By Roger Butow
AB 2147, passed in 2022, is the so-called “Freedom to Walk Act.” It was built on AB 1238, passed in 2021, which was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom.
In my opinion, the title is misleading.
Their mutual purpose was to decriminalize and curtail perceived systemic racial profiling and alleged targeting by law enforcement.
Random enforcement, though, or worse, voluntary compliance, leaves chaotic conditions in place and doesn’t bring significant change that begs for adherence in urbanized environs.
What constitutes an infraction, and under what circumstances can sanctions (fines from citations) occur, haven’t been socialized accurately.
AB 2147 specifically allows for officer discretionary intervention. It doesn’t change the existing law that requires pedestrians to avoid potentially hazardous situations.
“Distracted jaywalking” shouldn’t be proposed as a “tip to pedestrians,” as our city-distributed statements contend. Deterrence drives compliance, not a naïve strategy of reversing ongoing abusive acts couched as a polite request.
After 52 years of watching pedestrians cut across PCH or transit even though the signal was red, I think that only by ticketing can we stop the pell-mell behavior, including those who weave through both parked and mobile cars at will.
Compounding the problem are the drivers who are unlawfully using their electronic devices.
Media exacerbated the confusion and gave the mistaken impression that pedestrians are also “free” to create and trigger negligent traffic accident conditions, even “free” to be injured or die themselves.
“AB 2147 prohibits a peace officer, as defined, from stopping a pedestrian for specified traffic infractions unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.”
What constitutes “a reasonably careful person,” and what might enforcement, ultimately look like, be hinged upon to be successful? Doesn’t jaywalking while using a smartphone constitute “unreasonable, careless?”
The law doesn’t preemptively inure with impunity, shelter, or give ridiculous decision-making autonomy to many who are not just rude but inattentive, perhaps under the influence of the now ubiquitous drugs and alcohol in our society.
Laguna is a year-round tourist destination, and millions visit to avail themselves of loosened drug laws. They feel falsely empowered when their pedestrian, scofflaw activities need attenuation.
What if a Laguna Beach police officer observes erratic behavior, wants to prevent injury to that pedestrian or allows them to jeopardize the safety of motorists traveling at moderate but still deadly speeds?
Feeling curtailed, inhibited as that might be construed as harassment (something AB 2147 alleges it inhibits), if they do stop the person and ask a few questions, will we have civil rights law firms setting up shop in our city?
Whether it’s wearing helmets on roadways or a seatbelt while operating a vehicle, we’re down to saving people from themselves and their own poor judgment while navigating our arterial surface streets.
Legislating behavioral modification is one thing; implementing it at ground zero, literally where “the rubber meets the road,” is another.
For those gleefully anticipating the acquisition of both Laguna Canyon Road and PCH? With assets come liabilities, including potential negligence litigation vulnerabilities.
Perhaps failure to enforce “distracted jaywalking” might lend itself to expensive, protracted legal interventions. We might be forced to defend ourselves from frivolous personal injury attorneys who always seek deep-pocket resources.
One possible solution is to give our chief and his officers the tools for discretionary ticketing. Mass broadcast that obligatory possibility, i.e., publicize it via mainstream and social media, emphasize that policy in press releases and public service announcements.
Socializing the first offenders in the public square pillory usually extends the issue into the bigger world. It warns locals and visitors alike that we’re serious about controlling rampant mischief.
As for those knuckleheads who have their smartphones up to their ears while weaving their way through traffic between crosswalks? That, in my opinion, is not acting reasonable and literally defines distracted jaywalking.
Initiate this ability to proactively confront what is occurring, and the ramped-up probability of injury and death as we become more urbanized lessens.
Put AB 2147 on the City Council agenda and have our police department and city attorney explain how it might or might not give us a degree of legal safe harbor.
Let’s get ahead of the curve instead of behind the inevitable EMT, fire, police department and litigation 8-ball.
Roger E. Bütow moved to Laguna Beach in 1972. A former general contractor, he’s currently a professional land use & regulatory compliance analyst who specializes in environmental and construction-related advisory services.
