I don't think any responsibility lies with anyone except the unlicensed driver TEXTING WHILE DRIVING. The victim's age has nothing to do with it.
It's kind of ignorant to say that, of course some blame lies with the person thats doing something they're not suppose to, thats why you're not suppose to be doing it, you put yourself at greater risk at such hours of the night.

Of course, the blame of the texter is MUCH greater by like millions of times, there is always some blame for someone that is somewhat in the wrong.

Mainly, you're letting the emotion of a kid being hit override the fact that he shouldn't have been out that late, and was most likely not wearing proper night riding gear.

Reading that makes me sick. I can't believe someone would say something like that.
I hate bad parenting, sure I feel bad about the kid, but then again, when will people learn if they don't see what happens when you don't do what you're suppose to do? Yes, change does make people sick, seeing the painful truth of bad decisions make people sick, be sick, get over it, and learn.

While yes, the emotional part of me feels bad, I have conflicting other parts that do tell me other things, so that I don't just weep over a situation, but have insight, ideas, or learn more from it. Again, there is a reason kids are not suppose to be out this late, and it's not because it's safe.

It's kind of ignorant to say that, of course some blame lies with the person thats doing something they're not suppose to, thats why you're not suppose to be doing it, you put yourself at greater risk at such hours of the night.

Who are you to say what the victim of the driver was or was not "supposed" to be doing, if he was operating within the law? Riding a bicycle period has some level of risk. But, when a driver does something completely ridiculous and ends up killing a bike rider who was operating legally and safely, the blame lies squarely with the driver. It's like saying the cyclist is partly to blame for just "being there", ready to be run over.

Now, if he was riding without lights or anything to make him visible, or riding illegally or unsafely, then I would say it was a poor choice of his. Still, if that driver hadn't been texting I doubt the cyclist would have been killed.

I hate bad parenting, sure I feel bad about the kid, but then again, when will people learn if they don't see what happens when you don't do what you're suppose to do? Yes, change does make people sick, seeing the painful truth of bad decisions make people sick, be sick, get over it, and learn.

Change? You said you feel like the "gene pool" is cleaner without this cyclist. What is wrong with you?

Who are you to say what the victim of the driver was or was not "supposed" to be doing, if he was operating within the law? Riding a bicycle period has some level of risk. But, when a driver does something completely ridiculous and ends up killing a bike rider who was operating legally and safely, the blame lies squarely with the driver. It's like saying the cyclist is partly to blame for just "being there", ready to be run over.

Now, if he was riding without lights or anything to make him visible, or riding illegally or unsafely, then I would say it was a poor choice of his. Still, if that driver hadn't been texting I doubt the cyclist would have been killed.
I'm saying that kids are generally not suppose to be out past midnight, and no it's VERY uncommon to see kids on the road at midnight. If the kid wasn't out, it wouldn't have happened. Peroid.

Driver still has responsibility, pay attention to my posts.

Change? You said you feel like the "gene pool" is cleaner without this cyclist. What is wrong with you?
I feel it's cleaner because a kid raised by bad parents are more likely to have MORE children that are raised just as badly. As I said, some magical change doesn't happen where you go from renegade idiot punk to upstanding intelligent citizen, it's not common. It has nothing to do with being a cyclist, it has to do with being dumb. If he was walking he would still be out when he wasn't suppose to be.

Maybe if the kid was 16 or something, but 13? Come on.

You can't have dramatic change happen without dramatic consequences on both sides, no one will learn if everyone is a victim.


Again, I feel bad for the kid and his family, but where the hell were the parents that his parents trusted him with? Aren't they responsible for his health being as he's a minor? Why isn't this guy getting jail time? Is he even getting his license revoked? How does this judge stay a judge and not lose his job?
Everyone has gone ape**** mad.

The whole bad parenting argument is a poor one. Nobody, whether old or young, should get run over by a car when walking in the soft shoulder at nighttime. The victim in this case was completely within his rights as a pedestrian, and it's hardly fair to scrutinize his decision-making or make assumptions about the circumstances, especially now that his life has been so tragically ended. To somehow make the leap that his death was the result of 'bad parenting', based on no evidence, and then going as far to say that the gene pool is 'better' now that he's been killed, is frankly absurd. Heck, I remember sneaking out of the house at 1 in the morning when I was 13 or so, and my parents are just fine, thank you very much. They certainly didn't condone me doing stuff like that.

Is 'good' parenting 'authoritarian' parenting? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Part of me thinks you've got something bottled up from your own past that makes you so quick to judge the young and their parents as well. If so, that's okay - but there's no need to judge someone else's situation, especially one like this.

Now the main issue really, in my opinion, is that we need increased legislation or fiercer ad campaigns to clamp down on texting while driving. Stories like these, if played correctly, often do well to garner increased public support.

The whole bad parenting argument is a poor one. Nobody, whether old or young, should get run over by a car when walking in the soft shoulder at nighttime. The victim in this case was completely within his rights as a pedestrian, and it's hardly fair to scrutinize his decision-making or make assumptions about the circumstances, especially now that his life has been so tragically ended. To somehow make the leap that his death was the result of 'bad parenting', based on no evidence, and then going as far to say that the gene pool is 'better' now that he's been killed, is frankly absurd. Heck, I remember sneaking out of the house at 1 in the morning when I was 13 or so, and my parents are just fine, thank you very much. They certainly didn't condone me doing stuff like that.

Is 'good' parenting 'authoritarian' parenting? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Part of me thinks you've got something bottled up from your own past that makes you so quick to judge the young and their parents as well. If so, that's okay - but there's no need to judge someone else's situation, especially one like this.
Everyone remembers, but I sure never see them on the streets, which is the main reason they should listen to their parents, the streets aren't nearly as safe that late at night. Sure if you live somewhere not populated by morons, you're safe, good luck finding a city like that. I've seen a total of 3 kids being out in the past week of being out late at work, sure doesn't sound like "everyone", and they were older than 13 (though still looked younger than 18, may have been 18).

And yes, everyone is going to consider themselves as "coming out alright", I don't need everyone's opinion of themselves. The fact that some people here are ignorant as to the amount of kids that truly wander the streets at night seem to be a main hitting point for concern as to how they've really come out. (They view their bad choices as "normal", while it does occur, it's not normal, at least coming from a guy that is on the road late at night through residential streets) Almost everyone grows up "alright" then run over kids texting on their cellphone because they have no conception of real punishment or why rules are put in place. Too bad the Judges are as bad as ****ty parents themselves.

Bottom line: Where were the parents, they sure weren't parenting. More chance than not they were those indifferent parents too, where if they caught the kid "oh well he's a kid, he'll do things he's not suppose to...". It's the opinion of the majority now as you can see here, and it doesn't help parenting at all. As I said, you'll see a lot more texting fools hitting people once this generation grows up.

The fact still remains that if you're driving a car you shouldn't be texting on your cellphone. Whether or not the boy on the bicycle should've been there or not doesn't come into it.

The fact still remains that if you're driving a car you shouldn't be texting on your cellphone. Whether or not the boy on the bicycle should've been there or not doesn't come into it.

Yes, that would be the point. The driver knew he hit something. He could just as easily have driven into an oncoming car, a mailbox, another vehicle parked alongside the road, or a child on a bicycle.

East Hill

We know nothing about the kids parents. In my profession I deal with kids, good and bad, all the time. Some times meeting the parents explains everything, sometimes the kid is going out of his/her way to be a jerk.

However, we know nothing about this kid either except for the fact that he was killed needlessly.

And some internet genius is stupid enough to claim this is a good thing....

The victim's age has nothing to do with it.

What part of parents do you not understand?

Nobody, whether old or young, should get run over by a car when walking in the soft shoulder at nighttime.

Now the main issue really, in my opinion, is that we need increased legislation or fiercer ad campaigns to clamp down on texting while driving. Stories like these, if played correctly, often do well to garner increased public support.

1) Your reading comprehension on your own posted link is a bit off, the victim was riding in the street and his friend was walking on the soft shoulder. Plus there is no mention of riding lights or reflective gear in the article.

2) This one is just a general thread statement-> I don't "agree" with gene pool post... BUT it does kind of become "darwin's bicycle" at that point, I'm also taking 'texting' as an issue there...

3) BECAUSE: I don't have kids, but i don't need to be taxed, legislated, or memo'd about texting while driving. I'm well aware of these, and many other things, in our CURRENT environment, and if my kid had a bike i would make sure he was aware also. The bike would also be in a garage at night, where it would make noise to get it out, or locked.

Driver still has responsibility, pay attention to my posts.

It's kind of hard with the level of stupidity in them.

We can all agree that kids do stupid things, like sneaking out at night. But it's the responsibility of grownups to guide them and protect them through childhood. Maybe this kid's parents screwed up, maybe not. Even assuming the worst about them, they did not deserve this. The driver is the responsible one, and he deserves a full measure of justice. His bail is too low (in Florida he likely would have been arrested for vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident involving death, and in my county would have had an initial bond of at least $20k and possibly higher), but he is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest we re-focus the discussion on him and what he is alleged to have done, not the kid.

I suggest we re-focus the discussion on him and what he is alleged to have done, not the kid.

Hear hear, - Well said.

If I'm ever diagnosed with terminal cancer, I think I'll spend my remaining time hunting down these SOB's.

à la Dexter.

When I was 13 I used to babysit for a family that lived around 2 miles away from my house and would ride home even later than 12:30 am. I'm glad that I was never taken out of the "gene pool" for such an indiscretion.

It matters little to me what the kids intention was to be out on the bike. He got hit under circumstances that appear to have been much more the fault of the driver than his own.

What a tragic occurrence.:(

It's kind of hard with the level of stupidity in them.

+1

I really hate drivers who drive while using phones. If someone is going to drive, they need to just drive. If not, they probably shouldn't be on the roads. Driving in residential areas requires a lot of attention. Last month I had to brake hard to avoid a kid who flew down a hidden drive on his bike. I barely saw the top of his helmet and was able to stop with about 15 feet to spare. He was surprised to see me (about 8-10 years old, probably didn't know any better). I'm glad it wasn't someone else on a cellphone or speeding, or that kid probably wouldn't be alive.

As far as this guy goes, he "thought it was a mailbox"? What an ass. Hopefully they'll throw the book at him.

tzracer has a point. We can moan about things on this forum or we can take action with our legislatures as motorcyclists have done. Those cyclists in Mass can attend the driver's hearings in court. It seems the drivers relatives came for support how would the court react to 25 or more cyclists sitting with helmets in hand. The courts give light sentences because they see and hear one side. Get a group of cyclists together in the front row of a court and the judges will react differently. Go to court, write your elected officials, contact your police department, educate drivers and cyclists .... then we may have safer roads.

Cars are dangerous under ALL circumstances, and should ALWAYS be operated with GREATER care than guns, especially as 10 times more people are killed with cars as guns in the US.


True. Have you ever tried to reload while driving?

I understand the concept of bail. You're putting words in my mouth...and far too many of them, I might add.

Ok, so, how would justice be better served if the driver had been released upon higher bail, lower bail, on his own recognizance, what?

As long as he shows up for his trial, as long as the verdict is just, as long as he receives an appropriate sentence, would you not agree that justice will have been served? What has bail to do with justice?

How is the setting of bail a measure of judges' adequacy in your state?

I don't feel I'm putting words into your mouth, just responding to those you have posted here.

If the guy is held behind bars during the period leading up to his trial, that time will most likely be credited against any time he is directed to serve as a result of his sentence . . . so what difference does it make, really?

You say you understand the concept of bail . . . I wonder if you really understand how it works. You haven't convinced me.

Oh, and I'd like you to show me just one word that I've put into your mouth.

Caruso

Stupid parents breed stupid kids, the remark is not stupid. You could say it's normal, but I don't see it being normal, I work past midnight many a night, I barely ever see kids on the street, EVER. It's not normal. It's abnormal and comes from bad parenting and a renegade kid that generally is going to be a burden on society, breeds the kinds of people that text while drive and make other stupid mistakes. Strange how we support bad behavior when people see it as "normal" but once one of their biker friends gets hit, it's evil.

Frankly, I'm tired of bad parenting, it causes a lot of **** heads to grow up and be adult **** heads. Of course we're going to make the illogical decision that allowing people to be idiots is fine, but we expect them to magically change their ways at the age of 16 when they're behind the wheel of a car. Or the even better argument to ban cars.

Everyone wont win if you want your dramatic changes of people bettering themselves to come true. You can't have your cake be perfect but have the idiots making it too.

So, if these kids had been on their way home from some young teen social activity, proceeds from which were to benefit the cancer society, then their deaths would have represented a loss to the gene pool, right? . . . and their parents would automatically be exalted to "intelligent parent" status in your book, right?

In your myopic view, this accident isn't about a driver illegally striking another vehicle, it's about the motive and the justification (or lack of same in your mind) that allowed these kids to be out during the wee hours.

If they had been 30-year-olds, what alternative excuse/assumption would you then construct to transfer some portion of the blame.

I only hope and pray that the parents aren't cyclists, that they have no reason to visit this forum, view this thread, and suffer further torture as a result of your biased, thoughtless remarks.

Your prejudice is abysmally extreme.

Caruso

What DieselDan said.

Both times.

:D

Ok, so, how would justice be better served if the driver had been released upon higher bail, lower bail, on his own recognizance, what?

As long as he shows up for his trial, as long as the verdict is just, as long as he receives an appropriate sentence, would you not agree that justice will have been served? What has bail to do with justice?

How is the setting of bail a measure of judges' adequacy in your state?

I don't feel I'm putting words into your mouth, just responding to those you have posted here.

If the guy is held behind bars during the period leading up to his trial, that time will most likely be credited against any time he is directed to serve as a result of his sentence . . . so what difference does it make, really?

You say you understand the concept of bail . . . I wonder if you really understand how it works. You haven't convinced me.

Oh, and I'd like you to show me just one word that I've put into your mouth.

Caruso


:rolleyes:
Being argumentative and inflammatory doesn't make your assumptions about me any more valid. All it proves, is that you're an incurable windbag. Good day.

Ok, so, how would justice be better served if the driver had been released upon higher bail, lower bail, on his own recognizance, what?

As long as he shows up for his trial, as long as the verdict is just, as long as he receives an appropriate sentence, would you not agree that justice will have been served? What has bail to do with justice?

How is the setting of bail a measure of judges' adequacy in your state? Caruso

The problem I have with releasing this menace on bail is that he has a history of driving when he is expressly not allowed to. It was illegal for him to be operating a motor vehicle when he struck Earman Machado. From the news story:

In addition to motor vehicle homicide, he was charged with leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death and driving without a license, among other offenses.

Public safety is not being served by allowing him access to motor vehicles again.

:rolleyes:
Being argumentative and inflammatory doesn't make your assumptions about me any more valid. All it proves, is that you're an incurable windbag. Good day.

This is a discussion forum - where we exchange ideas. If you view me as argumentative, well, that is what forums are all about. Inflammatory? How so? Show me. Assumptions about you? The only one I've made is speculative - whether or not you understand the true nature of the bail bond process.

You haven't proved anything, and dismissing me with a "good day" will not deter my persistence in attempting to make my point.

I have nothing against you, personally, and not even your name calling will draw me into retaliation. I want to explore the issues objectively, if possible. If you take exception, that's really your problem.

Caruso

The problem I have with releasing this menace on bail is that he has a history of driving when he is expressly not allowed to. It was illegal for him to be operating a motor vehicle when he struck Earman Machado. From the news story:



Public safety is not being served by allowing him access to motor vehicles again.

ChipSeal:
You make a good point. We don't know why he had no license - there may be some mitigating factor in there somewhere, but, on the surface, I would have to agree with you. I am still very suspicious of his excuses for not staying at the scene - if there is usually fire when one sees smoke, I find myself wondering at high volume whether this guy's delay in submitting to the authorities is really just a maneuver to avoid detection of substance impairment as the root cause of this tragic accident.

Caruso

I find it hard to believe anyone here finds fault with the victim for being young and outside of the home.

So, you folks that want to hold the victim's parents partially responsible for the victim being out past bedtime>? Can we all assume that you weren't bright enough, driven enough or rebellious enough to go out for an evening or two when you were thirteen? That when you did you were no longer protected by law or social custom from the mistakes others made? That if you left your home today unexpectedly at any hour you were completely on your own should another person strike and kill you you have only yourself to blame?, presuming you're old enough that it isn't still your parents fault?

Please explain how the law, social custom, or any other factor holds that the victim of a hit & run is the actor too in this instance? The driver then, victimized by the teen's parents because the child shouldn't have been out after what hour? There is no percentage of blame here for the victim, period.

Also, there was a response or two only worth skimming that had the word advocacy in it, some nonsense about how folks venting their emotion on a discussion board served it poorly, namby pamby stuff.

This place isn't advocacy, it's a discussion forum, the perfect context for such statements, if you thought your posts here were advocacy please put the dunce cap on and get out into the real world to make a difference.

Upon reflection I cannot say I knew a child at that age that didn't at least once go out at that age unsupervised. I did so regularly, but I knew "bad" kids & "good" kids at school, to varying degrees their activities were similar, all of them went out of their own accord at that age whether permitted to or not on some occasion.

I feel sorry for the social outcasts on this board who cannot relate similar experience. Were you not invited to meet your girl/boy friend, or prospective girl/boy friend at a late hour at that age? Were you not invited to parties? Did you have no friends close enough to warrant such activity?

Trust me, you are the oddball here if you can't recall doing just what this kid was doing. You are also the oddball for believing that any percentage of blame belongs to the victim or their parents.

Completely Bonkers. Off the wall Nutbag. Social abnormality. Oddball.

Circle one of the above if you think the child or parent is to blame at all, then print in a large font and paste to your forehead. It's only fair that you warn parents that children are not protected from your misdeeds after midnight should they leave the home.

This was a normal child operating within accepted social parameters in our society and completely protected by law from what happened to them, no blame whatsoever belongs to any but the inattentive driver.

I really only agree because the guy was text messaging/using his phone. If a kid gets hit by a car at night, there are certainly things that the kid can do to contribute to or cause an accident. Rarely do I see children have lights on their bikes (legal requirement) and sometimes they don't even have reflectors. Furthermore, a lot of kids choose to ignore things like signs, lights, they ride the wrong way, etc.

All of these are factors which can contribute to a collision. In this case? Obviously the driver wasn't paying attention, so he's at fault. But if the driver was paying attention, and the kid was riding dangerously, I'd probably say the kid's at fault.

if he has a concience; he's in hell already.............

And what about the deceased?

However, I agree that it is far too easy to obtain a license.

Which this guy didn't even do...

If the kid wasn't out, it wouldn't have happened. Peroid.

If the driver hadn't been texting, it wouldn't have happened. Period.

The responsibility of driving includes preparedness for a reasonable amount of unexpected hazards. That would include a 13 year old cyclist at half past midnight.

Will, parents need sleep, too. Are they supposed to lock their child in the room with bars on the windows and locks outside the room? Are they supposed to hire a nighttime shift sitter?

Part of the functions of growing up and maturing are rebelling against the parents. I don't know if the parents forbade him from going out and riding at 12:30am, but I cannot blame them for the driver's error.

I really only agree because the guy was text messaging/using his phone. If a kid gets hit by a car at night, there are certainly things that the kid can do to contribute to or cause an accident. Rarely do I see children have lights on their bikes (legal requirement) and sometimes they don't even have reflectors. Furthermore, a lot of kids choose to ignore things like signs, lights, they ride the wrong way, etc.

All of these are factors which can contribute to a collision. In this case? Obviously the driver wasn't paying attention, so he's at fault. But if the driver was paying attention, and the kid was riding dangerously, I'd probably say the kid's at fault.

Why has this thread been hijacked by people talking about the kid being out at night?

Whether or not the kid had lights on his bike (no report by the police to that effect, don't forget), he was hit by an idiot who:

1) had lost his licence
and
2) regarded texting while driving as a reasonable thing to do ("so, Mr. Banned Driver, sir, were you watching the road?". "No I wasn't, that's why I didn't know where I was on the road, so assumed that I had hit a mailbox")

It seems likely that his defending attorney will make much play of the time of night that the kid was out and try to cast at least some of the blame on the kid's devastated parents. I don't think it's our respnsibility to criticise the parents - they'll probably be doing a pretty good job of that themselves.

(By the way, how do you know that cyclists ride without lights at night? Well, I've seen 'em.)

Why has this thread been hijacked by people talking about the kid being out at night?

Whether or not the kid had lights on his bike (no report by the police to that effect, don't forget), he was hit by an idiot who:

1) had lost his licence
and
2) regarded texting while driving as a reasonable thing to do ("so, Mr. Banned Driver, sir, were you watching the road?". "No I wasn't, that's why I didn't know where I was on the road, so assumed that I had hit a mailbox")

It seems likely that his defending attorney will make much play of the time of night that the kid was out and try to cast at least some of the blame on the kid's devastated parents. I don't think it's our respnsibility to criticise the parents - they'll probably be doing a pretty good job of that themselves.

(By the way, how do you know that cyclists ride without lights at night? Well, I've seen 'em.)

I saw 3 cyclists ride without lights wearing dark clothes last nite. 1 on the street, 1 on Mup, 1 on sidewalk.

I can't believe everyone seems to take the killer's word that he was texting. 99% chance he was DUI and made the smart selfish choice. There is no reward for being honest. Kinda weird we don't polygraph he/she said type cases like this and others when we always want people to take them in muder/missing cases.

...I'm very disappointed with Strangewill's rather stupid "gene pool" comment. I can only surmise that he must have been a shut-in kid who never ever disobeyed his parents and as such has no concept that even "good" kids who go on to become responsible adults and members of society do dumb things. In fact, I always thought that was part of being a kid...

...Somewhere 2 parents are enduring inconsolable grief as they ask themselves questions that have no real answers. I wish them God's Peace as they try to move on.
+1; thanks for expressing what a lot of us are feeling.

John

I saw 3 cyclists ride without lights wearing dark clothes last nite. 1 on the street, 1 on Mup, 1 on sidewalk.

Sorry, I was being ironic. While I wouldn't ride without lights, I always wonder how drivers who complain about not being able to see cyclists riding without lights, know that there are any - therefore, cyclists w/out lights are more of a nuisance, since they're obviously more visible than they're claimed to be.

I can't believe everyone seems to take the killer's word that he was texting. 99% chance he was DUI and made the smart selfish choice. There is no reward for being honest. Kinda weird we don't polygraph he/she said type cases like this and others when we always want people to take them in muder/missing cases.

Maybe he was DUI and not texting - but it would be easy enough to check the cellphone co.'s records for the time of the texting. Not that it seems to have made much difference as he's being charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Sorry, I was being ironic. While I wouldn't ride without lights, I always wonder how drivers who complain about not being able to see cyclists riding without lights, know that there are any - therefore, cyclists w/out lights are more of a nuisance, since they're obviously more visible than they're claimed to be.


I've come upon cyclists at night without lights that were not on an intersecting path with mine that I couldn't see until it would have been too late if we had been converging.

You wonder why some bring up the late time of day that the 13 year old was out at? In some municipalities it is illegal for a minor to be out without a parent past a certain time. If picked up by the police, these minors could receive a citation, and their parents might receive a visit from Child Protective Services.

Another good reason that I want to move to Seattle. When I was in high school (1972) a girl I knew was killed by a drunk driver while riding her bike. Stupid, STUPID people.
In Washington (state) they can now ticket you for texting while driving. Seems like it should be done already, but most places don't at this time.