Junkie said:
are you allowed to enter any part of the crosswalk before they are out of it? How about cross it when they have not yet gotten there, but are still a couple lanes away?
Okay, there is this whole concept of "way" that I explain to officers before we go out and do these crosswalk stings. For some it is quite difficult to understand.
I thought I had explained it here (on BARF) once, but I was unable to find it in my search. So here goes.
First off, let me restate the applicable code section for pedestrian violations
21950(a) CVC – Right-of-Way at Crosswalks - 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.
21951 CVC – Vehicles Stopped for Pedestrians - When a vehicle is stopped at a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway, vehicles approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
Also, what is a crosswalk? Many people mistakenly assume that a crosswalk exists only where there are heavy white or yellow lines painted on the street. In fact, crosswalks exist at all corners where public streets intersect at approximately right angles as the extension of the sidewalk across the street. Crosswalks also exist or places (such as mid-block) where they are marked on the road. (refer to 275 CVC for the definition).
Okay, now on to "way."
Right-of-Way is a common law concept regarding a statutory right granted to a vehicle or entity, to proceed ahead of another via a path or route that may lawfully be used.
We all understand the "right" part, it is the "way" part that seems to be lost on some. Think of a vehicle and a pedestrian as two bodies in motion. Each casts a "shadow" in their direction of travel. The length of the shadow is relative to the speed and stopping ability of the body. The width of the shadow is relative to the maneuverability of the body. So, in this example, a fast car would then leave a long and relatively narrow shadow while a faster motorcycle might leave a slightly longer and wider shadow, where a pedestrian would likely leave much shorter and relatively wider shadow.
Lets take a car traveling 25 mph in a 25 mph zone. I'm going to cast a shadow about 25 to 30 feet ahead of the car and a few feet to the left and right of the front fender. Now, let's take a ped walking at 2 mph. I'm going to cast the shadow about 6 to 10 feet ahead of the ped and a few feet to both sides and behind. As the car proceeds forward, the shadow stretches out ahead of it. As it speeds up, the shadow lengthens and as it slows down, it shortens. Place this car on a roadway and send it from point A to point B. As the shadow (or "way") of this vehicle intersects or collides with the shadows of other vehicles, the drivers must determine who's shadow has priority (right) and adjust their shadow to each other in accordance with the law and their comfort level.
Now, we have a pedestrian step out into the roadway when unsafe, s/he is running across lanes outside a crosswalk. They have no right to be where they are. Their “way” can easily be violated unintentionally by cars that could not have reasonably seen or had ample opportunity to react and adjust their speed and direction to reasonably avoid the ped. In this case, all parties are expected to exercise due care, and the mere fact that the ped is proceeding unlawfully does not relieve any approaching drivers from their responsibility to avoid causing harm if at all reasonably possible.
Now, take a ped in a crosswalk (marked or unmarked) that is not controlled by any signals. The ped looks and sees it is clear or that any approaching vehicles have ample time/distance to yield as required by law. The ped initiates their trip across the roadway in the crosswalk. Now, any vehicles approaching, must consider the ped's "way" and how it may intersect with their "way" and yield their "way" to the ped if they reasonably perceive a conflict between them.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that it is the duty of both the ped and the driver to be LOOKING FOR potential conflict and to exercise due care. This means saying, "I didn't see the ped until I was 10 feet away" when you could have seen the ped for over 150 feet and should have realized the ped was exercising their "way" when you were 80 feet away, is the same as saying, "I clearly was not exercising due care and was driving inattentively."
So, with this theory, a ped crossing a 6-lane roadway (such as El Camino Real or Mission Blvd.), a 35 mph zone with a raised center median and 10'- "11' wide lanes, has a duty to ensure there are no vehicles in the first 1 or 2 lanes ahead of them that have any vehicle approaching within 80 to 120 feet. Once they see their way is clear and no vehicles are approaching in the 3rd lane (the #1 lane) at an unsafe speed that may preclude them from continuing to the center island safely, then they can proceed to the median. As they cross, their way extends out ahead of them. As they cross the #3 lane, their way is in the #2 lane ahead of them. As they enter the #2 lane, their way extends into the #1 lane and as they reach the middle of the #2 lane, they briefly exercise control over the whole 3 lanes that direction. Once they reach the #1 lane, and show no indication of turning back, I don't see a problem with vehicles passing by safely in the #3 lane (well behind the ped) without interfering with the Ped's lawful "way."
Similarly, once the ped reaches the median, I would have no problem allowing traffic to proceed at a safe speed in the #2 lane behind the ped, so long as the ped has given no indication of turning back. As for the #1 lane, I would not consider it safe to zip by at 35-40 mph in the #1, right up against the ped's back. I might drive by slowly, while watching the ped, I might remain stopped, depending upon the age of the ped, the width of the median and how confident I am that the ped will be immediately continuing from the median without delay. If there is no median, I'm going to remain stopped until the ped is about 1/2 way into the next lane, giving me a buffer of approx. 6 to 8 feet behind the ped as I pass by.
Anyhow, once the ped reaches the median (a place of relative safety), they would again assess the approaching traffic. In this case, they are not starting from a curb where they may or may not have been intending to cross and had not shown a tangible intention to cross until they actually entered the crosswalk, they are obviously committed to a crossing and approaching traffic in the remaining lanes has had ample opportunity to see and react to the ped as they crossed the other 3 lanes. So, while the ped does have an obligation to continue to proceed in a safe and prudent manner before leaving the median (place of safety), they have already exercised significant right of way, in full view of approaching traffic. There should be no question as to the intent of the pedestrian as they are IN the crosswalk and have been IN the crosswalk for a while. So, the pedestrian should not step out into the path of traffic, but this does not mean that the peds hesitation should be construed as a license to violate their right of way, as their "way" is now occupying the #1 lane ahead of them (at the very least) and the driver(s) in the #1 lane should have anticipated yielding while the ped was crossing to the median.
So, the ped sees it is safe to proceed and their actions will not be a hazard. They may be surveying traffic and make their determination before they reach the median. In cases such as this, the ped may well proceed without delay. As they start into the #1 lane from the median, their "way" quickly extends out into the #2 lane ahead of them. The question arises at this point as to whether vehicles can proceed in the #3 lane, ahead of the ped, if THEY feel the ped is not as risk. Keep in mind, this is a fluid situation and in reality, the ped has the “right of way” in the crosswalk per statute. It is going to be something that is up to the officer as to how far that ped’s “way” extended once they established themselves in the crosswalk. It would likely depend upon the speed of the ped and the driver’s proximity to the ped when the ped started from the far curb and then from the median. If the driver had ample opportunity to perceive and stop, then an officer may feel the peds “way” extended to the curb once they left the far curb or the median. It is a judgment call. I don’t consider the ped’s “way to be 60-80’ ahead of them. I believe a car can proceed in the path of the ped so long as it does not endanger the ped and the ped does not feel a need to adjust their path or speed to preserve a safety buffer (that 2 or 3 feet of personal space). Again, it may just boil down to the speed and aggressiveness of the driver verses the apparent constitution of the ped.
A cautious and slow driving car can do more near and around an able-bodied and decisive adult verses an aggressive and fast car can in the vicinity of a small child, a frail senior citizen or a baby stroller being pushed along in the crosswalk.
Officers doing regular patrol enforcement as well as ped-sting operations must use their discretion as to the validity of each citation they issue. If they do not feel 100% about the violation, they should issue a verbal or written warning. They must constantly weigh the law verses the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the actions or inactions of the ped and/or driver. Visibility, weather, sight lines and many other factors all come into play in situations such as this. Will the ped reach the #2 lane before the vehicle passes by? Will the ped make it to the #3 lane and need to adjust their speed to avoid a collision? Will the tail of the vehicle (rear bumper) be uncomfortably close to the ped as they reach the far edge of #2 lane or the near edge of the #3 lane?
Strict enforcement would dictate that once the ped leaves the median and enters the #1 lane, any vehicles that are at a reasonable distance to yield should yield the path of the ped and not proceed until the ped has moved out of their path and it is safe to proceed on their way.
As for the situation that initiated this thread, if the rider was more concerned with a police motorcycle exiting a driveway ahead than a nearby ped that had already reached the center median, I would submit that the reason they shifted their concern was that they did not see the ped as a threat. This does not relieve them of their duty to yield to a non-threatening ped. As, yielding would solve BOTH problems at the same time. If the rider did not see the ped because they were distracted, that is a good example of someone NOT keeping a good visual horizon and NOT being the alert and proactive operator they should be.
Looking as far up the road as you can see is an important part of defensive driving. Keeping a good visual horizon gives you more opportunity to adjust to conditions and situations before they become emergencies. It should also reduce the need for sharp or dramatic steering input as well as panic braking. Moreover, driver inattention is not a defense for failure to yield. Like most traffic infractions, failure to yield is a “general intent” crime and not a “specific intent” crime. This means the driver did not need to form a conscious plan or decide they wanted to violate the ped’s right of way. The mere fact that their right of way was violated is sufficient for a crime to have occurred.
