Video Captures Hit-And-Run
Jay J. Hector sent me the link to Berkeley cyclists getting hit by a car that just drives off, but Jay rightfully pointed out that the cyclists should also be cited for utterly ignoring two stop signs. (Any cyclists here who want to argue that?)
Here's the video, with the hit-and-run happening around the 2:40 mark (just scroll ahead unless you want to see them run the stop signs, too -- one at the very beginning and one later):
Here's the cyclist's description from YouTube:
Me and my friend were hit by a car in California - Berkeley The guy did not stop! He ran away!Thank guys for your support! Yesterday I went to the police department and I reported the crime. I also gave the video to the police officer. It was possible to identify the number of the car on the video. The police have located the car and the owner. Now I'm waiting for the return of the police on the case.
And here's a description of the hit-and-run from CBSnews.com:
According to CBS Station KPIX, Police Capt. Andrew Greenwood said the driver of the black vehicle did not stop afterward, as is required by law, so police treated it as a hit-and-run.The riders, both of whom were wearing helmets, had abrasions from hitting the road but did not require hospitalization, according to Greenwood.
After the incident Wednesday, the suspect, Michael Medaglia, reported to the Oakland Police Department that his car had been stolen. A police alert was placed on the car.
KPIX reports that Oakland police found the vehicle Friday morning and alerted the Berkeley Police Department. After an examination of the vehicle, Berkeley police were led to Jack London Inn in Oakland, where officers contacted Medaglia late Friday afternoon.
He was arrested on suspicion of possession of heroin, felon in possession of ammunition, violation of probation and felony hit-and-run.
Here's the KPIX report:
Yeah, I'll argue that.
Stop signs exist to control the flow of automotive traffic -- if there were only bikes and no cars, there would be no Stop signs. Cyclists approach an intersection slower than cars, and have no impediments to vision. Therefore, it is easy to see whether it is safe to proceed. Furthermore, the liability for getting it wrong is totally on the cyclist. But don't take it just from me. From Bicycling dot com:
There are more and more "on demand" signals out there that bikes won't trigger. What would you have cyclists do in that circumstance?
I have ridden at least 20,000 miles. I have always treated stop signs and traffic lights in exactly the same way that Idaho law allows, and have never had a close call.
People cross double yellows to pass me all the time -- incuding police cars. Strictly that is illegal, but when they do it using common sense (which has been the case all but once), there is never a problem. Should they be cited?
Jeff Guinn at April 29, 2012 9:50 PM
To add to what Jeff is saying, they were traveling uphill on Tunnel Road. I only saw them go through one stop sign (I am not saying they didn't go through two), but the first one they go through -- almost no traffic, the one car there is stopped, and they were almost certainly traveling uphill.
google map of tunnel road, terrain view
I don't see anything the riders did that was dangerous, or even impolite.
jerry at April 29, 2012 10:44 PM
Jeff and Jerry, bicycles have to obey the California Vehicle Code.
"Bicycle riders on public roads have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, and are subject to the same rules and regulations. Refer to the California Driver Handbook to become familiar with these rules."
Make any excuse you want for bicyclists disobeying the rules of the road and the California Vehicle Code, but when you're road-kill don't cry foul.
Note the third rule following from the Cal DMV link here . . .
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/shr_slow_veh.htm
"Bicyclists:
* Are entitled to share the road with motor vehicles.
* Have the same rights and responsibilities as vehicle and motorcycle drivers.
* Must obey all traffic signals and stop signs.
* Are lawfully permitted to ride on certain sections of roadway in rural areas where there is no alternate route.
* Must ride in the same direction as other traffic, not against it.
* Shall ride as near to the right curb or edge of the roadway as practical– not on the sidewalk.
* Are legally allowed to ride in the center of the lane when moving at the same speed as other traffic.
* May move left to pass a parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, animal, or avoid debris or other hazards.
* May choose to ride near the left curb or edge of a one-way street.
* Should ride single file on a busy or narrow street.
* Must make left and right turns in the same way drivers do, using the same turn lanes. If the bicyclist is traveling straight ahead, he or she should use a through traffic lane rather than ride next to the curb and block traffic making right turns.
* Must signal all their intentions to motorists and bicyclists near them.
* Must wear a helmet if under the age of 18.
* Should carry identification.
* Shall not operate a bicycle on a roadway unless the bicycle is equipped with:
o A brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement."
Obey the laws and rules of the road. All your holy bicycle bullshit is moronic.
Jay J. Hector at April 30, 2012 1:40 AM
The cyclists shouldn't have been cited for the stop sign violations only because it would be a bit petty on the part of the cops to bust them based on evidence that they brought in of a much more serious violation. Had there been a patrol car at one of the intersections that had pulled them over and ticketed them (before they got hit) I would have no problem with that.
But Jeff and Jerry present the attitude that a lot of people hate on bicyclists, that the bicycle is the perfect form of transport and can do no wrong, that we should all move over to make a path for them and bow down before their eco-terrific selves.
"Cyclists...have no impediments to vision." Really? Really!? When you ride a bicycle you can somehow see 360 degrees through trees, bushes and walls?
I have no real problem with folks who bend the traffic rules a little. Almost everyone speeds a little, or jaywalks occasionally, or breaks the law in some way some time. (We have too many laws.) But don't act as if you're entitled to break the law just because you don't agree with it.
clinky at April 30, 2012 1:42 AM
Here in sunny FLA we see the same things happening. I see bicyclists constantly running red lights and stop signs, and the only time I've EVER seen a signal from one was when he wanted to turn left right in front of me.
Now this case, throw the book at the jackass. It's not like they were riding up the middle of the road or something.
DrCos at April 30, 2012 3:42 AM
You know what pisses me off about cyclists/
In AZ theu are supposed to ride single file unless passing, but they dont, they ride three deep halfway into the driving lane, which is bad enough when you have two lanes to work with, let alone whne they is only one driving lane
lujlp at April 30, 2012 3:43 AM
I favor a point system for bicyclists: every time a car or any one else knocks them over, you get a certain amount of points that you can cash in for prizes. You'd get double points for hitting any d-bags in wearing spandex.
If you don't want to get hit, then stay off the freakin' roads.
TestyTommy at April 30, 2012 4:04 AM
There was a bicyclist up by the University who was notorious for running stop signs...
Let's say there is a difference between wishing ill on someone, and not being all torn up about fewer jerks being around.
MarkD at April 30, 2012 6:21 AM
This is rehash, but some municipalities allow a cyclist to treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a stop light as a stop sign. That said, they rolled a stop sign at about 1:23 where they should have yielded to the black suburban.
I hope they make that driver drive a pirate to work from now on....
BJR at April 30, 2012 6:41 AM
Cyclist here. This video has been making the rounds for the last few days, and I'm glad that the cyclists weren't seriously hurt, and that the idiots have been found. That they were found with drugs just makes it a bit sweeter.
WRT TestyTommy, a problem in the cycling community that we see has a lot to do with remarks like yours. Yes, they are made in fun (I hope), but unfortunately, the more remarks like that are out in public, the more people seem to think it's okay to, well, not run them down maybe, but to pull up behind them and honk, or to throw drinks or bottles out the window at them, or to cut them off in a lane and drive off.
And look, of course there are idiot cyclists, just like there are idiot drivers, pedestrians, or anyone else. Most of them, however, are aware of just how dangerous it is to be riding in traffic, and will take what they believe is the safest course of action. Sometimes that means taking a full lane through a particular area in order to avoid traffic from the side, people opening doors without looking, etc. Trust me, they aren't doing it just to tick you off.
Tom Accuosti at April 30, 2012 7:28 AM
My neighborhood is super hilly, so, if you stop at a stop sign while riding a bike, you lose your momentum, and you're walking the next half mile -- and thus slowing down the vehicle traffic behind you even more (and no, I can't walk on the sidewalk with my bike because, in large swaths of Texas, we don't have those).
I'm glad I live in a city (Austin) where drivers are often cyclists themselves and thus know how to watch out for cyclists. But, still, I regularly see drivers who use the bike lane as a passing lane (while I'm IN it) and are surprised to see me there. And you get situations that could turn into what happened in this video.
There are a ton of cyclists who need to educate themselves on road safety -- but probably just as many drivers who do as well.
sofar at April 30, 2012 8:30 AM
Thanks for posting the Cali rules, Jay. I work with people who bike in. And they make a point of saying that they respect the rules of the road, and they, as much as us four wheelers are vexed by smug, passive aggressive, and just plain careless drivers. As one example, my wife and I shared a homeward commute a few months ago with a suicidal bike commuter who swerved between cars, inched in to a single lane of traffic with opposing oncoming and otherwise made the burden of his safety on those of us in the cars who couldn't see him zipping on their sides, riding in our blinds spots and taking as much road as he pleased or could (he exhibited little control over his bike). I counted three near misses. And then there are the jerks from critical mass who forfeit pretty much any courtesy. In Boulder once I saw them crowded around an SUV on all sides out of pure spite. Kids are more careful on bikes than these people. If you want to share the road, we'll happily yield appropriate right of way just as if you were on a Harley -- Yamaha, Honda, BMW and other pimped up mopeds with cards in the spokes are a different matter.
Bill at April 30, 2012 9:01 AM
Jay J., calm down. The cited particular state laws. So, apparently, in that state, it's not moronic. It's the law. It has nothing to do with being "holy;" they referred to the laws in their state. You cited the laws of a different state. So, apparently in that state, it's against the law.
Stop signs aside, I commend the cyclists for sticking to the shoulder. Some cyclists arrogantly and rudely ride abreast, taking up the entire lane of traffic.
Patrick at April 30, 2012 12:42 PM
Patrick, I cited the rules/CVC in the state in which the posted video happened, which is California, and where I live. You'll note that a bicyclist can ride in the normal traffic lanes here if going the same speed as vehicles, and required to do so when turning. You'll also note that it's recommended to ride single file, but apparently it's not mandatory here. The posters I cited both defended the failure to stop at the stop sign in this video, not in their home state (although it appears one of 'em is a Californian and the other related the rules of his state). It's the responsibility of the driver, motorcyclist, bicycle rider to know the laws of their state regarding traffic. Bicycle riders endanger pedestrians all the time by running stop signs and red lights, which I observe daily. A bicycle rider has to yield to pedestrians just as a car is required to do here in California.
The riders in the video were completely right in pursuing the hit and run, but were also completely wrong in running the stop sign. Uphill or downhill momentum has nothing to do with stopping, or would a bicyclist agree that a vehicle need not stop to keep up its momentum? Build up your legs so riding from a stop isn't such an ordeal that you'll ignore traffic laws and road safety.
Jay J. Hector at April 30, 2012 2:03 PM
That was a busy road, they were getting passed left and right. How is it the guy just drove away? Am I the only guy in the room who wishes he could have chased him down and shown him what a tire iron is used for now that we all have AAA?
To all the haters: time and place. This was in the Berkley Hills. If you have something against cyclists, volvos, or progressive minded people this place is not for you and your dually.
Cyclists: stop at the stop signs, it gives you a chance to show off your track stand.
smurfy at April 30, 2012 2:07 PM
Tell that to Sutchi Hui and Chris Bucchere.
Chris Bucchere killed Hui when he ran a yellow light and crashed into the 71-year-old pedestrian in San Francisco.
Bucchere's ride was reckless. He ignored several traffic signs, eventually running a yellow light and crashing into Hui, who later died of his injuries.
Traffic control devices (lights, signs, and stripes) exist to control all traffic. Bicyclists are not above the law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/chris-bucchere-cyclist-charged-felony_n_1452946.html
Conan the Grammarian at April 30, 2012 4:29 PM
Word Smurfy (re stop signs) and have done so on many occasions.
Predictability is number one when riding. Most motorists give me plenty of room, and are willing to wait 3 or 4 seconds for me and my companions to move well out of faster moving traffic, if it is safe to do so. I am given my bit of the road so long as motorists know what I am likely to do next. I take the lane, and move over when I can, and I signal. I'm rarely bothered.
That said, every cyclist who blows through a stop sign, or worse, a red light, makes it that much harder on me and mine when we ride w/in the rules. Weaving in an out of parked cars next to the street is even worse. Who knows *what* the guy might do next? Pisses me off too - and an angry person behind 2 tons of steel is a hazard. Lets work to keep him calm.
Cyclists are gonna have to make the first move. Police our own. Ride by the rules. Be predictable.
Motorists: 5 seconds, or occasionally more, keeps another person on the road safe, and costs you nothing. Chill, and pass when safe.
Those that are strong enough to move toward accommodation will be the ones who are followed.
railmeat at April 30, 2012 11:20 PM
The whole string of comments seems to suggest that just because the cyclists disregarded stop signs, they deserved to get hit. I disagree. Both are completely different things. If the cyclists got hit at 1:23 by the black suv, when they disregarded the stop sign before taking right, then it is fine, but at 2:40, there was no justification for the guy driving the van to hit them.
Redrajesh at April 30, 2012 11:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/04/30/video_captures.html#comment-3169604">comment from RedrajeshThe whole string of comments seems to suggest that just because the cyclists disregarded stop signs, they deserved to get hit.
I see no evidence of that whatsoever, and P.S. I'm a big "share the road" person, and wave to indicate to bicyclists that I see them when I'm pulling out (and wait to pull out) so they won't worry, and make sure to leave them plenty of room to get past when there is no bike lane.
Amy Alkon at May 1, 2012 5:08 AM
Jeff and Jerry, bicycles have to obey the California Vehicle Code.
Chris Bucchere killed Hui when he ran a yellow light and crashed into the 71-year-old pedestrian in San Francisco.
That said, every cyclist who blows through a stop sign, or worse, a red light, makes it that much harder on me and mine when we ride w/in the rules.
Cyclists are gonna have to make the first move. Police our own. Ride by the rules
There was a bicyclist up by the University who was notorious for running stop signs...
If you don't want to get hit, then stay off the freakin' roads.
You know what pisses me off about cyclists/
Here in sunny FLA we see the same things happening. I see bicyclists constantly running red lights and stop signs, and the only time I've EVER seen a signal from one was when he wanted to turn left right in front of me.
I think you can draw the inferences yourself. So many of the comments have digressed from the actual accidents to comments about bicyclists in general not following rules(good thing there is no comment saying "that bicyclists think they own the road because they are greener than motorists"..I would not be surprised if that comment had surfaced)
Redrajesh at May 1, 2012 6:55 AM
Redrajesh, If the bicycle riders had stopped at the stop sign, they would not have been on the road at the precise time and place for the idiot to hit and run them. By ignoring the stop sign they put themselves in the danger zone.
Jay J. Hector at May 1, 2012 10:57 AM
"Stop signs exist to control the flow of automotive traffic -- if there were only bikes and no cars, there would be no Stop signs."
And if your mother had testes, she'd be your uncle.
Maybe not a heroin-shooting, attempted-murder-with-a-car dirtbag, but an uncle nonetheless.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2012 1:09 PM
Jay, the stop sign was at 1:23 and the accident happened at 2:40. Nobody waits a full minute and a quarter at a stop sign. If the car was actually a minute and a quarter distance away, it is at least half a mile away and would not have been even visible. No one on earth waits that long, not even motorists. The car guy who hit them at 2:40 was clearly in the wrong. The cyclists were riding their bicycles along the edge of the road more or less in a single file within the cycling lane and not obstructing the road in the slightest and still they got hit.
Redrajesh at May 1, 2012 7:59 PM
Redrajesh, let's say the bicyclists came to a complete stop for five seconds at the stop sign. Deceleration and acceleration by the bicyclists would eat up a few more seconds of time, so let's say a total of 10 seconds would have been wasted by obeying the law. The hit-and-run driver was probably doing 30 miles an hour, which in linear measurement is 44 feet-per-second, or a total of 440 feet in ten seconds. The HR driver would have been 440 feet ahead of the bicyclists on the road (even if the HR driver was only doing 20, that would still be almost 300 feet) and could not have mowed 'em down if they had obeyed the law. Shades of Dashiell Hammett, it's the Flitcraft Episode (Parable) in real lifed.
http://www.thechurning.com/2006/08/20/the-flitcraft-episode-parable/
"A man named Flitcraft had left his real-estate-office, in Tacoma, to go to luncheon one day and had never returned. He did not keep and engagement to play golf after four that afternoon, though he had taken the initiative in making the engagement less than half and hour before he went out to luncheon. His wife and children never saw him again. His wife and he were supposed to be on the best of terms. He had two children, boys, one five and the other three. He owned his house in a Tacoma suburb, a new Packard, and the rest of the appurtenances of successful American living.
Flitcraft had inherited seventy thousand dollars from his father, and, with his success in real estate, was worth something in the neighborhood of two hundred thousand dollars at the time he vanished. His affairs were in order, though there were enough loose ends to indicate that he had not been setting them in order preparatory to vanishing. A deal that would have brought him an attractive profit, for instance, was to have been concluded the day after the one on which he disappeared. There was nothing to suggest that he had more than fifty or sixty dollars in his immediate possession at the time of his going. His habits for months past could be accounted for too thoroughly to justify any suspicion of secret vices, or even of another woman in his life, though either was barely possible.
...
Going to lunch he passed an office-building that was being put up - just the skeleton. A beam or something fell eight or ten stories down and smacked the sidewalk alongside him. It brushed pretty close to him, but didn't touch him, though a piece of the sidewalk was chipped off and flew up and hit his cheek. It only took a piece of skin off, but he still had the scar when I saw him. He rubbed it with his finger - well, affectionately - when he told me about it. He was scared stiff of course, he said, but he was more shocked than really frightened. He felt like somebody had taken the lid off life and let him look at the works.
Flitcraft had been a good citizen and a good husband and father, not by any outer compulsion, but simply because he was a man most comfortable in step with his surroundings. He had been raised that way. The people he knew were like that. The life he knew was a clean orderly sane responsible affair. Now a falling beam had shown him that life was fundamentally none of these things. He, the good citizen-husband-father, could be wiped out between office and restaurant by the accident of a falling beam. He knew then that men died at haphazard like that, and lived only while blind chance spared them.
It was not, primarily, the injustice of it that disturbed him: he accepted that after the first shock. What disturbed him was the discovery that in sensibly ordering his affairs he had got out of step, and not in step, with life. He said he knew before he had gone twenty feet from the fallen beam that he would never know peace until he had adjusted himself to this new glimpse of life. By that time he had eaten his luncheon he had found his means of adjustment. Life could be ended for him at random by a falling beam: he would change his life at random by simply going away. He loved his family, he said, as much as he supposed was usual, but he knew he was leaving them adequately provided for, and his love for them was not of the sort that would make absence painful.
- From Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon"
Jay J. Hector at May 1, 2012 9:28 PM
The point I'm making here is that some traffic laws make no sense applied mindlessly to bikes.
Anyone blowing through a stop sign and seizing a right of way that isn't theirs, or forcing someone else to do something to avoid a collision is clearly in the wrong, no matter what they are in and on.
However, depending on the area, coming to a stop is often completely superfluous, and it is clear well ahead of time.
In those cases, what is the point?
I'll bet those here most antagonistic to the notion never ride bikes themselves. And don't come to a full and complete stop at every sign, either.
But hey, if you are going to get all et up over the precise wording of the law (and ignore experience elsewhere), then I want every car that crosses the double yellow to pass me get ticketed.
Goose, meet gander.
Jeff Guinn at May 1, 2012 11:12 PM
Jeff, the precise wording of the law is how you fight and win traffic tickets in court.
Go ahead and run stop signs all you like regardless if that is contrary to the law. Some of us do stop at all red lights and stop signs as we don't like to get 500 buck tickets here in Kali.
Hey, my McLaren F1 can go 240mph, and out in the desert what's the point of a 70mph speed limit? Just a 22349b CVC ticket if caught. Do you think your arguments will beat the reefer in court?
Jay J. Hector at May 2, 2012 1:11 AM
Dude, your math is weird. If they did not stop at the stop sign, at 30mph(44 fps), the HR car is behind them by 1 minute 17 seconds.(based on an assumption that their speed is zero relative to the car) (ie) 77 seconds. So the HR car is behind them by 3388 feet. If they lost 10 seconds because of stopping at the stop sign, the HR car is still behind them by 2948 feet. So here, you have a car which is 2948 feet away and you expect them to wait till it passes ahead of them(which will take a full 1 minute and 7 seconds). 2948 feet is almost a half a mile(more than that in fact 0.5583 mile). I seriously do not understand how losing ten seconds in stopping will get the HR car ahead by 440 feet. The car at 1:23 is not the HR car, that car already crossed them. At least 10 cars passed these cyclists between 1:23 and 2:40 before they got hit. And if I assume the cyclists were going at 10 mph, the distance between them and the car becomes even more(58.67 fps*67 seconds = 3930 feet = 0.75 mile)
Redrajesh at May 3, 2012 9:18 AM
Redrajesh, their speed was not zero relative to the car or the bikes would have been next to the car that hit them at all times in the video once they ran the stop. I'm only concerned with the moment when the car hit them. We have no idea where the HR car was behind them, whether on the same road all the time or was parked on the side and started up, or came from a side road (or was travelling at 90mph). The bikes would not have been on the road at that precise point in time and space (where they were hit) if they had stopped, and regardless of the bikes the HR drive would have made his swerve at that point in time and space. Unless his car was magnetically attracted to the pair of scofflaws he would have passed them before or after that precise point on the road where he swerved and clipped them.
Jay J. Hector at May 3, 2012 1:32 PM
Leave a comment