Today’s Headlines

  • DA Puts Charges on Hold for DUI Driver Who Killed Pedestrian at Potrero and 25th (SF Appeal)
  • How Would You Budget the Future of Transportation in SF? SFCTA Has a Neat Tool to Do It
  • Remember SFMTA’s $7M Electric Taxi System Grant? Not a Lot of People Do (SFExam)
  • Critical Mass Co-Founder Chris Carlsson’s Thoughts on the 20th Anniversary Week (Nowtopian)
  • BART Maintenance Vehicle Breakdown Delays Early Morning Commute (SFGate)
  • Photo: New Parklet at Haight and Ashbury (Uppercasing)
  • Startup App Lets Residents Rent Out Private Parking Spaces (SFExam)
  • Will Drivers and Bicyclists Ever Get Along? (Probably, With Better Street Design) (7×7)
  • “Bike Palo Alto” Returns, Aimed at Getting Residents Familiar With Bicycling (PA Online)
  • Sacramento Expanding Road Diets and Bike Lanes Downtown (SacBee)
  • Neighbors of Fremont’s Grimmer Blvd. Live in Fear of Cars Crashing Into Their Homes (CoCo Times)
  • Gas Prices Skyrocket Suddenly Across State (CBS)
  • One Thing This Writer Would Change About the Bay Area? “Bike Lanes B/W SF and Oakland” (SFWeekly)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Not one peep about the pedestrian-killing drunk driver at the _Chronicle_.

  • Not one peep about the pedestrian-killing drunk driver at the _Chronicle_.

  • EL/Guest

    Perhaps the driver wasn’t charged with DUI because her BAC was below the legal threshold?

  • mikesonn

    Nothing a hit and run can’t solve, huh? Delay the test and sober up.

  • Kevin

    I’m not familiar with Grimmer Blvd, but I find it comical that the Fremont city engineer would advise against direct protection of residents with a guard rail because it would be “unsafe for motorists”. What about constantly living in fear that an automobile might crash into your home at any moment?

  • Anonymous

    I served on a jury for a DUI trial, and it’s a joke how easy it is to get away with DUI. In my case, the woman was pulled over for erratic behavior, was given the field sobriety tests most of which she failed. Then 15 minutes after being pulled over, blew *way* over the legal limit. She was arrested, taken back to the police headquarters, and had a blood test done about an hour later which showed her BAC even higher. Sounds like a closed, case, yeah?

    However, she claimed that *while* she was driving she was *under* the limit and she was instead on the rise. Basically, she claims she pounded nearly a bottle of wine (since that’s what you would have had to drink to get to her BAC levels) within 15-30 minutes before driving. Therefore, while she was on the road she was *under* the limit; she only was over the limit after being pulled over and while doing the field sobriety tests and breathalyzer.

    Don’t even get my started on how ridiculous this argument is (even if this was true that she pounded a bottle of wine, she still had at least another 15 minutes of driving when she was pulled over, so she would have been drunk before arriving at her destination … and what kind of society would even let people get away with this sort of game?), but nonetheless the jury was hung. The few jurors that found her not guilty agreed that what she did was wrong (they agreed that they wouldn’t want to be in the car or on the road with them in this state), but believed that the DA technically couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she truly was over the limit *while* she was driving. Ridiculous. Made me realize the law should just be: if you blow over some BAC level (or a blood test shows you are over a certain level 1 hour after being pulled over), you’re guilty of DUI no matter if there is a possibility you could have technically been under before you were pulled over. It’s nonsense we let people game the system. But again, it’s all about our car-centric society where, if you are driving a car, you can pretty much do whatever you want and cause whatever harm and we’ll all just brush it off.