21950(a) CVC ticket. What are my chances of winning if I fight?

[Ailicec]

I am California. I was making a stop in a four-way-stop when I saw a pedestrian crossing right in front of my vehicle from right to left. When he was at the far side, about one feet of the curb ramp, I advanced, making a left. As soon as I entered the intersection I noticed he was in the crosswalk of the lane into which my vehicle was turning. I reduced my speed, and stopped my vehicle. I waited for the pedestrian to cross, and when he was crossing right in front of my car, two more pedestrian entered the same crosswalk as well. I remained stopped waiting for the pedestrians to finish crossing the street. Then another pedestrian entered into the same crosswalk. Once again, I remained stopped and waited until the last pedestrian finished crossing the street. Then, I advanced and as soon as my car moved, a cop pull me over. All of the pedestrian walked at normal pace, without jumping back, stopping or even reacted defense. The cop said he pulled me over because I didn't yield. I said that I did yield and he said that I didn't yield to the first pedestrian. What are my chances of winning this ticket if I fight? Should I ask for a trial by written declaration or should I just go to court? My English is not very good and I don't know if I would be able to explain in writing the situation in a correct way. By the way, everything happened very closed to a high school and I think pedestrian were high school students.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

My English is not very good and I don't know if I would be able to explain in writing the situation in a correct way.

You just wrote it very well.

 

[Just Blue]

You just wrote it very well.

I thought so as well. I was able to vividly picture what happened with no confusion at all.

 

[adjusterjack]

When he was at the far side, about one feet of the curb ramp, I advanced, making a left

I think that might be the problem. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian steps up on the sidewalk before you move.

 

[Ailicec]

I think that might be the problem. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian steps up on the sidewalk before you move.

In my interpretation, of 21950 (a) It doesn't say anithing about waiting until the pedestrian steps up on the side before moving. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong?
Here is what it says:

CHAPTER 5. Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties [21949 - 21971]
( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )


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.
(Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 833, Sec. 8. Effective January 1, 2001.)

 

[Just Blue]

In my interpretation, of 21950 (a) It doesn't say anithing about waiting until the pedestrian steps up on the side before moving. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong?
Here is what it says:

CHAPTER 5. Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties [21949 - 21971]
( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )


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.
(Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 833, Sec. 8. Effective January 1, 2001.)

You must wait for the pedestrian to exit the cross-walk before proceeding. Read (d) carefully.

 

[Ailicec]

You must wait for the pedestrian to exit the cross-walk before proceeding. Read (d) carefully.

yes, but on my ticket he wrote "cvc 21950 (a)- Ped in crosswalk" He didn't wrote cvc 21950 (d). Doesn't (d) refers to (b)?

 

[Just Blue]

yes, but on my ticket he wrote "cvc 21950 (a)- Ped in crosswalk" He didn't wrote cvc 21950 (d). Doesn't (d) refers to (b)?

He wrote you up because the pedestrian was still in the cross walk.

 

[Zigner]

I think that might be the problem. You're supposed to wait until the pedestrian steps up on the sidewalk before you move.

That's not what the law says in California.

 

[Zigner]

You must wait for the pedestrian to exit the cross-walk before proceeding. Read (d) carefully.

That's not what the law says in California. Some police officers interpret it that way, as do some courts, but per the letter of the law, that is not the case.

If I am at one side of a 6-lane (3 lanes in each direction) road waiting to turn right, and a pedestrian is 5 feet from the curb on the opposite side, have I not yieled if I proceed to make my turn? Have I not exercised due care, considering the pedestrian is at least 40-50 feet away from me?

If the OP began her turn before the pedestrian stepped in to the intersection, then it could be argued that the OP did not violate the code section she was cited for ( 21950(a) ). I suspect that the OP caused this problem when she stopped in the middle of the intersection for many pedestrians to pass.

 

[Zigner]

He wrote you up because the pedestrian was still in the cross walk.

...but the OP had already yielded to the pedestrian, per the plain-English meaning of the word "yield".

ETA: The CVC doesn't provide a definition of the word "yield" which is why one must rely on the plain-English meaning. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=&article=

 

[Just Blue]

That's not what the law says in California. Some police officers interpret it that way, as do some courts, but per the letter of the law, that is not the case.

If I am at one side of a 6-lane (3 lanes in each direction) road waiting to turn right, and a pedestrian is 5 feet from the curb on the opposite side, have I not yieled if I proceed to make my turn? Have I not exercised due care, considering the pedestrian is at least 40-50 feet away from me?

If the OP began her turn before the pedestrian stepped in to the intersection, then it could be argued that the OP did not violate the code section she was cited for ( 21950(a) ). I suspect that the OP caused this problem when she stopped in the middle of the intersection for many pedestrians to pass.

I'll bow to your knowledge ... but per her description it "seems" to me to be a good ticket.

 

[CdwJava]

Here is 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.

(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 problem is that the section does not describe what yielding should look like. Some courts hold that one must yield when the pedestrian is anywhere within the sidewalk, others hold that one need only yield so long as there is a realistic threat of harm to the pedestrian should they suddenly turn and move back into your path. As yet, there is no definitive law on what this yielding looks like. In those counties where the police work 21950 VC "sting" operations, it is usually in counties where the local court holds the theory that the entire crosswalk is sacrosanct.

Now, none of this may apply to he OP's situation since there appears to be a bit of a wrinkle in his particular scenario, but, it is important to point out that there is no clear cut definition of "yield" in so far as it pertains to the vehicle.

 

[Zigner]

I'll bow to your knowledge ... but per her description it "seems" to me to be a good ticket.

Oh, I agree that it likely was. I'm just always bothered by the ambiguity in the law on this matter, as was explained very nicely by CDWJava.

 

[CdwJava]

I always hated our original cellphone use (while driving law) for the same reason of ambiguity. While I used it as reasonable suspicion to stop people, I don't think I EVER cited anyone for it. The sad fact is that a great many of our traffic laws lack the benefit of clarifying legislation or case case law - at least until it's the root cause of a stop that develops into some serious offense by a wealthy defendant or who is represented by a crusader who goes the last mile to make case law.