citation because of black ice?

[kewltrunkz]

In Oregon

I was driving to school and it was a little foggy out and I was going up this two lane bridge (about 25 mph at the bottom) and the speed of the road of 35 mph. the blinking ice sign wasn't on, but I slowed down anyways to 20 mph cause I thought the bridge might be slippery with ice. when I almost approached the top of the overpass, I saw cars stopped at the top because of an earlier accident. I then tried to stop my car and push the brakes but my car hit some ice and slid out of control. since I was in the left lane, I tried to steer my car over to the left where the yellow lane was to avoid the cars but instead the car tunred sideways and hit the three cars that were stopped, badly damaging the sides of my car and minorly damaging theirs. The officer gave me a citation for "Careless Driving" which I don't thinkg is right because I wasn't driving "carelessly" and the ice caused me to lose complete control. I also knew I had to slow down because of the ice.

The fine is for $427...but I don't think I should have to pay that much. I'm 17 and this is my very first driving offense and I'm a 4.0 good student otherwise. I've never sped or anything. I think it's only fiar that I pay the damages of the other cars and of my car and not get a ticket for breaking the law because there was nothing in my control to stop it.

 

[apie1]

You can try to fight it if you want, but you probably wont get too far with it. Its good that you were going slow in such bad weather but the fact remains is that you caused an accident, and that is why you recieved a ticket. Basically recieving that ticket is the cop telling you in a sense..."you should have gone slower".

 

[zippysgoddess]

Yep, apie is correct. You are still new to driving, you will find that a car is unpredictable at any speed on slick roads, and no matter which way you turn the wheel, it sometimes doesn't matter. So even though you were trying to be safe, 20mph was still too fast, you should have literally been creeping.

I know it is aggravating, but it is sometimes necessary. I was coming home from work once and the fog got so bad, I literally had to pull over and stop a few times until it cleared somewhat to see. Even when I was driving, I was barely moving and a half hour trip home from work took me an hour and a half.

 

[teflon_jones]

You're relying on a blinking sign to tell you when the road is icy? You need to rely on a thermometer and the presence of water on the road!

 

[kewltrunkz]

yeah but...

I've driven on that road countless time at that same exact time and there was NO ICE on that bridge ever. There was no visible frost or anything on the road when I left my house. I should at least get the ticket lowered. Plus, shouldn't there be some compensation or something if the sign wasn't on? there was no warning that there would be ice. I know I probably won't be able to dismiss the citation, but at least fight for a lower fine

 

[mlk1978]

I've driven on that road countless time at that same exact time and there was NO ICE on that bridge ever. There was no visible frost or anything on the road when I left my house. I should at least get the ticket lowered. Plus, shouldn't there be some compensation or something if the sign wasn't on? there was no warning that there would be ice. I know I probably won't be able to dismiss the citation, but at least fight for a lower fine

Well you can most certainly try and fight it, there is no law stating you cant. Do it quickly because I think you only have 10 days from the date of the ticket to elect fighting it. Either way, if it is cold outside and/or wet, then you should always be on your guard. Just because there is no visible evidence of any kind of hazzard doesnt mean it isnt there. Even if you dont think the roads will be bad, still be carefull. Good luck!

 

[seniorjudge]

I've driven on that road countless time at that same exact time and there was NO ICE on that bridge ever. There was no visible frost or anything on the road when I left my house. I should at least get the ticket lowered. Plus, shouldn't there be some compensation or something if the sign wasn't on? there was no warning that there would be ice. I know I probably won't be able to dismiss the citation, but at least fight for a lower fine

You could try to get your fine lowered with this story; it won't hurt to try. However, you must realize that if you have a wreck, that means you did not have your car under control.

That's physics....









Standard answer

Here are some hints on appearing in court:

Dress professionally in clean clothes.

Do not wear message shirts.

Don't chew gum, smoke, or eat. (Smokers...pot or tobacco...literally stink. Remember that before you head for court.)

Bathe and wash your hair.

Do not bring small children or your friends.

Go to court beforehand some day before you actually have to go to watch how things go.

Speak politely and deferentially. If you argue or dispute something, do it professionally and without emotion.

Ask the court clerk who you talk to about a diversion (meaning you want to plead to a different, lesser charge), if applicable in your situation. Ask about traffic school and that the ticket not go on your record, if applicable. Ask also about getting a hardship driving permit, if applicable.

From marbol:

“Judge...

You forgot the one thing that I've seen that seems to frizz up most judges these days:

If you have a cell phone, make DAMN SURE that it doesn't make ANY noise in the courtroom. This means when you are talking to the judge AND when you are simply sitting in the court room.

If you have a ‘vibrate’ position on your cell phone, MAKE sure the judge DOESN'T EVEN HEAR it VIBRATE!

Turn it off or put it in silent mode where it flashes a LED if it rings. AND DON'T even DREAM about answering it if it rings.”

(Better yet, don’t carry your cell phone into the courtroom.)


Here are five stories that criminal court judges hear the most (and I suggest you do not use them or variations of them):

1. I’ve been saved! (This is not religion specific; folks from all kinds of religious backgrounds use this one.)

2. My girlfriend/mother/sister/daughter is pregnant/sick/dying/dead/crippled and needs my help.

3. I’ve got a job in [name a state five hundred miles away].

4. This is the first time I ever did this.

5. You’ve got the wrong guy. (A variation of this one is the phantom defendant story: “It wasn’t me driving, it was a hitchhiker I picked up. He wrecked the car, drug me behind the wheel then took off.” Or, another variation: “I was forced into it by a bad guy!”)

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=854687#post854687

Public defender’s advice

http://newyork.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/70300494.html


Other people may give you other advice; stand by.

 

[teflon_jones]

I've driven on that road countless time at that same exact time and there was NO ICE on that bridge ever. There was no visible frost or anything on the road when I left my house. I should at least get the ticket lowered. Plus, shouldn't there be some compensation or something if the sign wasn't on? there was no warning that there would be ice. I know I probably won't be able to dismiss the citation, but at least fight for a lower fine

It doesn't matter if you've driven the road a million times. All that matters is that there was ice on the bridge this time. You obviously haven't learned yet that bridges freeze before roadways. What the conditions were like at your house, 500 feet before the bridge, or 1 foot before the bridge doesn't matter. Take it as a lesson learned. At 17 years old, you've got a lot more lessons to learn about driving!

What does the sign have to do with anything? Warning signs are for informational purposes only. It's up to you to drive within the limits of the roadway, your skills, and your vehicle. You exceeded one or more of these things and had an accident. You are guilty of this ticket. Period. End of story.

 

[xylene]

It doesn't matter if you've driven the road a million times. All that matters is that there was ice on the bridge this time. You obviously haven't learned yet that bridges freeze before roadways. What the conditions were like at your house, 500 feet before the bridge, or 1 foot before the bridge doesn't matter. Take it as a lesson learned. At 17 years old, you've got a lot more lessons to learn about driving!

What does the sign have to do with anything? Warning signs are for informational purposes only. It's up to you to drive within the limits of the roadway, your skills, and your vehicle. You exceeded one or more of these things and had an accident. You are guilty of this ticket. Period. End of story.

I love when people spell out "period" to claim that coveted last word position.

I think you wrong. This young driver has a lot on the line with such a serious ticket. He should fight it with a lawyer even if it costs more than the fines, on principle and for the sake of his insurance.

Getting into an accident on ice or otherwise is not automatically 'careless driving'. He was CITED for this- his guilt has yet to be determined.

It would seem given the circumstances that the faulty warning device and the failure of the relavant department to prep the bridge... have a lot to do with this accident and the OTHER accidents (which the OP was not involved in) that occured on the bridge.

 

[HomeGuru]

My opinion is that the driver is guilty of the infraction.

 

[teflon_jones]

I love when people spell out "period" to claim that coveted last word position.

I'm glad I did something you love then!

I think you wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion.

This young driver has a lot on the line with such a serious ticket.

Absolutely. Nobody is arguing that.

He should fight it with a lawyer even if it costs more than the fines, on principle and for the sake of his insurance.

On what principle? That the officer, who saw the accident scene and issued the ticket, was totally out of line and wrong to do what he/she did?

Getting into an accident on ice or otherwise is not automatically 'careless driving'.

Of course not. But in this case the officer has determined it was. Did you see the accident? Were you at the scene? Why are you assuming the officer is wrong? I think it's much more likely that the officer was right and this young, inexperienced driver that trusts their life to a road sign was driving carelessly.

He was CITED for this- his guilt has yet to be determined.

Unlike other criminal offenses, the officer issuing the ticket acts as the judge, jury, and executioner. You are assumed guilty unless proven innocent. So this person has already been found guilty. They are appealing the judgement now by going to court. (To anybody well versed with the law, yes, I know this isn't 100% correct in technical legal terms but it really doesn't matter in this case.)

It would seem given the circumstances that the faulty warning device and the failure of the relavant department to prep the bridge... have a lot to do with this accident and the OTHER accidents (which the OP was not involved in) that occured on the bridge.

I haven't seen any proof that the warning device was faulty, merely that it wasn't operating as the OP expected it to. The ice may have formed a very short time before and the highway dept may not have gotten to it yet. This isn't the only road they're responsible for.

Per the OP's original post:
"when I almost approached the top of the overpass, I saw cars stopped at the top because of an earlier accident. I then tried to stop my car and push the brakes but my car hit some ice and slid out of control."
These statements lead me to believe that the OP wasn't paying close enough attention to the road. The other cars should have been visible far before they ice and the OP should have taken that as an indication to slow down. The fact that the OP was traveling uphill and was going fast enough to slide out of control into three cars leads me to believe she was going MUCH too fast for the conditions.

 

[xylene]

On what principle? That the officer, who saw the accident scene and issued the ticket, was totally out of line and wrong to do what he/she did?

On the prinicple that he has a sincere belief that he is not guilty. It isn't like the OP said "I went to slam on the brakes but hit the gas instead- but it was really icey..."

Of course not. But in this case the officer has determined it was. Did you see the accident? Were you at the scene? Why are you assuming the officer is wrong? I think it's much more likely that the officer was right and this young, inexperienced driver that trusts their life to a road sign was driving carelessly.

And it would seem that this young man disagrees. He has that right. I am not assuming anything about the officer, other than the fact that the OP should protect his interests and sincere belief, secure a lawyer, and contest the ticket even if that cost more than the fine. Everyone driving trusts their lives to traffic signals.

Unlike other criminal offenses, the officer issuing the ticket acts as the judge, jury, and executioner. You are assumed guilty unless proven innocent. So this person has already been found guilty. They are appealing the judgement now by going to court. (To anybody well versed with the law, yes, I know this isn't 100% correct in technical legal terms but it really doesn't matter in this case.)

Just curious, when would it matter and why doesn't matter here? That is not a rhetorical question.

I haven't seen any proof that the warning device was faulty, merely that it wasn't operating as the OP expected it to. The ice may have formed a very short time before and the highway dept may not have gotten to it yet. This isn't the only road they're responsible for.

I'll meet you half-way. The ice warning signal was not operating during iced conditions.

Per the OP's original post:
"when I almost approached the top of the overpass, I saw cars stopped at the top because of an earlier accident. I then tried to stop my car and push the brakes but my car hit some ice and slid out of control."
These statements lead me to believe that the OP wasn't paying close enough attention to the road. The other cars should have been visible far before they ice and the OP should have taken that as an indication to slow down. The fact that the OP was traveling uphill and was going fast enough to slide out of control into three cars leads me to believe she was going MUCH too fast for the conditions.

"The other cars should have been visible" I wans't the only one not on the seen. Perhaps I am visualizing too much, but how would one have seen an accident just beyond the rise of the bridge? It would be only a scant distance in which one would be able to see those vehicles blocking the lane.

 

[stilen621]

In Oregon

I was driving to school and it was a little foggy out and I was going up this two lane bridge (about 25 mph at the bottom) and the speed of the road of 35 mph. the blinking ice sign wasn't on, but I slowed down anyways to 20 mph cause I thought the bridge might be slippery with ice. when I almost approached the top of the overpass, I saw cars stopped at the top because of an earlier accident. I then tried to stop my car and push the brakes but my car hit some ice and slid out of control. since I was in the left lane, I tried to steer my car over to the left where the yellow lane was to avoid the cars but instead the car tunred sideways and hit the three cars that were stopped, badly damaging the sides of my car and minorly damaging theirs. The officer gave me a citation for "Careless Driving" which I don't thinkg is right because I wasn't driving "carelessly" and the ice caused me to lose complete control. I also knew I had to slow down because of the ice.

The fine is for $427...but I don't think I should have to pay that much. I'm 17 and this is my very first driving offense and I'm a 4.0 good student otherwise. I've never sped or anything. I think it's only fiar that I pay the damages of the other cars and of my car and not get a ticket for breaking the law because there was nothing in my control to stop it.

You have 3 choices. I live in Oregon also just so you know.
1) Learn to drive in the ice and snow, or go back to California.
2) Get studded tires.
3) Pay the fine and quit whinning, your lucky you didnt injure someone.

 

[teflon_jones]

Everyone driving trusts their lives to traffic signals.

Sure, but not ENTIRELY to traffic control devices. They still use common sense, which the OP did not use. If the roads are slippery and an exit ramp sign says "50 MPH" does that mean you go 50 MPH? Better yet, if the OP has driven this route numerous times, it shouldn't matter that the sign wasn't working.

Just curious, when would it matter and why doesn't matter here? That is not a rhetorical question.

Because technically a traffic ticket is not a guilty finding. You plead guilty by paying the ticket.


This is a pretty simple post and you seem to be searching for some reason why the OP wasn't guilty, and making assumptions that the OP didn't include in their original post. A police officer who saw the scene of the accident obviously felt the ticket was warranted and this inexperienced 17 year old driver is very unlikely to get the ticket lowered or dismissed IMHO. Police officers do not generally issue reckless driving tickets recklessly (please excuse the play on words ).

 

[sukharev]

Sure, but not ENTIRELY to traffic control devices. They still use common sense, which the OP did not use. If the roads are slippery and an exit ramp sign says "50 MPH" does that mean you go 50 MPH? Better yet, if the OP has driven this route numerous times, it shouldn't matter that the sign wasn't working.


Because technically a traffic ticket is not a guilty finding. You plead guilty by paying the ticket.


This is a pretty simple post and you seem to be searching for some reason why the OP wasn't guilty, and making assumptions that the OP didn't include in their original post. A police officer who saw the scene of the accident obviously felt the ticket was warranted and this inexperienced 17 year old driver is very unlikely to get the ticket lowered or dismissed IMHO. Police officers do not generally issue reckless driving tickets recklessly (please excuse the play on words ).

You know, I love it when people who obviously did not experience anything like it state their opinion. Don't you get it, tickets like this are a cash cow for local authorities. On top of that, OP did not come here to find out he is guilty (he already knows it), his point was that he got punished already by all the damages he has to pay (and I am assuming a HUGE insurance hike). $427 ticket is outrageous, you can get less for speeding over 100 mph! I agree with him, it's unfair when government tags along for a free ride. PERIOD.