Advocacy & Safety - 11 Year Old killed

11 year old killed.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh187/10wheels/0822-LOC-Fatal-1-KMC.jpg

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=23c4f4af432cb6dd

Tragic.

A helmet may have saved his life.

Tragic.

A helmet may have saved his life.

Don't you dare! A young child is dead! DEAD!

This isn't a game, this isn't something to use to beat out your own agenda, this is a life lost!

Don't you dare! A young child is dead! DEAD!

This isn't a game, this isn't something to use to beat out your own agenda, this is a life lost!

If this isn't a game or meant to "beat out" an agenda, why did it get posted here? I could be wrong, but I'm sure it isn't to garner memorial donations for the family.

Certainly a tragedy and no one could reasonably argue otherwise however had the child been wearing a helmet a young life may have been saved.

said Vincent suffered head trauma and was pronounced dead at 2:30 p.m.


From that you could argue a helmet may have helped.
A younger driver could have helped.
A more cautious youth could have helped.
A more observant driver could have helped, I know I watch kids like a hawk, all ages, walking or biking because you never know what they're going to do.

A sad accident indeed...RIP

Wow, pro-helmets actually want this kid to be dead by head trauma so they can use the death for their arguments.

Low people, real low. This is like special level of hell low.

Wow, pro-helmets actually want this kid to be dead by head trauma so they can use the death for their arguments.


http://members.aol.com/plittle/StrawmanPoster.jpg

Anyway, as others have said, this is a sad story that might have turned out differently if he'd been wearing one. Considering it's the only factor the rider actually has control over in a collision, why take the risk?

I do question this statement: “It appears to be an unavoidable, tragic accident,” Viel said.

A collision occurs because one party operates unlawfully and the other is unable to compensate in time. I suspect, but certainly cannot prove, that both parties were less attentive than they should be. Perhaps a stop sign or a yield sign should be posted, if this is indeed a somewhat ambiguous 3-way intersection.

Rip.

"The car was stopped in the opposing traffic lane, 20 or so yards east of the bicycle."

Are they saying it took her 60 feet to stop her car after hitting the kid AND she ended up in the wrong lane, all on a residential street? Also, this was on a road to a field where kids play. Wouldn't you be extra cautious in an area like that?

"The car was stopped in the opposing traffic lane, 20 or so yards east of the bicycle."

Are they saying it took her 60 feet to stop her car after hitting the kid AND she ended up in the wrong lane, all on a residential street? Also, this was on a road to a field where kids play. Wouldn't you be extra cautious in an area like that?

What part of 77 year OLD woman in a caprice classic (I'm guessing the car) did you not understand. It took her 3 to 5 seconds to react with the break considering here knee and hip replacment. Don't forget response time isn't what it used to be, and did she have her glasses on, or did she forget them with her dentures? Old folks have a hard time keeping their motor vehicle undercontrol and in their lane under normal circumstances much less during an emergency.

Most old people that drive don't even recognize anyones right to be on the road (car, bike, walking or otherwise) but their own, but that is beside the point.

I remember once in colleg a old woman was if front of me in her buick at a redlight. I heard the ambulance (lights and all) I watched if for 2 or 3 seconds coming from our left. Our light turned green and the old bat pulled right out and the ambulance T-boned her. She didn't have a clue...

A friend of mines GD didn't make it across all 4 lanes of traffic and instead started Eastbound in the Westbound lane. He drove like that for a half mile before hitting and killing the passenger in a oncoming car, and himself. He was 90...

Another old woman decided to go Southbound in the Northbound lane of I77 before getting run over by a rig a few years back.

Old people and awarness don't always go hand in hand....I'm sure she didn't mean to strike the kid, but her age couldn't have helped the situation much. IMHO

Young people and awarness don't always go hand in hand either...result ACCIDENT.

What part of 77 year OLD woman in a caprice classic (I'm guessing the car) did you not understand. It took her 3 to 5 seconds to react with the break considering here knee and hip replacment. Don't forget response time isn't what it used to be, and did she have her glasses on, or did she forget them with her dentures? Old folks have a hard time keeping their motor vehicle undercontrol and in their lane under normal circumstances much less during an emergency.

Most old people that drive don't even recognize anyones right to be on the road (car, bike, walking or otherwise) but their own, but that is beside the point.

I remember once in colleg a old woman was if front of me in her buick at a redlight. I heard the ambulance (lights and all) I watched if for 2 or 3 seconds coming from our left. Our light turned green and the old bat pulled right out and the ambulance T-boned her. She didn't have a clue...

A friend of mines GD didn't make it across all 4 lanes of traffic and instead started Eastbound in the Westbound lane. He drove like that for a half mile before hitting and killing the passenger in a oncoming car, and himself. He was 90...

Another old woman decided to go Southbound in the Northbound lane of I77 before getting run over by a rig a few years back.

Old people and awarness don't always go hand in hand....I'm sure she didn't mean to strike the kid, but her age couldn't have helped the situation much. IMHO

Young people and awarness don't always go hand in hand either...result ACCIDENT.

Define old?

Define old?

I remember a graph in the car free forum a week or two ago that showed older drivers were as bad as (worse than?) younger drivers, depending on the ranges considered.

Define old?

30

30

no on on...at least make it 40, I'm over 30 but under 40...

Old = people that don't understand the PC and are skeert of the internet(s)

INTRODUCTION


Knowledge of human growth and development is basic to the healthcare of individuals across the life span. For healthcare professionals to properly and appropriately care for their patients, an understanding of the different stages of development and tasks to be accomplished in each stage are necessary. The following review and testing of development and milestones throughout the life span is intended to familiarize you with and provide a minimal competency of growth and development for JCAHO standards. This is an annual requirement.



EIRCKSON’S DEVELOPMENTAL TASKS


According to Erickson, at each stage of development there are certain tasks that must be accomplished for the person to experience normal psychological development.

Infancy (Birth to 1 Year) Trust vs. Mistrust

Toddler (1 – 3 Years) Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

Preschool (3-5 Years) Initiative vs. Guilt

Middle Childhood (6 – 12 Years) Industry vs. Inferiority

Adolescence (13 – 17 Years) Identity vs. Role Confusion

Young Adulthood (18 – 40 Years) Intimacy vs. Isolation

Middle Adulthood (40 – 64 Years) Generativity vs. Stagnation

Late Adulthood (pc term for old) (65 Years and older) Ego Integrity vs. Despair

Assessment of growth, development and maturation focuses on four major areas: physical, cognitive, social and emotional capabilities. Physical capabilities include gross and fine motor skills as well as strength, stamina, fatigue and pain. Cognitive capabilities include thought, perception, understanding and reasoning. Social capabilities are reflected by relationships established with family, friends, and others. Emotional capabilities reflect one’s awareness and ability to apply feelings to people and situations.

This review will describe the major growth and development characteristics and milestones for children and adults. This is only a guide and is in no way to be used to interpret what all people are like or should be like. Remember people are individuals!

As medical professionals, we are expected to adapt our exam and assessments to the developmental level of the individual. Each section will describe various nursing considerations to keep in mind when dealing with each developmental level.

am i reading this right? there is no stop sign where the roads merge. . . for either person???

the article says there was no stop sign . . . but there's one in the background

????????????????????????????????

am i reading this right? there is no stop sign where the roads merge. . . for either person???

good catch...

It reads like the road the kid on coming off of was a dead end at a practice field of something. Sounds like it's time to call the lawyer for the parents of the kid.

the article says there was no stop sign . . . but there's one in the background

????????????????????????????????


The picture is from a photobucket account, I don't think it applies in this case. Just a visual.

It reads like the road the kid on coming off of was a dead end at a practice field of something. Sounds like it's time to call the lawyer for the parents of the kid.

Why? It sounds like the young cyclist did not stop or yield to driver who had row. If he had how could he have been hit?

"The car was stopped in the opposing traffic lane, 20 or so yards east of the bicycle."

Are they saying it took her 60 feet to stop her car after hitting the kid AND she ended up in the wrong lane, all on a residential street? Also, this was on a road to a field where kids play. Wouldn't you be extra cautious in an area like that?

At 35 mph, a car is moving at 51.33 feet per second - average stopping distance at that speed would be 100 feet - likely the driver was going closer to 25 mph and slammed on the brakes to get it stopped in 60 feet:

http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/stoppingdistance.shtml

The picture is from a photobucket account, I don't think it applies in this case. Just a visual.

It is the photo from the accident site.

UP Date:
No Charges against the driver.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5960326.html

location
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=13th+avenue,+texas+city,+tx&sll=29.305823,-94.780254&sspn=0.023577,0.029397&ie=UTF8&ll=29.396798,-94.918841&spn=0.001472,0.001837&t=h&z=19

The woman was heading east on 13th when the boy darted in front of her, Veil said.


Heh. How convenient.

It's the kids fault for not stopping and looking both ways when crossing a street, not to mention when the street he is crossing is larger than the street he was on. It doesn't matter if there is a stop sign or not, people have to look after their own safety. There is a town in Germany, i believe, where they are testing out how people handle the road when there are no road signs present, and frankly it works pretty well. It's the crap U.S. mentality of I need to speed to get to the red light first which causes all these accidents. Older drivers should not be driving either, and those who are should be subject to yearly random driving exams with the location always changing.

if the old woman ran a stop sign and hit the kid, this would be a tragic accident. Since the kid darted out, what sounds like, right in front of her it's his fault mostly. That driver should be paying attention to the intersection in front of her and if she was she would have easily seen the cyclist since he was heading north and she was heading east.

Heh. How convenient.

An 11 year old child is dead, ass-munch.

Having a posse of little kids myself, I can't imagine the anguish of the parents. But I can also see how the accident occurred through no fault of the driver, other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Kids, especially at this age, are very impulsive at not always aware of the dangers surrounding them.

Kids, especially at this age, are very impulsive at not always aware of the dangers surrounding them.

But, as this thread demonstrates, the allegedly "adult" BF expert second guessers/know-it-alls are aware of all the stereotypes, truisms and Conventional Wisdom that surrounds everybody else at every accident/collision when pontificating about fault and/or cause of the tragedy. This thread is filled with hot air from some Real Obnoxious characters totally lacking in empathy.

Why? It sounds like the young cyclist did not stop or yield to driver who had row. If he had how could he have been hit?

This is America, you can sue for anything and everything.

Sue the bike company for not having Ultrasonic detectors installed from the factory.
Sue The state for not requiring 65+ YO's retake a drivers exam.
Sue the state for not requiring bicyclist to take a operators exam.
Sue the state for not having stop/yeild/bike/children playing signs.
Sue the state for not having a helmet law if they don't.
Sue the auto maker for not having safe impact zones on the car.
Sue the state for not having bike lanes...

See....John Edwards could be in hog heaven here.

An 11 year old child is dead.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. I didn't really pick that up from the thread title.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. I didn't really pick that up from the thread title.

Blow it out your cake hole, jack off

Blow

http://www.impawards.com/2001/posters/blow.jpg

Wow, pro-helmets actually want this kid to be dead by head trauma so they can use the death for their arguments.

Low people, real low. This is like special level of hell low.

And, amazingly, this post goes even lower than its tortured imaginings of the minds' of others.

There is no doubt in any rational mind that a helmet provides some level of protection.

Would that level of protection have saved a life here? There is, again, no potential for any rational mind to know for sure a helmet would have saved this child's life.

Helmets can sometimes help. Traffic controls can sometimes help. Driver education and testing can sometimes help. Rider education can sometimes help. Separate facilities can sometimes help. Road riding can sometimes help. Even sidewalk riding can sometimes help.

Perhaps this child's death can even help reminds us of our potential for taking action to help kids ride and ride safely.

Just another example with siding with motorists. This is a pretty extreme case.
When I see a bicyclist I SLOW DOWN and WATCH what the kid is about to do.
When I'm on a residential street I drive no faster than 25 mph.
No.
I don't accept that the driver has no charges.
It's not even about age.
It's about the motorist is driving by a park.
It's about the motorist FAILED TO CONTROL HER CAR.
I'm sure this isn't going to end.
I'm sure she'll get harassment the next time ANYONE sees her behind the wheel again.

Just another example with siding with motorists. This is a pretty extreme case.
When I see a bicyclist I SLOW DOWN and WATCH what the kid is about to do.
When I'm on a residential street I drive no faster than 25 mph.
No.
I don't accept that the driver has no charges.
It's not even about age.
It's about the motorist is driving by a park.
It's about the motorist FAILED TO CONTROL HER CAR.
I'm sure this isn't going to end.
I'm sure she'll get harassment the next time ANYONE sees her behind the wheel again.


The key wording here is "see a bicyclist". I hear what your saying, I do the same thing. I spot some kids playing around or something near the road, they become the focus of my attention.

But you have to see them. How many times have you had a kid come shooting off a side street or down a driveway. Let's face it, they're not exactly adhering to the rules of the road.

For all we know, the women in question might have an exemplary driving record.

Just another example with siding with motorists. This is a pretty extreme case.
When I see a bicyclist I SLOW DOWN and WATCH what the kid is about to do.
When I'm on a residential street I drive no faster than 25 mph.
No.
I don't accept that the driver has no charges.
It's not even about age.
It's about the motorist is driving by a park.
It's about the motorist FAILED TO CONTROL HER CAR.
I'm sure this isn't going to end.
I'm sure she'll get harassment the next time ANYONE sees her behind the wheel again.

My guess is that at 77 y/o she will quit driving.

What a shame. But, are we to learn something from this? I mean, there are a lot of 77 year old people who are perfectly capable drivers, and there are plenty of 11 year old kids who are quite careful. I don't get the feeling that blame can be assigned from this incident.

What a shame. But, are we to learn something from this? I mean, there are a lot of 77 year old people who are perfectly capable drivers, and there are plenty of 11 year old kids who are quite careful. I don't get the feeling that blame can be assigned from this incident.

You're in the AnS sub-forum, blame is automatic.

Just another example with siding with motorists. This is a pretty extreme case.
When I see a bicyclist I SLOW DOWN and WATCH what the kid is about to do.
When I'm on a residential street I drive no faster than 25 mph.
No.
I don't accept that the driver has no charges.
It's not even about age.
It's about the motorist is driving by a park.
It's about the motorist FAILED TO CONTROL HER CAR.
I'm sure this isn't going to end.
I'm sure she'll get harassment the next time ANYONE sees her behind the wheel again.

As previously stated, if you don't see the cyclist - you can't stop. She had no reason to be slowing down.
There was no indication that she was speeding.

How did she fail to control her car? If a young kind juts out a few feet in front of you, you don't have time to stop. It's an unfortunate accident - but just because she was driving a car doesn't make her guilty of wrong doing.

I hear what you're saying - I just think you're wrong in this case.

Define old?

Put a "Whack-a-Mole" game in every DMV. If an applicant for a DL can't reach a predetermined minimum score, No DL for YOU!

Let the Moles decide who's old.

BTW...in Honduras back in the 80s (maybe now, I don't know), upon reaching 65 years of age your DL automatically becomes void. No driving after 65 whatsoever - so I guess Honduras defines "old" at 65.

How did she fail to control her car? If a young kind juts out a few feet in front of you, you don't have time to stop. It's an unfortunate accident - but just because she was driving a car doesn't make her guilty of wrong doing.

I hear what you're saying - I just think you're wrong in this case.


I would CRASH MY CAR INTO A TREE by TURNING MY WHEEL before I would slam on my breaks and keep my wheel straight and go right into the kid.
Yes. I may be way off but I still have the REFLEXES to avoid the kid.
I would drive off the road before I would hit a kid.
No way.
I do feel sorry for the woman.
But we don't emphasize special driving maneuvers out there.
We take a road test. Some states do this in a parking lot.
Some states don't require to even parallel park.
A road test should involve panic stops.
It should involve if you can control your car under severe conditions.
Yes. I'm dreaming.
But I cannot accept this.
Kids will be kids.
Others have the legal right to drive a 2 ton death machine.
It's okay for a driver to pass you within an inch of your body.
It's okay as long as there's no accident.
And apparently it's okay if they run you over too.

I would CRASH MY CAR INTO A TREE by TURNING MY WHEEL before I would slam on my breaks and keep my wheel straight and go right into the kid.
Yes. I may be way off but I still have the REFLEXES to avoid the kid.
I would drive off the road before I would hit a kid.



Your apparent grasp of reality is truly pathetic.

If you think this accident might have been avoided by simply turing the steering wheel, you are deluded.

If you think you've got the reflexs to avoid similar situations, please, stay off the road.

Something that seems to be missing in this thread, is the fact that, in many states, the person that gets to the intersection first has the right of way, or the vehicle entering from the right, but since the kid was on a bike, and not in his car, well.....................................

Put a "Whack-a-Mole" game in every DMV. If an applicant for a DL can't reach a predetermined minimum score, No DL for YOU!

Let the Moles decide who's old.

BTW...in Honduras back in the 80s (maybe now, I don't know), upon reaching 65 years of age your DL automatically becomes void. No driving after 65 whatsoever - so I guess Honduras defines "old" at 65.

Although "Whack-a-Mole" is a pretty ignorant idea, this does point to the necessity of drivers tests, tough and often. Perhaps answering 30 questions on how far away from the curb to park isn't cutting it. On the other hand, from my personal observations, there are not as many young drivers (or bikers) who would pass my test.

Does anyone have any more "real" information on this situation.

And, amazingly, this post goes even lower than its tortured imaginings of the minds' of others.

There is no doubt in any rational mind that a helmet provides some level of protection.

Would that level of protection have saved a life here? There is, again, no potential for any rational mind to know for sure a helmet would have saved this child's life.

Helmets can sometimes help. Traffic controls can sometimes help. Driver education and testing can sometimes help. Rider education can sometimes help. Separate facilities can sometimes help. Road riding can sometimes help. Even sidewalk riding can sometimes help.

Perhaps this child's death can even help reminds us of our potential for taking action to help kids ride and ride safely.

I didn't want to enter the helmet argument here, because, imho, it's not what we should be talking about in this instance.

But.
Your commentary about "any rational mind" doesn't hold water. I've been a volunteer ski patroller (think emt on skis) for the last six years and seen my share of head injuries among helmeted and non-helmeted skiers and snowboarders. There have been two well received papers in the last three years seriously drawing into account the efficacy of ski helmets (one is the sugarbush whitepaper, can't recall the name of the other but it came out of sweden or norway if memory serves).

The ski industry (in any wreck involving ski patrol) unlike the bike universe has uniform reporting on helmets and resultingly a much better data set. The conclusions raised two substantial concerns. By an overwhelming number, skiers with helmets were more likely to get killed than non-helmeted skiers. Additionally ski helmets don't help in the types of wrecks where lethal level head injuries happen. Unfortunately we can't get around physics in that the skull is very strong and the fluid around the brain can only mitigate so much deceleration.

Serious skiing wrecks are very similar to bike wrecks in the types of injuries seen, forces and speeds encountered and obstacles that are impacted. Additionally, ski helmets are extremely similar to bike helmets.

That's not to say that bike helmets can't help. My kids wear them and so do I, but I don't kid myself that they are going to do anything in a really serious impact. They help protect against superficial injuries and in some instances can help prevent penetrating injuries by dispersing force (like your skull hitting the edge of a curb). They aren't going to do very much against sudden and severe deceleration.

Are the ski helmets as lightly constructed as bike helmets?

Are the ski helmets as lightly constructed as bike helmets?
Edited my previous post to add that.
Yes they are. A plastic shell surrounding a styrofoam core. The plastic shell is usually a little thicker than a bike helmet's, but the styrofoam liner is often a little thinner. In some cases the shell is carbon fiber, but that's for weight reduction more than anything else.
Ski helmets used to be like motorcycle helmets, heavy and effective, but they led to increased neck injuries.

Ski racers wear helmets not to protect their heads from bad wrecks. They have to by the rules, and the only thing they really do is help protect the head from gate impacts.

Something that seems to be missing in this thread, is the fact that, in many states, the person that gets to the intersection first has the right of way, or the vehicle entering from the right, but since the kid was on a bike, and not in his car, well.....................................

The type of conveyance has nothing to do with right of way regardless of your innuendo. The law that you refer to is applicable in the case of an intersection with stop signs. From the street view in Google, 13th Ave N has no stop signs. 16th St southbound has a stop sign but the northbound access road has none. Why? Street view also shows a white fence with four horizontal rails which could have done a good job of obscuring a drivers view. Also in street view I got a sense that the ground around the creek area was lower than the road. If the child came out of there that also could have been a contributing factor. I scrolled west as far as 23rd St looking for a speed limit sign but saw none. Anyone know what the speed limit is there?

16th St southbound has a stop sign but the northbound access road has none.
Is it known that the cyclist was traveling northbound on the street labeled as 'S 16th St' on Google Maps?

Assuming so...

"§ 545.151. VEHICLE APPROACHING OR ENTERING
INTERSECTION.
[cut]
(d) Except as provided in Subsection (e), an operator
approaching an intersection of a street or roadway that is not
controlled by an official traffic-control device:
(1) shall stop, yield, and grant immediate use of the
intersection to a vehicle that has entered the intersection from
the operator's right[0] or is approaching the intersection from the
operator's right[0] in a proximity that is a hazard; and
(2) after stopping, may proceed when the intersection
can be safely entered without interference or collision with
traffic using a different street or roadway."

However there was a stop sign for southbound N 16th St. - does this qualify the intersection as a controlled one?

Al