Failure to Yield to Pedestrian Ticket - California

[Weebs10000]

This morning I was cited for violation 21950(a) - Failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. This is the defense I plan to give. Could anyone tell me if you think it will hold up in court and how likely it may be that I will not end up being fined for this citation?

1. My vision was impaired by something out of my control. The sun was at such an angle at that time, approx 8:50am as I was heading east, that I could not see the pedestrians in the crosswalk. Once I was across the intersection I may have been able to look sideways and have seen them, but the traffic was heavy and therefore since I did not see them in the beginning and therefore perceived no imminent danger, I kept looking forward to keep from rear-ending the car ahead of me.

2. The citation is exaggerated. It says I was going between 25-31mph. However, I had been stopped behind a KEEP CLEAR area and traffic ahead of me started to move so that it was possible for me to proceed without blocking that area, at which point, since I did not see the pedestrians, I began to move forward. That was the exact moment the officer is citing me for and there is no way that from a dead stop I could have gotten up to 25mph in 2 seconds, especially given the volume of traffic ahead of me and its proximity to my vehicle.

Is this enough to get me acquitted?

 

[JustAPal00]

If you couldn't see, then you were driving too fast for conditions. I'm assuming that the pedestrian stepped into the crosswalk and you didn't stop to let them go.

 

[Weebs10000]

If you couldn't see, then you were driving too fast for conditions. I'm assuming that the pedestrian stepped into the crosswalk and you didn't stop to let them go.

I was going maybe 5mph. There would not have been a safer speed to travel, more like a safer direction. Unfortunately, I had to go east to get to work so going in a different direction would not have been practical. Honestly I did not at any point see pedestrians, and I have no idea where they were coming from. The officer told me they were there but I never saw them.

 

[ElvinMelvin]

My vision was impaired

I could not see the pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Let's be clear.

You couldn't see if there were any pedestrians in your way but you just drove through anyway?


I wouldn't try to use this as a defense, but hey, that's just me.

The officer told me they were there but I never saw them.

Then you are very fortunate you didn't kill anyone.

 

[Zigner]

This morning I was cited for violation 2190 - Failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. This is the defense I plan to give. Could anyone tell me if you think it will hold up in court and how likely it may be that I will not end up being fined for this citation?

1. My vision was impaired by something out of my control. The sun was at such an angle at that time, approx 8:50am as I was heading east, that I could not see the pedestrians in the crosswalk. Once I was across the intersection I may have been able to look sideways and have seen them, but the traffic was heavy and therefore since I did not see them in the beginning and therefore perceived no imminent danger, I kept looking forward to keep from rear-ending the car ahead of me.

As was pointed out, you were driving too fast for conditions.

2. The citation is exaggerated. It says I was going between 25-31mph. However, I had been stopped behind a KEEP CLEAR area and traffic ahead of me started to move so that it was possible for me to proceed without blocking that area, at which point, since I did not see the pedestrians, I began to move forward. That was the exact moment the officer is citing me for and there is no way that from a dead stop I could have gotten up to 25mph in 2 seconds, especially given the volume of traffic ahead of me and its proximity to my vehicle.

Since speed is not a factor in this violation, it won't change anything.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

By the way, its 21950(a) not 2190...

CVC 21950.

(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(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.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from
the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian
within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.​

​

​

So... "Too fast for conditions" (not being able to see) and even if you can somehow contradict the officer's testimony about the speed, then you failed to exercise "due care"...

 

[Weebs10000]

Let's be clear.

You couldn't see if there were any pedestrians in your way but you just drove through anyway?

I wouldn't try to use this as a defense, but hey, that's just me.


Then you are very fortunate you didn't kill anyone.

I would like to point out that I'm asking for advice, not reprehension. If you have no advice to offer that is not derogatory or accusatory, especially given that you who are commenting were not there, please refrain from posting anything. Thank you.

 

[Weebs10000]

By the way, its 21950(a) not 2190...

Thank you, I have corrected it in my first post.

 

[Zigner]

I would like to point out that I'm asking for advice, not reprehension. If you have no advice to offer that is not derogatory or accusatory, especially given that you who are commenting were not there, please refrain from posting anything. Thank you.

ElvinMelvin was spot-on with his post.

 

[Weebs10000]

CVC 21950.

(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.
(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.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall
reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to
the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of
the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from
the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian
within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection.​

​

​

So... "Too fast for conditions" (not being able to see) and even if you can somehow contradict the officer's testimony about the speed, then you failed to exercise "due care"...[/QUOTE]

Actually, I did exercise "due care." I looked (obviously i did not have blinders on, so I could see straight and peripherally) and to the best of my ability, under the conditions, I could not see any pedestrians or any reason not to proceed. nothing was going to change about how much I could see until I was at another angle or something came into the line of the light (e.g. i was further down the road and there was a building ahead blocking the sun.)

Also, I have been looking at the ticket and the officer spelled my name wrong (last name, omitted letters), said I was the registered vehicle owner, when it is listed on the registration (which he had) as a family member whose entire name is different from mine, and wrote my address wrong (wrote "road" instead of "ridge"). would any of these things contribute to an argument that he was being inattentive that day and perhaps didn't have the best judgment?

 

[HighwayMan]

Although Melvin's post seems to have disappeared! Very sinister, or maybe some Elvin Magic?

 

[Weebs10000]

Although Melvin's post seems to have disappeared! Very sinister, or maybe some Elvin Magic?

Melvin's post provided no sincere advice, only admonition for actions to which he was in no way a witness. Therefore it is irrelevant except as an example of what a useless post looks like. this is a forum for help, not derogatory criticism.

 

[Zigner]

Let's be clear.

You couldn't see if there were any pedestrians in your way but you just drove through anyway?


I wouldn't try to use this as a defense, but hey, that's just me.



Then you are very fortunate you didn't kill anyone.

See, second to last line. Your defense has no merit.

 

[Tallrat]

Go to court and plead no contest. Explain what you did and do not exaggerate and there is a decent chance they will lower the fine plus court cost's. Unless you have witnesses to verify you will defiantly lose if you plead not guilty.

 

[Weebs10000]

See, second to last line. Your defense has no merit.

I think it's pretty clear that this comment (that of Melvin) was not intended to provide the advice that it inadvertently stated.

Furthermore, regarding the comment about me killing someone, at the speed I was going there is no way even a toddler would have been killed by the slight bump they would have gotten if I had hit them, and hitting the pedestrians was not an imminant threat seeing as if they were in front of my car I would have seen them when I was closer. Move on, Zigner. If you have no more advice, don't comment.