It's very sad that someone was killed crossing this intersection, however this intersection has claimed at least one life before. I live nearby but after almost getting killed myself by someone driving a car I no longer walk through this intersection.

Walking across several lanes of traffic means drivers must wait for a fairly long time but few will wait, most people do not know that you cannot drive though a crosswalk when someone is in the crosswalk.

The only way to make this intersection safe for people walking is for all cars from all directions to have to wait with no turns until the people are safely across the intersection and then the normal red and green signals can start to operate for cars to begin moving. This would seem drastic to most people but not to me as I like to walk.

Rodger

Social Indictment?

OK, what is wrong with this picture? "It is unclear if Vahidi was in the crosswalk. It also is unclear who was at fault." What is clear, is that Abbas Vahidi was taken to Stanford, an excellent hospital, a location *8.5 miles from the point of injury. Compare this to the location of El Camino Hospital, also an excellent hospital, the location of which is a mere *1.7 miles to the emergency entrance. Under similar life threatening circumstances, where would you choose to be taken? Would you have a choice or would your choice be made for you?

* Distances obtained from Google Maps.

@Steve, Stanford hosp is the facility used for the most extreme cases in the area, sometimes the state.
Its the hospital of "last resort" that takes the cases that cannot be dealt with by El Camino and other local hospitals. The decision on best treatment facility for an injured person is determined after triage and based on the medical condition of the patient. In many cases its not simply based on what's the closest hospital. But you know that, you're an expert right?

Dear Siren,

You did put your finger on the issue for which I wrote my post i.e. the decision process and the resulting action (which hospital to transport to). Your posting, however doesn't add any further clarity to an already unclear situation. First, there is an information vacuum*. We don't know who and by what criteria was used to decide which hospital to transport. I prefer to not blindly trust those in authority to make such decisions. A more informed approach to this issue could include the wealth of stories produced by investigative journalists. Such stories that involve socio-political considerations (not always conscious) that categorize** people with regard to what services*** they will be allowed to receive. But you know all this, you are an expert right?


* Mountain View Voice has only done minimal follow up in gathering additional information regarding this story. I would also speculate that we as a society seem not to care about additional information. It is more like "don't bother me, I'm eating" or "I thought this was a video game."

** Such categories include but are not limited to the elderly, people of color, women, uninsured, and homeless.

*** There have been stories about ambulances carrying very well insured patients being turned away from hospitals or patients being denied medical intervention because of issues with insurance companies not signing off on certain legitimate procedures.

The victim's injuries most likely required that he be taken to Stanford as it is the nearest trauma center. El Camino Hospital, although much closer, does not meet the criteria to be a trauma center.

Dear David,

Respectfully, like Siren's post, your posting, doesn't add any further clarity to an already unclear situation. Your post merely reasserts a previous assertion, and again, no new information has been added. I would speculate that what we have here is the use of a common tactic, say something often enough and it begins to be believed. To repeat this sequence would only serve to confirm a game-without-end and would be unproductive.