Pedestrian/Crosswalk Violation in CA

[moxy]

A pedestrian stepped off the curb in front of me as I accelerated in a 4-way intersection. The moment I saw the pedestrian I immediately came to a complete stop and allowed the pedestrian to clear the path of my vehicle before I progressed. The officer said he was ticketing me because I did not allow the pedestrian to completely cross the street before I proceeded. I checked the California vehicle code that I supposedly violated (21950a) and there is absolutely no verbiage that states the driver must allow the pedestrian to completely cross. It only says that the driver "...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."

The moment I saw the pedestrian, I came to an immediate complete stop allowing the pedestrian to clear my path before proceeding.

Do I have a prayer if I choose to fight this?

[CdwJava]

Well, you have a prayer, but it really depends on the opinions of the courts in your neck of the woods. I have seen court decisions both ways on this one.

However, as per the section:

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.

It instructs a driver to yield the right of way to a driver crossing the roadway within the crosswalk (marked or unmarked). This would seem to imply that the vehicle must yield so long as the pedestrian is still crossing the roadway and in the intersection.



- Carl

[moxy]

The wording of the vehicle code you posted is quite different then what I found. May I ask the source of the vehicle code you posted? The exact verbiage is essential to my argument. If the judge counters the vehicle code worded as YOU posted it with what I found, my argument would be futile. Isn't there one definitive source for traffic laws?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by moxy

The wording of the vehicle code you posted is quite different than what I found. May I ask the source vehicle code you posted? The exact verbiage is essential to my argument. If there's multiple versions of this code that are worded differently than I'll need to know where to find them. Where's the best place to find the most accurate verbiage of California traffic codes and where did you find the one you posted. Thanks very much for your help.

From the California state Legislative Information website at:

[url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/[/url]

And the specifics for CVC 21950 at:

[url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7641538378+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve[/url]

However, the Leginfo site is current through 2003 (though I do not recall ANY changes in 2004 or 2005 for that section).

It can also be found at the DMV website at:

[url]http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm[/url]

Though it is unknown when that was updated last ... however, the wording is the same.

And the printed 2004 Vehicle Code is also identical.

- Carl

[moxy]

Though the issue of the pedestrian completely crossing the street before the vehicle can proceed isn't specifically addressed, the word "WITHIN" the crosswalk would probably be the deciding factor against my argument (I'm guessing). Would that be an accurate assumption?

The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk...

If you were in this situation, would you try and dispute it or just figure that the benefit of the doubt would go to the court?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by moxy

Though the issue of the pedestrian completely crossing the street before the vehicle can proceed isn't specifically addressed, the word "WITHIN" the crosswalk would probably be the deciding factor against my argument (I'm guessing). Would that be an accurate assumption?


If you were in this situation, would you try and dispute it or just figure that the benefit of the doubt would go to the court?

I would probably try to dispute it ... but, how successful that argument might bereally varies by court. And, frankly, I don't recall personally seeing it ever made so I really don't have any personal tales to tell.

But! Here i sanother thing to consider ... if you fight the citation, you will not likely be permitted to attend traffic school if you lose. You can plead no contest or guilty before a trial and and likely still be eligible for traffic school.

- Carl

[aznxplayer]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

But! Here i sanother thing to consider ... if you fight the citation, you will not likely be permitted to attend traffic school if you lose. You can plead no contest or guilty before a trial and and likely still be eligible for traffic school.

- Carl

that is not correct. i tried fighting the exact same ticket, but lost because i didnt really prepare but i got the fine lowered to 50 bucks and i took traffic school.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by aznxplayer

that is not correct. i tried fighting the exact same ticket, but lost because i didnt really prepare but i got the fine lowered to 50 bucks and i took traffic school.

Hence the reason I said "likely" ... and it IS true that in CA traffic courts, the option for traffic school is regularly NOT available after trial.

- Carl

[lwpat]

that is not correct. i tried fighting the exact same ticket, but lost because i didnt really prepare but i got the fine lowered to 50 bucks and i took traffic school.

Sound like you won to me.