Was the cop distracted or did she not have the observational/driving skills needed to see someone clearly in a cross walk? If the cyclist was legally riding as described the city needs to step up and pay up. If not the recourse will be to go after the police officer as an individual. It is NOT the cyclist's fault as described, so the responsible party should pay.

We're all lucky it was a strong adult and not a child that this cop struck with her car. They can't just run us over while they play on their computers and not pay any penalty!!!

If her lights were on & she was responding to a call, wouldn't she have the right of way?

How can you LEGALLY be riding in a crosswalk? That is for pedestrians not moving vehicles which is what a bicycle is. It's time cyclists adhere to the rules of the road and cycle in the right place. Now if she had hit a pedestrian, that would be another story....

Is lawfull to be bicycling in the crosswalk ? I thought they needed to walk the bicke since crosswalks are for pedestrians ! Any one knows the law for this ?

I do not believe bicycling in crosswalks is illegal. In fact, the DMV web site recommends bicycling in crosswalks as one way for bicyclists to make left turns. Look at the last section of this page: Web Link

Although they're great at their fundraising operations, the MVPD seemed lacking in the 'public safety' department. I didn't realize they're actually a menace...

Now that we tried to blame the cyclist and failed, can we talk about how a supposedly TRAINED police officer ends up running over a citizen while she's simply driving her car?

If she was responding to a call, yes, things can happen, but when she's just driving around? The man shouldn't be stuck w/ 50K+ medical bills because officer Head-down was proving the dangers of distracted driving first hand.
Watch for the classic "I had a sneezing fit" defense. They like to pull that one out now and then.

It would be nice if the reporter would explain the accident a little better. It seems that bicycles operate under the same rules as vehicles and have no special provisions when they are "in the crosswalk".

Accidents will happen, even to the best of us.

More than likely the bikers fault as usual. That was the police reports said a while ago, that most bike accidents are caused by bikers.

"DMV web site recommends bicycling in crosswalks"

That section states:

"cross as a pedestrian in the crosswalk,"

@Parent: read that last paragraph again
"Approach the intersection staying on the right. Stop and either cross as a pedestrian in the crosswalk, ...."

The only way to "cross as a pedestrian in the crosswalk" is by WALKING your bike.

That said, if the bicyclist wasn't sited, what else was going on? We can guess all we want, but this is the way things usually go: accident, victim files claim, city rejects claim, victim files lawsuit, out of court settlement.

Don't expect much in the police report. We were stopped at a red lighting a 25 mph zone and were rearend by a woman traveling at least 50 mph. Totaled our car, bent the tow hitch attached to the frame back under the car, and totaled hers: hood was bent like an A and her engine dropped out (I think it was a Volvo). She claimed the sun was in her eyes which is why she hit us. The police report simply said Driver failed to stop. Nothing about the excess speed.

This case will come down to a he said/she said negotiation and who has the better documentation.

^we were stopped at a red light in a 25mph zone

Sometimes autocorrect isn't.

Yet another story about bad bicyclists. How about we outlaw cyclists in the town limits and let them go whine in another city.

Based on the article, it sounds like the automobile driver was bad, not the cyclist.

As someone who is a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver, I have personally witnessed extremely poor behavior by those types. I have also witnessed a certain amount of debatable behavior by motorcycle operators, but I refuse to comment any further on the latter.

In this instance, a city employee (Officer Stall) may be at fault for hitting a cyclist (Mr. Platt). Cops are humans, they make mistakes, it's entirely possible.

Let us assume for the moment that the cyclist was in the wrong to be riding in the crosswalk and should have been walking the bike like a pedestrian.

It in no way absolves the driver of the responsibility to ensure the crosswalk is clear before driving through it.

Asking whether the cyclist was legally in the crosswalk is like asking a rape victim if she was "asking for it" by being drunk and wearing revealing clothing.

If the accident happened as described, it was caused by the driver failing to ensure the crosswalk was clear. It's a classic left hook accident, which happens because left-turning drivers are too absorbed in clearing the gap in oncoming traffic to pay attention to the crosswalk.

CVC 21650 makes it clear that bicyclists are allowed to use crosswalks unless prohibited by local ordinance, which is not the case at this location. Operators of emergency vehicles, even with lights and sirens on, are responsible for any collisions that occur due to right of way violations. A bicyclist going straight, whether in a crosswalk or not, has the right of way over a vehicle turning left. It looks pretty clear that the officer was at fault in this case. However, it is routine for the city to deny the claim and force the person to sue them. I hope the bicyclist has the means to do this.

Allowing cops to use all their electronic equipment while driving because they "have been trained" is like allowing cops to drive drunk foir the same reason.

A cop didn't run over this person, a distracted driver on her job as a cop did.
Cops ARE distracted drivers. Beware of them in their cars, they are not safe.

"Asking whether the cyclist was legally in the crosswalk is like asking a rape victim if she was "asking for it" by being drunk and wearing revealing clothing."

wow someone majored in hyperbole in college.

sorry one is an intentional act. the other is an accident. I'm sure rape victims would love that you compare their trauma to someone not paying attention.

Rape is not a "oops" moment. Only a sick mind would think so

I don't know if its the same cop or not, but recently I witnessed a female Mountain View police officer in a Mountain View patrol car making a left turn quickly onto shoreline and came within a few feet of running over an old man crossing with a cane and then apologizing that she didn't see him as she drove off without stopping. Siren and lights were not on. Previously, I have seen a male MV cop without sirens or lights suddenly swerve across lanes of El Camino and back when they were typing on their computer as driving. I also see them often without sirens or lights making right turns on red lights without stopping. Do they not understand that if they do these things, regular drivers who see it believe it is OK and proper to do the same?

Lots of arm chair quarterbacks making up decisions who right or wrong base on a poor description of the incident. Did he hit the car or the car hit him? Was the light green was there an arrow, was the do not walk light flashing. Was the bicycle in the right turn lane and and went straight?
Too many hear bicycle or pedestrian and assume they are never at fault.

There is no right turn lane at that intersection, and no arrows, only a green light for both directions. I know that intersection well. Walk signs don't matter for bicyclists and drivers, only the traffic lights. Someone going straight has the right of way over someone turning left, so it doesn't matter who hit whom. The left-turner is wrong.

It seems quite clear that the police driver was at fault, but it is routine to deny a claim and force the injured party to sue. I hope the bicyclist can find a decent lawyer to pursue this and recover damages from the city.

Donald...if the bicycle was a motorcycle driving through the crosswalk, would they still have a claim against the police? How about a car?

The problem is that a bicycle being ridden through a crosswalk is unsafe and illegal. Sure, it is unsafe for pedestrians walking through it, but bikes can move so much faster than pedestrians, so it is more difficult for another vehicle to avoid.

Who knows what really happened? Guess we'll see if and when it comes to court.

Look at the bad driver apologists scrambling to re-write the vehicle code int their brains.
Scarey...that is the mentality on the road: Run someone over, then try DESPERATELY to find some tiny sliver of hope in a possible loophole to try and escape the responsibility of their errors.
Nice lesson for the res of us. Look for hit and runs to increase as the Police show us how to dodge taking responsibility for our actions.
This is a terrible lesson for our kids, who also might have been run over by this eye closed, not paying attention and/or otherwise distracted cop.
I'm guessing the final total for the City will be upwards of 300K on this one, more if the lawyer drag it out. Well played MV...ugh.

It is not illegal to ride a bicycle in a crosswalk, but it is illegal to drive a motorcycle or car in a crosswalk. I agree that sidewalk and crosswalk bicycling can be dangerous at times and should generally be discouraged, but it is NOT illegal.

I biked through this intersection yesterday and noticed signs that say that turning drivers must yield to oncoming traffic on a green light. I suspect that those signs were put in place after this crash occurred.

If you think that all the truth will be revealed in court, then you need to a participant in some court cases to find out how things really work.

Donald--you appear very confident in your opinion. However, the law does not agree with you:

"California Vehicle Code and Streets and Highway Code (CVC Sections 21200-21212 and 39000-39011 and SHC Sections 885-886, 887-888.8, and 890-894.2)
Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. As such, bicycles are generally prohibited from riding on sidewalks or in crosswalks. "

If you think the truth will be revealed in this forum from people who do not understand basic vehicle law or have significant knowledge of this specific case, then you need to participate in the real world more.

The DMV does not recommend bicycling in crosswalks as a way for bicyclists to make left turns. It recommends that a cyclist "cross as a pedestrian in the crosswalk" to make a left turn. As a pedestrian means you walk your bike in the cross walk.

From CA DMV site:
"Approach the intersection staying on the right. Stop and either cross as a pedestrian in the crosswalk, or make a 90 degree left turn and proceed as if you were coming from the right. If there is a signal light, wait for the green light or the WALK signal before crossing. Yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk."
Web Link
There is OR in the paragraph above, so bicyclists are allowed to ride instead of walk, aren't they?

@Um

"As such, bicycles are generally prohibited from riding on sidewalks or in crosswalks."

That's not from the CVC. That's from someone's interpretation of it.

@Geek

There is indeed an 'or', but it does not contain anything about the crosswalk.

" or make a 90 degree left turn and proceed as if you were coming from the right."

Policecar driver vs bicycle... deny, deny, deny.
Joe Citizen driver vs bicycle... citation, arrest, automatically liable.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -George Orwell.

@Steve
If you open the link, you'll see the picture and the title above:
"2. Using Crosswalks".
So, the whole section is about the crosswalk.

Santa Clara code:

"10.05.110 Traffic regulations apply to persons riding bicycles or animals.

Every person riding a bicycle or riding or driving an animal upon a highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. (Ord. 1062. Formerly § 17-24)."

Last time I checked, it was illegal for an automobile to use a crosswalk. Santa Clara code clearly states that bicycles have all of the "duties" of a vehicle, which means that unless otherwise granted an exception, they have to follow the vehicular laws.

Now, just because this cyclist was breaking the law, doesn't necessarily mean the policeman was not at fault too. The court (if it gets this far) may rule that they have equal responsibility for the accident and cut the damage award (if any) in half. (Say the policeman was texting while making the turn, for example.)

@Um

"Last time I checked, it was illegal for an automobile to use a crosswalk. "

Vehicles are permitted to drive across a crosswalk. How else can they get through an intersection that has crosswalks?

"just because this cyclist was breaking the law"

How can the claim be that "Platt was lawfully bicycling in the crosswalk"

@Um
Based on your logic, riding bicycles on sidewalks is always illegal too (cars cannot do it), but it's legal in some parts of Mountain View.

A whole lot of thunder and very little lightning. This is a signaled intersection. It is not clear to me from the above article if the cyclist was riding on San Antonio Rd. or crossing it. Can anyone clarify that for us all? If riding down San Antonio Rd., who had the green light? If crossing San Antonio Rd. see you in court.