A black Chevrolet suburban hit a man jaywalking across 22nd Street between Valencia and Bartlett at around 7 p.m. tonight, according to officers on the scene.
One officer said the pedestrian appeared to sustain only minor injuries. He was taken to San Francisco General Hospital for treatment.
The driver of the vehicle, the officer said, was a “driver for hire.” The driver, who declined to give his name as he drove off, said he was just “doing different things” and declined to say if he worked for one of the car services such as Uber, Lyft or Sidecar.
He was driving east on 22nd Street when the accident occurred. The officer said the accident was under investigation.
Founder/Executive Editor. I’ve been a Mission resident since 1998 and a professor emeritus at Berkeley’s J-school since 2019 when I retired. I got my start in newspapers at the Albuquerque Tribune in the city where I was born and raised. Like many local news outlets, The Tribune no longer exists. I left daily newspapers after working at The New York Times for the business, foreign and city desks. Lucky for all of us, it is still there.
As an old friend once pointed out, local has long been in my bones. My Master’s Project at Columbia, later published in New York Magazine, was on New York City’s experiment in community boards.
Right now I'm trying to figure out how you make that long-held interest in local news sustainable. The answer continues to elude me.
In contrast to Uber and Lyft, etc, one thing I like about taxi cabs is that they have highly visible identifying numbers on them (e.g. a four-digit number) so they can be held accountable. In contrast, this driver was able simply to drive off like a ghost in the night.
In case you weren’t aware, all vehicles havethese things called “license plates” on them — which work pretty well as a means of identification. Also, if you bother to read the article, this driver left after talking to the police officer.
Crossing a street in the middle of the block (what you call jaywalking) is only illegal if both intersections on each end of the block have traffic signals. Saying the pedestrian was jaywalking is skewing the facts to make them seem to be at fault.
Mr. Walker, we will re-check on this with police, but the officer on the scene said that the pedestrian was jaywalking because it was between two crosswalks. But again, thank you and we’ll double check. Best, Lydia
@Mr Walker: “Pedestrians generally must yield right-of-way to vehicles (which are near enough to constitute an immediate hazard) unless crossing at marked or unmarked crosswalks.” (CVC §21954). So, based on the facts we have been told, he was jaywalking because he was not at crosswalk and obviously the car was close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
We don’t know at all if the vehicle was close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. For all we know the road could have been clear when the man started crossing, and then the driver entered the block and hit him with the car.
Sounds like both pedestrian and uber driver were at fault. And the attitude that because someone was allegedly illegally jaywalking, its excuses hitting him with a 2 ton SUV for hire, really blows.
I don’t think that there was any indication that his jaywalking “excuses” hitting him. But the fact that he was crossing illegally probably explains why the driver did not see him in time to stop. I both walk and drive in the Mission, and am amazed at the number of times people who wander across the street nowhere near a crosswalk and seem to expect that there will not be any cars or that the drivers will be able to slam on their brakes in time. I am surprised that there aren’t more accidents like this.
Note that crossing mid-block when one intersection is unsignalized (like 22nd and Bartlett) is not automatically illegal. You still have to yield to vehicles close enough to present an immediate hazard. But if there was plenty of time & the driver hit him because he wasn’t paying attention, the driver would be at fault.
In contrast to Uber and Lyft, etc, one thing I like about taxi cabs is that they have highly visible identifying numbers on them (e.g. a four-digit number) so they can be held accountable. In contrast, this driver was able simply to drive off like a ghost in the night.
In case you weren’t aware, all vehicles havethese things called “license plates” on them — which work pretty well as a means of identification. Also, if you bother to read the article, this driver left after talking to the police officer.
Crossing a street in the middle of the block (what you call jaywalking) is only illegal if both intersections on each end of the block have traffic signals. Saying the pedestrian was jaywalking is skewing the facts to make them seem to be at fault.
Mr. Walker, we will re-check on this with police, but the officer on the scene said that the pedestrian was jaywalking because it was between two crosswalks. But again, thank you and we’ll double check. Best, Lydia
@Mr Walker: “Pedestrians generally must yield right-of-way to vehicles (which are near enough to constitute an immediate hazard) unless crossing at marked or unmarked crosswalks.” (CVC §21954). So, based on the facts we have been told, he was jaywalking because he was not at crosswalk and obviously the car was close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
We don’t know at all if the vehicle was close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. For all we know the road could have been clear when the man started crossing, and then the driver entered the block and hit him with the car.
Sounds like both pedestrian and uber driver were at fault. And the attitude that because someone was allegedly illegally jaywalking, its excuses hitting him with a 2 ton SUV for hire, really blows.
Rose, we did not mean to suggest that the pedestrian was at fault – only that he was not crossing at a cross walk. Best, Lydia
I don’t think that there was any indication that his jaywalking “excuses” hitting him. But the fact that he was crossing illegally probably explains why the driver did not see him in time to stop. I both walk and drive in the Mission, and am amazed at the number of times people who wander across the street nowhere near a crosswalk and seem to expect that there will not be any cars or that the drivers will be able to slam on their brakes in time. I am surprised that there aren’t more accidents like this.
Note that crossing mid-block when one intersection is unsignalized (like 22nd and Bartlett) is not automatically illegal. You still have to yield to vehicles close enough to present an immediate hazard. But if there was plenty of time & the driver hit him because he wasn’t paying attention, the driver would be at fault.
JAYWALKING – ILLEGALLY WALKING IN FRONT OF MOVING CARS = STUPID/DARWIN.