Was the cyclist who killed a pedestrian reckless?

|
(215)
A cyclist struck and killed a pedestrian at this busy intersection at the bottom of a steep hill.

San Francisco's bicycling community is bracing for a backlash following the second recent case of a cyclist hitting and killing a pedestrian, particularly given a callous online posting by someone claiming to be the cyclist, whose 71-year-old victim this week died of injuries sustained a week ago at the intersection of Castro and Market streets.

The case was a hot topic at last night's monthly Carfree Happy Hour, a gathering of cyclists, transportation professionals, and alternative transportation activists, many of whom had unearthed new information about a case they're all grappling with. And the consensus opinion was that the cyclist seemed reckless and may deserve to face criminal charges.

Yet activists also sought to place this case in context, noting that an average of almost three pedestrians are hit by cars everyday in San Francisco, even though that rarely makes headlines. There were 220 pedestrians killed in San Francisco from 2000-2009, the vast majority hit by cars whose drivers rarely faced criminal charges. In fact, the same week that Sustchi Hui was killed there was another pedestrian killed by a motorist and another one by a Muni bus.

But that doesn't lessen the importance of this latest bike-vs.-pedestrian fatality, which is sure to make news precisely because it's so rare, and because it comes just weeks after 23-year-old Randolph Ang pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter for running a red light at Embarcadero and Folsom Street in July 2001, hitting a 68-year-old woman who later died from her head injury.

San Francisco Police Department won’t identify the cyclist in the latest incident unless he's charged with a crime, and its investigation is still ongoing, said SFPD spokesperson Albie Esperanza. “It's a tragic accident,” he told us, noting that the cyclist was cooperating with the investigation. Once the investigation is complete, the District Attorney's Office will decide whether to bring criminal charges against the cyclist.

Someone who identified himself as Chris Bucchere posted a note on the Mission Cycling Google group on the afternoon of the incident, March 29, describing an accident that apparently took place at the same time and place. And the description that Bucchere gave of the accident is not likely to garner much public sympathy for him (We contacted Bucchere by e-mail and telephone, we're waiting to hear back for him, and we can't independently confirm the authenticity of the message or its contents).

“I wrecked on the way home today from the bi-weekly Headlands Raid today. Short story: I'm fine. The pedestrian I clobbered? Not so much,” the message began.

The post then goes on to describe the incident, which matches the details of other reported accounts of the fatal crash: “Around 8 am I was descending Divisidero Street southbound and about to cross Market Street. The light turned yellow as I was approaching the intersection, but I was already way too committed to stop. The light turned red as I was cruising through the middle of the intersection and then, almost instantly, the southern crosswalk on Market and Castro filled up with people coming from both directions. The intersection very long and the width of Castro Street at that point is very short, so, in a nutshell, blammo.”

Another member of the Carfree Happy Hour group who is a regular competitive cyclist said that Bucchere was a member of the website strava.com, which tracks minute-by-minute data of cyclists for training purposes. And this source said he was able to use the site to determine that Bucchere was traveling through the intersection – which is at the bottom of a steep hill – at approximately 35 mph at the time of the collision.

Bucchere's message continued: “The quote/unquote 'scene of the crime' was that intersection right by the landmark Castro Theatre – it leads from a really busy MUNI station to that little plaza where The Naked Guy always hangs out. It was commuter hour and it was crowded as all getup. I couldn't see a line through the crowd and I couldn't stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find.

“I don't remember the next five minutes but when I came to, I was in a neck brace being loaded into an ambulance. I remember seeing a RIVER of blood on the asphalt, but it wasn't mine. Apparently I hit a 71-year old male pedestrian and he ended up in the ICU with pretty serious head injuries. I really hope he ends up OK.

“They asked me a bunch of stupid easy questions that I couldn't answer, so they kept me for a few hours for observation, gave me a tetanus shot and sent me on my way.

“Anyway, other than a stiff neck, a sore jaw/TMJ, a few bruises and some raspberries, I'm totally fine. I got discharged from the hospital during the lunch hour. The guy I hit was not as fortunate. I really hope he makes it.

“The cops took my bike. Hopefully they'll give it back.

“In closing, I want to dedicate this story to my late helmet. She died in heroic fashion today as my head slammed into the tarmac. Like the Secret Service would do for a president, she took some serious pavement today, cracking through-and-through in five places and getting completely mauled by the ragged asphalt. May she die knowing that because she committed the ultimate sacrifice, her rider can live on and ride on. Can I get an amen?

“Amen.

“The moral of this little story is: WYFH”

Several members of the newsgroup took issue with the lesson Bucchere claims to have learned : WYFH, or “Wear Your Fucking Helmet.” One poster wrote, “I'm not sure that's the moral of the story,” to which several others agreed. Another poster wrote: “What were you thinking ? As a 15 year sf resident and a 10 year cyclist and a pedestrian at that intersection every weekday .. I'm kind of embarrassed to wear my mc kit anywhere nearby now. I truly hope you've learned your lesson but I'd have to say this is not the end of the story for you, and yes you should get yourself a lawyer.”

Recent studies have shown that San Francisco is a dangerous city for pedestrians, but not as dangerous as many other cities on a per capita basis given our density and high pedestrian populations. A study released in January by the Alliance for Biking & Walking concludes San Francisco has the third highest biking and walking levels among major US cities, but ranks eighth in bicycle and pedestrian fatality rates.

A 2011 study by the group Transportation for America, “Dangerous by Design,” analyzed factors associated with pedestrian deaths – some of which seem to be at play in this case – and concluded, “Especially when combined with unsafe street and road design, vehicle speed presents a deadly threat to pedestrians.”

Comments

Amen! I totally agree with you. I think cycling is a great transportation alternative, but the cyclists in this town are straight-up reckless. Every time I cross the street having the right-of-way, I come across a cyclist who cuts me off, nicks me, crashes into me, or ignores that I'm even in the crosswalk. They want cars to treat them like they are cars themselves (sharing the road, etc.) but don't want to obey the basic rules of the road! They ignore the fact that pedestrians always have the right-of-way, ignore that stop signs actually mean "stop", and that red lights mean that there *will* be a flow of traffic (car, bus, bike and foot) crossing their paths. Sorry, as much as cyclists deny that the guy who hit the pedestrian on Castro isn't like them - that he's an exception - it's a weak argument. Their presumptuous behavior gives them away.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

It's not about lowering a carbon footprint, it's about someone not wanting to be inconvenienced and have to use brakes a stop at red lights.

The "I couldn't stop." bullshit means inadequate operating equipment, or an errant operator. I' bet on the latter.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

It's not about lowering a carbon footprint, it's about someone not wanting to be inconvenienced and have to use brakes a stop at red lights.

The "I couldn't stop." bullshit means inadequate operating equipment, or an errant operator. I' bet on the latter.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

God help one of these boneheads, if they run over, cut off, or flip off one of the well known group of leather wearing harley riding folks in the bay area

Posted by Guest on Apr. 09, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

You do realize that the way to reduce this behavior is actually to avoid marginalizing it, right?

Stockholm and Copenhagen maybe don't have these issues, but it's also because the cities have given them safety protection (like designated bikeways and bike traffic lights), clear laws (that aren't always the same as cars), and a supportive biking infrastructure.

All of those 3 seem to be termed "bike mafia trying to take over San Francisco," when in fact mainstreaming biking is precisely how you reduce the issues you've described.

When a minority community feels isolated or threatened, dissonance occurs, and generally leads to negative consequences.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 1:16 am

There are many cyclists who follow the rules, share the road, and are generally polite and courteous. Then there are the elitists that give the negative image that becomes associated with all cyclists. There are many drivers who follow the rules, share the road and are generally polite and courteous. Then there are the road ragers, to which I sometimes belong. I find the lack of attention and awareness of drivers ultimately frustrating as they place the responsibility of saftey and concern onto another, just like elitist cyclists. The number of gears you have doesn't determine the quality of your person, if you choose not to employ mechanical advantages, that is your decision.

The point is that we are all people and we should all follow all rules. The fact that more pedestrians are hit by cars than bicycles, does not excuse the cyclist. The ability to escape does not remove your responsibility as a person and a citizen. When I drive, I expect the other cars on the road to behave in a certain way, as required by law. I expect the same of cyclists, this is HOW we share the road.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 5:38 am

It is so rare to see a cyclist wait at a red light or stop at a stop sign that I generally notice it. Pretty much every other time I see them stop/slow down then go when the coast is clear, generally when the light is still red. Rolling stops at stop signs are actually rare- I generally just see them slow down to check the intersection.

If I have the right of way and end up forcing the cyclist to come to a full stop and wait his/her turn, I get the nasty look or the finger.

Posted by DNative on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 8:20 am

Funny, I'm a daily bike commuter as well as a driver in the city. I yield right of way to all pedestrians, and to cars that are already at the intersection. I also see most of my fellow cyclists do the same thing, every day. I commute through the busiest parts of the city, all the time. I'm guilty of the occasional "rolling stop" at stop signs when the intersection is empty, but that's about it.

While I see some cyclists behave badly, this "majority" of law breakers you people are on here ranting about, in my experience, does not exist.

Likewise when I'm in my car driving through the hotbeds of cycling hooliganism, as you'd like people to believe, when I'm at a stop and ready to proceed cyclists almost always stop and yield right of way. Every once in a while it doesn't pan out that way.

Bad behavers are out there, by they are the minority.

Posted by Mike on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

Self-serving rubbish. 98% of cyclists don't respect road rules, not even close. This chap Bucherre is you, he is 98% of you at least.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 09, 2012 @ 10:51 am

Source?

Idiot.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 10, 2012 @ 10:11 am

Amen. Couldn't say it better. I don't care if bicyclists do whatever they want at stop signs and stop lights as long as they don't interfere with a car's or pedestrian's right of way. I am guessing something like 90-99% of all bike traffic rule-breaking doesn't involve anyone getting pissed off or confused. If a stop sign intersection is empty of traffic and pedestrians (and a biker can see that quite easily), there is no reason the biker should be expected to stop - it's not as easy for them to just hit the gas, you know.

Yet, so many people are clamoring for bikers to obey all traffic rules just like cars do! I wouldn't want bikers to do that around me when I'm driving - it would just confuse me. I would rather they be the small fish that swim next to the large whales and worry about their own safety while I worry about mine. In return, I promise to ALWAYS signal my intent and not be so sharky about my parking habits.

Also, why is it that we never hear of the reverse of this story? I mean, if bikers hit pedestrians all the time, wouldn't it be, you know, beneficial to the "arrogant biker" situation to give media coverage to gruesome aftermaths of a bicyclist's failure to follow traffic rules? And the subsequent acquittal of the motor vehicle operator?

Posted by Blammo This on Apr. 11, 2012 @ 11:31 pm

"Yet activists also sought to place this case in context, noting that an average of almost three pedestrians are hit by cars everyday in San Francisco, even though that rarely makes headlines."

The context being, "we are entitled"

Someone is dead and we don't want the cops to crack down on our bad actors.

I've ridden in the city since 1990, the entitled bike riders are amazing. Every time I see one of these life style choice bike riders I cringe because I don't want the cops to start handing out tickets for petty things because of these "extreme" riders.

The SFBC, the critical massholes and the whining Steve Jones types are shit for bikes in this city.

Go away hipsters and carpet baggers.

Posted by matlock on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 6:38 am

If he entered the intersection legally at the speed limit in a yellow, then he had the right to complete his transit through the intersection. Pedestrians are not supposed to legally enter the crosswalk until all traffic legally in the intersection has cleared.

He had two choices: either slow down and risk being hit by an auto on Market Street or speed up and try to make it past the crosswalk as is his legal right before the peds began to cross.

This situation happens all the time at 4th/Stockton and Market, where the intersection on Market is so long and the strong winds from the west slow cyclists down that you can enter the intersection heading west from the east on the green and pass the west crosswalk on the red. I've often got to thread the needle by biking on the yellow center stripe on Market to avoid pedestrians who do not look both ways before they cross when the light turns green.

Every single day many times a day I have to take evasive action, often dangerous in its own right, to avoid illegal and deadly behavior by motorists. In order to stay alive and in one piece, I've got to look around and always be aware of my surroundings, road surface conditions, autos buses and other bikes so that I always have an escape route. Pedestrians need to be doing the same thing in the Big Dangerous City. That is not just a good idea, it is, in fact, the law.

Either bicycles are vehicular traffic and we are entitled to all rights and responsibilities of an auto or we are not and we get to ride on the sidewalk when we want to. Cars are noisy and visible and peds rarely enter the crosswalk until a car that has entered the intersection on yellow passes. Cyclists are silent and small, a tiny bell pinging would not have been sufficient in this case.

That peds do not do what every 4 year old is taught--look both ways before crossing the street--means peds need some education as well. But that will not stop the piling onto cyclists, our advocates are in over their heads in promoting our interests, apparently have the Stockholm Syndrome and are becoming the pedestrian coalition. Already, motorists are emboldened and treating cyclists even crappier.

If he was riding a fixed gear bike without brakes, he's toast.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 6:44 am

Marcos the defender of wife batterers and bicyclists that kill pedestrians knowingly.

I guess this is what they call a slippery slope? You guys are sliding down at mach speed.
First the near constant droning of coverage over Mirkarimi discussing every single angle of the situation besides anything that involves personal culpability of Mirkarimi.
Now we have the question of a bike rider who killed a pedestrian who blogged about it (confirmed in the chronicle and by the DA) - was he being reckless? Was he being CAREFUL?

This preceding post by Marcos is disgusting. Imaginary dangers : " either slow down and risk being hit by an auto on Market Street" are read into the story in order to manufacture some sympathy for the asshole who ran down a pedestrian and signed off his blog post about it with a tribute to his helmet.

And the other posters whose sole line of defense is citing how frequently cars kill pedestrians.

Disgusting

Posted by greg on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 6:58 am

Yep, I support wives beating up and battering assholes like you.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 7:27 am

Because its fun to make fun of domestic violence in order to make a point on the web.

Classy guy you are.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 8:51 am

If you are on a bike pay attention to the world around you.

If you are coming up to an intersection on your bike and you are not sure you can make the light, slow down.

Why are you making excuses for this guy?

Posted by matlock on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 7:10 am

You are basically trying to justify the death of the pedestrian. First if he was in fact going 35 MPH at the bottom of the hill- that would seem to indicate that he was speeding- coming down the hill where the light is. By going to fast to stop for said yellow light and entering the VERY large intersection which he knew would take him time to cross he effectively caused the accident. Cyclists are people too and they make mistakes and it sounds like this guy did. The bike mafia would come across better if they were to admit it that cyclists are not always perfect.

Posted by DNative on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 7:11 am

That hill is moderately steep by SF standards. Most bikes don't go faster than 25mph. You've got to have certain sized wheels that are in good condition to go faster than that. And you need time to get up to that speed which on a bike means distance.

The limiting factor is not so much any of those factors as it is crappy condition of the pavement. At speeds over 25mph, any imperfection in the pavement can send you flying. After losing a chunk of shoulder flesh due to crappy pavement on the 8th Street bike land at Mission, I swapped out my 700c wheels for 26", as is possible with disc brakes, both to slow down max speed as well as to provide for a sturdier ride that can handle crappy pavement.

That said, I can still keep up with traffic at speed on Oak from Stanyan to Steiner, center striping it through the Divisadero signal and actually beating auto traffic at its own game. I can't get going faster than 23mph on that straight away.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 7:26 am

that you can enter it safely. So if you find that you are in a position where you have to hit a pedestrian to avoid being hit by a car, then you are guilty of showing poor judgment in entering that junction at that time and speed, and in those road conditions.

Your attempt to blame cars for that pedestrians tragic death is typical of the arrogance of bike activists.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 7:39 am

Nonsense, the law is unambiguous that pedestrians must allow the intersection to clear before leaving the curb.

I just biked from the Mission to the FD. Four times I had to take evasive action to save life and limb. Once I even had to wait for a cyclist to pass through the intersection on the yellow. Did I lollygag through the intersection oblivious? Of course not, I looked both ways before proceeding.

Did any of the motorists look both ways before cutting me off when I was cycling legally? Of course not.

Bicyclists are traffic and traffic is allowed to enter the intersection on the yellow. End of story, unless he was riding a fixie with no brakes, he did not commit a crime. Cars do this all the time and pedestrians accommodate them. Pedestrians must learn to accommodate bicycles making legal traffic movements as well. They do otherwise at their own risk and peril, not to mention putting legal cyclists at risk of injury or death.

Go away before a law abiding cyclist drops a bicycle on you.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 8:30 am

he/she can respond to a change. The car in front may slam on his brakes, a vehicle may swerve in your path or a dog or child may run out into the road. You drive accordingly, so must ride a bike accordingly as well.

Don't enter a junction unless your exit is clear.

The real problem here is that, absent formal testing, cyclists quite simply do not understand the rules of the road. Marcos, you are clearly living proof of this as you are talking nonsense here.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:15 am

Right, autos know to only drive at safe speeds, that is why none of them ever hit, injure and kill pedestrians and cyclists. Do you read this crap before you hit 'submit?'

The junction WAS most likely clear on the yellow, it did not congest until the cyclist was legally in the intersection and the peds got the walk signal. They entered the crosswalk before the intersection had cleared just like they do on 4th and Market every day.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:19 am

cyclists who blow through red lights at excessive speeds, can then not adjust to changing events, and end up killing someone.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:52 am

I'm sorry, marcos, but I'm not going to join you on the limb you climbed out on in defending this cyclist. If his description and the strava data are true, his actions are indefensibly wrong. For one thing, if he was really doing 35 mph then he was probably entering the intersection on a red and not yellow light, as he claims. But even it was yellow, his actions were wrong and his description made me cringe. What responsible cyclist would, by his own account, plunge at full speed into a crowd of crossing pedestrians and hope to catch a narrow opening? I certainly wouldn't, and I'm not the most law-abiding of cyclists out there. I'm willing to wait before rushing to judgment, but if these facts are borne out then we should condemn this bevavior instead of condoning it.

Posted by steven on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 11:11 am

berating Marcos on his blinkered, self-serving pro-bike agenda.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

Steven, I was just at 17th and Castro yesterday for the ACTUP 25th celebration and was checking out the hill in question. The crest is at States Street not 16th, which means there are 250 or so feet of < 10% slope involved. I asked one of the cops who was there if it would be easy for a bike to get to 35mph in that distance, he eyeballed it with me and it was not a slam dunk for him either.

It is questionable whether a GPS device could take sufficient samples in 250' at any speed to ascertain a velocity. To take GPS samples at that rate, they are power expensive, on a ride to and from Marin would have long since exhausted a smart phone battery before he got to Castro and Market. Muni vehicles, for instance, generally report their positions every 90 seconds via GPS. I've programmed the iPhone for applications like this and watched power consumption levels through benchmarks.

Had he run a red light as you assert, then there would have been motorists on Market Street entering the intersection legally as cross traffic and the pedestrians would have likely been the least of his problems. If the peds could not have seen the cyclist, then it follows that the motorists on Market would not have either and there would have been contention there before the cross walk which does not appear to be the case.

Harm reduction is a valid approach given a slate of crappy options, in situations like this decisions must be made in split seconds. I gave the case of the drunkard on Union Street who was crossing against the red light and who doubled back on me and essentially broadsided my bike. I would never use my bike to intentionally hurt someone, but successfully held myself back from using my U Lock to teach him a lesson so that he might avoid future stupidity.

Once when I was biking east on 16th at Dolores when the sun was low in the sky one afternoon, a befuddled geezer in a gargantuan caddy turned from 16th south onto Dolores and cut me off as I was entering the intersection. There is no speed to practically bicycle where one can avoid such a situation where someone else acts stupidly. I was biking at speed down the slight slope, say 20mph and found myself with two choices: be front ended by him and wind up seriously injured or do what they tell you not to do in traffic safety school: bear to the left, possibly into oncoming traffic, and then bear quickly right to side swipe his caddy so that the force of impact is spread across a wider area. I chose the latter, I was not injured, my bike took off the decorative trim on that side of his caddy and suffered no damage itself, and the befuddled geezer was oblivious to what transpired and drove off confused. The decision process took less than a second, there are no chances to second guess yourself in these cases.

Yeah, Steven, sometimes life deals you a crappy hand and you've got to make the most of it which sucks. The easy answer is: look both ways before crossing. Once I tried to cross without looking and almost got hit by a car as a kid. I protested to my mom that I had the ROW. She told me that it doesn't matter if you have the ROW if you're dead. This is what human beings learn as tots. Perhaps it does not make sense to follow those who are oblivious to their surroundings with ear buds blasting music when it comes to putting yourself in harm's way.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 10:04 am

I love how this thread has become an ersatz biography for the life of Marc Salomon.
Tell us more Marc! Tell us about your childhood! As I'm sure you'd agree, I simply cant be the only one who is on the egde of their seat waiting for the next installment.

Posted by greg on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 10:14 am

He'd trade any and all progress on key issues for 15 minutes on Oprah.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 10:32 am

Who is Oprah?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 11:07 am

Far be it for any first-hand experiences to get in the way of a yet another politicized lynching by reference to misconduct of others.

Perhaps I was fortunate to have parents that taught me enough to not get killed when navigating the myriad dangers of the Big City.

Continue to live in a special world where whatever victims are deemed WORTHY are given all sorts of contorted consideration and whoever is deemed UNWORTHY is given no quarter and demonized.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 10:39 am

I am amazed that since Mr. Hui was a WORTHY victim that the mob is not demanding that his parents be posthumously indicted for child endangerment for not teaching him to look both ways before crossing.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 11:08 am

Anymore than a cell phone is. A cell phone is constantly switching BSTs and transmitting its position as it does so. It can do so for days without draining all of its power. Even if you switch your phone to "pull" and are constantly bringing down your email etc... your device will still last for longer than 12 hours. A GPS unit is no different and indeed is much less data intensive than an iPhone pulling down tons of megabytes - GPS is simply transmitting using the same technology.

Please stop using this excuse - it's patently false.

Posted by Troll II on Apr. 09, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

Marcos- So what you are saying is that the pedestrians were fair game. You are disgusting. Try this "logic" on me when I'm in a cross walk and I will closeline you.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 8:13 am

Yes, when I am on my bike and I think that a pedestrian is an anonymous troll on a chat board named 'Guest,' I point at the ped and speed up. Works like a charm every time.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 07, 2012 @ 10:23 am

http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/04/woman-struck-by-car-on-mission-street.php

A vehicle had just made a left turn from Italy Avenue onto Mission Street when it struck the 41-year-old woman, who had apparently stepped out from in between two parked cars in an area outside of the crosswalk, according to police spokesman Officer Albie Esparza.

Why was this car driver unable to respond to this change?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 10:26 am

No, that is not the law. A person riding a contraption that can cause serious injury or death to another person has a heightened duty of responsibility. Even if you have the right of way, it does not lawfully give you the right to take it if doing so will result in your injuring someone. For example, if I have a green light and I am driving a car, and a pedestrian who has a stop pedestrian signal ignores it and runs out in the street, it is ILLEGAL for me to proceed and risk hitting the person, even though I have the right of way. Now, if I don't see the pedestrian, and I was paying attention and not reasonably expecting someone to ignore the crosswalk sign and jump in front of me, then I would not be in the wrong.

So, if you are saying that if he was abiding all rules of the law and he did NOT see the pedestrian and had no way to stop when he did, then yes, he would not be negligent. But, his posted account suggests he was riding at an unsafe speed, knew he was approaching an intersection where people would be crossing and chose not to slow down. He will soon have plenty of time to think about his decisions as he sits in a jail cell.

Posted by Claster on Apr. 09, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

This article is about the needless death of a pedestrian at the hands of a reckless cyclist.
It is NOT about what streets you use to commute, how fast you can go, the rims on your bike, etc.

What is wrong with you?

Posted by Mirrorman on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:15 am

wrong than when he is trying to rationalize vehicular homicide and wife beating.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:18 am

There was neither "wife beating" nor "vehicular homicide" involved in either of these cases.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:37 am

convicted of DV-related crimes AND to a cyclist killing a pedestrian.

It's starting to show a pattern.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:56 am

You are correct, I should just jump on the bandwagon and do whatever the Chronicle tells me to.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 10:03 am

This is about pedestrian carelessness and not looking both ways before entering a crosswalk. Contention for scarce streetscape resources happens everywhere all the time. Most people know what to do in order to stay healthy, uninjured and alive, and that is to obey the law.

Folks break the law all the time. You are saying that autos get a pass and that pedestrians get a pass. But the rules must be applied strictly to cyclists.

I'm giving you examples of what cyclists must do in order to stay safe, to stay alive. We're not asking of peds and motorists anything we're not willing to do ourselves. I just did that four times this morning. Had I not, you all would have blamed me for not biking defensively as I lay injured or dying.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:22 am

does not give a cyclist immunity from plowing into him or her.

Pedestrians always have priority over other road users. You can't kill a pedestrian and get away with it just because technically he shouldn't be there.

You should ALWAYS ride your bike anticipating events that might happen and, if you cannot, then you are riding too fast.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 9:54 am

He drunkenly admitted that he was at fault, you are wrong.

Since he was drunk, there was no question, you are wrong.

If pedestrians always had priority over road users, then there would be no such violation as jaywalking.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 10:01 am

the wrong way down a one way street, as they do, I am free to mow him down with impunity?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

By your logic, pedestrians can do no wrong, and everyone else should just stay put because you never know when something might happen. I call bullshit.

Posted by Mike on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

Great to hear you are not asking of anyone anything you would not willingly do yourself. I can therefor assume you would support a bicycle licensing requirement where all bikes to be operated on city streets are inspected and held to safety standards, license tags are displayed prominently in order to aid in enforcement and cyclists applying for a license for their bike are required to show proof of liability insurance as well as passing both written and observed road tests to ensure they are aware of relevant traffic laws and safety standards. That's what every driver has to do. I'm glad to see an SF cycling advocate supporting such a program that could impact public safety in a responsible way

That is what you meant, right?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 10:18 am

Of course not. The legal system worked for the case at Embarcadero and Folsom where the cyclist was legally at fault and I trust that it will work in this case where the pedestrians left the curbside illegally before the intersection was clear of legal traffic.

More burdensome government regulation is the last thing we need here.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 10:26 am

But only when he is the one facing regulation, of course.

Laws are for others, right?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 06, 2012 @ 12:33 pm