Ticketed for not yielding to a ped (sting op)

[bojangle]

He's going to fight for what he believes is an unjust and unethical means of policing the citizens of this country, which is a sting operation whose sole purpose is to generate revenue for the city and county, not to protect innocent bystanders and pedestrians. We all knowingly and unknowingly violate traffic laws from time to time, and should an officer spot me doing something that is dangerous or <gasp> against the law, then by all means he should do something about it. For the SF police to set up their stings and just tag car after car after car - particularly when the methodology is for the walking officer to hesitate and step out giving the driver a moment to a) emergency brake and end up in the intersection or b) continue through if there's time and space, frankly, it sickens me that the government has stooped to such low and petty means of justifying their paychecks.

Is the true purpose of these stings to actually generate awareness for pedestrians? Many of the people I've had contact with who've been involved with such stings have stated that they saw the Ped with plenty of time, tried to establish eye-contact, and when the Ped made no movement, the drivers continued on their path - at which point the Ped would step into the crosswalk when it would be too late to stop anyway. A sure thing - congrats to those officers who went out and nabbed some real criminals. A car proceeding at the speed of traffic, 25 to 35mph, has absolutely no chance to come to a stop if the Ped officer decides to step out at the last second, after all, who's trained to gauge speed by sight? Time is money, and since there are so many officers engaged in these stings, it only makes sense to nail as many cars as possible. Does anyone honestly think that a real pedestrian who had somewhere to go would actually step out with oncoming traffic approaching? Who cares? It's not like they're issuing warnings to everyone pulled over, it's all about the writing that ticket.

Clink, Clink, Clink, more money in the city's coffers. Chickenshit is right, but hey, it's a job.

So you don't think pedestrian injuries and fatalities are a problem in SF? You think this is all about revenue? Check out the chart in the SF Examiner article linked below. Between 2000 and 2007 pedestrian collision injuries ranged between 961 and and 743 per year and pedestrian deaths ranged between 32 and 14 per year. How would you feel if you had a loved one get run over and killed by a driver while in the crosswalk? Wouldn't you want the police to "do something about it"?

This thread is just full of win!

http://www.examiner.com/a-1222641~P...ths_jumped_in_2007.html?cid=rss-San_Francisco

 

[theAmazingKickstand]

Please elaborate on your knowledge; lay out for us where every dollar of the fine goes- court system, various fees, state, city, what ledger accounts for each. Percentages will do fine, or by the dollar. Just indicate what goes where- start with the total cost of the ticket.

I can't produce any data so my argument will stop here. However, When even the cops say this just for cash, who am I supposed to believe?

 

[Entoptic]

What is he going to fight?

He violated the law. He may not like it, and he may think its chickenshit, but.... he violated the law.

If I remember correctly peds have the right of way when SAFE to cross. Which means if cars were zooming by and the ped aka officer decided to risk his life than it falls into his own hands. However that does not mean that you should not look out for these kinds of things in the future.

I would fight it if you can prove it was a cop and the fact that this has been going on for months now on Geary.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Yeah fight it. You have a solid case against you.

You know what's even better? I bet there was a marker placed a designated distance down the roadway that the officer was looking at. He/she was instructed not to enter the roadway if the vehicle was past that marker.

Why? So people can't say he jumped out in front of you. It's a measured distance based on the average stopping distance of the average (or in some cases, maximum safe speed) vehicle. This way, the officer isn't violating CVC 21950(b) when he enters the roadway, and he can very easily testify to the distance of your vehicle as he entered the roadway.

So yeah, fight it. You got a solid case there, cause afterall, if it's a cop in a cross-walk, or if it's something they "have been doing for months," you don't have to stop.

 

[Rel]

I cant wait to see how this turns out...

It will go right up there with the thread where the OP was told to fight it and the OP lost. I think the quote was: "The cop will be laughed right out of court."

Yep, fight it and let us know.

 

[Warrior Princess]

I and several others have won based upon procedure (the website i linked to is a step by step procedure guide) and you are innocent until PROVEN guilty or don't you believe in that. But then again if OP wins by procedure are you worried others might fight their tickets causing more cost to the system and more cost headaches for the issuing LEOs.

 

[Rel]

IMO, the only time someone wins on a technically is when the officer doesnt do his/her job. And, in those cases you should win.

However, remember that most of these laws have a foundation of safety. If your loved one is ran down in an intersection people would be screaming "Where are the cops!!"

 

[VP1]

I work at 22nd and Geary. They did the sting also at my intersection yesterday- got to watch it for hours. I'm my case the officer was an older guy who just walked back and forth.
He did look at the oncoming cars but didn't show any sign of yielding to the car if the car didn't seem to want to stop. He would typically let the car get kinda close, probably to make their case stronger.
They were fair about it though it seemed. They only stopped cars that got close to him..

 

[Warrior Princess]

I think you should drive safely. But sometimes things are not like they should be even if you are driving safely. Once I got a ticket for driving through a red light. I did not do that at all. I had witnesses even appearing on my behalf in court. At the hearing the CHP lied. He was caught in the lie. The judge asked the officer if he wanted to change his story. The officer of course had to say no. The judge found me guilty, but stated if I did not receive another ticket in 1 year he would dismiss this one. The judge knew he lied, but couldn't find it to make that statement to him. With a judgment like that I could not even appeal. So I say take them down if you can. Make them prove their case. Unless pleading guilty is of benefit to you.

When a LEO pulls you over he already has in his mind you are guilty. From that point on it is up to your powers of persuasion to convince the LEO not to write the ticket. Most LEOs don't care what you say they will just write you up anyway saying you can just go to traffic school (an automatic win for the officer, and/or go tell the judge). Part of the LEOs job is to be correct if he is not then where is his authority to judge you and when he writes the ticket he has made a judgment that you have violated the law.

 

[nvp]

OP here. Wow. Lively debate! I appreciate everyone's feedback. I just want to clarify a few things:

- I was on Geary heading toward Masonic (and downtown). The intersection had no light... just a crosswalk.

- I absolutely think the effort to keep peds safe in an important one. My position, is, however, that I DID the safe thing on behalf of the ped. I was over 1.5 lanes width away from him and if I had slammed on the brakes I would have potentially caused mayham that would have created a dangerous situation for him. Again, I would do exactly the same thing again... even if it did result in a ticket. It was the safe thing to do and kept me on my bike (not under an SUV) and kept the ped safe as well.

- I believe these operations need to issue tickets based on what is safe vs. dangerous, not the technical letter of the law.

- I called it a "sting" because that was the verbatim language of the officer. I don't mean to build judgement into the term.

- I respect that are guidelines, and thank you to those officers who took the time to outline them. I don't believe they were followed, however. This was Geary at the peak of rush hour. There is no time a ped will cross the street without at least one car/bike having to pass through the intersection.

- The vehicle in the far right lane has a HUGE disadvantage in these scenarios due to limited visibility (assuming the ped is coming from the left)

- Lastly, I will fight this. I believe it constitutes entrapment.

DEF: Entrapment is the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.

If the officer had not been crossing the street in a way that NO ONE would be crossing at that time of day - in the midst of a steady flow of traffic (there was no break in traffic) - I would have had the space to stop relatively safely. I stop for peds all the time on this road and never have a problem. Most have the common sense (when not acting within a simulation) to cross when there is a break in traffic, giving vehicles (even in the right lane) enough time to react.

Either way, we'll see what happens. Thanks again.

 

[mud]

Yes. I've seen at least three separate clients who were initially detained for "jaywalking." (FWIW, jaywalking is a very specific term in the vehicle code and does not mean simply walking out into the street. See 21954-21956 VC.)

Sounds like PEDESTRIAN education is necessary. I have heard of people getting jay walking tickets, but do the police ever write tickets to pedestrians for stepping out in front of cars unsafely?

 

[masameet]

nvp, I bet the officer pedestrian was crossing Blake St. and that's where your failure-to-yield violation occurred. And I'm not sure (even though I believe I posted a thread about it a few months ago), but I think Geary Blvd. is one of the SF streets where the fine for moving violations is doubled.

Apparently on Geary Blvd. SFPD's pedestrian crosswalk sting is known as "Operation Safe Corridor." This blog by a San Fr'sican explains it fairly well. According to the blog, last year four pedestrians trying to cross Richmond District streets were run down by motorists. More recently a resident was seriously injured by a hit-and-run driver on Anza @ 40th Ave.

From the hyperlinks listed on SFCitizen.com, it appears that SFPD announces these stings (but probably more to residents than out-of-towners). The hyperlinked SFPD Richmond forum has some good info from Richmond Station Captain Richard Corriea. I think I read somewhere online that some SFPD officers would like to see him as SFPD's new Chief of Police.

 

[fergy016]

Not to be as sarcastic as this comment I am about to make is going to sound, but...Is it possible to turn onto a street with a busy crosswalk w/o there being pedestrians in it in SF? I would never get to my destination in SF if I waited for a clear crosswalk.

 

[Dove]

If your loved one is ran down in an intersection people would be screaming "Where are the cops!!"

Only in CA - everywhere else in the world they'd call you an idiot for stepping out in front a 3,000 pound piece of metal.

 

[JPM]

Sounds like PEDESTRIAN education is necessary. I have heard of people getting jay walking tickets, but do the police ever write tickets to pedestrians for stepping out in front of cars unsafely?

I cite them all the time, along with bikes riding the wrong way, running stop signs, stop lights, and even speeding.

 

[Trogdor]

Hey thanks for the reply, have you heard anything about people being cited for obstructing an intersection because they were in the intersection when the light turned red? Mostly I'm referring to the photo lights with that question.

You are talking about cars, not peds, right? Sure. There is a VC section prohibiting gridlock. There are some intersections in Sac patrolled regularly for this.

If you are talking about peds who walk across on a flashing red and get stuck in the middle of the crosswalk when the light turns green for traffic? I'd love to see some of them cited. After the light flashes red, you cannot enter the intersection. In fact I think those new lights that countdown the seconds till a solid red encourage peds to break the law by entering on the flashing red just because they know they can make it.

 

[Trogdor]

And as for the original post, isn't there case law what says a right of way violation only exists if the other vehicle has to slow, accelerate, change direction, or make some other corrective action. Doesn't that suggest the same for a ped? Since he was what, two lanes away, the ped needed to make no corrective action to avoid the bike and thus there was no right of way violation.

 

[n10sive]

I cite them all the time, along with bikes riding the wrong way, running stop signs, stop lights, and even speeding.

cool Good to know

 

[nweaver]

In fact I think those new lights that countdown the seconds till a solid red encourage peds to break the law by entering on the flashing red just because they know they can make it.

As a pedestrian, I believe those countdown lights both may encourage peds to break the law, but at the same time makes it safer!

The "Flashing red hand" is way to early for someone healty and fit: its just about the right time for someone on crutches.

But with a countdown timer, the pedestrian KNOWS his ability, his speed, and how long it takes to cross.

Thus I'd bet $$$ if you did a survey on some intersections, with the countdown both enabled and hidden...

With the countdown, you get more pedestrians technically violating the law, but you get FEWER pedestrians still in the crosswalk when it goes to solid red.

 

[MysterYvil]

"21950(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."

Due care, suddenly, immediate hazard...all seem pretty subjective to me. Especially the immediate hazard part- might that include causing an immediate hazard to vehicles stopping?