Not Yeilding for a PEDESTRIAN in crosswalk

[Simplify]

What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA


I just got pulled over for not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. I of course felt it was fine because she had only stepped one foot into the crosswalk and I was turning into a lane that was farthest away from her, on the other side of the street.

My question is what kind of moving violation is this? Is this worse that turning left when you're not supposed to (based on the signs it states) or is it the same thing? Also, he said he was just going to warn me but my "Attitude" bought me my ticket.

Can he truly do this when according to him, he was going to break rules himself and not give me a ticket? I am planning on contesting the violation cause I believe his decision came from a place of attack rather than following the law.

I just don't know what this type of violation is like, or what I'm looking at here in California. Please help me understand what my options are. Thanks!

[Dougthegreat]

Originally Posted by Simplify

Please help me understand what my options are. Thanks!

Run him over next time - that way, all the fuss will be justified.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Simplify

I just got pulled over for not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. I of course felt it was fine because she had only stepped one foot into the crosswalk and I was turning into a lane that was farthest away from her, on the other side of the street.

Its arguable, but generally you must yield until the pedestrian has passed from one corner to the next.

My question is what kind of moving violation is this? Is this worse that turning left when you're not supposed to (based on the signs it states) or is it the same thing? Also, he said he was just going to warn me but my "Attitude" bought me my ticket.

Its an infraction worth one point on your license.

Can he truly do this when according to him, he was going to break rules himself and not give me a ticket?

He didn't break any rules - or even the law. An officer is granted discretion in many instances - particularly when it comes to issuing citations for infractions. It is perfectly lawful for him to change his mind from a warning to a citation. Very often one's attitude IS the determining factor in whether a person gets a citation or not. If the officer feels that a warning is not going to have the desired effect of changing the usafe behavior, he/she can certainly issue the citation.

I am planning on contesting the violation cause I believe his decision came from a place of attack rather than following the law.

A "place of attack"?? What does that mean?

Your defense will need to be based upon the charge alleged. If you try to argue the officer was mad and gave you the citation because you argued with him, you will lose. He had the legal right to issue the citation.

Your defense would likely be that there was plenty of room for the pedestrian to cross ... you stopped or slowed, determines the pedestrian was far away, and believed that since you were not in proximity to the pedestrian that you were under no obligation to yield. This may not work, but at least it's a defense.

I just don't know what this type of violation is like, or what I'm looking at here in California. Please help me understand what my options are. Thanks!

This is the probable section you were cited for:

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.

I believe you face a $100 fine (plus court costs and assessments).

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Here are some legal clarifications:

Driver of vehicle must yield to pedestrian who steps into a crosswalk and then halts, unless there is no danger of a collision or the pedestrian has waived right-of-way. (38 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 100 (1961).)

In other words, the pedestrian may yield the right of way by stopping and giving some indication that you are free to continue. Likewise it would seem that in the opinion of the CA Attorney General (which is not binding law) you may continue if there is no danger of a collision.

And,

Right-of-way is not a duty which a pedestrian must exercise, but something which may be waived. (Noland (1948) 83 Cal.App.2d Supp. 819.)

- Carl

[Simplify]

"Its an infraction worth one point on your license." - Carl


What does one point do? What's the affect of that on my record, and what does "one point" mean. If I remember from driving school people are only allowed 3 points in their life right?



"He didn't break any rules - or even the law. An officer is granted discretion in many instances - particularly when it comes to issuing citations for infractions. It is perfectly lawful for him to change his mind from a warning to a citation. Very often one's attitude IS the determining factor in whether a person gets a citation or not. If the officer feels that a warning is not going to have the desired effect of changing the usafe behavior, he/she can certainly issue the citation." - Carl



Very understandable, thank you Carl.



"A "place of attack"?? What does that mean?" - Carl




I was wearing a punk-like outfit, and I feel he passed judgement on me after seeing, and having conversation with me. I was leaving a photo-shoot dressed up like a heroin addict believe it or not. I asked him to not make judgements on me based on what I was wearing because it was not "me". When I say "Place of attack" I mean I felt he just wanted to issue me the ticket because he felt so. Originally he stated he wasn't going to, and that my "attitude" sold me the ticket. My clothing is very much a part of my "attitude" and I feel he used the wrong judgement leaning towards "attacking" or "getting back" at me for whoever he felt I was, or what I did. When I'd try to talk to him, he would continute talking and wouldn't let me in to explain myself at all. It was all about him. He was a self-centered jerk.




"Your defense will need to be based upon the charge alleged. If you try to argue the officer was mad and gave you the citation because you argued with him, you will lose. He had the legal right to issue the citation." - Carl



I appreciate this Carl because that is more than likely what I was going to do because that is why I feel I recieved the ticket. I might shed semi-light on the fact that his decision to issue the ticket could have had just as much to do with the way I was dressed and/or how I kept on interupting him because he put me in such a position to do so. I wasn't able to speak cause I was supposed to sit there and let him tell me how it was, when all I was trying to say was that I didn't know it was the law.




"Your defense would likely be that there was plenty of room for the pedestrian to cross ... you stopped or slowed, determines the pedestrian was far away, and believed that since you were not in proximity to the pedestrian that you were under no obligation to yield. This may not work, but at least it's a defense." - Carl




I see how this is a more vaild defense that the other stuff, but I should be able to shed light on the fact that the other elements of our interaction had a lot to do with it, since at the point of his pulling me over, "he was just going to give me a warning". Given his standpoint on "the warning" even supports the fact that I had already determined there was enough room for me to turn, because if the severity of an infraction was there in full effect I would have recieved the ticket no question.



"I believe you face a $100 fine (plus court costs and assessments)." - Carl



Thanks so much for your help Carl, and I'd like to hear more if possible.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Simplify

What does one point do? What's the affect of that on my record, and what does "one point" mean. If I remember from driving school people are only allowed 3 points in their life right?

Not quite ...

CVC 12810.5. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), a
person whose driving record shows a violation point count of four or
more points in 12 months, six or more points in 24 months, or eight
or more points in 36 months shall be prima facie presumed to be a
negligent operator of a motor vehicle.

Your insurance company might raise your rates if they see points, however.

I was wearing a punk-like outfit, and I feel he passed judgement on me after seeing, and having conversation with me. I was leaving a photo-shoot dressed up like a heroin addict believe it or not.

Your appearance may well have played a part in it. But I suspect it was more likely your attitude. If you tried to argue with him or became argumentative that would have tipped the scale against you. Having the manner of dress you had on, the scale was likely easily tipped.

When I say "Place of attack" I mean I felt he just wanted to issue me the ticket because he felt so. Originally he stated he wasn't going to, and that my "attitude" sold me the ticket. My clothing is very much a part of my "attitude" and I feel he used the wrong judgement leaning towards "attacking" or "getting back" at me for whoever he felt I was, or what I did.

And it is lawful for him to make that judgement and issue the citation.

When I'd try to talk to him, he would continute talking and wouldn't let me in to explain myself at all. It was all about him. He was a self-centered jerk.

Maybe. But most officers don't want to hear explanation son the side of the road. Most people have an excuse - and believe me, we've heard them all.

He saw what he believed to be a violation ... he stopped you and asked you about it ... you wanted to debate it with him and he shut you down. That's how it goes much of the time.

I might shed semi-light on the fact that his decision to issue the ticket could have had just as much to do with the way I was dressed and/or how I kept on interupting him because he put me in such a position to do so. I wasn't able to speak cause I was supposed to sit there and let him tell me how it was, when all I was trying to say was that I didn't know it was the law.

And after you explain all this you will likely be found guilty by the judge and may not be eligible for traffic school. There is no doubt that the officer had the lawful right to issue you the citation. Only if he did it because you were a member of a protected class could you use that as a defense ... kind of.

Keep in mind that traffic school (a way to keep the point off your license) is only eligible once in an 18-month period, and, in CA it is very often not an option if you actually go to trial on the citation. It is still at the judge's discretion, but most counties remove this option when a party takes the stand at trial.

I see how this is a more vaild defense that the other stuff, but I should be able to shed light on the fact that the other elements of our interaction had a lot to do with it, since at the point of his pulling me over, "he was just going to give me a warning". Given his standpoint on "the warning" even supports the fact that I had already determined there was enough room for me to turn, because if the severity of an infraction was there in full effect I would have recieved the ticket no question.

Again, this is not a defense. The officer has every right to decide to give you a ticket for the violation or not. It could be that he was going to give you a warning until he saw the color of your hair. The fact would remain that he could give you the cite.

Here's how it could go:

JUDGE: "So, did you pass through the crosswalk while the pedestrian was still in it?"

YOU: "Well ... yeah ... but, he was going to warn me until he saw ,e ..."

JUDGE: "Okay. With that confession I will find you guilty. Please pay the clerk on the way out. Payment is due in full within 30 days."

The officer's inclination to give a warning does not prove you didn't commit the offense as allaged. Hi sinclination to give a warning indicates that he was either going to be very generous, or, that he initially thought that a warning would suffice to change the beahvior and to eductae you the driver. After contact and discussion he decided that a warning was not going to suffice as you had apparently decided that you had not commited an offense and thus he decided to give you a citation.

One hint at court - don't attack the officer. Very, very few judges like that. Argue the distance between you and the pedestrian, the fact it was safe to make the turn, and maybe even cite the old AG's opinion ... but don't try to blame the officer for your getting the cite. He CAN change his mind. That argument will almost certainly result in your being found guilty.


- Carl

[Simplify]

"One hint at court - don't attack the officer. Very, very few judges like that. Argue the distance between you and the pedestrian, the fact it was safe to make the turn, and maybe even cite the old AG's opinion ... but don't try to blame the officer for your getting the cite. He CAN change his mind. That argument will almost certainly result in your being found guilty." - Carl



Carl this is all wonderful advice, and I appreciate your un-biased communication. It's helped me with what I plan to focus on at the trial, which is the main reason for my attending. Based on my judgment, I felt it was safe and the pedestrian was in no harm. My light turned greet, and she had just stepped foot to walk in the direction I was facing. Since there were no cars coming, I proceeded to drive making it completely through the crosswalk before the girl even entered my side of the road. The officer told me that the moment a pedestrian steps into the crosswalk, I MUST stop, and wait their trip across the whole crosswalk even if it is clear for me to go.

If you can, what is "The Old AG's Opinion"?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Simplify

Carl this is all wonderful advice, and I appreciate your un-biased communication. It's helped me with what I plan to focus on at the trial, which is the main reason for my attending. Based on my judgment, I felt it was safe and the pedestrian was in no harm. My light turned greet, and she had just stepped foot to walk in the direction I was facing. Since there were no cars coming, I proceeded to drive making it completely through the crosswalk before the girl even entered my side of the road. The officer told me that the moment a pedestrian steps into the crosswalk, I MUST stop, and wait their trip across the whole crosswalk even if it is clear for me to go.

If you can, what is "The Old AG's Opinion"?

Keep in mind that as far as I have ever been able to determine, there is no clear definition of what you are required to do when you yield for a pedestrian in a sidewalk. The Vehicle Code does not say that a vehicle must wait until a pedestrian has crossed the road entirely - only that it must yield to the pedestrian.

I posted the 1961 Attorney General's opinion previously:

Driver of vehicle must yield to pedestrian who steps into a crosswalk and then halts, unless there is no danger of a collision or the pedestrian has waived right-of-way. (38 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 100 (1961).)

In that opinion it seems to imply that a driver may continue if there is no danger of a collision with the pedestrian.

However, by admitting that you saw the driver in the sidewalk and still continued through, if your judge is of the opinion that your yielding requires you to wait for the pedestrian to complete their crossing movement, then you will have effectively confessed to the offense.

I honestly haven't seen enough of these argued to know how judges fall on the issue. I think that it's a coin toss. Even among cops it is debated ... my officers frequently ask me for the definition, and I don't always know what to say. I generally go with the idea that if the pedestrian is within some 20' of the car, the car should yield ... what if the pedestrian suddenly turns or runs? But that's just how I use the section.

- Carl

[Simplify]

Thank you Carl, you know it's amazing at how wonderful these forums can be sometimes. I rarely use them but under the right terms, and direction somebody can actually "calm down" by typing in them and get invaluable responses! I have simmered down so you can say, and even though my points are valid, perhaps the best thing for me to do is pay the ticket, stock it up to experience. I might trial it, but that'll all depend on how I feel about my understanding of what happened in the situation while I wait to get the court date. Thanks for all your help!

[Pugilist]

I live in a town where every once in a while the police decide to do full enforcement on the crosswalks. So, they issue tickets, like yours, where the pedestrian has stepped off the sidewalk one foot on the other side of the four lane street. It's a totally Mickey Mouse ticket, and is done to make examples of people, to get the word out.

You should fight it. You have an excellent chance that the officer will not show up for court. If he does, you won't have much of a chance of beating the ticket, so instead of arguing your case you can ask for traffic school.

For general details of fighting a ticket, go to the public library and ask the reference librarian for her best book on the subject.

Pug