Advocacy & Safety - Three year old killed :(

http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_12356252?source=rss <-- fixed link


And just this morning another cyclist was killed. :(

Hmm... must not be newsworthy for A&S.

Well. The link won't load, so I have no idea. This A&S thus remains unable to comment.

Sorry...

http://www.twincities.com/columnists/ci_12356252?source=rss <-- fixed link

I saw this news item when it happened.

No insurance and passed cars stopped at the crosswalk. The best the family can hope for is that they throw the book at this guy. Hopefully that will mean losing his license and a good long stretch in prison. Hate to say it, but not very likely. More like a short sentence and a short suspension of his license, which he will probably ignore. But I hope I'm wrong.

My Godson is three; I worry about him all the time.

Rest in Peace, little Jack.

Hmm... must not be newsworthy for A&S.

While the death is indeed tragic, the point of posting this in A&S is?

Seriously, is the crowd here so morbid they need to drag in stories of death. How about a happy story of Iraqi children playing in sunflower fields?

Cycling life is dangerous enough without worrying about non-cycling car crashes.

I think it's a good post. It goes to show how we always need to expect the unexpected. Also, how old is a 66 year old's grandparents?

Cycling life is dangerous enough without worrying about non-cycling car crashes.The three-year-old was on a bike, crossing in the crosswalk with other children, All the cars had stopped to let them cross, this jackass passed all the stopped cars, on the right, and blew through the crosswalk, killing this little guy the day before Mother's Day.

No insurance and the person hit and killed a 3 year old, license should be revoked permanently.

This is a story about JAMs... and how they feel they own the road.

Everyone else had stopped, and was waiting for the children to cross... yet this one guy HAD to drive past a line of stopped cars, on the shoulder, and just HAD to get through that intersection. One ounce of common sense on the drivers' part could have saved this child.


Jack was with several other children who were crossing a road. Traffic had stopped to let the children to cross when authorities say a van driven by Sherman Bernard Frederick passed the waiting cars on the right shoulder and struck Jack. The boy died at the scene.

I hope they hang the driver.

This is a story about JAMs... and how they feel they own the road

I fail to see any mention of the motorist thinking he had some divine right to the road. Nice sentiment though, really goes to the whole us vs them mentality the A&S hand wringers like to foster.

Also, how old is a 66 year old's grandparents?

The three year old was visiting his grandparents.

Cycling life is dangerous enough without worrying about non-cycling car crashes.

Please tell me you are joking.


I hope they hang the driver......

.....by his testicles.


While the death is indeed tragic, the point of posting this in A&S is?

Seriously, is the crowd here so morbid they need to drag in stories of death. How about a happy story of Iraqi children playing in sunflower fields?

+1

Postings like this remind me of people who rubberneck at an accident scene.

The three-year-old was on a bike, crossing in the crosswalk with other children, All the cars had stopped to let them cross, this jackass passed all the stopped cars, on the right, and blew through the crosswalk, killing this little guy the day before Mother's Day.



RIP...Ghost bike in a child's size?

Good long prison term for JAM...

RIP...Ghost bike in a child's size

Yeah, that's a nice touch.

Yeah, that's a nice touch.

Damn right it's nice...

From the Ghost Bike website (http://www.ghostbikes.org/)

For a Departed Daughter, a White Schwinn on a Manhattan Street Corner
(New York City)
Published: Mar, 1 2009
New York Times

For the past seven months or so, the couple has made the trip to the corner of 49th Street and First Avenue in Manhattan 20 times. There,
chained to a “no standing” sign, is a bicycle painted in white. This spot, rather than a grave site, is where they go to feel close to their daughter.

He should have been taking the lane.

I fail to see any mention of the motorist thinking he had some divine right to the road. Nice sentiment though, really goes to the whole us vs them mentality the A&S hand wringers like to foster.

Really... so a motorist "goes to the head of the line" so to speak, and you see no reason to think "he had some divine right to the road?"

Really... so a motorist "goes to the head of the line" so to speak, and you see no reason to think "he had some divine right to the road?"

We call it filtering nub.

We call it filtering nub.

When it's done illegally by an impatient motorist in Minnesota, and the result is the death of a child legally crossing the road, they call it Criminal Vehicular Homicide.

Will wonders never cease? A negligent driver may actually be held responsible, at least in some small way, for his actions.

RIP...Ghost bike in a child's size?


Maybe. We'll try to organize. It's a long ride up and back from the Minneapolis area.

We call it filtering nub.

It's "filtering" and "sharing the road" when a two wheeled vehicle uses what is left of the pavement to progress forward. It's a crime when a four wheeled motorist does it to other four wheeled motorists. In nearly every state I can think of, it is a crime to pass on the right.

It's "filtering" and "sharing the road" when a two wheeled vehicle uses what is left of the pavement to progress forward. It's a crime when a four wheeled motorist does it to other four wheeled motorists. In nearly every state I can think of, it is a crime to pass on the right.


And 99% of motorists will justify the action. Just like the cyclist who won't stop for a red.

And 99% of motorists will justify the action. Just like the cyclist who won't stop for a red.

Really... then why is it the majority of motorists stopped and waited and only this one clown went forward and around? According to you... 99% would have just gone around.

And comparing red light running cyclists, who are taking their own lives in hand to do so, is hardly an even close parallel to a lane jumping motorist that killed a kid. :rolleyes:

And comparing red light running cyclists, who are taking their own lives in hand to do so, is hardly an even close parallel to a lane jumping motorist that killed a kid. He's not comparing the action itself, he's comparing the human behavior of offering self-serving justifications to explain away actions that are against social and/or legal norms.

He's not comparing the action itself, he's comparing the human behavior of offering self-serving justifications to explain away actions that are against social and/or legal norms.

Well the social and legal norms he is speaking of are largely due to habits of the motoring public... and thus the 1% of the cycling public is trying to develop new "norms" for conditions and situations that may not apply to their form of two wheeled transit. (in spite of the same rules same rights crowd, I believe that bikes are not cars)

But since we are speaking of social/legal norms... why is it that every motorist stopped but one?

Well the social and legal norms he is speaking of are largely due to habits of the motoring public... and thus the 1% of the cycling public is trying to develop new "norms" for conditions and situations that may not apply to their form of two wheeled transit. (in spite of the same rules same rights crowd, I believe that bikes are not cars)Not the point. You're focusing on behavior. The point he was making is that people will justify their behavior.


But since we are speaking of social/legal norms... why is it that every motorist stopped but one?Most of them were following the rules of the road. Why? Maybe the others saw the children and he didn't. Or maybe they were just stopping because the law requires them to stop. Maybe the others have the sense to know that stopped cars means pedestrians in the crosswalk. I don't know.

Not the point. You're focusing on behavior. The point he was making is that people will justify their behavior.


No, people will rationalize their behavior... there is no way to justify a killing like that.



Most of them were following the rules of the road. Why? Maybe the others saw the children and he didn't. Or maybe they were just stopping because the law requires them to stop. Maybe the others have the sense to know that stopped cars means pedestrians in the crosswalk. I don't know.

Sounds like you are trying to rationalize the behavior of most of the law abiding drivers. :D

No, people will rationalize their behavior... there is no way to justify a killing like that.But Dobber was saying most motorists would rationalize passing on the right/filtering forward. He wasn't saying most motorists would rationalize killing a three year old in the process.

Note, however, that for any behavior, no matter how reprehensible you or I might find it, there's probably somebody out there who will explain it away.



Sounds like you are trying to rationalize the behavior of most of the law abiding drivers. :DIf they were observing their duties to others, what's there to rationalize?