Ticketed for not yielding to a ped (sting op)

[Vlasic]

How long has the SFPD been conducting these "stings" and is there evidence that it has reduced the number of pedestrian traffic collisions?

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Why does that matter? It isn't relevant at all.

He violated the law, he got caught. Suck it up and pay the fine.

Someone, for the love of God, close this thread.

 

[Vlasic]

Why does that matter? It isn't relevant at all.

He violated the law, he got caught. Suck it up and pay the fine.

Someone, for the love of God, close this thread.

Because I am curious and would like to know. I am not asking in defense for the OP Im asking for myself. Would you prefer I start a whole new thread about it or get it answered quickly and easily right now?


edit: I would also like the thread to stay open so I can hear the outcome of his trial. Its not like he saw the pedestrian and thought to himself "fuck this guy Im not stopping". He did what he thought was safest. Rather than slam on his brakes and possibly end up stopped in the middle of the intersection, he sped up and continued on all while the pedestrian still had a large buffer zone, I really dont think that makes him a criminal.

 

[MysterYvil]

As for think traffic enforcement is stupid, I again challenge you to look at how many people are killed in homicides and how many are killed in traffic collisions in a city each year. People say the resources should go to where people are getting killed. In the majority of cities you will see a lot more are killed in collision that as a result of homicide.

So again, we are going on your assumptions, theories, and lack of any numbers, statistics, or evidence that money is made by traffic citations, I.E. revenue generation. I have backed up my claims with the facts and numbers; I'm still waiting for you to do the same.

"As for think?" What does that mean? And I never said it was "stupid," simple misdirected and mostly ineffective toward solving the problem.

Besides, I thought you were claiming that money was NOT made on traffic enforcement, and now for some reason you're dragging in homicide statistics? And do you have a cite for what "people" say?

Sorry, but I stand by my original statements: sting operations are politically motivated, often financially motivated by politicians, and merely "enforced" by LEOs. Stings have far more to do with public relations and revenue than they do with murder.

Common sense and logic, try them sometime. Perhaps even straight-out ask some politicians and veteran LEOs?

Sounds like you are married to your theories and assumptions, and perhaps even a bit of indoctrination and wide-eyed naivete...

 

[nvp]

So, I was wondering... what is the difference between what I did (passing through an intersection with over a lane and a half between me and the ped because I assessed it as safe) and someone making a turn onto a street while a ped is in the crosswalk of the street one is entering. For example, I make a right off Geary onto 19th avenue every day. Cars in front of me see that peds are crossing toward our side, see that there is clearance and make the right through the very crosswalk in which a ped walks.

I see that happen at least 50 TIMES A DAY. So... what's the difference?

 

[nvp]

Dear NVP:

I’m sorry that you feel that the ticket you got was unfair; however, please just take the time to read my post.

About a year ago my godson (5 years old) was crossing a marked crosswalk in SF when he was hit by an inattentive driver. When my cousin and 3 kids were crossing the marked crosswalk the 1st driver stopped, but when the 2nd driver “saw” my cousin when it was too late. My cousin reached out to all 3 children to stop them (they were on her right side) and was only able to stop two of them.

Had my cousin not paid attention and stopped two out of the three kids I’m sure all of them would have end up in the hospital if not 6ft under. Unfortunately, my godson was hit and flew about 20ft from where the vehicle stopped. He never lost consciousness and thank God he still was at the “flexible bone” stage so his body was able to absorb most of the energy from the impact. He had to spend one night under observation because the doctors discovered a skull hairline fracture. He has not developed any symptoms that would alarm the doctors or us; however, he will be going thru regular check ups for at least 5 more years. As I’m sure you realized that the psychological trauma not only that affected my godson, but also his siblings (imagine seeing your little brother hit by a car.)

Given, you were paying attention and you were riding a motorcycle; however, I do not believe you were riding safely for traffic conditions and here is why:
-You were riding at speed LIMIT; therefore, you were going too fast. I believe this because traffic was slowing down which means they SAW something that made them brake! You should have slow down and prepare to stop.
-You scanned, had a blind spot and by the time you saw the pedestrian you were out of safe choices.

I know that I’ve been guilty of the same (thinking that speed limit was safe) hell I almost ran over a guy on a wheelchair crossing a marked crosswalk as I was approaching an intersection… I remember thinking “Why is everyone slowing down?” Luckily I was able to avoid him by making an unsafe right (in my defense he was rolling really fast thru the intersection! ) I literally had to stop snap out of it apologize to the guy and then crawl home.

Now let me be clear, had I been under the SAME circumstances I would have made the same decision you made; however, I like to avoid putting myself under those circumstances by slow down at intersections and braking if I have a blind spot!

Yes getting a ticket sucks, but I think you are coming out of this experience, pretty cheap (if you learned something from it.) Imagine, if it would have been a vehicle running thru the intersection, perhaps an animal, or maybe a child; what would have been the outcome then? My point is that you would not have been able to see ANY of these until it would have been too late, for you, them or both.


Speed safely my friend and keep your rubber side down!

Thanks for the thoughtful dialogue. And I am very sorry your godson was hit... that is nothing short of horrible.

One point of clarification: I saw the guy with PLENTY of time to make it through the intersection without being anywhere near him. I just couldn't stop at the line and keep us both safe (and key to this thread, obey the letter of the law). I believe I was totally "on it"... I was going 25 or less, I saw the cars slow (my only indication), scanned and immediately saw the ped. I made the right decision and proceeded through.

It's a case of what was most safe given a hectically busy Geary Blvd during rush hour vs. what is the LEGAL thing to do according to the letter of the law.

 

[JPM]

"As for think?" What does that mean? And I never said it was "stupid," simple misdirected and mostly ineffective toward solving the problem.

Besides, I thought you were claiming that money was NOT made on traffic enforcement, and now for some reason you're dragging in homicide statistics? And do you have a cite for what "people" say?

Sorry, but I stand by my original statements: sting operations are politically motivated, often financially motivated by politicians, and merely "enforced" by LEOs. Stings have far more to do with public relations and revenue than they do with murder.

Common sense and logic, try them sometime. Perhaps even straight-out ask some politicians and veteran LEOs?

Sounds like you are married to your theories and assumptions, and perhaps even a bit of indoctrination and wide-eyed naivete...

So again, just a bunch of personal opinions and no facts to back them up. Enough said.

 

[JPM]

So, I was wondering... what is the difference between what I did (passing through an intersection with over a lane and a half between me and the ped because I assessed it as safe) and someone making a turn onto a street while a ped is in the crosswalk of the street one is entering. For example, I make a right off Geary onto 19th avenue every day. Cars in front of me see that peds are crossing toward our side, see that there is clearance and make the right through the very crosswalk in which a ped walks.

I see that happen at least 50 TIMES A DAY. So... what's the difference?

I can't remember what section you said you were cited for, but I think it was 21951 VC. Take a look at the two sections. 21950 say’s the pedestrian can’t be close enough to be a hazard. 21951 has no such wording, it a vehicle is stopped for a crosswalk you MUST stop. Big difference.

 

[MysterYvil]

Why does that matter? It isn't relevant at all.

He violated the law, he got caught. Suck it up and pay the fine.

Someone, for the love of God, close this thread.

Where to start...

Because in many cases "the law is an ass?"

Because it was an artifically created situation?

Because it had little to do with actual ped safety and much to do with grandstanding and revenue?

If the thread offends you so much, you could just skip it, you know...

 

[MysterYvil]

So again, just a bunch of personal opinions and no facts to back them up. Enough said.

Hey, perhaps I learned how to post from you? It's not like you've presented anything to back up your fatuous assertions, other than one "cite" referring folks to another thread.

When an LEO shows up and straight-out states (with citation, hopefully) that municipalities lose money on such operations, I will solidly contend that common sense and word-of-mouth from LEOs I personally know dictates that municipalities DO make money on such stings.

You can equivocate, shuck-and-jive, and obfuscate the point all you like, but folks are not going to turn off their brains and believe you just because you posted it, JPM.

 

[JPM]

Hey, perhaps I learned how to post from you? It's not like you've presented anything to back up your fatuous assertions, other than one "cite" referring folks to another thread.

When an LEO shows up and straight-out states (with citation, hopefully) that municipalities lose money on such operations, I will solidly contend that common sense and word-of-mouth from LEOs I personally know dictates that municipalities DO make money on such stings.

You can equivocate, shuck-and-jive, and obfuscate the point all you like, but folks are not going to turn off their brains and believe you just because you posted it, JPM.

Now you are just wasting air. I don't have to expect people to believe me just because I posted it, they can do the math themselves. I have posted all the information, percentages, where to see the fines, ect. All that you need to do is simple math to see what "revenue" is brought in and compare that to what an officer makes and the vehicle expenses. And no, I'm not going to do it for you if you are that lazy. So I have provided the info and hard numbers for anyone to do that math, all you have done is make speculations and make personal attacks to deflect the issue because you have nothing to support your "facts" or theories. So I’m still waiting until you can actually post something relevant. But thanks for playing.

 

[MysterYvil]

Now you are just wasting air. I don't have to expect people to believe me just because I posted it, they can do the math themselves. I have posted all the information, percentages, where to see the fines, ect. All that you need to do is simple math to see what "revenue" is brought in and compare that to what an officer makes and the vehicle expenses. And no, I'm not going to do it for you if you are that lazy. So I have provided the info and hard numbers for anyone to do that math, all you have done is make speculations and make personal attacks to deflect the issue because you have nothing to support your "facts" or theories. So I’m still waiting until you can actually post something relevant. But thanks for playing.

Actually you didn't post a thing...you just lazily referred folks to another post...

But in any case, the municipalities for which LEOs work pay them regardless of what they happen to be doing. If the municipalities choose to redirect the LEOs toward something that generates revenue for them (as your vaunted charts show they do), then it is a net gain for your actual bosses (the politicans who tell your direct bosses what to do).

Therefore, sting operations *do* generate revenue for municipalies. Duh. If you still can't make the connection then I congratulate you on your credulity.

And thank *you* for playing.

 

[MysterYvil]

...all you have done is...make personal attacks to deflect the issue ...

If I've made personal attacks why don't you report them?

And as far as deflecting the issue, you have done nothing but obfuscate and equivocate and cite other BARF posts. THAT smells like deflecting to me.

 

[nvp]

I can't remember what section you said you were cited for, but I think it was 21951 VC. Take a look at the two sections. 21950 say’s the pedestrian can’t be close enough to be a hazard. 21951 has no such wording, it a vehicle is stopped for a crosswalk you MUST stop. Big difference.

Thank you for your insight. I was cited for 21950.

 

[shoman100]

You might find this interesting reading.

"Red Ink in the Rearview Mirror: Local Fiscal Conditions and the Issuance of Traffic Tickets"

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2006/2006-048.pdf

Apologies if it is a repost.

 

[nvp]

I was cited for 21950:

21950. (a) 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, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(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.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 833, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.

Sounds like I should have been cited for 21951:

21951. Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.

 

[Var]

when are you going to court? Or have you started your trial by written declaration?

 

[nvp]

when are you going to court? Or have you started your trial by written declaration?

I was planning on going in to sign up for court this afternoon. I have never tried a written declaration... kinda scared that they don't even read/consider the argument. Would you recommend one versus the other?

 

[Var]

wouldn't know either way. Some people on Barf have won TBD and other seemed to have made a compelling argument supported by solid facts and have lost. It's hard to trust this system IMO

 

[1RUN]

I was cited for 21950:

21950. (a) 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, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(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.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 833, Stats. 2000. Effective January 1, 2001.

Sounds like I should have been cited for 21951:

21951. Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.

Hmmm - interesting... Any LEO's care to comment on this new wrinkle?