• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Easter Rabbit Traffic Sting Operation

mototireguy

mototireguy

Moto Tire Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Location
San Francisco, CA
Moto(s)
DUCATI HYPERMOTARD
PARILLA MSDS 250 HICAM
DUCATI PS1000
KLR 650
YAMAHA FJ1200
DUCATI 250 NARROWCASE
Name
Robbie
Silly wabbit!

LEO's getting creative? What's next?

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/articles/2010/04/01/publicsafety/gnp-sting040110.txt

CENTRAL GLENDALE — The large furry rabbit walking between Central and Garfield avenues Wednesday was no hallucination, especially for drivers who failed to yield.

For an hour and a half, Glendale Police Officer Tom Broadway donned the eye-catching costume during an enforcement sting aimed at educating motorists to yield for pedestrians walking along unmarked crosswalks.

Police cited 24 motorists on suspicion of failing to yield to Broadway as he walked across Central.


gnp-sting040110.jpg
 
well, fuck why don't they mark the goddamn crosswalks then? Interest of safety my ass.
 
Karbon said:
well, fuck why don't they mark the goddamn crosswalks then?
Click to expand...

Cuz it says in the DMV manual that unmarked crosswalks are also crosswalks.. for those who can read, though.

mototireguy said:
Silly wabbit!

LEO's getting creative? What's next?
Click to expand...

Next they're going to import real homeless to walk across the street! The LEOs guessed right that every motorist thought a silly wabbit is just a fool and they're not going to be stopping for THAT one you know
 
They should have cited the rabbit for Jay Walking instead.
 
Thats pretty Stupid!!
The visability in that suit is very limited.
He is putting himself at risk ........If he gets hit. its is his fault....
 
This whole system is flawed. Why educate the motorist in a 3500lb car about the pedestrian? Worst comes to worst they hit the jay-walker and the jay-walker dies, not the motorist. We should teach PEOPLE to be less stupid and not jay-walk across busy intersections because THEY are the ones that will suffer, not the drivers.
 
asdfghwy said:
We should teach PEOPLE to be less stupid and not jay-walk across busy intersections because THEY are the ones that will suffer, not the drivers.
Click to expand...

If the CVC laws consider unmarked crosswalks at intersections to be de facto crosswalks then jaywalking is not a factor and motorists should stop for pedestrians?
 
http://www.legal-news-california.tozerlaw.com/jaywalking_california.html

Jaywalking

What exactly is jaywalking? What is the monetary fine for jaywalking?

Origin of the word: Jaywalking is a compound word. "Jay" refers to a foolish rural person who is unfamiliar with city ways.

Technically, jaywalking refers to a pedestrian who violates traffic regulations, particularly when crossing a street or road.

Under California state law, a pedestrian may generally cross a roadway anywhere along the road without jaywalking. But there are exceptions. Here are the main exceptions:

Exception #1:

Classic Jaywalking: If you are between two adjacent intersections that are both controlled by "traffic control signal devices" (i.e. a traffic light), then you, the pedestrian, must cross at the intersection. See California Vehicle Code §21955.

Exception #2:

Local Law Traps: Local jurisdictions (cities, counties) may enact harsher laws about jaywalking. See California Vehicle Code [CVC] §§21961 and 21106.

Typically, such local laws occur in high traffic business districts. See case of Sehgal v. Knight (1967) 253 Cal. App. 2d 170.

Exception #3:

Failure to Yield: Pedestrians generally must yield right-of-way to vehicles (which are near enough to constitute an immediate hazard) unless crossing at marked or unmarked crosswalks. (CVC §21954).

Remember, a crosswalk is not even necessarily marked by two white or yellow lines but can be unmarked. See CVC Section 275.

Exception #4:

Failure to Obey Traffic Signal: Pedestrians must obey the instructions on any official traffic signal unless necessary to avoid a collision or other emergency. CVC §21462. Example: Violation of "don't walk" signals or signs. CVC 21456(b).
 
It is going to be a great lawsuit when someone stops for the bunny and gets rear-ended as a result of an unexpected and sudden traffic interference cause by the city
 
Clearly some of you don't spend your DMV waiting time reading the driver manual. :x

Or am I just a big nerd?
 
Looks like Ofc.Tom Broadway pulled the short straw. And do motorists have to stop for livestock?
 
hitman5532 said:
It is going to be a great lawsuit when someone stops for the bunny and gets rear-ended as a result of an unexpected and sudden traffic interference cause by the city
Click to expand...
What if it was a kid that ran out to chase his ball, then should the parents be sued because you can't drive?

The driver is responsible for maintaining safe space.
 
Sidewalk said:
What if it was a kid that ran out to chase his ball, then should the parents be sued because you can't drive?

The driver is responsible for maintaining safe space.
Click to expand...



I agree, my point is the ridiculous lawsuits that occur against gov't departments.

Also, I said the driver who gets rear-ended is the one who stopped for bunny (vehicle A). Vehicle A stops in an unusual place to stop (for bunny) and then another driver (vehicle B) runs into the back of vehicle A because of the sudden and unexpected stop. While I agree vehicle B is at fault, a common place in lawsuits would be to go after the city. Two reasons suits go after this: 1) root cause of why vehicle A suddendly and unexpectedly had to stop 2) because the government is consedered to be a bank cash out for law suits, they often settle to avoid legal costs ( a loss to them either way )
 
Last edited:
hitman5532 said:
I agree, my point is the ridiculous lawsuits that occur against gov't departments.

Also, I said the driver who gets rear-ended is the one who stopped for bunny (vehicle A). Vehicle A stops in an unusual place to stop (for bunny) and then another driver (vehicle B) runs into the back of vehicle A because of the sudden and unexpected stop. While I agree vehicle B is at fault, a common place in lawsuits would be to go after the city.
Click to expand...

meh, complete BS.. if a newbie motorcyclist comes here and says "WTF, car A stopped in a completely unusual place to stop , because there was a bunny crossing, and I ran in to the back of car A", the whole forum would be like "you stoopid, you have to learn how to brake and it's your fault".

point is, your story doesn't apply either

the city department might be a bit overzealous, but they might have done that, because the intersection has kids crossing. Glendale is I think "a good neighborhood". IT might actually have kids crossing
 
Last edited:
officer is apparently a member of the Rabbit Deployment Force.
 
AbsolutEnduser said:
meh, complete BS.. if a newbie motorcyclist comes here and says "WTF, car A stopped in a completely unusual place to stop , because there was a bunny crossing, and I ran in to the back of car A", the whole forum would be like "you stoopid, you have to learn how to brake and it's your fault".

point is, your story doesn't apply either
Click to expand...

Once again... I agree it would be the idiot rider's fault; just like I would agree it is vehicle B's fault. I never said it was anyone else's fault then the bad driver.

However, lawsuits still occur as a result of morons behind the wheel blaming others. I am reminded of a suit a friend of mine won because as he came over a crest at to high of speed for conditions he hit a parked city van off the the right. He won the suit because the cones were not placed outward (not behind, but outward) far enough from the van. City decided it would be cheaper to payout a settlement then fight this, even if they won. He got a lot of money for being a shitty driver and stupid.

BTW what "the whole forums thinks" is irrelevant to law suit proceedings, and whether or not someone would file suit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top