Car accident and tickets

[trent2275]

What is the name of your state? NY

I was in a car accident (I hit a snowdrift and wrecked) and the State Police ticketed me for "Speed not Reasonable and Prudent" and "Unsafe Rear Tires"

Question: If he put incorrect info on the ticket (my address) can't I get the whole thing dismissed based on that?

If not, I have a witness who was outside of her house when I wrecked who said I wasn't even going that fast when I crashed, would that help get the speeding violation dropped?

If so, how do I approach the Judge with this? Thanks.

 

[sukharev]

Forget about incorrect address, they have your driver's license, that's all they need.

For rear tires, go to the car shop and get a letter stating they are OK, then take it to court and ask for dismissal. If not, pay up, you have to maintain your car at all times.

For speeding, take it to court and ask for dismissal. Unless officer was there, he cannot determine what was reasonable and prudent on a given road at a given moment, and whether you were traveling faster than that.

Chances are, you would not even have to talk to the judge. You will likely be talking to prosecutor first, and he will offer you a deal (pay court costs and lesser violation, if you are lucky non-moving one with no points). Then again, every court is different, you may want to check it out before your court date.

 

[JETX]

If he put incorrect info on the ticket (my address) can't I get the whole thing dismissed based on that?

Nope. Non-essential information like that is not fatal to a tickets validity.

I have a witness who was outside of her house when I wrecked who said I wasn't even going that fast when I crashed, would that help get the speeding violation dropped?

Nope. And ignore the, as usual, stupid crap from Suck.
The issue is NOT how fast you were going... but whether the speed you were traveling at was unsafe for the conditions at the time.... as evidenced by your accident.

 

[sukharev]

Officer: Oh,yes, your honor, my evidence for speeding is the accident

 

[JETX]

Officer: Oh,yes, your honor, my evidence for speeding is the accident

Yep. I guess you haven't read any traffic laws lately, huh??
NY Vehicle Code:
"S 1180. Basic rule and maximum limits. (a) No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing."

 

[sukharev]

Boy, you just wasted 2 solid lines of text on a basic speed law...

Now, tell me: how is the officer going to state what was the alleged speed?

 

[You Are Guilty]

Boy, you just wasted 2 solid lines of text on a basic speed law...

Now, tell me: how is the officer going to state what was the alleged speed?

You'e missing the point. The officer's "argument" is that but for the "excessive speed" (whatever it may have been), the accident would not have occurred, as someone going slowly enough would have had ample time and road to stop safely. It's a res ipsa-esque argument and there's a fairly good chance it'll work. Happens all the time.

 

[sukharev]

I think it's you who missed the point. It was Jetx's argument, not the officer's. To apply any law, you have to be able to prove it was violated. For basic speed law, it's quite simple:

1) Show the conditions required speed below posted limit (and how much lower)
2) Show defendant was traveling higher than that speed

The accident is by no means a proof of high speed, as you can travel at 5 mph and still have an accident. You will understand once you hit "black ice"

 

[JETX]

YAG, don't try logic with 'SuckHead'. It is like trying to reason with a rock.... except the rock is far more likely to understand.

 

[justalayman]

I think it's you who missed the point. It was Jetx's argument, not the officer's. To apply any law, you have to be able to prove it was violated. For basic speed law, it's quite simple:

1) Show the conditions required speed below posted limit (and how much lower)
2) Show defendant was traveling higher than that speed

The accident is by no means a proof of high speed, as you can travel at 5 mph and still have an accident. You will understand once you hit "black ice"

and the point is......it has nothing to do with HIGH speed...and the fact that the accident occured is proof itself that the driver was traveling too fast for conditions. If there were no accident..they weren't going too fast...an accident...guess what...they were going too fast to stop before the accident occured..

BTW my daughter had the same experience and I tend to agree with Suk morally and I hope poster does prevail. It just ain't right.

 

[sukharev]

Nowhere in that basic speed law is the mentioning of an accident. You can be traveling at a speed reasonable and proper, and paying attention to any road hazards, but still get into an accident. Once again, since it is a speeding ticket, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show two key points above, namely speed limit and alleged access by the driver. Both are impossible to prove, unless the officer was there, and even then definition of reasonable speed subjective and biased, while speed measurement itself has certain requirements.

Yes, the judge may be biased towards the officer, but I have witnessed many times that these tickets get dismissed, and OP should definitely try to achieve that to avoid the speeding ticket on his record.