Unsafe Movement - Snow & Ice

[Rugger07]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Connecticut

I was involved in a traffic accident in which I lost control of my vehicle, crossed the double yellow line and collided with an oncoming automobile. It had snowed the day of the accident and the road was icy and slush covered. While at the scene of the accident the responding officer called the town public works to send a salt truck for the road. I was issued a ticket for 'Unsafe Movement'. I have pasted the exact verbiage of the statute below:

Sec. 14-242. Turns restricted. Signals to be given before turning or stopping. U-turns. Left turns. Right turns when passing bicyclist. (a) No person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in a proper position on the highway as required by section 14-241, or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway or otherwise turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in section 14-244.


I have pleaded not guilty and await a court date. Can someone give me an idea of what I can expect? Does the weather mitigate the criminal nature of this event? I have read several similar questions in which the response was that the driver cited was driving too fast and therefore guilty. I contend that I was driving appropriately for the conditions and still was unable to control the car. If speed was an issue why was I not issued a speeding ticket? Can speed even be cited by the prosecution during the trial?

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[racer72]

What is your defense? Nothing in your post suggests the citation was not valid or otherwise unwarranted.

 

[Rugger07]

Im not really sure what my defense should be - if anything at all. I am curious enough about the process that I chose to obligate the state to satisfy their burden of proof. I suppose I hope that the officer will not appear - but I have no real delusions to that end.

I remember my law class defining a crime as requiring two components - the event and intent. I had absolutely no intent on crossing the double yellow line and certainly not to become involved in an accident. I would argue that accidents are sometimes just that - an accident. I am unclear at what point an accident becomes criminal.

I may even cite the officers own action in requesting a sand truck as explicit admission of the hazard posed by prevailing road conditions. Does not weather serve to mitigate negligence?

 

[The Occultist]

I remember my law class defining a crime as requiring two components - the event and intent.

I think you misunderstood whatever point was being made in your class.

 

[racer72]

Your criminal intent was driving too fast or in an unsafe manner for the road conditions.

 

[Some Random Guy]

I remember my law class defining a crime as requiring two components - the event and intent.

Remember harder. Some crimes do not require the prosecutor to prove intent, only the facts of the situation.

I contend that I was driving appropriately for the conditions and still was unable to control the car.

And when you tell that to the court, see if the judge can keep from laughing.

 

[Jim_bo]

Rugger,

I think your defense is simply that you did not turn your vehicle. You lost control and it slid into the other lane of traffic. I don't see where your events violated the statute you were cited with. Now, had you been cited with "failure to maintain control" or "too fast for conditions" or something like that, you may have had a more difficult defense. However, this one would be analagous to you developing a fuel leak and your car bursts into flames and then the cops give you a ticket for having a bonfire in a public street.

 

[Some Random Guy]

However, this one would be analagous to you developing a fuel leak and your car bursts into flames and then the cops give you a ticket for having a bonfire in a public street.

No. In your example, the fuel leak would be unexpected and unforseeable. In the real situation here, the fact that slush and ice makes roads slippery is entirely forseeable. The fact that after snow and ice come down some parts of the road are clear and others are icy and slick is entirely foreseeable. An analogous situation here would be that the driver had a well documented fuel leak and chose not to do anything about it until one day his car caught on fire and burned the car next to it.

Its not that the original poster is guilty. Its just tha that facts he has presented and the argument he is using stinks and won't get him off.

And I am not sure about Connecticut, but "failure to maintain control" is often part of careless driving which is more severe than making an improper turn. From my cursory examination of the state DMV, an illegal turn is one point on your license and "Failure to keep right when meeting opposing traffic" is three points.

So it would appear that the officer could have been more severe.

 

[Jim_bo]

I agree that the slush and ice makes the scenario foreseeable. However, the code the OP was being charged with involves an intentional act (i.e. turning a vehicle). Having your vehicle slide on ice into another lane of traffice is obviously NOT an intentional act.

I am not saying the OP was not guilty of careless driving or possibly a whole host of other charges. I am saying that there is a very good argument that the OP is NOT guilty of what he was charged with.

Even in your analogy of the well documented fuel leak causing a vehicle fire ... it would still be innappropriate to charge the OP with having a bonfire on a public highway. The point of my analogy was not to suggest that the OP couldn't have prevented the accident, nor was it to say that the OP isn't guilty of a variety of charges. It was simply that the OP may not be guilty of what he was charged with. You have to think like a lawyer and remove emotion.

 

[Zigner]

I am not saying the OP was not guilty of careless driving or possibly a whole host of other charges. I am saying that there is a very good argument that the OP is NOT guilty of what he was charged with.

In YOUR scenario, you would have the OP DEMAND that the proper charge be brought against her (it still can be)

 

[Jim_bo]

In YOUR scenario, you would have the OP DEMAND that the proper charge be brought against her (it still can be)

If you robbed a liquor store and the cops arrested you for tax evasion (which you didn't do), by your theory, you should just plead guilty to tax evasion because you were guilty of something. That is just downright stupid.

 

[Zigner]

If you robbed a liquor store and the cops arrested you for tax evasion (which you didn't do), by your theory, you should just plead guilty to tax evasion because you were guilty of something. That is just downright stupid.

Assuming that the perpetrator in your example didn't report the income...yeah, he could be arrested for tax evasion.