• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

G.S. 20-141(m) & G.S. 20-141(a) in winter weather

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

danielmiguel

Junior Member
North Carolina, Forsyth County.
I was issued the above charges on Monday. The problem is that the following charges are inaccurate and I personally feel that the charges where based on what the other person involved said to the officer. I drive a Suzuki XL7 (2007), the car comes with a smart panel that gives you the driving conditions and advices you on driving arrangements, so it is impossible for me to have driven at a greater speed than prudent for ice and snow. The police officer acted as if I purposely and malignly caused the accident. Not only that but the other person suspiciously began "informing" the officer of what had occured in the event, conveniently while I was not present. On the other hand the word collision is truthfully not accurate to use in this scenario in the firt place. The word collide/collision means: two bodies (colliding bodies) coming into contact VIOLENTLY; to strike one another or against another with a FORCEFUL impact. In my case, I had an elastic collision with the curve, which made me slide (or bounce) back, making me HIT the car, but with minimal force. Now I would like to know how I can argue my point and case in court without sounding witty or a "smart arse", also what can be my best defense against the officer.

On a separate note, the other party is claiming to have had body injuries, which makes the entire situation even more suspicious.
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
I drive a Suzuki XL7 (2007), the car comes with a smart panel that gives you the driving conditions and advices you on driving arrangements, so it is impossible for me to have driven at a greater speed than prudent for ice and snow.
That's not going to hold up in court. It's like saying I wasn't speeding because I have cruise control.

Your knowledge of the term collision is wrong in both the legal and physical sense. The word "VIOLENTLY" isn't used for either. In physics, "A collision is an isolated event in which two or more moving bodies (colliding bodies) exert relatively strong forces on each other for a relatively short time."

You lost control of your car in adverse conditions and struck several objects. That's pretty damning evidence of speed too fast for conditions.
 

danielmiguel

Junior Member
That's not going to hold up in court. It's like saying I wasn't speeding because I have cruise control.

Your knowledge of the term collision is wrong in both the legal and physical sense. The word "VIOLENTLY" isn't used for either. In physics, "A collision is an isolated event in which two or more moving bodies (colliding bodies) exert relatively strong forces on each other for a relatively short time."

You lost control of your car in adverse conditions and struck several objects. That's pretty damning evidence of speed too fast for conditions.
I was not going to use the definition of collision in my argument in court; using the definition in my argument would be considered unreliable. I was going to use the fact that I had an elastic collision with the curve, which made me bounce/slide towards the direction of the other vehicle. I already talked to my insurance agent and she too does not feel that the term collision should have been applied to this case. Of course I cannot use that in court.

Well can I use the fact that it was night time and it was difficult to see where the curve actually began? I basically had to calculate where the curve by using a "stereotype" knowledge that the sign must be at least one foot away from the curve, which in this case proved to be inaccurate.
 

racer72

Senior Member
Well can I use the fact that it was night time and it was difficult to see where the curve actually began? I basically had to calculate where the curve by using a "stereotype" knowledge that the sign must be at least one foot away from the curve, which in this case proved to be inaccurate.
You can use that if you want to give the judge a laugh. Basic rules of the road say you don't drive faster than what the conditions dictate. This means driving slow enough to know where you are on the roadway at all times, not relying on a roadside object to determine your position.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Even if you replace COLLIDE with STRUCK or whatever word you want to weasel in there. You still drove fast enough to not be able to control your car. This isn't bumper cars at the amusement park. You're expected to drive down the road in control of your vehicle so that you don't "touch" random objects or other vehicles.
 

GoIllini

Member
This sounds like a case where it might be good to hire a lawyer. If someone was injured or is claiming that they were injured, it's probably worth the $500 to fight the ticket.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top