Failure to Yield to Pedestrian Ticket

[deymann]

What is the name of your state? California

I am going to traffic to argue my Failure to Yield to Pedestrian ticket; a violation of California Vehicle Code 21950(a). I am going to present the following argument to the judge:

**
I was driving northbound in the left lane on xxxxxxx Blvd at less than the posted 35mph speed limit as I felt that was the safest speed due to the large amount of traffic at the 5:00pm hour. A large delivery van had stopped in the right lane and was making a right hand turn at Vet’s Hall at the Freedom Shopping Center and across from xxxxxxx street. The stopped van was large enough to block my view and my passenger’s view of the entrance to the crosswalk at xxxxxx street, and neither of us could see if there were any pedestrians on the sidewalk. At my reduced speed I felt it was possible to avoid an accident if a pedestrian was to suddenly emerge from the crosswalk.

When I entered the crosswalk, to my right I could see a pedestrian had just entered the crosswalk and had taken 2-3 steps into the intersection. Since my vehicle was already physically in the crosswalk, I cleared my vehicle through the crosswalk so that the pedestrian would not have to leave the crosswalk to continue crossing. The pedestrian did not need to stop walking or slow down as my vehicle was far enough away as to not constitute a hazard.

In conclusion I feel that I did not violate California Vehicle Code 21950 for the following reasons:
• The pedestrian had just entered the crosswalk by the time my vehicle was already physically in the crosswalk and he did not need to stop or slow down to safely cross the street.
• The pedestrian did not use ordinary care when beginning to cross the street for the following reasons: 1) The crosswalk is not at a signaled intersection and the traffic was heavy. To safely cross the street at that intersection you would need a clear view of the oncoming traffic in both lanes. 2) The large delivery van that had stopped to make the right turn was blocking his view of the intersection, so his view of approaching vehicles in the left lane was not clear. 3) The pedestrian entered the intersection suddenly and without a clear view of traffic in the left lane.
• I had reduced the speed of my vehicle to below the speed limit and to a speed safe enough to avoid an accident if a pedestrian were to suddenly use the crosswalk. When I noticed that a pedestrian had begun to use the crosswalk while my vehicle was physically in the crosswalk, I cleared my vehicle of the crosswalk so that the pedestrian could cross safely.
**

The officer noted that I was going 25mph in a 35mph zone, so I really want to play up how safe I was driving when I entered the crosswalk. Also, if the officer shows up to court (please let him be on vacation!) and testifies that I was able to see the pedestrian, I will point out that he was stopped in the right hand lane, 2-3 cars behind the van. He had a clear line of sight to the sidewalk while I did not.

Here are the questions I have:
1) Do you think that argument is enough to get me a not-guilty verdict *if* the judge is being completely impartial?
2) Would diagrams of the intersection and the vehicles help this argument?
3) What are the likely arguments from the officer? (A guess is fine, seeing as how you do not know him.)

Lastly, thanks for your help!!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by deymann

Here are the questions I have:
1) Do you think that argument is enough to get me a not-guilty verdict *if* the judge is being completely impartial?

He can be "impartial" and still find you guilty. Don't mistake being impartial with believing your version of events.

Yes, I believe that your explanation could provide reasonable doubt.

CVC 21950(b) provides this:

(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of
using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly
leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path
of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.

This section may aid you in your defense if it is sufficiently articulated.

2) Would diagrams of the intersection and the vehicles help this argument?

Maybe. But, it may not be of any use if the officer challenges the position of you or your vehicle, or that of obstructing vehicles or objects.

You might create a diagram anyway, and also consider taking photos of the scene to show the layout.

3) What are the likely arguments from the officer? (A guess is fine, seeing as how you do not know him.)

Likely that he saw the pedestrian in the sidewalk and then saw you woll past him while he was only a few feet away from you.

Your argument seems to be that you could not see the pedestrian prior to your entering the crosswalk. The officer will likely counter with a different perception of the event. If your view was obstructed that might help mitigate the circumstance. And if the ped. stepped off after you were past the line of the crosswalk then you ought to be okay.

- Carl

[deymann]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Your argument seems to be that you could not see the pedestrian prior to your entering the crosswalk. The officer will likely counter with a different perception of the event. If your view was obstructed that might help mitigate the circumstance. And if the ped. stepped off after you were past the line of the crosswalk then you ought to be okay.

- Carl

Thank you Carl. I could not say that the pedestrian left before or after I entered the crosswalk. He could have left before I entered. All I know is that I did not see him until I was in the crosswalk. He was far enough away that I was in no danger of hitting him, and I would have had to turn the wheel and hit the stopped van first to even come close.

Is quoting the law 21950(b) section of the law (or just mentioning that section?) in my summary going to help me? I don't want the judge to be put off by my "know-it-all"ness.

Also in that section of the law it states:
"This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."

The pedestrian didn't exactly walk or run into the path of my vehicle so close that it creates a hazard. He was a few feet away, in the complete right lane (while I was in the left) and it was more of a hazard for me to stay in the middle of the crosswalk. Though as I did state in the summary, I believe that since he could not see the left lane clearly, it was not safe for him to cross. Is that enough to fall under the first sentence of section (b)?

And lastly, if the officer contests the position of any of the vehicles or pedestrian on my diagram, would having my passenger (my husband) there to be a witness help at all?

Thank again!

[Maxthedog]

would having my passenger (my husband) there to be a witness help at all?

Absolutely! You seem to have a case that shows you didn't violate the code. You need to be very prepared in your presentation to the court and only stick to the facts. I do believe that judges respect people who are well prepared and are willing to stand up for themselves if they do indeed have a case. Prepare to show that you did noit violate the law and also be ready to defend against any claim the officer makes in this case. Be professional and be prepared.
Been there, done that, and won.

[sk999]

State: California

I was ticketed today also for a similar situation in which I had an obscured view of the crosswalk -- in my case, I was on a 4 lane road (2 lanes each direction), at a 3-way stop with an intersecting road to my left. I was in the rightmost lane, with a big SUV on my left (I am in a low sports car).

While approaching the intersection, I notice there is a police motorcycle on the intersecting road, as does everyone else. Everyone of course makes sure to stop. When I am stopped, I cannot see the motorcycle, due to the SUV, so I decide that I'll go only when the opposing traffic moves, i.e. that I do not want to violate the motorcycle's right of way if he decides it's his. So when the opposing traffic moves, I do also. As I move into the crosswalk, and my field of view opens up, I notice a pedestrian to the left of the SUV (not yet crossed in front of it). As with the previous poster, by the time I see the pedestrian, it makes no sense for me to stop, as I would just block the crosswalk. I had at no time seen this pedestrian during the approach to the intersection, nor during the time I was stopped.

Needless to say, from the policeman's perspective, my car suddenly appears from behind the SUV, in front of the pedestrian, and of course, he cites me.

As with the previous poster, my main defence is that my line of sight was severely limited due to the SUV beside me, and at no time had any idea there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk.

A further technical discrepency on the ticket is that I was specifically cited for 21951 (passing a car, after approaching from the rear, that has stopped for a ped in the crosswalk), although the written description is for 21950 (ped right of way in the crosswalk). Would this be enough in itself for a dismissal?

Thanks for any further responses.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by sk999

A further technical discrepency on the ticket is that I was specifically cited for 21951 (passing a car, after approaching from the rear, that has stopped for a ped in the crosswalk), although the written description is for 21950 (ped right of way in the crosswalk). Would this be enough in itself for a dismissal?

Thanks for any further responses.

It will be the elements of the offense that was written that will be at issue. It sounds like he is alleging that you passed a vehicle (the SUV) that was stopped for the pedestrian.

CVC 21951. Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.

- Carl

[sk999]

On the citation is written: "21951 CV Ped right of way crosswalk". I don't think I'm being alleged to have violated both, am I?

The facts from my perspective are that I was stopped at the crosswalk, beside the SUV (both of us stopping roughly the same time), paused, did not see any pedestrian (being blocked by the SUV that was beside me) and thus proceeded into the intersection. I was completely unaware that there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk until I had driven into the crosswalk after being stopped.

Isn't this a valid defence?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by sk999

On the citation is written: "21951 CV Ped right of way crosswalk". I don't think I'm being alleged to have violated both, am I?

The facts from my perspective are that I was stopped at the crosswalk, beside the SUV (both of us stopping roughly the same time), paused, did not see any pedestrian (being blocked by the SUV that was beside me) and thus proceeded into the intersection. I was completely unaware that there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk until I had driven into the crosswalk after being stopped.

Isn't this a valid defence?

Of course it is. And this is the key to many traffic issues - from your perspective, you and the officer both saw the same fact set differently. He will portray the event as he observed (and interpreted) it, and you will portray it as you interpret it. Sadly, you can both hold opposing positions and both be absolutely correct.

It will be up to the judge to decide if you are in violation or not.

The judge may ask the officer (and I see it all the time) if it is POSSIBLE that what you allege actually was the case. The officer may shrug and say it is possible. However, the allegation isn't for your failing to yield to the pedestrian, it is for your passing a vehicle that had so yielded. You may have to answer THAT question as to why you passed said vehicle at a crosswalk.

- Carl

[sk999]

Thanks for the info Carl.

So just to clarify, even though the written description of the infraction seems to indicate a violation (alleged!) of 21950, the fact that it is preceeded specifically by 29151 means that this is the infraction I'm being charged with?

As a general observation though, it is almost 100% the case in a two lane (same direction) stop that one car goes before the other. When is it considered "passing" and when is it not?

In any case, if I'm being charged with violation of 29151, then my defence is a slight variation of the theme, which is that because I didn't see a pedestrian, I had no idea he was continuing to stop because of a pedestrian, rather than just being stopped for the stop sign. For all I know, he could have been waiting to turn left. Besides, 29151 specifically says that I need to be approaching the stopped car from the rear and then pass him; I approached the intersection beside him, not behind him.

Anyway, I guess it'll be up to the judge, as you say.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by sk999

So just to clarify, even though the written description of the infraction seems to indicate a violation (alleged!) of 21950, the fact that it is preceeded specifically by 29151 means that this is the infraction I'm being charged with?

You're going to be charged with 21951. The offense that is on the cite is the offense you will face regardless of what the text says.

As a general observation though, it is almost 100% the case in a two lane (same direction) stop that one car goes before the other. When is it considered "passing" and when is it not?

When the one car (usually the one closes to the curb) is stopped, and you proceed past it by any amount, then you have passed that car.

In any case, if I'm being charged with violation of 29151, then my defence is a slight variation of the theme, which is that because I didn't see a pedestrian, I had no idea he was continuing to stop because of a pedestrian, rather than just being stopped for the stop sign.

Essentially, yes. What the officer might say from his vantage point, who knows? But, if that is what happened then I'd go for it. I would think there is a good chance of presenting reasonable doubt - especially if the officer acknowledges the presence of the SUV between you and the pedestrian.

For all I know, he could have been waiting to turn left. Besides, 29151 specifically says that I need to be approaching the stopped car from the rear and then pass him; I approached the intersection beside him, not behind him.

You were coming up from behind him ... even if he was in the other lane, if you saw his tail end you were coming from behind. If you try to get into a pissing match over your definition of "behind" and "beside" you will lose ... AND you will tick off the judge.

Stick with truth as you related it.


- Carl

[sk999]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I really did approach the intersection beside the SUV and stopped pretty much at the same time as he did -- we had both left a previous intersection side by side and maintained this to the intersection in question.

I think that from the officer's perspective, my car would not have been visible to him at all, so what he saw was the suv stopped, the ped in the crosswalk, then me suddenly appearing, driving through the crosswalk, giving him the impression that I had approached the stopped suv and passed it.

Anyway, if you think that this is a less pertinent part of the defence, perhaps it's best left off.

Thanks for your insight!