Yielding to traffic in an intersection CVC 21804

[Gary Cziko]

People,

CVC 21804 was mentioned a while ago in this forum and I find it an interesting read because I suspect it runs counter to what most drivers (including cyclists) think about right of way at an intersection.

 

21804.  
(a) The driver of any vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from any public or private property, or from an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic, as defined in Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

 

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter or cross the highway, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching on the highway shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection. (emphasis added)

Bob Shanteau commented: 

 . . . entering drivers are prohibited from doing so in front of vehicles so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. That is not the same as not impeding other vehicles (although that is the way it is normally understood and enforced). The plain language of the law says forcing a driver on the highway to hit the entering vehicle or to take emergency action to avoid it is prohibited. Causing normal braking is not.

I often find myself in a situation both motoring and cycling (especially when following dynamic routing by Google Maps or Waze to avoid congested traffic) where I come up against a 2-way STOP (for me) at a busy arterial where I want to either cross or make a left turn. Often (a) when the lanes closest to me (from my left), the far-side traffic lanes (from my right) are not clear, and (b) vice versa. We've all been there, especially when running late!

CVC 21804 appears to indicate that I in situation (a) I don't have to wait for a simultaneous gap in both directions of crossing traffic but can legally enter the intersection when there is a reasonable gap in traffic from the left and wait there blocking one or more travel lanes until a gap appears in the traffic from the right to allow me to complete my crossing of the intersection. And yet, I would expect to cause quite a hostile reaction and honking from impede traffic if I did pull such a 2-stage move to get across a busy arterial from a 2-way stop controlled side street, at least here in Los Angeles. Maybe your cities are different?

Three questions:

1. Is this interpretation of CVC 21804 correct in that it permits a two-stage crossing of a busy arterial from a two-way STOP-controlled side street which impedes traffic in one direction of the arterial while waiting for traffic in the other direction of the arterial to clear?

2. Is this something you have done and if so, where and with what reaction to impeded motorists on the arterial?

3. Does a similar law exists in the UVC and in the traffic laws of other U.S. states and other countries?

-- Gary

[Volar Picante]

21804(a) ...and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

[Volar Picante]

Also 22526(a)

[Gary Cziko]

22526.  

(a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side. (emphasis added)

This would appear not to apply to my two-stage intersection crossing when there is adequate space on the other side of the intersection, as there normally is. Instead, there is no gap in traffic coming from the right in the intersection itself to permit crossing the intersection in one movement.

-- Gary

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:14 PM Volar Picante <volar....@gmail.com> wrote:

Also 22526(a)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/6969f47b-1490-4ad0-8a29-22692d8bee9c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

==================================================

Gary Cziko ("ZEE-ko"), PhD
Professor Emeritus, Educational Psychology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

CyclingSavvy Instructor (CSI)

Board of Directors, American Bicycling Education Association (ABEA.bike)

Board of Directors, California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABO)

Expert Witness for Cyclists' Rights

[Volar Picante]

Wot??

The plain reading of that is if there is for example, a median of sufficient width, you may make a 2 stage.

[Volar Picante]

This is the anti-gridlock law, meaning don't block the intersection (regardless if there is enough space on the far side of the intersection).

[Gary Cziko]

CVC 22526 says:

Don't do A (enter an intersection) unless B exists (adequate space on the other side of the intersection).

I don't read B as an example, but restricting the "shall not" in this particular ordinance to the specific condition mentioned.

This is the anti-gridlock law, meaning don't block the intersection (regardless if there is enough space on the far side of the intersection).

The situation I am describing is not related to gridlock.

Gridlock is a form of traffic congestion where "continuous queues of vehicles block an entire network of intersecting streets, bringing traffic in all directions to a complete standstill".^[1] The term originates from a situation possible in a grid plan where intersections are blocked, preventing vehicles from either moving forwards through the intersection or backing up to an upstream intersection.

 

The term gridlock is also used incorrectly to describe high traffic congestion with minimal flow (which is simply a traffic jam), where a blocked grid system is not involved. By extension, the term has been applied to situations in other fields where flow is stalled by excess demand, or in which competing interests prevent progress.

Wikipedia 

-- Gary

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:51 PM Volar Picante <volar....@gmail.com> wrote:

This is the anti-gridlock law, meaning don't block the intersection (regardless if there is enough space on the far side of the intersection).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/534ae12f-03d4-482f-8a96-3acc1bc4aeec%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bob Shanteau]

Gary,

I think you meant to quote CVC 21802, which says the same thing as CVC 21804 but applies to approaches controlled by stop signs:

CVC 21802.  

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon all approaches to an intersection.

The way I learned it in my traffic engineering classes, 2-stage crossings are only allowed where the median is wide enough for your vehicle to fit. You could be cited for impeding traffic otherwise.

Bob Shanteau

[Gary Cziko]

Bob,

Thanks for pointing out the existence of the stop-sign specific CVC 21802. Yes, that is more specific to the situation I describe.

The way I learned it in my traffic engineering classes, 2-stage crossings are only allowed where the median is wide enough for your vehicle to fit. You could be cited for impeding traffic otherwise.

Are you referring to CVC 22400?

22400.  
(a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

 

No person shall bring a vehicle to a complete stop upon a highway so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the stop is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

But note in the second paragraph "unless the stop is necessary for safe operation." Stopping in the intersection to wait for a safe gap the far-side cross traffic would in this case be necessary for safe operation.

If a two-stage intersection crossing without a median is prohibited, then why does section (b) exist?

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

More generally, what would be a situation at a two-way STOP intersection where drivers of all other approaching vehicles would be required to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection?

In other words, describe a situation in which a driver could be cited for violating CVC 21802(b).

-- Gary

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAObDU8qpoR7cFQ65SkUeHewKpoi22VR-k%3DFSa_-ixUCjM0A9Wg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Volar Picante]

How would this not apply to your two stage turn example?

A two stage turn certainly has the potential to induce gridlock since you are blocking the intersection.

The plain reading of cvc 22526a is unless if there is no reasonable expectation of clearing the intersection in one go (medians etc. excepted), don't enter the intersection.

The part you highlighted is not a necessary requirement for finding guilty of violating cvc 22526a should you block an intersection.

[Gary Cziko]

People,

No one had addressed by question of two days ago:

More generally, what would be a situation at a two-way STOP intersection where drivers of all other approaching vehicles would be required to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection?

 

In other words, describe a situation in which a driver could be cited for violating CVC 21802(b).

So let me offer a situation which does not require the driver entering from the two-way STOP controlled intersection to stop in the intersection, as in the case of the two-stage intersection crossing described previously.

What I offer is an example where the above driver would would enter the intersection with reasonable safety avoiding all immediate hazards. However, one or more driver in one or more crossing lanes would be required to reduce their speed (using what Bob Shanteau has referred to as "normal braking") to avoid colliding with 2-way STOP controlled driver. If one of the "uncontrolled" drivers failed to use "normal braking" and thereby collided with the "controlled" driver, the former could be cited for violation of CVC 21802.

For easy reference, appended below is CVC 21802 with sections emphasized relevant to the above situation.

Does anyone disagree that this situation describes a case where drivers on the uncontrolled road could be cited for violating CVC 21802?

-- Gary

CVC 21802.  

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon all approaches to an intersection.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/50db5b93-e702-4e61-a9e7-ffae2e92714a%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gary Cziko]

People,

I suppose I would be expected to take a hint in that there has been no response to my two last queries concerning CVC 21802. But instead, I'd like to attempt to conclude this discussion with some summary comments.

I find it of considerable interest and relevance to compare CVC 21950 "Pedestrians' Rights and Duties" with CVC 21802. For convenience I have appended these laws below with relevant emphases added.

What is common to both statutes is that they require the pedestrian in CVC 21950 and driver in CVC 21802 to initially yield to traffic which may "constitute an immediate hazard."  And after having done so, drivers of approaching vehicles must yield right of way to said pedestrian or said driver, even though the approaching driver is not subject to any traffic control device.

Insofar as a two-stage crossing by the pedestrian is lawful, so should it be for the intersection-crossing driver. Indeed, the crossing driving should not have to stop in the near-side lanes to safely proceed across the far-side lanes if approaching drivers heeded CVC 21802 and properly yielded to the crossing driver. But the crossing driver could certainly not be cited for blocking traffic if such stopping were necessary to ensure his or her safety due to violation of CVC 21802 by drivers in the far-side lanes who do not yield.

My interest in this matter was piqued by Bob Shanteau's surprising (to me at the time) comment concerning the closely related CVC 21804:

 No, Leo. Entering drivers are prohibited from doing so in front of vehicles so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. That is not the same as not impeding other vehicles (although that is the way it is normally understood and enforced). The plain language of the law says forcing a driver on the highway to hit the entering vehicle or to take emergency action to avoid it is prohibited. Causing normal braking is not.

In conclusion, I think it is important that . . .

1. . . . motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians understand their rights in crossing an intersection that has no traffic control devices for the major street or road,

2. . . . motorists and bicyclists understand their duty to yield to vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians which have initially yielded to traffic that may "constitute and immediate hazard," and

3. . .  motorists and bicyclists understand that while such yielding to pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalk is widely understood and enforced, such yielding to motorists and bicyclists is not generally understood. Therefore, motorists and bicyclists should not rely on other motorists and bicyclists to yield to them in such a situation, although it is their legal duty to do so and that they may be judged to be at fault if a collision occurred after a motorist or bicyclist initially yielded to traffic constituting an immediate hazard.

And while most other motorists may react differently, I am much more likely now to reach for the brake pedal if necessary rather than the horn if I see a bicyclist or motorist crossing an intersection where I would otherwise be under no obligation to slow or stop.

I hope others reading this will, too. (I know competent self-driving cars will behave thus.)

-- Gary

====================================

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.

Now CVC 21802 "Right of Way" (of drivers) (emphasis added)

21802.  

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

(c) This section does not apply where stop signs are erected upon all approaches to an intersection.

1. So it appears to me that the two situations are quite similar. In each cases the pedestrian or driver must yield only to 

[Pete van Nuys]

Gary, your conclusions seem reasonable to me. I have an uncontrolled intersection I must cross every day in my commute and regularly move into the near lane to await a gap in the far lane's cross traffic. Otherwise there would be no way to every cross that intersection (except at 2AM).

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_Yw4wFbYq3FJs_XWGEDRMQk4wz8Z-%2BBG%2BpbHxEuyWmh_rQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Pete van Nuys Exec. Dir. Orange County Bicycle Coalition ECI, LCI, CSI 949 492 5737

[Gary Cziko]

Pete,

 I have an uncontrolled intersection I must cross every day in my commute and regularly move into the near lane to await a gap in the far lane's cross traffic. Otherwise there would be no way to every cross that intersection (except at 2AM).

Do you get grief from motorists who must slow or stop to avoid you?

-- Gary 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/2e27dbc6-0715-c676-2b37-366e3a269595%40cox.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Volar Picante]

What is it with you and selective cherrypicking of clauses in the cvc?

I don't parse cvc 21802 the same way you do at all. To wit, emphasis mine:
"... The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway,
-OR-

which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety."

Compare this with cvc 21950b, which goes out of its way to specify due care (which applies to 21802 as well even though it's not explicit), and the parallel construction (of the clause before "or") should be clear.

To interpret 21802 your way it would have been written with "and," not "or."

You should try to find out when the last time anyone in the state had been cited for violating 21802b. Without being categorical, I'm willing to wager on never since 1988.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.

[Gary Cziko]

VP,

I believe that the "and" you need to understand is a bit farther toward the end, emphasized below, with "those vehicles" referring to all approaching vehicles previously mentioned, not just those approaching vehicles first mentioned.

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

-- Gary

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/38344df9-0188-4a08-b415-6c6073e9d86c%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Volar Picante]

At this point I don't know if you're being serious, begging for a face-saving exit, or just yanking on my chain.

Without putting words in your mouth, in your point 3 earlier you seem to be advocating it's within bounds of the law to make a two stage crossing, because the crossing traffic doesn't necessarily constitute an immediate hazard (in the moment).

The grammatical subject of 21802 is "the driver." The grammatical indirect object is "any/those vehicles." The verb is "yield." The direct object is "right-of-way."

21802 says who (the subject) must yield to (indirect object) under which conditions.

"The driver (subject) shall yield right-of-way to any vehicles (indirect object) which have approached from another highway (condition A), OR (indirect object) approached so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard (condition B), AND (subject) shall continue to yield ROW to those vehicles (indirect object) until he or she (subject) can proceed with reasonable safety."

A plain reading of 21802 doesn't say what (I think) you're advocating.

[Gary Cziko]

VB,

Thanks for your grammatical assistance in understanding 21802(a). 

"The driver (subject) shall yield right-of-way to any vehicles (indirect object) which have approached from another highway (condition A), OR (indirect object) approached so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard (condition B), AND (subject) shall continue to yield ROW to those vehicles (indirect object) until he or she (subject) can proceed with reasonable safety."

Let's look at the last clause:

 AND (subject) shall continue to yield ROW to those vehicles (indirect object) until he or she (subject) can proceed with reasonable safety."

So now what happens when he or she (subject) "can proceed with reasonable safety"?  We have only to read 21802(b) to find out:

  (b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection. (emphasis added)

You see, something most interesting happens. After having yielded right-of-way until he or she (subject) "can proceed with reasonable safety" by avoiding "immediate hazards," now other drivers must yield to the one who was previously yielding.  Very much like a pedestrian stepping out into a marked or unmarked crosswalk after making sure there was no immediate hazard in doing so.

Certainly, the cross traffic in the far-side lane(s) constitutes no immediate hazard when first entering the intersection. So this traffic must now yield to the driver crossing the uncontrolled legs of the intersection, again, much like a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. You may not like it, but that's what 21802(b) indicates quite clearly using the words:

. . . the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

-- Gary

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/1ad6dfe4-981c-46fe-a87c-8b2f1b7db7d3%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Issakov]

Okay, I'll look.

21802.  

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

To me that means once you stop you have to yield to the following vehicles::

• Vehicles have approached from another highway
• Vehicles are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard,

An interesting distinction... vehicle that have approached  and vehicles that are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard.

So "have approached" implies they're done approaching; they are already there.  So they obviously "constitute an immediate hazard", and you obviously have to yield to them.

Then you have those which "are approaching", they are not here yet, but they are approaching "so closely as to constitute an immediate hazards"  Yield to them too, and continue to yield to them until "you can proceed with reasonable safety".

So let's say you stop.  No  vehicles have approached from another highway.  And while vehicles are approaching, they are not "approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard".

So, you go.  All the way across.  If you can't go all the way across, because of approaching vehicles that constitute an immediate hazard, then you're in violation. You were supposed to yield to them.

I think (b) comes into play if, say, you start across then suddenly you have to slow or stop mid-intersection because a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk on the other side of the intersection, and you have to wait for them.  Now the vehicles that were approaching but  not so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard when you initially entered the intersection, are getting closer and now they have to yield to you, per 21802(b).

Serge

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YwV-TDvsGNKVp0Bt12%2BB7mXdqpK0O%2BM3MGnpNqx4JxY1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Volar Picante]

No, your interpretation relies on immediate hazard (condition B in grammatical analysis) as the sole required condition for you (subject) to yield. That's why I pointed out the use of "OR" in the original text (condition A).

Condition B merely states you must not do anything so rash as to cause emergency braking or a crash (for crossing traffic). Condition A requires the intersection to be reasonably clear for you to enter the intersection, as well for approaching (cross traffic) drivers to use due care (such as applying brake) in case they are too close.

[Serge Issakov]

While it's true that both conditions A and B have to be false, and C has to be true, to proceed into the intersection, because of the "have approached" clause in A it's moot for all practical purposes.  Nobody is going to enter an intersection when a vehicle on the intersection highway already has approached, because that means it's in the intersection.  Once the intersection is clear (A is false) and no vehicles are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard (C is false), and the subject driver can proceed with reasonable safety (C), the subject driver can proceed.  

But like I said, once all that occurs you should be able to go all the way across unless something strange happens, a pedestrian steps into the crosswalk on the other side of the intersection in your path.

Serge

Conditions:

A: any vehicles which have approached from another highway,

B:  [vehicles] are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard

C: [subject driver] can proceed with reasonable safety.

21802:

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/ad23e8b4-7faf-48c7-952d-da2b8945fb46%40googlegroups.com.

[Gary Cziko]

Serge,

You wrote:

Once the intersection is clear (A is false) and no vehicles are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard (C is false), and the subject driver can proceed with reasonable safety (C), the subject driver can proceed. 

I agree. 

 

But like I said, once all that occurs you should be able to go all the way across unless something strange happens, a pedestrian steps into the crosswalk on the other side of the intersection in your path.

Or a driver fails to apply "normal braking" to avoid you. "Reasonable safety" to me does not imply that other drivers will not have to reduce their speed to avoid you. So making it all the way through the intersection may require other drivers to slow.  I repeat again what Bob Shanteau observed earlier:

 Entering drivers are prohibited from doing so in front of vehicles so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. That is not the same as not impeding other vehicles (although that is the way it is normally understood and enforced). The plain language of the law says forcing a driver on the highway to hit the entering vehicle or to take emergency action to avoid it is prohibited. Causing normal braking is not.

-- Gary

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAEy9bH6JGsf6TCjYujg6p_OCsCTN_K_GKOjGYrq1TzMoMipxsw%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Issakov]

Okay, but that still doesn't allow you to go half way across just because the traffic from the left is not so close as to constitute hazard, if traffic from the right is flowing across, because they are that close by definition.  So you're in violation if you enter the intersection.

Serge

[Gary Cziko]

Serge,

Okay, but that still doesn't allow you to go half way across just because the traffic from the left is not so close as to constitute hazard, if traffic from the right is flowing across, because they are that close by definition.  So you're in violation if you enter the intersection.

So we agree that the traffic from the right might have to slow down to let you across. Not sure if you can approach those far-side lanes if the traffic is flowing. Maybe it's OK.

How does it work for pedestrians? Isn't the immediate hazard initially just traffic coming from the left and as the pedestrian approaches the far-side lanes that traffic must yield?

-- Gary

[Michael Graff]

Maybe this was mentioned, but if we're talking about a divided highway, does that (legally) count as two different "highways"? 

If so, would that affect how the rules are interpreted?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_Ywt_Gg6cpxZ%2B%2B9uTf1VeQdcz3qv5QjsQtaMd8Cj6bEpgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gary Cziko]

Michael,

My understanding is that a divided highway is one highway divided into two roadways. It would certainly influence how drivers cross it, although I don't know how it would change the obligation of drivers on the major road to yield.

The fine details aside, what I find most interesting in CVC 21802 and CVC 21804 is that in some conditions drivers on a major road with no traffic control devices are required to yield to drivers crossing it on a minor road. I think most drivers know they have to yield to pedestrians crossing a major road using a marked or unmarked crosswalk, but I doubt most would expect ever having to slow down and yield to another driver in a similar situation.

-- Gary

-- Gary

[Volar Picante]

When I first moved to LA from NYC (well before 1988), I did not drop my jaywalking habits. If anything, I tended to jaywalk more because distance between crosswalks was interminably far.

I always found it amusing (as well as somewhat annoying) that LA drivers would respectfully come to a stop at least 4 car-lengths away, something no NYC driver would ever do.

Those days are long gone. Drivers rarely stop at crosswalks these days, and consistently blow thru HAWKs. With the higher motorist-ped collisions, higher fatality rates due to high speeds & bigger vehicles (read SUV/trucks), the sad reality is might makes right on the roads.

If a driver hits you chances are you'll no longer be around to assert the driver violated the pedestrian equivalent of 21802b.

I bring this up because norms define "due care." You admit yourself you (and perhaps other road users) aren't aware of 21802b. None of here can even cite an instance where police cited a driver for violating 21802b. Let the implications of that sink in when you ponder what constitutes "due care."


On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:56:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Cziko wrote:
> Serge,

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/ad23e8b4-7faf-48c7-952d-da2b8945fb46%40googlegroups.com.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
>

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
>
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.
>

[Gary Cziko]

People,

I have heard from someone in Florida who should know such things that their state law has the equivalent of CVC 21802 (a) but not (b) (see below).

So curious minds want to know the origin of  CVC 21802 (a) and (b). Is (a) perhaps in the Universal Vehicle Code (UVC) and that's why it is in CA and FL state law. But then (b) was added to the CVC later? That would be very interesting to find out and find out why.

Could it be similar to adding the exceptions to CVC 21202 which when was first enacted in CA had no exceptions?

- Gary

21802.  

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable safety.

(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle entering or crossing the intersection.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/0b8a179e-e50d-4707-9a36-e6ada7137b56%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Volar Picante]

This case study might be instructive:

http://www.tabaklaw.com/blog/truck-accident-case-summary-favorable-settlement-crash-victims/

In addition, CA has Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. In their course materials they cover CVC 21802/4a but not 21802/4b.
http://www.mvcsp.com/LEAPSS/courseinfo/Shared%2520Documents/POST%2520Learning%2520Domains/LD_28_V-6.2.pdf

These two links should provide you with sufficient insight into what constitutes "an immediate hazard." It's not even clear to me if cross traffic has to "slow down" as you assert, as long as a crash occurred. (i.e. prima facie evidence of failure to yield)

[Gary Cziko]

Volar Picante wrote:

This case study might be instructive:
http://www.tabaklaw.com/blog/truck-accident-case-summary-favorable-settlement-crash-victims/

Yes, good find. All here is consistent with my understanding of CVC 21802 and CVC 21804.

The investigating officer’s assessment of fault against Dorothy was based on his conclusion that Eldo had started to make his left-hand turn across the Ws’ eastbound lane of travel when it looked to Eldo to be safe to do so – which gave Eldo the legal right-of-way – and thus Dorothy should have seen the large white trailer as a hazard in time to slow down enough to avoid an impact.

What led to the truck driver being judged at fault was his admitting that he never saw the car that struck his truck, so he could not have proceeded when it was reasonably safe to do so:

However, the turning point in the case came from Eldo’s own deposition testimony. In his deposition, Eldo testified that he did not see Mrs. W’s vehicle until after he felt the impact. Through this admission, it became apparent that Eldo could not have yielded to Mrs. W’s car, which he never even saw before starting his turn. Based on his own testimony,

If he had testified that he saw the car and that there was adequate space and time for the car driver to slow to avoid contact (no immediate hazard and reasonable safety) then the car driver would have been judged at fault because of CVC 21802(b).

The article state that I the re-enactment video . . .

. . . clearly showed an unsuspecting white SUV driving eastbound – as had Dorothy and Mr. W – suddenly forced to swerve to the right to avoid hitting the left rear-corner of Eldo’s trailer which was partially blocking their lane!

That's not what I see. The motorist didn't suddenly swerve--instead je appears to make a normal lane change so that he didn't have to slow as much had he stayed in the left lane.

Volar Picante further wrote:

In addition, CA has Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.  In their course materials they cover CVC 21802/4a but not 21802/4b.
http://www.mvcsp.com/LEAPSS/courseinfo/Shared%2520Documents/POST%2520Learning%2520Domains/LD_28_V-6.2.pdf

I can't get that link to worki. Even if they don't cover 21802/4b in this training, the CHP officer in the previous case must have been familiar with it to initially find fault with the motorist who had no traffic control for colliding with the truck coming off a 2-way STOP. That's at least somewhat encouraging that at least one CHP officer knows that there are times when traffic on the major highway is required to yield to traffic coming off a minor, stop-controlled road, as is also the case for pedestrians crossing in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

-- Gary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/e0ff4179-54f4-4f13-8817-c57c6b8fb677%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Volar Picante]

At this point I’m convinced you are blind to facts and impervious to reason. However, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt because you could not open the Peace Officer Standards and Training material. Surely you can google the training material since the filename and domain is clearly identified.

The case is not some Schrodinger’s cat experiment, where Eldo the truck driver gets to determine the cat is alive or dead depending on whether or not he opened the box and “looked.” That’s the wrong conclusion to draw from this case.

This case demonstrates regardless Eldo looked or not (and certainly Ms. Dorothy W., the crash victim, could not possibly have known shortly before collision whether Eldo looked or not), a “yield” is not a pro-forma maneuver.

Put another way, Elko could not claim to have yielded even if he had seen Ms. Dorothy W.'s vehicle and (presumably) stopped at the stop sign.

If you can’t (reasonably) CLEAR the intersection without cross traffic taking evasive action (cf. re-enactment) or crashing into you (assuming cross traffic is observing speed limit, everyone has good sightline, etc.), then by definition that’s “an immediate hazard.” Eldo would have been obligated to “continue to yield the right-of-way until he (or she) can proceed with reasonable safety” per 21802a.

[Serge Issakov]

VP, I think you misunderstood Gary.

Gary did not say that merely looking would have changed anything about the case.  This is what he said (my emphasis):

> If he had testified that he saw the car and that there was adequate space and time for the car driver to slow to avoid contact 

The case would have different because of the emphasized difference (and of course assuming the testimony about that was presumed accurate).

Serge

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/e2519d75-1f68-4f03-bc9b-252ab2c2cad3%40googlegroups.com.

[Gary Cziko]

Volar Picante wrote:

At this point I’m convinced you are blind to facts and impervious to reason.

I am reminded of an incident involving a black pot and a shiny copper kettle.

Here are the facts of the case as reported by the car driver's (86-year-old Mrs. W.) attorney.

1. Mrs. W was likely exceeding the maximum speed limit approaching the intersection.

. . . (posted with a speed limit of 55 mph). As Mrs. W approached the intersection at approximately 56 mph . . .

2. A witness driving directly behind Mrs. W apparently testified that Eldo's truck did not constitute an immediate hazard for Mrs. W.

A witness driving directly behind Mrs. W’s vehicle provided extremely unfavorable testimony for our clients, which led the responding CHP officer to assign fault for the truck crash to Mrs. W. The investigating officer’s assessment of fault against Dorothy was based on his conclusion that Eldo had started to make his left-hand turn across the Ws’ eastbound lane of travel when it looked to Eldo to be safe to do so – which gave Eldo the legal right-of-way – and thus Dorothy should have seen the large white trailer as a hazard in time to slow down enough to avoid an impact.

That would have been the end of the story with Mrs. W. at fault for violating CVC 21802.

However . . .

3. Eldo testified that he did not see Mrs. W's vehicle until after the collisions.

However, the turning point in the case came from Eldo’s own deposition testimony. In his deposition, Eldo testified that he did not see Mrs. W’s vehicle until after he felt the impact. Through this admission, it became apparent that Eldo could not have yielded to Mrs. W’s car, which he never even saw before starting his turn.

Therefore, it is clear that if Eldo had not admitted not having seen Mrs. W's car before making his move into the intersection, Eldo would have been considered to have the right of way per CVC 21802(b) and Mrs. W. would have been judged to be at fault.

It is also of interest to note that a blank white semi-trailer crossing an intersection was also present in two cases involving Tesla's Autopilot crashes. Apparently challenging for Tesla's cameras and software to detect, and likely as well for an 86-year-old woman motorist.

-- Gary

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/e2519d75-1f68-4f03-bc9b-252ab2c2cad3%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Issakov]

Gary,

This doesn't make sense:

Therefore, it is clear that if Eldo had not admitted not having seen Mrs. W's car before making his move into the intersection, Eldo would have been considered to have the right of way per CVC 21802(b) and Mrs. W. would have been judged to be at fault.

If Eldo admitted, "yeah, I saw her car coming but I cut in front of it anyway", he still would have been at fault.

What would be key for him to not be at fault is not only seeing it, but noting that it was far enough for her to have safely slowed down to avoid collision before he pulled out, as you noted earlier, so he did not have an obligation to yield. By admitting he didn't see it at all he's explaining why he pulled out in front of it causing the collision.

Serge

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YwjfeYUwiRZ2P6aNOckn-0epGfiO5tBocM9L7Oq_VRZgA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gary Cziko]

Serge,

What I wrote does make sense, based on the testimony of the motorist following Mrs. W. 

Of course, Eldo testifying as you noted would have strengthened his case. 

Gary

[John Forester]

It is a truism that bad cases make bad law. The case being discussed is so rife with contradictions that nobody should base any conclusions on it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CABUB_YzSK4i1CKYVnDYdca98EbHghjhGRCPvR_96po3RqAHsAA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St, Lemon Grove, CA 91945
619-644-5481, fore...@johnforester.com

[Volar Picante]

I didn't "misunderstand" Gary.

Such testimony would be a bit like a motorist behind you saying you (a bicyclist) should not have been in the middle of the lane (and thus implying you deserved to be hit).

This truck case serves as a good example of what's at issue, namely what constitutes an "immediate hazard." 21802a makes clear the onus of due care rests first on the driver facing the stop sign.

A tractor trailer obviously has a different cross-section compared to a pedestrian.

21802b does not take precedence over 21802a unless you make the assumption the yield is pro forma. All the conditions in 21802a matter and will be dissected should the case go in front of a jury.

On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 9:03:40 AM UTC-7, Serge Issakov wrote:
> VP, I think you misunderstood Gary.
>
>
> Gary did not say that merely looking would have changed anything about the case.  This is what he said (my emphasis):
>
> > If he had testified that he saw the car and that there was adequate space and time for the car driver to slow to avoid contact 
>
>
>
> The case would have different because of the emphasized difference (and of course assuming the testimony about that was presumed accurate).
>
>
> Serge
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 12:53 AM Volar Picante <volar....@gmail.com> wrote:
> At this point I’m convinced you are blind to facts and impervious to reason.  However, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt because you could not open the Peace Officer Standards and Training material.  Surely you can google the training material since the filename and domain is clearly identified.
>
>
>
> The case is not some Schrodinger’s cat experiment, where Eldo the truck driver gets to determine the cat is alive or dead depending on whether or not he opened the box and “looked.”  That’s the wrong conclusion to draw from this case.
>
>
>
> This case demonstrates regardless Eldo looked or not (and certainly Ms. Dorothy W., the crash victim, could not possibly have known shortly before collision whether Eldo looked or not), a “yield” is not a pro-forma maneuver.
>
>
>
> Put another way, Elko could not claim to have yielded even if he had seen Ms. Dorothy W.'s vehicle and (presumably) stopped at the stop sign.
>
>
>
> If you can’t (reasonably) CLEAR the intersection without cross traffic taking evasive action (cf. re-enactment) or crashing into you (assuming cross traffic is observing speed limit, everyone has good sightline, etc.), then by definition that’s “an immediate hazard.”  Eldo would have been obligated to “continue to yield the right-of-way until he (or she) can proceed with reasonable safety” per 21802a.
>
>
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
>

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.

[Gary Cziko]

VB wrote:

21802b does not take precedence over 21802a unless you make the assumption the yield is pro forma.  All the conditions in 21802a matter and will be dissected should the case go in front of a jury.

I never stated or implied that 21802b should take precedence over 21802a. But if the conditions of 21802a are respected (having yielded to vehicles constituting an immediate hazard), then 21802b takes effect--that's the right-of-way switcheroo (see new thread)

I did find the traffic enforcement training materials here that you mentioned earlier. The ROW switcheroo for STOP signs (CVC 21802(b)) is not mentioned. However, the switcheroo  for left turns and U-turns is explicitly stated on page 3-15 (emphasis added):

All the laws related to right-of-way contain a section stating that a driver having yielded and given a signal as required may turn left or complete a U-turn. The drivers of all other vehicles approaching from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way.

I intend now to consider this topic closed. I am much more interested in the more general topic of legally defined right-of-way switcheroos as I recently introduced as a new thread.

-- Gary

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/caboforum.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/8176c9c4-6967-4926-8bae-acab039c0da5%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.