Roger Zoul wrote:
> Buck wrote:
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: IMO, it is clear. You're stopped, you're moving backwards. If you
> ::: can't see or don't know what's behind you, don't move. You can
> ::: simply look before you get in the car.
> ::
> :: I was under the impression that the driver saw that it was clear,
> :: started moving backwards, then the child rode into his path.
>
> I could understand this situation maybe....if it happened just that way then
> I would say the driver could do nothing (but I'd wonder if the driver was
> moving too quickly while backing up. One rarely needs to move very quickly
> in reverse.) However, I didn't get that sense. Do you have another source of
> what happened?
I'm not clairvoyant and I can't find another source of information for
this story. I think what we have here is a clear case of different
assumptions. You are assuming the worst from and place the
responsibility on the driver. I assume that the cyclist could have
avoided the incident altogether.
Let me share an incident so you better understand my perspective.
Earlier this year, I was riding home and had only the final turn to
into my driveway left to make. The only problem was that someone
decided to use my driveway to turn around. I live near the intersection
of two rural highways, so it is common for someone who misses the
intersection to use my driveway to turn around.
I was in the center turning lane (four lane road with a center turning
lane). I thought the driver saw me because he stopped backing. I don't
like sitting in the turn lane for long so I (wrongly) decided that he
was offering to let me in and I proceeded to turn. Of course, he just
stopped to make sure that traffic was clear in the near lanes and
wasn't expecting someone to try to go around him into the driveway. He
started moving slowly backward as I moved directly into his path. A
solid thump of my hand on the trunk alerted him to my presence and he
immediately stopped.
Now, I think it is pretty clear that I was at fault. The way was
blocked, I was approaching from the blind spot on his car, I made
assumptions about his intentions, and I proceeded to place myself in
his path. Stupid decision on my part.
Since there are so many unanswered questions in the story about this
child, I am not so quick to crucify the driver. We don't know where the
kid was riding. We don't know if he approached from the driver's left
or right. We don't know how fast the kid was riding. (Your assumption
that a child can't move fast on a small bicycle is the same
ill-informed assumption that drivers make about adult cyclists every
day. I assure you that my daughter can fly on her little bike when she
wants to.)
Your perspective also colors your interpretation of what I have
written. I have never stated that I think it's ok to run over someone
if you can't see what is in the path. I was taking issue with your
statement "[y]ou can simply look before you get in the car." By this
statement, you suggest that the area behind a vehicle will remain clear
during the time it takes to look behind the car, enter, start, and
begin moving backward.
I am not surprised that the driver stopped the vehicle after hitting
the child. The way the story is written, it seems that the bystander
was responsible for stopping the car. I doubt that. Most drivers stop
their vehicles after experiencing an unexpected bump. I'd bet he felt
the first bump and stopped immediately. I'd also bet that the bystander
was yelling for the driver to stop. Do we know where she was standing?
If the driver was looking where he was going (I assume he was), the
bystander could only have signaled him if she were standing somewhere
behind his vehicle. I find that to be far-fetched. If I had hit
something, my first reaction would be to stop, my second would be to
open the window or door to find out what I had hit. My third would be
to move my vehicle appropriately to alleviate the situation.
So, to answer your question, do I think that stopping after hitting a
child and pulling forward a bit under the instructions of a bystander
to be fishy? No.
I am glad you conceded my point about suicidal pedestrians. Now take a
moment to think about how fast someone on a bicycle (even a child) can
move. Add in the poor decision to ride into the path of a moving
vehicle. Add in the complication of the vehicle moving backward and the
driver having limited visibility. Ignore the fact that there was a
bystander as she had no way of controlling the vehicle and her
perspective was different. She could see what was about to happen but
could do nothing to prevent it. She could see that he was moving along
one path and a child was moving along an intersecting path. If you
assume that the driver's focus was on her, then you assume he was
blindly backing the vehicle. Give him the benefit of the doubt before
you blithely place all of the blame on him.
-Buck
