Today’s Headlines

  • CAHSRA Picks Former Caltrans Chief as CEO (SacBeeSFGateSF Examiner)
  • Red-Light Running Truck Driver Injures Cyclist at Oak and Franklin (SFGate)
  • Memorial Holiday DUI Arrests Down 55 Percent in SF (SF Weekly)
  • Asks: Should SF Parklets Become Permanent?
  • SF School Principal Pleads Not Guilty to DUI, Hit-and-Run (SF ExaminerBCN via ABC 7)
  • Concord Driver Still Not Charged for Running Over Cycling Family, Killing Two (KTVU)
  • Cyclelicious Improves Its Bicycle Crash Map
  • EBBC Wants the “Story of Your Bikeway” for Measure B Campaign
  • Caltrans to Consult With Outside Experts on New Bay Bridge Safety (SacBee)
  • Sacramento Experimenting With On-Street Bike Parking (SacBee)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Tortoise

    The “red light running” remark is prejudicial. Vehicles are allowed to move on a red, if they are turning right, as this vehicle was doing.

    Perhaps a better question is what was a cyclist doing in the intersection of two of the most horrifically busy and car-centric streets in SF? And in fact, most of the recent bike fatalities have been on Streets that bikes are really ill-advided to traverse, e.g. Octavia, Masonic, Duboce and so on.

  • Did you miss the part where the cyclist had a green, and therefore the right of way? Yes, you are permitted right turn on red IF no one else has the right of way. We do not need to go down the path of questioning why the cyclist was legally using the road. End of story. Blaming the victim is unnecessary. 

    We should be asking why the driver was not cited, when / if the DA plans to file charges, and what can be done to reduce the fatalities. Perhaps right on red should not even be a legal maneuver given the traffic density in the city. It leads to an awful lot of close calls, and too many accidents.

  •  He lives on that block of Oak. It’s one way, then a forced left turn onto Franklin. Any more questions?

  • Tortoise

    Murph, I’m not sure what your argument is there. If you’re saying that the cyclist had to make a wrong turn because he lived on that block and didn’t want to go around the block to approach his own house in the direction legally allowed, then I’m not sure he lacks culpability here.

    I get off my bike if I’m half a block from home in that situation.

  • @31ee890c390b89d7d88b15d05a23c54b:disqus the cyclist was traveling in the correct direction and had a green light. The truck driver had a red and failed to yield. When the article says the cyclist was going in the opposite direction it is referring to the fact that the direction of travel (which is one-way in both cases) depends on which side of Franklin you are on.

  • Anonymous

    I chose the wording partially to just keep the headline concise, but also in part because I do consider a driver who fails to yield at a red light to traffic with the right of way for any reason to be “running the red”. I would have used the same wording if the cyclist and truck driver had switched places in this scenario.

    Hopefully this collision will reinforce the need to re-engineer this intersection. As opposed to blaming the cyclist for riding there why not consider a dangerous intersection in an otherwise vibrant urban area to be “broken”? Why is it acceptable that there are any roadways in a city that are not appropriate for bicycle traffic?