as well. It's unclear who may have done this, but I would imagine DPW will be removing the bikes very soon given the state of the street. I urge Legba Carrefour or the Washington Area Bicyclist Association to clean this up as soon as possible. This is no longer a tribute to Alice Swanson or bicycle safety.Indeed, a sad pile of bikes is surely not what anyone who was upset about the removal of the original bike wanted to see instead.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
it's too bad, but i think the alice swanson memorial has run its course.
time to spend efforts by continuing to agitate for better legal protection and recognition for cyclists in DC. it would be the best way to remember her now.
join waba.
Hear hear. Let's keep her in our thoughts and just continue working towards a safer environment on the streets so that these accidents are minimized.
WTF does WABA have to do with it? Tell Legba to clean up his own mess.
i suggested WABA because their office is just a few blocks away (if i recall correctly) and they have been vocal on alice swanson's behalf. while they didn't place these bikes, it's still a sad sight that is related to the initial ghost bike. it's not their obligation to clean it up but they are nearby and have an interest in the matter.
If I recal Legba's shrill jeremiad correctly, no matter if the ghost bikes are taken away, he and his aberrant coterie of art f**ks will replace them. The question is: will Legba follow through on his threat, where will they put the zombie ghost bikes that refuse to die, and how many junkpunches are required to make them stop?
This could be the inspiration for a great sequel to Shaun of the Dead. Ever tried to kill a zombie bike with an LP?
Alice chose to ride around on a bike that was unsafe. Dude at CityBikes told her so. What happened to her was sad but we must promote bike safety and move on.
I'm sorry, what exactly about her bike was unsafe? And who is this "dude" that told her of her unsafe bike?
Care to elaborate, or are you just talking out of your rectum?
She had big steel rims that wouldn't be stopped by her brakes in an emergency. He's suffered enough and his name doesn't need to be put out there.
I'm unclear on what, if anything, your comments add to this discussion. This is demonstrably not widespread knowledge, so it's not like you're "clearing the name" of CityBikes dude by posting this.
My bike has steel rims too. Lots of bikes do. Steel rims were common on even the *best* bikes up until about 1970. They're only a problem in the rain, and if you don't take the rain into account.
I agree your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation.
Don't be ridiculous.
Probably had an eight-speed cassette and cantilever brakes, too. You're right, we should just consider this "suicide by bike."
So, if I've got this right, Alice Swanson was riding an older bike with features that limited her ability to brake quickly in the rain, and therefore it was her disregard for safety that led to her getting run over by a truck in a collision she couldn't have avoided even if she could have stopped on a dime, on a day where the nearest precipitation was in Boston?
No, wait, sorry, this is Tom Swifty day. Let me rephrase that. "Alice Swanson was riding an older bike with features that limited her ability to brake quickly in the rain, and therefore it was her disregard for safety that led to her getting run over by a truck in a collision she couldn't have avoided even if she could have stopped on a dime, on a day where the nearest precipitation was in Boston", Tom said stupidly.
are you kidding me? you're blaming her for her own death.
i hope, for your sake, that you don't get hit by anything as you go about your day. it would be a real shame to lose your insight...
Alot of people choose to ride bikes that aren't safe, have you seen the number of people that ride track bikes sans brakes in this city...They serve no other purpose than for street cred
rukasu: like fixies, is that what you're talking about?
Not all fixies are "track bikes sans brakes" - in fact, most fixies are equipped with front brakes...and some have both front and back (when the rider chooses to flip the hub around to ride single-speed instead of fixed).
Seriously, fixies are a lot of fun to ride and very easy to control (with brakes, that is). I do agree that those who ride the track bikes with no brakes are definitely putting themselves (and others) at risk.
de: thanks for the explanation, much appreciated.
I've been waiting for another post on this to issue a rare mea culpa.
I've actually switched my position on this. When they did this, I was still ticked off over the "funeral parkers blocking bike lanes" flap. I still think that many "bike activists" are self absorbed whiners. I think that this has nothing to do with the girl that was killed and that her ghost bike should have been removed.
However...I saw them on the street this past weekend and yeah, it looked kind of cool. From a temporary public art perspective I think it was kind of neat.
Now please stop and don't do it again. The point was made. You did some neat guerrilla art. Now move on.
FYI-I declare this Tom Swifty Day.
"I didn't mean for the Ghost Bikes to be such a nuisance," Tom backpedaled.
That picture looks like, like ANARCHY!
FYI-I declare this Tom Swifty Day.
"I didn't mean for the bikes to be such a nuisance," Tom backpedaled.
"The commenting system sucks," Tom said repeatedly.
:)
Looks like the Morlocks got a hold of some of them bikes.
I have to echo the sentiments. On by bus ride into work this morning I noticed the pile up of bikes and it just looked like a mess. I was actually surprised not to see more of them piled up. It has run its course.
Next up: zombie bikes in honor of the slain ghost bikes.
Found another one
That bike is obviously still alive, as it is not white yet.
I'm sorry, but the placement of these ghost bikes is systemic of a culture among DC cyclists that believe they are above the law.
Running stop signs. Riding the wrong way down one way streets. Running red lights. Speeding (on downhill stretches).
Bicycle safety is important; in a collision between a bicycle and a car, the car will win. However, bicyclists bear some responsibility for their own safety by following the traffic laws. This culture of "the law doesn't apply to me" has to end for there to be any marked improvement in safety.
brandonsavage020 says: blah blah blah blah blah
brandonsavage020 implies: automobile drivers and pedestrians are not responsible for the millions of times a day that they break the law in DC.
The only law the artist broke was in locking a bike to a streetlight, where the previous bike had been locked over a year [and, technically, leaving that same bike locked in one spot for more than 12 hours, but since it was illegal to lock that bike for 0 hours it seems like the same violation]. You can leave your bike unlocked on the sidewalk for as long as you want, but after 5 minutes it will be stolen. Only one of these bikes was locked.
Wow, brandonsavage020, what a unique thought! Thank you so much for introducing this straaange concept to a city blog! You are so independent in your thinking. What are your thoughts on other problems of the day? Should people, perhaps, take caution when walking on an icy sidewalk? Or maybe lock their doors when they leave for the day? I don't know, but then again, my likeness isn't routinely mistaken for that of Captain Obvious. Your thoughts, good sir?
That was txt'd from my iphone while driving! Sure hope that light back there was green!
Alice Swanson was in a marked bike lane when she was struck and killed. Do you also think that anyone killed in a car accident is partly to blame for the "culture of speeding" among drivers?
No one could have predicted that scattering poorly painted junk bikes around the landscape would result in a mess.
Legba!®
I'm sorry, but the placement of these ghost bikes is systemic of a culture among DC cyclists that believe they are above the law.
Now replace "cyclists" with "drivers", "pedestrians", "rollerbladers"...
Then go fuck off, troll...
Hold up. I agree that drivers (particularly those of the Maryland persuasion) and pedestrians break a lot of traffic laws. But I see DC bikers going the wrong way down one way streets and running red lights on a daily basis in DC. Do drivers do those things? Sure, but not the same degree. Cycling does have a culture of individualism that is both cool and commendable but the 'we're not the only ones who break the law' defense is nonsense. We should be doing more to become a bike-safe city, but flouting traffic laws and then saying 'you guys started it' isn't going to get us there.
According to a study in NYC, "Motorists commit about three potentially life-threatening traffic violations every minute at city intersections, clocking in at a stunning 157 each hour. And drivers don’t give way to pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles 24 times every hour". I'm confident that if you took the percentage of "time in violation of the law"/"time on the road", drivers would turn out to be the worst scofflaws on the road. Considering that they do all the killing, I sincerely feel that getting drivers in compliance is more important than getting cyclists in compliance.
Alice Swanson died because the garbage truck made an illegal right turn from the left lane and failed to yield the right of way to her. She was in a bike lane with a green light. It was not because of her brakes despite what unnamed "City Bikes dude" says.
1.) R street is one lane. There is no left lane to turn from.
2.) I 100% agree that law enforcement should do more (speed cameras, higher fines for aggressive driving) to get motorists to obey traffic laws.
3.) I want cyclists held to that same standard.
4.) Her death was tragic and avoidable. The over-arching message is that we should ALL, regardless of what we're driving or riding, be more safe and aware of our surroundings.
R street is one lane. There is no left lane to turn from.
Wrong. There is a left "all vehicle" lane and a right bike/right turn lane. The driver was in the left "all vehicle" lane.
Incorrect. That lane is a bike only lane and it's illegal for cars to drift into it, as is the case with all bike lanes in the district. The problem is that last I heard there was no fine or penalty for motorists for violating that lane.
Big Mike is correct. There is no Right Turn lane, there is a bike lane and a single car lane. The bike lane allows cars to enter the lane about 15ft before the crosswalk to allow cars to turn right. Stop trying to make it look like he pulled across 2 lanes to turn right. It was a horrible accident. An accident is an accident and I am sure the driver was not intending on crushing someone to death. Instead of art how about more signs to make drivers more aware of the lanes, how about the police enforcing the traffic laws instead of ignoring them? I have seen more blatant disregard for traffic laws in this city by all parties, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers than anywhere else. If laws were enforced people may think twice before pulling boneheaded moves.
Not that I have any desire to get into this ghost bike crap discussion again, but if this quote of yours is true, then washcycle is correct, he driver made a right turn from the left lane.
wait, wait, wait. big mike isn't "correct." automobiles shouldn't be "driving" in the bike lane, but they can (and must) move into and through that lane at the corner while making a right-hand turn. they have to yield to traffic in that lane first, though. that would have been alice, and the truck driver certainly did not yield.
it's illegal for cars to drift into it, as is the case with all bike lanes in the district.
There is no Right Turn lane, there is a bike lane and a single car lane. The bike lane allows cars to enter the lane about 15ft before the crosswalk to allow cars to turn right
The bike lane is more technically a restricted access lane. It is restricted to cyclists and cars turning right (and some types of mopeds I think). It is illegal to drift into or drive in the restricted access lane. But when making a right turn, you're required to merge into this lane - and it is a lane, (how is a bike lane not a lane?). This is covered by Section 2203.3 "Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge or the roadway." As close as practicable means in the bike lane.
It is absolutely critical that drivers do two things. 1) stay out of the bike lane when and where prohibited 2) safely merge into the bike lane when making a right turn. Doing so will help to avoid another tragedy like this one.
In our push to say "stay out of the bike lane" we have to add the exception "unless you're turning right". It's less concise but it's safer.
It was a horrible accident. An accident is an accident and I am sure the driver was not intending on crushing someone to death.
It was an accident I'm sure, in that it wasn't intentional. But it was, nonetheless, negligent homicide on the part of the driver. In some states negligent homicide merely requires normal negligence, but in DC, Virginia or Maryland only gross negligence (DWI, Speeding, Hit and Run) rises to the level of a criminal act. So you are free to mow down as many pedestrians and cyclists as you like as long as you hang around to prove you weren't drunk. You won't even lose your license.
You have to merge into the lane after yielding to bicycles before making a right turn. The truck driver, apparently, did neither.
Cyclists: perfect example of two things. First, get a side view mirror and get used to checking it as you approach every intersection. Don't count on turn signals to let you know if a car coming from behind will be turning right--the turn signal hand is now the cell phone/Big Mac/cigarette holding hand. Just assume they're turning right and act accordingly. Two: always "take the lane" on streets with no bike lane. There' not enough room for both of you there, particularly not when you factor in this "right hook" problem. Yes, the drivers will get angry (as soon as they see you, before slowing down) and honk (the second their foot has to come off the gas) and yell (when they have to hit the brake) and possibly throw something (when they've been driving at or below the speed limit for more than 100 yards) or threaten to run you over (if this continues any longer than that).....but if they're pissed off at you, that means they SEE you, and except for extreme cases, if they see you, they're not going to hit you.
Drivers: check your mirrors before turning. Merge and yield when turning on a road that has a bike lane. Use your turn signals. Stop speeding. Yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Hang up the phone and drive. Chill out, and plan your commute better. It's not all about you.
It always amazes me how people rattle off their safety opinions as though they are some sort of authority, that their opinions on safety somehow constitute canon and that there are not true authorities on safety that completely disagree with you.
Regardless, I'm glad you have opinions about bicycle safety.
Ok, nevermind. Just coast right on through intersections without worrying if there's a car behind you and if it'll be turning right. They'll see you. And avoid you. That's exactly why the ghost bike exists, right?
I not saying that. I'm saying that your opinions about safety are only opinions. Many experts believe your opinions increase danger to cyclists, so please refrain from lecturing other people as though you are some sort of authority.
How is making sure that you are aware if there is a car behind you and if it will be turning right an opinion on bike safety?
Isn't it better to get all opinions (and counter-opinions) out there so that people can think more about bike safety and behave in ways that work best for them in their situations? It's certainly better than taking someone's (good and common) advice and shooting it down as "dangerous" without offering reasons why or safer alternatives. So let's her them.
Oh for Pete's sake. I just realized that you probably disagreed with the "mirror" aspect of things. Ok, I get it. Some people think that the mirrors are less safe than turning one's head. Got it. Personally, I don't have a mirror because I can't find one that works with my bike and which is large enough to be effective, so I turn my head (but I do worry about keeping my eyes off the road in front of me).
Mirror, head turn...whatever. Details. Point? Drivers are not hugely likely to notice you or yield to you. So get yourself prepared in some way. "Mirror" was shorthand for that.
If you object to "take the lane in absence (or even presence, depending on your opinion) of a bike lane"...I don't know what to say to that. I have yet to meet a regular cyclist who thinks that hugging the curb/parked cars and sharing a too-narrow lane with Monster Trucks is safe.
I may not be an Expert (R) peddling my wares on the internet, but my bike is my primary mode of transportation, including a 20 mile (round trip) daily commute. I've learned a lot through education, observation and experience. Gotta be worth something.
Wash-
We argued about this endlessly on your blog.
"as close to the right curb as practicable" means that a large vehicle, (bus, truck, wienermobile) is going to need to be several feet off the curb to make the turn. As he was doing so, she came up his inside edge and got crushed. The police report you posted concludes the same thing. The driver did nothing illegal, sorry.
She had the right-of-way. He failed to yield. That's illegal.
Besides, if he pulled forward into the intersection and turned enough to block the bike lane that would have prevented this. He made a point to say that he left the bike lane open. Why leave the bike lane open except to allow someone to use it? And if he expected someone to use it, then he should have done more to make sure it was safe to move over. If his mirrors are inadequate to make a safe turn then he needs bigger mirrors. I'm sorry, but accepting a few dead cyclists as the cost of moving trash out of the city is just not acceptable.
Care to release some more of the police report? The version you posted didnt say anything about him choosing to keep the bike lane open. My guess is he was turned at about a 15 degree angle, enough to point his mirrors slightly off the bike lane as she came crusing up his inside (btw passing on the right in DC is illegal, so Im not sure how she could legally have the right of way) and he started his turn catching her.
Tragic accident yes, illegal no
she came crusing up his inside (btw passing on the right in DC is illegal, so Im not sure how she could legally have the right of way) and he started his turn catching her.
The ignorance displayed by some folks of basic traffic law saddens me sometimes.
You are exactly right.
I'd go further and add that it makes more sense to target enforcement efforts at the motorists rather than cyclists. I can't recall the last time a cyclist (riding illegally or not) killed either a motorist or a pedestrian in DC. One doesn't have to think too hard to come up with many examples of motorists killing both pedestrians or cyclists.
Target those who kill others, not those who kill themselves.
Dear Legda, Lebgba or whatever-your-name is: When I die, please pretend you don't know me. I do not wish my legacy to be tarnished by your random acts of kindness and self-serving egomania. Much love, Wizzyliz
Get back on the unicycle, Liz.
Ghost unicycle?
He said he didn't know Alice Swanson, so maybe you should hope he does know you.
I thought Alice was not in the bike lane but rather biking through the intersection from the sidewalk...which is far more dangerous.
A lot of people reported the bike was in the crosswalk because that's where it ended up. When the truck turned in front of her path she turned right to avoid it, and was further push from the bike lane to the crosswalk by the truck as it moved. So she was in the bike lane originally but moved out of it as an evasive maneuver.
ah, scary as I bike through this everyday and constantly looking to my left.
Indeed, a sad pile of bikes is surely not what anyone who was upset about the removal of the original bike wanted to see instead.
DCist: Not only the high-minded arbiter of good taste, but also the mouthpiece for anyone. Indeed.
I can't put it online, but the part I'm talking about reads "While the truck was close to the adjacent bicycle lane on the north side of the street, the truck was not encroaching upon that lane. At the time the drive began to execute the right turn, the front tires of the truck had passed the east crosswalk and the adjacent northeast curb."
And it's not illegal to pass on the right. The law reads "A person operating a bicycle may overtake and pass other vehicles on the left or right side, staying in the same lane as the overtaken vehicle, or changing to a different lane, or riding off the roadway."
To me that reads not that he was avoiding encroaching on the bike lane, but instead he was just outside it as he tried to make his turn....basically the exact same position the truck would be in to make the turn whether or not the bike lane was there.
Trucks turn wide because the _have_ to...hence the "this truck makes wide right turns" graphic that is on the back of them that shows why you dont pass them on the inside.
Life doesn't exist on the head of a pin. Let's bring this back to reality.
If a vehicle passed you on the left and then executed a right turn in front of you, would they be in the wrong if, despite your best efforts you struck them? What would you do if confronted by that situation? Pretend you're a cyclist going, perhaps, 15 mph, and the other vehicle is a large truck traveling at the same speed.
Is it no one's fault?
Life doesn't exist on the head of a pin. Let's bring this back to reality. If a vehicle passed you on the left and then executed a right turn in front of you, would they be in the wrong if, despite your best efforts you struck them? What would you do if confronted by that situation? Pretend you're a cyclist going, perhaps, 15 mph, and the other vehicle is a large truck traveling at the same speed. Is it no one's fault?
One thing I noticed when walking past that intersection the other day, but haven't heard mentioned:
There's no way that Swanson was doing anything close to 15 mph when she was struck by that truck, never mind that she was speeding. She was commuting to work on an old beater-bike, and the bike lane is going up a slight hill at that point.
I hate to be drawn into a debate about a collision that none of us saw, but it seem much more likely to me that the driver killed Alice while turning right without paying due attention. It's a reasonable point that the driver could not execute the turn while occupying the cycle lane (because of the restricted turning circle of the truck) but if people are going to operate heavy machinery-machinery with the capacity to kill-then there has to be a commensurate responsibility to operate that machinery in a way that does not threaten the life of other road users. The driver ought to have made sure that the way was clear. If he could not check that the cycle lane was clear then he should not have been making that turn.
It's far too easy for motorists to use the 'I didn't see them' excuse. It's unacceptable, and I think the widespread perception that the law does not afford protection to cyclists is at the heart of why so many people feel passionately that the ghost bike monument should remain not just until the case of Alice Swanson is resolved, but until real measures are put in place to ensure that the roads in DC can be shared by all.
Is anyone planning any more organized efforts to pressure the DC government to make lasting changes as a result of this case? I'd be happy to support them.
Also, does anyone know which businesses in the Dupont area asked for the removal of the original ghost bike? I'd rather have no business with them in the future.
If these ghost bikes disappear, then I will put up another ghost bike for Alice Swanson.
And if that ghost bike is taken down, I will put up another ghost bike the next day. And so on.
Alice Swanson's Ghost Bike memorial is permanent. End of story.
About as permanent as the Hubert Humphrey Memorial Plaza. And it will suffer the same fate: ignored, drenched in vagrant pee, and ultimately paved over.
it's just a pile of bikes people. a pile that takes up a fraction the space of one car. you can put 40 bikes in one parking space. there are 22 bikes. so you should be complaining at least twice as much for every single car that parks in dupont circle and/or parks illigaly. otherwise this is all a bunch of nonsense.
I agree. They should dedicate a single parking space and place all the ghost bikes on it. That way, you get the memorial, but it doesn't block the sidewalk. But then you have the thorny question of where to set up your white-painted ghost parking space to memorialize the one that's being taken up by the ghost bikes. This would also serve as a memorial for that endangered species: the vanishing urban parking space.
I’ll probably get berated for this but I’m going to say it anyway. I am so sick of the Nazi-bikers in this town and I am personally elated that someone is standing up to their bulls**t. Know what, if you choose to bike in DC then accept the risks. It’s ludicrous to think that you can go around permanently putting up a bike every place someone gets killed! Maybe we should start putting up big marble columns at the site of every shooting in DC too! Does that make any sense? Hell no. Seriously. Bikers are a nuisance in this town. They clog the roads, they are JUST as aggressive as drivers, they are dangerous to pedestrians (seen several peds hit by bikers running stop signs), they don’t follow ANY traffic laws, they get on the Rock Creek Parkway/Beach Drive (where there is a bike path 100 yards away, in view I might add) during rush hour and hold up traffic to make a point….I could go on and on and on but I will stop.
Bikers are a nuisance in this town. They clog the roads, they are JUST as aggressive as drivers, they are dangerous to pedestrians (seen several peds hit by bikers running stop signs), they don’t follow ANY traffic laws, they get on the Rock Creek Parkway/Beach Drive (where there is a bike path 100 yards away, in view I might add) during rush hour and hold up traffic to make a point…
Hope that was a cathartic experience...
By the way, if you're in a hurry, then why the fuck are you driving your car through Rock Creek/Beach Drive when there's a perfectly decent six-lane commuter route less than a quarter-mile away? Take Connecticut, Wisconsin, or Georgia. Get the Hell out of the park if you can't play well with other park users.
(Sheesh, you'd think after the last eight years, folks from Texas would be careful of making a public spectacle of their ignorance...)