How have courts interpreted an instruction in a motor vehicle accident case in which a defendant was ordered to stop at a crosswalk?

Defendant criticizes this instruction. He says it is incomplete, that it is based upon BAJI (civil) No. 150-G, paraphrasing the first two paragraphs of BAJI but omitting the third and last paragraph. ¹ BAJI was derived from a statement appearing in People v. Noland, 83 Cal.App.2d Supp. 819, 821, 189 P.2d 84, which concluded with a declaration that an intention to relinquish a right of way 'will not appear from a mere showing that a pedestrian whose course is likely to intersect that of a vehicle at a crosswalk hesitates, stops, jumps back or does any other act apparently impelled by uncertainty as to the safe course or desire to escape impending danger.' 83 Cal.App.2d Supp. at page 822, 189 P.2d at page 85. That was simply a statement that such conduct would not furnish a reasonable basis for [174 Cal.App.2d 433] an inference that he waived his right of way. It would not add anything fundamental to the instruction which the court gave in this case. It was an added detail or embellishment which defendant should have asked for if he wanted the jury to have it.