California law on "daylighting" within 20 ft of curb corners goes into effect 2025

y_p_w

y_p_w

Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
13,922
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I'm still a bit unclear on the timeline as I heard it went into effect at the beginning of the year, but some cities are still evaluating how to proceed. The gist is pretty simple - that absent specific cases where it's allowed by a city or county, vehicles can't be parked within 20 feet of an intersection in order to provide a better view for vehicles looking to enter an intersection. It's reduced to 15 feet if there's a specific curb extension (aka "bulb out") that extends the corner beyond the curb. Like this:

curb-extension-bulb-out.jpg


Starting January 1, 2025, the City of Livermore will be blocking striped parking spaces that are in violation of AB 413 with temporary no parking signs, primarily in the downtown area. These signs will be removed after the striped curb extensions are installed and/or the parking spaces are permanently removed, which is tentatively scheduled to be completed by the end of January 2025. Starting late January / early February 2025, red curbs will be painted near marked or unmarked crosswalks at over 200 locations, close to public schools.​
​
Whether or not the curb is painted red, drivers could be cited for violating this law beginning January 1, 2025. ​

I kind of get it. I have issues going into intersections when there are parked cars, especially if it's a higher vehicle with tinted windows like SUVs, pickups, vans, or commercial vehicles. I just can't see past them. Granted I know of some intersections where there are tall privacy hedges in corners that make it near impossible to see side traffic when waiting behind the crosswalk or stop line.

However, I haven't seen any case yet where this has been enforced. It theoretically doesn't matter if there's an existing parking meter, marked parking space, and/or existing curb marking. I've been avoiding parking at corners just in case. However, there have apparently been some people who took the law into their own hands and painted curbs red, including attempts to copy official city/county markings like the ones used in San Francisco. For example, San Francisco has a specific marking for all red/yellow/white/green curbs. I think the older version used the San Francisco Muni logo, but the current ones have a different logo.

180618_curb_logo_04.jpg


151002_curb_8.jpg


The paint jobs seemed tailored to resemble those required by California’s new daylighting law – which aims to create a 20-foot buffer between every crosswalk and the nearest parked car – except that several of the unsanctioned red strips exceeded the mandatory length. While the law aims to protect pedestrians by reducing blind spots for motorists, it’s rankled residents of San Francisco, and other cities, who risk getting ticketed if they park in the buffers, whether or not they are marked.​
 
Leo99 said:
I didn't know it was called daylighting but I saw a video on it a while back. Said it's very effective at reducing pedestrian collisions.
Click to expand...

I never really thought of that. All the rationales for it I've heard mention visibility of cross traffic.

Well - there is this one particular intersection that I'm familar with that has just one (metered) parking space at the beginning of the block, and then a bunch of spaces that have been taken over by a public "parklet" that was installed and maintained by a local business. I've certainly seen a lot of drivers try to back up into the crosswalk behind them while there were pedestrians. And this particular law doesn't care whether or not there's a meter or even if there's a marked parking space.
 
If you want a place to park your car get a house with a driveway.

We get the same problem with snow removal-- people think a spot on the street that all the taxpayers pay for, is theirs, because they shoveled it.

Visibility at intersections is important for safe driving-- I get shrubs and even political signs interfering with my view in my low-slung Prius.
 
Leo99 said:
I didn't know it was called daylighting but I saw a video on it a while back. Said it's very effective at reducing pedestrian collisions.
Click to expand...
You know what else is effective at reducing pedestrian collisions? Teaching them to look both ways before walking into an intersection, and to stop assuming every jack wagon behind the wheel is going to stop if they dart out with less than 20’ of space.

I completely agree that pedestrians should have the right-of-way when crosswalk lights are active, but I think it’s a fool’s errand to reduce parking areas AND to make pedestrians think they’re without any personal responsibility in ensuring safety when walking across lanes of traffic. Penalizing drivers while simultaneously allowing those transiting traffic to do dumb things isn’t going to fix anything.
 
In my old neighbrhood the parents would park right up to the intersection where the bus picks up the kids. Ironically, their vehicles reduce visibility of any movement in the area. You'd never know if a kid would jump out into the street! And it would force me past the center of the street where a car turning could run right into me!
 
bdcardinal said:
I with the law required painting of the curbs. I could see someone (me) getting that ticket and arguing that there was ambiguity on if the 20' was measured from the apex of the corner or from turn in.
Click to expand...

I looked more into the law. It's more than just intersections, but anywhere there's a crosswalk. It says 20 feet from the "vehicle approach side". I won't bore anyone with the exceptions, but that's in the code text. However, an unmarked crosswalk could certainly be ambigious, or at least hard to judge.

22500. ​

A person shall not stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the following places:​
​
(n) (1) (A) Within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present.​

I'm trying to figure out it this applies to the direction FROM an intersection. All the examples I can find interpret this as only applying from a roadway TO an intersection. So the example I gave earlier apparently doesn't apply. I know it's hard to describe, but I found this from a city website showing what's required. The requirement would on the bottom - 20 feet back from the left side of the crosswalk. But on the top there's no requirement to be 20 feet from either edge of the crosswalk, although it's obviously illegal to block a crosswalk.

daylighting-law-marked-crosswalk.jpg


I'm not sure exactly where this image came from, although I've seen it from several local government websites. If it's a one-way street with the direction going right, there would be no-parking zones on both sides of the street before the crosswalk. But there wouldn't be a no-parking zone past the intersection on the next block.

https://www.pinole.gov/sb-413-california-daylighting-law/
https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/walk/daylighting

As far as the definition of a crosswalk goes, I still can't figure out what an unmarked crosswalk is by the definition in the CVC. Marked is easy. It doesn't say how wide an unmarked crosswalk is other than maybe the width of the sidewalk. But there are lots of places where there may not be sidewalks, and even I know there's an implied unmarked crosswalk. Or where the sidewalks may be of different widths on different corners connected by the same unmarked crosswalk.

275. ​

“Crosswalk” is either:​
​
(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.​
​
(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.​
​
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.​
 
So what is the issue folks have with this? This would only be ubran-y areas where pedestrians/cross walks exist and in those areas, speed limits are typically lower and having folks not parked right there should help both drivers and pedestrians see each other/better line-of-sight. So you can't park with 30' of an intersection basically (to handle the unmarked cross walk issue [had to look up what that was]). The biggest issue to pedestrian safety I see in urban enviros is right on red - drivers often don't fully stop/treat it like a yield and don't honor the cross walk RoW. My son walks to school and there is an intersection where that happens...I always worry/tell him to be so careful walking across to ensure the right on red folks see him/stop.
 
TiGeo said:
So what is the issue folks have with this? This would only be ubran-y areas where pedestrians/cross walks exist and in those areas, speed limits are typically lower and having folks not parked right there should help both drivers and pedestrians see each other/better line-of-sight. So you can't park with 30' of an intersection basically (to handle the unmarked cross walk issue [had to look up what that was]). The biggest issue to pedestrian safety I see in urban enviros is right on red - drivers often don't fully stop/treat it like a yield and don't honor the cross walk RoW. My son walks to school and there is an intersection where that happens...I always worry/tell him to be so careful walking across to ensure the right on red folks see him/stop.
Click to expand...

Applies to any part of the state where there's an intersection and/or a marked crosswalk, and that would techncally include rural areas. But the other thing is that it doesn't require any particular signs or markings. There are a lot of suburban areas without sidewalks. It applies even if a city/county hasn't re-striped the curbs red. Even if there's an existing parking meter or a defined parking space. Obviously there's been encouragement to paint the curbs red to reflect the proper distance (and to make it easy on parking enforcement) but that hasn't really happened much because of a lack of personnel and funding.

I noted that there have been stripes painted without authorization in San Francisco where the distance to the crosswalk is way more than the required 20 feet.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Residents in San Francisco's Richmond District are frustrated and confused after someone painted curbs red along several streets. And the city says it wasn't them.​
​
The fake red zones are also confusing residents because of the state's new daylighting law.​
​
"It's extremely inappropriate and I don't think it's acceptable to do such things. I hope it's illegal," said Raeia Zhassuzakova.​
​
Zhassuzakova lives in the area and tells us she was confused when the red curbs popped up seemingly overnight this week.​
​
SFMTA has had to start repainting some of the fake curbs gray again.​
​
That's because whoever did this made some of them much longer than the 20 feet that's actually required by the state's daylighting law.​
 
At least in San Francisco they've rescinded a few citations handed out at curbs where someone illegally painted them beyond 20 feet. At least one guy cited claims that he parked where it was gray (doesn't say if it was within 20 feet or not) and then returned overnight where he found the curb painted red plus a citation on his dash.

At least two drivers received tickets for parking along the rogue red curbs that popped up in San Francisco this month, painted by unknown perpetrators to match the crosswalk buffers required under California’s new daylighting law.​
​
After addressing reports of fake red zones on Balboa and Cabrillo streets in the Richmond, officials at San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency said they began reviewing and “proactively” dismissing citations issued at these locations.​
​
“So far, we’ve identified and dismissed two,” spokesperson Michael Roccaforte said.​
********​
“It’s a crazy situation,” said Justin Lee, a resident of the Richmond who believes he was one of the motorists fleeced by an illegal red paintjob.​
​
When Lee parked his blue Acura on Balboa Street near 19th Ave. on the evening of Jan. 13, he quickly scanned the curb: gray.​
​
But by the time Lee returned to his car the next morning — Jan. 14 — someone had painted the spot red and a fresh ticket sat in Lee’s windshield.​
​
He was instantly suspicious and got a tape measure. Pictures Lee shared with the Chronicle stretched past the 20 foot mark, spanning about three parking spaces, Lee estimated.​
 
Unmarked crosswalk is unacceptable.
Pedestrian can not cross the street as they want, rules are for all, drivers and pedestrians.
 
It's mainly to prevent pedestrians from getting run over because cars parked at the corner block their view and the driver's view. For the same reason you must not park closer than 20 feet to a crosswalk. In the UK the mandatory distance is 10 meters or almost 33 feet. I'd hope not parking close to intersections and Croswalsk would be common sense but I know better.
 
ceecbtg said:
Unmarked crosswalk is unacceptable.
Pedestrian can not cross the street as they want, rules are for all, drivers and pedestrians.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, in any US state other than Maine or Michigan, any intersection with a stop sign constitutes a marked crosswalk and pedestrians have the right of way.
 
vavavroom said:
As far as I know, in any US state other than Maine or Michigan, any intersection with a stop sign constitutes a marked crosswalk and pedestrians have the right of way.
Click to expand...

I thought the typically definition of a marked crosswalk is two lines or several lines (including ladder style) clearly marking the boundaries of the crosswalk. I think what you're describing is a an unmarked style, including where there's a line marking where vehicles should stop at a stop sign.

I know of this one marked crosswalk that was gone after repaving, but was never repainted. But there's this clear pedestrian path/stairway and a lot of people still try to cross there. Legally it's not an unmarked crosswalk because of the location.

An unmarked crosswalk is implied as corner to corner. At an unmarked T-intersection that would mean only one umarked crosswalk. But the main problem is that the boundaries aren't very well defined. California law says it's the extension of a sidewalk, but there's not always a clearly defined sidewalk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom