CB HI

Then do not be lazy and read the thread with attached stories.

KonAaron Snake 

Y'know - if a cyclist goes through a red and gets hit, he doesn't want me on the jury. And I ride enough to know cyclists are at least as likely to be the problem when they get hit by cars.

Be as snarky as you want - the ding bat jumped in front of me and froze. I'm just glad she didn't hurt my bike or further inconvenience me

CB HI

Do not be so sure of that. The intersection crossing for the cyclist is wider than normal. It is an odd intersection. And I do not recall any information on which way the pedestrian was walking - one side of the pedestrian crosswalk has planters blocking the view of the cyclist if the pedestrian stepped out from that side.

https://goo.gl/maps/ien1z


It should not have been a surprise that pedestrians would be in the crosswalk by the time he reached it and far more caution was warranted on the cyclist part.

CB HI

That just is not true. Depending on the location of the study, the studies show for adult cyclist in collisions with motorist, that the motorist was at fault 65 to 95% of the time.

Australia is in the 90-95% motorist fault
Hawaii is in the 78% motorist fault

Remove the collisions with jay riding homeless and DUI cyclist, and almost all other collisions are the motorist fault.

Since I am an adult cyclist that does not jay ride or DUI cycle, please stop assuming when some motorist hits me, it was just as likely my fault.

hamster

As it has been discussed in one of the threads about this incident last year, there is a delay between cyclist's "red" and pedestrian's "walk", and it is supposed to be long enough that the vehicle entering the intersection just before its light turns red can leave the intersection before pedestrians get a walk sign. One guy actually went and timed the lights at that intersection and concluded that the delay was 7 s. In addition to that, it takes about 5 s even for a regular person (not a frail 71-year-old) to reach the middle of the intersection. At the speed the cyclist was going, it should have taken him at most 5 s and possibly less than 4 s to cross.

There is so much safety margin in the timing that, if both of them were law-abiding, the cyclist entered the intersection at the last possible moment (just as yellow was changing into red), and the pedestrian entered the crosswalk at the normal walking speed as soon as it changed into green, they should have missed each other by 7-8 s. Even if the light timing was adjusted after the accident, it was still impossible for them to collide, unless one or both of them ran the light. In particular, the pedestrian was almost certainly at fault. If he weren't, the cyclist had to enter the intersection _well_ after his light turned red (7 s later!), so late that he must have barely avoided being hit by a car.

However, I don't think that pedestrian's fault is important in this matter. The central issue of the trial is cyclist's behavior. He's being charged with felony vehicular manslaughter. To get a conviction, they need to prove that the cyclist was extremely reckless and exhibiting gross negligence: "A person acts with gross negligence when: [1] He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; AND [2] A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk."

* Typically, when a driver runs a red light and kills someone, that's pretty much a slam dunk felony vehicular manslaughter. The presumption is that running a red light in a 3000 lb steel cage is a reckless action with a high risk of death or injury to others.
* It is less obvious that running a red light on a 20 lb bicycle is equally reckless. I can't find any records of a cyclist EVER being charged with felony manslaughter after running a red light. But there's always the first time. There was another guy who ran a red light on a bicycle and killed a person in SF a couple of months before Bucchere. He only got charged with misdemeanor manslaughter.
* If he entered the intersection legally, the DA has to prove that the cyclist's whole pattern of actions prior to the collision was reckless and he was endangering lives simply by riding the way he was riding. It _can_ be done even if the pedestrian was at fault. Example: a drunk driver is racing at 30 mph above the speed limit on a city street, weaving lanes and running stop signs. At an intersection where the driver has a green light, there is a jaywalking pedestrian. The driver has a clear view of the jaywalker and ample opportunity to stop. He hits and kills the pedestrian. In this situation, the driver is in a world of hurt because he'll be convicted of "gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated" (California Penal Code 191.5(a)) with the minimum penalty of 4 years in prison.

It's clear that the prosecution is breaking new ground, there's not a lot of useful case law, both parties have their work cut out for them. The prosecution will be arguing that the way Bucchere was riding (running multiple stop lights in a row, going 35 mph, etc) was inherently dangerous and he was a menace to others. The defense will be arguing that Bucchere was nevertheless exercising due care, that he never even came close to hurting anyone before the accident in question. It could go either way.

KonAaron Snake 

I'm calling horse crap. What studies are these exactly? Conducted when and where? I see at more cyclists behaving poorly than autos where I live.

B. Carfree

It is truly amazing that in a city with approximately 100 pedestrians killed every year by motorists, the only non-drunk and/or non-hit-and-run person to be charged with felony manslaughter is a cyclists who MAY have had the right-of-way when the collision occurred. This sort of selective prosecution does remind me of a certain region of our nation at a certain time in our history...

Chicago Al 

A couple of things that may be influencing SF opinions as seen in coverage there:

-Chris Buccherre, or someone using his account on Strava (?) posted a message after his crash, describing it in dubious terms such as 'I tried to lay the bike down' and mourning...the loss of his helmet.

-Earlier news reports noted that Buccherre had a riding companion, who had stopped at the light, and who has given testimony, apparently not favorable to him.

Imagine not just a motorist, but one trying to beat a 'personal best' time on city streets, killing a cyclist (or pedestrian) and posting disengenuously about it online...I doubt anyone here would be the least bit sympathetic.

unterhausen

'I tried to lay the bike down' means he tried to crash to avoid the collision. It's not an effective thing to do, but most people don't realize that. If there is any prejudice against him because of that it's misguided.

dynodonn 

......only because the cyclist didn't really have the ability to escape personal harm as a hit and run motorist can, and a drunk cyclist would be lucky to even make it as far, or even possibly attain the speed of the cyclist in question.

Scooper

According to the D.A., the surveillance video from the Twin Peaks bar on the corner shows Bucchere made no attempt to slow down, avoid the pedestrian, or lay down the bike. Also, contrary to the account allegedly posted by Bucchere following the accident, the crosswalk only had three or four pedestrians in it, not the hordes described in the post. Apparently, the video was shown during the hearing and influenced the judge's decision not to grant the defense motion to either dismiss the felony charge or reduce it to a misdemeanor.

CB HI

There have been threads and links by BF members here, do some searches. you have been here long enough to see some of them.

If you do not believe me fine, I really do not care.

The only claim of 50/50 was by a San Francisco news paper based on their review of police reports. When the cycling group looked at those same police reports, they found an extremely large number blamed the cyclist for excessive speed. So lets get this right, few motorist in SF engaged in excessive speed, but many, many cyclist did. Really, cyclist in SF are riding faster than all the motorist are.

CB HI

And according to the defense, there is a video that shows differently. The DA seemed to make several claims before they even looked at videos.

I think the cyclist is at fault, yet I do not trust this DA at all. This DA makes it sound like the cyclist intentionally aimed for the pedestrian, I doubt that to be true.

agent pombero

hahaha, pop a wheelie and that front wheel is gonna ride that dumb peds face! An effective technique for removing rotten teeth I've been told.

Scooper

This April, 2012 S.F. Chronicle article and KPIX Channel 5 video clip (the video clip is the second of the four images in the story) give a pretty good summary of the facts, except the video shows Hui crossing Castro south of Market from east to west when he was actually walking from west to east toward the Twin Peaks bar where the camera was located.

I believe Ted Cassman, Bucchere's defense attorney, and George Gascón, the D.A., were both referring to the same Twin Peaks bar surveillance video. I guess a jury will have to decide which interpretation is correct. Personally, I have a lot of confidence in the D.A. who was San Francisco's Police Chief before becoming D.A.

agent pombero

Bucchere is an ******* for posting what he did on the internet. He's probably going to get grilled and charred by the DA and be tossed in the pokey. That said, if it is true that the pedestrian entered the crosswalk illegally = MORON!

If your crosswalk is green = Don't be a moron! Look both ways before proceeding into the crosswalk.
If the light is green = Don't be a moron! Look both ways before proceeding into the intersection.

Scooper

The Twin Peaks video camera has the pedestrian "Walk/Don't Walk" light in its field of view, and there is a several second delay between the Castro St. traffic light turning red (for Bucchere) and the Market St. pedestrian Walk light (for Hui) turning from red to white. At the speed Bucchere was going (~35mph), it's pretty clear from the light timing that the light was red when Bucchere entered the intersection from the north. If the video shows Hui waited for the Walk light before stepping into the intersection, I think Bucchere's lawyer will have a hard time convincing a jury that Bucchere entered the intersection with a yellow light.

FWIW, I have lived two blocks from the intersection since 1997, and transit it several times a day as a pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist.

KonAaron Snake 

Post its methodology and location or be quiet. Cyclists make mistakes and autos aren't always wrong.

gecho

An article I read yesterday quotes the defense attorney as saying the video evidence shows the cyclist entered the intersection before the light turned red. The prosecutor was playing up the fact that the cyclist ran red lights at earlier intersections. The prosecutor's position seems to be that the cyclist had no intention of stopping, therefore its irrelevant whether he technically may have had the right of way.

Though since defense attorneys use hyperbole in defense of their clients and prosecutors the same against the defendant, we probably can't put much faith in what either side says. I'm assuming the reason the evidence isn't made public has to do with polluting the jury pool, but both sides seem to be doing just that.

dynodonn 

Looking the video one has to ask, has there been this much of a "dust up" over the death of a pedestrian in cases that involved a motor vehicle?

Scooper

If the operator of the motor vehicle was speeding, driving recklessly, immediately lawyered up, and showed no remorse, then yes; I believe there would have been a similar reaction from the public and the D.A.

San Francisco Chronicle article with details of the first day of the hearing last Wednesday.

dynodonn 

Looking at this particular video, it only shows interviews with students and HS coaches, and basically nothing else.

https://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...sco&id=9020826

Scooper

https://www.sfdistrictattorney.com/index.aspx?page=239

Driver to be Charged with 3 Felonies for Killing a Pedestrian on Sloat Blvd

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 6, 2013

CONTACT: Stephanie Ong Stillman, DA Gascón’s Office, (415) 553-1167

ADA Alex Bastian, DA Gascón’s Office, (415) 553-1931



SAN FRANCISCO, CA – District Attorney George Gascón announced today that Kieran Drew Brewer, age 28 of San Francisco will be charged with three felonies for driving under the influence and killing a 17-year old pedestrian on Sloat Boulevard on March 3.

“In a matter of seconds, a young girl’s life was taken on her 17th birthday because of the irresponsible behavior of the defendant,” said District Attorney George Gascón. “When you get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you are responsible not only for yourself but to the cars and pedestrians around you. We hope this case serves as a reminder of the tragic consequences when you drink and drive.”

According to court documents, on March 3, the defendant was driving westbound on Sloat Bouvelard approaching Forest View Drive. The victim was crossing Sloat Boulevard going northbound when the front of the defendant’s vehicle struck the victim. The defendant was under the influence and was driving at an unsafe speed.

Brewer will be charged with felony gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving under the influence causing injury and driving with a .08 or higher causing injury. He faces up to 10 years in State Prison. His bail was set at $300,000. He is scheduled to be arraigned on March 8, at 9am in Dept 11. Assistant District Attorney Nicole Joseph-Goteiner is arraigning the case.

unterhausen

the question is, do they charge motorists when there is no "impairment"? Usually not

dynodonn 

Usual announcement, but I didn't see any videos, other than one very short clip from a SFPD officer, of a special news conference being held do to this incident.

https://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...sco&id=9015309

In the two articles that I provided, zero comments from the community at large, due to either the article is obscured in some out of the way location, or public apathy.