Randolph Ang, S.F. Cyclist Who Killed Pedestrian, Should Get Jail Time

Categories: My Take, bikes

ANALYSIS:

cyclistpeddeath.jpg
Dionette Cherney
Randolph Ang was just like the majority of bike riders riding down the Embarcadero in San Francisco. He disregarded the law by blowing through a red light. Ang flew into a crosswalk because he was, well, in a hurry and, well, everyone does it. But unlike many riders, he killed a woman with his vehicle (yes, state law says a bike is a vehicle and riders must follow traffic laws).

In many communities the citizens would expect jail time for manslaughter whether it was an accident or not. But in this one, politics and tradition came into play, and Ang is reportedly getting off with community service in a plea deal with the District Attorney's Office.

But these facts remain: A tourist from Washington, D.C., Dionette Cherney, is dead; Ang knowingly broke the law, and ultimately that act killed her. In my mind, he needs to do some time if for no reason than to send the message that breaking the law and killing people in San Francisco is not to be tolerated, whether you do it with a bicycle, car, or bus.

Ang was zipping to work at about 8:30 a.m. on July 15 of last year. As his attorney likes to tell the press, the recent college graduate was starting a job and needed to get to work on time. The 68-year-old Cherney needed to get across the street near the Ferry Building, and she was doing it legally in the crosswalk. Witnesses said Ang pedaled through the red light and slammed into Cherney, causing her to hit the back of her head, which ultimately killed the woman.

Since this is San Francisco, it took the Medical Examiner months to prepare the final report, and somehow it got to the DA the day after he was elected so as not to have political repercussions in a city with a growing bike constituency. Prosecutors went for involuntary vehicular manslaughter, merely a misdemeanor that may bring jail time and a fine. The assistant DA then wanted the judge to take Ang into custody (after all, someone died), but the judge declined to force him into a bail situation despite the criminal charge. After all, he was a recent Bucknell graduate, had no criminal record, worked in media marketing, and was apparently apologetic at the scene. (We don't care if he was a high school dropout with a previous record, but these things are important to the court.)

In order to play the legal game correctly, Ang pleaded not guilty despite his remorse. He and his attorney want the DA to think it could go to trial, and so then there's the "who-knows-what-a-San Francisco-jury-will-do" consideration. A defense could be that thousands of citizens on bicycles break these laws with impunity. The police aren't doing much about it beyond the occasional show of stopping speeding bikers on one street for a few hours. The odds are pretty good that someone committing the same infraction on a daily basis could be on the jury.

Most of the time I think we are a country of laws set up to protect everyone. Does it work that way? No, it's a selective process that's not always fair. Many laws, for instance, favor drivers. But it seems bicycle activists want it both ways. They want to break the law for their convenience and then require everyone else in cars to obey it. I can hear the screams from bike-riding readers. What about the lawbreakers in cars? They're certainly out there but not to such a high percentage as law-breaking bike riders. Have I rolled through a stop sign on a bike or in a car? Yes, but I won't in the future.

I wonder how Ang now feels about breaking the law to save time. We may hear in court next month when he is sentenced to community service. That's right, no jail time for breaking the law and taking a life. If I were the judge I would throw the plea deal out and insist he do 30 days of time on weekends.

At the very least, Ang should pay the Cherney family for all expenses incurred in her hospital stay and burial.

We have a recommendation on that community service: Ang should write his personal story, tell us what lessons he learned about disregarding traffic laws and what happens to two lives when 150-plus pounds of man and machine slam into a woman at 15 to 20 miles an hour. It will be a sad and compelling story if he honestly deals with the devastation his impatience brought.

He should offer to spread his cautionary tale wide in San Francisco; perhaps send it to members of the Bike Coalition. Still better, it should run on blogs like this one.

Tom Walsh is the editor of SF Weekly.

Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF

My Voice Nation Help
93 comments
youhavebadbreath
youhavebadbreath

this lowlife needs to do time to send a message to all bikers they can't run redlights

zzander01
zzander01

The kid made a mistake while riding his bicycle. It was a complete accident, and when he made the decision to run a red light, putting a pedestrian's life in danger probably never occurred to him. Unfortunately, his mistake took the life of another person. 

What good would come of sending him to jail? Clearly this experience has changed his life forever, and you would have to be insane to say that he still poses a risk to society. The guy is a good looking, 150 pound asian kid with no criminal record. If he went to jail he would be at high risk of rape/death, and if he made it out alive, he would be changed for the worse. Community Service on the other hand, will allow him to give something back to society. 

Funkee9373
Funkee9373

Randolph Ang, I am keeping my eye out for you!!! WHY don't they post a picture of Randolph Ang???

Kurt M. Kleier
Kurt M. Kleier

Tom, Amen!  The judge that led him off today with 500 hours of cs and $15,000 fine is ridiculous.  The police need to get off their fat asses and fine these offenders as well.  Below is an article I wrote that was published in last month's Chronicle.

LETTER

I am more than ever convinced that with the vast number of cyclists on the road, they need to obtain operator licenses and register their bicycles. Cyclists have long been known for not obeying traffic rules. Therefore, they need to accept the consequences of their actions.  I was heartened to see the SFPD start citing cyclists for running red lights and one for having no brakes.  One pedestrian was killed last year by a cyclist who ran a light. In a City/County of only 49 square miles, San Francisco needs pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists to exercise good public safety.  Requiring licensure would require cyclists to learn the rules of the road and a minimal registration fee would require additional accountability. Public policy should be implemented to make cyclists more responsible for their actions.         

Lisalwetmore
Lisalwetmore

I agree. I'm an extremely careful Prius driver in Berkeley after being hit by a woman in a speeding wheel chair. Pedestrians have the right of way, as difficult as that may be at times in cities all vehicles in motion must be aware of walkers.. We're so populated in the bay area with walkers, peddlers, wheel chairs, skate boarders it's hard to see them all. It's made me be a better driver after being hit eventhough it wasn't me who hit..

Anndufrane
Anndufrane

Bike drivers (riders) should be required to take a written and a riding test to obtain a driver's license, have their bikes inspected for safety, obtain a license for their bikes and follow all the rules of the road which are required of drivers of motor vehicels .  Do we have a number of how many accidents have been caused by bike riders who did not stop?

mikekwan1001
mikekwan1001

It's called AN ACCIDENT.  People do not go to jail for ACCIDENTS.  This is not North Korea.  I'm sure he didn't set out to kill someone that day.  SH&T HAPPENS.  Christ, I feel bad for her family, but please, the revenge element is more sickening than the accident.

throttler
throttler

You must be a bike rider who breaks all the rules of the road like the murderer of that lady.

Waltdowney
Waltdowney

He broke the law and a death resulted, he should face jail time at the least.

guest
guest

how about we start going after drivers who regularly harm and kill pedestrians in this city? OH NO, let's attack the one unfortunate death accident caused by a cyclist in 5 YEARS. Everyone seems to forget the cars and their drivers and the damage they do and chalk it up as norm.

njudah
njudah

so basically it's ok to kill on two wheels? That makes it OK? Both cars who kill and bikes who kill oughta face a tough sentence. Wouldn't that be fair? Oh wait, people who ride bikes are better than everyone else.

94103er
94103er

Oh come on, Greg. I know that you don't need to stoop to this level.

Can we all just agree that everyone should get equal treatment under the law, and not construct false-choice counterarguments (i.e. you said this group gets lax punishment, therefore you feel this other group should get no punishment)? I think you know how this works with respect to Muni drivers who kill...oh wait, no, the system definitely doesn't work there either, does it?

njudah
njudah

I absolutely agree with you. Sadly, a loud but small portion of the Bike Community pushes forth this silly argument that because bikes are smaller et c they shouldn't be punished.

Many of my friends ride bikes and if any of them were killed by a negligent driver (Car or Muni) I'd want the DA to kick their asses at the very least or force some restitution or whatever. Likewise if any of my friends was walking on the sidewalk and got hit by a cyclist, said cyclist needs to be punished. Any time a life is taken there has to be some real punishment. However any time I propose that I get called a Nazi. Oh well, such is life in SF.

Opus the Poet
Opus the Poet

So, Ang gets more punishment than 75% of the drivers found guilty of the same thing, but that isn't enough? Only 7% of the drivers that killed pedestrian were prosecuted, 100% of the cyclists that killed were prosecuted, but drivers have it sooooo bad in SF? Are you effing kidding me? How about that driver that went on a killing spree with his car, was it last year or the year before, that hit what, 7 cyclists before his vehicle crapped out on him? What happened to him?

kat rosa
kat rosa

This is shameful bigotry that never should have been published. This was one incident; it is not right that it should be applied to a whole group of people. That is called bigotry.

Alph2294
Alph2294

Grow up, bikers.  You want to be treated like adults, be allowed to ride in the streets like "serious transportaion", but then whine like babies because you can't break the law at whim.  Not only do the renegade bikers ruin the roads for cars, they also terrorize pedestrians.  I have friends who work downtown who complain they almost got killed while walking ON THE SIDEWALK by bikers WHO DON"T BELONG THERE  Bikers -- either act like a vehicle or you are a toy.  Stay off the sidewalks.  Here's what should happen:1) SF motorists and pedestrians should organize and take back the streets/sidewalks from the those bikers who are criminals;2)  bike riders should be required to have insurance, JUST LIKE A CAR3)  they should be required to have lights, fully functioning brakes, and have the bike licensed JUST LIKE A CAR4)  helmets required, also, so when I hit you, when I have the right of way and you just ran a stop sign, your brain injury is somewhat lessened.  I have to wear a seat belt --  you should have to take some RESPONSIBILITY fo.r your own safety

JspiderSF
JspiderSF

Is this the first editorial written by Tom Walsh, the editor of the SF Weekly? This is the story that Walsh is compelled to weigh in on? With all of the important issues in the City and all of the substantive stories the Weekly has tackled over the years, it seems odd that the editor would decide to comment on this tragedy, which is an exceedingly rare occurrence.

Granted, the rates of pedestrian injuries and deaths in the City is unacceptable, and  bicyclist behavior in the City is a complex and emotional issue, but this editorial seems less interested in addressing those larger issues and more focused on calling for vengeance in this unique (and virtually unprecedented) case.

I'd hope for better from the head of a publication that does some really good journalism, including this blog that I think is the best of the SF daily news blogs.

street_equity
street_equity

Agreed. 

@Tom Walsh, this is sensationalized Fox News style reporting at best.

There is no issue of bikes vs cars here.  Ang should receive the same punishment as the driver of a car would in the same situation.  Period.  If those consequences are insufficient (which I personally believe they are), then that should be addressed separately.  In fact, I would encourage you to write some actual journalism about that, but it has nothing to do with this case in particular.

And, yes you're correct that bikes and cars are not on equal footing.  Cars maim and kill hundreds of San Franciscans a year.  Why not report on that???

This story is only even newsworthy because it's so RARE!  It belongs on the page with the story about the python that swallowed the alligator.

ZM
ZM

Not all bikers act like that.  Don't spread your hate and lump us all together.  Most of us are safe riders who follow the rules.  People make mistakes, and that sounds like what happened here.  Sadly, it was a tragic mistake and a woman lost her life.  People driving cars kill far more people than cyclists ever have or will.  That is a fact.  Put your outrage somewhere it truly belongs and quit making broad, hateful, untrue generalizations about "all cyclists".

Sally
Sally

----, is she? One of my friends told me he saw Kim Kardashian  has a personal profile at an tallconnect site called------

'TallLoving. С' o M--Many sexy photos were found on that site last week! I can't beleive it! What happened?

Rex
Rex

This is the first SF Weekly story I've ever agreed with.

Jill
Jill

Admittingly, upon the start of the article I dimissed the severity of the accident due to the machine used in Cherney's death; a benign bicycle couldn't possibly cause such harm.  But as the article develops, I quickly realize it wasn't the bicycle that killed...it was the individual behind the handlebars.  I perceive the reason Ang is not being met with due justice is because of the means in which he took this woman's life--with a bike. Would he have accelerated through a crowd of pedestrians crossing the street if he were operating a motor vehicle?  I think not.  

Ang's poor judgement and actions resulted in the death of an innocent young tourist.  Perhaps the emphasis be placed on that rather than the weapon of choice. 

dallas morris
dallas morris

I think the reality is, this guy Ang is going to have to live the rest of his life knowing he killed somebody resulting from his own ignorant decisions, think about that while everyone hangs him out to dry. Does he feel sorry ? Ya I'm pretty sure he does. Regardless if he went to jail for 3 months or 3 years, he's got a sentence on his conscience for the rest of his life. And @jen, your comment shows you have the same mentality of the people you crucify... very weak comment.

 The family of the victim can still pursue legal action in Civil court can they not ?

jen
jen

Are you kidding me cyclists???  I drive for 8 hours a day and have never seen a more elitist, irresponsible population in my life.  I've traveled all around the world and think this city sucks b/c of the cyclists.  Not only do you shut down city streets one Friday of each month, to prove absolutely nothing aside from the fact you're all a bunch of selfish jerks, you break the laws non-stop and now you get away with murder?  Shame on all of you for thinking motorists are the problem.  You get away with MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!  Watch out for me on the streets, as a pedestrian and a motorist.  I will not stand for this any longer.

Mads2you
Mads2you

You are an a-hole, Jen. It's drivers who ruin this town, and transplants like YOU. Go back to the fly-over state you came from.

throttler
throttler

I was born in S.F. and Jen is right.  People like you help ruin this city.

Bradley Froehle
Bradley Froehle

I'm pretty sure the inattentive motorist who ran a red light and hit me didn't even receive a citation. I suspect the same would have happened if Ang was instead driving a car.

Ms_jennifer03
Ms_jennifer03

Guilty. Jail time I'm sure he's a real stand up guy but he broke the law which resulted in the death of someone. Bike rider or driver whomever you are if it had been your friend or family member I'm sure your feelings would be very different. I live on the embarcadero and it's very dangerous walking... I laugh at the comment made about creating bike lanes.. The one on the embarcadero isn't even being used! This is an unfortunate story...

Mads2you
Mads2you

I can't tell you how many times I've tried to use that bike lane and almost been run off the road by drivers who ride halfway in it! It happens all the time, and they ALWAYS yell at ME! It's ridiculous. 

Jon Spangler
Jon Spangler

Involuntary manslaughter--not exactly a minor fixit or speeding ticket--should have appropriate consequences, irrespective of the weapon used. Killing someone is a serious crime, and one could even make the case that deliberately blowing a red light makes Dionette Cherney's death premeditated. As a long-time cyclist (51 years) and bike advocate (40+ years) I believe that cyclists need to be fully educated as to the rules of the road and then follow them. There is no excuse for anyone blowing through a red light. And there is no excuse for any cyclist to hit a pedestrian. Period.Ang was not in control of his bike if he could not stop for the light OR in order to avoid hitting someone. That is reckless driving, IMHO.If he hit her and killed her he should serve the same amount of jail time as a car driver would in the same situation. Actions have consequences and his took a life. The law should not be suspended nor punishment waived simply because he was riding a bicycle instead of driving a car.

Vitaly Gashpar
Vitaly Gashpar

"one could even make the case that deliberately blowing a red light makes Dionette Cherney's death premeditated." And the prosecutor who would do that would get benchslapped by the Bar so quickly for prosecutorial misconduct it would make his head spin. Just because you can reconcile something in your head, doesn't mean that criminal procedure and jurisprudence can be likewise subverted.

CVC
CVC

Cyclists and auto-motorists alike should learn to respect others on the road.  There are way too many people in SF who drives and rides like crap.   

CWWSF
CWWSF

Ang killed her...  he knowingly and intentionally blew a read light and killed her...  and he got away with it...  incredible...  think he learned a lesson?  my guess he's somewhere on Union Street complaining about a fumble call or a dropped pass...

Jason Berry
Jason Berry

I almost killed a tourist that stepped BACKWARD off of the curb INTO the bike lane right in front of me. I had to swerve, and for my consideration, got tracked. I could've been seriously injured or killed, because someone did something absentmindedly. I didn't want the lady's head on a pike, i just screamed at her to be more careful. I can't help but notice the bike bias; If the guy was on a skateboard, would you still have written this article?

Tim Harrington
Tim Harrington

If you had accidentally killed the tourist you just described, you would not have done so through a willful violation of the law. So it's not a very analogous situation.

uma22
uma22

Skateboard: not a vehicle. Person walking: not a vehicle. Your bike, like a car, is a vehicle and you are obligated to take certain precautions when operating it, if you kill someone recklessly with it, that is vehicular manslaughter. 

Alph2294
Alph2294

Actually, I think in SF, skateboards are on the same footing as bikes -- they have the right to be in the street, thus a "venicle".  We have the brainiac Tom Ammiano to thank for that -- it was as far as I know.

Drgant6787
Drgant6787

This whole episode shows a shameful disregard if not contempt for this woman's life. The police arrested the killer on the spot, and then waited, amazed, as the DA spent the entire election campaign doing nothing, turning away increasingly angry questions at candidate events, ignoring regular letters to the editor in the Chron - even getting a letter from the State Democratic Chairman, John Burton, telling him to quit screwing around, then offering a plea bargain for a few days of community service (potentially as a volunteer for the bicycle coalition, for example), and nothing from the DA that you could imagine as even criticizing Mr. Ang. It is frankly a contemptible cave to people who break the law, and reason to wonder why the rest of us pay his salary. 

peternatural
peternatural

Most of the time a bicyclist "breaks the law", it's harmless. Not dangerous, and doesn't interfere with anyone's right of way.

Example: I'm on a bike approaching a 4-way stop. As I arrive, a high school lacrosse team, on foot, heading the same direction as me, begins to cross the intersection in the crosswalk. I proceed through the intersection without coming to a full stop, using the lacrosse team as an escort. No one is endangered or inconvenienced by this. Any car that wanted to mow me down would also have to plow through the lacrosse team.

Another example: I'm approaching a 4 way stop and I see a pedestrian stepping into the crosswalk in front of me. No one else is around. I slow down sufficiently for the pedestrian to cross my lane (keeping a good, safe distance), then I proceed through the intersection (without actually stopping).

In both scenarios, I'm acting safely, sensibly, and courteously. But in both cases, I "broke the law."

The law is bogus and should be changed to permit cyclists to roll through stop signs when it doesn't interfere with anyone's right-of-way or endanger anyone. Most of the time when online commenters rant "OMG those bicyclists always break the law!!1!" they're talking about those types of scenarios.

On the other hand, failing to yield, let alone crashing into a pedestrian who has the right of way, should remain illegal. Then these online discussions could focus on the real problem.

peternatural
peternatural

uma22: As I said, what that bicyclist did should remain illegal. The part of the law that prohibits behavior that is safe, sensible, and courteous is bogus.

Lesterhuang: If someone pulled a gun on me, that would bother me. In my examples, no one was endangered, inconvenienced, or bothered in the slightest. There is a difference.

Tim Harrington, I never said bicyclists shouldn't stop for red lights.

I always ride safely and courteously. Just not always legally. It works fine for me. No one has a problem with it, aside from people in online comments ;)

Prinzrob
Prinzrob

peternatural's proposal is presented in pretty good detail here, although it wouldn't really apply to this fatality collision which occurred at a stop light, not a stop sign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

This concept has been the law in Idaho for over 25 years and the statistics show that it does not create an increase in crashes, even in urban areas.

Stop signs weren't widely used until the introduction of the automobile on our streets. Before then people were able to navigate intersections just fine for the most part, as when one's speed is lower and field of view is greater, one's reaction time is increased making a rolling stop a much safer proposition. Add to that the fact that many bicycle routes are placed on side streets where there are significantly more stops than on parallel arterials and you can hopefully see why some cyclists see them as an unnecessary imposition.

I personally don't roll through stop signs because I don't believe in following only the laws I agree with, but I also find the requirement ridiculous and the constant stop-start of my urban commutes only serves to add additional time, effort and inconvenience to my rides, and puts additional wear on my bike components and on my knees.

The stop sign law for cyclists should basically be "don't steal the right of way, from pedestrians, automobile drivers, or other cyclists". I think our streets would actually be significantly safer if that concept was taught and enforced, as opposed to an unnecessary requirement that many people are likely to ignore.

Alph2294
Alph2294

so glad to hear breaking the law works for you...right.  I am sick of having to slam on the car brakes when I am going through an intersection, have the clear right of way, but a biker running a stop sign jets through at the last minute causing me to jerk stop or hit them.  whip lash, baby, but do you bikers care?  If you want to traverse where the cars do, act like a big boy and follow the same rules.  otherwise you are endangering others AND MOSTLY YOURSELF.

Lesterhuang
Lesterhuang

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm not biasing against bicyclists.  I totally hate drivers who almost sideswiped a bicyclist because the driver failed to see that there is a one next to him/her when making a turn.  I also respect bicyclists who, 100 percent,  puts other's safety a head of them.     

Tim Harrington
Tim Harrington

The problem is just about EVERYONE who breaks the law thinks that they're being reasonably safe at the time. People who work in kitchens without washing their hands, drivers who habitually exceed speed limits, pilots who hop into the cockpit after a few rounds at a bar… none of them think they're doing anything especially wrong and most times they get away with it. But then every once in a while they get someone killed and the purpose for the law becomes painfully apparent.

Lesterhuang
Lesterhuang

True, but how would you know your "riding" etiquette doesn't bother anyone else on the road when you decide to "break these laws?"  While you know that you're not going to hit a pedestrian when you are slowing down through a 4-way stop sign, the pedestrian might become "bothered" because he/she only see that you are slowing down as you approach them.  Too often I see a pedestrian yielding to a bicyclist because the bicyclist only "slows down" at an intersection even though they are keeping a safe distance.  If you  think that slowing down shouldn't bother anyone, then why do pedestrian yield in those cases.  Remember those are cases I cited here, not examples.   

uma22
uma22

While you may perceive your behavior as safe, when you choose to break that law you are still taking a risk. It may be a calculated risk, in which it is more likely that you won't hit someone than that you will. But your chances of hitting someone are still increased. It's similar to the logic used by drunk drivers who 'drive fine drunk' or 'don't have far to go': you're making a choice for the sake of your own convenience that puts others' safety at risk-- or in cases like this, their lives. You may think the law is stupid or 'bogus' but the killing of this woman seems to demonstrate the opposite! How would you revise it? what exactly is 'slowing sufficiently' for a pedestrian and what is a 'safe distance'? What if someone dashes out of the shadows or falls down in the crosswalk? What about cars at intersections where there is no other traffic, should they be allowed to blow through too? While there are plenty of stupid laws out there this is not one of them. Stopping at intersections is just common sense and not doing so is never safe and never courteous; violaters should be ticketed no exceptions.

94103er
94103er

Have you ever ridden a bike before?? Needless to say, unforeseen conflicts rarely cause a problem when you are out in the open with a full field of vision and can hear what you might not be able to see (e.g. a vehicle or pedestrian coming from behind, etc).

This is why a bike is not analogous to a car.This would be why there's only been one or two bike vs. pedestrian deaths in the SF Bay Area in like, 35 years.

Jamie
Jamie

Your examples are understandable, but not acceptable.  Cyclists need to decide whether they're vehicles or pedestrians - we can't be both because it's confusing and unsafe.  

If we're going to use a crosswalk like we're pedestrians, then we need to get off the bike and walk through.  Follow the rules, or don't bike.  Or, I suppose, kill someone innocent... but that's not a very good choice in my opinion.That said, it'd be wonderful if the city provided more amenities to cyclists in order to make it safer to be a cyclist (and therefore a pedestrian or a driver), which would hopefully encourage more folks be to cyclists and get more cars off the road, improve the health of the city, etc.  How?  More separated bike lines, traffic signals that are timed for cyclists, better paved roads, etc.  See Copenhagen's system for examples on how to make it work.Feeling quite sorry for the pedestrian and for cyclists' reputations which were both hurt by this careless cyclist.  Don't want to be late to work?  Plan ahead and leave earlier.  Don't risk killing innocent people by breaking the law.

Cheers,A law-abiding cyclist

Tim Harrington
Tim Harrington

I support bike-friendly city planning but if you're suggesting the law which requires cyclists to stop for red lights is "bogus" I will fight you to the ends of the earth. Rolling through stop signs is usually a bad idea too.

When I was able to ride my bike to work in S.F. the cars were definitely a concern, but as often as not the ones who put me in danger were other cyclists who had no respect for the rules of the road.

Lesterhuang
Lesterhuang

Traffic laws are in placed to make sure no one gets injured or killed.  By your argument, are you saying that it is alright for someone to pull a gun on you as long as he/she doesn't fire at or intentionally misses you?  C'mon, let's be real here.    

uma22
uma22

The law that would have prevented this woman's death if the vehicle operator had obeyed it is 'bogus'? how exactly do you get there! Your examples of breaking the law and not killing anyone only demonstrate your lack of civics and driving ability. 

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...