Most of the Times Pedestrians Get Killed on the Streets of San Francisco, It’s Their Own Fault – Why Shouldn’t SFGov Explore Issue?

You know? Instead of talking about so-called “improvements” that, sometimes,  eventually turn out not to be improvements at all?

Why not explore the issue of what’s wrong with the peds who end up dead and then are considered 100% responsible for their deaths?

Click to expand

Does that make any kind of sense?

So like why was that woman tempted to park on the wrong side of Masonic intending to jaywalk across Masonic at least twice in order to shop at Trader Joe’s? Is there something wrong with the parking situation at TJ’s #100 on Masonic? Why is that?

What can be done to fix that kind of situation?

Just asking…

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

3 Responses to “Most of the Times Pedestrians Get Killed on the Streets of San Francisco, It’s Their Own Fault – Why Shouldn’t SFGov Explore Issue?”

  1. Rob Anderson says:

    Because the city and the Bicycle Coalition want people to think that there’s a big safety crisis on city streets that requires more anti-car policies to make it harder and more expensive to drive in San Francisco.

    The reality: the city’s annual Collision Report tells us that in fact our streets have been steadily getting better over the years. It also tells us that pedestrians are responsible for 33% of their own injury accidents (cyclists are responsible for 50% of their injury accidents).

  2. Alai says:

    Really, pedestrians should be required to carry insurance to pay for the damages their bodies inflict on innocent motorists’ cars, and the counseling required afterward. Maybe then they wouldn’t be so eager to throw themselves in front of speeding vehicles.

  3. sfcitizen says:

    I think they have something like that in New Zealand – no fault I think they called it.

    Here in ‘Mericah, we have the Bucchere defense team blaming the death of Sutchi Hui on Sutchi Hui because he jumped his green WALK sign (which very well might be true) PLUS Bucherre entered the intersection “legally” (which means on a yellow, which is fine but also at or below the speed limit, which appears to be INCORRECT). And THE OTHER PEDS in the intersection prevented Bucchere from steering around Sutchi Hui. So, under this theory, Bucchere could have a claim for his damaged helemt, bike and hospital bills.

    Anyway, you’re not as far off as you think you are.

Leave a Reply