Anonymous wrote:A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I was reversing and only saw a kid in my rear view AFTER he had gone behind the car.

Ugh, what a nightmare. So sad for this family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it appropriate to tell your 5-year-old about something like this? Mine has been good about waiting for me at intersections but I wonder if one day he's going to get a crazy idea and decide he can cross by himself.

YES, it’s appropriate. I’d rather have a terrified kid than a dead kid.

Tell them. And then watch and supervise them carefully.

The parents will sue and receive a settlement. Instead, I am curious why the child was alone in the crosswalk. Wouldn't the parent have been hit, too, if she/he/they walked along side the child?

Anonymous wrote:Is it appropriate to tell your 5-year-old about something like this? Mine has been good about waiting for me at intersections but I wonder if one day he's going to get a crazy idea and decide he can cross by himself.

YES, it’s appropriate. I’d rather have a terrified kid than a dead kid.

Even if the driver came to a complete stop as reported, they still need to look for peds, bikes, kids, etc. before proceeding through the intersection. If I’m at a stop sign and I see people approaching the intersection - whether walking or on bikes/scooters - I pause to see whether they are going to walk into the crosswalk. I don’t speed off to avoid getting stuck as they cross the street. Yet most of the drivers I see while driving and walking through the city do exactly that - they stop and then gun it to get through so that they don’t have to stop for the peds.

If the little girl was going fast enough that she couldn’t stop or control her bike and rolled into the intersection, the question is: should the driver have seen her? Was the driver trying to take off too fast? Did the driver think s/he could pull through the crosswalk before the girl got off the curb? Coming to a complete stop does not exonerate the driver from all fault here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A five year old on a scooter or bike should be on the sidewalk or right next to a parent. Unless the van was driving on the sidewalk, I don't know why you would assume it was the driver's fault.

The child was in a crosswalk. There's no way for a driver to kill her unless they ran the stop sign. Even if the child got out ahead of her parents, an attentive driver who stopped at the sign would STILL have been able to stop.

That’s so obviously untrue. Have you really never once see a kid <5 yrs blast into the road (crosswalk) without stopping?? You know, barreling at a good clip down the ADA sidewalk ramp? Scooters are the most common method of this but I also see balance bikes and just plain running full bore.

Yes. Drivers need to to yield. Always. If you cannot reasonably see a thing to *yield to* though, it makes it pretty hard. Even at 5 mph

A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I agree this is how accidents happen with biking/scooting on the sidewalk. But this does not exonerate cars that whip around corners without stopping. If the van had come to a full stop before turning, the girl would not be dead.

Why don't you read the accounts of the incident before spouting such stupid sh!t?

Because initial police reports of bike/ped accidents are notorious for being wrong and letting the driver off. And because I don’t believe that the vehicle could have accelerated that quickly if they came to a full stop; and if it did floor it through the intersection after stopping, that is equally reckless. And drivers need to look both ways before driving thru crosswalks.

Translation: Because I prefer to believe that the facts that are true are different than those reported, because they suit my preconceived notions. And because I don't have a good grasp of physics.

translation: you have no understanding of the nature of pedestrians/bikers being killed by drivers, which fit predictable patterns. the van should not have been going more than 10mph thru the crosswalk, and a fatality at that speed would be very very rare.

So you have decided, not having been there, about how this happened, not based on any evidence, but because because of "predictable patterns," rather than accept the facts as reported by people that actually were there? As I said, you prefer to believe alternative facts because they fit your preferred narrative. Basically, you are the same as an election denying MAGAite. Congratulations, I guess.

My guess is as good as that police report, yes. And it’s very probable that the van must have been going too fast through the crosswalk. 10 mph would not have killed her. Pedestrian deaths are way up in the US due to reckless driving and poor design. Not sure why I should assume otherwise here.

Agree, 2+. If you come to a full stop, and then you hit someone *in a crosswalk* which is what? - 5-8 ft away - I don’t know how you even get to 10 mph unless you are flooring it. Seems like either a freak accident or a white wash report. If the driver’s not to blame it’s just a “tragedy” if s/he is, it’s someone’s responsibility (and the City’s potential liability). Pretty clear where the bias will lie.

yep. I think we all know what happened - van took the corner at 20-30 mph and was not looking.

FFS, stop spreading misinformation.

In a Tuesday statement, police said the driver of the van had come to a “complete stop” before proceeding through the intersection at 14th and Irving streets NE in the Brookland neighborhood. Police said the girl was “unable to stop her bicycle and entered the intersection into the path of the moving vehicle.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fatal-crash-girl-bicycle-washington/2021/09/14/67d4e70c-1568-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html

says the “preliminary investigation”.

Right. This is the evidence we have so far. I don’t know why people are so quick to blame the driver. There are obviously plenty of what-ifs but it still doesn’t mean that anyone was negligent. Sometimes an accident is just an accident.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A five year old on a scooter or bike should be on the sidewalk or right next to a parent. Unless the van was driving on the sidewalk, I don't know why you would assume it was the driver's fault.

The child was in a crosswalk. There's no way for a driver to kill her unless they ran the stop sign. Even if the child got out ahead of her parents, an attentive driver who stopped at the sign would STILL have been able to stop.

That’s so obviously untrue. Have you really never once see a kid <5 yrs blast into the road (crosswalk) without stopping?? You know, barreling at a good clip down the ADA sidewalk ramp? Scooters are the most common method of this but I also see balance bikes and just plain running full bore.

Yes. Drivers need to to yield. Always. If you cannot reasonably see a thing to *yield to* though, it makes it pretty hard. Even at 5 mph

A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I agree this is how accidents happen with biking/scooting on the sidewalk. But this does not exonerate cars that whip around corners without stopping. If the van had come to a full stop before turning, the girl would not be dead.

Why don't you read the accounts of the incident before spouting such stupid sh!t?

Because initial police reports of bike/ped accidents are notorious for being wrong and letting the driver off. And because I don’t believe that the vehicle could have accelerated that quickly if they came to a full stop; and if it did floor it through the intersection after stopping, that is equally reckless. And drivers need to look both ways before driving thru crosswalks.

Translation: Because I prefer to believe that the facts that are true are different than those reported, because they suit my preconceived notions. And because I don't have a good grasp of physics.

translation: you have no understanding of the nature of pedestrians/bikers being killed by drivers, which fit predictable patterns. the van should not have been going more than 10mph thru the crosswalk, and a fatality at that speed would be very very rare.

So you have decided, not having been there, about how this happened, not based on any evidence, but because because of "predictable patterns," rather than accept the facts as reported by people that actually were there? As I said, you prefer to believe alternative facts because they fit your preferred narrative. Basically, you are the same as an election denying MAGAite. Congratulations, I guess.

My guess is as good as that police report, yes. And it’s very probable that the van must have been going too fast through the crosswalk. 10 mph would not have killed her. Pedestrian deaths are way up in the US due to reckless driving and poor design. Not sure why I should assume otherwise here.

Agree, 2+. If you come to a full stop, and then you hit someone *in a crosswalk* which is what? - 5-8 ft away - I don’t know how you even get to 10 mph unless you are flooring it. Seems like either a freak accident or a white wash report. If the driver’s not to blame it’s just a “tragedy” if s/he is, it’s someone’s responsibility (and the City’s potential liability). Pretty clear where the bias will lie.

Are you really familiar with the intersection where this happened, where the driver stopped, and where the child was hit? I’m not. It seems like you’re certain that the child was hit in the crosswalk closest to where the driver stopped, but couldn’t she have been hit in the crosswalk on the opposite side of the intersection, much further than 8ft away from where the driver had stopped?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A five year old on a scooter or bike should be on the sidewalk or right next to a parent. Unless the van was driving on the sidewalk, I don't know why you would assume it was the driver's fault.

The child was in a crosswalk. There's no way for a driver to kill her unless they ran the stop sign. Even if the child got out ahead of her parents, an attentive driver who stopped at the sign would STILL have been able to stop.

That’s so obviously untrue. Have you really never once see a kid <5 yrs blast into the road (crosswalk) without stopping?? You know, barreling at a good clip down the ADA sidewalk ramp? Scooters are the most common method of this but I also see balance bikes and just plain running full bore.

Yes. Drivers need to to yield. Always. If you cannot reasonably see a thing to *yield to* though, it makes it pretty hard. Even at 5 mph

A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I agree this is how accidents happen with biking/scooting on the sidewalk. But this does not exonerate cars that whip around corners without stopping. If the van had come to a full stop before turning, the girl would not be dead.

Why don't you read the accounts of the incident before spouting such stupid sh!t?

Because initial police reports of bike/ped accidents are notorious for being wrong and letting the driver off. And because I don’t believe that the vehicle could have accelerated that quickly if they came to a full stop; and if it did floor it through the intersection after stopping, that is equally reckless. And drivers need to look both ways before driving thru crosswalks.

Translation: Because I prefer to believe that the facts that are true are different than those reported, because they suit my preconceived notions. And because I don't have a good grasp of physics.

translation: you have no understanding of the nature of pedestrians/bikers being killed by drivers, which fit predictable patterns. the van should not have been going more than 10mph thru the crosswalk, and a fatality at that speed would be very very rare.

So you have decided, not having been there, about how this happened, not based on any evidence, but because because of "predictable patterns," rather than accept the facts as reported by people that actually were there? As I said, you prefer to believe alternative facts because they fit your preferred narrative. Basically, you are the same as an election denying MAGAite. Congratulations, I guess.

My guess is as good as that police report, yes. And it’s very probable that the van must have been going too fast through the crosswalk. 10 mph would not have killed her. Pedestrian deaths are way up in the US due to reckless driving and poor design. Not sure why I should assume otherwise here.

Agree, 2+. If you come to a full stop, and then you hit someone *in a crosswalk* which is what? - 5-8 ft away - I don’t know how you even get to 10 mph unless you are flooring it. Seems like either a freak accident or a white wash report. If the driver’s not to blame it’s just a “tragedy” if s/he is, it’s someone’s responsibility (and the City’s potential liability). Pretty clear where the bias will lie.

yep. I think we all know what happened - van took the corner at 20-30 mph and was not looking.

FFS, stop spreading misinformation.

In a Tuesday statement, police said the driver of the van had come to a “complete stop” before proceeding through the intersection at 14th and Irving streets NE in the Brookland neighborhood. Police said the girl was “unable to stop her bicycle and entered the intersection into the path of the moving vehicle.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fatal-crash-girl-bicycle-washington/2021/09/14/67d4e70c-1568-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html

says the “preliminary investigation”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What nonsense. Kids die in driveways all the time when their parents run over them, all much less than 10 mph.

not nonsense.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/05/31/3-graphs-that-explain-why-20-mph-should-be-the-limit-on-city-streets/

That data is for adults. Not 5 year olds. It isn’t relevant.

here you go, have fun. speed and severity of injury are related for all ages.

https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf

this is why there is a growing movement for 20mph speed limit.

I fully support the 20 mph speed limit. They’ve recently dropped the limit on my residential DC street to 20 and cars are still flying by at 35 mph or faster, ignoring stop signs. Dropping the speed limit isn’t enough and I’d love some traffic calming as well, which I’ve said to DDOT and my ANC rep.

But I still don’t get what this has to do with the tragic accident yesterday evening. I don’t see that this report says that an accident when a car is traveling at a slow speed cannot be fatal. I see it saying that faster speeds are more likely to be fatal or result in serious injury. I don’t understand why you’re offering this to contradict the police report that says the driver stopped and then proceeded into the intersection. I haven’t heard of any witness accounts that counter that report.

I think this is so unthinkably awful, that people are looking for some one to blame - driver, parents, child, infrastructure. If someone did something wrong we can distance ourselves from it, it won’t happen to us because we won’t make that mistake. But sometimes there really isn’t anyone to blame. This was just a fluke. A horrible, unimaginably awful fluke where this poor child and that van were at exactly the wrong place at the wrong time and it could have happened to any one of us. Which is even more terrifying.

The Hill on Irving is pretty step, especially for a new rider. This is a terrible tragedy. Full stop.

Have some grace for this family. If it was your child (your only child)would you want complete strangers on the internet rehashing and providing armchair commentary on your worst nightmare?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A five year old on a scooter or bike should be on the sidewalk or right next to a parent. Unless the van was driving on the sidewalk, I don't know why you would assume it was the driver's fault.

The child was in a crosswalk. There's no way for a driver to kill her unless they ran the stop sign. Even if the child got out ahead of her parents, an attentive driver who stopped at the sign would STILL have been able to stop.

That’s so obviously untrue. Have you really never once see a kid <5 yrs blast into the road (crosswalk) without stopping?? You know, barreling at a good clip down the ADA sidewalk ramp? Scooters are the most common method of this but I also see balance bikes and just plain running full bore.

Yes. Drivers need to to yield. Always. If you cannot reasonably see a thing to *yield to* though, it makes it pretty hard. Even at 5 mph

A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I agree this is how accidents happen with biking/scooting on the sidewalk. But this does not exonerate cars that whip around corners without stopping. If the van had come to a full stop before turning, the girl would not be dead.

Why don't you read the accounts of the incident before spouting such stupid sh!t?

Because initial police reports of bike/ped accidents are notorious for being wrong and letting the driver off. And because I don’t believe that the vehicle could have accelerated that quickly if they came to a full stop; and if it did floor it through the intersection after stopping, that is equally reckless. And drivers need to look both ways before driving thru crosswalks.

Translation: Because I prefer to believe that the facts that are true are different than those reported, because they suit my preconceived notions. And because I don't have a good grasp of physics.

translation: you have no understanding of the nature of pedestrians/bikers being killed by drivers, which fit predictable patterns. the van should not have been going more than 10mph thru the crosswalk, and a fatality at that speed would be very very rare.

So you have decided, not having been there, about how this happened, not based on any evidence, but because because of "predictable patterns," rather than accept the facts as reported by people that actually were there? As I said, you prefer to believe alternative facts because they fit your preferred narrative. Basically, you are the same as an election denying MAGAite. Congratulations, I guess.

My guess is as good as that police report, yes. And it’s very probable that the van must have been going too fast through the crosswalk. 10 mph would not have killed her. Pedestrian deaths are way up in the US due to reckless driving and poor design. Not sure why I should assume otherwise here.

Agree, 2+. If you come to a full stop, and then you hit someone *in a crosswalk* which is what? - 5-8 ft away - I don’t know how you even get to 10 mph unless you are flooring it. Seems like either a freak accident or a white wash report. If the driver’s not to blame it’s just a “tragedy” if s/he is, it’s someone’s responsibility (and the City’s potential liability). Pretty clear where the bias will lie.

You are misunderstanding. Nothing said the driver was going 10 MPH. The PP (mistakenly) believes that a small child will always survive being hit by car, even at speeds as low as 10 MPH.

huh? you’re confused. the point is the driver should have been going no faster than 10mph if crossing from a full stop, and the chances of surviving and accident at 10mph are high. thus driver likely did not stop and was going too fast, and that is why child died. also coming to a full stop and proceeding slowly would have given the driver better chance of seeing the child.

How did a small child get out alone into an intersection without a parent there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A five year old on a scooter or bike should be on the sidewalk or right next to a parent. Unless the van was driving on the sidewalk, I don't know why you would assume it was the driver's fault.

The child was in a crosswalk. There's no way for a driver to kill her unless they ran the stop sign. Even if the child got out ahead of her parents, an attentive driver who stopped at the sign would STILL have been able to stop.

That’s so obviously untrue. Have you really never once see a kid <5 yrs blast into the road (crosswalk) without stopping?? You know, barreling at a good clip down the ADA sidewalk ramp? Scooters are the most common method of this but I also see balance bikes and just plain running full bore.

Yes. Drivers need to to yield. Always. If you cannot reasonably see a thing to *yield to* though, it makes it pretty hard. Even at 5 mph

A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I agree this is how accidents happen with biking/scooting on the sidewalk. But this does not exonerate cars that whip around corners without stopping. If the van had come to a full stop before turning, the girl would not be dead.

Why don't you read the accounts of the incident before spouting such stupid sh!t?

Because initial police reports of bike/ped accidents are notorious for being wrong and letting the driver off. And because I don’t believe that the vehicle could have accelerated that quickly if they came to a full stop; and if it did floor it through the intersection after stopping, that is equally reckless. And drivers need to look both ways before driving thru crosswalks.

Translation: Because I prefer to believe that the facts that are true are different than those reported, because they suit my preconceived notions. And because I don't have a good grasp of physics.

translation: you have no understanding of the nature of pedestrians/bikers being killed by drivers, which fit predictable patterns. the van should not have been going more than 10mph thru the crosswalk, and a fatality at that speed would be very very rare.

So you have decided, not having been there, about how this happened, not based on any evidence, but because because of "predictable patterns," rather than accept the facts as reported by people that actually were there? As I said, you prefer to believe alternative facts because they fit your preferred narrative. Basically, you are the same as an election denying MAGAite. Congratulations, I guess.

My guess is as good as that police report, yes. And it’s very probable that the van must have been going too fast through the crosswalk. 10 mph would not have killed her. Pedestrian deaths are way up in the US due to reckless driving and poor design. Not sure why I should assume otherwise here.

Agree, 2+. If you come to a full stop, and then you hit someone *in a crosswalk* which is what? - 5-8 ft away - I don’t know how you even get to 10 mph unless you are flooring it. Seems like either a freak accident or a white wash report. If the driver’s not to blame it’s just a “tragedy” if s/he is, it’s someone’s responsibility (and the City’s potential liability). Pretty clear where the bias will lie.

yep. I think we all know what happened - van took the corner at 20-30 mph and was not looking.

FFS, stop spreading misinformation.

In a Tuesday statement, police said the driver of the van had come to a “complete stop” before proceeding through the intersection at 14th and Irving streets NE in the Brookland neighborhood. Police said the girl was “unable to stop her bicycle and entered the intersection into the path of the moving vehicle.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fatal-crash-girl-bicycle-washington/2021/09/14/67d4e70c-1568-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A five year old on a scooter or bike should be on the sidewalk or right next to a parent. Unless the van was driving on the sidewalk, I don't know why you would assume it was the driver's fault.

The child was in a crosswalk. There's no way for a driver to kill her unless they ran the stop sign. Even if the child got out ahead of her parents, an attentive driver who stopped at the sign would STILL have been able to stop.

That’s so obviously untrue. Have you really never once see a kid <5 yrs blast into the road (crosswalk) without stopping?? You know, barreling at a good clip down the ADA sidewalk ramp? Scooters are the most common method of this but I also see balance bikes and just plain running full bore.

Yes. Drivers need to to yield. Always. If you cannot reasonably see a thing to *yield to* though, it makes it pretty hard. Even at 5 mph

A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I agree this is how accidents happen with biking/scooting on the sidewalk. But this does not exonerate cars that whip around corners without stopping. If the van had come to a full stop before turning, the girl would not be dead.

Why don't you read the accounts of the incident before spouting such stupid sh!t?

Because initial police reports of bike/ped accidents are notorious for being wrong and letting the driver off. And because I don’t believe that the vehicle could have accelerated that quickly if they came to a full stop; and if it did floor it through the intersection after stopping, that is equally reckless. And drivers need to look both ways before driving thru crosswalks.

Translation: Because I prefer to believe that the facts that are true are different than those reported, because they suit my preconceived notions. And because I don't have a good grasp of physics.

translation: you have no understanding of the nature of pedestrians/bikers being killed by drivers, which fit predictable patterns. the van should not have been going more than 10mph thru the crosswalk, and a fatality at that speed would be very very rare.

So you have decided, not having been there, about how this happened, not based on any evidence, but because because of "predictable patterns," rather than accept the facts as reported by people that actually were there? As I said, you prefer to believe alternative facts because they fit your preferred narrative. Basically, you are the same as an election denying MAGAite. Congratulations, I guess.

My guess is as good as that police report, yes. And it’s very probable that the van must have been going too fast through the crosswalk. 10 mph would not have killed her. Pedestrian deaths are way up in the US due to reckless driving and poor design. Not sure why I should assume otherwise here.

Agree, 2+. If you come to a full stop, and then you hit someone *in a crosswalk* which is what? - 5-8 ft away - I don’t know how you even get to 10 mph unless you are flooring it. Seems like either a freak accident or a white wash report. If the driver’s not to blame it’s just a “tragedy” if s/he is, it’s someone’s responsibility (and the City’s potential liability). Pretty clear where the bias will lie.

You are misunderstanding. Nothing said the driver was going 10 MPH. The PP (mistakenly) believes that a small child will always survive being hit by car, even at speeds as low as 10 MPH.

huh? you’re confused. the point is the driver should have been going no faster than 10mph if crossing from a full stop, and the chances of surviving and accident at 10mph are high. thus driver likely did not stop and was going too fast, and that is why child died. also coming to a full stop and proceeding slowly would have given the driver better chance of seeing the child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A five year old on a scooter or bike should be on the sidewalk or right next to a parent. Unless the van was driving on the sidewalk, I don't know why you would assume it was the driver's fault.

The child was in a crosswalk. There's no way for a driver to kill her unless they ran the stop sign. Even if the child got out ahead of her parents, an attentive driver who stopped at the sign would STILL have been able to stop.

That’s so obviously untrue. Have you really never once see a kid <5 yrs blast into the road (crosswalk) without stopping?? You know, barreling at a good clip down the ADA sidewalk ramp? Scooters are the most common method of this but I also see balance bikes and just plain running full bore.

Yes. Drivers need to to yield. Always. If you cannot reasonably see a thing to *yield to* though, it makes it pretty hard. Even at 5 mph

A 42” tall child fast approaching from your right if you’re in a tall van at dusk-darkness is almost impossible to see.

Peace to her family

I agree this is how accidents happen with biking/scooting on the sidewalk. But this does not exonerate cars that whip around corners without stopping. If the van had come to a full stop before turning, the girl would not be dead.

Why don't you read the accounts of the incident before spouting such stupid sh!t?

Because initial police reports of bike/ped accidents are notorious for being wrong and letting the driver off. And because I don’t believe that the vehicle could have accelerated that quickly if they came to a full stop; and if it did floor it through the intersection after stopping, that is equally reckless. And drivers need to look both ways before driving thru crosswalks.

Translation: Because I prefer to believe that the facts that are true are different than those reported, because they suit my preconceived notions. And because I don't have a good grasp of physics.

translation: you have no understanding of the nature of pedestrians/bikers being killed by drivers, which fit predictable patterns. the van should not have been going more than 10mph thru the crosswalk, and a fatality at that speed would be very very rare.

So you have decided, not having been there, about how this happened, not based on any evidence, but because because of "predictable patterns," rather than accept the facts as reported by people that actually were there? As I said, you prefer to believe alternative facts because they fit your preferred narrative. Basically, you are the same as an election denying MAGAite. Congratulations, I guess.

My guess is as good as that police report, yes. And it’s very probable that the van must have been going too fast through the crosswalk. 10 mph would not have killed her. Pedestrian deaths are way up in the US due to reckless driving and poor design. Not sure why I should assume otherwise here.

Agree, 2+. If you come to a full stop, and then you hit someone *in a crosswalk* which is what? - 5-8 ft away - I don’t know how you even get to 10 mph unless you are flooring it. Seems like either a freak accident or a white wash report. If the driver’s not to blame it’s just a “tragedy” if s/he is, it’s someone’s responsibility (and the City’s potential liability). Pretty clear where the bias will lie.

But what is the bicycle hit the car?

bike in crosswalk has the right of way.