collision ticket

[bob238]

I was recently driving when I looked down for a second and crashed into a parked car on the side of the road.

The policeman came and we talked about the incident. At the end I asked him what my ticket would be for and he told me it would be 101 dollars for "inattentive driving."

2 weeks later, I get my ticket in the mail and it is 153 dollars for "failure to control vehicle speed to avoid collision."

Would this be grounds for dismisal? I livei n washington state if that matters.

Thanks in advance.

[bob238]

So, the fact that the officer either misled me or filed the ticket incorrectly means absolutely nothing?

It just seems very similar (although understandly this is a lesser charge and the same rules do not apply) to being arrested and not read your rights. It's not the same thing, but if the officer does not tell you that you have the right to remain silent or a right to an attorney that can lead to a whole lot of trouble in terms of prosecution.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by bob238

So, the fact that the officer either misled me or filed the ticket incorrectly means absolutely nothing?

It just seems very similar (although understandly this is a lesser charge and the same rules do not apply) to being arrested and not read your rights. It's not the same thing, but if the officer does not tell you that you have the right to remain silent or a right to an attorney that can lead to a whole lot of trouble in terms of prosecution.

Nope. Not even if.

[bob238]

In my research something interesting came up.

Is it true that I have the right to a speedy trial in a traffic case (45 days?). I plead not guilty by mail and recieved a trial date that was over two months after my plea.

[racer72]

Originally Posted by bob238

In my research something interesting came up.

Is it true that I have the right to a speedy trial in a traffic case (45 days?). I plead not guilty by mail and recieved a trial date that was over two months after my plea.

No, your barking up the wrong tree. In Washington, most traffic tickets are civil, not criminal offenses and the right to a speedy trial does not apply. Your best option, if you have a clean driving record, is to show up at court and ask for a deferral. Keep your nose clean for a year and the ticket goes away. Get another ticket though and BAM, both tickets hit your driving record (and your insurance company) at the same time.

[bob238]

My lack of legal background is showing through all to clearly. However, I do have one more attempt and hopefully this one is more substantive and does not get shot down by a 3-word response.

My ticket is for: "No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care."

The officer was not at the scene of the collision when it happend, so what legal ground does he have to make the judgement that I was going to fast. For example, it is possible that a gust of wind came out of nowhere and shifted my car a bit to the right, resulting in the accident.

Moreover, the law code of washington states after this code that "Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule -- IRLJ 6.2." I checked IRLJ 6.2 and they have a set fine depending on how fast you were going over the speed limit. Here is the chart:

Speeding (RCW 46.61.400) if speed limit is over 40 m.p.h.
1 5 m.p.h. over limit $22
6 10 m.p.h. over limit $32
11 15 m.p.h. over limit $47
16 20 m.p.h. over limit $62
21 25 m.p.h. over limit $77
26 30 m.p.h. over limit $97
31 35 m.p.h. over limit $122
36 40 m.p.h. over limit $147
Over 40 m.p.h. over limit $177

Speeding if speed limit is 40 m.p.h. or less
1 5 m.p.h. over limit $32
6 10 m.p.h. over limit $37
11 15 m.p.h. over limit $52
16 20 m.p.h. over limit $72
21 25 m.p.h. over limit $97
26 30 m.p.h. over limit $122
31 35 m.p.h. over limit $147
Over 35 m.p.h. over limit $177

Speed Too Fast for Conditions (RCW 46.61.400(1)) $37

Now, the only thing that I could possibly see the officer citing me for is the last one. However, that was clearly not his intention as the fine was much higher.

[efflandt]

It might have been different if you just hit a curb or ran off the road. But you were obviously driving too fast for conditions if you drove into a stationary vehicle, which is more serious, and the citation seems appropriate. I don't see how you can dispute that (no defense).

[bob238]

Originally Posted by efflandt

you were obviously driving too fast for conditions if you drove into a stationary vehicle

That's what I am trying to figure out. Does the fact that I hit a parked vehicle mean that the law as stated is appropriate? Even if I was going 1/2 mph?

Here is the law again:

"No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care."

Also, does the second part say that any collision where you are at fault means that you can be cited under this provision?

[CdwJava]

As someone who investigates collisions for a living, I think I'll chime in ... when a person strikes a parked vehicle the Primary Collision factor is almost always related to unsafe speed ... the only SAFE speed when approaching a parked or stopped vehicle is ... none.

So, the fact that you struck a parked vehicle is prima facie evidence that you were traveling at a speed that was NOT "reasonable" or "prudent" for the conditions (approaching a parked vehicle).

To address your initial thought about the citation, the initial thought of the officer at the scene might not be the correct and ultimate violation cited later on. Sometimes an officer - particularly a newer one - will discover a more appropriate section later on.

If you want to raise any of these issues as a defense (they likely won't fly, but you are welcome to try), then schedule the matter for court and cross your fingers.

- Carl

[racer72]

Originally Posted by bob238

That's what I am trying to figure out. Does the fact that I hit a parked vehicle mean that the law as stated is appropriate? Even if I was going 1/2 mph?

Here is the law again:

"No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care."

Also, does the second part say that any collision where you are at fault means that you can be cited under this provision?

My brother got the same ticket as you and he was basically at a complete stop. His problem was he stopped on ice then slid backwards into a telephone pole. I have been attending traffic court in King County for many years and so far, you have not presented any evidence whatsoever to prove the ticket was not valid nor warranted. It is generally folks like you, presented with a vast amount of information provided by the internet, that show up in court and basically make fools of themselves. There are 2 basic ways that I know of to have tickets dismissed, prove you did not commit the offense (you admit to it in your first post and the damage to the parked car is damning evidence) or that the ticket is defective (you have not provided any proof of this). The police officers that write such tickets, the prosecutors that prosecute such tickets and the judges that hear such cases are all experienced professionals, they will chew up and spit out a rank amateur legal wannabe like you. A few like you get lucky but that is extremely rare. In my first post in this thread I gave you a valid way to deal with the ticket. If you choose to fight the ticket, I would suggest at a minimum, talk to a local attorney. So far all you have proven in this thread is you don't have any evidence or proof the at the ticket is not valid and your arguments are lame at best.

[bob238]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

So, the fact that you struck a parked vehicle is prima facie evidence that you were traveling at a speed that was NOT "reasonable" or "prudent" for the conditions (approaching a parked vehicle).

- Carl

This is at the core of what I am trying to disprove. I do not believe you can make such a generalization. There are possible scenerios where even if you a traveling a reasonable speed, you might strike a car. A few examples to illustrate my point:
1) an animal jumps out onto the road from nowhere.
2) a huge gust of wind knocks your vehicle 2 degrees over and you slam into a parked car.

This is NOT what happend, however, I am trying to prove that the officer doesn't KNOW what happend and merely knows I took my eyes off the road for a second.

In regards to taking eyes off the road, you do not come to a stop when you do this to check you blind spot, so this does not constitute unreasonable speed by virtue of not looking at road.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by bob238

This is at the core of what I am trying to disprove. I do not believe you can make such a generalization.

The courts believe you can.

here are possible scenerios where even if you a traveling a reasonable speed, you might strike a car. A few examples to illustrate my point:
1) an animal jumps out onto the road from nowhere.
2) a huge gust of wind knocks your vehicle 2 degrees over and you slam into a parked car.

None of these happened here, thus they are not applicable. Also, you CAN be cited for traveling at an unsafe speed or even failing to control your vehicle even if you slide on a patch of black ice.

This is NOT what happend, however, I am trying to prove that the officer doesn't KNOW what happend and merely knows I took my eyes off the road for a second.

And that second is all it took. A safe and prudent speed at a time when you are not watching the road would have been zero MPH.

In regards to taking eyes off the road, you do not come to a stop when you do this to check you blind spot, so this does not constitute unreasonable speed by virtue of not looking at road.

If you strike something because of it, it could.

The Primary Collision Factor will belong to the only moving vehicle in the collision. The answer then becomes WHAT violation is cited or articulated as the cause. Usually, it can be one of several. The most common will be unsafe speed and related violations.

You don't have to agree with it, but that's the nature of the law as it stands. if you intend to make this argument in court, at least hire an attorney as an attorney that specializes in traffic law might be able to at least make the argument SOUND good. Though, out here that might cost you about $1,500 - but, it's your money, and you have a right to fight any ticket you choose.

- Carl

[bob238]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

None of these happened here, thus they are not applicable.

I am not quite sure I see your arguement here. The officer was not there to see what happend and I don't plan to testify. There is no evidence pointing one way or the other.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Also, you CAN be cited for traveling at an unsafe speed or even failing to control your vehicle even if you slide on a patch of black ice.

Both of you guys are citing black ice related problems. Black ice is precisely the type of conditions this law was enacted for. This law is clearly aimed at following the speed limit or a reasonable speed given weather conditions or obstacles ON the road.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

And that second is all it took. A safe and prudent speed at a time when you are not watching the road would have been zero MPH.
If you strike something because of it, it could..

This leads to an absurd conclusion: the legality of checking your blind spot depends on an action that happens after you check the blind spot.

Originally Posted by CdwJava

The answer then becomes WHAT violation is cited or articulated as the cause. Usually, it can be one of several. The most common will be unsafe speed and related violations.

THIS is in fact my plan for court.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by bob238

I am not quite sure I see your arguement here. The officer was not there to see what happend and I don't plan to testify. There is no evidence pointing one way or the other.

It's called 'prima facie' evidence ... the fact that a vehicle struck a parked vehicle is 'prima facie' (on its face) evidence of an unsafe speed or related violation.

This leads to an absurd conclusion: the legality of checking your blind spot depends on an action that happens after you check the blind spot.

You are legally required to drive in a safe and prudent manner. if you are driving straight, and not following too closely behind someone, a glance at your mirror or over your shoulder should not result in a crash. In this case you failed to even maintain your lane.

THIS is in fact my plan for court.

Bring your checkbook.

And hope the citing officer doesn't show. Your argument is the same as thousands of others, and it loses every time. But, you never know.

Traffic school might be the better route. i don't know about WA, but in my state you tend to lose the traffic school option if you go to trial.


- Carl

[racer72]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

And hope the citing officer doesn't show. Your argument is the same as thousands of others, and it loses every time. But, you never know.

Traffic school might be the better route. i don't know about WA, but in my state you tend to lose the traffic school option if you go to trial.

Just to clarify a couple points about Washington law. Police officers are not required to attend traffic court hearings in Washington, a representative from the prosecutor's office will be there to present the case for the state to the judge. If the defendant wishes to question the officer, the defendant must subpoena the officer. On a few occasions, the prosecution will subpoena the officer, I have only seen this in DUI cases.

Washington no longer offers traffic school for those that receive tickets, it was dropped in 1998. In it's place, Washington uses deferred prosecution. It will be offered at the preliminary hearing by the prosecutor, all the defendant has to do is pay the fine and keep their nose clean for one year and the ticket goes away. It is usually only offered to those with clean driving record. Get another ticket and both will hit your driving record at the same time.

Washington also has some other things different than other state too. Washington does not use a point system and administrative suspensions have been ruled unconstitutional by our state's Supreme Court. Only a judge can suspend driving priveliges and the defendant must be in court. This has resulted in those that decide to not pay their tickets getting arrested if they are pulled over. Most get a few hours in jail, a visit to a local courtroom and many are held till the original ticket is paid. Plus they get the joy of having their car impounded too.