UniChris

What is 8 year old bicycle speed? We can't know how fast the victim was going at this time, but my very current experience riding with 8 year olds is that they go anywhere from 5 to 14 mph, depending on their mood.

If the operator of a large, readily visible motor vehicle rolled through the stop sign at the end of Gallant Knight at 10 mph and was hit by one westbound on Kings Mill, there wouldn't be much of anything to discuss in terms of fault. We could maybe consider if the colliding driver whose right of way was violated might have been more on the game in terms of defensive driving, but the actual dynamics of the situation would be clear.

Even "slow" cyclists easily move fast enough to exceed pedestrian designs, but it would appear that even a pedestrian crossing Kings Mill must, under Texas law, yield to an oncoming vehicle (and even if there were a crosswalk, which there isn't, pedestrians are required not to enter the roadway when a vehicle is too close to safely react)

It is of course entirely reasonable to ask if eight year olds should be performing adult tasks - but for most adults responsible for children, the answer is that the children don't get to venture out on their own until they've shown an ability to follow a simplified version of road rules. And that simplified version is "look and do not cross the road if there is a car coming which has not yet stopped for you" - doubly so in a situation where it's actually pedestrians (or in even more situations, cyclists), and not the drivers, who are legally required to yield to the other.

(While a necessary minimum, it turns out that rule itself does have complexities, especially when drivers [seemingly] stop for pedestrians or cyclists where they're not supposed to. We had a thread a while back about a child who survived being hit by a car in a similar streetscape, because they'd misinterpreted a car stopping because a vehicle ahead was waiting to turn left, as driver yielding for them to cross in a place where crossing isn't technically allowed. The left turning vehicle ahead was waiting because there was a vehicle coming the other way, which then struck the boy as he emerged from between the stopped cars he could see in the near lane and entered the far lane without looking. Yes, there's a law that prohibits a driver from passing in either direction where one has stopped to allow a pedestrian to use a crosswalk, but this wasn't a crosswalk, and the driver was stopped not for the pedestrian, but specifically because the oncoming vehicle that struck the pedestrian was oncoming.)

In terms of the location in question, local officials seem to be claiming that the lack of a stop sign was an error, my gut feeling is that if the plans are found, it won't show that there was supposed to be one. This whole subdivision is new enough that satellite imagery still shows half of it as scrub, and my guess is that the roads were build by the developer following plans that were approved, without the stop sign. They are apparently going to be installing one next week, though one wonders if they can simply say off the cuff that they will and do it, or if there's a process that needs to be followed before randomly installing traffic controls. Putting in curb cuts opposite Gallant Knight to make that at least an unmarked crosswalk could be worth thought too, but hasty "we should do X" sometimes makes a situation worse, not better.

It is a residential area in the sense that it is housing, but the entire design is based on the reality that people are going to get around by driving. People want their little bit of single-family space, and the consequence of that is driving past others' single family spaces. (I feel that too - I want a garage to store and work on bikes, but that would mean being further out from life essentials). Ironically this little bit of sprawl actually isn't far from things - there's a major grocery store a mile and half to the west along with movie theater, restaurants, etc.

If I were going to criticize the overall layout, it's not the in mindlessly knee jerk "but there's no protected bike lane on that street(!)" unrealism displayed by some quoted in articles about this tragedy - no, little local last half mile streets don't get protected bike lanes, there's always going to be a zone where cyclists and drivers have to cooperate by both following the rules of the road. Rather the real issue is of what happens once one gets out of this little area that's entirely bikeable with basic cautions and awareness of road rules, and tries to get to those stores. Unfortunately, the main road one would need to take, Northpark Drive, has two separated lanes in each direction and no shoulder space. While some additional road width there could make cycling more plausible, it has enough intersecting streets and drives that a cycling route can either be efficient for those aware of how to safely interact with other traffic, or segregated for those willing to treat each intersection in pedestrian manner, but not both. There does however look to be a possible solution a bit further north, in the form of what appears to be a former rail corridor now used only by power and gas lines - build a multi-use trail there with appropriate crossings of North Park drive to reach it, and you start to have something that might connect the housing to the commerce in a less than horrible way. Presumably they don't get much snow there, but it could require a bit of a usage tradition to feel safe at night.