I can imagine you stepping out of your orange porsche and turn into the green hulk. lol. I'd be scared too.

And I totally agree with you comet. If parents are really concerned about their children's safety, then they shouldn't let their kids play in the street. Safety is a two way street (Get it? lol) Not saying that people on this forum allow their kids to roam the streets.

 

Precisely my point. I never said it was okay. I was 15 years old and had not yet learned to temper what I wanted (making noise) with respect for others' desire for peace and quiet in their own homes and yards.

It really is a matter of putting yourself in other people's shoes. We've all got an appreciation for speed and noise or there wouldn't be so many posts re mods and PSE on this forum, but there is a time and place for everything. Neighborhood streets simply are not the place for exhibitions of noise or speed.

I've often been surprised at how my point of view can change depending on whether I am in a car or on foot. From inside a car going 25 one feels in complete control and going a snail's pace. To the pedestrian (esp. one walking a kid) that car is moving fast enough to be a threat. I find myself holding my daughter's hand tight whenever a car goes by. Parking lots can be a nightmare in this regard, even though the cars are going very slow. Tcouture's sad story illustrates why that is.

Jeremy Clarkson made a good point, the gist of which is as follows (since I don't remember his exact words or even close):

Suppose cars were invented today, rather than having been entrenched in our lives over the past century. The minister of transport says: "Let me get this straight. You're proposing that ordinary people should be allowed to operate things weighing a couple of tons, that can go faster than a speeding train, in any direction they fancy, and we'll just paint some lines on the ground to show where they oughtn't run over people crossing the road. You must be bleeping mad!"

Considering the variety of "owner operators" and their wildly ranging skill levels, I accept that the law treats driving as a privilege, not a right.

Lest you think I'm being completely pompous, let me clear that I'm not a saint. I don't always act respectfully and I'm sure I have a few times elicited an "@sshole" muttered or shouted by the driver of another car. But I feel bad about it afterwards, rather than claim to have the right to act like a jerk.

 

I really don't think any less of you Steve. Please don't think that. I believe we can cordially disagree without taking swings at each other.

I agree, things are different from different vantage points. Compassion and being able to step into other's shoes are important. But jumping in front of moving cars to slow them down doesn't fix anything. It just exacerbates the situation, especially if someone gets hurt. The worst part is if you get hurt jumping in front of cars, you might be liable for the damage and your own medical bills. Not worth it to me.

 

While I agree every driver should drive within the posted limits, I would also say, if the limit is 25mph, for example, then its 25mph, and one should not expect folks to drive 15 just because there are kids around.

Streets are NOT playgrounds. As parents, we need to teach our children the proper way to behave round traffic and streets and playing in the road is very rarely a viable options. We have yards, driveways, parks, etc for that sort of thing. Find a dead end road or cul-de-sac.

Don't expect traffic to account for the fact that you have a 3 year old running round wild and free that would just dart into the roadway.

And stepping out in front is likely to get you run over one day, with you at fault.

 

Just for the record, I do not let my kids play in the street unattended. Ever. When they go in the street, under supervision, it is to do things that really cannot be done in the yard like riding bikes. But would it be possible for my 3yr old to start chasing a ball and jump in the street while I am looking the other way? Anything is possible...

Some people think they have a right to go 40mph and have their noise at 98db because the law says so. Some people think they can block the road so their kids can play hockey in the street. But somewhere in the middle of all this, they will find a way to coexist and this is the miracle of our societies. It allows the freedom to solve these little disagreements between ourselves.

What I am saying is that just like him liking the sound level of his exhaust, the complaint the OP got is just a manifestation of the fine balance that exists between two points of view. You just cannot have one freedom without the other.

Regards,

T.

 

Other's have mentioned about what's wrong with Americans, pointing out that we are rude, loud, and obnoxious. I don't like to normally engage in these topics because they don't seem fruitful and it is just flat out insulting. People just aren't culturally competent. However, one issue that I have is that many people, not just Americans, don't take personal responsibility these days (lol, I can already hear myself sounding like an old man). If you let your kids play in the streets, that's fine. I can't tell people how to raise their kids because it is none of my business. But parents have to accept responsibilities for letting their kids play on the street and not just blame everyone else. You have to know letting you kid play on the streets will increase the odds of getting hurt...badly. With the kid running onto the street to catch a ball, that's a tough situation. It really isn't anyone's fault if the driver is going the speed limit. That is an accident in the truest sense and not much can be done to prevent that from happening.

And we do have a middle ground where we can all coexist with each other. They are set by laws.

 

Fully agree. I am just expecting folks to have control of their car at all time.

Fully agree. That is why I really made a point to live on a street with no through traffic, it leads to nowhere. But a neighbor that lives further down has teenagers that sometime have pool parties and such. Their friends sometimes still speed down the street for fun, even though it goes nowhere.

Fully agree. I always keep an eye on the kids and actually rarely have them playing in the front yard. But anything is possible with a 3 yr old. They are just darn quick sometimes.

Hopefully not. On either count. I strongly believe this is a terrible experience for both the victim and their family and the driver and their family. Personally, if I was the driver and even if I was not "at fault", I am persuaded that I would still feel some guilt about it, probably forever.

My grandfather had an old saying about driving and fault: if you are dead, even if you are not at fault, you are still dead...

As I said, there are some things that are not always rational, so I'll just shut up for now. Can we go back to tire suggestions and suspension settings?

T.

 

Inglorious wrote: " It really isn't anyone's fault if the driver is going the speed limit. That is an accident in the truest sense and not much can be done to prevent that from happening."

If you think driving the posted speed limit is a defense to a negligence suit or a citation, you would be wrong. Behind our speed laws is the legal requirement to adjust our speed for conditions. That would include kids running around. And there is the negligence law principle of "last clear chance." The converse is true, however: speeding usually qualifies as negligence per se in an accident where speed was a factor.

 

Now you are changing the original situation. Now you are adding many kids on your hypothetical street. I'm no lawyer, but let's clearly define the situation. Let's assume a child is walking with one parent and bouncing a ball. There are no other children on the street. The ball goes into the street and the child immediately chases after it. A driver is driving at the speed limit (let's say 25 mph). The kid jumps out in front of a car 5 feet before the car hits it. The car brakes and swerves away, but still runs over the kid. Is that still negligence? I am genuinely asking because I have no clue what the answer is.

 

In that example, a driver exercising due caution would see the 5 year old kid bouncing the ball and would slow down and be extra vigilant. In fact this is the classic drivers handbook / drivers education example, which teaches that we should EXPECT the ball will bounce into the street and the kid will follow.

 

, good thing i dont live in Conn.....

 

I had to clarify the situation because your original scenario was vague. Now that we are all on the same page, is someone negligent in the scenario that I described, because that was the exact scenario that I was playing out in my head.

Would parents be negligent for letting their kids running wild? Again, not a lawyer, so I have no clue.

 

he probably grew up..

i m not sure why people are arguing about this..

just have a common courtesy to others. Period.


and i don't believe the OP (sorry buddy).. no one yells at a driver to slow down just based on the noise. i think they told u to slow down because u prob were speeding.

perhaps u were driving faster than u should and stopped at the last second just to practice ur heel-toe (which, IMO, should not be practiced on resident streets with grannies and children walking around.)

 

Inglorious wrote: "Let's assume a child is walking with one parent and bouncing a ball. There are no other children on the street. The ball goes into the street and the child immediately chases after it. A driver is driving at the speed limit (let's say 25 mph). The kid jumps out in front of a car 5 feet before the car hits it. The car brakes and swerves away, but still runs over the kid. Is that still negligence?"

Inglorious also wrote: " is someone negligent in the scenario that I described, because that was the exact scenario that I was playing out in my head. Would parents be negligent for letting their kids running wild?"

Yes, you could count on a lawyer crafting a convincing argument that you were negligent in that situation. First, the posted speed limit is for ideal conditions. If you are coming up on a parent and a kid bouncing a ball, that's your signal to slow down to a speed that if the ball and kid enter the street, you could stop in time. You say "[t]he ball goes into the street and the kid immediately chases after it." A reasonably prudent (non-negligent) driver would have hit the brakes the moment that scenario started to unfold, when the kid lost control of the ball. Sure, the parent might also have been negligent and contributed to the accident, e.g. if he let the kid get too far ahead. But still you could be looking at shared fault, and you could still pay.

The better way to look at this would be to ask yourself how you would feel afterward. Wouldn't you search your conscience to see if there was any way you could have avoided this tragedy? And tellingly, the next time, I bet you'd slow down when you saw the kid bouncing the ball on the sidewalk.

 

Of course I would feel bad. Someone lost their life in that situation. But, I drive like a grandma. I cannot stress this enough. I'd already be driving slow with or without that kid.

Conversely, I can also count on a lawyer crafting a convincing argument that the parent was negligent in that situation. When we start talking about lawyers, then everything becomes blurry. This is a point that you hinted at indirectly. I don't think this is a good example that you raised because the ruling of if a person is negligent or not depends on a jury, judge or etc. This really blurs your example because that is no definitive answer to your example and we can only assume. And these assumptions do not further your argument. You can only suggest a likelihood of negligence, but you cannot definitively say that there is negligence, which weakens your original point.