Speeding Ticket after Accident?

[Proseguru]

OP should read this...

"22350" - Google Scholar

Its a case regarding issuing out this ticket & accidents.

from the opinion:
[1a] Appellants contend that under the circumstances respondent was guilty of negligence as a matter of law, because the evidence permits this as the sole reasonable conclusion. It is argued that violations of Vehicle Code section 22350, the basic speed law, and of section 21703, the statute forbidding following another vehicle too closely, are shown as a matter of law.

We must reject this argument. [2] When one vehicle runs into the rear of another, negligence is not necessarily established as a matter of law. (Kralyevich v. Magrini, 172 Cal.App.2d 784, 792 [342 P.2d 903]; Lowenthal v. Mortimer, 125 Cal.App.2d 636, 638 [270 P.2d 942]; Turkovich v. Rowland, 106 Cal.App.2d 445, 447-448 [235 P.2d 123]; Wohlenberg v. Malcewicz, 56 Cal.App.2d 508 [133 P.2d 12].) [3] Whether Vehicle Code section 22350 has been violated is a question of fact. (Huskey v. Garcia, 130 Cal.App.2d 43, 46 [278 P.2d 101].) The same is true of section 21703. (Huskey v. Garcia, supra, p. 46; Oliver v. Boxley, 181 Cal.App.2d 471 [5 Cal.Rptr. 468].)





Clearly more than just an accident must have occurred.

 

[ecmst12]

Clearly you don't understand what you read there.

 

[Proseguru]

Clearly you don't understand what you read there.

I'm quite certain. And please don't interject your opinions regarding what I know or don't know. Because you cannot read my mind. If you have a specific question regarding anything please let me know; I would be pleased to clarify.

 

[ecmst12]

You really should quit signing up under new names when you get banned. Take a hint. And I do not have the energy at this hour to explain why you don't understand. But you can start by learning what "question of law" and "question of fact" mean in court.

 

[Proseguru]

You really should quit signing up under new names when you get banned. Take a hint. And I do not have the energy at this hour to explain why you don't understand. But you can start by learning what "question of law" and "question of fact" mean in court.

This is the first time I have signed up. But perhaps others have also noted that you behave like a child, hence your confusion. I do not have the inclination to answer any of you questions or to read anymore of your postings. I gave you the benefit of a doubt -- now there is no doubt. You are just a rude person. Your mother must be proud of you.

 

[Proserpina]

This is the first time I have signed up. But perhaps others have also noted that you behave like a child, hence your confusion. I do not have the inclination to answer any of you questions or to read anymore of your postings. I gave you the benefit of a doubt -- now there is no doubt. You are just a rude person. Your mother must be proud of you.

No, this is not the first time you've signed up.

We know this. Everyone else reading your posts will know this.

 

[Dillon]

in California, About a month ago I rear ended someone. I was at fault. The police officer said that it looked as though I was going 30MPH based on the damage,

I would not accuse myself, by saying its was my fault. there are people out there, that set up drivers by staging fack accidents. (insurance fruad)

the officer is only guessing and does not have any first hand knowledge of the matter. he is a report taker after the fact and actually didnt see nothin.

as far as the officer or you actually know, the other person could have planned the accident to make it look like it was your fault, to set you up.

----------------

Staged accidents represent one of the fastest-growing varieties of fraud in the insurance industry, which takes an estimated $30 billion hit from all types of fraud each year.

You might think fraud is a non-violent crime. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth when it comes to an escalating insurance racket known as the staged traffic accident.

Staged traffic accidents, not only have cost the honest consumer hundreds of dollars in extra insurance premiums, they have also produced frequent injuries and senseless deaths of innocent people.

In California alone, it is reported that staged traffic accidents is a criminal problem resulting in an annual $200 million loss. According to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), staged auto accidents are quickly becoming one of the leading insurance frauds in the United States.


--------

I hope this helps

--------

 

[Alex1176]

You can avoid a lot of problems if you installing a videoregistrator in your car. 50-60$ and you set.

 

[Proseguru]

I would not accuse myself, by saying its was my fault. there are people out there, that set up drivers by staging fack accidents. (insurance fruad)

the officer is only guessing and does not have any first hand knowledge of the matter. he is a report taker after the fact and actually didnt see nothin.



--------

Dillion is correct.

 

[CdwJava]

And the defendant is free to argue that the accident never happened and to try to explain to the court WHY the statement of the other driver and the officer's observations and investigation are in error ... that's a hard row to hoe to counter the statement of a witness and the officer's investigation, but if you can do it, go right ahead.

It's kinda hard to argue fault when a moving vehicle rear ends a stopped vehicle. And unless there is some proof that the issue is an insurance scam or was intentionally caused by the other party, it will not even be permitted to be raised as a possible defense.

There MAY be some facts that provide for a possible defense, such as a sudden lane change coupled with sudden braking, a stopped vehicle around a blind turn or other visual obstruction, or something else, but in the vast majority of these instances the fault will be clear.

 

[Proseguru]

There MAY be some facts that provide for a possible defense, such as a sudden lane change coupled with sudden braking, a stopped vehicle around a blind turn or other visual obstruction, or something else, but in the vast majority of these instances the fault will be clear.

The OP does not need to prove anything, that's my point. The officer will have to testify as to what he SAW or heard. If he cannot testify that he saw the person commit the crime then he cannot provide enough facts to support a conviction.

The mere fact that an accident occurred is not prima facia evidence of the charge. Sorry, but that's the way it is ... I think you understand why but just cannot get over the hurdle needed.

 

[CdwJava]

The OP does not need to prove anything, that's my point. The officer will have to testify as to what he SAW or heard. If he cannot testify that he saw the person commit the crime then he cannot provide enough facts to support a conviction.

The other driver can testify to what they saw or heard, the officer can testify as to his investigation - his observations, measurements, and even his opinions and conclusions. Certainly the defense can try and raise reasonable doubt, but, that can be difficult for the average defendant.

Once again, it is not all that hard to explain why a person who has rear-ended another, stopped vehicle was traveling at an unsafe speed. And not at all that easy to successfully cast doubt on the presumption. After all, what else might the cause of the collision be?

 

[You Are Guilty]

If he cannot testify that he saw the person commit the crime then he cannot provide enough facts to support a conviction.

That is a blatantly incorrect statement in the courts of all 50 states.

 

[racer72]

If he cannot testify that he saw the person commit the crime then he cannot provide enough facts to support a conviction.

The jails and prisons in this country would be might empty if this was true. Most if not all convictions are based on evidence, not what the police see happening. The fact the officer saw 2 damaged cars and the statements of the victims, he could easily determine by this evidence that an infraction was committed by the OP and he was cited for this.

In the same tone, the evidence you are leaving by posting on this site proves you don't have a clue.

 

[Proseguru]

The jails and prisons in this country would be might empty if this was true. Most if not all convictions are based on evidence, not what the police see happening. The fact the officer saw 2 damaged cars and the statements of the victims, he could easily determine by this evidence that an infraction was committed by the OP and he was cited for this.

In the same tone, the evidence you are leaving by posting on this site proves you don't have a clue.

You are not disagreeing with me; but with case law. Good choice.