• 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.

Ticketed for not yielding to a ped (sting op)

MysterYvil said:
"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?
Click to expand...

We've had plenty of reports on how these stings operate from the LEO viewpoint. They are VERY careful about avoiding the immediate hazard, because although it seems like the officer is not looking when he is crossing, the officer looks well in advance before starting.
 
nvp said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not entrapment.

Entrapment would be if you slowed to stop and the officer waved you by, then pulled you over for not yielding to him.

It's the same as doing an undercover drug operation. I can dress up like a hood-rat, offer you Cocaine for sale and if you buy it, arrest you. It's not entrapment just because I put the offer out there. It would be entrapment if you said no and I, say, forced you to purchase it through force or fear, or maybe used some other means of tact to force you to buy it.

Merely putting the unlocked trailer, running vehicle, bag of cocaine, or pedestrian in the roadway is not entrapment. None of those things *force* you to commit a violation. They force you to make a decision as to whether or not you will, or can, follow the letter of the law.

Further. Read the previous posts that I've made. Pedestrian operations are very well laid out and there is generally a marker placed a designated distance from the cross-walk. The pedestrian looks at that marker and is instructed, under no circumstance, to enter the roadway if a vehicle is closer than that specific marker. How far is the marker? This depends on the average, and maximum safe speed, of that particular roadway. In my cities case, on an average 30MPH roadway, the marker is somewhere around 155 feet away. This gives more than enough time for your average heavy *TRUCK* to stop when a pedestrian enters the roadway.

Additionally, the officers enforcing the violations usually look at the marker as well. They observe vehicles approach it, and if the vehicle is past the marker before the pedestrian enters the roadway, the officer doesn't write the citation.

All these steps ensure that no officer is unnecessarily, unsafely, or unfairly, entering the roadway and putting the driver in a position where he/she cannot stop -- or where the pedestrian may be injured due to violating CVC 21950(b).

Pay your fine and move on. Hope this clears it up for you.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to have been at the table with the city Risk Manager when the program was cooked up.

"Well Mr Risk Manager, ya know we've been having all these injury accidents because folks aren't yielding to peds?"

"Well sure, it's terrible."

"Yeah, ya see- we're going to have an officer in plain clothes step out in front of that approaching traffic that's been hitting people, then we'll give 'em a ticket for not stopping."

"Say what? Want to run that by me again?"
 
I love the stings where cops leave the nice bicycle in front a K Mart...and someone comes along and takes "for safekeeping"!:rofl I swear, I don't how cops keep a straight face on those kinda deals- people are so fookin stoopid...the guy'd get away were it me- I'd be pissing myself from laughing.


9M61 said:
That's not entrapment.

Entrapment would be if you slowed to stop and the officer waved you by, then pulled you over for not yielding to him.

It's the same as doing an undercover drug operation. I can dress up like a hood-rat, offer you Cocaine for sale and if you buy it, arrest you. It's not entrapment just because I put the offer out there. It would be entrapment if you said no and I, say, forced you to purchase it through force or fear, or maybe used some other means of tact to force you to buy it.

Merely putting the unlocked trailer, running vehicle, bag of cocaine, or pedestrian in the roadway is not entrapment. None of those things *force* you to commit a violation. They force you to make a decision as to whether or not you will, or can, follow the letter of the law.

Hope this clears it up.
Click to expand...
 
nweaver said:
We've had plenty of reports on how these stings operate from the LEO viewpoint. They are VERY careful about avoiding the immediate hazard, because although it seems like the officer is not looking when he is crossing, the officer looks well in advance before starting.
Click to expand...

Let's keep this thread ON-TOPIC and not get into a debate over entrapment. If you were at a safe distance when the officer stepped into the crosswalk (from the curb, not the island), then he did not violate the law. Please read the previous thread on this topic for additional information and insight.
 
nweaver said:
We've had plenty of reports on how these stings operate from the LEO viewpoint. They are VERY careful about avoiding the immediate hazard, because although it seems like the officer is not looking when he is crossing, the officer looks well in advance before starting.
Click to expand...
My point was that if they're using a specific, set distance as a cue to start off from the curb, that set distance doesn't necessarily make it NOT a hazard. An immediate hazard to traffic depends on the traffic and vehicles present at a given moment. Do some walking in SF and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but in any case I haven't seen "plenty of reports."
 
Don't forget that while the speed limit is 25mph on that section of Geary, flow of traffic is usually closer to 40. If the marker that 9M61 talks about was set up assuming a speed of 25, I can see how it might cause some confusion about what's safe.
 
NVP, I feel your pain but you're gonna have a hard time fighting this one because it was a sting. There are probably at least 3 police witnesses against you on this case. You definitely didn't help yourself by admitting guilt to the cop when you said "I understand why you pulled me over." Sting operations usually have a very high conviction rate. The entrapment defense will never work unless you have boatloads of money and time for a good lawyer because it would go to the Superior Court.
 
I think the OP did the right thing. It was the right safety call for all concerned. I've been in very similar situations. Got ticketed once and took the point too.

Cases like this I just try to visualize our sweet Lady Justice. Picture her now.... tall Amazon looking woman... in one hand a scale.... in the other a sword.... blindfolded to the actions of others so she may truly weigh the situation and properly decide guilt or innocence.....








Then again she's a blindfolded sword wielding bitch that occasionally misses with that blade she's got. Good luck!
 
I'm confused. Are these stings only conducted at points without a traffic signal? Or if there is a signal, are the only intended targets drivers who are turning? Unless I'm totally blanking out, the officer/pedestrian would have to be stepping into traffic against a red light in order to bust traffic normally flowing straight through the intersection or across the crosswalk. In that case, how can the officer's action be justified?
 
CABilly said:
I'm confused. Are these stings only conducted at points without a traffic signal? Or if there is a signal, are the only intended targets drivers who are turning? Unless I'm totally blanking out, the officer/pedestrian would have to be stepping into traffic against a red light in order to bust traffic normally flowing straight through the intersection or across the crosswalk. In that case, how can the officer's action be justified?
Click to expand...

Probably at intersections where they get a lot of pedestrian involved collisions. I would think it would mostly occur at uncontrolled crosswalks and those with stop signs. If it was controlled by a signal, it would mostly be right turners.
 
MysterYvil said:
My point was that if they're using a specific, set distance as a cue to start off from the curb, that set distance doesn't necessarily make it NOT a hazard. An immediate hazard to traffic depends on the traffic and vehicles present at a given moment. Do some walking in SF and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

When the pedestrian in question is both observing the speed of traffic AND stepping off on the curb well in advance, when there is no vehicle within the marked distance, that is clearly not creating an immediate hazard.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but in any case I haven't seen "plenty of reports."
Click to expand...

Seach is your friend, the procedures for how at least one, and I think two/three departments conduct these stings have been discussed in the forum.
 
JimE said:
I think the OP did the right thing. It was the right safety call for all concerned. I've been in very similar situations. Got ticketed once and took the point too.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is an UNSAFE call.

The vehicle ahead of the OP and to the left was obviously slowing/stopping for a person in the crosswalk. That the OP did not also slow/stop immediately was an unsafe action, both legally and technically.

Once the OP realized there was something wrong, THEN keeping going was the least unsafe of the remaining unsafe options.
 
Phyxius said:
Don't forget that while the speed limit is 25mph on that section of Geary, flow of traffic is usually closer to 40. If the marker that 9M61 talks about was set up assuming a speed of 25, I can see how it might cause some confusion about what's safe.
Click to expand...

As I said, I was going to speed limit. I travel this road every day. I know what the laws and limits are at each stage of Geary. The SF police have been so severe in enforcement recently that I have been especially conscious of riding to the letter of the law.
 
nweaver said:
Actually, it is an UNSAFE call.

The vehicle ahead of the OP and to the left was obviously slowing/stopping for a person in the crosswalk. That the OP did not also slow/stop immediately was an unsafe action, both legally and technically.

Once the OP realized there was something wrong, THEN keeping going was the least unsafe of the remaining unsafe options.
Click to expand...

Glad you were there to see the whole thing go down. You need to read a bit more carefully. There was only one vehicle that slowed... to my left. It was at that point I scanned, could see the ped two lanes over and made the call. As I said, I am confident I did the safe thing. That's not the issue. I had no opportunity to stop in time.
 
nweaver said:
When the pedestrian in question is both observing the speed of traffic AND stepping off on the curb well in advance, when there is no vehicle within the marked distance, that is clearly not creating an immediate hazard.
Click to expand...
If that was the situation, sure, but with an approaching vehicle that's sure to obscure the ped from other traffice, then... ?

nweaver said:
Seach is your friend, the procedures for how at least one, and I think two/three departments conduct these stings have been discussed in the forum.
Click to expand...
Referring others to "Search" is also the friend of folks who don't want to actually back up their statements with facts.
 
Ironbutt said:
See.. I paid out over $1500 in parking tickets and moving voilations last year... noone can tell me this isn't for some revenue. If you are out and about driving/riding around, you WILL be cited for somthing at some point.


:twofinger to SF parking enforcement..
Click to expand...

You must be a really slow learner. Thanks for the job security! :twofinger
 
SurfAwave69 said:
Here's video of a sting in action:

http://www.ktvu.com/video/13966598/index.html

In this case, the bus in the video was at fault...but, I can see how other instances can have a bit of a gray area.
Click to expand...
There was less than three seconds between them entering the bus's half of the street and the bus passing through the crosswalk.

If the bus had locked them up it could have stopped, but what about the passengers on that bus? Whose safety is paramount- 50 passengers, or two knuckleheaded peds?

I'm a frequent SF ped myself, but I would NEVER presume that traffic at an uncontrolled crosswalk is going to stop for me, and I damn sure watch it even when I have the "Walk" light. One of those things I learned from my parents and from school...
 
MysterYvil said:
...I would NEVER presume that traffic at an uncontrolled crosswalk is going to stop for me, and I damn sure watch it even when I have the "Walk" light. One of those things I learned from my parents and from school...
Click to expand...

this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top