bluefoxicy

I do this pretty regularly (without the headphones). What happens is pedestrians will watch the cars, and then when there's no cars they'll cross. I've been in the intersection with a pedestrian looking right at me and walking into the street after a car passes through the crosswalk, with full green light my way and several seconds left before the light's to go yellow (we have counters, they visibly count down the seconds to yellow). Now, on level ground, I'm going 20-25.

I've near-missed these guys, skid to a stop, turned to the cop 3 feet away and told him to tell these bastards not to cross illegally 'cause if I hit them, I go to the hospital and they die. Cops and pedestrians agree: you'd have to be incredibly stupid to hit someone on a bicycle, even if they literally jump out in front of you. At least he lectured the moron idling in the intersection about gridlock... he'll lecture a driver about not taking his SUV into an intersection he can't forseeably exit, but he won't ticket a jaywalking pedestrian that nearly gets smashed into pulp by a high-speed cyclist. Good job, quality law enforcement here.

You know why I haven't killed anyone yet? When I drive or bike, I assume everyone around me is a moron. Pedestrians on the sidewalk? In their 20s? 30s? 40s? I'm watching them, waiting for them to suddenly have a fit of autism and run flailing their arms and drooling on themselves into the street right in front of me with no warning. You know what? THEY DO! Every friggin' day, somebody does! Look ma, no more cars but a huge line of bikes tagged up in race gear and sponsor patches, going 35mph! Let's cross now, they're only bikes, they can't hurt people like cars!

If one day I can't brake and I can't evade, I'm just gonna pop a wheelie and ride it out. If I can't stop the bike despite every desperate attempt, it must be the will of Darwin. Fortunately that day has yet to come--I bought some fantastic brakes and tires.

squirtdad

the was in the link in a previous post https://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/vioptct.htm

the page lists points charged for specific offences.

the specific listing is

DMV section: 21452, 21452a Violation: Illegal movement/yellow light/arrow

this is not what I believe, but what the DMV states, which is you can get a 1 point charge for a yellow light violation. I found no specifics as to what would constitute a violation. It could be that it is like reckless driving, based on the situation observed by the citing officer.

sudo bike

As noted though, that still doesn't provide a way to charge the driver:

21452. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter.

It doesn't say you must not enter on a yellow, only explains its purpose.

I think they would have an especially hard time construing that as illegal since the very next subsection (for pedestrians) does explicitly state it is illegal.

(b) A pedestrian facing a steady circular yellow or a yellow arrow signal, unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, is, by that signal, warned that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and shall not enter the roadway.

I think they'd have a hard time saying it is implies in section A that it is illegal when it is not explicitly stated, even though they went to the trouble of explicitly stating it for section B.

I think the DMV is wrong on this one, and are likely just trying to promote good driving under threat of getting a ticket. The only thing I think they could possibly pop you with is the catch-all "reckless driving", but unless you pulled a helluva stunt to make that yellow, I can hardly see that sticking. I'd feel pretty confident about fighting it, anyway.

$.02.

asmac

In Ontario, my understanding is that if any part of your vehicle enters an intersection after the light turns yellow it can result in a red light ticket. For example, if you are turning left and have the nose of your car in the intersection, you are legally required not to proceed if the light turns yellow.
Re the point about going fast, maybe the best thing to do if you are going thru a yellow/red is not to speed up but to slow down in anticipation of pedestrians or whatever so you can stop without hitting them or minimize damage if a collision is unavoidable.

Scooper

The D.A. has finally filed felony vehicular manslaughter charges against Chris Bucchere in the death of 71 year old pedestrian Sutchi Hui.

Bicyclist charged in Castro pedestrian death

"As for why it took 2 1/2 months to bring the charge?

Our sources say weeks were spent tracking down and interviewing at least 10 people who witnessed the accident - some of whom are certain to be called at trial."

FrenchFit 

Classic roadie NASCAR mentality.

Pedestrians are king, yo; and that's a good thing. You'll be one someday, and so will your spouse and children.

Surfer34

The guy wont be found guilty. The eyewitness evidence of him "blowing through red lights" prior to the collision wont be admitted because he didnt illegally run the red light that caused the accident. His attorneys will chalenge the relevance and i'm pretty sure it wont be admitte.

I wonder if the guy voluntarily gave his bike computer to police or if they had a warrant to seize and search it.

Remember folks, you have a 4th and 5th Amend right for a reason. USE IT !!!!

squirtdad

Why would you think the eyewitness evidence would not be admitted? based on every thing that has been related the charge is based on gross negligence and testimony as to behavior just prior to the collision certainly be relevant as to the ridding pattern during the day. Testimony that the cyclist ran a red light 2 years ago would not be relevant.

genec

OK so is the same DA going to charge every motorist that plows down a pedestrian... or are they merely reserving this privilege for cyclists?

Scooper

His behavior (speeding, blowing red lights and stop signs) just before the accident is relevant because it demonstrates his recklessness and callous disregard of the laws and the safety of others at the time.

Uh, neither; he allegedly uploaded the GPS data from the ride to Strava on the day of the accident after he was released from the hospital.

Neither his fourth or fifth amendment rights appear to have been violated; he screwed himself with his on-line posts (to Mission Cycling under his e-mail address) and GPS data upload to Strava.

Chicago Al 

Well, no one has provided evidence that motorists who hit pedestrians aren't charged. And this is a pretty egregious case: cyclist going in a straight line, broad daylight, clear line of sight, wide intersection, lots of witnesses.

I would bet that if there was evidence that such a motorist had been speeding, that he was tracking his speed and 'competing' to make the route the fastest possible, that he had already blown through red lights (maybe it was stop signs), and if there was a camera recording him not slowing down but going into the equivalent of a 'tuck' heading toward the pedestrian...he would likely be charged. Don't you think so?

And god forbid, if he'd hit a *cyclist* the jury here would have convicted and hung him already.

It's entirely reasonable that the audience here wants to be sympathetic to a fellow cyclist, but there have to be limits.

Scooper

I think it depends on the circumstances. The same D.A. offered a plea deal to another cyclist who killed a pedestrian last year after running a red light. In that case, the cyclist admitted his culpability and was remorseful.

genec

While we have no specific cases, it is well known that motorists often get off when killing pedestrians or cyclists... the standing "bad joke" here is that if you want to kill someone, put them on a bike, as no one is ever charged with killing a cyclist unless drugs or alcohol are involved. Someone pointed out to me that motorists are rarely charged even when they kill another motorist... so powerful is the "it was only an accident" mentality.

And yes, we do have a bit of bias here toward cyclists... but frankly I too find the cyclist's behaviour in this case egregious... just a bit more care on his part (and not blogging about it) would have saved a life and more.

squirtdad

Recently a motorist in Santa Clara county (south of San francisco...think silicon valley) got 3 years for hit and run on a pair of cyclists, one was seriously injured, the other less seriously injured.

The convicted motorist: was driving without a license, had prior dui issues, hit and run, actively tried to cover up the accident (tried to ship car out of state, get repairs done off the books).

So it appears circumstances make the difference and drivers do get charged and convicted. I would expect the same when a cyclist hits a person, circumstances make the difference.

I think that if we saw all of the stats though, there is probably an astoundingly low percentage of collisions where the at fault person is charged whether it is car hitting car, pedestrian, cyclist or cyclist hitting car or pedestiran, or pedestrian doing stupid things causing an accident.

Chicago Al 

Please, this is a specific case. Yes, there are lots of cases of motorists getting off lightly or entirely when they've hit cyclists. They are brought up here weekly if not more often. This is not one of those cases.

To bring them up now is irrelevant unless you think that's a good reason for the cyclist to get off or want to obscure the specifics of this case. Which I don't think you do.

genec

No, frankly I don't think this guy should get off. But then I tend to feel that way whenever some innocent is killed by either a car or bike.... the latter however tend to be rather rare.

Digital_Cowboy

I don't know that he will or won't be convicted of anything. But as I believe it was who CB HI said that because he hasn't been convicted of those actions that even though the prosecutor's office will try to introduce them the defense lawyer will object to their being introduced.Uh, because as (as I said before) I believe that CB HI was the one who said that because he hasn't been convicted of those prior bad acts that they're not admissible in court.Was he acting in a reckless and careless manner, I think that the evidence presented so far shows this. Does it raise to the level of a felony? I honestly do not know, and as I've said before if I was on the jury given what we know at this point I wouldn't be able to convict him on felony charges.Good question, sadly something tells me not.Has he been convicted of those charges? If not then what makes you think that they'd be admissible in court?The keyword there is "allegedly" how do we know for sure that the information wasn't scrabbled in the crash? How do we know that the information wasn't altered at the web site? How do we know that it was his information?It certainly didn't do him any good.

Digital_Cowboy

I don't think that he should get off either, but I don't know that especially given the fact that the last cyclist to hit and kill a pedestrian was allowed to accept a plea deal for a lower charge. Nor if memory serves were they charged with a felony.Given that, I'd like to know why this cyclist is being charged with a felony.So yes, I think that he should be charged, and convicted, and punished, but let's just make sure that he is being charged, convicted and punished for the right crime.And as you've asked, if it was a motorist instead of a cyclist would there have been any charges filed?Sadly, I don't think so. And that's just going by the cases that I've heard about down here in Florida. We had a number of crashes resulting in serious injury or death with no charges being filled against the drivers. We have a case that even though the driver was charged is still pending down in Miami.

squirtdad

I don't get where people think the "legal theory" that if a person was not convicted of runnigng a red light immediately previous to the crash it would be inadmissable.

Prior behavior and state of mind is regularily introduced as admissable in trial. The one jury I served on dealt with a city employee and abuse of power and behavior patterns were key. The defendant was never convicted on the prior behavior patterns, but they were relevant and admissable at trial.

The cyclist who plead out, was charged with a felony. Why the plea? Among other things the family of the person killed did not want harsh punishment. What else was involved is speculation: Cyclist showed remorse vs posting what is perceived as indifferent to callous post, Once cyclist was rushing to work, the other allegedly trying for a speed record? We won't have much visibility until the trial.

The plea deal appears to be controvesial, with many thinking it too lenient, which could have a bearing on the current case

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1342466.html

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...rcadero-crash/

Digital_Cowboy

Ah, but if I'm not mistaken the difference between the case that you served on the jury for and this case is in the case that you heard there was a clear pattern of abuse of power, etc. Whereas in this case how does his having allegedly run either stop signs or red lights prove that he was acting with "callous disregard?" Where is the evidence that he was "racing" either his previous time on that road or against anyone else? Or are we now assuming that because he was travelling at a "high rate of speed" that he was "racing?"

Did he make mistakes that day? Yes, yes he did. First in the speed that he is alleged at having been travelling, and secondly by allegedly posting about it afterwards. And just playing "devil's advocate" here for a second, do we really know that it was the cyclist in question who posted about it?

I mean we know that it is easy to hack someone's e-mail account, or to spoof an e-mail so that it looks as if "Mr. Jones" sent a particular e-mail when in fact it was "Mr. Smith" who actually sent the e-mail in question. So has anyone independently confirmed that the cyclist is/was the person who posted about the crash?

You could be right about that, down here in Fl after Casey Anthony was acquitted of the charges of having killed her daughter lawyers feared that jurors on subsequent cases would feel that because Casey got "away with murder" that their clients would end up "paying the price" for Casey's acquittal.

And are you saying that if you were to find yourself in a similar situation where "moments" before you either ran a red light/stop sign and/or were speeding that you'd be comfortable with the DA/Prosecutor trying to introduce that as "evidence" of your "reckless behavior, and wanton disregard" for human life?

Chicago Al 

DC, you seem very sure of the legalities here. And you expound your thoughts on what the law is, what is admissible in court, etc at some length. And multiple posts. Presumably being in Florida you have not passed the CA bar, but please let us know your legal training and experience so we can evaluate your statements.

Personally I am inclined to think that the local DA and her staff know their business and have brought a case that they are reasonably confident they can win. It also seems likely that someone in that office is familiar with the relevant rules of evidence. But maybe posters here know better.

Mos6502

I thought the DA had previously stated they will not be relying on the internet posts as part of their prosecution. Given that the posts were made after the accident I think that makes sense. They seem to have found enough witnesses to do without it anyway.

Digital_Cowboy

I am relying on what (I believe it was) CB HI has said in regards to what is and isn't admissible. Given that presumably the cyclist hasn't been convicted of the earlier in the day reckless behavior how does it make any sense that it would be admissible in court?

Is it also not possible that after possibly receiving negative responses to the plea deal offered to the last cyclist involved in a fatal crash with a pedestrian that they are intending to make an example out of the cyclist in this case?

Digital_Cowboy

I was likewise under that impression.

As has been asked before how do we know that the data that was uploaded from his cycle computer was accurate and not tampered with? I know from experience that if I place my wireless cycle computer too close to my Netbook computer that it'll drastically increase/alter the information on it.

So given that the cyclist in question is/was in a serious crash how can we be sure that the data on his computer is/was accurate? How can we be sure that it wasn't altered at the web site where it was uploaded?

I think that the DA is correct not to rely on either that data or the posts that the cyclist is alleged to have made after being released from the hospital.

Scooper

At the D.A.'s press conference yesterday, two significant facts came out that had previously been the subject of speculation:

1. The rider who was accompanying Bucchere on the ride back to San Francisco from the Marin headlands stopped safely before entering the Castro/Market intersection, while Bucchere continued through the intersection at speed with his head down, apparently making no effort to slow or stop.

"District Attorney George Gascón said Thursday that Bucchere was racing on an informal course that began in the Marin Headlands. A co-rider stopped at the intersection as the light changed, but Bucchere blew through that light as well as previous red lights and stop signs, said Gascón."

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."