Cyclist runs down pedestrian
Bicyclist runs red light, badly injures pedestrian
Henry K. Lee
SF Chronicle
July 16, 2011
(07-15) 12:28 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A woman crossing a street along San Francisco's waterfront was struck and seriously injured today by a bicyclist who ran a red light, police said.
The victim, who is in her 60s, was crossing the Embarcadero in a crosswalk with the green light at Mission Street when she was hit by the northbound bicyclist at about 8:30 a.m., said Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman.
The woman, whose name was not released, suffered a life-threatening head injury, Esparza said.
The bicyclist remained at the scene after the collision and was being interviewed by police, authorities said. The bicyclist's name was also withheld.
"Bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians need to be reminded on a daily basis of the importance of following rules of the road," Esparza said. "These rules are there for their safety."
Labels: Cycling and Safety, Pedestrian Safety, Punks on Bikes
posted by Rob Anderson @ 9:52 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
I wasn't a witness to this event, but I doubt very highly that the pedestrian was "run down" by the cyclist. The title of your post is irresponsible, and have waived your right to ever question the bias or sensationalism of other publications such as Streetsblog. But then again, being a hypocrite never seemed to bother you before.
That's what the story says: the cyclist ran a red light and ran the old lady down. He "struck and seriously injured" the woman. Is that better? Or do you prefer "hit by a northbound cyclist"?
Maybe you should take it up with the guy who wrote the story for the Chronicle.
I hope they charge the cyclist with a misdemeanor for running the red light. I see this ALL the time on Valencia st. and have come close to be run over myself by a mindless bike rider.
running a red light is a traffic infraction - not a misdemeanor.
Don't worry, the outrage will be such that this cyclist will probably have a harsher punishment than the UCSF shuttle driver who ran a red light and actually KILLED someone, and put three more in the hospital. Because he was in a car - "Accidents happen"
The cyclist will receive a slap on the wrist. Red light ticket, maybe failure to yield. He'll pay a fine and get a point on his license. If he has a car, his insurance will go up.
There will be outrage from random corners of the blogosphere - and those people will conveniently ignore that this will be another example of the fact that cyclists and motorists ARE subject to the same rules of the road. If you run someone over - there is no penalty. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want cyclists to go to jail for running someone over, we need to start doing the same for motorists.
The cyclist should be charged with vehicular manslaughter for knowingly running the light (as cyclists do every day in this city.) This isn't a case of someone going through a signal a second or two after it turned red, as I understand it; this was a blatant red-light-running.
This isn't a case of someone going through a signal a second or two after it turned red, as I understand it; this was a blatant red-light-running. [citation needed]
"The cyclist should be charged with vehicular manslaughter"
I would like to see your same high standards applied to car drivers.
And this morning: a female cyclist making an ILLEGAL left turn was seriously injured.
I'm sorry she is hurt. She was not wearing a helmet or obeying the traffic laws.
We will see more of this as time goes on. More and more cyclists will be hurt and or/killed because of their stupid behavior.
This is not news to knowledgeable and honest cyclists. Robert Hurst, bike messenger and author, made the point in his book: "The most important lesson to be learned here is a bitter pill to swallow: There is no greater danger to the cyclist than the cyclist's own incompetence."
Cyclists in SF also fancy themselves as rebels and often express that by not wearing helmets. Chris Carlsson, one of the founders of Critical Mass, sees bicycle helmets as some kind of corporate plot to sell that product. Andy Thornley, longtime employee of the Bicycle Coalition, refuses to wear a helmet.
The Bicycle Coalition and the City of San Francisco both enourage parents to allow their children to ride bikes to school on city streets.
To me these people are shockingly irresponsible to encourage what is an intrinsically risky way to get around, regardless of how fashionable or environmentally benign it may be. You don't have to be hit by a car to be seriously injured. All you have to do is take a fall from your bike to get a serious head injury.
Along with the environmental argument and a kind of rebellion chic, there's a special kind of childishness underlying the bike fad. Unlike their brothers---mostly guys, of course---that take part in mountain biking, urban cyclists deny that an important part of their motivation involves the childlike thrill of going fast on their bikes on city streets, especially on the hills.
You see it a lot here in District 5, with cyclists speeding down McAllister, Fulton, Hayes, Page, and Haight Streets.
The political philosophy---if that's the word for it---underlying the bike movement seems equally childish. They are both rebels and victims of society, a weird combination of arrogance and self-pity.
That City Hall has wholeheartedly embraced this juvenile movement is the most shocking thing of all, highlighting the reality that the city's political leadership is both childish and incompetent. Yet they seem to think they are visionaries, with these large, very expensive, dumb projects---the Central Subway, high-speed rail, the Bicycle Plan, the Market/Octavia Plan, Treasure Island, and Parkmerced.
You could put the bike plan on the ballot. However, you'd rather "claim" that it wouldn't pass than actually see what would happen.
It takes a lot of money to pay for a signature-gathering effort to get something on the ballot. That's why Adachi had to get a rich guy to bankroll his pension initiative effort. It only takes four supervisors to get something on the ballot, but not a single supervisor would support such an effort, because SF is a one-party town when it comes to important issues. That's why Adachi had to go the initiative route in the first place.
Lawsuits are expensive as well.
A reference to the litigation on the Bicycle Plan? That suit cost me nothing, since my lawyer did it pro bono and collected her fees from the city after it lost.
If everyone wanted it so badly, they'd be chipping in! But they don't. QED.
It was city taxpayers that "chipped in" to pay my lawyer after years of malpractice by the City Attorney.
Yet you continue to file bullshit appeals.
Also, no supe is coming out against the bike plan because the city wants it. You think everyone hates bike-people, but it's just you and some sfgate commentors from Texas.
"Bullshit appeals"? That remains to be seen, doesn't it? We wouldn't have appealed Judge Busch's decision if we didn't think we had some serious issues.
Voters citywide have never had a chance to vote on the Bicycle Plan. District elections skews all issues to the benefit of city progressives, which is why a fringe lefty like Mirkarimi will never win a citywide election.
We wouldn't have appealed Judge Busch's decision if we didn't think we had some serious issues.
Oh, you have some serious issues alright.
Why don't you post your appeal?
City doesn't need our help. Appeal is frivoulous.
Post a Comment
<< Home