Solivagant Eileen
LightNews LightNews
myrna38717.bsky.social
Solivagant Eileen
@myrna38717.bsky.social
390 followers 510 following 89 posts
Pedestrian rights advocate. Aging non-driving/walking/public transit user. Atheist. Retired Lawyer. Ukulele.
Posts Replies Media Videos
myrna38717.bsky.social
A driver turning right killed a pedestrian crossing 13th Street at Harvard Street NW Friday morning. 😢
Screenshot of MPD email: MPD Investigating Columbia Heights Fatal Pedestrian Crash (Washington, D.C.) – The Metropolitan Police Department is investigating a fatal pedestrian crash in Northwest. On Friday, September 19, 2025, at approximately 8:48 a.m., Third District officers responded to the intersection of 13th Street and Harvard Street, Northwest, for the report of a traffic crash involving a pedestrian. Upon arrival, officers located an adult female, unconscious and not breathing, suffering from injuries after being struck by a vehicle. DC Fire and EMS responded to the scene and transported the victim to a local hospital, where after all lifesaving efforts failed, the victim was pronounced dead. The decedent has been identified as 61-year-old Rosa Cabezas of Southeast, D.C. The preliminary investigation revealed that the pedestrian was crossing 13th Street when she was struck by a Toyota Rav4 making a right turn from Harvard Street onto 13th Street. The driver of the striking vehicle remained on the scene. Detectives from MPD’s Major Crash Investigations Unit are handling this investigation. Anyone who has knowledge of this incident should call the police at (202) 727-9099 or text your tip to the Department’s TEXT TIP LINE at 50411. CCN:25143277
September 21, 2025 at 12:03 AM
myrna38717.bsky.social
@bikeshare.bsky.social one of your bikes is propped up against a bus shelter, halfway onto btw sidewalk, blocking wheelchair access. Southeast corner of Edmunds St and Wisconsin Ave NW.
July 28, 2025 at 12:38 AM
myrna38717.bsky.social
I actually don’t have one either. But sometimes it lets me see a little. Anyway 2 screenshots:
Screenshot of LinkedIn page Same
July 6, 2025 at 4:26 AM
myrna38717.bsky.social
Not much available on them. Berry’s LinkedIn page has some background on blue alerts. His “likes” are “interesting”. 🤨 www.linkedin.com/in/bluealert...
IRS 990n for foundation, showing Tom Berry as principal officer
July 6, 2025 at 1:23 AM
myrna38717.bsky.social
And to go back to the original question, if any part of it is open to the public for vehicular travel, it’s probably a highway (assuming there is a Mushroom Kingdom UVC that mirrors this world’s).
Screenshot of UVC definition of highway as a “publicly maintained way” at least partly open to the public to use for vehicular travel.
April 3, 2025 at 10:43 PM
myrna38717.bsky.social
Ah, but All roads are parts of highways (according to the Uniform Vehicle Code).
Screenshot of Uniform Vehicle Code provision defining a roadway as “that part of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicle travel”.
April 3, 2025 at 10:33 PM
myrna38717.bsky.social
I quibble with wording. I would say “assume the driver doesn’t take responsibility for looking for you”. As the court in Griffith v Slaybaugh (DC Ct Appeals 1928) said,
Screenshot of case: “Defendant was charged with knowledge that other persons have a right to use and cross the street. Anticipating as he must that the street would be so used by pedestrians, it was his duty to look, to see, and to know that pedestrians were not in his road. In this situation he is required to so operate his machine that persons rightfully in, or attempting to cross, the street shall not be injured. His failure to see plaintiffs in time to avoid injury is no excuse. Due care required him to see them. It is negligence for the driver of an automobile not to see pedestrians under such circumstances, and it is negligence to so run the machine that injury cannot be avoided after such persons are seen.”
February 17, 2025 at 12:02 AM
myrna38717.bsky.social
Not giving legal advice-talk to your approps lawyer &/or GAO—but there’s an exception that allows buying bottled water if building water isn’t potable. GAO Red Book at page 3-205 (www.gao.gov/assets/2019-...)
GAORed Book excerpt: “One basic example is drinking water. Appropriations are available to federal agencies so they may provide their employees with safe, clean drinking water. 21 Comp. Dec. 739 (1915). Once the government has met its responsibility to provide safe clean water, any additional expense to satisfy employee taste or preference is personal to the employee. In particular, appropriations generally are not available to pay for bottled water where the public water supply is safe for drinking purposes. 17 Comp. Gen. 698 (1938); 22 Comp. Dec. 31 (1915). However, an agency may purchase bottled water where a building’s water supply is unpotable. For example, a problem with the water supply system in a building caused lead content to exceed the Environmental Protection Agency’s “maximum contaminant level” and justified the purchase of bottled water for employees until the problems with the system could be resolved. B-247871, Apr. 10, 1992. See also B-324781, Dec. 17, 2013 (an agency that had numerous problems with its potable water supply as the result of water main breaks, a building explosion, and repeated instances of contaminated water may use it appropriations to purchase bottled water for use in responding to these legitimately anticipated dangers and exigencies). In contrast, GAO denied relief to a certifying officer who improperly approved payments for bottled water for employees where there was no evidence that drinking water in the building posed a health risk. B-303920, Mar. 21, 2006. For remote work sites that have no access to potable water, it is within the agency’s discretion to decide how best to provide its employees with access to potable water, whether by providing coolers or jugs for transporting water or by providing bottled water. B-310502, Feb. 4, 2008. See also B-318588, Sept. 29, 2009. “
February 11, 2025 at 4:51 AM
myrna38717.bsky.social
As a former federal appropriations lawyer, complaints should be lodged with GAO, which (mostly) created this rule, which is based on the idea that giving employees food (or drink) illegally supplements their salary. GAO also created exceptions which really were the bigger headache. 1/
Excerpt from GAO “Red Book”: “Congress makes appropriations to agencies so they may carry out official government business. Such business includes the payment of salaries that employees may use to feed themselves as they see fit. However, Congress does not make appropriations so that official salaries may be supplemented with food purchased with appropriated dollars. Such unauthorized food purchases might violate 5 U.S.C. § 5536, which prohibits an employee from receiving compensation in addition to the pay and allowances fixed by law.34 Undoubtedly, using appropriations to buy unauthorized food also breaches the trust that Congress and the American people vest in government officials to use public money only for official purposes. Since appropriations are available for official purposes only and not for food, the wise and dutiful public servant plans and executes agency activity with a simple rule in mind: appropriations generally are not available for food. Rarely, however, this wise and dutiful public servant may encounter a situation where the incidental purchase of food may contribute materially to the conduct of official business. In such situations, consider whether one of the exceptions described in this section allows the purchase of food. If none of these exceptions apply, then the purchase of food likely is not allowed.”
February 11, 2025 at 4:37 AM
myrna38717.bsky.social
Please be fair. The vast (vast) majority of people living in DC also know that ship has sailed.
DC election results, showing 90.28% for Harris, 6.47% for the pathetic creep.
February 1, 2025 at 4:39 PM