Be careful biking with your family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this intersection this crosswalk - it's in Takoma Park and there is currently construction around there which complicates things. If you were this parent - would you want this posted on the local listserv? I think it would be good for the family to see it but don't want to be instrusive. Maybe a post that links to this thread? What do you think?

What would be your objective in posting it to the local listserv?

It’s a Public Service. Please absolutely post it anywhere people will see it. This is incredibly important to remind drivers to pay attention. My high school aged son was hit and thrown from his bike in the exact same scenario as posted here. The only reason he wasn’t killed is because traffic was slowing. The driver said he just didn’t look and never saw my son (even though the other lane traffic had stopped — just as in this video).

Please post this video anywhere you can. As evidenced by the lively discussion here, it makes people THINK. And hopefully be better drivers, bike riders and pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE BIKES GO FASTER AND ARE THEREFORE LESS VISIBLE TO CARS.

Most of the information out there is about sidewalk cycling, but it also applies to coming off a bike path.

But like I said, this is generally rule #1 that people who want to be safe biking learn. And once you spend any amount of time doing city biking in a defensive mindset, the logic becomes clear.

http://www.bikemn.org/education/minnesota-bicycling-handbook/dangers-of-sidewalk-riding
http://mobikefed.org/2016/08/bicycling-sidewalks-not-safe-not-recommended
https://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/study-sidewalks-a-risky-place-to-ride-bikes/article_f8d1168a-eec7-51af-aadf-ec96a89119d9.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/3eosnz/compilation_of_cycling_safety_studies_with_focus/

[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.

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

Your focus on what the parents should have done differently seems to absolve the SUV driver of any responsibility, when in fact, the driver of the SUV is the one who broke the law, not the parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely I'm focusing on the parents, because they are the ones chosing to bike, and not following basic defensive biking rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely I'm focusing on the parents, because they are the ones chosing to bike, and not following basic defensive biking rules.

And your thoughts on the driver of the SUV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Don’t be ridiculous. A lot of things could be improved from that video. But between a driver and a parent, who do you rely on to be smarter when it comes to the safety of your child? If you say driver, you need to be smarter. Else, you could have an insurance payment and a funeral.

[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?

Absolutely. What part of DEFENSIVE biking do you not understand? If your idea is that it's a good idea to talk your small children out biking IN A CITY and just assume that they'll always be seen and drivers will always be cautious ... and that you can ignore safe biking rules that experienced ADULT cyclers live by ... then I don't know what to tell you except STAY OFF THE ROAD WITH YOUR KID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely I'm focusing on the parents, because they are the ones chosing to bike, and not following basic defensive biking rules.

"Defensive biking rules" are guidelines, not state law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BECAUSE BIKES GO FASTER AND ARE THEREFORE LESS VISIBLE TO CARS.

Most of the information out there is about sidewalk cycling, but it also applies to coming off a bike path.

But like I said, this is generally rule #1 that people who want to be safe biking learn. And once you spend any amount of time doing city biking in a defensive mindset, the logic becomes clear.

http://www.bikemn.org/education/minnesota-bicycling-handbook/dangers-of-sidewalk-riding
http://mobikefed.org/2016/08/bicycling-sidewalks-not-safe-not-recommended
https://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/study-sidewalks-a-risky-place-to-ride-bikes/article_f8d1168a-eec7-51af-aadf-ec96a89119d9.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/cycling/comments/3eosnz/compilation_of_cycling_safety_studies_with_focus/

All of your links are about the dangers of riding on sidewalks. I didn't see anything about walking your bicycle across the intersection. Is there something in there that I missed? There's lots of advice about stopping before you cross, but the parents did do that. And, as you say, they weren't even riding on a sidewalk anyway.

[Anonymous]

Both the parents and the driver need to be more careful in the future. Can we end that line of argument now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely I'm focusing on the parents, because they are the ones chosing to bike, and not following basic defensive biking rules.

What about the drivers, who were the ones choosing to drive, and not following basic driving laws?

[Anonymous]

The tractor trailer in the very beginning of the video... Is it legal for him to get in that turn lane and pass the sedan??

[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.

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

Your focus on what the parents should have done differently seems to absolve the SUV driver of any responsibility, when in fact, the driver of the SUV is the one who broke the law, not the parents.

No, I never said that. The SUV should have stopped because they saw the other car stopped. But on a relatively fast arterial road with little pedestrian or bike traffic, it's complete madness to just expect the cars to stop for your SMALL FOUR YEAR OLD.

[Anonymous]

To: Very experienced urban biker

I assume you don’t bike with kids. My kids were far more unstable trying to walk their bike vs riding/scooting until they were 10. And bike with a trailer? Walking that is pretty unwieldy and much easier to stop and maneuver in bike.

They were CLEARLY crossing at PEDESTRIAN speed; the whole walk your bike across is to force urban bike Lance wannabes to slow down, not force 1st graders to stumble across a crosswalk pushing their hefty Huffy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely I'm focusing on the parents, because they are the ones chosing to bike, and not following basic defensive biking rules.

What about the drivers, who were the ones choosing to drive, and not following basic driving laws?

Well it's not their child, is it? Yes, drivers should follow the laws, but basic rules of the road also mandate that you stay visible. Although you are apparently an inexperienced urban biker, experienced bikers know very well that shooting into intersections is not the way to stay visible to cars in intersections.