Young cyclist killed



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:30:51 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > in no case should an unlicensed driver be out cruising around, much less 'on the job'.
>
> I wonder if the employer will end up in court?

One would hope. At most they'll get a small fine.

Pete
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:30:51 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > in no case should an unlicensed driver be out cruising around, much less 'on the job'.
>
> I wonder if the employer will end up in court?

I would bet most anything on it that happening.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
25 Jan 2004 08:31:17 GMT,
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>Would you blame the vehicle operator and absolve the parents of all responsibility if the child had
>been by struck by a cyclist riding without a headlamp at dusk?

Had the child been hit by a bicycle he'd probably still be alive. I can't imagine blaming anyone but
myself if I'd run down a kid.
--
zk
 
On 25 Jan 2004 09:01:20 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>Do you mean that where you live there are no dangers that a preschool child can't recognize and
>avoid without the benefit of any adult supervision?

No, but neither s it sufficiently dangerous as to require a blanket statement that no three-year-old
should be allowed out except under adult supervision.

>Seriously though, it has nothing to do with what country you live in and everything to do with
>exercising reasonable care for your children. I truly doubt that you'd allow *your* preschool child
>to play outside of your yard at dusk, particularly if the play consisted of riding a wheeled
>vehicle down your driveway.

Safe enough - our driveway runs down towards the house ;-) Also, we kive on an unmade, unadopted
road. There are a dozen houses, and ours are the only cars.

But... the child wasn't unsupervised. There were older children present. It seems reasonable in a
residantial neighbourhood to at least permit of the idea that a group of children can play without
an adult being there.

>BTW, I'm curious. Why do you think he was "playing with other kids"? The article quoted the
>deceased child's mother as describing the area as "a residential street crowded with
>children at play"

I read it differently. Not least bevause my kids have never shown any inclination to engage in
solitary play when there are other kids (or indeed each other) around.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
[email protected] (Brent Hugh) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >"Just zis Guy, you know?" [email protected]
> >
> > wrote:
> > >I want to know why it's no longer safe for a group of kids to be out unsupervised. Would having
> > >a parent there have made the unlicensed driver any safer?
> > >
> >
> > Guy, read the article. The child was THREE years old. Three year olds do not belong anywhere
> > outside their home unsupervised, period.
>
> This incident makes me think of a lot of things--first and foremost, that even 3-4-5 yr. olds can
> be taught to NEVER run out the end of a driveway without stopping & looking first. This is the #1
> way young kids are killed on bikes. Speaking from experience, it is quite possible to teach the
> average 3 or 4 yr old to stop and look EVERY time. Just like it is possible to teach them to never
> play with electrical plugs. Sure, there will never be 100% compliance at that age. But there will
> be pretty darn good compliance. But most parents don't know the importance of this, so they don't
> even try.
<snip>

I remember once on Oprah, she had a bunch of parents who said they had instilled in their children
never to talk to strangers. These parents were 100% convinced that their child would never speak to
a stranger, let alone walk off with one. They then had these children at a playground and while the
parents were some distance away, a "stranger" came by who was carrying a leash and told the kids he
was looking for his lost puppy. One by one, each child walked away hand in hand with this person
they had never seen before. The parents were crying and in utter disbelief that the child they had
taught to never talk to strangers was being led away.
 
Hunrobe wrote:

> Would you blame the vehicle operator and absolve the parents of all responsibility if the child
> had been by struck by a cyclist riding without a headlamp at dusk?

I don't know that anyone is absolving the parents of _all_ responsibility. But would I blame your
hypothetical cyclist? Honestly, yes.

My bike commute route has a certain short street which gets very, very little traffic. I've ridden
by while very young kids were out there on bikes, skateboards, scooters and just running around. I
slow _way_ down. If I hit a kid, I'd feel responsible, because I should (and do) know that kids
act randomly.

In the situation under discussion, there was apparently more traffic. But I don't accept the
idea that whereever motorists want to drive, kids can't be allowed to play. As I've said before,
our culture has done far too much to make the world convenient for motorists. It's time to turn
that around.

The presence of a small kid should slow traffic to a crawl. This is particularly true if the kid is
in a residential area.

Residential areas should be hallowed ground. A person driving a motor vehicle through one should
feel like a person herding a cow through a church service.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
 
"R.White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I remember once on Oprah, she had a bunch of parents who said they had instilled in their children
> never to talk to strangers. These parents were 100% convinced that their child would never speak
> to a stranger, let alone walk off with one. They then had these children at a playground and while
> the parents were some distance away, a "stranger" came by who was carrying a leash and told the
> kids he was looking for his lost puppy. One by one, each child walked away hand in hand with this
> person they had never seen before. The parents were crying and in utter disbelief that the child
> they had taught to never talk to strangers was being led away.

This does not surprise me.

A bit of humor: Tuesday night, I arrived at a community center about 7:15 in the evening after a
long ride. A preschool girl pointed at me and said "Mommy, there's a stranger" -- but with a mix of
fear and fascination in her eyes.

I can see the kid's point. I'm dressed in yellow helmet, ski mask, and goggles, and the bike is lit
up in the front and blinking red in the back. But her mixed emotions were clear.

(By the way, I defused the situation by addressing her and her mother.)
 
25 Jan 2004 20:38:05 GMT,
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>Kids and dogs are often lumped together as being road hazards demanding special caution- the above
>15 mph instead of 20 mph for example- because both are unpredictable and highly mobile. If you can
>substitute "dog" for "child" in that situation and then honestly say that the dog owner (the
>substitute for the child's "parents") bears no responsibility for the crash then you and I must
>agree to disagree on this.

Stuff the mumbo jumbo. The truck shouldn't have been on the road. Period.

The vehicle itself wasn't properly insured nor was the driver properly licensed. Where
were the cops?

I blame the car sick society that blithely ignores these types of infractions and permits the
carnage to continue for the sake of their own convenience.

Disgusting apologist pukes can all go suck your beloved tailpipes.
--
zk
 
Hunrobe wrote:

>>"frkrygow" "frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu
>
>>Residential areas should be hallowed ground. A person driving a motor vehicle through one should
>>feel like a person herding a cow through a church service.
>
>
> Frank, re-read the news article. The child rode underneath the rear wheels of the truck. There is
> no "safe speed" that could have prevented this unless the driver was at the "crawl" you suggest
> and concentrating on his rear wheel(s) all the time.

If the driver was at the "crawl" I suggested, and proceeding with the attitude I suggested above,
he'd be watching that little kid and he'd be able to stop the truck. I think that's entirely
reasonable.

> Of course, then we'd be discussing the small children, slow pedestrians, dogs, and mailboxes he
> ran over in *front* of him because he wasn't looking there.

Ridiculous. A competent driver can look from one direction to another without hitting things in his
path. Otherwise they couldn't back out of parking spaces. If a driver can't pull off such elementary
moves, they shouldn't have a license.

> *Sometimes* accidents are just that, accidents and not all accidents are avoidable.

I can accept that. Nonetheless, there literally thousands of pedestrians are killed by cars in the
US each year. Like the hundreds of cyclist deaths, the most common excuse is "I didn't see him" and
the most common result is ... nothing. Our society, in effect, accepts inattention and incompetence
on the part of drivers. It imposes a death penalty for that same inattention or incompetence on the
part of a child pedestrian or cyclist. In fact, it can also impose a death penalty despite
competence and attention. "You were riding or walking where there were cars?? Well, what did you
expect?? These things happen!"

I think that attitude is heartless, and when it extends to areas where peoples' homes are, and where
children want to play outside, I think it is literally despicable. Kids have a right to be active
and outside. It's natural for them to do so. The presence of deadly machinery in a residential zone
is NOT natural, and it should not be treated as natural. It should be treated as imposing a high
risk on others, particularly children.

> Assuming the presence of any vehicular traffic on the roadway, the only sure way to have avoided
> this particular accident would have been for the child not to have been there.

Slow the vehicular traffic down to 10 mph. Impose licensing requirements strict enough to guarantee
cautious judgement and competence at that speed. And absolutely ensure that driving infractions of a
certain level mean never, ever driving again. That would have worked in this case.

> It's not a matter of "convenience for motorists". Cars and trucks don't belong on sidewalks, in
> front or back yards, or on playgrounds. Preschoolers don't belong in the street. Why would anyone
> want to "turn that around"?

Hell, I grew up playing ball in the streets. Kids now play in the street I live on. I don't know if
they're pre-schoolers, but some are very, very young. I think that's fine - they need room to run
around. I think it should be the driver's responsibility to harm no one.

Again: neighborhoods should be sanctuaries. The presence of anyone outside of a vehicle should
impose fear in the mind of a driver. If "I might hurt someone" isn't sufficient to get their
attention, then "I might go to jail for a year and never drive again" should do it.

Quick related tale:

I was once driving to a local fairground, to help run a bike safety program for kids. On the road or
drive inside the fairgrounds, there were lots of cars parked, and visibility was poor because of it.

I saw no kids, but I was worried. I slowed to a crawl, about 10 mph. Within 50 yards, a little girl
on a bike popped out from the other side of a parked car, riding directly toward me on the wrong
side of the road. (Of course, she was wearing the approved headgear.)

I had no trouble avoiding her, but that was _only_ due to my speed. Had I been going the accepted 20
mph, I don't know I could have missed her.

If I'd been doing that, would I be at fault? In my opinion, yes. Kids were known to be in the area.
Visibility was bad. Extreme caution was in order.

But if I were doing 20, as allowed, and killed her, would I have been prosecuted? No, probably not.
And that's wrong.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
 
26 Jan 2004 02:30:59 GMT,
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

Comparing kids to dogs and substituting bicycles for garbage trucks doesn't help make your point
anything but contextually vague.

>My reply then remains the same, "Where were the *parents*?"

Maybe preparing dinner for some of her other seven kids?

My accusation remains the same, I blame the mores of a car-sick society that accepts the daily
death toll.

>>Disgusting apologist pukes can all go suck your beloved tailpipes.
>
>Zoot, I've tried to assume that you are a reasonable intelligent person but apparently you are so
>blinded by your own bias and hatred that you are incapable of rational civil discourse and when
>your honest answer to a question threatens your smug self-righteousness you start throwing mud so
>to respond in

Bob, I'm tired of always being told by the apologists to suck-it-up. That dead pedestrians, cyclists
and now kids playing in front of their homes are the cost of doing business and you'd better get
used to it. While we consistently see the ones ultimately responsible for their deaths, the drivers,
are routinely given misdemeanor charges and freedom to continue. . .for the sake of the economy.

Carbon-monoxide poisoning is reportedly painless. I was being humane.
--
zk
 
26 Jan 2004 06:28:19 GMT,
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>Is that the fault of the cyclist or the child?

There was no cyclist.

The child was hit and killed by a truck that shouldn't have been operating on the streets.

I'm not going to play that assinine game with you.
--
zk
 
I guess things are different today.

When I was a child (mid-60s), we were not allowed to play in front of the house - we played in the
fenced-in back area. Until we were about 8, we were not allowed to ride our bikes on the road. When
I was about 8, my father started taking me on bike rides in quiet parts of the city. He taught me
the rules of the road and how to cycle safely. After I satisfied him that I knew the rules and would
obey them, I was allowed limited access to the roads on my own.

Most of my friends had similar experiences.

Throughout my childhood, as soon as the ice was off the road, we were cycling. Neither I nor my
friends - nor anyone we knew - experienced a collision with a motorized vehicle.

My experience with 3-year-olds leads me to believe that they cannot be reliably trained to play
safely on the streets. My experience with 8-year-olds leads me to believe that they cannot
reasonably be expected to look after a 3-year-old while they themselves are at play.

Does the driver bear responsibility if he is at fault? Absolutely.

Do the parents bear responsibility for not supervising a young child? Absolutely.

Does the 8-year-old bear responsibility for not supervising a young child? NO.

Jeff
 
[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> It's not a matter of "convenience for motorists". Cars and trucks don't belong on sidewalks, in
> front or back yards, or on playgrounds. Preschoolers don't belong in the street. Why would anyone
> want to "turn that around"?

In the metro area I live in, neighborhood streets don't have sidewalks. (Maybe less than 5% of
neighborhood streets do, within a 5-mile radius of where I live in the Kansas City metro area).

So pre-schoolers, or anybody else who wants to go anywhere in their neighborhood, gets to walk, or
ride, or whatever, **in the street**.

That is simply because there is no where else to go, but in the street.

Personally I would like to turn this situation around, but until the time 50 or 75 years in the
future when sidewalks, traffic calming measures, or whatever, are installed on all these streets,
the alternative is to teach drivers to drive as though there might be a 3 year old or a 33 year old
or a 93 year old walking or riding around every corner, over every hill, and out of every side
street or driveway.

You're absolutely right, Bob, that this approach will not stop every possible incident or injury.
And maybe not the particular one we're discussing right now. But I'll wager that it would stop
somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of them.

And, as near as I can tell, no one is even trying to put into place such a strategy or educate
drivers to drive that way. Driver's manuals and the like are all written on a "car vs. car" basis,
with an occasional reference to pedestrians thrown in.

Right now, 0% of our roadway safety spending in Missouri is on bike/ped safety. That, despite the
fact that about 10% of injuries and deaths are bicyclists and pedestrians.

--Brent

bhugh [at] mwsc.edu www.MoBikeFed.org
 
[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Frank, re-read the news article. The child rode underneath the rear wheels of the truck. There is
> no "safe speed" that could have prevented this unless the driver was at the "crawl" you suggest
> and concentrating on his rear wheel(s) all the time.

Another thing this incident reminds me of, is that in many civilized countries, large trucks are
required to have shields that prevent a pedestrian or cyclist (or even a car) from going
underneath the middle of the vehicle between the front and rear wheels, where they can be crushed
by the rear wheels.

The reason for the shields is that one of the most common truck/pedestrian and truck/bicycle
collisions in populated areas is when the truck is turning, the middle part of the truck knocks the
pedestrian or cyclist over, and then the slow turning of the rear wheels drags the person under the
wheels and crushes them.

Incidents like this are one reason heavy trucks are so much more dangerous for pedestrians and
bicyclists than regular automobiles. And they can be almost entirely prevented by this "cow-catcher"
type shield that just scoops the pedestrian out of the way of the rear wheels.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of three pedestrians that were killed this way in Missouri
over the past year or two--two of these young kids killed by school buses.

A little more about these "cow-catcher" type guards for rear wheels is here:

http://www.mobikefed.org/2003_04_01_newsarchive.html#200099633

--Brent

bhugh[at]mwsc.edu www.mobikefed.org
 
Brent Hugh wrote:

> Just off the top of my head, I can think of three pedestrians that were killed this way in
> Missouri over the past year or two--two of these young kids killed by school buses.

In our city, we had a kid on a bike killed exactly that way, about two years ago. In that case, it
was the back wheels of a large truck.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
 
>Perhaps someone else in the NG has seen them.

Most of the trucks around here are variants of the deuce and a half or else box vans or semis, none
have cycle side sweepers that I know of. The new natural gas buses have them, or just really low
side panels.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
26 Jan 2004 17:39:08 GMT,
<[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>condemning a blameless cyclist just as you've condemned the blameless driver.

I've seen your frilly skirts so refused to play along with the assinine word games.

Motor vehicle operators regularly kill more people than cyclists. Were the child killed by a
bicyclist your arguments would deserve treatment.

The driver knew when he started the engine that he didn't have proper authorisation to operate that
vehicle. That's hardly blameless.

The poor guy is now pondering all the 'what ifs' and I'm sure he would rethink his options if given
the choice.

To say it's the fault of the parent or driver exclusively is not my position. I'm just disgusted by
those who'd blame the parent while exonerating the driver because a kid ran under the truck he was
illegally driving through their neighbourhood.

I'm most contemptuous of the societal value system that places driving privileges above human life.
--
zk
 
[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>>[email protected] (Brent Hugh)
>
>wrote in part:
>
>>......in many civilized countries, large trucks are required to have shields that prevent a
>>pedestrian or cyclist (or even a car) from going underneath the middle of the vehicle between the
>>front and rear wheels, where they can be crushed by the rear wheels.
>
>I've never heard of such a guard and I'm having a difficult time visualizing one that would
>actually work but if such a thing exists I'd like to see them on truck tractor/semitrailers. The
>link you posted had next to no information about this device. It appeared to be an op-ed piece in
>favor of such devices but without any description or photo of a vehicle actually equipped with one.
>What "civilized countries" require them? Perhaps someone else in the NG has seen them.

I've seen them in China. They're basically large, coarse netting not unlike ski fencing but bigger,
that's stretched across the opening in front of the rear wheels.

Never saw any pedestrians hanging from one though... I suppose they would work, but at the same time
they might tend to snag a cyclist's bars in VERY near misses that might not have caused a crash
otherwise.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 07:38:27 -0700,
<[email protected]>, Mark Hickey
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:
>
>>>[email protected] (Brent Hugh)
>>
>>wrote in part:
>>
>>>......in many civilized countries, large trucks are required to have shields that prevent a
>>>pedestrian or cyclist (or even a car) from going underneath the middle of the vehicle between the
>>>front and rear wheels, where they can be crushed by the rear wheels.
>>
>>I've never heard of such a guard and I'm having a difficult time visualizing one that would
>>actually work but if such a thing exists I'd like to see them on truck tractor/semitrailers. The
>>link you posted had next to no information about this device. It appeared to be an op-ed piece in
>>favor of such devices but without any description or photo of a vehicle actually equipped with
>>one. What "civilized countries" require them? Perhaps someone else in the NG has seen them.
>
>I've seen them in China. They're basically large, coarse netting not unlike ski fencing but bigger,
>that's stretched across the opening in front of the rear wheels.

Modern European trailers use a molded air dam type arrangement that extends beyond the rear wheels.
It also reduces aerodynamic drag thereby increasing fuel economy.

I've seen older trucks fitted with a pair of rails mounted along the underside of the trailer ahead
of the rear wheels. Their mudguards too appear to cover more of the tire than those seen here.
--
zk
 
"Brent Hugh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Another thing this incident reminds me of, is that in many civilized countries, large trucks are
> required to have shields that prevent a pedestrian or cyclist (or even a car) from going
> underneath the middle of the vehicle between the front and rear wheels, where they can be crushed
> by the rear wheels.

Howdy.

Never seen such a shield, and I'm reasonably well-travelled. Care to list some of the countries?

Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.