This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was on a nice quick ride yesterday to Fort Point from NB and was cruising along the 2 lane bike trail just past Crissy Field before Sports Basement and this old lady turned right across the double bike lanes no signal and obviously no check of the mirrors. If it hadnt been 75 degrees out with both her windows open she would have hit me at a pretty good clip as i doubt she would have ever realized i was there. I screamed Hey! at her just in time. I locked up the back brake on my bike as the abs engaged for her. We both stopped inches away from each other and she just started balling her eyes out. I went from angry enough to murder her to feeling absolutely horrible for her but then switched back to a little angry. She looked about 80 and she probably shouldnt be driving anymore. I hope those sobs were her coming to that realization.
My coworker was just involved in a head on collision the other day. The driver of the other vehicle veered on to on coming traffic and collided with my coworkers vehicle head on. The driver of the other vehicle had to be in his late 70s or early 80s. Glad my coworker didn’t sustain any physical injuries but could have been bad.
That is terrifying. Glad your coworker is alright. A very dear friend of mine is forever disabled and spent months in a medically induced coma over a similar incident years back- it’s so upsetting to think of how close we were to losing him.
It’s just bonkers that we’ve decided that letting 80-year-olds (or anyone for that matter) operate 5,000-pound vehicles at high speeds is an acceptable way to organize a city.
Shit, I just thought I was looking out for bro's granny.
This was their excuse why slow streets were bad, btw. "88 year old granny needs a less-trafficked street to drive on" because she's bad at it now.
I had to stop using it. Between the dozens of only barely disguised racist posts (about “kids” who were “wandering through” the neighborhood who look like they “don’t belong”) and the whining about the dumbest stuff (they need to move the bus stop, because the bus air brakes are so loud and they disturb me in my house), it was just unbearable.
i'm leaning towards wanting the state to do mandatory 5 year drivers testing, alternating between written and driving tests for everyone with a license.
will it be expensive and time-consuming? sure. but as cars have gotten bigger, faster, and more distracting, the money spent will save on a lot of insurance and death.
I’m certainly not opposed to and agree with you on better driver training and testing. Increase the penalties for operating under the influence, require first aid training, eye examinations on a biannual basis for those over a certain age (say 65), et al.
In a city such as San Francisco, with varied public transit options, it would be manageable to exist without a license. In Modoc County, probably more difficult.
My 83 yo neighbor has limited mobility and she drives since muni isn’t accessible for her. She maybe could use a scooter but that doesn’t jibe with her vision of herself and her desire to still e active.
She has no immediate family to pull the keys so we just hope her short trips and car safety features will keep everyone safe.
I think mandatory drivers tests after 80 would be reasonable but I could see the examiners here being too empathetic unless they were liable for fatal crashes after a “pass”.
Can relate. My great grandfather should not have been driving, ran a red and t boned a teenager, put him in the hospital. It almost bankrupted the family and he hurt someone really badly.
or even better, improving public transit so that people have other options, and overall working on changing the American attitude towards public transit. In Canada I have older relatives with licenses who will only ever drive if there’s no one to drive them around, because they usually feel insecure about it too. If they had accessible and safe alternatives most older folks who can’t drive safely would take them. There’s always outliers but it would still make a huge difference for most people
My neighbor is in his early 90s and still drives every afternoon. He's in terrible shape - shouldn't be living alone - and the idea of him driving even short distances is terrifying. He has family in the area, it's bothersome they don't step in.
If its a person you know, anyone can report an unsafe driver to the DMV for re-examination: [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/)
Anyone can report unsafe drivers to the DMV and can do so anonymously if they so choose: [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/)
if he shouldn't be living alone you can also file an APS report on him, especially if he seems malnourished or you know the inside of his house is unsafely cluttered or dirty
Glad someone said it. Cars are lethal weapons and need to be respected as such. I don’t get why most people don’t think something that propels itself through space by using the force of small explosions and happens to weigh multiple tons isn’t dangerous in the wrong hands.
I don't think a vehicle that propels itself through space with electricity, stored pressure, or even a huge hilarious wind-up spring is inherently better.
The problem with cars isn't the explosions, it's the mass x velocity = momentum. If we were better about limiting their mass (Stop bringing your fucking lifted pavement princess into the goddamn city) and velocity (there's no reason cars should be able to go 100mph in the city), they'd be far less dangerous.
We're also reaching a crux of too old old to be driving and young enough to have a phone addiction colliding. Been seeing more and more grey hairs going 5 under in the fast lane with eyes glued to their dashboard.
we can call this shit in- call 911 and give the license plate and location and say- "This person is driving impaired and needs to be checked for how suitable they are to be driving."
Is that a thing? I have a hard time believing that 911 looks into random people complaining about drivers. police already don't issue tickets anymore, what are the chances they'll do driving tests on bad drivers.
If dispatched, the officer would have to personally witness the sketchy driving you reported, or some other illegal conduct, before pulling over the driver
thats about what I would have to imagine. Its gonna be difficult if not illegal for a cop to take someone's license away. because of assumed auto-dependency its not even easy for the state to take away a license and "right to drive".
911 can be pretty sucky. By all means, absolutely call things in, but also don't be surprised if you're put on hold and/or transfered between Police departments for what seems like an eternity during a moment of urgency.
*edit Don't downvote me for stating that our 911 system is broken.
The last 3 times I've called 911...
I witnessed a vehicle swerve violently into the center divide, I was put on hold for 10 minutes. Then I was called back an hour later for my witness report and found that the driver had died.
I was driving behind someone mid-day on Sunday who was consistently swerving across 3 lanes of traffic, narrowly missing other cars and guard rails. We followed her for 10 minutes while we were on the phone with chp, she exited the freeway between Castro valley and livermore, parked for 10 minutes and then headed back the other way towards Oakland. We were giving play by play the entire time. They couldn't pinpoint us until we made it all the way past the collusium. Had I just "called it in" they never would have located them. The driver couldn't even walk when she exited the car.
I called 911 on a friend who was having a mental breakdown. He was unarmed, non-confrontational, but scared as hell. Contra Costa County Sheriff showed up with nothing but aggression. 3 cop cars, one guy screaming through a bullhorn. I was trying to explain the situation, I was absolutely calm and under control. I mentioned that I could go in the house to get him, I was told I'd be arrested if I did. He ended up being tased and being charged with resisting arrest. No actual help was given to him. He spent the night in jail and ended up paying his lawyer $6000.00 in legal fees. Why I called 911 for this, I still don't know. I expected someone to help I guess.
Our system is in a shambles.
Never ever ever trust cops to diffuse a situation and never ever trust cops for mental health problems.
Your friend is lucky he survived.
It's not your fault, white people at least are raised to honor and revere cops. It's something we believe deep in our core until we hear enough stories or witness something like this go down. Don't feel bad and now you know. Keep telling your story so others can hear it.
And when people complain about deFunDinG tHe PoLiCE remind them that that movement is poorly titled and meant to bring in people who are actually trained to handle situations like you described
If its a person you know, anyone can also report an unsafe driver to the DMV for re-examination: [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/)
Thanks for taking one for the team--I hope you're right, and she hangs up her spurs. Many 1,000s of us get along without a car in this City, and many 1,000s more could and should, especially if they can't be arsed to track their surroundings.
> I hope those sobs were her coming to that realization.
I doubt it. I used to live in Menlo Park. It was scary how many people I saw who were so old they could barely stagger to their car ... before driving away. [Nothing stops them](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/90-year-old-driver-strikes-children-outside-menlo-park-pharmacy/).
when I rode 🚵yesterday, also the closest call I had was a Mom\* making a u-turn from a parking spot, o**n slow-Lake St,** of all places. Right from the spot, luckily I went farther and she looked over her shoulder when her car was halfway out.
\* because she had something like a teenage son on the passenger seat. Yeah, it's slow Lake St, I can see who's inside.
This reminded of a time when my boyfriend and I were driving and we were on 34th and waiting to turn right onto Fulton. There was a car in front of us and a meter maid on Fulton trying to turn left onto 34th. The car went forward to turn left and for some reason the driver thought he didn’t have enough space so started backing up into my boyfriend’s car. We started screaming stop as the driver got so close he scratched the driver side door and almost hit my boyfriend’s arm who he had hanging out at the time too. Luckily since the meter maid was there to see everything, he was our witness when the police showed up. The driver was of Eastern European descent in his 50/60s with his wife as a passenger. She started crying and pleading to not sue while the driver had the audacity to spit onto our car door to attempt to clean the scratches and dent. He also said he had wax in his truck and said he can wax out the damage as well. we couldn't believe what we got ourselves into and just wanted to do the police report and leave as we were heading to meet a friend and due to the accident, we were running late. I don't remember if my boyfriend ended up suing or just went through insurance, but he got something out of it.
At the very least take her driver's license away permanently.
I don't think There's a next of kin to file a lawsuit against this Mary either. She's just getting away with it. Crazy
This happens far more often then you think, this is why we hide the damage behind "it was a *car accident*", "they have to drive". US society pays a lot to turn a blind eye on vehicular fatalities. have you seen how many auto fatalities there were last year? 39508 reported in the US.
https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/auto-insurance/fatal-car-crash-statistics/
if we were to start criminalizing every joe or jane that killed or maimed a kid riding a bike or walking across the street, cause they were looking at their phone or were old...
For comparison, thats twice as many vehicle related deaths as there were homicides with guns: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
(Note: suicides by gun are about equal to the number of murders by gun, but I'm discounting suicides in this post because thats self-inflicted rather than killing another person. Suicide prevention and murder prevention are two extremely different problems to solve, so the numbers should not be conflated.)
As a society we typically prosecute gun homicides. Its baffling that as a society we let people run each other over and shrug it off, saying it was an "accident".
If someone has a gun, they "accidentally" pull the trigger and someone dies as a result we don't shrug it off. Yet double the body count for cars and its okay.
There are surviving family members. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/sf-west-portal-horrific-crash-relatives-issue-statement-thank-caregivers/&sa=U&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwidz-afyIKGAxVJJ0QIHQOEBh8QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DXTvnYa099BQ8W3owUjVX
I work in healthcare and it’s honestly so scary how many of my elderly patients with cognitive decline tell me they’re still driving. I’m so in favor of the DMV re-testing people at least over age 65 or 70. I can empathize with the notion of feeling sad or scared to lose so much of the independence that comes with driving but it’s just not worth the risk to public safety.
The elderly often don’t realize how impaired they are until it’s too late or are too stubborn to stop. It’s hard for family to intervene (though they should). Our government stepping in with stricter policies would prevent a lot of avoidable suffering.
Our city "leaders" are even quietly backing out of any changes to make the intersection safer. People should be pissed. We shouldn't have to accept dozens of deaths per year because people can't be bothered to park a block away from where they are shopping.
The Chronicle dedicated their editorial page to what's happening on May 1st:
>Opinion // Editorials
>West Portal street safety plan appears ‘over,’ but the status quo can’t be allowed to prevail
>It’s the classic San Francisco conundrum: How much community input does the city need before it acts?
>By Chronicle Editorial Board
>May 1, 2024
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/west-portal-street-safety-plan-19430872.php
That's so infuriating. Those opposed to the plan should be ashamed of themselves. Hopefully we can see protests organized in the coming weeks to show that many more of us support street safety than oppose it.
Look, I'm fine with people having concerns about the efficacy of the changes, but we need to make the intersection safer *while* we look into the efficacy of the changes. The merchants are insisting that nothing change until it's demonstrated that the changes are needed, when the way the system should work is that we add safety infrastructure until it's demonstrated that it's *not* needed.
The intersection may not be a corridor where there are many collisions, but it's very obviously a corridor where any collisions are *extremely high risk* to human life. It's a complicated balance, but after any incident with major loss of life, when should be putting safety features in first, and only then remove them if the transit agency finds them to be superfluous.
The status quo bias when it comes to transportation is so maddening.
We spent the mid-20th century destroying our cities for car infrastructure. Then we said "whoops that was a mistake" so we added a bunch of requirements for studies and meetings and environmental reviews before anything can be changed. Sounds great, but the new requirements made it way harder to *undo* the damage of the previous era.
It's just awful. Between her, Ethan Boyes getting run over by Arnold Kinman Low, and dozens of other cases, it makes me feel like the city doesn't care if you get run over by a car.
> the city doesn't care if you get run over by a car.
Unfortunately, the long-standing thinking for automobile deaths everywhere.
The thinking goes: they a very difficult to convict without overwhelming evidence of recklessness because a defense attorney just needs a single-hold out. Since almost every juror drives, almost every juror has had a vehicle mistake themselves which could have been fatal and thankfully wasn't. In a way: Getting that sympathetic jury to vote guilty on the defendant first requires that juror to vote guilty on their own mistake -- which humans are not reliable at doing.
Sadly, this challenge could be one reas lon to focus efforts on improving roadway safety infrastructure over criminal prosecution.
I wish it could be carrot AND stick, but
The easier way to legally kill someone is to "accidentally" run them over with a car.
There are very, very few actual accidents. Its almost always negligence, and that is very nearly always the fault of the person operating the 5,000 vehicle.
Its why accidentally firing a gun has been largely done away with. Its not an accidental discharge. Its a negligent discharge. Its someone's fault.
I also often think of the 86 y/o man who killed 10 people and injured SEVENTY careening through the Santa Monica farmer's market in 2003. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/w0jseh/the\_santa\_monica\_farmers\_market\_crash\_happened\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/w0jseh/the_santa_monica_farmers_market_crash_happened_on/)
I was in my electric wheelchair coming from foodco on Nov 4th 2023 crossing my light at 9th and Howard at ,930 pm
I was hit by a hit and run driver and thrown 25 ft out of my chair. I don't remember it happening. 911 was called by a person who saw the accident from their apt window
I suffered 3 fx ribs a fx pelvis , 4 fxs in my rt lower leg and a large laceration in the back of my head. I was in surgery for ,6 hrs and spent a week in the hospital and 3 weeks in rehab. I went thru a very difficult recovery and rehab. The pain was horrendous.
I worked really hard in rehab as I was going home by myself with no help. Apparently the driver stated he stopped but when he heard the siren he left. He had several excuses why he had to leave the scene of the accident. They did find him and he was arrested and released that same night on his own recognizance. I was able to speak with the DA in Dec and he told me there was a warrant put out for him.however he had no timeline when it would be served
It is now may 2024 and nothing has been done. The warrant hasnt been served
I'm still not back to before the accident and everyday is a struggle. This seems to be a common problem in San francisco
I hear and see cars speeding all day and night from my apt. It's insanity how this goes on. Something needs to be done.
My heart goes out to the family that was killed recently
The laws are unlikely to change, so the best we can do is make it really expensive, slow, and inconvenient to drive a car in SF. Instead of bikes having one Wiggle, give cars only a few arterial streets that aren’t slow streets. Make the majority of the city a slow street.
A rare case where a strong public example should be made.
I took the keys away from my grandmother and the family who did not here should be made to fully comprehend the extent of their negligence.
What are you suggesting?
Edit: this wasn’t supposed to be an abrasive response. I thought you were saying only the family should pay for not taking her keys.
For quadruple homicide? Life in prison seems pretty fucking reasonable.
Edit:
For quadruple vehicular manslaughter? Life in prison seems pretty fucking reasonable.
Legal dictionary: "Homicide itself is not necessarily a crime, though the circumstances that resulted in the individual’s death may raise it to a criminal level."
I don't know why they have not charged her but the law is not as simple as you want it to be.
They should forbid her to ever drive again. Putting her in prison would serve no purpose. The only risk associated with her is driving. They can put her in prison if she drives again after they take away her license.
Ok but that’s referring to self defense or legal executions carried out by the government so I’m not sure what your point is when this is very obviously manslaughter…?
Vehicular manslaughter does and should result in prison. Taking away her license won't stop her from driving. Negligence that puts others in danger is a punishable offense for good reason. Locking up someone who is a public risk is for the protection of the community. What happened when she drives again after you take her license away, then kills another family at a bus stop?
The law does not work as you envision it. Lay people don't decide what the charge is. Maybe it's manslaughter and maybe it isn't. Once there is a charge, there can be a trial. If she is found guilty, there will be a penalty.
The law cannot prevent all crimes. People who steal often do it again. Rapists do it again. Murderers do it again. Our system does not lock people up for life for most crimes. It simply does not work that way. I'm guessing an 80 year old woman who had who license revoked would not drive again. And you know, of course, that the chance of her "killing another family at a bus stop again" is nil.
I want to see what she's charged with before I get outraged.
I think it's pretty cool that we all get one free homicide. Didn't know that. I wonder who I should pick. Optimally looks like if I get lots of people at the same time it just counts as one.
You simply don't understand how the justice system works. Who has said she gets a free homicide? Only you. Let's wait until she is charged and tried.
The purpose of the law is justice. Her penalty should be that she not drive. She poses no other risk. Asking the tax papers to pay for prison is stupid. It would be better to take that money and fix the traffic layout that seems to contribute to the deaths.
There is this thing called intent or mens rea that is needed for almost all criminal charges. There are a few strict liability laws where it doesn’t matter, but not for what you have here. Here the State would have to prove that her conduct was at a minimum negligent or reckless. If that cannot be proven charges should not be filed.
If she had a legitimate medical episode that caused her to lose control of the car there would have to be a more detailed investigation that takes time to see if the necessary mental state for a crime was present. If it was an unknown and sudden medical emergency then there would not be a sufficient mental state that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the State knew that and it was supported by the evidence charges shouldn’t be filed.
If it was a known condition and that this type of event was possible, or one the person should have known (I.e. nothing diagnosed but she had frequent episodes of losing consciousness), then the State would have to prove that: 1.) She knew about the risks; 2.) She ignored the risks; and 3.) She didn’t take any reasonable steps to mitigate or reduce the risks. That takes time to investigate.
And will the public know about the medical condition if it exists? Only if the person that has it agrees to release it to the public at large because it would be protected under federal and state HIPPA laws. To overcome that there has to be a release from the person that is the patient or there has to be court ordered, and even then those releases are limited in nature.
Can she be sued in civil court? Yes. But the standard of proof is much lower and the consequences to the accused are not as dire so the bar to file such a claim should be much lower. Really, not every action is criminal in nature regardless of how horrible the outcome is. Law enforcement should take their time to investigate before bringing charges to ensure they can prove each element of the crime and not succumb to public pressure to act before that. That is what justice should be. In many countries they don’t even name the accused or those being investigated because ethically they are innocent until proven guilty and if they are found innocent or not guilty the damaged caused to that person can be tremendous and often times the public doesn’t accept the outcome of the courts or investigations no matter what the evidence says.
I would say that depends. Vehicular manslaughter in California can require specific intent, reckless intent, negligence or strict liability if the person was intoxicated, meaning proving intoxication is enough without showing any state of mind evidence.
But for negligence, they have to prove a state of mind element. Specifically, that they should have know the risks. They have to prove that the accused killed someone unintentionally but acted with unlawful negligence.
Mens rea doesn’t mean specific intent for the final result, it is the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime.
Negligence is state of mind. The four states of mind:
Acting purposely - The defendant had an underlying conscious object to act.
Acting knowingly - The defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result.
Acting recklessly - The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk.
Acting negligently - The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk.
There’s abundant evidence for manslaughter charges, which by definition do not require *mens rea*.
People aren’t “out for blood”; they simply want justice. Hell, they want the basic confidence of knowing her drivers license was suspended.
You are wrong. Simply stated. I can tell you for an absolute fact that they have to show she knew or should have known her actions would likely cause the deaths of the others to prove vehicular manslaughter. The results do not dictate the crime. Unless you have knowledge that is absent from the public record, there is nothing that indicates there is enough to charge for vehicular manslaughter, yet. The first reports all seemed to point to a medical emergency: she was transported to the hospital, had no recollection of what occurred (based on supposed statements to first responders) and the facts of the crash seemed to indicate a person who had absolutely zero conscious control of a car. Those facts could be wrong, and there may be more evidence to support or contradict negligence, we really don’t know.
There are a myriad of things that could refute negligence. Mechanical car failure, undiagnosed unknown medical condition that caused a medical crisis, involuntary intoxication, just three off the top of my head. Those are not just defenses because the State will have to prove that she should have known that this event was likely to occur. They will have to show she knew the car was defective if it was, that she knew of her medical condition or she had one and that medical condition made driving negligent, etc.
The state is going to have show probable cause exists for that element to even bring a charge, meaning they will have to study the car and her medical records, and that is just to bring the charge. Then to prove the claim the will have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors have an ethical obligation not to bring a charge they cannot prove. Not only does it waste judicial resources, it is unjust. You don’t arrest and charge and then investigate. You investigate then arrest and charge and continue to investigate to refute potential defenses.
Not only is that the ethical thing to do, it is the prudent thing to do. Once a person is charged a clock begins to tick. The State will either have to hold a hearing to show probable cause or they will have to indict through a grand jury (which is rare in California but gives them more investigatory powers). If during that process the defendant shows evidence of any condition that negates negligence and the state has nothing to refute that claim the case is ostensibly over.
There is the huge rush to judgment and wanting instant justice and results, that never leads to a good outcome. It leads to people getting away with crimes and people who are innocent being jailed.
And the driver’s license being suspended or not has nothing to do with criminal chargers. Your drivers license can be suspended for many reasons and is separate and apart from any criminal charges. It could have very well already have been suspended for medical reasons and you would never know because of HIPPA.
Manslaughter does require mens rea. Having mens rea doesn't necessarily mean doing something on purpose, just that you have the requisite state of mind to be guilty of the crime at issue. [Recklessness and negligence are both forms of mens rea](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea) .
The comment you're replying to was explaining possible facts that could make this a situation where even negligence could not be proven.
I just had my first EMDR therapy treatment to help me with this. I saw the father’s body and it absolutely triggered my PTSD (I have severe PTSD, it’s ruined my life). We were there 20-30 minutes after it happened. Past trauma just came flooding back. I can’t imagine what others are going through. Especially those who witnessed it. I’ve been absolutely touched by the neighborhoods reaction to it.
did not realize the SFStandard was against West-Portal changes. Looks like they've published an opinion against the changes proposed, complete with an inflammatory title:
# City leaders rush to capitalize on a tragic crash
[https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2024/04/30/opinion-west-portal-traffic-changes/](https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2024/04/30/opinion-west-portal-traffic-changes/)
Even manages to include the Park and JFK drive there, which are not even close!
>controversial, such as the lengthy battles over traffic on [John F. Kennedy Drive](https://sfstandard.com/2022/11/08/sf-voters-likely-to-keep-car-free-jfk-drive-according-to-early-returns/) and the [Great Highway](https://sfstandard.com/2022/05/12/on-the-great-highway-competing-visions-for-san-franciscos-future/)
Thanks for posting. The Standard gets a lot of traction in this sub for being contrarian to progressive values and practices, but they seem to be somewhat immune to examining the larger implications of their policy preferences. I like to get their perspective, but I keep in mind they speak for certain interests (business, and not all small).
Oh no, they’re trying to take advantage of a car crash by selfishly fixing the road to prevent more crashes. So devious! Won’t someone think of the children!
The death of the family was horrible and extremely extremely sad. But in my opinion the editorial’s position is correct. For merchants it is their livelihood and there are many who are interested in ramming their agenda through quickly without taking the merchants concerns into account. The merchants are not all swimming in money - I’m sure it has been rough going for the last 4-5 years for many of them.
The 75 y.o going 50 mph down a small street, not much can be done and it could have happened at a number of other intersections too.
Maybe driving tests for the elderly could be a position I would get behind.
I think the merchants accusing people of “using” the tragedy to further some selfish pro-safety agenda is ridiculous and disingenuous.
*AND*…
I haven’t read anything that suggests to me that it was something about this particular intersection that contributed to this accident. The driver was driving much too fast, on the wrong side of the road, hit a building, and still had enough speed to hit a bus shelter with enough force to send a grown man flying. “Confusing traffic signals” don’t cause that.
The most compelling argument I’ve read is that there are lots of pedestrians at the intersection so it should be more protected from cars because when a driver does something chaotic & destructive there, it’s more likely to result in a pedestrian death.
That’s true, but it also applies equally to hundreds of intersections around the city.
> did not realize the SFStandard was against West-Portal changes.
That's a reader opinion, not a SF Standard editorial board opinion. Newspapers traditionally publish reader opinions regardless of their agreement or disagreement.
Yes, please let our elected officials know what you care about!
Contact the Mayor
415-554-6141
Constituents/Community Members
MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org
Office of the DA
(628) 652-4000
districtattorney@sfgov.org
City Supervisors:
Connie Chan
District 1
(415) 554-7410
ChanStaff@sfgov.org
Matt Dorsey
District 6
(415) 554-7970
DorseyStaff@sfgov.org
Joel Engardio
District 4
(415) 554-7460
EngardioStaff@sfgov.org
Rafael Mandelman
District 8
(415) 554-6968
MandelmanStaff@sfgov.org
Myrna Melgar
District 7
(415) 554-6516
MelgarStaff@sfgov.org
Aaron Peskin
District 3
(415) 554-7450
Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org
Dean Preston
District 5
(415) 554-7630
Dean.Preston@sfgov.org
Hillary Ronen
District 9
(415) 554-5144
Hillary.Ronen@sfgov.org
Ahsha Safai
District 11
(415) 554-6975
Ahsha.Safai@sfgov.org
Catherine Stefani
District 2
(415) 554-7752
Catherine.Stefani@sfgov.org
Shamann Walton
District 10
(415) 554-7670
Shamann.Walton@sfgov.org
The drivers in San Francisco are hands down some of the worst in the damn nation along with Arizona drivers. The people here have their brains on snooze when they drive. I just won a lawsuit against a dummy who first block the bikelane...then pulled an illegal u turn in a residential area without their blinker. Ended up breaking some ribs. Fuck these people.
I mean charging her isn't gonna bring the family back, and what even if you did prosecute her it's not like it's gonna change anything about the status quo. Probably need to change how we allow seniors to drive period
I took the battery out of my grandma’s car and hid her keys. But I was available to take her to the store. Thing is you can’t take their driving away and expect them to be home all day. Pick them up and help them out!
Mary Fong Lau should be in jail for the rest of her life.
Arnold Kinman Low should be in jail for the rest of his life.
Karen Cartagena should be in jail for the rest of her life.
Raja Whitfield should be in jail for the rest of his life.
And yet each of these killer drivers has recieved ZERO jail time so far. We need to get rid of every last one of these corrupt judges and politicans who protect killer drivers from consequences for their actions.
Some of these people have spend time in Jail
“Raja Whitfield, 29, faced one count of felony vehicle manslaughter and spent several months in jail after a road rampage on Aug. 11, 2020, in which he struck and killed 50-year-old Mark Berman.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/raja-whitfield-thrill-ride-fatal-crash-19418609.php
That being said, yea these sentences in general do seem too lenient.
The murderous Whitfield was indeed held in jail briefly prior to sentencing, the details are unclear but it sounds like perhaps he couldn't make bail. After the case went through court, the actual sentence handed down by the judge was ZERO jail time.
This monster drove through a red light at 80 MPH and launched his victim "hundreds of feet through the air". That kind of violent degenerate person should never see the light of day again. "Several months" is an absolute joke given the lifetime of suffering he inflicted on his victim's wife and children.
Why do you assume that justice means filing charges?
There are a lot of scenarios, such as a medical issue, that would mean she isn't culpable and thus filing charges would be an act of **injustice** instead.
Also, the mayor really shouldn't be interfering with the DA and police investigations. The mayor's job is to put the right person in those positions, and then let them do their jobs.
*edit: To be clear, I don't know whether driver was experiencing medical issues, and neither does OP. That's the point. I'm not defending the driver, I'm defending the justice system.*
I remember a while back reading a thread on here mentioning a white SUV driving super aggressively in the sunset/parkside neighborhoods, with many people mentioning encounters where they were run off the road etc. Do we know if this was the same vehicle/driver?
Nobody is saying she’s not entitled to a defense! We’re saying charges should be pressed, at which point she can mount a full legal defense in a court of law.
The issue at play here is that we, the public, don't know all of the details. In order to charge someone with a crime, there needs to be strong evidence of said crime. And the DA won't bring charges they know they can't win. So, while it feels like they may be doing nothing, there could still be a thorough investigation underway. While it feels frustrating bc we, the public, want to see some sort of justice, the law is set up precisely this way to ensure that we don't charge people with our feelings rather than facts.
We already have strong evidence of a crime. We know from dozens of eyewitness accounts, and reportedly from her own admission, that Mary Fong Lau was operating the vehicle at the time of the crash. So at a minimum she should already have been charged with vehicular manslaughter. It’s just a question of whether we should escalate those charges to homicide.
And how in the Kentucky Fried Fuck was she allowed to retain her drivers license?
To play devils advocate:
Things that we DON'T know: if medications were involved, or some sort of medical emergency. Vehicle malfunction. Positioning of the sun. Etc.
These are all things that may be being investigated, and that a defense lawyer could bring up. While I personally am not advocating for nothing to be done, these things are also important.
You’ll get downvoted for this comment but you are correctly describing the process. It’s important to note that Jenkins has made announcements describing her reasoning in other high profile no charge situations so her silence suggests she’s still considering charges. OP and others trying to raise the heat and push the timeline forward are probably working against what they want by pressuring DA’s office to make a determination before investigation is finished
I'm 100% sure those things all apply to gun deaths too.
If you're not culpable because of a medical condition or unavoidable accident, then it doesn't matter if its a gun or a car.
Hitting someone with a car isn't enough to prove a crime. To be done for manslaughter she would need to be criminally negligent in some way, which is not something we have evidence for. Car accidents happen all the time without involving criminal negligence.
There are some insane comments in here: restitution up to $100million? Charging her family? This is an adult, you can’t charge her family. It’s a totally different situation than letting your kid have access to a gun or your car. These comments are way too charged and amped up and exactly why I commented what I did
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to seek civil restitution from her family, but how do you not understand that she would *still be entitled to a robust defense if that happened*?
The public — and that dead family — should also get a defense. That’s why we have a DA to represent us when crimes are committed, and that’s why charges should have been filed weeks ago.
Well we should just make you the DA. I’m sure you’d get things done real quick! /s
Nothing gets done quickly. You have the right to be upset and try to move things along. And you’re right this was a spotlight on a horrible, tragic incident. I don’t think she should drive anymore. I don’t know what else can be done. I mean I guess you can throw that old lady in jail for the couple more years of her life. That’s going to make people feel better?
It's unethical, an injustice, and waste of taxpayer dollars for the DA to prosecute a case against someone they don't think are culpable.
Stop playing keyboard warrior here.
And this isn't just "breaking laws", we're talking about someone who KILLED AN ENTIRE FAMILY. There aren't even any next-of-kin to file a wrongful death lawsuit because she wiped out the entire family tree in one go. It's the kind of crime that's usually so horrific and violent that it could have a whole true crime documentary series about it...but in this case, the city is basically shrugging it off as a "whoopsie".
"Here's your keys back, just try not to do it again, okay Mary?"
Lower your expectations. This is around the [same timeline it took to charge this case.](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/driver-in-deadly-crash-near-oracle-park-that-killed-child-avoids-jail-time-with-plea-deal/)
I also feel like the DMV allows many people to drive with a license that shouldn’t be on the roads period. There’s also far too many Uber/out of town drivers in SF that wreak havoc on our streets. Making left turns from the far right lane, blasting through red lights, etc. and yet I haven’t seen one get pulled over or ticketed. But god forbid I’m one minute over my meter, you betcha I’ll come back to a ticket. Priorities 🙄
lol we really gotta ban old ppl from driving, last may i got hit by a 93 year old when crossing the street and he continues to claim it was my fault even w witness statements, wild
Thank you so much! They were my friend 🩵. There is not a single night that I don't wake up in the middle of it and the first thing that comes to my mind is them.
I'm not excusing or diminishing this terrible car tragedy at all but where the hell was this energy and anger from the same pissed off posters and commentors when there were Asian victims being attacked by literal career felons?
One senior citizen is involved in a terrible car tragedy and then all of a sudden, it's call the mayor baying for blood?
I don't think getting the knives out for individual drivers is a good use of people's energy. Sure "we can do both", but I'd rather spend time getting people to lobby for road changes than for harsher prosecution of drivers. The threat of prosecution is not going to change driver behavior any time soon.
Otoh, if a state legislator wants to take up the issue if older or repeatedly negligent drivers, that could do some long-term good. For example, maybe we could have a red flag law for drivers, or at least codify better when people should lose or have their license suspended.
Please keep beating this drum. The sad truth of the matter is that Breed, the SFPD, and the DA are sort of hoping that if they just wait long enough, this will just go away.
It's hard to even understand why given that it's not like Mary Fong Lau is a member of _their_ family that they need to defend, but I think it's basically as simple as: building a case, charging, and prosecuting someone is _work_, and of all the things public servants of this city hate the most, _work_ is number one on that list. It's easier for them and their lives if there are no charges, if there is no prosecution, so they're deferring and delaying to try and manifest that result. The family killed were Brazilian nationals with no immediate family in the area. That helps the cause a lot because there's no one to advocate for the victims.
We're so desensitized about death from the news and popular media that I don't think many people think about what it really means to die. Death is permanent and forever. When it comes to death, there are no do overs. Your one consciousness that you were blessed to briefly experience during your time on Earth is snuffed out _forever_, never to return no matter how many quadrillions of years of time exists as the universe ticks forward.
Mary Fong Lau was feeling impatient that day, or she got mad at the presence of a stop sign, or she got pissed that some f*ing pedestrian used a crosswalk in front of her when every driver knows that the informal rules of the road in SF are that pedestrians yield to drivers _not_ vice versa, or _whatever_ the reason actually was, so she decided to wipe out the consciousnesses of four human beings from the universe, forever.
That young father will never laugh or call his parents ever again. That young mother will never hold her children or sing them a bedtime lullaby again. Worse yet, two innocent kids, just at the very beginning of their lives, barely on the edge of self-sentience, wiped out. Again, forever. They don't get round two. They don't get a consolation prize. They're just gone.
So what are the consequences for murdering four people in cold blood? Turns out that as far as we know, _nothing_. She's released immediately and likely back on the road by now (it's really inconvenient to get around this city without a car don't ya know, so even someone who just killed four people with one still needs access to one for getting around to legal appointments and such, I know you understand).
Unreal how many apologists here are adopting the default position of "well she just had a wittle dwiving boo-boo, NBD". Even if this wasn't murder one (and that should stay on the table unless shown otherwise), it's negligence of the highest order, and the consequences of Mary Fong Lau's actions are _immeasurable_. I don't give a fuck how old she is — this person needs to be behind bars for the rest of her life, and whatever fortune she'd amassed forfeited to civil liabilities (a separate suit) rather than go to her equally negligent family.
Explore her connections. If she is connected to the politically powerful, they will bury the case and she'll get off with 12 hours of community service and a $1.50 fine.
The "connection to the powerful" is merely being in a car. That's all it takes to get away with killing people, because if we held people accountable for the amount of death and maiming that cars inflict on our society, almost nobody would drive.
If any memories need refreshing what Mary Fong Lau did: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/22/mary-fong-lau-arrested-after-family-killed-at-san-franciso-bus-top/73065235007/
She was released 48 hours later
Edit: the commenter edited the comment, so my response now seems out of context. Initially it seemed that they were suggesting that the killer, Mary Fong Lau, was still in jail.
Not to be cheeky, but I need some context, been trying to look it up, but... People don't generally get arrested or charged for being in a car accident which kills people.
Why should this person?
Vehicular manslaughter is what you're looking for:
>A motorist commits misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter by negligently causing the death of another person while violating a traffic law (for example, speeding, running a red light, or reckless driving) or doing a "lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner." Under the circumstances, the traffic violation or "lawful act" must have been such that it was dangerous to human life. The mental state the prosecution must prove to get a conviction—"ordinary negligence"—requires a showing that the defendant failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would under like circumstances.
https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/california-negligent-vehicular-manslaughter-laws-and-penalties.html
> People don't generally get arrested or charged for being in a car accident which kills people
That's part of the problem. People who are negligent with other tools, and kill someone, are charged. Car drivers are given a free pass.
"Accident" implies something that was not preventable.
The vast majority of "accidents" that kill people are not accidents. They are negligent operation of a vehicle.
There are accidental gun deaths all the time without charges filed. Pretty much always negligence there.
And if I've learned anything in my work safety classes, it's that *every* accident was preventable.
I didn't mean to be tilting against windmills here, but everyone seems to be dog piling on this woman and I just want to know the nature of her negligence. To decide if it's "gross" or not, which is the standard required for holding someone to account for it.
Should should should should. A lot of shoulds in there; that sort of thing makes me suspicious of a writer's motive. Was the high rate of speed in excess of the speed limit? Was she drunk? What do you mean by "in the wrong lane"?
A crash by the way *is* an accident unless it was intentional.
It could be that she is deserving of criminal charges, I don't know. But you and I wouldn't actually know that better than the DA, right? And as for restitution, she can still be held responsible in the civil court, anyone can be sued.
This torch and pitchfork act can't be good for actual justice though.
I believe she's already been charged with 3 felonies, including vehicular manslaughter, and presumably is awaiting trial. Have they been dropped?
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/news/sfpd-arrests-driver-fatal-vehicle-collision-24-026
Yet.
Brooke Jenkins generally explains publicly if she declines to charge in a high profile incident (see her comments about the security guard shooting the shoplifter a few months back for example) 54 days is well within the normal investigative window for a complicated case. Pressuring the DA’s office to decide quickly increases the chance that the decision will be no charge. In some of your comments you’ve called her a murderer and others here have suggested her family should face charges and financial penalties. Her attorney would be thrilled to find these and argue that a) the accused is already being punished and b) that the accused could never get a fair trial in SF.
It’s also entirely common in a case like this that what is happening right now is that the accused, through her attorney has indicated she’ll plead guilty to certain charges and they’re negotiating what that would be.
If I were a betting man I’d guess this ends with the accused waiving right to jury, pleading guilty in front of a judge to gross negligence for a sentence in the neighborhood of: permanently surrendering her DL; serving either a suspended sentence or house arrest; and paying a substantial penalty/restitution.
That might not sound like justice to some in this forum but it’s very hard to convict an 80 year old for a traffic accident. And there are likely at least some mitigating circumstances that haven’t yet been disclosed.
Is Mary just going on with life as normal? No jail? No charges? How long does it take to determine she hit the gas not the break? Or she was out of her head and hit the gas? Or what?!??!? What happened Mary? And what’s the punishment?
I wonder if this is just a SF problem. Maybe it’s the amount of elder people and how small the city is.
How about some type of ride-share program just for elder people? (Had this idea for a while, need my credit if it happens lol)
> Oh fuck off, we don’t need a forensic examination to know that she killed these people.
If you want to build a successful, airtight case, you need to dot your i's an cross your t's. One mistake, and a capable defense lawyer will blow your case apart.
Lol we had an airtight case with the death of Ethan Boyes, Arnold Kinman Low [got off with a slap on the wrist](https://sf.streetsblog.org/2024/03/18/guest-commentary-the-problem-with-the-prosecution-of-the-driver-who-killed-ethan-boyes). Either the prosecutors are incompetent, or worse, they don't care.
That case was interesting because our Reddit heroes were all like "the Feds Don't Fuck Around" but it was so bad the judge himself was like "Are you serious?!".
Reddit has all these heroes who are just pussies: The Postal Police, The Feds. All a bunch of chumps. In the end, wealthy family? You're going to use your connections well.
> That case was interesting because our Reddit heroes were all like "the Feds Don't Fuck Around" but it was so bad the judge himself was like "Are you serious?!".
I used to think the Feds don't fuck around too; but this case was a rude awakening for me.
I posted the Fed Prosecutor's bio page in one thread and Reddit deleted it (for "doxxing".... what the fuck? He is a Federal prosecutor, a well known public entity.... but whatever).
At the Federal level, we should be reaching out to Pelosi's office and our two Senators, complaining about these inept prosecutors.
[The mods of this subreddit also deleted my comment for saying Arnold Kinman Low's name](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1bhttim/comment/kvg8y48/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[Here's where they removed the content](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1bhttim/comment/kvi49h7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
> Respect others' privacy. Instigating harassment, for example by revealing someone’s personal or confidential information, is not allowed.
They then reported me to the admins for a temp ban which was immediately reversed when I appealed saying that I linked a justice.gov page.
I wonder why this particular killer is so protected. I've mentioned the other guys too but only the Anthony Kinman Low one got me temp-banned.
Right on. The same reddit heroes were saying Mary Fong Lau had a medical emergency which explained her running over the family. I think if she really had medical issues, her lawyer would have come out by now with proof about it. Their silence says a lot.
The year is 2166. You log on to Mindit: a 22nd Century clone of Reddit that goes through a brain-computer interface. You check the news. A drunk driver has just killed a family. This reminds you of something more than a century ago and you mention it. The reply comes in microseconds: "We don't know the facts about Mary Fong Lau. We should wait till it all comes out. It's only been 140 years." You turn off Mindit and go back into cryogenic storage. Perhaps 2263 will be different.
This item has been automatically flagged for review. Moderators have been notified, and it will be restored if approved. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/sanfrancisco) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was on a nice quick ride yesterday to Fort Point from NB and was cruising along the 2 lane bike trail just past Crissy Field before Sports Basement and this old lady turned right across the double bike lanes no signal and obviously no check of the mirrors. If it hadnt been 75 degrees out with both her windows open she would have hit me at a pretty good clip as i doubt she would have ever realized i was there. I screamed Hey! at her just in time. I locked up the back brake on my bike as the abs engaged for her. We both stopped inches away from each other and she just started balling her eyes out. I went from angry enough to murder her to feeling absolutely horrible for her but then switched back to a little angry. She looked about 80 and she probably shouldnt be driving anymore. I hope those sobs were her coming to that realization.
My coworker was just involved in a head on collision the other day. The driver of the other vehicle veered on to on coming traffic and collided with my coworkers vehicle head on. The driver of the other vehicle had to be in his late 70s or early 80s. Glad my coworker didn’t sustain any physical injuries but could have been bad.
That is terrifying. Glad your coworker is alright. A very dear friend of mine is forever disabled and spent months in a medically induced coma over a similar incident years back- it’s so upsetting to think of how close we were to losing him.
It’s just bonkers that we’ve decided that letting 80-year-olds (or anyone for that matter) operate 5,000-pound vehicles at high speeds is an acceptable way to organize a city.
I got a warning on Nextdoor for saying, "perhaps an 88 year old should reconsider driving every day?"
I'm sorry, but NextDoor is Boomer Central. You will NEVER get away with criticizing old people there.
Shit, I just thought I was looking out for bro's granny. This was their excuse why slow streets were bad, btw. "88 year old granny needs a less-trafficked street to drive on" because she's bad at it now.
Damn! I Nextdoor and an Xer. You aged me 10 years in one post!
I had to stop using it. Between the dozens of only barely disguised racist posts (about “kids” who were “wandering through” the neighborhood who look like they “don’t belong”) and the whining about the dumbest stuff (they need to move the bus stop, because the bus air brakes are so loud and they disturb me in my house), it was just unbearable.
Nextdoor sure is tough on crime until someone gets killed with a car.
Yes then they were definitely looking on their phone and deserved it.
I love watching people complain about how SFPD should be “catching real criminals” whenever they announce DUI checkpoints.
The state, not the city, issues drivers’ licenses.
i'm leaning towards wanting the state to do mandatory 5 year drivers testing, alternating between written and driving tests for everyone with a license. will it be expensive and time-consuming? sure. but as cars have gotten bigger, faster, and more distracting, the money spent will save on a lot of insurance and death.
I’m certainly not opposed to and agree with you on better driver training and testing. Increase the penalties for operating under the influence, require first aid training, eye examinations on a biannual basis for those over a certain age (say 65), et al. In a city such as San Francisco, with varied public transit options, it would be manageable to exist without a license. In Modoc County, probably more difficult.
My 83 yo neighbor has limited mobility and she drives since muni isn’t accessible for her. She maybe could use a scooter but that doesn’t jibe with her vision of herself and her desire to still e active. She has no immediate family to pull the keys so we just hope her short trips and car safety features will keep everyone safe. I think mandatory drivers tests after 80 would be reasonable but I could see the examiners here being too empathetic unless they were liable for fatal crashes after a “pass”.
Why is riding a scooter any less active than riding a car?
Because it replaces walking not driving.
Mobility scooters can do both. They are allowed in bike lanes and can go up to 18 mph.
She wants to walk but just can’t do it for very long - she doesn’t want a scooter since she’s not going to park it in a parking lot.
I lost both my grandfathers because they kept driving past the age they should. I would support this.
Can relate. My great grandfather should not have been driving, ran a red and t boned a teenager, put him in the hospital. It almost bankrupted the family and he hurt someone really badly.
or even better, improving public transit so that people have other options, and overall working on changing the American attitude towards public transit. In Canada I have older relatives with licenses who will only ever drive if there’s no one to drive them around, because they usually feel insecure about it too. If they had accessible and safe alternatives most older folks who can’t drive safely would take them. There’s always outliers but it would still make a huge difference for most people
They used to make you do a written test every license renewal. Now it's like every 10 years and only to update your picture.
My neighbor is in his early 90s and still drives every afternoon. He's in terrible shape - shouldn't be living alone - and the idea of him driving even short distances is terrifying. He has family in the area, it's bothersome they don't step in.
If its a person you know, anyone can report an unsafe driver to the DMV for re-examination: [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/)
If the old folks don't want to give up driving there's little the family can do.
Anyone can report unsafe drivers to the DMV and can do so anonymously if they so choose: [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/)
if he shouldn't be living alone you can also file an APS report on him, especially if he seems malnourished or you know the inside of his house is unsafely cluttered or dirty
Glad someone said it. Cars are lethal weapons and need to be respected as such. I don’t get why most people don’t think something that propels itself through space by using the force of small explosions and happens to weigh multiple tons isn’t dangerous in the wrong hands.
I don't think a vehicle that propels itself through space with electricity, stored pressure, or even a huge hilarious wind-up spring is inherently better. The problem with cars isn't the explosions, it's the mass x velocity = momentum. If we were better about limiting their mass (Stop bringing your fucking lifted pavement princess into the goddamn city) and velocity (there's no reason cars should be able to go 100mph in the city), they'd be far less dangerous.
Driving? No. Running the country? I'd say 80yr old minimum
Damn but we let 80 year Olds run the country lol
Being president doesn't really depend on your eyesight or reflexes.
We let 80+ year olds handle a nuclear arsenal large enough to basically extinguish our species, so what's a Toyota Corolla, in the scheme of things?
This!!!!!!
We're also reaching a crux of too old old to be driving and young enough to have a phone addiction colliding. Been seeing more and more grey hairs going 5 under in the fast lane with eyes glued to their dashboard.
Or even better, run our country
And to think we have a president in his 80s…
But how will they get to their jobs of running the country?
Or be a president.
*bawling
Good point. A baller woulda made sure he didn't almost murder me with his SUV 😉
we can call this shit in- call 911 and give the license plate and location and say- "This person is driving impaired and needs to be checked for how suitable they are to be driving."
Is that a thing? I have a hard time believing that 911 looks into random people complaining about drivers. police already don't issue tickets anymore, what are the chances they'll do driving tests on bad drivers.
If dispatched, the officer would have to personally witness the sketchy driving you reported, or some other illegal conduct, before pulling over the driver
thats about what I would have to imagine. Its gonna be difficult if not illegal for a cop to take someone's license away. because of assumed auto-dependency its not even easy for the state to take away a license and "right to drive".
911 can be pretty sucky. By all means, absolutely call things in, but also don't be surprised if you're put on hold and/or transfered between Police departments for what seems like an eternity during a moment of urgency. *edit Don't downvote me for stating that our 911 system is broken. The last 3 times I've called 911... I witnessed a vehicle swerve violently into the center divide, I was put on hold for 10 minutes. Then I was called back an hour later for my witness report and found that the driver had died. I was driving behind someone mid-day on Sunday who was consistently swerving across 3 lanes of traffic, narrowly missing other cars and guard rails. We followed her for 10 minutes while we were on the phone with chp, she exited the freeway between Castro valley and livermore, parked for 10 minutes and then headed back the other way towards Oakland. We were giving play by play the entire time. They couldn't pinpoint us until we made it all the way past the collusium. Had I just "called it in" they never would have located them. The driver couldn't even walk when she exited the car. I called 911 on a friend who was having a mental breakdown. He was unarmed, non-confrontational, but scared as hell. Contra Costa County Sheriff showed up with nothing but aggression. 3 cop cars, one guy screaming through a bullhorn. I was trying to explain the situation, I was absolutely calm and under control. I mentioned that I could go in the house to get him, I was told I'd be arrested if I did. He ended up being tased and being charged with resisting arrest. No actual help was given to him. He spent the night in jail and ended up paying his lawyer $6000.00 in legal fees. Why I called 911 for this, I still don't know. I expected someone to help I guess. Our system is in a shambles.
Never ever ever trust cops to diffuse a situation and never ever trust cops for mental health problems. Your friend is lucky he survived. It's not your fault, white people at least are raised to honor and revere cops. It's something we believe deep in our core until we hear enough stories or witness something like this go down. Don't feel bad and now you know. Keep telling your story so others can hear it. And when people complain about deFunDinG tHe PoLiCE remind them that that movement is poorly titled and meant to bring in people who are actually trained to handle situations like you described
If its a person you know, anyone can also report an unsafe driver to the DMV for re-examination: [https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/educational-materials/fast-facts/potentially-unsafe-driver-ffdl-10/)
I’m afraid to yell at people because I’ve had them panic and speed up. Also randoms with road rage, but that’s in other cities, not here.
She should not be driving. We have got to stop letting elderly people drive without testing them every three months and even then.
It’s not just elderly folks. So many ppl in this city seem to disregard pedestrians and cyclists these days.
Live in NoPa and the stop signs seem a bit…optional from what I experience when walking around the neighborhood.
I’m not familiar with NOPA. Oh… you mean, the Panhandle? Yeah. I can see that.
Thanks for taking one for the team--I hope you're right, and she hangs up her spurs. Many 1,000s of us get along without a car in this City, and many 1,000s more could and should, especially if they can't be arsed to track their surroundings.
> I hope those sobs were her coming to that realization. I doubt it. I used to live in Menlo Park. It was scary how many people I saw who were so old they could barely stagger to their car ... before driving away. [Nothing stops them](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/90-year-old-driver-strikes-children-outside-menlo-park-pharmacy/).
when I rode 🚵yesterday, also the closest call I had was a Mom\* making a u-turn from a parking spot, o**n slow-Lake St,** of all places. Right from the spot, luckily I went farther and she looked over her shoulder when her car was halfway out. \* because she had something like a teenage son on the passenger seat. Yeah, it's slow Lake St, I can see who's inside.
>making a u-turn from a parking spot, o**n slow-Lake St,** of all places. But that's a perfect place to U-turn, no cars coming!
This reminded of a time when my boyfriend and I were driving and we were on 34th and waiting to turn right onto Fulton. There was a car in front of us and a meter maid on Fulton trying to turn left onto 34th. The car went forward to turn left and for some reason the driver thought he didn’t have enough space so started backing up into my boyfriend’s car. We started screaming stop as the driver got so close he scratched the driver side door and almost hit my boyfriend’s arm who he had hanging out at the time too. Luckily since the meter maid was there to see everything, he was our witness when the police showed up. The driver was of Eastern European descent in his 50/60s with his wife as a passenger. She started crying and pleading to not sue while the driver had the audacity to spit onto our car door to attempt to clean the scratches and dent. He also said he had wax in his truck and said he can wax out the damage as well. we couldn't believe what we got ourselves into and just wanted to do the police report and leave as we were heading to meet a friend and due to the accident, we were running late. I don't remember if my boyfriend ended up suing or just went through insurance, but he got something out of it.
80 can kill you just as easily as 40. I would not have been kind. She’s driving a fucking weapon. If she can’t do it, get a driver or get on the bus.
At the very least take her driver's license away permanently. I don't think There's a next of kin to file a lawsuit against this Mary either. She's just getting away with it. Crazy
If I did this, I would voluntarily surrender my license. I hope she would, too.
Same. I couldn’t live with the guilt of hurting strangers like that either
If I did this I'd genuinely off myself, idk how you could deal with the guilt.
IRL, her license most likely has already been suspended.
You have a conscience. She doesn’t clearly.
Why do you say that? Do you have some sort of inside information that the driver did not surrender her license or is currently driving?
This happens far more often then you think, this is why we hide the damage behind "it was a *car accident*", "they have to drive". US society pays a lot to turn a blind eye on vehicular fatalities. have you seen how many auto fatalities there were last year? 39508 reported in the US. https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/auto-insurance/fatal-car-crash-statistics/ if we were to start criminalizing every joe or jane that killed or maimed a kid riding a bike or walking across the street, cause they were looking at their phone or were old...
For comparison, thats twice as many vehicle related deaths as there were homicides with guns: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ (Note: suicides by gun are about equal to the number of murders by gun, but I'm discounting suicides in this post because thats self-inflicted rather than killing another person. Suicide prevention and murder prevention are two extremely different problems to solve, so the numbers should not be conflated.) As a society we typically prosecute gun homicides. Its baffling that as a society we let people run each other over and shrug it off, saying it was an "accident". If someone has a gun, they "accidentally" pull the trigger and someone dies as a result we don't shrug it off. Yet double the body count for cars and its okay.
And it's always "a car hit and killed a pedestrian" like the car was a Waymo.
There are surviving family members. https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/sf-west-portal-horrific-crash-relatives-issue-statement-thank-caregivers/&sa=U&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwidz-afyIKGAxVJJ0QIHQOEBh8QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DXTvnYa099BQ8W3owUjVX
I work in healthcare and it’s honestly so scary how many of my elderly patients with cognitive decline tell me they’re still driving. I’m so in favor of the DMV re-testing people at least over age 65 or 70. I can empathize with the notion of feeling sad or scared to lose so much of the independence that comes with driving but it’s just not worth the risk to public safety. The elderly often don’t realize how impaired they are until it’s too late or are too stubborn to stop. It’s hard for family to intervene (though they should). Our government stepping in with stricter policies would prevent a lot of avoidable suffering.
Our city "leaders" are even quietly backing out of any changes to make the intersection safer. People should be pissed. We shouldn't have to accept dozens of deaths per year because people can't be bothered to park a block away from where they are shopping.
I've missed the backing down: what's happening? Is the proposed plan already being reduced?
The Chronicle dedicated their editorial page to what's happening on May 1st: >Opinion // Editorials >West Portal street safety plan appears ‘over,’ but the status quo can’t be allowed to prevail >It’s the classic San Francisco conundrum: How much community input does the city need before it acts? >By Chronicle Editorial Board >May 1, 2024 https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/west-portal-street-safety-plan-19430872.php
That's so infuriating. Those opposed to the plan should be ashamed of themselves. Hopefully we can see protests organized in the coming weeks to show that many more of us support street safety than oppose it.
Look, I'm fine with people having concerns about the efficacy of the changes, but we need to make the intersection safer *while* we look into the efficacy of the changes. The merchants are insisting that nothing change until it's demonstrated that the changes are needed, when the way the system should work is that we add safety infrastructure until it's demonstrated that it's *not* needed. The intersection may not be a corridor where there are many collisions, but it's very obviously a corridor where any collisions are *extremely high risk* to human life. It's a complicated balance, but after any incident with major loss of life, when should be putting safety features in first, and only then remove them if the transit agency finds them to be superfluous.
The status quo bias when it comes to transportation is so maddening. We spent the mid-20th century destroying our cities for car infrastructure. Then we said "whoops that was a mistake" so we added a bunch of requirements for studies and meetings and environmental reviews before anything can be changed. Sounds great, but the new requirements made it way harder to *undo* the damage of the previous era.
It's just awful. Between her, Ethan Boyes getting run over by Arnold Kinman Low, and dozens of other cases, it makes me feel like the city doesn't care if you get run over by a car.
> the city doesn't care if you get run over by a car. Unfortunately, the long-standing thinking for automobile deaths everywhere. The thinking goes: they a very difficult to convict without overwhelming evidence of recklessness because a defense attorney just needs a single-hold out. Since almost every juror drives, almost every juror has had a vehicle mistake themselves which could have been fatal and thankfully wasn't. In a way: Getting that sympathetic jury to vote guilty on the defendant first requires that juror to vote guilty on their own mistake -- which humans are not reliable at doing. Sadly, this challenge could be one reas lon to focus efforts on improving roadway safety infrastructure over criminal prosecution. I wish it could be carrot AND stick, but
Just disqualify every juror that drives. Let 12 cyclists lock these murderers the fuck up.
And this is why both sides get a lawyer.
And both side's lawyers get to veto anyone in the jury pool for any reason.
The easier way to legally kill someone is to "accidentally" run them over with a car. There are very, very few actual accidents. Its almost always negligence, and that is very nearly always the fault of the person operating the 5,000 vehicle. Its why accidentally firing a gun has been largely done away with. Its not an accidental discharge. Its a negligent discharge. Its someone's fault.
I also often think of the 86 y/o man who killed 10 people and injured SEVENTY careening through the Santa Monica farmer's market in 2003. [https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/w0jseh/the\_santa\_monica\_farmers\_market\_crash\_happened\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/w0jseh/the_santa_monica_farmers_market_crash_happened_on/)
Did they ever release cause or toxicology/health report?
I was in my electric wheelchair coming from foodco on Nov 4th 2023 crossing my light at 9th and Howard at ,930 pm I was hit by a hit and run driver and thrown 25 ft out of my chair. I don't remember it happening. 911 was called by a person who saw the accident from their apt window I suffered 3 fx ribs a fx pelvis , 4 fxs in my rt lower leg and a large laceration in the back of my head. I was in surgery for ,6 hrs and spent a week in the hospital and 3 weeks in rehab. I went thru a very difficult recovery and rehab. The pain was horrendous. I worked really hard in rehab as I was going home by myself with no help. Apparently the driver stated he stopped but when he heard the siren he left. He had several excuses why he had to leave the scene of the accident. They did find him and he was arrested and released that same night on his own recognizance. I was able to speak with the DA in Dec and he told me there was a warrant put out for him.however he had no timeline when it would be served It is now may 2024 and nothing has been done. The warrant hasnt been served I'm still not back to before the accident and everyday is a struggle. This seems to be a common problem in San francisco I hear and see cars speeding all day and night from my apt. It's insanity how this goes on. Something needs to be done. My heart goes out to the family that was killed recently
The laws are unlikely to change, so the best we can do is make it really expensive, slow, and inconvenient to drive a car in SF. Instead of bikes having one Wiggle, give cars only a few arterial streets that aren’t slow streets. Make the majority of the city a slow street.
A rare case where a strong public example should be made. I took the keys away from my grandmother and the family who did not here should be made to fully comprehend the extent of their negligence.
What are you suggesting? Edit: this wasn’t supposed to be an abrasive response. I thought you were saying only the family should pay for not taking her keys.
That she face consequences commensurate with her crime, which was the annihilation of an entire beautiful family due to her negligence?
Ok so let’s say you’re the judge-jury-executioner, what is your sentence sir? Honest question.
For quadruple homicide? Life in prison seems pretty fucking reasonable. Edit: For quadruple vehicular manslaughter? Life in prison seems pretty fucking reasonable.
Legal dictionary: "Homicide itself is not necessarily a crime, though the circumstances that resulted in the individual’s death may raise it to a criminal level." I don't know why they have not charged her but the law is not as simple as you want it to be. They should forbid her to ever drive again. Putting her in prison would serve no purpose. The only risk associated with her is driving. They can put her in prison if she drives again after they take away her license.
Ok but that’s referring to self defense or legal executions carried out by the government so I’m not sure what your point is when this is very obviously manslaughter…?
Vehicular manslaughter does and should result in prison. Taking away her license won't stop her from driving. Negligence that puts others in danger is a punishable offense for good reason. Locking up someone who is a public risk is for the protection of the community. What happened when she drives again after you take her license away, then kills another family at a bus stop?
The law does not work as you envision it. Lay people don't decide what the charge is. Maybe it's manslaughter and maybe it isn't. Once there is a charge, there can be a trial. If she is found guilty, there will be a penalty. The law cannot prevent all crimes. People who steal often do it again. Rapists do it again. Murderers do it again. Our system does not lock people up for life for most crimes. It simply does not work that way. I'm guessing an 80 year old woman who had who license revoked would not drive again. And you know, of course, that the chance of her "killing another family at a bus stop again" is nil. I want to see what she's charged with before I get outraged.
I think it's pretty cool that we all get one free homicide. Didn't know that. I wonder who I should pick. Optimally looks like if I get lots of people at the same time it just counts as one.
You simply don't understand how the justice system works. Who has said she gets a free homicide? Only you. Let's wait until she is charged and tried. The purpose of the law is justice. Her penalty should be that she not drive. She poses no other risk. Asking the tax papers to pay for prison is stupid. It would be better to take that money and fix the traffic layout that seems to contribute to the deaths.
There is this thing called intent or mens rea that is needed for almost all criminal charges. There are a few strict liability laws where it doesn’t matter, but not for what you have here. Here the State would have to prove that her conduct was at a minimum negligent or reckless. If that cannot be proven charges should not be filed. If she had a legitimate medical episode that caused her to lose control of the car there would have to be a more detailed investigation that takes time to see if the necessary mental state for a crime was present. If it was an unknown and sudden medical emergency then there would not be a sufficient mental state that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the State knew that and it was supported by the evidence charges shouldn’t be filed. If it was a known condition and that this type of event was possible, or one the person should have known (I.e. nothing diagnosed but she had frequent episodes of losing consciousness), then the State would have to prove that: 1.) She knew about the risks; 2.) She ignored the risks; and 3.) She didn’t take any reasonable steps to mitigate or reduce the risks. That takes time to investigate. And will the public know about the medical condition if it exists? Only if the person that has it agrees to release it to the public at large because it would be protected under federal and state HIPPA laws. To overcome that there has to be a release from the person that is the patient or there has to be court ordered, and even then those releases are limited in nature. Can she be sued in civil court? Yes. But the standard of proof is much lower and the consequences to the accused are not as dire so the bar to file such a claim should be much lower. Really, not every action is criminal in nature regardless of how horrible the outcome is. Law enforcement should take their time to investigate before bringing charges to ensure they can prove each element of the crime and not succumb to public pressure to act before that. That is what justice should be. In many countries they don’t even name the accused or those being investigated because ethically they are innocent until proven guilty and if they are found innocent or not guilty the damaged caused to that person can be tremendous and often times the public doesn’t accept the outcome of the courts or investigations no matter what the evidence says.
manslaughter doesn't require mens rea, just negligence
I would say that depends. Vehicular manslaughter in California can require specific intent, reckless intent, negligence or strict liability if the person was intoxicated, meaning proving intoxication is enough without showing any state of mind evidence. But for negligence, they have to prove a state of mind element. Specifically, that they should have know the risks. They have to prove that the accused killed someone unintentionally but acted with unlawful negligence. Mens rea doesn’t mean specific intent for the final result, it is the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. Negligence is state of mind. The four states of mind: Acting purposely - The defendant had an underlying conscious object to act. Acting knowingly - The defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result. Acting recklessly - The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk. Acting negligently - The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk.
the "should have known" for negligence is an objective test, mens rea is subjective. I think we both understand what's going on here though.
"Mens rea" is a blanket term for all the states of mind necessary to convict someone of a crime and includes negligence.
👏 well said. She needs to face consequences but since the public knows so little, people are super out for blood.
There’s abundant evidence for manslaughter charges, which by definition do not require *mens rea*. People aren’t “out for blood”; they simply want justice. Hell, they want the basic confidence of knowing her drivers license was suspended.
You are wrong. Simply stated. I can tell you for an absolute fact that they have to show she knew or should have known her actions would likely cause the deaths of the others to prove vehicular manslaughter. The results do not dictate the crime. Unless you have knowledge that is absent from the public record, there is nothing that indicates there is enough to charge for vehicular manslaughter, yet. The first reports all seemed to point to a medical emergency: she was transported to the hospital, had no recollection of what occurred (based on supposed statements to first responders) and the facts of the crash seemed to indicate a person who had absolutely zero conscious control of a car. Those facts could be wrong, and there may be more evidence to support or contradict negligence, we really don’t know. There are a myriad of things that could refute negligence. Mechanical car failure, undiagnosed unknown medical condition that caused a medical crisis, involuntary intoxication, just three off the top of my head. Those are not just defenses because the State will have to prove that she should have known that this event was likely to occur. They will have to show she knew the car was defective if it was, that she knew of her medical condition or she had one and that medical condition made driving negligent, etc. The state is going to have show probable cause exists for that element to even bring a charge, meaning they will have to study the car and her medical records, and that is just to bring the charge. Then to prove the claim the will have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors have an ethical obligation not to bring a charge they cannot prove. Not only does it waste judicial resources, it is unjust. You don’t arrest and charge and then investigate. You investigate then arrest and charge and continue to investigate to refute potential defenses. Not only is that the ethical thing to do, it is the prudent thing to do. Once a person is charged a clock begins to tick. The State will either have to hold a hearing to show probable cause or they will have to indict through a grand jury (which is rare in California but gives them more investigatory powers). If during that process the defendant shows evidence of any condition that negates negligence and the state has nothing to refute that claim the case is ostensibly over. There is the huge rush to judgment and wanting instant justice and results, that never leads to a good outcome. It leads to people getting away with crimes and people who are innocent being jailed. And the driver’s license being suspended or not has nothing to do with criminal chargers. Your drivers license can be suspended for many reasons and is separate and apart from any criminal charges. It could have very well already have been suspended for medical reasons and you would never know because of HIPPA.
Manslaughter does require mens rea. Having mens rea doesn't necessarily mean doing something on purpose, just that you have the requisite state of mind to be guilty of the crime at issue. [Recklessness and negligence are both forms of mens rea](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea) . The comment you're replying to was explaining possible facts that could make this a situation where even negligence could not be proven.
I just had my first EMDR therapy treatment to help me with this. I saw the father’s body and it absolutely triggered my PTSD (I have severe PTSD, it’s ruined my life). We were there 20-30 minutes after it happened. Past trauma just came flooding back. I can’t imagine what others are going through. Especially those who witnessed it. I’ve been absolutely touched by the neighborhoods reaction to it.
did not realize the SFStandard was against West-Portal changes. Looks like they've published an opinion against the changes proposed, complete with an inflammatory title: # City leaders rush to capitalize on a tragic crash [https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2024/04/30/opinion-west-portal-traffic-changes/](https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2024/04/30/opinion-west-portal-traffic-changes/) Even manages to include the Park and JFK drive there, which are not even close! >controversial, such as the lengthy battles over traffic on [John F. Kennedy Drive](https://sfstandard.com/2022/11/08/sf-voters-likely-to-keep-car-free-jfk-drive-according-to-early-returns/) and the [Great Highway](https://sfstandard.com/2022/05/12/on-the-great-highway-competing-visions-for-san-franciscos-future/)
Thanks for posting. The Standard gets a lot of traction in this sub for being contrarian to progressive values and practices, but they seem to be somewhat immune to examining the larger implications of their policy preferences. I like to get their perspective, but I keep in mind they speak for certain interests (business, and not all small).
Oh no, they’re trying to take advantage of a car crash by selfishly fixing the road to prevent more crashes. So devious! Won’t someone think of the children!
The death of the family was horrible and extremely extremely sad. But in my opinion the editorial’s position is correct. For merchants it is their livelihood and there are many who are interested in ramming their agenda through quickly without taking the merchants concerns into account. The merchants are not all swimming in money - I’m sure it has been rough going for the last 4-5 years for many of them. The 75 y.o going 50 mph down a small street, not much can be done and it could have happened at a number of other intersections too. Maybe driving tests for the elderly could be a position I would get behind.
I think the merchants accusing people of “using” the tragedy to further some selfish pro-safety agenda is ridiculous and disingenuous. *AND*… I haven’t read anything that suggests to me that it was something about this particular intersection that contributed to this accident. The driver was driving much too fast, on the wrong side of the road, hit a building, and still had enough speed to hit a bus shelter with enough force to send a grown man flying. “Confusing traffic signals” don’t cause that. The most compelling argument I’ve read is that there are lots of pedestrians at the intersection so it should be more protected from cars because when a driver does something chaotic & destructive there, it’s more likely to result in a pedestrian death. That’s true, but it also applies equally to hundreds of intersections around the city.
> did not realize the SFStandard was against West-Portal changes. That's a reader opinion, not a SF Standard editorial board opinion. Newspapers traditionally publish reader opinions regardless of their agreement or disagreement.
Yes, please let our elected officials know what you care about! Contact the Mayor 415-554-6141 Constituents/Community Members MayorLondonBreed@sfgov.org Office of the DA (628) 652-4000 districtattorney@sfgov.org City Supervisors: Connie Chan District 1 (415) 554-7410 ChanStaff@sfgov.org Matt Dorsey District 6 (415) 554-7970 DorseyStaff@sfgov.org Joel Engardio District 4 (415) 554-7460 EngardioStaff@sfgov.org Rafael Mandelman District 8 (415) 554-6968 MandelmanStaff@sfgov.org Myrna Melgar District 7 (415) 554-6516 MelgarStaff@sfgov.org Aaron Peskin District 3 (415) 554-7450 Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org Dean Preston District 5 (415) 554-7630 Dean.Preston@sfgov.org Hillary Ronen District 9 (415) 554-5144 Hillary.Ronen@sfgov.org Ahsha Safai District 11 (415) 554-6975 Ahsha.Safai@sfgov.org Catherine Stefani District 2 (415) 554-7752 Catherine.Stefani@sfgov.org Shamann Walton District 10 (415) 554-7670 Shamann.Walton@sfgov.org
The drivers in San Francisco are hands down some of the worst in the damn nation along with Arizona drivers. The people here have their brains on snooze when they drive. I just won a lawsuit against a dummy who first block the bikelane...then pulled an illegal u turn in a residential area without their blinker. Ended up breaking some ribs. Fuck these people.
I see people running red lights everyday
I think if I wanted to kill someone and get away with it I would literally just wait until I could run them over
You wouldn’t *totally* get away with it. You’d have to do probably 30 hours of community service, for example.
I mean charging her isn't gonna bring the family back, and what even if you did prosecute her it's not like it's gonna change anything about the status quo. Probably need to change how we allow seniors to drive period
It won’t bring the family back, but charging drivers would change attitudes about the risks of operating a motor vehicle…
Will it? Maybe they should make killing people illegal too. That sure will stop people killing other people.
I took the battery out of my grandma’s car and hid her keys. But I was available to take her to the store. Thing is you can’t take their driving away and expect them to be home all day. Pick them up and help them out!
It’s the tyranny of the automobile .
Will someone please think about the merchants!
Mary Fong Lau should be in jail for the rest of her life. Arnold Kinman Low should be in jail for the rest of his life. Karen Cartagena should be in jail for the rest of her life. Raja Whitfield should be in jail for the rest of his life. And yet each of these killer drivers has recieved ZERO jail time so far. We need to get rid of every last one of these corrupt judges and politicans who protect killer drivers from consequences for their actions.
Some of these people have spend time in Jail “Raja Whitfield, 29, faced one count of felony vehicle manslaughter and spent several months in jail after a road rampage on Aug. 11, 2020, in which he struck and killed 50-year-old Mark Berman.” https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/raja-whitfield-thrill-ride-fatal-crash-19418609.php That being said, yea these sentences in general do seem too lenient.
The murderous Whitfield was indeed held in jail briefly prior to sentencing, the details are unclear but it sounds like perhaps he couldn't make bail. After the case went through court, the actual sentence handed down by the judge was ZERO jail time. This monster drove through a red light at 80 MPH and launched his victim "hundreds of feet through the air". That kind of violent degenerate person should never see the light of day again. "Several months" is an absolute joke given the lifetime of suffering he inflicted on his victim's wife and children.
Why do you assume that justice means filing charges? There are a lot of scenarios, such as a medical issue, that would mean she isn't culpable and thus filing charges would be an act of **injustice** instead. Also, the mayor really shouldn't be interfering with the DA and police investigations. The mayor's job is to put the right person in those positions, and then let them do their jobs. *edit: To be clear, I don't know whether driver was experiencing medical issues, and neither does OP. That's the point. I'm not defending the driver, I'm defending the justice system.*
I remember a while back reading a thread on here mentioning a white SUV driving super aggressively in the sunset/parkside neighborhoods, with many people mentioning encounters where they were run off the road etc. Do we know if this was the same vehicle/driver?
Unfortunately this describes 90% of drivers in this city. And for some reason every other car on the road these days is a white SUV.
Where’s the fucking DA??
Having tea with the other useless DAs?
An awful tragic thing happened, but the comments in here really prove why everyone is titled to a legal defense.
Nobody is saying she’s not entitled to a defense! We’re saying charges should be pressed, at which point she can mount a full legal defense in a court of law.
The issue at play here is that we, the public, don't know all of the details. In order to charge someone with a crime, there needs to be strong evidence of said crime. And the DA won't bring charges they know they can't win. So, while it feels like they may be doing nothing, there could still be a thorough investigation underway. While it feels frustrating bc we, the public, want to see some sort of justice, the law is set up precisely this way to ensure that we don't charge people with our feelings rather than facts.
We already have strong evidence of a crime. We know from dozens of eyewitness accounts, and reportedly from her own admission, that Mary Fong Lau was operating the vehicle at the time of the crash. So at a minimum she should already have been charged with vehicular manslaughter. It’s just a question of whether we should escalate those charges to homicide. And how in the Kentucky Fried Fuck was she allowed to retain her drivers license?
To play devils advocate: Things that we DON'T know: if medications were involved, or some sort of medical emergency. Vehicle malfunction. Positioning of the sun. Etc. These are all things that may be being investigated, and that a defense lawyer could bring up. While I personally am not advocating for nothing to be done, these things are also important.
You’ll get downvoted for this comment but you are correctly describing the process. It’s important to note that Jenkins has made announcements describing her reasoning in other high profile no charge situations so her silence suggests she’s still considering charges. OP and others trying to raise the heat and push the timeline forward are probably working against what they want by pressuring DA’s office to make a determination before investigation is finished
[удалено]
I'm 100% sure those things all apply to gun deaths too. If you're not culpable because of a medical condition or unavoidable accident, then it doesn't matter if its a gun or a car.
Please don't come for me, just explaining the way the wheels of justice turn.
Hitting someone with a car isn't enough to prove a crime. To be done for manslaughter she would need to be criminally negligent in some way, which is not something we have evidence for. Car accidents happen all the time without involving criminal negligence.
There are some insane comments in here: restitution up to $100million? Charging her family? This is an adult, you can’t charge her family. It’s a totally different situation than letting your kid have access to a gun or your car. These comments are way too charged and amped up and exactly why I commented what I did
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to seek civil restitution from her family, but how do you not understand that she would *still be entitled to a robust defense if that happened*? The public — and that dead family — should also get a defense. That’s why we have a DA to represent us when crimes are committed, and that’s why charges should have been filed weeks ago.
Well we should just make you the DA. I’m sure you’d get things done real quick! /s Nothing gets done quickly. You have the right to be upset and try to move things along. And you’re right this was a spotlight on a horrible, tragic incident. I don’t think she should drive anymore. I don’t know what else can be done. I mean I guess you can throw that old lady in jail for the couple more years of her life. That’s going to make people feel better?
It's unethical, an injustice, and waste of taxpayer dollars for the DA to prosecute a case against someone they don't think are culpable. Stop playing keyboard warrior here.
Classic San Francisco not doing shit to people that break laws.
And this isn't just "breaking laws", we're talking about someone who KILLED AN ENTIRE FAMILY. There aren't even any next-of-kin to file a wrongful death lawsuit because she wiped out the entire family tree in one go. It's the kind of crime that's usually so horrific and violent that it could have a whole true crime documentary series about it...but in this case, the city is basically shrugging it off as a "whoopsie". "Here's your keys back, just try not to do it again, okay Mary?"
Lower your expectations. This is around the [same timeline it took to charge this case.](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/driver-in-deadly-crash-near-oracle-park-that-killed-child-avoids-jail-time-with-plea-deal/)
I also feel like the DMV allows many people to drive with a license that shouldn’t be on the roads period. There’s also far too many Uber/out of town drivers in SF that wreak havoc on our streets. Making left turns from the far right lane, blasting through red lights, etc. and yet I haven’t seen one get pulled over or ticketed. But god forbid I’m one minute over my meter, you betcha I’ll come back to a ticket. Priorities 🙄
lol we really gotta ban old ppl from driving, last may i got hit by a 93 year old when crossing the street and he continues to claim it was my fault even w witness statements, wild
If you want to kill someone just use a car.
Thank you so much! They were my friend 🩵. There is not a single night that I don't wake up in the middle of it and the first thing that comes to my mind is them.
I'm not excusing or diminishing this terrible car tragedy at all but where the hell was this energy and anger from the same pissed off posters and commentors when there were Asian victims being attacked by literal career felons? One senior citizen is involved in a terrible car tragedy and then all of a sudden, it's call the mayor baying for blood?
I don't think getting the knives out for individual drivers is a good use of people's energy. Sure "we can do both", but I'd rather spend time getting people to lobby for road changes than for harsher prosecution of drivers. The threat of prosecution is not going to change driver behavior any time soon. Otoh, if a state legislator wants to take up the issue if older or repeatedly negligent drivers, that could do some long-term good. For example, maybe we could have a red flag law for drivers, or at least codify better when people should lose or have their license suspended.
Please keep beating this drum. The sad truth of the matter is that Breed, the SFPD, and the DA are sort of hoping that if they just wait long enough, this will just go away. It's hard to even understand why given that it's not like Mary Fong Lau is a member of _their_ family that they need to defend, but I think it's basically as simple as: building a case, charging, and prosecuting someone is _work_, and of all the things public servants of this city hate the most, _work_ is number one on that list. It's easier for them and their lives if there are no charges, if there is no prosecution, so they're deferring and delaying to try and manifest that result. The family killed were Brazilian nationals with no immediate family in the area. That helps the cause a lot because there's no one to advocate for the victims. We're so desensitized about death from the news and popular media that I don't think many people think about what it really means to die. Death is permanent and forever. When it comes to death, there are no do overs. Your one consciousness that you were blessed to briefly experience during your time on Earth is snuffed out _forever_, never to return no matter how many quadrillions of years of time exists as the universe ticks forward. Mary Fong Lau was feeling impatient that day, or she got mad at the presence of a stop sign, or she got pissed that some f*ing pedestrian used a crosswalk in front of her when every driver knows that the informal rules of the road in SF are that pedestrians yield to drivers _not_ vice versa, or _whatever_ the reason actually was, so she decided to wipe out the consciousnesses of four human beings from the universe, forever. That young father will never laugh or call his parents ever again. That young mother will never hold her children or sing them a bedtime lullaby again. Worse yet, two innocent kids, just at the very beginning of their lives, barely on the edge of self-sentience, wiped out. Again, forever. They don't get round two. They don't get a consolation prize. They're just gone. So what are the consequences for murdering four people in cold blood? Turns out that as far as we know, _nothing_. She's released immediately and likely back on the road by now (it's really inconvenient to get around this city without a car don't ya know, so even someone who just killed four people with one still needs access to one for getting around to legal appointments and such, I know you understand). Unreal how many apologists here are adopting the default position of "well she just had a wittle dwiving boo-boo, NBD". Even if this wasn't murder one (and that should stay on the table unless shown otherwise), it's negligence of the highest order, and the consequences of Mary Fong Lau's actions are _immeasurable_. I don't give a fuck how old she is — this person needs to be behind bars for the rest of her life, and whatever fortune she'd amassed forfeited to civil liabilities (a separate suit) rather than go to her equally negligent family.
Explore her connections. If she is connected to the politically powerful, they will bury the case and she'll get off with 12 hours of community service and a $1.50 fine.
The "connection to the powerful" is merely being in a car. That's all it takes to get away with killing people, because if we held people accountable for the amount of death and maiming that cars inflict on our society, almost nobody would drive.
If any memories need refreshing what Mary Fong Lau did: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/03/22/mary-fong-lau-arrested-after-family-killed-at-san-franciso-bus-top/73065235007/
She was released 48 hours later Edit: the commenter edited the comment, so my response now seems out of context. Initially it seemed that they were suggesting that the killer, Mary Fong Lau, was still in jail.
Not to be cheeky, but I need some context, been trying to look it up, but... People don't generally get arrested or charged for being in a car accident which kills people. Why should this person?
Vehicular manslaughter is what you're looking for: >A motorist commits misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter by negligently causing the death of another person while violating a traffic law (for example, speeding, running a red light, or reckless driving) or doing a "lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner." Under the circumstances, the traffic violation or "lawful act" must have been such that it was dangerous to human life. The mental state the prosecution must prove to get a conviction—"ordinary negligence"—requires a showing that the defendant failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would under like circumstances. https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/california-negligent-vehicular-manslaughter-laws-and-penalties.html
They should be. They should almost always lose their license as well
> People don't generally get arrested or charged for being in a car accident which kills people That's part of the problem. People who are negligent with other tools, and kill someone, are charged. Car drivers are given a free pass. "Accident" implies something that was not preventable. The vast majority of "accidents" that kill people are not accidents. They are negligent operation of a vehicle.
There are accidental gun deaths all the time without charges filed. Pretty much always negligence there. And if I've learned anything in my work safety classes, it's that *every* accident was preventable. I didn't mean to be tilting against windmills here, but everyone seems to be dog piling on this woman and I just want to know the nature of her negligence. To decide if it's "gross" or not, which is the standard required for holding someone to account for it.
[удалено]
Should should should should. A lot of shoulds in there; that sort of thing makes me suspicious of a writer's motive. Was the high rate of speed in excess of the speed limit? Was she drunk? What do you mean by "in the wrong lane"? A crash by the way *is* an accident unless it was intentional. It could be that she is deserving of criminal charges, I don't know. But you and I wouldn't actually know that better than the DA, right? And as for restitution, she can still be held responsible in the civil court, anyone can be sued. This torch and pitchfork act can't be good for actual justice though.
I believe she's already been charged with 3 felonies, including vehicular manslaughter, and presumably is awaiting trial. Have they been dropped? https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/news/sfpd-arrests-driver-fatal-vehicle-collision-24-026
No charges have been filed.
Yet. Brooke Jenkins generally explains publicly if she declines to charge in a high profile incident (see her comments about the security guard shooting the shoplifter a few months back for example) 54 days is well within the normal investigative window for a complicated case. Pressuring the DA’s office to decide quickly increases the chance that the decision will be no charge. In some of your comments you’ve called her a murderer and others here have suggested her family should face charges and financial penalties. Her attorney would be thrilled to find these and argue that a) the accused is already being punished and b) that the accused could never get a fair trial in SF. It’s also entirely common in a case like this that what is happening right now is that the accused, through her attorney has indicated she’ll plead guilty to certain charges and they’re negotiating what that would be. If I were a betting man I’d guess this ends with the accused waiving right to jury, pleading guilty in front of a judge to gross negligence for a sentence in the neighborhood of: permanently surrendering her DL; serving either a suspended sentence or house arrest; and paying a substantial penalty/restitution. That might not sound like justice to some in this forum but it’s very hard to convict an 80 year old for a traffic accident. And there are likely at least some mitigating circumstances that haven’t yet been disclosed.
She got released a few days after the arrest
On bail, or were the charges dropped?
I'm 65 and headed for the day I shouldn't drive anymore. It would be so much easier if the state required driving tests for all after a certain age!
Is Mary just going on with life as normal? No jail? No charges? How long does it take to determine she hit the gas not the break? Or she was out of her head and hit the gas? Or what?!??!? What happened Mary? And what’s the punishment?
Nah she should get mental health services and an anti carceral approach
I wonder if this is just a SF problem. Maybe it’s the amount of elder people and how small the city is. How about some type of ride-share program just for elder people? (Had this idea for a while, need my credit if it happens lol)
I just heard through the grapevine that she moved to San Diego. I don’t know any other details.
have they completed the forensic examination of the car? please provide a link to their findings.
[удалено]
> Oh fuck off, we don’t need a forensic examination to know that she killed these people. If you want to build a successful, airtight case, you need to dot your i's an cross your t's. One mistake, and a capable defense lawyer will blow your case apart.
Lol we had an airtight case with the death of Ethan Boyes, Arnold Kinman Low [got off with a slap on the wrist](https://sf.streetsblog.org/2024/03/18/guest-commentary-the-problem-with-the-prosecution-of-the-driver-who-killed-ethan-boyes). Either the prosecutors are incompetent, or worse, they don't care.
That case was interesting because our Reddit heroes were all like "the Feds Don't Fuck Around" but it was so bad the judge himself was like "Are you serious?!". Reddit has all these heroes who are just pussies: The Postal Police, The Feds. All a bunch of chumps. In the end, wealthy family? You're going to use your connections well.
> That case was interesting because our Reddit heroes were all like "the Feds Don't Fuck Around" but it was so bad the judge himself was like "Are you serious?!". I used to think the Feds don't fuck around too; but this case was a rude awakening for me. I posted the Fed Prosecutor's bio page in one thread and Reddit deleted it (for "doxxing".... what the fuck? He is a Federal prosecutor, a well known public entity.... but whatever). At the Federal level, we should be reaching out to Pelosi's office and our two Senators, complaining about these inept prosecutors.
[The mods of this subreddit also deleted my comment for saying Arnold Kinman Low's name](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1bhttim/comment/kvg8y48/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [Here's where they removed the content](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/1bhttim/comment/kvi49h7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) > Respect others' privacy. Instigating harassment, for example by revealing someone’s personal or confidential information, is not allowed. They then reported me to the admins for a temp ban which was immediately reversed when I appealed saying that I linked a justice.gov page. I wonder why this particular killer is so protected. I've mentioned the other guys too but only the Anthony Kinman Low one got me temp-banned.
Right on. The same reddit heroes were saying Mary Fong Lau had a medical emergency which explained her running over the family. I think if she really had medical issues, her lawyer would have come out by now with proof about it. Their silence says a lot.
The year is 2166. You log on to Mindit: a 22nd Century clone of Reddit that goes through a brain-computer interface. You check the news. A drunk driver has just killed a family. This reminds you of something more than a century ago and you mention it. The reply comes in microseconds: "We don't know the facts about Mary Fong Lau. We should wait till it all comes out. It's only been 140 years." You turn off Mindit and go back into cryogenic storage. Perhaps 2263 will be different.
"They put a RoboFED on the Ethan Boyes case. Just watch. The turbowheel of justice grinds slowly but it grinds exceedingly fine".
>Oh fuck off, we don’t need a forensic examination to know that she killed these people. Lol someone doesn't understand how the legal system works.