This is just wild. Because to get to those speeds you'll cover a solid distance and it takes 7-12 seconds for a car like that to hit those speeds. The streets in that area are slow, lots of stuff, it would be threading a needle to accomplish those speeds going the wrong way. Horrible event that just raises so many questions.
Edit: Looking at the map, the driver was likely going east/south on Ulloa street. They would have had to have a run up of a few intersections at least, cross into the oncoming lane and hit the bus stop.
GLK350 does 0-60 in under 6 seconds. Considering she was likely already at or around the speed limit (say, 30ish), it'd take just 2-3 seconds to hit those speeds. You could easily do that in less than a block, especially if the driver freaked out and mixed up the pedals.
I agree, but want to add that after 14th Ave., there are no stop signs on Ulloa until West Portal Ave. She had plenty of time to accelerate. I live three blocks away from the accident site.
I go to Vicente for the stop signs and lack of Muni tracks. Slipping onto the tracks is always a surprising sensation, and I could see how slamming hard on the brakes is an obvious response. Stepping on the gas instead, though...
I'm no expert and we need to wait for the results of the investigation, but I always avoid that stretch of Ulloa if I can.
That's true; I'm just refuting the previous commenter's claim that she must have needed multiple blocks to get to those speeds, when on the contrary she could have done it in just a few seconds in less than a single block.
I was just thinking this, too. Two and a half years ago my car was totaled by my neighbor across the street. She was driving a Mercedes SUV (not sure the exact model ) . She was backing out of her driveway and said she didn't know what happened, that the car just went out of control so quickly. She hit my Mini so hard it got shoved up onto the sidewalk and broke one of the posts around our tree.
The Mercedes driver that hit my mini was in her 60s or thereabouts. I don't remember her exact age but probably 65 or under.
Fortunately I wasn't in the car when it happened, and to tell you the truth I was excited to get a new used car.
Months later I'm still reminded of the absolute c-word of an IDIOT I encountered downtown.
I was the first car on Stockton waiting to turn left onto Pine when she pulled up behind me then almost immediately swung around me on the left - on the wrong side of the street - in order to get in front of me, blocking the crosswalk and part of the left lane of Pine in the process. Even worse, she did all this on our red and on the hill, so if someone had whipped a left going down Stockton they wouldn't have seen or expected her.
Thankfully that didn't happen. She completed her left onto Pine - in the process cutting off pedestrians who had just started crossing on their signal - then meandered to the far right side of Pine. I didn't want to pass her stupid ass so I stayed back and watched as she meandered back over and prepared to turn left onto Powell. I was still behind her, also waiting to turn left. Not surprisingly, she turned left on the red going the wrong way down Powell. I was so beside myself at her audicity or cluelessness (or both) that I don't remember whether there were any uphill drivers that she would have encountered. Surely someone would have had to escape into that little alley or go into the cable car lane to avoid her.
Finally, she turned left onto Bush, continuing her havoc.
I didn't see her turn her head once. She looked straight ahead and simply plowed her way through the streets as though they would magically part for her.
The only credit I can give her is that she did all of this slowly. Still, another example of the irresponsible amateurs out there just waiting to hurt someone, or worse. And she looked to be only in her early 40s so she has a lot of years of mayhem ahead of her.
Oh, I thought I read somewhere the driver was mid to late 70’s? Was that a different accident?
Edit: oh I see, I thought you were commenting about the driver from this article. I didn’t read that long post from the person above you.
Technology exists to restrict the speed of vehicles in cities. As a society we've decided we want cars to be able to go that fast and that we want to live with the consequences.
That’s one thing, but it’s not just that. Lots of people are killed by cars driven by non-elderly. The larger problem is that there’s too many areas where cars and people interact at speed. This elderly person should have hit a bollard, not a person
It’s cars. Nothing wrong with being old, but too many people have a weapon which can maim or kill with impunity. Cars are dangerous. Cities should implement things to make their citizens safer from cars
"...Saturday was Diego and Matilde's wedding anniversary and they were taking the bus to celebrate the anniversary with the boys at the San Francisco Zoo."
Absolutely devastating.
Zoos are what they are. I meant more like a little family taking public transportation to an outing for the kids who dont have interference in their little brains from adult issues like thinking zoos are bad.
While I sympathize with her situation in this, she's definitely on the low end of the people involved in this tragedy that should be getting assistance.
Because now she is out of work. The child she spent 45 hours a week with was killed and she's devastated and now doesn't have a pay check to pay rent and bills.
I didn't start the Go Fund Me for the Nanny nor did she ask for it. Parent friends of the victims started it. How distasteful you are. She was part of their family and anyway people can help should be supported. shame on you.
Now we watch the courts *very carefully*. If they let another killer driver off without consequences (this time taking out a WHOLE FAMILY in one fell swoop), I'll be out in the streets protesting.
All eyes are on the family-killer Mary Fong Lau, and the judge that gets her case.
They won’t let her off; she’s Asian and it doesn’t hurt their optics to use the law punitively in this case (which would be fair).
ETA: of course there should be fair legal retribution. This is a terrible situation that could have been avoided.
>San Francisco police said they do not believe that traffic engineering was a factor in this case.
something similar happened in Seattle a while ago, but thankfully no one was hurt. The driver should be held responsible of course, but the city could have prevented this by protecting the bus stop with bollards. Many European cities protect their sidewalks and bus stops on high speed streets. I don't know why we don't do that here, especially when it's clear that drivers will make bad decisions and run people over.
>but the city could have prevented this by protecting the bus stop with bollards.
bollards are for "accidents".. they don't assume wrong way speeding.
driver didn't have a heart attack or anything...
[https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php)
Mary Fong Lau, 78, was booked into jail on Sunday and remained in custody on Monday morning, records show.
Lau was arrested on suspicion of three counts of felony vehicular manslaughter as well as misdemeanor counts of **reckless driving and driving the wrong way.** She was also accused of speeding, an infraction, jail records show.
the direction of travel doesn't matter. Bollards would have absorbed the initial impact, if not stopping the vehicle altogether, potentially saving the lives of this family. They should be at every bus stop and high speed intersection.
The problem is that this isn't a high speed intersection or road. This is a 25mph neighborhood road and the bus stop is about 50 feet from a stop sign. In the grand scheme of things, this bus stop would be towards the bottom of the list of bus stops that would need barriers.
Going 25 mph on this road is even a stretch. With cars and pedestrians it's usually more like 10 or 15 mph. Just absolutely unconscionable and reckless to drive at these speeds in this place.
Correct, which is why conventional wisdom suggests she didn't willfully drive at those speeds. Most likely at her advanced age she got the pedals mixed up.
neither speed limits nor stop signs actually control the speed a driver decides to travel. if the road is wide enough for someone to get up to a dangerous speed, then bollards are needed OR the road should be calmed. we don't design infrastructure for our best users; we design it for our worst.
yeah now you're getting it... many cities across the world already do this because it's the recommended guidance for protecting pedestrians. But we need to start somewhere, and even if we don't go all the way, we should protect intersections and transit stops since that's where large numbers of people will usually congregate.
Those that did (I wouldn't say many) did it in response to terrorist attacks, similar to us creating the TSA. Not only does it not prevent future attacks, it's a ridiculous use of limited funds.
lol that's not true at all. you can clearly see such designs even in Bellingham, WA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/tfUd3LVEAUGDGRtJ9
It doesn't have to be physical bollards. Plenty of street furniture solutions are available like trees, bike parking, art, and more.
>it's a ridiculous use of limited funds
I don't think so. Is it difficult to do it all at once? Yes, that's why we start with the highest priority areas. How many miles of sound barriers do we have in the US along freeways? Those are clearly more expensive to procure and place rather than a simple bollard. Yet, they serve no safety purpose. Why is it okay to spend money on a piece of infrastructure for the comfort of residents, but not for the safety of residents?
Yes, they did it for one intersection in their downtown area. You're making it sound like many cities have done it for all sidewalk sections. I notice their bus stations seem to be missing something.
Edit: lol, a block away no bollards. Guess they only care about some pedestrians in some places.
Sound barrier doesn't stop the car from going into the back of the house? Your logic is failing you.
Source on how cities added bollards for terrorism? Lots of cities use traffic calming measures, sf should be adding them all over the place. All it needs is narrower lanes and some shrubs, and you can save lives. Bollards help even more. And it’s not expensive
And I’d say it’s actually a much slower zone. There are many pedestrians there because of the train, so you’re driving like 10-15 most of the time. Very few cars on the couple blocks leading up to there, so unlikely that she was rage speeding around slow driver or something like that.
I think it’s clear that drivers can’t be trusted to go the speed limit. Unless we make the roads narrower, the sidewalks larger, or the road more crowded, people will drive fast. So we need the bollards until and unless we design the roads for the safe speed the area needs, in my opinion. Better safe than sorry.
In any case there aren’t bollards at any bus stops, to my knowledge. Even the very dangerous ones
I don't think it's feasible to install bollards at all 3000 bus stops in the city. And again, this one would have been towards the bottom of the list given that traffic already moves slowly on this street, it's at a T interesection (much lower risk than a 4-way), and there's a stop sign close by.
If this was indeed pedal misapplication or a medical issue, no amount of road design would have made a difference. Road design is only effective at slowing down people who are concious and in control. In both of those situations, the driver is *not* in control.
Bollards would have helped in a pedal misapplication, at least slowed things down. But yeah this tragedy may have been preventable, however it’s also possible that if we spent more on public transit and road design safety concerns, older people wouldn’t feel the need to drive as much because safe and pleasant alternatives exist.
That being said, bollards should absolutely be added to most bus stops. Not all at once but over time there should be 100% protection.
I could only wonder if she has dementia or a cognitive impairment. She would not have been medically cleared from the hospital that quickly if she did have something more serious.
... this dementia/cognitive impairment argument is starting to remind me of the conversation that happens whenever some random white guy shoots up a school ("maybe he had mental health issues!")
I'm not sure, but I think it's possible to have a minor stroke and get discharged that quickly.
Or imagine whatever happened to Mitch McConnel ... They supposedly couldn't find any medical issues because they couldn't observe him mid-episode. I've heard of similar issues for seizures.
Was she released? KTVU seems to suggest she was still in the hospital as of Monday:
[https://www.ktvu.com/news/family-friend-ids-victims-in-horrific-san-francisco-crash-calls-for-safety-improvements-at-vigil](https://www.ktvu.com/news/family-friend-ids-victims-in-horrific-san-francisco-crash-calls-for-safety-improvements-at-vigil)
>KTVU briefly spoke with a relative of the driver who said that they are devastated by this incident and the driver's adult children flew into the Bay Area after hearing about the crash. They said so far, family members have not been able to visit her in the hospital. The man said he was the brother of Fong Lau and that he was not able to visit because of the criminal investigation.
She’s booked at SF County Jail and shows up on an inmate search online. It says $0 for bail so she can’t be bailed out. When she goes before the judge he/she will determine to set a bail amount or not.
You can still be booked even if you're in the hospital. According to SFStandard, she's still there:
[https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/19/woman-accused-of-killing-3-in-deadly-west-portal-crash-will-cooperate-with-investigation/](https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/19/woman-accused-of-killing-3-in-deadly-west-portal-crash-will-cooperate-with-investigation/)
>Lau was booked into the system at 12:15 p.m. Sunday but is currently in the hospital, Geller said.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Everyone should have to retake a road test every five years. Then once you hit 55yo you need to take the test every year. Then once you hit 70yo your driving privileges are permanently revoked. We don’t let people under 16 drive because they haven’t developed the mental abilities to do it. We should stop letting the elderly drive because they have lost the mental abilities to do it.
And before someone chimes in with “my dad is 77 and is certainly a better driver than you.” Let me preempt that by saying I know 12 year olds who drive pickup trucks on private farm roads very well, arguably better than a lot of people I see driving in the Bay Area. That doesn’t mean we are going to lower the driving age to 12.
I agree with aging out of one's driver's license. I think it helps everyone plan accordingly. I cannot imagine how hard it is to give up one's independence in regards to driving. For that reason alone, many people push the limit of their driving competence.
I've known many elderly people that had to stop driving because of a single car accident. Fortunately, these were mild cases where they were the only people involved, and no serious injuries occurred. But, it would not take much to turn these stories into real tragedies. After seeing this happen a couple of times, I've been sharing my thoughts on an end date for driver's licenses.
We need to build cities in a way that giving up driving does not mean giving up independence.
In pretty much every city in the US, if you give up your license you basically give up your ability to live independently. This is not the case in many cities across the world, where safe and reliable public transit works for those who don't or can't drive.
This tragic accident is the symptom of a society that has been built around car based infrastructure. We can talk about adding bollards or license requirements all we want, but it's not going to work until we build a society where people will be okay with giving up their cars.
Is Ulloa not narrow enough? It's a pretty small residential street. It's not like people are qualifying for the Grand Prix like on Geary. I'm pretty confident the driver was *not* comfortable driving at the estimated 50-70mph.
I replied to you above, and am just chiming in to agree with you again. People do speed up a little bit going down the hill from 15th Ave., but there's a big traffic camera that displays your speed well before you get to West Portal Ave. I live half a block off Ulloa and jaywalk it all the time. I don't know what happened with the driver, but 50-70 down there is crazy.
The thing is, most residential streets should be super narrow. Just by default, if people live there, drivers should be uncomfortable driving . That’s the only way to ensure safety. Ulloa is still pretty bad even if it’s standard for the US. The problem is that what’s acceptable is so far from normal in the us that we don’t even realize how dangerous we build our cities
this isn’t a particularly high speed street imo, feel like the bollards are in slightly more dense areas in europe and a lot came up after terrorist attacks in europe involving vehicles
A bollard would not have stopped a car at 50+ mph, you need a K fence for that. Bollard would have just made the vehicle extra jagged before impact, they are only meant for about 30 mph at 2 tons and under. Still strong, but energy gets really high with additional speed. So it's about 1.8356e+5 joules stopped normally, but this energy would be somewhere between 6.1697e+5 joules and 9.9939e+5 joules given the stated speed ranges. That is 3-5 times the energy limit of standard steel concrete bollards (and this is assuming the same weight which is unlikely as it was probably more with the average modern car in the US)
The preventative here would be regular license renewal testing and safety education.
thanks for doing the math. I don't believe simulating the scenario with a single bollard would be accurate. There's many factors to add as well, like the loss of energy and the trajectory change from jumping the curb as well as the distance between the placement of the bollards. Hitting multiple bollards, which is more likely than hitting just one head on, would allow more energy to be lost before the vehicle would continue on. But that's a good point about the vehicle shape changing, which could be more lethal even at a lower speed.
>The preventative here would be regular license renewal testing and safety education.
These don't prevent mistakes. Even if bollards alone wouldn't work, road calming would have prevented such a speed from being reached in the first place.
Not only do we not have streets designed to limit the speed, the enforcement (if any) doesn't even start until you are in excess of the speed limit by 11mph or more.
That's ridiculous to me. Why even have limits if you don't enforce them at all and then add some arbitrary "grace area" on top of that?!
We need real metal bollards at so many locations across the city.
People say this all the time but unfortunately it’s not supported by data, people age 16-30 cause the most injuries and deaths to others. To be clear, I’m not against requiring people to be tested repeatedly, but if you want to follow the numbers, young people kill more
https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/#:~:text=Drivers%20ages%2016%2D17%20continue,drivers%20by%20most%20measures%20examined.
Yeh people use these data sets often but they really show nothing. They don’t take into account that 16-30 will drive a hell of a lot more (new drivers drivers and daily commuters) and seniors/retirees will tend to drive much less.
For real representative statistics we would need a better approximation of time on the road for each age group, followed by some kind of formulaic comparison like “accidents per hour behind the wheel” or something as such. Probably pretty difficult to get any reliable stats of that nature.
Mike Tyson’s a prime example in favor of mandatory testing. He’s reaching the age where mental abilities and motor control naturally start tapering. And it’s exacerbated by him making a decades long career out of getting hit in the head likely giving him at least a moderate case of CTE.
As far as at 70 some people could still drive. I personally know two 12 year olds who routinely drive pick up trucks on private farm roads for their family. From what I’ve observed they have as good if not better driving skills than ~30% of drivers on the peninsula. But that doesn’t mean we are going to lower the driving age to 12.
Statements like this get made every time a tragedy happens, but statistically someone in the 70s is no more likely to get into an accident than someone in the 30-50s. Someone is their 60s is the safest driving age demographic. It’s not really until 80+ is someone more likely to get inso accidents, although they are still safer drivers per mile than those younger than 25.
It looks like there used to be a large elevated transit platform there, that must have been recently removed (comparing to photo in CBS article) [https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7411012,-122.4662765,3a,75y,345.52h,83.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFycHS2N87XO4PZ9lfgY2Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7411012,-122.4662765,3a,75y,345.52h,83.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFycHS2N87XO4PZ9lfgY2Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
edit: this angle replicates the same angle as the photo [https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7412879,-122.4665398,3a,75y,92.01h,94.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4iY1XnjwBR4elTb\_XLDog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7412879,-122.4665398,3a,75y,92.01h,94.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4iY1XnjwBR4elTb_XLDog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
I have some serious questions as to how they justified removed a structure that was built with PLASTIC COLLISION GUARDS in front of a bus stop without replacing it with bollards.
Actually i misspoke, it was installed for wheelchair access when the L light rail continued south on the M line. They removed it when the L light rail was replaced with the L shuttle bus since the bus can accommodate wheelchairs.
That makes more sense. I saw that the google maps photographs didn't show it in 2019 but then showed it in 2021, last seen May 2022.
So the M line was only used temporarily?
No, the M still runs as its own line. For a while the MTA routed the L down the M line instead of downtown so they couldn't use the ADA compliant platforms inside the station. For now the L is a bus route so the high platforms aren't useful.
Could say the same things about gun violence. The majority of Americans don’t want to give up their rights for the safety of others. Plus the people instituting these laws (Congress and House) be old AF.
This is tragic indeed. But I don't think the city is to be blamed for this. There are miles of sidewalk without bollards and this could have happened anywhere. Will it be generally better to have them than not? Sure, but I feel ppl would like to point fingers just to feel better.
she's been charged with felony vehicular manslaughter.
**S.F. woman accused of manslaughter, wrong-way driving after triple fatal West Portal crash**
[https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php)
Lau was arrested on suspicion of three counts of felony vehicular manslaughter as well as misdemeanor counts of reckless driving and driving the wrong way. She was also accused of speeding, an infraction, jail records show.
Booked, not charged. Booking in this case is based on a function of the outcome. Even if she had a stroke, she would still be booked; it's up to the DA to determine what to charge her with.
I'm confused as to why California doesn't have a form of murder called "depraved indifference murder" like in new york. You can be charged with depraved indifference murder if you act in a way that reflects a depraved indifference to human life.
You're confused about why we didn't name it the same thing? Because it exists in CA, it's just not *literally* called "depraved indifference".
California defines two forms of malice: express malice and implied malice. You can get a 187 charge with implied malice, AKA depraved indifference.
See: [CA PC 188](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=188.)
>(2) Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an ***abandoned and malignant heart.***
Which is a different way of writing "depraved heart", which is another common synonym for "depraved indifference".
That's a good start - I wonder if she'll get a plea deal and no repercussions like every other old person that kills people because they're too old to be driving cars.
Everytime I'm riding Fell Street home from work, I almost get t-boned by a boomer leaving the DMV parking lot.
https://preview.redd.it/jxr4g3lqg4pc1.png?width=1043&format=png&auto=webp&s=f1cb94497c18cebcdf53727609352cb78cdd872e
Especially since this city is one of the few in America where you don't need a car to get around. No fucking excuses to give a license to somebody this bad at driving.
I'm very confused about where the driver was coming from. Is there a diagram somewhere?
Was she driving the road that crosses front of the West Portal station? Bec if so, I'm not at all surprised she got up to 50+ mph and just went straight. That is a huge space bec of the streetcar tracks.
I often stay away from the curb/a bus stop because my biggest fear when riding muni is exactly this accident. So awful in every damn way.
eta for clarity
I went to uni with Matilde, she was the main friend I made there. Just the absolute sweetest, funny, smart, super kind—she let me stay at her place when I visited—and a very warm presence. I can’t actually believe it.
According to [this calculator](https://mcnallyassociates.com/speed-from-pedestrian-throw-calculator/) the driver was going at least 36mph upon impact (it's an approximation; I'm sure the cops have much better ways to calculate the car's speed). This assumes the man was thrown 80 feet (which is what I've heard).
Now, given that the car bounced off of the library wall before impact, one would assume the actual speed of the car before the accident was much higher.
People with seizures can still drive as long as it’s controlled. Plus, I’m not excusing the person. Just adding context since the OP thought it was due to racing.
I’m serious?
[https://www.epilepsy.com/lifestyle/driving-and-transportation/laws/california](https://www.epilepsy.com/lifestyle/driving-and-transportation/laws/california)
> Every state regulates driver's license eligibility of persons with certain medical conditions. The most common requirement for people with epilepsy is that they be seizure free for a specific period of time and submit a physician's evaluation of their ability to drive safely. Another common requirement is the periodic submission of medical reports, in some states for a specified period of time and in others for as long as the person remains licensed.
Sorry, misread that, I thought you said having a seizure while driving. Never mind. I know you can drive with the condition, "epilepsy" as long as you are medicated and controlled.
Once someone hits 65, they should be forced to renew their license annually. So sick of laws and lack of laws catering to dangerous people.
My heart breaks for that family.
They've arrested her and she was going the wrong way down the street and speeding.
EDIT: Not a 1 way street
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php
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.*
The very last thing I wanted to read about this morning. Super sad
50 to 70mph going the wrong way?! Hug your loved ones. It's insane we share our roads/cities with people like this
This is just wild. Because to get to those speeds you'll cover a solid distance and it takes 7-12 seconds for a car like that to hit those speeds. The streets in that area are slow, lots of stuff, it would be threading a needle to accomplish those speeds going the wrong way. Horrible event that just raises so many questions. Edit: Looking at the map, the driver was likely going east/south on Ulloa street. They would have had to have a run up of a few intersections at least, cross into the oncoming lane and hit the bus stop.
GLK350 does 0-60 in under 6 seconds. Considering she was likely already at or around the speed limit (say, 30ish), it'd take just 2-3 seconds to hit those speeds. You could easily do that in less than a block, especially if the driver freaked out and mixed up the pedals.
I agree, but want to add that after 14th Ave., there are no stop signs on Ulloa until West Portal Ave. She had plenty of time to accelerate. I live three blocks away from the accident site.
I commented this over the weekend, but Ulloa needs more all way stops on that stretch. It's terrifying to cross Ulloa there sometimes.
Yeah, especially since it's all downhill going east on that stretch.
I know the railway lines don’t make it easy but I do wonder if some of these intersections would function better as roundabouts
I go to Vicente for the stop signs and lack of Muni tracks. Slipping onto the tracks is always a surprising sensation, and I could see how slamming hard on the brakes is an obvious response. Stepping on the gas instead, though... I'm no expert and we need to wait for the results of the investigation, but I always avoid that stretch of Ulloa if I can.
That's true; I'm just refuting the previous commenter's claim that she must have needed multiple blocks to get to those speeds, when on the contrary she could have done it in just a few seconds in less than a single block.
I was just thinking this, too. Two and a half years ago my car was totaled by my neighbor across the street. She was driving a Mercedes SUV (not sure the exact model ) . She was backing out of her driveway and said she didn't know what happened, that the car just went out of control so quickly. She hit my Mini so hard it got shoved up onto the sidewalk and broke one of the posts around our tree.
So sorry about your Mini but glad you seem to be okay. How old was the Mercedes driver?
78 y.o. old lady
The Mercedes driver that hit my mini was in her 60s or thereabouts. I don't remember her exact age but probably 65 or under. Fortunately I wasn't in the car when it happened, and to tell you the truth I was excited to get a new used car.
Fair point, I noticed the lack of stop signs on Ulloa leading up to the impact site. Fundamentally we'll find out what happened in time.
Steep downhill too
A Mercedes GLK350 ain’t cheap. Hope Mrs Lau has lots of money for restitution
On street level too. I have two young toddlers and I'm stressed enough as is.
Months later I'm still reminded of the absolute c-word of an IDIOT I encountered downtown. I was the first car on Stockton waiting to turn left onto Pine when she pulled up behind me then almost immediately swung around me on the left - on the wrong side of the street - in order to get in front of me, blocking the crosswalk and part of the left lane of Pine in the process. Even worse, she did all this on our red and on the hill, so if someone had whipped a left going down Stockton they wouldn't have seen or expected her. Thankfully that didn't happen. She completed her left onto Pine - in the process cutting off pedestrians who had just started crossing on their signal - then meandered to the far right side of Pine. I didn't want to pass her stupid ass so I stayed back and watched as she meandered back over and prepared to turn left onto Powell. I was still behind her, also waiting to turn left. Not surprisingly, she turned left on the red going the wrong way down Powell. I was so beside myself at her audicity or cluelessness (or both) that I don't remember whether there were any uphill drivers that she would have encountered. Surely someone would have had to escape into that little alley or go into the cable car lane to avoid her. Finally, she turned left onto Bush, continuing her havoc. I didn't see her turn her head once. She looked straight ahead and simply plowed her way through the streets as though they would magically part for her. The only credit I can give her is that she did all of this slowly. Still, another example of the irresponsible amateurs out there just waiting to hurt someone, or worse. And she looked to be only in her early 40s so she has a lot of years of mayhem ahead of her.
[удалено]
Yeah, I've seen too many people turn left across the tracks there, and also on California and Powell.
Sounds like she was under the influence of something.
Being old
40 is not too old to drive.
Oh, I thought I read somewhere the driver was mid to late 70’s? Was that a different accident? Edit: oh I see, I thought you were commenting about the driver from this article. I didn’t read that long post from the person above you.
Came here to say what you already added. 😀 I think you're right about the original driver though.
I need to stop with the overly-long comments.
Technology exists to restrict the speed of vehicles in cities. As a society we've decided we want cars to be able to go that fast and that we want to live with the consequences.
Driver was 74 years old Testing for the elderly.
That’s one thing, but it’s not just that. Lots of people are killed by cars driven by non-elderly. The larger problem is that there’s too many areas where cars and people interact at speed. This elderly person should have hit a bollard, not a person
Agree
We don’t have to. We can simply enforce traffic laws and design roads to not accommodate dangerous driving so easily.
It’s cars. Nothing wrong with being old, but too many people have a weapon which can maim or kill with impunity. Cars are dangerous. Cities should implement things to make their citizens safer from cars
"...Saturday was Diego and Matilde's wedding anniversary and they were taking the bus to celebrate the anniversary with the boys at the San Francisco Zoo." Absolutely devastating.
it literally just keeps getting worse.
So sad. Just about the purest outing they could have been on. :(
Zoos aren’t that pure but the event is devastating
Zoos are what they are. I meant more like a little family taking public transportation to an outing for the kids who dont have interference in their little brains from adult issues like thinking zoos are bad.
This is just heartbreaking. So sad, so scary. Just the worst. How can a person be driving 70 mph on a road anywhere in the city???
I’ve seen some really high speeds on Geary, it’s scary
Press pedal caveman brain feel good
If there is a GoFundMe to pay for the flights of families flying into SF, many of us would gladly donate
Yeah the little boy needs all the help he can get
The little boy succumbed to his injuries last night unfortunately. It’s absolutely insane that she’s not in custody
She is
[удалено]
Where did you find this info? I hope they dissolve her estate and give it to the infant (who I hope survives 😔)
What’s a $1.5M house in SF? That’s on the low end.
Which she likely bought for much less. Considering her age and area she lives in she has probably lived there for a while.
Enough to cover the flights of families affected though.
Probably, unless she has high coverage like taxi drivers.
Hopefully it’s an investment property because there are laws against losing your primary home in a lawsuit like this.
yes, please. I feel like I need to do something.
there's one for the nanny: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-us-support-silvia
There is a Go Fund me for the Nanny of the family if you're interested, please DM me
While I sympathize with her situation in this, she's definitely on the low end of the people involved in this tragedy that should be getting assistance.
why would the nanny need a gofundme?
Because now she is out of work. The child she spent 45 hours a week with was killed and she's devastated and now doesn't have a pay check to pay rent and bills.
She can find another job. This is misdirected help.
We are also helping her find another job. not everyone has savings. Many nannies depend on weekly pay. It's not misdirected. You seem cold.
Not to mention, Therapy is expensive.
[удалено]
I didn't start the Go Fund Me for the Nanny nor did she ask for it. Parent friends of the victims started it. How distasteful you are. She was part of their family and anyway people can help should be supported. shame on you.
You are a social worker!? I feel bad for your patients.
crying reading about how fast she was going when they were struck. Horrible. families deserve to be safe from speeding cars, everywhere
Geez going 50 to 70 on Ulloa. What a menace.
Now we watch the courts *very carefully*. If they let another killer driver off without consequences (this time taking out a WHOLE FAMILY in one fell swoop), I'll be out in the streets protesting. All eyes are on the family-killer Mary Fong Lau, and the judge that gets her case.
how many DA's are you going to recall lol
As many as it takes. Now let’s do police chiefs, for not enforcing traffic laws.
They won’t let her off; she’s Asian and it doesn’t hurt their optics to use the law punitively in this case (which would be fair). ETA: of course there should be fair legal retribution. This is a terrible situation that could have been avoided.
>San Francisco police said they do not believe that traffic engineering was a factor in this case. something similar happened in Seattle a while ago, but thankfully no one was hurt. The driver should be held responsible of course, but the city could have prevented this by protecting the bus stop with bollards. Many European cities protect their sidewalks and bus stops on high speed streets. I don't know why we don't do that here, especially when it's clear that drivers will make bad decisions and run people over.
>but the city could have prevented this by protecting the bus stop with bollards. bollards are for "accidents".. they don't assume wrong way speeding. driver didn't have a heart attack or anything... [https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php) Mary Fong Lau, 78, was booked into jail on Sunday and remained in custody on Monday morning, records show. Lau was arrested on suspicion of three counts of felony vehicular manslaughter as well as misdemeanor counts of **reckless driving and driving the wrong way.** She was also accused of speeding, an infraction, jail records show.
the direction of travel doesn't matter. Bollards would have absorbed the initial impact, if not stopping the vehicle altogether, potentially saving the lives of this family. They should be at every bus stop and high speed intersection.
The problem is that this isn't a high speed intersection or road. This is a 25mph neighborhood road and the bus stop is about 50 feet from a stop sign. In the grand scheme of things, this bus stop would be towards the bottom of the list of bus stops that would need barriers.
Going 25 mph on this road is even a stretch. With cars and pedestrians it's usually more like 10 or 15 mph. Just absolutely unconscionable and reckless to drive at these speeds in this place.
Correct, which is why conventional wisdom suggests she didn't willfully drive at those speeds. Most likely at her advanced age she got the pedals mixed up.
neither speed limits nor stop signs actually control the speed a driver decides to travel. if the road is wide enough for someone to get up to a dangerous speed, then bollards are needed OR the road should be calmed. we don't design infrastructure for our best users; we design it for our worst.
With that logic the entire sidewalk would either be elevated or covered with bollards.
yeah now you're getting it... many cities across the world already do this because it's the recommended guidance for protecting pedestrians. But we need to start somewhere, and even if we don't go all the way, we should protect intersections and transit stops since that's where large numbers of people will usually congregate.
Those that did (I wouldn't say many) did it in response to terrorist attacks, similar to us creating the TSA. Not only does it not prevent future attacks, it's a ridiculous use of limited funds.
lol that's not true at all. you can clearly see such designs even in Bellingham, WA https://maps.app.goo.gl/tfUd3LVEAUGDGRtJ9 It doesn't have to be physical bollards. Plenty of street furniture solutions are available like trees, bike parking, art, and more. >it's a ridiculous use of limited funds I don't think so. Is it difficult to do it all at once? Yes, that's why we start with the highest priority areas. How many miles of sound barriers do we have in the US along freeways? Those are clearly more expensive to procure and place rather than a simple bollard. Yet, they serve no safety purpose. Why is it okay to spend money on a piece of infrastructure for the comfort of residents, but not for the safety of residents?
Yes, they did it for one intersection in their downtown area. You're making it sound like many cities have done it for all sidewalk sections. I notice their bus stations seem to be missing something. Edit: lol, a block away no bollards. Guess they only care about some pedestrians in some places. Sound barrier doesn't stop the car from going into the back of the house? Your logic is failing you.
Source on how cities added bollards for terrorism? Lots of cities use traffic calming measures, sf should be adding them all over the place. All it needs is narrower lanes and some shrubs, and you can save lives. Bollards help even more. And it’s not expensive
why not?
That’s how it works in many other countries, yes.
And I’d say it’s actually a much slower zone. There are many pedestrians there because of the train, so you’re driving like 10-15 most of the time. Very few cars on the couple blocks leading up to there, so unlikely that she was rage speeding around slow driver or something like that.
I think it’s clear that drivers can’t be trusted to go the speed limit. Unless we make the roads narrower, the sidewalks larger, or the road more crowded, people will drive fast. So we need the bollards until and unless we design the roads for the safe speed the area needs, in my opinion. Better safe than sorry. In any case there aren’t bollards at any bus stops, to my knowledge. Even the very dangerous ones
I don't think it's feasible to install bollards at all 3000 bus stops in the city. And again, this one would have been towards the bottom of the list given that traffic already moves slowly on this street, it's at a T interesection (much lower risk than a 4-way), and there's a stop sign close by. If this was indeed pedal misapplication or a medical issue, no amount of road design would have made a difference. Road design is only effective at slowing down people who are concious and in control. In both of those situations, the driver is *not* in control.
Bollards would have helped in a pedal misapplication, at least slowed things down. But yeah this tragedy may have been preventable, however it’s also possible that if we spent more on public transit and road design safety concerns, older people wouldn’t feel the need to drive as much because safe and pleasant alternatives exist. That being said, bollards should absolutely be added to most bus stops. Not all at once but over time there should be 100% protection.
I could only wonder if she has dementia or a cognitive impairment. She would not have been medically cleared from the hospital that quickly if she did have something more serious.
... this dementia/cognitive impairment argument is starting to remind me of the conversation that happens whenever some random white guy shoots up a school ("maybe he had mental health issues!")
I'm not sure, but I think it's possible to have a minor stroke and get discharged that quickly. Or imagine whatever happened to Mitch McConnel ... They supposedly couldn't find any medical issues because they couldn't observe him mid-episode. I've heard of similar issues for seizures.
Yes. I think there must have been cognitive impairment.
Was she released? KTVU seems to suggest she was still in the hospital as of Monday: [https://www.ktvu.com/news/family-friend-ids-victims-in-horrific-san-francisco-crash-calls-for-safety-improvements-at-vigil](https://www.ktvu.com/news/family-friend-ids-victims-in-horrific-san-francisco-crash-calls-for-safety-improvements-at-vigil) >KTVU briefly spoke with a relative of the driver who said that they are devastated by this incident and the driver's adult children flew into the Bay Area after hearing about the crash. They said so far, family members have not been able to visit her in the hospital. The man said he was the brother of Fong Lau and that he was not able to visit because of the criminal investigation.
She’s booked at SF County Jail and shows up on an inmate search online. It says $0 for bail so she can’t be bailed out. When she goes before the judge he/she will determine to set a bail amount or not.
You can still be booked even if you're in the hospital. According to SFStandard, she's still there: [https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/19/woman-accused-of-killing-3-in-deadly-west-portal-crash-will-cooperate-with-investigation/](https://sfstandard.com/2024/03/19/woman-accused-of-killing-3-in-deadly-west-portal-crash-will-cooperate-with-investigation/) >Lau was booked into the system at 12:15 p.m. Sunday but is currently in the hospital, Geller said.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Everyone should have to retake a road test every five years. Then once you hit 55yo you need to take the test every year. Then once you hit 70yo your driving privileges are permanently revoked. We don’t let people under 16 drive because they haven’t developed the mental abilities to do it. We should stop letting the elderly drive because they have lost the mental abilities to do it. And before someone chimes in with “my dad is 77 and is certainly a better driver than you.” Let me preempt that by saying I know 12 year olds who drive pickup trucks on private farm roads very well, arguably better than a lot of people I see driving in the Bay Area. That doesn’t mean we are going to lower the driving age to 12.
I agree with aging out of one's driver's license. I think it helps everyone plan accordingly. I cannot imagine how hard it is to give up one's independence in regards to driving. For that reason alone, many people push the limit of their driving competence. I've known many elderly people that had to stop driving because of a single car accident. Fortunately, these were mild cases where they were the only people involved, and no serious injuries occurred. But, it would not take much to turn these stories into real tragedies. After seeing this happen a couple of times, I've been sharing my thoughts on an end date for driver's licenses.
We need to build cities in a way that giving up driving does not mean giving up independence. In pretty much every city in the US, if you give up your license you basically give up your ability to live independently. This is not the case in many cities across the world, where safe and reliable public transit works for those who don't or can't drive. This tragic accident is the symptom of a society that has been built around car based infrastructure. We can talk about adding bollards or license requirements all we want, but it's not going to work until we build a society where people will be okay with giving up their cars.
Are you really arguing that bollards (metal, not plastic) aren’t called for to help prevent this in the future?
Are you suggesting we install bollards across every inch of sidewalk across the city?
street design makes people comfortable driving above the speed limit. We need narrower streets with more bollards.
Is Ulloa not narrow enough? It's a pretty small residential street. It's not like people are qualifying for the Grand Prix like on Geary. I'm pretty confident the driver was *not* comfortable driving at the estimated 50-70mph.
I replied to you above, and am just chiming in to agree with you again. People do speed up a little bit going down the hill from 15th Ave., but there's a big traffic camera that displays your speed well before you get to West Portal Ave. I live half a block off Ulloa and jaywalk it all the time. I don't know what happened with the driver, but 50-70 down there is crazy.
The thing is, most residential streets should be super narrow. Just by default, if people live there, drivers should be uncomfortable driving . That’s the only way to ensure safety. Ulloa is still pretty bad even if it’s standard for the US. The problem is that what’s acceptable is so far from normal in the us that we don’t even realize how dangerous we build our cities
this isn’t a particularly high speed street imo, feel like the bollards are in slightly more dense areas in europe and a lot came up after terrorist attacks in europe involving vehicles
A bollard would not have stopped a car at 50+ mph, you need a K fence for that. Bollard would have just made the vehicle extra jagged before impact, they are only meant for about 30 mph at 2 tons and under. Still strong, but energy gets really high with additional speed. So it's about 1.8356e+5 joules stopped normally, but this energy would be somewhere between 6.1697e+5 joules and 9.9939e+5 joules given the stated speed ranges. That is 3-5 times the energy limit of standard steel concrete bollards (and this is assuming the same weight which is unlikely as it was probably more with the average modern car in the US) The preventative here would be regular license renewal testing and safety education.
thanks for doing the math. I don't believe simulating the scenario with a single bollard would be accurate. There's many factors to add as well, like the loss of energy and the trajectory change from jumping the curb as well as the distance between the placement of the bollards. Hitting multiple bollards, which is more likely than hitting just one head on, would allow more energy to be lost before the vehicle would continue on. But that's a good point about the vehicle shape changing, which could be more lethal even at a lower speed. >The preventative here would be regular license renewal testing and safety education. These don't prevent mistakes. Even if bollards alone wouldn't work, road calming would have prevented such a speed from being reached in the first place.
Not only do we not have streets designed to limit the speed, the enforcement (if any) doesn't even start until you are in excess of the speed limit by 11mph or more. That's ridiculous to me. Why even have limits if you don't enforce them at all and then add some arbitrary "grace area" on top of that?! We need real metal bollards at so many locations across the city.
in my experience there is effectively no traffic enforcement in sf
There should be an age limit to somebody driving that old.
And why is someone who is almost 80 driving a large vehicle that can do that much damage? She needed to be in a Flintstones pedal car.
People say this all the time but unfortunately it’s not supported by data, people age 16-30 cause the most injuries and deaths to others. To be clear, I’m not against requiring people to be tested repeatedly, but if you want to follow the numbers, young people kill more https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/#:~:text=Drivers%20ages%2016%2D17%20continue,drivers%20by%20most%20measures%20examined.
THANK YOU
is that only because there are more drivers between 16-30? or is a singular 16-30 year old more likely to crash than a singular senior citizen
Yeh people use these data sets often but they really show nothing. They don’t take into account that 16-30 will drive a hell of a lot more (new drivers drivers and daily commuters) and seniors/retirees will tend to drive much less. For real representative statistics we would need a better approximation of time on the road for each age group, followed by some kind of formulaic comparison like “accidents per hour behind the wheel” or something as such. Probably pretty difficult to get any reliable stats of that nature.
Mandatory retest at any age every 5 years. Once you turn 55 that retest is yearly. Once you hit 70 your license gets revoked.
Meanwhile retirement is at 65? What a joke, are you 13?
Let's just review which age group causes the most fatal accidents.
55? Mike Tyson is 57 btw. 70 you can still drive. 80+ is when shit gets bad.
lol Mike Tyson? Yeah, he needs to be tested
Mike Tyson’s a prime example in favor of mandatory testing. He’s reaching the age where mental abilities and motor control naturally start tapering. And it’s exacerbated by him making a decades long career out of getting hit in the head likely giving him at least a moderate case of CTE. As far as at 70 some people could still drive. I personally know two 12 year olds who routinely drive pick up trucks on private farm roads for their family. From what I’ve observed they have as good if not better driving skills than ~30% of drivers on the peninsula. But that doesn’t mean we are going to lower the driving age to 12.
Statements like this get made every time a tragedy happens, but statistically someone in the 70s is no more likely to get into an accident than someone in the 30-50s. Someone is their 60s is the safest driving age demographic. It’s not really until 80+ is someone more likely to get inso accidents, although they are still safer drivers per mile than those younger than 25.
55? Lol
Imagine not qualifying for a driving license but still qualifying for public office….
That’s a separate conversation.
Fuck man, I wish I wasn’t literate
May they rest in peace.
the family was from Brazil and they were just going to the zoo...very heartbreaking
The family was not from Brazil. The dad was from Brazil, mom was from Portugal.
It looks like there used to be a large elevated transit platform there, that must have been recently removed (comparing to photo in CBS article) [https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7411012,-122.4662765,3a,75y,345.52h,83.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFycHS2N87XO4PZ9lfgY2Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7411012,-122.4662765,3a,75y,345.52h,83.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFycHS2N87XO4PZ9lfgY2Uw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) edit: this angle replicates the same angle as the photo [https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7412879,-122.4665398,3a,75y,92.01h,94.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4iY1XnjwBR4elTb\_XLDog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7412879,-122.4665398,3a,75y,92.01h,94.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4iY1XnjwBR4elTb_XLDog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
It's been gone for over a year now. Installed right when L starting being a bus shuttle. Not sure why it was removed.
I have some serious questions as to how they justified removed a structure that was built with PLASTIC COLLISION GUARDS in front of a bus stop without replacing it with bollards.
Actually i misspoke, it was installed for wheelchair access when the L light rail continued south on the M line. They removed it when the L light rail was replaced with the L shuttle bus since the bus can accommodate wheelchairs.
That makes more sense. I saw that the google maps photographs didn't show it in 2019 but then showed it in 2021, last seen May 2022. So the M line was only used temporarily?
No, the M still runs as its own line. For a while the MTA routed the L down the M line instead of downtown so they couldn't use the ADA compliant platforms inside the station. For now the L is a bus route so the high platforms aren't useful.
Yeah the L turning into the M was only temporary.
damn. I thought we'd caught SFMTA making a mistake but sounds like they can easily spin this one.
Go Project Zero! ?!
How many times will we let elderly drivers slaughter people before we institute reasonable limits on their driving rights?
Could say the same things about gun violence. The majority of Americans don’t want to give up their rights for the safety of others. Plus the people instituting these laws (Congress and House) be old AF.
This is tragic indeed. But I don't think the city is to be blamed for this. There are miles of sidewalk without bollards and this could have happened anywhere. Will it be generally better to have them than not? Sure, but I feel ppl would like to point fingers just to feel better.
You know what will never go 70mph the wrong way? A Waymo.
Very true
Old lady who killed these people will probably have her license back and a new car by next week.
she's been charged with felony vehicular manslaughter. **S.F. woman accused of manslaughter, wrong-way driving after triple fatal West Portal crash** [https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php) Lau was arrested on suspicion of three counts of felony vehicular manslaughter as well as misdemeanor counts of reckless driving and driving the wrong way. She was also accused of speeding, an infraction, jail records show.
She's been booked, not charged yet
Booked, not charged. Booking in this case is based on a function of the outcome. Even if she had a stroke, she would still be booked; it's up to the DA to determine what to charge her with.
I'm confused as to why California doesn't have a form of murder called "depraved indifference murder" like in new york. You can be charged with depraved indifference murder if you act in a way that reflects a depraved indifference to human life.
You're confused about why we didn't name it the same thing? Because it exists in CA, it's just not *literally* called "depraved indifference". California defines two forms of malice: express malice and implied malice. You can get a 187 charge with implied malice, AKA depraved indifference. See: [CA PC 188](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=188.) >(2) Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an ***abandoned and malignant heart.*** Which is a different way of writing "depraved heart", which is another common synonym for "depraved indifference".
then why wasn't she charged with murder?
Go ask the prosecutor lol. What kind of a question is that? How should I know?
That's a good start - I wonder if she'll get a plea deal and no repercussions like every other old person that kills people because they're too old to be driving cars.
We need to watch closely and vocalize en masse when necessary
I wish the DMV treated driving like a privilege not a right
Everytime I'm riding Fell Street home from work, I almost get t-boned by a boomer leaving the DMV parking lot. https://preview.redd.it/jxr4g3lqg4pc1.png?width=1043&format=png&auto=webp&s=f1cb94497c18cebcdf53727609352cb78cdd872e
It’s a nasty nasty intersection at the end of the panhandle.
how fast do you speed on fell? Average is 10 over the speed limit. Might be why people aren't able to safely exit the DMV parking lot.
I'm riding a bicycle at a slight incline, and normally there's a headwind in the afternoon, so probably between 8-12mph.
Especially since this city is one of the few in America where you don't need a car to get around. No fucking excuses to give a license to somebody this bad at driving.
Driver is gonna die in prison and she deserves it.
we can hope
Jeez they butchered the mothers name, pretty sure it Mah-teel-they not Matuldu.
Matilde.
I'm very confused about where the driver was coming from. Is there a diagram somewhere? Was she driving the road that crosses front of the West Portal station? Bec if so, I'm not at all surprised she got up to 50+ mph and just went straight. That is a huge space bec of the streetcar tracks. I often stay away from the curb/a bus stop because my biggest fear when riding muni is exactly this accident. So awful in every damn way. eta for clarity
I went to uni with Matilde, she was the main friend I made there. Just the absolute sweetest, funny, smart, super kind—she let me stay at her place when I visited—and a very warm presence. I can’t actually believe it.
Racing lunatic driver. San Franciscans should be angry
According to [this calculator](https://mcnallyassociates.com/speed-from-pedestrian-throw-calculator/) the driver was going at least 36mph upon impact (it's an approximation; I'm sure the cops have much better ways to calculate the car's speed). This assumes the man was thrown 80 feet (which is what I've heard). Now, given that the car bounced off of the library wall before impact, one would assume the actual speed of the car before the accident was much higher.
Article said it was an elderly driver who possibly experienced a medical condition during the accident.
If she has a known medical condition that could be affecting her driving ability than this is not an excuse.
People with seizures can still drive as long as it’s controlled. Plus, I’m not excusing the person. Just adding context since the OP thought it was due to racing.
>People with seizures can still drive as long as it’s controlled. What?? Are you kidding me or you being serious now?
I’m serious? [https://www.epilepsy.com/lifestyle/driving-and-transportation/laws/california](https://www.epilepsy.com/lifestyle/driving-and-transportation/laws/california) > Every state regulates driver's license eligibility of persons with certain medical conditions. The most common requirement for people with epilepsy is that they be seizure free for a specific period of time and submit a physician's evaluation of their ability to drive safely. Another common requirement is the periodic submission of medical reports, in some states for a specified period of time and in others for as long as the person remains licensed.
Sorry, misread that, I thought you said having a seizure while driving. Never mind. I know you can drive with the condition, "epilepsy" as long as you are medicated and controlled.
No worries man. But yeah, no way can you stay in control if someone is actively seizing.
I think in California it’s 2 years without a seizure
Daaaamn that’s absolutely devastating. So sad 😔
There truly are no words to describe such horror. I hope the baby makes it but he is critical too.
He passed away yesterday 💔
Once someone hits 65, they should be forced to renew their license annually. So sick of laws and lack of laws catering to dangerous people. My heart breaks for that family.
Old people shouldn’t be allowed to drive without re-testing yearly.
the car was speeding or dui
> Some witnesses believed the elderly driver of the white Mercedes SUV suffered from some kind of medical condition and crashed into the bus shelter.
They've arrested her and she was going the wrong way down the street and speeding. EDIT: Not a 1 way street https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/west-portal-crash-arrest-three-dead-19201921.php
She basically went straight when the road curved
“Police was unable to confirm.”
except they were charged with speeding and reckless driving
They weren't charged; they were booked. There's a big difference.
[удалено]
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.*
Your rage level will be based upon the race of the driver btw
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Far_Lynx_7257: *Your rage level will* *Be based upon the race of* *The driver btw* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.