On Tuesday, November 14, 2023, at approximately 5:11 PM, Fullerton Police Officers were dispatched to the area of S. Brookhurst Rd. and W. Oak Ave. regarding a traffic collision involving an auto and a pedestrian.
Officers located a 67-year-old female pedestrian from Fullerton in the roadway with traumatic injuries. Two vehicles were involved in the collision with the pedestrian: a blue Nissan Rogue and a black GMC Sierra. Both drivers remained at the scene and were interviewed by Fullerton Police Officers.
Fullerton Fire responded to the collision and pronounced the female deceased at the scene.
The initial investigation indicates that the black GMC Sierra, driven by a 36-year-old male resident from Anaheim, was traveling southbound on Brookhurst Rd. At the same time, a blue Nissan Rogue, driven by a 65-year-old female resident of Fullerton, was traveling northbound. The female pedestrian ran eastbound from the intersection’s southwest corner across Brookhurst Rd in front of northbound and southbound traffic.
The GMC Sierra that was traveling southbound was able to stop, but the pedestrian was struck by the Nissan Rogue traveling northbound on Brookhurst Rd. The collision with the Nissan Rogue threw the pedestrian into the GMC Sierra and into the intersection.
At this time in the investigation, alcohol and/or drugs are not believed to be a factor.
Accident Investigators seek further information from anyone who might have witnessed this collision. Any witnesses with information about this fatal traffic collision are encouraged to contact Fullerton Police Traffic Accident Investigator Feaster at (714) 738-6812 or via email at jfeaster@fullertonpd.org.
Those wishing to provide information anonymously can call the Orange County Crime Stoppers at 1(855) TIP-OCCS or visit their website at occrimestoppers.org.
Share this:
Categories: Local Government, Local News
two people were killed and your talking about special interest groups and neighbors smiling. smh! keep it on insta or nextdoor. you sound like a weirdo.
Oops *Correction: Jeff NOT John. Jeff is the one that thinks I have an “obsession.”
You brought the Mayor into this discussion when it has nothing to do with the fact that people are driving unsafe and speeding which caused a fatality. He must be on your mind to always bring him up!
Stick to what the article is talking about. Instead of bringing up your personal issue with the Mayor.
Again your comment was not for this platform as which you love to point out.
This is tragic. I see walkers and joggers near heavy traffic areas daily. They need to stay in the parks and trails and avoid crossing traffic or trying to beat the street lights. Earbuds in their ears and just being reckless leads to their death. Now how healthy is that??
Much of the time, it’s both reckless drivers and unsafe street design that lead to pedestrian deaths. Cars are getting incredibly huge and their sizes and geometry have poor visibility and cause increased ped fatalities; a ban on large SUVs and trucks is long overdue. Drivers feel entitled to go 10+ over the speed limit on most roads and violently oppose any efforts to calm traffic. Roads have few crosswalks, forcing pedestrians to take crossing into their own hands to avoid having to walk an extra mile to reach the next nearest crossing. Our city often refuses to add more crosswalks, even where they are needed due to high ped rates, because it would slightly inconvenience cars. Crossings are often poorly-lit and fail to protect peds.
Pedestrian fatalities in the US are now at their highest rates in over a decade. We lose over 40,000 people per year to road deaths. Cars are one of the top causes of death for our children. We in the US have the highest rate of road deaths of any developed country. It’s not as simple as oblivious behavior. It’s the way we design our cities and cars.
No, please don’t blame the victims; blame the culture we have deliberately cultivated of putting the convenience of cars over the safety of all others on the roads.
YES!!! Which is ENTIRELY why we do NOT need an “auto-mall” and NEED: BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE! …especially radiating from ALL schools.
I repeat: (As someone who can’t even :SIT: on a bike now) WHEN was the last time we had a fatality due to a bicycle collision?!
Really good bicycle infrastructure, like a network of Class I bike lanes, can also benefit people who have mobility limitations, especially those who use assistive devices. Every time I see someone riding their electric wheelchair on the road along fast-moving car traffic, it breaks my heart. That person should have been on a fully-protected path, but our infrastructure failed them. Disabilities are simply things our society has chosen to disadvantage; but by the same token, we can choose to build in a way that serves all individuals.
I agree with bike infrastructure and posit that it doesn’t only benefit people on bikes.
I have doubts about how much results we would get about better bike lanes in such a narrow thoroughfare like Brookhurst where residents park on the street and OCTA buses also pass through at stops. You would have to ask the residents who live right on Brookhurst to give up some of their front yard to make a street widening project for Brookhurst. Perhaps introducing a mandatory lower speed limit, residential intersections with more reflective lines, and stop signs with flashing red lights could a simpler solution. My suggestion is my opinion on the matter, as someone else may have a better idea.
My point remains: fast drivers with no brains remain the biggest problem throughout California, no matter where we live.
I agree with everything you said as those are good ways to improve road safety. I just do not believe they are sufficient. Posted speed limits are just signs; the road must be designed to encourage car drivers to actually go that speed.
I’m not sure about bike lanes on Brookhurst per se, but I wonder if a road redesign could find a way to incorporate them. Alternatively, bike routes on streets parallel to Brookhurst and similar arterials would be helpful. Culs-de-sac in residential areas prevent easy bicycle and ped movement, but creating small sidewalks between houses might be an option. Class I bike lanes are a general idea I brought up; every road is different and needs its own solutions.
I totally agree that fast drivers are a huge problem, and I also think speeding is a natural driver behavior. Therefore, we need traffic calming that physically prevents speeding 24/7.
Yup, a very crummy and unfortunate spot for an incident like that. I passed through that area on numerous walks up and down Brookhurst. People drive like brain-dead bats out of hell through this stretch of Brookhurst. Of course, that spot isn’t a good place for pedestrians to cross either, to the other side of the main thoroughfare.
It may well be a good place for peds to cross, in the sense that there are things on both sides of the street that people need to access, but the lack of good, clearly-demarcated, well-illuminated crosswalks makes them dangerous. This kind of road design should be rethought because it fails to safely convey people where they obviously need to go.
Another point: We sadly had another pedestrian fatality on Brookhurst this weekend not far from here. A car driver hit and killed a man. We need to fight for better road design and not let these horrible, unthinkable deaths go in vain.
In the old days where I used to live in Lynwood, California, there would be flashing stop light accompanied by stop signs on main thoroughfares. It could be an old fashioned solution for residential crossings. Of course, will that work against drivers who drive fast?
It may help, but it may not be sufficient. I believe we need to calm traffic in a meaningful way, both to reduce speeds and de-incentivize distracted driving. Long-term, we also need to create viable alternatives to driving so that people who aren’t good drivers, or who really shouldn’t be on the road, don’t have to be.
I also think we need to revamp our driver’s ed to be more rigorous and to incorporate a non-car-centric stance that educates drivers to be cognizant of pedestrians and bicyclists. It should not be as easy as it is to get a license. Also, a lot of cultural and legislative changes have taken place in CA over the past decade re: active transportation, and driver’s ed has failed to incorporate them.
DMV and driver’s education needs a reform at State wide level then. I doubt that is The Lizard King Greasy Gavin’s crosshairs though.
Germany has long since figured out solutions to such problems from bad drivers and driving culture. Perhaps Sac Town can learn from Germany and its auto laws.
Oh a lot of countries all over the world have figured it out! We in the US are uniquely bad a transportation. We can’t seem to learn from other countries, even though they have solved the very same problems we’re scratching our heads about. That’s why our road death rates are the highest of any developed nation.
Newsom has actually signed a number of positive active transportation bills in recent years, and I hope to see more in the future. Agree to disagree if you wish, but leave it there; I would rather remain on the topic at hand.
The reason for the ignorance of American car culture is due to the generations of Big Auto and Big Oil lobbying that have favored personal transportation over European based solutions. We would be living in a very different America if our predecessors had taken a different path on urban planning and transportation.
As for Newsom, I will give credit where it is due on that matter. Of course, I still have a bone to pick with him on other matters, but you are correct that isn’t a topic to discuss.
We are in complete agreement. I encourage you to voice your opinions at City Council meetings if you have not already done so. In my opinion, our current council majority needs to hear these perspectives.
Maybe some day, I will. I just do not like the history of dismissive behavior of every city council incarnation in the City of Fullerton. For now, I am a shadow that lurks on Fullerton Observer, reading local news and giving my two cents on whatever particular matter interests me.
HAHAHA I hear you, Phil. However, I’d argue that, much like this car-culture, we need to address and :change: the dais’ dismissive “culture.”
P.S. We don’t necessarily agree; but all the same, I advocate your voice being heard. The City has it set up where you can make: PublicComment withOUT having the be physically present. Just saying… 😀
To be fair, never mind “distracted drivers” (texting); cars in Germany aren’t equipped with 12-cup-holders the way that cars that are designed for America do.
“Laws” are limited by those who actually follow them. Take Fred: California STATE LAW states that affixing a :VALID FRONT LICENSE PLATE: issued by the DMV (Read: NOT “vanity plate”), is MANDATORY. Yet, Fred continues to snub his nose at CALIFORNIA STATE LAW. He admitted to knowingly doing this, so the argument of: ignorance is moot.
In this case, mere disincentivization, with punitive measures ($192 fine), does not work. We need to :CHANGE: the culture (BUILD BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE) to protect non-car-users.
I agree with you on better bike infrastructure to a certain point. However there is one problem that discourages me from me personally using my own bike as daily transportation: bike hijackers. I wish we could catch every punk who steals bikes from racks, but that is simply throwing money at a problem that may not be properly enforced.
That’s a valid point and we need much better bike parking, as well as a robust network to reduce bike theft and catch thieves. (See: Youtube channel Shifter.)
I don’t know whether you meant to use bike theft to invalidate the need for better bike infrastructure. If so, I disagree, as I feel relatively comfortable locking my bike while running errands. The lack of good bike parking doesn’t discourage me much, but I use 3 strong locks at all times and follow experts’ recommendations on safer bike parking (while acknowledging that no system is 100% theft-proof).
Thanks, by the way, for this interesting discussion so far.
Of course, I still see bike transportation as a viable and excellent alternative to cars. I am just irate that there is not enough discussions about enforcement to catch bike thieves, especially on private business property in shopping plazas. It is usually the low income types that do that out of necessity. I will stop discussing this here though, since this article is about pedestrian safety.
* Correction: I meant “NOVELTY” NOT “vanity.”
“Vanity plates” are legitimate license plates issued by the DMV. “Novelty plates,” however, are not.
What does the license plates have anything to do with the article? NOTHING!!!
You seriously need to get off the obsession!! This is coming from someone who does not drive!!! go kick rocks!!
Jeff you’re wrong and Bernard is right. His point is simply that people aren’t following traffic laws so you have to create safety for pedestrians and cyclists in some other way than simply making it illegal to behave badly on the road. Change cars, change driver entitlement, traffic calming features, better separation etc.
Again, what does not having front license plate have to do with people driving unsafe? Nothing! Yes, there has to be something to create safe environment for bikes and pedestrians, so again how is the front license plates relevant to that? Makes no sense!
@Jeff:
Of course you’re right not properly displaying plates won’t cause an accident. But it’s still a traffic law and people blow off a lot of them including that one. Speeding is a better example as is yielding right of way to pedestrians and giving 3 feet to pass a cyclist.
The point is just that you can’t rely on the laws. We have lots of traffic laws but since they aren’t followed for many reasons you need other mechanisms in combination. Traffic laws generally help you decide whose fault an accident is, damages, punishment, etc. None of them can do much to keep an accident from happening. So we need to change something else.
Hi Jeff
Actually, it does. Take the perspective from law enforcement:
A) HOW are you supposed to identify vehicle behaving “poorly?” There’s a reason it’s CALIFORNIA STATE LAW to affix BOTH the front AND the back license plates. It’s actually explicitly written in the DMV-issued manual for ALL CaliforniaDrivers’Licenses.
B) So are you advocating for the snubbing of CALIFORNIA STATE LAW? Fred explicitly verbally :admitted: to knowingly operating his vehicle(s) UNLAWFULLY.
…But :MY: “obsession” is the issue; right, John?
You’re right, John. I :AM: “obsessed.” I am obsessed with the idea that this CouncilMajority should LISTEN TO COMMUNITY VOICES (or as this CouncilMajority calls them, “special interest groups”) and TAKE CARE OF MY NEIGHBORS. I am obsessed with seeing my neighbors’ smiles rather than their suffering. It’s pretty simple…