Anonymous wrote:It is frightening how many people on this thread seem to be ignorant of the fact that drivers MUST STOP for pedestrians in a cross walk. Not *if there's a stop sign* or *if traffic is clear* or any other such baloney. You have to stop, period, the end.

it's frightening how many people think that it's ok to launch your 4 year old on a bike onto the streets of a city, just assuming that all cars will see her and stop when they are supposed to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course it's a question of what the law requires. If the passing driver had stopped, as the law requires, instead of driving into the crosswalk, we wouldn't be having this mis-titled thread. The passing driver almost killed a child, and you're focusing on what the parents did or didn't do.

Absolutely I'm focusing on the parents, because they are the ones chosing to bike, and not following basic defensive biking rules.

"Defensive biking rules" are guidelines, not state law.

So your saying that your role as a parent starts and ends at state law? That makes no sense. Will you teach your child the tenents of defensive driving, or just say "just follow the law and assume everyone else will too"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tractor trailer in the very beginning of the video... Is it legal for him to get in that turn lane and pass the sedan??

The dash camera car seems to get in the same lane around 6 seconds. But I don’t see any cars turning or roads to turn onto. No, you can’t cruise in a turning lane. So why the long turning lane? Looks like a poor design that further complicates this intersection.

It's illegal to drive in a turn lane. Neither of the drivers should have driven in it. I've been in a turn lane to make a left into a parking lot in the past and had people barrel towards me head-on at high speed because they were using the turn lane as a thru lane. I agree with those saying that the road needs redesigned right there. It doesn't seem safe. It could also use more crosswalk warning signs like they added to Veirs Mill Rd where Rock Creek Park crosses it. I know there were accidents (and deaths) there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a driver, you need to be smarter. It would be cold comfort to you that your driver's insurance paid out to the dead child's family, wouldn't it?

Don’t be ridiculous. A lot of things could be improved from that video. But between a driver and a parent, who do you rely on to be smarter when it comes to the safety of your child? If you say driver, you need to be smarter. Else, you could have an insurance payment and a funeral.

My personal opinion is that the people who have the potential to kill other people while traveling have the greatest responsibility to be careful.

The most careful behavior in the world can't prevent a careless driver from killing you. That's why we need to focus on the careless drivers.

Yeah, but this isn't about responsiblity. Life is not actually a jury trial (and juries get things wrong). Life as a parent is about understanding risks and taking appropriate action to protection your child. It's a weird, DC, privileged point of view to think that your parenting can be totally exempt from responsiblity about what actually happens in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a driver, you need to be smarter. It would be cold comfort to you that your driver's insurance paid out to the dead child's family, wouldn't it?

Don’t be ridiculous. A lot of things could be improved from that video. But between a driver and a parent, who do you rely on to be smarter when it comes to the safety of your child? If you say driver, you need to be smarter. Else, you could have an insurance payment and a funeral.

My personal opinion is that the people who have the potential to kill other people while traveling have the greatest responsibility to be careful.

The most careful behavior in the world can't prevent a careless driver from killing you. That's why we need to focus on the careless drivers.

Don’t be obtuse. Dismounting the bikes and waiting a completely clear road in time to cross or for the cars to all come to a stop would have prevented this near miss. Yeah, it’s a pain, takes longer, people get impatient. It’s what’s required here.

This may never happen on such an arterial road. Even getting all cars to stop is a long shot, many people don't stop until someone is actually IN the crosswalk and basically willing to play chicken. And the car had stopped for the TWO lanes they had entered; getting the 3rd lane of cars to stop while they were on the far side of the intersection -- NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. And while they are waiting for that 3rd lane to stop, the 1st and 2nd lane will get impatient and probably resume motion in impatience.

Sure. So what's the safe thing for a parent to do in this situation? Send their small child ahead to cross alone? No. It's either -- turn around and find a different route, or walk very carefully across with child at your side.

We always tell our kids - as a pedestrian or on a bike "you may have the right of way but you are the one who will end up dead or in the hospital" so its on you to be overly cautious.

We have all seen the multitudes of people who walk across intersections and don't look up from their phones or only look one way before crossing and cyclist who dont stop at intersections or for stop signs.

If you are the one who will be most hurt you have to look out for yourself and not expect any car to stop.

Well, if this thread has confirmed anything, it's that people who refer themselves as "experienced urban bikers" generally are unmitigated douchenozzles.

THere's a lot going on here. The Honda might have thought that the dash cam car was stopped to make a turn given that it was a turn lane if he or she is unfamiliar with the road. The Honda also might have seen the stopped car and the dad but not the mom and child (possibly blocked by dashcam car) and thought that the pedestrian (the dad) had successfully crossed and it was safe to go though.

Parents absolutely should walk with their kids in the cross walks if for no other reason than increased visibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, you never let a small child cross a street alone, the taller parent should have dismounted and walked the child across. Yes, the car seems reckless too but they couldn't see the little kid behind the vehicle in the turning lane. So lucky!

But if the child got hit, would the car be at fault? I don’t see why it actually would

This is not at all the car's fault -- it is the parent's/kid's fault

The car would not be at fault. The person driving the car would be at fault.

As a pedestrian or cyclist MAKE EYE CONTACT before crossing.

It is frightening how many people on this thread seem to be ignorant of the fact that drivers MUST STOP for pedestrians in a cross walk. Not *if there's a stop sign* or *if traffic is clear* or any other such baloney. You have to stop, period, the end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely I'm focusing on the parents, because they are the ones chosing to bike, and not following basic defensive biking rules.

What about the drivers, who were the ones choosing to drive, and not following basic driving laws?

Well it's not their child, is it? Yes, drivers should follow the laws, but basic rules of the road also mandate that you stay visible. Although you are apparently an inexperienced urban biker, experienced bikers know very well that shooting into intersections is not the way to stay visible to cars in intersections.

OK, I am going to shout now.

THEY DID NOT SHOOT INTO THE INTERSECTION.

I just watched the video again. The small child is absolutely going faster than walking speed. Plus she's short and even shorter on the bike, which makes her harder to see as well. Pedestrians never would have gone at that pace (and if her mom had been next to her, she would have seen the car coming and not have walked in that lane until she saw it had slowed.

Get real. People at DC intersections walk much faster than that every day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see people biking recklessly on Capitol Hill every freakin' day with kids. The latest was a guy with a tiny toddler (not even 2, I don't think) with no helmet on himself or his baby.

You are really going to try to turn this thread, which started off with video evidence of cyclists acting lawfully and a small child almost being killed by a driver disobeying the law, into a diatribe about how bad cyclists are?

Really?

you're an idiot.

it's a diatribe about how biking parents don't know how to bike defensively and are placing their kids at risk. which I see every day.

It's a diatribe about how bicyclists are responsible for their behavior but drivers aren't, even though it's the drivers placing the bicyclists at risk. Well, the drivers and the traffic engineers. This road is designed to endanger bicyclists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, you never let a small child cross a street alone, the taller parent should have dismounted and walked the child across. Yes, the car seems reckless too but they couldn't see the little kid behind the vehicle in the turning lane. So lucky!

But if the child got hit, would the car be at fault? I don’t see why it actually would

This is not at all the car's fault -- it is the parent's/kid's fault

Surely you're joking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a driver, you need to be smarter. It would be cold comfort to you that your driver's insurance paid out to the dead child's family, wouldn't it?

Don’t be ridiculous. A lot of things could be improved from that video. But between a driver and a parent, who do you rely on to be smarter when it comes to the safety of your child? If you say driver, you need to be smarter. Else, you could have an insurance payment and a funeral.

My personal opinion is that the people who have the potential to kill other people while traveling have the greatest responsibility to be careful.

The most careful behavior in the world can't prevent a careless driver from killing you. That's why we need to focus on the careless drivers.

Don’t be obtuse. Dismounting the bikes and waiting a completely clear road in time to cross or for the cars to all come to a stop would have prevented this near miss. Yeah, it’s a pain, takes longer, people get impatient. It’s what’s required here.

This may never happen on such an arterial road. Even getting all cars to stop is a long shot, many people don't stop until someone is actually IN the crosswalk and basically willing to play chicken. And the car had stopped for the TWO lanes they had entered; getting the 3rd lane of cars to stop while they were on the far side of the intersection -- NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. And while they are waiting for that 3rd lane to stop, the 1st and 2nd lane will get impatient and probably resume motion in impatience.