Challenging a Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian Ticket

[bruno90249@sbcglobal.net]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California veh. code2195A. I was in lane 2 west bound of a 7 lane street; center lane was a turning lane. There was a sting operation using 7 police vehicles; 5 motor cycle/2 squad cars citing for failure to yeild to pedestrians. I observed all PD vehicles and was cited for not yilding to a pedestrian in lane 1 on the east bound traffic. I never observed the pedestrian. Is the distraction of all the PD vehicles legal and how many lanes are a safe distance for continuing on through the intersection?

[camhater]

This older thread may be interesting:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92211

It seems somewhat unclear what the definition of "yield to pedestrians" is. In particular there doesn't seem to be a crystal-clear rule for where in the crossing process a pedestrian needs to be before it's OK to go - all the way across, halfway, moving away, moving towards, at a point of safety (like a median). Even worse, jaywalkers can wander out against the red hand, leaving you unable to complete a movement at all.

[EWYLTJ]

Wow... I had some really good points in that old thread!!!

Camhater, I don't agree with you that "yield to pedestrians" is unclear. It is very clear. It is simply abused. As I stated in the thread you referenced, this is simply a case of the state out on a "revenue generating scam". As I read it, the OP was 4 lanes away from the pedestrian when he went through the intersection. Thats somewhere between 70 and 90 feet. Even if the pedestrian took off at a full sprint, it is unlikely that his progress could have been impeded by the OP or that the OP's proceding through the intersection would have put the pedestrian at risk. The law does NOT say that a vehicle and a pedestrian cannot occupy a crosswalk at the same time. It says the motorist must YIELD, and that's what the OP did.

Anyone who is not infuriated by this type of scam for the state truly doesn't understand what liberty is all about.

[sniper]

As I read it, the OP was 4 lanes away from the pedestrian when he went through the intersection. Thats somewhere between 70 and 90 feet.

Actually, most city street lanes are 10-12' wide with some exceptions to the slow lane. That's only 40-48 feet.

[That Guy]

Actually, most city street lanes are 10-12' wide with some exceptions to the slow lane. That's only 40-48 feet.

Good point Sniper. Keep in mind that the OP in THIS thread was "distracted" and "never observed how close/far the pedestrian was at the time"... So arguing "safe distance" (although it is not mentioned in the statute) is far from being a viable defense here!

Even worse, jaywalkers can wander out against the red hand, leaving you unable to complete a movement at all.

... and in that case, I would certainly hope that the pedestrian would be on the receiving end of that citation.

[EWYLTJ]

TG,

You are just looking for justification for your pre-determined conclusion. Even if the OP was distracted, it is irrelevant. The only question is: did the OP yield (i.e. not impede the progress) of the pedestrian? As Sniper corrected me, the OP was 40 - 50 feet away when proceeding through the intersection. If that is dangerous, how can a car EVER navigate through a walmart parking lot??

[adam_]

To the OP.

I'd use the following publication, direcltly from the California Highway Patrol, to assist the court in understanding that even law enforcement agrees that 'stopping' is not the only way to 'yield'.

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=10...issues_who.htm

Submitted by Jeffrey Perez on October 4, 2007 - California Crosswalk Laws and Right of Way Issues


Daily, the California Highway Patrol office receives numerous inquiries about the CALIFORNIA CROSSWALK LAW (CCL). To assist with the dissemination of the CCL, the following information was compiled from the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office, reviewed and edited by Mark Vos, lead Deputy District Attorney, Appellate Services Unit:

Drive, or don't drive; this topic aims to reconcile divided opinions on how to properly enforce California crosswalk law. Although pedestrian safety is of paramount importance, pedestrians in crosswalks do not have an unlimited right-of-way, but only a qualified one. For example, motorists need not wait for pedestrians to finish crossing before they pass through a crosswalk, if drivers do so at a reasonably safe distance from the pedestrians at a reasonably safe speed. Moreover, pedestrians must be mindful of their own duties toward motorists. Practically, enforcement of crosswalk law depends upon officers' sound judgment and expertise.

I agree that TGs assertion that the OP was 'distracted' and therefore 'guilty' is silly. But it is also not a winning strategy.

Read the entire link.

GL

A