Home     Law Advice     Insurance Advice     Community    
Go Back   FreeAdvice Legal Forum > TRAFFIC LAW > Speeding and Other Moving Violations
Reload this Page Pedestrian right of way on divided road

Powered by Attorney Pages


  Find An Attorney In Your Area    
 

Reply
Page 1 of 6 1 23 > Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-2009, 10:47 PM
Junior Member
  
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8

Pedestrian right of way on divided road

California:

California driving question:

I got a ticket for CVC21950a, not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. I was traveling 30mph which was the speed limit on a four lane road (two lanes on each side) with a divider in the middle. The officer said that a pedestrian stepped into the intersection as I reached the crosswalk on the opposite side of the road, that is, on the other side of the divided road. I could not have stopped safely in time. Furthermore, in practice, people don't stop for pedestrians on the opposite side of a divided road.

Questions:
1. Is the "I could not stop safely in time" defense useful?
2. Is there any precedence which says that if they are on the other side of a divided road you do not need to stop for them?
    Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-01-2009, 11:16 AM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,069
1. So you admit to driving to fast for conditions?

2. No. California law states motorists will stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, width of the street is irrelevant.
__________________
If you feel my answer is rude, mean, snarky or in anyway not to your liking, I did my job. You don't need to tell me.

No private messages, I do not reply to them.
    Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-01-2009, 11:19 AM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 21,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer72 View Post
1. So you admit to driving to fast for conditions?

2. No. California law states motorists will stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, width of the street is irrelevant.
California law does NOT state that a motorist will "stop" for pedestrians in the crosswalk. It states they will "yield" to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

California law ALSO place a duty on the pedestrian to not enter the crosswalk when it is not safe to do so.
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision.

Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!

Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)

Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic!

Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to)
    Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-01-2009, 11:44 AM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back in LA LA land
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner View Post
California law does NOT state that a motorist will "stop" for pedestrians in the crosswalk. It states they will "yield" to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Actually California law does not state either.... "Will stop" and "will yield" are different from "shall yield"....

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner View Post
California law ALSO place a duty on the pedestrian to not enter the crosswalk when it is not safe to do so.
There is nothing in the OP's post that suggests that the pedestrian endangered himself... However, considering the fact that the pedestrian was in the crosswalk would suggest that the OP should have yielded the right of way.

As for the "I was too close to be able to stop" VC 21950 does not specify a particular distance from the crosswalk, nor does it exclude a crosswalk on a divided road. It only says that if there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk, the driver of any vehicle shall yield the right of way.
__________________
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” ~ Benjamin Franklin
Last edited by I_Got_Banned; 06-01-2009 at 11:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-01-2009, 11:52 AM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 21,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned View Post
Actually California law does not state either.... "Will stop" and "will yield" are different from "shall yield"....

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.



There is nothing in the OP's post that suggests that the pedestrian endangered himself... However, considering the fact that the pedestrian was in the crosswalk would suggest that the OP should have yielded the right of way.

As for the "I was too close to be able to stop" VC 21950 does not specify a particular distance from the crosswalk, nor does it exclude a crosswalk on a divided road. It only says that if there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk, the driver of any vehicle shall yield the right of way.
Shall and Will are the same. I was paraphrasing.

And, if the pedestrian only entered the crosswalk as the OP was also entering the crosswalk, then the OP wouldn't have had time to yield...


In any case, the biggest problem our OP is going to have is PROVING his version of the events. The opposition has some pretty solid evidence!
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision.

Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!

Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)

Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic!

Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to)
    Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-01-2009, 12:35 PM
Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mojave Desert, CA
Posts: 656
Ok... someone get a big red pen and mark this day on the biggest calendar you can find.... I actually agree with Zigner... mostly.


Zig is right in his interpretation of the VC stating the responsibilities of the driver to yield and of the pedestrian not to jump out into traffic. I also agree that there is effectively no difference between "will" and "shall". They both are compulsory.

However, the issue that no one is picking up on is that the pedestrian was on the OPPOSITE side of a divided highway!!! I have seen several people come here and post that they got a similar ticket when a pedestrian was in the crosswalk more than 120' feet away AND walking in the opposite direction!!!! That definitely puts the cop in the relm of either being poorly trained, incompetent or just stupid!!

The VC says that the driver will YIELD. It doesn't say he has to STOP anytime a person is in a crosswalk. I have made this analogy before... if the law meant stop whenever someone was in the crosswalk, then that would mean that we would be obligated to STOP until there were no cars on the highway when we come to a yield sign! That simply isn't so! If the OP was in no danger of conflicting with the pedestrian's ability to cross, then the OP did in fact YIELD as directed by the VC. So, the OP should not argue that there was no time to stop. The OP simply should argue that the cop's definition of "yield" is not appropriate.
    Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-01-2009, 12:55 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 21,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_bo View Post
Ok... someone get a big red pen and mark this day on the biggest calendar you can find.... I actually agree with Zigner... mostly.
This is a nice feeling
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision.

Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!

Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)

Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic!

Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to)
    Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:09 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner View Post
California law does NOT state that a motorist will "stop" for pedestrians in the crosswalk. It states they will "yield" to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

California law ALSO place a duty on the pedestrian to not enter the crosswalk when it is not safe to do so.
Well EXCUUUUUSSSSEEEE me. I based by response on what a San Francisco cop told me while I waited for him to write me a jaywalking ticket. Next time I'm in Frisco, I will find that cop and tell him motorists "shall yeild", not stop for pedestrians.
__________________
If you feel my answer is rude, mean, snarky or in anyway not to your liking, I did my job. You don't need to tell me.

No private messages, I do not reply to them.
    Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:23 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 21,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer72 View Post
Well EXCUUUUUSSSSEEEE me. I based by response on what a San Francisco cop told me while I waited for him to write me a jaywalking ticket. Next time I'm in Frisco, I will find that cop and tell him motorists "shall yeild", not stop for pedestrians.
Yes, please point it out to him.
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision.

Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!

Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)

Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic!

Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to)
    Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:27 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 21,716
Just to be thorough, here is the code section in question:

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.
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision.

Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!

Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)

Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic!

Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to)
    Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:29 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back in LA LA land
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_bo View Post
I also agree that there is effectively no difference between "will" and "shall". They both are compulsory.
The "will stop" didn't work in the case of the OP, did it?

That makes "will" and "shall", different!!!!
__________________
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” ~ Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:31 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 21,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned View Post
The "will stop" didn't work in the case of the OP, did it?

That makes "will" and "shall", different!!!!
The only difference is that "will" usually refers to the first person and "shall" refers to 2nd or 3rd person...
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision.

Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!

Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)

Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic!

Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to)
    Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:35 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back in LA LA land
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner View Post
The only difference is that "will" usually refers to the first person and "shall" refers to 2nd or 3rd person...
So how does that change the fact that the "will stop" did not work in the OP's case?
__________________
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” ~ Benjamin Franklin
    Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:49 PM
Senior Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 21,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned View Post
So how does that change the fact that the "will stop" did not work in the OP's case?
Will stop or shall stop - neither is required by the code

ETA: If it makes you feel better, I will admit that, in spite of the fact that I used a word with the same legal meaning, the word I used is not the word used in the code.
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision.

Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!

Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)

Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic!

Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to)
    Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-01-2009, 02:06 PM
Member
  
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mojave Desert, CA
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned View Post
So how does that change the fact that the "will stop" did not work in the OP's case?
The OP hasn't gone to court yet, so it has neither worked nor not worked. I guess I don't understand your point.... is there some legal difference between "will" and "shall"? I don't think Zigner was making a legal point when he wrote the word "will". I think he was just writing in plain english.

If there is some legal difference between the two words, please let us know. Otherwise, it appears that you are simply making up issues to argue about.

Oh... by the way. The VC says "shall YIELD", not "shall STOP".
Last edited by Jim_bo; 06-01-2009 at 02:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 6 1 23 > Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 PM.

Contact Us - FreeAdvice - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

IMPORTANT NOTICE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PAGE WERE NOT REVIEWED BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF OR ATTORNEYS AT FREEADVICE.COM. Thousands of professionally prepared and reviewed questions and answers in 130 legal categories are to be found at the Question and Answer pages at FreeAdvice.com.
FreeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding. Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who you have retained to represent you. To locate an attorney visit AttorneyPages.com. Copyright since 1995 by Advice Company. All Rights Reserved.