# Cyclists kills pedestrian running a red light..



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Just read this on Yahoo. Strava had going 35 at impact when he hit the 71yo. Very sad and very bad for all of us that obey the laws of the road. On top of this bad news, this is the second time a elderly pedestrian was killed in recent time by a cyclists.

Cyclist accident makes waves on the Web | The Upshot - Yahoo! News


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

Yeah, we got to follow rules or else it'll be open season on the cyclist.


----------



## saleenboy818 (Aug 29, 2011)

He say's he was "cruising through the intersection" but strava has him at 35mph. Thats not cruising.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

sounds like the cyclist was going over the speed limit for the road hence he was "too committed" to stop safely in time for the yellow light. Only possible defense for that might be if the light is actually malfunctioning or improperly short even for the shorter speed.

I'm not going to lie and say I never speed when doing downhills or with generous tailwinds, but at the same time I'm always ready to treat "stale green lights" like they could turn red any moment, and be prepared to stop in time -- this sometimes means sitting up from pedaling all out and covering the brakes while watching the light.

This case should be prosecuted same as if it were a car driver that was speeding/running a red and involved in a hit and run. (which is actually quite a bit lighter sentencing wise than most of the commenters calling for blood on the news article are demanding)


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

saleenboy818 said:


> He say's he was "cruising through the intersection" but strava has him at 35mph. Thats not cruising.


FWIW, the accuracy of the mobile Strava app in terms of reporting speed leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

PhotonFreak said:


> sounds like the cyclist was going over the speed limit for the road hence he was "too committed" to stop safely in time for the yellow light. Only possible defense for that might be if the light is actually malfunctioning or improperly short even for the shorter speed.
> 
> I'm not going to lie and say I never speed when doing downhills or with generous tailwinds, but at the same time I'm always ready to treat "stale green lights" like they could turn red any moment, and be prepared to stop in time -- this sometimes means sitting up from pedaling all out and covering the brakes while watching the light.
> 
> This case should be prosecuted same as if it were a car driver that was speeding/running a red and involved in a hit and run. (which is actually quite a bit lighter sentencing wise than most of the commenters calling for blood on the news article are demanding)


So it was a hit and run? I didn't see that being mentioned in the article.


----------



## AndreyT (Dec 1, 2011)

ph0enix said:


> So it was a hit and run? I didn't see that being mentioned in the article.


It wasn't a hit and run. According to the articles, the cyclist was lying on the road knocked out for about five minutes (after the head impact on the pavement).


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

High Gear said:


> Just read this on Yahoo. Strava had going 35 at impact when he hit the 71yo. Very sad and very bad for all of us that obey the laws of the road. On top of this bad news, this is the second time a elderly pedestrian was killed in recent time by a cyclists.
> 
> Cyclist accident makes waves on the Web | The Upshot - Yahoo! News


a really freak accident. I wonder what is the total number of fatalities or serious injuries from bike-pedestrian collisions, vs. car-pedestrian, car-car, or car-bike collisions?

pedestrians like to complain about outlaw cyclists running red lights etc., but the real threat is irresponsible, inattentive drivers - for both cyclists, pedestrians and other car drivers. I think we all know of many cases of serious injuries and fatalities arising from car accidents, but the freak nature of bike-pedestrian collision attracts a lot more attention. Unless we post every single incident of cyclist killed by car (there was one incident just last week, a mile from my house) or car passenger killed by car accident on this forum, I do not think it's fair to single out these type of accidents, as if it is something common enough that needs to be addressed at a serious level.


----------



## MojoHamuki (Feb 20, 2009)

It's sad. No one is a winner in this case. Even with legal action no one wins. I feel sorry for both the victim and the cyclists. Very easy to point fingers at people.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

55x11 said:


> a really freak accident. I wonder what is the total number of fatalities or serious injuries from bike-pedestrian collisions, vs. car-pedestrian, car-car, or car-bike collisions?
> 
> pedestrians like to complain about outlaw cyclists running red lights etc., but the real threat is irresponsible, inattentive drivers - for both cyclists, pedestrians and other car drivers. I think we all know of many cases of serious injuries and fatalities arising from car accidents, but the freak nature of bike-pedestrian collision attracts a lot more attention. Unless we post every single incident of cyclist killed by car (there was one incident just last week, a mile from my house) or car passenger killed by car accident on this forum, I do not think it's fair to single out these type of accidents, as if it is something common enough that needs to be addressed at a serious level.


You don't think that this needs to be addressed at a serious level? Seriously?

From the POV of the person that this cyclist hit and ultimately killed, the number of accidents caused by cars is immaterial, isn't it?


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2012)

AndreyT said:


> It wasn't a hit and run. According to the articles, the cyclist was lying on the road knocked out for about five minutes (after the head impact on the pavement).


My bad, it wasn't a hit and run. A lot of the comments to the article state that it was, but this is because they assumed it was hit and run because of the the cyclist statement after the fact:

"I apparently hit a 71 y/o man"

as if that were an admission that he'd left the scene. People are basically reading the article as if it were a guy in a car who hit a pedestrian without noticing and bailed witout checking to see what happened. That would be plausible in the case of a car hit-and-run but not a bike-pedestrian crash. (It would be pretty hard for a guy on a bike to hit a pedestrian without even noticing...)



I re-read the articles again (including the blog this time). Looks like it was a combination of the cyclist probably miss the red (but just barely) and the pedestrians starting to cross the intersection early as well-- likely thinking the coast was clear because they didn't see any cars coming. I still maintain the cylist should have stooped. Had a car done the same thing -- been speeding a bit and barely missed a yellow pedestrians probably wouldn't have gone out into the intersection in the first place as they would have "seen" the car coming. Even if an accident did result, there probably wouldn't be as much outrage over the incident as this. The outrage in most of these posts is largely a smokescreen for people being butthurt about cyclist in general...

I still agree he should get same punishment as a car driver would in this situation -- no more, no less -- for someone who caused a pedestrian death under these circumstances (unless he was drunk) would be a couple tickets for running the red light and speeding, maybe at most a lower-degree manslaughter charge that would get plead down to something like misdimeanor reckless driving with no time served without going to trial.


----------



## ronf100 (Jan 16, 2012)

Here's the SF Bike Coalition's statement on the tragedy: http://www.sfbike.org/main/


----------



## akamp (Jan 14, 2009)

It will be interesting to find out if the light was yellow when the cyclist entered the intersection. If it was perhaps the city is at fault by not allowing enough time before a walk signal changes. The pedestrian must have literally just stepped off of the curb or the cyclist must not have been paying any attention. He should be prosecuted just the same as drivers who hit and kill cyclists, a quick slap on the wrist if that.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2012)

akamp said:


> It will be interesting to find out if the light was yellow when the cyclist entered the intersection. If it was perhaps the city is at fault by not allowing enough time before a walk signal changes. The pedestrian must have literally just stepped off of the curb or the cyclist must not have been paying any attention. He should be prosecuted just the same as drivers who hit and kill cyclists, a quick slap on the wrist if that.


I suspect it was a combination of all these things -- probably a light that was probably timed too short for the conditions, pedestrians stepping out a second too early (as they didn't see any cars coming), and an over-eager cyclist (admittedly speeding but probably not so much but by enough to be considered reckless in and of itself) coming into an intersection fast and possibly just missing the signal. 

If it turns out the cyclist did in fact make the yellow light and was guilty of nothing more than speeding, then it probably is the fault of the city for having improperly timed lights. This might be a cause for the victim's family to sue the city, which might happen one way or another if it turns out the cyclist doesn't have any money to go after.


----------



## BlakeG (Feb 25, 2008)

This is an incredibly busy intersection. I would be surprised if the light was not up to snuff because while SF's gov't leaves a lot to be desired, this is a major intersection in an extremely popular part of town. 

Where he was coming from is a pretty steep hill that bottoms out onto a 6 lane major artery. I wouldn't go through thus intersection at speed ever, unless I had a police escort front and back. 

I hope his cavalier-sounding blog posts and whatnot are saved for the inevitable trial.


----------



## B05 (Jul 31, 2011)

Went out for a ride today and some roadies would just blaze through a Red on a 3-way street. smh. 

RIP to the victim and thanks to the cyclist who's putting us to shame once again.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

There's no excuse for riding too fast for conditions, regardless of whether you are on a bike or in a car. We must anticipate hazards and ride/drive defensively. Vehicular homicide or manslaughter, I don't know how this will come down, but he must pay for carelessly taking this man's life.

On the rider's blog:


> The author dedicates the post to his helmet, which "died in heroic fashion today as my head slammed into the tarmac. ... 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."
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/05/BA9O1NVHMI.DTL#ixzz1rKqqUIGG


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

I live just up the road from the crash site. I timed the lights on my way home from the gym tonight. The cyclist had about two full seconds AFTER his light turned red before the crosswalk pedestrian light illuminated. At 35 mph, he would easily traverse the entire intersection in that amount of time, certainly if the light turned red at the half-way point (as the cyclist described in his blog post). 

The pedestrian that was killed was actually walking behind his wife at the time he was struck -- in an interview she described his tendency to wait a few seconds before stepping off the curb to be more safe. Ironic and incredibly sad.


----------



## Longhair-NL (Mar 31, 2012)

B05 said:


> Went out for a ride today and some roadies would just blaze through a Red on a 3-way street. smh.
> 
> RIP to the victim and thanks to the cyclist who's putting us to shame once again.


It is worse in the Netherlands. People with 2 kids on their bikes while talking on the cell phones not stopping for red lights. The worst is the "bakfiets" because they think they are the only people on the bike path, sidewalk, road, etc.


----------



## DrD (Feb 5, 2000)

sculpin said:


> From the POV of the person that this cyclist hit and ultimately killed, the number of accidents caused by cars is immaterial, isn't it?


True - but I think the point is more of how this is going to be treated as compared to if it were a car-pedestrian accident. Look how fired up folks get when they see a bike run a red, or blow through a stop sign, even though the number of cars doing the same is many orders of magnitude higher... hell, drivers get fired up when you do something you are allowed to do (taking a lane, for example - or sometimes, just riding along in the shoulder).


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

DrD said:


> True - but I think the point is more of how this is going to be treated as compared to if it were a car-pedestrian accident. Look how fired up folks get when they see a bike run a red, or blow through a stop sign, even though the number of cars doing the same is many orders of magnitude higher... hell, drivers get fired up when you do something you are allowed to do (taking a lane, for example - or sometimes, just riding along in the shoulder).


I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't think this can be minimized based on its frequency relative to similar incidents involving cars, which is how I read the post, and what I was responding to. Any preventable incident like this bothers me, and the cavalier attitude of the guy who killed the pedestrian infuriates me...


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

*Also in Wyoming*

A cyclist killed a pedestrian on a paved MUT near Jackson, Wyoming a few years ago. In this case it was the cyclist's fault. He hit the pedestrian from behind. MUTs are dangerous for cyclists, loose dogs, pedestrians, etc.


----------



## kmunny19 (Aug 13, 2008)

I agree of course that this is a very serious occurrence, as is any death. However, I doubt it will wind up being of great importance to the cycling community, pedestrian community, or almost anyone other than the involved parties. 

Along the lines of prior posts, the danger posed by cyclists as a whole, or even per mile traveled, to life, limb, and property is practically nothing at all compared to that of motorists.

It is just sensational when it so happens that a cyclist damages something, or worse yet, someone, other than themselves. The noise from one incident is so much more audible.

Its like a shark attack. For all intents and purposes, it is almost non-existent. When it occurs, a big deal is made. Then, people calm down and go back to legislating ways to protect people in their cars from the deer they hit, and safety standards for farms to protect people from being crushed by their cows. But you don't hear about that stuff that actually has a toll on human lives, its not as interesting. 

But, you never know, sometimes a big change is made from a single incident, but if it is this one, I feel it will be blowing things vastly out of proportion.


----------



## freighttraininguphill (Jun 7, 2011)

I just read about another cyclist hitting and killing a pedestrian in Hawaii a few days after the San Francisco incident. Before these two stories I think I read about one in New York and one in Britain.

What scares me about these highly publicized accidents is the possibility of laws being passed forcing cyclists to carry liability insurance, just like motorists. As many of you know, the bicycle is often the only way that homeless and other low-income people can get around independently other than walking. There's no way those people would be able to afford liability insurance. Just look at the number of uninsured drivers out there. I bet many of them are barely surviving too.

Don't get me wrong. This is a very unfortunate accident and my condolences go to the victim and his family. But this is California, the land of laws regulating laws. I can imagine the anti-cyclist backlash that could come from this.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

Actually this was the second pedestrian fatality in SF in less then one year involving ped vs bicycle. I was directly involved in the response to the first. Confidentially laws prohibit my disclosing much, but I will say in the first incident the pedestrian was an innocent victim and from the moment of impact never had a chance. The bicyclist was completely at fault and a security camera at a nearby restaurant provided visual confirmation of that. 

In this incident the intersection involved is quite large. The hill dropping down to it is significant enough to allow any cyclist with some skills to develop a high rate of speed. I have no trouble believing a skilled in shape rider hit that intersection at 35mph. The rider in this incident has even blogged now, not real smart, that the light went red just as he arrived at the intersection. He went on to say he was committed to the intersection at that point and that he was surprised at how fast the crosswalk filled with pedestrians. He then stated he could not find a line to go through so he laid his bike down. He finished by "thanking" his helmet for sacrificing it's life to save his. 

I love riding, and have been on bikes in some manner almost all my life. But, especially in a highly congested city like SF, rules have to be followed. I'm not perfect and I roll the lights at times. But blowing through major intersections at high rates of speed is a recipe for disaster. In the end it makes us all look bad. I can also tell you certain agencies are "stepping up" enforcement on bicyclists...just as a heads up Bay Area folk.


----------



## freighttraininguphill (Jun 7, 2011)

Paralizer said:


> I love riding, and have been on bikes in some manner almost all my life. But, especially in a highly congested city like SF, rules have to be followed. I'm not perfect and I roll the lights at times. But blowing through major intersections at high rates of speed is a recipe for disaster. In the end it makes us all look bad. I can also tell you certain agencies are "stepping up" enforcement on bicyclists...just as a heads up Bay Area folk.


+1! SF is one of those cities where I exercise extreme caution while riding. Most descents have a stop sign or a red light, and I stop at all those. Even if the light is green, I slow somewhat and remain hypervigilant of my surroundings.

I think it's a bad idea to speed in any downtown area whether in a motor vehicle or on a bicycle.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

akamp said:


> It will be interesting to find out if the light was yellow when the cyclist entered the intersection. If it was perhaps the city is at fault by not allowing enough time before a walk signal changes. The pedestrian must have literally just stepped off of the curb or the cyclist must not have been paying any attention. He should be prosecuted just the same as drivers who hit and kill cyclists, a quick slap on the wrist if that.


this case has one thing in common with the ones where a driver hits a bicycle. The people using the same means of transportation seems to come up with all kind of possible excuses to explain the actions.


----------



## Andy69 (Jun 14, 2008)

I guess the advice my mother gave me to always look both ways before crossing the street was good advice.

IMHO people are too trusting that others will obey the traffic laws. I see people step out into places where cars are all the time without looking. Not sure why anyone would do that. There are too many people texting, yakking, etc in their cars to trust that they will see me.


----------



## desertgeezer (Aug 28, 2011)

Weird things like this happen. Just the other day I was doing my regular ride when I saw an old guy walk out to meet the mail truck on the other side of the road. He had forgotten to mail a letter and was handing it to the mailman. He was quite a bit ahead of me so I figured he would be gone by the time I got there. But, he decided to chit chat with the mailman and then at the last minute he turned around and started back across the road. I yelled at him to look out because I was going fast on this slight down hill. Instead of either staying put, or making a run for it, he decided to dance to the left and then dance to the right in total confusion. This confused the heck out of me as I had no idea what he was going to do next. I ended up having to jump on the breaks to prevent running into him.

He did pay me a nice compliment, though. He said he didn't hear the bike coming.


----------



## iheartbenben (Mar 18, 2011)

desertgeezer said:


> *He said he didn't hear the bike coming.*


Food for thought.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

desertgeezer said:


> Weird things like this happen. Just the other day I was doing my regular ride when I saw an old guy walk out to meet the mail truck on the other side of the road. He had forgotten to mail a letter and was handing it to the mailman. He was quite a bit ahead of me so I figured he would be gone by the time I got there. But, he decided to chit chat with the mailman and then at the last minute he turned around and started back across the road. I yelled at him to look out because I was going fast on this slight down hill. Instead of either staying put, or making a run for it, he decided to dance to the left and then dance to the right in total confusion. This confused the heck out of me as I had no idea what he was going to do next. I ended up having to jump on the breaks to prevent running into him.
> 
> He did pay me a nice compliment, though. He said he didn't hear the bike coming.


Maybe going fast with a pedestrian in the road in front of you isn't a good idea. I would slow down until I'm past him, then speed up again.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

den bakker said:


> this case has one thing in common with the ones where a driver hits a bicycle. The people using the same means of transportation seems to come up with all kind of possible excuses to explain the actions.


And this bothers me more than when the folk in the automobile blame the cyclist.

The pedestrian always has the right of way and no matter how anyone wants to suger coat it the cyclist who ran this person over needs to be prosecuted.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

He blew threw multiple stop signs/lights...hopefully he sees felony manslaughter charges.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

desertgeezer said:


> Weird things like this happen. Just the other day I was doing my regular ride when I saw an old guy walk out to meet the mail truck on the other side of the road. He had forgotten to mail a letter and was handing it to the mailman. He was quite a bit ahead of me so I figured he would be gone by the time I got there. But, he decided to chit chat with the mailman and then at the last minute he turned around and started back across the road. I yelled at him to look out because I was going fast on this slight down hill. Instead of either staying put, or making a run for it, he decided to dance to the left and then dance to the right in total confusion. This confused the heck out of me as I had no idea what he was going to do next. I ended up having to jump on the breaks to prevent running into him.
> 
> He did pay me a nice compliment, though. He said he didn't hear the bike coming.


I don't know the specifics, but why weren't you on the brakes as a precaution as soon as you saw him on the street? I don't think it's such a big deal that you had to slow down because of his actions, what do you expect, and what are your brakes for?


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

Starting to see some fallout from this incident. 
Bike riding needs rules


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

Paralizer said:


> Starting to see some fallout from this incident.
> Bike riding needs rules


"Riders who weave through traffic and shoot through stop signs and lights may be saving time, but they're adding to everyone's risk." 

I get the running a traffic control device but weaving thru traffic? Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't CA law allow for motorcyclists to weave thru traffic during heavy congestion? Seems like any and every time I've been on the 8, or 5, and especially the 405, I've had motorcyclist ride between cars/lanes.


----------



## BlakeG (Feb 25, 2008)

The CVC allows for lane sharing, but honestly I don't know how that applies to vertical movement (lane to lane). It seems that would be a lot more dangerous -- for everyone involved, and kind of foolish. It is not something that I would feel comfortable doing, but I don't like riding my bike in the city anyway -- crappy roads, homeless, tourists in rental cars, Muni, etc. 

SF has one particularly bad section of town where laws are essentially ignored by cyclists (talking about the Wiggle) and there has been some talk about actively patrolling those corners. I have had on multiple times had to dance out of the way of bikes, and I feel that I am a more-aware-than-some pedestrian, who rides as regularly as I can. 

I would guess that this will cause the patrols to be fast tracked. I am shocked that no one has been hit/hurt badly at these locations.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

In SF one area enforcement is being stepped up is Market St in the downtown area. There have been specific enforcement efforts towards bicyclists who run red lights in this area. Another area that has been targeted is the intersection of 5th/Brannan. This is an intersection with a stop sign on a major bicycle route that is also 1 block from the Caltrain station that many cyclists also use to commute on. In light of recent events expect more.


----------



## RagbraiNewB (May 21, 2008)

make an example of this *******, i say. That post about the helmet shows that he's insane.


----------



## vautrain (Mar 1, 2012)

Many people like to point out that the danger cyclists pose to pedestrians is almost nonexistent, statistically, but as the popularity of cycling grows, and the number of cycling trips and total miles ridden per year grow, the validity of that argument will become more and more questionable. It's not simply a coincidence that the topic of this thread is the second bike on pedestrian fatality this year in San Francisco.

Pedestrians always have the right of way, but at the same time, all factors that contribute, positively or negatively, to bike-pedestrian safety should be examines as cycling continues to grow. Timing of lights is one such factor.

I commute in Chicago, and my commute until very recently took me through the financial district, on Van Buren, during the afternoon rush hour. Though I was extra careful cycling through that stretch, I had many close calls with pedestrians who crossed in the middle of the block, or crossed against a red light because motorized vehicular traffic was jammed (in other words, I had the right of way, but they crossed anyway, because cars were jammed and they assumed it was safe), or who would dart out from behind parked trucks. It was not fun.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

vautrain said:


> Many people like to point out that the danger cyclists pose to pedestrians is almost nonexistent, statistically, but as the popularity of cycling grows, and the number of cycling trips and total miles ridden per year grow, the validity of that argument will become more and more questionable. It's not simply a coincidence that the topic of this thread is the second bike on pedestrian fatality this year in San Francisco.
> 
> Pedestrians always have the right of way, but at the same time, all factors that contribute, positively or negatively, to bike-pedestrian safety should be examines as cycling continues to grow. Timing of lights is one such factor.
> 
> I commute in Chicago, and my commute until very recently took me through the financial district, on Van Buren, during the afternoon rush hour. Though I was extra careful cycling through that stretch, I had many close calls with pedestrians who crossed in the middle of the block, or crossed against a red light because motorized vehicular traffic was jammed (in other words, I had the right of way, but they crossed anyway, because cars were jammed and they assumed it was safe), or who would dart out from behind parked trucks. It was not fun.


I know that area on Van Buren very well, and that stretch (as well as Wells between the River and Van Buren) has to be filled with the highest density of clueless pedestrians, and aggressive car drivers. The construction on Congress is the driver for most of that, so I hope it will subside in a year or two...


----------



## vautrain (Mar 1, 2012)

sculpin said:


> I know that area on Van Buren very well, and that stretch (as well as Wells between the River and Van Buren) has to be filled with the highest density of clueless pedestrians, and aggressive car drivers. The construction on Congress is the driver for most of that, so I hope it will subside in a year or two...


Oh yes, plenty of clueless drivers there, as well. Red apparently means go, when you're turning right from Wells onto Van Buren. A week or two ago, I was passing jammed cars, when an SUV driver decided to pass as well, and swerved into my lane (without signaling, of course), nearly swerving into me. His window was open, and I told him to watch it. He told me to watch it, and said that I was in the wrong lane.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

vautrain said:


> Pedestrians always have the right of way...


I have been reading this statement frequently, lately, even in a publication of the SFBC (San Francisco Bicycle Coalition). 

Really. Pedestrians _always _have the right of way? Jaywalking? Stepping off a curb on a red light?


----------



## vautrain (Mar 1, 2012)

jpatkinson said:


> I have been reading this statement frequently, lately, even in a publication of the SFBC (San Francisco Bicycle Coalition).
> 
> Really. Pedestrians _always _have the right of way? Jaywalking? Stepping off a curb on a red light?


That's what the law says. I believe it means that operators of motor and other vehicles in the roadway are legally obligated to yield the right of way to pedestrians, not that any accident involving a vehicle and a pedestrian is automatically the fault of the person operating the vehicle. But I'm not an attorney.


----------



## rkdvsm (Jul 15, 2006)

velodog said:


> And this bothers me more than when the folk in the automobile blame the cyclist.
> 
> The pedestrian always has the right of way and no matter how anyone wants to suger coat it the cyclist who ran this person over needs to be prosecuted.


+1. Perhaps using the word 'always' might have been too extreme. I follow a simple rule. Just worry about myself. We should all follow the rules and I know pedestrians jaywalk and commit all sorts of other violations. However, as cyclists we should just worry about our own actions on the road. It's nice to correct a pedestrian not using the crosswalk or a driver committing a left hook, but I realize that it's not worth the time because most of these people are not ready to listen. And in other situations, they are ready to confront you. Can you imagine a driver or a pedestrian correcting us every time we run through a red light, ride 3 or 4 abreast, go way too fast around people, do not have a bell, or a light/reflector? All these things are required by law and are there for safe riding. As cyclist we have a lot to fix ourselves before we start to correct others' behaviors.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

Horrible accident!


----------



## EWT (Jul 3, 2011)

I hit two pedestrians a number of years ago while driving a car. They ran out in front of my car on a busy 4 lane road (not at an intersection) on their way back to their dorm. For some reason they looked the "other" way, but never looked toward me. I had no chance to avoid hitting them. One was knocked to the side of the car and the other flew up into the air and hit the windshield. Fortunately although one left in an ambulance, both ended up being ok. 

I was pretty shaken up and I assumed the car was always in the wrong in a car/pedestrian collision, but that didn't turn out to be the case. Witnesses saw the accident, the police report put the blame on the pedestrians and their parents' homeowner's insurance policy ended up paying to fix the damage to my car.


----------



## Pieter (Oct 17, 2005)

This cyclist makes for disturbing reading. Maybe he is still dazed from the crash.

Myself, I once hit an elderly man who was out jogging. I came up from behind in a quiet street, he was on the curb. 
Maybe I should have announced my presence and I certainly could have kept more towards center of the roadway. 
But the fact is, he stepped out sideways into the road and for no reason. In an instant and without warning, a few feet in front of me. 

He struck the road arms and head first and I took a good tumble myself - those were the days before helmets. Incredibly, he was uninjured and we were both able to conitinue after a minute or two of introspection.

But the memory of the sound of that person slamming onto the roadway has stayed with me ever since and prompted some moderation when in the vicinity of pedestrians...


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

More fallout.
Cyclist enforcement pledged in S.F. safety program


----------



## rkdvsm (Jul 15, 2006)

Paralizer said:


> More fallout.
> Cyclist enforcement pledged in S.F. safety program


The fallout might not sound like a good thing to many, especially those who do ride safely, but I think this will be beneficial to the cycling community. We need enforcement of the rules here.

If a driver kills a pedestrian or a cyclist whether it was intentional or a freak accident, they should be jailed and have their license suspended at the very least. The same standards should be placed on cyclists who do the same? I mention this because of a report I read on this site mentioning a cyclist who struck and killed a woman. He didn't even get a jail sentence. I think he got community service or something like that. That should cause outrage among us - we are human beings first, being a cyclist comes a distant second.


----------



## BlakeG (Feb 25, 2008)

More evidence....

Security camera footage

A quote from someone who has seen the tape:

*"The biker is going fast and looks like he is hunched down. He hits the victim dead-on. There is never a moment where he looks like he is trying to slow down,"*

The only thing is that it doesn't show the light -- but there are various things that do not match up with his (the cyclist's) statements -- crosswalk was not busy, etc.

This is causing enough anger (at the higher levels, not the normal, car-driver anger) that it may cause a serious enforcement level step up.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't think this guy is going to just get by with community service.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/11/BA8B1O1H44.DTL&tsp=1


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

As a cyclist and driver I can't tell the number of times I've almost turned a city biker into a hood ornament because they just blew thru stop signs/lights. This guy deserves everything thrown at him.

And more info today...


> Video surveillance footage taken when a bicyclist ran into a 71-year-old pedestrian crossing San Francisco's Castro Street, killing the man, is raising questions about the biker's account of the crash.
> 
> The video shows Sutchi Hui of San Bruno and his wife stepping into the intersection at Castro and Market streets just as Chris Bucchere rides in from the north side, said a law enforcement source who has viewed the footage.
> 
> ...


----------



## charlox5 (Jan 31, 2011)

PhotonFreak said:


> I suspect it was a combination of all these things -- probably a light that was probably timed too short for the conditions, pedestrians stepping out a second too early (as they didn't see any cars coming), and an over-eager cyclist (admittedly speeding but probably not so much but by enough to be considered reckless in and of itself) coming into an intersection fast and possibly just missing the signal.
> 
> If it turns out the cyclist did in fact make the yellow light and was guilty of nothing more than speeding, then it probably is the fault of the city for having improperly timed lights. This might be a cause for the victim's family to sue the city, which might happen one way or another if it turns out the cyclist doesn't have any money to go after.


the yellow lights in SF are pretty short. it helps $FPD write more tickets.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

charlox5 said:


> the yellow lights in SF are pretty short. it helps $FPD write more tickets.


Actually that is not correct. Just like all lights in the State of Californa the yellow lights are timed in a specific manner. If you take the first digit in the speed limit in any area then add 1, that is how many seconds the yellow is set for...ie 35mph limit equals 4 second red. I work with SFPD everyday at work and I'll tell you the average beat cop is not real interested in traffic traffic enforcement. With the exception of the officers in the "Traffic Company," motor officers, you have to go out of your way to get a traffic citation.


----------



## tystevens (Jul 10, 2008)

Sucks when your version of the story ("I did everything I could ...") isn't quite reflected on the video ... sounds like the cyclist is (deservedly) in trouble here.


----------



## charlox5 (Jan 31, 2011)

Paralizer said:


> Actually that is not correct. Just like all lights in the State of Californa the yellow lights are timed in a specific manner. If you take the first digit in the speed limit in any area then add 1, that is how many seconds the yellow is set for...ie 35mph limit equals 4 second red. I work with SFPD everyday at work and I'll tell you the average beat cop is not real interested in traffic traffic enforcement. With the exception of the officers in the "Traffic Company," motor officers, you have to go out of your way to get a traffic citation.


that methodology seems pretty unscientific when AASHTO and ITE have much more complex formulas for timing yellows. Also, i doubt SF has 4 second yellows but I can't confirm that. i could be wrong.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Length of yellow doesn't matter when you are traveling so fast you can't stop when people are walking across the street in front of you. Unless the street is blocked off for a race, you must anticipate that cars will pull out of alleys unexpectedly, lights will change and pedestrians will cross streets. Other people's lives depend on our attitudes and decisions.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

charlox5 said:


> that methodology seems pretty unscientific when AASHTO and ITE have much more complex formulas for timing yellows. Also, i doubt SF has 4 second yellows but I can't confirm that. i could be wrong.


Not trying to divert the thread or get into a big discussion...my bad the formula I liaised is one we give people to use as a close reference point. It does not get down to the tenth of a second. SF has few extended yellows because the highest percentage of streets have a 25mph limit. But if you want exact numbers and this regulated by DMV...

http://www.ci.hayward.ca.us/departments/police/RLCE/pdf/MUTCD_yellow_time_specs.pdf


----------



## cropduster (May 10, 2011)

does anyone know if he was riding a fixie?


----------



## charlox5 (Jan 31, 2011)

cropduster said:


> does anyone know if he was riding a fixie?


i don't think so. sounds like he was on a road bike.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

akamp said:


> He should be prosecuted just the same as drivers who hit and kill cyclists, a quick slap on the wrist if that.


Pretty much this.


----------



## BDB (Jul 8, 2002)

cropduster said:


> does anyone know if he was riding a fixie?


No he wasn't.


----------



## BlakeG (Feb 25, 2008)

> *akamp *said: He should be prosecuted just the same as drivers who hit and kill cyclists, a quick slap on the wrist if that.





> *Dr. Roebuck* said... Pretty much this.


Wow, pretty callous. The pedestrian was hit in the crosswalk. 

Two wrongs don't make a right -- if you aren't happy that some people who hit a cyclist while driving don't get charged, then do something to change it -- lobby, complain to your local elected board. Please don't act so cavalier about an innocent pedestrian LOSING THEIR LIFE because of the asshattery of another person -- in this case who happened to be riding a bike like a jackass.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

DrRoebuck said:


> Pretty much this.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

BlakeG said:


> Wow, pretty callous. The pedestrian was hit in the crosswalk.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right -- if you aren't happy that some people who hit a cyclist while driving don't get charged, then do something to change it -- lobby, complain to your local elected board. Please don't act so cavalier about an innocent pedestrian LOSING THEIR LIFE because of the asshattery of another person -- in this case who happened to be riding a bike like a jackass.



Actually alot of us have complained and so far little has been done. 

While I firmly believe that if it can be proved Chris acted in a negligent manner he needs to be punished, what your seeing from the above comment is likely a reaction to the "hang him high" attitude that alot people are chiming in with while at the same time cars hit and kill/injured peds and cyclists with more frequency and there is less public clamor for punishment and often the punishments are light. Sorry I I don't think Chis needs to be made and example of unless we are going apply the same standard all "accidents".

Right now tho I think all of us know alot less than we think we do about exactly what happened.

Cycling Musings: The Bucchere Report


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

32and3cross said:


> Actually alot of us have complained and so far little has been done.
> 
> While I firmly believe that if it can be proved Chris acted in a negligent manner he needs to be punished, what your seeing from the above comment is likely a reaction to the "hang him high" attitude that alot people are chiming in with while at the same time cars hit and kill/injured peds and cyclists with more frequency and there is less public clamor for punishment and often the punishments are light. Sorry I I don't think Chis needs to be made and example of unless we are going apply the same standard all "accidents".
> 
> ...


Why should we descend to to the lowest common denominator? He killed a human being, and should be punished accordingly. He doesn't need to be made an example of. He just needs to be held accountable for his crime, no more and no less.

If people who commit similar crimes while driving cars are given a pass, we have to vote people into office who don't allow them to get off lightly, stage demonstrations more meaningful than a monthly CM, and keep on top of the issue. 

We shouldn't delegitimize what happened to the poor guy who was merely crossing the street with the green light and got killed.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

sculpin said:


> Why should we descend to to the lowest common denominator? He killed a human being, and should be punished accordingly. He doesn't need to be made an example of. He just needs to be held accountable for his crime, no more and no less.


All your doing is making my point for me. 

I never said I thought he should get off light. What I said is that the comment about giving him a slap on the wrist was a reaction to to the calls for a harsh punishment for him when so many drivers are let off with a slap on the wrist.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

32and3cross said:


> All your doing is making my point for me.
> 
> I never said I thought he should get off light. What I said is that the comment about giving him a slap on the wrist was a reaction to to the calls for a harsh punishment for him when so many drivers are let off with a slap on the wrist.


My apologies, but I guess I am confused. 

You started the paragraph by saying that if he was negligent he should be punished, but you finished the paragraph by saying, "Sorry I I don't think Chis needs to be made and example of unless we are going apply the same standard all "accidents".", after describing how many car drivers are let off with a slap on the wrist for similar crimes, (which would be considered to be getting off light).

Either he gets punished, or he doesn't get made an example of (which would be getting off light), based on what a car driver would receive for a similar offense.


----------



## akamp (Jan 14, 2009)

BlakeG said:


> Wow, pretty callous. The pedestrian was hit in the crosswalk.
> 
> Two wrongs don't make a right -- if you aren't happy that some people who hit a cyclist while driving don't get charged, then do something to change it -- lobby, complain to your local elected board. Please don't act so cavalier about an innocent pedestrian LOSING THEIR LIFE because of the asshattery of another person -- in this case who happened to be riding a bike like a jackass.


Cyclists are killed everyday by people breaking the law. You do realize that it is the law that vehicles drive a given distance away from a cyclist, in Arizona this is three feet. Why is there no public hangings for people who hit cyclists, either by accident or by sheer stupidity. During the Tour de Tucson a couple of years ago some old fart hit 10 cyclists leaving one in a coma with severe head injuries. The only thing he was ticketed for was leaving the scene of an accident. Sounds like a slap on the wrist to me.


When I was in college my roommate was killed while cycling by a girl who hit him from behind driving 50 mph in a 30. She said she couldn't see because the sun was in her eyes. Did I mention that when she hit him he was 6 feet to the right of the white line. She was never even ticketed for speeding.

Also apparently even law enforcement officers could care less about causing any harm to cyclists here in Tucson. During a weekly ride down here a sheriffs deputy was driving towards a large group of cyclist head on. He cut across the opposite lane of traffic and came to a stop only yards in front of the group that was going probably 26,27mph. This caused a fairly large pileup of bikes and riders. Even though this happened a couple of years ago it is still under "internal review" 


While I find it terrible that a man lost his life by some idiot on a bike they don't need to make an example out of the cyclist until they decide to prosecute everyone else who causes harm to either cyclists or pedestrians.

But that wouldn't be good for the news industry because no one cares when a cyclist is hurt other than the few in the cycling community.

Although you may think I am a jerk, I could also care less if the cyclist hit the side of a truck, assuming the truck was legal and the cyclist did run the red light which it does sound like he did.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

akamp said:


> While I find it terrible that a man lost his life by some idiot on a bike they don't need to make an example out of the cyclist until they decide to prosecute everyone else who causes harm to either cyclists or pedestrians.


Exactly.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

"While I find it terrible that a man lost his life by some idiot on a bike they don't need to make an example out of the cyclist until they decide to prosecute everyone else who causes harm to either cyclists or pedestrians."

Why the need to 'make an example' out of him? Why not just prosecute him for breaking the law, presuming he did, and put pressure on elected officials to prosecute drivers when they do the same? 

Or do you think a different punishment would be more appropriate?


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

sculpin said:


> "While I find it terrible that a man lost his life by some idiot on a bike they don't need to make an example out of the cyclist until they decide to prosecute everyone else who causes harm to either cyclists or pedestrians."
> 
> Why the need to 'make an example' out of him? Why not just prosecute him for breaking the law, presuming he did, and put pressure on elected officials to prosecute drivers when they do the same?
> 
> Or do you think a different punishment would be more appropriate?


I see it as more of a statement about car drivers getting away with murder, seemingly on a daily basis.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

DrRoebuck said:


> I see it as more of a statement about car drivers getting away with murder, seemingly on a daily basis.


Car drivers do seem to get away with murder on a daily basis, and that infuriates me, but I don't think letting this guy get away without harsh punishment (if he is guilty) is a reasonable counter for all the cyclists that have died at the hands of motorists.


----------



## BlakeG (Feb 25, 2008)

How many cyclists are killed by pedestrians? Don't you think that's a better argument than bringing in cars, which if I'm not mistaken had nothing to do with this situation? Why bother bringing in cars. I had goldfish when i was a kid. The last ped that was killed by a cyclist in sf -the guy did no time, just probation, etc. he was found 100% at fault. 

I don't know this guy, but I do know the mentality of a lot of cyclists in SF. You can read articles about the wiggle where 20 riders in a row will blow through a stop sign - not a group ride just general elitist asshats that make it more difficult for everyone who tries to do the right thing.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

Okay I think I'm in a unique position. I'm a cyclist who rides in SF a lot, I work for one of the largest public safety agencies in SF, as I mentioned I was directly involved in the first ped/bike fatality, and I deal with bicyclists hit by cars on a regular basis at work. Very simply the attitude of many bicyclists in SF SUCKS!!!! The sense of entitlement and superiority is ridiculous. And the manner in which more then a few cyclists ride in SF has just furthered the antagonism between cyclists and cars/peds. On the other hand more then a few drivers are to aggressive, distracted, and flat out HATE bicyclists. It's become a repeating cycle of yelling, screaming, and giving people the finger, on both sides. I'm not sure how best to achieve it, but there needs to be better dialogue on both sides. 

I will say this...there is stepped up enforcement of bicycle roadway infractions in SF. Conversely you also see a much stronger enforcement of violations related to bicycle lanes and other violations against cyclists. And to those that think just because there has been lax prosecution of drivers who have injured/killed cyclists this rider shouldn't be prosecuted why don't you come look the victim, or the family member of one of these victims, in the eye and explain that reasoning. It's very easy to sit here and armchair quarterback this stuff, it's much harder to deal with it on a more direct basis.


----------



## vitalyg (Feb 27, 2010)

*Perspective*

Just wanted to chime in and put things in perspective. All of you who say that Chris should be punished to the highest degree are extremely selfish human beings, extremely. This isn't about you. You were not the ones killed in the crosswalk. You only care about the result you want to happen, with no regard for what should happen. This was about Mr. Hui, and now, what needs to happen is what's best for his family. Putting Chris in jail certainly won't bring back Mr. Hui. Putting Chris in jail also won't make it any easier to sue him in civil court until he comes out, and by then, who knows what the family will be able to collect from him.

We do not live in an eye-for-an-eye society. In our society, we compensate with dollars. Everything has a price (disturbing, isn't it?). Chris Bucchere will be punished in civil court, I doubt there is any way to get around that. Putting him in jail does NOTHING for Mr. Hui's family. It does nothing for our society. Certain people should be locked up, Chris isn't one of them. 

Not to mention, that if he entered that intersection on yellow, he's not guilty of anything because he had the right of way. 

For the record, I'm the guy who wrote the Bucchere Report linked in some comments above.


----------



## SolitaryRider (Oct 20, 2011)

It's crazy the way many cyclists ride in some of these cities. When I left NYC 10 years ago, it was already out of hand. At one time, it was mainly the bike messengers who were the menaces- but now-a-days, it's many cyclists.

The attitude some of these cyclists have is very selfish. Not only are they a hazard to pedestrians, but to cars, also- as many of them have never even driven a car, so they don't know what a driver has to deal with...and their just-plain rudeness and road-hogging, often causes accidents or gets them hit..and then the poor driver gets blamed.

Seems like there are more cyclists in these big cities now than ever...and a large percentage of them seem to be very selfish; reckless; uncaring and just plain crazy.

Then they wonder why a lot of people in these places hate cyclists.


----------



## SolitaryRider (Oct 20, 2011)

vitalyg said:


> Just wanted to chime in and put things in perspective. All of you who say that Chris should be punished to the highest degree are extremely selfish human beings, extremely. This isn't about you. You were not the ones killed in the crosswalk. You only care about the result you want to happen, with no regard for what should happen. This was about Mr. Hui, and now, what needs to happen is what's best for his family. Putting Chris in jail certainly won't bring back Mr. Hui. Putting Chris in jail also won't make it any easier to sue him in civil court until he comes out, and by then, who knows what the family will be able to collect from him.
> 
> We do not live in an eye-for-an-eye society. In our society, we compensate with dollars. Everything has a price (disturbing, isn't it?). Chris Bucchere will be punished in civil court, I doubt there is any way to get around that. Putting him in jail does NOTHING for Mr. Hui's family. It does nothing for our society. Certain people should be locked up, Chris isn't one of them.
> 
> ...


Nonsense! Even if he is sued in civil court, since we do not have debtor's prisons any longer, there is no guarantee that anyone will ever collect- especially if he doesn't have anything.

To people who don't have sufficient respect for the lives and safety of those around them, often jail is the only thing that puts a little fear into them, to keep them from continually perpetrating such acts.

It is the only thing that deters others from doing the same.

Case in point: I once sold a truck to a guy who was a real nutjob. When it came to driving, though, he stayed within the proper bounds, ONLY because he knew (and he admitted this to me) that if he disobeyed the laws and/or demonstrated recklessness, that he would end up with huge legal bills/jail time and lose his license/vehicle. Without such a threat to deter him, this guy, who would engage in many antisocial activities, because ,said he "They know I'm crazy, so they won't do anything" behaved himself behind the wheel, because he knew that his insanity would not get him off the hook when it comes to vehicular misdeeds and crimes.

I'm not an advocate of jails- I believe in restitution for property crimes, and capital punishment for the taking of other's lives- and nothing for victimless "manufactured" crimes- but under the current scheme, jail is the best option right now for those who do serious harm to others because they do not obey the law nor common decency nor show proper regard for the rights and safety of others. This guy made a conscious choice- took a gamble at someone else's expense- merely for his own convenince. It is not much different than choosing to assault someone.


----------



## vitalyg (Feb 27, 2010)

I think a civil suit, with a judgment and collection in the form of garnished wages, property liens, frozen bank accounts, etc., is also a pretty damn strong deterrent. 

Oh, and as I mentioned above, there is a chance he broke no law. But I think you've already convicted him. I don't know how familiar you are with prisons and our criminal justice system, but many people come out of prison way worse than when they went in. In certain circumstances, the benefit of having those people locked up outweighs the risk of them becoming more serious offenders upon release. This is certainly not one of those cases.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

vitalyg said:


> Just wanted to chime in and put things in perspective. All of you who say that Chris should be punished to the highest degree are extremely selfish human beings, extremely. This isn't about you. You were not the ones killed in the crosswalk. You only care about the result you want to happen, with no regard for what should happen. This was about Mr. Hui, and now, what needs to happen is what's best for his family. Putting Chris in jail certainly won't bring back Mr. Hui. Putting Chris in jail also won't make it any easier to sue him in civil court until he comes out, and by then, who knows what the family will be able to collect from him.
> 
> We do not live in an eye-for-an-eye society. In our society, we compensate with dollars. Everything has a price (disturbing, isn't it?). Chris Bucchere will be punished in civil court, I doubt there is any way to get around that. Putting him in jail does NOTHING for Mr. Hui's family. It does nothing for our society. Certain people should be locked up, Chris isn't one of them.
> 
> ...


Selfish? Because I think that someone who breaks the law should be held accountable for breaking it? No one is asking for his head. We are asking that he be held accountable. 

I didn't read the report you wrote, but I presume that Chris is a friend of yours, based on your reasoning. In our society, one doesn't have to be the victim of a crime to want and expect the perpetrator of a crime to be to be punished for having committed it. It is part of the social contract, and without it, things fall apart for society as a whole. 

I'm only going by what you wrote here re. eye-for-an-eye - Is it your argument that since punishing someone who kills another person won't bring that person back to life, the killer shouldn't be punished criminally? That the punishment should be tweaked for what's best for the victim's family on a case by case basis? In that case, if you kill a poor person, the remedy should be no jail time, just a few bucks and a new car for the spouse, but if it is a wealthy person, the killer goes to jail since the victim doesn't need the money (or it wouldn't be best for them)? That's nonsense.

Further, in our society do we compensate with dollars? Sometimes the victim gets compensated with dollars after the criminal matters have been handled, but not in place of criminal proceedings. In some 3rd world countries they compensate with dollars as a matter of course, but we haven't gotten to that point yet in the states. 

Finally, even if he entered the intersection at 35 mph through a yellow was he ultimately in control of his bicycle? I don't know the intersection, but I am unaware of any intersections in any populated cities anywhere, where that claim could be made.

I have posted in this thread often, but I am getting increasingly frustrated by this apologist attitude. One guy apparently riding too fast for conditions on his bicycle ran into and killed another guy who was simply trying to cross the street, in a crosswalk and with the light.


----------



## vitalyg (Feb 27, 2010)

Making presumptions and assumptions and running with them hasn't done a whole lot of good for this controversy and our cycling community in general, I'd discourage that.

I don't disagree with you. In fact, I'm a firm believer that those who do wrong, should be held accountable for their actions. However, where we disagree is that I'm against an across the board application of the same punishment. But this is nothing new. In fact, that's how our justice system operates. All the factors I've listed above that you dismiss are what the DA, the judge and the defense attorneys discuss when negotiating a plea, or at sentencing. 

That's the reason that Ang got the sentence he got - probation and community service - for pretty much the same offense as here, except in that case it was clear cut that the cyclist broke the law. In this case, that's not clear. It's clear that he was not using his best judgment in operating his bicycle, but we have to wait for the investigation to conclude to determine if he did in fact break the law. If he entered on yellow, then he had the right of way and the pedestrian could have been the one at fault. I don't want to jump to any conclusions, however. I just want everyone to calm down and wait until more facts come to light, whatever those might be. Also keep in mind that even if he's not criminally liable, he could still face civil liability (and most likely will). 

I'm not trying to apologize for anyone's actions. I'm merely trying to present a middle of the road, objective look at the situation. But what I've found is that this issue is so polarizing that people adopt an "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude. I'm not against anyone, but I disagree with most people's reactions to this.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

the fact that the person who hit the ped is a cyclist is irrelevant.

there's laws on the books that should make this fairly easy to resolve in court. if the guy committed vehicular manslaughter or homicide in the same manner as a motorist, then he should receive a similar sentence...jail, probation, restitution...whatever.

however, there needs to be some severe penalty for posting his collection of idiotic blog comments. what a major league jackass.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

vitalyg said:


> Making presumptions and assumptions and running with them hasn't done a whole lot of good for this controversy and our cycling community in general, I'd discourage that.
> 
> I don't disagree with you. In fact, I'm a firm believer that those who do wrong, should be held accountable for their actions. However, where we disagree is that I'm against an across the board application of the same punishment. But this is nothing new. In fact, that's how our justice system operates. All the factors I've listed above that you dismiss are what the DA, the judge and the defense attorneys discuss when negotiating a plea, or at sentencing.
> 
> ...


Please point out where I have made presumptions. I tried to read what you wrote and draw conclusions, rather than create straw men, but if I have erred please correct me. 

Depending on what you mean by across the board application of punishment, in general I agree with that. Extenuating circumstances should come into play, (was the person deranged, were they mentally unstable, etc.) but otherwise, how can anyone get a fair trial and sentence if not for the presumed level playing field? He should be held accountable for killing this person, (just as someone who hit him with a car, a kayak, or an ultralight glider should be) and throwing a few bucks at the man's widow isn't sufficient. You said specifically that "in our society we compensate with dollars" which is a bad and elitist approach to the dispensation of punishment. It allows those with money to abuse those without more readily than a standardized penalty for breaking the law, which would dictate a given punishment for a crime without regard for the ability of the criminal to pay off the victim for walking away.

Please explain to me how he wasn't breaking the law if he blew through an intersection at a speed which was too fast for conditions, which he was if he couldn't stop in time to avoid hitting someone in a populated intersection? Yellow light or red, the presence of pedestrians would dictate a more prudent speed and approach, as opposed to his ignorance of those facts. His flippant comments regarding his helmet breaking after he ran this guy over don't endear him to me either, and lead me to believe that he either doesn't care or can't fully appreciate what he did.

You may disagree with most people's reactions to this as you call for a level headed approach to this case, and that surprises me since most of the people in this thread who have not supported him are merely asking that he be held accountable for his actions.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

vitalyg said:


> Not to mention, that if he entered that intersection on yellow, he's not guilty of anything because he had the right of way.


From the California DMV guide with the link..."Solid Yellow– A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you cannot stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously."

California Driver Handbook - Traffic Lights and Signs

Even if you have the yellow, it does not automatically put you in the right. You have to be operating in a safe manner, that is appropriate for conditions, with due regard for others. I know this intersection very well. It seems rather apparent the individual involved could not stop safely. Here is another fact, there are countdown timers on the pedestrian indicators for that intersection. When I'm driving, and riding, in SF I and many others use them as an indicator of how much time before the yellow light comes on. They are easy to see. If you are coming down Castro southbound approaching Market you can see the pedestrian timer if you are paying attention.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

vitalyg said:


> Just wanted to chime in and put things in perspective. All of you who say that Chris should be punished to the highest degree are extremely selfish human beings, extremely. This isn't about you.


We are citizens of the U.S. When someone breaks a law, it absolutely is about us. Who do you think makes up Jury's? Criminals are judged by their peers. We all have a vested interest in catching/punishing law breakers, as well as preventing future law breakers from doing the same thing.



> You were not the ones killed in the crosswalk.


 So? That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about what happened. Lots of people care about Trevon Martin, yet aren't related to him.



> We do not live in an eye-for-an-eye society. In our society, we compensate with dollars. Everything has a price (disturbing, isn't it?).


Then why do we have prison? Obviously, not everything is compensated with $$$



> Not to mention, that if he entered that intersection on yellow, he's not guilty of anything because he had the right of way.


That's a big "IF". 
If he was traveling 35mph, that's 51ft/sec! Which means he crossed the intersection in ONE second. I've never seen a red light go from green to yellow to red in 1 second. I find it hard to believe that as he approached the intersection, there were no pedestrians, then one second later it was a crowded cross walk. 
Even if he entered the intersection just as it turned from yellow to red, he'd still have crossed in the blink of an eye.


----------



## rkdvsm (Jul 15, 2006)

tlg said:


> We are citizens of the U.S. When someone breaks a law, it absolutely is about us. Who do you think makes up Jury's? Criminals are judged by their peers. We all have a vested interest in catching/punishing law breakers, as well as preventing future law breakers from doing the same thing.
> 
> So? That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about what happened. Lots of people care about Trevon Martin, yet aren't related to him.
> 
> ...


Thank you!!! V. is seriously misinformed and out of touch with what is going on. Does he/she have personal interest in this case?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

rkdvsm said:


> Thank you!!! V. is seriously misinformed and out of touch with what is going on. Does he/she have personal interest in this case?


 He does appear emotionally involved. Per his blog he says he knows Bucchere, rode with him dozens of times, and use to be a member of Mission Cycling.
Cycling Musings: The Bucchere Report

We all should know more soon, since the police have a surveillance video of the accident. And from what they've said so far, it doesn't look good for Bucchere. It appears he's a liar. He did not lay down his bike in an attempt to make an emergency stop. ( He didn't slow down at all)
He was "hunched down" as if he were racing through the intersection
There were only three or four people in the crosswalk. It didn't suddenly "fill up with people," as Bucchere claimed.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

There is a hefty 1 or 2 second pause after the red light, before the pedestrians get the walk light in this scenario (I live near this intersection). If the pedestrians were legally in that crosswalk, Mr Bucchere definitely ran the red if he was going 35 mph. If he was in the middle of the intersection when the light changed to red, then he had more than enough time to clear that crosswalk before the pedestrians got a walk light.


----------



## akamp (Jan 14, 2009)

Lets just blame it all on Strava rage, he was probably going for another KOM.


----------



## Vkandis (Aug 2, 2011)

vitalyg said:


> Just wanted to chime in and put things in perspective. All of you who say that Chris should be punished to the highest degree are extremely selfish human beings, extremely. This isn't about you. You were not the ones killed in the crosswalk. You only care about the result you want to happen, with no regard for what should happen. This was about Mr. Hui, and now, what needs to happen is what's best for his family. Putting Chris in jail certainly won't bring back Mr. Hui. Putting Chris in jail also won't make it any easier to sue him in civil court until he comes out, and by then, who knows what the family will be able to collect from him.
> 
> We do not live in an eye-for-an-eye society. In our society, we compensate with dollars. Everything has a price (disturbing, isn't it?). Chris Bucchere will be punished in civil court, I doubt there is any way to get around that. Putting him in jail does NOTHING for Mr. Hui's family. It does nothing for our society. Certain people should be locked up, Chris isn't one of them.


As to his guilt that remains to be seen. However your claim that he should not be punished severely because it does not bring back Mr. Hui is mind-boggling. Frankly this justification could be used in any case where an individual's actions results in the death of another. That placing CB in prison for his crimes (if it is proven he committed vehicle manslaughter or something worse) won't bring back Mr. Hui is irrelevant to the punishment he receives. He should go to prison precisely because Mr. Hui is dead. The punishment is predicated on the crime committed not whether or not that punishment produces some other outcome (bringing back the dead, doing anything for the victim's family etc.) 

And this does not reflect eye for an eye thinking. The eye in this instance is Mr. Hui's life and even if CB served time in prison that sentence would never equate to the loss of Mr. Hui's life. Even if it ruined the rest of CB's life, he still has his and probably would still be able to make a decent life for himself after leaving prison--Mr Hui has no such luxury.

If his actions are a product of a reckless disregard for human life--racing through an intersection to beat a light at a populated intersection certainly qualifies--then he most certainly deserves to go to prison. That you think he is a good person is irrelevant. Good people commit violent crimes, and they should be punished for the violence of those crimes.


----------



## rkdvsm (Jul 15, 2006)

Vkandis said:


> As to his guilt that remains to be seen. However your claim that he should not be punished severely because it does not bring back Mr. Hui is mind-boggling. Frankly this justification could be used in any case where an individual's actions results in the death of another. That placing CB in prison for his crimes (if it is proven he committed vehicle manslaughter or something worse) won't bring back Mr. Hui is irrelevant to the punishment he receives. He should go to prison precisely because Mr. Hui is dead. The punishment is predicated on the crime committed not whether or not that punishment produces some other outcome (bringing back the dead, doing anything for the victim's family etc.)
> 
> And this does not reflect eye for an eye thinking. The eye in this instance is Mr. Hui's life and even if CB served time in prison that sentence would never equate to the loss of Mr. Hui's life. Even if it ruined the rest of CB's life, he still has his and probably would still be able to make a decent life for himself after leaving prison--Mr Hui has no such luxury.
> 
> If his actions are a product of a reckless disregard for human life--racing through an intersection to beat a light at a populated intersection certainly qualifies--then he most certainly deserves to go to prison. That you think he is a good person is irrelevant. Good people commit violent crimes, and they should be punished for the violence of those crimes.


And again, I agree. If we followed vitayg's logic then rich people really do have it made. I mean one could commit a crime, and literally pay for it with cash and some community service. What a great life! [/sarcasm]


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

Vkandis said:


> Good people commit violent crimes, and they should be punished for the violence of those crimes.


Whether or not there are "good" or "bad" people in society, I doubt anyone believes (alleged) negligent behavior while cycling constitutes a voilent crime.


----------



## sculpin (Sep 12, 2009)

jpatkinson said:


> Whether or not there are "good" or "bad" people in society, I doubt anyone believes (alleged) negligent behavior while cycling constitutes a voilent crime.


I understand what you are saying, given that we think of rape and murder as violent crimes, but running into someone and killing them is still running into someone and killing them, no matter how you look at it. 

Since you seem to like semantics, how can this negligent behavior merely be "alleged"? He had to know that his actions might result in a bad outcome of some sort, riding far too fast for the conditions at hand, being in a populated area with automobile and pedestrian traffic. Presumably he has ridden or simply been alive long enough to know what can go wrong in a situation like this, having seen similar situations over the period he has lived on this earth.


----------



## Vkandis (Aug 2, 2011)

jpatkinson said:


> Whether or not there are "good" or "bad" people in society, I doubt anyone believes (alleged) negligent behavior while cycling constitutes a voilent crime.


I did not say it was a violent crime I said he should be punished for the violence of the crime. Whether the facts the actions of the cyclist directly caused the death of the pedestrian. If it is determined they resulted from gross negligence then a serious crime was committed. While it does not meet the technical definition of the violent crime as outlined by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, there was still violent force--force enough to end the life of a human being. (And if they show his actions reflected

And if it results from negligent behavior then it is no different than if he was twirling a loaded gun in public and it goes off resulting in the death of an individual, if he had been driving a car and hit a pedestrian, or engaged in some other action that directly resulted in the death of a presumed innocent human being. An individual is dead because a individual hit another with enough violent force to produce injuries that resulted in their death--frankly it is irrelevant whether that was in a car, with a gun or on a bicycle. 

And even if you refuse to consider it violent, it is frankly irrelevant to the larger point which was to object to the claim that because Mr Hui cannot be brought back by sending CB to prison that means he should not be sent to prison.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

I live in SF and I commute/drive/walk/scoot on the very streets where this happened. I am literally and figuratively "close" to this event, and I am truly at the receiving end of the actions of all those who will consciously or unconsciously act on their feelings around this horrible tragedy (usually while at the wheel of their car) when I am cycling the SF streets. 

I am not a court of law, so I am not in a position to decide anything about this event (hence my use of the word "alleged'). I can only control how I will respond (which is to continue to commute in SF in various ways, and abide by the rules of the road). 

Semantics are important, because they can take on a life of their own: there are people here in SF who are calling the cyclist a "murderer," and anyone who suggests for a second that Mr Bucchere may have run into pedestrians jumping the walk sign are called "cyclist apologists," or whatever other "leftist" names people can think up.

I imagine people who are used to commuting or cycling for exercise in large, congested urban centers like SF can appreciate how many opportunities there are for crashes between cars/trucks/trains/buses/motorcycles/scooters/bicycles/pedestrians at EVERY intersection. 

The cyclists in SF are "represented" by the fixie riders and others who literally blow through stop signs and yield at red lights. They infuriate non-cyclists in SF and they infuriate me. I call them on it (from my bicycle, usually). Just last week I had to brake so hard on my bicycle to avoid jay-walking pedestrians that my rear wheel loosened in the drops (disk brakes+IGH). 

In summary: this event is tragic on many levels, certainly for the victim and his family in the most extreme way. I don't know the cyclist and I don't have any intention of apoligizing for what happened. I just think we all need to remember that "context is everything," and that the context of cycling (or driving or walking, for that matter) in SF isn't always appreciated by those who haven't experienced it first hand.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

If he entered the intersection on the yellow at 35mph I don't see how he was in the right.

The way I understand it yellow on the approach means slow down and procede with caution, the light is changing to red. I may be wrong, but I don't think that yellow means hurry up and beat the red.

His reckless act cost someone his life and he needs to be held accountable.


----------



## paper warrior (Nov 24, 2001)

Maybe that's why I'm so slow. I recall the wisdom of BMX+- "You can only go as fast as your brakes will let you stop.". Especially with just 1 brake.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

And the fallout continues.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/14/BAUP1O315L.DTL&tsp=1


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

vitalyg said:


> Putting Chris in jail also won't make it any easier to sue him in civil court


It's quite possible to sue someone who is in jail.


> Putting him in jail does NOTHING for Mr. Hui's family. It does nothing for our society. Certain people should be locked up, Chris isn't one of them.


Putting someone who is a threat to others, and who has KILLED an innocent person definitely has a purpose. As long as he is in jail he is unable to kill anyone else. It also has a deterrent effect. Maybe the killer's apologists will think twice about running someone else over and killing them. 


> Not to mention, that if he entered that intersection on yellow, he's not guilty of anything because he had the right of way.


He is absolutely guilty of hitting someone and killing them. Yellow means proceed with caution and be prepared to stop if necessary. A yellow light is not license to kill anything in your path. 

You post may be the single most offensive and narrow minded thing posted so far this year. And the real tragedy is that you cannot understand that.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

SolitaryRider said:


> It's crazy the way many cyclists ride in some of these cities


I was walking beside my mother, at the time she was almost 80, and a bike messenger knocked her down. The guy was going down the sidewalk very fast, and ran into her from behind. 

It took three people to pull me off him. 

I won't put up with that kind of crap, or the kind of whiny self indulgent nonsense spouted by Bucchere's apologist buddy here.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

tlg said:


> If he was traveling 35mph, that's 51ft/sec! Which means he crossed the intersection in ONE second.


Just a small correction: the intersection is about 150 feet wide, so it would have taken THREE seconds to cross it.

The crosswalk is 30 feet long, and pedestrians generally walk about 5 feet per second. That means it would take about 3 seconds for pedestrians entering the crosswalk from both sides to fill it. So it's just possible---just---that the light would have turned red the instant he entered the intersection and the pedestrians would have had time to fill the crosswalk just at the time he entered it, leaving him no safe path without hitting a pedestrian.

But that is exceedingly unlikely because it would assume that the pedestrians started charging into the crosswalk the instant the light turned red for the cyclist---that they didn't wait for the walk light, which illuminates a couple of seconds after the traffic light changes, and that they started walking at the instant the light turned without taking a second or two to notice and react.

So basically, your argument remains persuasive, but I wanted to correct a very small detail.


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

Paralizer said:


> And the fallout continues.


Everything that column advocates sounds excellent.


----------



## DrRoebuck (May 10, 2004)

Fredke said:


> Everything that column advocates sounds excellent.


I don't completely disagree. But I would like to invite that writer to join me on some road rides in Los Angeles so he can see first-hand how much abuse and threatening behavior I have to endure just about every single time I clip into my pedals. Maybe then he'll realize that aggressive cyclists aren't the great evil of society that he portrays them as. 

Yes, two pedestrians killed in 9 months is sad and awful, but how many bike riders have been hit and killed this year? How many pedestrians have been killed by motor vehicles? How many drivers blow through stop signs and red lights? 

Angry drivers ***** and moan about cyclists running red lights and stop signs, but how many of them are actually inconvenienced by this or just pissed off that bike riders aren't stuck in traffic like they are?


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

Sorry, nope...not a week goes by for me in SF that I don't almost roll a cyclist over my hood that blows a stop sign. I'm not pissed about traffic and I'm a cyclist. I just don't want a human hood ornament. I have no sympathy for these guys...hopefully he gets all the law can throw at him.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

My opinion if I was a DA, drawn from the supposed facts I have gleaned from the video report: vehicular manslaughter is the right charge. It will be easy to prove if the light was red, and still provable if the light was yellow (operating the bicycle out of control, in a reckless fashion). Again, this is just my opinion.

However, as a college cyclist racing for UCB, I am *extremely* distressed at the amount of vitriol leveled at *all* cyclists due to this - see the comments section of this article. As someone has stated prior to me (apologies for not finding the quote), it is my largest concern that the general public, or at least the ones who have voiced their thoughts, are seeming to lump all cyclists into a negative stereotype, while the 11 pedestrian deaths caused by cars SF last year are rightfully put down to "incompetent drivers" instead of "all drivers are incompetent".


----------



## rkdvsm (Jul 15, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> My opinion if I was a DA, drawn from the supposed facts I have gleaned from the video report: vehicular manslaughter is the right charge. It will be easy to prove if the light was red, and still provable if the light was yellow (operating the bicycle out of control, in a reckless fashion). Again, this is just my opinion.
> 
> However, as a college cyclist racing for UCB, I am *extremely* distressed at the amount of vitriol leveled at *all* cyclists due to this - see the comments section of this article. As someone has stated prior to me (apologies for not finding the quote), it is my largest concern that the general public, or at least the ones who have voiced their thoughts, are seeming to lump all cyclists into a negative stereotype, while the 11 pedestrian deaths caused by cars SF last year are rightfully put down to "incompetent drivers" instead of "all drivers are incompetent".


Okay. I want to say that I agree with you on your statement. I find it absolutely unfair that cyclists are getting this reputation by others when drivers are probably doing it more frequently. But with that said, I want to ask you a question: What difference does it make if that is what they are saying about cyclist? The question cyclists should ask themselves is this. Am I one of those dangerous cyclists the article is referring to? If your answer is no then there is nothing to worry about. If your answer is yes then I ask a followup question: Don't you feel the need to change those dangerous habits (e.g. speeding through red lights?)

In other words, does it really matter what others think? 

Furthermore, we, unfortunately, live in a society where this branding and stereotyping of cyclists is common. People stereotype, and they make unfair judgments about people they don't know. It's unfortunate, but that is reality. However, I know that one way to minimize stereotyping is for us, individually, and as a group to do the right thing so that when drivers and pedestrians see us they can see more and more examples of cyclists who are law abiding riders. Still, I know that one bad cyclist can ruin all of that, but I, nor anyone else, can control those people. We can only focus on ourselves and the people who are close to us.

Finally, I thought the article was pretty good overall. It wasn't completely vitriolic. They did mention that cars and pedestrians are also to blame, but the focus was on cyclists and aggressive riding that is what the author wanted to deal with. The article even mentions a quote about how not all cyclists are like this, but again the problem is that the few bad cyclists ruin it for everyone. And what people think and their negative attitudes about cyclist cannot be changed except to focus on your own behaviors and hope that safe riding eventually catches on.

(Disclaimer: I am commenting to get a healthy discussion. If I came off as confrontational then I apologize. My first instinct after reading your comment is to say, who care what others think about me as a cyclist? If I follow the rules of the road then I am not one of those "aggressive" types.)


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

rkdvsm said:


> Okay. I want to say that I agree with you on your statement. I find it absolutely unfair that cyclists are getting this reputation by others when drivers are probably doing it more frequently. But with that said, I want to ask you a question: What difference does it make if that is what they are saying about cyclist? The question cyclists should ask themselves is this. Am I one of those dangerous cyclists the article is referring to? If your answer is no then there is nothing to worry about. If your answer is yes then I ask a followup question: Don't you feel the need to change those dangerous habits (e.g. speeding through red lights?)
> 
> In other words, does it really matter what others think?
> 
> ...


No worries, I didn't perceive you as confrontational - you make some very good points. I apologize, as I should have been more clear: I liked the article, but was taken aback by some of the comments, specifically the ones along the lines of "see a cyclist going too fast, put a stick in their spokes" or "if a cyclist is using the sidewalk, push them off their bike". I understand that most of this is just baseless internet hate and that people will rarely, if ever, do such terrible things, but I still am worried by it. There is a common stereotype against riders, as you say, but I don't want to see all cyclists unfairly restricted as a result of that stereotype born out of the actions of an incompetent few. Personally, I agree with most of what you say; I'm not perfect, but I do my best to be a safe and legal rider, and I usually could care less about other people's opinions of me. Let me know what you think! Sorry if I came off confrontational as well.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

*Not always true...*



velodog said:


> And this bothers me more than when the folk in the automobile blame the cyclist.
> 
> The pedestrian always has the right of way and no matter how anyone wants to suger coat it the cyclist who ran this person over needs to be prosecuted.


In WA, pedestrians don't always have right of way, they need to be on designated crosspoints or walk signals. That said, if a driver/ cyclist sees a pedestrian, they're required by law to take every reasonable measure possible to prevent a collision.


----------



## rkdvsm (Jul 15, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> No worries, I didn't perceive you as confrontational - you make some very good points. I apologize, as I should have been more clear: I liked the article, but was taken aback by some of the comments, specifically the ones along the lines of "see a cyclist going too fast, put a stick in their spokes" or "if a cyclist is using the sidewalk, push them off their bike". I understand that most of this is just baseless internet hate and that people will rarely, if ever, do such terrible things, but I still am worried by it. There is a common stereotype against riders, as you say, but I don't want to see all cyclists unfairly restricted as a result of that stereotype born out of the actions of an incompetent few. Personally, I agree with most of what you say; I'm not perfect, but I do my best to be a safe and legal rider, and I usually could care less about other people's opinions of me. Let me know what you think! Sorry if I came off confrontational as well.


I didn't realize the vitriole you were speaking about was from the comments section of that article. I went back to your prior post and saw that you did state that very clearly. I definitely missed that when I made my comment to you. Sorry.

Anyway, this negative stereotype toward cyclist is real, but untrue, and unfair. I agree with on that point. I think these articles about how cyclists need to relax is fine, but again I do see your point. They don't print out nearly as many articles on how drivers need to calm down.

By the way, the comment about putting spokes on cyclist's tires is scary. I don't know why someone would even joke about that.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

rkdvsm said:


> By the way, the comment about putting spokes on cyclist's tires is scary. I don't know why someone would even joke about that.


Here in SF, where I travel by car, bicycle, foot, and train, these kind of comments aren't a joke. People here are stressed, always in a rush, frequently looking at their smart phone (whether walking, driving, or even cycling), and they have NO patience for anyone slowing them down. 

Cyclists are NOT appreciated in this city by most automobile drivers and pedestrians. I think the hundreds of comments you can read on the SFGate website are enough to scare any cyclist in this city into wondering how safe it is to be on the road when people are worked up about something like these pedestrian deaths.


----------



## Lui (Apr 19, 2012)

I haven't read all the posts but I usually slow down if it looks like a person might walk in your way. Sometimes you don't expect it. Yesterday I passed a runner who was listening to music with her ear plugs in. She was running on the left side of the road. I saw her from the distance running on the left. Just when I was about to pass her, she runs to the right. I hit the brakes because I always expect this to happen. If I had just gone full speed ahead I would have hit her.


----------



## some123 (Apr 21, 2012)

thanks


----------



## darkdream (Feb 26, 2012)

Everyone using the roads needs to obey the laws. Cyclists, biker, driver, etc. Cyclist stand out cause there are usually many fewer. I never understood why everyone thinks they own the road. Even as a passenger when any of my sisters are driving, anything pisses them off if its not like in their favor and end up cursing with road rage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q80_BtDpkbk


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

Well, unfortunately, it appears to be human nature. One of the bad things in us. You get in a car surrounded by 4000 lbs of steel you, #1 don't think you have to answer to anybody, #2 think you are invincible. On a bike you know that you have as much right to it (the road) as a driver and it can be too easy to get pushed into a situation where you feel it's your "right" to assert your authority. I can't tell you how many times in the past I have done the stupidest things in the world, I'm lucky I'm both alive and not in jail somewhere, but I'm not. I'm no worse than most, I like to think better but I really don't know. I'm pretty normal I think. 
If you think about all this, none of it makes the slightest bit of sense, but it doesn't stop people from reacting this way. It's very similar to mob mentality where mobs will do things that no sane individual would ever think of doing. Welcome to the human race. We will be fine in a couple thousand years (if we live that long)


darkdream said:


> Everyone using the roads needs to obey the laws. Cyclists, biker, driver, etc. Cyclist stand out cause there are usually many fewer. *I never understood why everyone thinks they own the road.* Even as a passenger when any of my sisters are driving, anything pisses them off if its not like in their favor and end up cursing with road rage.
> 
> Why do people hate cyclists? - YouTube


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

*Felony charges forthcoming*

As I suspected the DA is about to file charges and this time they are charging as a felony.
S.F. bicyclist in fatal crash may face felony


----------



## asciibaron (Aug 11, 2006)

velodog said:


> The pedestrian always has the right of way.


even when jaywalking?


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

No, not when jaywalking.


----------



## xpc316e (Mar 12, 2012)

ph0enix said:


> FWIW, the accuracy of the mobile Strava app in terms of reporting speed leaves a lot to be desired.


Well, I use Strava in addition to a Cateye wireless speedo on my bike. The two seem to agree almost exactly on my V max on each ride. The Strava also agrees with my satnav in my car, and that agrees with a Police-checked radar gun. My Strava has yet to show me travelling at 35mph when I am grinding uphill at 6mph. My money is on him going pretty darned fast if his Strava reckons on him doing 35mph.


----------



## abrams966 (Apr 25, 2012)

I agree the cyclist does need to be prosecuted. Truely this is an unfortunate accident.


----------



## Paralizer (Jan 26, 2009)

The hammer finally fell...hard.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/13/MNQ01P1M55.DTL&tsp=1


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

Oh man - from the sounds of it, the prosecution has him cold. It'll be interesting to see the result, or at least the public statements made by attorneys/judge that arise - should be an interesting barometer for the public opinion of cycling.


----------



## stockwiz (May 29, 2012)

he went through a yellow light? Most people blow through them at full speed to beat them... if a car decides to just go in the opposite lane and gets hit by the guy blowing the yellow, I don't see how it's the guy blowing the yellow's fault.. the other guy ran the red. Plus when did the yellow occur when he saw it? They only last for a few seconds... I don't slam on my brakes every time I see a yellow... only if I know I won't make it through the intersection, then I merely stop. 

I'd have to see a video to know for sure. With that said I think stopping at a red as a pedestrian or bicyclist and waiting intently for a green is silly, and something I'll never do, so meh. 

Most cyclists travel near the right edge of the road, so if someone stepped out in front of him at the wrong time, well that's like stepping out in front of a car at the wrong time... darwin at work. With that said, said cyclist should not flee the scene. 

Again I'd have to see a video.

I treat all greens and reds as yellows as a cyclist or person on a motorcycle should... act as though they are invisible. A full complete stop? Not unless it's a major artery and busy. A value judgement based on common sense I guess.

Another thing of note... there are far more stories about elderly people in cars mowing through crowds of people due to not having to be given vision and other tests for driving as they get older, so again, meh.


EDIT: well after reading the article, the guy doesn't have much of a defense.. 10 above the speed limit, blowing through stop signs and red lights without even slowing. Gets what he has coming. Though it could be argued the fact he ran through other red lights was immaterial, if he wasn't speeding that is.


----------



## scottzj (Oct 4, 2010)

Sad thing is, his own email is what is going to take him down! If he would have shut up or not said anything until he had an attorney it might not be quite as bad.


----------



## j.carney.tx (Jun 15, 2011)

If this guy was in a car, and hit a cyclist in the same situation, many here would be saying throw the book at him, and would be vehemently outraged if the driver was let go.

It's simple: the guy was riding in a negligent manner, and regardless of anyone's opinion on red lights, riding in a safe manner it seems he wasn't.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

scottzj said:


> Sad thing is, his own email is what is going to take him down! If he would have shut up or not said anything until he had an attorney it might not be quite as bad.


No, the sad thing is he rode with total disregard for anyone but himself and that caused the death of someone other than his self.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

j.carney.tx said:


> If this guy was in a car, and hit a cyclist in the same situation, many here would be saying throw the book at him, and would be vehemently outraged if the driver was let go.
> 
> It's simple: the guy was riding in a negligent manner, and regardless of anyone's opinion on red lights, riding in a safe manner it seems he wasn't.


I agree. But if a car runs a yellow light and hits a cyclist who went into an intersection, he is likely to get a slap on the wrist, if that. Two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## j.carney.tx (Jun 15, 2011)

NJBiker72 said:


> I agree. But if a car runs a yellow light and hits a cyclist who went into an intersection, he is likely to get a slap on the wrist, if that. Two wrongs do not make a right.


That is possible, and I hope, though don't expect, the same outcome for the cyclist. MOST people are drivers, and the bad drivers are a minority. MOST are also not cyclist, so when they hear about bad cyclist, even if those are also a minority, they tend to lump all cyclists into the category. 

This is why I myself strive to obey all traffic signs and lights. Even on quiet streets when coming to a stop sign, I brake to a stop, then go immediately w/o putting my feet down. How many cyclist would do the same? So long as NO ONE has a right to complain about MY riding, I'm good. I just wish all cyclists felt the same. If they did, and we all were paragons (and no, I'm not quite that, though I strive for it), people in general would probably have a better view of cyclists, in general.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

j.carney.tx said:


> That is possible, and I hope, though don't expect, the same outcome for the cyclist. MOST people are drivers, and the bad drivers are a minority. MOST are also not cyclist, so when they hear about bad cyclist, even if those are also a minority, they tend to lump all cyclists into the category.
> 
> This is why I myself strive to obey all traffic signs and lights. Even on quiet streets when coming to a stop sign, I brake to a stop, then go immediately w/o putting my feet down. How many cyclist would do the same? So long as NO ONE has a right to complain about MY riding, I'm good. I just wish all cyclists felt the same. If they did, and we all were paragons (and no, I'm not quite that, though I strive for it), people in general would probably have a better view of cyclists, in general.


I agree with you. I quit one club that was constantly running red lights, etc. I may come to a rolling stop where I am at a right turn but that is probably my worst violation. I run an occasional yellow too, but never at 35 in a crowded city.


----------



## akamp (Jan 14, 2009)

Sounds like the city is partially at fault with light timing. If he was speeding (35) through an intersection designed for a speed of 25mph and entered the intersection legally while it was yellow why did the walk sign turn before he was through it. The fact that he ran other stop signs and lights on the same ride shouldn't matter, they weren't involved in the accident and he wasn't running from the police at the time. Sure this guy is a tool and apparently doesnt care about other people but that is not illegal either. As far as I see it he should only get a speeding ticket. The city is at fault for the light timing.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

akamp said:


> Sounds like the city is partially at fault with light timing.


There's no basis for that. It's a very large intersection of 5 roads. Bing Maps - Driving Directions, Traffic and Road Conditions
We don't know if the light was turning "green to yellow" or "yellow to red" as he entered. All the article says is the light was yellow as he entered the intersection. It could've turned red right then.
Also, the pedestrians could have been crossing before the walk signal turned. Thus, nothing wrong with the signal timing.


> If he was speeding (35) through an intersection designed for a speed of 25mph and entered the intersection legally


Well no, if he was speeding, he entered illegally.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

The DA has already concluded that Bucchere entered the intersection on a yellow light. That intersection is 100 feet from the North side [at the stop line] to the crosswalk where the collision took place. 35mph = 50 fps. There is a TWO second lag between Bucchere's RED light and the walk sign for Mr Mui. In other words, if you enter the intersection at 35mph on a yellow light, you should CLEAR that crosswalk before the walk sign. Clearly Bucchere was going too fast. Based on my interpretation of the events and thousands of uses of that intersection, those pedestrians _must_ have been jaywalking. It looks like he is being charged because of witness accounts of his cycling behavior and the video of him in the drops when he struck Mr Mui. 

This reminds me of my first citation while driving a car, at the "wise" age of 16. I pulled out of a gas station between a line of cars (I was crossing and turning L). I was hit by another car who was speeding (from the L) after having crossed a double yellow line. In my mind, that car shouldn't have been there, so I was safe to go. I was CITED for "failing to yield," and this made no sense to me -- the guy that hit me had to break the law in ORDER to hit me. The cop said (I will never forget this): "I don't care if he was going backwards at 120 mph, you FAILED to yield." 

For me? I never assume others on the road are are going to obey the law. As they taught us in the Motorcycle Safety Foundation class: "It is better to be alive than right."


----------



## Lhorn (Nov 9, 2011)

> those pedestrians must have been jaywalking


At a lot of intersections in big cities, SF included, this is almost a certainty, not that it makes it right.

Just to be clear I am fully in favor of the rider being punished if the courts find him negligent which it sounds like he was. I also agree with above, that if this had happened to a teenager in a car if there might have been only a slap on the wrist. There was a thread on another site where two cyclists got nailed by a teenage girl texting. One of them got airlifted because his injuries were so severe and the driver just got a slap on the wrist. Whether it be speeding, texting, DUI, this country doesn't seem to take these crimes committed by drivers seriously.

Having been in SF many times and seeing how drivers and pedestrians behave, I can't imagine bombing through an intersection at 35mph. Seems like asking to be a hood ornament.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

DrD said:


> True - but I think the point is more of how this is going to be treated as compared to if it were a car-pedestrian accident. Look how fired up folks get when they see a bike run a red, or blow through a stop sign, even though the number of cars doing the same is many orders of magnitude higher... hell, drivers get fired up when you do something you are allowed to do (taking a lane, for example - or sometimes, just riding along in the shoulder).


Look how fired up the cycling community gets when a fellow cyclist gets hit and killed by a car, but how the rest of society isn't up in arms at the 40,000+ deaths on the road a year.

This is something exceptional that has made the media frenzy and everybody is calling for blood. We would be doing the same thing if a truck driver ran over and crushed one of our fellow cyclists. We would be screaming for blood, and the truck driver wou;d probably get what the law prescribes. No more, no less.

Just ironic how some people on this thread are trying to make excuses for the cyclist, whereas if it were a car that ran a red light and crushed a cyclist, they would not be looking for excuses for the driver of the vehicle. Have to love the "us against them" mentality of some in this thread. Then, others have it right. We are a society. The cyclist needs to be treated the same way as a negligent motorist. If you want to speed AND run red lights, then you have to pay the consequences even when your helmet does its job and saves your life. The guy is an utter moron for posting something like that after killing a fellow human being.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

vautrain said:


> Many people like to point out that the danger cyclists pose to pedestrians is almost nonexistent, statistically, but as the popularity of cycling grows, and the number of cycling trips and total miles ridden per year grow, the validity of that argument will become more and more questionable. It's not simply a coincidence that the topic of this thread is the second bike on pedestrian fatality this year in San Francisco.
> 
> Pedestrians always have the right of way, but at the same time, all factors that contribute, positively or negatively, to bike-pedestrian safety should be examines as cycling continues to grow. Timing of lights is one such factor.
> 
> I commute in Chicago, and my commute until very recently took me through the financial district, on Van Buren, during the afternoon rush hour. Though I was extra careful cycling through that stretch, I had many close calls with pedestrians who crossed in the middle of the block, or crossed against a red light because motorized vehicular traffic was jammed (in other words, I had the right of way, but they crossed anyway, because cars were jammed and they assumed it was safe), or who would dart out from behind parked trucks. It was not fun.


I seriously doubt that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way. I know the law is not in their favor here or in DC if they are jaywalking or crossing without a crosswalk signal in their favor. There are rules to walking, riding, and driving, and pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists need to obey them as a society to make things safer. We also need to take some personal responsibility. If you see a person hanging out in the middle of the road or a bunch of kids playing tag football in the middle of the road, don't expect to cruise by them at 25 mph without incident. Be cautious. Same goes for a pedestrian crossing the road. Look both ways. Never expect others to see you and/or to look out for you.

At the old place we used to live at, we had a 4 way stop intersection. Our developement was on one side, the shopping center directly across from it, and a 4 lane (i.e., 2 lanes each way) road with a median ran the other way. If I had assumed that everybody approaching that stop sign was going to stop, I would be dead twice over. While waiting at that stop sign, a bus blew through it and Toyota Camry with a young female driver blew through it.

Had an issue like this happen just last month while driving my F350. Saw the lady a little ways in front of me pull off the road onto the shoulder, so I started to slow down. As I approached her she started to make a u-turn right in front of me. Luckily for her, there was no oncoming traffic in the other lane, and while I was hard on the brakes in case she conintued on (i.e., she had already entered my lane), I was not able to stop in time and my front bumper was about 2 or 3 feet beyond the passenger side door of her car. If traffic was coming in the other lane, I would have had no choice other than to hit her right on her driver's side door because the wife and kids were in the truck and a head on collision with another motorist would have been worse for everybody involved. Yeah, she was talking on her cellphone and laughing, but at least she was able to stop before taking up the entire road. Afterwards, my wife and I wondered if she understood how close she came to dying just then.

Ride, drive, and walk defensively and you might save your and/or somebody else's life.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Lhorn said:


> At a lot of intersections in big cities, SF included, this is almost a certainty, not that it makes it right.
> 
> Just to be clear I am fully in favor of the rider being punished if the courts find him negligent which it sounds like he was. I also agree with above, that if this had happened to a teenager in a car if there might have been only a slap on the wrist. There was a thread on another site where two cyclists got nailed by a teenage girl texting. One of them got airlifted because his injuries were so severe and the driver just got a slap on the wrist. Whether it be speeding, texting, DUI, this country doesn't seem to take these crimes committed by drivers seriously.
> 
> Having been in SF many times and seeing how drivers and pedestrians behave, I can't imagine bombing through an intersection at 35mph. Seems like asking to be a hood ornament.


Did you read what the cyclist in the previous pedestrian death in San Francisco got punishment wise after pleading guilty to the crime that resulted in the death of a 68 year old woman? He got 500 hours of community service, 3 years probation, and $15,000 in restitution to the victim's family. Pretty much sounds like a slap on the wrist to me in regards to the cyclist killing a pedestrian. So, don't think that the law will be applied any differently between cyclist or motorist at the end of the day. It is tough for judges to throw the book at people that had no actual ill intent other than being stupid and/or negligent.

Had a client plead guilty to 105 in a 55 and the Court gave him 40 hours community service and a year probation and he didn't cause an accident, much less kill anybody.


----------



## RobDa29 (Jun 14, 2012)

I commute on my bike daily to and from work. My ride is relatively short, 6 miles round trip, with maximum 150 ft. elevation. I ride in busy streets with dedicated bike lane as well as the ability to take over the complete car lane on some streets. I do find myself blowing through stop signs when there are absolutely nobody around, but I do slow down a little just to be sure. I always stop for traffic lights, despite what I see other cyclists do. But cyclists who run through red lights disgust me.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

See that's the question. Were the pedestrians in the intersection before the walk? It may be that there were no cars coming from either side and the pedestrians thought it was safe to get a head start on the walk. If a car enters an intersection on a yellow and hits a pedestrian that crossed before the walk what happens? Well technically cars (as bikes) should yield to pedestrians, and if he's speeding then their is even more blame. But if the vehicle had the light the outcome in court may not be so clear cut.



tlg said:


> There's no basis for that. It's a very large intersection of 5 roads. Bing Maps - Driving Directions, Traffic and Road Conditions
> We don't know if the light was turning "green to yellow" or "yellow to red" as he entered. All the article says is the light was yellow as he entered the intersection. It could've turned red right then.
> Also, the pedestrians could have been crossing before the walk signal turned. Thus, nothing wrong with the signal timing.
> Well no, if he was speeding, he entered illegally.


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

You say red light but the light was not red it was yellow. How could the intersection be completely flooded with pedestrians to point the cyclist had no line before the light turned red? Yes, if truck were to blow a red light and hit a cyclist that was clearly crossing with a green everyone would be up at arms. But if the cyclist entered an intersection before he had the green and got hit by someone going through a yellow would the outrage be the same?

My guess is the pedestrians got into the intersection early because there were no cars coming and didn't see the cyclist. How else can you explain the pedestrians in the intersection?



fabsroman said:


> Look how fired up the cycling community gets when a fellow cyclist gets hit and killed by a car, but how the rest of society isn't up in arms at the 40,000+ deaths on the road a year.
> 
> This is something exceptional that has made the media frenzy and everybody is calling for blood. We would be doing the same thing if a truck driver ran over and crushed one of our fellow cyclists. We would be screaming for blood, and the truck driver wou;d probably get what the law prescribes. No more, no less.
> 
> Just ironic how some people on this thread are trying to make excuses for the cyclist, whereas if it were a car that ran a red light and crushed a cyclist, they would not be looking for excuses for the driver of the vehicle. Have to love the "us against them" mentality of some in this thread. Then, others have it right. We are a society. The cyclist needs to be treated the same way as a negligent motorist. If you want to speed AND run red lights, then you have to pay the consequences even when your helmet does its job and saves your life. The guy is an utter moron for posting something like that after killing a fellow human being.


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

Living so close to this intersection, I have thought about this incident more than I care to admit over the past couple months. 

My personal conclusion was that Bucchere *must *have run a red light in order for this to happen, making this a open-and-shut case for the DA. I was surprised to read that they concluded he entered the intersection on a yellow light. Mathematically -- @ 35mph -- this simply doesn't add up for me; either the DA is wrong about the yellow, OR Bucchere's speed was considerably less than 35mph, OR the pedestrians who were "filling" the crosswalk were all jumping their light (it's a two second delay after the red; that intersection is 100' across, or 2 seconds @ 35mph).

I live and work in SF: I commute 2 miles each way by bicycle, Vespa, SUV or (rarely) foot. I see insane behaviors from people using ALL modes of transportation, and I agree that the majority of cyclists in this city generally act like disrespectful idiots (commuters, hipsters, and roadies alike).

Is SF a hostile place for cyclists (from auto drivers), or for pedestrians (from both)? Probably, depending on your definition. I definitely feel safer commuting or running errands on my Vespa than on my bicycle. I am starting to wonder if my bicycle commuting days here are numbered.


----------



## Lhorn (Nov 9, 2011)

I could definitely see a situation where pedestrians were already in the road before they should have been. If they don't see a car, they'll go for it. Doesn't make it right to blast through at 35 mph...


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Robert1 said:


> You say red light but the light was not red it was yellow. How could the intersection be completely flooded with pedestrians to point the cyclist had no line before the light turned red?





jpatkinson said:


> My personal conclusion was that Bucchere *must *have run a red light in order for this to happen, making this a open-and-shut case for the DA. I was surprised to read that they concluded he entered the intersection on a yellow light.


I think there's quite a bit of misinformation out there. I don't think we really know what color the light was.

Prosecutors believe the light was yellow when he rode into the intersection  That's the *only *article I could find that says that. And it's not a quote from the DA, but rather from "Law enforcement sources". So who knows how accurate it is.

Witnesses reported that Bucchere, who was riding south on Castro Street, struck Hui as he walked east in a crosswalk *with a green light *at the time of the collision. That's reported in several articles.

Bucchere was traveling at around 35 mph as he entered the crowded intersection on a yellow or red light Yellow or Red?

Bucchere claims that the intersection was crowded. However surveillance video shows only three or four people in the crosswalk when the collision occurred. One thing the video does not show was whether the light was red or yellow when Bucchere entered the intersection. So I wonder where the other article got that "Prosecutors believe the light was yellow".


----------



## taralon (Sep 1, 2011)

Well even the quote from the first one is misleading. "Prosecutors believe the light was yellow when he rode into the intersection" can mean that it was yellow when he crossed the line denoting where to stop on a red light. The light could have then immediately turned red. Besides, the most damning evidence is that of the cyclist himself, who states that the light turned red when he was still in the intersection, which seems to indicate he likely had enough time to stop should he have chosen to do so when the light turned yellow. I'm sorry, but that is illegal no matter which way you look at it. If there were a police officer to witness it, you'd likely, and should be getting a ticket for running a red light. 

California's own code seems fairly clear:

21950. *(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
*
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

*(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection*. 

So basically a driver has to yield to pedestrians in a marked/unmarked crosswalk at all times, and even in the event of the pedestrian failing to yield to traffic when they should is responsible for exercising all due care for the safety of a pedestrian. 

From the post of the cyclist, the various other articles we know that the cyclist: a) was traveling ~40+% faster than the posted speed limit b) likely entered the intersection after the light turned yellow, and possibly well after the light turned yellow (post by cyclist indicating the light turned red after he entered the intersection and before he cleared it) compounded by the fact he failed to attempt to reduce speed and/or stop at the light in question c) (from the previous post, eyewitness accounts and purported video evidence) failed to attempt to avoid the pedestrians, or to reduce speed/stop when they entered the crosswalk ahead of him. From that right there IMHO he was willingly negligent in his operation of his bike, and as he killed someone, should be facing vehicular homicide/manslaughter. His actions prior to this intersection only have bearing on the incident in question to prove that, yes indeed, he was willingly negligent in disobeying traffic laws directly prior to the incident in question. 

Is he guilty? Well just from the above, and without having seen the video I'd have to say yes. Unless the video clearly shows him attempting to swerve out of the way or attempting to stop, or the pedestrian jumping purposely in front of him, I'd have to say yes. 

In the end? Unless you're on a closed race course, you had better obey the traffic laws, stop at lights, signs, yield when required, and obey posted speed limits. Traffic laws are there for a reason other than providing revenue to the city/state in question you know.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

taralon said:


> Well even the quote from the first one is misleading. "Prosecutors believe the light was yellow when he rode into the intersection" can mean that it was yellow when he crossed the line denoting where to stop on a red light. The light could have then immediately turned red.
> Besides, the most damning evidence is that of the cyclist himself, who states that the light turned red when he was still in the intersection, which seems to indicate he likely had enough time to stop should he have chosen to do so when the light turned yellow. I'm sorry, but that is illegal no matter which way you look at it.


This is not true. As long as you enter the intersection on yellow, you are legal. 
_Section 21453 Circular Red or Red Arrow
(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown_

If you cross the limit line/cross walk before the light turns red, then you are not facing a steady red light and thus can not stop at the marked line. I assume this becomes more complicated if you were speeding though.



> California's own code seems fairly clear:
> 
> 21950. *(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
> *


 Actually, that's not entirely clear. California code also says...

_Section 21456 Walk Wait or Don t Walk
Whenever a pedestrian control signal showing the words "WALK" or "WAIT" or "DON'T 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. 

(b) Flashing or steady "DON'T WALK" or "WAIT" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of the signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed crossing shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety zone or otherwise leave the roadway while the "WAIT" or "DON'T WALK" or approved "Upraised Hand" symbol is showing.​_
What you cited pertains more to crosswalks without crossing signals. When there is a signal, pedestrians need to obey it


----------



## Robert1 (Mar 27, 2012)

*(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.
*

tlg you bring up some good points. And, was the light yellow or not when he entered. That makes a big difference in how this case will end up. It still does not excuse him of traveling at the speed he was. I'm sure when he was up the road he saw all the pedestrians on the corner. But, if the prosecution can't prove that he entered the intersection illegally and that the pedestrians entered on the walk he may just get a slap on the wrist. These things are never as cut and dry as everyone wants to make them out to be.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Robert1 said:


> And, was the light yellow or not when he entered.
> 
> But, if the prosecution can't prove that he entered the intersection illegally and that the pedestrians entered on the walk he may just get a slap on the wrist. These things are never as cut and dry as everyone wants to make them out to be.


I think it will hinge on this. How many witnesses and how reliable is their testamony? 

"Witnesses reported that Bucchere, who was riding south on Castro Street, struck Hui as he walked east *in a crosswalk with a green light *at the time of the collision."


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

Looks like one witness was a riding partner...hopefully this guy gets everything thrown at him.
Witness blames pace as biker charged with felony manslaughter | Mike Aldax | Crime | San Francisco Examiner


----------



## jpatkinson (Jun 10, 2007)

tlg said:


> "Witnesses reported that Bucchere, who was riding south on Castro Street, struck Hui as he walked east *in a crosswalk with a green light *at the time of the collision."


Accounts like this (future testimony) are pretty convincing to me that he must have run the red light. Again -- 35 mph = 50 feet per second, and there is a two second lag AFTER Bucchere's red light, before the walk sign would have illuminated for mr Mui. _Two seconds is a very long time, plenty of time to traverse even *that* intersection._


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

*Update:*

San Francisco bicyclist pleads guilty to felony in pedestrian's death - latimes.com

SAN FRANCISCO – A bicyclist who struck and killed an elderly pedestrian in a busy intersection here has pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter but will avoid a prison sentence, Dist. Atty. George Gascon said Tuesday.


Chris Bucchere, a 37-year-old software engineer, was heading south on Castro Street on March 29, 2012, at the end of his twice-weekly ride to the Marin Headlands. But when he reached Market Street, the intersection was filled with pedestrians and he allegedly was moving too fast to stop.

He struck Sutchi Hui, 71, who was walking with his wife. Hui was rushed to a hospital, where he died of blunt-force trauma injuries four days later.

In what became a deciding factor in Gascon’s decision to charge Bucchere with a felony instead of a misdemeanor, the cyclist blogged about the incident, saying that he aimed for the least populated spot in the intersection, blasted through and then, “in a nutshell, blammo.”

The plea agreement was reached Thursday, Gascon said, but his office did not make it public at that time out of respect for Hui’s family, which wanted to avoid the media interest generated by the elderly man’s death.

“I believe justice has been served,” Gascon told reporters. “Mr. Bucchere has been held accountable to a level that’s historic in the state. His conduct was egregious. He will be providing 1,000 hours of community service. We hope many of those hours are spent talking about traffic safety.”

Bucchere is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 16. After six months, Gascon said, a judge could reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. Ted Cassman, Bucchere’s attorney, did not respond to a request for comment.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

sculpin said:


> You don't think that this needs to be addressed at a serious level? Seriously?
> 
> From the POV of the person that this cyclist hit and ultimately killed, the number of accidents caused by cars is immaterial, isn't it?


Yes but public policy is not (and should not be) set based on the POV of any individual, no mater how sympathetic.

The poor pedestrian was part of a very rare collision. It could have been avoided by everyone obeying existing laws and taking proper care when entering an intersection. He's being prosecuted based on the laws that exist. There's nothing else to be "addressed".

I was nearly attacked by an American Fisher while turkey hunting. I don't expect the DNR to begin a campaign to address the dangers of large North American Mustilids on my behalf.


----------



## vautrain (Mar 1, 2012)

Very sad. I hope everyone feels justice has been served. It seems like a very light punishment for felony manslaughter.

Please be careful out there. We're usually not alone when we ride, our actions have consequences for others.


----------



## Sisophous (Jun 7, 2010)

tlg said:


> Bucchere is scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 16. After six months, Gascon said, a judge could reduce the charge to a misdemeanor.


The victims age has a lot to do with the sentencing. If you kill a 70+ year old Asian it will not be regarded the same as killing a 30 year old married Caucasian man with five children. And if you commit homicide or rape you get off free if you come from political connections ........... the Kennedys.:lol:


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'll bet the Hui family will be filing a civil case against the cyclist.


----------



## Sisophous (Jun 7, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I'll bet the Hui family will be filing a civil case against the cyclist.


Yes, you are right, they likely will. The cyclist will be signing over all his assets to someone else so they can't get seized. I bet he will have nothing listed in his name, not even stocks.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

vautrain said:


> I hope everyone feels justice has been served


I do not feel justice has been served.


> It seems like a very light punishment for felony manslaughter


Killing someone merits something more than BS community service.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> I do not feel justice has been served.
> 
> Killing someone merits something more than BS community service.


I'd hate to think my life is worth 1000hrs community service.


----------

