Failure to yield to pedestrian ticket – CA

[I_Got_Banned]

You mean like the post that I made where you whined about me "attacking" you????

I did ignore you the first time you said that Jim, but like a little child, you're gonna keep repeating it until I say something to shut you up...

You wanna talk about whining Jim?

Let me refer you to this thread: https://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/am-i-only-one-who-sick-trolls-429828.html

You got spanked pretty bad on that on, didn't you?

You aren't offering anything productive here... so what is your point?

... and what are you offering here, Mr. Hypocrite?

Why dont you let Dave fight his own battles, Jim... At least let him try and do it on his own... It builds character and it will give him some confidence!

On a side note... My apologies to the OP for the worst case of threadjacking I have ever seen, let alone been a part of!

 

[JIMinCA]

IGB.... can you go mop up your tears somewhere else.... we have a relevant discussion going here.

 

[JIMinCA]

Well, I hate to interrupt this friendly little flame war with actual comments on the original question, but my opinion is that this law (which is not a model of clarity) would seem to say to me that if anyone is in that crosswalk, the driver has to yield.

As another poster pointed out... it hinges on the definition of the word "yield". In an earlier post, I compared it to yielding as you get on the interstate. You must yield to traffic, but that in no way means you cannot proceed if there is a car anywhere on the road.

If there was no possibility of a collision between the pedestrian and the motorist, then the motorist DID yield.

This is one of those vague laws where the cop and the judge are both expected to use some reasonable judgement. However, in traffic cases it too often means that all judgement is thrown out the window and the concern is more towards getting paid. The cop has an attitude of "I'm the law" and writes tickets for any crap he wants to (like this one) and judges have the attitude of "if the motorist wasn't guilty, the cop wouldn't have written the ticket".

More often than not, justice is NOT found in traffic court.

 

[CdwJava]

As has been mentioned in a prior post on this very topic, the answer varies. Some courts will require the driver to yield to a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk, others will not. As there is apparently no case law refining the matter, and no specific definition of how this yielding must be accomplished (short of allowing the ped. to pass), then it is up to the subjective opinion of the court.

- Carl

 

[Dougthegreat]

...considering growing up in the east and you take you life in your hands when you try to cross a street.

Yes, because the street is where the cars belong, and the sidewalk is where the pedestrians belong.

Honestly, when I go to California, it drives me crazy that pedestrians act like they're Moses parting the Red Sea - they just walk right in. The laws of physics will always trump who has right of way, so long as you value your life; you learn that darn quick when you start to ride a motorcycle.

If a pedestrian steps out against the light or outside of a crosswalk, I don't feel that there's any good reason why any motorist should be cited for failing to yield.

As a motorist, I never drive on the sidewalk, even if I could get around an accident or something like that. Pedestrians should kindly have the same respect for the road.

 

[Alex23]

This isn't stated in the OP, but I'm assuming that this crosswalk was in the middle of the block without any stop signs or lights.

When you come to a four-way stop the situation is a little more clear. If there are peds crossing, don't enter the intersection until they are done crossing.

 

[davew128]

They did? Did you do a survey? And if so WHY WASN'T I INCLUDED?

Because your opinion wasn't required.

Dave, one thing you gotta understand... When you post in a public forum (like you're on now), you will come across some posts that you might not like. If you're gonna have an anurism over each one, you might not make it to your speeding ticket trial... Point is, ..., well never mind. That's all the time I have for this one!

IGB, one thing you gotta understand, when you make an ass of yourself in a public forum, people will notice and take appropriate action. You wouldn't want to get banned from the forum would you?

 

[davew128]

As has been mentioned in a prior post on this very topic, the answer varies. Some courts will require the driver to yield to a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk, others will not. As there is apparently no case law refining the matter, and no specific definition of how this yielding must be accomplished (short of allowing the ped. to pass), then it is up to the subjective opinion of the court.

- Carl

Which is the problem. It seems from your prior posts that courts in SoCal seem to have the more reasonable approach to the matter and courts in NorCal well, not so much. It seems completely illogical to disrupt traffic because a pedestrian is somewhere in the crosswalk and there would never be a disruption of his crossing even if he were Usain Bolt sprinting at top speed. Taking this a bit further, what if this is a divided road? You're in the right lane and the pedestrian on the opposite side just stepped onto the road. Depending on how the road is divided (fence or jerse barrier) you might not even see the pedestrian and still get a ticket for not yielding even though the person was 100 feet away. Insanity.

 

[Maestro64]

Which is the problem. It seems from your prior posts that courts in SoCal seem to have the more reasonable approach to the matter and courts in NorCal well, not so much. It seems completely illogical to disrupt traffic because a pedestrian is somewhere in the crosswalk and there would never be a disruption of his crossing even if he were Usain Bolt sprinting at top speed. Taking this a bit further, what if this is a divided road? You're in the right lane and the pedestrian on the opposite side just stepped onto the road. Depending on how the road is divided (fence or jerse barrier) you might not even see the pedestrian and still get a ticket for not yielding even though the person was 100 feet away. Insanity.

You correct NorCal is tougher and does not seem to allow much leeway and they error on giving pedestrian and cyclist more rights and the benefit of the doubt. They tend to be tougher about any part of your car being in the cross walk as well. It may have something to do with the type of people who live in each of these locations. NorCal tends to have higher % of working professional relative to other locations, and I'll leave at that for you all to infer the rest.

 

[CdwJava]

Which is the problem. It seems from your prior posts that courts in SoCal seem to have the more reasonable approach to the matter and courts in NorCal well, not so much. It seems completely illogical to disrupt traffic because a pedestrian is somewhere in the crosswalk and there would never be a disruption of his crossing even if he were Usain Bolt sprinting at top speed. Taking this a bit further, what if this is a divided road? You're in the right lane and the pedestrian on the opposite side just stepped onto the road. Depending on how the road is divided (fence or jerse barrier) you might not even see the pedestrian and still get a ticket for not yielding even though the person was 100 feet away. Insanity.

It's all a matter of subjective opinion as the law does not clearly define the situation.

If this were a misdemeanor or a felony, we'd at least have state jury instructions that would refine the law by providing clear definitions. As it is, it is an infraction, and left up to the statutory definitions or the judge's discretion when the statutes are lacking (as they are here).

The statutes do not always tell the whole tale. For instance, in a case involving a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk against the walk signal (facing a "Don't Walk" sign) who has crossed more than half the street and is struck by a vehicle with a green light the driver of the vehicle with the green light is at fault ... even though the ped. was crossing in violation of the statutes the driver should have seen the obstruction in the road and been driving with due care.

The decision in such a matter might vary by court. heck, the court where this little "sting" is in operation may end up tossing them all out ... no way to tell.

- Carl

 

[JustAPal00]

Unfortunately for the OP he resides in the Socialist Republic of California and has to go by their laws. You should send some of your lawmakers to DC on a little junket to read a document called the Constitution. They might learn something!

 

[CdwJava]

Unfortunately for the OP he resides in the Socialist Republic of California and has to go by their laws. You should send some of your lawmakers to DC on a little junket to read a document called the Constitution. They might learn something!

I've read the Constitution and do not see where it mentions pedestrians and crosswalks or even traffic regulation (aside from relegating those sorts of things to the states).

Precisely what element of the Constitution do you believe addresses this situation?

- carl

 

[seniorjudge]

I've read the Constitution and do not see where it mentions pedestrians and crosswalks or even traffic regulation (aside from relegating those sorts of things to the states).

Precisely what element of the Constitution do you believe addresses this situation?

- carl

Section 9

Clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


Since migration clearly refers from a person moving from one point to another, this clearly covers jaywalking and stuff.

 

[CdwJava]

Section 9

Clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


Since migration clearly refers from a person moving from one point to another, this clearly covers jaywalking and stuff.

Ah! You ARE joking ... sorry, SJ, in my original post I thought you were Pal.

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

Carl,

The point is that the courts you talk about have an unreasonable interpretation. If I am at a crosswalk on a multilane road and I am in the far right lane, a pedestrian could cross in front of me from my right to left. By the twisted interpretations in the court you refer to, I would have to allow the pedestrian to go all the way past at least 3 more lanes, a center divider and a bicycle lane before I could proceed. To not do so would be considered not yielding. This simply insults the intellegence of reasonable people and is NOT done so in an effort to enhance safety, rather it is clearly done so to enhance revenue! An arbitrary interpretation of a statute does not result in a fine... it results in a tax. We get taxed plenty in this state. Being the level-headed, reasonable person you are... I am surprised that this arbitrary interpretation of the law is so readily accepted by you. I haven't once read where you say it is an unreasonable interpretation... nor have I read where you have directed your subordinates to follow a reasonable interpretation when enforcing the statuute. To sit back and make observation of an abuse of authority when in a position to directly do something about it is contrary to the oath to protect and serve... as sometimes the good citizens need to be protected from the State.