Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1
    Viking Warrior JoeyMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bristol, CT
    My Bikes
    60's SpaceLiner, 60's Ross Futura, 60's Sears spyder, 70's Zebrakenko, 98 Ross Chimera Hybrid, 90's Schwinn Frontier, and ThunderHorse, my trusty mountain steed, also my gf's 64 Schwinn ladies cruiser and her purple lowrider are at my disposal.
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Mesa boy, 7, gets bill in bike-van crash

    Just came across this article, it's annoying.

    "Jessica Brovitch was relieved when her 7-year-old son was only scraped and bruised after a van collided with his bicycle on Nov. 9. But she was shocked when the child later received a bill for $650."

    Mesa boy, 7, gets bill in bike-van crash
    "Rullende Torden" (norwegian for "rolling thunder")

    I like taking pictures of bikes almost as much as I like riding them.

  2. #2
    CRIKEY!!!!!!! Cyclaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    My Bikes
    several
    Posts
    4,193
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Looks like someone at the insurance co. finally worked out that getting a collections agency on to a 7 year old kid will result in a lot more than $650 worth of bad PR

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22483551/

  3. #3
    Senior Member Dchiefransom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Newark, CA. San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    6,190
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the kid was riding the wrong way on the street, then how did he run into the BACK of the van?
    Silver Eagle Pilot

  4. #4
    Elitest Murray Owner Mos6502's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    My Bikes
    1972 Columbia Tourist Expert III, Columbia Roadster
    Posts
    2,562
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dchiefransom View Post
    If the kid was riding the wrong way on the street, then how did he run into the BACK of the van?
    Since the van suffered a flat tire, I'm going to assume the kid ran into the side of the van, and the van ran over the bike, getting a flat.
    I guess they're going to have to get into contact with the kid's bicycle insurance company...

  5. #5
    Thin mint, anyone? ferd_miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central VA
    My Bikes
    Trek 1000 road, Trek 720 Multitrack hybrid
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SUMMARY: Helmetless kid traveling against traffic on a 1-way street on a bike with no brakes collides with a vehicle & causes damage.

    I love how the van owner's insurance co. is painted to be a bad actor for trying to recoup their money. When I was a kid, parents were held responsible for their children's actions. Instead of pissing & moaning about the EEE-vil, heartless ins.co. sending a bill addressed to their kid, these parents should've just paid the bill & STFU in gratitude that the cost of the incident didn't include their child's LIFE.

    And then maybe, umm, buy their precious darling a HELMET

    And a BIKE WITH FUNCTIONING BRAKES.

    And TEACH HIM NOT TO RIDE AGAINST TRAFFIC and other good stuff.

    Geez!

  6. #6
    Senior Member hotbike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    My Bikes
    a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike
    Posts
    2,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is why I say everyone should insure their bicycles. Add you bike to your existing auto or homeowners policy. Let the insurance agents talk to each other. Let your insurance company pay the bill.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,829
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh, yeah, let's turn this into a helmet thing. Because it would have made all the difference in the world in this instance.

  8. #8
    Thin mint, anyone? ferd_miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Central VA
    My Bikes
    Trek 1000 road, Trek 720 Multitrack hybrid
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Observing the absence of a legally-mandated safety device on a child that age is just stating a fact, not turning it into a "helmet thing" (whatever that is). And it was just one among several errors of omission/commission on the cyclist's part.

    I refuse to overlook the obvious slant against the innocent parties (vehicle driver & their ins. co) simply because the offending party was a kid, and I'm not gonna knee-jerk in his favor just because he's a cyclist and the other party is a "cager". So the bill would've been better addressed with the prefix "Parents of..." Big whoop. Why should the ins.co. eat the cost of the property damage caused by the kid? Are parents no longer responsible for their children's negligence (regardless of whether they calculate they can skip out on it via generating negative PR)? Is there any better answer than simple sentimentality over the kid's age?

  9. #9
    Packfodding 3 caloso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    My Bikes
    Ridley Excalibur, Gazelle Champion Mondial, On-One Pompino, Specialized Rock Hopper
    Posts
    29,470
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My reaction would have been "Fine. Sue us. See you in court." Actually, by taking this to the media, the kid's parents played this well.
    Cyclists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lube but your chains!

  10. #10
    Perineal Pressurized dobber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Ebritated
    Posts
    6,556
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Most homeowner policies would cover stuff like this.

    Couple years ago my wifes brand new (1 week) car got hit by a baseball. The fathers policy covered it without issue even though the kids were playing in a park.
    This is Africa, 1943. War spits out its violence overhead and the sandy graveyard swallows it up. Her name is King Nine, B-25, medium bomber, Twelfth Air Force. On a hot, still morning she took off from Tunisia to bomb the southern tip of Italy. An errant piece of flak tore a hole in a wing tank and, like a wounded bird, this is where she landed, not to return on this day, or any other day.

  11. #11
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,893
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ferd_miller View Post
    Observing the absence of a legally-mandated safety device on a child that age is just stating a fact
    This is not a fact.

    Mesa, AZ doe not have a mandatory cycle helmet law for under a certain age. The only AZ city with mandatory helmet law for 18 and under is Tucson I believe.

    http://www.cityofmesa.org/clerk/Code...T10/T10Ch1.doc

    Anyway, stating facts that are irrelevant as to the outcome of the situation is pointless. If you want to do such perhaps you should have speculated, with assured high confidence, that the bicycle the boy was riding was not registered with the city.

    Al
    Last edited by noisebeam; 01-04-08 at 01:43 PM.

  12. #12
    Mister Bleak! mconlonx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,012
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ya'll are missing the point with the helmet. The real issue here is that the witness to the accident is the one remarking in the second article that the kids weren't wearing helmets. Which means that this person is the one commenting on the lack of helmet on the part of the kids, also assigning blame on them for running into the van. You gonna fault the reporter for including a quote from an eyewitness? If anything, fault coverage of bike accidents in general and note that helmet use is now something witnesses are looking for. If you want to make a point about unfair reportage that way, find a story where the reporter, not an eyewitness, comments on the bicyclist regarding their use or non use of a helmet, without also reporting on seatbelt use/non-use by the driver involved. I know such stories are out there, I know it's an issue, just that with this particular story helmet reportage as part of a legitimate quote from an eyewitness is a weak example of press bias. Maybe a more telling example of general bias against bicyclists as fostered by other stories where helmet use is pointed out, but not a good example of press bias itself.

  13. #13
    Senior Member littlewaywelt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,509
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ferd_miller View Post
    I love how the van owner's insurance co. is painted to be a bad actor for trying to recoup their money. When I was a kid, parents were held responsible for their children's actions. Instead of pissing & moaning about the EEE-vil, heartless ins.co. sending a bill addressed to their kid, these parents should've just paid the bill & STFU in gratitude that the cost of the incident didn't include their child's LIFE.
    +1

    Their kid, a minor, through his own fault damaged the property of someone else. Pony up and get out the wallet. Sounds like a bunch of whiners who don't realize how lucky they are to still have a kid.
    One Less Car
    Conservation begins with you.

  14. #14
    Elitest Murray Owner Mos6502's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    My Bikes
    1972 Columbia Tourist Expert III, Columbia Roadster
    Posts
    2,562
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I refuse to overlook the obvious slant against the innocent parties (vehicle driver & their ins. co) simply because the offending party was a kid...
    Because children are stupid and do stupid things. It's the same reason we don't try children as adults, or give them the death penalty.

    Why should the ins.co. eat the cost of the property damage caused by the kid?
    Because they're an insurance company, and that's why insurance companies exist.

  15. #15
    Keeping A Low Profile
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atascadero, California
    My Bikes
    Specialized Hardrock Sport [1998], Dahon Speed P8 2007, 1994 Diamond Back Ascent and a couple of Schwinn Stingrays [one boys, one girls] from circa 1977.
    Posts
    160
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some places the parents of a minor are only responsible for the "willful misconduct" of their child. If the kid did not 'deliberately' run into the van . . . the parents are not responsible. [morally perhaps, but not legally]. This may or may not apply where they live.

    A kid playing baseball in the street with friends hits a baseball through a neighbor's window . . . the parents are not responsible unless it was deliberate/intentional [again in certain places].

    Not saying it is right . . . just the way it is legally in some jurisdictions.

    DON
    The older I get the less future there is to worry about!

  16. #16
    livin' the nightmare syn0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    desert
    My Bikes
    '81 Centurion SS coversion, other ****
    Posts
    491
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mos6502 View Post
    Because children are stupid and do stupid things. It's the same reason we don't try children as adults, or give them the death penalty.
    Being a kid isn't a free ticket to be stupid and do stupid things without someone having to face consequences as a result either.

  17. #17
    Elitest Murray Owner Mos6502's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    My Bikes
    1972 Columbia Tourist Expert III, Columbia Roadster
    Posts
    2,562
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by syn0n View Post
    Being a kid isn't a free ticket to be stupid and do stupid things without someone having to face consequences as a result either.
    It's not, but children simply can't and shouldn't be held to the same standards adults. This is why 7 year olds don't get to drive cars, drink, buy tobacco, or vote.
    Honestly, at age seven did you know you're not supposed to ride against traffic? There seem to be countless people who are over 40 and they still don't know that...
    Most people under 18 lack the experience, intelligence, and education to make well informed logical choices. Truth is, most children are so illogical by adult standards, that psychologists will not diagnose them with many mental disorders until they're 18 - because really - kids brains just don't work properly until they're older.
    It's just naive to want to hold a second grader to adult standards. Even the insurance company knew that, which is why they withdrew their demands for payments when they learned they were trying to bill a 7 year old.
    Last edited by Mos6502; 01-05-08 at 07:46 PM.

  18. #18
    livin' the nightmare syn0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    desert
    My Bikes
    '81 Centurion SS coversion, other ****
    Posts
    491
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mos6502 View Post
    It's not, but children simply can't and shouldn't be held to the same standards adults. This is why 7 year olds don't get to drive cars, drink, buy tobacco, or vote.
    Honestly, at age seven did you know you're not supposed to ride against traffic? There seem to be countless people who are over 40 and they still don't know that...
    Me, personally? I learned to ride correctly, and at age seven, I certainly knew not to ride on the wrong side of the street. Do I think most kids know not to? Probably not. And if they don't, they probably shouldn't be using the roads unsupervised. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. You yourself said children are stupid; why should "stupid" kids be allowed to play without supervision on public roads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mos6502
    It's just naive to want to hold a second grader to adult standards.
    I never said that the kid should be held responsible. I said the parent should be held responsible for what their child does.

    I mean, seriously, would you be okay with absorbing the damages to your bike if a kid hit you? I doubt it. But obviously you're not going to go after the kid; it's the parents who you would try to get to pay.

  19. #19
    Senior Member StrangeWill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Fallbrook, CA.
    Posts
    1,112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Simple enough:
    Someone needs to pay for it, to say "kids will be kids" is dumb. If a kid is playing ball and knocks out a window, their parents pay for it, you don't just tell the guy who now can't drive his car "oh well, looks like you're out $400, because you know... my kid is a kid...".

    Of course the parent should be held responsible, and should end up paying. Parent also needs to teach the kid proper riding techniques but thats neither here nor there on the paying up aspect of this. A kid breaks something of someone else's the parent needs to replace it, or pay current value for it.


    I find sending the kid a bill a little weird, however it could be the insurance company didn't have a clue to the age of the kid possibly, being as I would figure they'd bill the adult instead. Of course the kid can't be held personally responsible, but the parents are responsible for their kids actions, they can and should pay up.

    Quote Originally Posted by ferd_miller View Post
    SUMMARY: Helmetless kid traveling against traffic on a 1-way street on a bike with no brakes collides with a vehicle & causes damage.

    I love how the van owner's insurance co. is painted to be a bad actor for trying to recoup their money. When I was a kid, parents were held responsible for their children's actions. Instead of pissing & moaning about the EEE-vil, heartless ins.co. sending a bill addressed to their kid, these parents should've just paid the bill & STFU in gratitude that the cost of the incident didn't include their child's LIFE.
    An extremely good point.

  20. #20
    Senior Member ajay677's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an idiot.
    Posts
    500
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Someone has to pay for the damage to the van in question. The parents of the child should get out the cheque book and take responsibility for their child's actions.

    My car was broadsided by a 15 year old, stop sign running, high school student on a bicycle. He didn't have a scratch on him but my car suffered thousands of dollars in damage. My insurance company paid my claim less my $1000 deductible. I recovered the $1000 from the parents of the 15 year old. Dad was a tad embarrassed at his sons behaviour. He heads the traffic engineering department in my area and is responsible for the installation and maintenace of all traffic signalling devices and signs.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Reston, VA
    My Bikes
    2003 Giant OCR2
    Posts
    2,369
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mos6502 View Post
    It's not, but children simply can't and shouldn't be held to the same standards adults.
    That's the point of nailing the parents, whose responsibility it is to make sure their little darlings aren't playing chicken with a van on a bike with no brakes.

    Obviously one can't file a civil suit against a child. But the absentee parents are another matter.

  22. #22
    Violin guitar mandolin
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Friendsville, TN, USA
    My Bikes
    Wilier Thor, Fuji Professional, LeMond Wayzata
    Posts
    1,171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can't file a civil suit against a child? Is this true for all US jurisdictions?

    Here this seems a straightforward negligence per se suit.

    Getting money out of a child is a different matter.

    And the parents didn't do the deed, so are they really responsible in a civil action where no willful misconduct was involved, only ignorance?

    aj677 - If the parents accepted responsibility for your $1000 outlay, then they accepted responsibility period and should reimburse your insurance company.

  23. #23
    Senior Member ajay677's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an idiot.
    Posts
    500
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mandovoodoo View Post

    aj677 - If the parents accepted responsibility for your $1000 outlay, then they accepted responsibility period and should reimburse your insurance company.
    You're right. Whether they did reimburse the insurance company, I don't know. I can't see them writing off $2800 when the other party has clearly accepted responsibility.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •