SFist: N-Judah Hits Woman on Moped

Joel

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:29:37 -0800

Joel: how often do you see MUNI operators slow down for pedestrians? How often have I seen an N driver slow down rapidly, or in some cases, slam on the brakes completely in order to avoid the vehicle or pedestrian crossing directly in front of them? Every single time, the few times a week I see it. Again, Muni sucks in general, and yeah, there are serious issues if they're blowing through stop signs in the Outer Sunset (as apparently happened yesterday--that person should never drive a vehicle for public transit again), but safety and responsibiltiy goes both ways.

makfan

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:30:27 -0800

@zippy (31): I agree. If it might be 30 minutes or more for another N train (which might be too full when it finally does come), you'll take chances. As another example, although Caltrain is pretty predictable, people do run and go around the crossing gates because the next train that has the right stopping pattern for them might be an hour. With BART, the worst case wait is usually 15 minutes.

zippy_monster

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:40:33 -0800

travin: my solution to being nearly mowed down by reckless drivers is a simple kick or punch of the car, followed by an appropriate amount of screaming. Seems to do wonders.

zippy_monster

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:39:28 -0800

And I think you guys are ignoring why people act the way they do around MUNI vehicles. The service is so unpredictable, so irregular that you'll take your chances (street or subway). Compare the situation to BART. People don't run after BART trains like they do MUNI trains. Why? 'Cause they know when the next one is coming. Further, MUNI operators encourage dangerous behaviour by refusing to wait for an intersection to clear before moving the train... and by closing the doors on people. Joel: how often do you see MUNI operators slow down for pedestrians? The law would be on their side... maybe... if they actually took proper precautions when pedestrians were around. That said, MUNI operators have something much more powerful than the law on their side: the union.

travin

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:11:53 -0800

I found an interesting kicker in the code: 21961. This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks. It would be interesting to see if SF has any adaptations or supercedents to the CVC. So far I haven't come up with much online.

atthebeach

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:45:53 -0800

Travin - wrong section of the MV Code, you're still missing the point. The one you've quoted relates to crosswalks in general, and particularly without stop signs. In this case, the driver either rolled thru a stop sign or stopped and started up again without making sure there was no pedestrian crossing the street. The sections you want say (1) a driver must come to a FULL stop at a stop sign and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so, and (2) pedestrians in crosswalks have the right-of-way.

Joel

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:15:54 -0800

Yeah, we're all right here: in the case of the poor woman at 30th today, sounds as if the N driver was def. in the wrong, but if someone cutting across Judah between blocks gets nailed by an N, for better or for worse it appears the law's on Muni's side.

travin

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:09:10 -0800

polymergirl, joel, nice! Makes sense we have rights and duties, never a dispute there. This is the key section spells it out very clearly: (c)The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

Joel

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:14:24 -0800

Here's the pertinent section, polymergirl: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21954.htm Pedestrians do not have the right-of-way outside crosswalks. That's not to say they're fair game, of course.

travin

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:09:24 -0800

holly, I think that's why at some stops (why not all of them, I ask) there are signs that clearly point out to cars "DO NOT PASS" [the muni trains when they are at a passenger stop]. I'm surprised nobody has been killed at church/duboce. Cars blow through there all the time when the train is exchanging passengers - cars thread themselves through pedestrians, and there's no sign. It's freakin scary.

polymergirl

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:04:33 -0800

Travin, I am not trying to defend the N-Judah at all. However, you might want to take a looik at the CA vehicle code as it pertains to pedestrians. Here is the link: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c5.htm We peds actually have a lot of responsibilities too. This is a particluarly interesting section, "This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk."

hollyMmm

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:50:02 -0800

@greg: I completely agree. As an N Judah vet I can tell you that at any given stop in the Sunset, once the muni doors open the streets turn into a cattle call. People come running from every direction like f-ing idiots, with no respect for any sort of traffic laws. The combination of absolute stupidity on both parts (peds/muni operators) is bound to be lethal at some point. I am so weary of the N that if I ever get hit by one, I probably deserve it.

Greg

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:29:36 -0800

hey folks, yeah I know sometimes they blast through the stops, it has been known to happen. but go sit at the coffee place on 9th avenue and watch the many peds who run when there's a big sign saying don't walk and a big red light. there are plenty of times when drivers do dumb things, and there are other times when pedestrians do dumb things. if the MUNI operator rolled a stop sign, that is pretty bad, since, um that's why they invented traffic signals and stop signs - to try and reduce accidents and run traffic in a sane manner.

travin

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:07:43 -0800

A woman was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries this morning in San Francisco after being struck by an N-Judah streetcar while she was walking across a Sunset District street, authorities and witnesses said. Says it all, right there.

zippy_monster

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:01:41 -0800

And before we rush to blame the pedestrians, from the Chronicle article: A housepainter who said he had seen the accident but did not want to give his name said the streetcar had failed to come to a complete stop at the stop sign at the corner. Yep. Typical MUNI negligence.

zippy_monster

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:59:51 -0800

I don't know what happened in this accident but it is hard to imagine the N Judah on a fixed path, unexpectedly and out of no where suddenly altered it's speed or path. I can imagine a few scenarios where the N Judah drive could be at fault but it seems more likely the moped tried to take on the N Judah and lost. You obviously don't live in San Francisco. How's this for a scenario (one I see played out all the time on the L's route): Pedestrian approaches a four way stop, enters intersection. MUNI vehicle then approaches the same intersection and rolls through the stop. As a pedestrian I've had fuckwit LRV operators bum rush me as I'm trying to cross through the intersection. They will wait until I am directly in front of the train before taking off... it's a wonder MUNI doesn't kill more people than it does. Greg: the trains don't stop. Period. They coast through intersections and stop signs *all the time*.

atthebeach

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:49:30 -0800

@Travin: You really need to go (or go back) to law school. "Accident" has nothing to do with legal liablity. Accident means there is no intention to do something - as when a Muni driver hits a pedestrian because he was running a stop sign. He didn't mean to hit a pedestrian, he just meant to get to Java Beach for his coffee break. If an accident is legally avoidable, the driver is liable, even though he did not intend to cause it.

travin

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:41:47 -0800

atthebeach, perhaps it would help if we distinguish between liability and right of way. If a child or any person runs out into the street, the driver may not be legally liable if they accidentally hit them (hence the term, accident) but a person in the street absolutely has the right away. Whether or not their actions provides a situation that allows a driver the opportunity to avoid them, that's another matter entirely. Same goes for a moped, or bicycle. The smaller of the two opposing bodies retains right of way - it's about responsibility of physical advantage. It will be interesting to get more details on this moped person. I sure hope they survive. I expect muni to retain a close-hold on all related facts and make a generic, non-statment, if they do express anything at all. (currently hailing from Java Beach)

atthebeach

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:37:00 -0800

Sorry, I meant crossing at a four-way stop, not a light.

atthebeach

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:33:00 -0800

If the Chronicle story is correct (always suspect), then the victim was a pedestrian who was crossing with the light, and the N Judah didn't stop. Very unfortunate ending to typical driver behavior. @travis: Pedestrians don't have a legal right-of-way in all situations. Consider the frequent accidents where children run out in the street from between parked cars or, as posters above have noted, the idiots who run out in the middle of the street to catch a streetcar or just to cross where and whenever they feel like it. A driver is responsible only when an accident is LEGALLY AVOIDABLE, and not under all circumstances. @Greg: Try riding to the end of the line more frequently - the drivers go like maniacs to get to their rest breaks; they use their air horns and bells, but don't even pretend to use the brakes out here.

badlydrawnbear

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:26:23 -0800

A pedestrian does have the right of way, but a person on a moped is not a pedestrian, it is a person on a moving vehicle. A pedestrian does have the right of way but a pedestrian needs to understand that several tons of moving glass and steel must adhere to the laws of physics, specifically inertia, that an object in motion wants to stay in motion making it very hard to stop when pedestrians decide to step in front of them. I don't know what happened in this accident but it is hard to imagine the N Judah on a fixed path, unexpectedly and out of no where suddenly altered it's speed or path. I can imagine a few scenarios where the N Judah drive could be at fault but it seems more likely the moped tried to take on the N Judah and lost.

travin

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:17:14 -0800

I could very easily be wrong, but my understanding of the law, and to me just plain common sense, is that a pedestrian has the absolute right of way in all situations with regard to motor vehicles, including bicycles. I don't believe it's contingent upon how right, wrong or just plain idiotic someone decides to behave. When thousands of pounds of metal comes up against a fragile human, I believe the latter is allowed all consideration.

BeejW

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:15:19 -0800

SFGate is reporting on it now... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/20/BAAQ12ESJ2.DTL&tsp=1

Joel

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:04:56 -0800

Pedestrians have the absolute legal right of way at marked and unmarked crosswalks...they don't have it when they're running randomly across the road to a traffic island on Judah, trying to catch the very train they're dashing in front of like idiots.

travin

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:28:12 -0800

Since when does a moving vehicle have right-of-way over a pedestrian? That must be a new motor vehicle code since I took my test last June and any I've taken over the past 25 years. If anyone can locate an online reference, thanks.

Greg

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:28:08 -0800

I have only heard the news as presented here, and am curious if anyone saw what actually happened. As always , we really don't know what went on beyond the tragic outcome. I'm not much of a looky loo myself, but since this investigation will get buried, we'll never know if it was operator error, driver error, or what. One thing people need to realize though is that a train can't stop on a dime magically at will. In a split second situation, even if the operator of the train sees something and makes the move to stop the train, it's too late because a multiton train can't just stop. Cars don't stop magically at will either. Physics and all. It amazes me how even after the signal improvements on Irving and Judah, people insist on crossing the street on a red light in front of an train that's making a turn and just "assume" it will stop. That's idiotic.

Joel

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:15:26 -0800

I also want to clarify that when I said "respect" I was talking more about the fact that it's a 30-ton+ vehicle that's got forward motion and is difficult to stop.

bluecanary

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:04:58 -0800

As a scooter rider, it never ceases to amaze me how other riders treat their lives so cavalierly. Any time I think "I can make it, I can make it" I immediately wonder if the place I'm trying to make it to is a graveyard. Then I stop. Not saying that's what happened in this case, of course.

periqueblend

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:34:05 -0800

There's a Judah and 30th!?! What city is that in?

Joel

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:20:54 -0800

atthebeach, I should ahve clarified: I'm talking about watching people race across Judah at 20th Avenue where the N does indeed have the right of way (along with all the other traffic on the road). I'm not saying the N drivers are faultless in general, but I've seen way more instances of cars or pedestrians or bikes pulling out in front of them--"I can make it! I can make it!"

kapshure

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:08:23 -0800

@joel i totally agree. It's amazing at the people who jump in front of buses (usually elderly from what I see) in attempts to flag them down, dart across intersections as trains are about to cross, turn in front of trains in their cars, etc.. you're right!! why not wait the extra 15 seconds? The train DOES have the right of way! I keep saying that. You have a train full of about 100 - 150 people and you're in such a hurry to get to Trader Joe's you're going to run in front of a train? I find this HIGHLY annoying at the Church/Duboce intersection on the outbound track where the N or J is constantly stopping like 5 - 6x just to let stragglers keep running across

atthebeach

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:05:45 -0800

First of all, there's a four-way stop at 30th Avenue, which applies to Muni as well as to other vehicles. Muni trains do not necessarily have "the right of way." That said, I suggest that Joel watch the N train drivers race along Judah Street without coming to full stops at stop signs, while talking to passengers or on their cell phones, and without "respect" for anything or anyone on the street.

mindful_indulgence

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:03:45 -0800

Interestingly enough, there was a T-mobile ad with a man tied to the tracks running at the bottom of this post. Conspiracy. Also, I read the headline as "hits woman who moped." Coffee break.

Joel

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:47:28 -0800

I have no idea what happened here in this specific instance, who was at fault, etc. That said, I am really surprised this thing doesn't happen more often...vehicles and pedestrians don't seem to have much respect for the trains, always trying to cross the intersection just before the train (which has the right of way) goes through. Why not just wait the extra 30 seconds?