City Desk

NBC4 SUV Struck Cyclist at Sherman Avenue and Euclid Street NW

The police aren't releasing the name of the cyclist who was struck at Sherman Avenue and Euclid Street NW this morning. A spokesperson for NBC4 says that a photographer in one of the station's SUVs was heading down Sherman–he declined to give a name–when a cyclist ran a red light and collided with the car. The bike had no brakes, the spokesperson says, and the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. An eyewitness to the accident didn't say anything about brakes but told me essentially the same thing–no helmet, ran a light. The photographer, the spokesperson says, is "pretty shaken up."

TheWashCycle has more on an April 8 meeting to discuss the Sherman Avenue redesign, which is planned to make the artery more bike-friendly. I'm trying to track down the cyclist to get his or her side of this. My e-mail address is at the bottom of this post.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Comments

  1. #1

    Must be a slow news day, Andrew!, as I mention before about these arrogant dumb asses cyclist, this one payed for his stupidity!

  2. #2

    No brakes is actually a big problem but still we must all keep an eye out for eachother on the road.

  3. #3

    I find it kinda irritating that the media always feel the need to point out whether a cyclist involved in a collision was wearing a helmet or not. You mention 'no helmet' in a sentence with both 'ran a light' and 'no brakes' - like somehow his lack of a helmet contributed to the collision. DC has no adult helmet law - it's simply not pertinent unless you're noting the nature or severity of the cyclists injuries. I didn't see the media note that the folks shot in SE on Tuesday weren't wearing bulletproof vests. I'm not trying to single the City Paper out, but you guys should know better, I know a lot of you ride.

  4. #4

    I have to agree that mention of a helmet would fit better in a (prospective) portion of the article that mentioned injuries.
    Also, "no breaks" isn't as significant (I'm guessing this was a fixie) as running a light is. Honestly, I'm doubting that breaks would have been of much help in that situation. At least that's been my experience.

  5. #5

    Ontario, you're right, his exposed head didn't contribute to the accident (though I know experienced fixie riders for whom no brakes is not an issue). But whenever I hear a fellow cyclist was in an accident, the first thing I wonder is whether they were wearing a helmet. I can't believe I'm alone in that.

  6. #6

    I thought that list of running light, no helmet, no brakes was meant to contribute to the picture of a flaky rider without a lot of common sense. Drivers are often at fault. In this case, someone was making some poor decisions biking to work.

    I also don't get the tweet asking the biker to identify themselves. What incentive would they have to do that?

  7. #7

    Andrew: While if NBC4's statements are true the driver probably wasn't negligent, in addition to the helmet thing, it's odd that NBC4 uses the loaded language that the cyclist "collided with the car." Unless the cyclist ran at high speed into the side of the car, the driver almost certainly hit the cyclist rather than vice versa. Again, doesn't make it negligence by the photographer, but the spokesperson is aggressively spinning this anyway.

  8. #8

    Anyone driving a bicycle in the city without brakes is a moron, by definition. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

  9. #9

    Was the driver wearing a seatbelt? I need to know!! Fuel my rage damn it!

  10. #10

    I ride a bike without "brakes". I'm not a moron. Get a new dictionary.

  11. #11

    I agree Typical. Not to mention the fact witnesses said he or she ran a red light! No brakes and running red lights would equals COLLISION! Duh. Don't feel much sympathy for the idiot.

  12. #12

    David, so what? They probably know more about the situation than you do. You can get pretty fucked up colliding with a vehicle even at low speed (if the SUV was moving fast, rider couldn't get out of toeclips, gets dragged, etc). No need for shrill bitching about "loaded language" and "spin".

  13. #13

    J2D2, you just proved my point.

  14. #14

    Totally with Keith on this one. Alpert's shrill bitching is unwarranted.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.
...