Joe Bikerider

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/8-...ld/ar-AA12lGKK

Maybe someone can find a more complete article.

raqball 

That's terrible.. Instead of blaming the child they should have placed the blame exactly where it belongs on the motorist who failed to yield right of way to the child cyclist.

jon c. 

I can't imagine a context in which that statement would have been appropriate.

UniChris

This is obviously a tragedy, but to say anything meaningful about it, we need to know the actual details and timing of what happened, and consider them in light of the relevant actual laws.

Although it may socially increase the due care obligation, neither the fact that someone is a cyclist, nor technically in law that someone is a child, changes the actual laws governing who must yield the right of way at an intersection - we have such laws to create a degree of predictability and shared expectations, and we train children to navigate a world governed by those rules before we allow them to attempt to do so unsupervised.

A cyclist riding on the sidewalk who then enters or crosses a roadway without exercising pedestrian-level hesitance and caution is well known to be at an extreme of risk.

Although some reports are claiming the driver had a stop sign, the report I read said she was westbound on Kings Mill and turned left onto Gallant Knight. If you look at streetview imagery from February of this year, there is not in fact a stop sign for such traffic, though there is for those entering the intersection from the other two directions.

That imagery also makes it clear that this is not an area that should be difficult to navigate on foot or by bike if one takes note of approaching traffic.

Daniel4

As usual, 1) driver stays at the scene; 2) victim was not in a motor vehicle, therefore driver is off the hook.

GamblerGORD53

Police statement is obviously IDIOTIC. This is 100% residential. But then these spaghetti plate streets do ZERO for safety, more like they make them UNsafe. 100% NIMBY in purpose.
I assume the kid was going the same way as the SUV, so should have been seen. But it is also possible another SUV could have come between them and blocked the view. The driver should have been way more careful anyway.
Actually, with this nutso setup, there should be a stop for pedestrians on the left because the cars making a left turn don't.

debade

i feel you have presented a fair analysis based on the information presented. Having said that, until we change our attitudes about responsibility of managing a motor vehicle, we will not have safe streets. In a residential area, with or without stop signs, does not and should not impact a motorists view and decision making. The bottom line for me is the motorist missed an opportunity to check for a vehicle moving at 8 year old bicycle speed. This was a miss by the motorist either while approaching the intersection, the speed of her turn given the weight of the vehicle (stopping distance), distraction, or ?

Data shows the more people cycling on a street, the fewer collisions. The key reason is the higher motorist awareness. To excuse a motorist who lowered their guard because not many non-motorized vehicles are present for me is not acceptable. And whoever reported that the area was not safe for bicycles was really saying, it’s understandable that the motorist was not paying attention since 8 years do not frequent that area. When I look at the pictures, that could easily be a place an 8 year old rides their bike.

jwalther

Good analysis here: Slate

Moe Zhoost

That article stated that the speed limit on those streets was 30 mph! That's nuts for a residential neighborhood like this, though lowering it to 25 mph would have no affect on the average speeds of motorists. It's mind boggling to me that residents of such an area, who appreciate the peace and quiet, turn into menaces once behind the wheels. My wife and I have such a neighborhood nearby where we take occasional walks. It's not uncommon to see a driver going way too fast.

himespau 

What I've read is that the initial plans called for there to be a stop sign installed on the direction the driver was going, but it wasn't installed for whatever reason that no one claims to know and everyone is passing the buck about "well, no one complained and told us it was a problem, so we didn't know it was missing and never went to install it. Not our fault, you should have told us it was missing."

Milton Keynes

What I want to know is how do you run over someone who's right in front of you? I think way too many drivers have become totally complacent in this country, and the rise of motor vehicles with autopilot is going to make it worse. Every time I drive I'm keeping a sharp eye out for everything around me, especially children on foot or on bikes because you can't count on them to not dart out in front of you. People need to put their phones down and pay attention to their surroundings when they drive.

RB1-luvr

unfortunately, my children will never be allowed to ride in my neighborhood. It's very dangerous. Many (most) neighbors ignore the stop signs and drive way too fast.

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.

JW Fas

Whenever an area is considered "dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians" the commonality is almost always motor vehicles. It isn't a practical long term solution to remove automobiles from the equation, but we need to focus more on making the infrastructure conducive to safer driving.

base2 

That traffic engineers feel comfortable with 30mph speed limit signs in a residential subdivision is unconscionable. I mean, if the engineer feels 30 mph is safe, what speed does the driver in the heavy insulated isolation box feel is safe?

We have an infrastructure problem. A road sign begging driver compliance is a failure of proper road design to meet that streets intended use. Everything in the street view favors high-speed car traffic. Large sweeping radii for corners. Unnecessarily wide lanes. No bollards. No chicanes. No modal filters. This residential street even with the beautiful sidewalks, was never intended for families, or an 8 year old tiny human on a bike. It was designed for high-speed car use at the expense of an 8 year olds life.

Daniel4

Those are called traffic-calming devices. Drivers hate them because they can't zombie-drive and are forced to pay attention to avoid danage to their vehicles. Even putting up a few trees and narrowing the street to limit visibility improves safety because they naturally slowdown traffic instead of artifically attempting to slow down traffic with speed limits and speed cameras.

Streets like where the boy got run over need separated bike lanes because you know the drivers who oppose to them always say the same thing: ' Bike lanes slow them down'.

10 Wheels

8-year-old hit by car, killed while riding his bike in Kingwood, officials say (click2houston.com)

UniChris

Narrowing streets, adidng curb bumpouts, etc unfortunately makes cycling in safe cooperation with other traffic much harder.

And "limiting visibily" is exactly what you do if you're purposely trying to get people killed - specifically less visible cyclists and pedestrians, and especially the shortest ones. It's the very fact that a lack of any occluding clutter at the intersection means one can so easily see cars (which, again, have the right of way) coming that mean this tragedy should never have happened.

This wasn't some mis-designed spot where a rail trail hidden by brush blindly crosses a road with geometry that only made sense when the train could drop crossing gates (and the railroad would have kept the brush trimmed back), this was an intersection actually designed for visibility.

Exactly backwards. Keep in mind this kid was killed ignoring traffic while crossing between segments of the existing "protected" network (sidewalks), demonstrating that the real danger is at intersections. Putting in lanes that misleading make cyclists think they can ignore other traffic only makes that worse. Plus there's no space for them - but there is suffcient width to safely bike and safely be passed by cars without conflict.

Reality is that there's always going to be a class of road (either local or rural) shared by cyclists and other vehicles, and what's needed is an understanding of how to operate there safely.

That street is fine to cycle on (both safe and efficient, in contrast to your proposal which is makes biking both slower and more dangerous) if both drivers and cyclists follow the rules of the road - and remember, there is nothing to suggest that the driver violated those, since Texas law would require even an actual pedestrian to have yielded to the vehicle on the privileged roadway.

If you want to build something that actually helps, widen Northpark Drive so that cyclists wanting to ride the mere mile and a half to local commerce have space drivers aren't also seeking, and/or turn the disused rail corridor to its north into a heavily used multi-use path.

But don't build a glorified sidewalk on Notrhpark and try to pass it off as a cycling route, because no matter what you call it, a sidewalk full of intersections is NOT a realistic cycling route in anything but desperation.

And don't ignorantly destroy the very things that make a street such as that in this incident safely and appealingly bikeable by those who actually understand how to bike safely.

base2 

UniChris
The solution to road safety is not more road. More road baits drivers into a false feeling security for themselves at the expense of actual safety for all other road users. What's worse is this residential street is designed as a road & that is the root of the problem.

This road (& most all roads) need to make driving feel unsafe to drivers so they then proceed with a more careful demeanor. IOW self-select a slower speed appropriate for that streets intended use. Drivers need to feel unsafe at 20kph & that will take the risk from any other modal choices.

I know this may be contrary to the way American roads are designed & probably sounds strange. But, that is understandable. America has several generations of poor traffic engineering and several generations of people who don't know anything different. American cities are designed for cars, not people. This sad fact permeates throughout the culture with a great many unintended consequences. Dead 8 year olds being just one.

UniChris

On the contrary, the solution to road safety is most definitely NOT TAKING AWAY THE VERY SPACE ON WHICH CYCLIST RELY.

But it's good that you brought up the "baits into a false sense of security" issue - because that's exactly what building bike routes with dangerously misdesigned intersections does.

The only way to safely cycle on a route that has to cross paths with other traffic, is to be aware of that other traffic.

A "protected bike lane" cannot change the fact that it is NOT SAFE TO CROSS A STREET OR TURNING OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT LOOKING FOR CARS.

And it turns out it's much easier to have mutual awareness with other road users when you're actually riding on the road.

Plus, when you're on the road, you can use the proper and safe lane for the direction you want to go, which you can't do in infrastructure that's stuck off in the wrong place for through traffic at every intersection.

Then, when you're on the road, you can enjoy the same priority over traffic on side roads, that other road users enjoy - though when there isn't a car on your tail for them to notice, it's often strategically useful to move more out into the lane so that you'll actually be seen - especially if that ignorantly desired tree clutter is there to complicate visibility.

Someone trying to ride a bike in much of American, including the territory where this occured has real challenges to contend with like Northpark Drive - this little residential street is not an issue, but in the kind of cluelessly ignorant anti-cycling measures you are proposing, you'd end up taking the one part of their journey that is a complete non-issue, and making that a frustrating and more dangerous area, too.

Talk to people who actually bike places - we'd rather be on a road with space to be safely passed, and great visibility. Some winding narrow little road is nice when it's out in the countryside with only a few cars an hour, but the degree of constant conflict that narrowness creates is not enjoyable in a busier area.


No one who actually bikes much would say something so outrageously absurd - because most cyclists who are actually going anywhere are trying to go faster than 20 kph (a mere 12.4 mph). Even the 8 year olds I ride with will often exceed that (though other times they'll barely do 6, kids are moody)

Daniel4

Apparently not. Someone was just killed on it.



That just goes to show you how that street was designed for drivers instead of pedestrians in that neighbourhood. Drivers don't expect any distractions as they zombie-drive through the street. She didn't even notice that someone was on the sidewalk- and it wouldn't have mattered if it was an 80 year old or an 8 year old. Are you really expecting an 8 year old kid to know all the traffic laws that a fully licenced driver does? Something's not right about that. Or are neighbourhood streets where the kid live are have a minimum age limit to be outside?

This is an example of how not only the street but the Texan traffic law need to be updated to the 8 to 80 vision.

UniChris

There are countless aspects of the world which are quite safe when used according to their rules of usage, and quite dangerous when used otherwise. We don't permit children to access those parts unsupervised until they've demonstrated practical knowledge of those rules.

Quote:

She didn't even notice that someone was on the sidewalk- and it wouldn't have mattered if it was an 80 year old or an 8 year old.

It does not matter if someone was on the sidewalk, because Texas law would require that both pedestrians yield to traffic before crossing the street at a non-crosswalk.

Quote:

Are you really expecting an 8 year old kid to know all the traffic laws...

Reread the thread, I'm expecting a child TO KNOW TO LOOK BEFORE CROSSING THE STREET and demonstrate that they reliably do so, before being allowed to do so on their own. You'd better believe that the time our family group watched in horror as little girl from another family barreled blindly through the second part of a brush-occluded two-part rail trail intersection without looking, that was a subject of discussion the whole way home.

You can argue that there should be a crosswalk at the intersection in question I won't disagree that at first glance that seems like it could well be an improvement, but I would again point out that:

1. Even when there is a crosswalk, pedestrians are prohibited from entering it when traffic is too close to safely stop
2. Texas, like most US states, does not appear to give cyclists priority at crosswalks - likely because cyclists have a poor track record of complying with #1 if they think that drivers are supposed to yield to them while forgetting how their faster speed of approach means they often aren't visible in time.

It could be worse though - many parts of your country make it (even in the absence of traffic) illegal to use a crosswalk while on the bike.

himespau 

Of course the hardcore militant VC folks were going to come in.

debade

The solution you suggest is clearly the best one which are protected bike lanes. But, that must be done with the idea of Complete Streets.

I wouldn't have responded except for the comment "look and do not cross the road if there is a car coming which has not yet stopped for you". Placing the responsibility so squarely on a child, who does have some responsibility, is to narrow of a view.

As you know, motorists are taught to check for pedestrians/anyone on the sidewalk, before making their left turn. This should be done for both directions. Anytime a non-motorist is struck in an intersection, it calls into question if the motorist was following their required drivers training. According to this study, most motorists do not check when making left turns. Guessing what is most important to them is moving out of the path of oncoming traffic. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/04/...-turning-left/

It would seem a solution would be teaching motorists a method like the Dutch Reach. As you probably know, the Reach is to open your car down with your right hand when exiting your motor vehicle. This forces an easier look over your shoulder for cyclists and motor vehicles that might strike an open door. Perhaps something similar is taught to motorists for left turns. As I type this, I am not aware of that. At least that could be put in place while we are waiting for protected bike lanes.

UniChris

Your argument is with reality then.

The fact is that the world is not safe for children who do not look before crossing the street to cross streets without supervision.

There's a reason there's a ritual to family walks with young children - you stop, link up hands, look, mention the cars you see, and then when the adults say it is safe, you cross as a group. Kids only get to do that physically on their own after literally years of doing it hand in hand with an adult, and they only get to do it unaccompanied after years more of demonstrating reliability while the adults watch.

As for your left turn comment, while that can indeed be an issue in other circumstances (in this case someone walking east or west and so crossing the street being turned into), the boy was reportedly heading north to the pond, so he would not have been struck because of the left turn, but rather because he was crossing the road the driver was coming from - a car the law would appear to have required the pedestrian to yield to.

Putting in the third stop sign, adding an east-west crosswalk and the absent curb cuts to support crossing north south and painting that too are all likely reasonable ideas with relatively few downsides. But one still has to look for traffic before crossing the street - and to remember that in most US states, cyclists don't get priority at crosswalks anyway.