Cvc 21950 a - veh yield to pedestrian

[I_Got_Banned]

Based on the case law, it appears that it is fairly difficult to establish a violation of Ca Vehicle Code Section 21950, even if the officer wants to alter the facts. The case of People v. Hahn is particularly pertinent here. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/98/supp841.html

In that case, the court states that a driver must only yield enough to provide safe passage for the pedestrian. This means yielding not only long enough to prevent a collision, but yielding long enough so that the pedestrian is not put in apprehension of a collision.

Safe passage is not decided by the driver after he gets cited and is facing a fine. His decision would be highly biased, I am sure you would agree... And so any defendant beginning his testimony with "I don't think I placed the pedestrian in danger" is not likely to have that huge an impact upon the court.


You can cite and interpret Hahn however which way you want. I will say though that ^THIS^ interpretation is different from the opinion that the Hahn court provided:

In answering the question the evident purpose of the statute, which is to secure safe passage for the pedestrian, should be kept in mind. His right of way is not to be measured in fractions of an inch nor tested by split seconds. He is entitled not to just as much space as his body, clothes and buttons require, but to as much as will afford him a safe passage, one that can be taken without either physical interference or such a threat of interference that will reasonably cause him to step back or hesitate in his going. The pedestrian's heart, as well as his body, should be free from attack.​

But wait, that is not it; I should clarify that Hahn was cited and later convicted in violation of 21950, and it is from that conviction that he opted to bring to appeal. And so to quote the Hahn court again:

In the case before us it appears that defendant's car was stopped at the east crosswalk of a north and south street, near the north curb of the street on which he was driving. Two car lanes lay between him and the center line of the roadway. By the time the signal turned to "Go" a pedestrian had reached and just crossed the center line on his way north towards the defendant. The pedestrian, then, had some 20 feet to traverse before reaching the lane in which defendant's car was standing. Was the defendant under a duty, in order to avoid any interference with the pedestrian's safe journey across the street, to wait until he had walked the 20 feet, and then on in front of defendant's car? This was the crucial question before the trial court, and while the decision is a close one, we are not ready to say that the affirmative answer given was without support in the record.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.​

The appellate is not going to revisit a "sufficiency of the evidence" in a case where the evidence seemed to be marginal. To prevail on appeal you must present overwhelming evidence at the court level, and then try your hand at an appeal.

And so to assume that the Hahn evidence was sufficient for the court to dismiss is clearly a wrong reading on your part and to subsequently assume that the case was appealed and that doing so gives it any any more merit, is far from convincing!

When you can find a case where a conviction was overturned, and one which provides a clearer definition that what the Hahn court did, please PM me as I would be enlightened. Until then, the Hahn case has little to no impact on how 21950 is adjudicated. How do I know? Well, let me preface my answer to that by saying that while I admit that my method is not by any means scientific, it would be difficult to conclude the opposite. But if you were to search this forum for 21950, you will find that we have had this discussions more times than I would care to admit, and in each and every thread, someone made your same claims, sans the Hahn opinion (for good reason, I am guessing). And you will also note that no one has returned to update their thread by reporting a successful outcome. You can interpret that however which way you choose. I interpret it to mean that most people cited for 21950 end up getting convicted.

The vehicle code itself puts additional duties of care on the pedestrian in section (b), stating that a pedestrian must still exercise due care for his or her own safety, and must not leave the curb if it would put the pedestrian so close to the vehicle as to constitute an immediate hazard.

And then the question that begs itself is why would the officer chase down and pull over a motorist in order to cite him when he could have simply stopped at the corner, signaled the pedestrian to walk towards him and cited him instead? After all, if your contention is that he was simply filling his quotas for the year, and though I don't personally know anything about or believe that quotas (the way you define them do exist), but a citation is a citation, is it not? I don't even know who the officer is or what agency he works for but I am quite certain that he is as aware of such provision under the law as you and I are.

It seems likely that the driver was not close enough to the pedestrian to constitute a violation of the statute.

It seems you are reading a different thread than the rest of us... Had the pedestrian been in the position as indicated by the OP, and had he stepped off the sidewalk and continued to walk, all while the driver turned into the center lane of a 3 lane roadway, ho would have been on top of the pedestrian no matter how you look at it!

Even if the driver was closer, the pedestrian walking against the signal likely ignores the duty imposed upon him by the statute.

You can assume anything you want. Similarly, I've seen enough of these threads and have sat in court on quite a few trials for variety of violations; you'd be amazed by the contrast in attitude and testimony that we hear here versus what you witness in court! But even without that, most people are only likely to read the particular code section AFTER getting cited for it, whereas, the citing officer is well aware of the language of the code. Sorry but I won't buy into the idea that the officer had no clue.

Even if we assume that the officer is going to testify that there was a green signal, but not a green arrow, the pedestrian's act of stepping off the curb as he saw a motorist approaching would still likely be an action against his duty imposed by the vehicle code.

This is precisely the scenario I anticipate will play out in court and no, if the signal was a circular green and not a green arrow then the primary duty to yield falls upon the driver to yield to the pedestrian; in other words, if in fact the signal was a circular green and not a green arrow then the presence of the pedestrian in the crosswalk is "lawful" and as such, (and from 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.

Furthermore, and while you can misquote the law which you are pretending you know, a quick reading of the code section you referenced clearly imposes the duty upon the pedestrian by stepping off the curb at a point OTHER than within a marked crosswalk. And so it would not apply here.

21954.

(a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.​

​

​

So please, lets not misquote the law in an attempt to convolute the issue!

Unless the officer is going to make some serious alterations to the facts, including the type of signal present, the pedestrian's distance from the curb, and the pedestrian's distance from the vehicle, then it seems unlikely he can succeed.

Distances from the pedestrian to whatever are not relevant if the pedestrian stepped of the sidewalk into the crosswalk and then stepped back for fear that he might get hit. In fact the code lacks any mention of specific distance. The OP is not going to post that here. So he'll tell us the pedestrian did not move, or maybe he simply did not see him move.... As for the light, go to Google Maps and get to street level and you'll see the Circular red on the overhead mast as well as the red arrow on the signal head to the left. So this signal is not necessarily in green arrow mode for all its green phases. It may start with one and switch to the other or it maybe traffic dependent upon traffic present and coming through in the opposite direction or possibly the presence of traffic headed in the direction the OP was headed in.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Even with these alterations, unless the officer's version of events has the pedestrian getting struck by the car or diving out of the way, it seems like it would be difficult to prove that the driver did not provide enough space to provide safe passage without securing the testimony of the pedestrian involved.

OK, so I did think I had read these same arguments before... You in fact started a thread on this forum and revived an old thread on a different forum, but let me confirm your beliefs. It is you understanding that a pedestrian should suffer some injury before anyone could get cited for VC 21950... And so why are you not suggesting the police stop citing for speeding or right turns on red, or illegal lane change unless there is a collision and or injury?

Either that, or the pedestrian must appear in court to testify in support of the officer's version of events and to express and describe his level of fear that he experienced as a result.

Why is it that these elements are neither described in the statute nor are they even mentioned in any court proceeding at the lower level or on appeal?

You're being unrealistic. And so your beef is with the state legislature; you're not going to get where you want to get on this issue by citing Hahn or Mclachlan for that matter.

With all that said, I am curious as to what peaked your interest in this particular code section. That is a lot of research for someone who seems to be new to traffic forums!

 

[Sloop John D]

You can cite and interpret Hahn however which way you want. I will say though that ^THIS^ interpretation is different from the opinion that the Hahn court provided.

I summarized the statement of the rule from the court, using nearly identical language. I'm not sure how you think my interpretation is different. Perhaps some explanation would be helpful.

I should clarify that Hahn was cited and later convicted in violation of 21950, and it is from that conviction that he opted to bring to appeal.

It appears the reason the driver was convicted was because the lower court was operating under the rule that the driver must wait until all pedestrians have cleared the crosswalk before proceeding under a green signal. The appeal court actually overturns this rule, but goes on to state that they affirm the conviction based on the fact that a trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty under their new clarified rule. Honestly, the court was probably being a bit overzealous here because the trier of fact was not deciding under the new rule. In fact, it's a bit unusual that the court affirmed the decision without remanding the case because it seems under the old rule, the trier of fact would have been required to find the defendant guilty as a matter of course. This would not have been true under the new rule. The court probably should have sent this one back to the lower court, which is the court authorized to make findings of fact. Either way, the rule doesn't disappear from jurisprudence just because the defendant did not have his conviction overturned by the new rule. I have not been able to find a case overturning the Hahn court's rule, so I'm not sure why you think the rule is no longer valid. This point would also benefit from some explanation.

When you can find a case where a conviction was overturned, and one which provides a clearer definition that what the Hahn court did, please PM me as I would be enlightened.

Again, I'm not really sure why you think this is important without explanation, as the rule the court announces remains the same no matter what the result is that they reach, but here are a few cases:

People v. McLachlin, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=864881765054623880&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

This is one of the first cases to interpret the meaning of the statute in its current form. In this case the driver strikes a pedestrian who was 20 feet from his lane before she reversed course. The court in this case actually gives a less liberal rule than the one provided by the Hahn case, stating, "when a pedestrian crossing a roadway in a crosswalk is so far from the path of an approaching automobile and proceeding in such a manner that no interference between them is reasonably to be expected, the driver of the automobile need not wait for it to develop." This rule appears to fall short of requiring that the driver must also refrain from putting the pedestrian in apprehension of a collision as the Hahn court held.

Although the driver was initially convicted, the appellate court reverses, finding that a distance of 20ft, the same distance in Hahn, was not so close as to cause a violation of the statute.

Another interesting case is Parsekyan v. Thompson, http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/208/848.html

In that case, the pedestrian was only two or three steps away from the driver's car. When she jumped back three or four steps to avoid collision with a car in front of her, she was struck by the defendant's car. She lost her case, and the appellate court affirmed the decision, apparently finding that a distance of even two or three steps is sufficient for safe passage.

But if you were to search this forum for 21950, you will find that we have had this discussions more times than I would care to admit

While I appreciate the weight of consensus, my own experience is that the members of this forum have formed a few consensus opinions about the state of the law on a few different legal topics that are incorrect. Many of these views get spread without any support, and appear to only escape without scrutiny because they are the consensus. However, a consensus of opinion, especially of random individuals who are not necessarily legal experts, does not lead to a correct statement of the law. I've presented actual case law to support my opinion. I think it would be appropriate to provide equal authority if you have an interest in refuting it.

And then the question that begs itself is why would the officer chase down and pull over a motorist in order to cite him when he could have simply stopped at the corner, signaled the pedestrian to walk towards him and cited him instead?

If you're asking why the officer didn't cite the pedestrian for jaywalking, who knows? A police officer will see a dozen cars speeding and only pull over one. How does he decide which one to stop? Only he can answer that question.

After all, if your contention is that he was simply filling his quotas for the year, and though I don't personally know anything about or believe that quotas (the way you define them do exist)

I was half joking about the quota. Most police departments are not supposed to maintain quotas, but I say half joking because former officers frequently claim they were disciplined for not giving out enough citations. The most likely reason the officer gave the ticket is because he didn't fully understand the law, which I will get to on your next point.

I don't even know who the officer is or what agency he works for but I am quite certain that he is as aware of such provision under the law as you and I are.

Here's a forum thread where some police officers claim that if you passed through a crosswalk before the pedestrian safely reached the sidewalk, you violated Ca Vehicle Code 21950: http://forums.officer.com/t156055/
We know from every case that's been posted that this is an incorrect statement of the law, but it appears that there are police officers giving tickets for this activity regularly. There are judges and lawyers who spent three years in law school and have worked in the legal field for years who wouldn't know the correct application of CVC 21950, so I definitely wouldn't presume that every police officer will be fully informed on the correct application of 100% of traffic laws.

It seems you are reading a different thread than the rest of us... Had the pedestrian been in the position as indicated by the OP, and had he stepped off the sidewalk and continued to walk, all while the driver turned into the center lane of a 3 lane roadway, ho would have been on top of the pedestrian no matter how you look at it!

I believe the OP stated that as he was making his turn, the pedestrian only had one foot off the sidewalk. Regardless, we know that he wouldn't have hit the pedestrian no matter how you look at it because the OP clearly didn't hit the pedestrian.

most people are only likely to read the particular code section AFTER getting cited for it, whereas, the citing officer is well aware of the language of the code.

See my link above. Police officers are not always fully aware of the correct application of the law.

and no, if the signal was a circular green and not a green arrow then the primary duty to yield falls upon the driver to yield to the pedestrian

Absolutely, but as the cases above point out, the driver only has a duty to yield until interference with the pedestrian is not reasonably expected. One foot off the curb is not likely to lead to interference, especially when you consider the close proximity of the car to the pedestrian in some of the cases I posted where the drivers were not convicted.

Furthermore, and while you can misquote the law which you are pretending you know, a quick reading of the code section you referenced clearly imposes the duty upon the pedestrian by stepping off the curb at a point OTHER than within a marked crosswalk.

Speaking of misquoting, statute 21950 (b) actually states, "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." I don't see anything here that would support your position that it only applies when the pedestrian steps off the curb outside of a crosswalk.

Distances from the pedestrian to whatever are not relevant if the pedestrian stepped of the sidewalk into the crosswalk and then stepped back for fear that he might get hit.

The chance of collision must be reasonably expected. This appears to be the rule announced by all the courts. If no collision could be reasonably expected, then it doesn't matter how afraid the pedestrian was of being hit. There would still be no violation.

The OP is not going to post that here. So he'll tell us the pedestrian did not move, or maybe he simply did not see him move....

The OP has nothing to lose by posting the truth here and nothing to gain by posting a lie. If he posts the truth, then he'll get real opinions about his possible results. If he posts a lie, then he'll get a bunch of answers that are not applicable to his circumstances. With this in mind, I see no reason to assume that the OP won't tell the truth.

I hope you don't take anything I've said here personally. I simply disagree with your view. I don't have anything against you personally.

 

[Sloop John D]

OK, so I did think I had read these same arguments before... You in fact started a thread on this forum and revived an old thread on a different forum, but let me confirm your beliefs. It is you understanding that a pedestrian should suffer some injury before anyone could get cited for VC 21950... And so why are you not suggesting the police stop citing for speeding or right turns on red, or illegal lane change unless there is a collision and or injury?

I had to research the issue recently. Talking through it with people helps me understand the law better. I also noticed that most people interpret this particular section of the CVC incorrectly and often advise drivers to just pay the ticket, so I often feel obligated to comment.

The reason I don't suggest the injury requirement for speeding or other laws is because the courts haven't announced that rule. For CVC 21950, they have.

When a court says a driver must only yield when there is a reasonable expectation of interference, then it makes it sound like it is incredibly difficult to violate the statute, especially when we can look at the incident after the fact and see if there was an actual collision. If both the car and the pedestrian were able to continue on their respective paths without interference, then we can conclude that there was no reasonable chance of interference. If you could point to a scenario where the car and the pedestrian came so close to colliding that people would have expected them to collide, then we could potentially say the statute was violated as the rule currently stands, but you couldn't say a driver violated the statute simply because the car passed through an intersection while the pedestrian was in the crosswalk, even if the pedestrian does have the right of way.

After the announcement of the Hahn rule, it does appear that if the pedestrian is put in apprehension of a collision, then the statute could also be violated, but how would you know if the pedestrian was in apprehension? If we don't have his testimony, then we need some outward sign that he was put in fear.

With all of these requirements put in place by the court, it seems difficult to me to ever violate the statute without hitting the pedestrian. I get the impression that this statute was mainly legislated to provide pedestrians who are struck by cars with an easy means of establishing the liability of the driver, but because of the vague language of the statute itself, it gets used by police officers to make stops and give out tickets.

With all that said, I am curious as to what peaked your interest in this particular code section. That is a lot of research for someone who seems to be new to traffic forums!

Honestly it wasn't that much research. I've gotten most of it from others in similar forums. My own run in with this section of the code instigated my research on google, where I found McLachlin. Someone gave me Hahn in the other thread that you found, and then I found the Thompson case in a thread which I was not apart of. Perhaps you or someone else will provide me with a case or statute that proves everything I've said is 100% wrong.

 

[it_msashok]

Left to Mowry allowed only on Green Arrow

Hello Everyone,

Left from Argonaut Way to Mowry Avenue is "always" only on green arrow. I turned left only on green arrow. So the circular green scenario doesn't hold good here.

I will keep you posted with the result of the ticket.

Thanks Everyone.