Advocacy & Safety - Witnessed a horrible accident yesterday

I was in the parking lot at the grocery store putting the bags up in my car. There was a car that I saw was exiting the parking lot, going a bit fast in my opinion. The guy didn't stop before entering the street even though there was not a stop sign.

There was a kid, maybe 8 years of age or so, that was riding on the sidewalk, but going against the flow of traffic. The driver just nailed him. It was terrible. The little kid was knocked unconscious and somebody called the ambulance. When the kid started to come back to his senses, he was screaming in agony about his leg.

There was a crowd that formed so I couldn't see his injuries. I'm just wondering though. Is the driver at fault?

If the kid was riding at a pedestrian speed against the flow of traffic on the sidewalk, I'd say the driver is at fault.

The driver should have stopped before rolling crossing the sidewalk. I've almost been nailed like that just walking on the sidewalk.

Driver's fault.

How fast was the kid going? There is no "flow of traffic" on a normal sidewalk.

I was in the parking lot at the grocery store putting the bags up in my car. There was a car that I saw was exiting the parking lot, going a bit fast in my opinion. The guy didn't stop before entering the street even though there was not a stop sign.

There was a kid, maybe 8 years of age or so, that was riding on the sidewalk, but going against the flow of traffic. The driver just nailed him. It was terrible. The little kid was knocked unconscious and somebody called the ambulance. When the kid started to come back to his senses, he was screaming in agony about his leg.

There was a crowd that formed so I couldn't see his injuries. I'm just wondering though. Is the driver at fault?

At least partially, yes. When leaving a parking lot even if there isn't a stop sign or light one should slow down and look for all forms of traffic.

I had a similar close call this past weekend, I was passing a bus that was in a right hand turn lane that was in front of bowling alley. There is a bus stop in the right turn lane, and the bus stop is just a couple of yards south of the driveway coming out of the parking lot.

Instead of waiting for the bus to pass to make sure that it wasn't "hiding" anything the driver just pulls right out into the street.

Shimon Peres would have called the kid an "obstacle to Peace" and found him to be at-fault: "If he hadn't been there, it wouldn't have happened!"

I'm sorry to hear about this. It's a perfect and unfortunate example of why we teach that riding on sidewalks and against traffic is dangerous.

If it happened as you describe, then to me the driver is at fault. He have been more careful when pulling out of a driveway, across a sidewalk, where pedestrians or kids on bikes may be present. I don't know what TX law says about this situation though, if anything. Unfortunately, the driver may not be charged if it's not clear that a law was broken.

I'm sorry to hear about this. It's a perfect and unfortunate example of why we teach that riding on sidewalks and against traffic is dangerous.

If it happened as you describe, then to me the driver is at fault. He have been more careful when pulling out of a driveway, across a sidewalk, where pedestrians or kids on bikes may be present. I don't know what TX law says about this situation though, if anything. Unfortunately, the driver may not be charged if it's not clear that a law was broken.

The automobile operator committed a crime by not stopping before proceeding across the sidewalk and also by failing to yield for the pedestrian.


Sec. 545.256. EMERGING FROM AN ALLEY, DRIVEWAY, OR BUILDING. An operator emerging from an alley, driveway, or building in a business or residence district shall:

(1) stop the vehicle before moving on a sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across an alley or driveway;

(2) yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian to avoid collision; and

(3) on entering the roadway, yield the right-of-way to an approaching vehicle.

I'm sorry to hear about this. It's a perfect and unfortunate example of why we teach that riding on sidewalks and against traffic is dangerous.

True, but considering that the cyclist in question is an eight year old child approximately, they need a safe environment to practice and learn the skills needed for dealing with traffic. The same goes for adults who have either never ridden a bike or are returning to bike riding.


If it happened as you describe, then to me the driver is at fault. He have been more careful when pulling out of a driveway, across a sidewalk, where pedestrians or kids on bikes may be present. I don't know what TX law says about this situation though, if anything. Unfortunately, the driver may not be charged if it's not clear that a law was broken.

It also sounds as if it is a hit and run "accident." I put accident in quotes in this case because had the driver in question stopped before proceeding he wouldn't have hit the child.

I used to go to a lot of political-demonstrations. And saw a great number of peaceful people get their heads cracked by police and national guard troops. I felt helpless not knowing what to do - so I took the EMT course at my local hospital. It, too, is like riding a bicycle.

Maybe this will compel a few of you to go take the EMT course. You never know when you'll be in the boonies and someone gets mowed-down by an idiot in a car. Feeling helpless sucks.

What ChipSeal said... He cited the Texas law, but that's the same pretty much throughout the South.

Children don't have the sensory and judgmental skills yet to ride safely on the streets or in traffic. So we recommend that they learn to ride on the sidewalks, in residential areas under adult supervision (most communities ban riding the sidewalks in commercial or business districts, but leave the residential areas open for just this reason) until their parents or guardians have enough trust in their skills and judgment to let them start riding in the street. Street crossings should be pedestrian-style, walking their bikes thru the crosswalks.

I recall in one Safe Routes to School training session last month that kids are about 10 years old before they can really be trusted in the streets by themselves. At any rate, I tell my students that it's the parents' decision, based on their confidence in the child's abilities. So, it's not at all unreasonable for an 8-year-old child to be riding the sidewalk. Drivers (and cyclists) have the same obligation to stop, look, and listen when they exit a driveway before entering the street.

It's no different than if the driver ran into a car on the main street.

Crossing a sidewalk to get to a street is the same as crossing a street to get to a street. Sidewalks get no respect though because cars aren't on them. It's the only reason people ignore where stop lines are painted and stop where the adjacent road begins instead.

Around here, it is expected, and legal, for children under 14 to ride on sidewalks. Even the local municipalities that have laws against riding on sidewalks, make exceptions for children under 14.

In any case, the driver, leaving private property, is expected to verify that it is safe to enter the right of way before proceeding......

He's gonna be paying for awhile.

Driver at fault. In any place that mobility and visibility is limited the driver must move slowly enough that stopping in time would have been probable even if the kid had tried to fling himself under the wheels.

I know that the law doesn't always respect this principle. But I'm talking about a higher law anyway; this is what you do if you don't want to be a murderer.

I was in the parking lot at the grocery store putting the bags up in my car. There was a car that I saw was exiting the parking lot, going a bit fast in my opinion. The guy didn't stop before entering the street even though there was not a stop sign.

There was a kid, maybe 8 years of age or so, that was riding on the sidewalk, but going against the flow of traffic. The driver just nailed him. It was terrible. The little kid was knocked unconscious and somebody called the ambulance. When the kid started to come back to his senses, he was screaming in agony about his leg.

There was a crowd that formed so I couldn't see his injuries. I'm just wondering though. Is the driver at fault?

"The system is at fault for not providing bike facilities!," I'd say if I was the judge.

"Another case, please"... :rolleyes:

Going with the OP's visual account, the motorist will probably be found at fault for not taking adequate precautions before crossing a sidewalk, and entering a roadway.

This type of action doesn't pertain only to motorists, just last night I almost collided into the side of cyclist, going at a considerable speed, going against the flow of traffic, didn't stop or reduce speed before entering a controlled intersection. The cyclist finally looked in my direction well after I severely applied the brakes.

I was on the other side once. I rode my Harley slowly out of my driveway, because the view of the street was obstructed by the neighbors hedge, just in time to be plowed into by a ten year old neighbor girl riding full tilt downhill on the sidewalk on a bike. She fell down, skinned her knee, jumped up and ran home crying, about one minute later her dad was there screaming and ranting. I finally called the cops to settle him down. The father refused to take her to the ER to be checked out, so that was the end of it. However, after that, when she rode down the sidewalk, she slowed to a walking pace passing hidden driveways.
I felt sorry for her, but what could I do?

Driver's at fault... at least in Colorado.

Back in my days of my youth (I was, 12?), I was riding in Glenwood Springs, CO. Was riding on the sidewalk, downhill, going fairly fast. Driver in a truck pulls out of a parking lot, completely not looking for me. I smacked right into the side of his truck. Left a nice large dent and face print in the side of the truck. Broke my collar bone.

Anyways, driver left the scene. My brother got the license plate. Police found him. Cited him for leaving the scene and something else. Police found him at fault for the accident.

My family could have sued for medical expenses. Chose not to.

IOW, driver would be at fault in Colorado.

What ChipSeal said... He cited the Texas law, but that's the same pretty much throughout the South.
I think it's the pretty-much the same in the North too! (Note that the original poster is from Austin.)

Driver at fault. In any place that mobility and visibility is limited the driver must move slowly enough that stopping in time would have been probable even if the kid had tried to fling himself under the wheels.

Incorrect. It depends on what the kid was doing. If the kid was travelling recklessly fast or erratically enough that he couldn't reasonably have been seen or avoided then it would be his own fault. I bombed down a lot of sidewalks myself as a stupid kid, often with little regard for the consequences.

Naturally children do behave recklessly. That's exactly why drivers with obstructions around them should, even must, move very slowly. Run over a kid who is riding on the sidewalk a bit too fast and see if the law absolves you of guilt. It could happen, especially if you were inching out very slowly. But you are not guaranteed a pass on that.

But I'm not talking about official law anyway. I'm talking about moral law. If there is any reasonable chance that there is a child behind, say, that parked car, that hedge-row, etc., proceed so slowly that, to use my previous phrase, he couldn't get under your wheels if he tried. Sometimes when I do this the motorist behind me will get impatient. Happens often, as a matter of fact. Screw 'em. I'm not putting children at risk to please some idiot.

I'm not incorrect; the driver was at fault. He'll have to live with the knowledge that he hurt a child. Claiming that the kid was at fault will be very cold comfort unless he has no conscience at all.

The driver is at fault for failing to stop.

Interestingly, I failed my driver's test the first time I took it for a similar reason - I drove from an alley onto a main road without stopping at the sidewalk. No one was hurt, however.

Children don't have the sensory and judgmental skills yet to ride safely on the streets or in traffic. So we recommend that they learn to ride on the sidewalks, in residential areas under adult supervision (most communities ban riding the sidewalks in commercial or business districts, but leave the residential areas open for just this reason) until their parents or guardians have enough trust in their skills and judgment to let them start riding in the street. Street crossings should be pedestrian-style, walking their bikes thru the crosswalks.

I recall in one Safe Routes to School training session last month that kids are about 10 years old before they can really be trusted in the streets by themselves. At any rate, I tell my students that it's the parents' decision, based on their confidence in the child's abilities.

As an LCI and parent of three kids, I've struggled with the LAB's advice that kids under 10 are safer on sidewalks.

My personal decision with my children is to teach them to ride on the roadway, and not sidewalks, but to limit which roads they ride on and cross based on their emotional and skill development. My rationale is that if the traffic on the roadway is high enough to present enough of a risk to discourage them from using it, the intersection traffic will also be a significant concern, and exacerbated by the contra-flow travel that sidewalk cycling invites. Riding up and down a stretch of sidewalk in front of one's home does not pose much risk, but actually going anywhere requires crossing intersections. I want my kids to know how to negotiate those interesctions safely, or not cross them at all. On the 25 mph streets in my neighborhood, drivers are accustomed to children and adults in the road for all sorts of purposes, creating as safe an environment as can be expected for learning lawful roadway cycling.

In my city, collisions between motorists and bicyclists riding contraflow on the sidewalk are the most common type of car-bike collision. Next most common are drive-out and ride-out conflicts. Overtaking collisions are rare. I therefore refrain from endorsing sidewalk cycling for any age group that intends to go beyond the edge of their residential block, and encourage cyclists to seek out quiet streets to develop their roadway skills.

The driver is at fault for failing to stop.

Interestingly, I failed my driver's test the first time I took it for a similar reason - I drove from an alley onto a main road without stopping at the sidewalk. No one was hurt, however.

Legal requirements affecting pedestrians at driveways can be different from requirements at alleys depending on whether the junction is considered a driveway crossing a sidewalk or a crosswalk crossing a roadway.

If a driveway crosses a sidewalk, and no stop sign is present, the driver must yield to all traffic on the sidewalk, including anticipating its arrival, yet the driver may not be required to actually stop if there is no traffic requiring them to do so.

If a crosswalk crosses a roadway, such as an alley, the driver is required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, but pedestrian who has not yet entered the crosswalk is required to yield to drivers who are already lawfully in the process of entering/crossing the crosswalk area. Drivers may also have explicit stopping requirements based on signals or signs.

Adding to the legal complexity is that some commercial or institutional driveways will be designed as roadways, where the sidewalk ends and transitions down to a marked or unmarked crosswalk, but the vehicular facility might not be called a roadway.

If the collision in the OP was in fact a driveway crossing a sidewalk, the driver is legally at fault for failure to yield, whether he stopped first or not. If the pedestrian facility was a crosswalk, the driver may not be considered at fault if there was no stop sign and police believe that the cyclist was traveling at excessive speed unable to comply with the duties of a pedestrian entering a crosswalk (I doubt that would be the decision in this case).

There's always an implied stop sign when leaving private property and entering the flow of traffic on a public street. There does not have to be a stop sign. This is why you have to stop and yield ROW at the end of a driveway even though there's no stop sign there either.

Kids on sidewalks are considered pedestrians. Peds have the right of way over vehicular traffic.

Driver's fault. 100%.

There's plenty of fault to go around but what is accomplished in its allocation here?

Kid
Driver
Parents
Transportation system designers
City planners

Incorrect. It depends on what the kid was doing. If the kid was travelling recklessly fast or erratically enough that he couldn't reasonably have been seen or avoided then it would be his own fault. You also break the law, as a motor vehicle operator, that requires you to come to a COMPLETE stop before crossing a sidewalk (no stop sign required under the law). The adult operator of a deadly weapon has a greater responsiblity.


I bombed down a lot of sidewalks myself as a stupid kid, often with little regard for the consequences. And now you bomb across sidewalks in your motor vehicle, as a stupid adult. I have been to Hilo, I have seen your driving!:eek:

I'm sorry to hear about this. It's a perfect and unfortunate example of why we teach that riding on sidewalks and against traffic is dangerous.

Who is/are the "we" that teaches 8 year-olds that riding in the street is not dangerous, or that street riding for children is always the preferred choice over sidewalk riding?

You also break the law, as a motor vehicle operator, that requires you to come to a COMPLETE stop before crossing a sidewalk (no stop sign required under the law).

Can you quote this law? My belief is that without a stop sign, the legal requirement is a yield.

Can you quote this law? My belief is that without a stop sign, the legal requirement is a yield.


Sec. 545.256. EMERGING FROM AN ALLEY, DRIVEWAY, OR BUILDING. An operator emerging from an alley, driveway, or building in a business or residence district shall:

(1) stop the vehicle before moving on a sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across an alley or driveway;

(2) yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian to avoid collision; and

(3) on entering the roadway, yield the right-of-way to an approaching vehicle.

This is from the Texas transportation code. The OP is from Austin. I may be going out on a limb here (He may have been doing his grocery shopping in another state, after all!) but this should be the applicable law.

Where and at what time of day did this take place?

This is from the Texas transportation code. The OP is from Austin. I may be going out on a limb here (He may have been doing his grocery shopping in another state, after all!) but this should be the applicable law.

Interesting; North Carolina is different, only specifying a yield:



§ 20‑173. Pedestrians' right‑of‑way at crosswalks.
(a) Where traffic‑control signals are not in place or in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right‑of‑way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at or near an intersection, except as otherwise provided in Part 11 of this Article.
[...]
(c) The driver of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building entrance, private road, or driveway shall yield the right‑of‑way to any pedestrian, or person riding a bicycle, approaching on any sidewalk or walkway extending across such alley, building entrance, road, or driveway. (1937, c. 407, s. 134; 1973, c. 1330, s. 32.)


§ 20‑155. Right‑of‑way.
[...]
(c) The driver of any vehicle upon a highway within a business or residence district shall yield the right‑of‑way to a pedestrian crossing such highway within any clearly marked crosswalk, or any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block, except at intersections where the movement of traffic is being regulated by traffic officers or traffic direction devices.

§ 20‑156. Exceptions to the right‑of‑way rule.
(a) The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, building entrance, private road, or driveway shall yield the right‑of‑way to all vehicles approaching on the highway to be entered.


Note the yield requirement covers pedestrians and cyclists approaching on sidewalks at driveways and alleys, but only those already in the crosswalk at road/road intersections. Is Texas similar in this respect?

From the OP's description, it's the driver's fault and I'm disappointed to see excuses being made. When I learned to drive, I was told that, if I hit a handicapped person in a crosswalk or an 8 year old on the sidewalk, I wasn't going to get a lot of sympathy.

I hate to make this an ideological thing, but perhaps the thing that bothers me most about VC-ism is the common VC-ist position on sidewalk riding: it's the fault of 8 year old kids, eight-year olds that have trouble controlling a bicycle would be better of in the road and it's not the responsibility of motorists to use caution when crossing sidewalks. I'm sorry if I offend anybody but that's a crock. Ridicuolus VC-ist dogma. The amount of stupid stuff VC-ists (some of whom I otherwise respect) have written about sidewalk riding truly amazes me.

\Note the yield requirement covers pedestrians and cyclists approaching on sidewalks at driveways and alleys, but only those already in the crosswalk at road/road intersections. Is Texas similar in this respect?
I think all states the same. Most states follow fairly consistent traffic laws.

Pedestrians are required to "work with" traffic and traffic control devices when crossing at intersections. Pedestrians can't legally enter the crosswalk anytime they like!

Once the pedestrian is in the crosswalk, they have the right of way regardless of traffic control devices. This makes sense because there are many ways a pedestrian can "get stuck" in the crosswalk when the lights change.

The driveway/alley/etc situation is a case where the driver is crossing a sidewalk. Since cars are not supposed to be on sidewalks (except to cross them), it would seem to be obvious that pedestrans (legal users of the sidewalks) have the right-of-way and drivers must yield to them.

And now you bomb across sidewalks in your motor vehicle, as a stupid adult. I have been to Hilo, I have seen your driving!:eek:

Reeealy? You've become a stalker?

I am definitely going to be using this law as an example of scofflaw motorist behavior whenever the "cyclists never stop at stop signs" crap gets thrown at me.

Aside from the OP, I've seen no indication whatsoever this incident took place.

I used to go to a lot of political-demonstrations. And saw a great number of peaceful people get their heads cracked by police and national guard troops. I felt helpless not knowing what to do - so I took the EMT course at my local hospital. It, too, is like riding a bicycle.

Maybe this will compel a few of you to go take the EMT course. You never know when you'll be in the boonies and someone gets mowed-down by an idiot in a car. Feeling helpless sucks.

What protests did you go to, Kent State??? Where are these National Guard troops beating people at?

Anyways, it's the drivers fault. You yield at sidewalks regardless of what anyone is on. And for those upset someone was riding on a sidewalk against the flow of traffic. Would you prefer the 8year old kid rode on the street at 5mph with the flow of traffic sporting a Schwinn 16" 1 speed?

I think a decent lawyer will be able to establish the sideway as a defacto crosswalk. The kid being on the bike will be secondary to the fact that common sense would have dictated stopping to look.

Driver at fault; let him pay until it wins his respect for the life and health of others.

Still no indication this was a real incident.

Best guess: driver is at fault. You mentioned that he was moving fast through the parking lot, thus, his speed was not reasonable and proper for the conditions. MA law requires you to stop and check for pedestrian traffic, before crossing any sidewalk. I doubt that this young victim being on a bike will cut the driver any slack in court.

Boomertard question: Who the heck is Simon Peres?

Still no indication this was a real incident. Aside from the OP, I've seen no indication whatsoever this incident took place.

There is eyewitness evidence that it happened. Are you calling bellweatherman a liar? Please stop with your slanderous comments! :mad:

There is eyewitness evidence that it happened. Are you calling bellweatherman a liar? Please stop with your slanderous comments! :mad:

I was saying that there is no indication this was a real incident. That condition is unchanged.

Do you have something against writers of fiction?

I was saying that there is no indication this was a real incident. That condition is unchanged.

Do you have something against writers of fiction?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me type it more slowly for you:

We have an eyewitness account of the "incident". That is, in fact, an indication. It is also known as evidence. To imply that it did not happen, or to say it is fiction, is to say that the OP is a liar.

Stop slandering bellweatherman! :mad:

It's a perfect and unfortunate example of why we teach that riding on sidewalks and against traffic is dangerous

So children should be riding in the street?

Still no evidence beyond the OP that this happened. No newspapers. No television. Nada.

I think a decent lawyer will be able to establish the sideway as a defacto crosswalk.
It's not a de facto "crosswalk". It's a de facto "sidewalk". "Crosswalks", in fact and by definition, cross "roadways". "Sidewalks" do not cross "roadways". The burden of a pedestrian at an intersection (before entering the crosswalk) is higher than a pedestrian (or any other legal user) on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk.


The kid being on the bike will be secondary to the fact that common sense would have dictated stopping to look.
The fact that the kid is on a bike is irrelevant because the kid is (likely) a legal user of the sidewalk. It's not only "common sense", it's a legal requirement for the driver!

=======================


Still no evidence beyond the OP that this happened. No newspapers. No television. Nada.
So what? Are you saying that such a thing is impossible or has never happened?

Legal requirements affecting pedestrians at driveways can be different from requirements at alleys depending on whether the junction is considered a driveway crossing a sidewalk or a crosswalk crossing a roadway.
If a driveway crosses a sidewalk, and no stop sign is present, the driver must yield to all traffic on the sidewalk, including anticipating its arrival, yet the driver may not be required to actually stop if there is no traffic requiring them to do so.
If a crosswalk crosses a roadway, such as an alley, the driver is required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, but pedestrian who has not yet entered the crosswalk is required to yield to drivers who are already lawfully in the process of entering/crossing the crosswalk area. Drivers may also have explicit stopping requirements based on signals or signs.
Adding to the legal complexity is that some commercial or institutional driveways will be designed as roadways, where the sidewalk ends and transitions down to a marked or unmarked crosswalk, but the vehicular facility might not be called a roadway.
If the collision in the OP was in fact a driveway crossing a sidewalk, the driver is legally at fault for failure to yield, whether he stopped first or not.
Somebody understands it!

The original poster called it a "sidewalk".

Regarding "alleys" ("a narrow passage between or behind buildings"), I'd say it would be very prudent (even if it is not legally required) to stop before crossing sidewalks or crosswalks considering the poor visibility. Actually, if you have no way of seeing people crossing, you can't technically yield to them.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alley


If the pedestrian facility was a crosswalk, the driver may not be considered at fault if there was no stop sign and police believe that the cyclist was traveling at excessive speed unable to comply with the duties of a pedestrian entering a crosswalk (I doubt that would be the decision in this case).

The "crosswalk" law says that the pedestrian has the right of way in the crosswalk. That is, drivers must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The law doesn't care how ("excessive speed", being blind, etc) they got there! If a driver hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk, the driver has, quite clearly, failed to yield!

The "crosswalk" law says that the pedestrian has the right of way in the crosswalk. That is, drivers must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The law doesn't care how ("excessive speed", being blind, etc) they got there! If a driver hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk, the driver has, quite clearly, failed to yield!

Which "crosswalk law" doesn't care if the pedestrian is crossing the street in front of opposing traffic despite having a red or don't walk signal? Maybe on the West Coast there is a "crosswalk law" that protects a pedestrian from the consequences of such actions, but I wouldn't recommend trying that east of the Rockies.