🚀 go-pugleaf

On 16/11/11 9:16 AM, Jef Poskanzer wrote:
> On Aug 12, 11:37 pm, jcdill<jcdill.li...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> If the accident had been motorist running a red light, the motorist
>> would have been arrested and charged, rather than interviewed and
>> released.
>
> Well it took a while but: charged.
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/16/BAVR1LVK2F.DTL

I heard the DA discuss this case on the radio yesterday.  He said that 
they only got the Medical Examiner's report on the cause of death a few 
days ago.  They had to wait for the ME's report before they could charge 
the bicyclist.  This is because it was possible that the cause of death 
was not directly due to the accident - e.g. if the woman had a 
pre-existing condition that actually caused her death - and it was 
coincidental rather than cause-and-effect that she died after being hit 
by the bicycle.  (Remotely possible, but possible, so the DA needs the 
ME's report to avoid charging someone improperly.)  On TV we see the ME 
staying up all night to write up a report, in real life it often takes 
months.

Another interesting fact here - running a red light is a criminal 
offense, if you kill someone when running a red light (even when riding 
on a bike) then it's a crime even though you had no intent of hurting 
someone.

I was driving north on Embarcadero about a week after this incident, 
stopped at a red light, and a bike sped past me on the right and ran the 
light - within a few blocks (if not at the same actual intersection) of 
where this incident happened.  Clearly there are a lot of bicyclists who 
haven't realized how dangerous this type of behavior can be.

jc

On my daily ride through Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto
I continue to observe about 20% of individual cyclists will violate a
traffic signal, I assume because they think it is wasted time and the 
stop is safely avoided.  A small fraction of these are running red 
lights without stopping.  I count
any behavior which you would not consider in a car, like stopping,
then going against a red when there is no traffic,
the right turn/u-turn/right turn maneuver, and running
the red across the top of a T.

-- Robert


jcdill wrote:
> I was driving north on Embarcadero about a week after this incident, 
> stopped at a red light, and a bike sped past me on the right and ran the 
> light - within a few blocks (if not at the same actual intersection) of 
> where this incident happened.  Clearly there are a lot of bicyclists who 
> haven't realized how dangerous this type of behavior can be.
> 
> jc
> 
> 

jcdill wrote:
>> If the accident had been motorist running a red light,
>> the motorist would have been arrested and charged,
>> rather than interviewed and released.

=v= This excerpted claim does not bear repetition because it is
entirely inaccurate.  A motorist who runs a red light and kills
a pedestrian (or bicyclist) is generally *NOT* arrested at the
scene, unless it was something so egregious as a hit-and-run or
DWI.  Nor are they charged at the scene, nor cited for running
the red light; charges may be filed later, but usually are not.

Jef Poskanzer wrote:
> Well it took a while but: charged.

=v= The real question here is whether that "while" is unusual.
The media attention I've seen has not addressed that at all.
The _Chronicle_ had 4 articles on this incident last summer
that I've seen, then this article about charges being filed,
and 2 more articles since to cover a preliminary hearing --
yet none of these 7 articles (and counting) have provided
this basic context.

=v= This year is shaping up to be as bad as last year for
pedestrian fatalities caused by motorists, still happening
about once every 21 days.  Do you know the names of the
8 people killed by cars before Ms. Cherney and the 3 or 4
who have been killed since?  The names of those behind the
steering wheels, whether they were charged, and how long
it took?  What was pled at their preliminary hearings?

=v= Heck no.  But hey, thus misinformed, the public is free
to rant about whatever anecdotes and opinions come to mind.
"I seen a guy on a bike do something potentially dangerous
just last week, so throw the book at this guy, just like I
imagine would happen if he wuz a motorist, derp derp."
    <_Jym_>

jcdill writes:
> I was driving north on Embarcadero about a week after this
> incident, stopped at a red light, and a bike ... [deletia].

=v= Yep, right on cue, here come the anecdotes.

> Clearly there are a lot of bicyclists who haven't realized
> how dangerous this type of behavior can be.

=v= And how dangerous do you realize that to be, exactly?
The tragedy under discussion is the only such known to have
happened in city records going back to 1990.  Statistically
speaking, "driving north on Embarcadero" is more likely to
kill people (and 10x as likely to hospitalize them).
    <_Jym_>

On 11/25/2011 8:34 AM, Jym Dyer wrote:
> jcdill writes:
>> I was driving north on Embarcadero about a week after this
>> incident, stopped at a red light, and a bike ... [deletia].
>
> =v= Yep, right on cue, here come the anecdotes.
>
>> Clearly there are a lot of bicyclists who haven't realized
>> how dangerous this type of behavior can be.
>
> =v= And how dangerous do you realize that to be, exactly?
> The tragedy under discussion is the only such known to have
> happened in city records going back to 1990.  Statistically
> speaking, "driving north on Embarcadero" is more likely to
> kill people (and 10x as likely to hospitalize them).
>      <_Jym_>

Yep, right on cue, here come the bicyclist apologists.

Jonz