ExpertLaw.com Forums

Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
  • 04-15-2013, 06:45 PM
    Jmartin
    Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

    My Wife (driver) got a ticket

    Alleged: Failure to yield for pedestrian in crosswalk
    Citation: VC 21950(B)
    Crosswalk: Marked, "mid-block" (not an intersection), for a school (college). After crossing, the college is a block away via dirt road next to an orchard
    Crossing: Pedestrian moving from Left to Right (from driver's perspective)
    Lanes: 2 - Driver lane was narrow, no shoulder or parking to the right, only dirt. Opposite Lane was 2-car widths + parking width, 3 widths but only one "Lane"
    Speed on Citation: 30 (limit was 35)

    The Officer's handwriting is HORRIBLE and we only have the yellow copy, so the letters are faint. But it appears to say VC 21950(B), not A, C, or D. My wife recalls seeing the pedestrian on the sidewalk, her back to the street, talking with 2-3 other people. In this recollection, my wife was very near the crosswalk, perhaps no more than 3-4 car lengths. AS she reached and crossed over the crosswalk, the collage student began began crossing. My wife recalls turning her head as she passed, observing the student get 3-4 steps into the crosswalk by the time my wife's car was over top the crosswalk. In this moment, a vehicle in the oncoming lane was stopped for the pedestrian. She does not recall the details of this vehicle's approach or stop.

    She does not know where the Officer was located, but he stopped her after exactly 1 mile and 2 right turns. He asked if she knew why he stopped her. She said No. He said she didn't stop for the girl at the crosswalk. She said 'oh yeah' (not as in admitting guilt, but in acknowledgement of remembering the pedestrian) She does not recall exactly what she said, or specifically making an argument, but she knows she said something about the situation, to the effect that she didn't see the pedestrian walk soon enough or that it was too late to stop. She knows she said something because the officer then stated she was required to stop because the other vehicle had already stopped (a seeming switch VC 21951, but wouldn't this be invalid because she did not approach "from the rear" and "overtake" the other vehicle) It is rather obvious this was a careless college student stepping into the road knowing my wife would safely pass long before she reached that patch of ground (there were 3 car widths between the sidewalk and my wife's lane). They do it all the time there.

    This happened 1/10/13. We got married on 1/26/13, honeymooned, returned, moved across town on 2/14 and recently began preparing to fight this. The Appear By date was 4/18/13. We got it extended to 5/18.

    We want to contest on the grounds that the pedestrian violated 21950(B) by stepping out, ignoring the immediate hazard of my wife's car. What are the chances of winning?
  • 04-15-2013, 06:51 PM
    Disagreeable
    Re: Failed to "Yield", Ped Stepped Out when It Too Late to Even Slow Down
    You have no chance of winning. You are not a lawyer. You were not the party cited. What proof does SHE have to overcome the officers testimony? Appears can have a big difference, since A, C, D are losers. I suggest she subpoena information from the court and officer, to determine what he will say and what the charge is.
  • 04-16-2013, 02:04 AM
    flyingron
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    Guess what. It sounds like she didn't yield if a pedestrian was several steps into it. It's something that out of staters don't tend to recognize. You need to slow down if you see pedestrians about to step off into a crosswalk. They do have the right of way. The fact that other cars were already stopping and yielding is pretty damning. And no California doesn't consider yielding to be just missing the pedestrian in the crosswalk or assuming the pedestrian will stop midcrossing to avoid traffic that refused to yield.

    The wrong paragraph of the vehicle code cite may be just the fact that it was barely legible. Even if it was wrong on the ticket it can be revised before the trial.

    You don't appear to have any defense here. The "immediate hazard" defense appears to not jibe with the actual facts.
  • 04-16-2013, 09:18 AM
    Jmartin
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    Guess what. We're not "out of staters". I don't know where that came from.

    And I clearly explained the pedestrian was not facing the street, but perhaps I should have also stated she didn't make eye contact to communicate a right of way. I clearly said she stepped out so late the driver had opportunity to do anything in response (YES it is possible, in spite of the law). The fact that there were other pedestrians who stayed on the sidewalk and didn't cross might help one visualize why the driver saw the pedestrian on the sidewalk but concluded she wasn't going to cross.

    She trailed my wife. Do you know what trailing is? It's when you aim at a moving target. She aimed for the end of my wife's car, so to speak, because she understood the vehicle would be entirely out of her way by the time she reached that physical space. The fact that another car had stopped didn't make a difference to the pedestrian. And I'm sure most of us have done that before as pedestrians, you start crossing when you know an approaching car won't hit you the way it's traveling.

    The notes on the citation copy are extremely difficult to read, but comparing the officers own handwriting seems to indicate it is (B).

    Where is the wiggle room here? The law does not cover every possible situation. It IS possible for situation to exist where a driver to DOES NOT have time to slow down, stop, or even respond in any way. Because this situation is of a possible nature, not an impossible one, and because the law does not make provision for it, there must be a way to explain this to the judge.

    But I'm not stupid either. I want any notes of the Officer to see what he may have stated about the timing, the other car, etc.
  • 04-16-2013, 12:00 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    And I clearly explained the pedestrian was not facing the street, but perhaps I should have also stated she didn't make eye contact to communicate a right of way.

    There is no requirement under the code that a pedestrian communicate their right of way by way of eye contact or otherwise. The mere act of stepping into the crosswalk gives them the right of way over approaching vehicles.

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    And I clearly explained the pedestrian was not facing the street, but perhaps I should have also stated she didn't make eye contact to communicate a right of way. I clearly said she stepped out so late the driver had opportunity to do anything in response (YES it is possible, in spite of the law).

    You keep saying "clearly"... For one, no your explanation was far from being "clear"; first you indicate that your wife reached and drove over the crosswalk before the pedestrian started crossing:

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    AS she reached and crossed over the crosswalk, the collage student began began crossing.

    In the same paragraph, the story changes to an indication that when she passed the crosswalk the student had been 3-4 step into it;

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    My wife recalls turning her head as she passed, observing the student get 3-4 steps into the crosswalk by the time my wife's car was over top the crosswalk.

    So which is it?

    And the other vehicle as well as other pedestrians have nothing to do with whether a driver yielded or failed to yield.

    Better yet, your assessment of what was going on at the time seems to have no connection whatsoever with what happened!

    And one more "which is it?"...

    In your first post you indicate:

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    We want to contest on the grounds that the pedestrian violated 21950(B) by stepping out, ignoring the immediate hazard of my wife's car.

    And in other instances you've indicated that there was no danger whatsoever...

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    She trailed my wife. Do you know what trailing is? It's when you aim at a moving target. She aimed for the end of my wife's car, so to speak, because she understood the vehicle would be entirely out of her way by the time she reached that physical space.

    So which is it?

    Additionally, you weren't even there but you know what the pedestrian was thinking? Really?

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    The notes on the citation copy are extremely difficult to read, but comparing the officers own handwriting seems to indicate it is (B).

    Even if it DOES indicate a (b), subsection (b) does not apply to a driver. And the citation will be amended accordingly.

    You might want to take a picture of that portion of the citation, leaving out any and all personal identification information, upload that image to photobucket.com and provide links here for us to view the image and we might be able to decipher some of what the officer notated.

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    Where is the wiggle room here? The law does not cover every possible situation. It IS possible for situation to exist where a driver to DOES NOT have time to slow down, stop, or even respond in any way. Because this situation is of a possible nature, not an impossible one, and because the law does not make provision for it, there must be a way to explain this to the judge.

    You have no provided any explanation that is likely to mitigate the actions of the driver. If she was 3-4 car lengths (45 to 60 feet away) when the pedestrian stepped into the crosswalk, and she was unable to stop, then she was travelling too fast for conditions. No, that was not what she was cited for, but that would greatly impact her lack of justification for not stopping.

    Additionally, this will likely impact the outcome as well:

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    He said she didn't stop for the girl at the crosswalk. She said 'oh yeah'

    I realize I didn't include YOUR qualifier, but again, you weren't there to understand the scope of the conversation nor can you dictate what portions the officer might choose to quote.

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    But I'm not stupid either.

    Where did that come from? Who was it that suggested you are stupid?

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    I want any notes of the Officer to see what he may have stated about the timing, the other car, etc.

    Again, none of that is relevant. But you're free to submit a discovery request on the county district attorney or city attorney (contact the court clerk for more info), requesting a copy of the front/back of the citation including any officer notes relating to the incident. You can Google "California informal discovery request" for plenty of information.

    Just keep in mind that it is not the officer's notes that get judged here. It is the officer's testimony that will impact the outcome of the case. In this case, you have an officer testifying that he witnessed a clear violation of the code, and a driver, hoping to save the fine amount and the need to attend traffic school, saying no, there was no violation.

    And speaking of traffic school, you should keep in mind that while it may be that the driver automatically qualifies for traffic school, once she requests a TBD and/or trial, traffic school becomes a discretionary matter for the court to decide. Not every judge will allow it after trial.
  • 04-16-2013, 03:43 PM
    Jmartin
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    Sigh, you argue like me but maybe worse! Thank you for taking the time to respond.

    And you are right, I was not clear.

    Here is what is clear from my wife's memory: In the moment she reached-and-passed-over the crosswalk, the pedestrian was 3-4 steps into it. She had turned her head in this moment and noticed the position of the pedestrian.

    What is also clear is the officer wrote 30mph on the ticket. The speed limit is 35. I fail to see how my wife was traveling 'too fast for the conditions'. I think it's highly subjective to describe it that way.

    Let me see if I can state my core argument more simply. I believe we have a driver going a safe speed. The distance to which the pedestrian had penetrated the space of the cross walk seems to indicate it was not possible to "yield" in the sense of slowing to a stop and allowing the pedestrian to finish crossing. This would be because the pedestrian entered the crosswalk at the exact moment she did, that is after the point at which the driver would have be able to "yield".

    After that point, how can you define "yield" the same way?
  • 04-16-2013, 04:14 PM
    flyingron
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    30 mph is too fast if there are pedestrians present in the crosswalk. Your point makes no sense whatsoever.
  • 04-16-2013, 05:09 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    Quote:

    Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    30 mph is too fast if there are pedestrians present in the crosswalk. Your point makes no sense whatsoever.

    Precisely... Safe speed in that case? ZERO mph with the driver making a stop BEFORE entering the crosswalk, not simply glancing back (possibly out of concern for ?how close was she really?) after driving through!

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    Here is what is clear from my wife's memory: In the moment she reached-and-passed-over the crosswalk, the pedestrian was 3-4 steps into it. She had turned her head in this moment and noticed the position of the pedestrian.

    3 - 4 steps = 12 to 15 feet, which amounts to the width of a single lane of traffic, which also means the pedestrian is entitled to a danger free pass to the other sidewalk she was headed towards. I cannot find the specific case from 1950 but the court held that "a pedestrian is not only entitled to just as much space as her/his body, clothes and buttons might occupy, but to enough space to allow her/him a free pass without the slightest threat or the idea that s/he should possibly have to step back into the path of traffic s/he had already passed -which was luckily stopped in this case-" (or words to that effect).

    No, I wasn't there nor do I know what or how the pedestrian may have felt. But to assume that you are even remotely accurate in your description that she was "trailing" towards the tail end of your wife's car, and your opinion that that should make it all alright. If in fact she was watching that end of the car to see when she can hightail it out of there. Do you know what "hightailing it" means?

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    What is also clear is the officer wrote 30mph on the ticket. The speed limit is 35. I fail to see how my wife was traveling 'too fast for the conditions'. I think it's highly subjective to describe it that way.

    The conditions I was thinking of are a result of you mentioning "school children"... At which point this becomes either a school crosswalk in a school zone or one near a school or close thereto. Which might imply a school zone limit of 25 mph during school hours or during times when children are expected to be going to or from school.

    You can argue certain points when it comes to pedestrians, but mention school children, certain flags go up in the mind of a judge and it becomes a completely different case! So you go ahead and refrain from mentioning that point, but can you guarantee that the officer will not testify to that element requiring extra caution?

    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    Let me see if I can state my core argument more simply. I believe we have a driver going a safe speed. The distance to which the pedestrian had penetrated the space of the cross walk seems to indicate it was not possible to "yield" in the sense of slowing to a stop and allowing the pedestrian to finish crossing. This would be because the pedestrian entered the crosswalk at the exact moment she did, that is after the point at which the driver would have be able to "yield".

    The first two points have been discussed at length now... The last, being both driver and pedestrian entering crosswalk at the same moment is "clearly" (if I may use that description) your description of events. The officer, my guess, will have a different view point. And he was there but you weren't.

    Here is an even deeper core argument that what you've presented... I don't see why the officer would place any undue burden on any driver when it may be more appropriate for him to cite a pedestrian instead. School age or using a walker, the responsibility placed upon the pedestrian under the law is clear enough that it could not be avoided; then again so is the driver's. And at the end of the day, it makes no difference to him who pays the fine or how much it is!

    And here is another... Lets discuss this whole entire idea of you articulating what your wife may or may not have thought or what she may or may not have seen. If the declaration is going to be submitted under her name and if it will accompany her signature, then lets see what she has to say. Because come trial time, you have no standing to be there let alone to speak on her behalf! Or to discuss arguments that she may or may not have even considered or agreed with!

    With all that being said, your wife might see a slight fine reduction at the arraignment if she pleads guilty. She would likely be better off taking traffic school at that time as well and should be aware of the fact that while a court cannot deny her the traffic school option after a TBD or a trial, the court is not obligated to afford her that option nor is it required to provide her with any reason why her request is denied.
  • 04-16-2013, 07:33 PM
    Jmartin
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    I really appreciate you guys taking the time to discuss my post.

    That said, it's kinda frustrating to see so little discussion about my arguments and so much reading-into of my words (a few times even twisting what I said)

    Flyingron said:
    Quote:

    "30 mph is too fast if there are pedestrians present in the crosswalk. Your point makes no sense whatsoever."
    I would agree. But my wife did not described approaching an occupied crosswalk! She described a group of pedestrians on the sidewalk. The one who crossed even had her back turned before leaving the sidewalk. Try not to twist my words.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That Guy:

    - From the start I said it was a College. Perhaps this was misleading?
    - I said the speed limit was 35, which is a fact. Was it assumed I made this up? Perhaps I'm at fault for not mentioning I observed the 35 limit sign on google street view? My fault I failed to mention there were no "school zone" or 25 limit signs? My fault I failed to mention that in the speed section of the ticket the officer wrote 35 under "Veh Limit" and 35 under "Safe"?
    - I never used the word "schoolchildren"
    - I do believe the pedestrian entered the roadway with the knowledge the driver would not be stopping, and the pedestrian felt safe in her estimation of road being clear as the driver cleared her path. I believe that (and I think you know very well the type of pedestrian action I'm referring to). I did not, however, say that would "make it alright" to do anyhting. I brought that up to explain why the driver is convinced the pedestrian entered the roadway knowing the car would not stop, because she stepped out too late for the driver to stop.

    So, since I've cleared that up, what remains is the argument over the actual law. Don't bother griping over the fact that I'm the one retelling this and I wasn't there! My wife will be making he same arguments. Period.

    In my wife's account the pedestrian directly violated section B. A hazard does not refer to the pedestrian getting hit. It simply means the a vehicle is so close as to be dangerous. This hazard was created by the pedestrian, not the driver. Also, while the pedestrian may, yes I admit "MAY" have felt safe in trailing the car (and perhaps does it all the time walking to school, like many students there do) section B, in it's use of the word "close" is obviously referring distance of the vehicle to the crosswalk, not the perpendicular distance of the pedestrian to the driver's lane. This is obvious because it also uses the word "path", referring to path of said vehicle. Is it really any less "hazardous" for the pedestrian to suddenly begin walking towards the path than to actually enter the path? If this is about safety, isn't that why yield laws exist in the first place?

    Also Section B is can clearly refer to a pedestrian stepping into a crosswalk and not just open road, because it is a subdivision of the law ON crosswalks. It would seem Section B sentence 2 specifically refers to crosswalks, NOT to indicate that sentence 1 excludes crosswalks, but simply because sentence 2 would only be necessary when a pedestrian is IN a crosswalk, because if the pedestrian was not in a crosswalk, that would already be covered by jaywalking VC21955 (or perhaps some other VC that explain a pedestrian shall not randomly be in the road. Please yes attack me because I didn't look it up)

    Section D also indicates that section B sentence 1 refers or can refer to crosswalks because section D, in a single sentence, refers the whole of section B as regarding a situation with a pedestrian IN a crosswalk. Additionally section D states that if a pedestrian violated section B and created a hazardous situation, the driver still must do what is necessary for the safety of said pedestrian. In my wife's case, she was given no time to take any action except to continue in a straight path and clear the pedestrians path as soon and as safely as possible, which she did. She remained calm, gave attention to the hazardous pedestrian and continued on.

    Remember the KEYSTONE of our argument is my wife did not have time to stop. If she in fact did have time, we would have no case, and I would not be on this forum.
  • 04-16-2013, 07:33 PM
    That Guy
    Re: Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian
    Quote:

    Quoting Jmartin
    View Post
    That said, it's kinda frustrating to see so little discussion about my arguments and so much reading-into of my words (a few times even twisting what I said)

    Nobody is twisting anything you said. Remember, if this were a real trial YOUR words would not even be part of the discussion.

    Your wife's words? Possibly, but only as they related to (a) the officer's testimony or (b) to her own version of events. And in the case of (b), she's already offered incriminating statements to the officer. So your attempt to deny those and instead assume a clean slate, might not be the case if the officer happens to mention that part of his conversation with her.

    So you want to talk about twisting, we can review how much of your wife's descriptions were possibly twisted by you!
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved