Motorcyclist Strikes Pedestrian On Van Ness

A pedestrian suffered life-threatening injuries when he was struck by a motorcyclist in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood early Saturday morning, police said today.

The motorcyclist, a man in his 20s, was heading south on Van Ness Avenue at Myrtle Street around 2 a.m. Saturday he struck a 44-year-old man in the middle of the street, police said.

The pedestrian was taken to San Francisco General Hospital with life-threatening injuries, including a broken leg and severe head trauma, police said.

The motorcyclist, who was on a 2008 Aprilia, was not cited or arrested in the incident, police said.

Sasha Lekach, Bay City News

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • frenchjr25

    Technically if he was crossing at Myrtle he was not in the Tenderloin, whose boarder ends on the east side of Van Ness. And he was breaking the law by j walking since it is illegal to cross Van Ness at any place other than a crosswalk.

    If the attorney for the motorcyclist does their job properly they will easily be able to get any charges dismissed. The recent significant rise in traffic accidents involving pedestrians seem to almost always be the fault of the pedestrian. It’s the same with accidents involving bicycles.

    • 94103er

      it is illegal to cross Van Ness at any place other than a crosswalk

      You seem to be trying to make a point via CVC 21955 re crossing between controlled intersections. Nice try, but the law is fuzzy at best about the exact definition of ‘jaywalking,’ these intersections are probably not within 200 feet as is the definition of ‘adjacent,’ and, of course, motorists are still legally bound to practice due care when traveling–right of way or no right of way.

      But thanks for coming on here trying to defend the rights of the poor, downtrodden motorheads and leaving the predictable ‘oh and that goes for bicycles too’ bit. Predictable trolls are predictable.

      Also, *border.

      • frenchjr25

        Actually I’m taking about San Francisco law that defines Van Ness as a street where jaywalking is illegal. Van Ness is also a State highway, which automatically outlaws jaywalking.

        You also did not do your homework. If you did you would see that Myrtle is an alley (I live a few blocks away). It is in the exact middle of the block. This means the State definition of jaywalking does apply.

        Your argument, what ever it might be, is clearly wrong. Pedestrians are requires, no matter where they are, to use crosswalks. Looking at a map of the area this man could easily have used one of the crosswalks that was near him. He chose to jaywalk and was hit. It is absolutely his fault and to me he should be prosecuted for it.

  • frenchjr25

    It’s time to stop automatically blaming vehicular traffic for all accidents. Over the past few years pedestrians and bicyclists have become very braisin in their disregard for the law. And yes, State transportation laws do include requirements for pedestrians and bicyclists.