Digital_Cowboy

Here's a good question for everyone. Just how much information does anyone think that Chris would have gotten if he had called the hospital(s) looking for the person that he had hit?

Not being a family member I'm betting he wouldn't have gotten a whole lot of information. That is IF he could even find which hospital the victim was in.

Or put another way, if you are for whatever find yourself in the hospital just how much information do you want the hospital to give out about you? Do you want them to even confirm that you are in the hospital?

Scooper

Bucchere was apparently unconcious for some period of time following the accident and was in no condition to render assistance, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was contrasting Ang's behavior (remorse, accepting responsibility for his reckless actions) to Bucchere's apparent efforts to avoid responsibility for what was pretty clearly reckless and dangerous behavior.

phoebeisis

"Also do the companion poll, substituting cars for bikes in your question. I suspect people prefer bikes in their cities to cars. Also, an awful lot of those cars in SF are being driven by people who don't live in SF."

The Hen-good point- but as a fellow forum member suggested people have already voted-CROWDED FREEWAYS.
China-once all bikes/walking-same story-cars!

Advertising-playing up the patriotic aspect (foreign oil-evil Middle East), health aspects, looks aspect and having bikes lanes that older folks will see as safe.
The country has to be convinced bicycles are "good for the country"-Advertising (can and does sell poison)
Does need to steer clear of being identified as "green or Democratic" AGM re-mediation has been sunk by being Green/Democratic.

The DA sure seems to be coming down hard-bike riders aren't sympathetic figures in many cities-even bikes cities like San F.
Was the victim connected?? Is the rider particularly unsympathetic-very affluent, live in fancy apt maybe?? He obviously wasn't slick enough to immediately shut up/lawyer up-maybe he thought himself "smart enough to talk his way out of it" (arrogant)
Probably just run of mill guy doing something dumbish he usually gets away with.No malice-just foolish-
Really rare to kill someone with a bicycle-so he never figured he would.
It will turn into some lesser charge-unless he has some horrible history that hasn't come out.No malice-just foolish-rare to go to jail for doing something foolish.
That is why I was wondering about the "bike hate" level in SF? Why so harsh a charge for stupidity? Those "Mass rides" pissing people off??

vidvis

Or it could be because his stupidity killed someone.

I'm really puzzled as to why anyone would give any credence to this guy's version of the accident. He had a concusion, and has a very good reason to try to spin the details. Doesn't mean he's lying, but it's enough to not take him at his word without further evidence.

squirtdad

This is what i don't get

If a driver was speeding, ran several signs/lights, then at minimum severly pushed a yellow light and then ran into a cyclist crossing on a green killing them, and posted about it as if it was not a big deal, including indicating that they were going too fast stop for the red. people would be howling for the drivers lynching.

But change driver to cyclist and cyclist to pedestrian and people ask why the DA is being hard on the cyclist?

does not compute.

genec

Agreed.

Now will the DA come down hard on motorists that kill also?

Mos6502

Well making an assumption here so forgive me - but if Ang was not unconscious after he knocked down that old lady then he was sure to have actually seen what he did which would certainly be cause for feelings of guilt. But if say he had been knocked unconscious and not actually seen or remembered the collision, would he have been remorseful?

He may still have been, but it's impossible to say, so it's a bit unfair to be mad at somebody for not fully understanding an event that they weren't "all there" for and may not even remember the actual moment of. It seems to me that this Chris guy was not with his wits after the accident, either that or extremely stupid.

Well for one because an automobile is fundamentally different than a bicycle. For two if the person he hit didn't die until several days after he posted about his accident, and he had said that he hoped that the guy pulled through - I'd probably not read into that as some sort of callous disregard for the man's fate.

phoebeisis

But- it is relatively hard to kill someone with a bike-really easy to kill a pedestrian with a car.
The law might view it the same-but running/speeding thru a redlight with a bike is 100x less dangerous than running a light with a car.
Apparently he didn't run the light-but he was speeding. Certainly reckless-but not anywhere near as reckless as a car at 35mph.
Granted SF with its hills mean it is a lot more dangerous than flat NOLA.
Drivers kill car drivers and passengers regularly are they usually felony charged in SF ?? It is always stupidity recklessness-rarely mechanical failure.

Scooper

Here's a story about the case aired yesterday on KGO-TV, the local ABC affiliate.

https://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8636587

MMACH 5

I'd certainly like to see the security video, before passing judgement.

Digital_Cowboy

And considering the injuries that Chris Bucchere to include (IIANM) a concussion, as well as more likely than not being in a state of shock. All goes a long way towards explaining (but not necessarily justifying) his post crash actions.

Also IIRC he did say in one of the postings attributed to him that he hoped that the other party recovered. That is showing some sort of remorse is it not?

Digital_Cowboy

It could have something to do with the fact that motorists typically are given a "get out of jail free card" when they hit a cyclist or pedestrian. It takes something such as the "good" doctor from LA's statements or drugs/alcohol involvement before a motorist faces any real charges.

And then if I'm not mistaken, those other charges seem to take priority over the injury or death of the cyclist or pedestrian.

Yes, there is no doubt in most peoples mind that the cyclist involved made a mistake. Sadly, a mistake that cost another person their life.

And sadly, as I think that most of us are aware, motorists do do the very things that you asked about and sadly do get away with it, save maybe they don't post about it afterwards.

Digital_Cowboy

Here are a some other points that need to be considered and that I am sure that Chris' lawyer(s) will bring up as well:

how secure is both the upload of the data as well as the web site?
how is the data uploaded? is it automatic every x-minutes, or is it once the rider gets home and connects their equipment to the Internet?
can it be manipulated after it's been uploaded?
was said equipment damaged in anyway as a result of the crash?
was said equipment tampered with after the fact by police, or witnesses?
what exactly did the witnesses see earlier when Chris is accused of having run red lights/stop signs and/or riding in a reckless manner beforehand?
it is possible that he entered all of the other intersections on the yellow but before clearing they turned red, and the witnesses assumed that he had entered them when red.
given the injuries that Chris himself suffered I am sure that his lawyers will move to have his postings after the crash suppressed citing that he wasn't in his "right mind" and didn't know what he was doing.

As it has been said given that both Chris AND the DA have said that Chris entered the intersection on the yellow. Thus having had the right of way, does it really matter how many people entered the intersection before they had the legal right to do so? If they did in fact enter the intersection before they had the right of way, then aren't they also negligent in the crash?

And given the injuries that Chris sustained himself, again I'm sure that his lawyer(s) will point to them and say something to the effect of "see even under the doctrine of last clear chance he wasn't required to take the action that he did. As he himself was seriously injured."

Again, I'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished. I just think that going after him with felony weight charges isn't really the "right" way to punish him. Especially in light of the fact that Ang was only charged with a misdemeanor, and so few motorists are charged with felony's when they hit and injure or kill cyclists or pedestrians.

I would also be interested in knowing if there is any footage of his ride down the street before the crash site.

And given the injuries that Chris sustained, don't you think that his lawyer(s) will be able to produce experts who will testify that his injuries as a result of the crash that anything that he said/did immediately after the crash doesn't represent his true nature and should be disregarded.

Again, I am not saying that he shouldn't be punished, he should, but what should he be punished for? He didn't run a red light (even the DA agrees with that), he didn't engage in a hit and run, he was unconscious following the crash and transported to a hospital. Was he reckless in laying his bike down and hitting the deceased? Yes, he was, and that is what he should be charged with.

A side question, it was suggested in an earlier post that the city had sent an engineer out to the intersection to alter the timing. Is there any proof of this?

spunkyj

SquirtDad: I understand your sentiment about roles being changed to cyclist/driver, and the outrage that would be expressed here. I think there are two issues: first, as a bike forum we try to advocate for the less understood perspective of the cyclist and second, the facts of the case are somewhat unclear and therefore so is the level of culpability. And I think if it were a cyclist hit by a car, members here would be quick to point out that although the car shares fault, the cyclist should have looked before entering the intersection, and waited for the car to clear.

DigitalCowboy: I agree that the defense will probably argue about right of way through a yellow. I also think it will be difficult to prove Bucchere was speeding, as we all know that GPS data can sometimes give funky results, even more so if he was using a smart phone rather than a dedicated device. Further, if it is agreed all around that he entered on the yellow, then reason dictates that he would have cleared the intersection long before pedestrians had the "walk" signal if he were speeding. I've had close calls with pedestrians unexpectedly stepping off curbs, and can sympathize (although Bucchere's own account strangely implies the whole walkway suddenly filled, rather than a pedestrian unexpectedly stepping out into his path, so something doesn't add up). He was still reckless, still stupid, but he may not have behaved any more badly than cars that routinely push and accelerate through yellows. The difference may be that pedestrians notice the cars, but aren't watching for bikes. Tragic all around, and all I would ask is that the laws are applied consistently for both motorists and cyclists in this regard.

meanwhile

Very few cyclists can manage a fast brake from 35mph even on the flat and the straight - it takes practice that you don't get unless you're an mtber, messenger, or crit racer. Most people panic and freeze, and if they don't - still no practice. And even a great rider on the best possible bike for braking (an MTB with slicks for the huge contact patch) is going to take quite a lot of distance. Joe Roadie, on a turn, on 23mm tyres - Joe might as well not have any brakes at that speed.

Mos6502

I think they already said they would be discounting the internet "evidence" because of problems authenticating it, and I would guess because it didn't come up until after the accident so it doesn't really have anything to do with the cause of the accident.

wphamilton

In my state we have to yield to the pedestrian with a walk sign, even before he steps off the curb. I don't know the specifics there in CA, but if pedestrians tend to jump the gun the very minimum of prudence approaching a yellow would be to slow and prepare to stop if there are any pedestrians standing at the corner.

You're right, something doesn't add up about pedestrians suddenly filling the road. What's the most likely scenario here: pedestrians, seeing no cars approaching started trickling across the road against the light, and the mass of them followed. This doesn't help the cyclist in my opinion - it takes a little time and in this case he would have been able to see it develop as entering the intersection, at the latest. When you have pedestrians in the way, you yield regardless of right of way; spelled out in some states but everywhere, "should". Anything short of that is reckless. I'm going to say that no matter what the vehicle is.

The evidence that the cyclist was reckless prior to that is going to solidify the argument that he was reckless in the collision. If you're reckless and don't exercise some minimum care, that trumps any technical right of way. Even in auto collisions, even more so when pedestrians are involved.

MMACH 5

Very well reasoned and expressed.

I'm reminded of my Driver's Ed teacher telling us something along the lines of: "When given the choice of hitting a pedestrian and ANYTHING else, always hit anything else."

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, this is going to be a hard case for the DA's office to prosecute. I also agree (unless there happened to be a cop there with a radar gun) that it's going to be hard to prove that Bucchere was speeding. As the reading from his cycle computer could have been altered during the crash. And I know all too well how easy it is for outside forces to influence one's cycle computer. I have a CatEye wireless cycle computer and if I set it down on top of my Netbook it'll increase the speed and distance I've traveled.

I also agree that if as has been alleged that he was speeding at the time than that increases the likelihood that he should have been able to clear the intersection in question. And that possibly the pedestrian(s) entered before they had the walk light.

As for the discrepancies in how many pedestrians entered the crosswalk, let's not forget that Bucchere also suffered serious injuries including a concussion. Which can account for said discrepancies.

I also fully agree with you that as this case (as does the previous case where Ang was only charged with a misdemeanor) that the law needs to be applied equally whether it's a car, a bicycle, or a horse and buggy that gets into a crash.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

doomtroll

After reading all the info, and hearing all the responses, I am still firm in my position on this mater... one must accept responsibility for the power of the vehicle they are using... this includes all modes of transportation... streets were built long before bicycles and cars existed, and were in large used for pedestrian and horse drawn carriages... all of us should take a step back and look very clearly at what this means, and how we can go about changing ourselves to make sure we don't become responsible for a similar act... I can only hope the perspective of motorists would also change to be .. more responsible, but the entitlist way of thinking that many motorists have is going to always be an issue, likewise with cyclists, truckers, etc...


no mater the law in your city, county, state, or country... we can all be better and more responsible people by yielding to the pedestrian always... no mater what mode of transportation you use, motorists should yield to anyone smaller then them.. there are enough elitists in all camps who do not feel the law applies to them, and all of us should be on the look out for them, to protect ourselves ....

Mos6502

I'm thinking that the hit on the head probably clouded his memory about the crosswalk "suddenly" filling. He was probably trying to put things together that he didn't remember.

My assumption is that he was travelling slower than the 35mph claimed by some articles and that by the time he got to the opposite side of the intersection people had been given the signal to walk, or at least the light had changed and they decided to walk.

I would also agree that because the pedestrians were in the cross walk he has to take the blame, regardless of whether he entered on yellow. If it had been somebody stepping into the street from behind a parked car that would be different, but one should assume the presence of pedestrians on a marked crosswalk.

Digital_Cowboy

Is there any video footage of his acting in a reckless manner prior to the crash? Or is it just "eye" witness testimony? Witnesses who may be tainted by the fact that:

a) a pedestrian died as a result of being hit by a cyclist
b) that a cyclist exited an intersection on the red so "logically" they had to have entered on the red

It is possible that upon hearing that a pedestrian died as a result of being hit by said cyclist that they're assuming that because they saw him exit the intersection on the red that he just HAD to have entered on the red.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, given that he was knocked unconscious (do we know how long, was he conscious when loaded into the back of the "bus", when he arrived at the ER?) that he suffered a concussion, which no doubt altered his memories if not "deleted" said memories of the crash and he's just trying to put everything back together.

That is a reasonable assumption. They (the pedestrians) still have an obligation themselves to do so only when it is safe to do so.

I would say yes, to a point. Seeing that the light was yellow it is reasonable to expect the pedestrians to wait until they have the green light. I am not trying to blame the victim, but if he/they entered against the light they also share in the blame.

It is entirely possible that he saw that the light was still yellow, and in doing so he hunkered down into an areo position and hammered to clear the intersection. Depending on how low he hunkered down his view of the road in front of him is likely to be very limited and he may not have seen pedestrians entering the intersection against the light.

And I agree, but again if they entered against the light then don't they also assume some of the blame in the crash?

wphamilton

I vaguely recall allusions to strong eyewitness testimony but who knows? I think it would help show recklessness but wouldn't be essential. I'm convinced he was reckless all the way from over here!

Digital_Cowboy

Just because there is "strong eyewitness testimony" that doesn't mean that they still aren't biased against the cyclist. Especially in light of the fact that someone died as a result of his actions. Agreed, it would help to build the case of recklessness, but it by itself shouldn't be the only thing. IF there is video footage that backs up their claim then it makes their testimony that much more damning.

I don't disagree that he was reckless in his actions. But given that even the DA says that he had the yellow when he entered the intersection does that raise his recklessness to a level calling for felony charges to be filed against him?

As if he had the yellow then that means that any pedestrian entering the intersection did so against the light. So again (not that I'm trying to blame the victim) it means that the pedestrian(s) do share in the blame for what happened. As had they waited until they had the green and made sure that the intersection had cleared of any and all traffic then nothing would have happened.