Our city has deeper pockets than an insurance company? That's not it,... they just know the insurance company has better landsharks, that are experienced at jacking them around.

They know we are an easy target with a local attorney. We are just an easy target for a family who is no doubt struggling financially. They think they have found an easy meal ticket, and whoever that guy is(who said they should move) he is right.....they probably should move. They are raping their neighbors to make an easy buck.

If these folks sue the city and "PROVE" their case to a judge that PTC was negligent in not rectifying a dangerous pedestrian crossing, how is that "raping their neighbors"?

Why aren't you blasting the city for not correcting the problem?

If the city council keeps burying their collective heads in the sand hoping this and other problems will go away, what incentive is there for them to correct it?

If this is the same crossing and intersection I'm thinking of, it has a stop sign on the cart path and there are warning signs on the parkway. I used to rollerblade in that area, there are signs to warn the cartpath people and signs on the street.

What else should we do? Have a permanent crossing guard there for people who are commonsense challeneged? Maybe we could have a police dog there to assist people across. Maybe we could all resolve to stop and look both ways before crossing, instead of using the paths as our personal NAScar track!

They are suing the city because they know we have a local attorney they can "roll" in court. If we had a landshark I bet they wouldn't take a chance on us. Yes frivolous lawsuits are a form of rape.

As per the article, "The suit claims that the city did not erect pedestrian crossing signs to warn motorists of the crosswalk, and that the city was aware of “numerous accidents, collisions and injuries at the crosswalk” but failed to correct the dangerous condition."

If that is indeed true, then I would have to ask if the city has done anything to make this crossing any safer.

I personally think the driver should be the recipient of this lawsuit and I agree that the city is being perceived as having "deep pockets".

I've seen drivers, many times, ignore people in crosswalks. One of my kids and their friends were in one of those crosswalks when the girl next to them was hit by a car. It's like people have no idea they're supposed to let pedestrians have the right of way.

The problem isn't just here in PTC. Atlanta has taken to putting up warning sings in the middle of streets, in the crosswalks telling motorists that they have to stop for pedestrians.

All that being said, doesn't excuse the city if there is negligence for proper marking.

Ok if we are going to use the "there were no signs to warn me" logic, then I should be able to sue the city also.

While rollerblading many times in the last 9yrs, I have fallen and required 2 knee surgeries. There were absolutely no signs on the cart path to warn me of tree roots, trash people throw on the paths, or satanic teens speeding in golf carts. Futhermore I sprained an ankle (severly) while walking on the paths, because of tree roots.(still no signs warning of this outrageous hazard) There are absolutely no signs warning people about kids using drugs and drinking on the paths.(no signs at all) There are no signs warning people about the creepy streakers on the paths. My friend encountered one while jogging at 4:30 one morning. That could give an older person a heart attack. No warning signs at all about that hazard. Exercising is a hazard if you are overweight, but again no warning signs whatsoever. Living is hazardous, but no waring signs about that either. When y-nots closes every night/morning there are no warning signs telling us to be careful of drunks, no signs at all...
I have only been here 9yrs, what other accidents have occurred at that same spot?

The intersection I'm thinking of is marked and has been for 9 yrs. The one that isn't marked is the one closer to McIntosh Trail.

Yes pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk. But I do have a question for the cops on here .....do they have the right of way when walking against the light(ie when the red hand is flashing) I thought they only had the right of way when the little white man was walking?
Also if this family loses their lawsuit the city should be able to sue them for bringing a frivolous lawsuit to court.

Jeff Foxworthly says it best.

The only flaw with your argument is that there are no Federal or State laws for signage pertaining to "tree roots, trash people throw on the paths, or satanic teens speeding in golf carts". For those, you're on your own.

There are Federal and State regulations for the marking of pedestrian crossings. Additionally there are Federal and State laws that cover there proper use.

I guess we will have to see what the court says.....I still want to know who has the right of way when people walk against the light.

Can I walk against the light with the red hand flashing, just step out into traffic and dare someone to hit me ...so I can sue them?

"I want the McConnells to move from PTC if Mr. Munford's reporting is accurate."

And if the reporting is not accurate? Ooopps! I wasn't there. My guess is you two weren't there. We, collectively, are probably not in the best position to judge this one. The boy may have been walking his bike. The driver may have been changing CDs or chatting on the phone and not paying attention. The driver may have been extremely dilligent. We don't know.

All I can say with what I have read is that I hope this young man recovers fully from his injuries. And the McConnells can feel free to move right into my neighborhood in PTC. We can even ride together, but we'll keep it off road .

ps: Read your lower post Doug. Very classy admission. Thanks, and throw a little grace this way to

Kevin Hack King

These adult bicycle riders don't even get off at crosswalks! They also ride the main roads mostly instead of the paths, I guess due to the roughness of the paths and their speed. Monkey see, monkey do!

I see your point, but in Georgia, they are totally legal on the roads. I always try to give them leeway myself. Courtesy on both sides is appreciated, I'm sure.

Crossing a road is certainly something to be taken very seriously, but riding with traffic is totally legal.

I'm not denying they have the right to be on the road. But they also have the responsibility to follow traffic laws, if they are on the road, and I see them breaking the simplest laws all the time. Like not stopping at stop signs (even if there is no on-coming traffic). Like riding more than single file, no matter if there are cars behind them or not. Like not using signals to indicate they are going to turn.

And then there is the whole "impeding the flow of traffic." If even a single rider is causing cars to slow below the speed limit, they are impeding traffic. And that is against the law.

I should have been clearer in my original post.

Our local bike club encourages their members to break the law. I see large groups every weekend with more than 2 across. The police and the sheriff never do a thing about the true hazard these people are.

I used to live in a resort area that had paved bike lanes on the side of the road. If you crossed the white line the sheriff's dept impounded your bike and you got a big fine. They actually enforced the traffic laws.....what gives around here? Why are the biker people so rude? Why are they allowed to impede traffic?

"Just because they did not maintain insurance to cover their son's medical expenses for causing an accident I, as a taxpayer, should not have to pay for the consequences."

You must have used your X-Ray glasses to see that the article says anything about the McConnells not having any insurance.

"Never ride a bicycle when crossing a street at a crosswalk."

Were you there when the boy was hit? Did you give your statement to the police?

RE: "Where did you read it?"

I apologize for carelessness in my initial response to your question. I was overly hasty with my response.

I assume, though it's quite dangerous to do so, that the family was not insured for damages and injuries resulting with the accident. If the family had been insured, I assume the family would not seek restitution for the damages. Again, assumptions are dangerous and may lead to negligence on my part for assuming something that may not be in fact true.

Grace is a wonderful thing. Maybe I am too harsh and should exercise some grace. The young man was obviously hurt as I am sure the family sufferred. Please have grace with me.

- Doug Tucker, PTC

RE: "Where did you read it?"

I read the article found at http://www.thecitizen.com/node/12086. Assuming Mr. Munsford's reporting was accurate, the young man was obviously riding the bicycle across the crosswalk by the statement found in the article's second paragraph. I quote, "Christopher McConnell, who was 13 at the time, was on his bike on September 29, 2004, attempting to cross Peachtree Parkway at the crosswalk near the Ruby Tuesday’s restaurant when the crash occurred, according to the lawsuit." Please note the phrase "on his bike."

As to insurance, you may want to review http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insurance. Protective measures may obviously include such things as helmets, radar, or other tangible objects, but the definition of insurance may also include such things as cash reserves as protection against financial or other costs associated with accidents whether negligence is involved or not, contracts to protect against economic loss against injury, or anything else that may protect one of more parties against injury or loss.

I realize my suggestion to leave PTC is harsh, but I do believe in personal and parental responsibilities associated with community and the environment. Unfortunately, I , like many others, am a victim of assessments against my insurance as well as taxees for which I must pay for the negligence of others who choose not to bare responsibility for their actions or inactions.

- Doug Tucker, PTC

13 is old enough to know that you look both ways before crossing. I rollerblade in that area, you have to look both ways before you cross. Sometimes it is inconvient because you have to wait for traffic to clear. God forbid you have to wait, and use common sense.

This crossing is not at the intersection, but about 100 feet south. There is no light, there is no 'little walking man'.

If PTC had twelve ass't managers, none would ever be responsible for mistakes, or dereliction. The city covers them with insurance, free.
With the traffic now in PTC on the paths, there needs to be flashing lights at every crossing of the highway or street, or a tunnel built.
What the "town" wants, is to eliminate golf carts from the paths---they are too much of a headache. Even the additional officers budgeted for that duty will never do it, consistently. They feel too much like park rangers!
Let's don't let them do away with this nice thing for their benefit, they need to get off their ....