This occured right in front of my apartment complex. The road is a 2 lane rural road that comes into the city. The speed limit is 45 but people always do 65 +. There is a grade school on one side of the road and my apartment complex on the other. Right where the accident occurs, there is a large (blind) curve in the road. No bike lanes. The next controlled intersection is literally not even 1/2 mile away from where this occcured. Appartently, this 16-year old needed to get to that controlled intersection in such a hurry that she passed another car on a blind curve probably doing 60+. From all accounts, this cyclist did nothing wrong. Proof that anything can happen out there. Please be safe on bike to work week:
Man injured in bike vs. car crash in Ledgeview
May 13, 2008
A 57-year-old Ledgeview man is in critical condition at a local hospital after he was hit by a vehicle Monday while riding his bicycle.
The accident happened at 7:40 p.m. on Heritage Road just west of Swan Road, said Brown County Sheriff's Department Lt. Kevin Wickman.
Wickman said it appears the westbound 16-year-old female driver hit the eastbound man while trying to pass another vehicle.
Deputies blocked off Heritage Road and were still at the scene at 10 p.m., Wickman said.
The accident remains under investigation.
— Corinthia McCoy/Press-Gazette
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
...And it's okay for people to keep doing 20 mph over the limit; and in a school zone no less??!!
UmneyDurak
...And it's okay for people to keep doing 20 mph over the limit; and in a school zone no less??!!
The issue is more of she was passing another vehicle on a blind curve.
gcottay
Speed kills.
SSP
Not to defend the driver, but "westbound at 7:40 pm" she was driving into the sun.
It seems likely that the glare from the sun may have been a contributing factor...combined with her lack of experience, and lack of good judgement, of course.
Pig_Chaser
Not to defend the driver, but "westbound at 7:40 pm" she was driving into the sun.
It seems likely that the glare from the sun may have been a contributing factor...combined with her lack of experience, and lack of good judgement, of course.
um... then don't pass?! Although she passed on a blind corner, might as well do it into the setting sun.
noisebeam
Can I correctly assume this road was divided by double yellow line where the pass occurred?
Al
BarracksSi
-lane positioning comment here-
Noted;
-comment about driver education being not thorough enough-
StrangeWill
Noted;
-comment about driver education being not thorough enough-
-comment about speed limits being too high-
moore.sean
- comment about revoking license until 25 -
genec
-comment about over powered cars and teen drivers-
BarracksSi
Actually, I'd have second-guessed putting a school close to such a fast road.
And teen drivers don't need overpowered cars to drive stupidly, either. ;)
Allister
That was no accident.
YULitle
-comment on how comments need no commenting-
Knave
There's a winding road near me that I use often that has three blind turns almost consecutively. The limit is 50km/h (Canada), and I can't even remember how many times I've been going around 55, only to be passed on a double yellow by some moron going at least 70. I've also biked this road many times, and see other bikers using it, too, and I know that it's an accident waiting to happen. I absolutely hate people who care so little for anyone else's well being that they'll potentially endanger lives to get to who-knows-where 10 seconds sooner.
I always wish that the cops will be just around the corner when something like this happens.
StrangeWill
That was no accident.
If you go with that theory, accidents don't really exist.
Actually, I'd have second-guessed putting a school close to such a fast road.
And teen drivers don't need overpowered cars to drive stupidly, either. ;)
7:30pm, doesn't really matter, and during school hours it should drop to 25. If it's enforced, hard to say... but typically when there are students out and about people tend to actually slow down.
Feathers
cellular records should be pulled to determine if she was text-messaging and/or chatting at the time of the accident.
CommuterRun
If you go with that theory, accidents don't really exist.
Real accidents, being an incident no one has any control over, are very rare.
Wrecks or crashes, such as this one, are caused by people that act in an incompetent manner, or do something stupid.
Calling a crash an "accident" is just a PC way of not assigning blame when it is deserved.
StrangeWill
Real accidents, being an incident no one has any control over, are very rare.
Laws of physics says this doesn't exist.
FriendlyFred
Real accidents, being an incident no one has any control over, are very rare.
Wrecks or crashes, such as this one, are caused by people that act in an incompetent manner, or do something stupid.
Calling a crash an "accident" is just a PC way of not assigning blame when it is deserved.
Exactly!!
This has been one of my pet peeves for years. By calling things like this an 'accident,' it allows people to avoid responsibility. This was no accident, it wasn't caused by something out of the control of the person who caused it (the 16 year old girl). It was completely avoidable, thus NOT an accident.
It constantly amazes me that our society tolerates injuries and deaths caused by people in cars, yet if those exact same injuries or deaths were caused by a gun or a knife, the perpertrator would be charged with a felony and go to prison, doing hard time. Why is killing or hurting someone with a vehicle not as bad as killing or hurting someone with a gun or knife or poison? There's no logic to it.
BarracksSi
Why is killing or hurting someone with a vehicle not as bad as killing or hurting someone with a gun or knife or poison? There's no logic to it.
Because using a vehicle is not (usually) with the intent of hurting someone, whereas the actual purpose of guns, knives, and poisons is to kill or injure.
I still agree that almost all "accidents" are avoidable (everything apart from earthquakes, falling trees, and deer), and at least one person has to carry the blame for it.
shatdow
Laws of physics says this doesn't exist.
Really? How is that?
Feldman
Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement--the average non-minority, non-poor motorist needs to feel an oppressive fear of police whenever they are in/on a motor vehicle. Fear works--it would be a sign of progress to hear the the choice is being made to cycle, walk, or use mass transit because of scary stories re police stopping motorists.
littlewaywelt
Real accidents, being an incident no one has any control over, are very rare.
an accident is something that lacks intent, not responsibility or control.
Biking_Lawyer
Can I correctly assume this road was divided by double yellow line where the pass occurred?
Al
yes
Biking_Lawyer
If you go with that theory, accidents don't really exist.
7:30pm, doesn't really matter, and during school hours it should drop to 25. If it's enforced, hard to say... but typically when there are students out and about people tend to actually slow down.
I should clarify-the road where this happened is a county highway. The school is adjacent to the highway but does not face the highway. You access the school via a residential road that intersection with the highway right before where the accident occured.
Biking_Lawyer
an accident is something that lacks intent, not responsibility or control.
This was wreckless driving pure and simple: intentionally operating a motor vehicle in disregard of the rights of others.
StrangeWill
Really? How is that?
Choices always lead to a solution, and nothing is truly random.
Any choice made or lack thereof causes events to happen, and you could always have been more cautious.
I should clarify-the road where this happened is a county highway. The school is adjacent to the highway but does not face the highway. You access the school via a residential road that intersection with the highway right before where the accident occured.
Ah, okay.
littlewaywelt
This was wreckless driving pure and simple: intentionally operating a motor vehicle in disregard of the rights of others.
I agree. My commentary was about the mostly inappropriate dismissal of the term "accident."
BarracksSi
This was wreckless driving pure and simple: intentionally operating a motor vehicle in disregard of the rights of others.
Just picking nits (sometimes I get into this nit-picking mode) --
It's spelled "reckless". What happened was, I guess, "wreckful", to invent a term. :)
CommuterRun
an accident is something that lacks intent, not responsibility or control.
I see. So driving 70 in a 35 through a residential area is okay as long as the driver does not intend to run over any kids?
Sounds like a PC attempt to hold the guilty blameless.:rolleyes:
"Oh, he didn't intend to shoot and kill the clerk while holding up that liquor store. He was just wanted the money because he was deprived as a child."
If a meteor had come from the sky and struck her car, knocking it into the cyclist, then this act of stupidity could be called an accident.
StrangeWill
I see. So driving 70 in a 35 through a residential area is okay as long as the driver does not intend to run over any kids?
Sounds like a PC attempt to hold the guilty blameless.:rolleyes:
"Oh, he didn't intend to shoot and kill the clerk while holding up that liquor store. He was just wanted the money because he was deprived as a child."
If a meteor had come from the sky and struck her car, knocking it into the cyclist, then this act of stupidity could be called an accident.
The OP says the limit is 45, and the article says nothing of speedling:
http://greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/GPG0101/805130565/1978/GPG020101
Not to mention, 70mph head on is typically fatal on impact.
Allister
The OP says the limit is 45, and the article says nothing of speedling:
http://greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/GPG0101/805130565/1978/GPG020101
Not to mention, 70mph head on is typically fatal on impact.
That was just an example. In the case under discussion, the negligent act was crossing the double yellow line on a blind curve.
adamtki
This is why teenagers shouldn't be allowed to obtain a driver's license. Sorry it's an unpopular opinion and really quite inconvenient, but it'll save a significant amount of lives out there.
StrangeWill
That was just an example. In the case under discussion, the negligent act was crossing the double yellow line on a blind curve.
Sorry, I was going from the "This isn't an accident"==>"Yes it was"==>"Well -conditions for an accident-", I'd just figure it would relate.
CommuterRun
Thanks, Allister.:thumb:
Yes, it doesn't relate to the particular incident described in the OP. It's just an example of what could truthfully be called an accident.
BarracksSi
This is why teenagers shouldn't be allowed to obtain a driver's license. Sorry it's an unpopular opinion and really quite inconvenient, but it'll save a significant amount of lives out there.
And adults aren't much better, either, IMO. Delaying a license doesn't guarantee that they'll learn any more.
Germany's minimum age is 18, but they learn a hell of a lot more than we teach here, too. I've seen the exams. Their 18-year-olds know more about driving than many American 36-year-olds, I'll bet.
Kids can learn just about anything... if it's taught to them. Teach them the right stuff to begin with, drill it into their heads so they won't forget it, and they'll be fine.
adamtki
And adults aren't much better, either, IMO. Delaying a license doesn't guarantee that they'll learn any more.
Germany's minimum age is 18, but they learn a hell of a lot more than we teach here, too. I've seen the exams. Their 18-year-olds know more about driving than many American 36-year-olds, I'll bet.
Kids can learn just about anything... if it's taught to them. Teach them the right stuff to begin with, drill it into their heads so they won't forget it, and they'll be fine.
The problem with teenagers is not about what they know or don't know. It's about how they make decisions. They take a lot more risks because of peer pressure and immaturity. And they don't quite grasp how risky things can be like an adult. Their brains are quite wired that way yet. Of course, you can always find examples foolish adults and very mature teenage drivers, but the overal trend is what I state.
StrangeWill
The problem with teenagers is not about what they know or don't know. It's about how they make decisions. They take a lot more risks because of peer pressure and immaturity. And they don't quite grasp how risky things can be like an adult. Their brains are quite wired that way yet. Of course, you can always find examples foolish adults and very mature teenage drivers, but the overal trend is what I state.
If that was purely the case, we wouldn't be handing out licenses till people were in their late 20s early 30s. It's mainly just age discrimination and lack of a grip on the facts of reality. People are easily pressured well into "adulthood".
BarracksSi
The problem with teenagers is not about what they know or don't know. It's about how they make decisions. They take a lot more risks because of peer pressure and immaturity. And they don't quite grasp how risky things can be like an adult. Their brains are quite wired that way yet. Of course, you can always find examples foolish adults and very mature teenage drivers, but the overal trend is what I state.
"Immaturity" means a lack of understanding of how easily things can get out of hand -- which comes back to a lack of training. Nobody wants to wreck their car. And with better education comes more constructive peer pressure.
I will always say that most driving problems come from poor driver training. I'm not going to buy the BS about "learning through experience", because such a learning experience was the genesis of this thread, and it seems pretty ridiculous to expect people to die in the name of learning how to drive.
robertlinthicum
This "accident" was surely a "mistake" on this girl's part, but she is quite fortunate for two reasons:
- I won't be her judge, because I would set an attention-getting precedent; and
- because this type of event usually lacks the aforementioned intent, she will walk with a very un-painful sentence (even if the victim dies in hospital).
maddmaxx
Its pretty clear cut. Passing a car on a blind curve and hitting someone is not an accident. It is a willful act, little different from firing a gun into the air without knowledge of where the round will impact. As long as people come forward with the "poor girl, she was a really good person" attitude we will be a society that refuses to take our heads out of the sand.
You are and should be responsible for what you do in this life. Never let her drive again. That is the message to send.
BarracksSi
Its pretty clear cut. Passing a car on a blind curve and hitting someone is not an accident. It is a willful act,
Passing a car on a blind curve is a willful act. Hitting someone is not (at least I hope it wasn't).
...little different from firing a gun into the air without knowledge of where the round will impact.
That's pretty true, although I still don't like car-to-gun comparisons since they were made for completely different purposes. Even so, both are actions that don't seem to have any immediate consequence but, with just a little more thought, should be understood to be dangerous.
As long as people come forward with the "poor girl, she was a really good person" attitude we will be a society that refuses to take our heads out of the sand.
Plus, we'd never think that maybe, just maybe, her parents or Driver's Ed teacher (HA.. "teacher"..) really didn't get across the idea that passing on a double yellow is dangerous. Maybe her parents do it all the time, too.
maddmaxx
Did anyone feel this bad for the policeman in California that crossed the line in a curve and killed?
No?
Her parents didn't do it, her teacher didn't do it, her pastor didn't do it. She did it and another human being is lying in a hospital. Responsibility 101.
littlewaywelt
I see. So driving 70 in a 35 through a residential area is okay as long as the driver does not intend to run over any kids?
Sounds like a PC attempt to hold the guilty blameless.:rolleyes:
"Oh, he didn't intend to shoot and kill the clerk while holding up that liquor store. He was just wanted the money because he was deprived as a child."
If a meteor had come from the sky and struck her car, knocking it into the cyclist, then this act of stupidity could be called an accident.
Please pay attention and re-read my post.
As I stated an accident does not absolve responsibility in any manner, nor does it mean that reckless or negligent acts/behavior weren't involved. It simply means the act was committed without intent.
Your shooting argument would be a perfect example of intent. It's something that has to be proven and is a fundamental element of the charge/crime. I suggest you do some googling on the degrees of murder and homicide and learn the differences and why intent is always relevant. It has nothing to do with what's "PC."
CommuterRun
That is not the point. The point is that an incident which results from an action taken out of negligence, is not an accident.
littlewaywelt
Miriam Webster
Accident:
1 a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b: lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>2 a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b: an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c: an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d—used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation3: a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>
CommuterRun
Very good. Now apply that to vehicle crashes and you will see how very few are "accidents".
StrangeWill
a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignoranceSeems to fit.
As I always say, if you remove the ability to call an accident anything that you were careless about on some level, there are no such things as accidents. They're either completely unhandable events or your own undoing. Slipping on a wet floor? Your fault for not paying closer attention to your walking surfaces.
Accidents by definition are something you can avoid, hence why people can take responsibility for accidents. Then again who needs the English language when you can skew it beyond meaning.