along with that video a new friend gave me this info to pass along to the judge, whatever happens tomorrow i am very grateful ! Section 21956 provides: No pedestrian shall walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his left-hand edge of the roadway. Section 530 defines roadway as that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. (1) Since section 21956, subdivision (a), only restricts pedestrians from walking on roadways outside of business or residential districts, the logical. implication (taking the obverse of this section) is that inside a business or residential district, a pedestrian may indeed walk in the middle of the road. (2)Interpreting section 21956, subdivision (a) to permit pedestrians to walk within a roadway also comports with existing case law. In McGough v. Hendrickson (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 60, 63 [136 P.2d 110], the court noted that it was well-settled law that `pedestrians have a right to travel anywhere upon a public highway in a residence district. Going back still farther, our Supreme Court has held that this right of a pedestrian also extends to city streets. Also, People v. McNeil (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1302 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 54] to support the argument that the Vehicle Code preempts local regulations of pedestrian conduct and makes his actions lawful. Ref: People v. Cox Myers v. King McGough v. Hendrickson People v. McNeil
Posted on: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:13:19 +0000