Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist charged in pedistrian's death

What kind of ethics would change her value as a human being change because she was old? Possibly the same kind of ethics that would disvalue a cyclist because he/she wasn't traveling by car?

Her value doesn't change. The fact that she could have died just from the fall. We don't really know much about the accident and I am not saying that she is worth less than another human. Let's take a theoretical example of something such as if you were walking and accidentaly bump someone causing them to fall down. A 30 year old might have a bruise and some harsh words for you, and let's say you bump an 80 year old and that person falls and dies. So is it that in the first case you are merely careless and in the second you are some sort of butcher?

We really don't know exactly what happened. However I do think this guy should be charged if he did something wrong. I also think that motorists should be also.

At any rate she was probably someone's grandma and it's sad that's how she ended up cheking out.

The reason it is on the news is because it is thankfuly a rare occurance. Not to many people are killed by being hit by bicycles.

I can't beleive all the debate about this. If it would have been a car blowing a stop sign hitting a cyclist walking across the street none of this "what crosswalk" debate would be happening. I sometimes get the feeling in this section of the board that people have the view that cyclists can do no wrong.

BikeForums is populated by a bunch of 'holier than thou’ morons. Just read these posts. Some of the dumbest crap ever to come off a keyboard.

“she should have looked both ways”…. Guy had a stop sign. She may have looked the other way, but assuming that most people realize what the word ‘stop’ means…..she stepped off the curb…

“She was J-walking”…. J-walking is defined as crossing an intersection against the traffic light or pedestrian crosswalk control device. The only traffic control device mentioned in the article was the stop sign that they cyclist ran. So, no, she was not J-walking.

They guy deserves his day in court and if found guilty, the same punishment that would be meted out to any other guilty party who ran a stop sign and killed a pedestrian, regardless of mode of transportation.

BikeForums is populated by a bunch of 'holier than thou’ morons. Just read these posts. Some of the dumbest crap ever to come off a keyboard.


Of course you could also be viewed as a 'holier than thou' moron. Except that I agree with you. :)

There was a case locally in my recent memory where a purse-snatcher knocked down an elderly woman in the process of stealing her purse in a grocery store parking lot and the injuries that she sustained were severe enough that she subsequently died. I recall the charges being filed, but can't recall hearing about the outcome. I thought it was kind of unusual at that time and would possibly set a precedent. I can't remember which local burough it was where it took place, so therefore can't find any additional information.

I have a feeling that a 71 year old woman who was obviously that frail possibly spent a long time in the intersection trying to cross the street and therefore would have been easily visible to the cyclist, unless it was dark and he was ill equipped with lights, as is often the case in the lower class who travel by bicycle.

I see this as further cause to charge the cyclist, possibly with some infraction that implies intent to injure. But again, we really don't know much about the situation. If he didn't seek help for the woman, by all means up the charges to the maximum.

I believe there to be a valid case here against the cyclist as he ran through the stop sign and fatally struck someone. He's probably run through thousands of signs and never had an incident so figured why bother stopping this time.
I like to think a motorist doing the same thing would also face the same charges since he recklessly ran through a stop sign. However, I personally know a situation where a motorist intentionally "cut the curve" by crossing a double yellow line as he rounded the curve because he did not see other motorists approaching. He struck an oncoming cyclist head-on, killing her. Even though he was clearly at fault because he had intentionally crossed the double line in a curve and the cyclist was riding in the correct legal and proper position on the roadway, the prosecutor claimed he could not charge the driver with anything more than a misdemeanor as there was no intent to harm the cyclist. In fact, had it not been for the efforts of the other cyclists who had been riding with the one that was fatally struck, it is unlikely there would have been any charges at all.

At 6' and 210 pounds, I bet I could do a significant amount of damage running on the sidewalk at 12 mph to some poor 120 pounder. Should I or should I not be required to have a runners test? As a runner, am I classified as a pedestrian? :rolleyes:

A steel/alloy framed bicycle will always cause more damage than a flesh and blood pedestrian. The point of impact will be more condensed and blunt. Get someone to slap you across the face with a 5lb fresh water Trout and then do the same with a 5lb ball pein hammer, let me know which one hurts more :D

I have a problem with using criminal law to prosecute someone who was involved in an accident, particularly when motorist/bicycle accidents don't result in similar prosecutions.
You have this false perception only because in the vast majority of motorist/bicycle collisions, the motorist did nothing illegal and the cyclist violated the motorist's right-of-way. If a motorist runs a stop sign or red light and kills a pedestrian or cyclist in the process, then he is prosecuted. Do you know of any cases where the DA had clear evidence that the motorist did something illegal and negligent that resulted in the death of the cyclist, and did not prosecute?

The difference in this case is not that it was a cyclist instead of a motorist who hit and killed someone, it's that the cyclist did something illegal and negligent that directly caused someone's death. If he was just going down a hill at 30 mph between intersections, and a jogger ran out in front of him, then he would not have been prosecuted. Why is this so hard to understand?




But if there is no traffic signal at an intersection, the pedestrian has the right-of-way. I honestly thought everyone knew that. All you have to do is put one foot on the roadway, and motorists are supposed to stop. I often have to hold up my hand to get them to stop. Now I know why...


It's not that clear-cut black & white, as that. Please review CVC-21950b:
...
It says specifically, "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." So you can't just jump out and expect cars to stop if they're only 10-20ft away and can't stop in time. And you can't hold up traffic as well. Now that's a subjective judgement for a cop to figure out and a judge to uphold or dismiss.
Yes it is that clear-cut black and white. Nothing I said makes motorists responsible for yielding the right-of-way to a pedestrian right in front of them when they have no reasonable way to stop in time. Of course they only have to stop if they can do so in a safe and reasonable manner. Safe and reasonable is implied in any law. That's why I said the one foot. The point is the pedestrian should not have to wait for a gap. You put one foot on the pavement, still outside the path of motorists, of course. Once you do that, any motorist who can stop safely and reasonably in time to let you cross the street is legally obligated to do so. Of course you can't just stop in the intersection and laugh at all the motorists waiting for you to get out of the way. This isn't rocket science with a lot of gray areas. It's common sense.


I was referring to a combination of CVC-21954 and CVC-21955. It's simple when you have a city-block with no traffic-lights at either intersection. Pedestrians can cross anywhere as long as they give cars right-of-way. And if there are traffic lights at either end of the block, pedestrians can only cross at the intersection.

But what about streets that have stop-lights at one end, and at the other end of the block, have only a stop-sign or no sign at all. Then which rule governs? The one for having traffic lights CVC-21955 or the code for streets without traffic lights CVC-21954? I suspect the judge may interpret this based upon a combined code of sorts by dividing the street into 50/50. The 50% of the street closer to the traffic light has to cross at the intersection only. Then the other 50% of the street can be crossed anywhere as long as the pedestrian give cars right-of-way....
I'm still having trouble understanding this.

First, to be clear, an intersection is where two streets intersect, right? It typically has 4 (marked or unmarked) crosswalks. Either all four crosswalks are controlled by traffic signals or none are, and the pedestrian right-of-way rule applies. Whether the next intersection at the end of any of the four blocks stemming from that intersection has signals or not has no impact on the rules that apply to this intersection. The rules at each intersection depending solely on whether it has signals or not.

This statement in particular I cannot decipher: But what about streets that have stop-lights at one end, and at the other end of the block, have only a stop-sign or no sign at all.
At the intersection with stop-lights, the stop-lights determine right-of-way.
Maybe you walk a block and the next intersection is a 4-way stop. Pedestrians in the steet have the right-of-way.
Maybe you walk another block and it's a 2-way stop. Pedestrians have the right-of-way, though when crossing the street that is not controlled with stop signs they of course cannot walk in front of a car whose driver cannot stop safely and reasonably in time. On the other hand, they would only do so if they were suicidal, drunk or negligent in some way (hence the common sense).

Am I missing something?


I can't beleive all the debate about this. If it would have been a car blowing a stop sign hitting a cyclist walking across the street none of this "what crosswalk" debate would be happening. I sometimes get the feeling in this section of the board that people have the view that cyclists can do no wrong.
Ziemas - unfortunately, the sense that cyclists can do no wrong is not limited to this section of the board, but is prevalent throughout the cycling community. This is one of the points I tried to make in the OP of the "if scuba diving had advocacy" thread. When a scuba diver dies all the focus is on what he did wrong, to make sure that everything that needs to be taught to scuba divers is still being taught, and nobody gets accused of applying a "blame the victim" mentality when they apply this type of analysis to the situation. In the cycling community, there is so little interest in learning about how to navigate safely in traffic, that the League of American Bicyclists decided to cut in third John Forester's Effective Cycling course (Forester refused them to continue calling the abridged version his trademarked Effective Cycling , so they call it "Road 1"). The idea that scuba diving would start certifying students after covering only one third of the safety material is absurd, but for some reason it's considered acceptable in the cycling community. I digress.

When a cyclist dies in a bike-car collision, most of the cycling community immediately blames the motorist, the road, the traffic, anything and everything except the cyclist. They show little to no interest in finding out what the situation was, where the cyclist was positioned, what the motorist was doing, etc. It's like the assumption is made that there is nothing we cyclists can learn to be safer out there - we're just sitting ducks to 4,000 pound vehicles, and when we're hit by them, it's all their fault. Just try to analyze what happened in a cyclist death - you'll get labeled as a "blame the victim" type. Try to explain, and they'll play the rape card ("you insensitive *******, you probably blame the woman for getting raped too").

The attitude is prevalent throughout cycling, and very disappointing.

Really? So it doesn't matter if I'm a pedestrian on a residential street or a business street, I can just walk out into the intersection and cars are supposed to stop? That doesn't make sense - that can cause a lot of accidents. Cars are driving down the road and then all of a sudden people step out into the street?? However, I have seen business intersections that had no traffic lights or stop signs, but did have the white crosswalk painted. Maybe that's what an "unmarked crosswalk" means?

Mac you don't make sense on what you are going on about with this thing regarding residential street and business street.

As to me streets are still streets no matter if they are residential street or business street and it doesn't matter if they have traffic lights or no traffic lights and in Australia yes cars are supposed to stop for pedestrians at intersections using the road leading up to the intersection.

In other words not only do drivers turning right or left from the main road into the other road at the intersection has to give way to pedestrian on this side road.

But drivers also on the same side road as the pedestrian has to give way to pedestrians crossing the side road at the intersection.

BikeForums is populated by a bunch of 'holier than thou’ morons. Just read these posts. Some of the dumbest crap ever to come off a keyboard.
Of course you could also be viewed as a 'holier than thou' moron. Except that I agree with you.
Doesn't labeling someone with a "holier than thou" attitude mean that you think they apply special rules to themselves? If so, I think galen's use is correct, and anyone labeling him as holier than thou is missing the point.

Galen's argument is that the same rules should apply to everyone. If you break the rules, and as a result someone dies, that's manslaughter. How can stating something like that be seen as an example of a "holier than thou" attitude? Quite the opposite, it seems to me.

On the other hand, those who defend the cyclist who ran the stop sign are essentially calling for a special set of rules to apply to cyclists. Now that sounds like "holier than thou" to me.

I have a problem with using criminal law to prosecute someone who was involved in an accident, particularly when motorist/bicycle accidents don't result in similar prosecutions.

I read a lot of posts here about people on bikes who get hit by cars. Some die, but I never read about criminal charges being brought against the motorists.

I hope it isn't a case of the prosecutor wanting to make a splash in the local papers by prosecuting an unusual case. I wonder how many motorists who have hit people on bikes have been prosecuted by him.

If one of you were in the unfortunate situation of hitting a pedestrian, and the pedestrian died, do you think prosecution would be fair after what you've seen motorists do?

With this comment rideabike "Some die, but I never read about criminal charges being brought against the motorists" are you saying there must be lots of motorists still driving with very clean records after hitting cyclists?.

It is not a false perception. Ask people on these forums. And yes, I've seen plenty of articles about motorists walking away after fatal accidents without being prosecuted.

Here's an older article - the attitudes haven't changed.

As you asked, "Why is this so hard to understand?"

http://www.transalt.org/press/media/2003/031229dailynews.html





You have this false perception only because in the vast majority of motorist/bicycle collisions, the motorist did nothing illegal and the cyclist violated the motorist's right-of-way. If a motorist runs a stop sign or red light and kills a pedestrian or cyclist in the process, then he is prosecuted. Do you know of any cases where the DA had clear evidence that the motorist did something illegal and negligent that resulted in the death of the cyclist, and did not prosecute?

The difference in this case is not that it was a cyclist instead of a motorist who hit and killed someone, it's that the cyclist did something illegal and negligent that directly caused someone's death. If he was just going down a hill at 30 mph between intersections, and a jogger ran out in front of him, then he would not have been prosecuted. Why is this so hard to understand?

"if scuba diving had advocacy" thread. When a scuba diver dies all the focus is on what he did wrong, to make sure that everything that needs to be taught to scuba divers is still being taught, and nobody gets accused of applying a "blame the victim" mentality when they apply this type of analysis to the situation.


That is because the vast majority of SCUBA accidents are the fault of the victim in one way or another. I have never had to dodge a garbage truck while on a shipwreck. It's never happened. And when people do get struck by boats after following all correct proceedures, SCUBA divers will often realize that there is no pat answer that is in a book about what could have been done differently. Check out some diving accidents forums if you'd like more enlightenment on this.

That said, I completely agree with your main point. It's just that your analogy is highly innacurate.

I'd also like to point out that in New York not too long ago there was a guy riding without a helmet who lost control and hit some hard stuff head first and died. I didn't see anyone rushing out to blame the hard stuff he ran into. The difference is wether or not a second living breathing free agent is involved in the accident.

Here are some more incidents that I guess form the basis of my "false perception."

July 2005


According to data released by the NYPD, eleven New York City cyclists have perished in crashes this year, compared to six over the same period in 2004. In the past two months, four bicyclists were fatally struck by motorists: Jerome Allen, 59, banking administrator, was hit from behind by an SUV on Hylan Boulevard in Staten Island on April 26; Brandie Bailey, 21, waitress, was struck by a private sanitation truck on Houston Street and Avenue A in Manhattan on May 10; Elizabeth Padilla, 28, attorney, was crushed by a large delivery truck on 5th Avenue and Warren Street in Brooklyn on June 9; Andrew Morgan, 25, artist and restaurant manager was killed by a right-turning truck on Manhattan’s Houston Street on June 22.

http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/safebiking/Bike_safety.html

Let's look these up. How about Brandie Bailey--

The fire truck was soon joined by two police cars and an ambulance. As the tragedy unfolded at the intersection, the private garbage truck that had hit Bailey was heading Uptown. Her red bike lay nearby, its rear wheel bent. Witnesses told police of the hit-and-run and, Davoli said, the police took off in pursuit.

Published reports say the driver was unaware anything had happened. The truck continued north for over a mile, until police finally caught up with it at 21st St. and Second Ave.

* * *
No charges were filed against the driver and no summonses were issued. A Police Department spokesman said the incident was classified as an accident. Drug and alcohol tests on the driver were negative.

http://www.thevillager.com/villager_107/cyclistsdeathisareminder.html

Seems like a different standard is being used here kwv.

I'll just edit this. Here is a piece about one of the other people killed:

"Stop! Stop!" screamed the cyclist, Andrew Morgan, 25, of Brooklyn.

But the driver inched forward, making a right turn from E. Houston St. onto Elizabeth St. about 10:25 a.m. The box truck, from Dockside Furniture Services in Bayonne, N.J., hit the cyclist and pinned him under the axle.

"After that scream, he was silent," said witness Peter Martin, 54, of Manhattan.

* * *

Police issued the driver a summons for an expired inspection sticker but didn't charge him in Morgan's death.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/321666p-275033c.html

I'm sure many traffic laws governing turns were violated. I'm not sure if this was a "right on red" turn at a red light. At least this traffic law was violated:

Section 1146. Drivers to exercise due care. (NYS vehicle and traffic law)

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian or domestic animal upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.

"A car and a bicycle are both vehicles and if they are operated in a way that could be criminal, then charges are filed equally in both situations," [Corvallis Police Captain Ron] Noble said. "He was going right through a stop sign."

=v= If events are indeed as reported, criminal negligence is not inappropriate, but I have strong doubts about Noble's claim that the operators of other vehicles are in fact treated the same way. Can he provide proof to back up this claim? Even in his own precinct? If so, let's see it. If not, the AP has a responsibility to send out a retraction.

There are approximately 120 people killed by cars each day in the U.S. A Google News search for the day of this incident turns up no national AP newswire story, or any news at all, indicating that a single one of them were charged with criminal negligence or manslaughter. Ditto for the approximately 120 people killed by cars the day before, the day before that, etc. etc. etc. None yet today, either.

The truth of the matter is that motorists kill pedestrians, bicyclists, and others in much higher numbers and generally don't get charged for it at all. Yet this is so staggeringly common that it's not "news."

Yes it is that clear-cut black and white. Nothing I said makes motorists responsible for yielding the right-of-way to a pedestrian right in front of them when they have no reasonable way to stop in time. Of course they only have to stop if they can do so in a safe and reasonable manner. Safe and reasonable is implied in any law. That's why I said the one foot. The point is the pedestrian should not have to wait for a gap. You put one foot on the pavement, still outside the path of motorists, of course. Once you do that, any motorist who can stop safely and reasonably in time to let you cross the street is legally obligated to do so. Of course you can't just stop in the intersection and laugh at all the motorists waiting for you to get out of the way. This isn't rocket science with a lot of gray areas. It's common sense.The point I'm making is how do you determine "Of course they only have to stop if they can do so in a safe and reasonable manner". It comes to numbers, if they're 45ft away @ 45mph is it safe to stop? What about 30ft away @ 20mph? What about 10ft away @ 25mph? The position the cop's sitting at makes a difference to their perceived speed and distances as well. If they're looking head-on at the car, there's no way they can just speed & distance. I'm talking about real-world events in trying to implement these laws and it's not that easy.

And a pedestrian blocking traffic can be overtly obvious to a silly extreme like you pointed out. But that's not typical as well. What about a guy crossing the street talking on his cell-phone and the cars stop and he slows down. Is walking at 80% of his previous speed considered "unneccessarily holding traffic"? Or 60% or 20%? I'm sure you've seen the studies that show people take 40% longer to pull out of a parking-space when there's other people waiting vs. when they're by themselves?


I'm still having trouble understanding this.

First, to be clear, an intersection is where two streets intersect, right? It typically has 4 (marked or unmarked) crosswalks. Either all four crosswalks are controlled by traffic signals or none are, and the pedestrian right-of-way rule applies. Whether the next intersection at the end of any of the four blocks stemming from that intersection has signals or not has no impact on the rules that apply to this intersection. The rules at each intersection depending solely on whether it has signals or not.

This statement in particular I cannot decipher: But what about streets that have stop-lights at one end, and at the other end of the block, have only a stop-sign or no sign at all.
At the intersection with stop-lights, the stop-lights determine right-of-way.
Maybe you walk a block and the next intersection is a 4-way stop. Pedestrians in the steet have the right-of-way.
Maybe you walk another block and it's a 2-way stop. Pedestrians have the right-of-way, though when crossing the street that is not controlled with stop signs they of course cannot walk in front of a car whose driver cannot stop safely and reasonably in time. On the other hand, they would only do so if they were suicidal, drunk or negligent in some way (hence the common sense).

Am I missing something?I'm talking about a single city-block. There's one intersection at each end of this block. From the way the code is written, it appears that if both intersections have stop-signs or nothing, you can cross in the middle of the block if you yield to cars. However, if both of these intersections are controlled by traffic lights, you can ONLY cross at the intersections; crossing in the middle of the block is not allowed.

Now what about a city block that has a stop-sign at one end and a stop-light at the other? Which code takes precedence? Strange...

Did any of the people bother to look at the picture of the guy posted early on this thread? He looks like part of Charlie Mansons crowd. This makes him a rather poor case to cite for being treated differently because he was a cyclist. If the same guy had been driving a car of the same quality as his bike and killed the lady he would have been arrested.

Also for the guys citing car vrs. bike incidents. Citing something from an advocacy paper is not a convincing source. It could be a useful debating point IF you cited a couple from mainstream sources first and then show that the advocacy paper said pretty much the same thing as the mainstream sources. BUT when you cite an advocacy paper that seems to say the cyclist is always right and the cops and cars are always wrong most people quite reasonably do not believe it. If you add in that some people actually know about one or two of the cases cites and that often these cases cited in the advocacy paper are in fact either inconclusive or cyclist at fault the result is to establish that the paper in question and the person citing it are not reasonable sources.

There have been some cases of car vrs. bike that are very disturbing and very worth using. But when those cases get grouped in with others that are not the value of the truely disturbing cases is lost.


Final point: If you think you can see my position in this post you should reread it. It is written as a debater and about what cases to push for a position.

Also for the guys citing car vrs. bike incidents. Citing something from an advocacy paper is not a convincing source. It could be a useful debating point IF you cited a couple from mainstream sources first and then show that the advocacy paper said pretty much the same thing as the mainstream sources. BUT when you cite an advocacy paper that seems to say the cyclist is always right and the cops and cars are always wrong most people quite reasonably do not believe it. If you add in that some people actually know about one or two of the cases cites and that often these cases cited in the advocacy paper are in fact either inconclusive or cyclist at fault the result is to establish that the paper in question and the person citing it are not reasonable sources.


That would fair if the mainstram media reported anything more than "Woman 22, Killed while riding her bicycle, I guess sh*t happens" which is what happens here. There are a few small run super liberal rags that pick up the cause but those aren't the kinds of media you are talking about.

The point is that advocacy groups are the only ones even talking about it. Which is why we need advocacy groups. Cyclists are often in the wrong in accidents. However, I know from personal experience that in my day to day, when riding the way I am supposed to as required by law and Helmet Head in San Diego. I have to be on my guard to not get hit by inantentive and agressive motorists.

Once again I will reiterate, that cyclists are not above the law and the dude that hit the old lady should be taken care of by the legal system and whatever they decide to to about the situation.

The reason people get uppity and angry is that the law rarely applies in the defense of a cyclist. Tell that to the old lady though.

I'm talking about a single city-block. There's one intersection at each end of this block. From the way the code is written, it appears that if both intersections have stop-signs or nothing, you can cross in the middle of the block if you yield to cars. However, if both of these intersections are controlled by traffic lights, you can ONLY cross at the intersections; crossing in the middle of the block is not allowed.

Now what about a city block that has a stop-sign at one end and a stop-light at the other? Which code takes precedence? Strange...
Oh, now I get what you're saying.

I think you're misreading the law. I don't believe it's technically legal for a pedestrian to cross the street between intersections, regardless of their type. It's jaywalking either way. What law made you think that jaywalking, crossing the street where there is no intersection, is allowed when neither intersection at either end of the block is controlled by signals?

Unmarked crosswalks only exist at intersections. Most marked crosswalks exists only at intersections too, but sometimes they put one in between intersections. But what you're saying is that a city block between non-signalled intersections is a continuous unmarked crosswalk. That is not the case.

Not sure what you're trying to say.
Why would it have been classed as an accident in a car?

Because cars are the intended users of the roads, not bikes or pedestrians.

So it's clear they're both equally at fault for being on the road at all.

Oh, now I get what you're saying.

I think you're misreading the law. I don't believe it's technically legal for a pedestrian to cross the street between intersections, regardless of their type. It's jaywalking either way. What law made you think that jaywalking, crossing the street where there is no intersection, is allowed when neither intersection at either end of the block is controlled by signals?

Unmarked crosswalks only exist at intersections. Most marked crosswalks exists only at intersections too, but sometimes they put one in between intersections. But what you're saying is that a city block between non-signalled intersections is a continuous unmarked crosswalk. That is not the case.
I think these two codes govern crossings outside of intersections:


CVC-21954. Pedestrians Outside Crosswalks

(a) 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.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.

CVC-21955. Crossing Between Controlled Intersections

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.

It appears that 21954(a) is saying that a pedestrian crossing outside of a marked crosswalk, has to yield right-of-way to cars. By "any point other than", I take to mean anywhere else along the street other than the crosswalk, therefore, in between intersections. Also it appears that if the crosswalk is not marked, that is there's a virtual crosswalk that's connecting the sidewalk on both sides of the street, the pedestrian also has to give right-of-way to cars. That makes sense as when you're in a car, not seeing any painted lines would not draw your attention and make you take precautions.

The wording is awkward, I would substitute:

"at any point other than within a marked crosswalk" = "outside of a marked crosswalk"

so that it reads:

"(a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway (1) outside of a marked crosswalk or (2) 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."

Ok, I think I figured out my dilemna with blocks having stop-lights on one end and not the other. CVC-21955 basically says "Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices". So only in cases with traffic-lights at both ends of the street, do you have to cross at intersections. So if you're walking along on a city-block that has stoplights on one end and stop-signs on the other, you can cross anywhere along that street if you want, as long as you yield right-of-way to cars.

OK, now I'm with you. Here's my take:

Mid-block between intersections a pedestrian never has the right-of-way to cross.

If either or neither of the intersections is not controlled by signals (or police), then he may cross, but only after yielding to traffic on the roadway.

If both intersections are controlled, then ped crossing between the two intersections is simply not permitted.

If one is controlled but the other is not, then the first rule applies (ped may cross after yielding).

Interesting. I did not realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.

You're welcome. I think we're on the same page with this one, except for the confusing double-negative, but I get the idea. ;)

It just annoys the h*ll out of me when people make blanket all-or-nothing blanket statements like "pedestrians always has right-of-way". They obviously do not know the laws in their area and are putting themselves at risk. I've yelled at quite a few people that have jumped out in the midde of the block thinking they have right-of-way and that I have to stop for them. That puts me at risk because in order to avoid them, I'd have to pull out into the traffic lane and might get creamed. I've run over a guy's toes one time making that swerving maneuver at the last minute, good thing there weren't any cars behind me. Never a cop around when you need one... :(

Going back to your original statement...


But what about streets that have stop-lights at one end, and at the other end of the block, have only a stop-sign or no sign at all. Then which rule governs? The one for having traffic lights CVC-21955 or the code for streets without traffic lights CVC-21954? I suspect the judge may interpret this based upon a combined code of sorts by dividing the street into 50/50. The 50% of the street closer to the traffic light has to cross at the intersection only. Then the other 50% of the street can be crossed anywhere as long as the pedestrian give cars right-of-way....
No, I think a ped can cross anywhere midblock between a controlled-with-traffic-lights intersection and one without, as long as he yields to traffic.

The law is clear. The only time a ped is restricted from crossing mid-block is when BOTH intersections are controlled (by signals or police), or, of course, if he's not yielding to traffic.

Going back to your original statement...
But what about streets that have stop-lights at one end, and at the other end of the block, have only a stop-sign or no sign at all. Then which rule governs? The one for having traffic lights CVC-21955 or the code for streets without traffic lights CVC-21954? I suspect the judge may interpret this based upon a combined code of sorts by dividing the street into 50/50. The 50% of the street closer to the traffic light has to cross at the intersection only. Then the other 50% of the street can be crossed anywhere as long as the pedestrian give cars right-of-way....No, I think a ped can cross anywhere midblock between a controlled-with-traffic-lights intersection and one without, as long as he yields to traffic.

The law is clear. The only time a ped is restricted from crossing mid-block is when BOTH intersections are controlled (by signals or police), or, of course, if he's not yielding to traffic.

Yeah, that original reasoning was my confusion in trying to figure out what happens in the case of a block with lights at one end. It obviously falls outside of the code pertaining to streets with lights at both ends (pedestrians cannot cross).

I take it that on a street with lights at both ends, pedestrians can't cross regardless if there's cars or not. And when there's a car present, the pedestrian has no right-of-way anyway since they're not allowed to cross outside of the intersection on those streets.