12 year old girl hit by car

[Willy]

http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/group/bumps/forum/topics/anatomy-o...

I'm replying to the post by X regarding the 12 year old girl.

The reports are to conflicting to make an accurate judgement because according to the WWMT report  both vehicles were moving in the same direction while the WOOD report says one car was heading west while turning south, that would put the accident on the east side of the intersection and the WHTC report claims the car was heading east while turning left which would be north and would put the accident on the west side of the intersection.  It's a little confusing, like trying to figure out who's on first.  But in either case all the reports claim the girl crossed against the light and the vehicles had the right of way so until a more detailed and accurate report is forthcoming It seems that the girl caused her own problem.
 

[Lisa O'Brien]

I agree - terrible tragedy but from what I read the drivers weren't negligent.

 

[XLFD]

The most recent and descriptive article by WOOD has the girl going north across the street, going around a left (north) turning car (pointed to the east) in the left turn lane, was hit in the next lane by a car going west.  Another bit of irony was that the driver was a counselor at the school.  This reminds me so much of the Hesperia 12 year old girl who was hit on her bicycle in 2010 crossing a similar road with relatively high speeds yet with high visibility by one of the teachers at her school. 

I place myself in the car that hit her.  I would have been alert to kids near the road near a school.  I would have been paying attention, I would have seen her going up to Riley Street even while noting I had a green light, I would have saw her enter the road and go around the left turning car, that car which couldn't turn because I was coming on.  I would have slowed and looked at Justice's intentions-- I have already seen her enter the roadway against the light.  I would have made it a conscious decision to be sure I was able to stop if she continued.  Would I have been happy, no, but I would have at least prevented an avoidable accident. 

And yet the driver has said they didn't see the girl.  That's not paying adequate attention in my book.

And never will the majority of people who wouldn't do these precautions or pay adequate attention to driving, ever see negligence or fault with the vehicle that hits the youth as this one did.  They are just happy that it hasn't happened to them yet. 

They will find fault with the girl going across the street against a green light, and going around a car that's in the crosswalk, but will they fault the traffic engineer for not installing pedestrian lights for the schoolkid traffic? 

About 50 ft from behind where the girl was hit, there was a brilliant yellow "school crossing" sign and on Riley the speed limit is 50 mph.   

[Lisa O'Brien]

The woman that hit her was 60 - who knows maybe her eyesight is not the greatest. The accident was very unfortunate - but realistically unless you were in the drivers seat at that moment you can't say for sure that you would have seen her. I personally do not look for people running out from behind cars in the left turn lane, I generally am more focused on what is going on at road side.

[XLFD]

And Justice Alberta was twelve and maybe her cognitive skills were not the greatest. 

I can't say that I've been wide alert 100% of the time behind the wheel, but I try to be, and I personally feel I have a civic duty to do so.  Driving a couple tons of metal and space age plastic down the road is a privilege, and if you abuse that privilege by neglecting the safety of those who have a right to travel by foot you should be sanctioned, not pitied.

If I were the driver in this case, and if I was truthful in saying that I didn't see the girl, given the layout of the street, I would expect to be punished.  I would have to beg for the punishment though, since 90% plus of the population would want to blame the girl for the accident.

[Willy]

X. Your assuming the girl was visible. Your are saying, if you were driving, that you are seeing the girl on the sidewalk at all times. That makes me wonder what you would not be seeing while focusing on her because there's more to see than someone on the sidewalk. There are 4 sidewalks, streets going in 4 directions, cars moving in 4 directions, cars turning, traffic signs to observe, traffic light to observe and everything else that goes on at an intersection but you say that the driver should have been focusing on that particular girl. If there were pedistrians on all 4 sidewalks which pedestrian should she have been focusing on? Maybe the driver was focusing on another child who was on the opposite corner. The girl  could have been standing behind the car then ran out when she thought traffic had cleared. The woman may have had a millisecond to react. Not even a race car driver is that fast. Or the girl could have left the curb just as another car went by which would have concealed her from the driver who hit her. The girl may have ran across the street and given the driver no time to react. Most drivers who are paying attention have many things to keep track of. I for one am always looking left and right as I enter an intersection to make sure noone is running the red light which has happened to me many times. I feel terrible for the girl and her family but she was 12 years old which makes her old enough to know better than to cross a busy street against the light.

[XLFD]

That's a lot of ifs, could-have-beens, and maybes, Willy.  But you will always notice that few, if any,  ifs, could-have-beens and maybes you state ever get addressed in the police reports and media reports of this and other pedestrian traffic accidents.  A whole cavalcade of circumstances could have been present, but the driver saying she had a green light and didn't see her is sufficient for making her the secondary victim here.  I don't agree, and that makes me a minority, unfortunately.

A child, blind person, or obviously confused person enters the roadway and my rights to go by dint of that green light get trumped by my duties to miss hitting them at all costs. 

[Lisa O'Brien]

Personally I think the response of "I didn't see her is sufficient". That was the facts of her situation. If she had saw the girl she probably would have tried to avoid her. I personally don't agree with the statement of it being the drivers responsibilities to avoid hitting a child, blind person or confused person at all cost either. I travel in a city that has a lot of pedestrian foot traffic and I do watch all the time when driving down the roadways especially at intersections - but if I'm driving 30 down the road and see people standing on the corner - if I have the right away if one of them decide to walk in front of my moving vehicle that is all on them, I'm not going to swerve to avoid them, in the process I could hit another car and cause them great injury. Sometimes people make stupid mistakes and it costs them their lives it's sad but it's true. If your not following the rules of the road and you get hurt that is your responsibility and blame should not be assigned to the poor person who unfortunately harmed or killed you.

[XLFD]

Then why isn't the excuse of "I didn't see her" sufficient for the pedestrian, to assuage any guilt she may have had?  Here are some pertinent Michigan laws, which are mostly universal to other parts of the continent as well.  Some surprising results occur on application:

 

1)  The intersection had no pedestrian signals, just the traffic lights MCL 257.613 says that

If special pedestrian control signals are not utilized, the regular traffic control signals shall apply to pedestrians as follows:  Steady red indication: Pedestrians facing the signal shall not enter the highway unless they can do so safely and without interfering with vehicular traffic.

Justice perceived it to be safe to cross, even though the cross street had a green.  What she did was within the law.  The car turning left in front of her, was almost assuredly blocking the crosswalk in trying to see its own cross traffic.  She went around behind it, so as not to interfere with vehicle traffic on that lane.

 

2)  The left turning vehicle, if it was blocking Justice's legal movement across the road on the crosswalk, was there unlawfully.  Rule 438 of the UTC says: A driver shall not enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he or she is operating without
obstructing the passage of other vehicles or pedestrians, notwithstanding [in spite of] any traffic-control signal indication to proceed.  A person who violates this rule is responsible for a civil infraction. 

The left turning car had a duty to leave the crosswalk clear even with a green light.  Bet most of you didn't know that.  Justice was crossing lawfully, and had to (likely) go around someone blocking the crosswalk unlawfully.  For each yard extra she had to walk around the car the moving westbound car travelled 30 feet closer .  Five extra yards, 150 feet closer, the ped being at least partially obscured by the turning car that whole time. 

 

3)  MCL 257.612 (1a): says:  If the [traffic] signal exhibits a green indication, vehicular traffic facing the signal may proceed straight through.  Vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time the signal is exhibited.

As noted, Justice's legal progress through what was a [likely] blocked crosswalk was impeded unlawfully making what she thought was clearance a lot less clear.  150 ft. is about half a city block, so maybe she was hard to see in the time the moving car was approaching.  Justice obviously either didn't double check the cross traffic or see very good beyond the turning car.  If the moving car driver saw her, they had a duty to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian by rule 716 of the UTC, or risk a civil infraction.  

 

As it appears to me, Justice checked the traffic saw she was likely OK to cross and went across the first lane, a car turning left did not allow her to continue on the crosswalk, she went around it.  In the time it took to do so the westbound car, likely going over 50 mph ( 80 ft. per second), became a problem to her original analysis of it being safe to cross.  Had both cars involved in this accident followed the law, Justice would be safe and secure.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Item 1 was an epic fail - since she got hit. She could not cross safely.

This is one of those things we will never agree on. Justice should have done the responsible thing and waited for the light to change and then cross the street. It's a horrible tragedy but not wanting to wait another 2 mins is what caused her accident.

[XLFD]

And I think the adults who are licensed to drive and should know better, should also be held accountable.  In a video on this accident I looked at I noticed two things.  First, that there were pedestrian lights at the intersection, so Justice may have crossed against the 'don't walk' signal.  But at about :28 seconds in we see the cars line up at the light, well into the pedestrian crosswalk (see following picture, taken pointing south at the crosswalk in question).  If the kids can't use the crosswalk even when the "walk" sign is on, due to the blatant violation of the law by motorists, what are they supposed to do? 

Darting student hit by counselor's car: woodtv.com

[Willy]

Looking at the video I can see that the cars are behind the curb cut which is where the crosswalk begins. Also notice the white line in the video next to the car on the right. That line ends before the crosswalk. So it's plain to me that the cars in the video are not in the crosswalk. You seem to be trying very hard to blame the driver but your arguments do not support your assumptions.

[XLFD]

My eyes must be bad, because I see them lurking over the crosswalk.  Unfortunately the angle doesn't show conclusive proof nor would one snapshot of one time where the cars are over the crosswalk or behind the crosswalk be proof of what happened in this case. 

Nonetheless, there is plenty of blame to go around here from all three players, and I just wish that these news reports would consider that there is plenty that motorists can do to avoid such tragedies if they follow what they should have learned in driver's training.  But they are almost always reported as the fault of the pedestrian, motorbiker and bicyclist, even when they are off the road, get struck from behind or are otherwise obeying the rules of the road.