Close call in my neighborhood....

[kdonnel]

to OP:
I am stunned about the lackadaisical attitude about following simple traffic rules in your RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. The city can put in all the street furniture they want, it won't make any difference if people think nothing of blowing though stop signs, driving on the wrong side of the road, speeding, heck, probably spitting on the sidewalk, littering and jaywalking too.

For the most part it is a great neighborhood to live in.

The big complaints are people ignoring stop signs and not picking up dog poop.

A large part of the neighborhood Facebook page consists of people posting videos of people not stopping and piles of poop they saw while on a walk.

 

[kdonnel]

You can still get through. It isn't a problem. This is a typical setup on our neighborhood. You can get through. Just not quickly.

https://www.google.com/maps/@47.665...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

I really don’t like city neighborhoods with street parking like that. I would never want to live there.

Despite the issues, I like the quiet suburbia I live in. Especially my long boring cul-d-sac with very little traffic.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The law will change again as soon as someone on an e-bike or scooter hits a pedestrian on the sidewalk and either seriously injures them or kills them. I can also see a person on either hitting a dog or getting knocked off their e-bike or scooter when they clothesline themselves on the leash.

There is no getting to null in terms of safety unless they are banned and enforcement happens which realistically means jail time for parents of minors (because fines won't do it). I'm not going to debate about pedestrians on sidewalks because I didn't assert there wasn't a risk to them being there with the e-bikes and scooters. I said between on the road and the sidewalk places are increasingly trying to figure out ways to reduce the incident rate between them and vehicles. Put another way the lesser of the two evils (outside of an outright ban). A vehicle represents a much different risk here it doesn't mean I made any sort of claim of no risk by being on the sidewalk (of which I stated multiple times).

The only place I've seen local ordinances prohibit sidewalk usage is one city for two defined aspects which was adopted last July: certain specific shopping centers (this has become a big problem here as well) where the e-bikes and e-scooters have been banned entirely by minors and the language was included to mean the sidewalks entirely within that private property so as to not allow wiggle room of saying one was on the sidewalk and therefore okay, in those shopping centers specified they are not allowed period by minors. That same city last summer at the same time adjusted that if an e-bike is a class 3 that's when it should be on the road exclusively (that's only for e-bikes) and you have to be 16 and older to legally operate a class 3 e-bike for that city. That particular city is tabling e-scooter updates for a later date (public input became too much of a ping pong in that moment).

The police chief however said the below back in July (correction): a different and nearby city who updated their rules for e-bikes in September to "e-bike users must now be at least 15 years old, or under the direct supervision of an adult. The city also now requires minors to wear helmets."
"Police Chief J.P. Thurlo told the city council last week that complaints about e-bikes and e-scooters started coming in about a year ago. The police department gets an e-bike or e-scooter complaint nearly daily, Thurlo said. Thurlo said his concern is that without parental guidance, “great bodily harm” or “serious injury” will come to young children who have no knowledge of the rules of the road. Police officers have witnessed children run stop signs on e-bikes or e-scooters off 62nd and Granada streets, a four-way intersection, Thurlo said. In one case, Thurlo said an 11-year-old riding an e-bike on Shawnee Mission Parkway reached 51 mph. That child, Thurlo said, told police officers that his father allowed him to “ride it around the neighborhood.” “Those types of instructions aren’t clear to an 11-year-old,” Thurlo said. “I am deeply concerned that without supervision and proper instruction, something tragic is gonna happen.” That was July, in October was the 10 yr old's death in a nearby city by a vehicle while the child was crossing the road in the middle of the street (he was not using a crosswalk, the car had no way of preventing the incident via a thorough police investigation). The parents blamed the city for it, they wanted wider sidewalks, flashing lights for drivers, more defined crosswalks, etc.

I archived the below story about the area to remove the paywall for the particular city that adjusted the rules to be sidewalks. And yes ordinances can change and realistically the only direction I would see at this point for that city is just outright banning them for youths entirely from operating such electric devices.

https://archive.ph/BKq7U#selection-2545.32-2545.36

 

[goofyernmost]

100% of the kid not stopping for the stop sign. The only thing the van did was have bad timing. There was no stop sign in his direction. The hedge on the opposite street mostly hid the kid on the scooter.

P.S. You can correct those bottom three or four choices by just editing.

 

[kdonnel]

P.S. You can correct those bottom three or four choices by just editing.

I tried. It correctly won’t let me edit the poll since people have already voted.

Would be really bad form to allow people to vote and then change the poll so it looked like they voted for something different.

 

[Mle8308]

The van seemed to be going too fast for a residential neighborhood. Kids do reckless things, but the driver of the van needs to be in control for the situation, which is a residential neighborhood where you expect bikes, dogs and walkers. The kid was oblivious. Van driver going too fast.

So the van driver is at fault because the kid is oblivious? More reason to find fault with the kid. Looks like the van driver was in control, who knows, he may have been looking to see if anyone from the opposite direction was barreling towards him. And again, he had no stop sign and we don't know if he was actually speeding, the kid looks like he's going pretty fast, too. The kid did not follow the "rules of the road" - he did not stop at the stop sign, nor was he of legal age to operate the scooter or have a helmet on. I feel bad for the traumatized van driver! 100% on the kid. I'm just glad he is okay and hopefully learned something. His parents should be cited, too for allowing him to operate the scooter.

 

[Mle8308]

I really don’t like city neighborhoods with street parking like that. I would never want to live there.

Despite the issues, I like the quiet suburbia I live in. Especially my long boring cul-d-sac with very little traffic.

It does look like a beautiful neighborhood!

 

[MICKIMINI]

So the van driver is at fault because the kid is oblivious? More reason to find fault with the kid. Looks like the van driver was in control, who knows, he may have been looking to see if anyone from the opposite direction was barreling towards him. And again, he had no stop sign and we don't know if he was actually speeding, the kid looks like he's going pretty fast, too. The kid did not follow the "rules of the road" - he did not stop at the stop sign, nor was he of legal age to operate the scooter or have a helmet on. I feel bad for the traumatized van driver! 100% on the kid. I'm just glad he is okay and hopefully learned something. His parents should be cited, too for allowing him to operate the scooter.

You are misquoting me. I did not state the van driver "is at fault". Thankfully, there is the "ignore" button!

 

[sam_gordon]

You are misquoting me. I did not state the van driver "is at fault". Thankfully, there is the "ignore" button!

Isn't this you?

the van is more at fault for driving too fast at the very least.

So no, you didn't say the van driver is solely at fault, but you do give him the majority of blame.

 

[Mle8308]

You are misquoting me. I did not state the van driver "is at fault". Thankfully, there is the "ignore" button!

My apologies, I did not mean to offend you. I was just stating my opinion, though you did kind of say the van driver was more at fault -"the van is more at fault for driving too fast at the very least" - and that is something we don't know, how fast the van was going. We do know the kid broke the law. Again, I did not mean to upset or offend you.

 

[sam_gordon]

FWIW, upon considering it more, I changed my vote from 50/50 to 90/10 with the kid taking the majority of the blame. If we knew the actual speed of the van, that might change my mind again, but the worst it would be for the van would be 50/50.

I do think the driver has SOME responsibility to look and anticipate.

 

[MillauFr]

And the scooter can't safely see a vehicle coming towards them if they are having to look in between the cars and most especially as is the case with many of these children they just don't look. Even at a crosswalk the visibility issue remains the same.

Agreed. The good visibility at the intersection is probably what saved the kid on the scooter.

 

[MillauFr]

I really don’t like city neighborhoods with street parking like that. I would never want to live there.

Despite the issues, I like the quiet suburbia I live in. Especially my long boring cul-d-sac with very little traffic.

There are pros/cons. Yes suburbia is quieter. Our neighborhood is under the fight path for SeaTac and when the airport gets busy there is a plane going over our house every 45 seconds. At least we are 15 miles from the airport and the planes are generally 4000 to 5000 feet up. The other con is that houses in the city are more expensive that those in the suburbs. The closer to you get to downtown the higher the property costs are here.

The pro is that as I get into my 50s I can't see as good at night. I rarely drive at night now. At least in the city there is a subway station near our house so we aren't forced to drive to get places.

 

[Travel60]

Probably an unpopular opinion -- but I fault the parents of the kid who provided him with a motorized device to ride and (presumably) never taught him that he must follow the laws of the road when using it. So many more kids on motorized devices (scooters, ebikes, ATVs, even those stupid little mini jeeps). Parents given them to kids as toys, but they are much more than a toy. Nobody bothers to teach the kids proper road rules.

I agree. And, I would bet that mommy and daddy have already bought little Bobby a new scooter.

 

[kdonnel]

There are pros/cons. Yes suburbia is quieter. Our neighborhood is under the fight path for SeaTac and when the airport gets busy there is a plane going over our house every 45 seconds. At least we are 15 miles from the airport and the planes are generally 4000 to 5000 feet up. The other con is that houses in the city are more expensive that those in the suburbs. The closer to you get to downtown the higher the property costs are here.

The pro is that as I get into my 50s I can't see as good at night. I rarely drive at night now. At least in the city there is a subway station near our house so we aren't forced to drive to get places.

My son lives in an area that could be your picture. He loves it.

 

[goofyernmost]

You are misquoting me. I did not state the van driver "is at fault". Thankfully, there is the "ignore" button!

Wow, Does that mean that you will use the ignore button simply because they misread your post. Seems a little harsh.

 

[jimmymc]

It's a mix, I'd put slightly more blame on the van. When an obstruction forces you to drive into the other lane, you're responsible for waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear. You shouldn't just maintain speed in the opposite lane, especially with an intersection there.

The kid should've stopped, but the van shouldn't have been there.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's a mix, I'd put slightly more blame on the van. When an obstruction forces you to drive into the other lane, you're responsible for waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear. You shouldn't just maintain speed in the opposite lane, especially with an intersection there.

The kid should've stopped, but the van shouldn't have been there.

I agree with the bolded, but at the time the van moved into the opposite lane, the kid was still on the side street. So the opposite lane WAS clear.

I also disagree that one should slow down if you're in the opposite lane. In our neighborhood, if someone is parked on the street and I need to move over, I generally won't slow down (not going very fast to start with, 25-30mph). Am I watching for possible things to interfere? Yes. But without evidence of such, wouldn't slow down.

 

[jimmymc]

I agree with the bolded, but at the time the van moved into the opposite lane, the kid was still on the side street. So the opposite lane WAS clear.

I also disagree that one should slow down if you're in the opposite lane. In our neighborhood, if someone is parked on the street and I need to move over, I generally won't slow down (not going very fast to start with, 25-30mph). Am I watching for possible things to interfere? Yes. But without evidence of such, wouldn't slow down.

The slowing down comment is specific to the fact that the van was approaching an intersection. Just because you have the right of way doesn't mean you get to stop paying attention, even if legally it's not your fault. The van also took its sweet time getting back into the right lane, since the vehicle isn't even in frame. I'm not sure if the video speed is accurate, but it also looks like all the cars are moving fast for a residential road.