Ticketed for not yielding to a ped (sting op)

[SurfAwave69]

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...

Couldn't have said it any better

 

[nweaver]

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.

I did read:

I was riding in the far right lane (going the speed limit) as I approach the Masonic ramp heading toward downtown. As I approached the street intersection just proceeding the Masonic ramp, the car to my left began to slow. The car was blocking my view to the left, but as I scanned, the car stop and I saw a ped making his way across the number one lane. I was less than 15 feet away from the crosswalk and at least one and a half lanes away from the ped.

The other vehicle had to have been ahead of you, otherwise it wouldn't have been blocking the view of the pedestrian.

The law clearly says, and safety also dictates, that if the car ahead of you and to the left is slowing/stopping for a crosswalk, you should to. The particular vehicle code was posted in this thread already.

Therefore, by not slowing, you were doing an illegal and unsafe act.

However, once you realized what was going on it was now too late to stop safely, THEN the least unsafe of the unsafe acts is what you did.

This is the problem you face if you fight this ticket on safety grounds: your own statement says otherwise.

Oh, and for those who want to understand how these stings operate, how they don't create a hazardous condition, etc, MM4life has the documentation on how they work for his department:

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3967120&postcount=34

The officers use plainclothes personnel to cross the street in marked crosswalks to see if drivers yield to them as required by 21950(a) VC.

This is from a cheat sheet Motorman4life prepared for a crosswalk enforcement "sting" and it uses the court recognized formulas for computing reaction, physical stopping and total stopping distance at given speeds.

SPEED ... REACT ... STOP = TOTAL
25..........27.5'........25.8'.......53.3'
30..........33'..........37.1'........70.1'
35..........38.5'........50.5'........89'
40..........44'..........66'............110'
45..........49.5'.......83.5'........133'

"When setting up the "sting" location, we would mark out a "safety zone" leading up to the crosswalk. The idea being that the pedestrian should not step out into the crosswalk if they a) perceived a vehicle was travelling higher than the "target" speed and/or b) saw the vehicle had already entered the "safety zone."

So, for instance, we were running an operation in a 35 zone where the 85th percentile speed had been documented at 37 mph. Giving the benefit to the drivers, we used the numbers for a 40 zone.. we set small cones on the island or curb located 110' feet prior to the crosswalk (from both directions). So, the ped was instructed not to step out if it appeared the approaching vehicle was going over 40 or if they had already passed the marker cone. The idea being that as long as they were driving 40 or under (in a posted 35 zone) and were at least 110' from the crosswalk, that a ped, lawfully asserting their right-of-way in a crosswalk, should/could anticipate an approaching vehicle to yield to their right-of-way. If they were going too fast, they would simply be stopped for speeding. If they were within the 110' zone, then it would be unsafe for a ped to step out and reasonably expect it not to be a hazard. I know, in reality, a "head's up" driver at 40 mph could panic stop within 50' but we are striving for what is reasonable and what could be sustained in court. We did not lose any tickets out of 40+ cites issued in 2 hours."

 

[n10sive]

I wonder if the react times change between a motorcycle and a car. I know when I am riding my bike, I am scanning wider areas, and I sometimes will miss something 'near' like a pedestrian stepping out, especially if there are lots of items to distract...like a car sitting in a driveway ready to pull out, obstructed vehicles etc...things that are MORE of a danger to me on my bike than a person standing on a sidewalk.

 

[masameet]

... Oh, and for those who want to understand how these stings operate, how they don't create a hazardous condition, etc, MM4life has the documentation on how they work for his department ....

I wonder if the react times change between a motorcycle and a car. I know when I am riding my bike, I am scanning wider areas, and I sometimes will miss something 'near' like a pedestrian stepping out, especially if there are lots of items to distract...like a car sitting in a driveway ready to pull out, obstructed vehicles etc...things that are MORE of a danger to me on my bike than a person standing on a sidewalk.

Great find, Nick! And cogent point, Dale.

In the LEO thread that nweaver linked to, MM4L wrote the following more than two years ago (from this post) (I edited out the bad coding):

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 ...

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.

And if the ped sting happened on Geary Blvd. @ Blake St., here's a Google Map shot of the upcoming intersection:

Here's what it looks looking westbound (and obviously these photos were taken on separate occasions):

And if, as another BARFer pointed out in this thread, the speed limit on Geary Blvd. is 25 mph (and that'd make sense, as the area is a mixed-used area), and it would take a vehicle just under 54 feet to come to a stop at the crosswalk, then I would guess that where the back bumper of the black SUV is in the first photo is also just about where the OP should have been braking, if he had seen the pedestrian in the crosswalk or noticed the motorist in the No. 1 lane begin to brake and slow down for the ped officer. Why at the SUV? It's overall length is just over 15 feet, a parking space is supposed to be a maximum of 18 feet in length, and so I calculated that the distance between the SUV's rear bumper and to the crosswalk is 54 feet (3 parking spaces (48 feet) + about 6 feet of sidewalk to the curb).

But then again, I'm just guessing. If the OP travels EB on Geary Blvd. regularly, he could certainly ascertain on his own many more times and before he goes to court whether he missed the visual cues for the pedestrian or was going too fast to stop safely, or a combination of both.

 

[windex]

Didn't read all of this. We did a cross walk enforcement awhile back.

Had an officer wearing a cover shirt for 2 hours, but was getting behind stopping people. The last 2 hours he walked in the cross walk in full unform and the same amount of people flew past him; sometimes with a camera man following him.

Oh this was a cross walk kids use everyday getting to school. Even got a few felons with guns off the streets doing it

 

[nvp]

The other vehicle had to have been ahead of you, otherwise it wouldn't have been blocking the view of the pedestrian.

No, the ped was to the left of me ad therefore the vehicle that stopped couldn't have been in front, but rather, to the left as I stated. BTW... how would I even proceed through an intersection with a vehicle in front of me?

Being critical is a strength of yours... critical thinking, not so much.

 

[motorman4life]

I wonder if the react times change between a motorcycle and a car. I know when I am riding my bike, I am scanning wider areas, and I sometimes will miss something 'near' like a pedestrian stepping out, especially if there are lots of items to distract...like a car sitting in a driveway ready to pull out, obstructed vehicles etc...things that are MORE of a danger to me on my bike than a person standing on a sidewalk.

Reaction times and stopping distances are different for motorcycles. In the interest of justice, the same numbers are used for all vehicles, but in reality, most motorcycle operators react quicker and can stop quicker than the average car driver. If you are scanning far up the road (as you should), that does not mean you should not be doing regular surface appraisals as well as scanning nearby hazards.. particularly when you are at an intersection and/or when you see solid white (crosswalk) lines mid-block. If you think hitting a pedestrian will not put you down.. or create a threat to your safety.. you are sadly mistaken.

 

[nweaver]

No, the ped was to the left of me ad therefore the vehicle that stopped couldn't have been in front, but rather, to the left as I stated. BTW... how would I even proceed through an intersection with a vehicle in front of me?

Being critical is a strength of yours... critical thinking, not so much.

FORWARD of your position. Sorry for not being quite so precise, but the other vehicle was clearly forward of your position if it blocked the view of the pedestrian.

Sorry for being not precise enough: The other driver, by your own admission, was ahead of you in the other lane.

Passing that driver was an unsafe act by both vehicle code and common sense.

 

[n10sive]

If you think hitting a pedestrian will not put you down.. or create a threat to your safety.. you are sadly mistaken.

You should see that deer like look in their eyes right before I run them down too!

Seriously though, I do catch myself on 'information overload' on my bike as I am taking in so many more inputs, variables and factors than when I drive my cage. Like you said, road surfaces are an additional input. When caging, I can go...yep...pedestrian. On my bike it's yep...pedestrian...if he steps out, what is the road like, will it effect my stopping. The car on my left/right, what are they going to do, the car pulling away from the curb, the car behind me etc etc etc. During all this scanning and processing, there can be that "oh crap...where did that pedestrian go!?" as my eyes and brain are doing a hundred different things in anticipation of stopping. There are many more things going through my brain than when sitting in my cage, all protected by all that steel and 4 wheels.

While I do consider myself to have 'cat like' reflexes on my bike, and ride much more defensively, there are times when I find myself missing things...it's only natural due to the volume of information one has to take in on a bike. All things the OP eluded to.

 

[ar15600rr]

I don't feel like delving into it, but there's a lot more to it than "stepping out." There are rules, distances, speed and other things that are taken into account and then written into an operations order which clearly defines when a pedestrian is to step out, and when they are not. The operations are also almost always video taped. Do some research before you \yap about something you clearly have no idea about.

yup bcuz cops always follow the rules ALWAYS.....

 

[ar15600rr]

FORWARD of your position. Sorry for not being quite so precise, but the other vehicle was clearly forward of your position if it blocked the view of the pedestrian.

Sorry for being not precise enough: The other driver, by your own admission, was ahead of you in the other lane.

Passing that driver was an unsafe act by both vehicle code and common sense.

he wasnt cited for that right? he was cited for not yielding so that is besides the point... good point though.

 

[marcg]

My wife was on the receiving end of one of these stings today while driving Northbound on Woodside Road near Hudson in Redwood City. She was coming up on a crosswalk, marked with painted lines but no lights, that was between intersections, when a "pedestrian" just ahead of her took one step off the sidewalk and wagged his finger at her; a few moments afterwards she was pulled over. She's an attentive driver and the distance between her and the "pedestrian" when he stepped off the sidewalk sounds like less than what was in M4M's post. Not sure whether it's worth fighting, though.

 

[Rel]

You must be a really slow learner. Thanks for the job security!

Dude...

Dont be a tool.

 

[what]

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.

No, he did not violate the law until convicted in a court of law. If, for example, there were jury nullification of the letter of the CVC, then he would not have violated the law of the land.

There is more to law than legislation; a fact I wish more LEOs would realize.

 

[motorman4life]

Seriously though, I do catch myself on 'information overload' on my bike as I am taking in so many more inputs, variables and factors than when I drive my cage... ...While I do consider myself to have 'cat like' reflexes on my bike, and ride much more defensively, there are times when I find myself missing things...it's only natural due to the volume of information one has to take in on a bike...

If you find yourself on "information overload" that is the FIRST sign you are going to fast for the conditions. Every bike has different capabilities and every rider has different skills and weaknesses. Regardless of the posted speed limit, the basic speed law dictates that each rider, driver and pedestrian has a responsibility to proceed in a safe manner, with due regard for their capabilities, their vehicle capabilities and the given (and constantly varying) conditions (roadway, traffic and environment). Speed equals distance and distance equals time and time equals reaction buffer. The problem is, as one increases, the others decrease. Slowing down gives you more time to react and speeding up gives you less time to react.

In Germany, they have billboards up on the Autobahn that say "Sicht weg - Gas weg." It is an idiom that essentially means, don't go faster than you can see." If you are on "information overload" it means you cannot see/perceive and process data fast enough to react/respond appropriately.. you are going faster than you can see.

 

[n10sive]

don't read so much into my statements M4L. I do fine and was not admitting to riding too fast for conditions. You are obviously stuck in the wrong lane with the reading of my post so probably best to just drop it.

 

[Provenuts]

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.

You sound like a nagging wife from the projects I never had

U did it, fess up to it, and don't sit on my GED, I'm the first to get one in my family

 

[Provenuts]

If you find yourself on "information overload" that is the FIRST sign you are going to fast for the conditions. Every bike has different capabilities and every rider has different skills and weaknesses. Regardless of the posted speed limit, the basic speed law dictates that each rider, driver and pedestrian has a responsibility to proceed in a safe manner, with due regard for their capabilities, their vehicle capabilities and the given (and constantly varying) conditions (roadway, traffic and environment). Speed equals distance and distance equals time and time equals reaction buffer. The problem is, as one increases, the others decrease. Slowing down gives you more time to react and speeding up gives you less time to react.

In Germany, they have billboards up on the Autobahn that say "Sicht weg - Gas weg." It is an idiom that essentially means, don't go faster than you can see." If you are on "information overload" it means you cannot see/perceive and process data fast enough to react/respond appropriately.. you are going faster than you can see.

EZ for you to say, what about all the shithead pedestrians that we're never taught how to stay alive and cross the street safely. How about giving those fools a ticket ocifer

 

[masameet]

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.

Here's an example from yesterday (April 3) of the unintended consequences of a motorist violating the anti-gridlock law (I guess that means CVC section 22526) (but no mention of photo lights at the intersection):

San Rafael police motorcycle hit by suspended driver
Gary Klien
Posted: 04/03/2009 08:11:02 PM PDT

A San Rafael woman with a suspended license was cited Friday after driving into a motorcycle officer, police said.

Cosby Mazariegos, 39, was driving on Mission Avenue at Lincoln Avenue when she stopped her 2007 Chevrolet Uplander in the intersection, violating the anti-gridlock law, said police Sgt. David Cron.

As Officer Justin Schraeder, who patrolling the area on his motorcycle, approached the stopped vehicle, Mazariegos made a sudden turn and struck the Schraeder's motorcycle, Cron said.

Police then learned that Mazariegos' license was suspended and she had no proof of insurance. She was cited and released, and her vehicle was impounded.

Schraeder was not injured. The motorcycle and the Chevrolet sustained minor damage.

 

[LongGoneJohn]

That's the third San Rafael PD bike to go down in the last couple months. Two from not-at fault collisions and one from an actual crime in progress.

Glad to see Justin's alright.