Does the Tesla act illegally at this pedestrian crossing in California? In this article reporting on a Tesla in Full Self Driving (FSD) mode in California, the car is shown approaching a pedestrian crossing when a person steps on to it from the opposite side of the road. The Tesla detects the pedestrian, but elects to continue through the crossing without stopping (presumably because the pedestrian was not on their side of the road). Various comments to that article state that what the Tesla did was illegal. But in my various googling attempts, I have not found any source that definitely states that the car has to stop. For example, the CA DMV Drivers handbook says: When there is a pedestrian crossing a roadway with or without a crosswalk, you must use caution, reduce your speed, or stop to allow the pedestrian to safely finish crossing. The use of &quot;or&quot; here seems to imply that stopping is optional (of course I assume that means only if you have taken due care/caution) But some of the commentators quote this from the same DMV handbook: Pedestrians have the right-of-way in marked or unmarked crosswalks. If there is a limit line before the crosswalk, stop at the limit line and allow pedestrians to cross the street. And take it to imply that the Tesla should have stopped because the crossing does have a &quot;limit line&quot;. My question is pretty simple. Did the Tesla break an actual law in California? Or is it simply a dick move that technically is not illegal? Given the specificity of this video, I'm only really looking for answers that relate to California. I know that in other jurisdictions in the US and in other countries there may be other definitions of legality - which does make producing generic software for an automated car rather complex.
I am aware of a view of the California law that if a pedestrian looks like they might want to cross the street, any car must stop, but this is not supported by the law, which is about &quot;yielding&quot;. The law incorporates both &quot;yield&quot; and &quot;stop&quot;, the former being &quot;and allow the other person to proceed&quot;. Ignoring the photo for a moment, the requirement to yield (not stop) allows a car to continue driving when the driver is e.g. 10 ft from the crosswalk and the pedestrian is three lanes over when they enter the crosswalk, remaining in compliance with the law. The pedestrian and the driven can continue with their journey because there is no conflict. The requirement to yield states whose right to proceed is subordinated to the other person's, in case of conflict. Turning to the video which shows what is in front but not behind, it is evident that the vehicle did not actually conflict with the pedestrian, who did not slow down in order to let the vehicle pass. The violation of social conventions is clear, in that the pedestrian enters the crosswalk while the car is 5 or so car lengths back, and can safely slow down so that there would be zero chance of hitting the pedestrian (it starts to slow but only trivially one the pedestrian is visibly 'crossing the street'). As far as I can determine, California case law has not established any numbers that constitute &quot;not yielding&quot;. While I would stop in this circumstance, I don't see that there is a conflict between the pedestrian and the vehicle.
California Vehicle Code chapter 11, division 7, article 1, section 22350: No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. Section 22358.5: It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions. Without knowing exactly what questions the officer was asked, it's impossible to know why you were ticketed and why you were found guilty, but "reasonable or prudent" and "endangers the safety of [others]" covers a great deal of ground.
"Hit and run" isn't a precise legal term, but there are laws against what many people call "hit and run" in California. §20002 of the Vehicle code covers property damage without injury, and violation of the section is a misdemeanor possibly resulting in up to 6 months in prison and a $1000 fine. If you cause property damage either while driving or because it was parked and became a runaway vehicle, you are required to notify the property owner. If the owner cannot be located at the scene, you must leave your contact information and a description of the circumstances, and you must notify the police. It is irrelevant whether this was on the street or in a parking lot, because the law will "apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the State, unless expressly provided otherwise".
Courts, particularly traffic courts, tend to take a police officer's word over that of an accused person. While legally the limit is 70, the driver has very little recourse if the officer claims falsely that the actual speed was over 70. But the deterant effect of a posted limit is lost, since drivers in general have no way to know that Officer O will ticket anyone going over 60. I suppose that driver D, or D's lawyer, could subpoena calibration records of any radar gun or other measuring devise used, and could insist on its being tested. However, unless they had reason to think there was an issue, I wonder if D and D's lawyer would go through that process. Some speed measuring devices print a paper slip showing the date and time along with the reading. If such a device was used that record would be harder to alter. Some cars are now equipped with devices provided by insurance companies that record speeds and other driving info in a secure way to help judge a driver's safety and allow individual rate setting. It might be that the record from such a device would be admissible to show the speed was under the posted limit. But there is a sense in which the law is what the police and the courts enforce. If anyone who drives the road over 60 is cited and must pay, one could say the effective limit there is 60.
Various US Federal laws, including the Clean Air act, identify air pollution as a matter of interstate commerce, and assert exclusive Federal control over it, except as specifically permitted by those laws. The Clean Air act specifically provides for the California exception to set higher standards, and for other states to follow the CA rules if they so choose. What is not clear, at least to me, is whether the law permits the President to cancel the CA waiver at will. But in the absence of such a waiver, I believe that no state may set different standards on auto or other emissions from the Federal standards. This is to avoid having many different state standards, and to facilitate a national market, which is something Congress is empowered to promote in this way. Of course, nothing prevents automakers from choosing to adhere to stricter standards than any law requires. They could even advertise &quot;Buy X, the cleanest, greenest cars on the market&quot;. Whether this would pay I don't know. I gather that various states intend to sue, claiming that the action is unlawful. I am not clear what legal arguments they will advance for this. 42 USC §7543 (aka Clean Air Act section 209) provides: §7543. State standards (a) Prohibition No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment. (b) Waiver (1) The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that— (A) the determination of the State is arbitrary and capricious, (B) such State does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or (C) such State standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 7521(a) of this title. (2) If each State standard is at least as stringent as the comparable applicable Federal standard, such State standard shall be deemed to be at least as protective of health and welfare as such Federal standards for purposes of paragraph (1). (3) In the case of any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine to which State standards apply pursuant to a waiver granted under paragraph (1), compliance with such State standards shall be treated as compliance with applicable Federal standards for purposes of this subchapter. The word &quot;shall&quot; near the start of 42 USC 7543 (b) (1) seems to require the issuance of a waiver whenever: a) a state adopted standards prior to March 30, 1966, b) the state standards are at least as strict as the federal standards, c) the state standards are not arbitrary and capricious d) the state needs the standards, and e) the state standards are consistent with section 7521(a). a) and b) clearly apply to the CA standards. I don't know if an argument can be sustained on any of the other issues, nor exactly what grounds the current administration has advanced for canceling the waiver.
If they have no legal grounds then it would be trespass to chattels However, they do have legal grounds. Following the procedure laid out in the relevant Act makes the car refuse under the Act notwithstanding your opinion. Move it or lose it. Or seek an injunction preventing the council removing the vehicle- this will likely fail.
Pennsylvania is one state sometimes cited as having such a law, but the law does not refer to &quot;keys in the ignition&quot;, instead, An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol... Similarly in Washington, A person is guilty of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person has actual physical control of a vehicle within this state... California law is narrower, since It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle and this does not include being in physical control. See Mercer v. DMV which affirms that the person must have been driving, but it is not necessary to witness the person driving. Keys in the ignition can be evidence that you were driving, likewise a warm engine or tires, car is in gear, you're in the middle of the road. I doubt that any law is stated in terms of &quot;keys in the ignition&quot;, more likely it reduces to actual driving, or being in control of the vehicle.
Barring any specific statute the relevant law is the tort of negligence. To succeed Alice must prove Bob: had a duty to Alice, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to Alice, and Alice was, in fact, harmed or damaged. She will probably succeed on 1, 3 and 4 where she will struggle is with 2. It seems that Bob did everything a reasonable person could do to avoid the accident. The only possible hope is that not knowing that bridges freeze first might be something a qualified NZ driver should know and that he breached his duty by not knowing if that is something the judge considers reasonable. The traffic warning is irrelevant and untested (and untestable) hearsay and should be excluded from evidence.