Advertisement

Archive for Monday, June 5, 2006

Driver using phone hits boy on roller skates

June 5, 2006

Advertisement

An 8-year-old Lawrence boy was taken to Lawrence Memorial Hospital on Sunday night after a car struck him while he was attempting to cross Massachusetts Street on roller skates.

Police and witnesses said a driver in a red Honda Civic struck the boy in the stoplight-controlled crosswalk at South Park around 10 p.m.

The boy's injuries were initially reported as nonlife-threatening, and witnesses said he was awake and alert before entering the ambulance.

Police Sgt. Michael Monroe said the driver of the Civic was using her cell phone when she struck the boy.

Comments

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

YIP- what do you mean by "this doesn't help much?" Help what?

0

GardenMomma 7 years, 10 months ago

You must be short Happyone. I think the average height for an eight year old is around 4 and a half feet.

0

YourItalianPrincess 7 years, 10 months ago

Its truely sad that this little boy was hit by a car. I do hope he is okay.

To the parents of this young 8 yr old boy. My son is also 8 yrs old. Hes home in his bed watching the Disney Channel right now. Hes on his summer schedule so he gets to stay up later, but not to run the streets at 10 pm. I do hope SRS gets involved in this one.

To the driver........I'm not sure what happened, so I will wait to see what is written tomorrow. I'm sure it scared you to the point of freaking out.

With the cell phone issue at hand right now, this doesn't help it much. Cell phones cause as much distraction as other things do when driving.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

so, it was so dark and he was so hard to see that you saw him from the park, but the driver didn't see him from how far? Her attention certainly should have been more clearly on the road in front of her than your attention would be from the park, right? perhaps her attention was diverted.

Let me concede that 1. he was wearing black 2. he was dark-skinned. and 3. he was not in a crosswalk and 4. she had a green light. How does that dismiss her attention being diverted by the cell phone. This isn't a black and white issues (really no pun intended); when accidents occurs (when anything occurs) there is rarely only ONE factor that accounts for why the accident happens. It is possible that any of these factors being different results in no accident.

0

Multidisciplinary 7 years, 10 months ago

Godot..congrats for making it until 5:52 until someone broke down and just had to say tongue lashing.Tuesday, lets aim for how many felonely's we can get. And don't forget, didn't Ron declare "miscreant-free Wednesdays" ?

And thanks, now I'll be thinking about this particular tongue lashing lawyer in town. Remarkably named Bob of course!

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

well you just keep telling people until they hear you and I am sure the woman has a lawyer so just find out and talk to them

0

staci706 7 years, 10 months ago

I saw the whole thing I was at the park. The boy was not at the crosswalk and he was also wearing black clothing. I looked at the stoplight, it was red. The boy wasn't at the crosswalk and if he was he shouldn't of been walking. I told the police that in my police report, but they are changing it around to fit their claim that cellphones are dangerous.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

now that was funny sorry laughing when it is not real funny that a kid got hit. But it really is a good visual

0

justsomewench 7 years, 10 months ago

i still keep picturing a driver wearing roller skates whacking a kid with a cell phone. make it stop.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

hey good news baby in texas has been found.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

We can also look to the U.S. Constitution. For example, the description of the requirements to be a member of the House.

"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen."

There is not equality here. If you are not 25, the rest is irrelevant. If you are 25, but not a citizen of the US for seven years, being an inhabitant of the state in which one shall be chosen is irrelevant. To the founders, order isn't a chance event nor does it imply equivalence.

In closing the order ONLY matters when these rights are pitted against one another. Otherwise, as you might imply, they are on their own level, as INALIENABLE rights.

I hope that clarifies the perspective a bit.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

time to go everyone hurry if you want to get a seat.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

Godot, in retrospect, my answer might leave you dissatisfied; a sort of authoritarian response. Given that context plays an important role in interpretation, typically, we apply the context in which a document was written to understand the intent of the writers.

Let's look to Samuel Adams (yes, the brewer, but also a signer of the Declaration of Independence) opening to the 1772 "document "The Rights of Colonists"

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."

The 5th amendment preserves the order of life, liberty property.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

Godot, um no. Hmm it is that simple.

And what is with "acts of God" how are they enforceable. If your insurance company says that was "an act of God and they don't cover those, can't I ask them to 1) prove that there is a god and 2) prove that it was an act of that being? I doubt we will need to get past 1), but just in case, I have my bases covered. :-).

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

good one. so does anyone think any of this will make a diffrence tonight? tick tock talk while you can.

0

trinity 7 years, 10 months ago

on the tv news they are saying it was a kid on a BIKE, fer cryin' out loud...media, bah!

ok, frankzappa, i'll give it a go; i bet the cellphone user was talking to somebody in topeka??

best i got, for now.

0

Godot 7 years, 10 months ago

Sounds like this unfortunate incident illustrates what an "accident" is all about. I would call it an "act of God," but dread the fierce tongue lashing I would get for that, so I won't.

0

Nikki May 7 years, 10 months ago

I just came back too. I want to point out that this isn't the first accident where a kid got struck by a car. I remember a fatal one earlier this year. The driver was NOT using a cell phone. Sometimes inattentive is just that regardless of phone use. We need our kids to pay attention just as the drivers need to. I tell my kids (the 2 at home and the 20+ at work) to look both ways even if they ARE in the crosswalk with the light. You never know if they are really going to stop.

0

swbsow 7 years, 10 months ago

How do you explain the "and" in the sentence? Doesn't that little word place everything before it and after it on an equal footing?

"and" doesn't imply equal footing.

For example, I like chili and onions on my hotdog. According to you about the word "and" I would have to give equal footing to the onions as I do the chili. This does not mean that I have to have the same amount of onions to my chili on my hotdog. It just means that they appear there on my hotdog along with the chili.

As you can see, I'm hungry.

0

Godot 7 years, 10 months ago

Jayhawks71, you are so funny!

"However, these inalienable rights are presented in a specific order. My right to live trumps your liberty. Your liberty trumps my right to pursue happiness. These are the only things that trump those rights."

How do you explain the "and" in the sentence? Doesn't that little word place everything before it and after it on an equal footing?

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

oh the bliss of mass media, talking to base about all that happens trying to beat the other guy to the punch, and all of them on cell phones this should be interesting. People get your video cameras and tape them to see how many are just talking away on the phone and not wearing seatbelts or paying attention to the road as they try to get everything done at one time. This is going to be a heck of an evening in town tonight. Wonder if any "big" news people will be here? My sister in law was thinking about going to that meeting tonight but it sounds like it might be to dangerous to drive in town tonight.

0

Multidisciplinary 7 years, 10 months ago

hahahahaha...I just went back to catch up on what I missed this afternoon...

there you go Frank!

0

Multidisciplinary 7 years, 10 months ago

great..27 news just reported this as IN the crosswalk with her using the cell phone, and also mentioned the meeting about cellphones here in town.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

swbsow, good (that I succeeded in expressing my viewpoint). You are right, it is tough to tell "intent" on here.

I am sure your kids are great, but I think they should have restrictions placed on their behaviors. :-)

0

swbsow 7 years, 10 months ago

Jayhawk71- I get you now. Sometimes its hard to tell the sarcastic ones from the loonies.

I think we are in agreement on how freedom works.

0

Sigmund 7 years, 10 months ago

The commission's hearing will be held tonight at 7:30 p.m. in the City Commission Room at City Hall, 6 East Sixth Street in Lawrence.

0

westcoastmama 7 years, 10 months ago

Thank GoD this kid was only HIT by the car and not picked up and thrown in to the car of a raging sexual preditor, never to be seen alive and unmolested again.

the kids mom, i bet you anything, will try to press charges against this driver.

0

blackwalnut 7 years, 10 months ago

I am for avoiding laws whenever common sense could prevail.

But after living in Lawrence for a few years and experiencing many close calls at the hands of one-handed drivers with cell phones in the other hand, I think we cannot rely on the common sense of Lawrence drivers.

A ban on using a cell phone while driving is needed here. Too many drivers do not use common sense and I fear no amount of education will make them. Expensive traffic tickets, though, might get their attention.

There is no excuse to talk on the phone while driving. A person can simply pull over to the side of the road or into a parking lot and return a call. That person has no right to endanger others because they don't want to bother pulling over.

Will someone have to die before people realize a ban is needed?

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

By the way, in no way do I advocate absolute freedom for anyone. Once you endanger my rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, your freedom no longer takes precedence. You cannot exercise your liberty to restrict mine. In a society we have laws to protect those rights. However, these inalienable rights are presented in a specific order. My right to live trumps your liberty. Your liberty trumps my right to pursue happiness. These are the only things that trump those rights.

Part of the problem here is that some people think that their right to liberty means that they can do whatever they want and wherever they want (absolute freedom). This is the way savages and beasts operate (and even then they have societies, hierarchies and "rules.") not human society.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

sbsow, I know what fascism is, but I am not sure about some others. Your definition might enlighten some who cry fascism whenever an ordinance is proposed.

I've used the word in the way that many people here keep using it. Inappropriately. Fascism has been used by some in the forums to describe any government restriction of a freedom. Everything the city comission does is "fascism" to some. Preposterous! Fascism is a pejorative term, which conjures images of jack-booted soldiers marching in lock step and an Orwellian society. The use of the term is meant to raise emotions even though the term is used inappropriately. (well who would want fascism!)

To address what I posted earlier: "Restricting freedom is fascist. See all the other posts on the topic of cell phone ordinance. In a nutshell, they read-city commission does something to restrict my perceived absolute freedom = fascist."

THEY refers to "the other posts on the topic" Not my definition. I am applying the word as they have defined it.

"The argument that a cell phone ordinance, which restricts what one "darn well pleases to do while one is driving" is fascist is absurdity at its finest. People seem to have no problem with rules of the road, when they suit them and cry FASCISM... freaking FASCISM... when an ordinance they don't like is proposed. Why do you want to restrict children's behavior, they should be able to use the commonsense you claim that they have, just like the rest of us."

See where I explain that the claim of fascism is "absurdity at its finest" and where I mention how people cry "fascism" when the law is something they don't like?

And if kids have common sense (yeah right, first define it) then, if adults should have no restrictions placed on them, why should children?

To summarize, for your clarity: The extremists here think that they are free to do whatever they want (absolute freedom) and that government has no place to tell them that they cannot do something. They have stated their perspectives, in the past, that the government can say NOTHING regarding how a business operates (in defense of no smoking ordinance) and more recently that one can operate a motor vehicle without restriction (in defense of no cell phone ordinance, because what's next? talking!?!). Their arguments are built on these ideas and they are patently false because they support SOME restrictions on businesses (there are appropriate restrictions placed on businesses in society) and SOME restrictions on motor vehicle operation (would we want to do away with all traffic control devices and rules?. To claim that government in no way should tell a business owner or driver what to do in those domains when it results in something that they do not like and then expect others to follow rules and laws is hypocrisy. This isn't fascism.

By the way, do you advocate absolute freedom for adults?

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

true schools cover traffic safty but as a mom of 5 I would say my 6 yr old is better at it than most 8 yr olds. Kids tend to just forget sometimes as they get older. I have also noticed that when mom and dad are not around, they really forget all we try to teach them every day.

0

swbsow 7 years, 10 months ago

Jayhawk71,

Courtesy of Wikipedia ... "Fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism." Just because it restricts your absolute freedom, does not mean it is fascism.

Having a child obey safety laws/regulations is not fascism. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

All children are taught basic traffic safety rules. My middle child is 7 & there has been visits to the school every year from the police department to talk about traffic safety with the children. My youngest is 4 & the preschool covered traffic safety with them. If I don't stop & look both ways before we cross (even in a parking lot), she will remind me. I don't think my children are any smarter or wiser than others when it comes to that. Traffic safety has been covered over & over again so yes, I do expect an 8 year old to look both ways when crossing & to know to cross at the crosswalk.

I have never claimed that the proposed cell phone ban was fascist so I don't know why you bring this up. In fact I have not stated my opinion on the cell phone ban one way or another here.

Why do you want to restrict children's behavior, they should be able to use the commonsense you claim that they have, just like the rest of us.

I stated that common sense does not equal fascism. It seems you lack quite of bit of it in your arguments today.

I know for a fact that the Lawrence school system teaches traffic safety every year from Kindergarten on up. An 8 year would have been through this 3 times (K, 1st & 2nd grades). I expect an 8 year to know this & to go by those traffic rules.

Saturday morning cartoons & other kids' shows cover traffic safety as well.

If you are going to advocate absolute freedom for children, I'll send mine over to you and let them know they can do whatever they please at your place.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

so any idea on time and place for meeting?

0

Sandra Willis 7 years, 10 months ago

Heavens ... this is getting silly ... The driver, I am sure, knows she was at fault for this. The boy Knows how dumb he was to be wearing black clothing. His mother is pobably angry with him, and with herself - because of this. Reading this story, my mind was telling me what my Mom would say, do, think ... Then i got to the bottom, and read all the words you all added! Thanks bodan

0

frankzappa 7 years, 10 months ago

there simply has to be a way to dis topeka in this story.

0

black_watch 7 years, 10 months ago

You want to punish everyone because of what someone else may or may not do?

Stop banning things. I absolutely refuse to be punished for what somebody else may or may not do.

Want a compromise solution? Fine. Consider it a criminal charge to be involved in an accident while using a cellphone.

0

PYT1984 7 years, 10 months ago

I completely understand that an 8 year old was hit by a car. That is a terrible thing and if the woman was talking on her cell phone and not paying attention, then she should be held accountable for her actions. On the other hand I am really tired of the parents getting off without some blame in situations like these. An 8 year old should never, ever be out at 10:00 at night alone, period! There is no excuse or reason for it. They are not even close enough to understand the dangers that are out there. That is what parents are for. I'm sorry, but I believe that the driver and the parents should be held accountable.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

swbsow, yes there is plenty of sarcasm in my posts today. It is amazing that the same bunch that find a cellphone ordinance to be "fascist" don't have a problem with other laws regarding transportation by vehicle or by foot. If you think sarcasm is trolling, then you certainly need to identify hundreds of posts with the same standard.

You aren't seriously demanding an eight year old to have common sense are you? Please enlighten us as to what the common sense an eight year old should have mastered.

"All school safety programs teach children as young as preschool age to alway cross with an adult, wear light colored or reflective clothing at night (so motorists can see you better) & look both ways before crossing. "

So kids that are out during light hours should be cognizant of impending darkness and run home to change to their reflective clothing. Were you ever eight? I am looking for the info or the forum post where it says he didn't look both ways.

"It really has nothing to do with fascism." Restricting freedom is fascist. See all the other posts on the topic of cell phone ordinance. In a nutshell, they read-city commission does something to restrict my perceived absolute freedom = fascist.

"It has to be sarcasm that you are using. I can't imagine anyone advocating total freedom in everything for children."

The argument that a cell phone ordinance, which restricts what one "darn well pleases to do while one is driving" is fascist is absurdity at its finest. People seem to have no problem with rules of the road, when they suit them and cry FASCISM... freaking FASCISM... when an ordinance they don't like is proposed. Why do you want to restrict children's behavior, they should be able to use the commonsense you claim that they have, just like the rest of us.

0

Multidisciplinary 7 years, 10 months ago

happy one..I understood what you were thinking, i was thinking the same thing, even if a few others didn't get it.

Yes, kids and adults and critters take off across the street all the time. I sure hope he has a good recovery.

At one time in Japan, if a pedestrian, (child or adult) at the curb (any location) so much as raised their foot as though they were about to enter the street, all traffic had to stop. I do not know if this still is true.

Blessings to all involved, this is sure a severe shock to the system for all.

Shame on LJW for the cell phone focus, seems like someone there has a selfish agenda.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by Pilgrim (anonymous) on June 5, 2006 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Um, no. That's why you can get a ticket for jaywalking or crossing against red. Pedestrians do not have carte blanc to do as they d*mn well please.

And neither do drivers, Pilgrim. Your sarcasm about "bans" is amazing, yet you seem to be bothered that people aren't obeying restrictive laws. Which is it Pilgrim are you anarchist (you can't tell us what to do!), fascist (we have rules, now follow them!), or hypocrite(when the rule suits my needs, it should be followed, when it works against me, it should not exist)?

And so, you all want to hold an eight-year old responsible for state traffic laws, but don't want to endow him with the freedom to move about freely. Wow, not only fascist but simply unfair. How many eight year olds are given a copy of state traffic laws? I wonder how many people here even KNOW the details of these laws. 72, I guarantee that you did not know the details of these laws before you looked them up and yet, we are going to demand that an eight year old be familiar with them? What a bunch of fascist bums (or hypocrites, you can decide).

Hey conservative, "thinking time" (a set of cognitive processes) is a function of attention. If your attention is "on the phone", your shift takes longer and therefore you "thinking time" takes longer. As you said, this would increase the amount of time to stop. Therefore, ANY increase in "thinking time" makes the cell phone a contributing factor, whether 1millisecond or 1 second.

0

swbsow 7 years, 10 months ago

Jayhawk71 - WTH? Common sense does not equal Fascism.

All school safety programs teach children as young as preschool age to alway cross with an adult, wear light colored or reflective clothing at night (so motorists can see you better) & look both ways before crossing. It really has nothing to do with fascism.

You must be here because you are bored and want to stir the pot. It has to be sarcasm that you are using. I can't imagine anyone advocating total freedom in everything for children.

Sorry for feeding the troll, folks, but I was compelled to do.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

no way our little town paper put a slant on the story never:) and how about just calling people people?

0

gphawk89 7 years, 10 months ago

And by the way, the PC term is no longer "little people". It has been changed to "people of short stature".

0

swbsow 7 years, 10 months ago

Well, it sounds like the kid is going to be okay and that is good & in reading all the posts from the people who were there, it sounds like this accident would have happened, cell phone or not. It just seems like LJW just wanted something to toss in to stir up people.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

Conservative's detail requests, with replies

The facts I want to see are: Was the child in a crosswalk? -Why should the child have to use a crosswalk. You aren't suggesting we (continue to) restrict the freedom to move about, are you? If you do, you might be a fascist.

If so did he use the signal? -See above-replace crosswalk with signal. If you do, you might be a fascist.

Was the child dressed in a way that one could reasonably expect to see him on a dark night? -There is no law on color of clothing. Are you suggesting we ban dark clothes? If so, by what criterion are you going to measure darkness? Will you arm the police with luminance detectors? if you do, you might be a fascist.

Did the use of the cell phone contribute to the accident? -If you answered yes to any of the above questions, but believe that a cell phone ban is fascist and must not be implemented because fascism is bad. Then, you might be a hypocrite. So, how will YOU determine if using the cell phone contributed to the accident?

Did the driver go through a red light? If yes, the what? A law restricting one's freedom to do what one darn well pleases in his or her car has been the source of outrage and cries of fascism. And as everyone here knows, fascism is bad. Traffic laws/ordinances are fascist if they restrict your freedoms, right? If no, then why can't the child move as he pleases, when he pleases? He certainly wasn't violating anyone's private property.

Was the driver ticketed by the police? -If yes, then does that verify that an infraction was committed? If no, then does that verify that an infraction was not commited. The answer to both is flatly no. The police do not make the ultimate decision as to whether an infraction was committed; the court does this.

Unlike the LJ World that put out a slanted article without any of the facts that one should expect of journalists. -slant? what slant? I am completely missing any hint of slant... The report describes the boy, where he was taken, and what happened to him as well as his mode of transportation. They reported information about the car, that the boy was struck and it was in a crosswalk, followed by time. They mention the status of the boy's injuries and that the police report that the driver was on a cell phone. Where is slant? Give me a break. The slant is provided by your own brain.

And now people want to tell parents how to raise their children? Fascists.

0

gphawk89 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm reminded of an incident about a month ago in a parking lot. A father and young son walked out of a store, dad stepped off the curb into the parking lot (no crosswalk markings) and was almost hit by a car driving through the parking lot. After firing off a few profanities at the driver, the dad turned to his kid and said "He should have stopped; we have the right-of-way."

Is it really such a good idea to teach kids that it's OK to step in front of a moving car? Even at a marked crosswalk where you might happen have the right-of-way? If the car fails to stop, the car is going to win every time.

0

conservative 7 years, 10 months ago

lovenhaight

According to the website I just looked at the stopping distance at 30 MPH (the limit on Mass) is 75 feet. 45 feet of breaking distance and 30 feet of thinking time when you realize you need to brake.

If the person wasn't in a crosswalk, and was wearing dark clothes it is entirely conceivable that the driver was within 75 feet of the child when they saw them.

0

lovenhaight 7 years, 10 months ago

Um, you shouldn't be driving fast enough on Mass not to have time to stop.

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 10 months ago

Just this morning I was stopped at a red light when a fire truck, siren and air horns blaring, approached the intersection from the opposite direction. The fire truck and I had red lights, cross traffic had green. I watched as at least three vehicles shot through the intersection as the fire truck approached, and as three more proceeded through the intersection after the fire truck had reached it and come to a complete stop to avoid an accident; all the while with siren and air horns blasting away. I made it a point to notice, and not a single driver of any of those vehicles that failed to yield the right of way was talking on a cell phone. They all did, however, have their windows rolled up and, evidently, their air conditioners turned on, and perhaps their radios, too.

Thus, I propose a ban on car radios and car windows, both of which obviously contributed to the inability of those drivers to hear the siren and air horns. It was only through the skilled driving of the fireman behind the wheel of the truck, and perhaps the grace of God, that tragedy was averted.

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot. The fire truck driver was wearing his two-way radio headset. Will those be banned, too?

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

oops....missed (d) here it is

No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

(b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

and here we are back to the fact of a kid being hit, cell phone being blamed, and we are back to the whole ban issue. lets just hope both parties involed are doing as well as can be expected today.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

Green indication. (1) Vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or turn right or left, unless a sign at such place prohibits either such turn; but vehicular traffic, including vehicles turning right or left, shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk at the time such signal is exhibited. (2) Vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may enter the intersection cautiously only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection. (3) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian-control signal, as provided in K.S.A. 8-1509, and amendments thereto, pedestrians facing any green signal, except when the sole green signal is a turn arrow, may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

THANK YOU!!! Finally....drivers have rights too

0

Pilgrim 7 years, 10 months ago

Posted by MacHeath (anonymous) on June 5, 2006 at 8:16 a.m.

In case you all don't know it,, and obviously you don't...pedestrians have the right-of-way no matter what the color of the damned light.


Um, no. That's why you can get a ticket for jaywalking or crossing against red. Pedestrians do not have carte blanc to do as they d*mn well please.

0

HalfWitted 7 years, 10 months ago

i was there when it happened, i was on the playground with a few freinds Anyway, it was a black kid wearing dark clothing. From where i was i wasnt able to tell if the kid was in fact on the crosswalk or not but im sure police will be able to find out exactly from the tire tracks left when the women driving had hit her breaks. And i dont know if the light as red or green because i was to busy running to help. One of my friends said it was green but she could of been mistaken. The child's mother was near but the child in question was being watched by the mothers friend. I'm not sure where she was when the boy was struck but she was there a bit before i could run from the playground area to the crosswalk. The Mothers friend or whomever also was watching another child. She had left that child at the scene with some people and then ran for the boy's mother. I'm sorry i dont know if the light was green or red. Also this happened a little before 10.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

thank you for your post Diego it was much needed :o)

0

trinity 7 years, 10 months ago

thanks diego...

my darlin' child i speak of on here sometimes drives a red honda&has a cell phone; you better believe i made a franticky phone call to her this morning, right after i read this! :o

0

trinity 7 years, 10 months ago

i like Confrontation's idea!

0

Diego 7 years, 10 months ago

They left out a lot of important information.

I was a witness there, with my friends Josh and Julia. We were hanging out at the playground, this is what I saw:

I heard brakes screaching, I turned around. I saw a boy get hit by a red car, his head hit the windsheild, and land on the pavement in front of the car. The stoplight was GREEN, and the pedestrian signal was RED. Also, the boy had not been using the crosswalk. He was crossing near it, but not on it. I ran as fast as I could to the street and dialed 911 on m cell phone. While I was running, someone picked the boy up out of the street and carried him to our side of the street and laid him on the grass (I later hear from my friends who were there also, that the driver of the car was the woman that picked him up). He did not have his parents with him, a woman that knew the boy went to go get his mother, who lived in the area. The boy stayed consious and kindly gives us around him his age, he was 8. He could move but we told him to lay still. His left arm was bleeding but not seriously. He didn't cry at all. He stayed consious all the way, until the paramedics arrived. A woman (I assume the boy's mother) got there and rode with him to the hospital. The police took our statements and then we left the scene about 10:45.

0

offtotheright 7 years, 10 months ago

I would rather see a ban on rollerskates and rollerblades. Not cell phones.

0

conservative 7 years, 10 months ago

Jayhawks71

The facts I want to see are:

Was the child in a crosswalk?

If so did he use the signal?

Was the child dressed in a way that one could reasonably expect to see him on a dark night?

Did the use of the cell phone contribute to the accident?

Did the driver go through a red light?

Was the driver ticketed by the police?

I don't have a preordained opinion of what the outcome of those questions should be. Unlike the LJ World that put out a slanted article without any of the facts that one should expect of journalists.

As far as everyone getting off track with the parenting issue, I agree the child shouldn't be out without parents especially at that time of night, but even if that is the case (which we dont' know from the article either) if the child crossed the street correctly and the car still ran into him it isn't a factor in whether the driver is at fault or not.

0

Confrontation 7 years, 10 months ago

The article doesn't mention a parent, but does that necessarily mean that there was no parent there? Maybe the kid was roller skating with his parent, and he got to the crosswalk first. I doubt it, but there could be a chance. I would also hate to think that the curfew of 11:30pm includes those who are 8 years old. If there were no parent or older (16+) sibling around, then I think we should all take turns hitting the rollerskating parent(s) with our cars as they cross the street.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

yeah took a minute but finally saw the 2 at the end. me either, seems a little out there but everyone has a right to there opinion.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

sorry....my views do NOT agree with 71...I am my own person. :o) I have two children...I know where my views come from. :o)

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

I do hope that the young boy is going to be ok, and gets alot of perental attention after this accident.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

71 &72 ok had to look twice,at posting names to realize you are 2 diffrent people. For a minute thought you were arguing with yourself. oh well if being resposnsible, overprotective and worrisome make me a fascist parent so be it. I would rather be that way then not care.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

and here's a point.....what if the driver did avoid hitting the child but hit a pole or another car instead and injured herself...then whose fault would it be....people blindly walking into traffic is a hazard...think about it.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

Jayhawks71.....didn't your momma ever teach you to look BOTH ways before crossing the street? and if she did...did she explain to you what would happen if you didn't?

0

kansasjhawk 7 years, 10 months ago

Just another reason why they should have a complete cell phone ban!

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

Redneckgal.... AMEN, I do not even like letting 17yr old out alone, I know over protective, but hey I am a mom it is my job and I love being over protective and like to worry about them. Not that I do not trust my kids but to many wakos out there. you should worry about your children all the time even after they move out and are all grown up. It is parenthood.

0

jayhawks71 7 years, 10 months ago

god-given right to talk on a cell phone? where to start with the fallacies in that statement? If it wasn't for that first line, I would've read this as sarcasm.

nonimby-bullets don't kill people either. stabbing someone with a knife doesn't kill people either. its the neuron death that kills people. Time to get rid of those "aggravated" crimes, I suppose. ANd the boy didn't walk or run in front of the vehicle. He rolled. He was on roller skates! :-)

hottruckin- the boy was expressing his god given right to do whatever he darn well pleases. you aren't suggesting we restrict the movement of eight-year olds now based on time of day. you want to restrict an eight-year olds freedom to move about? Next, you'll want to stop 8-year olds from driving cars. oh the fascism is running rampant in Lawrence!

swb - what does the expectation of an eight-year old child have to do with anything? one should always EXPECT hazards, a dog, an eight year old, a drunk, a paint bucket. Suggesting that because this was an eight-year old, that typically wouldn't be there is irrelevant!

homegrown - where is the misinformation? What I see is you filling in the blanks.

conservative - define "all the facts." You are right, every detail is not there, but when will you be satisfied? When the details support your ultimate point of view?

to the rest of you - does it matter where he was crossing? you mean he is supposed to ONLY cross where there is a designated crosswalk? how dare the city have laws restricting the right to move wherever one pleases. why should I or anyone else, including an eight-year old have to walk to walk a half a block to cross a street? we need to get these fascist laws overturned. laws restricting freedom to move about?!? what's next, laws telling us where to breathe!?

I still can't believe you people want to restrict the movement of eight-year olds or anyone else. You fascists.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

good question, I have no idea. I do not think it a good thing but I see kids out walking around at all hours even real young ones and most of the time they are dressed in all black walking down the street jumping around even pretending to jump out in front of cars.

0

Redneckgal 7 years, 10 months ago

Happy One I have to very strongly disagree with you. It DOES matter where this kids parents were! It matters very much! No 8 year old should be out alone at that time of night! Ever! Anything could happen to a kid out that late by themselves. As it was he got hit by a car. He could have been kidnapped or anything. Good Lord do you even have kids?

0

couranna1 7 years, 10 months ago

I was driving down Mass right after it happened last night and he was in the area of the crosswalk Cellphones are not the problem stupid people who cannot use them properly are. An eight year old should not be out by himself if that indeed the case. It is a shame he was hit but your article today on this was worthless It was slanted towards the proposed cellphone ban and left out what they should have been interested in the story of how this little boy was hit

0

hottruckinmama 7 years, 10 months ago

what the heck was an 8 year old doing out at 10 PM crossing a street with no parent?

0

nonimbyks 7 years, 10 months ago

smitty, I don't really care, I just wanted to toss out what was in the law. As i'm sure you are aware, there is more law than what I posted.

0

Sigmund 7 years, 10 months ago

Bottom line. Nothing in this article indicates that the driver's use of a cell phone contributed significantly, or at all, to this accident or that if she had not been using a cell phone it would have been avoided. I can't wait for "Driver drinking coffee hits boy on roller skates." I am suprised this incident isn't spawning a movement to ban women drivers or roller skating. Bad facts make for bad law and that is likely to be the case here.

BTW, when and where does the traffic commission meet today and if the meeting open to the public. I always wanted to see what merril looks like in the flesh.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

What is the age range for that curfew?

0

unite2revolt 7 years, 10 months ago

This sounds like a good excuse for earlier curfews to me. Currently the Lawrence curfew is set at 11:30PM Sunday through Thursday, and 12:30AM on Friday and Saturday.

0

jayhawk72 7 years, 10 months ago

There is a reason we have cross walks and the cross walk lights to trigger to be able to cross the street safely. I'm sure they were origonally (think I spelled that wrong) installed in the first place, to insure a safe area for the pedestrian to cross the street. Now, I know I was taught to use the cross walk when crossing. But kids AND adults these days seem to want to cross the street whenever and where-ever they want. Does it make it the drivers fault if a pedestrian darts out into traffic say on........Kentucky from inbetween the parked cars on the side of the street. That has happened to me SEVERAL times in my life here in Lawrence, and I managed to not hit them, and I WASN'T on a PHONE. Heres an idea...drop all speed limits in town to 15 MPH, or ban driving all together,then we wont have to ban phone usage or radios, or singing, or makeup, or disiplining (spelled that wrong too) mis-behaving kids in the back seat. Then the LPD can write more tickets and actually reach their QUOTA of ticket writing for speeders and they can get the hell out of my parking lot whilst bumping their gums to their other lazy buddies. Dont get me wrong....its sad that an 8 yr old was out so late and was injured. what happened to curfews? Dont we have one in this town..? and still yet...where were the parents? Sounds like an up and coming hoodlum in the make with being out on the streets at 10 pm with NO supervision. State should look into this story.

0

Christine Pennewell Davis 7 years, 10 months ago

true the law says yield but sometimes it is not that easy, what was the child wearing? all dark clothing? was he visible before he attempted to cross did she see him and try to stop? I think the fact she was on her cell phone is just a very small part in this story. Number one is why is an 8yr old out alone that late?

0

75x55 7 years, 10 months ago

Hmm... How convenient.

Like no one here has ever had to deal with kids running out into a roadway during the day, cellphone or no cellphone. Much less at night.

Not that it matters much - the "progressive" fascists will have their way. All you silly proles will just have to smile and take it.

0

Sigmund 7 years, 10 months ago

This article is timely. Just the other day I was using a cell phone and driving when a car pulled out in front of me! I stopped and there was no accident. A friend told me she saw a driver using a cell phone and well nothing happened.

0

smitty 7 years, 10 months ago

It's pc to say little people. But little people can read and comprehend.

0

conservative 7 years, 10 months ago

Bottom line:

If the light was red and the driver went through it then the driver is wrong regardless if they were on a phone or not.

If however the light was green, and the boy went through a controlled intersection without activating the crosswalk, then there is the possibility that the driver couldn't have reacted. Especially if the boy was wearing dark clothes that don't stand out at night.

We don't have enough facts to make any determination at this time. Hopefully the Journal World will give additional information tomorrow. As far as them not having time to get all the facts before printing... then don't run the story. Seems like simple journalism to me, if you don't know enough about what happened don't print the article.

0

bankboy119 7 years, 10 months ago

happy, are you a midget? Or wee person, er...vertically challenged? I don't know the PC term.

0

homegrown 7 years, 10 months ago

actually, happyone, she is not my friend at all but she is someone i went to school with. if you were a bit smarter, you would have realized that i'm not trying to say it wasn't her fault. i just think it's unfair for the journal world to leave out certain factors in order to fulfill this cell phone ban agenda.

0

smitty 7 years, 10 months ago

post the law and post the facts and all you do is back bite

***Posted by nonimbyks (anonymous) on June 5, 2006 at 8:35 a.m.

(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.****

0

happyone 7 years, 10 months ago

And for those that are saying Where were his parents? That doesn't matter!!! This could have been an adult that was walking around on Mass. It just happen to be an 8 y/o boy! Most 8 year olds are as tall as I am and i'm well into my 30's

0

billyflay 7 years, 10 months ago

are women suppose to be driving after dark?

since women are 12 times more likely to be blabbering on a phone while driving,

shouldn't the law be targeted towards the worst offenders, women?

0

happyone 7 years, 10 months ago

Sounds to me like homegrown's friend, the driver in the article, needs to go back to driving school AND PUT DOWN THE D*MN PHONE. Perhaps she was actually on the phone to homegrown, who knows. I sure wouldn't be saying things that make it sound like the kid deserved to get hit like homegrown did!! I said it before and I'll say it again BAN ALL CELL PHONE USE IN MOVING VEHICLES!!!! this little boy could have been very seriously injured. But rant on that its his fault and not inattentive driving by some idiot on a cell phone

0

swbsow 7 years, 10 months ago

This has nothing to do with parental supervision, and everything to do with attentive driving.

Even attentive drivers would not expect an 8 year old child out crossing the street on roller skates at 10:00pm.

This has everything to do with parental supervision. Responsible parents do not let their 8 year old out alone in an area that has a lot of traffic at 10:00pm. We don't know if the child waited for the light to turn or if the child darted out across the street. Either way the child had no business being out that late without adult supervision.

Sure the cell phone may have distracted her but I'm sure it was not the sole reason the accident happened.

0

MacHeath 7 years, 10 months ago

No flash, the cops would not mention it, because its a given. It is not legal to mow down a pedestrian, no matter what they are doing. Sorry to dissapoint...

0

MacHeath 7 years, 10 months ago

Its not my logic Trinity, its the law. You are always supposed to stop for pedestrians; jaywakers, kids on roller skates, drunks crossing I-70..whatever. This has nothing to do with parental supervision, and everything to do with attentive driving. I don't think we need studies to prove that there are a lot of jaywalkers on Mass street. I would think that fact farily obvious.

0

flash 7 years, 10 months ago

Hey MacHeath...Ever heard of being "Dead Right"? But, if you follow Trinity's advice for the little experiment, can you let the LJWorld know...I can see the article now...

"Lawrence resident was taken to Lawrence Memorial Hospital after several cars struck him while he was attempting to cross 23rd Street at Iowa during rush hour.

Police and witnesses said several drivers struck the resident in a stoplight-controlled crosswalk during rushhour.

Police Sgt. Michael Monroe said the pedistrian that was struck had the right of way."

0

nonimbyks 7 years, 10 months ago

KS state law:

http://www.ksdot.org/burRail/bike/biking/KssidewalkStatutes.asp

8-1533. Same; right-of-way at crosswalks; interference with vehicular traffic; duties of drivers. (Crosswalk responsibilities defined)

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

0

nonimbyks 7 years, 10 months ago

Oh, here's what we need! We need to have a study on children playing on Mass. St. and the effects of installing traffic calming devices on Mass St. Then determine that after a certain hour no traffic is allowed on Mass. St. to prevent this from happening again.

0

trinity 7 years, 10 months ago

ok, cool mac, but that fact still does not excuse poor-to-no parental supervision, and/or pedestrian responsibility.

with your logic i could step on out into the intersection at 23rd&iowa at rush hour and expect everybody to stop, eh?

geez, think before you post, capeiche?

0

MacHeath 7 years, 10 months ago

In case you all don't know it,, and obviously you don't...pedestrians have the right-of-way no matter what the color of the damned light.

0

Nikki May 7 years, 10 months ago

It sucks that an 8 year old was hit. I do hope that he's ok. At 10 my 8 year old was in bed. But, I do agree with both posts by smitty. It does sound like a "see, we told you phones were bad" type of story.

0

homegrown 7 years, 10 months ago

I know the person who hit the boy and heard about it right away. I like how the Journal World mentioned that she was on a cell phone AND DID NOT MENTION THAT THE BOY WAS WALKING ACROSS MASSACHUSETTS STREET WHERE THERE WAS NOT A CROSS WALK. Furthermore, he didn't seem to have a parent walking him across the street either..considering how young he is, this is strange to me.

The Journal World never fails to tell it the wrong way in order to make a nice little headline!

0

smitty 7 years, 10 months ago

Police and witnesses said a driver in a red Honda Civic struck the boy in the stoplight-controlled crosswalk at South Park around 10 p.m.

So did the witnesses report to the police that the light was red or green at 10 at night? This dumba* is smart enough to know that if they saw a cell phone in use in the dark then they saw if the child had used the crossing signal.

Are you employed by the police or the JW, sick?

rave on

0

pity2bu 7 years, 10 months ago

Take away the cell phones, the loud stereos, smoking, make-up and the laid back front seats and jack up the cost of these fines. The idiots will either abide by the new laws or ride a bicycle, or take the "T". It is as simple as that.

Go You Great Commissioners, Jack-Boot that up the Lawrencenian's a**es. GLORY TO THE GREAT COMMISSIONERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

justsomewench 7 years, 10 months ago

but, wouldn't the police report cite any traffic violations involved? (i've never read one, it's an honest question.)

0

Sick_of_Right_Wingers 7 years, 10 months ago

smitty: "The JW is leaving out some basic information to emphasize the current political slant for the phone ban without facts to back up the implications.."

The accident happened at 10:00, well after deadline. Just how much info does your small mind think they can get in the middle of the night and still get the paper on your doorstep by morning? All they had to go on was the police report.

Engage brain before typing, dumba*.

0

nonimbyks 7 years, 10 months ago

Lesson learned, don't be on roller skates crossing busy streets.

What is an 8 y/o doing out at 10pm? Where are the parents these days?

0

smitty 7 years, 10 months ago

VBital information missing...was the controll light red or green for the driver? What does the phone have to do with the accident if the driver had a green light. Maybe the child failed to activate the light. Where were the child's parents, at the crossing too?

The JW is leaving out some basic information to emphasize the current political slant for the phone ban without facts to back up the implications..

0

nonimbyks 7 years, 10 months ago

People kill people not cell phones.

The driver hit the child with the cell phone?

0

MacHeath 7 years, 10 months ago

I'm sure this incident will just be more fodder for those jack-booted Kommisionars! Our God-given right (as well as Constitional right) to talk on a cell phone while attempting to operate a motor vehicle will be stripped away from us!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.