Latest Odd Lawsuit...

[Davian93]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/06/mother_of_teen_bicyclist_kille_1.html

So, if I read this right...her teenage son was riding his bike while listening to his Ipod, ran a red light at a hazardous intersection and was subsequently plowed under by a bus driver...so how does that equal a lawsuit exactly?

[Bryan Blaire]

She'll win, but the company should file a counter suit for damages done to their vehicle by the boy.

The fact is, he broke the law by running the light. The boy should be held accountable for his actions. Just because he was on a bike doesn't mean that he is released from liability or responsibility, he actually is required (so far as I know, in Texas, at least) to obey all traffic laws just as a car does. If he's distracted by an iPod, it shouldn't be any different than the driver of a car claiming he was distracted by something: It shouldn't make a lick of difference.

[Frenzy]

Hard to fault a grieving parent. Though why any lawyer would pick this up is beyond me.

[Davian93]

Hard to fault a grieving parent. Though why any lawyer would pick this up is beyond me.

Grieving is natural and good...but suing? I mean really I wish our society wasn't so quick to always blame somebody or something when something bad happens.

[caladanbrood]

Hard to fault a grieving parent. Though why any lawyer would pick this up is beyond me.
Have you met lawyers? I believe the term is "ambulance chasing"...

[Terez]

Have you met lawyers?
We have quite a few of them here. :D I don't think any of them are ambulance chasers, though...two of them are in England, and another hasn't given us word on the Bar yet...another hasn't been heard from here since he passed the Bar, though I imagine he's in touch with some people...

[Frenzy]

Grieving is natural and good...but suing? I mean really I wish our society wasn't so quick to always blame somebody or something when something bad happens.
Because if you don't blame someone else, then it's your fault. And if you do blame someone else, then it isn't your fault.

~sighs~

[Sarevok]

Police said he ran into the side of the bus behind the front passenger door and was knocked off his bicycle.
The boy actually ran into the SIDE of the bus... HOW is that the bus's fault??

[Davian93]

The boy actually ran into the SIDE of the bus... HOW is that the bus's fault??

Umm...try the fact that he ran a redlight and wasn't paying attention (the Ipod)

[caladanbrood]

Umm...try the fact that he ran a redlight and wasn't paying attention (the Ipod)
It was the bike that ran the red light, wasn't it?

[Davian93]

It was the bike that ran the red light, wasn't it?

From my understanding it was.

[caladanbrood]

Oh... your post read like you were trying to explain how it was the bus' fault... I must have missed the sarcasm:o

[Davian93]

Oh... your post read like you were trying to explain how it was the bus' fault... I must have missed the sarcasm:o

easy mistake to make with my posts...I honestly feel bad for the busdriver in this situation. He (or she) is gonna have nightmares for years because of this even though it wasn't his fault. For example, a very good friend of mine in HS had a similar thing happen with an accident. He was driving his Ford Expedition down the PA turnpike coming home from a Flyers game when a drunk driver lost control of their compact car, crossed the median and smashed into him. His car drove right over the compact (due to the size difference in vehicles) and he was basically unhurt. Both cars caught on fire however and he got out pretty quickly. He heard the person inside the smaller car (now underneath his Expedition) start screaming as the fire spread. He tried to save her (it was a female apparently) but the fire was way too hot and he ended up not being able to do anything to help. He was majorly screwed up from the whole thing for years afterward and it really messed up his life despite him not being at fault.

[tworiverswoman]

"We both think that the bus driver could and should have avoided hitting our son," she said in a prepared statement. As Sare pointed out -- the boy hit the bus, and fell off his bike. He was run over by the REAR WHEELS -- which means the bus moved approximately 15-30 feet forward after he struck it.

Physics prohibits the bus from stopping in that short a distance, unless moving at a dead crawl.

She's not just stupid -- she's going to be putting herself in the position of having her memories of her son poisoned by an untold amount of time in a courtroom having any number of people tell her her son was an idiot. This is indefensible.

1. He ran a red light
2. He struck the bus, not the other way around
3. He was run over by the REAR wheels
4. He is reported to have been wearing a iPod or similar.
5. The parents are suing the bus company -- but not the driver. Curious, that -- in view of the above statement.

The greed for litigation payoff has trumped any real feeling. It disgusts me.

[Ishara]

What's interesting to me is that no one seems to give a damn about the fact that he was listening to his ipod while biking. That's illegal here. Same as if you're driving. Not supposed to have earphones in for the pure reason that they do distract you from both hazards and the rules of the road. Obviously some people don't obey that particualr law, and I can even understand why, but it's still common sense.

How sad for all involved.

[Brita]

What's interesting to me is that no one seems to give a damn about the fact that he was listening to his ipod while biking. That's illegal here. Same as if you're driving.

It..is...? Is that a municipal, provincial or federal law? 'cause if it's either of the last 2 I have to confess I'm guilty (in the car at least).

[Davian93]

What's interesting to me is that no one seems to give a damn about the fact that he was listening to his ipod while biking. That's illegal here. Same as if you're driving. Not supposed to have earphones in for the pure reason that they do distract you from both hazards and the rules of the road. Obviously some people don't obey that particualr law, and I can even understand why, but it's still common sense.

How sad for all involved.

The Ipod just emphasizes his stupidity in the whole thing...its illegal here too though very rarely enforced...Hell I see people drive cars with their Ipods on.

[Davian93]

It..is...? Is that a municipal, provincial or federal law? 'cause if it's either of the last 2 I have to confess I'm guilty (in the car at least).

Operating a motor vehicle while wearing earphones is illegal in every state I've ever lived in. You can't block out outside sound and still drive safely.

[Brita]

Huh, well whatyaknow. My hubby knew that too. I guess because I just jumped into t he iPod scene two months ago, I have a few things to learn. I don't play it loudly enough to block out noise while I'm driving, but now I'll have to invest in a new car stereo that will play my iPod, I'm enamored with it.

Thanks Ishara- you just saved me from getting a big fine :)

[GonzoTheGreat]

Operating a motor vehicle while wearing earphones is illegal in every state I've ever lived in. You can't block out outside sound and still drive safely.
Man, Americans are lazy. Here in The Netherlands, only a minority of bicycles are motor vehicles; most run on muscular power only.

[Davian93]

Man, Americans are lazy. Here in The Netherlands, only a minority of bicycles are motor vehicles; most run on muscular power only.

We were talking about cars at that point Gonzo...but its illegal any vehicle in traffic, bicycle or automobile.

[Ishara]

Doubtful Brita. ;) You live in TB right? Chances are you know all the cops - I'm sure that you and your eyelashes are more than capable of talking your way out of any trouble that may come your way. ;P

[JSUCamel]

I don't know if it's illegal in Georgia, but I don't really care. What's the difference between listening to an iPod and having the radio on?

[Weird Harold]

I don't know if it's illegal in Georgia, but I don't really care. What's the difference between listening to an iPod and having the radio on?
In theory, at least, having your radio on doesn't block out the sound of sirens and other warning devices. In practice, it probably does over-power whatever sound makes it into your car throughthe insulation/soundproofing.

[Frenzy]

Man, Americans are lazy. Here in The Netherlands, only a minority of bicycles are motor vehicles; most run on muscular power only.
if you're on wheels, you're legally a motor vehicle and must obey all traffic laws. i have a friend who got a ticket on his unicycle.

[Nazbaque]

How about skate boards or rollerblades? They count as motor vehicles?

[GonzoTheGreat]

if you're on wheels, you're legally a motor vehicle and must obey all traffic laws.
That's dumb. Of course, there's probably no law that says that laws can't be dumb.

[Weird Harold]

That's dumb. Of course, there's probably no law that says that laws can't be dumb.
Yep, it's just so dumb, because not obeying the traffic laws is just perfectly safe -- you wouldn't ever run a red light and into the side of a bus and get your head popped like a soda bottle or anything like that. :rolleyes:

[GonzoTheGreat]

Well, there is of course another option: make the traffic laws distinguish between different kinds of vehicles. In that way, you can set up your traffic laws so that a self propelled wheelchair isn't required to mix with 50 ton lorries.

In The Netherlands we have different sets of rules for different types of traffic participants. To give an example of such differences:
Cars are required to have seat belts. Bicyles do not have this requirement. If you have a "all wheeled vehicles are considered the same" rule, then you cannot make this distinction. So either seat belts would be required on both cars and bikes, or on neither.

Does this clarify a bit why I say that such a rule is dumb?

[Weird Harold]

Well, there is of course another option: make the traffic laws distinguish between different kinds of vehicles. In that way, you can set up your traffic laws so that a self propelled wheelchair isn't required to mix with 50 ton lorries.

In The Netherlands we have different sets of rules for different types of traffic participants. To give an example of such differences:
Cars are required to have seat belts. Bicyles do not have this requirement. If you have a "all wheeled vehicles are considered the same" rule, then you cannot make this distinction. So either seat belts would be required on both cars and bikes, or on neither.

Does this clarify a bit why I say that such a rule is dumb?
Do they make a distinction as to who is required to pay attention to where they're going or is required to stop at a stop sign insteadof swooping out into traffic?

[Sarevok]

Do they make a distinction as to who is required to pay attention to where they're going or is required to stop at a stop sign insteadof swooping out into traffic?
No, but you were the one stating all bicycles have to obey all rules for cars.

[Brita]

if you're on wheels, you're legally a motor vehicle and must obey all traffic laws. i have a friend who got a ticket on his unicycle.

You have a friend that rides a unicycle around? That's so cool!

Chances are you know all the cops - I'm sure that you and your eyelashes are more than capable of talking your way out of any trouble that may come your way.

Heheh- I used the eyelash special power yesterday at the border crossing into US. It comes in handy to be sure.

[GonzoTheGreat]

Do they make a distinction as to who is required to pay attention to where they're going or is required to stop at a stop sign insteadof swooping out into traffic?
Up to a point. Pedestrians are not limited in any ways by stop signs.
And there is a big difference between your stop signs and ours, which occasionally gets Dutch tourists in the USA into trouble. In your case, a stop sign means that you have to stop before continuing. In our case, a stop sign means that you have to stop if there is traffic on the road you are about to cross. So in The Netherlands, if you encounter a stop sign and there's no one around at all, you can just drive on, possibly without slowing down.

On the other hand, when it comes to the wearing of headphones: if you have a helmet on on a motorcycle, then you're not going to hear all that much from outside anyway. In that case, you have to use your eyes, and depending on your ears simply won't work well enough. So a prohibition on headphones there wouldn't make all that much sense.
And for bicycles there is no such prohibition either. I know some cabinet minister has suggested the possibility, but as far as I know it hasn't gone any further than such a mere suggestion.

[Sarevok]

In our case, a stop sign means that you have to stop if there is traffic on the road you are about to cross.
Actually, Gonzo, do you remember this one:
http://www.ispam.nl/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/stop.gif
You HAVE to stop for it... although I haven't seen one in a while, dunno why...

[Weird Harold]

No, but you were the one stating all bicycles have to obey all rules for cars.
No, actually that was Frenzy. I was just agreeing with her.

[Terez]

I used the eyelash special power yesterday at the border crossing into US. It comes in handy to be sure.
What were you hiding? :)

Where I live, we have these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Yield_sign.svg/557px-Yield_sign.svg.png

sorry...too lazy to resize it. Anyway, these work just like the way Gonzo says his stops signs work. The ones we have to stop for no matter what look like what Sare posted.

[Davian93]

I don't know if it's illegal in Georgia, but I don't really care. What's the difference between listening to an iPod and having the radio on?

earphones block out all outside sound for the most part...not the smartest thing to do...its not smart to drive with the radio blasting either as you lose awareness.

[Terez]

Camel can't hear anyway.

[JSUCamel]

By all of this logic, I shouldn't be able to get a driver's license.

Last time an ambulance drove by me with the sirens blaring and lights flashing, I didn't even hear them until they were past me.


Thus, based solely on anecdotal evidence, I say the kid's iPod was not a factor, that he was just a fucking idiot and probably deserved what he got.

[GonzoTheGreat]

Last time an ambulance drove by me with the sirens blaring and lights flashing, I didn't even hear them until they were past me.
Probably the Doppler effect. You just have trouble hearing high sounds, while low ones are easier.
that he was just a fucking idiot and probably deserved what he got.
I don't think anyone manages to disagree with that, so we had to find something else to quarrel about.

[Ishara]

Gonzo, I know you're just being you (;)), but mayb the distiction of "rules of the road" will help you understand the concept that all vehicles on the road are "motor vehicles."

When you're on the road, on a bike, unicylcle, moped, car, bus - whatever - you are expected to follow the rules of the road. That means that bikers are expected to follow all posted traffic signs and obey all traffic laws, the same as all actual motor vehicles. That means signalling your turns, stopping at stop signs, etc. Most big cities have disignated bike lanes to protect the parties during heavy traffic, but many bike accidents happen because the individual on the bike chooses to disobey basic traffic laws.

[GonzoTheGreat]

Yes, I can understand that people riding a bicycle have to obey the general rules. What I find more difficult to understand is that there does not seem to be anything other than general rules.

In this specific case, I'm surprised at a general "no ear plugs/ear phones" rule. Just a minor mishap in formulating such a law, and it becomes illegal to wear a hearing aide while riding a bicycle (or while driving a car, for that matter). That'd rather defeat the purpose of the law, I think.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

What others have failed to mention is that, legally, a cop can ticket you for having your car radio up too loud, too. They just rarely do it.

[Ishara]

But Gonzo, surely you can see the distinction between a hearing aid in the form of an earbud and earphones? Obviously you wouldn't be faulted for wearing a hearing device.

I can't believe I responded to that...

[Davian93]

But Gonzo, surely you can see the distinction between a hearing aid in the form of an earbud and earphones? Obviously you wouldn't be faulted for wearing a hearing device.

I can't believe I responded to that...

Neither can I...

[Zaela Sedai]

The bikes in Holland are more dangerous then the cars.....

[JSUCamel]

I believe he was saying it'd be easy for the law enforcement officers to arrest me for having a hearing aid while citing the no earbud/headphones law. He wasn't implying that it's illegal to have a hearing aid and drive.

And Zae, it's "than the cars".

"Than" is used in comparisons. "You know better THAN that"
"Then" is used to convey timeline. "You did this THEN you did that"

Sorry, personal pet peeve. That and lose/loose.

[Terez]

Don't forget its/it's and there/their/they're.

[tworiverswoman]

Why can't we ever have a nice, civil:

"I agree with you."
"No, I agree with YOU."
"Nono, I said I agree with YOU."
"STFU -- I'm agreeing with YOU!"
"Dammit -- if you'd only listen, I'm AGREEING with you..."
"Well screw you, then. I DON'T agree with you!"
"If you're going to be that way about it, then I don't agree with you EITHER!"

and so on...?

Oh, wait...

[Crispin's Crispian]

So I live a few minutes away from where this happened, and am pretty familiar with the intersection (though I've never cycled through it).

Austin was traveling southbound on the right side of the street. He made a right turn on to Farmington Rd. (the article says a left turn, but that is wrong) into the bike lane, which is also where the bus pulls over to the stop.

I'm not sure I understand exactly how he ran into the bus. It's one thing to be distracted by your iPod, but he was aware enough to make the turn, so how could he miss a BIG GIANT BUS in his way. The bus stop is a few yards west of the intersection, and the bus has to cross the bike lane to get to the stop. So, Austin was riding in the bike lane for a least a few seconds before he hit the bus.

Answer me this question: if Austin was traveling west, and the bus was traveling west, how did he run into the bus? The bus had to have been pulling into the bike lane when he ran into it. I don't see what traffic signal has to do with anything at all.

[Davian93]

Answer me this question: if Austin was traveling west, and the bus was traveling west, how did he run into the bus? The bus had to have been pulling into the bike lane when he ran into it. I don't see what traffic signal has to do with anything at all.

This Family Guy quote came to mind when I read this:

Guy on Street #2: It's 3:00. Where the hell is Louie?
Guy on Street #1: Well, you tell me. Louie left his house at 2:15 and had to travel a distance 6.2 miles traveling at a rate of five miles a hour. When will Louie get here?
Guy On Street #2: Depends if he stops to see his ho.
Guy on Street #1: That's what we call a "variable".

[Ishara]

Answer me this question: if Austin was traveling west, and the bus was traveling west, how did he run into the bus? The bus had to have been pulling into the bike lane when he ran into it. I don't see what traffic signal has to do with anything at all.

It doesn't sound feasible when you breaki it down like that does it? If the bus pulled into the bike lane, then wouldn't the driver be at fault and not the kid?

If you're asking about traffic signals cause I brought it up, it was only as an example of a "rule of the road," not specific to these circumstances.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Depends on if the bike lane doubles as an HOV, or is against the side of the road, next to the bus stop.

[Weird Harold]

Answer me this question: if Austin was traveling west, and the bus was traveling west, how did he run into the bus? The bus had to have been pulling into the bike lane when he ran into it. I don't see what traffic signal has to do with anything at all.

If He had obeyed the traffic signal, he would not have been in the bike lane headed west in the bus drivers' blind spot when the bus pulled into the bus stop.

If he had even slowed down and looked both ways for traffic he would have been far enough behind the bus to see its turn signal -- not that he would have paid any particular attention to it if his obliviousness to traffic signals and cross traffic is any indication of his defensive riding practices.

I have a fairly good idea of how this accident happened, because only the good fortune of bouncing off a garbage truck's front wheel instead of sliding under it kept me from becoming a very similar statistic.

I came swooping past a stop sign from a side street at five AM to make a right turn onto the main street of town. I was below the garbage truck driver's line of sight even before I laid the bike sideways to try and stop. To this day, I'm convinced the Driver never even knew I was there or that I hit his front tire and bounced upright to continue my ride home from my paper route.

I'm sure that the bus driver never knew Austin was there until the thump on the side of the bus.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Depends on if the bike lane doubles as an HOV, or is against the side of the road, next to the bus stop.
There is a turnout for the bus stop, but the bike lane crosses it. See the link below if you're interested. The bus turnout is on the left side of the map, on the north side of the street.

The way I see is that the bus crossed into the bike lane and he ran into it then. The artlce makes it sound like he was already in the bike lane, but it isn't that far to the bus stop so had just turned the corner.

Intersection on Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=farmington+and+murray,+beaverton+or&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.8712,72.685547&ie=UTF8&ll=45.485952,-122.826408&spn=0.000623,0.001109&t=h&z=20)

[Crispin's Crispian]

If he had even slowed down and looked both ways for traffic he would have been far enough behind the bus to see its turn signal -- not that he would have paid any particular attention to it if his obliviousness to traffic signals and cross traffic is any indication of his defensive riding practices.

I agree. I just can't believe he was so oblivious that he was able to make his turn (which requires some awareness so as not to drive out in to traffic) but not see the bus stopping right in front of him. It's quite possible that he didn't realize the bus was pulling over but thought instead that it would keep going. Even so...how do you not see a bus?

[Zaela Sedai]

I don't have time to be grammatically correct when posting at work!!!!!!!!!!!



And I'm confussed about this whole bike/bus thing now...

[Weird Harold]

I agree. I just can't believe he was so oblivious that he was able to make his turn (which requires some awareness so as not to drive out in to traffic) but not see the bus stopping right in front of him. It's quite possible that he didn't realize the bus was pulling over but thought instead that it would keep going. Even so...how do you not see a bus?
Considering that he was "on his way home from school" I can't believe he hasn't had to go around the bus at some point and didn't know it was likely to pull into the bus-stop.

Of course, it could be that he hadn't synched up with the bus schedule any mor ethan I had encountered the garbage truck on numerous other swoops down off that hill into the main street. I can at least honestly claim that the garbage truck came past a blind corner, but the bus was apparently already in or through the intersection before Austin entered it.

I suspect that the bus was in just the right position that he couldn't go outside because it would take him into the second traffic lane and didn't have time to zoom past on the inside (as he apparently tried to do.)

However you slice it, it was Austin's failure to obey the red light and a general failure in defensive bike riding skills that caused his death.