Northern California - Santa Clara University professor badly hurt in Los Gatos bicycle crash

Incident was Wednesday morning at 7:40am on Los Gatos Blvd.
Bicyclist was heading straight and was cut off by a SUV turning left.
The police are looking for witnesses.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_18149847

The Explorer's driver, San Jose resident Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Gallegos, 42, was cited for being an unlicensed driver. The cause of the accident remains under investigation.

:mad: Freaken scum.

Alongside the bike lane, a row of cars were stopped waiting for the light to turn green at the Highway 9 intersection. Just then, a Ford Explorer made a left turn through the stopped traffic using the "keep clear" space and was hit broadside by Saghari's bike.

Sounds like the rider would be at least partially hidden from the SUV by the line of cars (not that that is a valid excuse). Dangerous and unfortunate situation; be careful out there. I hope he pulls through okay.

Commuting makes me nervous, and I ride like 10k miles/year. It only takes 1 blind/careless driver.

in the Mercury article? It makes it sound like the bicyclist ran into the SUV and it was his fault--when it sounds to me his right of way was violated.

No matter, if the police determine he was in fact riding faster than they think he should have been riding, they're going to say it was his fault.

It's possible the helmet didn't help much if he planted his face first into the SUV's side.

I agree that commuting can be harrowing. Most drivers see a bike and figure that cyclists are putting in the same limited energy into the bike that they themselves would. Therefore they won't think anyone could possibly be riding 18-19 mph and will then make turns to violate cyclist's right of way. Of course that's if they notice the bicyclist at all.

Driving Central and other roads to my job, I w/o doubt notice bicyclists to a much greater degree when they have head & taillights on in all conditions. PLEASE BE SEEN! USE YOUR LIGHTS!

I wonder if it was a pedestrian that was crossing the intersection under green light the author would have written.. the pedestrian crashed into the side of the SUV. Maybe I'm of base here, but I think I've seem this attitude a few times before in the Mercury News reproting bike accidents...I don't get where these "journalists" are coming from.

the pedestrian crashed into the side of the SUV. ...I don't get where these "journalists" are coming from.
Well-put. The byline is to Mike Rosenberg, who recently left the San Mateo Times & is a self-described "transportation reporter" for the Mercury News. Reminds me of the pro-car bias described in Forester's "Effective Cycling" back in 1980s Palo Alto.

i didn't notice any bias in the article. how else would you describe a bike running into the side of a car?

i didn't notice any bias in the article. how else would you describe a bike running into the side of a car?

No bias. It sounds like an unfortunate accident that could've happen to anyone of us.

in the Mercury article? It makes it sound like the bicyclist ran into the SUV and it was his fault--when it sounds to me his right of way was violated.

No matter, if the police determine he was in fact riding faster than they think he should have been riding, they're going to say it was his fault.
. . . I w/o doubt notice bicyclists to a much greater degree when they have head & taillights on in all conditions. PLEASE BE SEEN! USE YOUR LIGHTS!

I had that very same accident on Danville blvd in Alamo (East Bay) and the police said I was going too fast. I dented the fender the hood and broke the windshield and I came out with a serious concussion (with helmet) that left me with a non functioning pituitary gland well after a dozen years. The driver's insurance did pay everything including a new bike and everything else including "pain and suffering" (the driver was cited as well)

It looks geeky and goofy, but today I ride with a front and rear blinking bright lights--although I don't know wether it would have helped when one drive through stopped cross traffic?

I wish the professor a very speedy recovery.

It makes it sound like the bicyclist ran into the SUV and it was his fault--when it sounds to me his right of way was violated.

The two choices are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just because his right-of-way was violated does not mean he wasn't going too fast for conditions. If I'm driving a car and come to a busy intersection with a "KEEP CLEAR" space, I sure as heck am not going to enter it going full speed if the other traffic lanes are stopped; I would slow to a crawl. On a bicycle there's even more reason to do so. For a PhD, he didn't seem to have much traffic sense.

Most PhDs don't have much common sense, traffic or otherwise.

Don't blame the victim. The article says nothing about how fast the bicyclist was moving, how fast the SUV was moving, or how closely the SUV cut off the bicyclist.

Very possible that the bicyclist was moving very slowly and carefully, but the SUV was going so fast that the bicyclist did not see it until it was too late. Also, the SUV's momentum could have caused all of the bicyclist's injuries.

My point was that stating that the cyclist “hit” the SUV implies that it was the fault of the cyclist. Perhaps the story could have been written “the SUV turned in front of the cyclist, cutting him off and causing a collision.” Maybe that’s a bit awkward but I think it conveys the truth of what happened more accurately.

The problem with the “unsafe speed” for the conditions traffic provision is that it will almost always give the police a way to blame a cyclist for virtually any accident. It’s almost like if you are involved in one you were going the wrong speed-Ergo it’s your fault. I’m probably a bit touchy about this as I’ve now been subject to this treatment by the Sunnyvale PD (BTW-I learned that police opinion as to fault isn’t admissible in court).

Good point Johnny 99 about the SUV supplying momentum for the collusion.

One other thing about the story that may be misleading is the report he was wearing a helmet and was still severely injured, which gives the false impression helmets are ineffectual. I know from experience helmets really work, my feeling is that in many car/cyclist incidents, people hit with their face first and the protection that helmets offer unfortunately don’t really come into play.

FWIW, I read in some other forum that blinking front lights are illegal in CA.

My point was that stating that the cyclist “hit” the SUV implies that it was the fault of the cyclist. Perhaps the story could have been written “the SUV turned in front of the cyclist, cutting him off and causing a collision.”

You're splitting hairs, and in trying to suggest "non-biased" wording, showing your own pro-cyclist bias off in spades.

The two choices are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just because his right-of-way was violated does not mean he wasn't going too fast for conditions. If I'm driving a car and come to a busy intersection with a "KEEP CLEAR" space, I sure as heck am not going to enter it going full speed if the other traffic lanes are stopped; I would slow to a crawl. On a bicycle there's even more reason to do so. For a PhD, he didn't seem to have much traffic sense.

I imagine you say similar things for scantily clad **** victims, right?

What's the proper speed to be travelling when you plan on a car pulling in front of you, causing an unavoidable accident? Zero mph?

Don't blame the victim. The article says nothing about how fast the bicyclist was moving, how fast the SUV was moving, or how closely the SUV cut off the bicyclist.

Very possible that the bicyclist was moving very slowly and carefully, but the SUV was going so fast that the bicyclist did not see it until it was too late. Also, the SUV's momentum could have caused all of the bicyclist's injuries.

QFT. It's referred to as "fault" for a reason.

My point was that stating that the cyclist “hit” the SUV implies that it was the fault of the cyclistthe bicyclist DID crash into the SUV... the article makes no mention of who is at fault.

I imagine you say similar things for scantily clad **** victims, right?

What's the proper speed to be travelling when you plan on a car pulling in front of you, causing an unavoidable accident? Zero mph?

If I'm rolling along next to a stopped line of cars, I'm probably going no faster than an easy trotting pace, perhaps even a walking pace. People are too stoopid; I don't trust them even when I have the right of way.

And yeah.... I probably would say similar things about **** victims if they dressed provocatively, went to a party in a bad part of town, and drank out of cups handed to them by strangers. Part of being an adult is knowing when to take proper precautions to minimize risk in certain situations.

Here's a copy of the note I sent to the Merc News reporter, his editor, and the letters to the editor page.


Mike Rosenberg,

I am disappointed in your reporting on Santa Clara University professor Bahram Saghari, who was involved in a traffic collision while cycling.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_18149847?nclick_check=1

As a professional writer, you know the power of the subtle use of language.

You wrote “...rode his bicycle into an SUV.” While this may be technically correct, this sentence gives the incorrect impression that Saghari is at fault.

Then you wrote “Just then, a Ford Explorer made a left turn through the stopped traffic using the “keep clear” space….”
You didn't write about the driver, you wrote about the Ford, like the Ford somehow made the turn on it's own.

I realize these are subtle inflections, but they contribute to your readers perceptions in a way that I hope you don't intend.

I encourage you to examine your writing, and attempt to avoid describing events that in a way that unnecessarily colors them.

Where we as cyclists connect the dots, this sort of reporting gives the general public the idea that somehow another crazed cyclist injured himself on an innocent car.

As to whether the cyclist could have prevented this, maybe. We should all drive and ride defensively. But if someone were to suddenly turn left in front of you while you were driving and you hit them, I'll bet you'd have choice words for the unsafe left turner and would never think of the collision as your fault.

And yeah.... I probably would say similar things about **** victims if they dressed provocatively, went to a party in a bad part of town, and drank out of cups handed to them by strangers. Part of being an adult is knowing when to take proper precautions to minimize risk in certain situations.

As long as you're cool with that making you a giant *******.

I hope you survive your first bike vs. car with enough intact to make a post. I'll be first in line saying you were riding too fast without enough lights. ;)

Count me as one who sees a bias against the cyclist in the article. The opening of the article does convey subtle but clear message that the cyclist was at fault because he ran into the car.

I don't know if the bias was intentional or not. I also don't know for sure that the author actually wrote the phrase that does it - reporters have editors who often change or delete what is handed to them. I have no way of knowing if that happened here.

I also don't know how fast the cyclist was going, what the driver's view was, or any of a number of other important facts. Bottom line: the reporting is at best incomplete (not surprising, and I do not mean that in a nasty way - important facts may not have been available to the reporter by deadline), but it does convey more fault on the cyclist than the then-currently available facts justify for exactly the reasons cccorlew states.

But the real bottom line here is: (a) I hope the prof recovers; (b) I'm glad he was wearing a helmet - it couldn't have hurt and may have saved his life (although we have no way to know that, either, from this article); and (c) there is a lesson in this for all of us.

And since when was it okay to assume the guy was out to lunch because he had the wherewithal to earn a Ph.D? You know nothing about this man except what was in the article, which means you don't know the first thing about him. Your slurs are no better than making assumptions based on race, gender, or religion. Shame on you.

Here's a blog entry at cyclelicious with a photo/graphic that's pretty telling.
I still contend that if you are in your bike lane and someone left hooks you it's totally their fault.
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2011/left-cross-injures-professor/

I still contend that if you are in your bike lane and someone left hooks you it's totally their fault."] ("http://www.cyclelicio.us/2011/left-cross-injures-professor/[/URL)

of course.. the person turning has to ensure the lane is clear. but as a biker, since your risk is greater, you really need to watch out for stuff like this.

legally i think the driver should be found at fault, but it is possible the biker could have done more to avoid the accident. having the law on your side doesn't do you much good when you're dead :\

i hope the biker guy recovers :(

but it is possible the biker could have done more to avoid the accident

You can say the same thing about every single bicycle crash. Probably every single car crash as well. Until you have enough information to make specific accusations, I say give the victim the benefit of the doubt.

This is a very scary situation many of us bike commuters face. Stopped traffic and a bike lane with a "KEEP CLEAR" zone. I often ride through a similar situation on my daily commute and have had my closest calls on this exact spot. I blame the drivers for not being more cautious when driving through the keep clear, however whenever I approach the danger zone, I am always under the impression that there will be a vehicle turning in front of me.

Until you have enough information to make specific accusations, I say give the victim the benefit of the doubt.
i'm not making an "accusation" at all.. i was just saying that it is possible that the guy could have done more. i don't know if he could have done more. but it is possible. it is also possible the biker did everything right and the suv driver flat out hit the guy.

until there is more information, it's best not to come to any conclusion at all about who was right and who was wrong. but in the end it doesn't matter who is right when you're lying in the hospital with a cracked skull.

You can say the same thing about every single bicycle crash. Probably every single car crash as well. Until you have enough information to make specific accusations, I say give the victim the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you. So many folks think they know what happened and jump to conclusions. "It is possible the biker could have done more." Yes, possible, but not known.

being open to a possibility is hardly "jumping to a conclusion". it's kind of, like, the exact opposite. ironically, deciding to give them the "benefit of the doubt" for no reason seems more like jumping to a conclusion.

even if the SUV rider is 100% legally at fault, if the bike rider was jamming along side a bunch of parked cars, then i would say it wasn't a wise decision on the bike rider's part. *IF* that is what occurred. If the bike rider was going slowly and came out from behind a car and was struck by the SUV, then there wasn't much more the rider could have done.

here's another article: http://allthingslosgatos.com/2011/05/bicyclist-seriously-injured-just-blocks-from-home-in-los-gatos/

there is also a website/blog but i can only view the site through google cache for some reason: http://www.bahramsaghari.com/

google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AaWSOC_nvMEJ:www.bahramsaghari.com/+site:BahramSaghari.com+Bahram+Saghari&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Since when does KEEP CLEAR intersection mean you don't have the right of way under a green light? It means a car shouldn't enter if it can't clear the intersection in slow traffic, it's not a yield-to left turns direction. What the rider could have done is a secondary issue, like whether I could have jumped over the hood of the car that ran a red light.... The fact the the article mentions the KEEP CLEAR

No bias. It sounds like an unfortunate accident that could've happen to anyone of us.

Sorry, but that's somewhat dumb. Why do you think the writer mentioned the "keep clear" intersection, and since when does that direction for cars not to stop in the intersection mean you don't have the right of way over someone making a left turn. The article is written as it is to suggest the biker has some fault or the accident was a more "reasonable". Just like those long past SJMNs articles about that horrible incident when the bikers where hit by the police officer that fell asleep at the wheel, and went on to spend paragraphs, with interviews, talking about how all these reckless bikers come flying down over those hills. It's support-the-fellow-driver bias crap.

Since when does KEEP CLEAR intersection mean you don't have the right of way under a green light? Since when does having the right of way mean you won't get your skull smashed in? For your own safety, you should always ride like you are invisible to cars. Having the right of way doesn't do you any good if you are dead.

Looking at the google maps of this area, I think it's pretty clear that a bicyclist would be obscured by a line of stationary cars. The driver of the SUV could have entered the intersection without being able to see the guy on the bike at all. The smartest thing for a bike rider to do in a situation like that is to not enter the intersection until they can see it is clear and they are sure other drivers can see them.

I think some people in this thread are overly critical of Bahram—maybe what happened is so discomfiting to contemplate that believing that you are a different type of rider, i.e., more careful, savvy, is a coping mechanism. I’m in the camp that unless you’re never willing to ride faster than jogging speed, it’s really tough to remove yourself from these inherent risks.

If there was an undo button in life I’m sure Bahram would have come to a complete stop when he saw the “Keep Clear” warning (if he saw that at all).

I notice that he did have a longish commute (about 10 miles) and he may not had been willing to drastically slow down for every possible hazardous situation in order to keep his ride to a reasonable length of time. Maybe he felt that riding in an unobstructed bike lane adjacent to a clogged roadway was a reward for going to work in an environmentally friendly manner.

I bike commuted 3-4 days a week for about 15 years after college; longest was about 7.5 miles one way, but that was mostly on Foothill Expressway. I’m not willing to risk commuting from my present home in Santa Clara to my job off Trimble Road. I feel badly about that, but I’ll have to earn green karma points in some other manner.

I think some people in this thread are overly critical of Bahram—maybe what happened is so discomfiting to contemplate that believing that you are a different type of rider, i.e., more careful, savvy, is a coping mechanism.

Saying that the biker might have had been able to do more to avoid the accident is not a "coping mechanism". I'm not being critical of the rider as much as I am people in this thread who refuse to accept the fact that the rider could have done more to protect themselves.


he may not had been willing to drastically slow down for every possible hazardous situation in order to keep his ride to a reasonable length of time.

anyone who has that attitude should not be on the road, on a bike or in a car.. :eek:

I value my life and ride with my head up. What irritates me is that no matter how safe a rider you are, when you get hit by a car some dick will come on the forums and say your lights weren't bright enough and you were riding too fast.

Don't be that guy, it's bad karma.

Nobody is saying to ride dangerously, blow lights, or take driver's abilities for granted. Those "keep clear" areas are not stop signs.

Don't be that guy, it's bad karma.

calling people dicks is bad karma too ;)


Those "keep clear" areas are not stop signs.you're right, but it doesn't matter what the rules of the road are when your brain is spread across the pavement. I'm hope everyone here slows down when approaching similar intersections, especially after seeing what happened to this poor guy.

i have no idea what the guy did at that intersection, though I am assuming that he probably didn't verify the intersection was clear before entering. If that is the case, it is very unfortunate that he could have done more to protect himself.

He might not have been able to do anything more, but from what little we do know about the story, it strongly suggests the rider was behind a line of stopped cars and neither the SUV driver nor the biker saw each other until it was too late.

This event actually illustrates the dangers of bike lanes pretty well.. surprised there haven't been more VC peeps in here

i have no idea what the guy did at that intersection, though I am assuming that he probably didn't verify the intersection was clear before entering.

"assuming" and "probably". You don't have a clue what happened, but you'll blame the cyclist anyhow. Nice.

using the currently available facts, i think anyone would think it is likely that the bike rider must have entered the intersection after the car driver had already started his turn. It is likely neither the driver nor the rider saw each other. That would explain why the car driver entered the intersection and would also explain how the bike rider hit the side of the SUV.

*IF* that is what happened, then i think the rider could have done more to protect himself. Slowing down and not entering intersections before verifying they are clear is a reasonable suggestion that I would hope every one in this thread would consider, especially after reading about this poor fellow.

it's not assigning "blame".. it's being realistic.

btw, I can only imagine what kind of posts would be in this thread if the guy wasn't wearing a helmet...

using the currently available facts, i think anyone would think it is likely that the bike rider must have entered the intersection after the car driver had already started his turn.

I do not see how you can come to that conclusion. They SUV driver was very likely moving faster than the bicyclist and could easily have started his turn after the bicyclist was in the intersection.