Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
actually if a car is traveling in the street or cul-de-sac and a kid runs from a yard right in front of the car such that the car has no chance to stop, and the kid gets hit, the car has the right of way. This is why younger children should never be allowed to play in the street without being closely supervised. You would be shocked with the number of residential injuries and fatalities from kids darting into the street, from between or behind cars, right into the path of a moving vehicle.
Actually, the car driver is "not at fault."
Not because of right of way, but because of unavoidability.
And that is a subjective judgement.
Lawmakers and DOT's will NOT get into a position of giving right of way to motor vehicles over pedestrians in accidents.
Yes, I thought this was common sense (and in the NC driving manual?).
But, to answer your question...when our kids see a car approaching they yell "CAR" and all the kids move out of the way. We've never really had a car have to wait for the kids to move. They are taught that cars are big and dangerous and they NEED to get out of the way immediately. There is usually a parent nearby but the kids in our cul-de-sac are courteous to their neighbors. They don't ignore someone who is driving into the cul-de-sac.
Sounds like you live in a "community."
Congratulations!
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 02-16-2011 at 05:59 PM..
Reason: Edited quoted text
I think the most important thing is that the ordinance is NOT YET IN PLACE!!! START THE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS to TOWN HALL!!! To the mayor himself!!! And I don't just mean Holly Springers...if it can happen here, it can happen in your town too...GET INVOLVED!!!
So apparently no one sees the issue with taking a piece of equipment and placing it beyond your property and onto public property? Ask yourself how many people would you think it would be ok with if you put a basketball hoop or a hockey net in your next door neighbor's driveway instead of your own. I don't mean on your own block, but just in general. To me the town is saying they don't want that stuff on public (meaning, not yours) property.
Ok...so here's an example. I agree that movable hoops in culdesacs can cause problems and should be on private property. A neighbor (with no kids, mind you) installed a basketball hoop in the culdesac but beyond the street edge and on his property. It hangs over the street a little so that you can play from the street. He has a long natural area along the street so that's a perfect spot. The neighborhood kids love it. A few yrs back, the town of HS went to him and said they wanted it down. Its on HIS property!! He walked around and petitioned all the neighbors and we all signed it, so they backed down. I love HS, but we are talking about a town and police with a little too much time on their hands...and I agree, trying be a little too much like Cary! We could have lived in Cary but chose not to for these exact reasons...
I totally support this proposed ordinance. My neighbors seem to think it is OK for their children to play hockey in the middle of our busy street and use my driveway as their goal. Our cars have been hit numerous times but they won't put a stop to this. Unfortunately many people in our current society have not learned to respect their neighbors. Maybe a few $25 tickets will give them a wake up call. It is sad that we need to legislate respect for one another's property.
Such a shame that this is what our society has come to. People, in general, have taken NIMBY to the extreme.
It might be a good idea if people slow down a bit. I mean this literally, as in stop driving 45 mph down a residential street (I know, you are very important and getting home 15 seconds earlier will make all the difference).
As for people who are so bothered by kids playing in the cul de sac, I say, seek professional help.
Actually, the car driver is "not at fault."
Not because of right of way, but because of unavoidability.
And that is a subjective judgement.
Lawmakers and DOT's will NOT get into a position of giving right of way to motor vehicles over pedestrians in accidents.
No, unless the pedestrian is crossing in a legal crosswalk, the vehicle has the right of way. This is from the NC Code:
[SIZE=3]20‑174. Crossing at other than crosswalks; walking along highway.[/SIZE]
(a) 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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
