I read in the Los Altos Town Crier that the policies report said the pedestrian had meth and amphetamines in her systems which may have impaired her judgement or reaction time. Why is that not mentioned in this article?

Because that would imply people need to take personal responsibility and it also would take the emphasis away from the problem being the crosswalk.

I drive or ride my bike through the pair of crosswalks multiple times a week. The surrounding trees above the crosswalks on the east side of the street casts a dark shadow making it hard to spot pedestrians. The memorial display in honor Michelle Montalvo reminds me to be extra vigilant as I approach the crosswalks.

I believe that conditions surrounding the crosswalks should be changed for better safety. But it's everyone's responsibility even with better visibility. Last year, my dog was struck by a car while I narrowly escaped. We were crossing the flashing crosswalks on Shoreline, two of the three lanes of the northbound traffic had cars that were stopped while one car drove right through.

The injured party walked right into traffic and should have known there was a lack of visibility in that light. No wonder they have drastically upgraded the lighting at those two crosswalks. If she hadn't been under the influence no doubt she would have paused to allow the cars to pass before crossing herself EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY. Meth AND amphetamines? How often is a situation like that going to occur at that crosswalk. I did have an apparently drunken woman stop and violently wave her arms at me when I stopped back before the first crosswalk when she was in the second crosswalk. Something about the way she was walking made me not want to stop too close to her. Finally she moved on. Odd things do happen.

Just doesn't seem fair to charge the driver considering the extenuating circumstances = he was not drunk, was not speeding, was not driving recklessly, that it was dark, that the victim was wearing dark clothing, that the driver of the car directly in front of the charged driver didn't see the victim and her sister until she was passing by them ... pedestrians have to take RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS instead of blaming somebody else, in this case, the pedestrians were wearing DARK CLOTHING and crossing a street IN THE DARK have the highest level of responsibility for their own safety! If there is ANY blame for this situation, it goes to THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW for NOT doing more to make this area safe though those flashing yellow lights are pretty hard to miss when they are flashing ...

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

A tragedy but as mentioned it was an 'accident. This man was not speeding, not drinking, he was not using his phone, it was dark, the pedestrian wore dark clothing and it appears that she assumed he saw her. The previous car also did not notice her. Pedestrians need to be vigilant. We are all human, give the guy a break, I am sure he feels horrible about this tragic accident. What does it accomplish to charge him with vehicular manslaughter and possibly sent him to jail? As it is the jails are overcrowded. The City admits this is an unsafe intersection, but this guy pays the price for their negligence.

The pedestrians must have been walking pretty fast too, in order for the first to have successfully gotten from the median to the far side of the road in the time it took for one car to follow another into the crosswalk. This was a misjudgement on their part, and the rapid pace just added to the difficulty for a driver to see them!

I think this is starting to look like the city trying to pin blame on someone because they know they are on the hook for the dangerous street. I bet they even have complaints about it on record.
With so many drivers NOT being charged in similar situations over the years, this one is a shocker and head scratcher. Lets watch the DA carefully on this one. It already smells of CYA and a way shift the blame/focus away from who truly is at fault: The City of Mountain View. And yes, there are more intersections like this. I hope people make traceable complaints to the city about them nd i hope for your sake, people on meth don't wear dark clothing and bolt out in front of you at night.

According to the article, the accident occurred before sunrise and the pedestrian/victim was wearing dark clothing. The driver was not speeding or distracted, but neither the driver of the Prius nor Mr. Kawaguchi were able to see the pedestrians. As a community, we need to better educate all pedestrians, and especially schoolchildren, to be cautious crossing the street and to make eye contact with drivers before crossing in front of cars. In the dark, it is helpful to wear light-colored clothing and to carry a flashlight. Pedestrians may have the legal right-of-way in California, but that won't protect them from drivers who can't see them. My heartfelt sympathies to both families in the current situation. What a tragedy!

This was a tragic accident, however the driver was driving the speed limit, not drinking, not texting or using his phone and in October when it happened the police said "The driver of the vehicle cooperated with police, and it does not appear drugs or alcohol was a factor" (from last October Voice article). The pedestrian wore dark clothes and based on this report, she just assumed the car would stop. The car before him did not see the pedestrian either. So why is this man up on vehicular manslaughter charges? I am sure he is devastated, why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on a trial, possible jail time? MV city staff admits it is a dangerous intersection with poor visibility, so who is truly negligent here? Or is there more to this story that is not being reported?

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

I'm all for prosecuting drivers who are at fault in car vs. pedestrian collisions, but this one leaves me scratching my head. This poor lady, may she rest in peace, seems to have stepped out in front of the car in the dark wearing dark clothing, and the driver simply didn't see her until it was too late. She could, undoubtedly, see the car very well.

What else could he have possibly done? What is the rationale for the vehicular manslaughter charge? What am I missing here?

This is a nightmare scenario for any driver, and the one that leave me sweating every time I see a dark figure darting in front of my car at night. A tragic story all around.

Yes! Finally, common sense comments! Im so sorry for this driver, that he is having to go thru these charges after what was already I'm sure, a heartbreaking, stressful experience. And he has to live wth it every day of his life. My heart aches for him and his family. This is so unfair, I wonder if there's any kind of pressure that can be on the DA to drop charges. I'm not an attorney, heck I don't even know this guy or anyone even related to him, I am just so shocked that he would be charged given the circumstances.

It's very sad that everyone seems to be coming to the defense of the driver that mowed down a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The manslaughter charge clearly shows that there more to this story. Criminal negligence of some sort. Perhaps the driver has a history of hitting pedestrians? Let's wait and see.

In the meantime, why not take a long hard look at the residents of this city that seem to hate pedestrians, cyclists and buses. Automobiles Uber Alles!!!! What can we do to drive them away? They simply do not belong here. Move to a red state please and elect your beloved Donald Trump!

In the meantime, the intelligent and compassionate residents will stay here and live peacefully.

The post leaves out the fact that the pedestrian had drugs (meth and other amphetamines) in her system and the driver did not.

This prosecution is politically motivated, pure and simple. There's no likelihood that the driver was actually guilty of committing a crime. There's such a thing as too much faith in the district attorney. The Santa Clara County D.A. has a record of questionable actions. But after all, just being charged with a crime is no indication of guilt. There's the matter of a trial. This would be different if the accident occurred with better visibility, but it did not. It's understandable that it happened, and the city has shown that by improving the lighting and trimming the trees.

red states are for ideologues who blindly follow their unflinching beliefs, even when faced with facts that challenge this unflinching belief.
The belief some seem to be following here is that pedestrians are always in hte right.

I'm a cyclist and a pedestrian, and I would not dodge the accusation that I am biased towards non-drivers. That said, given the facts in this case, I cannot point blame at the driver. We have a person who had been using meth wearing dark clothes and darting in front of a car in the dark.
Those are the facts we know.

I guess my attempt at being an ideologue is a failure, because in this situation, I cannot fault the driver. Sure, hindsight is great, but in this real world situation, it could have happened to anyone.

Unless there are some circumstances unreported, the story as it is told prohibits me from pointing blame at the driver.
I agree something seems fishy here. DA friends of the victim's family?

We need to look at the facts in this case and put ourselves in the driver's shoes. This accident could have happened to any one of us, and once it's proven that the intersection is unsafe and the driver had no intent to hurt the pedestrian, I am hoping that the DA drops the charges. The City of Mountain View needs to make that intersection safe for all future pedestrian's as soon as possible to avoid this happening again. These types of accidents are affecting innocent people and it's not fair to drivers and pedestrians who go through unsafe intersections like this one.

The allegations against the pedestrian are hardly "facts". Those will come out at trial.

If the pedestrian was a Los Altos resident and the driver was Hispanic, all of the driver apologists would be demanding a murder trial. Very sick.

The California basic speed law is pretty simple, don't drive too fast for the conditions. I'm sure if someone speeding ran over your child, "she probably feels terrible" wouldn't exactly cut it...

Even if us pedestrians have the right of way, I don't cross the street until I make eye contact with the driver because if an accident happens as the pedestrian I will lose the most! (I read that in an article regarding pedestrian safety.) At the same time, drivers should yield and give the pedestrian the right of way, but in this incident, it doesn't seem that the driver even had a chance to make that conscious decision. Visibility was poor. This was a a tragic accident. I feel sad for both sides. The city should have addressed the danger for both pedestrian and driver in this intersection and improved the crosswalk. Sadly two lives had to be ruined first before any action was taken.

I also read that the driver didn't even apply the brakes until AFTER the impact. I would expect an alert driver could hit the brakes even if it is too late. The fact that the brakes were applied later implies either the driver was not alert or they were not capable of using the brakes in a reasonable time.

The trial will be interesting.

What does where the person is from or their ethnicity have to do with ANYTHING? Whoever made that comment is the one bringing race and socio-economic into this, no one else has.

You've got a meth-head darting across a street in the dark pre-dawn hours.

Case closed.

Ah, Monta Loma speaks!

If you read the entire Los Altos Crier article, you will see it clearly states that the driver was SPEEDING! Not only that, but the pedestrians were in a crosswalk where the car ahead failed to yield. That means the driver should have had plenty of time AND light to see the pedestrians.

It's also important to note that the arrest is a MISDEMEANOR manslaughter charge and not a felony. Obviously, the driver was significantly negligent in some way of that resulted in a tragic death.

To all drivers like Ms. Monta Loma: Drive slower and please yield to people in the crosswalk. Your life might be very busy, but it doesn't give you the right to mow down pedestrians and then blame them for their darker skin/clothes or lay it all on a city. You have a personal responsibility to drive safely.

My sincere apologies for multiple posts. The Voice website is glitchy as heck. I was posting on another version of the story that still 0 comments, and they all ended up here :/

I'm all for prosecuting people who post the same comment S I X T I M E S without looking in the right place to notice they are appearing (it is a famous quirk of this website, for many years, once parallel versions of a story appear).

At least have the courtesy (if you do make such a gaffe) to email the editor or web master at the publicly provided contact points (look down this page) and request them to remove the extra five copies. They will.

@CommonSense Eh, clearly, I don't spend my life figuring out the "well known quirks" of this site ;) If you want to hold that against me, be my guest. And if the duplicate comments bothered anyone, they could "Email Moderator" at publicly provided contact points, I reckon.

And by the way, for anyone else unaquainted with the Voice website: Besides being a venue for people insufficiently adult to clean up their own messes, this here is also the DUPLICATE copy of the story -- it appeared on the website after the print edition.

Here's the original story from the week earlier, where the issues were hashed out in comments: Web Link That's the best place to add any new comments, rather than rehashing old points in this second copy.

@@mvresident2003 what article are you reading?

The Crier does NOT clearly state the driver was speeding rather it says the VICTIMS sister THINKS he was going 40 in a 35. It also states that according toTHE POLICE REPORT it did NOT appear he was speeding. And a separate report states video from a camera shows he wasn't speeding.

Not only that but the Toyota Prius driver who was traveling in front of Kawaguchi's SUV told police officers that she didn't notice Montalvo or her sister until her car had entered the crosswalk. that does not speak to him being significantly negligent as you stated.

You keep pushing this pedestrian "agenda". Frankly I would blame your kind of agenda and attitude on her death. Continuing to push pedestrians in front of cars, making pedestrians feel as if they should just walk out whenever.....not right. As the defensive attorney says, "pedestrians are legally responsible for exercising caution" and it appears in this instance that didn't happen.

This whole situation is a shame. It's a shame the victim used such poor judgement, it's a shame she was on drugs that likely led to the poor judgement. Its a shame she walked into the path of a moving car wearing dark clothes at 6:35 on a dark October morning. It's a shame this driver didn't see her. It's a shame she was hit.

And the biggest shame is this poor man who has to live with it and now defend himself for someone else's irresponsible actions.

What a nightmare for this driver. Given the data reported in this article ie driver ahead of Mr. Kawaguchi couldn't see the two sisters in crosswalk until that driver was in the crosswalk, the camera info showing normal rate of speed and Kawaguchi's statements to the police make charging him look like a vindictive action and I do wonder what subtext is operating here. Something doesn't smell right.

I hope the court sorts this out. Pedestrians (and bicyclists) make lots of risky and odd choices that I've witnessed.

The Los Altos Crier is known for its bias toward its affluent residents like the driver in this case. Care must be taken to check each and every assertion against a primary source to confirm.

It is interesting to note that the pedestrians walked after the Prius and made it almost all of the way across the lane before being struck. This implies that the accused driver had PLENTY of time to see the pedestrians. Why would the DA make a manslaughter charge? Obviously there is some detail that has not been released to the public. Perhaps he has a vision problem that he neglected to take care of. Maybe he has a poor driving record. Age is also a consideration . I know many drivers in their 60's that drive quite safely, but also know some that should lose their licenses.

Obviously if the roles were reversed, there would be a rally to convict be driver of felony mandlaugjter (if not murder). But because the accused is wealthy Los Altos business owner, the conservatives come out to protect one of their own. I wonder if the driver purchases paid advertising in the Crier? Talk about a conflict of interest!

The town crier did NOT make up the facts that the victim had meth in her bloodstream, was wearing dark clothing and it was dark outside.
They also did not make up the fact that the police judged speed or impairment were not an issue of the car driver.

Those are facts of the matter. Just because they are reported does not show bias. The fact that MV DID NOT report those facts seems much more suspect IMO.

"I didn't see them".... the universal excuse that drivers when they hit pedestrians.

No doubt Glenn will get off because pedestrians should know that crossing the street is a game of Frogger.

Question: Glenn: How come you were not *looking* for pedestrians.

So your claiming intentional act? He decided to look for someone on meth wearing dark clothing in the dark crossing the street in front of him in order to run them down?
I don't see any facts pointing to that. Hindsight is always 20-20 in how somethign could be avoided. Always.

Its sad that the DA is motivated to press changes by whatever side issues he's dealing with, but I can't see any jury, when presented with all the facts, would ever convict the driver, and I'm usually very much on the side of the pedestrian or bike when they are hit by a car.

I know for a fact that pedestrians don't always look both ways when crossing. Some don't even look at all. In the drivers case, maybe going extra slow would have prevented this accident. However, due to the low visibility of heavy fog sometimes, pedestrians really should be extra cautious and definitely make sure there's no cars when crossing. Accidents do happen, and we can only learn from them and do better as a society.

Google says that sunrise was at 7:23am on the day of the accident, 10-22-16. The accident happened at 6:35am. In other words, the accident occurred about 50 minutes before sunrise, while it was still dark. And the victim was wearing dark clothing. It is also possible that the Prius was blocking the other driver's view of the pedestrians. So I understand how the driver might not have seen the pedestrians. My questions are: Did the pedestrians not see the headlights of the oncoming vehicles? If not, why not? If they did see the headlights, why did the pedestrians cross the road anyway? And why did the victim and her sister continue to cross after the Prius narrowly missed them? (I would think the natural reaction would be to pause or retreat). How much did the drugs impair judgement? Why did the arrest happen so many months after the accident? There aren't enough details in the article to answer these questions, but this is what I am puzzling over. My intent is not to blame the victim, but rather to point out that the driver also appears to be a victim in this awful situation.

"And why did the victim and her sister continue to cross after the Prius narrowly missed them?"

Since it is asserted by some that the driver that ended a life in a crosswalk is an excellent driver, there can be no doubt that he stayed well back from the Prius as to not tailgate. The same set of people (and defense attorney) insist that he was well below the speed limit. So, lots of distance and lots of time. That would also explain how the two women were able to cross AFTER the prius and (almost) reach the other side before the "accident". I don't care what they were wearing. If the driver was paying attention, had his prescription glasses on, whatever, he should have been able to see the pedestrians! It's not pitch black. The so-called "excellent driver" must have had his lights on, right?

Now, if the pedestrians JUMPED OUT in front of him, that is another story, but nobody is saying that.

It will be interesting when the whole story comes out. Will all the people attacking the unfortunate pedestrian come back to this page and apologize?

@because: Were the two cars traveling in the same lane? The article doesn't specify. If they were in parallel lanes, then there may not have been much distance between the two vehicles. Regardless, the Prius driver in front says that she also could not see the pedestrians. CA Law about Right-of-Way at Crosswalks says: "This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety." So that's my question: did the pedestrians exercise "due care?" (Not an accusation. Just a question.) The answer won't reverse the damage of this situation, but it might help prevent future tragedies.

Of course the Prius driver said they didn't see the pedestrians in the crosswalk. They also failed to yield.

One question. Why on earth would you ever step into a crosswalk in the DARK when it is clear from glaring headlights that a LARGE moving object is coming?

Poor judgement. Poor decision. And she lost her life for it. Such a shame and so sad for all involved.

Too much needless speculation in comments here, as if their writers haven't followed the past information about this case.

Comment posted soon after the tragedy: Web Link

"Two women were crossing the street at the intersection of El Monte and Marich Way. It was early Thursday morning, about 6:30am, and still dark so visibility wasn't the greatest. The women began crossing the street, stopping half way, at the median, before proceeding the rest of the way. A vehicle was approaching from the distance. The women began walking, assuming the driver was aware of their presence in the crosswalk and that the vehicle would stop for them. As the vehicle got closer, they realize it wasn't stopping. One of the ladies was able to jump onto the sidewalk, barely missed by the vehicle while the other woman wasn't so lucky. The driver of the SUV wasn't paying attention to the road because he didn't even hit the brakes until after the woman was hit (as seen on traffic cameras in the area). It is still unclear as to what he was doing at the time. . ."

Another comment at the time:

"I live around the corner from that crosswalk. . . optically confusing, and hard to see anyone in the crosswalk. Pedestrians in this area almost always wear BLACK CLOTHES. I can't tell you how many people have been saved by their white socks. . ."

There are serious problems with this article. The first being the omission where the reporter made no mention that the police report indicates the pedestrian had both methamphetamines and amphetamines in her system. The second, and equally egregious, is the reporter says the police report was sent to the DA with the offices on the scene making the recommendation that the driver be charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian. In actuality the police report says, “I request the District Attorney’s Office review this case”. Why is the Mountain View Voice, which has a copy of the Police Report, not stating the correct facts? There is a big difference between recommending he be charged versus a recommended review of the case.

I too agree with the last post. Why does the Mt View Voice who had access to the police report state "The Mt View Police recommended charges be filed" when the actual police report stated "I recommend that the DA investigate the accident". From my limited understanding of the law, the DA is required to investigate all pedestrian fatalities which would explain "investigate". Also again why was there no mention of the methamphetamine and amphetamines as stated in the police report. Again it is my understanding after speaking with people in the know that combining meth and amphetamines enhances and prolongs the drugs effects. Thus this could have very easily impaired the judgement of this unfortunate individual. Also I doubt that the poor pedestrian was a one time or casual user.

No one deserves to die. I am not placing any blame on the deceased. Numerous issues have been raised, some good and some not so good. All I know is that none of us know the true facts of the case. It does appear to me that the Mt. View Voice appears to be biased towards the unfortunate victim and appears to be trying their best to place the blame on the driver by omitting important facts and distorting the truth i.e. CHARGED VERSUS INVESTIGATE!

My question to all of you is who controls the Mt. View Voice? Perhaps the City of Mt. View doing their best to place the blame on the driver to minimize their potential liability for failing to act on all the past complaints of a dangerous intersection!

Did the Voice state precisely what led them to write that the police recommended he be charged for failure to yield? Just because the written report did not overtly state this, it doesn't preclude the possibility that other sources support this.

It seems that the driver has friends in Los Altos that are trying to cover for him. I guess that's admirable--loyalty is a positive trait in people. If through my negligence, a pedestrian in a crosswalk dies, I sincerely hope my friends and lawyer will do everything I can to get me a pass....

@ Der

In this instance it has not yet been determined there was any negligence on the part of the driver. I suggest we let the legal system run its course before presupposing or insinuating any fault. However if YOU ever have a pedestrian die through YOUR negligence then I do hope you get the support of your family and friends. You will need it.

I think the issue is that many of the postings here are claiming that the pedestrian is at fault and not the driver. Happy to have the court process sort this out....