CVC 21950 (a) Failure to Yield - Wrong citation?

[mrnitelee]

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

San Francisco, CA - I received a citation of 21950(a)CVC and here is my account.

I was heading south on Valencia street and trying to make left turn onto 16th. Valencia street is four lanes street with two lanes of each way of north and south. When I approached to the intersection I was following a taxi who was making left turn too. Right after taxi passed through the crosswalk a couple jumped into the crosswalk heading north. Because they knew they were not suppose to cross as they were trying to cut through between two cars (the taxi who just were just crossing the crosswalk and I was approaching), they walked really fast. The reason I said they were not suppose to cross was because there was a whole troop of Pedestrians already completed their cross before Taxi made his crossing crosswalk, and the couple jumped off cub in very last second). They made no eye contact with me and no sign of felt threaten of any danger, they just cut straight through fast in front of me. I had to beak and made a complete stop to allowing this couple to pass, only after they passed I made my turn crossing the crosswalk. One block later cop pulled me over and said I was endanger Pedestrian as they has to rush off to avoid me hitting them (which was a completed wrong, and lie). I stopped and yelled to let them pass. If anything, guilt party should be the Pedestrian and/or taxi.

What really confused me was the fact that I yelled to Pedestrian and made my turn only after they crossed through and why that still constitute "Failed to yield to Pedestrian"? Can I fight it? Traffic school is not an option for me as I am not qualified.


thanks, mark

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm not following you with your "they aren't supposed to cross" logic. Despite the warnings about not walking into the path of vehicles or impeding traffic, if they had a WALK (or a green in the absence of WALK/DONT WALK) signal you're going to have a hard time arguing that you shouldn't have yielded. Just because you were attempting to blast through the intersection on the bumper of the previous cab (and nothing says the cab shouldn't have yielded for those people attempting to cross the street as well). It's not required that the cop observe other violations or even that he write up all the violations that occured. The fact the taxi escaped citation means SQUAT to your case.

Just because an officer is mistaken doesn't make it a LIE. You will look like a MORON in court making such comments.

Yelling at the pedestrian is supposed to make things better how?

If the pedestrian had to alter any of thier movement because of your passage through the intersection, you have failed to yield. The amount that you have to miss pedestrians by is a point of argument in the California courts, but lane splitting with them is certianly not going to fly in any that I am aware of.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not following you with your "they aren't supposed to cross" logic. Despite the warnings about not walking into the path of vehicles or impeding traffic, if they had a WALK (or a green in the absence of WALK/DONT WALK) signal you're going to have a hard time arguing that you shouldn't have yielded. Just because you were attempting to blast through the intersection on the bumper of the previous cab (and nothing says the cab shouldn't have yielded for those people attempting to cross the street as well). It's not required that the cop observe other violations or even that he write up all the violations that occured. The fact the taxi escaped citation means SQUAT to your case.

Just because an officer is mistaken doesn't make it a LIE. You will look like a MORON in court making such comments.

Yelling at the pedestrian is supposed to make things better how?

If the pedestrian had to alter any of thier movement because of your passage through the intersection, you have failed to yield. The amount that you have to miss pedestrians by is a point of argument in the California courts, but lane splitting with them is certianly not going to fly in any that I am aware of.

And, to touch on one other thing...whether or not the pedestrians have a green or a green walk signal isn't an element of the violation that the OP is cited with.

 

[davew128]

And, to touch on one other thing...whether or not the pedestrians have a green or a green walk signal isn't an element of the violation that the OP is cited with.

No but the fact he yielded and the pedestrians didn't show due caution under paragraph B of the CVC section helps his argument.

 

[Zigner]

No but the fact he yielded and the pedestrians didn't show due caution under paragraph B of the CVC section helps his argument.

The pedestrians didn't "jump" in to the crosswalk...

 

[mrnitelee]

And, to touch on one other thing...whether or not the pedestrians have a green or a green walk signal isn't an element of the violation that the OP is cited with.

Sorry, I meant to say I yielded (not yelled, my fault for the typo) to Pedestrian by completely stopped my car and waited for them to pass before I made cross the crosswalk, I didn't blast my way through. I realized may be the word "lie" wasn't a proper usage here, but what I was trying to say was Cop issued me the citation based on his incorrect perception of what really happened. The reason this couple rushed through was because they knew they were not suppose to as the count down was to the last second before they jumped onto street. Their rushing through wasn't because I posted threat to them and they were trying avoid it by rushing. Their were rushing through because they knew they were not suppose to step onto street when there was not second left. In San Francisco, most crosswalks use count-down (like from 15 to 0 second) system. I didn't actually see if where were any second left, but the fact was that a whole troop of Pedestrians already completed their cross, so that indicates that the count-down was already to the last 1 or 2 seconds, if not 0, before this couple stepped onto street. This is why I felt that Cop issued the citation based on his incorrect perception and that is not right.

Secondly, I still don't understand where exactly I did wrong. I stopped my car and yielded to this couple. I didn't present any threat to them, nor I cut them through. So which part of my action constitutes the "Failed to yield to pedestrian"?


thanks, mark

 

[FlyingRon]

That's your opinion. I can bet the state's opinion was they were running because you and the taxicab were REFUSING TO YIELD.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, I meant to say I yielded (not yelled, my fault for the typo) to Pedestrian by completely stopped my car and waited for them to pass before I made cross the crosswalk, I didn't blast my way through. I realized may be the word "lie" wasn't a proper usage here, but what I was trying to say was Cop issued me the citation based on his incorrect perception of what really happened. The reason this couple rushed through was because they knew they were not suppose to as the count down was to the last second before they jumped onto street. Their rushing through wasn't because I posted threat to them and they were trying avoid it by rushing. Their were rushing through because they knew they were not suppose to step onto street when there was not second left. In San Francisco, most crosswalks use count-down (like from 15 to 0 second) system. I didn't actually see if where were any second left, but the fact was that a whole troop of Pedestrians already completed their cross, so that indicates that the count-down was already to the last 1 or 2 seconds, if not 0, before this couple stepped onto street. This is why I felt that Cop issued the citation based on his incorrect perception and that is not right.

Secondly, I still don't understand where exactly I did wrong. I stopped my car and yielded to this couple. I didn't present any threat to them, nor I cut them through. So which part of my action constitutes the "Failed to yield to pedestrian"?


thanks, mark

They were legally in the crosswalk so we don't need to discuss that any further.

The officer feels that your actions caused the pedestrians to have to go out of their way to avoid the perceived danger you caused by your rapid approach.

 

[mrnitelee]

That's your opinion. I can bet the state's opinion was they were running because you and the taxicab were REFUSING TO YIELD.

What made you thing we were "refusing to yield"? Taxicab was already half way (as his front half of car already) passed the crosswalk before this couple stepped off the curb. I was following the taxicab and as soon as the couple walked onto street, I stopped my car and yielded to them. 16th street is one lane each way and with a parking lane on each side of street, so its a short distance from curb to curb. Since when law is based on one party's particular motion instead of the fact?


thanks, mark

 

[Zigner]

What made you thing we were "refusing to yield"? Taxicab was already half way (as his front half of car already) passed the crosswalk before this couple stepped off the curb. I was following the taxicab and as soon as the couple walked onto street, I stopped my car and yielded to them. 16th street is one lane each way and with a parking lane on each side of street, so its a short distance from curb to curb. Since when law is based on one party's particular motion instead of the fact?


thanks, mark

This is not the place to argue the matter. Feel free to hire a traffic attorney. Best of luck. Good day.

 

[Proserpina]

It's Finals time, folks

 

[davew128]

The pedestrians didn't "jump" in to the crosswalk...

He still apparently yielded before them before he entered the crosswalk. We all see this type of stuff every day, its just that apparently in the Bay Area cops are anal retentive about it towards drivers.

 

[CdwJava]

Did any part of your vehicle cross the line of the crosswalk prior to you stepping on the brakes? If you were following the taxi in front of you, isn't it possible that you were at least partially into the crosswalk when you stopped?