Is the killer cyclist more negligent because of past actions?

|
(106)
Was Bucchere's crime about more than just this intersection?

Today's announcement by District Attorney George Gascón that he filed felony vehicular manslaughter charges against Chris Bucchere, the bicyclist who hit and killed a pedestrian at the intersection of Market and Castro streets on March 29, won't be a surprise or source of outrage to many people.

As I reported shortly thereafter, data from the cyclist training website Strava indicated that Bucchere was traveling at around 35 mph as he entered the crowded intersection on a yellow or red light. And the callous comments he made afterward to an online forum, which I also quoted, certainly cast him in an unsympathetic light.

But there is an aspect to the case that Gascon is bringing that I find vaguely unsettling: “'This tragic death caused by a bicyclist illustrates the worst case scenario when traffic laws are not obeyed,' said District Attorney Gascón. He explained that Bucchere displayed gross negligence in operating his bicycle warranting a felony vehicular manslaughter charge. His office intends to prove that there was a pattern of traffic laws being broken by Bucchere leading up to the accident.”

If he ran a couple red lights without incident before this one, does that make him more criminally liable for the bad decision he made at this intersection? Shouldn't the question of whether Bucchere was criminally negligent in causing 71-year-old Sutchi Hui's death be about his decision to plow through this intersection when it wasn't safe to do so?

Perhaps it's an issue that helps shore up the case that he was behaving in a reckless way. But this is going to be an emotional case and one likely to be trumpeted by the handful of cyclist-haters out there for whom our tendency to roll stop signs is the source of real anger and condemnation, with many blog commenters in the past wishing me a violent death for doing so, threatening to carry out the deed themselves, and saying they would feel only pride in doing so.

If one of these crazies plows into me when I'm riding legally, will I be blamed because I ran a red light a few intersections ago? Will they cite my admission in the Guardian that I often break traffic laws and say I had it coming? Would the decision that Bucchere made as he was screaming down Castro toward that fateful intersection be less negligent if he had stopped at previous intersections?

With the bitter resentments that some San Franciscans feel toward cyclists so palpable and potentially dangerous, it will be easy to lose perspective on this case and make Bucchere emblematic of all cyclists, as dishonest as that may be. And I think it's incumbent upon Gascón to try to prevent that from happening.

This is an isolated and unusual case of a young man making a tragic mistake for which he will pay a heavy price, no more and no less.

Comments

can absolutely be admitted in court. Paraoxically, if he had previosuly killed another pedestrian in the same way, it might have been excluded, just like Ross's prior bruising of Eliana was.

And yes, Steven, if you brag online about how you blow thru red lights, then that would also be admissable. An easy way to avoid such prejudice woud be to obey the law. Have you considered that options?

If this trial is decided on the basis of the bias that you claim exists against cyclists because of their wilful contempt for the vehicle code, than perhaps that's a wakeup call for the SFBC too.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

Can't put to much finer a point on it without needlessly giving more air to the details of your foolish and repugnant nonsense.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

This is not at all helpful to productive conversation.

Let's share. Let's be reasonable.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 7:23 pm

in this case because it's difficult to prove he actually wrote them (although he did). But his past habit of blowing through red lights can go to proving the DA's case.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

Depends on what you mean by "blowing through a red light." Treating it like a stop sign is different from ignoring it and blowing through it as if it were not there. Leaving the limit line after the cross signal turns yellow and there is no traffic is considered legally as if it were running the red light at speed.

The anger is palpable, yet he will be acquitted because there is a crowded crosswalk full of reasonable doubt that his actions on that day were reckless.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 5:37 pm

rises to the level of criminal negligence and depraved indifference to life. And his crime isn't so much blowing thru stops, although he clearly did that, but his excessive speed.

He's toast, and rightly so.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

"many blog commenters in the past wishing me a violent death for doing so, threatening to carry out the deed themselves, and saying they would feel only pride in doing so."

They are disgusting, hateful, sick, people (if they can be called "people").

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

Despite the increasing hate for cyclists that I read on message forums from time-to-time, there's one reality that is often ignored by the right-wing (often pretending to be "moderates" - ha!). That reality is the following:

Most of the bile/hate that is directed at cyclists can and should also be directed at motorists because most of the criticisms that are launched at cyclists can also be said about motorists. That's being objective. That's in part, why there are so many motor vehicle accidents, because many motorists are far from ideal drivers and many ignore or are lax at following, "The Rules of the Road" as the right-wing likes to scream. Meanwhile, they themselves will "blow through a stop sign" (won't come to a complete stop). But it's all right for them to do that; but not for a cyclist. And all the motorist has to do to regain momentum is to sit on their big ass while texting and driving and push a pedal. A cyclist has much more work involved then that to regain momentum; and usually does not have a big ass at all. Is there some jealousy there among some motorists?

The right-wing is also quite hypocritical. Some of them will say, "fewer vehicles are better on the street," only so that they can justify/support the big corporate luxury ships called Google shuttles. I agree with the thinking that it's better to have fewer vehicles on the street. However, if "fewer vehicles are better on the street," then one would think---using logic (not something that the right-wing can do)---that this would also include a support for more cyclists on the street. More cyclists = fewer vehicles. Got it, right-wing/"conservatives"? I know the right-wing trolls (charading as "moderates") will not get it, because they refuse to "get" anything....deliberately so.

Unfortunately, I would expect Gascón to do his best to make Bucchere emblematic of all cyclists.

Thank you for the article.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 8:30 pm

What a load. So if you want to make surge that all people follow the laws, pedestrians, motorists and bikers, then you are a right-winger? No one should blow through a red light, biker or motorist. I don't fear motorists. They don't drive on the sidewalk, running down old people like bikers do. They

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:11 am

Motorists don't drive on the sidewalk? He did here:

Google this (do you know how to google?):

Teen Driver Arrested After SUV Hits 3 Cyclists In Concord, Killing 2
(It's on the CBSlocal dot com site. The spam filter would not allow the link...again.)

And are you a child? You don't write nearly as well as my neighbor's 3rd grader.

It should be "sure" not "surge." (My neighbor's child would know that). Do you usually end your drivel with the word "They" hanging on the end by itself?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:43 am

The difference is that a motorist who drives on the sidewalk is rightly maligned by all as reckless and irresponsible. But cyclists who ride up on the sidewalk self-righteously claim that they are entitled to do so for their own safety when in fact they are simply flouting the law and endangering others in order to save a little time; and a large number of their fellow cyclists will defend their reckless, selfish behavior.

I would say to all cyclists: the next time you ride up on the sidewalk, just be honest with yourself: you are not doing it for safety, you are doing it to get where you want to go two or three minutes quicker. You are breaking the law and endangering others for your own, petty desires. And rather than owning your own selfish behavior, you rationalize it. And that makes you no different than the obnoxious drivers you are so eager to condemn.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 24, 2012 @ 11:02 pm

As long as they walk their bikes,

A reasonable response to a cyclist using a sidewalk is for a pedestrian to walk in the bike lane. I do that sometimes if the sidewalk is too crowded.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 5:40 am

I find this fascinating, that pedestrians are allowed, indeed encouraged to break the law with impunity at their convenience, to jaywalk or enter the intersection before it is safe to do so, while pedestrians expect that their entitlement to avoid being frightened of no demonstrated danger from bicycles on the sidewalk trumps the right of cyclists to take what steps are necessary to avoid being injured or killed due to very real threats. Walking a bike on a sidewalk takes up twice as much sidewalk space and probably causes many more scraped pedestrian shins and ankles than riding causes ped injuries and no recorded deaths.

Every time you all beat on cyclists, you give motorists a pass.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 8:27 am

that you believe bikes should have priority over cars, because they are smaller, slower and more vulnerable.

Cars kill cyclists, cyclists kill pedestrians but pedestrians don't kill anyone.

Steam must give way to sail, remember? Faster skiers should always defer to slower skiers. And so on.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 25, 2012 @ 10:07 am

This is a stupid, controversy-mongering piece. Has the OP of this atopic article even seen the intersection in question? Castro @Market is a VERY wide intersection. When in doubt, don't run a yellow light at such a dangerous, high traffic, wide intersection. If nothing else, Bucchere should be guilty of gross, negligent stupidity, If he were in a car they would string him up by the balls. Don't use that tired, old " bikers rights" tripe to justify complete stupidity. Bucchere killed a pedestrian to avoid being run over himself.... But the whole thing could've been avoided if he exercised more ane judgment. Don't victimize that innocent pedestrian again, you ASSHOLE. and yes, I do ride my bike in the city. But I'm not a irresponsible, arrogant douchebag like you sanctimonious jerks.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 8:43 pm

You most certainly are an arrogant douchebag - one of the most arrogant I've read from in a long time. Not only that but you're also a sanctimonious JERK. Oh and you're also an ASSHOLE!!!

Thx Steven for a good article. It's an issue I hadn't considered regarding the red lights. I do think it's relevant if he's blowing by them without slowing down at all because it shows how reckless he was. I ride a bike and sometimes run red lights but ONLY after I've stopped and made sure there's no pedestrians or cars coming from either direction for at least one block in both directions.

I got hit on my bike last year by a bicyclist who blew thru a red light not slowing down at all who must have hit me going at least 30 mph.

I was coming up from the panhandle towards Haight St and had the green light crossing Oak and as soon as I get to the first lane on Oak, this guy on a bike riding down Oak as fast as he could, running the red lights presumably to stay in front of the cars, nailed me, probably cracking one or more of my ribs (couldn't ride a bike for about 4 months after and never felt so much pain as I did that first week). Fortunately I was wearing a helmut because my head hit the ground pretty hard (for all those who ride without a helmut, DON'T, it's insane - and have a light if you ride at night).

So I am a little sensitive to ppl blowing thru redlights without slowing down at all. Bikes can go faster than we appreciate and using that speed thru redlights often spells trouble. This guy who killed the person at Castro was a poster chid for recklessness and the blowing thru the redlights was a confirmation of this. Still thx for the post.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 17, 2012 @ 10:31 pm

This is a stupid, controversy-mongering piece. Has the OP of this atopic article even seen the intersection in question? Castro @Market is a VERY wide intersection. When in doubt, don't run a yellow light at such a dangerous, high traffic, wide intersection. If nothing else, Bucchere should be guilty of gross, negligent stupidity, If he were in a car they would string him up by the balls. Don't use that tired, old " bikers rights" tripe to justify complete stupidity. Bucchere killed a pedestrian to avoid being run over himself.... But the whole thing could've been avoided if he exercised more ane judgment. Don't victimize that innocent pedestrian again, you ASSHOLE. and yes, I do ride my bike in the city. But I'm not a irresponsible, arrogant douchebag like you sanctimonious jerks.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 8:44 pm

I am glad to see this guy go to prison - I walked in SF every day - haight to the richmond and the bikes are OUT OF CONTROL - No respect for pedestrians - Bicycles are a great way of transportation, it works well in Europe. Unfortunately, it will not work in here, everyone is in a hurry, cyclists are rude and entitled. Out of 10 bikes maybe 1 will stop at a stop sign- please look at page on the upper haight. Look at the park, NO ONE stops at any signs. Maybe this will help to commence a movement against these rude bicycles and their hormonal riders.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 9:35 pm

I walk in SF every day - and the motorists are OUT OF CONTROL - No respect for pedestrians - Bicycles are a great way of transportation, it works well in Europe and it will work here if motorists would stop their hate of cyclists and open their mind to sharing the streets. But the sheep are in a hurry, and SUV/motorists are rude and entitled. Out of 10 motorists maybe 1 will stop at a stop sign- please look at 17th Street and Eureka at that stop sign and watch virtually ever motorist (except for the UCSF shuttles) yield there and not stop completely. Maybe this will help to commence a movement against these rude motorists and their rabid hormonal drivers.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

Reactionary anti-cyclist agenda.

Around the same time as this accident at Castro/Market (from The Examiner):

"Someone shot a 17-year-old boy multiple times as he got off a bus in Visitacion Valley. Another young man was found shot and killed underneath the Bay Bridge. An alleged drunken driver smashed up several parked cars before flipping his SUV on the Muni tracks. None of these incidents received the same level of press coverage that Bucchere’s case has. The only case that comes close is that of Binh Thai Luc, who allegedly killed five people in a home near City College of San Francisco."

Google: Rare pedestrian deaths exploited by bicycle foes

Also, around this same time, in the East Bay, a SUV driver killed TWO cyclists on the sidewalk (a father and his daughter; the other daughter was also injured and had to go to hospital). And the SUV rammed into a building at that accident site. By comparison, that story got little attention compared to the one pedestrian who later died from the bicycle/pedestrian accident at Castro/Market.

The right-wing (some even charading as "liberals") are very selective as to what they get all riled up about. If a cyclist hits someone and the person later dies, the right-wing becomes reactionary with bile and hate and rage toward ALL cyclists. (How intelligent is that?)

But if a SUV kills TWO cyclists (a father and his daughter) and injures another daughter who were riding on a sidewalk, the right-wing is nearly silent on that. No bile, hate or rage. Some even excuse it by saying, "well, yeah it's terrible but accidents happen you know." Then they move back to the other topic about the cyclist killing the pedestrian at Castro/Market so that they can continue their hate-fest at cyclists.

Pathetic Reactionary Hypocrites.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 9:42 pm

I've been branded a right winger here and when I'm done typing this I will be going for a bike ride where I will likely slow down at a few stop signs look booth ways and move on without a complete stop.

The problem is the 20% of bike riders who don't even slow down for stop signs, they will blow through four way stops cutting off fellow bike riders, I suppose like typical entitled left wingers? These riders make it harder to proceed through four way stops in order because drivers expect me to drive like the idiots do so they sit and wait for me to go when they have the right of way.

As to various cases you may recall a certain Edwin Ramos getting some press as of late?

Posted by Matlock on Jun. 16, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

here to anyone who doesn't fall into mindless, kineejerk, hopelessly liberal views on the usual suspect subjects i.e. bicylcles, whales, high taxes, tenants, non-whites, the poor, gays etc.

New arrivals in SF should just be given a checklist as soon as they get here on "how to be a liberal".

Posted by Guest on Jun. 16, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

You did a great job of summing up the problem, but I'm just drawing attention to the fact that it is just part of a wider pattern.

Republicon-trolls play a monotone symphony.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jun. 14, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

I am not a lawyer and I am not going to pretend I have the answer here but the three-part test of United States v. Reynolds comes to mind. When I thought of it I'll admit I had to goggle Unites States v. Reynolds to remember what the three-part test says and here it is:

"(1) Does the evidence reasonably support a finding by the court members that appellant committed prior crimes, wrongs, or acts?; (2) What fact of consequence is made more or less probable by the existence of this evidence?; and (3) Is the probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice?"

The three-part test is often referred to when submitting evidence of prior unconvinced crimes that have occurred in years past, such as United States v. Tanner child molestation case. However, time between crimes is not a part of the three-part test. If it occurred over the past five years or the past five minutes as with Mr. Bucchere it seems that it would still apply. Therefore, yes, I do think it makes him more negligent and he was rightly charged with felony vehicular manslaughter.

Posted by RebeccaG on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 4:22 am

I look forward to the day when this cretin (Bucchere) is thrown in jail. Yes, if you have a pattern of breaking the law publicly, this should be used in your trial.
Yes, it sucks that some people have to follow the law.
Yes, there are a lot of law breaking cyclists in SF who feel that they should not have to follow the law because they are special.
Yes, Bucchere going to jail should give some of the entitled cyclists pause.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 6:20 am

"there are a lot of law breaking cyclists in SF who feel that they should not have to follow the law because they are special"

This is so dumb it's ridiculous.

Do the tens of thousands of San Franciscan's who use illegal drugs or drink underage feel that they should not have to follow the law because they are special?

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 11:57 am

you can be liable. So yes, if you are a cyclist, and blow through a red light, and somebody hits you, you are on shaky legal ground.

That's one of the many reasons why I, as a lifelong cyclist, stop at red lights and yield to cars in intersections.

If you fail to yield to a car at a stop sign and instead blow through it, and the car waiting there pulls out and hits you, you could be cited. And also sued in civil court by the driver. Etc.

Flagrantly disobeying traffic laws while on a bike is just foolish. It puts you as a cyclist in more danger and with fewer protections. It seems to me that many cyclists in SF care a lot more about being hip than safety, common sense, or anything else. No surprise they're mostly in their early 20s. The shame is their selfish and immature behavior make life difficult for all the other riders.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

A predictable response, from someone claiming to be "a lifelong cyclist." Ha! Does anyone believe this person is a cyclist?

Reminds me of the right-wing nuts who post on message forums claiming to be "a flaming liberal" and they sound just like the right-wing nuts that they are. The hate flows. Countless times I've read posts hating on cyclists---never on motorists---from people posing as "a lifelong cyclist."

The person wrote, "Flagrantly disobeying traffic laws while on a bike is just foolish." How about this: Flagrantly disobeying traffic laws while on a bike OR DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE is just foolish. That's objective, not anti-cyclist subjective.

I suspect the person doesn't even own a bicycle. Many actual cyclists are objective in their posts and they say what I do which is: most of the whines about cyclists can also be said about motorists, and the motorists are more dangerous (which the right-wing trolls won't understand). Far more traffic accidents/deaths from motorists than the rare cyclist-caused death.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

You think I don't ride a bike, apparently because I don't think that car drivers' behavior justifies cyclists. I see.

"Flagrantly disobeying traffic laws while on a bike is just foolish." How about this: Flagrantly disobeying traffic laws while on a bike OR DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE is just foolish. That's objective, not anti-cyclist subjective.

Uh, when did I mention cars? Maybe you justify all your actions based on what some other class of people might do. But I don't.

I rode a motorcycle in the bay for 7 years. I've been a serious rider since the early 1990s and know way more about bikes, cycling, and riding than any 30 mission fixie hipsters put together. And a family member has been killed on a bike. By a car. And somehow I manage to stop at lights, yield to cars at stop signs, and generally ride like a thinking adult.

And I still think the immature losers blowing stoplights and riding like morons should just get off their freakin' bikes if they can't figure out how to do it without being buffoons.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 16, 2012 @ 9:14 am

Because I think kids blowing red lights at 25mph is stupid? Wow.

What were you doing when Indurain was winning? I was putting in the miles. The Lion King was my favorite rider (for obvious reasons), and I still pedal my 1996 Cannondale that I bought with busboy tips, which I just rebuilt. I wonder how many of those kids blowing through stop lights actually know who won the Tour before Lance or what a crit is. But they've got the matching rims-handlebar tape thing down! And cycling caps, got those! Noobs, all.

So yes, I've been a lifelong cyclist. And my opinions about following the rules stem from actually riding back in the day. Before Lance, before hipsters, and while fixies were only ridden on the 'drome. And I guess part if it is being a mature, responsible adult.

You might be surprised to learn my brother was killed 3 years ago while on a training ride. He was hit by a car. And yes, acting in a socially irresponsible, juvenile way is bad no matter what vehicle you are in. I never said anything about cars -- odd that you think I don't ride a bike simply because I don't think car drivers' behavior justifies cyclists'.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 16, 2012 @ 9:08 am

temerity to question any hopelessly left-wing policy or statement here.

Wear it like a badge of honor as it's a sign the other party cannot refute your points, and so resorts to insults and labels.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 16, 2012 @ 9:32 am

This is a stupid, controversy-mongering piece. Has the OP of this
atopic article even seen the intersection in question? Castro @Market
is a VERY wide intersection. When in doubt, don't run a yellow light
at such a dangerous, high traffic, wide intersection. If nothing else,
Bucchere should be guilty of gross, negligent stupidity, If he were
in a car they would string him up by the balls. Don't use that tired,
old " bikers rights" tripe to justify complete stupidity. Bucchere
killed a pedestrian to avoid being run over himself.... But the whole
thing could've been avoided if he exercised more ane judgment. Don't
victimize that innocent pedestrian again, you ASSHOLE. and yes, I do
ride my bike in the city. But I'm not a irresponsible, arrogant
douchebag like you sanctimonious jerks.

Posted by DaveinSF on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

I support bike riders and feel it is a great way to get around the city. But bike riders have to follow the same laws as cars. As a disabled senior, it takes me longer to get across the street and I can't jump out of the way of speeding cars & bikes as well as I used. So I would appreciate it if all riders on vehicles of more than 2 wheels be more cognizant of the lowly pedestrian. I look very carefully before I step into the cross-walk but when I'm in the cross-walk I expect you to stop and let me cross.

About past behavior, I think if the cyclist rode recklessly in the past, I would expect that you should through the book at him because it shows a behavior of not caring about anyone else but himself and a behavior that would cause many possible accidents due to his rashness.

That said - keeping bicycling and maybe someday I will only have to worry about bicyclists and not cars too!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

"So I would appreciate it if all riders on vehicles of more than 2 wheels be more cognizant of the lowly pedestrian."

Then you're not referring to cyclists because bicycles have only 2 wheels.

This is also predictable:

"I support bike riders and feel it is a great way to get around the city. But..."

There's always a BUT isn't there?

"But bike riders have to follow the same laws as cars."

We do. Most of us do. If only cars would follow the same laws. That's the problem looking at the number of motorist-caused accidents and deaths nationwide.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

bicyclists are above the law and they know it
so they can do whatever they like, with no punishment
police and politicians are afraid of them

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

.

Yes, it is fair to include past actions (running red lights, speeding, etc) when evaluating how culpable the bicyclist is

But let's all keep in mind, and EMPHASIZE at all times, is that cars cause way way way more deaths (obviously) / injuries / property damage / and general havoc and chaos than do bicyclists.

I mean, it is not even close.

So just keep trumpting that message.....cars are the killers, and every once in a great while so is a bicyclist.

but it's not even close

.

Posted by Floyd Land-is on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

point is irrelevent here since no cars were involved.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 3:35 pm

His point is quite relevant to anyone with a working brain.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

Just a bike and a pedestrian. Your theories would not be admissable.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

With you on this one Tim! THE issue is the intersection of Market and Castro, and perhaps the message posted after the event where the defendant characterizes his thinking at the time. It was sad, and I thank you for posting it. It was not an easy thing to post as the man died and his wife was horribly traumatized by the event which should not have occurred.

In my home state of Maryland we have a charge: "Failure to control speed to avoid colliding." This is the bottom line. There was a loss of control over speed. As with a car, a bike should be under control at all times so it can be safely stopped, not only to prevent injury to the rider, but to all members of the public. Even our pets deserve that, much less that poor woman's husband.

The cyclist needs to own up to his actions.

Posted by Guest Charley_sf on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

It wasn;t premeditated but it shows a craven indifference to the safety and life of others. And an example must be shown to the many other cyclists who we can alls ee riding like this every day.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

"I'd be comfortable with five years hard time for this crime"

Well then why don't you inquire about serving five years for him since you're comfortable with it. They might let you fill in for him.

Of course you would want to be consistent and "be comfortable with five years hard time" for a MOTORIST who caused the same type of ACCIDENT. It wasn't a crime, except in the mind of a right-wing troll.

(Do you ever proof what you write?)

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 4:16 pm

Try being relevant to the facts of this case.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 4:56 pm

VTBoy99 FTW!

Posted by Guest on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

If you demonstrate criminal negligence, then it is not an "accident," it is a crime.

Several motorists have been sentenced to prison and/or long-term probation and fines for vehicular homicide. My husband personally helped get a stiff sentence against a nice young man, with no prior record, who was driving a bit too fast and "accidentally" failed to stop in time to avoid hitting an elderly man crossing at an intersection. In other words, the EXACT same situation as this one, except the young driver was in a car, not on a bicycle.

I guess my husband and I did not get the memo that only "right-wing trolls" should be concerned with criminal negligence that leads to family and friends losing a loved one.

This cyclist will have to face up for his bad choices in court, as he should, and I will leave it to our legal system to determine the outcome.

Posted by Chris on Jun. 16, 2012 @ 11:26 am

If they can prove to the jury that Bucchere was grossly negligent, some prison time would probably be in order, but I think five years is harsh. The BART cop who shot Oscar Grant to death -- a decision intended to kill someone, unlike Bucchere's bad judgment -- got less than two years for that manslaughter charge and it would be a tragedy if this 36-year-old who made a tragic mistake served more time than that. I think we can condemn his behavior without being overly vindictive, a tendency in California that has led to our ridiculously high incarceration rates and overcrowded prisons. He's facing 2-10 years and I think even serving the low end of that -- combined restitution to the family and forever knowing that he killed someone -- is adequate punishment for his crime.

Posted by steven on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 10:15 am

They will not prove negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 11:24 am

So your analysis of the situation is highly problematic on that basis alone.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

I said that if a pedestrian entered the crosswalk before the intersection was cleared and it was safe to do so, and if that gave the bicyclist who entered the intersection on the green or yellow no time to stop, then that is not reckless conduct and that defiance of the laws of physics means that the pedestrian got what he deserved according to the laws of physics which clearly state that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Posted by marcos on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

Right.

As I stated - your analysis is highly suspect here.

Posted by Troll II on Jun. 18, 2012 @ 1:02 pm