In driving I believe I was taught that it is never acceptable (and simply
sees immoral)
for a moving vehicle to strike a pedestrian or cyclist, and that as a
pedestrian I was
taught not to enter the road to cross it until I know it is clear.  Common
sense dictates
that this latter rule applies whether I am walking, walking a bicyce,
riding a bicycle, or
driving a car.  If cyclists and pedestrians always observe the latter rule
when we wish
to cross the street, such collisions can't happen.  We have a lot more
ability to stop
quickly than do motor vehicles or bikes when at speed.

It's not reliable that car drivers (yes, including me) will be able to stop
in time at
marked crosswalks if a crosser leaves the curb without looking.  The law
requires me
to stop if they are on the curb.  It can be hard to see whether a crosser
is approaching
the curb with intent to cross.  Coincidence of crosswalks with bus stops
does not help
to clarify the situation.  Certainly if the crosser is a fast sidewalk
cyclist it can be
impossible to see the person in time to stop.  Sight lines and
infrastructure need to be
considered.

The article doesn't tell us if the cyclist stopped and waited, and was then
surprised by
the fast SUV.  It also doesn't tell us if the vehicle was hard to see in
the sun, or about
other possible visibility issues.  Since the driver has not been questioned
we don't
know if he was confused by the law.  What is clear is that the speed limit
in that area,
and in several other arterial areas, may well be too high for the
crosswalks to be
effective in providing crosser safety.

My arguments are that the law needs to be clarified in terms of what is
required of drivers
and street-crossers, with equal emphasis and public awareness of both
roles, and that
speed limits should be adjusted downward to address drivers' inability to
respond to
crosswalks when crossers do not stop.  Some vigorous enforcement and
perhaps
witness cams covering the sites add cost, but would aid greatly in giving
the public
the message.

As it is, the message has not gotten through.  The diamond crosswalk
markers are
actually "Caution" traffic control devices, so I'm not sure if failure to
respond can be
ticketed.  Perhaps they should be changed to inverted triangles, signifying
"Yield,"
which is a rather positive instruction and can certainly be ticketed.

I think public information also needs to drive home exactly what crossing
markings are.
Caution signs with a walker?  Zebra markings?  Parallel walking path
channels?
Hawk lighting?  Depressed curbs?  Any of the above?  If the intent is that
the law
applies at every crossing that is marked in one of these ways, that needs
to be
emphasized as well.  Compliance only seems good near public elementary
schools,
as far as I can see.