Bike vs. Ped on Market Street: Nobody’s Hurt But You Make the Call – Watch the Video and Then Assign the Blame

Here’s the question:

Did this swerving cyclist just run a red light?

Look, Gentle Reader, and see that the ped’s light is green. Do you have enough information?

Click to expand

The answer is no you do not.

The answer is the ped would have been 100% at fault if the cyclist hadĀ endedĀ up colliding with her. That’s CA law.

That’s the reason why the Chris Bucchere homicide investigators aren’t dwelling on whether he ran a red light just before killing pedestrian Sutchi Hui.

Look here, you can see the green light, the yellow light, the red light, the delay between the red light and the green WALK sign, and then finally, the green WALK sign:

Hey peds, guess what – you DON”T Always Have The Right Of Way.

People who tell you that you do always have the right of way are lying to you.

(For political reasons, I suppose.)

Now, who’s going to tell the peds of San Francisco to straighten up and fly right?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “Bike vs. Ped on Market Street: Nobody’s Hurt But You Make the Call – Watch the Video and Then Assign the Blame”

  1. Willy says:

    I don’t understand, he cyclist still looks at fault to me?

  2. sfcitizen says:

    He entered on a yellow, so the ped needs to wait for him before going on her green. It’s CA law…

  3. Bilbo says:

    And Yellow means caution…what part of caution means run down a pedestrian? You’re always responsible to control your vehicle…how fast was the bike going? Doesn’t seem to be a visibility problem..so was the bicyclist not looking? How hard is it to avoid a pedestrian on an open street with clear visibility? Right of way doesn’t mean you can hit any pedestrian in your way. I would also argue that the pedestrian doesn’t need to monitor multiple sets of lights…if they go on a green and get hit because someone or something else was also allowed to cross their path then they may have an issue with whoever set up the signals. Let’s assume you replace the lights with a traffic cop. Who would be at fault if the cop said ‘proceed with caution’ to the bike and ‘go’ to the pedestrian at the same times?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Under CA law, yellow simply means that a red light is coming soon. The limit on Market, generally, is 25 MPH – the cyclist wasn’t speeding. The cyclist was looking but the ped violated his right of way. I’d say it was pretty easy for the cyclist to avoid the ped. The ped doesn’t seem to understand the CVC. You don’t understand the CVC. But, yes, having the right of way doesn’t mean that the cyclist can aim at the ped and collide on purpose, that’s true. The ped only needs to look at her WALK light PLUS she needs to look to her left for traffic clearing the intersection. She didn’t do that. That’s why she’d be held at fault. There’s no issue with who set up the signals. The ped was in error despite the fairly generous two-second all red phase.

    Green doesn’t mean go for peds or bikes or cars. Maybe it does wherever you’re from but not in CA. In CA green means go after letting the intersection clear.

    Perhaps you’d like to change CA law…

Leave a Reply