Town Square

Post a New Topic

New details in pedestrian death on California Street

Original post made on Sep 25, 2012

Police have released more information on the California Street accident that killed an Illinois man on Sept. 15.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 25, 2012, 4:10 PM

Comments (9)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by ass/u/me
a resident of Old Mountain View
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?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shaking head in disbelief
a resident of Blossom Valley
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.
Time for bed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 25, 2012 at 8:33 pm

The car was traveling about 80 feet / second. 200 feet of travel after the impact would take only 2.5 seconds.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pedestrian
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Sep 25, 2012 at 8:59 pm

Does the author of the article know the laws regarding unmarked crosswalks?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kevin
a resident of North Whisman
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.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Also haking head in disbelief
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 26, 2012 at 2:23 pm

1) 35 miles per hour is just over 31 feet per second, not 80 feet per second as posited by USA.

2) Dear ass/u/me, try to find a meaningful hobby that you're good at.


 +   Like this comment
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?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Sep 28, 2012 at 2:14 pm

I'll bet a cell phone was involved here.


 +   Like this comment
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.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 13 comments | 3,449 views

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 2,688 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 2,420 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,403 views

Medical
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 910 views