Be careful biking with your family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t seem like an appropriate road for a family bike ride with such a little biker. Maybe they’re only on it for a very short distance to get from their house to a quieter street or a trail, but cars go pretty fast, there are hills and curves, no bike lanes. Yeesh.

Did you watch the video?? They were on a bike trail. Simply crossing the busy road to return to the trail.

They should have gotten off their bikes and walked. 100%.

Why do you think it's safer to walk your bike across a road than to ride your bike?

This is BASIC urban biking 101, and if you don't know the answer, I sure hope you aren't biking your kids all over DC.

But, in the spirit of public education: biking through a crosswalk (especially entering from a sidewalk or bike trail) is dangerous because you're moving at a speed the car doesn't expect. A car is looking for someone moving at PEDESTRIAN speed, not bike speed.

First, they stopped, didn't they? And the little kid was hardly speeding across the trail crossing at Lance Armstrong speed.

Second, drivers at bicycle trail crossings darn well better be looking for someone moving at bicycle speed. If they're unable to do that, they shouldn't be driving.

Again, I sincerely hope you're not biking around DC with your small children. If you can't learn about basic defensive urban biking, you should not be on the roads yourself - much less with your small kids.

The hazards of biking across intersections off sidewalks or bike paths is WELL WELL known. It's basic knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This car was 100% at fault. You can nitpick a hundred different ways the parents could have been even more cautious to prevent this, but the car was driving recklessly and almost killed a kid.

You can see they are all trailing each other. Dad doesn't realize how far back the little one is, the girl doesn't slow down enough before she enters the cross walk. Mom sees the car and does almost jump off her bike but would have been way too late. It was about 3 or 4 small things that if NOT there, would have kept this from being so close. Yes, I'd make sure the kid knows to never enter the crosswalk without stopping at the side first and getting the go-ahead from mom or dad. Yes I make sure my kids are next to me, with an iron grip on their hands when we walk across. But I still do not blame the parents at all here.

The car was driving recklessly and should be ticketed.

wtf? you just listed 10 things the parents did wrong, then concluded the driver was 100% at fault?

Not that poster, but yea, the SUV was 100% at fault. Yes, the parents could have been more cautious, but there is zero excuse for the SUV to blow through that crosswalk without ensuring it was clear.

Do you understand what fault means? The fact that the SUV was at fault does NOT mean the parents were not at fault. They were BOTH at fault. And since the parents have a higher duty to protect their child, I'd argue that they did a morally worse thing. Legally, I don't know.

Legally, the SUV driver would be wrong. The law requires them to stop at the crosswalk to yield to those crossing, and the SUV didn't do that. It doesn't matter how many excuses they make for why they didn't see the girl, they are legally obligated to make sure the crosswalk is clear before proceeding through it. The SUV driver did not do that here.

Does legal liability absolve the parents of supervising their children in a safe manner?

The parents were supervising their child. The only reason the child was able to stop in time to avoid the SUV was because mom saw the SUV and yelled for her to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legally the driver is at fault. 100%. Drivers are required to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. If a driver can not see the crosswalk, because another car HAS ALREADY STOPPED, it's incumbent on them to slow down enough so that they can see the whole crosswalk and ensure it is clear. The fact that you don't know that would have me questioning your judgment.

In fact, it's LEGALLY REQUIRED for them to STOP. A driver may not pass another car stopped at a crosswalk.

This isn't a question of what the law requires. It's about the duty of parents to supervise their children safely -- not in an ideal world where everyone follows the law, but in the ACTUAL world. Biking across a fast-moving intersection is a well known hazards. Parents who are going to engage with their kids in an inherently dangerous activity need to inform themselves of such hazards and take actions to protect their kids. This is no different from teaching your kids to stay safe in any other context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This car was 100% at fault. You can nitpick a hundred different ways the parents could have been even more cautious to prevent this, but the car was driving recklessly and almost killed a kid.

You can see they are all trailing each other. Dad doesn't realize how far back the little one is, the girl doesn't slow down enough before she enters the cross walk. Mom sees the car and does almost jump off her bike but would have been way too late. It was about 3 or 4 small things that if NOT there, would have kept this from being so close. Yes, I'd make sure the kid knows to never enter the crosswalk without stopping at the side first and getting the go-ahead from mom or dad. Yes I make sure my kids are next to me, with an iron grip on their hands when we walk across. But I still do not blame the parents at all here.

The car was driving recklessly and should be ticketed.

wtf? you just listed 10 things the parents did wrong, then concluded the driver was 100% at fault?

Not that poster, but yea, the SUV was 100% at fault. Yes, the parents could have been more cautious, but there is zero excuse for the SUV to blow through that crosswalk without ensuring it was clear.

Do you understand what fault means? The fact that the SUV was at fault does NOT mean the parents were not at fault. They were BOTH at fault. And since the parents have a higher duty to protect their child, I'd argue that they did a morally worse thing. Legally, I don't know.

Cars are legally required to stop for any person in a crosswalk, whether that person is an adult, a child, on a bike, elderly and slow, in a wheelchair, blind or deaf. The driver of the car is 100% at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This car was 100% at fault. You can nitpick a hundred different ways the parents could have been even more cautious to prevent this, but the car was driving recklessly and almost killed a kid.

You can see they are all trailing each other. Dad doesn't realize how far back the little one is, the girl doesn't slow down enough before she enters the cross walk. Mom sees the car and does almost jump off her bike but would have been way too late. It was about 3 or 4 small things that if NOT there, would have kept this from being so close. Yes, I'd make sure the kid knows to never enter the crosswalk without stopping at the side first and getting the go-ahead from mom or dad. Yes I make sure my kids are next to me, with an iron grip on their hands when we walk across. But I still do not blame the parents at all here.

The car was driving recklessly and should be ticketed.

wtf? you just listed 10 things the parents did wrong, then concluded the driver was 100% at fault?

Not that poster, but yea, the SUV was 100% at fault. Yes, the parents could have been more cautious, but there is zero excuse for the SUV to blow through that crosswalk without ensuring it was clear.

Do you understand what fault means? The fact that the SUV was at fault does NOT mean the parents were not at fault. They were BOTH at fault. And since the parents have a higher duty to protect their child, I'd argue that they did a morally worse thing. Legally, I don't know.

Legally, the SUV driver would be wrong. The law requires them to stop at the crosswalk to yield to those crossing, and the SUV didn't do that. It doesn't matter how many excuses they make for why they didn't see the girl, they are legally obligated to make sure the crosswalk is clear before proceeding through it. The SUV driver did not do that here.

Does legal liability absolve the parents of supervising their children in a safe manner?

The parents were supervising their child. The only reason the child was able to stop in time to avoid the SUV was because mom saw the SUV and yelled for her to stop.

No, they were not supervising their child. Responsible cycling would have been - dismount and walk across the intersection together. Not "let the 4 year old bike across 4 lanes of arterial traffic with poor visibility going 35 miles an hour"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t seem like an appropriate road for a family bike ride with such a little biker. Maybe they’re only on it for a very short distance to get from their house to a quieter street or a trail, but cars go pretty fast, there are hills and curves, no bike lanes. Yeesh.

Did you watch the video?? They were on a bike trail. Simply crossing the busy road to return to the trail.

They should have gotten off their bikes and walked. 100%.

Why do you think it's safer to walk your bike across a road than to ride your bike?

This is BASIC urban biking 101, and if you don't know the answer, I sure hope you aren't biking your kids all over DC.

But, in the spirit of public education: biking through a crosswalk (especially entering from a sidewalk or bike trail) is dangerous because you're moving at a speed the car doesn't expect. A car is looking for someone moving at PEDESTRIAN speed, not bike speed.

First, they stopped, didn't they? And the little kid was hardly speeding across the trail crossing at Lance Armstrong speed.

Second, drivers at bicycle trail crossings darn well better be looking for someone moving at bicycle speed. If they're unable to do that, they shouldn't be driving.

Again, I sincerely hope you're not biking around DC with your small children. If you can't learn about basic defensive urban biking, you should not be on the roads yourself - much less with your small kids.

The hazards of biking across intersections off sidewalks or bike paths is WELL WELL known. It's basic knowledge.

+100. It's one of the first things pounded into me as a kid biking around the area -- decades ago -- when it was smaller and less crowded, never mind nowadays with the vastly heavier auto traffic and crazier driving habits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This car was 100% at fault. You can nitpick a hundred different ways the parents could have been even more cautious to prevent this, but the car was driving recklessly and almost killed a kid.

You can see they are all trailing each other. Dad doesn't realize how far back the little one is, the girl doesn't slow down enough before she enters the cross walk. Mom sees the car and does almost jump off her bike but would have been way too late. It was about 3 or 4 small things that if NOT there, would have kept this from being so close. Yes, I'd make sure the kid knows to never enter the crosswalk without stopping at the side first and getting the go-ahead from mom or dad. Yes I make sure my kids are next to me, with an iron grip on their hands when we walk across. But I still do not blame the parents at all here.

The car was driving recklessly and should be ticketed.

wtf? you just listed 10 things the parents did wrong, then concluded the driver was 100% at fault?

Not that poster, but yea, the SUV was 100% at fault. Yes, the parents could have been more cautious, but there is zero excuse for the SUV to blow through that crosswalk without ensuring it was clear.

Do you understand what fault means? The fact that the SUV was at fault does NOT mean the parents were not at fault. They were BOTH at fault. And since the parents have a higher duty to protect their child, I'd argue that they did a morally worse thing. Legally, I don't know.

Cars are legally required to stop for any person in a crosswalk, whether that person is an adult, a child, on a bike, elderly and slow, in a wheelchair, blind or deaf. The driver of the car is 100% at fault.

First, I'm not totally convinced that bikes flying at speed across an intersection would not be partially at fault under some tort regimes.

Second, this is about a parents' duty to avert known hazards. Which these parents did not do.

The more you try to argue that the parents did nothing wrong, the more I think that it really is true that most people biking with kids are as dumb and reckless as I thought.

Signed,
Very experienced urban biker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This car was 100% at fault. You can nitpick a hundred different ways the parents could have been even more cautious to prevent this, but the car was driving recklessly and almost killed a kid.

You can see they are all trailing each other. Dad doesn't realize how far back the little one is, the girl doesn't slow down enough before she enters the cross walk. Mom sees the car and does almost jump off her bike but would have been way too late. It was about 3 or 4 small things that if NOT there, would have kept this from being so close. Yes, I'd make sure the kid knows to never enter the crosswalk without stopping at the side first and getting the go-ahead from mom or dad. Yes I make sure my kids are next to me, with an iron grip on their hands when we walk across. But I still do not blame the parents at all here.

The car was driving recklessly and should be ticketed.

wtf? you just listed 10 things the parents did wrong, then concluded the driver was 100% at fault?

Not that poster, but yea, the SUV was 100% at fault. Yes, the parents could have been more cautious, but there is zero excuse for the SUV to blow through that crosswalk without ensuring it was clear.

Do you understand what fault means? The fact that the SUV was at fault does NOT mean the parents were not at fault. They were BOTH at fault. And since the parents have a higher duty to protect their child, I'd argue that they did a morally worse thing. Legally, I don't know.

Legally, the SUV driver would be wrong. The law requires them to stop at the crosswalk to yield to those crossing, and the SUV didn't do that. It doesn't matter how many excuses they make for why they didn't see the girl, they are legally obligated to make sure the crosswalk is clear before proceeding through it. The SUV driver did not do that here.

Does legal liability absolve the parents of supervising their children in a safe manner?

OMG. They were crossing at a marked crosswalk at a slow rate of speed. One parent in front and one behind. The driver was flat out wrong. Criminally negligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, I sincerely hope you're not biking around DC with your small children. If you can't learn about basic defensive urban biking, you should not be on the roads yourself - much less with your small kids.

The hazards of biking across intersections off sidewalks or bike paths is WELL WELL known. It's basic knowledge.

Yes, everybody knows it's dangerous to cross roads, whether on foot or on a bike. The issue is, WHY is it safer to walk across than to bicycle across? All you keep saying is that everybody knows this to be true, and only fools dispute it. The other answer (provided in a different previous post) is that laws intended to protect pedestrians in a crosswalk do not necessarily apply to bicyclists in a crosswalk - which is a legal liability issue, not a safety issue. Could you please link to some sources about basic defensive urban biking that advise bicyclists to walk their bicycles across roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

First, I'm not totally convinced that bikes flying at speed across an intersection would not be partially at fault under some tort regimes.

Second, this is about a parents' duty to avert known hazards. Which these parents did not do.

The more you try to argue that the parents did nothing wrong, the more I think that it really is true that most people biking with kids are as dumb and reckless as I thought.

Signed,
Very experienced urban biker

Is that what you see in this video?

Both drivers broke the law, endangering a child, and your argument is that the PARENTS did something wrong?

[Anonymous]

The $1 million or $10 million from the driver’s umbrella policy or lawsuit in a wrongful death would be cold comfort. As a parent, you need to be smarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legally the driver is at fault. 100%. Drivers are required to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. If a driver can not see the crosswalk, because another car HAS ALREADY STOPPED, it's incumbent on them to slow down enough so that they can see the whole crosswalk and ensure it is clear. The fact that you don't know that would have me questioning your judgment.

In fact, it's LEGALLY REQUIRED for them to STOP. A driver may not pass another car stopped at a crosswalk.

This isn't a question of what the law requires. It's about the duty of parents to supervise their children safely -- not in an ideal world where everyone follows the law, but in the ACTUAL world. Biking across a fast-moving intersection is a well known hazards. Parents who are going to engage with their kids in an inherently dangerous activity need to inform themselves of such hazards and take actions to protect their kids. This is no different from teaching your kids to stay safe in any other context.

Of course it's a question of what the law requires. If the passing driver had stopped, as the law requires, instead of driving into the crosswalk, we wouldn't be having this mis-titled thread. The passing driver almost killed a child, and you're focusing on what the parents did or didn't do.

[Anonymous]

Why is everybody saying the SUV stopped intime? If that child were three feet farther along, that’s it. The car absolutely didn’t stop in time. It came to a stop PAST the crosswalk. Drivers suck and that is why neither I nor my kids will ever ride on the road or go across big roads like this without a signal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The $1 million or $10 million from the driver’s umbrella policy or lawsuit in a wrongful death would be cold comfort. As a parent, you need to be smarter.

As a driver, you need to be smarter. It would be cold comfort to you that your driver's insurance paid out to the dead child's family, wouldn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

First, I'm not totally convinced that bikes flying at speed across an intersection would not be partially at fault under some tort regimes.

Second, this is about a parents' duty to avert known hazards. Which these parents did not do.

The more you try to argue that the parents did nothing wrong, the more I think that it really is true that most people biking with kids are as dumb and reckless as I thought.

Signed,
Very experienced urban biker

Is that what you see in this video?

Both drivers broke the law, endangering a child, and your argument is that the PARENTS did something wrong?

I don’t think the cyclist’s speed was a factor here. The child is not flying at speed. I could walk and certainly jog across faster. Would I be reckless for jogging across?