Photo du Jour 516
Welcome Back! Um, Why Are You at Work Today?
Tiger Woods In "Serious" Condition After Car Crash
-thumb-110x110-461569.jpg)
Photos from Black Friday
Builder of Oakland's Fox Theater Once Imprisoned For 'White Slavery'
Plug1 from WhatImSeeing just sent us these images of a cyclist after she was smacked by an auto "running a red light" early this evening. Ouch. And: scary. Be careful out there, folks.
And watch where you're going, Volvo. Jesus.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookTips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
New Years Eve is coming up quick. Check out SFNewYEars.com for information on all the parties in SF.
[more]
This is why I don't ride a bike in the city. People nearly run me over with their cars every other day while I'm walking as is. Why are stupid people allowed to drive? Grr.
The same reason they are allowed to vote, unfortunately.
I'm a cyclist and I'm wondering whether she was wearing earphones at the time. Not trying to blame the victim, just that I've never really had more than a close call while paying attention.
@ manys: no, she wasnt wearing headphones.
ive seem some rogue bicyclists skirting around town, but this lady was totally in the right. the jerkoff in the car was talking on his cellski while red light running.
before we went on our way, i heard her say "i dont have any insurance," thus indicating the aforementioned jerkoff is in some serious legal trouble come monday.
at least there were no serious injuries.
I live right by California and Hyde...cars are CONSTANTLY running the red light...especially when they are driving downhill. The cell phone law has still not stopped many idiots from talking on them while driving. Glad she is alive!
this was at Bush/Polk.
no it wasnt.
Is that EMT kinda hott? Y/N?
I hope the young lady is OK.
where is her helmet?
Plug1: Gotcha. I was, y'know..."just sayin'."
Let's try to guess who the Volvo driver is. Is it the douchebag in the stereotypical untucked striped shirt with ugly club/work dual purpose shoes in the first picture? Or is it the shorts-too-high, socks-too-high, tennis-shoes-wearing man in the third picture?
If I had to guess, I'd say stripey shirt douche. Socks-too-high man looks like he's the kind of guy who puts those Nikes on for a jaunt to the corner store.
I don't think it's any of them. In the pic with the police man ("Why hello officer McRowr, you can put the cuffs on me anytime you want"), there's a foot behind the open car door. I'm guessing it's the driver still sitting in his car. That would rule out stripey shirt guy and socks too high man...
The second photo shows the driver in his car, discretely attempting to stay away from the camera's gaze. And the one show he has sticking out of his car is of shined leather, so that rules out stripy-shirt douche guy.
'one "shoe" he has sticking out', rather.
where's her bike?
@ gefiltefish: yes on all accounts in your first assessment.
@ izzy izzy: we moved her bike to the curb.
@ born and raised: she didnt appear to be wearing a helmet, that i noticed.
I do not understand why it is drivers or anyone seems to have trouble with the concept of "The frakkin' red light means stop, doofus!"
I swear, we make it too easy to drive in this state. If someone is so stupid they run a red, they deserve a ticket and a can of whoopass, lawyer style, unleashed on 'em if they cause an accident.
I'm just glad no one was killed. that would have been horrible.
For the same reason that people on bicycles have trouble with the concept of look both ways before you cross the street.
"stereotypical untucked striped shirt with ugly club/work dual purpose shoes in the first picture"
truly priceless!
i'd go to jail for assaulting that dude if i was the biker and in the shape to do so :(
Volvo.
Boxy, but Good.
Plug: she's in the crosswalk, why? Was she riding on the sidewalk?
DEATH TO RED LIGHT RUNNERS.
@StrontiumJ -- Does your edict apply to cyclists also? Just wondering because here the motorist was at fault (and there certainly are plenty of crazy drivers in this City) but I am always amazed and the wacky and illegal stuff people do on bikes.
SFBurke, it doesn't matter. Bicyclists are an oppressed class and cars are stinky. If you're not with us you're obviously a communist...er...I mean you're against the troops...er.....ok, whatever, you know what I mean. TRAITOR!
i agree that it's way too easy for people to get a license. the problem is, if we yanked licenses for people who cause accidents then we'd just end up with tons of unlicensed drivers all over the place. ideally, the state should just confiscate the car of anyone who is at fault in an accident.
nice driving, asshole.
@ zippy monster: she was thrust into the crosswalk after impacting with the Volvo. she flew a few feet before landing.
Glad she's okay, but this stinks of karmic (carmic?) retribution for each and every cyclist I've seen blatantly blow through lights, weave through traffic and occasionally hit (yes, hit) a pedestrian who had the right of way.
Here's a thought. Unless CA laws have changed, all bicycles are required to be registered/licensed. Of course, there are no requirements like a riding test, but still.
riding a bike in the city is a deathwish!
travin:Here's a thought. Unless CA laws have changed, all bicycles are required to be registered/licensed. Of course, there are no requirements like a riding test, but still.
well, i don't think that's entirely a bad idea, i think something like that is much more difficult to enforce, of course. if a 2nd grader is learning how to ride a bike on their neighborhood street do they also require registration or something? do you limit it to bikers on main roads? that would be terribly difficult to determine who is in violation without making bikers wear license plates or something wouldn't it? i think in general it seems like in most car/bike accidents the biker is getting the shaft anyway. as for pedestrian and biker situations, the biker usually wins...and there's no question that a rowdy cyclist is going to cause just as many potential accidents if they aren't following the rules of the road ... so if we could confiscate cars for poor driving i would wholly support confiscating bikes in similar accidents where a pedestrian was injured, or even if a biker caused an accident with a car...it gets sticky when you start to look at like property damage or things as a measure of the severity of an accident versus people being injured or killed which is much more serious..but in the end..ultimately it's just about making people pay attention to where the hell they are going, which seems so simple in principle, but dang so many folks are just clueless when it comes to that and it's too bad. like cablecarsam says, commuting by bike in this town is asking for trouble and that's too bad, especially since it's so much faster than muni and also 'green' etc..
A registered bike gets a numbered sticker (license) to be conspicuously affixed and periodically re-registered.
I believe it's main purposes are for insurance and identification. And that's one of the problems with all these biking issues; they can't be easily identified but cars can. Car drivers must follow the rules but bicyclists, even though they're given the rights of the road, like any moving vehicle, bear no responsibility. Worse yet, in situations like the one reported above, most automatically assume the vehicle is at fault. Though I'd say it's more along the lines of 70/30, in favor of cyclists.
And I'm not making assumptions on conjecture, I once rode about 150 miles a week in a metro area, so I'm a little familiar with the subject. But admittedly, I haven't registered one of my bicycles since the early 90's, so I'm unsure what current statutes have to say on the matter.
"Worse yet, in situations like the one reported above, most automatically assume the vehicle is at fault. Though I'd say it's more along the lines of 70/30, in favor of cyclists."
You did read that the car ran the red, correct?
Glad she's okay, but this stinks of karmic (carmic?) retribution for each and every cyclist I've seen blatantly blow through lights, weave through traffic and occasionally hit (yes, hit) a pedestrian who had the right of way.
Too many sins, not enough sinners.
"You did read that the car ran the red, correct?"
Apparently, by the time I'd made that last post I'd forgotten. But the point remains the same:
Most people assume when there's a contest of bike v. car, the car is automatically assumed to be at fault.
I just found out from a friend at the SFPD that the cyclist was cited for running the red, NOT THE CAR. Looks like typical Bike Coalition propoganda again.
travin,
The reason bikes aren't required to have liability insurance or registration, is that usually in an accident involving a bicycle, the only damage is done to the bicyclist him or herself. There's rarely any reason to trace a bicycle. It would be a waste of money.
@Chris Weekly: I am SHOCKED. SHOCKED, I say.
@bottombracket: the right of way is given, not taken. Whether or not you have the "right of way", you're obligated to check to ensure that it's safe to enter an intersection. This holds true for motor vehicles, pedestrians, and yes even the holier-than-thou bicycles.