Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   San Francisco cyclist kills pedestrian - Part 2 (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/820289-san-francisco-cyclist-kills-pedestrian-part-2-a.html)

3alarmer 06-22-12 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Cowboy (Post 14387462)
Really, your "good" with this?

I sure as hell hope that you are being sarcastic. If as it appears that this cyclist is being punished for the actions of others that is NOT justice.

And if he is convicted NOT because of the actions of other cyclists rather than his own actions then hopefully that will will give him a better chance on appeal.

Or in other words, if the majority of motorists in your area get away with speeding (and we know that in most areas they in fact do) does that mean that YOU would be accepting of when/if caught for speeding that you were in effect punished for all of their actions rather than your actions?

Justice, (whatever it means exactly), is rarely achieved in this world, my friend.

Neither, in spite of all efforts, is it the outcome of the criminal justice system
as we administer and experience it. Sorry, but if you want "justice" (your version),
you really are going to be disappointed in the majority.

Not sarcastic at all. I wish to Christ they'd start charging a few motorists
in the most egregious circumstances of bicycle/car fatalities locally. I'd
be able to ride here with considerably less paranoia.

Your defense of this individual borders on the hysterical at this point.

Your understanding of the real issues, both legal and political, also seems
minimal from my perspective...........I'd advise giving it a rest, but I've seen
you here on a couple of priors, so by all means continue ranting.

We're not talking speeding......we're talking killed a guy who was out for a walk.

Keith99 06-22-12 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirtdad (Post 14388692)
That is a huge stretch

What is more probable?
a) Cyclist posting from his email acct with details related to the crash and medical status and loading data to strava?

or

b) Some anomymous person finding out who bucchere was, then finding his email address, then posting to the site using some tool to hide source of email and same person faking data to load to strava?

People consistently seem to be forgetting a person was killed. This is not about what happens to drivers, this is about the specific incident.

Based on everything that as been reported the Buccere was

* speeding and running red lights in the immediate time period before the crash
* Speeding at the time of the crash
* Made a decsion go through a light that another cyclist was able to stop for.
* Entereed the light very late in the yellow cycle at minimum
* Appeared to be cycling hard, head down and focused on speed crossing the intersection
* Hit a pedestrian who had a walk signal in an uncrowded cross walk
* Pedestrian dies
* Bucchere goes to hospital ER and is released, sell reporting no major injuries
* Bucchere posts about incident on web site, post is uncaring to callous in tone and contradicts video
* Bucchere post data from his cyclo meter to strava. Appears he is racing to beat a course time
* Cleansing occurs with post removed from web site.

What picture does this paint?

You left out that witnesses reported that he did not seem to make any attempt to stop before the impact. (Which dovetails nicely with riding hard head down).

sudo bike 06-24-12 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Rensho (Post 14387878)
What is going to convict this guy are his own words:


A posting that originated from Bucchere's e-mail address soon after the accident gave the following account: "I was already way too committed to stop. ... I couldn't see a line through the crowd and I couldn't stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find."

If you are speeding at a crowd of pedestrians crossing the sidewalk, albeit illegally, since Bucchere had the light, you can't just claim "I have the right of way" not slow down and plow into them. You have to slow down and avoid them.

In addition, the surveillance camera shows he was not attempting to slow down. DA was right to charge him with homicide.

I haven't been following this closely enough to form an opinion on his guilt, but what you quoted here doesn't match your conclusion that he's guilty.

He is saying he was not able to stop, and so he handled it in the best way he thought he could, which is to aim for the place with the least amount of people while laying it down. It also isn't very unusual for people to "freeze" the moment they realize they are going to crash, they are going to crash hard, and there's nothing they can do to stop it. I've seen enough street lights with short yellow cycles and overzealous pedestrians, that I could certainly imagine an unfortunate scenario where he entered the intersection legally, and then was confronted with a wall of peds. Especially if it is a bigger intersection (haven't seen it, don't know), I've been in situations where it was even turning yellow as my front tire entered, and I still ended up still just in the intersection while red.

Also, as I'm surprised it is still being discussed, there is nothing in California vehicle code that states entering an intersection on a yellow is illegal. The only way you could be cited is to use another catch-all, like "reckless driving", which I'd be surprised to see stick in that case.

Now, his other actions prior may encompass reckless driving and so he may be found guilty this way... as I said, I'm not following closely enough to say, but it is certainly possible. I'm just pointing out that the yellow light is a red herring (ironic), and that his quote really doesn't damn him, but rather explains why he chose the action he did.

Digital_Cowboy 06-24-12 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirtdad (Post 14388692)
That is a huge stretch

What is more probable?
a) Cyclist posting from his email acct with details related to the crash and medical status and loading data to strava?

or

b) Some anomymous person finding out who bucchere was, then finding his email address, then posting to the site using some tool to hide source of email and same person faking data to load to strava?

People consistently seem to be forgetting a person was killed. This is not about what happens to drivers, this is about the specific incident.

Based on everything that as been reported the Buccere was

* speeding and running red lights in the immediate time period before the crash
* Speeding at the time of the crash
* Made a decsion go through a light that another cyclist was able to stop for.
* Entereed the light very late in the yellow cycle at minimum
* Appeared to be cycling hard, head down and focused on speed crossing the intersection
* Hit a pedestrian who had a walk signal in an uncrowded cross walk
* Pedestrian dies
* Bucchere goes to hospital ER and is released, sell reporting no major injuries
* Bucchere posts about incident on web site, post is uncaring to callous in tone and contradicts video
* Bucchere post data from his cyclo meter to strava. Appears he is racing to beat a course time
* Cleansing occurs with post removed from web site.

What picture does this paint?

Granted, it doesn't paint a very good picture for Bucchere. And as I have said all along that I agree that should be punished, but is it asking too much that he be punished for the correct offense?

As for the extent of his injuries unless someone has been able to gain access to his medical records we do not know how severally he was or wasn't injured. Other than the fact that he was rendered unconscious and transported to the hospital. Yes, he apparently was released from the hospital the same day. But that really isn't an indication of the severity (or lack thereof) of his injuries. As people who have been severely injured have been released from the hospital the same day they were seen in the ER.

Just this past week while I was at the local Radio Shack a customer came in asking to use their phone. His girlfriends mother who was in the hospital being treated for cancer was told that she was in remission and released from the hospital. She died a week later at home.

So, just because he was released from the hospital the same the as his crash doesn't mean that he wasn't severely injured.

Also there are a LOT of people who call a broken finger as a severe injury and there are those who would call it a mild injury. Presumably we're not doctors, nor are we Bucchere so we cannot say that his injuries were or were not severe. They were however severe enough that he was rendered unconscious as well as requiring a trip to the ER in the back of an ambulance.

So once again, as I have said before. Yes, he should be punished, but let's make sure he is paying only for his "sins" and that he isn't paying for the "sins" of all cyclists who have "gotten away" with whatever in the S.F. area.

Isn't that fair and justice? Or to phrase it another way, would it be justice for him to have answer for the actions of someone else who got a light sentence, or got off scott clean with no charges whatsoever filed against them?

Also as I've said before if (as it appears) that the D.A. is "throwing the book" at Bucchere, then they had damn welled better be prepared to do the same to EVERY motorist in the same situation. Otherwise this is NOT justice.

Not to knock Strava's equipment, but how do we know that the data no Bucchere's computer was accurate when it was uploaded? As I've said, if I hold my wireless cyclo-computer too close to my Netbook it'll screw up the data on it.

Also how do we know that it was Bucchere who removed the posts that he is alleged to have made? It could have been the web sites admin doing it in an effort to distance themselves from someone who is not a member of their group but tags along on group rides. So that they don't get painted with the same paintbrush.

That is possible, is it not?

Digital_Cowboy 06-24-12 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3alarmer (Post 14391339)
Justice, (whatever it means exactly), is rarely achieved in this world, my friend.

Neither, in spite of all efforts, is it the outcome of the criminal justice system as we administer and experience it. Sorry, but if you want “justice” (your version), you really are going to be disappointed in the majority.

Not sarcastic at all. I wish to Christ they’d start charging a few motorists in the most egregious circumstances of bicycle/car fatalities locally. I’d be able to ride here with considerably less paranoia.

Your defense of this individual borders on the hysterical at this point.

Your understanding of the real issues, both legal and political, also seems minimal from my perspective...........I’d advise giving it a rest, but I’ve seen you here on a couple of priors, so by all means continue ranting.

We’re not talking speeding......we’re talking killed a guy who was out for a walk.

Sadly, that is all too true. It is pretty much common knowledge that the person who has committed a crime lot’s of time end up living better then their victim.

Again, sadly, I understand that any system administered by man is by our very nature going to be imperfect and that mistakes will be made. Which is why there is the saying “I’d rather see 10 guilty men be let free vs. 1 innocent man wrongly imprisoned.” And why we have such a lengthily appeals process, to the “wrongs” visited on a person by the court/legal system.

Why just the “most egregious” of circumstances? If the least egregious situations are fully investigated and charges are pressed against the proper party (be it the motorist or the cyclist) then we wouldn’t have to wait until a situation such as that “good doctor” out in L.A. found himself in.

I am not “defending” him, I have said time-and-time again that I DO want to see him punished. I just want to see him punished for the correct offense.

Yes, I know that someone died, but to hear some people talk about it. One could get the impression that Bucchere intentionally went out looking for someone to hit and kill.

Did Bucchere behave in an unsafe manner? I don’t think that there is much of a question that he did. Was he speeding? Again, I don’t think that there is much of a question to that either. Did he behave like a horses arse after the crash? I don’t really know, has the D.A. or police examined his computer to see if he truly did make the posts that he is accused of having made? I haven’t seen any mention that they have. Did he render aid to his victim? No, but it is my understanding that he himself was unconscious, and it is rather difficult to render aid when one is unconscious.

So once again, YES, I want to see Bucchere punished, but please let’s make sure that he is being punished for his crimes and NOT the crimes of someone else. That, or it should be asking for too much.

3alarmer 06-24-12 03:51 PM

It's about being in control of your vehicle, not yellow lights.......
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14397377)
Also, as I'm surprised it is still being discussed, there is nothing in California vehicle code that states entering an intersection on a yellow is illegal. The only way you could be cited is to use another catch-all, like "reckless driving", which I'd be surprised to see stick in that case.

Quote:

Under the Motor Vehicle Code, a driver can legally enter an intersection if the vehicle's front tires touch the limit line or pedestrian crosswalk line while a signal is still yellow, according to Sgt. Bill Languemi, a code instructor at the California Highway Patrol.
"It is cheating, but it is within the law," he said.
In many cases, these limit lines and pedestrian crosswalk lines are positioned well back from the actual intersection, which is typically defined as the imaginary box formed by the curb lines of the road. I measured the intersection in front of my office, which is across from Los Angeles City Hall, and found the limit lines were 18 feet behind the actual intersection.
Thus, a car can seem to fly through an intersection on a red light and still be legal, so long as the tires hit the limit line on yellow. What's more, the vehicle code gives that car legal possession of the intersection, and cars with the lateral green light must wait for the intersection to clear before entering.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan...os/hy-wheels12
Quote:

V C Section 21950 Right of Way at Crosswalks

Right-of-Way at Crosswalks

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.
Quote:

V C Section 21954 Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks

Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks

21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.
Again, it seems obvious to me that as cyclists we have
Quote:

duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway
wherever we encounter them, and I believe we are legally accountable under the code if we do not.

.

Mos6502 06-25-12 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooper (Post 14361860)

2. Multiple witnesses said Sutchi Hui had a green walk light before stepping into the crosswalk at the intersection just before being struck by Bucchere.

"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. Hui died at a hospital on April 2."

A green light, but more importantly did he have a walk signal? At a controlled intersection where walk signals are present, the walk signal takes precedence over the light for peds so far as I know. I'm a bit confused because you say "green walk light" and the quote just says "green light".

Walk lights are generally white so I'm assuming it's your mistake.

Quote:

Gascon said prosecutors have seen the post and, while it did not necessarily play a role in their decision on the charges, "clearly it raises a concern for us about his state of mind."
Uh oh. This sounds like some The Stranger ****. :innocent:

sudo bike 06-25-12 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3alarmer (Post 14399119)
Again, it seems obvious to me that as cyclists we have
wherever we encounter them, and I believe we are legally accountable under the code if we do not.

Absolutely a fair point. Again, I stress that I'm not saying this guy isn't guilty because I haven't payed enough attention at what is going on (and I'd hazard a guess that most of us here are theorizing more than anything else, unless we have nearly all the facts investigators do). I was just pointing out that the yellow light thing is sort of a moot point, and his quote doesn't really damn him. His other actions may have.

Scooper 06-25-12 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mos6502 (Post 14400774)
A green light, but more importantly did he have a walk signal? At a controlled intersection where walk signals are present, the walk signal takes precedence over the light for peds so far as I know. I'm a bit confused because you say "green walk light" and the quote just says "green light".

Walk lights are generally white so I'm assuming it's your mistake.

The pedestrian "walk" light was white and the traffic light was green for Market Street traffic to cross Castro Street. The pedestrian white walk light and the green traffic light change from red simultaneously for pedestrians and vehicle traffic crossing Castro Street.

Sorry I wasn't clearer.

bandit1990 06-25-12 12:19 PM

I still think he ran the red light.

Scooper 06-25-12 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandit1990 (Post 14402827)
I still think he ran the red light.

I walk, cycle, and drive a car throught that intersection several times a day, and have done so for the past fifteen years. I don't see how Bucchere couldn't have run a red light if the pedestrian had a walk light as multiple witnesses claim. There is at least a five second delay between the traffic light for Castro Street traffic turning red and the Market Street pedestrian signal changing to "walk."

Mos6502 06-25-12 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooper (Post 14403436)
I walk, cycle, and drive a car throught that intersection several times a day, and have done so for the past fifteen years. I don't see how Bucchere couldn't have run a red light if the pedestrian had a walk light as multiple witnesses claim. There is at least a five second delay between the traffic light for Castro Street traffic turning red and the Market Street pedestrian signal changing to "walk."

I wonder what the cyclist who stopped at the intersection instead of going on saw. Did he stop because it was a stale yellow, or did he stop because it was red?

Although I'd think if a witness actually had seen Chris completely blow a red - it would have been brought up by now, and there would be no murkiness about it, since that would pretty much make the whole thing an open and shut case.

Scooper 06-25-12 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mos6502 (Post 14403503)
I wonder what the cyclist who stopped at the intersection instead of going on saw. Did he stop because it was a stale yellow, or did he stop because it was red?

Although I'd think if a witness actually had seen Chris completely blow a red - it would have been brought up by now, and there would be no murkiness about it, since that would pretty much make the whole thing an open and shut case.

The D.A. has to share all of the evidence obtained during the investigation with Bucchere's attorney, but not with the public until it's presented at trial (if the case goes to trial).

It may well be an open an open and shut case.

Rx Rider 06-25-12 06:29 PM

as long as speculation is the soup de jour I'm going to say, I think their heads collided. Buchere's may think he put the bike down but between his speed and the amount of room he had to work with how do you do that? he did blackout so his recollection can't be trusted, even if he's an honest guy.
as to his lousy judgement, between the group ride and his attempt at KOM, I wonder if his mind wasn't bonking right along with his body. I'm trying to give him a halfass excuse for being reckless but there is no excuse for riding like that in a metropolitan setting. I've gotten into situations where my bad judgement got me into trouble but I bailed, I braked, I turned, I turned again and I braked some more. if Buchere had done something he still would have hit someone but not as hard, not the same way. who's to say what would have happened.
just makes me glad my foolish self never had to deal with something like this.

Keith99 06-27-12 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooper (Post 14403436)
I walk, cycle, and drive a car throught that intersection several times a day, and have done so for the past fifteen years. I don't see how Bucchere couldn't have run a red light if the pedestrian had a walk light as multiple witnesses claim. There is at least a five second delay between the traffic light for Castro Street traffic turning red and the Market Street pedestrian signal changing to "walk."

This is the kind of specifics that matter. I know streets where ther is little if any time from when one light goes red til the other goes green and others like this.

5 seconds is forever. enough time for a fairly slow semi that entered jsut as it went red to completely clear an intersection.

Digital_Cowboy 06-28-12 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rx Rider (Post 14404609)
as long as speculation is the soup de jour I'm going to say, I think their heads collided. Buchere's may think he put the bike down but between his speed and the amount of room he had to work with how do you do that? he did blackout so his recollection can't be trusted, even if he's an honest guy.
as to his lousy judgement, between the group ride and his attempt at KOM, I wonder if his mind wasn't bonking right along with his body. I'm trying to give him a halfass excuse for being reckless but there is no excuse for riding like that in a metropolitan setting. I've gotten into situations where my bad judgement got me into trouble but I bailed, I braked, I turned, I turned again and I braked some more. if Buchere had done something he still would have hit someone but not as hard, not the same way. who's to say what would have happened.
just makes me glad my foolish self never had to deal with something like this.

Agreed, if he was bonking it still wouldn't excuse his actions on that day, but it would help to explain them. And as I've said before I think he should have to answer for his actions. But only for HIS actions, and not the actions of other cyclists.

San Rensho 06-28-12 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sudo bike (Post 14397377)
I haven't been following this closely enough to form an opinion on his guilt, but what you quoted here doesn't match your conclusion that he's guilty.

He is saying he was not able to stop, and so he handled it in the best way he thought he could, which is to aim for the place with the least amount of people while laying it down. It also isn't very unusual for people to "freeze" the moment they realize they are going to crash, they are going to crash hard, and there's nothing they can do to stop it. I've seen enough street lights with short yellow cycles and overzealous pedestrians, that I could certainly imagine an unfortunate scenario where he entered the intersection legally, and then was confronted with a wall of peds. Especially if it is a bigger intersection (haven't seen it, don't know), I've been in situations where it was even turning yellow as my front tire entered, and I still ended up still just in the intersection while red.

Also, as I'm surprised it is still being discussed, there is nothing in California vehicle code that states entering an intersection on a yellow is illegal. The only way you could be cited is to use another catch-all, like "reckless driving", which I'd be surprised to see stick in that case.

Now, his other actions prior may encompass reckless driving and so he may be found guilty this way... as I said, I'm not following closely enough to say, but it is certainly possible. I'm just pointing out that the yellow light is a red herring (ironic), and that his quote really doesn't damn him, but rather explains why he chose the action he did.

He said there was a crowd of people in the crosswalk. Crowds don't materialize in half a second. He had to have seen the people in the road from some distance and even if they don't have the right of way, he has to stop for them. He was racing for the intersection, thinking he could sneak through the crowd, instead of just stopping, he miscalculated and hit someone. He was at least negligent, he killed someone because of his negligence, you have negligent manslaughter at least.

sauerwald 06-28-12 04:29 PM

There are plenty of things that I don't understand, but one of those is how Mr. Bucherre can be charged with VEHICULAR manslaughter when he was riding a bicycle in California. California does not consider bicycles to be vehicles. I would have thought that to bring a charge of vehicular manslaughter, a vehicle would have had to be involved.

SteamingAlong 06-29-12 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sauerwald (Post 14266770)
I can understand how a cyclist could hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

+1

While it pisses me off when I see cyclists buzz pedestrians who clearly have the right away and have almost been taken out myself by a bike messenger who blew through a red light, I also commute to and from Providence, RI.

Providence pedestrians are the worst. I've had jaywalkers make eye contact, so I know they see me, while they are standing on the sidewalk, and yet they still step right out in front of me, no matter what my speed. It's flat out obnoxious behavior.

If you wouldn't step in front of semi-truck going the same speed as me, then don't step in front of me either.

unterhausen 06-29-12 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Rensho (Post 14417855)
He said there was a crowd of people in the crosswalk. Crowds don't materialize in half a second. He had to have seen the people in the road from some distance and even if they don't have the right of way, he has to stop for them. He was racing for the intersection, thinking he could sneak through the crowd, instead of just stopping, he miscalculated and hit someone. He was at least negligent, he killed someone because of his negligence, you have negligent manslaughter at least.

I agree with your logic, but apparently it doesn't work this way for motorists. That never made sense to me

Keith99 06-29-12 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sauerwald (Post 14418181)
There are plenty of things that I don't understand, but one of those is how Mr. Bucherre can be charged with VEHICULAR manslaughter when he was riding a bicycle in California. California does not consider bicycles to be vehicles. I would have thought that to bring a charge of vehicular manslaughter, a vehicle would have had to be involved.

Wrong. in California like most states bicycles are vehicels and have all hte rights and responsibilities of vehicles.

They are not motor vehicles. The law that governs traffic is the vehicle code, not the motor vehicle code.

alhedges 06-29-12 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith99 (Post 14421917)
Wrong. in California like most states bicycles are vehicels and have all hte rights and responsibilities of vehicles.

Cite?

Quote:

[h=3]V C Section 670 Vehicle[/h]
[h=4]Vehicle[/h]670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Amended Ch. 987, Stats. 1975. Effective January 1, 1976.






sauerwald 06-29-12 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith99 (Post 14421917)
Wrong. in California like most states bicycles are vehicels and have all hte rights and responsibilities of vehicles.

They are not motor vehicles. The law that governs traffic is the vehicle code, not the motor vehicle code.

California explicitly excepts human powered vehicles from their definition of vehicle, therefore in California, a bicycle is NOT a vehicle - it is a human powered device.

I believe that in most other states, bicycles are vehicles.

Dchiefransom 06-30-12 09:25 PM

Interesting. Vehicular manslaughter requires a vehicle. I wonder if they'd just charge him with manslaughter?

Scooper 07-01-12 10:52 AM

Jonathan Turley comments on this accident.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:01 AM.