It has long been the case that people in chicken suits don’t always get the respect they deserve. See, e.g., “Debate Over Free-Speech Rights of Chicken Man Rages in Colorado Town” (Jan. 16, 2008); “Arkansas Chicken Man Plagued by Attacks” (July 27, 2006); cf. “Colonel Sanders Appears at UN to Seek Membership for ‘Grilled Nation‘” (Nov. 5, 2009). Sadly, that is still true today.
On September 16, drivers in San Francisco repeatedly failed to yield to a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk at an intersection even though he was wearing a “flamboyant, inflatable chicken costume” intended to maximize his visibility. Because the pedestrian was also a police officer, and because other officers with vehicles were waiting nearby, most of these drivers got a ticket for failing to yield the right of way. See Cal. Veh. Code § 21950.
Police chose this particular crosswalk because a 76-year-old man was hit and killed by a driver there in February. But they could have chosen many others, including some near my home where drivers often fail to yield or just completely blow through stop signs. A motorcycle cop (dressed as a motorcycle cop) used to monitor one of these intersections from time to time, but these days the SFPD is understaffed and traffic violations aren’t its highest priority.
Nor should they be. I mean, not a day goes by that I don’t have to fend off several hundred immigrants trying to eat my Boston terrier, and I could use a little help with that, for example. Surely the risk to pedestrians from this moving violation pales in comparison? How often do drivers fail to yield, really?
The answer is “most of the time.”
Studies consistently find that drivers fail to yield more often than not, and by significant margins. For example, a 2020 study in the Journal of Transport & Health found that “the overall driver yielding rate for pedestrians in a midblock crosswalk” was only 27.98 percent. That was in Las Vegas, but a more recent study conducted in Ghana reached almost exactly the same result: only 28.3% of drivers yielded to pedestrians in marked crosswalks. Similar results were found in Milwaukee (16%), Texas (none higher than 28%), and California (all below 40%; citing similar studies elsewhere). (NOTE: my research on this topic was limited to results available for free; studies consistently find that the rate at which I am willing to pay for access is just above zero percent.)
Specific results varied according to a range of factors. For example, the results in Texas were due in part to drivers’ tendency to open fire on pedestrians well before reaching the intersection, making it unnecessary to yield; and in California they were influenced by a tendency to yield for immigrants even though they are only here to devour our nation’s pets. Neither of those things are true, but some real studies have suggested, though not conclusively, that drivers yield more often for female pedestrians than male ones and more often for whites than people of color. The 2020 study also found that people driving more expensive cars were less likely to yield (for anybody): in fact, they calculated that the “odds of yielding decreased 3% per $1000 increase” in estimated car price. There are some amusing calculations to be made there, but this article’s already too complicated. It seems safe to say at least that if you step into a crosswalk anywhere near a Rolls-Royce La Rose Noire Droptail, which according to this costs $30 million, your chances of survival are effectively zero.
That’s true even if if you’re wearing a flamboyant, inflatable chicken costume, which at best would leave a flamboyant, inflatable-chicken-shaped-dent in the front of that Rolls. But in other situations, wearing highly visible clothing can make a difference, as the abstract of one study that wanted me to pay for full access suggests. That’s consistent with common sense, of course, and was the reason for the chicken outfit used in the San Francisco operation. It served two purposes, according to Capt. Amy Hurwitz: “I don’t want [the officer] to get run over,” and “the costume is so bright, it’s like, how can you miss it?” Those seem like the same purpose, but I think the second one is a combination of trying to cite only significant violations and to show how serious the problem is. “If you don’t see someone in a giant chicken costume,” the giant chicken said, “then we really have a problem.”
And we do, because the results of the sting seemed generally consistent with the research above. According to the reporter, “I had been at the scene for just a few minutes before a driver failed to yield to [the officer in a brightly colored chicken costume] and was subsequently pulled over.” The officer told him “the driver was the eighth to be caught so far [that day], and they’d only been there for 30 minutes.” Over the next hour, “police pulled over so many drivers that I eventually lost count.” This also seemed consistent with the results of five similar previous efforts—which involved officers dressed as Big Bird and “a unicorn”—and generated “30 to 40 citations each.” The officers believed, or at least hoped, that the visibility of these efforts would help raise awareness of the law and that pedestrians are vulnerable, however they’re dressed.
The California study also found that large percentages of drivers (and pedestrians) didn’t know who has the legal right of way in various situations, though it’s not clear how much this contributes to the problem. At least under California law, the legal answer (with minor exceptions) is “the pedestrian” so long as he or she is “within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection….” A driver should always yield for other very good reasons, but that’s what the statute says. I don’t see any exceptions for vehicles worth above a certain amount, but, you know, this is California.
