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.
 

[XLFD]

Willy,

I have little compassion for grown-ups and kids-who-should-know-better that represent BMPs in a bad manner that ride and walk the roads.  But what I am asking for is a little more analysis.  Instead of wasting newsink by telling us that the motorist was unhurt or the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, why not tell us something of use. 

For instance, in the Justice case, tell us whether witnesses saw the crosswalk being blocked, the presence of pedestrian lights and whether they were functioning properly, and the estimated speed of the driver.

And I encourage you to critically watch or rewatch that one news article on the blind, leg-braced woman being hit, and not wonder just how she could have crossed most of the street and darted in front of a car turning out of the parking lot shown without being seen.  I can't embed the video for some reason. 

Every traffic incident, as you say is unique, and should be judged as separate entities; but there is a notable bias against non-motorized traffic if you look for it.      

[AQUAMAN]

Bottom line for me is that everyone, esp. drivers, are in too big a hurry these days, no matter the right-of-way. The driver may be right here, but what if they are "dead right"? on this case or another in the future?

[Willy]

X. That's the difference between our mindset. You see a poor blind, deaf, half crippled lady being hit by a negligent driver who should have seen the woman crossing the road but due to his lack of attention runs over the woman. I see a blind, deaf and half crippled woman who should not have been crossing the street on her own and who knew better but took a chance and lost and a driver who now has to live with the memory of almost killing someone. 

[XLFD]

Willie,

I also view it as anyone's right, from a youngster deemed sensible enough to travel on their own to anyone old enough to get around with a walker, to get from point A to point B by using sidewalks and roads in a responsible manner, and that those who have been granted the privilege of driving down the roads in two ton or more machines should respect those rights.  But when was the last time you have heard of any public service messages that stress drivers to exercise care around any of the BMPs?  Or validate some of their rights, and the deeply hidden laws that are supposed to protect the BMPs? 

Here's another case in point taken from today's news which sounds like a victory for BMPs, as a driver was actually punished for killing a bicyclist.  But he was found to be drunk at the time, and if he wasn't he would have walked. Still the news reports the dead cyclist was riding his bike when he cut across the path of the pickup truck...  Here's the original story, see if you can determine what rankles my armpits in the commentary:

Bicyclist, 14, hit and killed in crash: woodtv.com

 

Sgt. Kuhn displays his lack of knowledge of the law when he says:  "the child was wrong for being in the roadway".  This erroneous attitude by LEOs and others infers that if a shoulder is present, the bicyclist should not be in the roadway.  It's often smarter/safer to be on the shoulder, but the law says they have the right, and actually makes it against the law for bicycles to ride on the shoulder in many places.

 

[Lisa O'Brien]

I don't see how you see this as a victory, He's dead

[XLFD]

I use the word 'victory' in the respect that a motorist was held accountable for his part in killing a cyclist traveling legally on the roadway, not in the respect of what happened to the bicyclist.  If the motorist in this case had instead been shooting off his gun in his backyard erratically and hit someone, wouldn't he get some jail time, drunk or not.  Erratic driving is just as bad, yet worse, in my honest opinion.   

[Willy]

This is one of the situations I described as both the driver and cyclist being at fault. Because the driver was drunk he should  be prosecuted. I have no tolerance for anyone driving drunk or impaired. That being said, we have another situation where a foolish cyclist pulled out into traffic and was hit. He may have had a right to be on the road but he did not have a right to weave in and out of traffic. All of the situations you have posted have been the result of the negligent behavior of the pedestrians and cyclist. If they would have engaged in proper behavior none of the accidents would have happened.

[XLFD]

If you'll notice in the video, the area of the street where the marks were being made, the right part of the right lane, is where a bicyclist has the legal right to be.  The weaving in and out of the shoulder on to the road, if not exaggerated, is a bad idea for any bicyclist, but you should know, from traveling by bicycle out to the state park, that you aren't always able to stay on the shoulder due to it being unsafe (in that case, by blown sand).  The law recognizes a bicyclist's rights to sometimes veer over from the right edge of the road, MCL 257.660a (c), and yet Michigan law fails to allow a bicyclist a safety zone for passing which many other states offer, usually a gap of 3-5 ft. of clearance around the bicyclist. 

When the Mayor's wife, Penny Henderson, almost ran me over this summer while I was on my bike, coming within a foot of me and laying on her horn, I had no recourse for myself, as there is no law in Michigan preventing her to do either action.  Not that it would have mattered anyway, given how local law enforcement listens to me, LOL.

But I object to the bias here by the investigating sheriff saying a bicyclist had no right to the road, such a bias may lead to a flawed investigation.  In the end, the fact the driver was drunk mattered, and if he wasn't his driving would have been legitimately rationalized by the investigator to have been acceptable.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Funny thing happened tonight - I was heading to the movies tonight and not once but twice I had incidents with BMP's.First scenario I'm heading down rte 106 and was actually going 10 mph under the speed limit cause I was looking for my turn. On the right shoulder of the road there was a teenage boy on a bike (not moving just sitting there)  and I'm guessing 20' (2 car lengths) ahead of him about 5 teenagers on foot. Well the teenagers on foot decided they had enough time to run across the street in front of my car- I'm only guessing because who knows what the dumb a$$ on the bike was thinking - but I think since he saw the walkers start running across the street he thought it was clear for him to do so also - luckily he heard my horn and since I was slamming on my brakes he did manage to return to the side of the road without getting killed, he only fell off his bike. The next incident was a mere 6 miles farther, I was on a back road - which I think was used for deliveries to the mall, I don't know it was pitch black and there were no street lights and not a house around all of a sudden a woman is running into the road - in took a little effort on her part to come to a stop I thought she was going to run into the side of my car. In both instances I would NOT take not any responsibility if they were harmed. 

[Willy]

Lisa. Your lucky something serious did not happen. But according to some people you are still responsible because you were driving the vehicle and did not properly observe the runners and cyclist behavior and predict what the they were going to do. You should have used your Ouija board or crystal ball before going out so you could have seen the future and would have known ahead of time what was going to happen.

[XLFD]

Lisa, almost all instances of pedestrians getting hit while crossing the street outside of a crosswalk are the fault of the pedestrian not judging the situation correctly.  In both situations, BMP fanatic that I am, I would have absolved you from responsibity if you had hit either of the two pedestrians. 

You paid attention and exercised due care in the first instance, and maybe saved the young man's life by being a responsive, responsible driver.  If you want to see a lot of people that don't do so, just hang out on the corner of Jebavy and Washington (in Ludington), before and after school or one of your local schools.

 

[Marty Redman]

I had to check out what this thread was all about cause it had nearly 40 responses over something that looks like its just a schoolgirl doing something bad.  Heres my two bits.  In some neighborhoods down my way you can't get out and walk a few blocks to the store or anything else without crossing a busy highway where they failed to put in any means of getting by in any kind of safe way unless your in a car.  You can walk a few blocks out of the way to get to a street where you can walk on the shoulder with traffic bustling by you at 40-50 mph to cross.  The same happens if I want to walk downtown the other way.

My point is every limited access highway and tollway you build the more you ruin the 'right to walk places' that X mentioned and  the more times you have children and little old ladies going across streets they shouldn't have to.  Yeah, I like to be able to get places quick in my car, but I don't like having to drive to places I should be able to walk to.