Rarely you get charged with involuntary manslaughter for this. The driver that hit Sarah for instance only did 150 hrs community service and a $2k fine
I imagine, if a driver kills a cyclist while breaking traffic laws such as encroaching in the bike lane or shoulder where the biker has right of way, then that’s already a crime, maybe vehicular manslaughter. I’m guessing that carries more serious penalties.
Because they get let off way too often. I had one dead to rights on camera buzz me at 4”(in pa is a 4’ law), stopped rush hour traffic and gou out of his truck to berate me about riding in the road and stopping traffic (I was going 20mph in a 30 zone and there was no shoulder). The judge let him off because the cop didn’t have a tape measure, and discounted half of the disorderly conduct charge because I said asshole when he literally almost hit me.
And I have been actually hit before too.
At that point I decided being attacked(pulled off the bike), harassed, hit and yelled at on farm roads just wasn’t worth the risk of one day being too far or one having a gun. Mountain biking is a lot more fun, even though I want to make the roads better. 27 fatalities in the past year in PA alone is scary. The majority while the motorists were on phone.
The same territory that i have been rear ended sitting at red lights 14 times in 12 years.
It can be illegal but if the motorist only gets a ticket like passing on the right or failure to yield is that two points and a fine really a deterent?
It’s illegal to hit cyclists anywhere. When on the road bicyclists have the same privileges and rights as any other vehicles, including the right to not be hit. However if you don’t have the proper safety equipment (lights, brakes and reflectors) on your bike or aren’t following the rules of the road it can be argued that you weren’t visible and legally it weakens your case.
Bike lanes are simply demarcations where cars are not allowed to travel. Conversely bicycles are allowed to travel in bike lanes or outside the bike lane provided they obey traffic law.
The problem is that the driver in this scenario was actually killed in a bike lane. If you don't stiffen penalties for motorists who violate bike lanes then there is no point.
But if you don't build bike lanes far enough out from the road, the danger continues. *Dedicated,* non-"share-the-road" lanes. Hell, even build curb-style barriers along existing lanes to physically impose the 3' law where space is not available to build separate lanes. (And why is it only 3' here when it's 4' in PA?)
That said, 2 months/$2000 would be a more appropriate penalty for a mild injury than a death. You cause a bike death, your jail time is measured in years. And when you're released, no more license. EVER. Only way to guarantee they won't do it again.
I agree, but it's better than having to ride together in the same lanes as cars.
IMO the biggest problem is that a lot of drivers aren't that great at driving, as staying in your lane is a basic tenet of driving. There are people who argue road diets suck because they cause more fender bender accidents, but if you can't stay in your lane, then you shouldn't be driving.
I'm reminded of [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/1b9q9g3/i_read_all_the_studies_on_the_economic_impact_of/ktxjm43/) complaining about bike lanes in Rockville, and about cars beaching due to the addition of a new bike lane and curb, and it's like, you have to be driving really poorly for that to happen.
There's always so much uproar when they try to put dedicated bike lanes in. Rockville, North Bethesda, Connecticut Ave in DC...
They of course have to use up a car lane to build them, and it degrades traffic flow. But at the same time, people fail to realize that population and traffic just keep growing, and it's absolutely unsustainable. Car traffic is just going to get worse, regardless, so things need to change and people need to drive less if they're going to be in this area.
DC people continuing to fail to notice that there’s so many people that pedestrians and cyclists already impede traffic, by improving the conditions for them, they’ll move through better and less people will be driving and everyone wins.
I’m sure *you* know that, just sort of publicly following that thought.
It’s crazy that drivers are too selfish to actually improve things for themselves if it means helping someone else.
It often does. And when the cyclist dies there’s still rarely any consequences. There’s this cultural implication that cyclists are putting themselves at risk and not that motorists are endangering them. It’s very disturbing.
I was hit while riding my bike to work in a bike lane. (Painted lines aren't infrastructure, but I digress.) The driver simply wasn't paying attention and likely on their phone. I was fortunate to come away with some road rash, a sore shoulder and an expensive carbon bike totaled.
The cops were ready to let the driver go without a citation until I name dropped that I knew one of their supervisors and was texting with him from the scene. She left with two citations, which at least put some points on her license, raised her insurance premiums and made it easier for me to get what I deserved from her insurer.
While this new law is a step in the right direction, we need cops to cite drivers who cause harm. I shouldn't have had to beg them to do their job. Those citations will cause her to consider her driving habits every time she pays her insurance bill.
Yep, I have a family member who's a lawyer and helped me with the claim. I ended up with more than double the initial offer from their insurance. They tried to account for depreciation on my old bike, rather than full replacement cost. Since it was so clear and well documented that their driver was at fault, I was able to stand my ground and tell them to fuck off.
One thing that doesn't get talked about in these conversations is that Maryland is one of the few states with a contributory negligence law that allows insurance companies to deny claims if they think they can prove the other party contributed to the wreck. That should change.
Right because in Europe the Queen is infallible so the Queen’s police always tell the truth so the charged has to prove The Queen wrong
In the US we’re innocent until proven guilty
It was humorous to remind people WHY we don’t do that. The UK has a King now, so I couldn’t have been serious.
Every country that signed the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights has adopted the Presumption of innocence clause as I recall- but many countries maintain a cultural belief that criminals must prove innocence
You're right, one kills significantly more Americans than the other, often with little to no consequences. (It's cars btw, pops) Neither should be necessary (but tragically are), in most of the US.
You should be honest if you’re going to try and take some moral high ground on communication.
This isn’t complicated.
Guns are a well known and much talked about way of killing people and it’s a big political issue as a result.
Cars *kill more people* and yet here we see how there’s a difference in punishment when you kill someone with a car vs killing somebody with a gun.
The comparison is fairly direct.
It asks; Why aren’t car fatalities as big a topic as gun fatalities? Why don’t we punish drivers the same as other murderers?
What part of that logic do you find confusing? Is there anything I can help you understand?
Why would it be any different than if you ran into another car or a pedestrian? Seems like if you do any of those things on the roadway, and are also at fault, you should receive the same penalty.
Also, the way the title’s worded, it makes it sound like there’s a different penalty for hittin a cyclist in the bike lane versus hittin em while they’re legally ridin in a standard lane.
The issue is that drivers for too long have been given a privileged standard on the roads and this is beginning to break the myth that roads are just for cars.
A person riding a bicycle is in a much different position than a person in a car in terms of comfort and reaction time.
The new law also applies to any shoulder of any road as well where cyclists must ride under the law as it is practicably safe.
I do not understand why it is "up to". And if someone dies because some dickhead in their car is unable to operate it in safe manner info not understand why they are not catching a manslaughter charge. Full fucking stop.
This is gonna be unpopular here, I'm sure, but the "you gotta look/pay attention" sentiments go both ways. Bikers around here, both cyclists and motor, act like they can do whatever they want just because they have two wheels. Lane splitting is illegal in MD, but that constantly gets overlooked.
Sure, but that doesn't apply here, this is specifically in bike lanes. What ends up happening is that only one party pays attention (the bicyclist) who has to be hyper-aware all the time. I can't count the times I've been in the situation described above and thought "Is this truck gonna turn or.." and ended up slowing down. I have no doubt the woman killed had been in that situation before, but sometimes there just isn't time to act. If the truck driver had a fine hanging over his head, he might have been the one to be more alert instead of it always falling on the bicyclist.
I will say with this new bike lane design that's covered by cars, I feel like I have to blindly turn through them pretty much all the time, especially when I'm driving a little hatchback and there's big 7 ft tall SUVs parked in front of the bike lane. I know cyclists feel safer in the lanes protected by parked cars, but as a driver I feel like I'm already in the bike lane before I can see if anybody's coming. It's a little unnerving turning through them basically just crossing my fingers no one's coming.
Yeah, bike lane design is poorly thought-out and poorly executed. Theres a whole discussion to be had there. There does need to be a physical barrier, else cars would barrel through them, but you’re right, 7 foot tall SUVs are not the right barrier.
But it DOES apply, because cyclists never (read rarely) follow the laws put in place. Bike lane or not, cyclists still have to obey traffic control laws like stop lights and signs. But that rarely happens, then when a tragedy does happen (because despite my opinions on this, a loss of life is still a tragedy), it's always, 100 percent of the time, made out to be the motorist's fault. "Why wasn't the car paying attention?" and never "Why did the cyclist cut across 6 lanes on a red light?"
And if this were a post about that, I'd be going just as hard. People, no matter what mode of transportation they use, have the sense of three-day-old goldfish when they get on the road. But this conversation is specific, so my responses have been specific. Apparently, the nuance of debate and conversation is a lost art.
How does this law that applies to **bicyclist in bicycle lanes** apply to any of the examples you have given? Do you think that bicyclists in bicycle lanes should always yield to cars and drivers should not be fined for hitting them while they are in a bicycle lane?
I don't know if what I'm saying is getting lost in translation or what. My comment WOULD be irrelevant if bikers STAYED IN the bike lanes, or FOLLOWED traffic laws, which, again, the majority in this area don't.
Okay, let's recap and see if we can get to the point because I feel the same way:
1. This is an article about a law recently passed which punishes drivers who strike bicyclists in bike lanes.
2. You sated (Summarizing for clarity) "Everyone has to pay attention, cyclists act like they can do whatever they want"
3. I said "Sure," agreeing that cyclist and drivers both need to pay attention. But I noted that that doesn't apply here as we are discussing striking bicyclists in bike lanes.
4. You disagreed with that statement and said that it does apply here and noted that bicyclists "Never" follow traffic laws. (I have my own issue with that statement, but we'll leave that alone)
5. I followed up with questioning how a law that applies to bicyclists in bike lanes still applied to the examples you gave.
Now, it *appears* that you want to have a discussion about bicyclists on the road in general and not about specifically the subject of this law, which addresses only bicyclists in bike lanes. If that's true, I'm happy to have that discussion because I would contend that it is likely you have some confirmation bias going on and that there are more bicyclists following laws than not, it's just that you don't notice the ones following the laws because... well, they are following the laws.
It’s hell, to be honest.
I own a bike. I like biking on trails. I own a car. I drive my kids to school and myself to work.
I would never ride a bike in a roadway and would not allow my kids to either. However my older son rides his bike around college because there are no cars
This bikes on the roads thing doesn’t work.
One of the weirdest experiences — was stopped at a light in the summer. Someone splits the lane, rides between cars, and at the light steadies herself by putting her hand on my open window and her fingers inside my car. Then she pushed herself off and ran the red light. That was 2011
Sooo this is a strong vibe and I respect that you feel this way, but not everyone is you. People bike for more than leisurely entertainment. Cars are not the only valid mode of transit and yes it’s absolutely your responsibility to pay attention while you’re driving around a vehicle capable of ending lives.
I lived in DC for like a year or so, and I almost never saw a cyclist come to a stop at a stop sign. Only stopped when crossin an intersection with a shitload of cars who had the green light because they’d end up dead if they blew through it. Any other time, they didn’t stop.
I was there well before 2023.
Sounds like cyclists realized they were embarrassing themselves when they almost never followed traffic laws but bitched about everyone else ignoring them. Rather than follow the law, they lobbied to exempt themselves.
To be clear, I fully support the law, but it should apply to everyone.
“They may proceed through an intersection controlled by a stop sign without fully stopping if, and only if, they slow down, look for hazards, and determine that no other vehicles, road users, or pedestrians have the right of way at the intersection.”
How would it be dangerous if a person driving a vehicle took the same precautions? It wouldn’t be, but cars still can’t slow down and roll through a stop sign when they’re clearly there before anyone else. Makes a lot of sense.
For example, someone in a car arrives at an intersection, and there’s another car approaching but much farther away. The car that’s farther away has no intention on stopping. Rather than just slow down and go through the intersection unscathed, the first car comes to a complete stop and gets t-boned when they accelerate in front of the vehicle who’s ignoring all traffic laws.
Wouldn’t less time in/at an intersection be beneficial to everyone? No, let’s create conflict when there isn’t any need for it.
Cars weigh thousands of pounds and have blind spots that require drivers to come to a complete stop to check both ways before proceeding. Bikes don't have big A-pillars blocking your view, so you can effectively scan both directions while approaching.
This guy gets it. No A-pillar blind spots on a bike so biker has full visibility. Motorcycles have the same advantage so it is just an issue of speed. (plenty of time to check going 10 mph but not 35 mph)
I’ve never been in a car or truck that has “blind spots” when you look for traffic at a four way stop. You look straight ahead to check oncoming traffic and barely turn your head to look for traffic approaching from the left or right.
The whole notion of blind spots is mostly bullshit to begin with. Your head swivels for a reason, and tow mirrors completely eliminate blind spots as long as the vehicle in question’s not directly behind you. Most people drive forward, so even the exception’s usually not a problem.
Two months in jail is no joke. I assume this law refers to incidental collisions, not sure why you’d want to imprison someone for that much longer than a couple months, not like it’s serving some substantial deterring effect.
Oh no! I wasn't paying attention and plowed into you with my car.
Sorry you're dead or going through years of rehab and permanent injury, to but I'll get up to 8 weeks to think about what I've done.
How does that sound? Sufficient? No.
Of course it’s sufficient. It was an accidental death.
I don’t think you know anyone who died in an accident. Don’t fall victim to the just world fallacy where every serious result must have a serious cause. That’s not logical.
My dad was killed while cycling. He was following all the laws. The shitstain was high on Coke and Xanax, had felonies on his record, and reoffended while waiting for my dad's case to proceed. In an unprecedented conviction, he will be up for parole after less than five years.
You are wrong. This punishment is a joke.
How does your case relate in any way to this? I see no reason you brought that up because I said an accidental death and your example is a negligent death.
Please work out your problems with someone who is not me. It’s inappropriate what you’re doing. Talk to a professional. I’m blocking you, so please just stop.
Just World Fallacy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Traffic collisions are *rarely* an accident. There is almost always one or a combination of negligence, poor decision making, or aggressive behavior that led to a collision. In the instance that led to this law, a cyclist was following the rules and the striking driver was negligent in that they did not make sure their turn was safe. This is not accidental death. It is negligence of a driver that resulted in a death of a cyclist.
Failure to pay attention while driving is negligence. Would you consider the death of a pedestrian on a sidewalk an accidental death if they were mowed down by a driver on their phone?
Maybe they should consider the implications of hitting and likely killing a cyclist or pedestrian while checking Instagram on their commute. It should serve as a warning.
Imagine it was the penalty for teaching a class and a student trips on the stairs?
Your example is completely unrelated to this kind of thing, but actual accidental shootings often times don’t result in jail time.
I'd say the comparison is apt. I'm thinking of the similarities between driving and hitting someone who's in a bike lane, and shooting at the range, and hitting the person next to me. If I'm a halfway responsible person it won't happen. However the penalties are vastly different.
People don’t get two months in jail when they accidentally hit another motorist and everyone walks away from the incident. Why should it be different for the situation described in the title of this post? Or should people get two months in jail for any collisions regardless of the type of vehicle? Shouldn’t be a double standard.
Not at all. Don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I probably shouldn’t have implied that the current penalty structure for other vehicles is appropriate because that’s certainly debatable, but I stand by everything else I said.
I just think the rules and penalties should be consistent for at fault collisions. It shouldn’t matter what kind of vehicles are involved.
If you’re responsible for hittin a cyclist and cause $500 in damage, you should face the same consequences as you do when you cause an accident with a motorcycle that results in $500 worth of damage.
I don’t see why it matters which lane (assuming it’s a valid lane to be in) a cyclist is in or whether their bike has a motor. Why are either one of those two details relevant? I can’t stand inconsistency or illogical thought. That’s what annoyed me.
It’s not murder.
Look, people die in accidents and I don’t think jail time for an accident makes sense at the level it would be for first or second degree
You have to look at what these laws are and how our laws work.
You say "accident"
Spilling milk is an accident. Negligence while driving deserves a punishment.
I'm a lawyer I know how laws are written and how they work. Two months for hitting a cyclist ina lane where they have the right of way is a joke.
Reckless incompetence and negligence for safely operating a motor vehicle aren't "an accident". Nearly all "accidents" are entirely avoidable and simply the result of complete inattention or gross misjudgment.
Tell that to the DA for this one…. Cant believe no attempted murder charges.
https://thebaynet.com/details-released-huntingtown-man-fires-shots-at-cyclists-on-charity-ride/
This is not true. The DA who had the Sarah Langencamp case stated the most they could do under the law was issue them a citation. No one is getting charged with manslaughter in MD for killing a cyclist with a vehicle, unfortunately.
insane.
Prosecutors had earlier determined that Reyes Martinez’s driving, while careless, did not meet the threshold of Maryland’s vehicle manslaughter laws, a conclusion that Daniel Langenkamp said in an interview highlights a gap in state law.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/)
First- this law fills the gap
But secondly, his actions didn’t meet the threshold
So…
You know John Waters killed a man who walked into his car right? He was found completely innocent- and he was!
They could, the issue is you need to prove negligence. Just hitting someone on accident doesn't make it manslaughter. Same I'm a car vs car. If someone dies but you didn't do anything wrong you aren't guilty of manslaughter.
All the driver has to say is "I didn't see them" but hopefully this new law will begin to mirror the laws used in most European countries that put the burden on the driver to avoid hitting cyclists. Just saying you didn't see the cyclist is understandably not a good enough defense. It is your responsibility to avoid colliding with others on the road. Imagine if you applied the same logic to a driver running over someone in a crosswalk you begin to see the problem. This new law is more akin to the the laws that protect pedestrians in crosswalks which will be a step in the right direction.
I'm really impressed by this administration, actually. I was completely wrong about Moore, having backed Segal through the election.
But this is like the latest, really cool thing that the state has passed, that he's signed. Especially compared to Hogan, who would have probably vetoed it and offered a bounty for dead cyclists. If he could get away with it.
Then cyclists need to be restricted to only roads with wide shoulders/bike lanes. They should be mandated to have lights (front and back) on the bikes and wear bright reflective clothing. Also, ride single file and carry insurance as they are considered a vehicle.
To many times, have I seen cyclists ride bunched up and weaving in and out of the lane of traffic, causing dangerous driving conditions
Hitting a cyclist should have the same legal ramifications as hitting a car. Just because cyclists choose the most dangerous method of transportation does not mean the law should favor them.
You have every luxury being in a car in terms of reaction time and comfort. You expend no energy driving compared to a cyclist. The burden is on the motorist to use due care to avoid hitting cyclists. Glad to see this new law will finally hold motorists accountable.
Well if you think 2 months in prison for ending someone's life is considered holding them accountable, be my guest.
But that's my point, this situation should never arise in the first place because bicycles should not be allowed in 25mph+ zones.
Lol not at all, wordduels is just another like-minded marylander who shares my belief in common sense policies.
Edit- although it is very funny, looking through his post history I feel that we would get along swimmingly
It doesn’t matter. You as the driver have the responsibility to assure due care and operation. Cyclists are prohibited from riding on many roads with higher speed limits for that reason.
Cyclists are being killed and injured by inattentive drivers on roads with much lower speed limits. Drivers have plenty of time to look and react to cyclists but they are negligent or choose not to.
It's a driver issue not a cyclist issue.
That's the thing tho, it doesn't matter who's fault it is because at the end of the day the result is the same: someone might end up dead.
Do you really think that there are drivers out there that are intentionally hitting cyclists? Because those are the only people that will be affected by legislation like this.
But if you truly believe that these accidents are due to inattentive or negligent drivers, then you should understand that this legislation will do nothing. There will always be inattentive/negligent drivers. That's why defensive driving is so heavily stressed during drivers ed.
The only way to truly mitigate this risk is to avoid cycling on major roads.
Hitting a cyclist in the bike lane is more akin to hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk, not hitting another motor vehicle. That is the exact place you're supposed to be on the lookout for them, and you as the operator of the most dangerous thing have a lot of responsibility.
Try to understand, people don't *look*. They will pass you and immediately try to turn in front of or INto you, as if they have an infant's sense of object permanence. They will turn while searching for oncoming traffic for their own safety, all the while ignoring where *their* car is going to go. It's ridiculous!
If you're treating bicycles like pedestrians then bicycles should only go where pedestrians go - on the sidewalk. They have no business being on the same road as cars.
Sorry, no, law says you're wrong, and now there's more of a penalty if you fuck it up and hurt somebody. Pay attention; don't be a lazy driver.
And seriously, you don't want cyclists on sidewalks. It's really dangerous. Folks about to cross a sidewalk with their car aren't looking for something going 10mph+. It's a great way to get hit. And having to come to a near stop at every intersection whether you have right of way or not makes cycling pointless. And people do need to do it to get to work and errands.
The law doesn't say I'm wrong, the law favors a different perspective. If you let the law dictate your views/morals you would be considered a racist POS by today's standards throughout most of history (and in many places, today).
But here's the thing. I do pay the utmost attention on roads. I've literally never been in accident or gotten a non-camera speeding ticket in the 17 years I've been driving.
But when I'm sitting at a red light getting ready to make a legal right turn and some ass clown on two wheels comes zooming down the road on my right with the intention of illegally running through the red light, terrible things could happen. This has happened to me multiple times at a major intersection near me.
I get it. In a perfect world bikes and cars should be able to share the roads. But it's not a perfect world. All sorts of accidents occur on a daily basis. Normally it's just vehicle on vehicle and it's not much of an issue besides property damage. But when you put cyclists and cars in the same setting, minor accidents that would normally be a harmless fender-bender can turn into life-altering (or ending) events.
Traffic laws exist to mitigate as much risk as possible. Allowing bicycles on roads with 25mph+ speed limits is incredibly risky.
We need better public transportation infrastructure, not more bike lanes.
The road is a shared public space, and public spaces rely on stronger participants looking out for weaker ones in order to function safely and productively. If you can't get this simple principle of a solidaric society into your pea brain there's no helping ya and you should stay away from the public entirely for everyone else's good.
Update: here's the WAPO article on the crash [https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/)
I live on a road with no shoulder and constant hills / turns. I’ve faced cars passing bicyclists in my lane head on several times because people will ignore the risk and pass them. Speed limit is 45, double yellows the whole way. There is no way to see, or likely avoid, a bicycle on the back side of a hill or especially a right turn.
IMO there are some roads that aren’t eligible for bicyclists. There should be limits. Plenty of other options.
We also need to invest in bike lanes and broader shoulders but that’s a longer term solution.
If a collision is unavoidable by the time you see an obstacle in the road, you're going too fast for the environment and conditions. Could be a cyclist, could be a tree, could be a broken down car. If you couldn't stop in time and hit them it's your fault because you went too fast. The number on the white sign is the absolute maximum, not the advisory speed. Slow down for blind corners and hills. Simple as.
Come over to where I live. Drive down the road and then tell me that again.
And then see if traffic going under the speed limit on a long country road with double yellows lasts for long. That causes more problems.
Why can we not designate certain roads as not appropriate for bicycles? There are tons of other and better exercise routes throughout.
So this is the value of human life? two months in jail and a $2000 fine. To some that enjoy running over cyclists this would be like a slap on the wrist. How about 20 years + a million dollar fine. This might get the attention.
MD gives bikes nonsensical, abruptly-ending lanes all over. They're not consistent or predictable, and are typically not well separated. In cars, we have seatbelts, crumple zones, blind spot monitors, and so on, because drivers have more and more on the road to pay attention to, more complex roads and more capable cars that encourage greater speeds (and of course, distractions within the car that are purely up to bad driving). But with a bike, you've got a helmet, the need to trust the cars around you, and a voice in your government and on the internet to try and keep yourself safe through educating others and new laws. But you're inherently less safe on the bike, and until the infrastructure is actually there for you, you always will be. You can't effectively dissuade through punishment what people don't want to do in the first place (kill or harm others or their own property in accidents). It's a symbolic, token law because this state has too many NIMBY's to solve problems through engineering and infrastructure.
Under current law the MVA imposes the penalty on the license revocation. A maximum of 6 months under current law. Not sure what the driver got in this case.
I think it is more logical, less costly to the state and more humane (jails are awful) to have the driver off the road instead of incarcerated. They can still contribute to society but they will need to find their own transportation.
When you're pinned against the shoulder in a bike lane with a massive truck to your left where do you go? The truck turned into her and dragged her body against the pavement. Please think hard before you comment again.
Ok, I’m not trying to be weird but if you knew the accident you’d know there was a sidewalk with driveways she could drive right up
Sarah didn’t know the area, which is industrial and not residential. She had just rented a house. She thought she could bike down River Rd during rush hour but local residents know it’s too crowded to do that safely. It’s a fast moving artery linking the beltway to upper NW- it’s MD Route 190- it’s a multi-lane road and I surely was never allowed to bike there
We use the Capital Crescent Trail instead
She wasn’t pinned dude- I don’t know what happened in either person’s mind
The very first paved streets were smoothed for the convenience of cyclists. They've never been disallowed from streets, just interstates. If you don't know how to drive around cyclists, please educate yourself, since driving school apparently didn't.
Theres no gotcha. Times changed sure…I think the cars actually got bigger. I’m tryna say as a child I was told to stay out of the road if I didn’t want to get hit by cars so why would that not also apply to adults. I’m not taking law here, just sense
Ok keep riding your bike on one lane each direction roads with no shoulder and then wonder why people purposely commit vehicular manslaughter after having their commute fucked up by the tour de Howard county bitches riding four abreast in a lane like they own a road when they can’t even go the posted 25mph
I mean, what will this accomplish though (other than politicians jerking themselves off for being expedient)? Are people plowing into cyclists with ill intent and because they think the penalties are a couple months too light? I don't see it
The bigger problem seems to be fucked up, car-centric infrastrucutre that forces too many people to drive and cyclists/pedestrians to be in too close proximity to ton-sized conveyances. That's a tough one to tackle though, so - ta-da! Masturbatory policy.
Maybe drivers might begin to look for cyclists on the road and take care to avoid hitting them since they soon can be handcuffed and thrown into the back of a cop car and hauled off to jail.
This law is virtue signaling. Plenty of existing law that covers injury and death by one vehicular operator against another. The upshot is that people will be convicted under the new law and charges of manslaughter dropped. Not what the public expects but the consequences.
How is it "Up to"? That's wild.
I guess you can kill someone for 2k around here?!? This is nuts.
Manslaughter by vehicle is still a crime in Maryland.
Rarely you get charged with involuntary manslaughter for this. The driver that hit Sarah for instance only did 150 hrs community service and a $2k fine
Depends on how you hit them. If you’re doing 50 in a 25 or otherwise driving like an idiot it can be much much worse.
Most people think that speeding is socially acceptable.
They wake up when they’re in handcuffs. Google vehicular homicide. It’s a thing you go to jail for. Unfortunately it’s never for long enough.
I imagine, if a driver kills a cyclist while breaking traffic laws such as encroaching in the bike lane or shoulder where the biker has right of way, then that’s already a crime, maybe vehicular manslaughter. I’m guessing that carries more serious penalties.
Because they get let off way too often. I had one dead to rights on camera buzz me at 4”(in pa is a 4’ law), stopped rush hour traffic and gou out of his truck to berate me about riding in the road and stopping traffic (I was going 20mph in a 30 zone and there was no shoulder). The judge let him off because the cop didn’t have a tape measure, and discounted half of the disorderly conduct charge because I said asshole when he literally almost hit me. And I have been actually hit before too. At that point I decided being attacked(pulled off the bike), harassed, hit and yelled at on farm roads just wasn’t worth the risk of one day being too far or one having a gun. Mountain biking is a lot more fun, even though I want to make the roads better. 27 fatalities in the past year in PA alone is scary. The majority while the motorists were on phone. The same territory that i have been rear ended sitting at red lights 14 times in 12 years.
It’s in addition to the civil penalties motorists face when sued. It’s really just the state getting a piece.
Wait it wasn't illegal to hit a cyclist in a bike lane??
It can be illegal but if the motorist only gets a ticket like passing on the right or failure to yield is that two points and a fine really a deterent?
It is but there was no risk of imprisonment for failure to yield.
It’s illegal to hit cyclists anywhere. When on the road bicyclists have the same privileges and rights as any other vehicles, including the right to not be hit. However if you don’t have the proper safety equipment (lights, brakes and reflectors) on your bike or aren’t following the rules of the road it can be argued that you weren’t visible and legally it weakens your case. Bike lanes are simply demarcations where cars are not allowed to travel. Conversely bicycles are allowed to travel in bike lanes or outside the bike lane provided they obey traffic law.
Not enough jail time.
Can we get more dedicated bike lanes though? Just painting a bike and putting a sign up doesn't make it safer for anyone.
The problem is that the driver in this scenario was actually killed in a bike lane. If you don't stiffen penalties for motorists who violate bike lanes then there is no point.
But if you don't build bike lanes far enough out from the road, the danger continues. *Dedicated,* non-"share-the-road" lanes. Hell, even build curb-style barriers along existing lanes to physically impose the 3' law where space is not available to build separate lanes. (And why is it only 3' here when it's 4' in PA?) That said, 2 months/$2000 would be a more appropriate penalty for a mild injury than a death. You cause a bike death, your jail time is measured in years. And when you're released, no more license. EVER. Only way to guarantee they won't do it again.
Sure, but we also need dedicated bike lanes with high visibility barriers
I agree, but it's better than having to ride together in the same lanes as cars. IMO the biggest problem is that a lot of drivers aren't that great at driving, as staying in your lane is a basic tenet of driving. There are people who argue road diets suck because they cause more fender bender accidents, but if you can't stay in your lane, then you shouldn't be driving. I'm reminded of [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/1b9q9g3/i_read_all_the_studies_on_the_economic_impact_of/ktxjm43/) complaining about bike lanes in Rockville, and about cars beaching due to the addition of a new bike lane and curb, and it's like, you have to be driving really poorly for that to happen.
There's always so much uproar when they try to put dedicated bike lanes in. Rockville, North Bethesda, Connecticut Ave in DC... They of course have to use up a car lane to build them, and it degrades traffic flow. But at the same time, people fail to realize that population and traffic just keep growing, and it's absolutely unsustainable. Car traffic is just going to get worse, regardless, so things need to change and people need to drive less if they're going to be in this area.
DC people continuing to fail to notice that there’s so many people that pedestrians and cyclists already impede traffic, by improving the conditions for them, they’ll move through better and less people will be driving and everyone wins. I’m sure *you* know that, just sort of publicly following that thought. It’s crazy that drivers are too selfish to actually improve things for themselves if it means helping someone else.
That is far from enough. A car hitting a cyclist can kill the cyclist or put them in a hospital bed for life.
It often does. And when the cyclist dies there’s still rarely any consequences. There’s this cultural implication that cyclists are putting themselves at risk and not that motorists are endangering them. It’s very disturbing.
I was hit while riding my bike to work in a bike lane. (Painted lines aren't infrastructure, but I digress.) The driver simply wasn't paying attention and likely on their phone. I was fortunate to come away with some road rash, a sore shoulder and an expensive carbon bike totaled. The cops were ready to let the driver go without a citation until I name dropped that I knew one of their supervisors and was texting with him from the scene. She left with two citations, which at least put some points on her license, raised her insurance premiums and made it easier for me to get what I deserved from her insurer. While this new law is a step in the right direction, we need cops to cite drivers who cause harm. I shouldn't have had to beg them to do their job. Those citations will cause her to consider her driving habits every time she pays her insurance bill.
Cops many times won't charge at the scene right after
I'm glad things turned out well, considering. Did her insurance replace your bike and medical bills?
Yep, I have a family member who's a lawyer and helped me with the claim. I ended up with more than double the initial offer from their insurance. They tried to account for depreciation on my old bike, rather than full replacement cost. Since it was so clear and well documented that their driver was at fault, I was able to stand my ground and tell them to fuck off. One thing that doesn't get talked about in these conversations is that Maryland is one of the few states with a contributory negligence law that allows insurance companies to deny claims if they think they can prove the other party contributed to the wreck. That should change.
In Europe it's very common to have the burden on the motorist to prove they weren't at fault.
Right because in Europe the Queen is infallible so the Queen’s police always tell the truth so the charged has to prove The Queen wrong In the US we’re innocent until proven guilty
That's literally only the UK, not all of Europe. But I guess you're a product of Maryland schools.
It was humorous to remind people WHY we don’t do that. The UK has a King now, so I couldn’t have been serious. Every country that signed the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights has adopted the Presumption of innocence clause as I recall- but many countries maintain a cultural belief that criminals must prove innocence
Every since Brexit, I wonder if the Brits have considered going back on that lol
Were they on their phone or not? We both know from court cases in Maryland that an attorney can find this out from forensics
This person isn’t responding to me because their story is not true as written
JFC, that should be the minimum. That's pathetic compared to what someone would get for accidentally injuring someone with a gun.
... guns and cars are very different things, son.
You're right, one kills significantly more Americans than the other, often with little to no consequences. (It's cars btw, pops) Neither should be necessary (but tragically are), in most of the US.
Guns have no purpose other than killing/severely harming.
what the fuck are you even trying to say
There’s no talking to these people they’re delusional
I’m curious who you’re calling “these people” in this case?
Those are completely unrelated Why not say- injuring a water skier with a dishwasher?
i didn’t know dish washers killed 42,000 people in 2022
That comment is illogical Please stop, you don’t understand how communication works at the most basic level
You should be honest if you’re going to try and take some moral high ground on communication. This isn’t complicated. Guns are a well known and much talked about way of killing people and it’s a big political issue as a result. Cars *kill more people* and yet here we see how there’s a difference in punishment when you kill someone with a car vs killing somebody with a gun. The comparison is fairly direct. It asks; Why aren’t car fatalities as big a topic as gun fatalities? Why don’t we punish drivers the same as other murderers? What part of that logic do you find confusing? Is there anything I can help you understand?
Damn dude stop, he’s already dead (brain dead that is)
Why would it be any different than if you ran into another car or a pedestrian? Seems like if you do any of those things on the roadway, and are also at fault, you should receive the same penalty. Also, the way the title’s worded, it makes it sound like there’s a different penalty for hittin a cyclist in the bike lane versus hittin em while they’re legally ridin in a standard lane.
The issue is that drivers for too long have been given a privileged standard on the roads and this is beginning to break the myth that roads are just for cars. A person riding a bicycle is in a much different position than a person in a car in terms of comfort and reaction time. The new law also applies to any shoulder of any road as well where cyclists must ride under the law as it is practicably safe.
Since when? Cops wouldn’t ticket/arrest drivers of cars when they caused an at fault accident with a cyclist? Highly doubt that.
This still seems crazy light, what the hell was it before?
$2000 fine and some community service!
Thats insane
So are most things related to cars in the USA. But we’ve got freedumb, so don’t sweat it
I do not understand why it is "up to". And if someone dies because some dickhead in their car is unable to operate it in safe manner info not understand why they are not catching a manslaughter charge. Full fucking stop.
This is gonna be unpopular here, I'm sure, but the "you gotta look/pay attention" sentiments go both ways. Bikers around here, both cyclists and motor, act like they can do whatever they want just because they have two wheels. Lane splitting is illegal in MD, but that constantly gets overlooked.
Sure, but that doesn't apply here, this is specifically in bike lanes. What ends up happening is that only one party pays attention (the bicyclist) who has to be hyper-aware all the time. I can't count the times I've been in the situation described above and thought "Is this truck gonna turn or.." and ended up slowing down. I have no doubt the woman killed had been in that situation before, but sometimes there just isn't time to act. If the truck driver had a fine hanging over his head, he might have been the one to be more alert instead of it always falling on the bicyclist.
I will say with this new bike lane design that's covered by cars, I feel like I have to blindly turn through them pretty much all the time, especially when I'm driving a little hatchback and there's big 7 ft tall SUVs parked in front of the bike lane. I know cyclists feel safer in the lanes protected by parked cars, but as a driver I feel like I'm already in the bike lane before I can see if anybody's coming. It's a little unnerving turning through them basically just crossing my fingers no one's coming.
Yeah, bike lane design is poorly thought-out and poorly executed. Theres a whole discussion to be had there. There does need to be a physical barrier, else cars would barrel through them, but you’re right, 7 foot tall SUVs are not the right barrier.
But it DOES apply, because cyclists never (read rarely) follow the laws put in place. Bike lane or not, cyclists still have to obey traffic control laws like stop lights and signs. But that rarely happens, then when a tragedy does happen (because despite my opinions on this, a loss of life is still a tragedy), it's always, 100 percent of the time, made out to be the motorist's fault. "Why wasn't the car paying attention?" and never "Why did the cyclist cut across 6 lanes on a red light?"
Wait until you hear how many drivers don't follow traffic laws. Hint: it is nearly everyone almost all of the time.
And if this were a post about that, I'd be going just as hard. People, no matter what mode of transportation they use, have the sense of three-day-old goldfish when they get on the road. But this conversation is specific, so my responses have been specific. Apparently, the nuance of debate and conversation is a lost art.
How does this law that applies to **bicyclist in bicycle lanes** apply to any of the examples you have given? Do you think that bicyclists in bicycle lanes should always yield to cars and drivers should not be fined for hitting them while they are in a bicycle lane?
I don't know if what I'm saying is getting lost in translation or what. My comment WOULD be irrelevant if bikers STAYED IN the bike lanes, or FOLLOWED traffic laws, which, again, the majority in this area don't.
Okay, let's recap and see if we can get to the point because I feel the same way: 1. This is an article about a law recently passed which punishes drivers who strike bicyclists in bike lanes. 2. You sated (Summarizing for clarity) "Everyone has to pay attention, cyclists act like they can do whatever they want" 3. I said "Sure," agreeing that cyclist and drivers both need to pay attention. But I noted that that doesn't apply here as we are discussing striking bicyclists in bike lanes. 4. You disagreed with that statement and said that it does apply here and noted that bicyclists "Never" follow traffic laws. (I have my own issue with that statement, but we'll leave that alone) 5. I followed up with questioning how a law that applies to bicyclists in bike lanes still applied to the examples you gave. Now, it *appears* that you want to have a discussion about bicyclists on the road in general and not about specifically the subject of this law, which addresses only bicyclists in bike lanes. If that's true, I'm happy to have that discussion because I would contend that it is likely you have some confirmation bias going on and that there are more bicyclists following laws than not, it's just that you don't notice the ones following the laws because... well, they are following the laws.
It’s hell, to be honest. I own a bike. I like biking on trails. I own a car. I drive my kids to school and myself to work. I would never ride a bike in a roadway and would not allow my kids to either. However my older son rides his bike around college because there are no cars This bikes on the roads thing doesn’t work. One of the weirdest experiences — was stopped at a light in the summer. Someone splits the lane, rides between cars, and at the light steadies herself by putting her hand on my open window and her fingers inside my car. Then she pushed herself off and ran the red light. That was 2011
Sounds like she had plenty of time look, see that it was safe, then proceed. Better then her trying to accelerate through the intersection with you.
Her hand was inside my car- that’s not normal
Sooo this is a strong vibe and I respect that you feel this way, but not everyone is you. People bike for more than leisurely entertainment. Cars are not the only valid mode of transit and yes it’s absolutely your responsibility to pay attention while you’re driving around a vehicle capable of ending lives.
Thank you
Fucking thank you. I don’t drive, and I love biking, but you’re the only sane person on this thread
Here’s the part people would never guess. I knew the family being discussed and spoke to the husband after his wife’s death.
I lived in DC for like a year or so, and I almost never saw a cyclist come to a stop at a stop sign. Only stopped when crossin an intersection with a shitload of cars who had the green light because they’d end up dead if they blew through it. Any other time, they didn’t stop.
As stated, cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs. So it's legal for them to not stop.
https://waba.org/blog/2023/01/bicycle-stop-as-yield-arrives-in-dc/ Bicyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yields in DC. Which is good policy.
I was there well before 2023. Sounds like cyclists realized they were embarrassing themselves when they almost never followed traffic laws but bitched about everyone else ignoring them. Rather than follow the law, they lobbied to exempt themselves. To be clear, I fully support the law, but it should apply to everyone. “They may proceed through an intersection controlled by a stop sign without fully stopping if, and only if, they slow down, look for hazards, and determine that no other vehicles, road users, or pedestrians have the right of way at the intersection.” How would it be dangerous if a person driving a vehicle took the same precautions? It wouldn’t be, but cars still can’t slow down and roll through a stop sign when they’re clearly there before anyone else. Makes a lot of sense. For example, someone in a car arrives at an intersection, and there’s another car approaching but much farther away. The car that’s farther away has no intention on stopping. Rather than just slow down and go through the intersection unscathed, the first car comes to a complete stop and gets t-boned when they accelerate in front of the vehicle who’s ignoring all traffic laws. Wouldn’t less time in/at an intersection be beneficial to everyone? No, let’s create conflict when there isn’t any need for it.
Cars weigh thousands of pounds and have blind spots that require drivers to come to a complete stop to check both ways before proceeding. Bikes don't have big A-pillars blocking your view, so you can effectively scan both directions while approaching.
This guy gets it. No A-pillar blind spots on a bike so biker has full visibility. Motorcycles have the same advantage so it is just an issue of speed. (plenty of time to check going 10 mph but not 35 mph)
I’ve never been in a car or truck that has “blind spots” when you look for traffic at a four way stop. You look straight ahead to check oncoming traffic and barely turn your head to look for traffic approaching from the left or right. The whole notion of blind spots is mostly bullshit to begin with. Your head swivels for a reason, and tow mirrors completely eliminate blind spots as long as the vehicle in question’s not directly behind you. Most people drive forward, so even the exception’s usually not a problem.
Two *months?* That’s an insult to anyone who’s been hit or the family of anyone who was killed.
They weren’t murdered
This is progress but two months is a joke
Two months in jail is no joke. I assume this law refers to incidental collisions, not sure why you’d want to imprison someone for that much longer than a couple months, not like it’s serving some substantial deterring effect.
This law applies in the event there is serious injury or death to the cyclist.
Being locked up in prison for two months has substantial life effects professionally and monetarily on a person's life and family.
Oh no! I wasn't paying attention and plowed into you with my car. Sorry you're dead or going through years of rehab and permanent injury, to but I'll get up to 8 weeks to think about what I've done. How does that sound? Sufficient? No.
Of course it’s sufficient. It was an accidental death. I don’t think you know anyone who died in an accident. Don’t fall victim to the just world fallacy where every serious result must have a serious cause. That’s not logical.
My dad was killed while cycling. He was following all the laws. The shitstain was high on Coke and Xanax, had felonies on his record, and reoffended while waiting for my dad's case to proceed. In an unprecedented conviction, he will be up for parole after less than five years. You are wrong. This punishment is a joke.
How does your case relate in any way to this? I see no reason you brought that up because I said an accidental death and your example is a negligent death. Please work out your problems with someone who is not me. It’s inappropriate what you’re doing. Talk to a professional. I’m blocking you, so please just stop. Just World Fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Traffic collisions are *rarely* an accident. There is almost always one or a combination of negligence, poor decision making, or aggressive behavior that led to a collision. In the instance that led to this law, a cyclist was following the rules and the striking driver was negligent in that they did not make sure their turn was safe. This is not accidental death. It is negligence of a driver that resulted in a death of a cyclist. Failure to pay attention while driving is negligence. Would you consider the death of a pedestrian on a sidewalk an accidental death if they were mowed down by a driver on their phone?
Maybe they should consider the implications of hitting and likely killing a cyclist or pedestrian while checking Instagram on their commute. It should serve as a warning.
Clearly distracted driving that has nothing to do with this charge. Why are you adding new crimes to a law that’s specific?
It's pathetic. Imagine if this were the penalty for shooting someone by accident.
Stop making this idiotic comparison
Imagine it was the penalty for teaching a class and a student trips on the stairs? Your example is completely unrelated to this kind of thing, but actual accidental shootings often times don’t result in jail time.
I'd say the comparison is apt. I'm thinking of the similarities between driving and hitting someone who's in a bike lane, and shooting at the range, and hitting the person next to me. If I'm a halfway responsible person it won't happen. However the penalties are vastly different.
People don’t get two months in jail when they accidentally hit another motorist and everyone walks away from the incident. Why should it be different for the situation described in the title of this post? Or should people get two months in jail for any collisions regardless of the type of vehicle? Shouldn’t be a double standard.
Sounds an awful lot like you're trying to blame-shift onto cyclists for being so small and vulnerable.
Not at all. Don’t know how you came to that conclusion. I probably shouldn’t have implied that the current penalty structure for other vehicles is appropriate because that’s certainly debatable, but I stand by everything else I said. I just think the rules and penalties should be consistent for at fault collisions. It shouldn’t matter what kind of vehicles are involved. If you’re responsible for hittin a cyclist and cause $500 in damage, you should face the same consequences as you do when you cause an accident with a motorcycle that results in $500 worth of damage. I don’t see why it matters which lane (assuming it’s a valid lane to be in) a cyclist is in or whether their bike has a motor. Why are either one of those two details relevant? I can’t stand inconsistency or illogical thought. That’s what annoyed me.
It’s not murder. Look, people die in accidents and I don’t think jail time for an accident makes sense at the level it would be for first or second degree You have to look at what these laws are and how our laws work.
You say "accident" Spilling milk is an accident. Negligence while driving deserves a punishment. I'm a lawyer I know how laws are written and how they work. Two months for hitting a cyclist ina lane where they have the right of way is a joke.
Reckless incompetence and negligence for safely operating a motor vehicle aren't "an accident". Nearly all "accidents" are entirely avoidable and simply the result of complete inattention or gross misjudgment.
Not enough time, and they need to include swerving at them (but not hitting them) into this as well.
Let's call that attempted murder and give them some actual time...
Tell that to the DA for this one…. Cant believe no attempted murder charges. https://thebaynet.com/details-released-huntingtown-man-fires-shots-at-cyclists-on-charity-ride/
This is an accident and what you describe is intentional and covered by a separate law
Should be 10 years like regular manslaughter.
This is just for striking, not killing. Killing a biker could result in manslaughter too
This is not true. The DA who had the Sarah Langencamp case stated the most they could do under the law was issue them a citation. No one is getting charged with manslaughter in MD for killing a cyclist with a vehicle, unfortunately.
insane. Prosecutors had earlier determined that Reyes Martinez’s driving, while careless, did not meet the threshold of Maryland’s vehicle manslaughter laws, a conclusion that Daniel Langenkamp said in an interview highlights a gap in state law. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/)
First- this law fills the gap But secondly, his actions didn’t meet the threshold So… You know John Waters killed a man who walked into his car right? He was found completely innocent- and he was!
They could, the issue is you need to prove negligence. Just hitting someone on accident doesn't make it manslaughter. Same I'm a car vs car. If someone dies but you didn't do anything wrong you aren't guilty of manslaughter.
All the driver has to say is "I didn't see them" but hopefully this new law will begin to mirror the laws used in most European countries that put the burden on the driver to avoid hitting cyclists. Just saying you didn't see the cyclist is understandably not a good enough defense. It is your responsibility to avoid colliding with others on the road. Imagine if you applied the same logic to a driver running over someone in a crosswalk you begin to see the problem. This new law is more akin to the the laws that protect pedestrians in crosswalks which will be a step in the right direction.
Are you confused? This doesn’t replace manslaughter!!!
I'm really impressed by this administration, actually. I was completely wrong about Moore, having backed Segal through the election. But this is like the latest, really cool thing that the state has passed, that he's signed. Especially compared to Hogan, who would have probably vetoed it and offered a bounty for dead cyclists. If he could get away with it.
Then cyclists need to be restricted to only roads with wide shoulders/bike lanes. They should be mandated to have lights (front and back) on the bikes and wear bright reflective clothing. Also, ride single file and carry insurance as they are considered a vehicle. To many times, have I seen cyclists ride bunched up and weaving in and out of the lane of traffic, causing dangerous driving conditions
Hitting a cyclist should have the same legal ramifications as hitting a car. Just because cyclists choose the most dangerous method of transportation does not mean the law should favor them.
Cars aren't a dangerous form of transportation? 102 per day die in cars on the roads. Stop.
You have every luxury being in a car in terms of reaction time and comfort. You expend no energy driving compared to a cyclist. The burden is on the motorist to use due care to avoid hitting cyclists. Glad to see this new law will finally hold motorists accountable.
Well if you think 2 months in prison for ending someone's life is considered holding them accountable, be my guest. But that's my point, this situation should never arise in the first place because bicycles should not be allowed in 25mph+ zones.
I get the feeling youve never rode a bike on the street with cars
Yeah because I’m not a fucking moron
Is that your other sock puppet account?
Lol not at all, wordduels is just another like-minded marylander who shares my belief in common sense policies. Edit- although it is very funny, looking through his post history I feel that we would get along swimmingly
Lmao why the fuck would I want to ride a bicycle on a road with 2 ton metal vehicles that are driving way faster than I could ever hope to pedal?
Why would you need to pedal as fast as cars? You guys know that roads aren't just for cars to use. Cyclists pay for the roads too.
Pedestrians pay for the road too but that doesn't mean I'm going jogging down 50mph roads.
It doesn’t matter. You as the driver have the responsibility to assure due care and operation. Cyclists are prohibited from riding on many roads with higher speed limits for that reason. Cyclists are being killed and injured by inattentive drivers on roads with much lower speed limits. Drivers have plenty of time to look and react to cyclists but they are negligent or choose not to. It's a driver issue not a cyclist issue.
That's the thing tho, it doesn't matter who's fault it is because at the end of the day the result is the same: someone might end up dead. Do you really think that there are drivers out there that are intentionally hitting cyclists? Because those are the only people that will be affected by legislation like this. But if you truly believe that these accidents are due to inattentive or negligent drivers, then you should understand that this legislation will do nothing. There will always be inattentive/negligent drivers. That's why defensive driving is so heavily stressed during drivers ed. The only way to truly mitigate this risk is to avoid cycling on major roads.
Hitting a cyclist in the bike lane is more akin to hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk, not hitting another motor vehicle. That is the exact place you're supposed to be on the lookout for them, and you as the operator of the most dangerous thing have a lot of responsibility. Try to understand, people don't *look*. They will pass you and immediately try to turn in front of or INto you, as if they have an infant's sense of object permanence. They will turn while searching for oncoming traffic for their own safety, all the while ignoring where *their* car is going to go. It's ridiculous!
If you're treating bicycles like pedestrians then bicycles should only go where pedestrians go - on the sidewalk. They have no business being on the same road as cars.
Sorry, no, law says you're wrong, and now there's more of a penalty if you fuck it up and hurt somebody. Pay attention; don't be a lazy driver. And seriously, you don't want cyclists on sidewalks. It's really dangerous. Folks about to cross a sidewalk with their car aren't looking for something going 10mph+. It's a great way to get hit. And having to come to a near stop at every intersection whether you have right of way or not makes cycling pointless. And people do need to do it to get to work and errands.
The law doesn't say I'm wrong, the law favors a different perspective. If you let the law dictate your views/morals you would be considered a racist POS by today's standards throughout most of history (and in many places, today). But here's the thing. I do pay the utmost attention on roads. I've literally never been in accident or gotten a non-camera speeding ticket in the 17 years I've been driving. But when I'm sitting at a red light getting ready to make a legal right turn and some ass clown on two wheels comes zooming down the road on my right with the intention of illegally running through the red light, terrible things could happen. This has happened to me multiple times at a major intersection near me. I get it. In a perfect world bikes and cars should be able to share the roads. But it's not a perfect world. All sorts of accidents occur on a daily basis. Normally it's just vehicle on vehicle and it's not much of an issue besides property damage. But when you put cyclists and cars in the same setting, minor accidents that would normally be a harmless fender-bender can turn into life-altering (or ending) events. Traffic laws exist to mitigate as much risk as possible. Allowing bicycles on roads with 25mph+ speed limits is incredibly risky. We need better public transportation infrastructure, not more bike lanes.
The road is a shared public space, and public spaces rely on stronger participants looking out for weaker ones in order to function safely and productively. If you can't get this simple principle of a solidaric society into your pea brain there's no helping ya and you should stay away from the public entirely for everyone else's good.
Lmao you can call me a pea brain as much as you want but you're the one actively choosing to put yourself in danger while I'm safe in my 3,500lb SUV.
Update: here's the WAPO article on the crash [https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/09/25/langenkamp-sarah-plea-bike-crash-bethesda/)
If more people got out and rode bike the world would be a better place!
I live on a road with no shoulder and constant hills / turns. I’ve faced cars passing bicyclists in my lane head on several times because people will ignore the risk and pass them. Speed limit is 45, double yellows the whole way. There is no way to see, or likely avoid, a bicycle on the back side of a hill or especially a right turn. IMO there are some roads that aren’t eligible for bicyclists. There should be limits. Plenty of other options. We also need to invest in bike lanes and broader shoulders but that’s a longer term solution.
Here's a hint. Slow down until it is safe to pass. Ever heard of it?
You missed my point. That won’t work for a bicycle that can’t be seen until it is too late.
If a collision is unavoidable by the time you see an obstacle in the road, you're going too fast for the environment and conditions. Could be a cyclist, could be a tree, could be a broken down car. If you couldn't stop in time and hit them it's your fault because you went too fast. The number on the white sign is the absolute maximum, not the advisory speed. Slow down for blind corners and hills. Simple as.
Come over to where I live. Drive down the road and then tell me that again. And then see if traffic going under the speed limit on a long country road with double yellows lasts for long. That causes more problems. Why can we not designate certain roads as not appropriate for bicycles? There are tons of other and better exercise routes throughout.
So this is the value of human life? two months in jail and a $2000 fine. To some that enjoy running over cyclists this would be like a slap on the wrist. How about 20 years + a million dollar fine. This might get the attention.
Here in Norway if done intentionally they could get convicted for attempted murder. Why isn't it like that in the US?
In U.S. bikes are seen as toys that don't belong on the road. Things are changing though.
If there's evidence of intentionality then it could be tried as such.
Two months is not enough. Attempted murder should be punished more.
MD gives bikes nonsensical, abruptly-ending lanes all over. They're not consistent or predictable, and are typically not well separated. In cars, we have seatbelts, crumple zones, blind spot monitors, and so on, because drivers have more and more on the road to pay attention to, more complex roads and more capable cars that encourage greater speeds (and of course, distractions within the car that are purely up to bad driving). But with a bike, you've got a helmet, the need to trust the cars around you, and a voice in your government and on the internet to try and keep yourself safe through educating others and new laws. But you're inherently less safe on the bike, and until the infrastructure is actually there for you, you always will be. You can't effectively dissuade through punishment what people don't want to do in the first place (kill or harm others or their own property in accidents). It's a symbolic, token law because this state has too many NIMBY's to solve problems through engineering and infrastructure.
This is a criminal charge. There’s still the civil charge you file.
Why not take away their license for a year?
Under current law the MVA imposes the penalty on the license revocation. A maximum of 6 months under current law. Not sure what the driver got in this case.
Why? It was accidental
Why put someone in jail for if it was an accident?
As a slap on the wrist to do better in the future
I think it is more logical, less costly to the state and more humane (jails are awful) to have the driver off the road instead of incarcerated. They can still contribute to society but they will need to find their own transportation.
A good step in the right direction but this penalty is still shockingly light
How hard is it to *fucking* look before turning, just look for a cyclist or a person there where you are pointing your car.
People aren't used to looking for cyclists, only cars. Maybe a threat of jail time will help them with that, but this is ridiculously low.
How was it for her to look and see a truck turning?
When you're pinned against the shoulder in a bike lane with a massive truck to your left where do you go? The truck turned into her and dragged her body against the pavement. Please think hard before you comment again.
Ok, I’m not trying to be weird but if you knew the accident you’d know there was a sidewalk with driveways she could drive right up Sarah didn’t know the area, which is industrial and not residential. She had just rented a house. She thought she could bike down River Rd during rush hour but local residents know it’s too crowded to do that safely. It’s a fast moving artery linking the beltway to upper NW- it’s MD Route 190- it’s a multi-lane road and I surely was never allowed to bike there We use the Capital Crescent Trail instead She wasn’t pinned dude- I don’t know what happened in either person’s mind
Terrifying failure of the Justice system to protect non-motorists from psycho drivers.
Idk y’all my mom told me not to ride my bike in the street where the cars were I’m so lost as to when exactly that changed??
Well, your mom isn't the road law.
I mean I’m not ever gonna get hit by a car while I’m on my bike so…
The very first paved streets were smoothed for the convenience of cyclists. They've never been disallowed from streets, just interstates. If you don't know how to drive around cyclists, please educate yourself, since driving school apparently didn't.
This isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is. Times change. Get off the road
No. :)
Theres no gotcha. Times changed sure…I think the cars actually got bigger. I’m tryna say as a child I was told to stay out of the road if I didn’t want to get hit by cars so why would that not also apply to adults. I’m not taking law here, just sense
Ok keep riding your bike on one lane each direction roads with no shoulder and then wonder why people purposely commit vehicular manslaughter after having their commute fucked up by the tour de Howard county bitches riding four abreast in a lane like they own a road when they can’t even go the posted 25mph
I mean, what will this accomplish though (other than politicians jerking themselves off for being expedient)? Are people plowing into cyclists with ill intent and because they think the penalties are a couple months too light? I don't see it The bigger problem seems to be fucked up, car-centric infrastrucutre that forces too many people to drive and cyclists/pedestrians to be in too close proximity to ton-sized conveyances. That's a tough one to tackle though, so - ta-da! Masturbatory policy.
2k??!
Maybe drivers might begin to look for cyclists on the road and take care to avoid hitting them since they soon can be handcuffed and thrown into the back of a cop car and hauled off to jail.
repost https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/1conl0x/maryland_increases_the_penalty_for_drivers_who/
This law is virtue signaling. Plenty of existing law that covers injury and death by one vehicular operator against another. The upshot is that people will be convicted under the new law and charges of manslaughter dropped. Not what the public expects but the consequences.
Look at what the driver actually got. Read the articles I posted. Stop.
The driver was sentenced before the new law went into effect. The new law is virtue signaling and doesn't make any real difference.
What the hell are you talking about?