SF Bicyclist runs red light, seriously injures pedestrian
jcdill
Briefly: Bicyclist, northbound on Embarcadero, runs a red light and
plows into a 60 year old woman who was crossing in the cross walk. She
suffered a very serious life-threatening head injury.
This is why bicyclists need to obey traffic laws!
In my $dayjob I take photos for insurance companies, often asked to take
photos at an intersection where an accident happened. About once a
month I get an assignment to take photos at an intersection where there
was a car/bike accident. (I had one such assignment yesterday.) In all
but one assignment so far, the bike came from the driver's right side,
riding the wrong way in the bike lane, on the shoulder, or on the
sidewalk. When a car is at a stop sign or pulling out from a driveway,
the driver does not think they have to be on the alert for fast moving
traffic (e.g. something moving faster than a walking pedestrian on the
sidewalk) coming from their right. So the driver glances right (to make
sure there are no pedestrians) then just as the driver looks left, to
see if it's clear to pull out into the roadway, and then pulls out,
suddenly the previously hidden (by a fence, by a building, by shrubbery
etc.) bike comes into view and is hit or hits the car. The fence,
building, or shrubbery poses no serious impairment to seeing a slower
moving pedestrian, but with a faster moving bike, suddenly it creates a
situation where the driver simply can NOT see the bike before the accident.
I don't know the insurance resolutions of these cases. (I don't work
directly for the insurance companies, I work for a 3rd party they
contract with to have the photos taken.) But I do know that 100% of the
time the bicyclist would have completely avoided that accident if they
had been following the rules of the road and going the correct way (with
the flow of traffic) so that as they approach each driveway and
intersection along their route they are in the direction drivers LOOK
for oncoming traffic before they pull out on the road. In all of the
cases I've seen, there was no reason to prefer this side of the road,
the other side of the road was equally accessible, equally safe to ride
on a bicycle. The bike riders rode the wrong way because they were
either ignorant of the rules of the road, or too lazy to take the time
to cross the road and ride in the correct direction.
The single exception (in my $dayjob assignments) was for an accident
where the bike was going with the flow of traffic. Except the bicyclist
was on a sidewalk, not in the bike lane - a LARGE and well signed bike
lane on the roadway next to the sidewalk - in Santa Cruz (a city that
has worked hard to build bike lanes to make it safer to get around on a
bike). The car was pulling out of a parking lot, in a driveway next to
a building that abuts both the driveway and the sidewalk. From this
driveway it is impossible for a car to look left to if it's clear to
pull out onto the street without first pulling far enough forward that
the vehicle is blocking the sidewalk. When the car pulled forward, the
bicyclist (who was hidden from the driver's view by the building) had no
time to avoid the car and plowed into the driver's side front fender.
Again, this accident was 100% avoidable if the bicyclist had been where
the bike was supposed to be, in the bike lane 10 feet away from the
building, instead of on the sidewalk adjacent to the building.
Folks, please remember the rules of the road are there for a darn good
reason, and don't run stop signs, red lights, or ride the wrong way or
on the sidewalk.
Also, remember that if you do run a red light, the fine is just as high
as if you were driving a car. A few months ago I saw a bicyclist pulled
over for stop/pause/continue going (because it was "clear") on Harrison
in SF. She didn't notice the cop stopped at the light just two lanes to
her left, who immediately put on his lights and pulled across and pulled
her over. That's a ~$400 mistake. I hope she learned her lesson. Too
bad the bicyclist in the linked article hadn't learned this lesson
before today. I hope his victim survives!
jc
Jonz
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BAUL1KB1PH.DTL&tsp=1>
>
>
> Briefly: Bicyclist, northbound on Embarcadero, runs a red light and
> plows into a 60 year old woman who was crossing in the cross walk. She
> suffered a very serious life-threatening head injury.
>
> This is why bicyclists need to obey traffic laws!
>
[snip long discourse on bicycle rider responsibility]
Bicyclists ALWAYS run red lights.
Bicyclists NEVER obey traffic laws.
You were preaching to the deaf, blind, and mentally impaired with this post.
Jonz
jcdill
> On 7/15/2011 2:31 PM, jcdill wrote:
>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BAUL1KB1PH.DTL&tsp=1>
>>
>>
>>
>> Briefly: Bicyclist, northbound on Embarcadero, runs a red light and
>> plows into a 60 year old woman who was crossing in the cross walk. She
>> suffered a very serious life-threatening head injury.
>>
>> This is why bicyclists need to obey traffic laws!
>>
>
> [snip long discourse on bicycle rider responsibility]
>
> Bicyclists ALWAYS run red lights.
> Bicyclists NEVER obey traffic laws.
I disagree with both of those statements. I know bicyclists who do not
run red lights, and who obey traffic laws. They may not be in the
majority, but they exist.
> You were preaching to the deaf, blind, and mentally impaired with this
> post.
I doubt it.
jc
Jonz
> I disagree with both of those statements. I know bicyclists who do not
> run red lights, and who obey traffic laws. They may not be in the
> majority, but they exist.
>
I have never, EVER, seen a bicyclist stop for a red light unless the
traffic was heavy enough so that even the mentally impaired rider
realized that (s)he would be squished by oncoming traffic.
I really have to wonder what these riders have between their ears when I
see a rider blow thru a red light by weaving onto and using the
pedestrian crosswalk. I guess they figure that they magically become a
pedestrian and traffic is required to stop for a pedestrian in a
crosswalk.
Ben Pfaff
> I have never, EVER, seen a bicyclist stop for a red light unless the
> traffic was heavy enough so that even the mentally impaired rider
> realized that (s)he would be squished by oncoming traffic.
I stop for red lights all the time on my bicycle. I see other
bicyclists stop for red lights all the time.
You are a liar and a troll.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Jym Dyer
>> I have never, EVER, seen a bicyclist stop for a red light
>> unless the traffic was heavy enough so that even the mentally
>> impaired rider realized that (s)he would be squished by
>> oncoming traffic.
=v= The operative part of this statement is the part about the
subject (that would be "Jonz") being blinded by observation
bias (not having seen something which does, in fact, occur).
> = Ben Pfaff
> You are a liar and a troll.
=v= Anonymous, too. This makes "Jonz" an ideal candidate for
the hateful troll spewfest in the SFGate comments.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> This is why bicyclists need to obey traffic laws!
=v= San Francisco is statistically most dangerous city in the
West for pedestrians. There are, on average, two people hit
and seriously injured by cars every day. The _Chronicle_ has
gone through major cutbacks and doesn't have the resources to
write a story for every one of these incidents.
=v= Something like this comes along rarely, though, and they
can count on overgeneralization, finger-waggling, and other
fussing, so they churned out two stories about it.
<_Jym_>
Jef Poskanzer
other bicyclists, because every time a bicyclist runs a red light,
every driver who sees it hates all bicyclists a little bit more. This
sad incident is a reminder that there are also more concrete forms of
hurt caused by red-light runners.
Jonz
> Jonz<no....@ishome.com> writes:
>
>> I have never, EVER, seen a bicyclist stop for a red light unless the
>> traffic was heavy enough so that even the mentally impaired rider
>> realized that (s)he would be squished by oncoming traffic.
>
> I stop for red lights all the time on my bicycle. I see other
> bicyclists stop for red lights all the time.
>
Well, good for you! If I ever run into you, I will stop and pin a gold
star on your chest.
Robert Neff
Thanks for the sampling of data, JC.
I stop at red lights, and slow down and
prepare to stop at stop signs if it's not my
turn.
My experience on Foothill expressway in
the evening is that most of the cyclists stop,
but my sense is that red light running, and
right-turn/U-turn/right turn red light
avoidance has become more common amoung the racing/training
crowd this year, than has been in the past.
It is still low (less than 5 % of solo cyclists, maybe
only 2%.) The guys I see (always guys) are on their
own, either with a fancy bike and matching kit, or
a fine italian steel racing bike and no helmet.
Well, that was probably 2 of the five people I've seen.
Cycling groups/clubs
do stop if the light is red, but become colorblind
when the light changes and their lead rider is arriving
at the intersection. (This happens to my club, too, and
sometimes you hear amazing rationalizations for this.)
If you have a conversation starter for when you
catch up with one of these guys at the next light,
let me know. We can always talk about our local
cycling fatalities and injuries from this kind of thing.
-- Robert
jcdill
> If you have a conversation starter for when you
> catch up with one of these guys at the next light,
> let me know. We can always talk about our local
> cycling fatalities and injuries from this kind of thing.
It wasn't at a light, but I did have a conversation with a woman who ran
2 stop signs on Campus Loop at Stanford about a week ago. I was in the
right lane, another car was at my left, we stopped at a stop sign for a
pedestrian. The bike ran the stop sign, but fortunately the pedestrian
was still in front of my car and thus uninjured. At the next
intersection, same thing only *this* time I was stopped to let another
vehicle that had the right of way (being at the intersection before I
arrived) cross from left to right. That vehicle saw the bicyclist
passing my car, realized the bike wasn't going to stop, and stopped in
the middle of the intersection (blocking my lane) as the bicyclist blew
thru the stop sign to my right.
I passed the bicyclist and then pulled into the bike lane at the next
stop sign, getting out and holding up my hand as a cop would do when
directing traffic, and got the bike to stop. I explained to the rider
that she had come very close to getting killed at the previous
intersection by not stopping. The rider kept saying she was lost,
asking if I knew where a particular building or street was. I said I
didn't know, but I did know that she better start stopping at stop
signs. She finally GOT it.
Rider was wearing regular clothes, riding a bike with upright handlebars
and a basket in front, and no helmet - the complete opposite of the
typical lycra-clad racers on Foothill.
jc
Jym Dyer
=v= Anecdotes are not a sampling of data. A true sampling
of data would make this a very different thread, rather
the misemphasis on the aberrant that's occurring.
<_Jym_>
Robert Neff
Right, my previous data was anecdotes, not
sampling, so the last 3 evenings
I've been sampling:
Along my commute in Sunnyvale and Los Altos
on Homestead and Foothill:
15 cyclists stopping at lights
2 ran red lights.
Youth on BMX
Adult in new cycling gear on a mountain bike
with a backpack.
1 ran a left turn arrow (I don't know if the
left turn detector worked, so uncertain about
counting this one)
-- Robert
jcdill
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BAUL1KB1PH.DTL&tsp=1>
>
> Briefly: Bicyclist, northbound on Embarcadero, runs a red light and
> plows into a 60 year old woman who was crossing in the cross walk. She
> suffered a very serious life-threatening head injury.
For those who haven't heard, the pedestrian died this week.
jc
bfd
Jym Dyer
> who makes an effort to stop at each and every stoplight
> and sign, I think this "bicyclist" should be charged to
> the fullest extent of the law, both criminally and civilly,
> for killing someone.
=v= You make the same speech every time a motorist kills a
pedestrian in San Francisco (which happens at an average of
21 days), right? If not, why not?
> Sorry, riding a bike doesn't make her or him "above the
> law" and that person should take full responsibility.
=v= Nobody made the argument that you so pompously argue
against. Also, it's clear that you have no idea what
actually happens in the great majority of cases where cars
kill pedestrians. Let's just say that your "fullest extent
of the law" wish falls far short of reality.
<_Jym_>
jcdill
>> As a transportation cyclists and occasional weekend rider,
>> who makes an effort to stop at each and every stoplight
>> and sign, I think this "bicyclist" should be charged to
>> the fullest extent of the law, both criminally and civilly,
>> for killing someone.
>
> =v= You make the same speech every time a motorist kills a
> pedestrian in San Francisco (which happens at an average of
> 21 days), right? If not, why not?
Not all motorist/pedestrian accidents involve the motorist making an
illegal maneuver like running a red light.
But for those that do, the motorist is ALWAYS charged (unless it's a
hit-and-run). Why should a bicyclist be treated any differently?
>
>> Sorry, riding a bike doesn't make her or him "above the
>> law" and that person should take full responsibility.
>
> =v= Nobody made the argument
If the accident had been motorist running a red light, the motorist
would have been arrested and charged, rather than interviewed and
released.
jc
Jef Poskanzer
> If the accident had been motorist running a red light, the motorist
> would have been arrested and charged, rather than interviewed and
> released.
No, the timetable would likely be similar. I'm sure this scofflaw
cyclist will be charged, tried, and convicted, eventually. As for
whether that will serve as encouragement for other scofflaw cyclists
to mend their ways... unlikely.
Jonz
As a result of this bicycle homicide, someone finally lit a fire under
the SFPD. Read this article in SFGate.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BALM1KMPSE.DTL
Now if we could only get the heat turned up higher under the SFPD,
perhaps the bicycle problem would completely disappear in the city.
Jonz
In case the URL does not work the article is posted below. I
particularly enjoyed the typically clueless comments attributed to
bicyclist Amin Ariana.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Bicyclists accustomed to speeding through red lights
got a surprise Friday on San Francisco's Market Street - a ticket.
A recent spike in accidents involving pedestrians prompted police to
step up traffic law enforcement at Market and Fifth, where walkers, cars
and bikes come together in droves. Officers said they weren't singling
out bicyclists, but riders made up the bulk of those who were stopped
Friday morning.
Police announced the stepped-up enforcement effort after a spate of
street tragedies, starting with a July 15 incident in which a
Washington, D.C., woman was fatally injured crossing the Embarcadero at
Mission Street by a bicyclist who allegedly ran a red light.
Five days later, a cyclist making an illegal left turn was killed by a
box truck at the corner of Fremont and Mission streets. On Aug. 4, a
9-year-old boy crossing Mission at New Montgomery Street was struck and
badly injured, allegedly by a drunken driver.
Officer Eric Balmy, one of five officers patrolling Market and Fifth on
Friday, said the increased attention is a way to educate the public
about the rules of the road.
Most of those stopped by the foot-patrol officers were cyclists, though
the police were able to radio counterparts on motorcycles and in cars
farther down Market to pull over some vehicles. Over the course of one
hour, the officers at Fifth cited at least 10 cyclists and spoke to two
car drivers who were driving illegally in the public transit lane.
Amin Ariana, 31, was stopped for running a red light on his bicycle.
"I didn't think that if there were no pedestrians and no cars, I'd have
to stop there," he said. "I didn't know I did something wrong."
Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman, said cyclists face the same
repercussions as drivers when they receive citations - they have to go
to court and pay the same fines.
Leah Shahum, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition,
said she supports crackdowns on dangerous riding but that she was told
some cyclists were cited Friday for minor violations such as not having
proper reflectors on their bikes.
"We fully support attention to behaviors that are worrisome, but it's a
worry to me if people are prioritizing issues like that," Shahum said.
"There's a difference between someone running a red light and someone
riding without reflectors."
Balmy couldn't say how many citations he and the other officers issued
Friday but that it was "higher than average."
Officers will continue the stepped-up enforcement at other intersections
in coming weeks, police said.
Jym Dyer
> making an illegal maneuver like running a red light.
>
> But for those that do, the motorist is ALWAYS charged
> (unless it's a hit-and-run).
=v= I don't know why you believe that to be true, because
that's not the case in San Francisco. I've seen it with
my own eyes, as have many of my fellow citizens. It's a
thing that we've documented and complained about.
> Why should a bicyclist be treated any differently?
=v= Nobody argued that. But by all means, strenuously
argue against what's not been argued.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
| Police announced the stepped-up enforcement effort after a
| spate of street tragedies, starting with a July 15 incident in
| which a Washington, D.C., woman was fatally injured crossing
| the Embarcadero at Mission Street by a bicyclist who allegedly
| ran a red light.
|
| Five days later, a cyclist making an illegal left turn was
| killed by a box truck at the corner of Fremont and Mission
| streets. On Aug. 4, a 9-year-old boy crossing Mission at
| New Montgomery Street was struck and badly injured, allegedly
| by a drunken driver.
=v= This "spate," as described, is of course a nonrepresentative
sample of the type of collisions and road fatalities that occur
in San Francisco. The first incident is especially rare, of
course, which is why it is getting disproportionate attention.
=v= The last is more representative, in that pedestrians are
injured about twice a day in San Francisco. Of course, the
_Chronicle_ would serve its readers better by explaining that
fact, and the wider context in general. (Indeed they ought
to report these collisions even when they don't involve cute
kids or other novel details. But exemplarizing the anomalous
is how "news" is manufactured, the truth be damned.)
| "We fully support attention to behaviors that are worrisome,
| but it's a worry to me if people are prioritizing issues like
| that," Shahum said. "There's a difference between someone
| running a red light and someone riding without reflectors."
=v= As is typical for the _Chronicle_, their excerpts leave
out the most relevant fact. Bicyclists were being ticketed
for not having reflectors during the daytime, which is not
an infraction. So what's actually being prioritized here
isn't even an issue.
<_Jym_>
Ben Pfaff
> Bicyclists were being ticketed for not having reflectors during
> the daytime, which is not an infraction.
How can the police give out tickets for something that is not an
infraction?
Jonz
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/12/BALM1KMPSE.DTL
>
> | Police announced the stepped-up enforcement effort after a
> | spate of street tragedies, starting with a July 15 incident in
> | which a Washington, D.C., woman was fatally injured crossing
> | the Embarcadero at Mission Street by a bicyclist who allegedly
> | ran a red light.
> |
> | Five days later, a cyclist making an illegal left turn was
> | killed by a box truck at the corner of Fremont and Mission
> | streets. On Aug. 4, a 9-year-old boy crossing Mission at
> | New Montgomery Street was struck and badly injured, allegedly
> | by a drunken driver.
>
> =v= This "spate," as described, is of course a nonrepresentative
> sample of the type of collisions and road fatalities that occur
> in San Francisco. The first incident is especially rare, of
> course, which is why it is getting disproportionate attention.
>
> =v= The last is more representative, in that pedestrians are
> injured about twice a day in San Francisco. Of course, the
> _Chronicle_ would serve its readers better by explaining that
> fact, and the wider context in general. (Indeed they ought
> to report these collisions even when they don't involve cute
> kids or other novel details. But exemplarizing the anomalous
> is how "news" is manufactured, the truth be damned.)
>
Oh really? The major thrust of this article is about bicycle collisions
but, as usual, you always try to shift the focus away from bicyclists.
> | "We fully support attention to behaviors that are worrisome,
> | but it's a worry to me if people are prioritizing issues like
> | that," Shahum said. "There's a difference between someone
> | running a red light and someone riding without reflectors."
>
> =v= As is typical for the _Chronicle_, their excerpts leave
> out the most relevant fact. Bicyclists were being ticketed
> for not having reflectors during the daytime, which is not
> an infraction. So what's actually being prioritized here
> isn't even an issue.
Horsepucky, bicyclists were getting tagged for running red lights. What
part of illegal activities do you not understand.
If the cops can prevent another bicyclist caused homicide, I'm all for it.
Jonz
jcdill
>> Not all motorist/pedestrian accidents involve the motorist
>> making an illegal maneuver like running a red light.
>>
>> But for those that do, the motorist is ALWAYS charged
>> (unless it's a hit-and-run).
>
> =v= I don't know why you believe that to be true, because
> that's not the case in San Francisco. I've seen it with
> my own eyes, as have many of my fellow citizens. It's a
> thing that we've documented and complained about.
You have seen a motorist RUN A RED LIGHT, cause an accident with a
PEDESTRIAN that resulted in serious injuries for the pedestrian, and not
be arrested?
When/where?
jc
David Kaye
> I disagree with both of those statements. I know bicyclists who do not
> run red lights, and who obey traffic laws. They may not be in the
> majority, but they exist.
Take a drive or a ride down Harrison Street between 15th and 18th and see if
you EVER EVER EVER see a bicyclist stop for anything. I've seen so many
near-hits that I get chills when I drive that route.
Also, why don't cyclists wear bright colors and use lights at night?
Instead they wear black or dark colors and have no lights for the most part,
making them near-impossible to see.
I'm a sometime cyclist. I've ridden many times in Critical Mass and
wholeheartedly support it. (Bicycles don't block traffic; bicycles ARE
traffic.) But on the other hand, there are far too many cyclists who simply
refuse to obey the law -- so many in fact that the SF Board of Supervisors
floated the idea that cycles be made EXEMPT from having to stop for stop
signs and red lights at all!
Keith Keller
> But on the other hand, there are far too many cyclists who simply
> refuse to obey the law -- so many in fact that the SF Board of Supervisors
> floated the idea that cycles be made EXEMPT from having to stop for stop
> signs and red lights at all!
Link?
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Jonz
> On 2011-08-15, David Kaye<sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But on the other hand, there are far too many cyclists who simply
>> refuse to obey the law -- so many in fact that the SF Board of Supervisors
>> floated the idea that cycles be made EXEMPT from having to stop for stop
>> signs and red lights at all!
>
> Link?
>
From DK? Surely, you jest.
Someone, I don't know who, once described David as the expert on
everything who sits on the bar stool next to you.
Jonz
SMS
> I'm a sometime cyclist. I've ridden many times in Critical Mass and
> wholeheartedly support it. (Bicycles don't block traffic; bicycles ARE
> traffic.) But on the other hand, there are far too many cyclists who simply
> refuse to obey the law -- so many in fact that the SF Board of Supervisors
> floated the idea that cycles be made EXEMPT from having to stop for stop
> signs and red lights at all!
When was that? I know that often on Critical Mass the cops will wave
cyclists through traffic lights to try to move the ride through as
quickly as possible, but I don't ever recall a suggestion that cyclists
be exempt from red lights.
"The Idaho Stop Law" for cyclists would be welcomed by most cyclists. It
allows bicycles to proceed at a slow speed through stop signs if there
are no vehicles at the intersection.
Don Freeman
>> But on the other hand, there are far too many cyclists who simply
>> refuse to obey the law -- so many in fact that the SF Board of Supervisors
>> floated the idea that cycles be made EXEMPT from having to stop for stop
>> signs and red lights at all!
>
> Link?
>
> --keith
>
him to have any sources to back up his claims?
--
__
(oO) www.cosmoslair.com
/||\ Cthulhu Saves!!! (In case he needs a midnight snack)