Young cyclist killed

[Curtis L . Russ]

On 10 Feb 2004 06:12:42 -0800, [email protected] (Bill Meredith) wrote:

>> However, in a residential neighborhood when kids are visible running around and playing, things
>> should be different. Any driver that doesn't take that situation as a warning sign is callously
>> stupid. And any driver that doesn't respond by slowing _way_ down is criminally negligent.
>
...
>In any case other then not moving at all there seem to be no speed at all above zero that would had
>allow someone to stop a truck in time to pervent a rear wheel from running over a child that ride
>his bike into the truck side without warning.
>
>Please tell us what speed, in your opinion, would have allow a driver to react in time to had stop
>this child from being kill?

In his second case, things ARE a lot different. Its one thing to have parked cars that block vision,
but if a driver can see kids at play AND see when one or more of them veers toward traffic, yeah,
they should be slowing down and stopping if necessary. I've come to complete stop more than once in
residential areas because of an unguided 5-7 year-old missile.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Bill Meredith]

"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Bill Meredith wrote:
>
> > Number one if the road is clear and then someone or something run into it without warning, be
> > that something a three year old child or a cat or dog or rabbit or.............., the real
> > universe set limits on what a driver can do to avoid an inpact.
>
> Then why not drive within those limits when children are around?
>
> > The speed that the human mind and nerve system work at in one of those limits, the second limit
> > is the abiltiy of the car or van or truck to change speed or direction. See newton's three laws
> > for more details.
> >
> > As far as the death rate for traffic accidences being too high and work should be done to reduce
> > it, that is beside the point in what the laws of the universa allow in a situations where some
> > child run or bike out in front of a moving car.
>
> I love your mangled English.
>
> But I'll concede this: If a kid "run or bike out in front of a moving car" on an arterial road,
> perhaps the driver should be acquitted, depending on circumstances. For example, we had a kid
> killed when he rode at night, without lights, down a steep hill, through a stop sign into a four-
> lane arterial.
>
> However, in a residential neighborhood when kids are visible running around and playing, things
> should be different. Any driver that doesn't take that situation as a warning sign is callously
> stupid. And any driver that doesn't respond by slowing _way_ down is criminally negligent.

As a footnote you seem to be implying that a stranger have some superhuman duty to protect children
from coming to harm. Interesting in that you also seem to feel that parents have no such duty!

Be that as it may under most state laws there is no such duty of a stranger, to even aid a child in
harm way. You could cheerfully watch a child drowning in a river and not take one step to either aid
the child yourself or to raise an alarm and you had broken no laws, of any kind! There was an
interesting case of a "gentleman" who came across his friend, in the act of killing a young girl in
a restroom and he just walk away. He even later drove home with this friend. There was zero anyone
could find on the lawbook to charge this asshole with.

A very few states have change this legal situtation, but most have not, at this point in time.

The driver of the truck was under no obigation higher then to used reasonable care in driving the
truck down the street, not superhuman care. Children or no children playing on the sidewalks.

Bill Meredith

 

[Zoot Katz]

9 Feb 2004 23:40:26 -0800,
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Bill Meredith) wrote:

>But feel free to explain to all of us how the driver could have acted, in this case to prevented
>the child from caming to harm!

I'll bet that if you asked the driver that question now he'd offer all kinds of ways, that in
hindsight, he could have avoided the incident.

He knew when he started the engine that he didn't have proper authorisation to move it. But he did
anyway In my book, that makes him guilty.

Had he been hauling a truckload of crack, which I believe is regarded as a felony, he be culpable of
murder in the accidental death of the child. No?
--
zk

 

[Frkrygow]

Bill Meredith wrote:

> In any case other then not moving at all there seem to be no speed at all above zero that would
> had allow someone to stop a truck in time to pervent a rear wheel from running over a child that
> ride his bike into the truck side without warning.

Oh, baloney. Children are not invisible. In a residential neighborhood, a driver should watch for
kids running or biking around.

A tiny kid can't move all that fast, anyway; any driver exercising reasonable caution should be able
to see such a kid moving toward his vehicle. _That's_ when he should slow way, way down, or stop if
the kid continues.

Competent driving involves planning ahead at _least_ a little bit, anticipating the bad things that
can happen, and taking precautions to avoid them. It's not a matter of reacting instantaneously when
it's too late. It's the people who rely on instantaneous action that have the lousy driving records.

>
> Please tell us what speed, in your opinion, would have allow a driver to react in time to had stop
> this child from being kill?

OK, five miles per hour.

Not that he had to drive at that speed all through this neighborhood. 20 mph might have been
appropriate. When he saw little kids out and about, he could have slowed to 15. When he saw a kid
heading in his direction, he could have slowed to 10. When the kid got within ten feet, he should
have been at 5 mph. And if the kid is still moving toward him, he stops. That's not so hard to
understand, is it?

> Please take note the driver was not charge for the death of the child, and he should not be.

Of _course_ he wasn't. After all, he was in a motor vehicle - and in our society, killing
someone is fine if you're in a motor vehicle and you say "I didn't see him." There's plenty of
precedent for that!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

 

[Bill Meredith]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 9 Feb 2004 23:40:26 -0800, <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (Bill Meredith) wrote:
>
> >But feel free to explain to all of us how the driver could have acted, in this case to prevented
> >the child from caming to harm!
>
> I'll bet that if you asked the driver that question now he'd offer all kinds of ways, that in
> hindsight, he could have avoided the incident.
>
> He knew when he started the engine that he didn't have proper authorisation to move it. But he did
> anyway In my book, that makes him guilty.

Nonsense, so if someone license is one day past renewal, and he was involved that day in an accident
that was not his fault he would be guilty not just for driving without a the poper license but for
the accident!!!!!

Thank god people like you do not make the laws!!!!

Let see in my past I had been in control of planes, without a license, and it is your view that had
the plane blown up in the air without warning due to a fault in the plane it would still had somehow
been my fault, because I did not have the proper paperwork to be at the controls?

The paperwork would have somehow stop the plane from blowing up?

Thamk god once more that even our law makers had a little more sense then you do!

Bill Meredith

>
> Had he been hauling a truckload of crack, which I believe is regarded as a felony, he be culpable
> of murder in the accidental death of the child. No?

 

[Bill Meredith]

"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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
> 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.

Sorry but the universe is heartless and not caring, there are many many things that could kill or
harm a three year old child without adult supervision, outside of almost any home in the world, cars
and trucks traffic is just one danger.

Bill Meredith

>
> > 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.

 

[Zoot Katz]

11 Feb 2004 01:48:27 -0800, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Bill
Meredith) wrote: \
>> He knew when he started the engine that he didn't have proper authorisation to move it. But he
>> did anyway In my book, that makes him guilty.
>
>Nonsense, so if someone license is one day past renewal, and he was involved that day in an
>accident that was not his fault he would be guilty not just for driving without a the poper license
>but for the accident!!!!!
>
>Thank god people like you do not make the laws!!!!

Yeah, I'm stuck on the concept that the person behind the wheel is responsible for their actions.
Apparently you suckhole apologists figure they're not. Automobile driving evidently breeds
arrogance.
--
zk

 

[Kevan Smith]

On 11 Feb 2004 09:25:48 -0800, [email protected] (Bill Meredith) from
http://groups.google.com wrote:

>Sorry but the universe is heartless and not caring ...

How do you know? Are you privvy to the design plans?

--
[email protected]
Do something boring.
109

 

[Bill Meredith]

Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 11 Feb 2004 01:48:27 -0800, <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (Bill Meredith) wrote: \ Yeah, I'm stuck on the concept that the person behind the wheel is
> responsible for their actions. Apparently you suckhole apologists figure they're not. Automobile
> driving evidently breeds arrogance.

Hmm, I am fairly sure the gentleman in question will be fine for not having the proper license for
himself and his truck, so he will indeed be held reponseable for his actions.

What you wish to do however, is to throw the poor man in prison for a death that was in no way his
fault and at the same time you wave your hand in the air and wish to completely pardon the parents
of the child for allowing him to come to harm, by not providing the supervision that any three years
child needs.

Hell one of my cats just got pass me, when I came home tonight and is outside rooming the
neighborhood and as a result I am more then slighly worry about his welfare, even if he is more
street wise than any 3 year old human child would be.

Seem odd that I would care more for the welfare of a cat then those parents seem to had care for the
welfare of thier child, is it not?

Yes I know you have a large and illogical ax to grind against anyone who would dare use a power
vehicle of any kind, however the more sane members of this newsgroup used both cars/vans and bikes
to get from one point to another.

I average roughly 15,000 miles a year on my van and 2,00 miles a year on my trek 520 touring
bike. Over the years I been involved in a few minor accidents between cars and bikes from both
view points.

An accident isa just that an accident, something you can't seem to understand.

Bill Meredith