The point you highlighted doesn't support your thesis. I underlined the key word -- "willfully." In other words, for there to be felony evasion, you have to show intent. It's not "well, he should have stopped sooner" or "I think he was trying to flee," the DA will have to prove that he intended to flee in order for felony evasion to stick.
So, even though there is no explicit reference in the code as to how long a pursuit had to last, the length of the pursuit is relevant in trying to prove intent. Sometimes intent is straightforward -- the guy flipping the cop off or something as he rides off into the sunset -- but if you don't have that sort of specific evidence, you need to look to evidence that can support an inference of intent. A lot of people would probably think that a long pursuit supports a finding of an intent to flee. You wouldn't know for sure until you got in front of a jury, but it seems it might be hard for the prosecution to prove intent when all you have to go on is a short period between the lights coming on and the stop.
And, even if you proved "willful," under this statute, for it to be a felony, you need the additional evidence that the person either injured someone or damaged someone's property, or that there was a "substantial risk" of such injury or damage. In other words, it's not just up to cop to make a snap decision "OMG FELONY EVASION" and come out with guns blazing.
