Today’s Headlines

  • Fight Delayed Evening BART Commute (SFGate)
  • Muni Bus Crashes into Parked Van (SFGate, SFExaminer)
  • Pedestrian Struck by Car in Bernal Heights (SFBay)
  • Bay Area Traffic Getting Worse (BizJournal, SFBay)
  • Discussion on Housing Versus Transport in SF (CityLab)
  • The Castro Street Fair (Hoodline)
  • Lombard Street Tourist Overload (EastBayTimes)
  • More on Truly Driverless Cars Coming to California (BizJournal)
  • Burlingame Fight Over Rent Control (DailyJournal)
  • More on Sausalito Ferry Dock Plans (MarinIJ)
  • Marin Traffic Worsening as Road Widening Continues (MarinIJ)

Get state headlines at Streetsblog CA
Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • LHT

    Re: Ped hit in Bernal. I doubt “At the same time, a 38-year-old man was driving and came to a stop at Andover Street and Crescent Avenue. He then proceeded through the intersection, where he struck the victim, police said.” I seriously doubt he came to a stop given that no one comes to stop anywhere in Bernal. I’ll keep asking…why do the police automatically assume the driver is telling the truth but won’t give that benefit of the doubt to peds or bikers?

  • farazs

    As per CVC, the driver was required to come a complete stop and remain stopped until any pedestrians wanting to cross had cleared the cross-walk. Irrespective of whether he came to a complete stop first, he clearly violated the second part of the requirement – which is sufficient to cite for a stop sign violation and so he was cited. I fail to see what benefit of doubt is being conferred upon the driver and how it is relevant in this case.

  • dat

    But wait! We must know if the pedestrian was wearing the appropriate high vis clothing with reflective panels! Were they using blinking lights front and rear and wearing a helmet? If not to any of those then it is clearly their own fault and they deserved it!!

  • farazs

    It was 8 am. in the morning and the article makes no mention of whether visibility was a factor. So you can rant all you want, but as far as we know in this particular case there is no cause to suspect outrageous bias on the part of the authorities. The situation on the ground might have been different – if you were indeed present for the investigation and these issues were raised, then please enlighten the rest of us.

    OTOH, the news article itself is slightly biased, in that it notes repeatedly that the pedestrian was running across the cross-walk but only makes a passing reference to fact that the driver was found at fault and cited. Sneaky attempt to shift blame?

  • Slightly biased?
    Obviously the pedestrian played a minority card, race card, gender card, gay card or whatever and got the driver cited despite all the evidence to the contrary.

  • dat

    Check your sarcasm meter… I think the calibration/sensitivity setting is off…

  • farazs

    Respectfully, its bang on target! You are parodying a something that did not happen, at least as far as this particular instance is concerned. Is it so difficult to admit that in this one collision scenario the typical windshield perspective did not come in to play? Or is it a compulsion to let off paranoid rants?

  • dat

    I’m paraphrasing a different, frequent commenter who victim blames about 100% of the time a person on a bike or a pedestrian is hit by a car. Regular readers know who I am lampooning.