Advocacy & Safety - Hummers and insensitive law enforcement officers

"Authorities have released the name of a 12-year-old boy who died Tuesday after he was hit by a Hummer on South Smithville Road as he was riding his bicycle.

“Bicycling can be dangerous,” the lieutenant said. “Anybody riding a bicycle should wear a helmet and should know and follow the laws of the road.”

Read the full article:
http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/child-killed-on-bicycle-identified/nSfpX/

Biking could be less dangerous if Hummers don't go up sidewalks and mow down cyclists.

oh and don't believe an eye witness? let the investigators figure it out ... wut?

the clown behind the wheek was probably stuffing his face and not looking where he was going in his military style vehichle meant for combat.

No doubt they will come along and point out that sidewalk cycling is illegal, and therefore the cyclist was at fault. Sheesh.

Totally bet the driver was looking in his order bag and not at where he was going. Don't know why more accidents don't happen at the end of a drive through driveway.

Biking could be less dangerous if Hummers don't go up sidewalks and mow down cyclists.

From the text of the story, it is likely the driver was at fault for this; however, your characterization is clearly mistaken. As the article states the child was at the edge of the parking lot, presumably by that he means the driveway to the parking lot since the child was on the sidewalk. And the vehicle was exiting the parking lot via that driveway.

Since the article states they are still investigating, it seems likely that they are trying to determine if the child proceeded partially into the driveway as the driver exited, or if the driver clipped the sidewalk as he exited. I suspect, given that he was driving a hummer, the latter is more likely, but the officer was clearly doing his job and investigating the facts.

As to the irrelevant (but true, mostly) quote, It wouldn't surprise me if that is something the reporter made up and added, or that the officer was stupidly looking for something to say, just to sound erudite...

Hard to tell, with reliability of witnesses, and local news outlets being what they are. I suspect this unfortunate young man was crossing the driveway of a parking lot on the sidewalk. This is a very dangerous practice, that is unfortunately advocated to young people on bikes. Add a large vehicle with less than perfect visibility, likely being driven too fast for a parking lot, and the result is tragic.


Totally bet the driver was looking in his order bag and not at where he was going. Don't know why more accidents don't happen at the end of a drive through driveway.

Cars emerging from driveways on commercial streets are a major source of bike/car collisions. One reason sidewalk riding in areas like that is something I only do when the on-street alternative is worse, and then I always slow, and am hyper vigilant at driveways.

At least the driver stayed and was cooperating with the investigation.

RIP young man.

It used to be that if a woman dressed provocatively and found herself the victim of a ****, the common belief was that 'she was asking for it' The modern version of that is a cyclist. People think that riding a bicycle (with or without a helmet) is dangerous - what is dangerous is having people driving vehicles without taking proper care. If we want to make the roads safer, we need to instill a culture of zero tolerance for irresponsible drivers.

Helmet, meet Hummer

Hummer meet helm... oh, ****

It used to be that if a woman dressed provocatively and found herself the victim of a ****, the common belief was that 'she was asking for it' The modern version of that is a cyclist. People think that riding a bicycle (with or without a helmet) is dangerous - what is dangerous is having people driving vehicles without taking proper care. If we want to make the roads safer, we need to instill a culture of zero tolerance for irresponsible drivers.

+1000 This is done by making those driving responsible for injuries to "vulnerable street users" unless a clear case of negligence can be shown by the victim. Such laws exist in some European countries. Of course hordes will come on here and tell use that you can't do that in the US, because you have to be proven guilty. But we have laws like "use a gun go to jail" assumed consent for drunk driving testing, so it is just a matter of writing the law correctly.

Otherwise well the driver may get away with it as the cop is (by the OP story) already biased, and the courts don't tend to prosecute, and the laws are somewhat lax unless alcohol is involved... so unless a civil case is brought....

+1000 This is done by making those driving responsible for injuries to "vulnerable street users" unless a clear case of negligence can be shown by the victim. Such laws exist in some European countries. Of course hordes will come on here and tell use that you can't do that in the US, because you have to be proven guilty. But we have laws like "use a gun go to jail" assumed consent for drunk driving testing, so it is just a matter of writing the law correctly.

Otherwise well the driver may get away with it as the cop is (by the OP story) already biased, and the courts don't tend to prosecute, and the laws are somewhat lax unless alcohol is involved... so unless a civil case is brought....

Couldn't agree more. In before CBHI tells us why vulnerable street users and strict liability is a bad idea. Sad, really sad.

null

Sadly, for whatever the link doesn't work with my smartphone. It takes me to the mobile version, and doesn't display the article.

oh and don't believe an eye witness? let the investigators figure it out ... wut?

the clown behind the wheek was probably stuffing his face and not looking where he was going in his military style vehichle meant for combat.

Which military style vehicle is that? Only the first HumVee was military style. The H2 and H3 are fancy Chevy Tahoes.

+1000 This is done by making those driving responsible for injuries to "vulnerable street users" unless a clear case of negligence can be shown by the victim. Such laws exist in some European countries. Of course hordes will come on here and tell use that you can't do that in the US, because you have to be proven guilty. But we have laws like "use a gun go to jail" assumed consent for drunk driving testing, so it is just a matter of writing the law correctly.

Otherwise well the driver may get away with it as the cop is (by the OP story) already biased, and the courts don't tend to prosecute, and the laws are somewhat lax unless alcohol is involved... so unless a civil case is brought....

Yes, those of us that value our freedoms WILL come on here and denounce making the party that is not responsible for an accident pay for it. Use a gun and go to jail requires a criminal conviction by a jury.
So, in this instance, if the driver had already been stopped across the sidewalk waiting for the road to clear so he could pull out, and the kid came flying down the sidewalk and ran into the vehicle, the driver should pay the kid's medical bills? I don't think so.

How tragic for this child and his family.

And what's with Lt. Stiver? She's implying that somehow the kid on the bike is at fault. "Okay all you bicycle people out there...be sure to be very careful out there and wear your helmets.."

Really? That's all she's got after an onsite investigation and the death of a child? Wear your ******* helmets?

Nice piece of police work there Dick Tracy.

Regardless, if the kid had a helmet or not, this hummer apparently dragged this kid. How fast do you really need to leave Taco-Bell anyway?

True, kids don't watch where they are going...but this is ridiculous.

Dayton authorities? This doesn't surprise me. Dayton is apparently a statistical anomaly in Ohio, when it comes to bike related incidents. The vast majority of of them tend to be found to be the fault of the cyclists, in Dayton. The rest of the state, not so much. I've seen seen the investigatory methods in the area called into question, when bicycles are involved.

While he was allowed to ride on the road by state law(http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511), the county website doesn't have a listing of the ordinances, regulations, and provisions for the county. So, If the county didn't allow cycling on the sidewalk, more than likely, the police, and district courts for the City of Dayton would find the boy at fault. Even though, the driver hit the boy.

Rarely is a driver ever found at fault, when they kill a cyclist.

How tragic for this child and his family.

And what's with Lt. Stiver? She's implying that somehow the kid on the bike is at fault. "Okay all you bicycle people out there...be sure to be very careful out there and wear your helmets.."

Really? That's all she's got after an onsite investigation and the death of a child? Wear your ******* helmets?

Nice piece of police work there Dick Tracy.

Regardless, if the kid had a helmet or not, this hummer apparently dragged this kid. How fast do you really need to leave Taco-Bell anyway?

True, kids don't watch where they are going...but this is ridiculous.

+1000!!

As to the irrelevant (but true, mostly) quote, It wouldn't surprise me if that is something the reporter made up and added

Really? On what foundation at all are you assuming that the reporter made stuff up to put in his story? Show me your evidence, any evidence, that this quote was made up.

Yes, those of us that value our freedoms WILL come on here and denounce making the party that is not responsible for an accident pay for it. Use a gun and go to jail requires a criminal conviction by a jury.
So, in this instance, if the driver had already been stopped across the sidewalk waiting for the road to clear so he could pull out, and the kid came flying down the sidewalk and ran into the vehicle, the driver should pay the kid's medical bills? I don't think so.

First, I don't get what it has to do with your "freedoms". Second, strict liability is not relevant to the example you give. Third, strict liability is not a particularly powerfull tool for making drivers act more responsibly. Only judges and juries stopping to buy the "I didn't see him" and other lame excuses will work. Oh, and real law enforcement, of course.

For more about strict liability, read http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/16/strict-liability-and-legal-protection-for-cyclists/ - in particular the comment by David Hembrow. And further reading: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice

Yes, those of us that value our freedoms WILL come on here and denounce making the party that is not responsible for an accident pay for it. Use a gun and go to jail requires a criminal conviction by a jury.
So, in this instance, if the driver had already been stopped across the sidewalk waiting for the road to clear so he could pull out, and the kid came flying down the sidewalk and ran into the vehicle, the driver should pay the kid's medical bills? I don't think so.

What part of
unless a clear case of negligence can be shown by the victim. didn't you understand?

If the vulnerable road user is riding opposite the flow of traffic, is not properly lit, plows into the motor vehicle on their own, fails to yield ROW at a stop... just to name a few situations of potential negligence by the cyclist, then the motorist has no liability.

Is that clear enough?

What we need to stop is any MIGHT MAKES RIGHT mentality... motor vehicle operators need to be held account for collisions and damage they cause... and right now the laws are so lame that to get restitution, the only recourse is often a civil suit... Frankly better than restitution is that such laws may actually get motor vehicle operators to stop and think... think about sharing the road with others.

Dayton authorities? This doesn't surprise me. Dayton is apparently a statistical anomaly in Ohio, when it comes to bike related incidents. The vast majority of of them tend to be found to be the fault of the cyclists, in Dayton. The rest of the state, not so much. I've seen seen the investigatory methods in the area called into question, when bicycles are involved.

That's pretty amazing. I was up in Hamilton/Fairfield last July for the National Archery Championships. When my son wasn't competing I was on my bike. I enjoyed the nice bike path that goes between the two towns and beyond. I also know there is another longer path somewhere near Cincinnati too.

With as much pro-cycling programs that are going on, you would think that it would be across the board. Too bad.

Oh. Hummer = SUV...

From the title, I thought this might involve uniforms and either teeth or spitting...

the clown behind the wheek was probably stuffing his face and not looking where he was going in his military style vehichle meant for combat.

delete

I think we can all agree that if we are going to be hit and killed by a motor vehicle that we would want it to be a Prius instead of a Hummer.

Our families would want it that way.

I think we can all agree that if we are going to be hit and killed by a motor vehicle that we would want it to be a Prius instead of a Hummer.

Our families would want it that way.

I think if you are killed it doesn't much matter one way or another.

On the other hand, if it is just hit, I'll take the Prius over the Hummer.

It's a very hard picture to look at. A little red bike on the side of the pavement. Condolences to the family.

I think we can all agree that if we are going to be hit and killed by a motor vehicle that we would want it to be a Prius instead of a Hummer.

Our families would want it that way.

I would rather be taken out from behind by a Ford Probe. I know more than a few people who would get a good laugh out of it at least :P

Oh. Hummer = SUV...

From the title, I thought this might involve uniforms and either teeth or spitting...

I was going to post something along those lines, then saw a kid died and thought better of it.

I think if you are killed it doesn't much matter one way or another.

On the other hand, if it is just hit, I'll take the Prius over the Hummer.

Hmmm, no, I would rather be killed by a Hummer, at least that way they could say it took a big vehicle to take me down!

“Bicycling can be dangerous,” the lieutenant said. “Anybody riding a bicycle should wear a helmet and should know and follow the laws of the road.”




Annoying, good 'ol US motoring thought process of collision liability defaulting to the cyclist. Not a word to motorists about taking utmost care in driving and looking where they're going, and in double checking their blind spots.

Which military style vehicle is that? Only the first HumVee was military style. The H2 and H3 are UGLY Chevy Tahoes.

fify