Be careful biking with your family

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry for saying this but all these cross-walks seemingly any and everywhere are dangerous as hell. Not to mention every municipality makes up their own specific rules and it's just a recipe for accidents. Making matters even worse are pedestrians and bikers get so cocky and jump into the road and aren't defensive at all. *forehead smack*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the comments here, it seems that many drivers should not have licenses.

Agree completely. This was on the driver.

Yes. Out of an abundance of caution, it's wise for the parents to take extra precautions, but no question the inattentive driver was 100% at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
thissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
x100000000000000000000
I am a careful driver, very careful and I live near a bike trail and crosswalk. My attention would have been on the dumbass dad and thought...oh all done...looking at road in front and not seen a small child lower than my damn bumper.

Then you're not a careful-enough driver.

The SUV wasn’t remotely slowing down. It was flying by, which was way too fast even if it thought Dad was the only biker.

Based on the article, it sounds like that is a temporary crosswalk that's not visible to drivers - I think it's likely because it's a few feet away from the actual stop signal, so they're looking ahead at the red light and not expecting to see a crosswalk there ... because why would there be a random crosswalk with no signal, a few feet from the signal?

[Anonymous]

No, no, no, no!!! Does not matter who is in the right, if your kid is dead it is all over.

Yes, maybe the driver has a miserable life after that, maybe they are put in jail....BIG FUXING DEAL. YOUR. KID. IS. DEAD.

As a parent and a pedestrian and cyclist - you do your due diligence and expect that someone will be a distracted, bad, inefficient, terrible driver - at least for those few seconds that could kill you or your loved one.

[Anonymous]

The area is under construction (that was supposed to have been finished months ago) and the cross-walk USED to be a traffic light/interesection where visibility is much easier.

There are no warnings (no signs, blinking lights) to drivers that they are approaching a crosswalk so it comes as a surprise to drivers.
Add that fact to the child is blocked from view b/c of the car with the dash camera and approaching cars are blindsided for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The area is under construction (that was supposed to have been finished months ago) and the cross-walk USED to be a traffic light/interesection where visibility is much easier.

There are no warnings (no signs, blinking lights) to drivers that they are approaching a crosswalk so it comes as a surprise to drivers.
Add that fact to the child is blocked from view b/c of the car with the dash camera and approaching cars are blindsided for sure.

The driver was supposed to stop upon seeing the car with the dash camera, which was not blocked from view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a pedestrian or cyclist MAKE EYE CONTACT before crossing.

This is what they teach you on bike school. Yes, the driver who kills you in a crosswalk would be liable. But so what? Posters here who’d rather be right and dead. ....

Nobody has said that on this thread. In fact, nobody in my entire experience of discussions of transportation safety has ever said this. "The driver broke the law" is not a preference for being right and dead; it's a factual statement that the driver broke the law.

On the other side says: So what? Your small child is dead and here’s what you could have done in this scenario to prevent the accident.
A very hollow victory to strive to have the last word be “the driver broke the law.”

The last word for the driver would be "You killed a child." Would you be ok with that, if it were you? To go through the rest of your life knowing that you killed a child as a result of your own carelessness?

A driver may be traumatized for life; but the trauma to the parent who could have prevented it by keeping the kid from crossing alone would obviously be much worse. Does that really have to be stated?

Does it really have to be stated that the driver would be traumatized for life? Evidently, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I've never taken the WABA class, but I'd absolutely expect that it spends a fair amount of time on staying safe and visible in intersections. Their rule #6 is don't bike on sidewalks, so I assume this refers in part to the risks of biking across crosswalks.

http://www.waba.org/blog/2013/07/women-bicycles-tip-12-must-knows-of-urban-bicycling/

Why would you assume that "Don't bike on sidewalks" includes "Walk your bicycle across the street"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a pedestrian or cyclist MAKE EYE CONTACT before crossing.

This is what they teach you on bike school. Yes, the driver who kills you in a crosswalk would be liable. But so what? Posters here who’d rather be right and dead. ....

Nobody has said that on this thread. In fact, nobody in my entire experience of discussions of transportation safety has ever said this. "The driver broke the law" is not a preference for being right and dead; it's a factual statement that the driver broke the law.

On the other side says: So what? Your small child is dead and here’s what you could have done in this scenario to prevent the accident.
A very hollow victory to strive to have the last word be “the driver broke the law.”

The last word for the driver would be "You killed a child." Would you be ok with that, if it were you? To go through the rest of your life knowing that you killed a child as a result of your own carelessness?

A driver may be traumatized for life; but the trauma to the parent who could have prevented it by keeping the kid from crossing alone would obviously be much worse. Does that really have to be stated?

Does it really have to be stated that the driver would be traumatized for life? Evidently, yes.

Why all the debate? Freaking make eye contact! We have to take personal responsibility for our own actions too- even if the other person is breaking the law. I rather take the time and make sure that my family crosses safely and live than be right.

[Anonymous]

I think its just one pp who keeps circling back to driver’s at fault. Driver must stop. Driver will feel really bad after s/he kills a bicyclist. So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think its just one pp who keeps circling back to driver’s at fault. Driver must stop. Driver will feel really bad after s/he kills a bicyclist. So what?

What parts of this do you disagree with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've never taken the WABA class, but I'd absolutely expect that it spends a fair amount of time on staying safe and visible in intersections. Their rule #6 is don't bike on sidewalks, so I assume this refers in part to the risks of biking across crosswalks.

http://www.waba.org/blog/2013/07/women-bicycles-tip-12-must-knows-of-urban-bicycling/

Why would you assume that "Don't bike on sidewalks" includes "Walk your bicycle across the street"?

serious question - do you bike in cities? this isn't some kind of philosophical debate or language game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think its just one pp who keeps circling back to driver’s at fault. Driver must stop. Driver will feel really bad after s/he kills a bicyclist. So what?

Nope. I'm one PP, agreeing with other PPs, that the driver was at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why all the debate? Freaking make eye contact! We have to take personal responsibility for our own actions too- even if the other person is breaking the law. I rather take the time and make sure that my family crosses safely and live than be right.

Nobody is arguing against crossing with due care.

In contrast, some people seem to be unaware of laws that drivers are required to follow. I hope that these people aren't drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've never taken the WABA class, but I'd absolutely expect that it spends a fair amount of time on staying safe and visible in intersections. Their rule #6 is don't bike on sidewalks, so I assume this refers in part to the risks of biking across crosswalks.

http://www.waba.org/blog/2013/07/women-bicycles-tip-12-must-knows-of-urban-bicycling/

Why would you assume that "Don't bike on sidewalks" includes "Walk your bicycle across the street"?

serious question - do you bike in cities? this isn't some kind of philosophical debate or language game.

If everybody knows that you're supposed to walk your bicycle across the street, and all of the bicycling organizations tell you to walk your bicycle across the street, then it should be easy to find a link or two from a bicycling organization or advocacy group that tells you to walk your bicycle across the street. And yet nobody has done that on this thread yet. Why not?