San Jose Greyhound bus crash caused by inadequate markings and guidance

[Brandon]

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20170328.aspx

NTSB is pretty damning to CalTrans in the abstract.

PROBABLE CAUSE
The National  Transportation  Safety  Board  determines  that  the  probable  cause  of  the San Jose,  California,  crash  was  the  failure  of the  California  Department  of  Transportation to properly delineate the crash attenuator and the gore area, which would have provided improved traffic guidance.  Contributing to the crash were the bus driver's error in entering the gore and the out-of-compliance  signage,  which  affected traffic guidance.  Contributing  to  the  severity  of  the injuries was the lack of passenger seat belt use.

I saw it when I went out there, and I'll say it again, California's signage is severely lacking when compared to other states, including other pioneering states like Michigan.

[jeffandnicole]

I say that it prevents it not from a legal perspective, but a literal perspective. If there was a stop line but your car's bumper was sitting in the crosswalk, it means you majorly over-shot the stop line. There's very little chance that a driver will somehow end up in the crosswalk when stop lines are used. FWIW, I tend to stop when my tires meet the stop line (thus my bumper is past the stop line).

What you're saying does make sense.  I just wish the CVC could be amended to explicitly state that no part of the vehicle can be over the limit line to eliminate the ambiguity.

The problem is when they ask officers, they tend to enforce the law as they see it, which may or may not be the absolute definition of the law.

Here's the actual law:

CHAPTER 8. Special Stops Required [22450 - 22456]  ( Chapter 8 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
 


22450. 

(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.

If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.

(b) The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing.

I've never see anything state "the portion of the car from the front tires to the rear must be behind the stop/limit line".  Thus, I think it's implied that it's the entire car.

Or to put it another way, feel free to have the tires on the stop line at a railroad crossing with the front of the car hanging over the rail, and see what happens.   

[jakeroot]

I've never see anything state "the portion of the car from the front tires to the rear must be behind the stop/limit line".  Thus, I think it's implied that it's the entire car.

Or to put it another way, feel free to have the tires on the stop line at a railroad crossing with the front of the car hanging over the rail, and see what happens.   

I've always considered the tires to be the front because red light cameras only activate when the tires pass the stop line. At least in my experience.

[slorydn1]

Thanks for the clarification.  I was under the impression that no part of a vehicle can be over the limit line but doing a quick glance through the California Vehicle Code (CVC), it's not clear to me.  I found a column dated January 15th, 2015 where someone asks...

Q. When stopping at a stop sign or red light where there's a marked "limit line,"  is a driver required to stop with the entire vehicle behind the limit line? Or just the front tires? Betty Woody asked that question.

... the answer from two officers is quite interesting.  One says all parts of the vehicle must be behind the line but then backtracks and says it's really up to the officer (i.e. if you're only an inch or two over and not impeding pedestrians, they could let it slide).  The other, a retired CHP officer says if any part of the vehicle is over the line, you could be cited.  Here's a link to that column...

http://www.pe.com/articles/line-757994-limit-vehicle.html

Actually if you look at the two answers by the two officers they are both saying the exact same thing. They both hedged their statement with the word "could". That one word binds both statements together-they could cite you or they could let you go, but they agree that the whole car needs to be behind the line.


Of course a Highway Patrol officer, same as any State Trooper, would focus more on their state's vehicle code-it's what they do. So a trooper is going to say the whole car must be behind the line or you could be cited (and more probably would be cited by them).


A regular officer (non traffic division of course) or sheriff's deputy is going to be more laid back-if it's not blocking anything or creating a hazard then it didn't happen. They would be less likely to pull you over and give you a ticket for being just a little over, it's just not worth their time-unless of course said overage needs to be used as an excuse to make contact with the driver because there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak.