• 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.

Speed: Assured Clear Distance

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

Zraxius

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

Incident: I was the driver of a sedan with two witnessing passengers which rear ended a pickup truck that stopped abruptly in front of me as we were coming around the bend of a highway with a posted speed limit of 45mph. The officer who later responded to the scene issued me a speeding ticket for 4511.21A "Assured Clear Distance".

Proposed Defense(es): Miller vs City of Dayton (70 Ohio App. 173, 41 N.E.2d 728)(http://www.mediafire.com/?puab0dgp5j7ez6n) - Is case law which defines "Assured Clear Distance" as not being prima facie violated simply because a collision occurred. This being the case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an Assured Clear Distance violation with evidence other than the mere occurrence of a collision. The officer was not yet on scene to witness this accusation, & the driver of the pickup truck which was struck must pay attention to the traffic in front of them, therefore they would not have time to properly gauge my speed in their rear view mirror, also the driver does not have grounds to testify as an expert witness on the subject.

The Case of Levey v. DeNardo (http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?9x2a9n1z4vn942x) Which appears to be an Appellate Court case, also rules that the mere occurrence of a collision is not prima facie evidence of an Assured Clear Distance violation. As is with the case of DeNardo, the sudden stoppage of the driver in front of me(for which one can only assume some sort of emergency situation existed) did not allow for "a clear distance that is assured, that is, one that can reasonably be depended on." -(cited from link above). This should allow for coverage under the Sudden Emergency Doctrine, and therefore I would not have been in violation of the Assured Clear Distance statute.

I am over 30, have not been convicted of a speeding offense since 2005, but have had 4 speed violations which were accumulated in 2001 - 2002. I have also been convicted of an OVI which was reduced to "Reckless Operation" in 2010. I'm sure the prosecution will use this, and am unsure as to how much this will damage my defense.

I am asking for any and all constructive opinions, critique's, and assistance in this case please. If more information is needed in any area, please ask.
 
Last edited:


ecmst12

Senior Member
Your passengers are not witnesses. And you need to be leaving enough space between you and the car in front of you that you have enough time to react should they stop "suddenly". If you hit them, you were following too closely. It shouldn't matter if he jammed on his brakes, had you been following at a safe distance, you would have had enough time to stop without hitting him.
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
Incident: I was the driver of a sedan with two witnessing passengers which rear ended a pickup truck that stopped abruptly in front of me as we were coming around the bend of a highway...
Just curious, was the pickup around the bend and out of your sight until you hit him?
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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