Does the Tesla act illegally at this pedestrian crossing in California?
<p>In <a href="https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/05/teslas-full-self-driving-sees-pedestrian-chooses-not-to-slow-down/" rel="noreferrer">this</a> 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).</p>
<p>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 <em>has</em> to stop.  For example, the <a href="https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/laws-and-rules-of-the-road/" rel="noreferrer">CA DMV Drivers handbook</a> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>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)</p>
<p>But some of the commentators quote this from the same DMV handbook:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And take it to imply that the Tesla should have stopped because the crossing does have a &quot;limit line&quot;.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>

united-states california traffic