Posted by ass/u/me, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 4:22 pm
The author of this article is putting a lot of speculation into the meaning of "about 500 feet". Is that plus or minus 10 feet? Plus or minus 200 feet? Based on the damage the the car, the positions where the victim was hit and where he landed are likely some distance apart. Was he hit in the crosswalk and dragged 200 feet to where he was found?
Posted by Shaking head in disbelief, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 6:26 pm
yah ass/u/me, in that detailed report, more detailed than I've seen here at the Voice, they forgot to mention he was dragged 200 feet. Of course they did. And when they said he was hit about 500 feet from the nearest intersection, they really meant 300 feet. Yyyep.
Posted by Kevin, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2012 at 12:50 am
Regarding unmarked crosswalks, it doesn't relieve pedestrians from the duty of using due care for his or her safety (VC 21950 (b)). Of course, drivers always have the duty for pedestrians' safety.
Since police doesn't release the detail, it's better not to speculate/assume what happened in this particular case. Just want to clarify the laws about unmarked crosswalks which have been brought up quite a few times before.
===============================
V C Section 21950
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) 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.
(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.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
Posted by Ferdbird, a resident of another community, on Sep 27, 2012 at 9:12 am
I was his friend. We live here in Central Illinois. He was on vacation, having a last walk in California before he came back home to Illinois. I have enjoyed the comments here. So far we have not heard all the details of the accident but I do hope it is investigated well. Lights on, at night. How could this of happened to my friend?
Posted by i love you joshua, a resident of another community, on Oct 13, 2012 at 8:37 pm
yes a cell phone was involved an that guy is getting away with killing my husband they are not charging him with anything.that guy gets to go home to be with his family and friends everyday but what about my josh he is gone forever. he was walking back to his friends house not leaving his friends house.an the reports that i was told by the pd ther is completely different than this article.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
