Be careful biking with your family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You must as a pedestrian walk as if people will not stop or do not notice you. The parents should have walked the child across - somebody may not have been able to see the child or thought that the crossing pedestrians have already completed crossing. Not only that, you have distracted drivers, elderly drivers, inexperienced drivers, drivers with bad brakes, ice, etc . Be a defensive pedestrian not an entitled one.

This would have been a close call even if the mother was walking next to the kid. The driver illegally sped past the car stopped at the crosswalk. The mother prevented an accident by yelling at her child to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. It's disturbing that some people look at the video and find fault with the parents and ignore the suv blatantly breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wish eye contact was that effective. I was walking home the other evening, pushing kid in a bob stroller. I stop at the curb as the driver pulled up to the stop sign on a small side street. I made eye contact, I waved-he most definitely saw me and acknowledged me-he was just a couple yards away, and then as I push the stroller into the street, he hits the gas! And his feelings were all hurt because I was screaming at him and not letting him go. As someone who is a pedestrian every day, it just isn't possible to be safe, because no matter how defensive I am/bright colors/lights on my stroller, drivers are just in their own bubble of not thinking this could be the day they kill someone and driving accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well they are arguing about who is to blame - why not talk about how to cross safely - agree on eye contact!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Again, do you think this is some kind of college dorm room debate?

The cornerstone of safe biking is staying visible to cars and not getting yourself in a position where they'll run over you.

The issue with crosswalks comes up mainly in the context of sidewalk biking, for which I provided extensive links.

But I'll explain it again: when a bike (or scooter or other vehicle) comes off the sidewalk into the intersection (i.e., in a crosswalk) it is not visible to cars, because cars may not be able to see and don't expect to see something traveling at the speed of a bike in the crosswalk, and do not have time to stop. This applies equally to a bike path like in the video. Additionally, there are parked cars and trees and other obstacles that can make it hard for both bikers and car to see each other from the sidewalk. Thus, the advice is to either get off your bike and walk it across the crosswalk, or proceed VERY carefully and slowly if you are SURE that there are no cars approaching in any direction.

[Anonymous]

I wish eye contact was that effective. I was walking home the other evening, pushing kid in a bob stroller. I stop at the curb as the driver pulled up to the stop sign on a small side street. I made eye contact, I waved-he most definitely saw me and acknowledged me-he was just a couple yards away, and then as I push the stroller into the street, he hits the gas! And his feelings were all hurt because I was screaming at him and not letting him go. As someone who is a pedestrian every day, it just isn't possible to be safe, because no matter how defensive I am/bright colors/lights on my stroller, drivers are just in their own bubble of not thinking this could be the day they kill someone and driving accordingly.[/quote]

In that case, he may have interpreted your wave as a sign he should go ahead. I often wave drivers on in that way. If you were at a marked cross walk, you had the right of way. If not, he had the right of way. It's pretty much that simple.

[Anonymous]

Drivers that fly through a cross walk when another car is already stopped for a pedestrian are the worst

Risking everyone's lives for a few seconds of their own convenience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, do you think this is some kind of college dorm room debate?

The cornerstone of safe biking is staying visible to cars and not getting yourself in a position where they'll run over you.

The issue with crosswalks comes up mainly in the context of sidewalk biking, for which I provided extensive links.

But I'll explain it again: when a bike (or scooter or other vehicle) comes off the sidewalk into the intersection (i.e., in a crosswalk) it is not visible to cars, because cars may not be able to see and don't expect to see something traveling at the speed of a bike in the crosswalk, and do not have time to stop. This applies equally to a bike path like in the video. Additionally, there are parked cars and trees and other obstacles that can make it hard for both bikers and car to see each other from the sidewalk. Thus, the advice is to either get off your bike and walk it across the crosswalk, or proceed VERY carefully and slowly if you are SURE that there are no cars approaching in any direction.

You keep saying that that's the advice. But who is providing this advice, besides you?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

I wish eye contact was that effective. I was walking home the other evening, pushing kid in a bob stroller. I stop at the curb as the driver pulled up to the stop sign on a small side street. I made eye contact, I waved-he most definitely saw me and acknowledged me-he was just a couple yards away, and then as I push the stroller into the street, he hits the gas! And his feelings were all hurt because I was screaming at him and not letting him go. As someone who is a pedestrian every day, it just isn't possible to be safe, because no matter how defensive I am/bright colors/lights on my stroller, drivers are just in their own bubble of not thinking this could be the day they kill someone and driving accordingly.[/quote]

In that case, he may have interpreted your wave as a sign he should go ahead. I often wave drivers on in that way. If you were at a marked cross walk, you had the right of way. If not, he had the right of way. It's pretty much that simple.
[/quote]

It was a yes, thanks wave (I made eye contact, and then started moving as I gave the thanks wave) not a go ahead wave. I clearly had the right of way and shouldn't have to wave or make eye contact, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drivers that fly through a cross walk when another car is already stopped for a pedestrian are the worst

Risking everyone's lives for a few seconds of their own convenience

There is a crosswalk near my house and cars do this all the time, sometimes when I’m in the crosswalk.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

In that case, he may have interpreted your wave as a sign he should go ahead. I often wave drivers on in that way. If you were at a marked cross walk, you had the right of way. If not, he had the right of way. It's pretty much that simple.
[/quote]

That's incorrect, at least in Maryland. Drivers must stop for pedestrians in marked AND unmarked crosswalks - and there is a crosswalk at every intersection. Drivers only have the right-of-way when the pedestrian is crossing mid-block, between intersections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well they are arguing about who is to blame - why not talk about how to cross safely - agree on eye contact!!!!

Why not talk about how to drive safely? Agree on obeying the law by stopping at crosswalks and not passing other vehicles stopped at crosswalks!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well they are arguing about who is to blame - why not talk about how to cross safely - agree on eye contact!!!!

Why not talk about how to drive safely? Agree on obeying the law by stopping at crosswalks and not passing other vehicles stopped at crosswalks!!!!

It seems like a lot of the people posting here think cars have the right of way unless they explicitly give you permission to cross when in fact it is the opposit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Drivers that fly through a cross walk when another car is already stopped for a pedestrian are the worst

Risking everyone's lives for a few seconds of their own convenience

There is a crosswalk near my house and cars do this all the time, sometimes when I’m in the crosswalk.

I had a truck driver drive up on me when I was crossing in a crosswalk-I started as soon as the walk light went on, walked quickly, and was exiting while the flashing person was on. He was screaming at me that I wasn't allowed to be in the crosswalk once the crosswalk light started flashing while he drove a large truck at me. This is a person who drives for a living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wish eye contact was that effective. I was walking home the other evening, pushing kid in a bob stroller. I stop at the curb as the driver pulled up to the stop sign on a small side street. I made eye contact, I waved-he most definitely saw me and acknowledged me-he was just a couple yards away, and then as I push the stroller into the street, he hits the gas! And his feelings were all hurt because I was screaming at him and not letting him go. As someone who is a pedestrian every day, it just isn't possible to be safe, because no matter how defensive I am/bright colors/lights on my stroller, drivers are just in their own bubble of not thinking this could be the day they kill someone and driving accordingly.

He was an idiot!