Today’s Headlines

  • Two Pedestrians Hit Over Weekend, One Victim Already Blamed for Wearing “Dark clothing” (SFGate)
  • Third Pedestrian Hit–Trapped Under Car Near King Street Station (SFExaminer, SFGate, SFBay)
  • “Allegedly” Drunk Motorist Drives into Cole Valley Tunnel (Hoodline)
  • Ferry Service Changes (SFExaminer)
  • Tidal Barriers for Mission Bay (SFGate)
  • More on Bay Day (EastBayTimes)
  • Soil Tests on Sinking Millennium (SFGate)
  • SF Housing Market Mapped (Socketsite)
  • Boy on Bicycle Collides with Mountain View Community Shuttle Bus (CBSLocal)
  • Judge Throws Out NIMBY Lawsuit Against Caltrain Electrification (DailyJournal)
  • Conversations with Drivers Who Stop on Caltrain Tracks (KRON4)

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

  • RichLL

    Wearing something bright or reflective at night was something I was taught in maybe second grade. Road workers often wear high-vis jackets. It’s prudent advice even if, as you suggest, it doesn’t mean that the pedestrian can be deemed at fault for the accident.

  • baklazhan

    This is why I always wear neon orange when I attend black-tie dinners.

  • StrixNoctis .

    It’s ridiculous that these days everyone but the drivers are getting blamed for collisions that all have one common denominator–motor vehicles. Drivers can do no wrong!

    What comes next is pedestrians getting blamed “for not having reflectors, lights and helmets.” I can see it now, “the two pedestrians who suffered life-threatening head injuries are to blame for not wearing helmets!” “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain/wheel.”

    Vision Zero will continue to be Zero Vision while the smoke & mirrors continue..

  • RichLL

    I don’t think anyone is claiming that the pedestrian was 100% responsible for the accident just because he was difficult to see. Only that it may have been a contributory cause and that the jury in a civil case may award his estate less in the event of a lawsuit.

    Likewise, I don’t think a jury would take into account that a pedestrian wasn’t wearing a helmet, but they might if the victim was a cyclist who died from a head injury.

    Accidents usually happen because a few things all go wrong at the same time. Each factor should be considered and weighed.

  • voltairesmistress

    You know that commenter is simply using this forum to troll and bait people. I wish we all would stop responding to these frivolous comments. I encourage you to ignore him, possibly by using the block function available at Disqus. Your blood pressure will thank you, as well as fellow readers.

  • RichLL

    VM, sorry but that is offensive. I comment here in in good faith and often contribute arguments that cannot be refuted.

    You are welcome to ignore me, of course, but commenting here just to insult an active and energetic contributor to this site is very negative and sad.

  • Mario Tanev

    This is one of those things like requiring bicycle helmets. People’s clothing is part of their identity, and having to wear something specific so you don’t get killed is an invalidation of their identity. People would rather start driving than suffering such indignities.

    Also, using a “reason” which is not legislated, nor proven to improve safety is very unfair. If it was a requirement to wear reflective clothing at night, it should have been a law. But it’s not, because such a law wouldn’t pass. Hence the onus is on the dangerous multi-ton vehicle driver to have proper lights and to pay attention.

  • RichLL

    Wait, Mario, there are many prudent safety precautions we can all take that are not enshrined in statutes. Assuming you had the same kind of road safety classes in high school that I did, then you were taught to “look both ways” before crossing a road.

    Is that a legal requirement? No. Does it make sense if you want to be safe? Absolutely.

    Laws tell you what you must do, Common sense tells you what you should do.

  • Chris J.

    So you’re suggesting that it’s “prudent advice” for anyone going out at night to wear something bright and reflective. It seems absurd to me to ask or expect people to have to do that to be safe at night. I’ve never heard of that recommendation, and no one I know wears bright or reflective clothes at night simply to walk around.

  • RichLL

    Like I said, I was taught back in high school to wear something visible at night. Here’s a rather ghoulish child safety video on the same theme:

  • RichLL

    Scientific studies indicate that you could be up to ten times safer if you did. Here:

    “Switching from dark clothing to a white vest markedly improved visibility. Drivers then detected pedestrians on the right at about 300 feet and pedestrians on the left at about 200 feet. Theoretically, the vest reduces the number of accidents to 3% right and 9% left, or an improvement by a factor of 10”

    You can always remove the high-vis item upon safely arriving at your awards dinner.

  • dat

    You can’t spell troll without RichLL.

  • citrate reiterator

    “Are not refuted” doesn’t mean “cannot be refuted,” as you yourself have argued elsewhere on the site.

  • citrate reiterator

    Identities aside, walking in an urban core should not require special equipment.