GM Cruise ticketed for getting too close to pedestrian

[Tam]

Self-driving car PULLED OVER and ticketed in San Francisco after getting 'too close' to pedestrian | Daily Mail Online

This happened at a pedestrian crosswalk.

It'll be interesting whether it will challenge the ticket in traffic court because it says it's 10.8 feet from the pedestrian and not "too close".

 

[Shock-On-T]

Daily Mail is the UK newspaper equivalent of fox news.
I wouldn't worry about it, there'll be another anti-progress story tomorrow.

 

[Tam]

According to TV report, Cruise said its human driver is responsible for the citation.

What does that even mean? Cruise said its car was not in the wrong, so it must be its human employee driver?

 

[Economite]

According to TV report, Cruise said its human driver is responsible for the citation.

What does that even mean? Cruise said its car was not in the wrong, so it must be its human employee driver?

Police issue traffic citations are issued to human drivers, not to vehicles. As far as the vehicle code and the DMV are concerned, it is the cited driver's responsibility to either (i) pay the ticket and take the hit on their DMV record or (ii) contest the ticket in traffic court. Only the driver (and not Cruise) has the opportunity to contest the ticket by making the argument that the car's turn actually didn't violate traffic law.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Apparently California law is vague on this.
The pedestrian has right of way, so you can't do anything that would in any way impede them, and that could include something that caused them enough concern that it affects their crossing.
So, people can fail driving tests or get cited for not letting the pedestrian fully complete the crossing, or they might be OK as long as pedestrian has crossed far enough before the car maneuvers.

The legally safe thing to do is to allow them to complete the crossing, but in a busy city that's nigh on impossible.

 

[Economite]

Apparently California law is vague on this.
The pedestrian has right of way, so you can't do anything that would in any way impede them, and that could include something that caused them enough concern that it affects their crossing.
So, people can fail driving tests or get cited for not letting the pedestrian fully complete the crossing, or they might be OK as long as pedestrian has crossed far enough before the car maneuvers.

The legally safe thing to do is to allow them to complete the crossing, but in a busy city that's nigh on impossible.

Right... I think the driver might have a fair chance of successfully challenging the ticket by arguing that the cop misapplied the rule about pedestrians. But it would be the driver doing it, not Cruise, because the ticket was against the driver.

 

[McRat]

You'd be surprised how many LEOs don't know the crosswalk law in California.

The pedestrian has right of way. So you can make a right on red while somebody is in the crosswalk IF you yield to them. But they write tickets for it anyways.

The driver's ticket would not stand in most of California. SF is wildly different than a civilized area under control of written law. The driver's ticket validity is based entirely on politics of SF with no tie in to the CVC or ideas concerning the rule of law.

SF makes their own laws. Peasants and laws are of no concern to the royalty who control SF. It's not to be mistaken for a republic or democracy.

 

[cpa]

I think, emphasis on think, that the pedestrian has the right of way until he completes his crossing of the street with the exception of a median strip across a major thoroughfare. Cars turning into the crosswalk that is or will be occupied by a pedestrian must yield until the pedestrian reaches the median.

Just like the California 25MPH speed limit in a school zone is in effect 24/7/365, and not just on school days. I received a stern warning about this decades ago when I had been driving about four or five years. It was during summer vacation, and 3-5 teenagers were walking past the school in a 35MPH zone when I was driving about 33.