If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Bicyclist who ran down SF pedestrian fails to impress the internet by telling his side of the story   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 316
    More: Dumbass, San Francisco, Yahoo News, bicycle safety, vehicular manslaughter, right of ways, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Law Abiding Citizen, reckless disregard  
•       •       •

15222 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2012 at 1:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-07 04:26:51 PM

mark12A: Mmmmm, another bicycle hate thread. Good, good, your tears are like Gatorade to me...

/starts regular bike commuting to work this week
//ignores ALL signs/signals IF the way is clear
///rides the wrong way
\\\assumes all cars ARE out to get me, rides accordingly
\\this is my 12th season of doing this in the dirty mean streets of Philly
\ain't dead yet, ain't hit anyone yet


No hate here, in the climate I live in I actually have respect for most bicyclists. (excluding the drunk ones)

Just wanted to say that I had a friend that often said the same thing about his crotch rocket, except he would add in that he could evade the cops because of his superior speed and agility. He did it for a number of years without incident. He's not my friend anymore, though.

He's dead.

/at least he didn't take anyone with him.
 
2012-04-07 04:29:43 PM
 
2012-04-07 04:30:25 PM

RareChimer: 9beers: Dwight_Yeast: That's nice, but bikes are vehicles and have the same rights to the road that cars do.

Technically not true since bikes are required by law to stay as far right as possible.

(In California...)
Actually, it's quite true and you actually state why. ;) Bikes are considered devices with the rights and responsibilities of motor vehicles and since they're slow-moving vehicles under the law, they have to stay to the right.


Here in PA, the law says that we're to stay to the right "as far as practicable" and we have the right to take the lane to avoid drainage grates, potholes, etc. The Amish in their buggies (another slow-moving vehicle) are legally expected to do the some.

Interestingly, there's no legal requirement for bikes or buggies or farm vehicles to pull off the road to let faster traffic by.

They did just change the law here last week, forcing cars passing bikes to give them at least 4 ft of space (impossible in parts of the city) but also granting cars the right to cross a double yellow to do so (a change that should have been made years ago).
 
2012-04-07 04:30:46 PM

The Face Of Oblivion: The rider goes on, "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."

Were you elsewhere at the time or do you ordinarily talk like a valley girl in addition to dressing like one?


Well, yeah, his brain was somewhere else at the time. He lost consciousness when he hit the ground, and then was taken to the hospital. What words would you use to describe it? "Apparently" seems to fit, once I understood the context.

This minor detail, of course, does not excuse reckless driving resulting in manslaughter.
 
2012-04-07 04:38:58 PM

mat catastrophe: My problem with bicyclists is that they complain very loudly to be treated properly on the road, yet they are consistently the biggest assholes on the road with regard to following street rules.


THIS.

About 15 years ago my wife got run down by one of those a-hole bike messengers in NYC. She was legally in the crosswalk when he came whipping around a stopped van and hit her. Her neck and back are messed up to this day.
 
2012-04-07 04:42:08 PM

CthulhuCalling: timujin: While the bicyclist was in the wrong, there's a reason your mom told you to always look before you cross the street. This could just as easily have been someone driving a car.

The guy died. How could it have been any worse if it was a car?


I don't think anywhere in that statement did I use the word "worse."
 
2012-04-07 04:42:55 PM

CigaretteSmokingMan: About 15 years ago my wife got run down by one of those a-hole bike messengers in NYC. She was legally in the crosswalk when he came whipping around a stopped van and hit her. Her neck and back are messed up to this day.


If she'd been hit by someone driving a car, would you blame all automobile drivers?
 
2012-04-07 04:45:26 PM

Dwight_Yeast: CigaretteSmokingMan: About 15 years ago my wife got run down by one of those a-hole bike messengers in NYC. She was legally in the crosswalk when he came whipping around a stopped van and hit her. Her neck and back are messed up to this day.

If she'd been hit by someone driving a car, would you blame all automobile drivers?


Did he blame all bike riders?
 
2012-04-07 04:45:44 PM
If you enter a an intersection, be it on foot, on a bike, on a motorcycle, horse, car, llama -- and you don't check for cross traffic that may or may not have the right of way, you may be killed. In some cases you may be technically right, but you'll be dead.

The bicyclist entered the intersection on a yellow -- perfectly legal in CA and IIRC *every* state -- the herds left their curbs on a walk signal but did not look to see that another vehicle who had legal access to the intersection had not cleared it.

These are the base facts.

The mitigating facts are:

1. His speed. Regardless, he could be charged with speeding if he was indeed going 35 in a 25.

2. Pedestrians did not follow the law. They did not allow a pre-existing vehicle with right-of-way to exit the intersection. It could have been a semi-truck to failed brakes coming down that hill (Divis. crossing Market is a significant hill) or some moran texting -- regardless: pay attention to your surroundings.

3. This is not a case where the vehicle was trapped in the intersection by traffic ahead. Some states prohibit entering an intersection if it has standing traffic to avoid gridlock (i.e. "Don't block the box" laws). This does not apply in this case.
 
2012-04-07 04:47:33 PM

BummerDuck:
The medical examiner has not publicly stated if Hui's death was a result of his injuries from the accident.

Is this not obvious?


(exasperated sigh) Yes, it certainly is obvious. And the obvious answer is wrong far more often than you seem to believe. That's why professionals like Medical Examiners actually look at stuff, instead of letting random Internet people thousands of miles from the accident make legally binding calls based solely on evidence gathered from Fark.

Did you consider the possibility this 71-year-old had an aneurysm while crossing the street, fell down instantly dead, hit his head, and THEN the cyclist plowed into his corpse? Of course you didn't, it's ridiculous. But with over 7 billion of us in the world, ridiculous things happen surprisingly often. I seem to remember reading about a drunk-driving case right here that ended in roughly that way. They proved the driver, while admittedly legally drunk, was already dead when the accident occurred. Anybody remember enough for a proper citation?

So now we have MEs doing autopsys instead of lynch mobs using so-called "common sense". Sounds like a good trade to me!
 
2012-04-07 04:49:21 PM

Yogimus: Dwight_Yeast: CigaretteSmokingMan: About 15 years ago my wife got run down by one of those a-hole bike messengers in NYC. She was legally in the crosswalk when he came whipping around a stopped van and hit her. Her neck and back are messed up to this day.

If she'd been hit by someone driving a car, would you blame all automobile drivers?

Did he blame all bike riders?


Nope. Just a-holes in the middle of a city who think they're in the Tour de France.
 
2012-04-07 04:53:24 PM
The simple solution here is to institute "all red" transition signalling in places with high pedestrian traffic. This allows large intersections to clear before any opposing go/walk signal is given.

The data show a huge decrease in incidences and injuries. ^
 
2012-04-07 04:54:24 PM

lohphat:

The bicyclist entered the intersection on a yellow -- perfectly legal in CA and IIRC *every* state -- the herds left their curbs on a walk signal but did not look to see that another vehicle who had legal access to the intersection had not cleared it.

These are the base facts.


Impossible for us to say, but chances are fairly small that both of these situations happened. If you're going 35 and you enter on a yellow, you'll most likely be well beyond the crosswalk before it turns red, the walk sign appears, and a crowd of people makes it into the middle of the street.

Maybe it happened exactly like that, but I would wager someone isn't telling the truth. My bet is on the guy who thought he merely "critically injured" someone, and so lead a prayer service for his helmet.
 
2012-04-07 04:56:44 PM
A cyclist is obligated to share the road, following the rules of the road, and always they are obligated to ride with full control of their vehicle, no matter what. This is a case of criminal negligence on the cyclist's part. Pedestrians, right or wrong, always have the right-of-way, that's the law, and you are obligated to ride in full control at all times, or not at all. I don't give a flying fark about the sweet free momentum you've built up and are loathe to shed; you have to stop when required just like motorcycles or cars do. Too farking bad you have to start from a dead stop all over again at an intersection like everybody else. You chose to ride a human-powered vehicle. It's exercise and good for you. I have zero sympathy for anybody on 2 wheels that thinks they should get a break on the rules because starting over from a standstill is work. When I ride my recumbent, I follow every rule of the road just like a car.
 
2012-04-07 04:58:50 PM

Dwight_Yeast: CigaretteSmokingMan: About 15 years ago my wife got run down by one of those a-hole bike messengers in NYC. She was legally in the crosswalk when he came whipping around a stopped van and hit her. Her neck and back are messed up to this day.

If she'd been hit by someone driving a car, would you blame all automobile drivers?


He agreed with a blanket statement, so in appearance, yes.

I see his has qualified that statement.

CigaretteSmokingMan: sorry to hear about the accident your wife suffered. Dealing with cronic pain is a biatch. I'm lucky in that I only have a bad knee (so far) from getting hit by a car, as I already described upthread.

If the police continue to treat cyclists like they are above the law the assholes out there will behave like it.
 
2012-04-07 05:01:31 PM

Any Pie Left: Too farking bad you have to start from a dead stop all over again at an intersection like everybody else. You chose to ride a human-powered vehicle. It's exercise and good for you. I have zero sympathy for anybody on 2 wheels that thinks they should get a break on the rules because starting over from a standstill is work. When I ride my recumbent, I follow every rule of the road just like a car.


Next time I'm getting honked at as I'm getting a start from a dead stop, I wish you could be there to explain this to the driver behind me.
 
2012-04-07 05:02:23 PM

lohphat: If you enter a an intersection, be it on foot, on a bike, on a motorcycle, horse, car, llama -- and you don't check for cross traffic that may or may not have the right of way, you may be killed. In some cases you may be technically right, but you'll be dead.

The bicyclist entered the intersection on a yellow -- perfectly legal in CA and IIRC *every* state -- the herds left their curbs on a walk signal but did not look to see that another vehicle who had legal access to the intersection had not cleared it.

These are the base facts.


No, those are assertions made by the cyclist. Issues of fact are a matter for a jury to decide.
 
2012-04-07 05:07:06 PM
There's a reason we lump all San Francisco bike riders into the "ass-hat douchebag" category. It's because the courteous, law-abiding bike rider is so rare in San Fransisco that many people question their very existence.
 
2012-04-07 05:07:25 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Fark_Guy_Rob: Exactly - which is why bicyclists should be required to have a license, registration and insurance, right?

I'm all for that. It would get a lot of dangerous cyclists off the road, and make life for me a hell of a lot safer.

Hell, just regularly ticketing cyclists for moving violations would make things worlds better.


Then I totally respect and agree with your position.

/Weird to say that on Fark
 
2012-04-07 05:07:30 PM

davidphogan: serial_crusher: Dude was going 35. That seems like about the same speed a car should be traveling on that road. I looked up and down that road on street view until I got bored, but never found a speed limit sign. Anybody know what the speed limit is there?

I'm pretty sure it's 25 anywhere in the city limits of SF unless otherwise posted. If he was going too fast to stop before the crosswalk filled up the speed limit won't matter because he was operating recklessly under the state's basic speed law. Either way, he's screwed.


This. It's going to take a hell of an attorney to convince a jury that the cyclist was "legally" in the intersection when he hit the pedestrian.

As a side question, how responsible is the victim if his view of the cyclist was blocked by other pedestrians and he started crossing simply because the people in front of him did, with a green light?
 
2012-04-07 05:09:28 PM

lohphat: If you enter a an intersection, be it on foot, on a bike, on a motorcycle, horse, car, llama -- and you don't check for cross traffic that may or may not have the right of way, you may be killed. In some cases you may be technically right, but you'll be dead.

The bicyclist entered the intersection on a yellow -- perfectly legal in CA and IIRC *every* state -- the herds left their curbs on a walk signal but did not look to see that another vehicle who had legal access to the intersection had not cleared it.

These are the base facts.

The mitigating facts are:

1. His speed. Regardless, he could be charged with speeding if he was indeed going 35 in a 25.

2. Pedestrians did not follow the law. They did not allow a pre-existing vehicle with right-of-way to exit the intersection. It could have been a semi-truck to failed brakes coming down that hill (Divis. crossing Market is a significant hill) or some moran texting -- regardless: pay attention to your surroundings.

3. This is not a case where the vehicle was trapped in the intersection by traffic ahead. Some states prohibit entering an intersection if it has standing traffic to avoid gridlock (i.e. "Don't block the box" laws). This does not apply in this case.



Your math makes sense but as a cyclist, I still see recklessness. If I'm riding close enough to pedestrians that they can potentially step in front of me (clearly the case here), I ride at a speed where I can stop and if I do hit them it would only be the minorest of injuries...walking speed basically. Yes, according to your logic he was legally inbounds, but not by any safe cycling practices.
 
2012-04-07 05:15:57 PM

Dwight_Yeast: RareChimer: 9beers: Dwight_Yeast: That's nice, but bikes are vehicles and have the same rights to the road that cars do.

Technically not true since bikes are required by law to stay as far right as possible.

(In California...)
Actually, it's quite true and you actually state why. ;) Bikes are considered devices with the rights and responsibilities of motor vehicles and since they're slow-moving vehicles under the law, they have to stay to the right.

Here in PA, the law says that we're to stay to the right "as far as practicable" and we have the right to take the lane to avoid drainage grates, potholes, etc. The Amish in their buggies (another slow-moving vehicle) are legally expected to do the some.

Interestingly, there's no legal requirement for bikes or buggies or farm vehicles to pull off the road to let faster traffic by.

They did just change the law here last week, forcing cars passing bikes to give them at least 4 ft of space (impossible in parts of the city) but also granting cars the right to cross a double yellow to do so (a change that should have been made years ago).


Ya, we in California have been watching other states get their buffer laws passed. We tried to get a "3 feet or 15mph max difference" law to pass last year, but the CHP misunderstood it as "3 feet and 15mph max difference" and misadvised Governor Brown.

A new proposal has just been put forth saying "3 feet at all times" which, in my opinion is bad for very-low speed areas where a car should be allowed to pass a bit closer.
 
2012-04-07 05:21:54 PM

Abox: Your math makes sense but as a cyclist, I still see recklessness. If I'm riding close enough to pedestrians that they can potentially step in front of me (clearly the case here), I ride at a speed where I can stop and if I do hit them it would only be the minorest of injuries...walking speed basically. Yes, according to your logic he was legally inbounds, but not by any safe cycling practices.


I have a bike but rarely ride it in SF due to hills and 46 year old knees.

I'm not defending him but SF pedestrians also have a sense of entitlement and jaywalk recklessly too. I jaywalk too but do so without other traffic around where there would be no ambiguity of trajectory and intent. Too many just walk out into the street and avoid eye contact knowing they shouldn't be doing it and then when a car honks to get their attention, they get all indignant and flip them off.

Welcome to SF Snowflakeland.
 
2012-04-07 05:24:13 PM
Something needs to be done about the Critical Mass assholes who clog up the streets every month just because they can.
 
2012-04-07 05:26:05 PM

lohphat: Here's some data, not imagined opinions pulled from your ass:

21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words "WALK"
or "WAIT" or "DONT WALK" or other approved symbol is in place, the
signal shall indicate as follows:
(a) "WALK" or approved "Walking Person" symbol. A pedestrian
facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of
the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully
within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown. ^

Emphasis mine.

...according to Officer Rich Obregon of the California Highway Patrol. According to Obregon, a driver entering an intersection before the light turns red has the legal right to proceed across that intersection no matter how big it is. The green light for drivers approaching from both sides, he says, does not give them the unconditional right to enter the intersection at any time--only when conditions are safe.^



Obviously pedestrians are going to have to wait for the vehicle to pass and obviously the car that ran the light needs to clear the intersection. That has nothing to do with what I said. If you have not cleared the intersection before the light turns red, you have violated the law and can be ticketed.
 
2012-04-07 05:34:42 PM

9beers: Obviously pedestrians are going to have to wait for the vehicle to pass and obviously the car that ran the light needs to clear the intersection


He did not run the light. He entered on the yellow. Do you have alternate information?

I see this daily in SF, the sheep see white and just start walking. Many start walking BEFORE it says walk.

This scenario is all too common.
 
2012-04-07 05:35:04 PM

Evenbiggerknickers: something is seriously wrong with this cyclist. If I killed someone by accident...even if it was all the other persons fault...I imagine I would still be devastated. Let alone take to the internet and describe my killing of said guy as 'blammo'.


Yeah. The lack of, really any emotion here is kind of worrying. This isn't like someone in shock, this is just complete disregard for one's actions.

/was he trying to get to the gym in 26 minutes?
 
2012-04-07 05:35:06 PM

lohphat: I'm not defending him but SF pedestrians also have a sense of entitlement and jaywalk recklessly too. I jaywalk too but do so without other traffic around where there would be no ambiguity of trajectory and intent. Too many just walk out into the street and avoid eye contact knowing they shouldn't be doing it and then when a car honks to get their attention, they get all indignant and flip them off.


Between the oblivious drivers and some amazingly pedestrian-unfriendly intersections (try a walk signal synchronized not with the green at that crossing, but with the signal a half-block back; it helps gridlock but confuses and annoys drivers making a right turn, who see someone loitering at a green light and then suddenly crossing in front of them), it can be safer to jaywalk when you can see there's no oncoming traffic than to cross at a controlled intersection.
 
2012-04-07 05:36:38 PM
I have been in San Francisco before where I had the right of way but pedestrians were filling the street anyway. As I slowly proceeded through the intersection, mad pedestrians were thrumming on my car, oblivious to the red blinking hand that forbade their crossing. Pedestrians can get the hell out of the way or move faster.
 
2012-04-07 05:37:42 PM

9beers: If you have not cleared the intersection before the light turns red, you have violated the law and can be ticketed.


This is false. You can enter on the yellow and legally complete the crossing even if it turn red. I have provided citations confirming my position you have done nothing.

Please cite the CA DMV code that says entering on a yellow and not clearing before it's read is illegal.

We're still waiting for you to support your bald assertion.

Note: Your opining, no matter how strongly you believe it doesn't make it fact.
 
2012-04-07 05:38:21 PM

lohphat: He did not run the light. He entered on the yellow. Do you have alternate information?


All we know for sure is that by the time he got to the other side, the crosswalk was full of people. That tells me that he clearly didn't clear the intersection before the light changed. I can see somebody being a dumb ass and stepping off the curb early but when the biker himself says that it was jammed with people, he's clearly in the wrong.
 
2012-04-07 05:40:45 PM

9beers: lohphat: Here's some data, not imagined opinions pulled from your ass:

21456. Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words "WALK"
or "WAIT" or "DONT WALK" or other approved symbol is in place, the
signal shall indicate as follows:
(a) "WALK" or approved "Walking Person" symbol. A pedestrian
facing the signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of
the signal, but shall yield the right-of-way to vehicles lawfully
within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown. ^

Emphasis mine.

...according to Officer Rich Obregon of the California Highway Patrol. According to Obregon, a driver entering an intersection before the light turns red has the legal right to proceed across that intersection no matter how big it is. The green light for drivers approaching from both sides, he says, does not give them the unconditional right to enter the intersection at any time--only when conditions are safe.^


Obviously pedestrians are going to have to wait for the vehicle to pass and obviously the car that ran the light needs to clear the intersection. That has nothing to do with what I said. If you have not cleared the intersection before the light turns red, you have violated the law and can be ticketed.



Are you kidding? The law you just quoted clearly says you can legally cross an intersection as long as you enter before the light turns red, not exit.
 
2012-04-07 05:41:44 PM

9beers: That tells me that he clearly didn't clear the intersection before the light changed.


He. Doesn't. Have. To.

What part of "You have right of way to cross the intersection if you crossed the limit line on the yellow" do you not understand?

There is NO REQUIREMENT IN THE LAW that he has to clear before the light turns red.

Please cite the law that supports your argument.
 
2012-04-07 05:48:28 PM

lohphat: This is false. You can enter on the yellow and legally complete the crossing even if it turn red. I have provided citations confirming my position you have done nothing.


No you haven't all you've proven is that people have to wait for the intersection to clear and that a vehicle still in the intersection has to get out.
 
2012-04-07 05:49:29 PM

kokomo61: I got hit in 2008 - I was on the main bike path into DC, which, during the week and good weather, is a good commuting option. When it gets into some of the surface street crossings closer in, you've got to be VERY careful. I pulled up to a crossing, and stopped, because I saw vehicles nearby. First one stopped on the right and waved me through......I held up my hand, and pointed the other way, because I could see another car coming. They stopped. Since it was a two-lane street, and both sides had stopped, I clipped in, and rolled forward. Three cars back on the right, some yahoo either didn't see everyone stopped (two cars in front of him at a well-marked intersection, oncoming traffic stopped too), or didn't care, because he swerved into the curb lane (which was marked for parking spaces).

After I cleared the car on the right, I saw him just in time to go, "Oh, shiat." Took the bike out from under me (still clipped in), and I went up on the hood, like Mannix. Hit my ribs on the A pillar / windshield, then fell back down to the pavement, still attached to the bike.

Guy was ticketed, but initially pled not guilty, and said he was just trying to park his car (at about 25MPH, apparently). Said he didn't see the intersection and signs, that I ran out in front of him, etc.

So, I had to go to court. When he saw that the entire town police force showed up (that's their traffic day), he changed his plea to guilty. I was hoping to be able to use my Garmin Edge 305 GPS for evidence.......it showed my entire trip, how fast I was going, when I stopped, when I was coasting and not pedaling, and my heart rate.

It showed me stopped at that intersection for 90 seconds.....then going forward at 5 MPH.....then going LEFT at 25 MPH. (then it just showed me lying on the ground for about 10 minutes).


Sounds horrible and I hope you are fine now! I cannot stand car drivers (or anyone) who is so impatient that they have to pass turning cars on the shoulder, by pulling onto a curve, pulling into parking spots, by swerving into a side road. Dangerous for everyone and if you lack the patience to sit for a few seconds then you probably lack the judgment skills to be driving.
 
2012-04-07 05:50:48 PM

9beers: lohphat: He did not run the light. He entered on the yellow. Do you have alternate information?

All we know for sure is that by the time he got to the other side, the crosswalk was full of people. That tells me that he clearly didn't clear the intersection before the light changed. I can see somebody being a dumb ass and stepping off the curb early but when the biker himself says that it was jammed with people, he's clearly in the wrong.


He's in the wrong, but not for failing to clear the intersection. If he had been doing 25 instead of 35, he would be innocent of any vehicle-code violation (assuming his brakes were in working order). Since he was speeding, it could be argued that he wasn't in the intersection legally when the light changed (if you beat the red by speeding on yellow, that's a ticket), and his speeding certainly contributed to his not being able to stop in time.
 
2012-04-07 05:50:53 PM
i271.photobucket.com

The intersection in question. My office is a block away. Biker's path of travel in orange. He's coming off a steep hill entering the intersection. Fatality is the yellow star. Red arrows represent potential path's of travel that end up in non-populated landscaped areas. According to mapquest 200 feet from crosswalk to crosswalk.

35 mph is way too fast here under any conditions. This is one of the largest and most complicated intersections in SF. Major transit transfer hub, intersection of 3 different major crosstown streets and dozens of restaurants, banks, gyms, etc. Hundreds of pedestrians at all times of day. However, plenty of places to safely dump a bike and avoid pedestrians.

The biker is justifiability screwed. Manslaughter, etc.

RIP innocent old dude. You didn't deserve to die just because a hipster is in a hurry. Slow down in my neighborhood, jackass.

Its interesting how the painted crosswalk lines form an almost perfect pentagon.
 
2012-04-07 05:51:02 PM

puckrock2000: Phoenix_M: Yogimus: He killed a man, and no charges? Quick, get the panthers and the clan to san-fran, STAT!

The DA is filing charges They're just dotting the i's and crossing the t's. The guy's going to prison mostly for leaving the scene of an accident.

From the cyclist's post - "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 don't think he can be charged with "leaving the scene" if he left on a stretcher in an ambulance.


The SFDA George Gascón was talking about it on the radio yesterday he must have been discussing a couple of different cases as-well I was only half listening. Bicyclist hitting pedestrian is a daily occurrence here in SF.
 
2012-04-07 05:52:55 PM

9beers: lohphat: This is false. You can enter on the yellow and legally complete the crossing even if it turn red. I have provided citations confirming my position you have done nothing.

No you haven't all you've proven is that people have to wait for the intersection to clear and that a vehicle still in the intersection has to get out.


You're not paying attention:

...according to Officer Rich Obregon of the California Highway Patrol. According to Obregon, a driver entering an intersection before the light turns red has the legal right to proceed across that intersection no matter how big it is. The green light for drivers approaching from both sides, he says, does not give them the unconditional right to enter the intersection at any time--only when conditions are safe.^
 
2012-04-07 05:56:10 PM

smells_like_meat: [i271.photobucket.com image 638x377]

The intersection in question. My office is a block away. Biker's path of travel in orange. He's coming off a steep hill entering the intersection. Fatality is the yellow star. Red arrows represent potential path's of travel that end up in non-populated landscaped areas. According to mapquest 200 feet from crosswalk to crosswalk.

35 mph is way too fast here under any conditions. This is one of the largest and most complicated intersections in SF. Major transit transfer hub, intersection of 3 different major crosstown streets and dozens of restaurants, banks, gyms, etc. Hundreds of pedestrians at all times of day. However, plenty of places to safely dump a bike and avoid pedestrians.

The biker is justifiability screwed. Manslaughter, etc.

RIP innocent old dude. You didn't deserve to die just because a hipster is in a hurry. Slow down in my neighborhood, jackass.

Its interesting how the painted crosswalk lines form an almost perfect pentagon.


Let's say for the sake of argument he was going 25. You well know that people at that intersection jump the walk signals without looking and with impunity.

This is a great case for an "all red" delay to allow any traffic to clear before signaling pedestrians. (see prior post of the efficacy of "all red" delays).
 
2012-04-07 05:56:15 PM

lohphat: You're not paying attention:


You're not paying attention either. The fact that the vehicle has a right to clear the intersection has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of their actions. I'll tell you what, go out there making a practice of being in an intersection when the light turns red and see how long you go before being ticketed for running the light.
 
2012-04-07 06:00:14 PM
So, beyond his posturing, he was going too fast to stop, which is ticketable in a car, and was trying to beat the light, when he rammed into a old guy, killing him. You fail in so many ways.

1.you were going too fast to stop your bike. Bad idea
2. You don't say it in so many words, but you were trying to beat the light.
3. The intersection doesn't suddenly "poof": become full of pedestrians, esp old people who walk slow.
4. people on bikes do tend to beat lights, weave between cars, ride on the sidewalk, etc.
 
2012-04-07 06:01:28 PM

9beers: The fact that the vehicle has a right to clear the intersection has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of their actions.


Wat?

Now you're just trolling. Or you're retarded. Or just an argumentative asshole who still hasn't provided the citation supporting a point multiple people have called you on.

Buh bye.

/ignored
 
2012-04-07 06:03:16 PM

9beers: lohphat: You're not paying attention:

You're not paying attention either. The fact that the vehicle has a right to clear the intersection has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of their actions. I'll tell you what, go out there making a practice of being in an intersection when the light turns red and see how long you go before being ticketed for running the light.


What does this even mean?
 
2012-04-07 06:05:16 PM
That's one long intersection, I'm inclined to believe that the biker thought he could dart between pedestrians and made an error in judgement. Not very smart to be going balls to the wall down a hill into a major intersection.
 
2012-04-07 06:06:48 PM
I've driven the same route through this intersection, as the bike did, on a daily basis for 10 years. I've never had a close call nor have I ended up stopped at the crosswalk in question by pedestrians crossing legally or jaywalking.

I've never thought about it but this is probably due to the fact that the lights here are timed properly and that only an idiot would enter this intersection at anything other than a safe speed.

I would also hope that technicalities about who had the right of way would be trumped by the fact that a pedestrian is dead. I'm not a cop but I'd imagine that not killing pedestrians, where avoidable, is somewhere in the vehicle code.
 
2012-04-07 06:08:12 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: So, beyond his posturing, he was going too fast to stop, which is ticketable in a car, and was trying to beat the light, when he rammed into a old guy, killing him. You fail in so many ways.

1.you were going too fast to stop your bike. Bad idea
2. You don't say it in so many words, but you were trying to beat the light.
3. The intersection doesn't suddenly "poof": become full of pedestrians, esp old people who walk slow.
4. people on bikes do tend to beat lights, weave between cars, ride on the sidewalk, etc.


I can be at the intersection ion 15 minutes and video people crossing before the signal changes.

I don't disagree with your other points but neither the biker nor the pedestrian at 100% at fault.

I have to dodge bikers blowing through crosswalks all the time. I can't stop them, but I can look both ways and jump out of the to save my own ass if I have to. I'm not defending the biker per se, but there's obviously a lot of ignorance of what the law is and what's practicable.

Yes, bikers ignore the law. Yes, drivers ignore the law. Yes, pedestrians ignore the law.

In SF the culture of entitlement on ALL sides means you have to look out for yourself even if you're in the legal right -- you may be technically right, but you also may pay for it with your life.

One law you can't ignore is: F=ma
 
2012-04-07 06:10:36 PM
I don't know what the laws are like in California, but where I live, the cops make a living on writing tickets for running lights after trying to beat the yellow. Sneaky bastards even shortened the time for the yellow at some intersections.
 
2012-04-07 06:10:49 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: 9beers: lohphat: You're not paying attention:

You're not paying attention either. The fact that the vehicle has a right to clear the intersection has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of their actions. I'll tell you what, go out there making a practice of being in an intersection when the light turns red and see how long you go before being ticketed for running the light.

What does this even mean?


Teabagger logic.
 
2012-04-07 06:12:16 PM

user68: I don't know what the laws are like in California, but where I live, the cops make a living on writing tickets for running lights after trying to beat the yellow. Sneaky bastards even shortened the time for the yellow at some intersections.


They can ticket for speeding or running the red if your front tires are not past the limit line. But they can't ticket you for entering the intersection on a yellow under the speed limit.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report