I didn’t know that crossing the street when the “don’t walk” sign is flashing is a ticketable offense.
So… is it? Seems natural that you would have checked to see exactly what the law really says, instead of relying on the word of someone else.
Meanwhile, just a few blocks northeast of this intersection is the stretch of 5th Street that’s one of the largest open-air heroin markets on the west coast. The LAPD only cares about it twice a year, when they make the sweeps that only seem to happen every six months. But jaywalkers in the Financial District tend to be commuters, and commuters tend to be honest, upstanding types who pay their fines, so it matters more to city coffers to go after the jaywalkers.
9 Likes
In a world where your system is unsustainable perhaps some changes should be made. Pedestrians decrease gridlock in places with non-stupid transportation planning.
16 Likes
There are two perhaps conflicting statutes. The California Vehicle Code (or the Streets & Highways Code, I forget which) does provide that walking when the hand has started flashing is illegal, and it’s what the LAPD cites every time they write a jaywalking ticket.
On the other hand, there’s another section of the Vehicle Code (or S&H Code) that says you’re allowed to cross between intersections even when there isn’t a crosswalk provided you don’t disrupt the flow of traffic by doing so. In West Hollywood, the LA County Sheriff’s Department (which handles law enforcement there) relies on this section to not ticket jaywalkers, unless there’s an obvious disruption created.
4 Likes
Know what creates gridlock? Too many cars on the road. Know what reduces gridlock? More people walking and/or taking public transit. If you drive downtown during rush hour you’re much more responsible for traffic problems than the minimum-wage-earning guy in this story who was rushing to catch an early morning bus.
35 Likes
Seriously. Only a driver would blame a pedestrian for gridlock.
29 Likes
To update:
The jaywalking statute the LAPD cites is Vehicle Code section 21955, which provides: “Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.”
The more permissive statute the West Hollywood station of the LASD relies upon is Vehicle Code section 21954, subdivision (a), which provides: “Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.”
KPCC, one of the local NPR stations, has an article explaining the different applications.
2 Likes
Pedestrians always have right of way. Sure it’s inconvenient, but the law says pedestrians have the right of way because your F150 isn’t going to be damaged if you roll over someone, but they’ll be dead.
LA’s traffic is caused by the fact that it’s not one city but rather a dozen or so, all oozing into each other, and sprawled out over hundreds of square miles. There are simply too many cars for the roads to handle, and there isn’t adequate public transportation and pedestrian accessibility.
In fact, it’s much more accurate to say that the ones causing all the traffic are the self-righteous car drivers who only have to go a dozen or two blocks, but feel the need to pilot their explosionmobiles out on the packed streets already.
12 Likes
As a former L.A. resident I’d wager a bigger part of the problem is that urban sprawl means that fewer and fewer people can live within walking distance of their jobs. All those freeways sure aren’t for decoration.
9 Likes
Take a goddamn bus, you entitled carbon-spewing asshole.
10 Likes
No, they don’t. Not in California, anyway.
In California, pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way (and that includes both marked and unmarked crosswalks; if you don’t know what an “unmarked crosswalk” is, please read up on it — especially if you also drive), but…
Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard." [CVC Sec. 21954(a), “Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks”]
And even the right-of way in crosswalks isn’t absolute:
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. [CVC Sec. 21950(b), “Right of Way at Crosswalks”]
Now, I know cars are evil and pedestrians are holy because saving the world and cars kill more pedestrians than pedestrians kill cars and poor people are poor and so on. I know all that.
I’m just noting what the law actually is; I’m not debating what it should be; not defending its existence; not arguing about proportionality of fines.
Just noting that “Pedestrians always have right of way” is not, in fact, what the law actually says. (In California, anyway.)
Inconvenient though that may be.
4 Likes
How often do you check the laws, given that new ones are passed on a weekly basis?
3 Likes
It does seem natural, but I’m an idiot so don’t expect me to do things the way you would.
4 Likes
Alright, I was wrong about California. What I remember from driver’s ed in Washington State was that pedestrians have the right of way on any street except the interstate, and not hitting anyone is priority #1.
Maybe I’m wrong about Washington as well. But at least giving the pedestrians right-of-way whenever there’s a conflict usually results in nobody’s death.
In any case, I ought to read up on the traffic laws, since I haven’t in quite a while. Always good to keep up to date.
2 Likes
Yes. That’s a thing in today’s 'murica.
https://www.aclu.org/feature/ending-modern-day-debtors-prisons
and
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/08/384332798/civil-rights-attorneys-sue-ferguson-over-debtors-prisons
Apologies for the tangent, but this cannot be repeated enough…
10 Likes
Oh, hey, we have that, too. (-:
There’s a coupla places where the Code says someone doesn’t have the right of way, but then explicity says, basically ~“…but OF COURSE that doesn’t mean you can just run over 'em, YOU MORON.”~
Well, maybe not quite that forcefully. (-:
2 Likes
Years ago in Santa Monica there was a intersection that once had a left turn lane. But once you got in it you realized that the street you wanted to turn on to was now blocked off. At that point anything you did was illegal. The cops fished that hole everyday. Then one day they ticketed a lawyer. He sued and the city had to refund close to 1 millions dollars in tickets.
The point is, our government needs to act with-in reason. 197 dollar fine for crossing on a flashing signal is not reasonable. It’s onerous. 30 bucks would be about right. It’s the same for parking tickets. One shouldn’t have to dip into your savings to pay a parking ticket.
13 Likes
Don’t be so down on yourself; you’ve been long forgiven since the Food Babe incident.
;-P
Please, tell us where there is a single crosswalk in Southern California where it isn’t flashing red after 3 to 5 seconds. I see cars still idling at a green light longer than that, but apparently pedestrians are held to a higher standard. Even running at a 7:30min/mile pace (~8 mph) I still don’t make it across a four-lane intersection before the “Don’t Walk” starts flashing. What’s to stop a cop from ticketing me by simply claiming that I entered the intersection illegally, even though there’s a damn TIMER saying that I still have 20 seconds to spare? I doubt they ticket the same percentage of nice cars crossing on yellow.
6 Likes
Only a nobody walks in L.A.
2 Likes
