Failure to Stop for Pedestrian Ticket

[georgew]

it is really simple

You guys don't seem to know what yield means...

If a pedestrian has entered the crosswalk, or has started crossing a street without a crosswalk, you must yield. That means they must complete their crossing before you may pass.

In driving, if you are supposed to yield the right of way, it means you let the other person pass first. In an intersection marked with a yield sign, if you see another car coming, but they are not very close, it may seem somewhat ambiguous as to when they are close enough to require you to stop and wait for them, but strictly speaking you must stop if you see someone coming.

For pedestrians crossing a street, it is very simple, once they step into the street, you may not cross their path. It does not matter how many lanes they have to traverse, how slow they are going, or how safe you think it is... Once they enter the crosswalk or step into the street, you must stop and wait for them to pass. THAT is what is meant by yielding.

Didn't they teach you that in driver's ed? Wasn't it on your written driving test?

Yield signs mean stop if someone else is coming. Yielding to someone else means stopping for them. So yielding to pedestrians means you stop. The only exception is that if you can slow down enough to let the other party pass before you must stop, then your yield doesn't require a complete stop. In the case of pedestrians, creeping at them when they are in front of you is frowned upon, so in the case of pedestrians it is safer to always come to a complete stop.

 

[CdwJava]

You guys don't seem to know what yield means...

If a pedestrian has entered the crosswalk, or has started crossing a street without a crosswalk, you must yield. That means they must complete their crossing before you may pass.

I'm curious where you find that in the CVC or in CA Case law, because no one I know has been able to find that one.

The section as written is subjective as there is no objective definition in the CVC that mandates the driver yield until the crosswalk is clear, nor is their case law with such a definition.

 

[ndh777]

You guys don't seem to know what yield means...

If a pedestrian has entered the crosswalk, or has started crossing a street without a crosswalk, you must yield. That means they must complete their crossing before you may pass.

In driving, if you are supposed to yield the right of way, it means you let the other person pass first. In an intersection marked with a yield sign, if you see another car coming, but they are not very close, it may seem somewhat ambiguous as to when they are close enough to require you to stop and wait for them, but strictly speaking you must stop if you see someone coming.

For pedestrians crossing a street, it is very simple, once they step into the street, you may not cross their path. It does not matter how many lanes they have to traverse, how slow they are going, or how safe you think it is... Once they enter the crosswalk or step into the street, you must stop and wait for them to pass. THAT is what is meant by yielding.

Didn't they teach you that in driver's ed? Wasn't it on your written driving test?

Yield signs mean stop if someone else is coming. Yielding to someone else means stopping for them. So yielding to pedestrians means you stop. The only exception is that if you can slow down enough to let the other party pass before you must stop, then your yield doesn't require a complete stop. In the case of pedestrians, creeping at them when they are in front of you is frowned upon, so in the case of pedestrians it is safer to always come to a complete stop.

They never talked about this in Driver's Ed, Training, or on any of the tests at the DMV and I took 4 of those tests. My dad, who was a traffic school instructor for many years, as well as a police officer here, have both said that the law is vague and it depends on each court.

Your definition of yield doesn't match. On the one hand, you say that yielding is allowing others to come forward. But say you yield to a car coming towards you, at what point is that car "too close"? A block away? The intersection down the road? Yielding to me means that if someone is in your way and you are to yield to them, you are to allow them go in front of you if your paths cross. However, your definition of yielding is much different.

I think that the law is too vague and when I go to court, they will decide based on the judge whether I was in the right or wrong.

 

[Zigner]

Okay, thank you very much CdwJava. Now I have some terms to add to my thoughts. I didn't know exactly how to say it but that's how I thought too that half of the street is a good way to see it. Thank you very much for the input.

It's even dicier than "half the street". I've driven on streets that are barely wide enough for two cars to pass. Half the street is NOT "yielding" in those instances, IMO. The way *I* judge it is, if the pedestrian were to turn around and run towards me (like as if he forgot something important,) would I STILL have time to complete the turn without interfering? If yes, then I've yielded.

 

[Zigner]

Yield signs mean stop if someone else is coming.

No, it doesn't. Please research the definition of yield, then come back and post your results. We'll wait

 

[I_Got_Banned]

It's even dicier than "half the street". I've driven on streets that are barely wide enough for two cars to pass. Half the street is NOT "yielding" in those instances, IMO. The way *I* judge it is, if the pedestrian were to turn around and run towards me (like as if he forgot something important,) would I STILL have time to complete the turn without interfering? If yes, then I've yielded.

OK, so let's back up to Carl's post for a second, and let mepose his same question but from the opposite direction... Where do you find any of that in the CVC or in CA case law, because I personally have searched time and again, and not even a reference that remotely resembles that interpretation exists....

But wait, I'm not going to argue that your suggestion under the circumstances you describe is unreasonable because it is reasonable...

The question then becomes, how do we enforce that? We have to recognize that while the select few are careful, reasonable and patient... But we also have to admit that there are enough idiots out there who can not be trusted on a bicycle, let alone in a "deadly weapon" that weighs several thousand pounds!
So what happens when the circumstances change?
What if it is a 4 lane highway? Or 5 lanes for that matter; 3 on my side and 2 on the opposite side? Or the other way around?
Do we allow the pedestrian one lane, one and a half lanes, or half the roadway?
And how old is this guy who might run back?
Is he on the track team at high school and can sprint back and get hit by me in a matter of a few seconds? Or is he an old beer belly who's been smoking for the past 35 years, and I could be halfway down the next block before he could come close to being "in danger of getting hit"?

No, I'm not done yet... Why don't we also extend this discussion into how to interpret VC 21950(b) to include prohibiting that pedestrian from turning around and going back, regardless of what he forgot? Why should "the driver" have to carry the full burden of responsibility each and every time when in fact, the CVC is clear that both, driver and pedestrian share it equally.

I think most of the regulars on here are aware of my interpretation. Now keep in mind that I am not claiming that it is correct, or that it is "the most reasonable"... The reason I have always, and will continue to stick to it unless and until the CVC changes or some sort of case law precedent is set, is because it is clearly defined, it leaves no room for "interpretation" or personal opinion, and there is one single variable that it depends upon EACH AND EVERY TIME, that being "if the pedestrian is in the cross walk.....", then it follows that "the driver must stay out of it (and YES, this includes him/her having to STOP if need be)"

I have also made my "legislative intent argument on here... But I'll repeat it for those who have not heard it before.... Had the legislature intended on allowing the driver then they would not have worded 21950 as they did, OR better yet, they would have included some language giving the driver the right of way when the pedestrian is (as an example) halfway across the road... Or X lanes away.... But.... They didn't!!!!! I wonder why?

 

[Zigner]

I wonder why?

Because the phrase "yield" is totally subjective and totally dependent on specific circumstances

 

[Zigner]

I have also made my "legislative intent argument on here... But I'll repeat it for those who have not heard it before.... Had the legislature intended on allowing the driver then they would not have worded 21950 as they did, OR better yet, they would have included some language giving the driver the right of way when the pedestrian is (as an example) halfway across the road... Or X lanes away.... But.... They didn't!!!!! I wonder why?

One other thing I'd like to point out. If the legislature had "intended" for the crosswalk to be totally clear, wouldn't it have been MUCH more logical to simply state that?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

One other thing I'd like to point out. If the legislature had "intended" for the crosswalk to be totally clear, wouldn't it have been MUCH more logical to simply state that?

Are you saying that "if the crosswalk is clear then a driver need not yield" would be a better -more logical- way of describing a violation than it saying "if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk then the driver must yield"?

 

[Zigner]

Are you saying that "if the crosswalk is clear then a driver need not yield" would be a better -more logical- way of describing a violation than it saying "if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk then the driver must yield"?

No, the more appropriate statement to match your conclusion would be "...if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, then the driver must stop and wait for the crosswalk to be clear before proceeding." But, that's not the statement. The statement is that the driver must yield. What is YOUR definition of yield? What is the "common" definition of yield? What is the definition of yield in the CVC? (Hint: Only the last one actually matters. The other two are for clarity only.)

 

[I_Got_Banned]

No, the more appropriate statement to match your conclusion would be "...if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, then the driver must stop and wait for the crosswalk to be clear before proceeding."

But I didn't ask you for a statement that would better support MY posistion (in my opinion, the language of the VC already does support my position)... So ^that^ doesn't answer my question to you... I asked you if in your opinion, the statement "if the crosswalk is clear then a driver need not yield" would be a better -more logical- way of describing a violation than it saying "if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk then the driver must yield"?

The statement is that the driver must yield. What is YOUR definition of yield? What is the "common" definition of yield? What is the definition of yield in the CVC? (Hint: Only the last one actually matters. The other two are for clarity only.)

While you and I know that the CVC has no specific definition for "yield" (been there, done that), and other than to circumvent having to answer my question to you (see above), what is the purpose behind your question (or your HINT)?

 

[Zigner]

But I didn't ask you for a statement that would better support MY posistion (in my opinion, the language of the VC already does support my position)... So ^that^ doesn't answer my question to you... I asked you if in your opinion, the statement "if the crosswalk is clear then a driver need not yield" would be a better -more logical- way of describing a violation than it saying "if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk then the driver must yield"?


While you and I know that the CVC has no specific definition for "yield" (been there, done that), and other than to circumvent having to answer my question to you (see above), what is the purpose behind your question (or your HINT)?

The PURPOSE of it is to point out that the CVC requires one to YIELD to a pedestrian IN THE CROSSWALK. According to your line of thinking, the crosswalk would be clear by the time the driver is allowed to go. As such, the statement that the driver yield to the pedestrian IN THE CROSSWALK is not needed. The CVC does not require one to yield until the pedestrian is not in the crosswalk...

 

[I_Got_Banned]

The CVC does not require one to yield until the pedestrian is not in the crosswalk...

True... But it still does require one to yield to a pedestrian who is in the crosswalk. I can play these word games all day and into the night

You still haven't answered my question...

 

[Zigner]

True... But it still does require one to yield to a pedestrian who is in the crosswalk. I can play these word games all day and into the night

Agreed - it is vague and open to interpretation

You still haven't answered my question...

Ask again, my eyes are tired

ETA: The purpose behind my question? I was trying to point out that the phrase "yield" is vague and open to interpretation - that is all

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Ask again, my eyes are tired

I'll just save it for another day when you're feeling better...

ETA: The purpose behind my question? I was trying to point out that the phrase "yield" is vague and open to interpretation - that is all

No argument there!