Page One

Hitting’s not missing

Raymond A. Chamberlin Berkeley
Thursday December 27, 2001


Regarding the question of a penalty for “hitting” vs. not “hitting” a pedestrian legally in a crosswalk, I note, in the Daily Planet 12-21-01, that Lt. Agnew is claimed to have said that “a ticket” (read: the statutory criminal penalty) in each of the above two alternative cases is the same. Solely from reading the California Vehicle Code, I would conclude otherwise when there is any sort of injury to the pedestrian. The cited article and that in The S. F. Chronicle describe minor injuries, albeit quite slight, in the 12-12-01 auto-pedestrian accident at Russell St. and Claremont Ave, as a result of which the victim was taken to a hospital in an ambulance.  

I would conclude that the motorist in the reported accident should have been cited additionally under VC 21971, which invokes VC 42001.18, which in turn, stipulates a $220 fine for a first violation where a subject pedestrian suffers injury – whereas VC 42001(a)(1) limits a first-offense fine to $100.  


Raymond A. Chamberlin