San Francisco cyclist kills pedestrian - takes to bike blog to discuss

[Digital_Cowboy]

They only have his blog post so far saying the light was yellow. Other witnesses could counter that as they gather their info. The video they have does not show the traffic light. STRAVA will most likely be served a warrant for any info they have on his entry for that day, which will show his speed.

I thought that someone had said that the Internet based evidence wasn't going to be used.

[Paul Barnard]

What you are quoting is the reporter, not anyone from the prosecutors office. The only quote from the DA's office in that article is:
.

Right. That's why I quoted the article. And that's why I used the word IF. I even capitalized ALL of the word IF. I'll use larger text...and maybe color next time. What color do you prefer?

[ZmanKC]

Here's a good related question.

Let's say that the gentleman that Chris hit didn't die of his injuries, and is given a "clean bill of health" by the ER doctors. But a year, 2 years, whatever down the road he does die "unexpectedly." After examining his medical history the doctor/coroner determines that he died in part because of the injures he sustained in that crash.

Who is/would be "responsible" for his death then? Chris for having hit him, or the ER doctor for giving him a "clean bill of health?"

Whoever has the deepest pockets?

[spunkyj]

Without specifics I wouldn't venture to say whether it rises to a level of felony. I'm not sure in fact where the dividing line is, or if there even is a defined line. I will go against the grain here and predict that his defense is going to be difficult, because he'll have to show that he was not aware that his actions were risky (most everyone agrees already that it was, as it turned out, dangerous and reckless).

Some are arguing here that if he legally obeyed the traffic signals, that absolves him from otherwise risky behavior. In other words, he didn't realize the risk because the light was yellow. No one knows what a court will decide but that looks problematic to me.

Yes, the subjective nature of what constitutes a felony could really be a problem for Bucchere. If public empathy/sympathy is a deciding factor then all cyclists, and Bucchere especially due to his internet post, are at a disadvantage. Most people are motorists and/or pedestrians and can sympathize with those populations, but don't have much experience with cycling on the road. This is why cycling advocacy is so important.

[vidvis]

Right. That's why I quoted the article. And that's why I used the word IF. I even capitalized ALL of the word IF. I'll use larger text...and maybe color next time. What color do you prefer?

Your quote was in reply to my comment questioning whether the DA had 'stipulated' that the light was yellow. It doesn't matter what happens IF the DA has done so because s/he HASN'T.

And I think white would be a good color choice for you future comments.

[Paul Barnard]

Your quote was in reply to my comment questioning whether the DA had 'stipulated' that the light was yellow. It doesn't matter what happens IF the DA has done so because s/he HASN'T.

And I think white would be a good color choice for you future comments.

Just for you sweet pea!

[vidvis]

Just for you sweet pea!

Well played sir, well played.

[Paul Barnard]

Well played sir, well played.

I got a good laugh out your white suggestion as well!

[Digital_Cowboy]

Whoever has the deepest pockets?

Which presumably in this supposed case would be the doctor.

[Digital_Cowboy]

Yes, the subjective nature of what constitutes a felony could really be a problem for Bucchere. If public empathy/sympathy is a deciding factor then all cyclists, and Bucchere especially due to his internet post, are at a disadvantage. Most people are motorists and/or pedestrians and can sympathize with those populations, but don't have much experience with cycling on the road. This is why cycling advocacy is so important.

Or the flip side of that coin is that it could also be problematic for the DA.

And don't you think that his lawyer(s) will produce enough expert witnesses that will testify that his postings after the crash do not reflect who he really is. Especially in light of the fact that he was rendered unconscious and there for presumably suffered a concussion.

Exactly, which is why we as cyclists need to follow the law when we're out on the roads, especially when we're riding in a manner that we know to be both safe and legal.

As sadly, they do not understand that how we are riding is both legal and safe. Instead of as they wrongfully assume to be unsafe/illegal.

Which is why we also need more PSA's about bicycle safety aired on TV/radio in every city in the country, as well as published in every newspaper and magazine. It's sad that so many people do not know that what we as cyclists are doing are safe and legal.

[Digital_Cowboy]

Your quote was in reply to my comment questioning whether the DA had 'stipulated' that the light was yellow. It doesn't matter what happens IF the DA has done so because s/he HASN'T.

And I think white would be a good color choice for you future comments.

I could have sworn that it came from an "unnamed" source from within the DA's office. Don't you think that that is going to hurt the DA's case?

[eugenek]

Nor is it "instantaneous" for cars either. They still require MORE space to stop in then a bicycle does.

In principle, it is possible for a bicycle to stop in the same amount of space as a car. They are both limited by the friction between rubber and pavement. A car under hard braking would take 40 feet to stop from 35 mph.

In practice, this kind of limit braking is easy to achieve in a car (you hit the brakes and the ABS does the rest) but hard to achieve on two wheels (you have to balance on the edge of loss of traction and risk falling down). In practice, a bicyclist trying to stop from 35 mph will either take much longer than 40 feet, or end up with a bad case of road rash.

[phoebeisis]

You are right-Actual brake distance for a bike with very good brakes tires-figure .6g or decel rate 19 feet per second every second is more like 68 feet best case
35mph = 51fps so
1st second drop from 51pps to 32fps- while traveling 41 feet
2nd second drop from 32fps to 13fps while traveling 22feet
last .7 second drop from 13 fps to 0 while traveling 5 feet
total distance =68 feet time 2.7 seconds.
This ignores reaction time-and assumes .6g decel-which is pretty good for a bike.
A car can easily do .7g-.9g by just jamming on the brakes-maybe 45 feet or so from 35mph-heck some can stop from 60mph in 120 feet-really good ones can do it in slightly under 3 seconds.

If the rider was doing 35mph- he would be fairly skilled-with a good braking bike-to get stopped 90 feet from when he saw he needed to stop-completely through the intersection.
35mph IS TOO FAST-car or bike-for a crowded city-especially with lots of oldster pedestrians and young kids.
TOO FAST TOO FAST TOO FAST car or bike

[Camilo]

Well into page 13, it would be nice to list the known facts of this situation.

Can anyone list the facts that are known at this time? No conjecture, no opinions, no "IF's"? Serious question, I'm getting lost in the incredible twisted conjecture.

[Digital_Cowboy]

Well into page 13, it would be nice to list the known facts of this situation.

Can anyone list the facts that are known at this time? No conjecture, no opinions, no "IF's"? Serious question, I'm getting lost in the incredible twisted conjecture.

As I understand it the "facts" are as follows:

1) the cyclist was coming home from a group ride (even though he isn't a member of the group that sponsored the ride)
2) the cyclist was (according to him) going 35MPH when he entered the intersection
3) the cyclist entered the intersection under the yellow
4) the cyclist "laid his bike down" aiming for the least populated area
5) the cyclist hit a pedestrian who later died of his injuries
6) the cyclist was seriously injured i.e. rendered unconscious and presumably had a concision
7) the DA wants to charge the cyclist with felony vehicular manslaughter

I think that that about sums it up.

[Mos6502]

I would strike the 35mph speed. The articles are somewhat vague, he was supposedly going 35mph "at the time", but does that mean 35mph down hill? 35mph in the intersection? 35mph when he hit the guy? I think it would be safe to say his speed at the accident is unknown.

[Digital_Cowboy]

I would strike the 35mph speed. The articles are somewhat vague, he was supposedly going 35mph "at the time", but does that mean 35mph down hill? 35mph in the intersection? 35mph when he hit the guy? I think it would be safe to say his speed at the accident is unknown.

You're right, I think that it was the cyclist who said/confirmed his speed. Maybe it would be better to instead say "the speed of the cyclist is as yet undetermined."

That way if there are enough markers in whatever video that there might be of the crash to determine what his speed at the time that he entered the intersection or while going down hill (although as CB HI has pointed out if it was recorded a fair distance from the intersection itself it may/probably won't be admissible in court) or when he struck the pedestrian.

Of whatever video that might exist of that day I would be interested to know if there is any that shows him entering the intersection as well as what color the light was when he entered it. As well as whether or not there is any video that shows the pedestrians (presuming that the cyclist entered under the yellow) "jumping the gun" and entering the intersection before they had the legal right to do so.

[squirtdad]

As I understand it the "facts" are as follows:

1) the cyclist was coming home from a group ride (even though he isn't a member of the group that sponsored the ride)
2) the cyclist was (according to him) going 35MPH when he entered the intersection
3) the cyclist entered the intersection under the yellow
4) the cyclist "laid his bike down" aiming for the least populated area
5) the cyclist hit a pedestrian who later died of his injuries
6) the cyclist was seriously injured i.e. rendered unconscious and presumably had a concision
7) the DA wants to charge the cyclist with felony vehicular manslaughter

I think that that about sums it up.

"Laid it down" is not clear...there is no factual evidence that the cyclist dropped the bike an slid as most understand that to mean or whether he meant (as he posted) he accelerated harder. so as the tv shows say fact not in evidence

cyclist was not seriously injured (per his own statment) there is no evidence cylist had concussion. that is has solely been defend the cyclist speculation. Cyclist him self state he was ok and mentions bruises raspberrys but no concussion diagnosi. fact not in evidence

here is my take

Facts:
Cyclist hits pedestrian who is in cross walk at Castro and market
Both cyclist and pedestrian go to hospital
Pedestrain dies.
Cyclist goes home same day.
Cyclist posts on the accident. (post is perceived as callous by many)
Online posts are removed/sanitized
DA states that felony charges are proabable due to pattern of reckless behavior, while noting they do not believe the cylist ran a red (suggests more video/witness statements and other evidence)

Other information (not confirmed fact but as some point stated by sources)
Video shows crosswalk was not crowded
Video shows hunched over cyclist appearing to be pedaling hard not breaking.
There are eyewitness reports that the cyclist had run multiple stops signs/red lights in minute preceeding accident
Cylist stated in post that he was fine (no mention of consussion, etc)

What is not known:

what other evidence does DA have? (could have gps/garmin info, more video, eyewitness reports, forensic analysis of bike and victim. etc) DA would not go for felony in a case like this if they didn't thing they could make it stik
What is cyclist law team telling him (assumes legal advice of some sort based on removing all posts)
What does "laid it down" mean to that cyclist
How close was the yellow to becoming red?
what was cyclist real speed
how crowded was cross walk
Did pedestrian jump light in moving into cross walk

everthing else is just supposition.

[phoebeisis]

I thought the cyclist was "knocked out" rendered unconscious?
Where did that misinformation come from?

[Mos6502]

I'm pretty sure at least one article stated the cyclist was taken to the hospital unconscious. I'll see if I can find it again.

Edit: in his own post the cyclist says "...when I came to..." and also says he was in a neck brace and being treated for head injuries.

[squirtdad]

I thought the cyclist was "knocked out" rendered unconscious?
Where did that misinformation come from?

cyclist stated he was unconsous in his post....... but simply being unconcsou does not equal seriously injured and based on what he posted...... he had no serious injuries.

[Scooper]

cyclist stated he was unconsous in his post....... but simply being unconcsou does not equal seriously injured and based on what he posted...... he had no serious injuries.

Correct. This quote is taken from the blog entry he alledgedly made the afternoon of the accident after he was released from S.F. General Hospital:

"I don’t remember the next five minutes but when I came to, I was in a neck brace being loaded into an ambulance. I remember seeing a RIVER of blood on the asphalt, but it wasn’t mine. Apparently I hit a 71-year-old male pedestrian and he ended up in the ICU with pretty serious head injuries. I really hope he ends up OK."

[Mos6502]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone can claim to know anything is factual beyond that a man who was knocked down in the street by a cyclist sustained serious head injuries and died days after that collision.

Everything else is uncertain or questionable at best.

[Scooper]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone can claim to know anything is factual beyond that a man who was knocked down in the street by a cyclist sustained serious head injuries and died days after that collision.

Everything else is uncertain or questionable at best.

I agree. Anything else is speculation.

Two weeks ago, though, the D.A. (George Gascón) said publicly that he would be filing vehicular manslaughter charges against Chris Bucchere "this week", but was deciding whether to charge Bucchere with a misdemeanor or a felony. There was also a statement from his office about the same time saying he was waiting for a probable cause of death (of Sutchi Hui, the pedestrian) from the medical examiner. It has been more than a month since Hui's death, so it's hard for me to believe the M.E. hasn't yet determined a cause of death.

The silence from the D.A.'s office is deafening.

[CB HI]

The silence from the D.A.'s office is deafening.

Or very telling.

Although, once charges are filed, the clock starts running on speedy trial. DA should have shut up until he had what he needed to file.