SF Cyclist pleads not guilty in fatal pedestrian crash

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-cyclist-sanfrancis...

Lots of strangeness here, including . . .

1) The incredible amount of resources being put into the investigation/prosecution-- have we ever heard of a motorist being this thoroughly investigated when killing a pedestrian?

2) The wording about how sorry the cyclist is contrasted with the "not guilty" plea

3) The cyclist's blog post...

Views: 907

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jason W on June 26, 2012 at 3:23am

3 pages and no one has mentioned what the pedestrian was doing? Was he darting through the intersection against the traffic light? Not looking where he was going? I find accidents happen when 2 idiots collide, not one.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 27, 2012 at 10:36am

The description in the Trib article is close to the SF Chronicle article, which described a crosswalk crowded with pedestrians crossing with the walk signal.

Permalink Reply by Jason W on June 27, 2012 at 11:13am

The trib article does not say that. Read it again

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-cyclist-sanfrancis...

What SF chronicle article are you talking about? I googled it, and only found this:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-who-ran-down-man-71-p...

which also does not say anything about whether the ped had the light or not.Did you really read that or are you just making that up?

And let's look at it logically. If the cyclist was blowing a yellow light, then how would people crossing have a walk signal? If he was REALLY late, they would have just gotten the walk signal, and you aren't entitled to plow into an intersection when it turns green, motorist or pedestrian alike.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on June 27, 2012 at 11:42am

Here's the June 14th SF Chronicle article which contains the following passage:

A posting that originated from Bucchere's e-mail address soon after the accident gave the following account: "I was already way too committed to stop. ... I couldn't see a line through the crowd and I couldn't stop, so I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find."

Cameron Puetz said:

The article states:

Chris Bucchere, 36, is accused of speeding downhill through a red light and into an intersection crowded with pedestrians in the city's Castro District on March 29. He ended up striking Sutchi Hui, 71, who was crossing the street with his wife and died of his injuries four days later.

 

When cross traffic has a red light, and the crosswalk is crowded, it's resonable to infer that the pedestrians have a walk signal.

 



Jason said:

The trib article does not say that. Read it again

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-cyclist-sanfrancis...

What SF chronicle article are you talking about? I googled it, and only found this:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-who-ran-down-man-71-p...

which also does not say anything about whether the ped had the light or not.Did you really read that or are you just making that up?

And let's look at it logically. If the cyclist was blowing a yellow light, then how would people crossing have a walk signal? If he was REALLY late, they would have just gotten the walk signal, and you aren't entitled to plow into an intersection when it turns green, motorist or pedestrian alike.

Permalink Reply by David Barish on June 27, 2012 at 11:46am

After seeing the last reply I did a Google search and sampled the New York Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/san-francisco-cyclist-charged-...

The article does not say the pedestrian was crossing at the green. However, it does say the cyclist was crossing at the red. Specifically, the article says, "Crossing a busy intersection when a traffic light turned red, Mr. Bucchere struck Sutchi Hui, 71, as he and his wife crossed the street. Both men tumbled some 20 feet along the street. Mr. Hui died of his injuries several days later.       

News of the crash spread rapidly after people began sharing an online post on a cycling Web site that police officials believe Mr. Bucchere wrote. In the post, the writer describes the moments before the collision, saying he was “too committed” to stop at the light. “I laid it down and just plowed through the crowded crosswalk in the least-populated place I could find,” the post read. The entry goes on to detail the “river of blood on the asphalt” coming from Mr. Hui." 

Going back to your analysis- if the cyclist says the crosswalk was crowded, do we assume that the pedestrians in the crosswalk had the green?  Or, do we assume they were all scofflaws and crossing in the red?  The way I read the cyclists own comments it appears he had the red, knew he had the red and made the decision to go anyway and attempt to minimize his damage. The poor pedestrian appears to have been walking with the green. At worst he was a lemming who was in the same position as other pedestrians. It seems more likely that he was where he was supposed to be on the road and was hit by something he should not have had to expect.  He might as well have been hit by an asteroid.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on June 27, 2012 at 11:49am

Does this intersection have a ped scramble period in the program?  It could be that the peds had a walk light and all the vehicular traffic had reds which the cyclist ignored.  

It's all speculation though.   I suppose we will find out more as the trial progresses.  I doubt it will be a very long trial once t starts.  Has it been scheduled yet?

Permalink Reply by Jason W on June 27, 2012 at 12:12pm

James is correct, it is all speculation. Nothing in there says the pedestrian was in the right. Just because people are in a crosswalk, does not mean they should be. Anyone who has commuted through the loop at rush hour knows this, especially near the train stations at 5pm. I have seen groups of 20-40 people plow into an intersection against the signals. Often in front of me, and even cars when they feel they can get away with it.

Newspapers often are horribly incorrect in their stories too, so let's not make it seem like those articles are the result of an exacting criminal investigation. Let it play out in the courts, and don't throw one of our own (a cyclist) under the bus. Give him the benefit of the doubt, not the other way around. We all know much of the population is anti-cyclist. Don't feed the bears...

Permalink Reply by Jason W on June 27, 2012 at 12:14pm

Oh, give me a break Howard...

h' said:

Why stop there? I think it entirely possible that the 71-year-old victim was feeling suicidal, and waited for a cyclist to dart out in front of.  And poor Chris . . . talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Jason said:

3 pages and no one has mentioned what the pedestrian was doing? Was he darting through the intersection against the traffic light? Not looking where he was going? I find accidents happen when 2 idiots collide, not one.

Permalink Reply by Sue Clark on June 27, 2012 at 5:11pm

Unless they've changed things in the last couple years (which I doubt), it's not a pedestrian scramble intersection. 

James BlackHeron said:

Does this intersection have a ped scramble period in the program?  It could be that the peds had a walk light and all the vehicular traffic had reds which the cyclist ignored.  

It's all speculation though.   I suppose we will find out more as the trial progresses.  I doubt it will be a very long trial once t starts.  Has it been scheduled yet?

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service