1nterceptor

****

"‘Hit-and-run’ cyclist drags toddler along pavement ... but says his life has been destroyed"
?Hit-and-run? cyclist drags toddler along pavement ... but says his life has been destroyed | News.com.au

daihard 

In case anyone has missed it, here's the detail that @CrankyOne has found and posted about the incident. Apparently, (1) the cyclist did not ride off the scene, and (2) the part of the footpath where the crash occurred may have not been off limit to bicycles.

trsidn 

Like the traffic engineers have unlimited budget and a free hand in design.

snow_echo_NY

it's really unfortunate, the cyclist shouldn't have been on the sidewalk.

all this finger pointing blaming the mom and the child is just preposterous. the cyclist shouldn't have been on the sidewalk.

the fact he didn't know he wasn't supposed to be on the sidewalks is irrelevant, that was his responsibility to learn, and now he's learned it in a really harsh way.

if mom was parked across the street, i am not sure this little girl would have stopped in running out into car traffic. 3 is a really iffy age and you can't really let them out in an urban setting, but i know how easy it is for kids to bolt free and run about without looking. when children are below our line of sight, it makes it that much harder. how many times have kids been run over in their own driveways? it's unbelievable.

lessons to be learned by all.

CrankyOne

Here's the way I would approach it.

1) We start with a two-lane roadway (one each direction) with a speed limit of 15 or 20 mph and motor vehicles are not allowed to pass bicycle riders or disabled folk on mobility scooters nor are they allowed to tailgate them (must stay back at least 10 feet).

2) If we want motor vehicles to be able to drive faster then we must add a protected bikeway that meets CROW standards. If we cannot afford such a bikeway then see rule #1 .

trsidn 

Sounds nifty.

Depending on the agency that owns the facility in question, there may be some statutory obstacles to point #1 . Not sure if a mobility scooter would be legal on the road, either. Protected bikeways are great, too.

But, as a traffic engineer (who rides bikes) I can tell you, we can recommend all day long, but the legislature is under no obligation to implement recommendations.

Keith99

I watched the short clip at least 4 times to be sure my initial impression was correct. The guy riding the sidewalk is pretty much going at the speed of traffic in the road.

CrankyOne

Statutory requirements are almost entirely based on recommendations from the traffic engineering profession. The U.S. traffic engineering profession, including NACTO, AASHTO, and FHWA, have given the U.S. the most dangerous road system of all developed countries (though Greece occasionally gives us a run for our last place money). That's not something to be proud of.

A Federal court just sided against WisDOT on 15 years of unrealistic traffic projections they were using to justify a road expansion project and the judge added in his remarks that his regard for traffic engineers, given how poorly we rate safety wise compared to other countries, is quite low.

Using statutory obstacles (which are based on traffic engineers recommendations) is a poor excuse. NACTO and a long line of traffic engineers constantly blaming our high fatality rates on drivers rather than poor road design is a poor excuse. The traffic engineering profession in the U.S. needs to fix itself before it looses all credibility and finds states and municipalities looking to engineers from overseas to fix our problems. [off my soapbox now]

I've worked with gobs of engineers from gobs of areas. I raced cars for a number of years as well as sailboats. I worked with bio-medical companies and companies that manufactured audio equipment. In all of these the engineers were laser focused on making things as good as they possibly could. Why can't U.S. traffic engineers be more like this?

njkayaker

It wasn't a quote. So it wasn't a misquote.

Why just in public? It's not like children don't get into trouble at home either.

And the whole "every second" thing in public or not would require the "hovering" you aren't recommending.

Sounds like "hovering" to me if you aren't too far to do anything about whatever you see.

wphamilton

However you want to slant it with semantics, stop misrepresenting it.

Why greater vigilance is necessary in public should be obvious, if you've ever had any kids.

trsidn 

If there are any no-money solutions to safety problems, the hierarchy is all for them. If they cost money, then they are in competition for scarce dollars. Actually, safety is where most of the money is now. But, it is still in competition for funds.

You describe bio-medical companies and audio companies focusing on making things as good as they could. Great. Private companies often have R&D dollars to play with.
And I know of no US traffic engineer that wouldn't be happy to improve safety anywhere.

With public money, you can't get too cute, lest you be accused of misusing public funds. There are many locations that could use some improvement. First, you have to know about it (so complaints are investigated), you have to determine a suitable solution (that would satisfy as many parties as possible), so many times a study is performed. With a need and data in hand, then a solution is selected, and we try to figure out how to pay for it.

To make a change based on an isolated incident without some assessment would be irresponsible.

njkayaker

I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm not claiming otherwise for this particular case.

It's the "every second of the day" thing I'm criticising.

CrankyOne

Many road design issues that have resulted in our roads being so dangerous are not money issues. Extra wide lanes, huge radiuses at junctions, right-on-red, pork chops, crossings within a junction rather than back from a junction, and many others are not really money issues but purely bad design. Well, actually the extra-wide lanes and some other dangerous elements cost more than safer alternatives. Most elements of better design would either cost the same or less as current poor designs.

We've also seen time and time again how money is wasted on road widening projects instead of being spent on safety improvements. These projects are often at the behest of the traffic engineering and road building professions.


I very much agree. For 32 years we've been in the lowest 10% of safety of all OECD countries and for the past 12 years we've been the worst (except for two years when Greece was worse). Yet we continue to build roads to the same poor design standards. We should be looking to Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland, Germany, and elsewhere to see what makes their roads so much safer and then apply their standards here. In 1987 I was at a conference in Stockholm on various differences in the US and Europe. Two different speakers mentioned road safety and specifically mentioned roundabouts. And yet we are just now, almost 30 years later, introducing roundabouts.

Edit: BTW, I think roundabouts (vs traffic circles, etc.) were actually fairly new at this time and yet they'd determined after just a few years the safety benefits and were moving fairly quickly to implement them.

trsidn 

You are lumping traffic engineering and road building together. For many many years, operations of a facility were the stepchild of transportation. Only when money became scarce have they actually looked at operation as a solution in itself.



We have been introducing roundabouts in recent years with fairly positive results. But it was often a tough sell. And they are not appropriate everywhere.

But you imply that traffic engineers have a magic wand, can wave it, and say "do this" and make it happen. That is not the case.
I have been overruled more than once when a local politician wanted a traffic light where it wasn't justified.

It would probably be different if I could say "This is unsafe". But more often than not, it isn't that simple. Just getting in a car is "unsafe".

FXjohn

we need roundabout sidewalks and divided lanes

daihard 

I agree on roundabouts. There are a couple of them where I ride, and I like them far better the regular 4-way intersections.

baron von trail 

It looked to me more like the child plowed into the cyclist.

baron von trail 

Someone above posted that the sidewalk was multi-use. And, I don't really have a dog in the fight, I just go by what I saw. And, what the video showed was two irresponsible parents who almost got their kid killed due to their inattention.

baron von trail 

So, do you think it's appropriate to trust your toddler's safety and well-being on what other people do, and not what you as the parent do?

keyven

This is where the division is - the best advice I can give you is, give up all pre-conceived "I know better than parents themselves" arrogance and talk to a parent you respect.

Ask them what it's really like trying to "lock down" an active toddler and how possible it is to ensure they never ever get injured at every second of the day.

The answer will surprise you. Until then, since no amount of explanation will dent your weirdly confident notions that is backed up by zero experience. I hope you don't try that with war vets just because you've played Call of Duty.

Good luck with that.

keyven

?Hit-and-run? cyclist drags toddler along pavement ... but says his life has been destroyed | News.com.au
============
“Apparently it was a ‘hit-and-run’, but it wasn’t,” he said.
Mr Holland’s family said he did not flee the scene, but was driven away by his 64-year-old dad George who happened to be driving by.
“His life has been destroyed,” George said about his son.
Mr Holland said he didn’t know it was illegal to drive on the footpath.
==============

I assume "illegal to drive" meant "illegal to ride".

baron von trail 

Sure. Kids die all the time. They find Uncle Joe's gun and shoot their little sister or themselves. They run in front of cars. They swallow pills or cleaning agents. They get mauled by dogs. The list is endless. But, of course, it seems to never be the parent's fault. Funny how that works.

keyven

"seems to never be the parent's fault"? That's your argument? Plenty of time the parents ARE held responsible. Your post reeks of desperation and ignorance.

baron von trail 

Only if it's their gun, dog or car that killed the kid. Otherwise, not so much.

njkayaker

Why do you think that making strawman arguments is appropriate?

No one has said what you keep putting into their mouths.