21950 a

[bossbruh]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
California

Hello! My court date is tomorrow morning so I'm just trying to get some information if I have a chance of nullifying this stupid ticket that I got from the officer.

My first ticket is 21950a failure to stop for pedestrian in crosswalk.

It happened on a friday morning in Turlock near CSU Stanislaus. Usually on fridays, the intersections are not that busy, but on that particular day, the traffic was heavy.It was the third or fourth week of school most classes have midterms that friday including one of my afternoon classes. I just finished my first morning class, and I was driving to go to my other class. As I was approaching the intersection, the traffic light turned red. There were two cars in front of me that were trying to make a left turn on a traffic light. The traffic light is not the one with the arrow. Its the green circle where you have to wait for the pedestrians and the cars to pass first before you have to take the turn. As the light turned green, there were two female pedestrians that were crossing the long crossroad towards our direction. The first car completed their left turn when there were no cars passing and the pedestrians were half way in the crosswalk. The cop didn't do anything. Then there were cars again going across so the second car had to wait a few seconds. when there were no more cars the second car turned left when the pedestrians were 1/4 of the crosswalk. The cop didn't do anything again. When it was finally my turn to turn left, the light was still green but I know that eventually the light was going to turn yellow. Knowing that there was a cop behind me, I looked across and saw one car that was going across. when the car passed I started to turn left slowly. I was focusing on the cars that were trying to go across if there was someone that was trying to speed to go across, and I saw the pedestrians were almost at the curb in my peripheral. When I cross the first line of the crosswalk, I'm pretty sure that the pedestrians were already in the curb. Then the cops decided to turn on the siren and pulled me over. If i would have waited for a couple of seconds for the pedestrians to be in the curb, then wouldn't it be more dangerous for me to turn? AND the light would have been red and the cop would have given me a ticket for making a traffic or running a red light.


Do you think I have a chance in court ?

 

[CdwJava]

A chance of "nullifying" the ticket? No. Beating it? Perhaps.

A lot will depend on what the officer says and your position relative to the pedestrians. The section requires you to yield to them. The problem is, the definition of what it means to yield can be fuzzy. Some courts might see your duty to remain in place when there is anyone in the crosswalk at all, others might see it as a duty only if they are within 20 or 30 feet of you - or less. There's really no way to know beforehand unless you have attended traffic court before to observe how similar cases are handled.

 

[Sloop John D]

Yeah, you have a chance. Many police mistakenly believe the statute requires the driver to wait until the pedestrian is completely clear of the crosswalk, but the courts have interpreted the statute as only requiring that the driver provide safe passage for the pedestrian. You basically need to give the pedestrian enough space so you won't hit them or put them in fear that you're going to hit them.

The more distance you left between your vehicle and the pedestrian, the better your chances.

 

[quincy]

... the courts have interpreted the statute as only requiring that the driver provide safe passage for the pedestrian. You basically need to give the pedestrian enough space so you won't hit them or put them in fear that you're going to hit them. ...

Do you have cites to any of these court interpretations of the California statute, Sloop John? I think you have used this "safe passage" phrase before on similar questions asked on this forum and am curious what the courts have actually said.

Thanks.

 

[Sloop John D]

The one time where I don't post the citation to the case law and you call me on it. Well, you win. Here's the pertinent law:

This particular statute has a surprising amount of case history for a Vehicle Code section. I believe it's because pedestrians frequently rely on it to establish liability when they get hit by a car. As a result, the court has had to interpret the ins and outs several times to figure out who is at fault for a pedestrian/vehicle collision.

The case that appears to be most heavily relied on is People v. Hahn (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d Supp. 841. The court, at page 843, holds that pedestrians are entitled to not only enough space to prevent interference, but to as much space as necessary to prevent a threat of interference. In other words, don't hit them, and don't make them think you're going to hit them.

The case is actually used as a cite in the most recent edition of Cal Jur, but they narrow the rule to "[t]he driver must wait only if necessary to avoid interference with the pedestrian." 8 Cal.Jur.3d Automobiles section 371. Personally I think the Cal Jur rule is not quite as encompassing as the actual rule stated by the court, but if you can get the court to buy that rule without actually looking at the case, I suppose you could get out of any 21950 violation where you didn't actually hit the pedestrian.

Uh-huh,
Sloop

 

[quincy]

The one time where I don't post the citation to the case law and you call me on it. ...

Thanks, Sloop John.

You are always good about providing cites, and I appreciate you doing it again here.

I remember another, similar thread posted recently on pedestrian crossings but couldn't locate it.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Thanks Sloop. I have always felt powerless to even comment when people appear with that violation.

 

[quincy]

... The case that appears to be most heavily relied on is People v. Hahn (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d Supp. 841. The court, at page 843, holds that pedestrians are entitled to not only enough space to prevent interference, but to as much space as necessary to prevent a threat of interference. In other words, don't hit them, and don't make them think you're going to hit them. ...

In Michigan recently, there have been several pedestrian accidents and a couple of pedestrian deaths (which is probably what spurred my curiosity). Some of the accidents occurred when the pedestrians were crossing at intersections and a couple occurred when the pedestrians were using "mid-block" crosswalks (which are marked with pedestrian-activated crossing lights) and one occurred when a pedestrian decided to cross one of the area's busiest highways (which is not exactly a smart thing to do).

The law here says that a vehicle may turn at an intersection if the pedestrian is on the other half of the roadway from the vehicle, unless the pedestrian is close and approaching the half of the roadway that the vehicle is on. If not crossing at a crosswalk, pedestrians must yield to the traffic (although a driver should probably try to avoid hitting them anyway).

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I hate being in large cities because I have problems standing in a no kill zone waiting for a light to tell me it is now safe for me to cross without dying.

 

[quincy]

I hate being in large cities because I have problems standing in a no kill zone waiting for a light to tell me it is now safe for me to cross without dying.

The pedestrian accidents I just talked about (other than the expressway one) were pedestrians crossing with lights. And they did not occur in exceptionally large cities.

In our large cities (like Detroit), there IS no "no kill zone."