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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Legally, the SUV driver would be wrong. The law requires them to stop at the crosswalk to yield to those crossing, and the SUV didn't do that. It doesn't matter how many excuses they make for why they didn't see the girl, they are legally obligated to make sure the crosswalk is clear before proceeding through it. The SUV driver did not do that here.
Does legal liability absolve the parents of supervising their children in a safe manner?
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t seem like an appropriate road for a family bike ride with such a little biker. Maybe they’re only on it for a very short distance to get from their house to a quieter street or a trail, but cars go pretty fast, there are hills and curves, no bike lanes. Yeesh.
Did you watch the video?? They were on a bike trail. Simply crossing the busy road to return to the trail.
They should have gotten off their bikes and walked. 100%.
Why do you think it's safer to walk your bike across a road than to ride your bike?
This is BASIC urban biking 101, and if you don't know the answer, I sure hope you aren't biking your kids all over DC.
But, in the spirit of public education: biking through a crosswalk (especially entering from a sidewalk or bike trail) is dangerous because you're moving at a speed the car doesn't expect. A car is looking for someone moving at PEDESTRIAN speed, not bike speed.
First, they stopped, didn't they? And the little kid was hardly speeding across the trail crossing at Lance Armstrong speed.
Second, drivers at bicycle trail crossings darn well better be looking for someone moving at bicycle speed. If they're unable to do that, they shouldn't be driving.
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.
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.
Legally, the SUV driver would be wrong. The law requires them to stop at the crosswalk to yield to those crossing, and the SUV didn't do that. It doesn't matter how many excuses they make for why they didn't see the girl, they are legally obligated to make sure the crosswalk is clear before proceeding through it. The SUV driver did not do that here.
Does legal liability absolve the parents of supervising their children in a safe manner?
The parents were supervising their child. The only reason the child was able to stop in time to avoid the SUV was because mom saw the SUV and yelled for her to stop.
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.
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.
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.
Legally, the SUV driver would be wrong. The law requires them to stop at the crosswalk to yield to those crossing, and the SUV didn't do that. It doesn't matter how many excuses they make for why they didn't see the girl, they are legally obligated to make sure the crosswalk is clear before proceeding through it. The SUV driver did not do that here.
Does legal liability absolve the parents of supervising their children in a safe manner?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t seem like an appropriate road for a family bike ride with such a little biker. Maybe they’re only on it for a very short distance to get from their house to a quieter street or a trail, but cars go pretty fast, there are hills and curves, no bike lanes. Yeesh.
Did you watch the video?? They were on a bike trail. Simply crossing the busy road to return to the trail.
They should have gotten off their bikes and walked. 100%.
Why do you think it's safer to walk your bike across a road than to ride your bike?
This is BASIC urban biking 101, and if you don't know the answer, I sure hope you aren't biking your kids all over DC.
But, in the spirit of public education: biking through a crosswalk (especially entering from a sidewalk or bike trail) is dangerous because you're moving at a speed the car doesn't expect. A car is looking for someone moving at PEDESTRIAN speed, not bike speed.
First, they stopped, didn't they? And the little kid was hardly speeding across the trail crossing at Lance Armstrong speed.
Second, drivers at bicycle trail crossings darn well better be looking for someone moving at bicycle speed. If they're unable to do that, they shouldn't be driving.