Citation 21950(a)

[fliguy53]

: Wife got a citation 21950(a) It was no fault of hers. She was stopped at a crosswalk in her Prius in the right lane and to her left was a big SUV, The light turned green and she started to go and the bicycle rider that was trying to beat the light hit her in the crosswalk. Her vision was blocked by the SUV so she had no way of seeing the rider who was trying to beat the light. It's a four lane rd. two in each direction . Should we try to get the point taken off her record. A cop took down all the info and nothing came of it until we got a letter from the DMV that a point was put on her record. this is months after the incident. We went down to the police station to get the report and it had this 21950(a) on it.

 

[quincy]

fliguy53, this thread was created for you from the posting you made to an archived thread. The thread you found that addressed concerns similar to yours was (for reference purposes): https://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/cvc-21950-failure-yield-600870.html

Although the other thread was pretty thorough and it appears your questions should have been answered by reading through it, because it was an older thread and laws change over time, perhaps someone can provide additional advice and direction.

 

[CdwJava]

It appears that she received a point because she was found to be at fault in the collision. Your wife can try and challenge the point on her license, but it will likely be an uphill battle.

Here is more information from the DMV:

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/dl/driversafety/neg_operator#2_1

 

[Zigner]

Translated:

The driver of the Prius entered the intersection when the light turned green without assuring that it was safe to do so.

Her saving grace may be that she wasn't cited for THAT violation (which she [through the OP] admits to.)

I would argue that the bicyclist doesn't fit the definition of a pedestrian, as it applies to 21950(a).

467. (a) A "pedestrian" is a person who is afoot or who is using any of the following:
(1) A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle.
(2) An electric personal assistive mobility device.
(b) "Pedestrian" includes a person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as specified in subdivision (a). (emphasis added)

 

[CdwJava]

Assuming that the report reflects the same error you propose, there may be a chance to win the appeal. Maybe.

 

[Zigner]

Assuming that the report reflects the same error you propose, there may be a chance to win the appeal. Maybe.

Yes, the report would need to reflect that the cyclist was in the crosswalk. Otherwise, the driver proceeded without making sure the intersection was clear.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, the report would need to reflect that the cyclist was in the crosswalk. Otherwise, the driver proceeded without making sure the intersection was clear.

If it was for pulling in front of the cyclist, the PCF should have been for failure to yield or an unsafe speed ... but, without knowing what he report says, it's only speculation.

 

[fliguy53]

Yes, the report would need to reflect that the cyclist was in the crosswalk. Otherwise, the driver proceeded without making sure the intersection was clear.

The officer didn't write anything in his report except for a bad drawing. I myself encountered the same situation yrs ago when i was at a stoplight and a big truck was to my left so i couldn't see anything to my left and when the light turned green i was about to go and a pedestrian came out in front of his truck, but i was able to brake in time to stop before i hit him. All i know is that if i was in an intersection and the light turned red on me. I know i have to pay even more attention to the traffic but i always pay attention anytime i cross a st. I see so many pedestrians on cell phones not paying attention to the time of day when their in a crosswalk nowadays. Thk's for the reply

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Whenever you are in a situation starting from a traffic light and your vision is blocked, you should wait for the vehicle blocking your visions to proceed so you know it is clear. If the cyclist was riding, you may have a case as I believe they must walk bicycles through crosswalks in CA. All this will do is get a different citation in all probability.

 

[CdwJava]

If she was cited for VC 21950(a) and it was, indeed, for a bicycle passing IN the crosswalk, then the violation should be dismissed. It will not be modified by the court.

She may well get lucky as she may have been able to be held liable for another offense - just not this one. Or, maybe not. Perhaps next time she will be more careful.