The death of Allie Hart and the need for safer streets

[Anonymous]

I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids do dart out into the street though. When I walk with my young kids, I hold their hand. I don't let them bike or scooter because of this very scenario.

I feel very bad for her parents but I believe it was a tragic accident and that the driver didn't do anything wrong. You need to hold your young child's hand at all times on busy roads and intersections.

People don't "dart".

Also, as you say, kids are kids. They predictably behave in unpredictable ways. Why should we have to hold our young children's hands at all times, lest they be killed? Why shouldn't it be safe for kids to bike or scooter in their own neighborhoods? Why is it acceptable for streets to be unsafe - deadly - for children?

...because we don't want them to be killed on a busy street?? Are you for real?

You need to move to a cul de sac in a suburb with the way you want to go around oblivious in the world and not come to harm.

Lots of streets are busy. Fifth Avenue in New York last weekend was busy. You don't mean "a busy street", you mean "a street with lots of cars going fast". Why is it appropriate to have streets with lots of cars going fast, in a city?

Not really, I mean lots of cars on the road. A driver going under 20 is still going to kill a small child if they hit them head on.

This is exactly why pedestrians and bikers need to be careful and not oblivious like the PP wants to be.

Even when it really truly is an accident and no one can hold the driver at fault, the result is still going to be serious injury or death for the pedestrian just because of the weight and velocity of the car.

Now the PP will probably say we need to live in a world without cars. Since *that's* not going to happen, how about the parents of young children hold their hands on busy streets and intersections.

This is why drivers need to be careful not to hit and kill people. If you're not willing to accept that responsibility, you should not be allowed to drive.

lol ok

Do you make up your own reality for everything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are really bad at judging whether a car came to a full stop behind the white line. A stop sign camera went in near our neighborhood and the email list was flooded with idiots posting their videos saying "see? I STOPPED", but when you watch the video they either slowed some but didn't stop or stopped after the line. That kind of "stopping" can make the difference between life and death like for this little girl.

No, I don't trust MPD or eye witnesses. It's possible that the van driver stopped but I don't think it's likely. Otherwise they would have been able to see a girl biking towards them and not started driving forward.

He might have seen her but assumed she would stop at the curb. Pedestrians only have the right of way if they're waiting at the curb or are in the intersection.

I think it's strange that people are so determined to hold the driver at fault. I'm sure this has wrecked him. But the police would have charged him if there was evidence he did anything wrong.

The driver is at fault because drivers have a legal obligation to exercise due care to avoid hitting people, with extra precaution for children. That's the law.

Now, do I blame the driver? I guess so. But I blame DDOT more. And all the people who think their right to drive is more important than other people's right to live.

apparently the police didn't find evidence that he did not do this though. The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can't blame a child so who is really at fault here? The parent.

This is why you need to hold your kid's hand on busy streets!!!!

This faith in the police investigation is really ... something.

Why do you not hold the father at fault at all? Why wasn't he making her stay right next to him? Why didn't they have a strict rule in place that she was not to go into the street at all without him?? And if they can't trust her to follow the rule at all times, then he needs to hold her hand.

I'm a parent of young kids. I know what they're like. This is exactly why you hold their hands and don't give them the freedom to bike up and down busy streets.

I suspect what happened is the parent was biking slightly ahead of the child where they were both in the street at the same time. The driver could see the parent because their height was above the level of the bus, but could not see the child right behind him as her height was below the level of the bus. That explains why the driver "completely stopped." They stopped long enough for the parent, then proceeded when the child was still crossing right in front of the van. However, this also means the driver was not paying attention to the periphery and accelerated quickly once the father was right past the van.

A driver who is paying attention at a stop sign would notice who is entering from the side. Or then, perhaps even from the side, the view was obscured, again due to the height of the bus vs the height of the child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

This doesn't make sense though. If the father stopped, then the daughter should have stopped too. The only way it makes sense is that the father was behind the daughter and the driver didn't see the kid. He saw the father some yards away from the intersection and thought it was clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids do dart out into the street though. When I walk with my young kids, I hold their hand. I don't let them bike or scooter because of this very scenario.

I feel very bad for her parents but I believe it was a tragic accident and that the driver didn't do anything wrong. You need to hold your young child's hand at all times on busy roads and intersections.

People don't "dart".

Also, as you say, kids are kids. They predictably behave in unpredictable ways. Why should we have to hold our young children's hands at all times, lest they be killed? Why shouldn't it be safe for kids to bike or scooter in their own neighborhoods? Why is it acceptable for streets to be unsafe - deadly - for children?

...because we don't want them to be killed on a busy street?? Are you for real?

You need to move to a cul de sac in a suburb with the way you want to go around oblivious in the world and not come to harm.

Lots of streets are busy. Fifth Avenue in New York last weekend was busy. You don't mean "a busy street", you mean "a street with lots of cars going fast". Why is it appropriate to have streets with lots of cars going fast, in a city?

Not really, I mean lots of cars on the road. A driver going under 20 is still going to kill a small child if they hit them head on.

This is exactly why pedestrians and bikers need to be careful and not oblivious like the PP wants to be.

Even when it really truly is an accident and no one can hold the driver at fault, the result is still going to be serious injury or death for the pedestrian just because of the weight and velocity of the car.

Now the PP will probably say we need to live in a world without cars. Since *that's* not going to happen, how about the parents of young children hold their hands on busy streets and intersections.

This is why drivers need to be careful not to hit and kill people. If you're not willing to accept that responsibility, you should not be allowed to drive.

Yeah I don't understand why this is so hard. When I am driving down the street and I see kids on the sidewalk I am hyper aware and will slow down if I think they might chase a ball in the street (or cross IN A CROSSWALK which is a completely normal thing for a pedestrian to do). The other day I was walking while my kids was biking on the sidewalk. I was a few steps behind him. We were about a quarter block from the intersection when I noticed a pickup truck stopped in the middle of the street- he was going straight through the intersection and saw my kid on a bike and stopped in the middle of the street rather than go through the intersection on the off chance my child was not able to to did not stop. THAT is the type of driving every driver should do. If you think a kids might jump into the street, stop your car or slow down. It is not remotely rocket science, the brake pedal is inches from the gas pedal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

This doesn't make sense though. If the father stopped, then the daughter should have stopped too. The only way it makes sense is that the father was behind the daughter and the driver didn't see the kid. He saw the father some yards away from the intersection and thought it was clear.

To add to this, if the father stopped at the curb but the daughter kept going, then she would have had right of way and the driver would have been charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

This doesn't make sense though. If the father stopped, then the daughter should have stopped too. The only way it makes sense is that the father was behind the daughter and the driver didn't see the kid. He saw the father some yards away from the intersection and thought it was clear.

Well he was wrong. Thinking an intersection is clear because one person walked through it is not safe driving. He should have checked to see if anyone else was coming through.

[Anonymous]

I think the issue is that some of the overly defensive parents in here know that they are being unsafe by letting their kids bike and scoot on busy roads in cities. You shouldn't do that, it's not safe. It doesn't matter whether the driver is charged with a crime or not, your kid is still dead and is not ever coming back.

By the way, this is exactly why people move to quiet suburbs after they have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

This doesn't make sense though. If the father stopped, then the daughter should have stopped too. The only way it makes sense is that the father was behind the daughter and the driver didn't see the kid. He saw the father some yards away from the intersection and thought it was clear.

Well he was wrong. Thinking an intersection is clear because one person walked through it is not safe driving. He should have checked to see if anyone else was coming through.

and 100% the police would have charged the driver if this how it happened! He would have gotten a traffic ticket at the very least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

This doesn't make sense though. If the father stopped, then the daughter should have stopped too. The only way it makes sense is that the father was behind the daughter and the driver didn't see the kid. He saw the father some yards away from the intersection and thought it was clear.

To add to this, if the father stopped at the curb but the daughter kept going, then she would have had right of way and the driver would have been charged.

As a driver, if I see a child anywhere near an intersection where I'm stopping, I make sure I stay stopped long enough to ensure that a child is not setting foot into the intersection.

The parents have posted about van/bus size vs. child size so I stand by that I suspect something about the height of the bus was why the driver did not see the child (but again, I still think the driver was insufficiently paying attention).

My spouse would sometimes bike with elementary age DS just in the few blocks of our neighborhood and when he did so, he would lead into the intersection (i.e. ensure intersection clear, car stopped, proceed with son biking right behind). I made them stop after this story. I suspect that is what happened - parent ahead, van stop was technically "complete stop" for parent, but accelerated as soon as parent past hood, but still in street. It explains why multiple accounts have said parent was in crosswalk with child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that some of the overly defensive parents in here know that they are being unsafe by letting their kids bike and scoot on busy roads in cities. You shouldn't do that, it's not safe. It doesn't matter whether the driver is charged with a crime or not, your kid is still dead and is not ever coming back.

By the way, this is exactly why people move to quiet suburbs after they have kids.

It still happens in the burbs, What about this wouldn't happen in the burbs? This particular story happened in Brookland, not downtown, Brookland is fairly suburban anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

This doesn't make sense though. If the father stopped, then the daughter should have stopped too. The only way it makes sense is that the father was behind the daughter and the driver didn't see the kid. He saw the father some yards away from the intersection and thought it was clear.

Well he was wrong. Thinking an intersection is clear because one person walked through it is not safe driving. He should have checked to see if anyone else was coming through.

and 100% the police would have charged the driver if this how it happened! He would have gotten a traffic ticket at the very least.

Doubt it if the driver defense was that the child was below their ability to visualize. Police might not have charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't help but feel that a mother would be holding her hand

They were biking, likely the parent led into the intersection and the driver only stopped for the dad while not seeing the child whose height was below the level of the hood.

This doesn't make sense though. If the father stopped, then the daughter should have stopped too. The only way it makes sense is that the father was behind the daughter and the driver didn't see the kid. He saw the father some yards away from the intersection and thought it was clear.

To add to this, if the father stopped at the curb but the daughter kept going, then she would have had right of way and the driver would have been charged.

As a driver, if I see a child anywhere near an intersection where I'm stopping, I make sure I stay stopped long enough to ensure that a child is not setting foot into the intersection.

The parents have posted about van/bus size vs. child size so I stand by that I suspect something about the height of the bus was why the driver did not see the child (but again, I still think the driver was insufficiently paying attention).

My spouse would sometimes bike with elementary age DS just in the few blocks of our neighborhood and when he did so, he would lead into the intersection (i.e. ensure intersection clear, car stopped, proceed with son biking right behind). I made them stop after this story. I suspect that is what happened - parent ahead, van stop was technically "complete stop" for parent, but accelerated as soon as parent past hood, but still in street. It explains why multiple accounts have said parent was in crosswalk with child.

That is not enough. As a father, I would stop in the middle of the crosswalk, stand with the bike, with the car stopped and let my DC cross behind me. Cars will not resume motion, after a stop, if there is a person standing with a bike.

As a parent, i will put my life in front of the cars when DC is crossing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the issue is that some of the overly defensive parents in here know that they are being unsafe by letting their kids bike and scoot on busy roads in cities. You shouldn't do that, it's not safe. It doesn't matter whether the driver is charged with a crime or not, your kid is still dead and is not ever coming back.

By the way, this is exactly why people move to quiet suburbs after they have kids.

It still happens in the burbs, What about this wouldn't happen in the burbs? This particular story happened in Brookland, not downtown, Brookland is fairly suburban anyway.

People back over children in driveways, even with backup cameras and alarms. They speed through 25 mph streets and roll through stop signs at intersections where kids are playing and riding bikes. I've seen it happen in our neighborhood many times, and neighborhood parents are often the worst offenders. It may be worse here because there's a false sense that children are safer. It only takes a moment of distraction or insufficient attention.