'11-year-old boy struck and killed by SUV while riding bike'
06-16-18, 09:00 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
'11-year-old boy struck and killed by SUV while riding bike'
https://www.abqjournal.com/1185547/a...buquerque.html
I've ridden past this intersection 100s of times. It was always quiet and slow.
I've ridden past this intersection 100s of times. It was always quiet and slow.
06-16-18, 09:07 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,170
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1987 Post(s)
Liked 388 Times
in
219 Posts
The entire text of the article is 'redacted'.
How very tragic and unfortunate. I am always curious as to how these things happen so we can learn from them. Was he riding alone? Was he on the road or sidewalk? How fast was the SUV travelling? Was it head on? From the side. Behind? Condition of the road? Intersection? Etc.
How very tragic and unfortunate. I am always curious as to how these things happen so we can learn from them. Was he riding alone? Was he on the road or sidewalk? How fast was the SUV travelling? Was it head on? From the side. Behind? Condition of the road? Intersection? Etc.
06-16-18, 12:50 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by mcours2006
The entire text of the article is 'redacted'.
06-16-18, 01:06 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,318
Mentioned: 216 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17204 Post(s)
Liked 3,958 Times
in
2,938 Posts
An 11-year-old boy died after being hit by an SUV while riding his bicycle in a Northeast Albuquerque neighborhood Friday afternoon, according to police.
Albuquerque Police Department spokesman Daren DeAguero said two boys were riding bikes west on Los Arboles, trying to cross Moon NE, when one of them was hit by a woman driving an SUV heading north.
“One of the kids saw the car and stopped,” he said. “The other one didn’t.”
DeAguero said the boy died at the scene.
He said the crash occurred around 4 p.m. and alcohol was not a factor.
“Right now, it doesn’t look like any fault of the driver,” DeAguero said.
DeAguero said police interviewed the driver, who is very “emotionally distraught.”
“When you see a child lying on the ground, and there is no movement, that’s something that you’re never going to forget,” he said. “It hurts us all.”
DeAguero said police are still investigating whether speed was a factor.
He said the boy lives up the street, on Los Arboles.
“Our prayers go out to the mother,” he said. “That’s not something you want to come out of your house and see.”
DeAguero had a caution for parents to tell their kids.
“It’s summer. If you’re going to be out on your bikes, please, please pay attention to traffic,” he said.
Yellow tape cut across either end of Moon as police vehicles crammed into the intersection at Los Arboles NE. In the middle, investigators walked around the bicycle on the ground, its tires and frame crumpled.
The tragedy comes almost four months after 12-year-old Eliza Almuina was killed when she was struck, and killed, by an SUV as she crossed Louisiana NE with a friend to get back to Cleveland Middle School.
Police called the March 22 crash a “tragic accident” in which one vehicle stopped to let the girls pass, obstructing the view from the SUV that struck Almuina.
The driver faced no charges but the crash sparked a backlash from parents, and the community, on the lack of safety of the school crosswalk on such a busy street.
As a result, City Councilors Diane Gibson and Brad Winter sponsored legislation for a redesign of the crosswalk, in addition to forming a committee to survey other school crosswalks and assess safety concerns to pinpoint possible improvements.
06-16-18, 01:10 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,318
Mentioned: 216 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17204 Post(s)
Liked 3,958 Times
in
2,938 Posts
It looks like there are stoplights.
Hopefully the investigators can determine when in the light cycle the kid attempted to cross the road, as well as the vehicle hit him.
The signal also seems to have school safety notes in one direction, but I wonder about the other direction (and, of course, not all schools are operating now, but there may still be kids out and about, even heading to the playgrounds or other facilities.
Hopefully the investigators can determine when in the light cycle the kid attempted to cross the road, as well as the vehicle hit him.
The signal also seems to have school safety notes in one direction, but I wonder about the other direction (and, of course, not all schools are operating now, but there may still be kids out and about, even heading to the playgrounds or other facilities.
06-16-18, 08:11 PM
#7
Senior Member
I’ll buy that drivers are “not at fault” when people start respecting speed limits and coming to a full stop in stop signs.
We are so used to seeing everyone breaking the speed limit than we don’t even notice or see anything wrong with it.
Maybe the driver is not at fault in this case—innocent until proven guilty, I guess—but I still can speculate
We are so used to seeing everyone breaking the speed limit than we don’t even notice or see anything wrong with it.
Maybe the driver is not at fault in this case—innocent until proven guilty, I guess—but I still can speculate
06-16-18, 09:43 PM
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
There's no traffic light at Arboles & Moon. There's a stop sign for Arboles but not for Moon, which is a faster, more-trafficked, street, with businesses on its intersections with more traffic than Arboles, which is purely residential. I cross on Arboles and always stop because the view is blocked by houses and trees and Moon-ers don't have to stop. The best guess is that the driver is innocent. There's a light on Moon every half-mile, which always favors the cross street, so you have to be pretty reckless to go really fast; it's not the kind of street that attracts reckless drivers (which Albuquerque has, including hot-rodders: I saw where one went through the barrier at the dead-end of a street, across the shared-use-trail, through the guard rail on the other side of the SUT, into the northern diversion channel.) Moon has a bike lane.
06-16-18, 10:13 PM
#9
Non omnino gravis
Originally Posted by salcedo
I’ll buy that drivers are “not at fault” when people start respecting speed limits and coming to a full stop in stop signs.
We are so used to seeing everyone breaking the speed limit than we don’t even notice or see anything wrong with it.
Maybe the driver is not at fault in this case—innocent until proven guilty, I guess—but I still can speculate
We are so used to seeing everyone breaking the speed limit than we don’t even notice or see anything wrong with it.
Maybe the driver is not at fault in this case—innocent until proven guilty, I guess—but I still can speculate
I know that as cyclists, often our first instinct is to blame the driver-- but I don't think it is warranted in this case. From the view on Google Maps, the sightlines are pretty clear in every direction.
__________________
06-18-18, 02:39 PM
#10
Senior Member
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
Los Arboles is an undivided residential, Moon St. is a two-lane divided. There is a 2-way stop where Los Arboles crosses Moon, but traffic on Moon does not have to stop. Based on the description, one of the kids didn't stop at the sign, and got SUV'd.
I know that as cyclists, often our first instinct is to blame the driver-- but I don't think it is warranted in this case. From the view on Google Maps, the sightlines are pretty clear in every direction.
I know that as cyclists, often our first instinct is to blame the driver-- but I don't think it is warranted in this case. From the view on Google Maps, the sightlines are pretty clear in every direction.
- The cyclist broke a law
- The accident would probably not have occurred if the cyclist had not breaking this law
- Therefore, the accident is completely the cyclist fault, and the driver is free of any fault
- The driver broke the law
- The accident would have been less likely and the injuries could have been lesser if the driver had not broken the law
- Therefore, the driver is at least partially at fault
06-18-18, 06:42 PM
#11
Non omnino gravis
What would make you believe that the car was speeding, other than bias? There are clear sightlines. The kid on the bike came through a 2-way stop sign. If the car was doing whatever the limit is there (say 35-40mph) who is to say the driver had time to stop? It's not always the driver's fault. Sometimes people on bikes do dumb stuff.
Oh, and the collision absolutely would not have happened if the kid had stopped. Replace the kids with a car. Car rolls a stopsign and gets t-boned, do any cyclists pop up with questions about the vehicle with the right-of-way?
Oh, and the collision absolutely would not have happened if the kid had stopped. Replace the kids with a car. Car rolls a stopsign and gets t-boned, do any cyclists pop up with questions about the vehicle with the right-of-way?
__________________
06-19-18, 06:59 AM
#12
Senior Member
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
What would make you believe that the car was speeding, other than bias?
What makes me think that the car was probably speeding is that I also drive my car. And I always drive at the speed limit. And almost all of the time I am the slowest car on the road. Most drivers speed most of the time. I don't consider this to be a bias. I consider this to be a statistical fact that any person who has driven a car can confirm.
I agree this is not enough to blame the lady driver. And I agree that cyclists do dumb things. The point that I am trying to make is that blaming the dead party is the easy way out, because the dead can't argue back. And I feel that authorities are often looking for the easy way out. Just because one party has some fault, it doesn't mean that the other party does not.
06-20-18, 09:44 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 28,727
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4973 Post(s)
Liked 3,078 Times
in
2,043 Posts
horrifying indeed. here's wishing his family & friends strength right now
reminds me when I was a teen, a friend & I rode together a lot. we had a policy: "judge for two" meaning, the lead guy would always make a traffic decision based on our combined presence. for example, don't go thru a yellow light because the guy behind you might then be forced to go thru a red light. or something to that effect. now, when riding with my family, we often call out: "car!". for example, when we are in a line on a quiet road & maybe not paying attention to traffic overtaking us, the last person will warn the others ahead of him that a car was approaching from the rear. so pay attention, don't wobble & move over, if necessary. & conversely, the lead rider approaching a blind intersection, would do the same to warn following riders of what they see, etc
reminds me when I was a teen, a friend & I rode together a lot. we had a policy: "judge for two" meaning, the lead guy would always make a traffic decision based on our combined presence. for example, don't go thru a yellow light because the guy behind you might then be forced to go thru a red light. or something to that effect. now, when riding with my family, we often call out: "car!". for example, when we are in a line on a quiet road & maybe not paying attention to traffic overtaking us, the last person will warn the others ahead of him that a car was approaching from the rear. so pay attention, don't wobble & move over, if necessary. & conversely, the lead rider approaching a blind intersection, would do the same to warn following riders of what they see, etc
06-20-18, 10:20 AM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Because automobiles kill more people per year than all other accidental deaths combined, it follows that our present way of thinking of assigning equal responsibility to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians is false. There wouldn't be so many deaths if drivers were assigned responsibility commensurate with their weight (ie a driver wearing a 2000 pound suit should be about 100 times more responsible for a bicyclist wearing a 20 pound suit).
Therefore, if a tornado picks up a person's car and drops it a few blocks over on top of a drunk bicyclist riding helmetless going down the wrong way of a one way street...then the driver needs to prove he did everything possible to ensure the safety of the bicyclist.
If you have a problem with children being struck and killed by drivers who need to get to their destination a few fractional minutes earlier, then simply remove all traffic rules and signals on all roads, with the single rule that the heavier commuter is more responsible than the lighter commuter.
Therefore, if a tornado picks up a person's car and drops it a few blocks over on top of a drunk bicyclist riding helmetless going down the wrong way of a one way street...then the driver needs to prove he did everything possible to ensure the safety of the bicyclist.
If you have a problem with children being struck and killed by drivers who need to get to their destination a few fractional minutes earlier, then simply remove all traffic rules and signals on all roads, with the single rule that the heavier commuter is more responsible than the lighter commuter.
06-20-18, 10:30 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214
Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times
in
51 Posts
Cyclists fault, sadly with disastrous consequences.
And if there is a civil case, that may well come into play if damages are awarded. In this accident though, if the cyclist stopped as was required, there is no accident. By your logic, if she was speeding, the accident may have been avoided as well, just as it may have been had she been driving any speed except what she was. One action directly lead to the collision, the other was merely incidental.
But, maybe the "cyclists should be licensed crowd" has some merit. Perhaps folks under 16 should prove competency before being allowed to ride bikes unsupervised on public roads.
Originally Posted by salcedo
The argument that you are using is that, because the cyclists where supposed to stop and did not, the driver is not at fault. Let me rephrase that:
- The cyclist broke a law
- The accident would probably not have occurred if the cyclist had not breaking this law
- Therefore, the accident is completely the cyclist fault, and the driver is free of any fault
- The driver broke the law
- The accident would have been less likely and the injuries could have been lesser if the driver had not broken the law
- Therefore, the driver is at least partially at fault
But, maybe the "cyclists should be licensed crowd" has some merit. Perhaps folks under 16 should prove competency before being allowed to ride bikes unsupervised on public roads.
06-20-18, 02:29 PM
#16
Senior Member
Originally Posted by jefnvk
One action directly lead to the collision, the other was merely incidental.
06-20-18, 02:32 PM
#17
Senior Member
Originally Posted by jefnvk
But, maybe the "cyclists should be licensed crowd" has some merit. Perhaps folks under 16 should prove competency before being allowed to ride bikes unsupervised on public roads.
06-20-18, 02:58 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214
Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times
in
51 Posts
Originally Posted by salcedo
I don't dislike the idea of licensing cyclists in principle. I dislike it because I think that the cost would exceed the benefit by far, even if you don't try to actually try to enforce it. I think there are more effective uses of public funds.
Originally Posted by salcedo
I disagree. Driving slower gives you more reaction time. Driving slower means that the car has less momentum and injuries would be lesser. Driving slower would improve the chances of the cyclist seeing the vehicle and stopping. If the lady was indeed driving over the speed limit, her breaking off the law directly contributed to the accident and the death. Two parties can break at fault at the same accident.
06-20-18, 04:40 PM
#19
Senior Member
Originally Posted by jefnvk
Two parties can be, but in this case, they are not.
Suppose that the accident was exactly the same (the cyclist didn't stop, the car had the right of way) except for two differences. Suppose that this was a residential area and the lady was doing 90mph. Still, if the cyclist had stopped, there would have been no accident. Would you still believe that the driver is not at fault?
I am curious to know whether our disagreement is a matter of principle or a matter of degree.
06-21-18, 08:13 AM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Metro Detroit/AA
Posts: 8,214
Bikes: 2016 Novara Mazama
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3639 Post(s)
Liked 81 Times
in
51 Posts
Originally Posted by salcedo
I am curious to know whether our disagreement is a matter of principle or a matter of degree.
06-21-18, 09:22 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
She was speeding but the accident was not her fault. Let me explain.
We place speed limits on roads because we assume going faster than the speed limit endangers others. We try to set the speed limit in such a way that when an incident occurs the damage is minimized.
Then, the vehicle was an SUV; basically a wall that is well-designed to kill and injure people compared to say a car. In other words, you can hit a person at a higher speed with a car than with an SUV while causing the same amount of damage. Many people in the USA put a sharp grill on the front of the pickup or SUV; I can only assume such a grill is specifically designed to make sure people you hit are truly dead.
The speed limit on that road was set inappropriately high in a vehicle specifically designed to maximize injuries and deaths to the other person during a collision. When roads will be carrying mixed traffic and chances of collisions will occur at intersections, simply set the speed limit so that most people will survive an incident. That speed limit is 20-25 mph and not around 45 mph. There is virtually no chance of surviving a 45 mph collision with an SUV.
By following the letter of the law (the speed limit) and not the spirit (try not to kill/injure others), she isn't at fault.
My philosophy is making errors while walking/bicycling shouldn't be a capital offense.
We place speed limits on roads because we assume going faster than the speed limit endangers others. We try to set the speed limit in such a way that when an incident occurs the damage is minimized.
Then, the vehicle was an SUV; basically a wall that is well-designed to kill and injure people compared to say a car. In other words, you can hit a person at a higher speed with a car than with an SUV while causing the same amount of damage. Many people in the USA put a sharp grill on the front of the pickup or SUV; I can only assume such a grill is specifically designed to make sure people you hit are truly dead.
The speed limit on that road was set inappropriately high in a vehicle specifically designed to maximize injuries and deaths to the other person during a collision. When roads will be carrying mixed traffic and chances of collisions will occur at intersections, simply set the speed limit so that most people will survive an incident. That speed limit is 20-25 mph and not around 45 mph. There is virtually no chance of surviving a 45 mph collision with an SUV.
By following the letter of the law (the speed limit) and not the spirit (try not to kill/injure others), she isn't at fault.
My philosophy is making errors while walking/bicycling shouldn't be a capital offense.
06-28-18, 08:54 PM
#22
Junior Member
I really dislike the language in the article and the headline where the writer states the SUV struck and killed the boy and the earlier incident with the girl killed by another SUV.
That's not what happened. In both cases, two different people drove two different SUVs into the bodies of a boy and a girl riding bicycles on two different occasions, and in both incidents, the failure of those two people driving their SUVs to safely operate their oversized vehicles was what killed these two kids.
Further removing and distancing any blame by labeling these crashes as "accidents" only serves to cement in the minds of readers that these preventable errors are somehow inevitable.
I am never riding a bicycle anywhere in New Mexico or Texas.
Thanks for the correction.
That's not what happened. In both cases, two different people drove two different SUVs into the bodies of a boy and a girl riding bicycles on two different occasions, and in both incidents, the failure of those two people driving their SUVs to safely operate their oversized vehicles was what killed these two kids.
Further removing and distancing any blame by labeling these crashes as "accidents" only serves to cement in the minds of readers that these preventable errors are somehow inevitable.
I am never riding a bicycle anywhere in New Mexico or Texas.
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
This happened in New Mexico
Last edited by dragoonO1; 06-28-18 at 09:05 PM.
06-28-18, 08:57 PM
#23
Non omnino gravis
Originally Posted by dragoonO1
I am never riding a bicycle anywhere in Texas.
__________________
06-28-18, 09:53 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,423
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1319 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 627 Times
in
343 Posts
Originally Posted by jefnvk
I dislike it, but if preteens are riding on streets unsupervised, I could deal with some sort of requirements for them.
